Indian Navy News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 08 Dec 2016 10:03

abhik wrote:^^^
INS Kalvari?

Naah...not really. Unlike the Arihant (SSBN), the Kalvari is a SSK. No strategic value in keeping it under wraps. I am referring only to the commissioning date. The Australian newspaper shamelessly spilled the beans on everything else.

vina · Post by **vina** » 08 Dec 2016 11:06

Naval Ship May Lie On It's Side for 6 Months

Roughly Rs 200 crore needed to raise Betwa. Navy paid Rs 240 crore to raise Sindhurakshak and Rs 200 for Vindhyagiri. So between the three of them, they cost Rs 640 core, approx a cool $100 Million to just raise them.

Just getting the paperwork done and do the tendering will take alteast 3 months. Doubt the Navy's timeline of 2018 to get it back into service as a frontline capital ship.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Dec 2016 12:09

The sacking of Adm.Bhagwat put paid to the IN's sub plans.He had a masterplan for at least 24 subs and two sub lines of construction,one from Russia and one from the west.The Scorpene saga ,delays,cost overruns and now the data expose is too well known to repeat.We've just one sub commissioned..without its torpedoes. The IN must be the butt of many jokes worldwide.The neglect of the IN was so bad that it resulted in sev. accidents forcing Adm.Joshi to resign in part as protest.Any new sub building programme will take years to materialise.A decision must be taken within the next 6 months about a new sub procured from abroad so that MDL can continue with sub production,plan from now on,for a new design.No point in more Scorpenes after the expose,plus the design is now dated.24 subs are now inadequate for the IN,we need at least 24 conventional/AIP subs and another 12+ N-subs,both SSBNs and SSGN/SSNs.Let's assume that we go in for a G-to-G deal with Germany for more U-boats,continuing our experience gained from decades of operating the U-209s as the follow on to the Scorpenes. The new U-boats will in time replace the 4 U-209s. We then will need another line for a new Ru design,poss. the BMos Amur or even the Kalina.This design will replace the Kilos from 2020 onwards.

In parallel to the conventional sub programmes,the N-subs programme must continue apace. To achieve this we will have to pick a pvt. player as well to build subs apart from MDL and HSL. L&T perhaps have the best facilities and skilled manpower.Their yard near Chennai would be ideal as they are supplying hulls,etc. for the N-subs too.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 08 Dec 2016 12:11

vina wrote:Just getting the paperwork done and do the tendering will take alteast 3 months. Doubt the Navy's timeline of 2018 to get it back into service as a frontline capital ship.

Navy tendering process during a crisis *might* be a lot different than the usual MoD waffling.

K_Rohit · Post by **K_Rohit** » 08 Dec 2016 13:32

Rakesh wrote:Singha is bang on. Use MDL to build ships and subs, but get the Navy out of there. Move it all to Karwar which as per the article below is the largest naval base east of the Suez Canal.

Where is the space in Karwar. It has just one jetty, which is almost completely occupied by Vik

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 08 Dec 2016 14:57

Austin wrote:https://twitter.com/SandeepUnnithan/sta ... 6230152192
Why we should worry. Three of most serious naval accidents in the past 5 yrs have been in the naval dockyard, Mumbai. 1 sq km area.

My twitter response to Sandeep Unnithan

@SandeepUnnithan US Navy grounded & sank 7 destroyers simultaneously @ Honda Point. Should it worry? Pls avoid bakwas sensational journalism

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Dec 2016 15:03

K_Rohit wrote:
Rakesh wrote:Singha is bang on. Use MDL to build ships and subs, but get the Navy out of there. Move it all to Karwar which as per the article below is the largest naval base east of the Suez Canal.
Where is the space in Karwar. It has just one jetty, which is almost completely occupied by Vik

create more jetties or whatever is needed. Mumbai cannot be "fixed" so create the next solution. the cost of 1 less P17a or talwar will cover 10 jetties for sure and supporting warehouses and arms depots.

as a example, the SSN base at groton connecticutt has a good number of cleanly built jetties to house the black beauties in a fairly limited area

10 neat jetties surrounded by a anti-intrusion net should take in all our subs
https://www.google.co.in/maps/place/Nav ... 72.0860034

we are always desperate for fighting units than building supporting infra. beyond a point that is counter-productive.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Dec 2016 15:08

despite space being available and years of time, karwar base wears a forlorn look with not much docs or jetties

https://www.google.co.in/maps/place/Kar ... 74.1416127

there may be institutional resistance from the top brass in navy from giving up their navynagar enclave and the conveniences of being in mumbai from pov of lifestyle and education etc. vs going off to karwar. maybe the navynagar can be retained as a family station for some more decades.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 08 Dec 2016 15:15

Philip wrote:This supposed to be the first time in the history of naval annals that such an accident has happened.Some dubious record!

Did you research the annals of naval history before coming to the conclusion?

When I read your post, I decided to research the history of Naval Dockyard Accidents. Is IN incompetent? How does its record compare vis-a-vis other navies?

I'll start with dockyard accidents in our beloved Soviet Union http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear ... USSR1.html

1985

An explosion occurred during refueling of the submarine K-431 at Chazhma Bay, Vladivostok. The K-431, completed around 1965 as unit K-31, was a Project 675 (Echo II) class submarine with two pressurized water reactors, each 70 MWt capacity and using 20% enriched uranium as fuel. (Note that some sources confuse this submarine with K-314, a Project 671 or Victor I class submarine launched in 1972 and withdrawn from service after a reactor accident in December 1985.) On 10 August 1985, the submarine was being refueled at the Chazhma Bay naval facility near Vladivostock. The submarine had been refueled and the reactor tank lid was being replaced. The lid was laid incorrectly and had to be lifted again with the control rods attached. A beam was supposed to prevent the lid from being lifted too far, but this beam was positioned incorrectly, and the lid with control rods were lifted too far up. At 10:55 AM the starboard reactor became supercritical, resulting in a criticality excursion of about 5x1018 fissions and a thermal/steam explosion. The explosion expelled the new load of fuel, destroyed the machine enclosures, rupturing the submarine's pressure hull and aft bulkhead, and partially destroyed the fuelling shack, with the shack's roof falling 70 meters away in the water. A fire followed which was extinguished after 4 hours, after which assessment of the radioactive contamination began. Most of the radioactive debris fell within 50-100 meters of the submarine, but a cloud of radioactive gas and particulates blew to the northwest across a 6-km stretch of the Dunai Peninsula, missing the town of Shkotovo-22, 1.5 km from the dock. The contaminated forest area was later surveyed as 2 square km in a swath 3.5 km long and 200-650 meters wide. Estimates initial radioactive release was about 2 MCi of noble gases and 5 MCi of other fission products, but most of this was short-lived isotopes; the estimated release inventory one hour after the accident was about 1000 Ci of non-noble fission products. In part because the reactor did not contain spent fuel, the fraction of biologically active isotopes was far smaller than in the case of the Chernobyl reactor accident.

Ten naval personnel were killed (8 officers and 2 enlisted men), probably by the explosion itself and not from radiation injuries. Radiation injuries were observed in 49 people, with 10 developing radiation sickness; the latter figure included mostly firefighters, some of whom sustained doses up to 220 rad external and 400 rem to the thyroid gland. Of the 2,000 involved in cleanup operations, 290 were exposed to high levels of radiation compared to normal standards.

High-level waste gathered during clean-up operations were placed in temporary disposal sites. Due to the rapid decay of most of the reactor products and the cleanup operations, some dockyard facilities were able to resume operations four days later. About two months post-accident the radioactivity in water in the cove was comparable to background levels, and 5-7 months post-accident the radiation levels were considered normal throughout the dock area. The damaged submarine was towed to Pavlovsk Bay and berthed there.

Royal Navy
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 61361.html

A major nuclear incident was narrowly averted at the heart of Britain's Royal Navy submarine fleet, The Independent on Sunday can reveal. The failure of both the primary and secondary power sources of coolant for nuclear reactors at the Devonport dockyard in Plymouth on 29 July last year followed warnings in previous years of just such a situation.

Just like Sindhurakshak had a torpedo accident, so did the Royal Navy http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... kyard.html

Military chiefs have launched a major investigation after a Royal Navy warship accidentally fired a torpedo at a nuclear dockyard. HMS Argyll was moored at Devonport Naval base in Plymouth when the 9ft missile suddenly shot out of its starboard side during a training drill. Workers watched in disbelief as the tube-shaped projectile flew through the air before blasting a hole in a security fence and slamming into a storage container. The torpedo was an unarmed version used for testing drills so it merely thudded into the metal container and did not explode. Nobody was hurt but shocked Navy bosses ordered an urgent investigation into the incident that took place inside a high security area where Britain's nuclear submarines are refuelled and repaired.

But lets get more specific. Do ships crash into dry docks? Lets take the Australian example here http://www.navy.gov.au/hmas-vendetta-ii

Vendetta's career commenced with an accident even before she was commissioned. On 18 July 1958, whilst leaving her berth at Williamstown Dockyard, she rammed the dry dock caisson gates, and remained trapped there for five hours. Disaster was only narrowly averted The frigate, Quickmatch, was under refit in the drydock, and if the dock gates had collapsed, she would have been swept aside by the torrent of water. Dockyard workers reacted swiftly to the emergency by flooding the dock, thus taking the pressure off the weakened caisson.

But Americans are much more better at data collection. You may want to go from Page 16 to 72 of naval accidents from 1945 to 1988
https://fas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014 ... 5-1988.pdf

December 5, 1965 / A-4 / At Sea, Pacific: An A-4 aircraft loaded with one nuclear weapon rolled off the elevator of a U.S. aircraft carrier and fell into the sea. The pilot, aircraft, and weapon were lost. The incident occurred more than 500 miles from land.

Our TFTA neighbourhood navy too lost a submarine. Page 12

Pakistani midget submarine (2 Jan 1977)

Page 18

03/17/45: A new submarine floods and sinks after a worker opens a torpedo tube at the Boston Navy Yard.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Dec 2016 15:18

1984 a explosion in a missile storage facility of soviet union in barents sea

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severomorsk_Disaster

200 people died and nearly 1000 missiles were burned

A Deshmukh · Post by **A Deshmukh** » 08 Dec 2016 16:33

Kursk disaster of 2000:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_s ... sk_(K-141)

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Dec 2016 18:07

No one is denying that sccidents happen in navies,I've regularly posted many incidents worldwide if you've noticed.But this one is special."Rarest of the rare" said an IN spokesman did he not? A warship toppling over in the docks.Check how many of those have happened.Open sea valves and resultant flooding happened with the Viraat at the naval base years ago.This accident as someone said isn't even in the training manuals.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 08 Dec 2016 18:14

I may get banned for using this analogy, but here goes. If you have sex with 10 different women and then move on to the 11th one....the 11th is just as special as the previous 10. You are splitting hairs now and drinking the DDM Kool Aid. There is nothing earth shattering about this accident. The press is making a big sensational deal about a serious issue.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 08 Dec 2016 18:24

^^^ but its the first time that virgin DDM has seen the movie of sunny-ji

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 08 Dec 2016 18:43

vina wrote:But none of them are mistakes. They are all perfectly correct .

1. The ship is INDEED like a whale. They are supported by buoyancy along the entire length and while the structure is also designed that way (you will tend to match the weight at that any particular point with the bouyancy). The ship's skin IS a shell (exactly like an egg shell) . If you support a ship by putting the blocks at the wrong point,it will simply punch through the shell!

You're horribly wrong. You initially said ships are like whales, but when pointed out that amphibious ships beach and un-beach all the time, you are trying to hide behind a fig leaf that skin of ships are like egg shells.

vina wrote:The ship's skin IS a shell (exactly like an egg shell).

A warship's sides is given adequate structural strength to sustain wave forces over its lifetime, possible scrapings and groundings. Behind & Under the skin are structural members.

And regarding the skin, refer Admiral Hiranandani's book Transition to Guardianship: The Indian Navy 1991–2000 Chapter 17 Paragraph Hull Structure & Layouts.

The hull structure was evolved to give a robust design with all shell and No 1 deck plating being above 10 mm

Machinery too is robustly mounted.

Evidence of structural soundness also comes from Robert Ballard's exploration of the wreck of the Bismark. You may want to read his book Bismark.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_ba ... k#Wreckage

Bismarck was found to be resting upright at a depth of approximately 4,791 m (15,719 ft),[137] about 650 km (400 mi) west of Brest. The ship struck an extinct underwater volcano, which rose some 1,000 m (3,300 ft) above the surrounding abyssal plain, triggering a 2 km (1.2 mi) landslide. Bismarck slid down the mountain, coming to a stop two-thirds down.[138]

Ballard added "we found a hull that appears whole and relatively undamaged by the descent and impact".

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 08 Dec 2016 18:46

tsarkar - to be fair to vina, the Bismarck was all steel and thickly built as was the norm in those days. not sure if we are dealing with an Al skin ship here?

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 08 Dec 2016 18:50

^^ Refer Admiral Hiranandani's book, the Shivalik uses DMR249A steel, that we also know from other sources. All Indian capital warships are built of steel. Only small fast attack craft use aluminium. Last two Project 28 ships will have steel hull & composite superstructure.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 08 Dec 2016 19:25

More eggshells. Autoliner (car carrier) Hoegh Osaka was grounded 3rd January 2015 in the Solent, re floated and salvaged back.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 08 Dec 2016 19:28

Apart from structural integrity other factor is cost. This ship was built at 600 crore, ~$90 million (~$120 million at current rate). If its gonna take more then that to salvage and repair it then its better to build a new one and transfer equipment to it.

They are already quoting 200 crore to just make it upright. Add 2 years of labor and equipment to make it battle ready and it will surpass its initial cost.

Logically IMHO it does not make sense to sink more money into this project. Instead invest in a new ship.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 08 Dec 2016 19:29

And historically, careening was a process to physically ground and tilt a ship to clean/repair its bottom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Careening

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Dec 2016 19:48

and the thing about steel is unlike composites it will not crack easily, but will bend and can either be hammered back or damaged buckled plates welded and replaced. this is not a submarine that needs iphone perfect fit and finish just to operate.

elderly tramp steamers and trawlers of unknown quality seem to prowl the typhoony ASEAN seas all the time

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Dec 2016 19:52

http://www.teoti.net/photography/19507- ... -ship.html

tfta dutch loaders handling a 216m long ship

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Dec 2016 19:55

they tied cables to it and turned it palta again

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Dec 2016 20:17

I am no engineer but there are differences between hardness, rigidity and tensile strength.

The "ribs" of a ship are compressible to an extent and they are capable of being deformed and springing back. Steel plates can get punctured but will not crack up like a mirror or propagate cracks like an egshell.

The other point about which we have very little information is the dynamics of the accident. If the lock was flooded to lift the ship and the stern lifted first as reported and one support fractured or collapsed the ship would certainly have rolled down but its side would have hit the water which was at a depth that was needed to lift the ship partially. Water to "partially lift" a 3000 ton ship would have to be a few meters deep and the side of the ship would have hit the wall of water first. The other thing is that mast. if the mast was thick then the energy required to break it or bend it would have slowed the momentum of the rolling ship by some amount, If these factors were favourable it is possible that the damage could be limited. Need to wait and see. Incidentally these are the exact dynamics at work in human accidents like falls from a height.

Arguing with analogies like whale is pointless. Ships are not whales any more than seminal fluid and urine are the same because they come out of the same place

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 08 Dec 2016 20:29

shiv - there could be 'cracking' due to fatigue, but that is not the case here
a 'bang' will result in a dent or a shear depending on what it has hit underneath

the ribs underneath could deform, but it is actually fairly unlikely given the relatively small jolt and the relatively even loading during the tipping over. the bigger issues is shearing of bolts that are holding large items in place - engines, generators, tanks, etc. internally, but that would depend on the speed with which it happened

one can assume that a lot of the electrics might be fried, and that some element of structural damage may have occurred

but the ship can be righted and brought back to normal - all depends on the internal damage

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 08 Dec 2016 21:21

INS Betwa mishap: Mortal remains of sailor consigned to flames
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-in ... es-2280897

The mortal remains of sailor Ashutosh Pande, who lost his life in the INS Betwa mishap in Mumbai, were consigned to flames with full military honours at his hometown here. His body was brought by a Navy plane to Dhana airstrip near here and then was taken to his home in Sadbhavna Nagar in a military vehicle for the last rites. His kin and a large number of people were present for the cremation which took place on the 10th Battalion cremation ground yesterday.

chola · Post by **chola** » 08 Dec 2016 21:36

shiv wrote: Ships are not whales any more than seminal fluid and urine are the same because they come out of the same place

I guess Shivji can get away with this stuff. If I had said the average ship is long, hard and full of se(a)men, I would be banned for another month.

chola · Post by **chola** » 08 Dec 2016 21:45

Both Vina and Tsarkar are right. Ships have capsized before and righted but a majority of them are turned into target practice (Vindhyagiri), broken up (the Republic of Genoa that flipped over in Antwerp) or towed out to sea as fish sanctuary (Concordia). Can't be damaged this way and expect full functionality unless there were a lot of mitigating circumstances.

chola · Post by **chola** » 08 Dec 2016 21:48

Vina, Philip, what in hell do you think the chinis are lifting with a 20,000 ton gantry crane? I would be interested to see the monstrosity they are building with it.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 08 Dec 2016 21:49

internal water damage may be the key

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 08 Dec 2016 22:09

It has been mentioned many times that costwise a big percentage of ship are its electronics, radar, sonar and weapon systems and weapons.

In case these survive and only denting painting plus welding work needs to be done then it can't cost that much to put her back in sea?

chola · Post by **chola** » 08 Dec 2016 22:17

No, the hull has to be in good enough shape to risk the re-installation of all those expensive pieces. And often it is hard to tell until restoration work had begun.

For example, Grimaldi actually paid to right the Rep. of Genoa in 2007, towed her to Korea in 2008, had her repaired there by 2009 and then decided it was uneconomical (insurance of a previously damaged ship among other factors) and sold her for scrap in 2010. It was broken up in Korea one year after it was repaired.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 08 Dec 2016 22:27

Fluids coming out of the same place?

That's why one is yellow and the other white. So you can tell if you're coming or going.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 09 Dec 2016 00:49

Aditya G wrote:tsarkar/maz, any news of Cadet Training Ships under order with ABG? Or the OPVs with Pipavav (Reliance)?

This article is from 2015. This is what Google Chacha came up with...

New cadet training vessel to give a fillip to Navy: Vice Admiral Lanba
http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Koc ... 178986.ece

“The corporate debt restructuring (CDR) process vis-à-vis ABG Shipyard is in place and money has been pumped into the company. The yard has resumed work on the cadet training ships and has now promised to deliver the first in late-2016,” Vice-Admiral Sunil Lanba, heading the Southern Naval Command, the Training Command of the Navy, told The Hindu in an interview.

Specs - with image of the boat --> (if you look real hard you will see a *h*l*);

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 09 Dec 2016 00:53

Thanks Rakesh.

-----

Admiral Hiranandini in his books lamented about the lack of a dedicated salvage capability within IN. This was in relation to the INS Andaman episode, but unfortunately keeps coming up.

If not the Navy, at least Coast Guard should form and hone a salvage organisation. They could in turn subcontract to international specialists as and when required.

Rishi Verma · Post by **Rishi Verma** » 09 Dec 2016 01:15

tsarkar wrote:
Philip wrote:This supposed to be the first time in the history of naval annals that such an accident has happened.Some dubious record!
Did you research the annals of naval history before coming to the conclusion?

When I read your post, I decided to research the history of Naval Dockyard Accidents. Is IN incompetent? How does its record compare vis-a-vis other navies?

Respected sir, you indeed did a lot of "research" on history of naval accidents (i. e. Google Search) and cut-pasted text from various reports in quotes. But proper research needs to compare root cause with MDL accidents not just comparing happenstance.

Root cause of repeated accidents at MDL will eventually point to shoddy work, shoddy training, shoddy following of procedures, in short, shoddy quality of life of salaried mumbaikars.

Sir the size of US navy, Soviet navy, etc is / was much larger and their accidents may have whatever causes, but the accidents in Mumbai docks can never be explained away by comparing with Google Search results of other's accidents.

Without doubt it's indeed a face-palm moment for Indian Navy, MDL, and in general we as society of reckless drivers, queue breakers, paan spitters, pot bellied workers with very little technical training, or respect for procedures, rules or pride in work let alone believing in excellence in daily aspect of life.

Sanju · Post by **Sanju** » 09 Dec 2016 01:20

Rishi Verma, TSarkar is ex-IN.

Rishi Verma · Post by **Rishi Verma** » 09 Dec 2016 01:27

Sanju wrote:Rishi Verma, TSarkar is ex-IN.

I know. I am not ex but current bhartiya and I just carry a mirror to show people the reality of Bharat.

kit · Post by **kit** » 09 Dec 2016 02:28

http://www.apnewsarchive.com/2016/Germa ... 34ef600f2c

kit · Post by **kit** » 09 Dec 2016 02:28

Sustained efforts at stealing submarine tech all around