Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Sep 2017 13:47

I fail to understand why the scorpene deal did not include a basic thing like torpedo and ASM and it should have been routed via DCN to procure and qualify our chosen torpedo, and help us test it into induction.

these bespoke programs with india integrating N things from N sources increasingly do not go well and show up our already slow pace vs the cheens.

Vidur · Post by **Vidur** » 02 Sep 2017 14:29

Singha wrote:I fail to understand why the scorpene deal did not include a basic thing like torpedo and ASM and it should have been routed via DCN to procure and qualify our chosen torpedo, and help us test it into induction.

In economics there is a term 'time inconsistentcy problem'. It means that time horizons of individuals are different from the natural life cycle of the problem they are dealing with. Very relavent in understanding how our system works.

chola · Post by **chola** » 02 Sep 2017 14:37

Singha wrote:I fail to understand why the scorpene deal did not include a basic thing like torpedo and ASM and it should have been routed via DCN to procure and qualify our chosen torpedo, and help us test it into induction.

these bespoke programs with india integrating N things from N sources increasingly do not go well and show up our already slow pace vs the cheens.

Well, we had planned for the torpedos from Italy for our French subs until a bribery case with Italian torpedos' parent company over English/Italian helos torpedoed the torpedo contract for the subs.

Yes your second point is right on the mark. Integrating N things from N outside sources means many many points of failure.

And yes, a sub commissioned without torpedos is Double Facepalm.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 02 Sep 2017 15:06

Vidur wrote:Question for naval officers on this forum. What are the options now - what role can the Scorpenes can do without torpedos. Can existing light weight torpedos be used.

Vidur sir,
The torp dia is universal for the most part at 533mm so i guess it can continue using our existing torp but they would need to be integrated and may not be the optimal solution to the problem.

A quick doubt to gurus, why can't the Varunastra be integrated with Kalvari as its primary weapon instead?? Is the Navy not looking at it. Can't seem to find any link suggesting this.

PS: The light wright torpedo dia is 324mm as a standard. Dont reckon they can be fired from. The larger tube at all.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 02 Sep 2017 17:45

I think Varunastra has been designed for Russian std. 533mm dis and 24 ft long. Western sub torpedoes are 533mm and 21ft long.

Snehashis · Post by **Snehashis** » 02 Sep 2017 22:54

Bala Vignesh wrote: A quick doubt to gurus, why can't the Varunastra be integrated with Kalvari as its primary weapon instead?? Is the Navy not looking at it. Can't seem to find any link suggesting this.

PS: The light wright torpedo dia is 324mm as a standard. Dont reckon they can be fired from. The larger tube at all.

I am no guru but Varunastra is not sub certified yet. There were talks last year but nothing about the progress in the open source.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 03 Sep 2017 00:19

Thanks, Snehashisji!! I dont know how I missed that crucial detail!!

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 03 Sep 2017 00:35

Aditya_V wrote:I think Varunastra has been designed for Russian std. 533mm dis and 24 ft long. Western sub torpedoes are 533mm and 21ft long.

This is the correct answer

While the diameter is the same, the lengths of Russian and Western torpedoes are different.

Varunastra was developed using battery propulsion to Russian standards replace the CET-53E/M torpedoes.

Unless a shorter version is developed to Western standards, it won't arm Scorpene or Aridaman

Arihant has Russian standard tubes but it was reported Aridaman & sisters have Western standard tubes

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 03 Sep 2017 00:38

Any plans to switch to Li-ion?

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 03 Sep 2017 00:38

Cross posting from Single Engine Thread :

ShauryaT wrote:Carrier aircraft muddle - Bharat Karnad

(1) A personal mountain of a reason — bad blood between the lead test pilot in the naval LCA program, Cmde Jaydeep Maolankar, and Rear Admiral Surendra Ahuja, Assistant Controller Carrier Project and Assistant Controller Warship Production and Acquisition at NHQ. By all accounts, Maolankar is a top rate flier dedicated to the Tejas but Ahuja, with no flying experience, is nearer the seat of power and who, perhaps, to spite Maolankar, a batch mate, whose failure to make it to the next rank — however that was managed — was the talk in naval circles, convinced the naval brass that the LCA was no-go, and that its prospects are bleak, whence the Navy’s formal rejection of the Tejas. On such personal rivalries hang the fate of nations striving to be self-sufficient in armaments! And (2) It would mean giving up on a chance to import another foreign aircraft and forego all the goodies in train. Easier then for the Indian Navy to give up on the Tejas. Having desperately hunted for excuses to reject it, Ahuja finally found it in the aircraft’s excess weight and, rather than proposing remedial measures and doubling in on the navy’s commitment and investment in an Indian designed and developed carrier aircraft, recommended ditching the naval LCA.

But SAAB will reconfigure the Sea Gripen because of the big IAF order it hopes to bag. Because then it makes economic sense. Boeing would be interested too if the IAF picked the F-18 for its fleet, except the Boeing is unlikely to onpass source codes and other ‘black box’ technologies to any Indian private sector company or public sector firm, like HAL. Besides, it will be the 2-engined oddity in a single-engined aircraft buy by the IAF.

Except, here’s how Washington will turn the tourniquet to prevent the Swedes from bagging the IAF deal. Ashley Tellis, of Carnegie Washington, the prime mover of American aircraft to Indian armed services, Indian MOD and the only foreigner (albeit of Mumbai origin) — as I revealed in a piece I wrote last year and on this blog (look up!) to have the readiest access imaginable to Prime Minister Modi, has made this plain. In a recent article, he mentioned the fact that between 40% and 60% of the Gripen is composed of components, sub-assemblies and assemblies, including the power plant, sourced from America, that will need US government clearance! Does anybody in Stockholm or in Delhi really believe Gripen has an easy run into the IAF fleet, leave alone the Vikrant deck?

kit · Post by **kit** » 03 Sep 2017 02:46

Manish_Sharma wrote:Cross posting from Single Engine Thread :

ShauryaT wrote:Carrier aircraft muddle - Bharat Karnad

makes sense that the personal rivalry could be a reason .. was wondering how the Tejas mark 2 at least could not make the carrier grade on paper even !!!

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 03 Sep 2017 05:14

Vidur wrote:
Singha wrote:I fail to understand why the scorpene deal did not include a basic thing like torpedo and ASM and it should have been routed via DCN to procure and qualify our chosen torpedo, and help us test it into induction.

In economics there is a term 'time inconsistentcy problem'. It means that time horizons of individuals are different from the natural life cycle of the problem they are dealing with. Very relavent in understanding how our system works.

There is a much simpler explanation. The negotiators involved are naive and stupid. They are outclassed by the sellers. It is called the asymmetry of knowledge.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/08/ibms-wa ... itiya.html

Wherein one Chamath Palihapitiya said:

"I think what IBM is excellent at is using their sales and marketing infrastructure to convince people who have asymmetrically less knowledge to pay for something," Palihapitiya added. "I put them and Oracle in somewhat of the same bucket."

Occam's Razor

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Sep 2017 10:30

few years ago i read that MOD had realized the above issue and were planning to empanel a set of arbitrator/corporate lawyer types from pvt sector with exp in multi national deals to review and develop the huge contracts that total tens of 1000s of pages for any big defence deal...they had realized were out of depth with inhouse legal staff in securing our interests, the defence OEMs have world class legal teams surely for their global wheeling dealing and guangxi ops.

this noble idea must have been quietly buried somewhere.

i suppose the start of knowledge is knowing when one needs help...NASA did not shy away from putting outside experts into enquiry panel post the challenger disaster.

Snehashis · Post by **Snehashis** » 03 Sep 2017 12:38

Bala Vignesh wrote:Thanks, Snehashisji!! I dont know how I missed that crucial detail!!

No Ji please. NPOL is also developing a thermal torpedo called Shakti to replace Russian ones. They took a few years to zero down to an insensitive fuel. It will generate 500 KW power and the present progress is unknown. Also the sub variant of Varunastra will be called Takshak.

http://idrw.org/peek-look-indias-indige ... o-program/

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 04 Sep 2017 00:20

Carrier aircraft muddle - Bharat Karnad
bad blood between the lead test pilot in the naval LCA program, Cmde Jaydeep Maolankar, and Rear Admiral Surendra Ahuja, Assistant Controller Carrier Project and Assistant Controller Warship Production and Acquisition at NHQ. By all accounts, Maolankar is a top rated flier dedicated to the Tejas but Ahuja, with no flying experience,

Bharat Karnad does not know and does very poor research. He is the same chap who wrote INS Arihant has revolving missile launcher.

https://www.livefistdefence.com/2008/10 ... rrier.html

The first Indian Navy pilot to be carrier qualified (CQ) was Captain Surendra Ahuja, who trapped his T-45C ten times successfully on the USS Enterprise in May 2007.

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=29815

NAVAL AIR STATION KINGSVILLE, Texas (NNS) -- The first Indian Navy pilot to successfully complete carrier qualifications aboard a U.S. aircraft carrier landed his T-45C Goshawk aboard USS Enterprise (CVN 65) for the final time May 9.

Assigned as a flight instructor under training for Training Wing (TW) 2 at Naval Air Station Kingsville, Indian Navy Capt. Surendra Ahuja participated in carrier qualifications (CQ) off the coast of Key West, Fla., setting a benchmark for other Indian pilots.

With a grade point average of 2.50, he is the first of a projected 32 Indian Navy officers that will undergo training at TW-2 over the next several years.

TW-2 commander, Capt. Mike Warriner, was pleased with Ahuja's performance.

"Capt. Ahuja has an impressive resume within his own service, Warriner said. "He added to his list of accomplishments by being the first Indian pilot to qualify by landing on a U.S. aircraft carrier. He did so in superb fashion. I was proud to be on deck when he recorded his 10th and qualifying trap."

The commanding officer of Enterprise, Capt. Larry Rice, was the first to notify him of his successful carrier qualification. Rice congratulated Ahuja over the tower frequency after he had completed his final landing on the carrier, as part of the CQ detachment.

Lt. James M. Hoysradt, flight instructor with Training Squadron 21, was Ahuja's landing signal officer(LSO), who followed up the informal notification with an official phone call and debrief to Ahuja back on the beach. Ahuja was very excited upon hearing the news, and thanked all the LSOs for their hard work and dedication.

" new found appreciation for tailhook aviation and what it takes to land aboard a carrier at sea," Ahuja said.

Ahuja reported to Training Air Wing 2 in December 2006 and completed his total training in just under five months. During which time he completed the basic instrument, radio instrument, day and night familiarization, air navigation, day and night formation, and carrier qualification syllabi.

"I'm very excited about having partnered with India in this training venture," Warriner said. "[The relationship] has been a great success to date, and Capt. Ahuja's successes are the first of many more to come."

Ahuja received his commission in the Indian Navy in 1985. A Sea Harrier pilot, he has served in general service command appointments aboard ship as commanding and executive officer in addition to flying.

Ahuja said his proudest accomplishments have been conducting the flight evaluation of the MiG-29K in Moscow, and his recent carrier qualification aboard Enterprise with the T-45C Goshawk.

I can't comment on the politics, certainly one doesn't reach the top without treading on others, but Bharat Karnad has zero credibility. He just picked up a conspiracy theory without doing basic research

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 04 Sep 2017 01:18

^^ This is really un-acceptable from Karnad. He should admit to his error.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 04 Sep 2017 04:05

I am late in the Naval Fighter debate, but here are my 2 cents:

1. The fighter and Aircraft Carrier are one complex. For good or bad, INS Vikramaditya and the new Vikrant have already been designed around the MiG-29K and NLCA. We need to make this combination work in some way or the other for these 2 ships.

- The NLCA Mk-1 could be inducted in limited numbers for purely air defence/CAP role armed with 2xDerby and 2xPython missiles, and secondly serve as LIFT and also provide aviators a relatively expendable platform to maintain currency on tail hooking in case MiG-29K availability is less.

- We have a fairly deep MiG-29 ecosystem in the country thanks to IAF. We need the MiG-29K to work for us. If it means ordering more units to shore up absolute availability its a good option as the 2 carriers will be afloat for next 30 years. Its not just the fighters, the missiles and weapons are shared with Su-30s.

- In meantime prep the NLCA Mk-2.

2. With Vishal, all options are on the table, though I prefer a second Vikrant class ship be made, if we must go CATOBAR then Rafale is the logical choice. Airforce will also want to order more Rafales in any case.

---

Looking at IAF and IN requirements we see the complete world's fighters at play here and it doesn't make sense to me coz we sure cant induct 18 of every single type on the planet.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Sep 2017 07:45

X-posting it here::
here is a very readable article by a serving USN officer (perhaps under a pseudonym) on the problems and root causes of the 7th fleet accidents and surface ship stream in particular

"ADRIFT AND UNREADY FOR WAR: CRISIS IN THE U.S. SEVENTH FLEET"
https://southfront.org/adrift-unready-w ... um=twitter

a while ago these same problems of nepotism and arm chair captains with more desk time than ship time were discussed in the context of IN. ships and countries can change, but the roles and human factors are same.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Sep 2017 12:54

PS:Get hold of the latest issue of Autocar India.A fab feature on INS Chennai with double-page pics. A great piece by the mag.Kudos to it. It should do that to the other modern desi built warships and subs too.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 05 Sep 2017 23:04

Indian Navy bids adieu to INS Sindhurakshak, sinks graveyard of 18 Navy men
http://www.financialexpress.com/india-n ... en/841970/

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 05 Sep 2017 23:05

India Inc readies to fly with global OEMs for Navy's $10 billion chopper deal
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/new ... 842426.ece

chola · Post by **chola** » 05 Sep 2017 23:49

Rakesh wrote:India Inc readies to fly with global OEMs for Navy's $10 billion chopper deal
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/new ... 842426.ece

OMFG. I was hoping for Dhruv/ALH for shipborne helos but this probably puts a nail in the coffin of that dream. Why can't we fund variants of a platform we own instead of going for another one-off screwdriver giri?! I mean, what the fvck!?

IMHO, this is worse than the SE fighter RFI. Tejas was never fully productionized with only four in operations so we can understand an attempt to mitigate future risks over poor production.

BUT Dhruv (and its spinoffs) is the direct opposite of LCA, we have built hundreds of base Dhruvs, Rudras and ALH/LCHs. This is the most successful HAL program we have. It should be given the chance to fill this $10 billion requirement instead of sending another fvcking massive installment of treasury overseas.

(I wrote before that I am all for private sector involvement but not in this case where we have a perfectly good product whose IP we control and instead we are looking to take in yet another phoren buy.)

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Sep 2017 00:25

Rakesh wrote:India Inc readies to fly with global OEMs for Navy's $10 billion chopper deal
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/new ... 842426.ece

Great, First with Naval Tejas and now with Dhruv , IN is setting a high bench mark on indigenous substitution with imported products which can only be matched by her sister service IAF.

IN won't work with industry and hal on naval dhruv and IMRH program but would happily foot 10 billion usd to buy chopper abroad.

Zynda · Post by **Zynda** » 06 Sep 2017 01:06

Not much details in the above article. Which weight class will NMRH/NMUH be? I thought HAL was designing IMRH as a potential common heavy platform for both IN/IAF usage...although there were reports on challenges meeting both IAF & IN requirements in the same product (weight differences was an important one if I am recalling correctly).

Edit: With HAL developing LUH and IMRH...IN could have worked to develop a variant specifically for itself. In medium category, Dhruv is performing excellently. I cannot think why IN would want a global tender!

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 06 Sep 2017 01:25

What needs to be done in tenders like this is make a stipulation in the contract to the OEM...that if we buy x number of choppers, you will assist us in co-development of the desi platform. Separate the chaff from the wheat. Only the ones hungry for growth will stick in the competition. This cycle of permanent import with no learning in return has to end.

chola · Post by **chola** » 06 Sep 2017 01:52

We may want a heavy-weight replacement for the Sea Kings. But the 234-strong tender must be for a med-sized craft (I can't see us going light which means the Alou derivatives again) to operative from the vast majority of our ships.

So the Dhruv is perfectly sized and engined to replace and upgrade from the Chetak/Alouette for our FFGs and most of our DDGs.

Maybe this is for 234 heavies? But that is doubtful due to cost and ability to operate from many of the ships. Going for a med-sized phoren craft over Dhruv would be a betrayal IMHO.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 06 Sep 2017 02:33

Rakesh wrote:What needs to be done in tenders like this is make a stipulation in the contract to the OEM...that if we buy x number of choppers, you will assist us in co-development of the desi platform. Separate the chaff from the wheat. Only the ones hungry for growth will stick in the competition. This cycle of permanent import with no learning in return has to end.

Rakesh: Not going to happen. First no one will sign up for this and even if they do, they will lie (through smart words) and when forced simply dump things to meet the "legal" obligations and walk away. Product development does not happen with someone teaching or hand holding, it happens through commitment, ability to risk and user ownership. We need a transformation and there is absolutely NO sign that the urgency to do so is being felt. Does not mean it is all negative but the process being undertaken is a very slow reformation. e.g: part of the Shekatkar committee reforms now being implemented.

The faster we disabuse ourselves of the notion that someone will help us the better for the made in India plan. Having said that there are ways to acquire talent, get some critical inputs, beg, borrow, steal but has to be lead by our own efforts.

The Kaveri engine tech saga is a good example of what happens when there is not adequate commitment for the indigenous program and seek magic solutions through foreign help. China did just to opposite, with many pooh-poohing their engine but they make progress every day and power their crafts, even if a generation behind Russian engines, forget western engines.

PS: Rakesh, no intent to laugh at you but so many are under hopes of foreign magic to come and teach us. I would rather have us build and power an indigenous JF-17 type craft rather than depend on foreign wares. We need a herculean transformation top to down. It is to be politically led but do not see it happening.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 06 Sep 2017 02:47

Saar, i realized that after i typed it. Now face the music and get laughed at

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 Sep 2017 23:13

Admiral Essen frigate Sister ship of Talwar class in Russian Navy , Gives a rare footage of TT , Guns and Bridge on what would be like on IN Talwar class

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 Sep 2017 23:26

Build that carrier, quick!

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2017/09/b ... quick.html

chola · Post by **chola** » 14 Sep 2017 00:32

Austin wrote:Build that carrier, quick!

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2017/09/b ... quick.html

The lead time in building carriers is so long that "quick" in the Vishal's case even if they decided to go today would be a decade (add a half decade more if we go nuke) down the line. The MoD right now has its foot on the throat of naval aviation by making the admirals beg over and over again for the 65K-ton CATOBAR carrier.

The PLAN is definitely moving according a well-laid out plan. Their Type 001A will beat Vikrant to commissioning with the thing in mooring test already and the first weapon systems being installed (check the China Mil thread.) Their 3rd carrier is already a reality, no monkeying around with their version of the MoD. The island mockup at their Wuhan carrier test site is being modified from the one that mimics the Type 001A to a brand new one for Type 002 (again, check the China Mil thread.) There is enough literature and evidence that the Type 003 is already approved and will happen.

If we do not finalize a plan for our future, our traditional role as Asia's leading naval aviation power is all but lost. And it would be a self-inflicted loss.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 14 Sep 2017 06:26

India’s long wait for Scorpene-class submarine may end any day now
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/art ... 485766.cms

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 14 Sep 2017 06:28

Defence ministry blocks Navy’s ‘unrealistic’ five-year acquisition plan
https://theprint.in/2017/09/13/defence- ... tion-plan/

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 14 Sep 2017 06:31

Rs 2500 crore Indian Navy 4 vessel project bagged by Garden Reach Shipbuilders
http://www.financialexpress.com/industr ... rs/852507/

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 14 Sep 2017 06:49

India soon to sign to purchase of two frigates of 11356 project from Russia
http://citytoday.news/india-soon-to-sig ... es-supply/

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 14 Sep 2017 07:23

Rakesh wrote:Defence ministry blocks Navy’s ‘unrealistic’ five-year acquisition plan
https://theprint.in/2017/09/13/defence- ... tion-plan/

Another plan, to build a new aircraft carrier named Vishal, has also been moved again. This plan had been nixed by previous defence minister Manohar Parrikar last year, because it had been deemed too expensive. The project is estimated to cost a whopping Rs 1.35 lakh crore at the approval stage, a projection that is likely to go up with time.

These numbers can possibly not be true?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Sep 2017 08:10

6400cr is about a billion USD.
135000cr is about 20b USD

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 14 Sep 2017 08:27

Finally, sense prevailed, for $20B, we can build 10 SSNs in India. 10 SSNs >> 1 aircraft carrier.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Sep 2017 08:32

Not surprising the plan gets rejected , IAF could not afford more than 36 fighter after struggling with MMRCA for 10 years , While the Navy asks for 57 Jets and a big aircraft carrier not to mention they would need multiple choppers and other AEW assest on that , Always sounded like a Admiral's Pipe Dream

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Sep 2017 08:33

10 SSN is more than what russia/france/uk/cheen can muster today. it would be a awesome holding.

a couple of Hyuga type ASW lead ships is far more economical and practical for our use case, than attempting to be a chota sidekick of a USN CVBG like UK and France aim for. kudos to the Japanese govt - despite all the money, yards and technology at disposal they do practical stuff like locking down the submarine threat with a huge fleet of ASW DDGs, ASW carriers, well designed large SSKs and Orions than chase the nimitz class. when missile threat came , they put ABM into some ships.

IN needs to officially scrap the circus and plan and budget for a small fleet of Tu160mk2, hypersonic brahmos2 ASM, 3 * Hyuga class ASW carriers, 8-10 SSN fleet and 8-10 P75I with AIP for the strike mission.

they are already getting the LRSAM, DDG, HALE drones, commsats , tankers ... or CG is growing fast and offloading the IN for deep sea missions. in time our CG will be able to take over anti piracy/UN type missions off distant shores.

MCM vessels much needed to replace the pondicherry class which are too old now. ppl will be looking to spread FUD by releasing floating and captor sea mines near our harbours - even a chance hit will drive up insurance rates and deter shipping. a SSK can release about 10 sea mines.

the captor mines are bottom feeders which release a LWT

another type is a mine that is inside a LWT and can swim quietly into harbours and shallow areas and lie in wait