Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Jan 2021 17:48

PS: Brar's post.
Compared to WW2 and most of the major conflicts subsequently,the last demo was in Lebanon by the battleship NEew Jersey, there has been a dramatic drop in gunfire support globally especially in support of amphib ops. All the battleships,heavy cruisers,etc. have disappeared,replaced by land attack missiles,far fewer and far more expensive than a humble main gun shell. However,the advent of the rail-gun tech. and ER rounds should see a rennaissance in gunfire support. The kinetic energy of cheap non-explosive rail- gun shels are sufficient enough to cripple a major surface combatant. Ranges being talked about are between 100 to 200 km. The USN is most likely to field RG and lasers first on its warships this decade,while the RuN will be the first fieldding hypersonic missiles across its fleet
and aircraft, those being the 1000 to 2000 km Kinzhal hyper missile carried by its naval land-based MIG-31 aircraft.

John · Post by **John** » 22 Jan 2021 20:58

During Gulf war Missouri (iirc) engaged Iraqi positions with her main gun but also I believe she was targeted by Iraqi Silkworm missile luckily a British destroyer engaged those missiles. This goes to show vulnerability to Ashm more than 30 yrs ago against a neutralized opponent.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 22 Jan 2021 22:22

If someone values this mission enough then you can put in place options. With current projectile technology (HVP is now proven across multiple guns including the 5 inch MK45, the 32 MJ railgun, the 155 mm M-777, Paladin, and the 155mm AGS) you can technically get some good stand-off range with a decent rate of fire. But there is cost. Cost in terms of ship-design and priorities. A 32 MJ EMRG can deliver 10 rounds per minute out to 185+ km with current generation of projectiles. Technically, there is nothing stopping anyone from scaling this and introducing even more capable projectiles in the future. Let's say the sweet spot is 200-250 km. That can be done if that was what was driving the design. But I really don't see anyone wanting to introduce so much in ship design change and cost to warrant such a thing. I estimate railguns will shrink to half of their current power levels (10-15 MJ is probably going to become the most widely used range) and morph into a self-defense weapon capable of engaging supersonic cruise missiles and ballistic missiles at a much lower cost per kill than missiles. A 32-50 MJ weapon will just put too much Space/weight/Power/Cooling pressures on a warship and really just eat into other capabilities so I doubt anyone out there (naval leaders) has such a pressing need to want such a capability. The naval shore attack mission will still live but I seriously doubt that it will influence ship designs to a very great extent in the future.

kit · Post by **kit** » 28 Jan 2021 22:57

The LM 2500 engine widely used in the IN surface combatants versus RR MT30 gas turbine engine

MT30 is an expensive turbine, costing almost twice as much as a baseline LM2500. However, the MT30 delivers significantly more power than the LM2500 and is designed to minimize maintenance costs.
Producing 36MW to 40MW, the MT30 gas turbine is the world’s most powerful in-service marine gas turbine with the highest power density and will deliver a high power output in a compact space – an essential factor for naval propulsion.The MT30 is derived from Rolls-Royce Trent aero engine technology and builds on more than 45 million hours of operating experience and ultra-high reliability. It is initially built as separate modules, on the same build line as the Rolls-Royce Trent aerospace engines, in Derby. It is then assembled at the company’s Bristol facility.

The construction of the engine is based on a twin-spool, high-pressure ratio gas generator with a free power turbine. Eight variable geometry stages are included in the intermediate pressure compressor, with six corrosion-protected stages in the high-pressure compressor. Technology for the four-stage free power turbine comes from the Industrial Trent and Trent 800 products. To ensure reliable life, the latest blade cooling technologies are included throughout and emissions levels meet all current and anticipated legislative limits.

Rolls-Royce MT30s are also being installed in the UK Royal Navy’s new aircraft carriers Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales and the Type 26 global combat ship. They are also in service with the US Navy’s Freedom class LCS and its Zumwalt class destroyers, and will power the Republic of Korea’s Daegu class frigate programme.

LM2500+G4
The LM2500+G4 gas turbine provides 47,370-shp, and is the most powerful and efficient member of the LM2500 family.
Technical
Output 47,370 shp (35,320 kW)
SFC .352 lb/shp-hr (214 g/kW-hr)
Heat rate 6,469 Btu/shp-hr
8,675 Btu/kWs-hr
9,150 kJ/kWs-hr
Exhaust gas flow 205 lb/sec (93 kg/sec)
Exhaust gas temperature 1,020°F (549°C)
Power turbine speed 3600 rpm

Anyone has information regarding the marine version of Kaveri Engine ?

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 29 Jan 2021 00:33

LM2500 is a good system and a bonus is that it is already assembled by HAL. Now in 2021 CKD is not good enough, but it was a good start.

See my tweet for status of KMGT:

https://twitter.com/Aditya_G_Social/sta ... 66979?s=20

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 29 Jan 2021 02:12

Scorpene submerged range is1020 km @5knots(9.3kmph) i.e, 4.56days.
240t battery weight gives roughly 10MW hr storage capacity.
If DRDO AIP is at full capacity run for 14 days @250 kw per hour then is 84MW hr capacity i.e, 8.4 times the battery capacity.
Total distance traveled on both will be 9588 km and endurance will be 43 days @9.3km per hour.
This is on assumption that AIP capacity is 14 days on full power of 250kw/hr.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 30 Jan 2021 02:07

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/135 ... 61216?s=20 ---> According to DRDO, the land-based prototype of its air independent propulsion system for submarines has just demonstrated 14 days of continuous operation i.e. max design duration. I wrote about this PAFC- based AIP system here:

Indian Navy looks Forward To DRDO’s Air Independent Propulsion System For Submarines
http://delhidefencereview.com/2017/10/0 ... ubmarines/
Oct 07, 2017

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 30 Jan 2021 02:30

The French AIP gives 21 days normal operational submerged capacity with both battery and AIP.
It's AIP is fuel cell using hydrogen generation from Diesel and will require the twice the amount of liquid Oxygen as compared to DRDO AIP.
Thus DRDO AIP should have more capacity to allow the sub to remain submerged for longer time.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 31 Jan 2021 01:16

The Q is at what cost and how does it compare with other fuel-cell systems? Size,weight, no of days that the sub can stay submerged and operate at what speed?

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 31 Jan 2021 05:53

Actual capability will be a secret. But my ballpark estimate is for 32t Liquid Oxygen and 19 t sodium borohydride it should be possible to have double the capacity of French fuel cell aip.
I am using 30 year old data memory to roughly calculate the ballpark figures. If any knowledge able person can do accurate calculations.
The sodium borohydride is in aqueous form and it mass will be more than 19 t in operational use.
My est is endurance should be comparable to soryu lithium battery performance if max power output for 14 days was carried out and in operational 42 days combined aip and battery submerged endurance is a possibility.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 31 Jan 2021 10:59

Reg.Kilo costs today,last yr. a quick-fix interim solution to our declining and aging sub inventory was offered by Ru. 3+3 refurbished and new Kilo 636.3 ,all to the latest variant for just $1.8 to 2 B.This works out to an average cost of just $300- 350M a pop. The cost of refurbishing and upgrading our Kilos is around $200 M,official figures. There is no cheaper deal from any other source.Western conv. subs are not less that $500M to $750 M for the larger conv. subs.Oz's conv. Barracuda subs being built will cost at least $1B causing huge controversy ppolitically as costs keep on escalating even before a single sub has been delivered,not expected until mid-decade. Kilos most probably will also come with Kalibir 2000+ km range LRCMs if Nirbhay isn't perfected . The shorter ranged Klub variants are already aboard our Kilos. The Kilo is such an excellent design that 6 new subs are being built/delivered for the RuN fleet to be armed with Kalibir and
in future hyper-Ms compatible with their TTs.

Kilos take only 2 years to build in Russia and the 6 could all be delivered within 5 to 6 years. The IN could build 2 more Scorpenes with the DRDO AIP system if perfected by the time the last Scorpene is delivered.Simultaneously a G-2-G deal with Germany for U-boats to replace our aging 209s needs to be executed.,subs built at MDL after Scorpenes are all built. A second line in the pvt. sector for building a new design ,Indo- Russian ideally by L&T is required so that we will be able to replace all our 12 aging subs in time, as well as increasing the number of AIP boats. N- sub construction at HSL is a separate facility for both SSBNs and SSNs.

John · Post by **John** » 31 Jan 2021 21:22

Philip wrote:Reg.Kilo costs today,last yr. a quick-fix interim solution to our declining and aging sub inventory was offered by Ru. 3+3 refurbished and new Kilo 636.3 ,all to the latest variant for just $1.8 to 2 B.This works out to an average cost of just $300- 350M a pop.

That is incorrect it was upgrade of our existing 3 Kilos + 3 refurbished Kilo from Russia, if old rusting hulls and upgrades cost 300 mill each you can bet new ones will cost much much more.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 01 Feb 2021 02:50

There is a simple solution to SSKs - order more Scorpenes. Why look at Kilos when you can build more right here? It is already make-in-india etc, sure we cannot build em as fast as Kilos but that is the least of our problems.

Vips · Post by **Vips** » 01 Feb 2021 07:41

Not to mention that a Russia which is increasingly becoming reliant on China cannot be expected to support us when the yellow thing hits the fan.
So better to ensure French are our strategic partners and we churn out more scorpenes form Mazgaon Docks lest we lose the sub building expertise again in a repeat of the U-209 fiasco.

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 05 Feb 2021 20:18

Aditya G wrote:There is a simple solution to SSKs - order more Scorpenes. Why look at Kilos when you can build more right here? It is already make-in-india etc, sure we cannot build em as fast as Kilos but that is the least of our problems.

If you want to keep the competencies of boat construction, there's no other way as order more Scorpenes. Let's say, order them in batches of three with gradual upgrades which may be incorporated in initial six during mid-life refurbish (if technically and financially feasible).

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 05 Feb 2021 21:11

Thank you SNaik Sir. Glad to know that you see the wisdom in ordering additional Scorpenes.

AkshaySG · Post by **AkshaySG** » 05 Feb 2021 23:26

Rakesh wrote:Thank you SNaik Sir. Glad to know that you see the wisdom in ordering additional Scorpenes.

I think most people see the wisdom in that but unfortunately in the guise of impartiality , the lobby of competing firms and their preference for making a big deal of every acquisition it always turns into a big 5-6 vendor multi year long and protracted saga

I yearn for the day both IAF and IN will say enough is enough and just do a direct G2G deal with France for additional Rafales and Scorpenes and end these MRFA/P75s programs which are going absolutely nowhere

kit · Post by **kit** » 06 Feb 2021 02:34

Aditya G wrote:There is a simple solution to SSKs - order more Scorpenes. Why look at Kilos when you can build more right here? It is already make-in-india etc, sure we cannot build em as fast as Kilos but that is the least of our problems.

I do not think the answer is as simple as that. The leak of the Scorpenes intricate details ended that option. The GOI seems to have got the Naval Group to ensure certain changes were made in the later variants of the Scorpenes., but enough damage has been done already.
Another reason is that the navy requires a larger sub design that only exists on paper and the chosen foreign manufacturer would have to transfer critical design and manufacturing know how. This will be the last submarine "import"

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 06 Feb 2021 07:24

Let's assume the worst, that critical data about the capabilities and signatures of the boats were leaked. How does that help our enemies? You still need to search for and track a submarine before engaging it. PLAN infact operates Kilo class submarines, we can safely assume PN has access to all its parameters. We routinely fly against F-16s in exercises for example, does not mean that the F-16 is no longer a threat.

To its credit, IN is following a plan which anticipated a second submarine line. However, at the time it was envisaged to be a parallel line and one based on russian technology. We were supposed to pick the best of both worlds and build our own boat.

However, the submarine line is no longer going to be a parallel one since MDL will finish making all boats, and secondly everyone seems to have forgotten the intent of having an eastern model. The VLS requirement probably made sense 10-15 years ago when there was no option, but with 3 SSBNs in the water and talk of SSNs it's unclear how critical is a VLS plug on SSK.

Naval Group has clearly indicated that there is no submarine in the world which will fulfill P75I requirements. My concern is that the program will either never deliver or be too expensive in an environment where we also need to budget for and build SSNs and SSBNs, let alone IAC-II, MCM and LPDs.

There is a possibility that Scorpenes are simply not good enough and IN is not happy with them, though there is no data to indicate so.

IN should be more prudent and order at least 3 more Scorpenes, which were part of the original contract's option clause. We could then straight jump then to our own Indian SSK. Perhaps even adopt Naval Group's concept of having conventional and SSN equivalent of the same design.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Feb 2021 09:26

Kilos come at just around $300M to $350M a boat.
Built in 2 years too. Scorpenes' cost has soared close to $600M a pop,almost twice that of a Kilo and the time taken is 4 to 5 years by MDL! Moreover,the Scorpene's weaponry is obsolete.Sub- Exocets have less than a 100km range,are subsonic too,whereas the Kilos all carry the Klub series, Mach3.5:terminal homing warhead for the anti-ship version, min.300km range and the same missile with ER range is the Kalibir of 2000+ km range now being extended to 4000km! The 6 Kilos on offer can all come within 5 years too.

However, a few more Scorpenes with the DRDO AIP system if perfected in time is not a bad idea as we need at least 24 + conv. subs and around 16 N-subs to deal with the Sino- Paki threat with a combined force of over 100+ subs of both types. The PRC is creating a monster N-sub building facility that can simultaneously build 4 N-subs at a time. A new line of around 8 German U-boats,perhaps the U-218 of the type S'pore has ordered,to replace our U-209s, around 8 to 9 Scorpenes in total, 12 Kilos incl. the new 6,with 2+ used for training and experimental purposes,along with the legacy U-209s, and a new Ru line of around 8 with VLS based on either the Amur design or the 5th- gen Kalina class under development . From 2030 onwards we can watch sub tdch developments and design our future subs.What we can do right now is to design and build a fleet of mini/midget -subs and USVs for use of spl. forces and patrolling the chokepoints,defence of our coastal inshore waters,etc. USVs can act in conjunction with mother manned subs in somewhat similar fashion to drone swarms in the air.

A recent US breakthrough can change the scenario of UW warfare.A new sub detection system from the air using lasers striking the sea to act like sonar pulses and receive the " bounce" from the ocean beds too,can detect mines,subs,etc. Upto now sonobuoys are being used to detects subs and send the data to ASW aircraft of helos. Here,drones can be tasked to do the same. The new system has to be perfected, but it reportedly works.

Vips · Post by **Vips** » 06 Feb 2021 21:10

Kilo cost of $300 to 350 Million is for used/30 year old upgraded junk. A new Kilo does not come for $300 Million. Moreover with an established scorpene line in place and a workforce tuned to its manufacuture, if orders are placed for 3 more it wont take more then 2 years for the additional scorpene to roll off. It is the 2 years long trials that take place for each new submarine that is the cause for the delay now.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 06 Feb 2021 22:33

Vietnamese Navy Kilo submarines
https://medium.com/indo-pacific-geomill ... ce5dc97b0b
29 Sept 2018

The contract for the supply of six diesel electric Project 636MV submarines was signed in 2009 during a visit to Moscow by Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung. The first sub was delivered in January 2014 and the last submarine was delivered in January 2017. The construction cost is $2.1 billion ($350 million per sub), plus $1.1 billion for the related ecosystem such as building the necessary base infrastructure, armaments and other equipment, a training and simulator facility, etc bringing the total cost to $3.2 billion, which makes this deal the largest in the history of Russian exports of naval equipment. The submarines were built by the St. Petersburg based Admiralty Shipyard.

The Indian Navy already has the related ecosystem in place, with 10 (now 8+1) Kilos in service. So no investment needed for the related ecosystem. I did make the argument - in the past - for additional Kilos, especially the 636 variant.

But Vips, I do agree with you (and SNaik Sir) for additional Scorpenes.

Inducting additional boats of the same type is the best way to bolster the sub fleet. The timelines of Project 75I is just too long. Ordering three additional Scorpenes will give the sub arm that additional fleet availability, till the first P75I vessel comes on board. Having six Scorpenes does not mean all six are at sea. Some will be in dock for maintenance or refits. Having additional Scorpenes or new build Kilos, increases the number of boats available at any given point in time.

AkshaySG · Post by **AkshaySG** » 07 Feb 2021 00:21

Rakesh wrote:Vietnamese Navy Kilo submarines
https://medium.com/indo-pacific-geomill ... ce5dc97b0b
29 Sept 2018

The contract for the supply of six diesel electric Project 636MV submarines was signed in 2009 during a visit to Moscow by Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung. The first sub was delivered in January 2014 and the last submarine was delivered in January 2017. The construction cost is $2.1 billion ($350 million per sub), plus $1.1 billion for the related ecosystem such as building the necessary base infrastructure, armaments and other equipment, a training and simulator facility, etc bringing the total cost to $3.2 billion, which makes this deal the largest in the history of Russian exports of naval equipment. The submarines were built by the St. Petersburg based Admiralty Shipyard.
The Indian Navy already has the related ecosystem in place, with 10 (now 8+1) Kilos in service. So no investment needed for the related ecosystem. I did make the argument - in the past - for additional Kilos, especially the 636 variant.

But Vips, I do agree with you (and SNaik Sir) for additional Scorpenes.

Inducting additional boats of the same type is the best way to bolster the sub fleet. The timelines of Project 75I is just too long. Ordering three additional Scorpenes will give the sub arm that additional fleet availability, till the first P75I vessel comes on board. Having six Scorpenes does not mean all six are at sea. Some will be in dock for maintenance or refits. Having additional Scorpenes or new build Kilos, increases the number of boats available at any given point in time.

The 350 mil/sub is without the related ecosystem expenses though (That's covered in the other 1.1 Billion$)

Considering this contract was signed back in 2009 i can only imagine how much prices have risen since , I mean their 3+3 offer which included three 30 yr old Russian subs and upgrades to 3 of our own subs came out to around 1.8-2Bil or 300-350 million/sub so new ones would cost much much higher i don't think there is any chance we get new Kilos for 300 mil a pop or even close to it

So yeah Scorpenes at an already running production line is the best way to go

AkshaySG · Post by **AkshaySG** » 07 Feb 2021 00:37

Philip wrote:Kilos come at just around $300M to $350M a boat.
Built in 2 years too. Scorpenes' cost has soared close to $600M a pop,almost twice that of a Kilo and the time taken is 4 to 5 years by MDL! Moreover,the Scorpene's weaponry is obsolete.Sub- Exocets have less than a 100km range,are subsonic too,whereas the Kilos all carry the Klub series, Mach3.5:terminal homing warhead for the anti-ship version, min.300km range and the same missile with ER range is the Kalibir of 2000+ km range now being extended to 4000km! The 6 Kilos on offer can all come within 5 years too.

.

I'm sorry but you have said this so many times in this thread and each time it has been pointed out to you that the 300 mil/ new sub cost was for a contract signed 12 years ago ..Its just disingenuous to keep mentioning the same price when they have risen a lot since then

I mean just look at the offer Russians made last year ..3 old subs and 3 upgrades to our own for 1.8 Bil$ ...Would be ridiculous to think 6 new ones would cost anywhere around the same

So basically 3 additions to fleet size and they're 30 yr old hulls , how is that a better proposal than brand new Scorpenes at a already running production line which would cost around the same ?

I don't mind Kilos and they're certainly very capable subs but any offer for them should either have new models or far cheaper upgrades .

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 07 Feb 2021 01:51

AkshaySG wrote:The 350 mil/sub is without the related ecosystem expenses though (That's covered in the other 1.1 Billion$)

Considering this contract was signed back in 2009 i can only imagine how much prices have risen since , I mean their 3+3 offer which included three 30 yr old Russian subs and upgrades to 3 of our own subs came out to around 1.8-2Bil or 300-350 million/sub so new ones would cost much much higher i don't think there is any chance we get new Kilos for 300 mil a pop or even close to it

So yeah Scorpenes at an already running production line is the best way to go

I do not want to give Philip any more ammunition, so I defer to you Sirjee

kit · Post by **kit** » 07 Feb 2021 01:55

I would just point out that this "order" is more of a technology upgrade and acquisition rather than filling numbers. If the latter was the case kilos or scorpenes would have been the case. Also I do not think it will be based on Russian tech.

maz · Post by **maz** » 07 Feb 2021 03:13

Ordering more 3+3 Scorpenes in progressively updated batches/tranches is a no-brainer. There is not much to debate here is there?

It would be a sad case of bad history repeating itself if the Scorpene line is allowed to die by the MoD though inaction.

Acquiring more used/refurbed Kilos (877 or 636) also makes sense as these would be quick and seamless.

If 3 more Scorpenes (with AIP and some new kit, modifications) are ordered sooner than later along with 3 used Kilos, the submarine arm would gain much needed breathing space so to speak and maintain existing force levels as extant boats get in their decommissioning cycle.

Notionally, within 7-8 years, six more hulls could enter service. This assumes that MDL can commence production of 3 boats near simultaneously. Is this too optimistic an assumption? Would welcome insights from informed observers. As a follow up, 3 more Scorpenes with further mods should be ordered.

Since the design of the Scorpene, is hopefully, at this point well understood by the user and builder, it ought to form the basis for the next SSK instead of pursuing the very expensive P75I program - which remains a fantasy till date. Upgraded Scorpenes can be built now whereas there is no clarity on when the P75I will actually materialize. To paraphrase a well known saying: a boat (or three) in hand with known features is way better than six boats with the 'latest features in a planning document or a wishlist.

maz · Post by **maz** » 07 Feb 2021 03:17

The realistic costs of the Scorpene program are now known. Still cheaper than the (usually) overoptimistic estimates for the P75I. Moreover, the local industrial ecosystem is in place to build as much of these boats as possible in country. That has to be the way forward. Anyhow, domestic shipbuilding was always the Navy's goal - long before slogans became fashionable. The Navy would do well to remember this when finances are tight.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 07 Feb 2021 04:42

If I am a guessing man the delays in issuing the RFP for P75I are due to introspection in IN or MoD.

IN has progressively reduced lot size on multiple orders:

Ka-31
P-8I
MCM (24 to 12 to 8 now)
MRSV (LPD)
Carrier based fighter

Project-75I as envisaged at the moment is simply unrealistic/unviable.

Lets not forget that there is also an expensive HWT order pending somewhere.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Feb 2021 05:18

The IN should not fall into the Oz trap of wanting a conv. boat that rivals an N-boat,adding too much capability,making the boat larger without the power plant capabilities of an N- reactor. It would be preferable to have operating in the IOR,shallow waters on our west coast SSKs rather than SSGs.Dedicated SSGNs like our Akula,another expected , is far more sensible,a sub that can operate anywhere in the Indo- Pacific waters for 90+ days carrying 40- odd weapons. The second Akula may come with VLS adding to the capability. 4 SSGNs and 6 SSNs would give us a v.good capability against the PLAN,with around 24 SSKs as well.Our Kilos unlike Scorpenes and U-boats can as said before,carry both Klub variants and Kalibir 2000+ Km land attack missiles which the RuN has amply demonstrated with attacks in the Meditt/ Syrian campaign.

The 6 636.3 Kilos ordered for the RuN's Pacific fleet cost less than $300M a few years ago. Even Wiki puts the cost at $250M,but $350M today would be the right price. Incidentally Germany is refusing to sell engines to the Chins for Paki Yuan class boats,8 on order.The Pakis want a better engine than the Chin ones. The Paki's inability to acquire decent conv. subs from western sources becos of the Chin ability to steal their secrets is hampering the future capability of the Paki sub fleet. A G-2-G order of German U-boats as I've said ad nauseum to replace our 209s would give us the best from both east and west for our conv. sub fleet. The strength of the sub fleet needs to be doubled at least.

John · Post by **John** » 07 Feb 2021 06:14

Philip please stick to topic currently there is no new Kilo offered by Russia, the deal is 3 existing Russian subs + 3 upgrades of our Subs for 2 billion. There is reason why they are offering older subs because newer subs will definitely cost in upwards of 500+ mill given cost of commodities and effects of sanction on Russia.

Also there is no plans to purchase Kalibr, plan is to use Brahmos-NG and sub launched Nirbhay. For SSK being able to perform land attack or launch Ashm is very low priority given their slow speed and risk of detection (and triangulation) when they fire a missile.

AkshaySG · Post by **AkshaySG** » 07 Feb 2021 07:03

Philip wrote: The 6 636.3 Kilos ordered for the RuN's Pacific fleet cost less than $300M a few years ago. Even Wiki puts the cost at $250M,but $350M today would be the right price.

We're not the RuN , What it costs to their own fleet has little to do with what they would quote for us .

The simple fact of the matter is that Russia decided the price on offer to us for upgrading 3 of their old boats and 3 of our old boats would come down to around 350mil/boat .... Now if you think they're gonna offer us 6 new ones at same price (or even close to it ) then I've got a bridge to sell you .

I think IN would write a cheque right now for 2 Billion if it could get 6 new SSKs for that amount but that's simply not realistic ,

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 07 Feb 2021 20:10

https://twitter.com/ReviewVayu/status/1 ... 10432?s=20 ---> Throwing some nice SHADE at Aero India '21? Rafael of Israel & Bharat Dynamics Limited (BDL) have signed an MoU for joint induction of an Anti-Torpedo Defence System called SHADE for the Indian Navy. SHADE employs a combination of soft & hard kill decoys for defence against torpedoes.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 07 Feb 2021 20:20

https://twitter.com/strategic_front/sta ... 25825?s=20 ---> The Navy's upcoming Nilgiri Class frigates will use the MAN 12V28/33D Sequential Turbocharged(STC) diesel engine. They are more powerful than the SEMT Pielstick V12 PA6 used on the Shivalik class frigates. The MAN engines will be made in the company's Aurangabad production facility.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 07 Feb 2021 20:30

https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 02689?s=20 ---> Report: US, India, Japan & Australia working to arrange first meeting of their nations' leaders (Biden, Modi, Suga & Morisson) under QUAD framework.

maz · Post by **maz** » 08 Feb 2021 10:03

For those that insist on certain costs of weapons systems today based on historical pricing data from many years ago, please understand that the defence-aerospace world and rest of industry for that matter operates on the principle of price escalation every year. In other words, prices invariably go up, not stay constant.

Firstly, none of us here are privy to price negotiations so this guessing the cost exercise is really for the sake of having a reasonably informed discussion which leads nowhere and has little or no impact on the decision makers. In other words, all this for se edification but mostly for having fun and engaging in a shared hobby.

Can we please try to remember this before things get heated?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 09 Feb 2021 00:02

https://twitter.com/strategic_front/sta ... 45793?s=20 ---> Indian Navy's Shikalik class frigates uses a pair of SEMT Pielstick V16 PA6 sequential turbocharged diesel engines each producing 7,600 shp in a CODOG propulsion configuration. The engines are manufactured in India by Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd under license from SEMT Pielstick.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 09 Feb 2021 00:07

https://twitter.com/strategic_front/sta ... 60323?s=20 ---> Kirloskar Oil Engines is developing the new K4300 engine with 1,800 - 3,100 hp. The engine is likely to power LCUs, patrol boats or small Corvettes. Development of a 280mm bore medium speed engine (SEMT Pielstick PA6 equivalent) was reported in 2016, but nothing has been heard since.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 16 Feb 2021 22:32

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/136 ... 42505?s=20 ---> Indian Navy receives third P-75 Scorpène Class submarine, Karanj. Will be ceremonially commissioned into service soon.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 17 Feb 2021 22:18

BHEL to supply main guns for Indian Navy warships
https://energy.economictimes.indiatimes ... s/80838517
11 Feb 2021