John wrote:Rakesh we cannot customize or modify them, they come with restrictions and that is problem if Russia had sold these submarine and gave us capability to maintain then that is great. But this is just plain and simple lease and Nerpa didn’t even make it to 10 years we had return it due to reactor problems (will Russia refund us the lost $$ probably not).
This is just seems like waste of $$ as we are already leasing a submarine and other important projects including P-75, MCMV, IAC II, LPD are delayed due to $$.
I will hold out on the restrictions theory, because we do not have the actual agreement to refer to.
If these were really only meant for training or even worse, just leased for pure show to molly coddle some MoD Babus and senior Admirals, are we to assume this news article is fake? It certainly must be.
India Deployed Nuclear Missile-Armed Submarine During Standoff With Pak
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/p ... 2019-06-23
23 June 2019
Nuclear submarine INS Chakra had also been deployed in an aggressive posture along the Pakistani waters and instructed to keep looking for the missing Pakistani submarine.
The Indian Navy's latest induction, Scorpene-class submarine INS Kalvari, was also deployed in the hunt while their posture kept threatening Pakistan against doing any misadventure in the Indian waters.
Why is the Indian Navy sending a Russian origin nuclear powered boat - meant only for training and nothing else - out in the Arabian Sea? Is the Akula even capable of doing the most basic of submarine tasks, like actually go under the water? It is Russian after all. Big Risk!
In the restrictions agreement - which none of us have seen, but yet is being narrated as FACT - is it permitted for the Indian Navy to do this? Is the Indian Navy not violating "supposed" restriction agreement? And let us assume that the Indian Navy flipped the bird to the Russians - during the Balakot standoff - should the Indian Navy really take the risk of involving said submarine in a conflict zone? Does the propeller on the Akula even turn on its own power? It is Russian after all...what is the guarantee that any thing on board will work?
In the absence of no country - apart from Russia - willing to lease us a nuclear submarine, while our own series of SSNs comes on the scene...what other choice did the Indian Navy really have? So these $$ that we are investing - assuming it is only for training - into Russian Akulas, if that helps our sailors and officers become familiar with operating a nuclear boat, then it is money well invested IMVHO. Forget the Amreekis - who love to lecture India about strategic partnerships - even my philanthropic friends from La France will not lease us a nuclear powered boat.
We are all proud of the Arihant Class of submarines (as we all should be), while we conveniently forget the help that the Russians provided in her development. I highly doubt the Indian Navy would be operating a SSBN fleet of her own, if the Russians (or some other country) did not not help in the development.
Arihant: How Russia helped deliver India’s baby boomer
https://www.rbth.com/blogs/stranger_tha ... mer_533849
26 Oct 2015
“India then sought and got much more substantial Russian help than had been envisaged earlier. The construction of the submarine’s hull began in 1998, and a basically Russian-designed 83 megawatt pressurised-water reactor was fitted in the hull nine years later.”
Ashok Parthasarthi, a former science and technology adviser to the late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, sums up the extent of Russian assistance: “India's first indigenous nuclear submarine, INS Arihant...would have just been impossible to realise without Russia’s massive all-round consultancy, technology transfer, technical services and training, technical 'know-how' and 'show-how,' design of the submarine as a whole, and above all numerous operational 'tips' based on 50 years of experience in designing, building and operating nuclear submarines.”
According to Bidwai, “Scores of Russian engineers were sent to India to aid the DAE and DRDO....It was the Russians who supplied the vital designs, precision equipment based on their VM-5 reactor, and the technology of miniaturising the reactor.”
And if there were any doubts about the extent of Russian involvement, they were cast away on July 26, 2009 when 143 Russian engineers, designers and consultants – all participants in the project – attended the boomer’s launch ceremony at Visakhapatnam on the east coast.
I don't believe the Russians are saints. They are just like anyone else. They want to make a sale. They want to have influence. They want to make ridiculous sums of money selling weapons. They want the exact same thing that Amreeka (and the west) does.
But who is giving what India wants? That should be the foundational theme here? In the absence of our own SSNs, which country is going to allow you to lease their nuclear powered boats for $3 billion each? Assuming that dollar figure is even true. Please enlighten me.
On a related note, this entire discussion started with this article below on a supposed lease of not one, but two Akulas.
sajaym wrote:https://www.indiatoday.in/india-today-i ... 2021-09-04
Acquiring a second SSN will enable the navy to operate two independent carrier battle groups, centred around the INS Vikramaditya and INS Vikrant, each with one SSN. (INS Vikrant is currently in sea trials and will join the Navy later next year.) The two SSNs can also perform escort duties for India’s fleet of four Arihant-class SSBNs, all of which will be in service by the end of this decade.
Now this article claims that this pair of Akulas will perform escort duties for the two independent carrier battle groups - Vikramaditya and Vikrant.
Now since these Akulas are ONLY to be used for training - because that is what a "supposed" restrictive agreement states - why is the Indian Navy using these boats for escort duties? In a possible conflict in the near future, if an Akula boat - escorting a carrier battle group - detects an enemy vessel, is the Akula allowed to engage or does the Akula turn in the opposite direction? Would engaging the enemy would be a violation of said restrictive agreement? If not, will the Akula fire lotus and marigold flowers from her torpedo tubes to deter the enemy? Perhaps the restrictive agreement does not permit offensive weapons of any kind on board.
Why is end user restrictive agreements with the Amreekis okay, but the same not okay when the Russians supposedly do it? Like can we mount BrahMos-A on to P-8I? By the way, where is this restrictive Russian agreement? Can you point me to it?