Indian Naval Discussion

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 11 Jul 2009 00:06

Raveen wrote:^^^
Love the confidence
Hate the lack of sources

Check the orbat of PLAN. That is enough to tell you about the extent of PLAN's prowess.

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 11 Jul 2009 00:16

was checking out vizag naval base on wikimapia....woww...that is one huge S0b...wondering what might rambilli got to display...btw...I could not find a single ship manufacturing of interest going on there...rambilli in altogether looks like some jungle mein mangal stuff with that rock "ramkonda"

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 11 Jul 2009 00:18

Raveen wrote:^^^
Love the confidence
Hate the lack of sources

may I say, "love the arrogance, hate the laziness ?"

no disrespect, do some or all of the following,
a) check PLAN orbat as hitesh says and also their class and age
b)read up the whole china military watch thread
c) google a bit on analyses of PLAN capabilities

you are sure to come across reports on the number of combat patrols initiated by PLAN subs (a grand total of 4 for last year IIRC compare with the number of PLAN subs)
or the interesting tid bit that PLAN helicopter pilots don't operate at night and so on.

at the end of the day, sources exist but you need to find them, spoon-feeding is not a good habit. irritation on not getting an unasked spoon-feeding is even less so.

BTW, this might be interesting for some :
http://www.china-defense.com/naval/plan ... 050-1.html

Baljeet · Post by **Baljeet** » 11 Jul 2009 00:42

pkudva wrote:As of now i dont think it will be proper on my part to talk about it publicly.
But when i am a part of this forum,i wanted to share this news with u guys otherwise all these days i wanted to keep this info with me.This carries lots of importance.

Pkudva
That is cool. Just tell us where you live, we will bring 20kg mithai and force you to eat that mithai or tell us more.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 11 Jul 2009 01:12

Venkarl wrote:was checking out vizag naval base on wikimapia....woww...that is one huge S0b...wondering what might rambilli got to display...btw...I could not find a single ship manufacturing of interest going on there...rambilli in altogether looks like some jungle mein mangal stuff with that rock "ramkonda"

The dock seems empty! There are two objects further back but it'd difficult to say what exactly they are. Google earth seems to work excellently with Chinese subs!

John · Post by **John** » 11 Jul 2009 01:16

Rahul M,
China has deployed large number of new surface combatants true they have aging vessels but no other country apart from USN has built more 2000 ton+ vessels since 2000. Yes there is few question markets over training, deployment and so on but most of it is subjective better to overestimate than underestimate someone (Vietnam war is a good example).

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 11 Jul 2009 01:38

KrishG wrote:
Venkarl wrote:was checking out vizag..... rock "ramkonda"
The dock seems empty! There are two objects further back but it'd difficult to say what exactly they are. Google earth seems to work excellently with Chinese subs!

Exactly

..spent lots of time looking at that...well I don't have the supernatural power of remote viewing

I have already checked out chinese bases and yeah they are "HUGE".

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 11 Jul 2009 01:43

john sahab, I'm aware of PLAN developments since I make it a point to regularly follow PLAN affairs.

hitesh' original point was that much of PLAN assets are on paper and that is absolutely true.
note that the operative word is much and not all.

PLAN has a core of much competent manpower equipped with modern platforms and their expansion has been nothing less than astounding. but all said and done, discounting the sundry brown water assets, PLAN blue water component is still comparable to IN.
they do retain a small numerical advantage even then but that is not as overwhelming as raw data wants us to believe.

Yes there is few question markets over training, deployment

there are actually BIG question marks !

while there has been improvement on this front too, training hasn't kept up with equipment induction.

better to overestimate than underestimate someone (Vietnam war is a good example).

I disagree, vietnam war is not a good example, there are no parallels with the Indo-chinese context whether in terms of players or in terms of scenario.

I humbly submit that your evaluation has to be as perfect as possible. both over and underestimation would lead to costly mistakes.

------------
my point is not that PLAN strength should be ignored, far from that. but they are not yet in a position to threaten us.
in fact both IN and PLAN have some time to go before they can threaten each other in their home ports. on the flip side, due to a quirk of geographical location, IN can pose a threat to PRC's SLOCs.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 11 Jul 2009 01:52

Venkarl wrote: Exactly ..spent lots of time looking at that...well I don't have the supernatural power of remote viewing

I have already checked out chinese bases and yeah they are "HUGE".

Just now, I saw 2 subs in Vishakapatnam on GE. 100% confident that they are subs! They couldn't be ATV as their hull-length appears to be somewhere near just above 50 m from GE.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 11 Jul 2009 01:55

kilo.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 11 Jul 2009 02:02

How are we doing with Deep Sea Rescue Vehicles(DSRV) I guess once we are done with the harbour trials we need the DSRV just in case things go wrong. There was an initiative to buy these from Canada(?)

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 11 Jul 2009 04:37

Rahul M wrote:kilo.

yes..considering its size...none other than kilo..my blind guess is that we have sheltered docks to build strategic ships

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Jul 2009 06:32

as a coincidence I was studying a book on Indonesia last night for another reason (Vina datalink on Bali vacation opps). what I realized is that indian ocean to pacific ocean submerged voyages is not at all easy.

Malacca straight submerged passage is neither safe nor would singapore permit anyone to cross their backwater with hostile intent.

further to the east, between sumatra and java there is Sunda strait. there is a
route between the two halves of malaysia via sunda strait to enter the south china sea. but Indonesia can keep a close eye on this and so can our assets.

further east there is Lombok strait between Bali and lombok. north of this is a
mass of "spice islands" Makassar between Sulawesi province and Irian Jaya.
its called celebes sea and molucca sea. not exactly easy going for subs or SAGs to remain undetected.

PRC have more of a issue - none of our main trade routes to singapore or aden or dubai or colombo pass through their backyard, while their european and gulf routes have to pass through ours. given the numbers of ships plying it will be difficult in mid ocean to id ships with a filed plan for china voyage and do some interdiction unless we have a small fleet of LPH type ships with lots of helis, UAVs, marines and good satellite coverage.

the best clear passage is the Timor sea between timor, irian jaya and papua new guinea in north and australia in south....but unkil will have sown that
with hydrophones and the local chowkidar sits there in darwin and perth.

Unkil in a chankian move deployed aus to watch the southern passage and
setup in subic bay philipines to watch the other three on its own.

unless indonesia and singapore give them a ticket, a SAG will find it tough to
force their way through in either direction, but submerged submarines can
presumably sail through the sunda and lombok straits and pursue wars of
sea denial in IOR and South Chinasea.

given the huge distances involved and limited duration of a Indo-PRC conflict
(assumed), even AIP subs are useless due to lack of sustained submerged
sprint speed. Only nuclear subs that are already on patrol or slip from their
mooring immediately have any chance of making a impact.

koti · Post by **koti** » 11 Jul 2009 06:36

just came across this link

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =SEA&s=TOP

India is hopeful that Russia will deliver by year's end two Akula-class nuclear powered attack submarines, Indian Defence Ministry sources said

It mentions two Akulas. This is the second such in recent times. Are we missing something here or is it plain DDM?

khukri · Post by **khukri** » 11 Jul 2009 06:49

koti wrote:just came across this link

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =SEA&s=TOP
India is hopeful that Russia will deliver by year's end two Akula-class nuclear powered attack submarines, Indian Defence Ministry sources said
It mentions two Akulas. This is the second such in recent times. Are we missing something here or is it plain DDM?

Damn - you just beat me to it - well the statement appears to be from the MoD, so maybe the rumours are true after all. Hallelujah!

Srivastav · Post by **Srivastav** » 11 Jul 2009 08:25

Khukri sahab, i hope this is true, but as you already know DDM tends to "find" these anonymous MOD sources from time to time just to make their stories look valid.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Jul 2009 08:54

Singha wrote:as a coincidence I was studying a book on Indonesia last night for another reason (Vina datalink on Bali vacation opps). what I realized is that indian ocean to pacific ocean submerged voyages is not at all easy.

Malacca straight submerged passage is neither safe nor would singapore permit anyone to cross their backwater with hostile intent.

.........................................

unless indonesia and singapore give them a ticket, a SAG will find it tough to
force their way through in either direction, but submerged submarines can
presumably sail through the sunda and lombok straits and pursue wars of
sea denial in IOR and South Chinasea.

given the huge distances involved and limited duration of a Indo-PRC conflict
(assumed), even AIP subs are useless due to lack of sustained submerged
sprint speed. Only nuclear subs that are already on patrol or slip from their
mooring immediately have any chance of making a impact.

1) No matter where, they have to sail through relatively shallow seas. No exception. Do not know what India plans, but a string of strategically placed hydrophones should help
2) The huge distances is the reason why Chicom has the string of pearls. Rest areas. I would not be surprised if they apply for green cards at these locations and settle down with plenty of Hans in tow.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Jul 2009 09:24

seems the sunda strait is fairly narrow and treacherous compared to Malacca. hence big ships avoid it.

but the lombok strait is very deep and fairly wide at 40km hence ULCCs too big to
passage the malacca use this strait.

due to the deep nature of this strait and strong IOR-Pacific ocean interchange
here, its called wallace line and separates asiatic flora-fauna from australasian...even when sea levels were low during ice ages the sea was present here...while
bali, java and sumatra were connected to malaysian
mainland via land bridge and so too was borneo

I have no doubt the Han would love to develop free trade zones and ports at
such strategic locations and settle the area with pro-PRC interests.

the british, dutch and portugese were past masters at
locating and controlling such strategic choke points in the
sea lanes. the spanish didnt bother much wider exploration - they got into south america and looted and raped the native civilizations there for hundreds of years to enrich themselves for a while but got left behind in the bigger game unfolding.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 11 Jul 2009 10:59

Pirates hijack Indian dhow with 15 crew members on board

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 11 Jul 2009 11:49

It mentions two Akulas. This is the second such in recent times. Are we missing something here or is it plain DDM?
just came across this link

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =SEA&s=TOP
India is hopeful that Russia will deliver by year's end two Akula-class nuclear powered attack submarines, Indian Defence Ministry sources said
It mentions two Akulas. This is the second such in recent times. Are we missing something here or is it plain DDM?

ok you guys will never trust shankarosky - the deal for Goroskov always included two akulas not one and 6 backfires -thats why i am sure half a dozen backfires for the navy/iaf is included and that might have already some where and will deliver the indian samosas over china

The price escalation of gorosshkov is also not as it seems -it most likely includes the cost escalation of the other parts of the package whcih will never be made public

The idea of two akula was to position one in each coast later on i thi9nk it was decided to locate both on east coat because of safety and refueling ease and may be US support in having indian subs patrolling indian ocean sea lanes

But still have no idea what or where are the backfire - they are too big too hide or are they?

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 11 Jul 2009 11:52

if you go check my old posts -did mention goroshkov deal is just a part of the package rest are the backfires and akula 2 s -no one believed as usal poor old shankarosky

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 11 Jul 2009 12:31

Shankar wrote:if you go check my old posts -did mention goroshkov deal is just a part of the package rest are the backfires and akula 2 s -no one believed as usal poor old shankarosky

Are the backfires supposed to be on lease ?? Russian reports still talk only about Nerpa.

http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20090710/155488668.html

Video of sea-trials.

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 11 Jul 2009 13:16

no the backfire s were all outright sale but even then 4 nos appeared to be small think it is 6-8 nos atleast refurbished and upgraded and the same time line of delivery as the akulas and the goroshkov -goroshkov got deleayed - nerpa is on schedule so what happened?
to backfires

The backfire normally operate in 3 /6 with Tu 142 as per Russian marine strike doctrine so most likely they will be based in Rajali -but no photo to confirm the speculation yet .US is not opposed to such sale simply because they want indian navy to protect their logistics chain in indian ocean region from garcia to af pak conflict zone .This is open secret.The russians too want it to be like that they dont want too much us/china presence in indian ocean region

Now coming back to INS CHAKRA

speculative specification card -to be checked and confirmed after launch

displacement submerged - 8500 tons
top speed - 40 + knots
top operating speed - 16 knots
power plant - 210 MW pressurized water reactor
screw -seven bladed single screw
6 nos torpedo tubes out of which 2 will fire 635 mm torpedos of russian origin
and also medium range missiles for the time being with 20-75 kt warhead to be fired through tubes for the first one through vertical launch arrangement 6 nos in the following subs
max surface speed - 15 knots
towed array sonar -yes
fuel - 35% enriched uranium
fueling cycle - 3-4 years
possible basing at -vizag

combat information center - far advanced than akula 2 similar to scorpene subs with automated threat assesment and counter measure deployment capabily

max cruising depth - 1000 ft
never exceed depth - 2000 ft

to summarise it is Akula 2 type submarine with scorpene level data management and combat information system capable of engaging multiple target simultaneously max 3 target at a time (like in my scenario some time back)
deployment zone -indian ocean and south arabian sea

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Jul 2009 13:38

top speed - 40 + knot
power plant - 210 MW pressurized water reactor

that being said the akula shape is more of a whale than western ssn's so should
be capable of a high top speed wrt less drag provided the reactor can supply the power
to turn the screw at a insane 'overclocked' rpm

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 11 Jul 2009 14:38

ndia is reportedly paying two billion dollars for the completion of two Akula-II class submarines which were 40-60% completed.[5] Three hundred Indian Navy personnel are being trained in Russia for the operation of these submarines. India has finalized a deal with Russia, in which at the end of the lease of these submarines, it has an option to buy them.The first submarine will be named INS Chakra.[6]

Whereas the Russian Navy's Akula-II submarine is equipped with 28 nuclear-capable cruise missiles with a striking range of 3,000 kilometers, the Indian version was reportedly expected to be armed with the 300 km range 3M-54 Klub nuclear-capable missiles.[7]. Missiles with ranges greater than 300 kilometers cannot be exported due to arms control restrictions, since Russia is a signatory to the MTCR treaty.

Vikram_S · Post by **Vikram_S** » 11 Jul 2009 18:31

@shankar
what is the great use of six backfires. they are going to be nothing but maintenance money sinks with that number and not even enough in number to have sustained round the clock operations. if india must purchase backfires at least one full squadron - 20 planes - must be purchased, giving 4 flights of 4 each and 4 more for attrition/maintenance rotation.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 11 Jul 2009 18:55

vikram where were you these days ? missed your inputs.

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 11 Jul 2009 19:23

Shankarji, how about some posts in the scenarios thread also

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 11 Jul 2009 19:30

I agree 6-8 Tu-22's serve no purpose. They are not like Tu-142's which are good sub hunters. IN needs atleast 16-20 to be effective.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Jul 2009 21:12

The Russian Connection to India’s Nuclear Submarine Program

In Russia, Vladimir Kuroyedov was the first to discuss the lease, in January 2002 during a visit to the Amur Shipyard. He said that India would finance the completion of two submarines being built at Amur, with the first to be delivered in 2004. Meanwhile, four Indian crews would be trained in Russia. 12 The lease would be for no less than three, and likely between five and ten years. 13 According to foreign estimates, the yearly cost of the lease would be between ten and 25 million dollars. 14

The precise terms of the agreement for at least two submarines were probably reached in January 2004, at the time of the signing of the contract for the refitting of the Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier. That year, work on the Project 971 Nerpa (submarine Yard No. 518) accelerated, and an Indian delegation visited the Vostok plant of the Amur Shipyard11 and its submarine testing range. In October 2004 the Federal Agency for Industry and the Amur Shipyard signed an MOU on the completion of built of two nuclear-power attack submarines, just when the Nerpa was estimated to be 85% complete, and «Yard No. 519,» the second submarine, to be 60% complete. 16 According to Russian press reports, India at this time paid an advance of $100 million to Russia.

The second SSN was to be delivered to the Indians in 2010, but in view of the delays affecting the completion of the Nerpa, this deadline will not likely be met. Either the transfer will be postponed, or a similar ship in use by the Russian Navy will be offered instead.

Scattered reports suggest that even more nuclear-powered submarines may be leased to India in the future. In late 2008, the Director of the Russian Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation Mikhail Dmitriev said it was quite possible that Russia would lease «a few nuclear-powered submarines of the same class and Project as the Nerpa.» This fits with reported plans of the Indian Navy to acquire or build 10–12 nuclear-powered submarines by 2018.

negi · Post by **negi** » 11 Jul 2009 21:22

Jingo's anyone having more details on the terms of the lease ; I suppose one cannot use the leased subs in event of a war and while I don't wish to spoil the mood isn't it too tempting to embed some trojan/bugs in a leased sub , it will have a gold mine of info once returned to RU.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Jul 2009 21:44

negi wrote:Jingo's anyone having more details on the terms of the lease ; I suppose one cannot use the leased subs in event of a war and while I don't wish to spoil the mood isn't it too tempting to embed some trojan/bugs in a leased sub , it will have a gold mine of info once returned to RU.

No there is nothing that would prevent an Akula-2 not to be used in a war , or for self defence purpose

What we cannot do is to arm it with Nuclear Cruise missile because of US-Russia understanding to remove nuclear missile from subs (SSN ) , and technically the sub still belongs to Russia and that agreement cannot be violated.

link

Announcing the reciprocal Soviet initiative, Mikhail Gorbachev, then President of the Soviet Union, said in his address on October 4, 1991:

All tactical nuclear weapons will be removed from surface ships and multipurpose submarines. These weapons, as well as all nuclear weapons of ground-based naval aviation, will be stored in centralized sites. Part of them will be eliminated. […] we propose to the United States to eliminate totally, on a reciprocal basis, sea-based tactical nuclear weapons.

sunilUpa · Post by **sunilUpa** » 11 Jul 2009 21:54

Austin wrote:
negi wrote:Jingo's anyone having more details on the terms of the lease ; I suppose one cannot use the leased subs in event of a war and while I don't wish to spoil the mood isn't it too tempting to embed some trojan/bugs in a leased sub , it will have a gold mine of info once returned to RU.
No there is nothing that would prevent an Akula-2 not to be used in a war , or for self defence purpose

What we cannot do is to arm it with Nuclear Cruise missile because of US-Russia understanding to remove nuclear missile from subs (SSN ) , and technically the sub still belongs to Russia and that agreement cannot be violated.

link

Announcing the reciprocal Soviet initiative, Mikhail Gorbachev, then President of the Soviet Union, said in his address on October 4, 1991:

All tactical nuclear weapons will be removed from surface ships and multipurpose submarines. These weapons, as well as all nuclear weapons of ground-based naval aviation, will be stored in centralized sites. Part of them will be eliminated. […] we propose to the United States to eliminate totally, on a reciprocal basis, sea-based tactical nuclear weapons.

Errr the operative word is 'tactical' not strategic. The agreement covers nuclear assets of Russia and USA.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Jul 2009 22:17

sunilUpa wrote:Errr the operative word is 'tactical' not strategic. The agreement covers nuclear assets of Russia and USA.

No matter what you call it , tactical for them may be strategic for us , yes it does cover Russia and USA and technically a leased asset is still an asset of Russia and not India , so arming Nerpa with nuclear weapon (tactical/strategic ) will have wider implication.

prudhviraj · Post by **prudhviraj** » 11 Jul 2009 22:27

Hi guys,
Good to see interest popping up among members with regard to the launch of the ATV. Well i am from vizag

and residing a couple of kilometers from SBC(ship building centre). These days i could see hecthic activity at the centre round the clock. All the buildings are being painted in dirty yellow colour and ofcourse the main dome inside which the Atv is being built. I had been seeing the centre for the past 9 years ever since the submarine construction had started, but never had i seen the center with so much activity. and more even the berth at which the atv would be housed in the harbour had been completed, it measures about 110 mts(as on google scale) and is completly covered all around with concrete sheets(not seen on google). What ever i am very much pleased to see the "baby bommer" come out, eversince i was waiting for it for the past 14 years.

Regards
Prudhvi RAj

sunilUpa · Post by **sunilUpa** » 11 Jul 2009 22:34

Austin wrote:
sunilUpa wrote:Errr the operative word is 'tactical' not strategic. The agreement covers nuclear assets of Russia and USA.
No matter what you call it , tactical for them may be strategic for us , yes it does cover Russia and USA and technically a leased asset is still an asset of Russia and not India , so arming Nerpa with nuclear weapon (tactical/strategic ) will have wider implication.

No you are missing the point. The treaty has been interpreted to limit the deployment of 'Russian' and US 'Tactical' nuclear weapons on board of 'Russian' and US surface and sub-surface assets. Both Russia and US have to submit the list of Nuclear weapons/delivey systems annually. Even though the Akula is 'leased', it will carry Indian flag and 'may' have 'Indian' nuclear assets which are not part of Russian inventory (therefore not included in the annual declaration).

Having said that it may be moot point, as long as we don't have a sub launched CM capability. (Excluding the Klubs)

In any case, this situation is very similar to US state dept declaring Paki F-16's can not be configured to carry Nukes and Brahmos can not be configured to carry Nukes etc.

Added later,

BTW you may want to read the actual Declaration of US concerning Nuclear Sea-launched Cruise missiles, especially the part dealing the number of war heads on each missile and the range of Missiles covered.

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 11 Jul 2009 22:36

prudhviraj wrote:Hi guys,
Good to see interest popping up among members with regard to the launch of the ATV. Well i am from vizag and residing a couple of kilometers from SBC(ship building centre). These days i could see hecthic activity at the centre round the clock. All the buildings are being painted in dirty yellow colour and ofcourse the main dome inside which the Atv
Prudhvi RAj

Why would that be? Why that particular colour?

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 11 Jul 2009 22:50

rakall wrote:
prudhviraj wrote:Hi guys,
Good to see interest popping up among members with regard to the launch of the ATV. Well i am from vizag and residing a couple of kilometers from SBC(ship building centre). These days i could see hecthic activity at the centre round the clock. All the buildings are being painted in dirty yellow colour and ofcourse the main dome inside which the Atv
Prudhvi RAj

Why would that be? Why that particular colour?

Well, if it looks dirty from day one then it won't look any dirtier 5 years from now

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 11 Jul 2009 22:51

cost saving in the time of depression !

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Jul 2009 22:58

sunilUpa wrote: No you are missing the point. The treaty has been interpreted to limit the deployment of 'Russian' and US 'Tactical' nuclear weapons on board of 'Russian' and US surface and sub-surface assets. Both Russia and US have to submit the list of Nuclear weapons/delivey systems annually. Even though the Akula is 'leased', it will carry Indian flag and 'may' have 'Indian' nuclear assets which are not part of Russian inventory (therefore not included in the annual declaration).

Look a leased submarine is part of Russian Navy and not India , one cannot have a simplistic view when it concerns tactical nuclear weapons on a foreign submarine and try to by pass a treaty/understanding which has far reaching implication on deployment of nuclear weapons.

By that logic a US submarine can have tactical weapons of UK and Russia from India and may be declared as not being part of each country inventory.

In any case, this situation is very similar to US state dept declaring Paki F-16's can not be configured to carry Nukes and Brahmos can not be configured to carry Nukes etc.

Not sure , but did pakistani leased the F-16 from US , or did US and Soviet had an agreement not to arm fighter with tactical nukes ?

On second thought , who needs nuclear cruise missile on submarine which is like a poor man's solution for Nuclear deterrent , only SLBM is the real thing , for the rest a conventional Torpedo and cruise missile is good enough for most task.