Indian Naval Discussion

chiru · Post by **chiru** » 10 Sep 2009 14:09

Stan_Savljevic wrote:
csharma wrote:Can someone get hold of this paper?
Please post your email address, i will send you the pdf.

please forward it to me too at

chirag dot s dot 08 at geemail dot com

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Sep 2009 15:15

There's no way that the Gorshkov is being acquired as a "training platform" by the IN.It is being acquired to do its duty,defending the country from the sea.The MIG-29Ks and several extra KA-31 AEW helos are being acquired for the Gorshkov.In addition,we have started acquiring our first Phalcon AWACS aircraft and more indigenous AEW aircraft based upon an Embraer platform is in the pipeline as well.These land based aircraft should also provide us with some amount coverage of our littoral areas.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 10 Sep 2009 16:58

aditp wrote:Lord Admiral Sir, do tell us how you plan to counter the Agostas creeping in at 3knots (or lesser) at 150 mts depth toward your high chair just 500 kms from Puke ports

I would be shit scared and damn stupid to send my A/C without any ASW. I would have a GOOD ASW cover with shipboard helicopters and shore based P 8I.

Lord Admiral Sirji

Ranvijay · Post by **Ranvijay** » 10 Sep 2009 18:18

its not that hard. the older generation carriers were noisier than current generation ones, and they are escorted by a number of other ships. the The IN's carrier battle group usually consists of two destroyers (usually of the P-15 Delhi Class, previously Kashins were used) and two or more frigates, (usually a combination of P-16 Brahmaputra and Krivak III or Talwar class) and one support ship, with one submarine lurking nearby.

The ocean is a huge place sir, sure with the new fancy maritime surveillance planes theres a better chance of finding a CBG but its still not childs play. Unless of course you use a constellation of satellites flying overhead with Aesa radars and death ray Brahmos missiles to destroy the whole Carrier battle group with only one sukhoi passing target co-ords through a 12982382gbit secure and faultless datalink to another sukhoi carrying 8 brahmos missiles on its wingtips.

consider how disproportionate PN's ASW and ELINT assets (P-3Cs and Atlantiques) and its submarine fleet are compared to its surface fleet. their whole doctrine hinges on finding and attacking the carrier.

Which is why they might take the carrier but they'll still lose the war. Now I agree, losing a carrier is a big deal, but winning the war would probably matter more. The Carrier could park itself off anywhere in the Indian ocean with guaranteed safety from its escorts, its own air wing and ground based MKI's from the P-3C's and Atlantiques which in my opinion, probably get tracked the second they're in the air by ground stations on our wester borders(forget the Phalcon which will be in service by then).

kaangeya - No one has ever assembled anything like a complete package of resources required to dynamically track a CBG, excepting the Russians.

I agree.

A submariner probably fears a carrier a whole lot more than the carrier fears him.

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 10 Sep 2009 19:53

Stan_Savljevic wrote:
csharma wrote:Can someone get hold of this paper?
Please post your email address, i will send you the pdf.

Got it.

Thanks.

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 10 Sep 2009 20:11

chiru wrote: please forward it to me

csharma, sent. Chirag, email bouncing. can you email standuude AT yahoo

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Sep 2009 20:13

aditp wrote:Lord Admiral Sir, do tell us how you plan to counter the Agostas creeping in at 3knots (or lesser) at 150 mts depth toward your high chair just 500 kms from Puke ports

IF the IN has not placed hydrophone ALL around PakiLand, IN might as well fold up, go home and watch a Bollywood movie.

Indian losses could be substantial. Paki losses should be a lot more. IMHO, in fact, enough not to get up again - even with US help.

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 10 Sep 2009 22:07

aditp wrote:Lord Admiral Sir, do tell us how you plan to counter the Agostas creeping in at 3knots (or lesser) at 150 mts depth toward your high chair just 500 kms from Puke ports

The agosta will take 2-4 days to reach the carrier when it is creeping at 3kts. Wonder whether the carrier will sit still & idle waiting for the agosta to catch up. Also 500km from coast does not mean 500km from agosta base, it could be say 700km from agosta and the ship may change position, such that agosta may have to travel say 1000km in 4-10 days and agosta may meet Indian subs, ships, sonars, MPAs on way assuming it has range to travel 1000km on AIP or batteries

John · Post by **John** » 10 Sep 2009 23:06

Raj Malhotra wrote:The agosta will take 2-4 days to reach the carrier when it is creeping at 3kts

They will most likely be snorkeling for good portion of distance at 10-12 knots before diving and running on batteries. Also keep in mind agosta 90B cost more than any vessel in IN arsenal so they can't risk it any engagement where it has chance to be detected.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 10 Sep 2009 23:06

Besides , a AC is never alone , it's accompanies by a CBG which would certainly include a submarine.

David Saenz · Post by **David Saenz** » 10 Sep 2009 23:38

Stan_Savljevic wrote:
csharma wrote:Can someone get hold of this paper?
Please post your email address, i will send you the pdf.

Stan, can you please send it to sit dot sourav at gmail dot com ...

arun · Post by **arun** » 11 Sep 2009 07:10

Press release put out by the Tognum Group who own engine-maker MTU.

Presumably the Inshore Patrol Vessels are the Rani Abakka class whose order has been upped from 5 to 13 vessels. I have arrived at that conclusion as the product brochure appended to the BR page on the class describes the length as being 48 meters in length, though the BR page itself erroneously lists the class as being 26 meters. Can anyone enlighten

Presumably the interceptor boats mentioned are the aluminium hulled boats from ABG Shipyard and the order size for the class has been upped from 12 to 17. Can anyone enlighten

Indian Coast Guard places trust in MTU engines from Tognum

*MTU Series 2000 and 4000 engines to be main propulsion units for new Indian Coast Guard craft
*Specifications include MTU Callosum and Blueline automation systems for propulsion control and ship monitoring
*Tognum subsidiary MTU Asia secures contract worth 32.5 million euro

Friedrichshafen/Singapore, 10 September 2009.

The Engines Division of propulsion and power specialist Tognum has received two orders for the supply of MTU engines and automation systems for 23 new ships for the Indian Coast Guard. The total value of the contracts is 32.5 million euro. The engines are to be delivered between the end of 2009 and the end of 2011.

“These contracts secured by MTU Asia demonstrate once again that business in the government vessels sector is a very steady, strong and essential component of our overall portfolio. It is also especially important in economically difficult times“, states Rainer Breidenbach, Tognum COO with responsibility for the Engines Division.

Eight new Inshore Patrol Vessels are to be powered by triple Type 16V 4000 M90 engines with an output of 2,720 kW (3,648 bhp) each. In combination with waterjets, they will propel the vessel at speeds up to 35 knots. The systems to be supplied for the 48-meter patrol vessels include the MTU Callosum ship automation system with an integrated solution for monitoring all ship’s services that also incorporates fire detection and extinguishing systems. The reliable, easy-to-maintain and low fuel consumption engines enable the patrol vessels to remain at sea for a prolong period of time without having to return to base to replenish supplies.

The Tognum Group is also supplying 30 MTU Type 16V 2000 M92 engines each capable of 1,630 kW (2,186 bhp) for 15 Interceptor Boats in the 26-meter class. They will provide the boat with a top speed of 35 knots. Engine control and system monitoring will be performed by the MTU Blueline automation system.

The Series 4000 engines will be delivered as assembly kits to the licensed producer in India, Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers (GRSE) in Kolkata, for local assembly and testing. Meanwhile, the Series 2000 units will be sent to the Bharati shipyard in Mumbai.

The construction of the new ships is part of an expansion of the Indian Coast Guard. The varied duties of the Indian Coast Guard are fishery protection, combating smuggling and terrorism, prevention of illegal immigration, search and rescue operations as well as marine environment protection.

Tognum subsidiary MTU Asia has already sold more than 100 Type 16V 4000 M90 engines to the Indian Coast Guard and Navy in recent years. They are highly valued for their proven reliability, outstanding power-to-weight ratio and also the well-established MTU service network in India.

Press Release

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 11 Sep 2009 12:36

Stan_Savljevic wrote:
csharma wrote:Can someone get hold of this paper?
Please post your email address, i will send you the pdf.

Can you send it to me on kersikdotiwalla at redifmail do com ?

Kersi

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 11 Sep 2009 12:40

Raj Malhotra wrote:
aditp wrote:Lord Admiral Sir, do tell us how you plan to counter the Agostas creeping in at 3knots (or lesser) at 150 mts depth toward your high chair just 500 kms from Puke ports
The agosta will take 2-4 days to reach the carrier when it is creeping at 3kts. Wonder whether the carrier will sit still & idle waiting for the agosta to catch up. Also 500km from coast does not mean 500km from agosta base, it could be say 700km from agosta and the ship may change position, such that agosta may have to travel say 1000km in 4-10 days and agosta may meet Indian subs, ships, sonars, MPAs on way assuming it has range to travel 1000km on AIP or batteries

The Agostas would be in touch with their home base / Naval HQ. If our Ajanta & Ellora systems are that good they should be able to idntify and monitor any radio signal form the Agosta. Do nit forget are pretty looking Dorniers of IW squadron.

I think it would be very difficult for the Agostas (probably more tha one) to locate a CBG on their own. Plus our ASW assets would not be idle.

K

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 11 Sep 2009 17:36

John wrote:
Raj Malhotra wrote:The agosta will take 2-4 days to reach the carrier when it is creeping at 3kts
They will most likely be snorkeling for good portion of distance at 10-12 knots before diving and running on batteries. Also keep in mind agosta 90B cost more than any vessel in IN arsenal so they can't risk it any engagement where it has chance to be detected.

When the subs are on surface and snorkelling or travelling with diesels engines on, then they cease having any surprize element and are extremely vulnerable to the Anti Sub Helos, MPAs and ships part of carrier strike force,

Hence Conventional subs are more of defensive weapons "relatively" to SSNs which are offensive weapons. Therefore I recommend cancellation of proposed second line of conventional subs and increasing proposed SSNs

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Sep 2009 17:57

If there is any platform of PN which has a half decent chance of taking down Carrier of IN it will be PN submarine.

It was very surprising that immediately after 26/11 the PN was out at sea within 3 days , compared to they being stuck at port during Kargil war.

The IN then managed to mobilized within a weeks time during Kargil and was out at sea.

The PN seems to have learn't their lessons post Kargil and they will mobilise quickly and will be out at sea quickly in the next escalation , atleast within or less than 3 days.

They would also keep atleast one conventional sub tracking the IN Carrier Fleet or be in the area of CBG operation , to keep the element of surprise and use first strike to its advantage.

Even a loss of single Carrier will be a big physiological blow to IN and a great moral booster to PN even if it looses the submarine during such action.

How about using Nuclear Torpedoes by PN submarine to cause mass loss of fleet protecting the Carrier ?

Certainly is not striking main land India and will be an acceptable damage politically to handle ?

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 11 Sep 2009 19:40

Certainly is not striking main land India and will be an acceptable damage politically to handle ?

It can be argued that India would consider a CBG as its own territory and a nuclear attack on a CBG is akin to a nuclear attack on Indian territory, hence a full blown war.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Sep 2009 20:53

Even a loss of single Carrier will be a big physiological blow to IN and a great moral booster to PN even if it looses the submarine during such action.

I would expect a pay back.

With or without sinking an IN ACar.

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

The political establishment will take this as an acceptable loss instead of loosing Dilli , and the pay back will be similar attack on PN ships at sea or something equally significant me thinks.

Y. Kanan · Post by **Y. Kanan** » 11 Sep 2009 21:30

While the Gorshkov can dramatically increase its odds of survival by staying 500-800 miles from the Pakistani coast (assuming it's also protected by ASW helos and screening ships), this effectively cancels out most of its combat power. The Migs would be severely limited in what they can hit at that distance. Frankly they'd be better off relocating the Mig-29's and helicopters to airbases in Gujarat, where they could at least be used effectively. Which gets back to my original point about the Gorshkov being too lightly defended to be used in combat.

That $3 billion would have been more effectively spent on other things, assets that can actually be used in wartime (IMHO).

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 11 Sep 2009 22:06

I have a dumb question, just as air fueling system, is not possible to create an underwater charging cable system. Where a diesel based submarine comes to one of ship and gets hooked to a power cable and recharges its batteries and again disappear in sea.

The situation will be extremely useful in CBGs, where the silent diesel hunter killer submarine can recharge its batteries endlessly without getting coming up to open sea to run its motor to recharge its batteries.

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 11 Sep 2009 22:17

kmkraoind wrote:I have a dumb question, just as air fueling system, is not possible to create an underwater charging cable system. Where a diesel based submarine comes to one of ship and gets hooked to a power cable and recharges its batteries and again disappear in sea.

The situation will be extremely useful in CBGs, where the silent diesel hunter killer submarine can recharge its batteries endlessly without getting coming up to open sea to run its motor to recharge its batteries.

Try plugging in a high wattage appliance under water and please post results of experiment...if you do post...the idea may be worth investigating further

kidding

but most importantly, both the ship and the sub would be sitting ducks at this pt, neither being able to maneuver...even if you overcame the obv electricity and water issue

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 11 Sep 2009 22:37

Super capacitors are going to revolutionize the world.And not to mention their foray into the defence market.

The Super capacitors at present can hold upto 5000farads with a maximum energy density of 400Wh/Kg and power density of over 10000W/Kg.Any further advancements can scale up their energy and power densities .In that case the will be surrounding around super capacitors.

Probably your dreams of underwater re-charging might come true in case of All-electric submarines.The charging of super capacitors takes only few seconds to minutes depending on thier energy densities and capacities.And a controlled discharge will let them survive underwater for extended periods.

By the way there are many ways to re-charge underwater.And its highly feasible.

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 11 Sep 2009 22:47

jaladipc wrote: By the way there are many ways to re-charge underwater.And its highly feasible.

Probably so, but to the best of my limited knowledge I don't know of one way either the ship or the sub could avoid being a sitting (floating in this case) duck

arun · Post by **arun** » 12 Sep 2009 16:05

Two GRSE built Water Jet propelled Fast Attack Craft (WJ-FAC) commissioned on Thursday Sept 10th into the Navy as INS Cora Divh and INS Cheriyam :

Indian Navy commissions hi-tech Fast Attack Craft

kit · Post by **kit** » 12 Sep 2009 16:24

the real threat to Gorky would be a saturation missile attack but then thats a risk all carriers face.Here the bigger you are the more likely you would survive with multiple hits and hit back.American carriers are built that way and future Indian carriers should be built of bigger displacement and have better protection and nuclear reactors.

govardhanks · Post by **govardhanks** » 12 Sep 2009 18:06

Its a question
" Do we have Fleet oilers? that replenishes other ships with food,ammo and other necessities while at sea. ".

I searched Indian navy web-
http://www.indiannavy.nic.in/ships.htm
not listed here can anybody please answer me...

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 12 Sep 2009 18:41

govardhanks wrote:Its a question
" Do we have Fleet oilers? that replenishes other ships with food,ammo and other necessities while at sea. ".

I searched Indian navy web-
http://www.indiannavy.nic.in/ships.htm
not listed here can anybody please answer me...

Did you read that whole page?

Fleet Tankers – Jyoti, Aditya, Shakti

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 12 Sep 2009 18:44

BTW all our SINDHUGHOSH CLASS of sub's have names starting with sindhu,

govardhanks · Post by **govardhanks** » 12 Sep 2009 19:55

krishnan wrote: Did you read that whole page?
Fleet Tankers – Jyoti, Aditya, Shakti

Ok sir i got it thanks

a_kumar · Post by **a_kumar** » 12 Sep 2009 21:21

Raveen wrote: Probably so, but to the best of my limited knowledge I don't know of one way either the ship or the sub could avoid being a sitting (floating in this case) duck

Do you think the subs are safe if they have to surface for recharging the batteries? And when charging with this "hypothetical" mechanism you criticize, why would it shut down SONAR and other warning mechanisms? And when danger is detected, do you think it would take hours to breakoff contact?

This itch to writeoff ideas just because one doen'st know how to use them or make them successful needs to be overcome!! If the idea is worth it, one has to find ways and strategies to work around its limitations.

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 12 Sep 2009 23:28

Have posted in my blog a short review of the Russian naval propulsion systems.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Sep 2009 09:25

Igorr,

Can you please email me at indicgroup at netscape . net?

TIA.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 13 Sep 2009 20:45

kmkraoind wrote:I have a dumb question, just as air fueling system, is not possible to create an underwater charging cable system. Where a diesel based submarine comes to one of ship and gets hooked to a power cable and recharges its batteries and again disappear in sea.

The situation will be extremely useful in CBGs, where the silent diesel hunter killer submarine can recharge its batteries endlessly without getting coming up to open sea to run its motor to recharge its batteries.

This seems very do able. But that would reveal the location of the sub, something which is not done.

K

PS There are no dumb questions, only dumb people. So let us not get sacred of asking ANY questions. After all we are a very friendly bunch of Indians though we talk of nuclear bombs ad guns and things like that all the time.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 13 Sep 2009 20:57

if the sub fails to rendezvous with the recharging ship then its dead. better to maintain an autonomous capability to recharge?

Bheem · Post by **Bheem** » 13 Sep 2009 21:34

Y. Kanan wrote:While the Gorshkov can dramatically increase its odds of survival by staying 500-800 miles from the Pakistani coast (assuming it's also protected by ASW helos and screening ships), this effectively cancels out most of its combat power. The Migs would be severely limited in what they can hit at that distance. Frankly they'd be better off relocating the Mig-29's and helicopters to airbases in Gujarat, where they could at least be used effectively. Which gets back to my original point about the Gorshkov being too lightly defended to be used in combat.

That $3 billion would have been more effectively spent on other things, assets that can actually be used in wartime (IMHO).

Gorky Migs will provide air cover to Ships (& subs being hunted by MPAs) and these ships / subs will go forward and fire clubs + brahmos with the aid of UAVs.

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 13 Sep 2009 22:08

NRao wrote:India pays USD 102 million to speed up refit of Gorshkov

The issue came up in the delegation level talks between President Pratibha Devisingh Patil and her Soviet counterpart on September 3, during her first state visit to the country.

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 13 Sep 2009 22:57

a_kumar wrote:
Raveen wrote: Probably so, but to the best of my limited knowledge I don't know of one way either the ship or the sub could avoid being a sitting (floating in this case) duck
Do you think the subs are safe if they have to surface for recharging the batteries? And when charging with this "hypothetical" mechanism you criticize, why would it shut down SONAR and other warning mechanisms? And when danger is detected, do you think it would take hours to breakoff contact?

This itch to writeoff ideas just because one doen'st know how to use them or make them successful needs to be overcome!! If the idea is worth it, one has to find ways and strategies to work around its limitations.

Kumar, please read what I wrote and point out where I "wrote off" anything...neither you nor I are in any capacity to write anything off
or to find ways to make it work, or test it or anything of that sort
.............................SELF - EDITED........................................
but most importantly the itch to preach needs to be overcome
take an idea and a counter idea for whats it worth...just a thought

koti · Post by **koti** » 13 Sep 2009 22:59

Y. Kanan wrote:While the Gorshkov can dramatically increase its odds of survival by staying 500-800 miles from the Pakistani coast (assuming it's also protected by ASW helos and screening ships), this effectively cancels out most of its combat power. The Migs would be severely limited in what they can hit at that distance. Frankly they'd be better off relocating the Mig-29's and helicopters to airbases in Gujarat, where they could at least be used effectively. Which gets back to my original point about the Gorshkov being too lightly defended to be used in combat.

That $3 billion would have been more effectively spent on other things, assets that can actually be used in wartime (IMHO).

I don't think so, an aircraft carrier is a definite force multiplier. We should see that the enemy should divert a considerable amount of their resources towards it. This opens up window for other vessels to act effectively. No ship(Non AC) or a small group of them can dare to come any near to it. It is equipped with a number of ASW assets that can check most of the sub surface threats.

Now, consider that few aircraft go on an attack on say karachi and continue to land in Gujarat. This dries up enormously the anti air assets of any city.

No tactical destroyers in service today can match up with the firepower, effective range and flexibility an AC(say gorky) can offer.

Gorky might not be the best of its class but is definitely the best the IN has to offer.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 13 Sep 2009 23:01

E-2D Hawkeye...did ya say'....Just what the good doctor ordered to be based and operated out of A&N Command....