Indian Naval Discussion

Avik · Post by **Avik** » 05 Aug 2010 07:09

Aha!!!...The moment I mentioned the Infantry Brigade, I was expecting a question from you...my fellow Orbat junkie

Thanks Guru! Didnt know the A&N bde was a mountain bde.

What Corps/ Divs do these two bdes come under?

Luxtor · Post by **Luxtor** » 05 Aug 2010 08:27

putnanja wrote:Top LCA-Navy Team In Russia For Talks

A high-level naval delegation from the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) – the government makers of India’s much-anticipated Light Combat Aircraft (LCA-Navy) – is currently in Russia for contract negotiations and issues related to the program’s shore-based test facility (SBTF).
...
...
“Building the SBTF in Goa is a huge technological challenge for ADA and the Indian Navy, and Russian help is critical. It will have to be an exact ship-on-the-shore facility based on India’s Indigenous Aircraft Carrier being built at Cochin Shipyard,” the official said. “The measurements are the same as IAC and it must have all equipment to simulate an aircraft carrier with ski-jump and arrested recovery. Hence, the current project review being undertaken with the Russians is crucial in many ways.”
...
...

So we're building the Indigenous Aircraft Carrier in India but we have to run to the Russians to build an IAC's replica on shore for training purposes? Hmmm... makes sense.

Building the training replica seems more complex than building the actual ship.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 05 Aug 2010 09:29

Avik wrote:
Aha!!!...The moment I mentioned the Infantry Brigade, I was expecting a question from you...my fellow Orbat junkie

Thanks Guru! Didnt know the A&N bde was a mountain bde.

What Corps/ Divs do these two bdes come under?

Ayyeooo...no guru please....only learner..

The (I) in 108(I) Mountain Brigade stands for Independent - which means a formation is under direct control of Corps or Command HQ. In this case, IMO, it will be under Southern Command. The one in Trivandrum is under 54 Infantry Division - which itself is under 21 Strike Corps.

Thomas Kolarek · Post by **Thomas Kolarek** » 05 Aug 2010 10:27

deleted.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 05 Aug 2010 10:53

this is the Indian Naval discussion thread, don't bother with TSP related stuff here.

SKrishna · Post by **SKrishna** » 05 Aug 2010 12:36

Luxtor wrote:
putnanja wrote:Top LCA-Navy Team In Russia For Talks

So we're building the Indigenous Aircraft Carrier in India but we have to run to the Russians to build an IAC's replica on shore for training purposes? Hmmm... makes sense. Building the training replica seems more complex than building the actual ship.

thats cause we dont have the tech for the arrestor mechanism plus the ruskies are probably the only ones who have experience with this sort of thing... (Mig 29K and Su-33)

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 05 Aug 2010 13:05

Luxtor wrote:So we're building the Indigenous Aircraft Carrier in India but we have to run to the Russians to build an IAC's replica on shore for training purposes? Hmmm... makes sense. Building the training replica seems more complex than building the actual ship.

it does, IFF you bothered to read up on it. the shore based facility is an exact replica of the one on vikramaditya which, if you remember, is being built at a russian yard.

vaibhav.n · Post by **vaibhav.n** » 05 Aug 2010 13:16

Rohit Saar, Is this because the 340th was shifted, but what's the prudence of bringing in a Mountain Bde...except to get them at Sea-level

..I do not think this is usual in terms of Bde's being shifted out of their AOR. Was the 340th brigade always mechanized, so the IA could have been tempted to shift a mech brigade to the plains.OT But, The Para Brigade (I) were also mechanised, are these assets retained within the brigade??

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 05 Aug 2010 13:43

No saar please...mucho embarassing....

340 Bde was raised as Amphib. Brigade but was later Mechanized...now it is a (I) Mechanized Brigade with 12 Corps. 108(I) Mountain Brigade has been in A&N for some time, though I cannot comment on when they shifted. As for shifting from AOR...no idea what their AOR was. May be, and this is wild guess....this was the only Brigade which IA could spare at the time of requirement of IA contribution for the A&N Command. As to why the Mountain modification is retained, god knows.

BTW, the new Amphib. bde has been excercising with BMP-II and my guess (based on the formation sign on those BMPs) is that these are integral to the Amphib. Bde units......as to what quantity/numbers per battalion, no idea.

About the Para battalions being mechanized, I really don't know....were Para Batalions mechanized and what was number of BMP per batallion?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Aug 2010 13:55

Given its size,perhaps the package fitted out in the MIG-21 Bison could've worked on the Sea Harrier.I wonder whether the IN examined that option also/evaluated it with the current Israeli package.In going for the MIG-29Ks,there could be some commonality of sensors,weaponry and other eqpt. between IN Fulcrums and IAF Fulcrums being upgraded.This would greatly assist logistics and suppliers of spares etc. locally.4 aircraft-MIG-21 Bison,Jaguar,Sea Harrier and the LCA could benefit if there was standardisation of eqpt.,using the best available ,as these aircraft are of similar size.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 05 Aug 2010 14:52

I think, Mig-29K and AG were not a done deal then.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 05 Aug 2010 18:33

News flash
Harriers in IN service is without a radar and Indian Navy not ready for war. Any comments? Not here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvJH2q5k5zc
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvJH2q5k5zc[/youtube]

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 05 Aug 2010 19:30

Philip wrote:Given its size,perhaps the package fitted out in the MIG-21 Bison could've worked on the Sea Harrier.I wonder whether the IN examined that option also/evaluated it with the current Israeli package.In going for the MIG-29Ks,there could be some commonality of sensors,weaponry and other eqpt. between IN Fulcrums and IAF Fulcrums being upgraded.This would greatly assist logistics and suppliers of spares etc. locally.4 aircraft-MIG-21 Bison,Jaguar,Sea Harrier and the LCA could benefit if there was standardisation of eqpt.,using the best available ,as these aircraft are of similar size.

Re the Harrier.

The nose cone had to be redesigned to accept the new radar.

IN tried hard and failed to get british aerospace to give us the gyan, malum or even the design data to redo the radar transparent nose.

If the nose cone had had been done indigenously, probably some LRDE version of SV 2000 would have been the cost effective way to go, given the small numbers of surviving Harriers.

The israelis offered to reverse engineer and redo the nose cone to fit their radar. The rest as they say is history.

BTW, the IN Fulcrums and IAF Fulcrums have very little in common.

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 05 Aug 2010 20:08

Mountain formations' TOE is ligher than a standard Infantry formation's, which in turn is lighter than a mechanized formation's. If you are not expecting to fight heavy tanks (as I presume they aren't in A&N), mountain formations are OK. Infantry formations are regularly deployed on mountains and vice versa, it is not supposed to be dogmatic - rather a way of allocating resources. The 50th Para (I) has never been mechanized; it is part of Army HQ's primary strategic mobility reserves - it has to be light, its only armor component is the PBG assets.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 05 Aug 2010 22:40

^^^Gracias, Senor....as for Mountain/Desert formations, these are all modification on the basic formation - for example, plain vanilla Infantry Regiment will give and take some equipment to operate optimally in the AOR. Example - earlier, Infantry Units in Mountains had a lower caliber RCL as compared to the 106mm operated by infantry batallions in the plains.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 06 Aug 2010 04:23

Innovative China eyes seas

n 2009, Chinese think tanks suggested that once China gets its own aircraft carrier by about 2015, the US Navy should “look after” the sea area east of Hawaii, while the Chinese Navy would “look after” the rest of the Pacific and Indian Ocean regions. Chinese investment in nuclear submarines too, will aid a “two ocean deployment capability” in the future.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 06 Aug 2010 04:37

This is akin to Kaiser asking for Germany's place under the sun.....

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 06 Aug 2010 09:50

So, PLAN with one Carrier should be given control of Pacific and USN with god-knows-how-many carriers should look east of Hawai? Wah.....Chinese seem to smoking something potent....

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 06 Aug 2010 10:23

rohitvats wrote:So, PLAN with one Carrier should be given control of Pacific and USN with god-knows-how-many carriers should look east of Hawai? Wah.....Chinese seem to smoking something potent....

Gotta admire the audacity though. The Audacity of hope, they must've learnt from Sri obama garu ji only.

In any case, fact of the matter is PLAN is closing the gap between itself and USN, so what if the gap is mile wide at present. IN 25 yrs, it will be only qtr mile wide.

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 06 Aug 2010 10:39

Remembering an Admiral

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 06 Aug 2010 11:57

Hari Seldon wrote:
rohitvats wrote:So, PLAN with one Carrier should be given control of Pacific and USN with god-knows-how-many carriers should look east of Hawai? Wah.....Chinese seem to smoking something potent....
Gotta admire the audacity though. The Audacity of hope, they must've learnt from Sri obama garu ji only.

In any case, fact of the matter is PLAN is closing the gap between itself and USN, so what if the gap is mile wide at present. IN 25 yrs, it will be only qtr mile wide.

I think we are missing something over here. China will not build a single aircraft carrier, they will build more than one. And the gap between PLAN and USN in 25 years will be nil. That is provided China is able to sustain its break neck economic growth.
The main point, where India is concerned, is that the admiral said west of Hawaii and INDIAN ocean would be spheres of Chinese influence, where USN ships need not come.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 06 Aug 2010 12:10

For all the usual Chinese talk of first doing and then talking, they seem to be getting a little ahead of themselves. Their carrier killer weapon is something someone else can develop and point at them, for what it's worth. No one is going to give them the space - they'll have to push their way in the hard way. The Pac/IOR junction has several natural choke points as well.

From an economic perspective, after the burst of economic development that takes a country from poverty to low-mid income zone, there's a massive 'wall' before they can continue growing, because their lower cost industries continuously loose cost competitiveness, and they still face massive pressures to maintain full employment, manage an ageing population and worker:dependency ratio, all of which means a linear progression either in their case or ours is not exactly an assured prediction.

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 06 Aug 2010 12:53

Suraj wrote:For all the usual Chinese talk of first doing and then talking, they seem to be getting a little ahead of themselves. Their carrier killer weapon is something someone else can develop and point at them, for what it's worth. No one is going to give them the space - they'll have to push their way in the hard way. The Pac/IOR junction has several natural choke points as well.

From an economic perspective, after the burst of economic development that takes a country from poverty to low-mid income zone, there's a massive 'wall' before they can continue growing, because their lower cost industries continuously loose cost competitiveness, and they still face massive pressures to maintain full employment, manage an ageing population and worker:dependency ratio, all of which means a linear progression either in their case or ours is not exactly an assured prediction.

I agree with you Suraj on both the points. From pacific to Indian Ocean there are a series of choke points, andaman-nicobar-ache (Indonesia), Lombok Strait, etc. If India wants it can easily cut off china's energy supply route to the persian gulf, by blockading these areas. China knows this. It also knows that it will be difficult for china to impose a similar blockade on India or break the blockade. This is one of the reasons, another being the predominance of US Navy, that china is building its strategic oil reserve, oil basing stations in pakistan, burma and sri lanka, etc.

While on the economic perspective, we are better off, as we have emphasized on building up our domestic market. China till date has followed the japanese/korean example of using exports to lift it self up. The problem is this, the world market is not big enough to lift 1 billion plus people out of poverty. China is going to have a big headache is trying to change its current orientation, from an export led growth to a domestic lead growth. The problem is that we are way behind the curve where china is concerned. Maybe this discussion ought to be in some other forum.

b_patel · Post by **b_patel** » 08 Aug 2010 08:55

Does anyone know if new P-15B destroyers' design has been finalized? Is there a picture of it? Also what will be the range of the improved Barak SAM? 100 km?? And will the Radar be the same? If anyone has any info i would appreciate it, Thanks!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Aug 2010 09:22

in general look one can expect a enlarged Shivalik class, with better electronics and more weapon cells. one does hope against hope that the RBU launchers will be hidden inside stealth turrets having sliding doors. and more conformal and multifunctional antenna designs. a light ASM fit of 8 cells but heavy barak-8 of 64-72 weapons and 32 barak-1 missiles + 6 ciws cannons (3 on each side). will need more than usual staff quarters and meeting rooms as each ship is likely to act as command flagship for task forces and might house a rear admiral and support staff for such missions.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 08 Aug 2010 10:14

Suman Sharma reporting that DAC has cleared purchase of 56 utility helicopters for IN at Rs 7k crores

DAC Clears Naval Utility Chopper Deal, RFP To Follow Soon

JimmyJ · Post by **JimmyJ** » 08 Aug 2010 10:57

Planning for Tomorrow’s Navy: Challenges in Retrospect

By Admiral Arun Prakash
Issue: Excerpt: From the Crow's Nest

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 08 Aug 2010 11:26

Lets hope that the naval Dhruv gets the call. for the Sea King replacement its time to launch a national project for a 10 ton helo. That can also be used as the basis for MCH. Just as the Dhruv acted as the basis for LCH.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Aug 2010 11:38

If I am not wrong the IN has already rejected the Naval Dhruv as not being suitable for Sea Ops. If Dhruv was what IN wanted they wouldn't have gone the RFP route.

The NH-90 should be a strong contender for the role.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 08 Aug 2010 12:39

The main problem that was plaguing the Dhruv were with the rotor folding mech. As per the previous discussion on this topic. I am sure that this can be resolved in a timely fashion if attempted by the HAL .

Finding frivolous reasons to buy imported stuff should be avoided.

Based on the report it is not obvious that a 10 ton helo is required. which is where the NH 90 fits.

nishu · Post by **nishu** » 08 Aug 2010 12:47

since

While the hull and even the propulsion machinery of a warship is meant to last for two or three decades, what naval planners dread most is the onset of obsolescence of weapon systems as soon as the ship is launched. This is a very real challenge because a ship may take anything between 6-8 years to construct (in Indian conditions), and since the imported weapons/sensors when nominated for fitment were already in service, they would be 10-15 years (or more) old by the time the ship becomes operational. Thus when the ship completes just half her life, the on-board systems are already over 25 years old and rapidly losing efficacy against contemporary threats.

The latest warship delivered to the navy, INS Beas, is stated to be 85 per cent indigenous in content and this is indeed heartening news. But we must face the stark reality that the remaining 15 per cent consists of weapons, sensors and combat management systems, which define the fighting potential of the ship. These systems not only constitute the most expensive component of a warship but, are also most susceptible to obsolescence and have so far remained beyond the capability of the Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) as well as the Defence Public Sector Undertakings (DPSU) to design or produce.

It is in a desperate effort to beat obsolescence that the Staff Qualitative Requirements (SQRs) are often pitched at levels considered ‘unrealistic’, and then not frozen till as late as possible. This has been termed as the classic struggle between what is termed the ‘good enough’ and the ‘best’.

i dont think we should get angry for armys gsqr for arjun, airforce gsqr for lca .

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Aug 2010 12:59

The Dhruv cannot fulfill the IN's requirements for the multi-role ASW platform to replace the Sea King.It is too a small and failed in shipboard trials for various reasons.However,the IN also needs replacements for the Chetaks/All-3s.Perhaps the figure cleared includes both types/classes.The NH-90 and Merlin will fight it out for the heavy role.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 08 Aug 2010 13:17

Philip,

The HAL LOH if approved can replace the chetak, moreover navies around the world are replacing their single engined machines with 2 engine machines Sea lynx being on notable example. Moreover the nation needs a 10 to helo project. Which can be used as a MIL 8 /17replacement as well.

Cause the NH 90/ Merlin fit in-the medium helo role. the domestic market is large enough to support the HAL projects but it is not large enough to support both the domestic and imported lines.

Its high time we move beyond ad hoc purchases and screw driver tech. If we are to move beyond the dependence on foreign maal. Unless an attempt is not made now we will continue to be dependent on foreign suppliers.

That is the Gist of what I am trying to say.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Aug 2010 14:03

I wonder what is being done to revamp and upgrade aerospace engineering programs around the country.

we cannot simply run aerospace and naval design as a feeder into...IIM/ISB/Gatech.

Pratik_S · Post by **Pratik_S** » 08 Aug 2010 14:41

putnanja wrote:Suman Sharma reporting that DAC has cleared purchase of 56 utility helicopters for IN at Rs 7k crores

DAC Clears Naval Utility Chopper Deal, RFP To Follow Soon

Tender pe tender, trails pe trails. India ends up buying less than it says.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Aug 2010 16:55

Pratyush wrote:The main problem that was plaguing the Dhruv were with the rotor folding mech. As per the previous discussion on this topic. I am sure that this can be resolved in a timely fashion if attempted by the HAL .

Finding frivolous reasons to buy imported stuff should be avoided.

Based on the report it is not obvious that a 10 ton helo is required. which is where the NH 90 fits.

Pratyush from what I could remember it is not just rotor issue but serious vibration problem , on sea endurance problem and couple others which the IN after adequate testing rejected the Naval Dhruv as unsuitable for Sea operation.

If the RFP has been issued it is with due consent from NHQ and MOD which makes me think that Dhruv was really not a choice.

I do agree that import should be avoided and may be they can re-look at Naval Dhruv

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 08 Aug 2010 18:37

its time for the forces and GOI to start getting other options for these helos etc

ie. private industry. cannot get single threaded with Govt agencies only this day and age.

so much money being thrown around - at least throw it in the right places

else kiss that regional power dream goodbye

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 08 Aug 2010 22:12

Sindhurakshak arrives at Severodvinsk

http://www.belomornews.ru/photogallery/ ... ndijjskaj/

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Aug 2010 22:17

Seems it got transported via that carrier ship , the Kilo looks in good condition.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 08 Aug 2010 22:39

Christopher Sidor wrote:I think we are missing something over here. China will not build a single aircraft carrier, they will build more than one. And the gap between PLAN and USN in 25 years will be nil. That is provided China is able to sustain its break neck economic growth.
The main point, where India is concerned, is that the admiral said west of Hawaii and INDIAN ocean would be spheres of Chinese influence, where USN ships need not come.

First some basics...
- PRC doesn't operate any ACs at present. Its first AC is expected in 2015. Even if it builds 1AC per year it will take another 10 years (2025) to match with current US power projection. Even to achieve this basic capability PRC has to grow at breakneck speed without breaking its neck.

- In the meantime, US already has 11 carriers in service and 1 under construction. If push comes to shove, US can build more AC than PRC at any point of time.

- By 2015-20, India will have three ACs in service - Vikramaditya, IAC 1 and IAC 2.

If PRC can comeup with this novel idea of AC-killer US and India too can come up with better AC-Killer missiles.