Indian Naval Discussion

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 22 Oct 2010 11:54

^^^ This is a joint development between the DRDO and the Isrealies. Also has been on going for some time.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Oct 2010 13:13

Look,most of a carrier is simply metal.It is a huge vessel with numerous decks meant to hold aircraft,helos,weaponry,crew,etc.The sensors,equipment and systems aboard can be standardised.It is not beyond examining the dsign to see where such standardisation can be made,IF we are interested.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 22 Oct 2010 13:39

The question that I have is, if one of the UQ flattops is going to be redundunt the moment it is commissioned. Then why allow it to be built & commissioned in the first place. Why not scrap it right now. Its not like a ship has never been sscraped on the ways.

Moreover, regardless of how good the design is, I am not in favour of acquiring it. I would rather have the IAC 2 built at Cochi, with Indian sweat and labour.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 22 Oct 2010 13:49

Philip wrote:Look,most of a carrier is simply metal.It is a huge vessel with numerous decks meant to hold aircraft,helos,weaponry,crew,etc.The sensors,equipment and systems aboard can be standardised.It is not beyond examining the dsign to see where such standardisation can be made,IF we are interested.

No Philip. I do not agree that a carrier is simply 60,000 T of steel. You have seen very many man-o-wars and you know how complicated / complex a ship can be.

Same for an aircraft or a tank.

Why just take your car. Is it just a few hundred kg of sheet metal ?

Integration of the systems is no joke. Just ask the Aussies Navy about Collins class.

Yes I am all for standardisation of sensors, weapons etc. But performing the basic design of a carrier is no joke.

Its a REAL credit to DGNP for designing all the P 15 A/B/C and P 17 A/B/C. I feel smaller the platform more the complexities. Its a credit that we have made a nuclear sub without going thru the pangs of making a conventional

Hence I do not see any harm in getting QE ??? or Rani Chellama or Rani of Jhansi. We will definitely learn a lot form the English.

K

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Oct 2010 13:52

UK obviously hopes to complete an austere hulk, find a buyer and recover some of the sunk cost. if they hulk it now, either they need to sell it for scrap or let it rust and occupy the dock. abut more importantly, the dockworkers completing it will get a continuous job completing this and then the next one modified for catapults.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Oct 2010 13:56

Prat,they have to complete it because enough money has been spent on it and it is under construction.They examined the prospect and found that it would be cheaper to build then scrap,amazing! Yes,let's wait and see as IAC-1 should be in the water and commissioned before the IAC-2 design is firmed up.If the QE deisgn them proves attractive,we should look for a bargain.Cochin can then start building some of the 4 amphibious ships required for which dsigns are being called for.

Kersi,yes,but when compared with smaller warships,the carrier has the maximum amount of metal and vast spaces.One can't say the same with a corvette of frigate,vessels which are very tight on space.It is the easiest type of warship to accomodate alternative eqpt.In fact we've done that with the Vikrant and Viraat,where Indian built radars and sensors have been installed and even Barak too.The beauty of the carrier is that it can accomodate/operate aircraft over decades,by simply changing them when newer more capable aircraft arrive!

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 22 Oct 2010 13:57

Kesri,

We need to move beyond the Idea of acquiring off the shelf solutions. If we have the ability of implimenting them at home. As of this moment we don know if the IN has finalised the design for the IAC2 and presented the same to the MOD for cabinet approval. If they do then there is no reason why we ought ot go for a UQ ship.

Also if they done then we can infer that their is no need for a 3rd fleet carrier. In which case it will be wasteful expenditure.

All I wish to say is that we wait for the IN to come out and say if they want a 3rd fleet flat top and by when they want it. If they want a 3rd fleet top and the cabinet in principle approves it. Then it must be a home made design. As the nation has already demonstrated it compitence of designing a ship of this nature.

Singha,

India must not be that buyer.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 22 Oct 2010 13:59

Philip,

I would rather spend money to build up Indian ship building industry. So let the amphibs be build by Pipav or the L&T yards if it comes to that. If yard space is a concern

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 22 Oct 2010 16:15

Hmm,
is it me or does it seem that the French are offering Nuclear Submarines to India? Those statements form their navy chief sure suggests it.

The Brazilians are getting the scorpenes and a Rubis class N sub.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 22 Oct 2010 16:19

Gagan,

What I have understood form the rumors floatinf about the on net is that the propulsion for the boat will be Brazilian.

No way to substantiate it short of being a fly on the wall when the discussions are taking place.

JMT

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 22 Oct 2010 16:21

SriSri wrote:Cochin Shipyard to Develop 20 Fast Patrol Vessels for Coast Guard

Small coast guard vessels, LCUs etc are usually made at Goa. Looks like GSL has its hands full so that this is going to Cochin.

MoD can atleast start by giving out coast guard and smaller vessel contracts to the private yards. But going by the capacity that L&T and Pipvav are laying down, their intention is to go for the big guns from the word go.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 22 Oct 2010 16:25

Pratyush wrote:Gagan,

What I have understood form the rumors floatinf about the on net is that the propulsion for the boat will be Brazilian.

But I don't think that the Brazilians will be able to build a naval reactor without extensive hand holding by the french. When a country like India which had been operating one and a half dozen nuclear power plants for decades had to go through all that trouble to build a navalized n reactor, how good are brazil's chances to acheiving that all alone?

Brazil might not be under the same kind of tech denials as India was, but as an example, India did develop a hugely successful space program didn't it? And when lula da-silva was here, there was talk of cooperation in space launchers with India.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Oct 2010 17:50

Second Akula 2 is coming

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 22 Oct 2010 18:06

When and which one sir-ji?
Not the Gepard?
There were 4 unfinished hulls at Komsomolsk-na-amur, one became the Nerpa-INS Chakra.

That leaves three unfinished hulls still there.

Did India pay for those 4 hulls to be completed and be leased to IN? IIRC you did talk of upto 4 akulas being on a rotating lease of two for IN service.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Oct 2010 18:56

afaik brazil also has a fairly good domestic nuclear power industry and no lack of uranium. long back someone was saying some indians from ex-barc/dae also have emigrated to work there. rumours speak of them having SSN projects and plans since early 80s.

as we can see with embraer they are quite good when they need to be.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Oct 2010 19:28

Gagan Sir , All good questions but I promised not to spill the bean , wait for another day and you will find about it in latest issue of India Today which should hit the stand by tomorrow, plus interesting stuff on C-17

SriSri · Post by **SriSri** » 22 Oct 2010 20:02

Not good Austin Ji. You shouldn't have teased fellow BRfites.

sum · Post by **sum** » 22 Oct 2010 20:49

Goddammit....Now Austin-ji is luring unsuspecting BRFites into his web by stating a tantalising statement and then promptly quoting the OSA to prevent further info leaks!!!

The suspense about the second Akula is killing ( not as much as the delays for the 1st Akula-2 to finally land in Desh though)

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 22 Oct 2010 20:57

Hi Austin, is your impression that the upcoming India Today article speculative or do they have any 'real' sources.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 22 Oct 2010 21:05

Austin wrote:Gagan Sir , All good questions but I promised not to spill the bean , wait for another day and you will find about it in latest issue of India Today which should hit the stand by tomorrow, plus interesting stuff on C-17

Hey Austin, are you the sales manager for Indian Today ?!?!?!?!

Kersi

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 22 Oct 2010 21:10

sandeep unnithan ?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Oct 2010 21:26

Rahul right its sandeep writeup
Kersi no I have not changed my job yet and before the obvious next question pops up
I have no connection with russian or any arms dealer

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 22 Oct 2010 21:28

Austin wrote:Rahul right its sandeep writeup
Kersi no I have not changed my job yet and before the obvious next question pops up
I have no connection with russian or any arms dealer

I too would not like to be arms dealer. I would prefer to be a legs dealer.

K

PS Do no read between the lines, no pun intended!!

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 22 Oct 2010 23:08

Where then is Akula - 1? When is Akula-2 to be delivered? Next year - ref the news in the media that Akula-1 will be delivered next march after user trials seemed to have been completed for it? Can it be that the IN and Russia have used that announcement to lay a smokescreen for delivering the second Akula?

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 22 Oct 2010 23:29

Vivek K wrote:Where then is Akula - 1? When is Akula-2 to be delivered? Next year - ref the news in the media that Akula-1 will be delivered next march after user trials seemed to have been completed for it? Can it be that the IN and Russia have used that announcement to lay a smokescreen for delivering the second Akula?

It's more likely to be a smokescreen for not delivering the first Akula...

Anoop. A. · Post by **Anoop. A.** » 23 Oct 2010 02:08

Pratyush wrote:Kesri,

We need to move beyond the Idea of acquiring off the shelf solutions. If we have the ability of implimenting them at home. As of this moment we don know if the IN has finalised the design for the IAC2 and presented the same to the MOD for cabinet approval. If they do then there is no reason why we ought ot go for a UQ ship.

Also if they done then we can infer that their is no need for a 3rd fleet carrier. In which case it will be wasteful expenditure.

All I wish to say is that we wait for the IN to come out and say if they want a 3rd fleet flat top and by when they want it. If they want a 3rd fleet top and the cabinet in principle approves it. Then it must be a home made design. As the nation has already demonstrated it compitence of designing a ship of this nature.

Singha,

India must not be that buyer.

How about we acquire QE2 in a condition similar to Varyag (minus the rusty state ofcourse), hull + main engines.........this would allow for a cheaper solution (lots of bargaining leverage since weapons+sensors+aircrafts make up more than half of the ships cost) and then we can install weapons and sensors similar to IAC 1/Vikrant. This leads to a cheaper, faster and has more similar operational systems.

Anoop. A. · Post by **Anoop. A.** » 23 Oct 2010 02:15

We can actually make this hull our IAC 2, since the overall size requirement of our second carrier seems to be very similar to QE 2. Indian shipyards and work force can be used for weapons fit out and sea trials, if the hull is brought to india directly after launch.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 23 Oct 2010 02:30

and why on earth would we want to buy a hugely pricey aircraft carrier with completely different standards when we can make our own at a lower price ? the IN has no pressing need to buy a carrier at the moment.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 23 Oct 2010 07:40

Rahul M wrote:and why on earth would we want to buy a hugely pricey aircraft carrier with completely different standards when we can make our own at a lower price ? the IN has no pressing need to buy a carrier at the moment.

Depends on the price really. The British are apparently in a pickle because cancelling the ship will end up costing more than the ship, due to the way the contracts were drawn (I'm assuming that refers to heavy penalty clauses).

If we can get it for £2 billion($3 billion) or less(incl. everything except aircraft), it'll be a good buy, especially if you consider the fact that the INS Vikramaditya at 40kt put the exchequer back by $2.3 billion.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 23 Oct 2010 07:43

What the IN needs now is a good submarine force, nuclear and conventional. With Vik, IAC1 and later IAC2, we have the carrier needs covered. No point in spending billions of pounds on assets the IN will rarely need.

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 23 Oct 2010 08:47

Noob question, but can we lease the QE2 instead of buying it? Great for experience, even if it never sees combat - and in any case we'd have our three carriers till the IAC-2 comes in.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Oct 2010 08:52

all our own carriers will have Ski jumps and the QE2 rendering do not show any. the comms eqpt would need to be fitted per our needs. self defence eqpt per our needs.

unlike selecting the JF17 for our MRCA, this would not be a plug n play solution.

and there is no point in a 60,000t helicopter carrier without LPD and marine infantry facilities...we'd go bankrupt funding the helicopters needed to fill her out...to not much end at all.

RN knows the 60kt helicopter carrier bit is just H&D fig leaf. it will never do a operational patrol outside home waters and fleet reviews.

in a decade I expect to see RN left with 3 SSN and 2 SSBN with the rest mothballed or retired for cost reason. by 2025 inshallah we shall have a bigger nuclear submarine force than RN and FrN and never look back thereafter. our eco will also be bigger whether measured in pakistani rials , indian rupee or amarican dallah.

the time is ripe for great change... I can feel it in the sea air...

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 23 Oct 2010 10:33

Singha wrote: unlike selecting the JF17 for our MRCA, this would not be a plug n play solution.

what?

and i don't think this is a helicopter-only carrier, is it? if it's a CATOBAR carrier, can we not use Harriers or the MiG-29Ks on it? (I have to admit some ignorance here - I don't know how extensive the modifications would be to allow a jet to use the steam catapult). And yes, communications equipment etc would mean modifications to the QE2, but surely that's easiest done while the ship is still under construction? And even with a delay of, say, 2 years, we'd still be better off than we are now with one ageing carrier and one still being made?

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 23 Oct 2010 10:36

anyway, it's idle, wishful thinking. if we don't NEED it, then we don't. IMHO, i don't see the harm in buying off the shelf to augment/fill in gaps while simultaneously developing our own capabilities. but that's me, i like to hedge bets - and supposing the IAC or IAC-2's story turns into an LCA/Arjun one, or it simply turns out more complex than we'd thought and gets delayed, we're talking deep doodoo time.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Oct 2010 14:16

from media reports - the QE2 will not have catapults , not sure if they were ever intended for the VSTOL JSF originally intended, but now the plan is not to have them for sure.
2nd ship will get the powerful catapults needed to loft the USN version of JSF.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 23 Oct 2010 14:49

Guys,

Could we please get real and discuss death star or the star destroyer for the fleet.

JMT

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 23 Oct 2010 15:51

Has the India Today hit the stands yet?

Anyone in Dilli or Mumbai please scan the relevant article and post here.

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 23 Oct 2010 16:14

Singha,
If the QE2 isn't CATOBAR, the point is moot: if the QE2 was meant for STOL or STOVL aircraft only, then surely our Harriers at least can use it. My argument, really, is to have more than the minimum required: if the IN plans to have one carrier in the Arabian Sea, one in the BoB and one undergoing overhauls for a good portion of the time, what does that leave us in case of overseas engagements?

Another solution (and one I think is more urgent than looking for new full-size carriers) is 'pocket carriers', able to handle a small bunch of STOVL/VTOL jets and helicopters, both for fleet defence without needing a full carrier, and for amphibious assault. Some littoral-water ability as well, I'd imagine, for operating in the S-E Asian archipelagos. I belive some of the newer Japanese and Korean destroyers can handle something like that as well, but I'm talking a slightly larger scale (10-18,000 tonnes). And along with that the accelerated development of a proper Marine Corps.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Oct 2010 17:52

Look,Indian yards cannot cope with the orders that they already have which is why the second lot of Talwars and large auxiliaries are being built in Russia and in Italy.Now just examine this list.IAC x 2,P-15A/Bs x 6+,Shivaliks x 7,P-28s x 8/10,amphibious vessels x 4.Plus an assortment of smaller craft like minesweepers,patrol craft,missile craft,AOPVs,landing craft,large auxiliaries,etc.WE'll leave out the subs as they have their own specialised sub-building facilities.

Now if you examine the orders,one will find that large specialised auxiliaries are/have being built abroad, and that we have limited capability in building large vessels like carriers,amphibious ships,etc.I would suggest that we build the 3 or 4 amphibs (unless we pick up a bargain fopr the "pocket carrier/amphib/ASW flat top,the Ark Royal and its huge qty. of Harriers on the cheap) at home after finalising on the design (Juan Carlos/Mistral/Dodko,whatever) and use our major yards like MD,GR,Vizag and Goa,for the surface warships from dstroyer size downwards.MD has said that it lacks the space to assemble modular sections and is acquiring a commercial yard in Bombay.So we see that there is a large problem in our capacity and to build them on time.Only Cochin can build carriers and after IAC-1 is launched,will be free for the amphibious warships.Where will they be built if larger than 20,000t? Only Vizag will be able to build them and it is the hub of the N-sub building activity.The second UK carrier should be examined -no harm lost.At least we will be able to examine the design minutely,which should give us some key inputs if we are going in for a larger second carrier after IAC-1!

PS:With news of the second Akula also in the pipeline,here's a report on a cheeky Russian Akula playing " hide and seek"with the RN,even as HMS Astute has run aground off the isle of Skye.Having been to Skye and enjoyed the following on the water,I'm sure though that the Astute's submariners have actually engineered this event and have been secretly loading cases of Skye's best known export,Talisker Single Malt,which is the key component of India's most popular blend of Scotch Black Label!

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... coast.html

nishu · Post by **nishu** » 23 Oct 2010 18:21

O.T

A small gift to BR a great read for all .
http://hotfile.com/dl/56399975/2b721c4/ ... t.pdf.html

A massive pdf on Submarine Design and Development by norman friedman .
just enjoy yourselfs