Indian Naval Discussion

koti · Post by **koti** » 25 May 2012 17:16

@Phillip Noted.
But the IN's plans were drafted when PLAN had no visible intent of operating a carrier.
Now, the situation appears as if by the time IN will get its hands on IAC-2, a good decade plus later, we have a possibility that PLAN would have already fielded three carriers all of which will likely be heavier then all the the IN carriers respectively.
Since a four carrier IN is something we cant believe, I say Kitty in place of IAC2 will be a better thing for us.

John · Post by **John** » 25 May 2012 19:45

^ Since atleast 1996 there were reports of PLAN getting a carrier and rest of East Asian navies have more reasons to worry about Chinese carrier than IN (island disputes in South China sea). In any regional dispute in South Asia PLAN carrier will be of little use.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 26 May 2012 00:28

koti wrote:...
Since a four carrier IN is something we cant believe, I say Kitty in place of IAC2 will be a better thing for us.

The Kitty Hawk is more than 50 years old. It doesn't have any life left. The capex for operating and maintaining it would be huge as well. The idea is a non-starter.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 26 May 2012 01:00

Without atleast two high-availability CATOBARs, the PLAN carrier cannot yet be considered as an offensive platform. One does not hear anything on those lines yet, or USN would be the one who would be dropping articles all over the web on that. Defending a remote territory kind of role at this point, if one takes the PLAN seriously. Or pure H&D role, if one goes by the warm pontoons they keep moored around and call them SSBNs.

By IAC-2, if we go for a CATOBAR story (EMALS or anything else), then we signal a certain intent. 65K tons + catapults are a good size. But not right now.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 26 May 2012 01:46

Even the UK/RN has abandoned the cat version of the JSF and gone back to the STOVL version instead for many reasons.Cats are enormously expensive and require nuclear powerplants preferably.We do not need another 50 yr. old flat top which has no life left in it.Secondly,as far as the PLAN carrier threat is concerned,it does not possess a suitable naval aircraft for the Varyag,as it has only obtained an SU-33 from Ukraine illegally while the Russians ,p*ssed off,have refused to sell it its carrier aircraft,either MIG-29K or SU-33.The PLAN is trying to reverse engineer the SU-33 ,but thus far its aviation industry is heavily dependent upon the designs of Russian engines which it is illegally trying to reverse engineer.The problems it is facing with this line of action is why it is placing so much emphasis upon developing its own indigenous engine R&D set up and in such haste.

The IN has a head start in carrier ops and if it keeps its future plans on track, will still have an advantage over the PLAN as we move into the next decade. Once a nbaval version of the PAK-FA/FGFA appears ,our superiority in naval carrier aircraft will widen in relation to anything that the PLAN might possess.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 26 May 2012 02:11

Post WW2 Britain never was seriously into offensive Naval Air operations like the two super powers. France was a fence-sitter. Despite small sizes, both these guys have far flung islands that the cling on to, due to their colonial past. So their choices might be different from ours' or China's in the future

We got to be prepared for the day China operates at-least two CATS from a deck

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 26 May 2012 02:43

Even the UK/RN has abandoned the cat version of the JSF and gone back to the STOVL version instead for many reasons.

and the main one being they are a 2nd rate power riding the coattails of Khan and using the European links to take on what?? Argentina??

they barely got through that war with the poor Argentines isolated and betrayed.

other than that when any half rate power tells them to F#$% off they slink away ...

so all they need is to show they are the coalition of the willing and send 1 plane with 1000 khan planes and lap the glory from the idiot media

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 May 2012 03:47

Even the UK/RN has abandoned the cat version of the JSF and gone back to the STOVL version instead for many reasons.

[Ignore lists have a tremendous benefit.

]

However, Steam Cats are things of the past, now it is The Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (commonly EMALS).

EMALS has huge, huge, tremendous benefits (over the conventional Steam Cat). AND, the USN has actually launched an F-18, which means a ton for this new tech.

I have no clue (have not followed it) why the RN decided on what they are getting, but USN is clearly gravitating towards the EMALS.

On Kitty Hawk, it was a nothing more than a rumor, but,I still feel that India should have tried to "get it". India (not IN) needs to take some risks and that was a great time for India to do so. IMHO.

Nick_S · Post by **Nick_S** » 26 May 2012 07:04

NRao wrote: I have no clue (have not followed it) why the RN decided on what they are getting, but USN is clearly gravitating towards the EMALS.

It was due to cost. Modifications were going to end up costing UK another ~ $ 2 billion for the CATOBAR versions.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 May 2012 07:14

Nick_S wrote:
NRao wrote: I have no clue (have not followed it) why the RN decided on what they are getting, but USN is clearly gravitating towards the EMALS.
It was due to cost. Modifications were going to end up costing UK another ~ $ 2 billion for the CATOBAR versions.

Thanks.

So essentially they opted for the lesser of two risks: the one model that carries the highest risk.

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 26 May 2012 21:22

Tarkash steaming on sea trials

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 27 May 2012 07:44

Naik Sahab, I always wait for your posts. Thank you for your updates.

Between that is a very interesting picture. There is no wake whatsoever

.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 May 2012 08:23

treasure of pics!

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 27 May 2012 15:49

indranilroy wrote:Naik Sahab, I always wait for your posts. Thank you for your updates.

Between that is a very interesting picture. There is no wake whatsoever .

She's still in Pregol river, tugs have just disengaged

For sea trials she moves from the yard to Baltiysk naval base.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 May 2012 16:51

More out of curiosity than anything else, why is it that the Russian ship/s are so cluttered - say as compared to the French?

Could we expect the Russians to do a "better job" (I know it is a biased statement) in the next three? Or for that matter even the Indian designed ships to do better?

That mast looks ugly.

John · Post by **John** » 27 May 2012 19:25

^ You get what you pay for Krivak 3 where mainly designed to cheap mass produced frigates, the mast is simply a steel stand compare that with Steregushchiy. IN is happy with the design, I don't really expect any changes.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 27 May 2012 23:10

NRao wrote:why is it that the Russian ship/s are so cluttered - say as compared to the French?

Why is it that the American ship/s are so cluttered - say as compared to the Russians?

http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/ ... 72-267.jpg American ships's suffer from fungal infection with bridge and superstructure looking infected and cluttered with spores and mushrooms? Why so many wires all around that can electrocute sailors?

NRao wrote:That mast looks ugly.

http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/ ... 09-035.jpg This mast is uglier. This rickety and ramshackle mast looks shabbier than my village electricity distribution pole.

NRao wrote:Could we expect the Russians to do a "better job" (I know it is a biased statement) in the next three?

Could we expect the Americans to do a "better job" (I know it is an honest statement, given Zumwalt, LHD8, LCS failures) in the next class of ships?

But wait, isnt the next Zumwalt class terminated at 3 ships and are building more fungally infected ships of the Burke class.

Stupid Americans cant even design next class of ships!

Their new fancy frigates carry 57 mm gun and no missiles and are outgunned by Pakistani F22Ps.

NRao wrote:Or for that matter even the Indian designed ships to do better?

Why are American ships so top heavy and roll in rough weather
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1 ... 06,3134104

and are cracking worse than my village potter’s earthen pots http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/12/n ... s-120910w/

unlike the Indian ship with excellent seakeeping here http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Gall ... CN4713.JPG and here http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Gall ... SKochi.jpg

More than 3,000 cracks have been found so far across the entire Ticonderoga class, which originally numbered 27 ships. Twenty-two of the ships remain in service, and Port Royal, commissioned in 1994, is the newest.

Oh, wait, they build ships out of aluminum that Below Poverty Line people in India use pots and pans made of.

Get real, ships are designed for function and not "looks".

John wrote:^ You get what you pay for Krivak 3 where mainly designed to cheap mass produced frigates, the mast is simply a steel stand compare that with Steregushchiy. IN is happy with the design, I don't really expect any changes.

What has cost got anything to do with it? Its all about function. If the so called steel stand suffices, then why make something more complex? FWIW, the US invented ugly looking lattice mast http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice_mast to reduce top weight

The purpose of the lattice structure was to make the posts less vulnerable to shells from enemy ships, and to better absorb the recoil shock associated with firing main guns, isolating the delicate fire control equipment (rangefinders, etc) mounted on the mast tops. The masts are a type of hyperboloid structure, whose weight-saving design was first used by the Russian engineer Vladimir Shukhov.

Cheater Americans copying Russian technology. No wonder Chinese steal their's.

Will · Post by **Will** » 28 May 2012 02:38

NRao wrote:
Even the UK/RN has abandoned the cat version of the JSF and gone back to the STOVL version instead for many reasons.
[Ignore lists have a tremendous benefit. ]

However, Steam Cats are things of the past, now it is The Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (commonly EMALS).

EMALS has huge, huge, tremendous benefits (over the conventional Steam Cat). AND, the USN has actually launched an F-18, which means a ton for this new tech.

I have no clue (have not followed it) why the RN decided on what they are getting, but USN is clearly gravitating towards the EMALS.

On Kitty Hawk, it was a nothing more than a rumor, but,I still feel that India should have tried to "get it". India (not IN) needs to take some risks and that was a great time for India to do so. IMHO.

Can you even imagine the cost of trying to maintain and run that rust bucket?

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 28 May 2012 03:41

EMALS may not be an immediate option for IN:

"An electromagnetic system is more efficient, smaller, lighter, more powerful, and easier to control. Increased control means that EMALS will be able to launch both heavier and lighter aircraft than the steam catapult. Also, the use of a controlled force will reduce the stress on airframes, resulting in less maintenance and a longer lifetime for the airframe. Unfortunately the power limitations for the Nimitz class make the installation of the recently developed EMALS impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Gerald ... 8CVN-78%29

I have a suspicion that having more powerful reactors= more space = larger ships = 75KT + CVNs . I don't think there are any plans to have ships that large in the next 15-20 years.

I may be completely wrong but if the Nimitz class reactors could not hack EMALs, I doubt anything the IN has in the pipeline will be able to power them. Steam Catapults may be the only way to go.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 May 2012 08:35

John,

Thanks. Certainly satisfied my "curiosity".

TS,

I did mention "French", did I not? The US solution is as ugly, if not more.

In general, I was not complaining about "function", all of them produce wonderful techs and therefore should be "functional". My quarrel was/is with the "form".

Will,

True.

However, "risk" that I mentioned was more about ROI. What you have stated is the "investment" component. I am trying to relate the entire episode to the "return" and the ratio of the two. The size of the ship, three cats and four elevators, she would have provided a valuable testbed for some time.

But anyways, it was just a thought.

Cosmo_R,

True. India has a very long way to go, even if the US parts with that tech.

However, the EMALS is for an electric ship (office) - something the US is moving towards - do not know with these budget cuts where that dream stands.

The UK, I would think, would follow.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 May 2012 08:41

The RN's example is the best way forward.Either acquire the hideously expensive JSF in its STOVL version,or develop a STOBAR version of the PAK-FA/FGFA,which we are co-developing with Russia,expected to arrive late in the decade.Cats are not only too expensive for a navy like the RN,but require larger powerplants for the same.The whole cost of the carrier could go up a few billions.Our need is to have at least 3 new carriers in service at any time ,plus about 4 multi-role flat tops/ amphibious warfare vessels which can be used as ASW carriers in any crisis.Smaller sized carriers with UCAVs are going to look more attractive,especially as the loss of a carrier to an antiship BMD,such as the Chinese plan to do if threatened by US carriers,makes it a prohibitively expensive asset to lose.Carriers will hjave to be accompanied by cruiser class vessels armed with very capable anti-BMD missiles,perhaps like the SM-3s that the US plan to use to defeat incoming strategic BMs,plus a heavy load of LR naval SAMs and CIWS systems to defeat cruise and supersonic anti-ship missiles too.Operating 3 carrier task forces is going to be a hugely expensive affair,would require a massive boost to the naval share of the budget in a shrinking economy.

If the IN's task is more slanted to sea denial than sea control,outside the IOR theatre ,where the Indian landmass (our unsinkable "INS India") allows for LR maritime patrol aircraft (esp. if we acquire Backfires) which can be armed with LR missiles to sanitise the same,then acquiring a larger number of SSGNs and conventional AIP subs should be examined.At least 5-6 SSGNs would gviv the IN a considerable capability in the Indo-China Sea and Asia-Pacific theatres.This number would also be neccessary for supporting our carrier task forces too.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 May 2012 09:42

the french lafayette, FREMM and horizon class seem to be the cleanest big combatants around in terms of topsize clutter removal.

I did not know the Zumwalt class has been capped at a token 3? why? cost or technical problems or market changes?

wiki says cost had escalated to $5+ billion a unit, so from 32 down to 3.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 000%29.jpg

and all they get for this is 2 x 155mm guns...a WW2 , 8" gun cruiser could put down lot more rounds on target and cost a fraction. even if they want the gun turrets could modify some of the burke class, delete the Mk41 VLS cell aft and put in the gun there, likewise reduce the fwd mk1 array and replace the std 5" gun with the 155mm. lo and behold even older Burke class could get these 2 guns and fire much the same missiles like tomahawk and JASSM.

this ship was a pork barrel.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 28 May 2012 10:30

Tsarkar: the "clean look" requirement is more than just form/looks. Its for RCS reduction of stealth frigates. Going in the Lafayette direction for clean & radar deflecting shaping wouldnt be such a bad idea.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 May 2012 10:33

Zumwalt certainly is a ship which has true LO capability no hanging wires or HF antenna ...they went to extreme length to make it a clean design ship with all AESA antena for all purpose including communication, WoW ! Sadly its the cost which is a killer

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 May 2012 10:41

if it was meant to bombard china/russia/india from 100km away all that expense makes sense. but we all know its not for that. if its meant to bombard iran or libya or syria type targets, we all know such extreme measures were never needed. US air superiority guarantees a Iowa type battlewagon or a cheap gun cruiser will comfortably do the job....these ships will never need to operate alone.

to me it looks like a (big) solution looking for a problem. with no problem in sight, no surprise the 32->3 tokenism.

I dont see anyone beating up the GOTUS for such a misdirected project with no obvious role and wasting tens of billions on it. if the same thing had been done on a 1/10 basis in india people would be all over the GOI.

its a very large ship and conventionally powered, so no matter what the stealthy shaping, I suspect it will have a heat sig and RCS enough for ASMs and fighters to pick up.

a el-cheapo soln effective to 60-70km was readily available with the german Pzh2000 study on naval ships or the oto melara 127/64
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_61-52_MONARC.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNIT_5-64_LW.htm

if all they wanted was sustained fire support for marines storming ashore (where?) .... a cheaper DDG51 hull with 2 such turrets could pump out 1000s of rounds before needing a refill. the Mk41 VLS volume could be the shell magazines.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 28 May 2012 10:45

Of late the cost of US weapon systems is surprisingly too high. Take F22 and now this Zumwalt. It is just like expensive toys. They are going too far to create what they consider " unbeatable" and " most moderan" systems withlittle regard to the cost and later such systems get killed due to budgetary reasons. Take Seawolf also.

With present ecomonic conditions they have think cost factor also. But then the body bags will be an issue. Catch22 indeed.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 28 May 2012 10:49

Tumblehome hull has poor seakeeping. http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~mccue/paper ... stab07.pdf

Increasing wave heights, up to values of 1/10 wave steepness, lead to drastic reductions in the stability of the tumblehome topside hull form. For realistic loading conditions, even in steep waves, with large initial heel angles and roll rates, the flared topside had very few instance of capsize.

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/ ... 861393.pdf Read the abstract that says computer simulation did not detect instability but tank model tests showed extreme roll transients, proving computer simulation is not always accurate.

Singha wrote:the french lafayette, FREMM and horizon class seem to be the cleanest big combatants around in terms of topsize clutter removal.

The French FREMM has a single low capability radar http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/i ... ept_lg.jpg and the actual ship is quite cluttered compared to the CG designs. The Italian FREMM with a better capability radar has a cluttered topside http://digilander.libero.it/en_mezzi_mi ... remm02.jpg

Lafayette is a large Offshore Patrol Vessel, not a frigate.

John · Post by **John** » 28 May 2012 10:50

tsarkar wrote:What has cost got anything to do with it? Its all about function. If the so called steel stand suffices, then why make something more complex? FWIW, the US invented ugly looking lattice mast http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice_mast to reduce top weight

Not sure you understand what i said, if i recall correctly we turned down the original design proposed by Russia back in 1996? which was newly designed Frigate (had mast and few design elements similar to XXI Frigate design IIRC) on merits of cost. After couple years Russia countered with Talwar FFG at a much lower price. I am not saying than Talwar doesn't have different mast design because of cost reasons but rather we went with Talwar due to cost and other factors.

Delta Frigate aka Formidable class FFG IMO is probably best frigate design out there, not very expensive (< 500 million) and requires a crew of less than 100.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 28 May 2012 11:01

Prem Kumar wrote:Tsarkar: the "clean look" requirement is more than just form/looks. Its for RCS reduction of stealth frigates. Going in the Lafayette direction for clean & radar deflecting shaping wouldnt be such a bad idea.

Please explain stealth and RCS reduction. Also explain the means of RCS reduction.

Answering this will require a lot of research from your side, but it'll be time well spent.

John wrote:i recall correctly we turned down the original design proposed by Russia back in 1996? which was newly designed Frigate (had mast and few design elements similar to XXI Frigate design IIRC) on merits of cost.

That proposal was never considered. The design was unproven, hence risky, which was the primary rejection factor. Risky and new design requires extensive design and testing process, that also inflates cost, which is secondary. The Krivak design was chosen because of the proven hullform. Every IN selection - Leander, Kashin, Krivak and the derivative Godavari, Delhi and Shivalik - emphasized primarily on the hullform.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 May 2012 11:08

>> says computer simulation did not detect instability but tank model tests showed extreme roll transients, proving computer simulation is not always accurate.

on the surface, do submarines tend to experience more roll or pitch in heavy seas? the zumwalt hull being more like surfaced submarine might face similar pros and cons.
we all know the nose of albacore hull subs slopes down and is awash at any speed with a huge and wide bow wave washing over the front deck.

good point about the FREMMs rather threadbare weapons and sensor suite. and all CGs depicts a much cleaner ship than the real life.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 28 May 2012 11:36

^^
Yes, teardrop hulled submarines are optimized for undersea performance and are unstable on surface in rough seas. The bow & stern diving plane stabilizes submarines on surface against rolling in rough seas.

Submarines with planes on the sail like Arihant or US Los Angeles will have a tough time in rough seas on the surface, but these ships will submerge or surface only once during a patrol, and that too in calmer waters inside the harbour.

The bow & stern diving planes pitch the submarine up or down at an angle like an aeroplane whereas sail diving planes rise or sink the submarine on an even keel (fully horizontal) like a balloon/airship.

I understand for Arihant, keeping the submarine on an even keel at all times was a more important requirement than stability on the surface in rough weather.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 May 2012 12:19

I recall reading a old alistair mclean sea novel that said 'denny-brown' horizontal stabilizers on the bow of a ship could cut 25' off a 30' roll. needs some very solid old-school electro-hydraulic engineering probably vs the new fangled ipod driven UI stuff at the front end.

How do the stabilizers work?

Very effectively! The two pairs of Denny Brown stabilizers cut down rolling by 60%. They are controlled by a gyroscope which uses the effect of precession to generate an electrical impulse, this in turn controls a hydraulic pump that alters the angle of the fin, which is shaped much like an aeroplane's wing. The action of the water over the wing either provides "lift" or "dive" to counter the effects of bad weather. Each fin projects from the ship's side by 12' and is 6'wide.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 May 2012 13:58

says computer simulation did not detect instability but tank model tests showed extreme roll transients, proving computer simulation is not always accurate.

Or, more than likely, not a mature model. Either needs better algos or more calibration. ????

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 28 May 2012 14:45

tsarkar wrote:
Prem Kumar wrote:Tsarkar: the "clean look" requirement is more than just form/looks. Its for RCS reduction of stealth frigates. Going in the Lafayette direction for clean & radar deflecting shaping wouldnt be such a bad idea.
Please explain stealth and RCS reduction. Also explain the means of RCS reduction.

Answering this will require a lot of research from your side, but it'll be time well spent.

Not that much to search, actually, just a few pages back

http://www.indiandefencereview.com/spot ... rship.html

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 28 May 2012 15:43

Pics of Vik from February. Inside as well
https://picasaweb.google.com/1179903832 ... aditia_feb#

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 May 2012 15:56

SNaik wrote:Pics of Vik from February. Inside as well
https://picasaweb.google.com/1179903832 ... aditia_feb#

The quarters look pretty comfy, nice bunks etc.

Are these for officers?

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 28 May 2012 16:03

Sanku wrote:
SNaik wrote:Pics of Vik from February. Inside as well
https://picasaweb.google.com/1179903832 ... aditia_feb#
The quarters look pretty comfy, nice bunks etc.

Are these for officers?

Midshipmen.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 May 2012 16:17

SNaik wrote: Midshipmen.

Will Vikramaditya actually have midshipmen serving on board? My understanding was that the even the Ensign/2nd Lt/Pilot off rank was phased out in Indian forces. A officer is a Full Lt when he joins active duty at the end of training. And I do not expect trainees to be on Vick.

Maybe midshipman is a Russian concept as of now? What would be the equivalent in IN?

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 28 May 2012 16:21

The life of a Midshipman in the Indian Navy is very different from the days of old. The Snotty is now well on his way to becoming a full-fledged officer. It is customary for a Midshipman to develop his professional knowledge during this period, while exercising his wit and ingenuity whenever opportunity arises. Very little of his learning comes from classroom instructions. He is expected to observe and study for himself; and is given the opportunity to see every evolution and exercise in considerable detail. He has the liberty to make mistakes without having to pay for them.

The Indian Navy has experimented with various methods of bringing up Midshipmen. If they are all put together on a training ship, they live in the Midshipmen's Flat and mess in the gunroom. On the other hand, if they embark fleet ships, they mess in the wardroom with other officers, and live in what was traditionally called the 'cowshed': a cramped dormitory where they were expected to make place for themselves. With the improved living conditions on modern warships, the cowshed has now acquired the more prosaic name of JOM, an acronym for Junior Officers' Mess. At the end of their training, Midshipmen are examined by a board which clears successful 'Mids' for promotion to commissioned rank. The Midshipman deemed to possess the best Officer-Like-Qualities is awarded the Sword of Honour- the traditional symbol of an officer.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 May 2012 16:29

krishnan wrote:
The Indian Navy has experimented with various methods of bringing up Midshipmen. If they are all put together on a training ship, they live in the Midshipmen's Flat and mess in the gunroom. On the other hand, if they embark fleet ships, they mess in the wardroom with other officers, and live in what was traditionally called the 'cowshed': a cramped dormitory where they were expected to make place for themselves. With the improved living conditions on modern warships, the cowshed has now acquired the more prosaic name of JOM, an acronym for Junior Officers' Mess. At the end of their training, Midshipmen are examined by a board which clears successful 'Mids' for promotion to commissioned rank. The Midshipman deemed to possess the best Officer-Like-Qualities is awarded the Sword of Honour- the traditional symbol of an officer.

Yup, I saw it here,
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... y-rank.htm

But is this accurate? I am not aware of a Officer Cadet, either in IAF or IA actually serving with a operational unit. They have full commission by the time they leave their training establishments.

In fact, for all practical purposes, these days, their training continues in what are training institutes even after full commission.

So does navy take its Cadets on to fleet vessels before commissioning, that would be different from the other arms!!