Indian Naval Discussion

Marut · Post by **Marut** » 18 Jun 2011 15:02

The Siberian Winter has begun its march onto Indian Plains...

Akula, Gorshkov, aircraft spares, ToT issues, FGFA, MTA etc - we better stock up on warm clothing to sustain a long cold winter

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Jun 2011 15:51

thinking about IL76 what would be two areas needing a steady supply of spares - engines and tyres strike me as top2, followed by perhaps hydraulic parts for the moving surfaces and ramps.
the plane is fairly austere in avionics and analog instruments are reliable. anything major in airframe we do not undertake - plane is flown back to factory for it.

so I guess the pipeline of tyres and D-30 engine parts has dried up. (we heard the su30mki tyre situation is also not good).

btw as a side note, the difference between western tech and russian tech in engine materials can be seen in following comparison.
the three engine D-30F6 (Mig31), F119 (F22), F136 (JSF) have comparable dry and wet thrust of 20,000lb and 35000lb.

the D30 weighs in at 2300kg while the other two weigh 1700kg - a clear 25% lighter (600kg) per engine.

the F119 family is likely more fuel efficient too and longer MTBO.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 18 Jun 2011 16:15

Singha,

Nitpiking onlee, but the 119 is a generation younger then the D30F6. So the comparison is not valid. We need to compare the Khan maal with the full spec Al41. If we are to see what the Rusi state of the art is in terms of the injun development.

PS: the same will have to be seen for the K9/10 as well in order to see where the SDRE stand WRT, both Rus and Khans.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Jun 2011 16:18

well the F119 engine entered service in 1990 itself when the F22 prototype first flew. so it must have been developed from early 1980s. granted the D30 would have started a decade earlier than that given the foxhound was there in early 80s.

the F136 is a decade more advanced than F119, so best checkpoint for comparing to the 117-ultimate edition the pakfa is using now.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 18 Jun 2011 16:21

Well, DTI reported many months ago that India was looking for an unconventionally large conventional design for the second line of subs. they(DTI) were the only ones to do it.

Now we know DCNS has unveiled a model of the SMX-25 a rather largish diesel-electric with a significant VLS missile firing capability of the kind that some commentators have considered important for the second line of subs.

SMX-25

I wonder if the French are pitching this?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Jun 2011 16:26

french are also working with brazil to integrated a small SSN Rubis class n-reactor into a brazilian SSN design...

smx25 idea is d.o.a - too less survivable wen every dog in the fight has sharp ears....

imo will be jmsdf soryu mki size 4500t with 8x uvls for bhmos and nirbhay and 30x exocet/hwt

kit · Post by **kit** » 18 Jun 2011 16:34

correct a large sub mki sed., carrying a ****load of weapons and advanced sensors possibly with an israeli optoelectronics mast ala virginia class subs

kit · Post by **kit** » 18 Jun 2011 16:44

can a shourya or a Agni be made into a carrier killing missile for the forthcoming chinese aircraft carrier

just like the shashoijan ? ... i am supposing the chinese missile tech is workable.

VKumar · Post by **VKumar** » 18 Jun 2011 17:18

deleted as it is covered in anti-piracy.

arun · Post by **arun** » 19 Jun 2011 08:36

The Indian Coast Guard commissions the ABG Shipyard built aluminium hulled Interceptor Boat IC-152:

To step up surveillance, an interceptor boat inducted at Okha

Here is a picture of IC-152 at sea via Ms. Suman Sharma’s Chindits weblog:

Click

wig · Post by **wig** » 19 Jun 2011 11:00

Gorshkov to start sea trials by Nov; and, Delivery of the warship as per schedule in Dec 2012

India and Russia ended their high-level defence cooperation meeting at Moscow late on Thursday with Russia assuring that the sea-based aircraft carrier, Admiral Gorshkov will start sea trials off the Russian coast by November this year. Delivery of the ship to India will be as per schedule in December 2012.

The 45,000 tonne, 283-metre aircraft carrier will fly the naval version of the MiG 29 off its deck. The fighters are already in India and based at Goa. At present, the Indian Navy has one aircraft carrier, the INS Viraat and is building one of its own at Kochi that is to be named INS Vikrant. The development of an craft carrier is crucial as China is set to launch its first-ever such ship which is also a old Russian carrier being re-fitted.

Sources said the Indian Defence Ministry team led by Defence Secretary Pradeep Kumar visited the ship yard at Sevmash in North-Western Russia to see the development. Gorshkov is being re-fitted as per the Indian requirements. Teams at the shipyard are working overtime and around the clock to meet the schedule. The cost escalation and delay in the ship had caused a strain on the 50-year-old Indo-Russian ties. It needed the intervention of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev who himself took care that all contracts are signed.

Meanwhile, a section of the Indian delegation was also shown a test flight of the fifth generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) that the two countries are co-developing. The development of design alone will cost close to $ 6 billion.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/20110619/nation.htm#9

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 19 Jun 2011 16:09

India Issues RFI for Multi-Role Naval Helicopters

India Issues RFI for Multi-Role Naval Helicopters
By Greg Waldron
Date : 17/06/11

India has issued a request for information for a naval multi-role helicopter (NMRH) to complement its existing fleet of Westland Sea King 42 anti-submarine warfare (ASW) helicopters.

The RFI calls for helicopters with a Maximum All-Up Weight of between 9T and 12.5T.

The NMRH, which will be expected to serve for 30 years, should have the capacity for 10% weight growth throughout its service life without hurting performance.

The navy foresees three primary roles: ASW, anti-surface warfare (ASuW), and special operations. Secondary roles include electronic intelligence, search and rescue (SAR), external cargo carrying, casualty evacuation and combat SAR.

Candidate helicopters must be able to operate from ships as small as the navy's Godavari-class frigates. They also need to be able to fit in shipboard hangars with a length of 15.5m (50.8ft), a width of 5.5m and a height of 5.3m.

"The NMRH should be a contemporary design with modern, reliable and fuel-efficient engines and fully integrated advanced avionics/weapons suite employing the latest concepts for detection, identification, classification of surface and sub-surface targets along with the ability to detect air targets," the RFI said.

It also outlines performance requirements for two variants: one focused on ASW/ASuW and the other for special operations.

For the former variant, India seeks an aircraft that can autonomously locate and destroy submarines, compile an integrated picture of the situation above and below the surface, and operate in all weather conditions.

The special operations variant needs the capability to carry unguided rockets and guns.

Possible candidates for the requirement could include the Lockheed Martin/Sikorsky MH-60R and NH Industries' NH90. The deal will require a minimum 30% offset obligation under Indian laws.

arun · Post by **arun** » 20 Jun 2011 07:02

^^^ The “Official” RFI for the Naval MultiRole Helicopters :

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION FOR PROCUREMENT OF NAVAL MULTI ROLE HELICOPTERS

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Jun 2011 08:57

Greece is in acute financial crisis.Demnds that Greece goes bankrupt leaves the Eurozone are growing amongst EU politicos.Grat time to pick up at a bargain Greece's AIP U-214s which it cetainly will not be able to pay for.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Jun 2011 09:27

they have a juicy number of F-solahs too. pakis will surely be sniffing around already.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Jun 2011 10:55

Germany has vetoed Pak acquiring German U-boats.I doubt Greece will part with solahs as they need them to deter Turkey.

Marut · Post by **Marut** » 20 Jun 2011 12:34

^^ Greeks had a lot of problems with the U-214s. The first sub was lying in the dry docks for long before being accepted.
We should thoroughly inspect and evaluate the subs, if we have any intention of purchasing them. Can't have another Gorky with lack of drawings and underestimated length of cabling.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Jun 2011 14:34

makes sense only if we order our fabled second line of subs as U214. instead of manufacturer supplying the first two as is common in such deals, we could get the Greek ones asap and begin training and operational procedures while HDW built maybe one and 2nd line got established in India.

but they really have no particular advantages for a Scorpene. too much in common. just one extra headache for the same type of bang.

Soryu mki would be a worthwhile fruit to shoot for.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 20 Jun 2011 14:40

Singha wrote:makes sense only if we order our fabled second line of subs as U214. instead of manufacturer supplying the first two as is common in such deals, we could get the Greek ones asap and begin training and operational procedures while HDW built maybe one and 2nd line got established in India.

but they really have no particular advantages for a Scorpene. too much in common. just one extra headache for the same type of bang.

Soryu mki would be a worthwhile fruit to shoot for.

The greek u214s are meant for different waters and a different threat perception.

We have already paid a big price for the poor air conditionong in our kilos. The foxtrots air conditioning was customized for tropical waters just for us, which the ruskies refused to do with the kilos.

Habitability becomes a great issue. Not to mention weapon & sensor re fitment

Marut · Post by **Marut** » 20 Jun 2011 16:02

Singha,
wrt to Greek U214s, there were some fundamental issues with AIP and also the surface sea-keeping abilities and such things, the sub couldn't maintain its level or rolled excessively, etc. These things took a long time to be sorted out by germans over many rounds of back & forth with the greeks.
A full review of the design by our own experts, IN DND & others, should be a pre-requisite before we even think of acquiring them. ThyseenKrupp should provide all the drawings and design data for this effort. If TKM acts smart, they can go fish somewhere else. I don't want us to be saddled with something that was flawed to begin with and has been corrected with innumerable band aids. The long term consequences will be very detrimental with such an approach to design.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Jun 2011 16:41

imo if the scorpene #1 works out in sea trials its better to plan to pay DCN to come up with a large scorpene design (perhaps with a small desi n-reactor to run the AIP system) than go with something entirely new species like HDW.

Spain will take delivery of S80A (30% larger than scorpene) in 2013. the article says its a very different sub from scorpene under the hood and more attack oriented
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6714797/S80A

John · Post by **John** » 20 Jun 2011 16:59

Singha wrote:imo if the scorpene #1 works out in sea trials its better to plan to pay DCN to come up with a large scorpene design (perhaps with a small desi n-reactor to run the AIP system) than go with something entirely new species like HDW.

Spain will take delivery of S80A (30% larger than scorpene) in 2013. the article says its a very different sub from scorpene under the hood and more attack oriented
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6714797/S80A

Nuclear reactor is not something that can be turned on-off to serve as an AIP system besides the big advantage the diseal subs have over their nuclear counterparts is that they can run on batteries where as reactor has to run constantly (noise). Once we induct Arihant we will have to evaluate whether it is worth procure scorpenes' which cost as much as SSN or increase the number of nuclear submarines.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Jun 2011 17:01

^^ why would you need AIP if you have nuke ?

John, not sure why nuke subs can't be made to run on batteries for limited time periods. could you explain ?

John · Post by **John** » 20 Jun 2011 17:11

Rahul M wrote:^^ why would you need AIP if you have nuke ?

John, not sure why nuke subs can't be made to run on batteries for limited time periods. could you explain ?

Nuclear subs do have diesel generators to serve as back up/emergency (they can provide cooling when reactor fails) they can be fitted with a battery but even when running in another power source the reactor will have to be kept cool. So there is no real advantage in it.

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 20 Jun 2011 17:45

Rahul M wrote:^^ why would you need AIP if you have nuke ?

Well- there is room for conventional subs that even USN is recognizing after going all nuke- littoral & shallow waters, and they are simply quieter.

Rahul M wrote: John, not sure why nuke subs can't be made to run on batteries for limited time periods. could you explain ?

What John said, the noisy cooling pumps simply can't be turned off, and e.g. in the type 212 German conventional subs, it runs on fuel cells, which have no moving parts, are virtually free of vibrations and are pretty much undetectable.

Of course nuke still has its place for sheer endurance and firepower. But subs will only get more important as time goes on & conventional subs have an edge in some very important sea lanes as the world's focus shifts from Atlantic/Pacific to Indian Ocean, South China Sea etc.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 20 Jun 2011 18:27

Rahul M wrote:^^ why would you need AIP if you have nuke ?

John, not sure why nuke subs can't be made to run on batteries for limited time periods. could you explain ?

Very complicated situation saar.

Nuke requires a largish amount of power for the reactor as well for as it's own as well as the nuke's safety services.

Limited battery power will not hack it. If the reactor is unable to start up again, sub + crew will be war memorial situation.

Even quietly running nuke on low power has a largish noise signature.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Jun 2011 18:53

I was replying to singha ji's post about nuke driving AIP. should have been clearer.

viz.
>> (perhaps with a small desi n-reactor to run the AIP system)

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 20 Jun 2011 19:13

This may sound strange, impractica and far fetched, but I have an idea about a AIP solution. I am spelling it out here, please humour me on this.

Current AIP solutions are fuel cell or Stirling engine based. Now this idea is around stirling engine.
Please see the following image http://rickpdx.files.wordpress.com/2011 ... engine.gif . Now as you see the main drive is provided by a temperature difference between the ends of the cylinder enclosing the expandable gas. Now in case of a submarine, there is a temperature difference between the outside and the inside. So the outside surface of hull would be at a different temperature than the inside surface. Can this temperature difference be used to run small stirling engine. Small stirling engines have been demoed to run just using the temperature difference of our hand and air ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srO97iZd9LY ) . Now these are very small engines and can be used for producing very small currents. But a large array of such engines on the inside surface of a sub, maybe used to produce electricity to charge the batteries. Can they top up the batteries completely. Maybe not. can they produce enough to increase the submerged period. Maybe yes. In this case we need not carry any separate liquid oxygen, ethanol/hydrogen etc. Use the heat energy of the ocean.

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 20 Jun 2011 19:17

Just a thought

I am visualizing a scenario where India has Aircraft carrier, supply ship & Submarine tender which are nuke powered. Also we have some patrol subs running on AIP with backup diesel generators. In this scenario, can the subs battery recharged by connecting to AC or Supply Ship or Submarine tender? By this, subs need not use the diesel generators at all and need not be nuke powered and thus increasing safety and stealth

We can have separte nuke subs for strategic purposes

Is this possible?

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 20 Jun 2011 19:36

bmallick wrote:This may sound strange, impractica and far fetched, but I have an idea about a AIP solution. I am spelling it out here, please humour me on this.

Current AIP solutions are fuel cell or Stirling engine based. Now this idea is around stirling engine.
Please see the following image http://rickpdx.files.wordpress.com/2011 ... engine.gif . Now as you see the main drive is provided by a temperature difference between the ends of the cylinder enclosing the expandable gas. Now in case of a submarine, there is a temperature difference between the outside and the inside. So the outside surface of hull would be at a different temperature than the inside surface. Can this temperature difference be used to run small stirling engine. Small stirling engines have been demoed to run just using the temperature difference of our hand and air ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srO97iZd9LY ) . Now these are very small engines and can be used for producing very small currents. But a large array of such engines on the inside surface of a sub, maybe used to produce electricity to charge the batteries. Can they top up the batteries completely. Maybe not. can they produce enough to increase the submerged period. Maybe yes. In this case we need not carry any separate liquid oxygen, ethanol/hydrogen etc. Use the heat energy of the ocean.

We dont have to make it that clumpsy and complicated with arrays of small stirling engines.Instead have a big one and use nuclear waste for the hot section. The radio active decay is atleast 100 years ,means it will keep on generating heat untill it completely decays. The section can be fully sealed to avoid contamination and radiation leaks.Its sort of a zero maintainance battery. Every year we get tonns of radioactive waste from our reactors and are just kept underneath the surface. Instead using the same waste is both economical and helpfull.

Also we can avoid using a flywheel to power the generator as the transmission losses will put a dent on total efficiency. Instead we can use linear generator connecting to the piston of the stirling engine.this process makes it less complex and highly efficienct.

I would say, this is the way to go for the indigenous DE subs with this kind of stirling engine. Or we can completely have a number of them to make it totally run on nuclear waste.Zero fuel requirement and no reactor safety hazzards.A clear win-win situation.

John · Post by **John** » 20 Jun 2011 19:54

UBanerjee wrote:
Rahul M wrote:^^ why would you need AIP if you have nuke ?
Well- there is room for conventional subs that even USN is recognizing after going all nuke- littoral & shallow waters, and they are simply quieter.

IMO that can be handled by unmanned deep water vehicles operating from a larger platform like a nuclear submarine or surface combatant, since IMO escalating cost of submarine you simply cannot procure enough SSKs to truly meet those requirements

SSKs are effective when deploying in large numbers it was possible back during WW2, U-Boat cost around 1-2 mill vs capital ship over 50 million. Now a days a diesel submarine costs as much as a Destroyer .

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Jun 2011 20:41

I would like to ask the forum what exactly is the envisaged role for a SSK in indian service going fwd?

AIP or no AIP, they are hardly suitable for ASW warfare or anti-ship work in the south china sea, let alone the east china sea, and the fabled yellow sea and bo hai bay much further north (!)

if you say land attack, no SSK on earth carries SLCMs , and given the small capacity of 14 weapons most have - they usually carry a mix of HWT, ASM and maybe a few mines when called for. the Soryu/Oyashio and Collins do have 30 weapons capacity but neither uses tomahawk. the sub launched version of harpoon has no slam-er equivalent.

the total lack of submerged high speed endurance means they cannot reach out and intercept surface groups steaming far away , or catch up after the unit has blown by at steady 25 knots "full ahead all" speed.

with difficulty they can hope to evade a determined hunt by LRMP a.c , having to lie on bottom and hope for best rather than striking and evading at 30knots submerged.

all they can do is :
- lie in ambush near some chokepoint and hope something comes in range. but the usual chokepoints like lombok strait or sunda strait are quite far for SSK and if you are not there in time to catch the big fish no point hanging around there
- maybe gather some intel in littorals and sneak back - question is what intel do we need on Pak or China that needs a SSK to go in close and risk its neck - we have satellites, ELINT, drones, humint and aircraft which are far safer for this. there is no need for a marcos unit to sneak into clifton and figure out where dawood lives.
- lay sea mines close to enemy harbours - this is a pakcentric tactic only and very risky vs ASW a/c or surface hunters....its impractical given the distances to china and the large nos of subs they have.

greece or turkey might have some use for SSK in their context, but I say its no use for IN going fwd in current 1500t shape and capability & potential enemy matrix

we have to go all nuclear - this is impossible from timeline and cost perspective for a few decades yet.

or we have go the collins / soryu way and get huge long range SSK thats are as big as nuke boats minus the 1000t reactor section, submerged/snorkel patrol endurance of 3 months, AIP system, 8 VLS tubes for LACM, 30-40 weapons in torpedo room incl additional nirbhay, a sensor suite borrowed from arihant etc etc.

NO SUCH SSK exists! the closest is probably Soryu but minus the VLS. its a entirely indic problem and we have to either do it all alone or partner with someone like japan or dcn or hdw to come up with a solution tailored to our problem.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 20 Jun 2011 20:46

Is anyone familiar with international regulations on the export of nuclear submarines? IIRC Canada was considering a purchase of the Trafalgar or Rubin class in the late 80s.

The longer I study the issue, the more it appears that the contract for the second line of subs isn't going anywhere. For a budgeted $12 billion order, the Indian Navy clearly expects a significant increase in capability over the Scorpene (a next generation sub, if you will). Doesn't seem to be any such product in the market.

A better alternative is to look at importing a fleet of SSNs while adding another 3-6 units to the Scorpene log. I don't expect any response from the US, but for $12 billion, the Astute class, Barracuda class and Yasen class will probably be ready to enter the running.

SSKs can't realistically be used as an offensive weapon - in wartime they'd probably sit on choke-points in the Malacca Straits as well as patrol the Pakistani coast. With SSNs on the other hand, you can deploy a pair in the South China Sea, assign one each to the IN's CBGs and still have two in reserve/refit.

Edit: Sorry missed your post Singha. My thoughts exactly.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Jun 2011 22:20

IN in Cam Ranh Bay will bottle up PLAN in South China Sea.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 20 Jun 2011 22:58

The planned IN base in the region is not too far away from Vietnamese waters and is an easily defendable position. PRC already crying loud over what it considered as its "back yard".

John · Post by **John** » 20 Jun 2011 23:02

Singha wrote:I would like to ask the forum what exactly is the envisaged role for a SSK in indian service going fwd?

That's the question i don't think anyone can answer if we truly need submarine for ambushing vessels in choke vessels we need to look at cheap 1000 ton submarines. Rather than trying to procure a top of the line SSK with cost as much as SSN with none of its strengths.

One of points you make on their speed is major reasons the major navies shied away from SSKs which AIP can never address.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Jun 2011 23:07

range would be far lesser.

John · Post by **John** » 20 Jun 2011 23:14

They can travel long duration (30 days) while Snorkeling however snorkeling speed is limited to less than 10 knots.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Jun 2011 23:27

Why are we so obsessed with fighting PLAN in their backyard , even if you send a nuclear submarine into PLANs backyard in South China Sea or East these submarine would face formidable opposition from PLAN submarine , surface ASW assets and Aircraft/Helicopter ASW asset , the hunter could easily become hunted if not backed by similar asset to support it.

Sending submarine at choke points always runs the risk of being challenged by asset of enemy waiting out there to prevent any surprises.

Even USN backed with CBG would dare think twice before fighting PLAN in their backyard support besides others by formidable fleet of land based aircraft.

Its better to use asset like submarine to defend your own asset and turf since we are at open sea and have limited sub fleet to defend our surface asset and challenge the enemy if required.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 21 Jun 2011 05:28

India to Spend Rs 10,000 Crore on Karwar Naval Base Expansion