Indian Naval Discussion

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 24 Jun 2011 12:13

There would be a mark-up in the pricing calculations called "contingency" which is bundled with the sale price.

And as Pratyush has mentioned, till delivery is accepted, the costs will remain with the manufacturer/supplier.

This is an international norm. As for insurance, the supplier may have a blanket insurance for all his products, if there is any.

Since the a/c was lost in a non-combat situation, there is likely to be insurance.

Different norms on insurance apply to companies and government organisations, in this case.

narayana · Post by **narayana** » 24 Jun 2011 16:10

New Pic of Vikramaditya

From Igorr's blog,we miss igorr on BR don't know what happened,he simply vanished from BR.may be too busy with his blog

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 24 Jun 2011 19:26

Will Ground MiG-29 If Needed : Indian Navy Chief

Indo Asian News Service

Will Ground MiG-29 If Needed : Indian Navy Chief
By Indo Asian News Service | IANS
Fri, Jun 24, 2011

New Delhi, June 24 (IANS) Against the backdrop of a twin-seater MiG-29KUB combat jet meant for the Indian Navy crashing in Russia, the navy said Friday it will consider grounding the planes it already has if there was a technical reason to do so.

Indian Navy chief Admiral Nirmal Verma told reporters here that the force was yet to get feedback from the Russians on the air crash involving the MiG-29KUB plane in south Russia's Astrakhan region Thursday.

The aircraft is the trainer version of the MiG-29K that the Indian Navy fleet will operate from the aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya (erstwhile Admiral Gorshkov) when it joins the fleet in 2013. The navy has purchased 16 planes, of which 12 are single-seaters and four are trainers.

'We did get this input (air crash) yesterday (Thursday). So we have sought a clarification from the Russian company...because this aircraft was still with the company and was being flown by its own pilots. At the moment, we have not got the feedback,' Verma said.

'If they (MiG Corporation) feel there is a technical reason to do it, which demands grounding, that would be done,' he said.

Verma said an Indian Navy team was present in the MiG Corporation factory to oversee the aircraft's manufacturing and the naval headquarters here was in constant touch with it.

'So if there is any reason to believe that there is some technical reason, we will address it at that time. At this point of time, that is not the case,' he said.

Both pilots were killed in the Russian crash. The Russian defence ministry has already grounded its entire MiG-29K fleet till the investigation into the crash was over.

Of the 16 MiG-29s India has purchased, 12 are single-seater fighters and four are twin-seater trainers. India has already got delivery of 11 aircraft, including two trainers.

These aircraft are operating from the Goa Naval Air Station till the time INS Vikramaditya is delivered to the Indian Navy by Russia's Sevmash shipyard, which is carrying out a refit on the warship.

The Indian Air Force (IAF) also operates a variant of the MiG-29 and these too have been plagued with problems, with nine aircraft crashing since 1997. The IAF currently has some single-seater MiG-29s and 10 twin-seaters.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 24 Jun 2011 22:10

Pratyush wrote:I hope that none of the Crew killed was Indian.

both were Russian pilots who worked for MiG. Not IN pilots, but nevertheless, very sad to hear of their demise.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 24 Jun 2011 22:12

chandanus wrote: What is the chance that its ia fake story released in media...so as to further delay the handover of MiG 29 nw ...as the russians will be looking for ways to avenge the MMRCA rejection... also ...what is the proof that mishap happened onboard NEPRA ??

these type of conspiracy theories are more suited to the Paki deaf and dumb fora, not BRF. Please desist from writing such stuff.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Jun 2011 06:01

There is a very, very sad side to this crash.

However, what is the current story of the MiG-29s that the IAF owns? Has the IAF plane gone over the hump? Have they overcome ALL problems, granted "ALL" is too loose a term?

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 25 Jun 2011 07:37

India May Ground MiG-29K Trainer

India May Ground MiG-29K Trainer
Jun 24, 2011
By Jay Menon
NEW DELHI

India may ground the MiG-29KUB in the wake of the twin-seat carrier-based fighter crashing in Russia on June 23.

“We have sought clarifications from [Russian Aircraft Corp.] as the aircraft was still with them and was being flown by their own pilots,” says India’s naval chief, Adm. Nirmal Verma. “At the moment, we have not received any feedback, but if there is a technical reason that demands grounding, we will do that.”

The MiG-29KUB, which was manufactured for the Indian navy and was part of the Admiral Gorshkov aircraft-carrier deal, crashed in southern Russia’s Astrakhan region, killing its two-member crew.

The Indian air force also operates a variant of the MiG-29 and these, too, have been plagued with problems, with nine aircraft crashing since 1997. The air force has been striving to counter the public allegations about MiGs being “flying coffins.”

India ordered 16 MiG-29Ks from Russia under a program worth over $900 million in 2004. The deal envisions delivery of 12 MiG-29Ks and four MiG-29KUBs along with training and the delivery of simulators and spare parts. The contract also provides another 30-aircraft option to be delivered by 2015.

In early June, India received its third batch of MiG-29s, bringing the number of aircraft received so far to 11. The first batch, comprising two MiG-29Ks and two MiG-29KUBs, arrived in 2009, while a second batch of one each was received in late 2010.

Of the 16 MiG-29s India has purchased, 12 are single-seat fighters and four are twin-seat trainers. India has so far fielded nine MiG-29Ks with an extended range of 3,000 km (1,900 mi.) and capable of firing air-to-air and air-to-sea missiles.

The MiG-29KUB is the trainer version of the -29K that the Indian navy will operate from the aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya (the erstwhile Admiral Gorshkov) when it joins the fleet in 2013.

These aircraft are operating from the Goa Naval Air Station until the INS Vikramaditya is delivered to the Indian navy by Russia’s Sevmash shipyard, which is carrying out a refit of the warship.

Verma says an Indian navy team was present in the MiG Corp. factory to oversee the aircraft’s manufacturing.

The Russian defense ministry has already grounded its entire MiG-29K fleet until the crash investigation is completed.

saurav.jha · Post by **saurav.jha** » 25 Jun 2011 11:16

Indian Navy offered Maritime version of Global Hawk

http://idrw.org/?p=2679

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 25 Jun 2011 12:49

saurav.jha wrote:Indian Navy offered Maritime version of Global Hawk

http://idrw.org/?p=2679

this is not 'new' news. it was 'reported' during aero india show 2011 in feb.

Northrop Grumman has also responded to the RFI floated by the Ministry of Defence for the naval version of the Global Hawk for the Indian Navy.

Northrop Grumman at Aero India 2011

RQ-4 GLOBAL HAWK

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 25 Jun 2011 17:15

I have seen a lots of people on this forum, ( even I for that matter ) have discussed having Brahmos firing capability in our second line of subs. Also sub launched version of Brahmos is also being developed and would be tested soon.

However, off late I have been wondering something, Brahmos as such is 0.6 m id diameter & 8.4 m in length. I am more concerned about the length with respect to a sub. 8.4 m length would mean that the launch tube with booster etc. would be at least 9 m ( very conservative estimate, 10, seems better guess ). Now for putting this launcher/missile on board we have two option.

1. Torpedo launch : Which means that we would require really long torpedo rooms of 12-15 m length so that we can handle the missile. Also most heavy torpedo are 1.5-1.6 tons weight, hence we would also require heavier equipment/hydraulics for handling the 3 ton Brahmos.

2. VLS launch : This means we need a height of atleast 9 meters for housing the launcher. Most diesel-electrics hulls are 6-7 m in diameter. This means 3 options:
2.1 Hump on the submarine like russian delta class.
2.2 Large diameter submarine. The Japanese Soryu class has 9.1 m hull diameter.

Humps are not hydro-dynamically efficient and add to noise, which is what I have read.
Large diameter means that the power requirement is higher. Hence bigger engines, larger battery stack, more powerful AIP, more fuel consumption/km.
The question I want to ask is that having Brahmos firing capability in our SSK's would be great, but is it a must. It would force us onto a very large SSK, which might not have the really long range that we need. In my opinion the Brahmos is a better served on our SSN/SSBN. For the SSK, use klub, smaller & simpler.

We require diesel-electric which can patrol the Indian Ocean & South China sea. However this means, large fuel tank, large battery stack & decent AIP. The larger the displacement the more the fuel requirement/km & battery requirement/km. Hence the entire package should be as small as possible.Take a look at the Barbel class of SSK, which had a humongous range of 31000 km, but the sub is 2700 ton submerged.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Jun 2011 19:22

well the needs of large AIP cells, large reserve of diesel , food supplies , long endurances (4 month patrols) are going to drive a large Soryu class type sub anyway regardless of whether it has brahmos or not. hopefully a spherical bow sonar , followed by a capacious torpedo room bristling with heavy torpedoes and exocets.

given the obvious advantages of detecting targets 10s of km away and unleashing a couple of brahmos, rather than having to close to 15-20km for a torpedo shot, I would imagine the penalty of a hump section with 8 tubes might be worth it.....

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Jun 2011 20:00

Or small subs with bases in the South China Sea!!!

I wonder if India has some very ancient maps that show parts of the South China Sea as being part of India.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 25 Jun 2011 20:01

chandanus, I hope you are not metaphorically mooning BRF with such speculation.

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 25 Jun 2011 21:19

Pratyush wrote:I hope that none of the Crew killed was Indian.

Relax. Pilot - Aleksander Kruzhilin, colonel, pilot emeritus of Russian Federation, co-pilot - Oleg Spichka, colonel. Both were test pilots of Akhtubinsk test centre of RF AF.
RIP.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 25 Jun 2011 22:12

Testing new aircraft is a dangerous job anywhere in the world. My heartfelt condolences to the two Russian pilots. May you RIP!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Jun 2011 22:15

RIP to the brave pilots for what remains one of the most dangerous job in the world as test pilots.

John · Post by **John** » 25 Jun 2011 22:17

bmallick wrote:I have seen a lots of people on this forum, ( even I for that matter ) have discussed having Brahmos firing capability in our second line of subs. Also sub launched version of Brahmos is also being developed and would be tested soon.

However, off late I have been wondering something, Brahmos as such is 0.6 m id diameter & 8.4 m in length. I am more concerned about the length with respect to a sub. 8.4 m length would mean that the launch tube with booster etc. would be at least 9 m ( very conservative estimate, 10, seems better guess ). Now for putting this launcher/missile on board we have two option.

Brahmos is 8.4 meters long in its canister the missile is never deployed outside of the canister (air launch being the exception).

Launch from torpedo tubes is not possible since it cannot fit into 21 or 25.6 inch torpedo tubes, russian attempt to integrate VLS Launchers into Amur were a failure. As for Klub it is hampered by MTCR, IMO need to get Nirbhay ASAP and integrate that into our Kilo/Scorpene. And transition away from SSKs (replace with unmanned submersibles) to future fleet of SSNs.

Sad news about Mig-29 crash hopefully the root cause is identified.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 26 Jun 2011 06:39

India set to drop anchor off China

India has taken the first tentative steps towards establishing a “sustainable maritime presence” in the South China Sea, not far from the Chinese mainland.

With Indo-Vietnamese naval cooperation set to strengthen in the days to come, Vietnam has allowed Indian naval warships to drop anchor at its Nha Trang port in southern Vietnam during naval goodwill visits, well-placed government sources have confirmed.

Sources said the Indian Navy was perhaps the only foreign Navy in recent times to have been given this privilege by the Vietna-mese at a port other than Halong Bay, near Hanoi.

“The move will give India the key to a sustainable presence in the South China Sea,” said a government source. This will enable India to play a bigger role in the strategic Southeast Asian region which overlooks key shipping lines.

India, too, is set to offer naval facilities for training and capacity-building to Vietnam. The Commander-in-Chief of the Vietnam People’s Navy, Vice-Admi-ral and deputy minister Nguyen Van Hien, is scheduled to visit New Delhi, Mumbai and Visakhapat-nam during his visit starting Monday to witness Indian naval capabilities.

“India could also offer its experience in ship-building to Vietnam, which currently has a small Navy,” said a government source.

China will no doubt be closely monitoring the Indo-Vietnamese naval co-operation.

Both India and Vietnam are wary of growing Chinese military capabilities. Both countries have been victims of Chinese military aggression in past.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Jun 2011 13:56

B'mos on an AIP subs in VLS format is absolutely essential fro nlue-water operations.Larger tubes can thus carry Nirbhay,Shkval and other torpedo variants.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Jun 2011 13:57

B'mos on an AIP subs in VLS format is absolutely essential fro nlue-water operations.Larger tubes can thus carry Nirbhay,Shkval and other torpedo variants.

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 28 Jun 2011 01:43

^ Just an OT question Philipji, why do you always omit spaces after punctuation? After all you use space between words just fine!

Back to Indian Navy...

Sri Lankan Navy retreats seeing Indian ship

An Indian Navy ship on a patrol turned out to be the saviour of a large group of fishermen from here when they were allegedly being chased away by Sri Lankan Navalmen close to International Maritime Boundary Line (IMBL), fisheries officials said today.

The fishermen had put out to sea in more than 600 boats yesterday after calling off their three-day old strike protesting detention of 23 fellow fishermen by Sri Lankan Naval personnel on June 20.

As they reached the area close to IMBL, they were chased away by Sri Lankan Navy men who came in their patrol boats, the officials said quoting the fishermen who returned to the shores in the wee hours today.

However, the Sri Lankan Navy men retreated on seeing the Indian Navy ship, they said adding the fishermen also told them they were able to fish without any trouble thereafter.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Jun 2011 08:41

imo the Klub which is smaller than brahmos , in VL format (already seen in Talwar class) could be a reasonable compromise submarine weapon albeit it has no land attack utility, not that our SSKs with meager loadouts will be tasked with much land attack beyond psyops value.

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 28 Jun 2011 11:55

Klub or AntiShip Variant of Nirbhay are the only one which can be accommodated in a VLS for Sub. Hence its is perplexing why every one is touting Brahmos as a must have thing. It can only be present in very large vessels, read SSN/SSBN. For diesel sub, it adds one big constraint to an already constrained requirements.

I have found an excellent MIT paper comparing the Architecture of Diesel SSK . Its an interesting read, with some really good number crunching & math model analysis result.

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/ ... sequence=1

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 28 Jun 2011 11:56

ABG Shipyard to build two Cadet Training Ships worth Rs 970 cr for the Indian Navy

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 28 Jun 2011 12:00

I am very impressed with the design of the Barbel class SSK of USN. These were the last Diesel- Electric operated by USN.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbel_class_submarine

Pretty impressive design:
# Displacement: 1,745 tons light, 2,316 tons full, 2,644 tons submerged
# Length: 66.5 m (218 ft 1 in)
# Beam: 8.8 m (29 ft)
# Draft: 8.9 m (29 ft 3 in)
# Armament: six 21 inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes (bow), with 18 reload torpedoes
# Speed: 15 knots (28 km/h) surfaced, 12 knots (22 km/h) snorkeling, 25.1 knots (46.5 km/h) on battery for 90 minutes
# Endurance: 1.5 hours at full speed, 102.0 hours at 3 knots (6 km/h)
# Range: 19,000 miles (31,000 km) without refueling
# Deployment Endurance: 90 days.

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 28 Jun 2011 12:02

^^ This is interesting:

In mid-2004, the government of the Republic of China (Taiwan) allocated NT$412.1 billion to buy eight diesel-electric submarines for the Republic of China Navy. Most countries that build submarines for export, such as Germany, cannot sell arms to Taiwan without harming their relations with the People's Republic of China, so many analysts expect the United States to either sell the plans for the Barbel class, or to actually build an updated version of the Barbel-class [for Taiwan].

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 28 Jun 2011 12:07

UBanerjee wrote:^^ This is interesting:

In mid-2004, the government of the Republic of China (Taiwan) allocated NT$412.1 billion to buy eight diesel-electric submarines for the Republic of China Navy. Most countries that build submarines for export, such as Germany, cannot sell arms to Taiwan without harming their relations with the People's Republic of China, so many analysts expect the United States to either sell the plans for the Barbel class, or to actually build an updated version of the Barbel-class [for Taiwan].

Adding to it is something more intresting:

The Hai Lung class of submarine was manufactured in the Netherlands for the Republic of China (Taiwan) and is currently 2 are in service with its navy, since mid eighties. They are a modified version of the Dutch Navy's Zwaardvis class submarine. Zwaardvis is based on the U.S. Navy Barbel class with the teardrop hull design.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Jun 2011 14:51

the size is a kilo but perhaps a single hull design, hence much more space for food and fuel to give that excellent range and endurance.

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 28 Jun 2011 15:36

Yes the Barbel is a single hull, compared to the double hull of Kilo.

However its longer range & endurance seems really impressive once you compare it with the Collins & Soryu Class, more so if you consider that these were built in lat fifties

--------------------------- Barbel ------ Collins -------- Soryu
Displacement (ton) --------- 2650 ------- 3350 --------- 4200
Range (nm) ---------------- 14,000 ------11,000 -------- 6,100
Underwater Range (nm) ---- 306 --------- 480 ---------- N.A. ( must be more than others as it has AIP )
Endurance (days) ----------- 90 ---------- 70 ---------- N.A

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Jun 2011 17:30

so what do modern subs have that barbel was lacking , that allowed the barbel to cruise for a much longer distance ? I cant believe its diesel engines of 1960s were better than the 90s and newer kit of the other two.

could be an error the zwardvis class specs is the same and it lists only 10,000 miles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwaardvis_class_submarine

John · Post by **John** » 28 Jun 2011 18:06

Singha wrote:so what do modern subs have that barbel was lacking , that allowed the barbel to cruise for a much longer distance ? I cant believe its diesel engines of 1960s were better than the 90s and newer kit of the other two.

could be an error the zwardvis class specs is the same and it lists only 10,000 miles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwaardvis_class_submarine

Engine technology hasn't improved that much in last 30 years. Also it likely carries much more fuel hence the longer range since USN designed it with range in mind likely at the expense of battery space.

imo the Klub which is smaller than brahmos , in VL format (already seen in Talwar class) could be a reasonable compromise submarine weapon albeit it has no land attack utility, not that our SSKs with meager loadouts will be tasked with much land attack beyond psyops value.

Klub-s is smaller than Brahmos but the missile is quite large (2300 kg 7 meters long). As for Brahmos/Onyk, sub launched variant was designed for large submarines and to replace (Granit).

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Jun 2011 18:11

No space after punctuation...? Never noticed it!

B'Mos being supersonic apart from its huge punch ,is lethal.The Klub warhead is smaller and only the terminal warhead is supersonic.Quite good no doubt and ideally should be on smaller Scorpene/U-boat sized subs.Given the huge cost of an SSGN, large diesel subs with BMos would be a great asset.LR cruise missiles,while great for range,are still subsonic and more vulnerable to multiple anti-missile defences which are getting better each day.
Imagine aan AIP sub with 8 BMos,two sizes of tubes to carry anti-sub Klub,Shkval,Nirbhay,as well as a large weapon load of wire guided/heavyweight torps,plus an external moodule for special forces.If it also carries integral anti-air missile defence systems as the Germans are developing,which have a 20km range against aircraft and ASW helos,then it would be truly formidable.

Leaving the weaponry aside,which in any case would be the same even if a nuclear sub was acquired,costwise it would probably come in at about 60% of that of an SSGN.WE would be able to have more platforms available.If costs are not a problem,a large fleet of SSGNs to complement the 5+ SSBNs being planned/built would be simply swish.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 28 Jun 2011 18:16

US Defence Agency notifies potential sale of MK-54 Lightweight Torpedoes to India

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Jun 2011 18:27

This gives an insight why we should acelerate our planned excursion/picnic into the Indo-Chinese sea! If the region is known worldwide as "Indo-China" then why is the sea falsely labelled as the SChina Sea?

I suggest that from now on all BRites describe the sea off the Vietnamese coast as the Indo-Chinese Sea!

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/18368/chin ... w-of-force

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 28 Jun 2011 19:01

Singha wrote:could be an error the zwardvis class specs is the same and it lists only 10,000 miles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwaardvis_class_submarine

Even I was surprised on seeing the initial range figures, hence had checked multiple resources for confirming the same. Once source literature all quote the same range. Also the checked up a book for the range figures. Zwaardvis is based on the tear drop design of the Barbel, however has lesser beam. Hence may be less volume for fuel.

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 28 Jun 2011 19:06

Philip wrote:Imagine aan AIP sub with 8 BMos,two sizes of tubes to carry anti-sub Klub,Shkval,Nirbhay,as well as a large weapon load of wire guided/heavyweight torps,plus an external moodule for special forces.If it also carries integral anti-air missile defence systems as the Germans are developing,which have a 20km range against aircraft and ASW helos,then it would be truly formidable.

Leaving the weaponry aside,which in any case would be the same even if a nuclear sub was acquired,costwise it would probably come in at about 60% of that of an SSGN.WE would be able to have more platforms available.If costs are not a problem,a large fleet of SSGNs to complement the 5+ SSBNs being planned/built would be simply swish.

Philip, what you are suggesting would definitely be a formidable submarine. But this consifguration would invariably lead to a really huge submarine, probably around 5000-6000 tons. Power requirement for such a submarine would put too much constraint on fuel requirement. Hence would probably take a hit on range. It would be better to go for nuclear power for such a large sub.

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 28 Jun 2011 19:21

John wrote:Engine technology hasn't improved that much in last 30 years. Also it likely carries much more fuel hence the longer range since USN designed it with range in mind likely at the expense of battery space.

Range definitely must be very important criteria for USN, unlike others, except maybe Australia. USN most operations would have involved sailing far away form base, into the northern Atlantic/western Pacific, hence long range requirements. Also please note that Barbel was the first production sub in the world which benefited from the tear drop hull studies of Albacore. Hence is more of a true Tear Drop hull or Body of revolution Hull, hence high hydrodynamic efficiencies . The design must have been made with being gung-ho about the new hull structure.

In case of Soryu (4200 ton), it is based on the Oyashio class, which had a displacement of 3000 ton. Maybe the extra space is taken in by the AIP system. Hence lack of space for lot of fuel, even though the sub is heavy.

This brings up an interesting question. Here we see that the AIP system is an addon on to the existing diesel-electric set up, hence adds to the weight & space of a sub, both which are at a premium in the case of a sub. In case you want to keep the displacement constant, this means you reduce fuel,battery,crew space etc. Hence take a hit on ultimate range and battery life once AIP is exhausted. However if you increase displacement, this means that your power requirement increase, means you burn more fuel than before, require more battery than before etc.

Moreover, once more question, lets say AIP allows staying submerged for 2-3 weeks, however do the Submarines Environment control system allow for such long submergence. Do the SSK have enough provisions/power to keep CO2 level low & optimum Oxy level, control Humidity for such a long period. Or do they have to snorkel to get in fresh air in 2-5 days.

With regards to both the above cases, is AIP really the "great thing to happen"?

John · Post by **John** » 28 Jun 2011 19:23

Philip wrote:No space after punctuation...? Never noticed it!

B'Mos being supersonic apart from its huge punch ,is lethal.The Klub warhead is smaller and only the terminal warhead is supersonic.Quite good no doubt and ideally should be on smaller Scorpene/U-boat sized subs.Given the huge cost of an SSGN, large diesel subs with BMos would be a great asset.LR cruise missiles,while great for range,are still subsonic and more vulnerable to multiple anti-missile defences which are getting better each day.
Imagine aan AIP sub with 8 BMos,two sizes of tubes to carry anti-sub Klub,Shkval,Nirbhay,as well as a large weapon load of wire guided/heavyweight torps,plus an external moodule for special forces.If it also carries integral anti-air missile defence systems as the Germans are developing,which have a 20km range against aircraft and ASW helos,then it would be truly formidable.

Leaving the weaponry aside,which in any case would be the same even if a nuclear sub was acquired,costwise it would probably come in at about 60% of that of an SSGN.WE would be able to have more platforms available.If costs are not a problem,a large fleet of SSGNs to complement the 5+ SSBNs being planned/built would be simply swish.

Philip it doesn't make any sense for a submarine to carry anti submarine missiles, submarine has to get to about 50 meters to fire those missiles and launch it self will be detected by most sonars dozens of nm away. Not to mention make it extremely vulnerable to any AsuW platform.

Plus launching land attack missiles from submarine let alone SSK is not the best use of an asset (unless it is for nuclear deterrence) you can equip half squadron of Su-30mki with brahmos missiles or procure 3 P-8I for the cost of 1 Scorpene armed with meager 8 Brahmos. Not to mention an air launch platform or even ship based platform can reach the launch area much faster than SSK snorkeling at 10 knots.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 28 Jun 2011 20:54

Singha wrote:imo the Klub which is smaller than brahmos , in VL format (already seen in Talwar class) could be a reasonable compromise submarine weapon albeit it has no land attack utility, not that our SSKs with meager loadouts will be tasked with much land attack beyond psyops value.

Singhaji

The 3M 14 is the land attack version of Klub and I think we have them

K

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 28 Jun 2011 20:58

John wrote: Philip it doesn't make any sense for a submarine to carry anti submarine missiles, submarine has to get to about 50 meters to fire those missiles and launch it self will be detected by most sonars dozens of nm away. Not to mention make it extremely vulnerable to any AsuW platform.

No way !

Set a thief to catch a thief

Most of the navies in the world think (perhaps rightly so) that the submarine is perhaps the best ASW platform. I perosnally think that a sub with a Mk 48 ADCAP xyzw weapon is a vwey potent if not the best answer to a marauding sub.

K