Indian Naval Discussion

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 27 Aug 2012 07:55

even if we do not use it for BMD, the bigger hulls will be good lead ships of escort flotilla and permit upping the Barak8 and Barak8-ER count from 32 to 64 or 72, plus 32 cells for nirbhay/brahmos something which is simply not possible in the P15A size hull...also permit some HQ space for a SAG commander and his staff. plus addl acco for maybe 32 marcos and their chariots, a couple of UUV .....

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 27 Aug 2012 09:11

just for say can't we go for s300 on our kolkata class or follow on kolkata class as chinese have gone with it on there air defence destroyers it will cover our long range needs & will be perfect companion for our 3 carrier battle groups needs

it also seems that other than Russia we have problem procuring equipments from any other sources as 50 years of relationship has made Russian's understand our needs & processes & we are also comfortable with there procedures.

also S300 is a good piece of equipment if not the best in the world equal to SM3 .

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 27 Aug 2012 09:36

in this case - No. the S300 Rif (SA-n-6) is a dated system on the Kirov class cruiser only. other than that Rus has not yet fielded any naval AAW system of note. they are probably looking to put the 9M91E2 (120km) range or a follow on design on their next class of DDG. the SA-17 is too short in range to considered a AAW.

also their revolver VL design means only one tube is a launch tube and internally the magazine rotates to make the missile come below that hole. vulnerable to problems vs very few moving parts in a fixed system like Sylver or Mk41 or barak1 or the brahmos UVLS. also being cold launch, the tube is pumped with seawater before launch and ignition is above deck after launch, not a good thing if a 2.5t LRSAM misfires and falls back, rolling around before falling into the sea or damaging the main gun. spies claim the launch tube is slightly inclined pointing over the side to reduce this possibility. we are dharmic SAM shooters and need to keep a upright and vertical moral posture.

we need to make Barak8 work and move immediately into the Barak8-ER (120km) which IAF wants for IADS. the Barak VLS system should be designed to fit the ER longer rounds from day1 using a sub-length adapter for the base Barak8.

p.s. SM3 is more in the class of the 'big' missiles in the S500 family which are not yet clear. its a pure play BMD/ASAT weapon. the SM6 is the designated successor to the SM2 for AA-SAM role. claims to have a 150km range and a Amraam based 2nd stage KV which permits active radar and hunting fighter sized and sea skimming targets out to 150km...something which the SM2 could never do.
Euros seem to have used Mica based KV on ASter.....I wonder if they can put Meteor atop the ASter30 airframe...would make a good combo

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 27 Aug 2012 09:45

how many sm3 can a ageis destroyer/ship can carry since its a big missile ????

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 27 Aug 2012 10:07

afaik it still fits into the mk41 vl system! so potentially a DDG could carry 100% SM3 though thats very unlikely...but 20-30 should be easy to devote given they have 72 cells to play with.

I suspect a bigger stick is in the works sized to fit within the deeper VLS they were planning for the DDX ships - for attacking medium earth orbit satellites and ICBMs at very high alt. only 3 DDX ships are funded now, they will likely build evolved DDG51 ships to replace the older lots and use the SPY3 radar and PVLS concepts first developed for DDX.

Peripheral Vertical Launch System (PVLS)
The Peripheral Vertical Launch System is an attempt to reclaim the prized center space of the hull while increasing the safety of the ship from the loss of the entire missile battery and the loss of the ship in the case of a magazine explosion. The system scatters pods of VLS around the outer shell of the ship having a thin steel outer shell and a thick inner shell. The design of the PVLS would direct the force of the explosion outward rather than ripping the ship in half. Additionally this design keeps the loss of missile capacity down to just the pod being hit

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 27 Aug 2012 21:05

INS Vikramaditya
http://balancer.ru/forum/punbb/attachme ... download=2

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Aug 2012 21:28

WoW Looks Good

SKrishna · Post by **SKrishna** » 27 Aug 2012 21:51

Kakarat wrote:INS Vikramaditya
http://balancer.ru/forum/punbb/attachme ... download=2

Has the Great Vikramaditya gone on a holiday cruise?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Aug 2012 22:17

Is that mig for delivery or escort?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Aug 2012 07:12

Depressing report in the latest IMR Aug 2012,that there will be another "2 yr. delay" in the P-17As because the two interested foreign yards ,Lockheed and Hyundai,have dropped out,because of our insistence on getting all 7 follow-on warships built in India.They hoped that at least "one ship" would be built by them.Thus,we will still be without "modular construction" capabilities until a deal is signed on with another firang yard for the same,unlikely for some time after this fiasco.The greed of babudom and our existing PSUs wanting to "eat the whole dish" is the result of this shambolic policy.The greed of our PSUs aided by babudom,in wanting to build everything when they do not possess the capabilities has resulted in long delays and left the IN in frustration.This is how the second line of subs is being delayed inordinately to allow MDL to finish building the Scorpenes-already late by several years,and take a decision to suit MDLs interests.What the IN needs are assets in the water to be able to meet its responsibilities.The Talwars,which have proved very successful, are all being built in Russia and at a reasonable pace.MDL invited foreign yards two years ago for "modular construction" tech.Two wasted years!

The speed with which configuration details of IAC-2 are being finalised ,to operate launches with steam cats (for larger Russian aircraft) whose tech we do not possess when even IAC-1 has yet to be launched and is to suffer another two-year delay,apparently because there are problems with the gearbox and other eqpt.,as the yard has no experience of handling such large sized 90t eqpt.The gear boxes are being built by Guj. firm Elecon who have tied up with German Renk.The IN is coming in for criticism about its misplaced priorities where more corvettes,frigates and DDGs are urgently required as the IN's scale of operations expands even into the Indo-China Sea and Pacific,apart from the dwindling sub inventory,instead of a second desi carrier.I have earlier posted why the RN has abandoned cats for its new carriers because of their huge cost (2Billion GBP).How we are going to acquire this tech,from where and at what cost,remains to be seen.Typical of putting the cart before the horse!

member_20067 · Post by **member_20067** » 28 Aug 2012 07:56

RUSSIAN CARRIER

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0fe_1346053604

kit · Post by **kit** » 28 Aug 2012 09:58

Navy's idea was to base their technicians in foreign yards while the vessel/s were built.But MOD apparently decided that does not = indigenous manufacture.Why this too much interest in indigenisation now and why is it warped in weird ways.If some one is willing to teach you to walk , why the instance on running when you are only crawling ?

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 28 Aug 2012 10:31

Kakarat wrote:INS Vikramaditya
http://balancer.ru/forum/punbb/attachme ... download=2

Great pic.

Is this ship going to have some kind of CIWS? Till now i have not seen any CIWS or any air defense weapon on Viki.

SKrishna · Post by **SKrishna** » 28 Aug 2012 11:55

Sid wrote:
Kakarat wrote:INS Vikramaditya
http://balancer.ru/forum/punbb/attachme ... download=2
Great pic.

Is this ship going to have some kind of CIWS? Till now i have not seen any CIWS or any air defense weapon on Viki.

AFAIK it has Barak cells and AK CIWS guns..

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 28 Aug 2012 13:26

what kind of SAM unit will we have on INS Vikramaditya or will it be responsibility of other ships of the group ???

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 28 Aug 2012 13:29

SKrishna wrote:
Sid wrote:Is this ship going to have some kind of CIWS? Till now i have not seen any CIWS or any air defense weapon on Viki.
AFAIK it has Barak cells and AK CIWS guns..

It doesn't have any of them at present.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Aug 2012 05:54

Good article,read full piece in link,as copyrighted.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/NH29Df01.html

India strengthens eastern naval flank
By Abhijit Singh

Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing.
......

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 29 Aug 2012 15:36

Philip wrote:Good article,read full piece in link,as copyrighted.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/NH29Df01.html

India strengthens eastern naval flank
By Abhijit Singh

Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing.
......

Is this first confirmation of negotiations starting on the 3rd batch of Krivaks? Good if true - need more hulls.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 29 Aug 2012 19:10

merlin wrote: Is this first confirmation of negotiations starting on the 3rd batch of Krivaks? Good if true - need more hulls.

No wonder the babus insist on fully domestic construction for the P-17A's!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Aug 2012 05:56

I would even plump for another 6 modified Krivaks,with VLS SAM launchers for a new SAM and B'mos,a larger helo hangar to accommodate a multi-role helo and a UAV,a new gun/missile system to replace the plus more lethal integral ASW weapon systems.This is because the P-17A s are being delayed yet again and the IN needs warships at sea.Their armament is somewhat similar and being smaller will also come in at a lesser cost.

Normally,the first warships of a class take some extra time in building as they are the first examples,but we see a curious pattern in that the follow on Delhis are being delayed due to various reasons. I am also curious that after building 3 Shivaliks,why we need a foreign yard for support and to build the rest of the class.One understands the need for modular shipbuilding tech,it covers the whole range of shipbuilding,but the rationale behind the P-17A tech-outsourcing has not been fully explained by the IN or MOD.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 30 Aug 2012 13:19

Let's all 'plump' for speedy order of critical projects such as P-17A with little bit more flexibility in our approach. And let's not give more orders to foreign shipyards for outright build and deliver (without any input from any Indian shipyard) when local projects are in the pipeline.

member_20036 · Post by **member_20036** » 31 Aug 2012 18:29

Devendra Kumar Joshi is new Navy chief

NEW DELHI: Admiral Devendra KumarJoshi , an anti-submarine warfare specialist, on Friday took over as the new Navy chief .
58-year-old Joshi succeeds Admiral Nirmal Verma who retires on Friday.
Joshi, who was the Western naval commander, has taken over the force at a time when it is set to operate two aircraft carriers and induct a large number of warships, long-range surveillance aircraft and submarines. He will have a three-year tenure.
He has commanded the tri-services Andaman and Nicobar Island Command and also headed the Integrated Defence Staff Headquarters here. He also commanded the Vizag-based EasternFleet.
Commissioned in 1974, Joshi has commanded aircraft carrier INS Viraat, guided-missile destroyer Ranvir and corvette INS Kuthar.
A graduate of the Naval War College, USA, he is an alumnus of the College of Naval Warfare, Mumbai and National Defence College here.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 051255.cms

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 01 Sep 2012 04:52

Hopelessly low indigenisation & criminal cost overruns - C.Uday Bhaskar

There is a perception, albeit misplaced, that it is only in the case of naval ship design and production that India has been able to make commendable strides, and that the Indian Navy is ahead of its larger peers - the army and the air force - as far as indigenisation is concerned.

rahulm · Post by **rahulm** » 01 Sep 2012 12:48

More on the Chantier Couach/Solas FIC's ordered by the IN

Delivery
- to date: 12
- by Sept 2012: 15
This will complete the order from the French yard.

Complement
- Officers:0
- Sailors:4

Armament:
- 2 x MMG - Indian
- 1 x LRAD - USA
all fitted in India after delivery

Sensors
- ?? Radar

Propulsion
- Diesel
- 2 x screws

Others:
SATCOM
Fibre glass hull

Max. speed: 50 knots

The order for 15 numbers on the French yard was an emergency order bypassing the tendering process.
SOLAS (Sri-lanka) were L1 bidders for the rest beating Indian yards.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Sep 2012 13:04

^^

Re: post quoting Uday Bhaskar, Posted: 01 Sep 2012 04:52

There is a perception, albeit misplaced, that it is only in the case of naval ship design and production that India has been able to make commendable strides, and that the Indian Navy is ahead of its larger peers - the army and the air force - as far as indigenisation is concerned.

It is one thing to say that all sectors have made progress, quite another to say none have, all are behind and then try to pull down the one sector where progress is usually accepted to have occurred

If this is the authorship from our defence analysts and thought leaders, which is then translated to decisions and reccomendations, no wonder we are in this mess. Its one thing to ask for further reform, another entirely to dodgily dismiss truths - namely that the Navy IS far ahead of the AF and Army in terms of institutional acceptance of and approach to indigenization. By cavalierly dismissing this, he also minimizes the already small chance that such practises will be adopted by the others as well.

And quoting MMS (known for candour he says!) as an opening? One of the most ineffective persons to have ever helmed India, who has made a mockery out of the terms accountability, leadership and then by virtue of his position ends up preaching to others.

Wonder what credibility MMS has in anyone's eyes when they know the man sagely giving away free advice, tends to follow none in his own position, and routinely turns a nelson'e eye to dubious practices. A man who cannot lead or govern effectively, and runs a govt now infamous for fiscal profligacy, political expediency and corruption giving lectures on effective governance.

Be as it may, Uday Bhaskar's analysis is shallow, because it neither examines the institutional support for indigenization in the Navy - organizations like WEESE for instance, and trades like naval designers, are all but absent in the AF & Army, which have much more narrow domains, firmly focused on the operational art as versus design & development. Officers are deputed on ad hoc basis for specific projects and the problems with that approach are by now well known.

Next, the problems with India's shipyards are well known, and so are the problems with the DPSUs. But any serious analyst worth his salt would have paid attention to the fact that starting from 40%, India is now approaching the 50%-60% mark thanks to the efforts of DRDO and some DPSUs.

Its also a fact that in recent days, the successes in radars, missile systems and other programs mean that the IAF and Army can also point to a high proportion of local equipment in some areas, or at least some critical local programs!

But what is missed is the other fact that these have been done without an institutional system on the IA & IAF end. Officers retire, are rotated back to combat posts, or simply dropped - only a few can and are absorbed into the MIC. The rest fade away and valuable experience is lost! Creating product or D&D specific roles/institutions within the larger organization is hence essential. This the Navy has done.

Next, the Navy has despite all the cost delays and what not, succeeded in making its operational requirement translate into functional production via programs such as the Delhi class etc. These are uniquely tailored to IN requirements. This process started way back with Leander and other series ships.

This process is YET to be replicated at a platform level with the IA & IAF. They have mostly been content to be picky customers with input only at the late LSP and thereafter stage in many programs conceived earlier, which too led to time and cost issues thanks to scope creep.

The Navy furthermore has achieved its successes within a DPSU setup that is almost entirely program managed by them. They have not "hid" behind the designer and had the former work out production issues. Navy runs programs, has naval people manage shipyards. While not overwhelmingly successful, thanks to political/labor issues, they have had far more effort invested and hence success delivered. The Delhi class and Arihant, are unique Indian platforms. Can the Army say the same of the T-90 or the T-72 calling them Bhishma or Ajeya apart? The manner in which the Arjun is treated, with significant sections of the Army unable to reconcile themselves with its Basic specifications (e.g. weight!) just points out how the Army lacks a professional product development culture, with no overarching organization ensuring that a unified view exists and is hence committed to!

Next, we have indigenization - while the Army/AF may claim to have greater platform indigenization - lets face it, its on the basis of TOT. The same is hard for the Navy to do because of the limited batches they procure, getting TOT for Shtil f.e. with just a handful of ships carrying it, with no guarantee others will, would not work. Within funding constraints, they have gradually indigenized critical sensors - they have even worked with DRDO to navalize the Revathi radar. A very hard proposition, since the antenna array for naval purposes needs to be lightweight for stabilization. But they have not shied away. The EW, Sonar programs are also well known. So is the Torpedo program. With funding that is a small percentage of the overall budget, the Navy has done a fair bit.

Clearly, things are not perfect. Our shipyards take too much time, programs are mismanaged (Scorpene cost escalation) but nor are we at the usual level of just taking TOT and being happy with it, and then naming it Shamsher or whatever!

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 01 Sep 2012 18:16

As usual +1

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 01 Sep 2012 18:45

If this is the authorship from our defence analysts and thought leaders, which is then translated to decisions and reccomendations, no wonder we are in this mess. Its one thing to ask for further reform, another entirely to dodgily dismiss truths - namely that the Navy IS far ahead of the AF and Army in terms of institutional acceptance of and approach to indigenization. By cavalierly dismissing this, he also minimizes the already small chance that such practises will be adopted by the others as well.

Not only that but like our politicians etc defence analysts, journos are also jealously holding on to their gaddi

all the famous names we know of are horrible vendetta driven creatures when you meet them. something about dilli billi that makes them what they are.

like the senile old politicos - these guys have also outlived their use by date

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 01 Sep 2012 21:42

Main control room and torpedo room of Chakra-2.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Sep 2012 11:26

subs seem to have a magazine of sorts behind the torpedo room, then a handling and repair area featureing rails to load the HWT and slide them into the relevant tubes, and then 20ft of tube itself behind those doors...all in all a huge space is needed 20+20+20ft = 20meters minimum on any subs and this doesnt decline because HWT are same size whether on SSN or SSK.

and this is for a smaller mag. the massive loadout of a Seawolf / Akula type with close to 40 torpedoes sure needs a big "contractor grade" magazine and handling system. upto the sail that would pretty much occupy most of the space.

getting it all right into a long serving and mass produced class like the kilo, 688 or akula is one of the spear points of multi-disciplinary engineering excellence. anyone seen loitering around with a mba or ppt slide deck on the premises is probably shot on sight or chased out by wild dogs.

jai · Post by **jai** » 04 Sep 2012 20:39

Dear All,

We finally won, this matter was not merely a case but a mission for us!!!

And our patience and efforts were tried to the extreme... despite the earlier final order of the Supreme Court, the fruits of success kept on all alluding us since the UOI chose to take the most unusual course of persuing a recall application, which was heard on several dates over the last 2 years.

Today, after marathon arguments from morning till rising of the day and several anxious moments of flips and flops, the Judges were finally convinced and saw through the flimsy excuses of the Govt.

It is my priviledge and pleasure to announce that justice finally prevailed, please see the following note for details and circulate to all retired and serving officers and their kin so they can finally get their dues.

Bhati Assiciates - a registered law firm

LANDMARK DAY FOR DEFENCE OFFICERS- RANK PAY CASE

Subject : I.A. NO. 9 IN T.P. (Civil) 56 of 2007 – UOI & Others Versus N.K. Nair & Others.

• The aforesaid matter along with connected matter came up for hearing before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India before a Bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha, Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur and Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave before Court No.7, Item No. 9 today i.e. 04.09.2012.

• This was an application filed by UOI for modification/directions/recall of order dated 08.03.2010 passed by this Hon’ble Court in T.P. (Civil) No. 56 of 2007 and other writ petitions, by which the Hon’ble Supreme Court had agreed with the reasoning of the Kerala High Court in the case of Major Dhanapalan and directed proper fixation of rank pay from 01.01.1986 and interest @ 6% per annum.

• The core issue in these petitions is with regard to the wrong fixation of rank pay awarded by the Fourth Pay Commission by the Union of India.

• The background to the core issue is that in the fourth pay commission, the element of rank pay was introduced for all ranks from Captain to Brigadier in the Army and their equivalent ranks in the Air Force and Navy, in addition to pay in the integrated scale. The rationale of this was to make the Armed Forces an attractive career option and to continue the edge that was always provided to the defence officers vis-à-vis their civilian counterparts, owing to the difficult and challenging nature of job profile.

• However, at the time of fixation, the rank pay was first deducted to arrive at the total emoluments and thereafter added after fixation in the integrated scale. This ensured that the final fixation of the total pay of the officer became at par with his civilian counterpart and the edge was neutralized during fixation.

• The issue is particularly significant since the services have a longstanding grievance that they get a raw deal from the bureaucrats who have systematically worked on ensuring that the historic edge that the defence officers had with respect to their civilian counterparts is first neutralized and eventually reversed. Interestingly, in this case also the Armed Forces (Army-Navy and Air Force) and the Chiefs of Staff Committee had recommended not to persue the litigation further, however, the Ministry of Defence chose to press the application for recall on several grounds including a total financial liability of about Rs. 1600 crores.

• Major A.K. Dhanapalan was the first officer to challenge this erroneous fixation before the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in O.P. No. 2448/2006. The Hon’ble Single Judge, Kerala High Court vide order dated 05.10.1998 found no justification in deducting the rank pay and directed the UOI to re-fix the pay without deducting the rank pay. The Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court also affirmed finding of the Ld. Single Judge and dismissed the Writ Appeal No. 518/1999 of UOI vide order dated 04.07.2003. The UOI challenged the dismissal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was also dismissed vide order dated 12.07.2005 in SLP (Civil) No. CC-5908/2005.

• Thereafter, several petitions were filed by similarly placed officers before different High Courts and different benches of Armed Forces Tribunal. However, because of the pendency of the aforesaid I.A., the entire issue was in limbo and no benefit had been granted to the deserving officers, apart from the individual case of Major A.K. Dhanapalan.

• Today, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the Application of Union of India finding no merits or grounds. While doing so, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also directed the UOI to re-fix the pay of affected officers from 01.01.1986, without deducting the rank pay.

• The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also directed the UOI to pay interest @ 6% p.a. from 01.01.2006 to all the officers, whether or not they have filed any petition before any of the High Courts or Benches of Armed Forces Tribunal, within 12 weeks from today. The Hon’ble Court has also directed that all pending petitions before any of the High Courts or Benches of Armed Forces Tribunal, by similarly placed officers will be governed by this order.

• This order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court will benefit a large number of officers who were in the rank of Captain to Brigadier in the Army and equivalent ranks in the Air Force and Navy, between 01.01.1986 to 01.01.2006.

• The matter was argued by the Ld. Solicitor General for India on behalf of UOI and defended by Mr Mahabir Singh, Sr. advocate, Gp Capt Karan Singh Bhati, Advocate-on-record and Ms Aishwarya Bhati, Advocate-on-record on behalf of a large number of individual officers and officers associations.

member_23785 · Post by **member_23785** » 04 Sep 2012 20:43

Nice Read <Aussie Perspective>

http://www.securitychallenges.org.au/Ar ... ewster.pdf

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 07 Sep 2012 13:53

Tarkash in Baltiysk Navy Base. Delivery to India scheduled for November.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 07 Sep 2012 16:35

Nice new regarding Tarkash. IIRC Trikand is around March next year. Need another batch of 3 for numbers - wish they sign up for 3 more.

rahulm · Post by **rahulm** » 07 Sep 2012 19:04

Had a quick glance at GSL from afar;

Externally, lead ship of her class, Saryu looks almost complete. 2 more of her class visible under construction.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 07 Sep 2012 21:47

Are there any pics of Saryu class available? Is she a follow on to the sukanya class?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Sep 2012 00:49

Our sub tale of woe!

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/ ... 20906.aspx

An Indian Tale Of Woe
Next Article → SEA TRANSPORTATION: Pity The Poor Pirates Again
September 6, 2012: India's effort to build the first six subs (French Scorpenes), under license, has been delayed several times and the price has gone up to $5 billion ($834 million each). While this effort will leave India with thousands of workers and specialists experienced in building modern submarines, all that will be wasted because the defense procurement bureaucrats seem to have learned nothing. These officials already caused numerous delays and cost overruns during negotiations to build these diesel-electric submarines. The bureaucrats mismanaged this deal to the extent that it is now three years behind schedule. But it is even more behind schedule if you count the several years the Indian bureaucrats delayed it even getting started. The delays and mismanagement have so far increased the cost of the $4 billion project by 25 percent. The original plan was to have the first Indian built Scorpene delivered at the end of this year. But now, because of problems getting the construction facilities and skilled workmen ready, the first Scorpene won't be delivered until 2015, with one each year after that until all six are delivered. That schedule is subject to change, and probably will, for the worse.

All this ineffective urgency is in play because India's submarine fleet is dying of old age and new boats are not going to arrive in time. It's not like this was a surprise, but the Indian defense procurement bureaucracy has long been noted as slow, sloppy, and stubborn, especially in the face of demands that it speed up. The twisted tale of the tardy submarines is particularly painful.

The plan was to have a dozen new subs in service by the end of the decade. At present, there will be (with a bit of luck) six of them in service by then. The procurement bureaucracy is still seeking a supplier for the second six diesel-electric subs. This second six subs might begin arriving by the end of the decade. It's hard to say, although the defense procurement nabobs speak of "fast tracking" this project, but long-time observers of these officials are not expecting speed.

There's some urgency to all this because this year, five of India's 16 diesel-electric subs (10 Kilo and two Foxtrot class Russian built boats and four German Type 209s) were to be retired (some are already semi-retired because of age and infirmity). Because of the Scorpene delays, the Type 209s are being kept in service (but not allowed out to sea much) for several more years. That leaves India with 14 subs. But in the next year or so several of the older Kilos will reach retirement age. Thus, by the time the first Scorpene arrives in 2015, India will only have five or six working subs. India believes it needs at least 18 non-nuclear subs in service to deal with Pakistan and China.

India is also building and buying nuclear subs. India received a Russian Akula nuclear attack (SSN) sub earlier this year. This one is on lease with the option to buy. Indian SSNs and SSBNs (missile carrying boats) are under development, as they have been for decades.

After the bureaucrats and politicians dithered for nearly a decade, in 2005, India finally signed a deal to buy six French Scorpene class boats. The delays led to the French increasing prices on some key components and India has had some problems in getting production going on their end. The first Scorpene was to be built in France, with the other five built in India. While some problems were expected (India has been doing license manufacturing of complex weapons for decades), the defense ministry procurement bureaucrats never ceased to amaze when it came to delaying work or just getting in the way.

The Scorpenes are similar to the Agosta 90B subs (also French) that Pakistan recently bought. The first of the Agostas was built in France, but the other two were built in Pakistan. The Scorpenes purchase was seen as a response to the Pakistani Agostas. The Scorpene are a more recent design, the result of cooperation between French and Spanish sub builders. The Agosta is a 1,500 ton (surface displacement) diesel-electric sub with a 36 man crew and four 533mm (21 inch) torpedo tubes (with 20 torpedoes and/or anti-ship missiles carried). The Scorpene is a little heavier (1,700 tons), has a smaller crew (32), and is a little faster. It has six 533mm torpedo tubes and carries 18 torpedoes and/or missiles. Both models can be equipped with an AIP (air independent propulsion) system. This enables the sub to stay under longer, thus making the sub harder to find. AIP allows the sub to travel under water for more than a week, at low speed (5-10 kilometers an hour). The Pakistanis have an option to retrofit AIP in their current two Agostas.

While India was largely concerned with the Pakistani navy when the Scorpene contract was negotiated and signed, China is now seen as the primary adversary. The Chinese subs are not as effective as the Pakistani boats, both because of less advanced technology and less well trained crews. India could use their Scorpenes to confront any Chinese attempt to expand their naval presence into the Indian Ocean. Thus the delays and cost overruns with the Scorpenes are causing quite a lot of commotion in India. But at the rate India is going, it will be nearly a decade before all six of the Scorpenes are in service. At that point, India would have about a dozen subs (including nuclear powered models under construction). China will have over 60 boats, about 20 percent of them nuclear. China does have a lot for its warships to deal with off its coasts and in the Western Pacific but it does retain the capability of putting more subs off the Indian coast than can the Indian Navy.

PS:The Chinese strategy will be to flood the IOR with its subs in cahoots with the PN easily outnumbering the IN.By 2030 it will also be able to send in its carrier task forces which will be equipped with Aegis class heavy DDGs.PLAN subs will find it far easier to ingress and egress the IOR despite the chokepoints and the IN will have its task cut out with insufficient LRMP aircraft and surface ships specialising in ASW.With batteries of missiles stashed in their Himalayan mountain redoubts in the north,the Chinese hope to do the same with their missile armed subs in the south/IOR.The intense,focussed diplomatic efforts to ensure naval logistic facilities in the IOR especially with Lanka and the Maldives -Burma is already "in the pot",while the Indian MEA dithers and deliberates about Chinese intentions and is taken in by an aptly named Chinese general whose name ends in a "LIE",who disgracefully and with contempt "tipped" IAF pilots at the end of his official visit,the "Long March" of the PRC like soldier ants continues unimpeded by a motley bunch of pompous MEA mandarins,who display a "scaredy cat"
attitude to the PRC, blink when the PRC issues "chit visas" and refuse to let the Indian armed forces into the decision-making process in dealing with the PRC,leaving our gallant jawans in the lurch with their timid diplomacy.And as for "surrender Singh",the least said the better.Despite a litany of Paki perfidy,he is now engaged in genuflecting to Paki diplomatic demands as Pak tries to grasp across the table what it could not do on the battlefield.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 08 Sep 2012 02:06

I understand your frustration but who takes strategy page seriously? Chinese subs coming into IOR? From where? The nuke boats have hardly gone on any deterrent patrol and are detected a few 100 miles away. PN is going with chinese subs because every other sub producer refused to sell them subs. Aegis class??? The 052-C/D are no match for AEGIS equipped SM-3/6 carrying USN/JSMDF/SOKO ships. The Kolkotas and P-17a's will be enough for them.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 08 Sep 2012 03:33

http://www.indiadefence.com/subcomm.htm

INDIA DEFENCE CONSULTANTS

WHAT'S HOT? –– ANALYSIS OF RECENT HAPPENINGS

SUBMARINE COMMUNICATIONS

An IDC Analysis with Inputs from Sayan Majumdar

New Delhi, 01 February 2004

In the futuristic scenario painted by Gen S Padmanabhan in his book reviewed by us last week he missed out on one very pertinent and potent future weapon for India in 2017 –– the use of submarines both conventional and nuclear powered, with the stated ‘second strike’ capability. It is quite likely that an Indian nuclear submarine will be in operation by then with sister submarines, as India’s second strike. The General discussed the ALH, Vajra a laser based weapon, advanced Akash AA systems and others in the book for the 2017 scenario but failed to include futuristic submarines and their communications. Several reports have suggested that the Indian Navy will have an operational nuclear powered submarine by about 2006. In such a scenario it is pertinent to shift focus to underwater VLF/ELF (Very Low Frequency/Extremely Low Frequency) and laser communications for effective coordination of the submarines with the National Command Authority.

The exact type of submarine the Navy may get remains to be seen but it could be a customized development of Russian Project 885 Yasen/Graney Class also referred to as Severodvinsk Class, which is a further derivative of the Project 971 Akula Class and features a significant cruise missile capability with eight vertical launch tubes aft of the sail. The hull is made of low magnetic steel, with spherical bow sonar and canted torpedo tubes. Another option could be a variant of Project 949A Antey Oscar II Class SSGN (Submarine, Nuclear powered, Cruise missile armed). Interestingly the dimensions of Oscar are greater than most variants of even ballistic missile armed submarines.

The Indian Navy had anticipated the importance of VLF (Very Low Frequency) underwater transmissions long ago. As part of an ambitious naval modernisation program, during the mid-1980s the Indian Navy had constructed a VLF (Very Low Frequency) broadcasting station in Tamil Nadu. Although not publicly declared, it was reported that the United States actively collaborated in the project, which was completed in September 1986.

The operational VLF facility can primarily be used by the Indian Navy to communicate with its SSKs (Submarine, Conventional powered hunter-killer). When nuclear submarines become operational, the VLF facility will permit Indian National Command Authority to issue launch orders to submerged subs at depths of several metres. VLF waves propagate almost a quarter of the globe away and are generally immune to atmospheric disturbances caused by nuclear detonations.

However on the negative side, their small bandwidth limits the rate of transmission of data, usually allowing only the operation of slow Teletype messages. Moreover the large terrestrial and static VLF facility would be vulnerable to enemy strikes and even if the VLF facility is shifted deep underground in “hardened” shelters, the communication antennae would be located above ground and will remain vulnerable. Thus an airborne VLF transmitter similar to the US Navy’s TACAMO (Take Charge And Move Out) should be seriously considered for procurement.

A powerful 200KW transmitter provides the VLF transmissions in TACAMO. The United States Navy utilizes an EC-130A/Q Hercules with a trailing wire antennae 10km long with a drogue parachute at the end. During transmission the aircraft flies in a continuous tight circle, which results in over 70 percent of the wire hanging straight down and acting as a relatively efficient vertical antennae.

Presently the E-6 Mercury is the airborne platform of the United States TACAMO Communications System. It provides survivable communication links between the United States NCA (National Command Authority) and Strategic Forces. Long range, air refuelable E-6 is a derivative of the commercial Boeing 707 aircraft equipped with four CFM-56-2A-2 high bypass ratio fan/jet engines with thrust reversers. The weapon system is EMP (Electro Magnetic Pulse) hardened. Mission range is over 6000 nautical miles. E-6B fulfils both TACAMO and ABNCP (Airborne National Command Post) missions.

The E-6 ABNCP modification program was established to upgrade TACAMO operational capabilities by incorporating a subset of USSTRATCOMM (United States Strategic Command) EC-135 ABNCP equipment into the E-6 aircraft. The modified aircraft have the designation changed from E-6A to E-6B. The E-6B modified an E-6A by adding battle staff positions and other specialised equipment. The E-6B is a dual-mission aircraft capable of fulfilling either the E-6A mission or the airborne strategic command post mission and is equipped with an ALCS (Airborne Launch Control System). The ALCS is capable of launching United States ICBMs (Inter Continental Ballistic Missiles). The E-6B is capable of performing both the TACAMO and ABNCP missions.

This modification enables USSTRATCOM to perform current and projected TACAMO and ABNCP operational tasking and the E-6B provides survivable C3 (Command, Control and Communications) force management communications for the NCA via multiple frequency band communications. TACAMO role is fulfilled in Russian Navy by a variant of Tupolev-142 Bear-J.

Attention has now shifted to laser based underwater communications. There is an optical window in the blue-green part of the laser spectrum, which enables transmission to penetrate the ocean at substantial distance. Power requirements are considerable and the system at least presently cannot be installed in artificial satellites. Thus as a tactical improvisation the laser is made to be ground based, preferably mobile, in perfect conjunction with a space based mirror with adaptive optics being used to produce a cohesive beam. Significantly, data transfer rate will be 300 times greater than ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) system although the “rerouted” laser may not penetrate the same depth.

The effective combination of nuclear submarines and underwater VLF/ELF (Very Low Frequency/Extremely Low Frequency) and laser communications will make our sea based nuclear deterrent optimally effective. The challenge lies in front of our national leadership and defence scientists to “secure” the proper system either indigenously or import it from established powers.

Disclaimer Copyright

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Sep 2012 14:34

Underestimating Chinese capability has been the bane of India defence planners and politicos.They forget that the PRC uses all its assets,military,political,economic and diplomatic in a concerted integrated effort to achieve its goals.The sad fact is that our sub inventory is declining rapidly and we are years behind in Scorpene production and have not even sent out LOIs for the second line because MDL and babudom have effectively delayed that decision os that that production will happen only after MDL finish the Scorpenes.AKA has dithered and dallied and his performance is best summed up with his repeat act in parliament (throwing up his hands to his face) when Gen VKS first told him of the Tatra bribe/scam.

The PLAN will have between 60-80 subs,mostly contemporary subs ,Russian built Kilo 636s,Chinese Kilo copies all armed with Klub and Chinese cruise missiles,and its nuclear sub fkeet.To imagine tht this fleet will forever sit in Chinese waters and their crews play mah-jong all day long is an exercise in gross self deception. Chinese generals today speka glowingly of the great voyages of Adm.Zheng He up to Africa centuries ago, and there warships today are combating piracy off the same coast,soemthing unimaginable a decade ago.No one bothered to assess the threat of the railway to Tibet,which took decades to build, until it one was completed with great fanfare one day.Unless the IN has a least 24 conventional AIP subs and another dozen SSBNs/SSGNs,we will be hard pressed to monitor the PLANs sub activities in the IOR.The US has already reaqlised the risk of sailing too close to the Chinese mainland after the PLAN recd. Russian Sov DDGs armed with Moskit missiles and inducted hundreds of land-based Flankers to dominate the first island chain.PRC aggro in a typical Chinese"take away" of several of the Spratly islands indicate a new agressiveness and forward posture by the dragon.This aggro will ony increase in proportion to the build up of the PRCs military machine and maximum prioroity is being given to the PLAN,they have read and understood Mahan well.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 09 Sep 2012 14:22

Sail ship INS Sudarshini ready for a six-month voyage
Training to sail with the wind