Indian Navy News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 May 2016 16:18

Deutschland the front runner for the P-75I requirement. No bad matter if it materializes. The same subs are being built by SoKo,etc. for the Asian market. It will complicate the PLAN's identiofication too. If the subs are further upgraded with specific IN requirements like BMos-M,Nirbhay capability even better. For the 6 SSNs,Ru tech with Yasen SSGN input with give the IN (with Fr,German and Ru tech) a very formidable UW fleet.

Will · Post by **Will** » 09 May 2016 16:46

If its going to be the 214 then what extra does it bring to the table compared to the Scorpene? Remember the scorpene was chosen over
the 214 for the P75 though this might have had more to do with political considerations rather than technical. If the IN is going to go for an old design they might as well go in for additional scorpenes and Kilos while they work on an indigenous design.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 May 2016 11:58

The 214 is newer than the Scorpene and its AIP system is supposedly superior (fuel cell vs MESMA) .The U-boats are also cheaper than the $500M++ Scorpene ,around $350+M in 2010.However,the U-boats offered for Indian should come with non-magnetic steel hulls ,ususally not on export versions,as we've been offered full tech available. The costs reported though make it a v.expensive acquisition,with approx. $1.5B /sub.THis looks a ridiculous figure even adding shore facilities/infrastructure,etc. Current Kilo 636.3s cost just $300+M. One would get 5 advanced Kilos for just one U-boat! The Amur is supposed to be even cheaper and the new Kalina class under dev should not come in at more than $500M a boat.

When you look at the Chakra N-sub lease lease,it looks even more suprising,as the Chakra,an 8000t+ SSGN armed with a variety of upto 40 torpedoes and 300KM range Klub variants is costing us just $970M for 10 years,in comparison to a 1,860t+ diesel/AIP sub .Perhaps the Dolphin U-boats sold to Israel come with more advanced features.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 10 May 2016 12:02

Enough of having political consideration for one or a other players. It high time to build the best platform taxpayer to can buy.

srai · Post by **srai** » 10 May 2016 17:01

Will wrote:If its going to be the 214 then what extra does it bring to the table compared to the Scorpene? Remember the scorpene was chosen over
the 214 for the P75 though this might have had more to do with political considerations rather than technical. If the IN is going to go for an old design they might as well go in for additional scorpenes and Kilos while they work on an indigenous design.

German company HDW was still in the blacklist from the Type-1500 scandal in the 80s when Scorpene was chosen. Only when the blacklist was lifted, Germans tried to make a last ditched effort to get its U-214 in but by that time Scorpene contract was already well under-way.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 May 2016 18:32

both are equally good subs at par I would say. obviously neither OEM will share their best tech which is reserved for the home country. that is why using the arihant mod hull as our starting point, using as many desi systems as possible and importing the rest is the best way fwd than licensing a complete design. it will teach us a lot of things.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 10 May 2016 18:42

Why not build more scorpene variants with VLS plug in and DRDO AIP? Other wise we end upoo with U-214's, Scorpenes and SSN's (Indian and Akula) in the future . Thats becoming a mini IAF like zoo.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 10 May 2016 19:22

U-214 does not have a teardrop hull, so the basic design is dated. U-216 might be a good idea, though. The Germans did build Type 209/1500 as a one off design to Indian specifications.

What's wrong with a zoo? I see only advantages in having a zoo. Glad if someone pointed the disadvantages.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 10 May 2016 19:44

Tsarkar,

You lose the economies of scale and the spares supply chain, maintenance and training becomes much more expensive which contribute to a higher life-cycle cost. And you won't get many platforms as you hope to get.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 10 May 2016 22:19

As hitesh mentioned, it means you need to have separate logistical chain for each sub type. Its a waste of resources. Ideally one line of indigenous SSN, one line of SSBN and another of SSK with AIP should be enough. A total of 30-36 in all.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 11 May 2016 08:57

It is not sufficient to minimise the number of types.

We should minimise the number of sub-systems and make them interchangeable
We could have common batteries, motors (Siemins PEM !!), diesel engines (MTU), periscope, torpedoes, torpedoe launchers etc.
What would be interchangeable between say our Kilos and HDW or even between our Scorpenes and HDWs ? Probably nothing.

This inter changeabilitycan happen ONLY if we make our own design submarines. Let us have our design of SSN, SSBN and SS submarines. The design would be quite different bu same sub systems like mentioned above

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 May 2016 09:16

And any license purchase now is a 40 year oem lockin
Imagine the cost in spares and price escalations. Its bad enough for subsystems.

Xiaomi redmi note 3 <<< iphone6p but its chinese and they dont have to pay the apple tax

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 May 2016 09:39

Acquiring the latest German U-boats with full access to Tech,will give us the best of the major sub manufacturers so that we can design a future desi sub post 2025 for the future. No point in building more Scorpenes.They will be inferior to the OZ French Shortfin Barracudas,plus they are hideously expensive ,even non-AIP boats as said before. We need a much larger sub fleet double of our current strength comprising N-boats and conventional/ AIP boats since our sphere of operations is getting larger by the year.The most potent sub weaponry available however is Russian.Kiubs,BMos,Shkval,etc. Russian N-boats are also streets ahead of the PLAN's boats both nuclear and conventional. Therefore the assistance in helping us develop/build our N-boats,SSBNs and SSNs should continue. As the Kilos retire in adecade from now,perhaps the new Kalina class or a desi design could replace them.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 May 2016 09:44

>>we can design a future desi sub post 2025

that is hopelessly late considering china designed the Yuan in early 2000s. technology is always a moving target and the only time to start is now. "full access to tech" - we all know what that means.....we will get some manufacturing tech thats all, never the design & test data that are the core of coming up with a cleansheet design.

if at all we need a few subs to tide over the situation until we can get going on the P75I domestic design, a few more scorpenes and imported kilos will work out far cheaper and quicker.

member_28700 · Post by **member_28700** » 11 May 2016 10:32

Why are we so bent on always making something tomorrow? I can understand corrupt bureaucrats, politicians and some high ranked officials say this for keeping their bank balances bloated but why is it even an option for any of us discussing on BRF (I consider all members with their best intentions to the country).
We can make SSBNs but still importing SSKs. Agreed that our first attempt might not be a world beater but at least it would be ours and we could update it. Did we no do so with our surface fleet. It has taken 2-3 generations of destroyers to reach the Kolkata class. There is no magical wand or god father to tell you how to do things right, even Edison learnt to make the bulb by making mistakes. Doing it tomorrow is only an excuse for passing the buck to the next guy. That is what we have been doing with our MIC for last 20-30 yrs.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 May 2016 12:30

Sub tech is highly secreted and not thrown around like cattle feed.There are so many technologies involved.Hull material,combat systems,periscopes,commns eqpt.,stealth features,sensors,sonars,automation,weaponry...the list is exhaustive.
It will also take decades to just simply reinvent the wheel.Thus far,we've built/assembled just 4 subs.2 U-209s,1 Arihant and 1 Kalvari/Scorpene. In addition just 1 refit of a Kilo has been achieved...after 10 years! Whatever the reasons,foreign delays,yard inexperience,etc,etc. this is our track record. Therefore,let's be honest about our design/build capabilities,on our own.

What the MOD/IN has not done thus far is to have embarked upon a full-fledged R&D programme for subs. e have to import sub rescue vessels too. How have the major navies advanced their sub tech? By building research subs and starting research programmes for propulsion,etc.. Now midget subs /min-subs and UUVs are one area where we could've made huge strides over the last 2 decades. Faced with sanctions Iran has made huge strides building upto 500t subs today. Of course it means giving the In a much larger share of the def budget and increasing R&D for naval tech,outside service budgets,but both the US and Russia built many experimental subs,both nuclear and non-nuclear,results from which they then put into the design for new series production.What we need to do is to "leapfrog" existing sub tech through acquisitions.JVs,so that we can be truly creative for the future.There is little point in spending billions and post 2025 producing a sub with the capability of a Kilo or U-209.

We also need large numbers of subs so that we can saturate the IOR with UW assets,both manned subs and UUVs,especially in the littorals and island territories,the A&N islands esp. Here a desi design for smaller subs/UUVs would be an exciting programme from the Univ level of research to manufacturing. Opening up the pvt sector to these kind of projects which would also cost less requiring lesser capital expenditure for pvt. builders.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 11 May 2016 13:01

Philip wrote:Acquiring the latest German U-boats with full access to Tech,will give us the best of the major sub manufacturers so that we can design a future desi sub post 2025 for the future. No point in building more Scorpenes.They will be inferior to the OZ French Shortfin Barracudas,plus they are hideously expensive ,even non-AIP boats as said before. We need a much larger sub fleet double of our current strength comprising N-boats and conventional/ AIP boats since our sphere of operations is getting larger by the year.The most potent sub weaponry available however is Russian.Kiubs,BMos,Shkval,etc. Russian N-boats are also streets ahead of the PLAN's boats both nuclear and conventional. Therefore the assistance in helping us develop/build our N-boats,SSBNs and SSNs should continue. As the Kilos retire in adecade from now,perhaps the new Kalina class or a desi design could replace them.

If we decide today 11th May 2016 to go for "latest German U-boats", maybe first Indian built boat can join IN by 2025. If we continue with Scorpenes we can probably get an additional other 3 Scorpene by that time. My thinking is we continue with Scorpene for another 3 (minimum) boats and also build something suitable, as P 75I.

As you rightly said the Kilos can be replaced with the Indian design.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 11 May 2016 20:04

Ok, here are two classes of ships -

Type 15B
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TspZgIB8b1w/ ... %2BDDG.jpg

Type 17A
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7mbootTVaQs/ ... Poster.jpg

Both are of same weight class, Type 15B weighs 7338 tonnes while Type 17A weighs 6670 tonnes.

Both use 4 engines - Type 15B uses 4 Zorya Gas Turbines while Type 17A uses two GE GTs and two Pielstick Diesels.

Type 15B has faster top speed of 30 knots whereas Type 17A has a lower top speed of 28 knots

However, Type 15B has lower range of 4000 nm at a relatively lower speed of 14 knots while Type 17A has a higher range of 5500 nm at a relatively higher speed of 16-18 knots

Type 15 carries double the loadout of Brahmos & Shtil/LRSAM compared to Type 17

However, Type 17A is much more silent than Type 15B.

So which ship should we standardize on?

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 11 May 2016 20:19

Hitesh wrote:You lose the economies of scale and the spares supply chain, maintenance and training becomes much more expensive which contribute to a higher life-cycle cost. And you won't get many platforms as you hope to get.

Bheeshma wrote:As hitesh mentioned, it means you need to have separate logistical chain for each sub type. Its a waste of resources.

As mentioned earlier, both Type 15B and Type 17A have four engines. Assuming each engine costs Rs 100, the total cost will be Rs. 800

Suppose we standardize on one engine type, the engines will still cost 8 x 100 = Rs 800

So where does the saving come from?

If each engine requires 10 spares and 10 hours of servicing, does standardizing reduce the need for 10 spares and 10 hours of servicing? No, the cost & effort remain the same.

If a technician requires 10 hours of training on each type, then will standardization reduce the training required? No

If each engine type requires 10 technicians working 10 hours each, then will standardization reduce the servicing time? No. Each standardized engine will STILL require 10 technicians working 10 hours each.

Standardization is a false logic created my manufacturers that practically does not lead to any savings. It creates a monopoly. And costs actually go up when one vendor holds you by the balls.

Giving orders for 8 engines instead of 4 doesn't bring costs down. What brings the costs down is competitive bidding.

srin · Post by **srin** » 11 May 2016 20:21

tsarkar wrote:Ok, here are two classes of ships -

Type 15B
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TspZgIB8b1w/ ... %2BDDG.jpg

Type 17A
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7mbootTVaQs/ ... Poster.jpg

Both are of same weight class, Type 15B weighs 7338 tonnes while Type 17A weighs 6670 tonnes.

Both use 4 engines - Type 15B uses 4 Zorya Gas Turbines while Type 17A uses two GE GTs and two Pielstick Diesels.

Type 15B has faster top speed of 30 knots whereas Type 17A has a lower top speed of 28 knots

However, Type 15B has lower range of 4000 nm at a relatively lower speed of 14 knots while Type 17A has a higher range of 5500 nm at a relatively higher speed of 16-18 knots

Type 15 carries double the loadout of Brahmos & Shtil/LRSAM compared to Type 17

However, Type 17A is much more silent than Type 15B.

So which ship should we standardize on?

P15B if only because of this niggling feeling that we can put more VLSes there.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 12 May 2016 04:31

Can someone give me big picture answer on the following ?

1. So White Tigers did not get number plated (stood down as a squadron)
2. They decommed their Harriers and inducted the Mig-29K on the same day.
3. Which aircraft are they flying ? I did not see any 29Ks with White Tiger emblem.
3b Are they sharing (leasing/ lent) the 29Ks that belong to black panther.
4. How many 29Ks do we have now ?
4b Have the numbers been steadily building up during 2016?
5. Are the white tigers based in Vizag and thus will belong to eastern fleet ? SInce VikA is Western Fleet

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 12 May 2016 08:11

via Vishnu Som/Keypubs

PRESSINFORMATION BUREAU (DEFENCE WING)
GOVERNMENTOF INDIA
*****
DE-INDUCTIONOF SEA HARRIER AND INDUCTION OF MIG-29K FIGHTER AIRCRAFT IN INAS 300

Vasco,Goa: 21 Vaisakha 1938
Wednesday, 11 May 2016

The illustrious and unique Sea Harriers of Indian Naval Air Squadron (INAS 300) were given a befitting farewell in a function organised at INS Hansa,Goa. The function was attended by Admiral RK Dhowan, Chief of the Naval Staff, Vice Admiral Sunil Lanba, Flag Officer Commanding in Chief Western Naval Command, serving and retired Officers and Men of the Indian Navy and all personnel who have served in the INAS 300. Speaking on the occasion Admiral RK Dhowan lauded the stellar role played by the squadron in the defence of the country and acknowledged the professionalism of the pilots, the maintainers and all those personnel associated with flying and maintaining the aircraft in peak efficiency during their service. He said that the rich legacy would continue as the baton is being passed on to the proud young crew of the MiG 29K squadron who have been successful in seamlessly integrating the fighters with INS Vikramaditya in the shortest possible time.

In appreciation of the faithful service to the nation by INAS 300 ‘White Tigers’,an impressive ceremony was held today which saw the Sea Harriers fly for one last time, and MiG-29K flanking their outgoing cousins and ceremoniously taking their place. The air display included supersonic pass by MiG 29s and formation flying by two each Sea Harriers and MiG 29Ks. The composite air display symbolized a smooth transition from the old to the new in continuance with the proud legacy of the INAS 300. On completion of the Air display,”washing down of the Sea Harriers” was carried out in a traditional manner. A first day cover was also released by Admiral RK Dhowan to mark the occasion.

The White Tigers or INAS 300 who stand for excellence, determination and aggressive spirit, heralded the era of carrier borne aviation into the India nNavy. Almost six decades ago the squadron was commissioned at RNAS Brawdy with its distinctive ‘White Tiger’ logo and equipped with the Sea Hawk aircraft.After providing yeoman service for over two decades, the squadron was subsequently reincarnated with Sea Harriers in 1983. This premier carrier borne fighter squadron achieved iconic status in the Indian Navy with its distinguished service, receiving numerous gallantry awards which includes one Maha Vir Chakra, four Vir Chakras and one Nau Sena Medal.

From the time the white tigers came into being, ‘Three Hundred’ as the squadron is colloquially called, brought about transformational change in concept of naval operations. INAS 300 with its potent sea harriers formed the teeth of naval combat power and consequently was the center piece of naval operational strategy. With their professionalism, the White Tigers assured control of these as by ensuring air dominance for the Carrier Battle Group and were a force to reckon with, with their combat skills appreciated by many which included foreign navies as well as the Indian Air Force.

After 33 years sterling service, the sea harriers were being de-inducted from the Navy and under took its last flight today. To continue the proud ‘White Tiger’legacy, the squadron has been re-equipped with the new and more lethal MiG 29Ks. INAS 300 would thus be re-equipped with the new swing role air dominance fighter giving the squadron enhanced combat power and offensive capability. For the versatile White Tigers, this resurrection also marks a full cycle from commissioning ‘Tail Hooking Sea Hawks’ to the ‘Vectored Thrust’ Sea Harrier era; and now with the induction of the MiG-29k to this elite squadron, marks the return of the ‘Tail Hookers’.
*****

An old pic of Arun Prakash who went on to become Chief of Naval Staff seen here in the cockpit of a Sea Harrier. In 1971, Prakash famously hosed down Gen Chuck Yeager's personal aircraft in Pakistan while flying a Hunter on deputation with the Indian Air Force. This was during the Indo-Pak war.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 May 2016 08:28

these must be the last sea harriers in operation in the world since thailand chakri narubet never had sea harriers.

RIP soldier. you will be remembered.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 12 May 2016 08:35

But, but...they just did the lush upgrade five years ago...I was hoping to see another 4-5 years of the jump jet on the Viraat

sum · Post by **sum** » 12 May 2016 08:38

Life of the Sea Harrier in USMC

Interesting article on the Sea Harrier, esp its life with USMC ( has linked a article about retirement of IN Harriers too) and interesting comments by lots of Harrier technicians and pilots!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 12 May 2016 08:43

Cain Marko wrote:But, but...they just did the lush upgrade five years ago...I was hoping to see another 4-5 years of the jump jet on the Viraat

They had mentioned that they didnt want to move the Shar to Vikram as they cost associated with logistics etc in moving to new AC from Viraat was not feasible , They could have moved to land but again the cost of maintaining an ageing AC would have gone up with every passing weeks and month , IN is better of using that fund to support N-LCA then keep Shar operating.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 12 May 2016 09:04

Brand New MiG Jet Stuck At Goa Port, Customs Duty Not Paid

NEW DELHI:

Brand new MiG-29K held up in Goa port for 9 days.Defence Ministry has to pay Rs. 160 crore in duty
The ministry said it will get budget, clear equipment in 2 to 3 days. For nine days, a brand new MiG-29K fighter plane acquired from Russia has been standing at the Goa port.It will not go anywhere for now, say sources, unless the defence ministry pays over Rs. 160 crore in customs duty.
At airports and ports across the country, there is a growing collection of overhauled aircraft engines and military equipment worth crores.This year, the government said that the military will no longer be spared from customs duty for imports. The idea was to provide a level playing field to Indian defence manufacturers.But, in an apparent oversight, the finance ministry's blanket order withdrawing duty exemption for all military hardware imports has brought all equipment belonging to the services in the tax net.The Ministry of Defence said it has raised the issue with the Ministry of Finance,
that apart from the MiG-29K that arrived from Russia on May 2, overhauled engines and spares of Mirage 2000 and overhauled engines of transporters like the Russian made IL- 76 are lying at various airports and ports.The Army, Air Force and Navy face a peculiar problem - although the customs duty will go the government, there is no provision for it in the defence ministry's budget.Besides customs duty, according to rough estimates, the ministry also has to pay about Rs. 35 lakh per day to store the costly equipment in the warehouses of airports and ports.Calling the matter 'teething trouble," the Defence ministry said it will get the budget to pay for the customs duty. All the equipment stuck at the customs will be cleared in the next two to three days, the ministry said.

rkhanna · Post by **rkhanna** » 12 May 2016 10:08

Brand New MiG Jet Stuck At Goa Port, Customs Duty Not Paid

only in India.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 May 2016 10:17

Kudos to the IN! For its perseverance in developing the NLCA.The IAF should take a leaf out of the IN's book,as it looks like the IN will steal a march over the IAF in utilizing the aircraft.

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 050_1.html

As Sea Harriers retire, Naval Tejas readies to fly off
The light combat aircraft will operate from India's indigenous aircraft carrier, INS Vikrant
Ajai Shukla | New Delhi

May 12, 2016
Air force, DRDO, pleased with Tejas performance at Bahrain

At the end of thirty years of flying from Indian Navy aircraft carriers, the iconic Sea Harrier jump jet made its ceremonial last flight on Wednesday. Readying to take its place is the naval version of the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), which recently completed a successful flight-test campaign in Goa.

While the Sea Harriers operated from the INS Vikrant and INS Viraat, now both retired, the Naval Tejas will operate from the Vikrant’s successor, an indigenous aircraft carrier that is scheduled to be commissioned in 2018.

Commodore (Retired) CD Balaji, chief of the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), which oversees the Tejas development programme, told Business Standard that taking off and landing from a 200-metre deck has been fully established. So has “hot-refuelling” --- topping up the aircraft after a sortie with the engine running and the pilot in the cockpit --- which allows a rapid turnaround between sorties.

For the navy, it is vital to ready the Tejas for the INS Vikrant and, subsequently, INS Vishal. The MiG-29K will be the medium fighter on INS Vikrant, as it already is on INS Vikramaditya. The Tejas is crucial for filling in the light fighter slot.

Balaji reveals a committed navy is funding 40 per cent of the development cost of the Naval Tejas. The MoD has allocated Rs 3,650 crore for the naval programme.

The ADA chief described the flight trials in Goa between March 27 and April 25, in which two Naval Tejas prototypes flew 33 sorties from a Shore Based Test Facility (SBTF) -- a full-scale replica of an aircraft carrier deck. Built on land, the SBTF allows carrier deck take-offs and landings to be validated, without unduly endangering an aircraft carrier, or an aircraft prototype and pilot.

When taking off from an aircraft carrier, a fighter revs up its engine to the maximum, while held back by a “restraining gear system” (RGS). Then, the RGS is disengaged, and the fighter shoots forward, accelerating to take-off speed in just 200 metres of deck. At the end of the deck runway, a “ski-jump” lifts the aircraft upwards, after which it flies on its own power.

In December 2014, the Naval Tejas had taken off from the SBTF ski-jump after rolling 300 metres. Now, the fighter has proven it can take off from just 200 metres, even carrying two R-73 close combat missiles.

“With this campaign, ski-jump launches are no longer a challenge. We will now explore the limits the fighter can be taken to. We will further fine-tune the control law software to take-off with higher payloads,” said Balaji. In aircraft carrier combat operations at sea, the Naval Tejas must take off with up to 3.5 tonnes of payload--- more fuel for longer range; and more weapons for a lethal punch. For this, the aircraft carrier would steam into the wind, ensuring a “wind-over-deck speed” of up to 20 knots. That would provide added lift to the aircraft, allowing higher payloads.

In aircraft carriers with catapult launchers, as the navy’s next indigenous aircraft carrier, INS Vishal, could be, the catapult allows higher launch speeds and, therefore, higher payloads.

Similarly, fitting the Tejas Mark-2 with the more powerful General Electric F-414 engine (the current Mark -1 fighter has the smaller F-404 engine) will allow greater payloads and more ambitious mission objectives. Even more challenging than taking off from a 200-metre carrier deck is to land an aircraft back on the carrier. This requires touching down precisely at the edge of the runway, aligning the approach with the help of an “optical landing system” and a “landing control post”. At landing, an “arresting gear system” --- including wire cables across the deck runway --- latches onto a hook on the fighter’s tail and rapidly decelerates it to a halt. “In the current campaign, the Tejas did over 60 approaches (without actually touching down) to gather data for fine-tuning the control law software. In the next campaign this month, we will do “touch and go” approaches to validate the software and then graduate to full landings,” explains Balaji. Finally, the Naval Tejas demonstrated its “fuel jettison” capability --- a safety feature that allows the fighter to quickly jettison on-board fuel if it encounters a problem soon after launch and must quickly return for an emergency landing on the carrier.

“By mid-2017, we will have established on the SBTF that the Naval Tejas can be flown off an actual carrier, and we will then graduate to ship-based testing. We currently have two prototypes in testing, and will build a third by then”, says a satisfied ADA chief.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 May 2016 10:19

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 190_1.html

Indian Navy launches underwater vigil system in Visakhapatnam
The Indian Navy has launched the state-of-the-art harbour defence systems
ANI | Visakhapatnam

May 11, 2016

Reliance Defence, Russian USC to build four frigates for Indian Navy
Make in India: Navy's new warships to be made from Indian steel

The Indian Navy has launched the state-of-the-art harbour defence systems, viz., integrated underwater harbour defence and surveillance system and mine warfare data centre. Which would enhance the Navy's surveillance capability and response to security threats at the naval dockyard in Visakhapatnam yesterday.

Vice admiral HCS Bisht, AVSM flag officer Commanding-In-Chief, Eastern Naval Command inaugurated the two systems.

The The Indian Navy has launched the state-of-the-art harbour defence systems, integrated underwater harbour defence and surveillance system and mine warfare data centre. Which would enhance the Navy's surveillance capability and response to security threats at the naval dockyard in Visakhapatnam yesterday.

Vice admiral HCS Bisht, AVSM flag officer Commanding-In-Chief, Eastern Naval Command inaugurated the two systems.

The Integrated Underwater Harbour Defence and Surveillance System (IUHDSS) is a multi-sensor system capable of detecting, identifying, tracking and generating warnings for all types of surface and underwater threats to Visakhapatnam harbour.

Post 26/11, the Indian Navy was made responsible for the security of the country's vast coastline of 7516 km in coordination with other agencies like Indian Coast Guard, Marine Police, fisheries, etc.

The creation of the Sagar Prahari Bal (SPB), induction of Fast Interceptor Crafts (FICs) and commissioning of the IUHDSS are some of the Navy's measures to strengthen security.

While the MWDC will collate, analyse and classify data collected by the Navy's Mine Hunting Ships from various ports along the East coast.

This state-of-the-art facility will be the nodal centre for maintaining an underwater information database of harbours along the East coast.

The Harbour Defence Systems will function under the control of the Naval Officer-in-Charge (Andhra Pradesh), Commodore Sanjiv Issar.

srai · Post by **srai** » 12 May 2016 11:54

tsarkar wrote:
Hitesh wrote:You lose the economies of scale and the spares supply chain, maintenance and training becomes much more expensive which contribute to a higher life-cycle cost. And you won't get many platforms as you hope to get.

Bheeshma wrote:As hitesh mentioned, it means you need to have separate logistical chain for each sub type. Its a waste of resources.
As mentioned earlier, both Type 15B and Type 17A have four engines. Assuming each engine costs Rs 100, the total cost will be Rs. 800

Suppose we standardize on one engine type, the engines will still cost 8 x 100 = Rs 800

So where does the saving come from?

If each engine requires 10 spares and 10 hours of servicing, does standardizing reduce the need for 10 spares and 10 hours of servicing? No, the cost & effort remain the same.

If a technician requires 10 hours of training on each type, then will standardization reduce the training required? No

If each engine type requires 10 technicians working 10 hours each, then will standardization reduce the servicing time? No. Each standardized engine will STILL require 10 technicians working 10 hours each.

Standardization is a false logic created my manufacturers that practically does not lead to any savings. It creates a monopoly. And costs actually go up when one vendor holds you by the balls.

Giving orders for 8 engines instead of 4 doesn't bring costs down. What brings the costs down is competitive bidding.

We should ask the IAF how it's doing with seven (soon eight) types of combat aircraft (MiG-21, MiG-27, MiG-29, Su-30MKI, Mirage-2000, Jaguar, LCA, and Rafale). They seem to have taken your logic to heart

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 12 May 2016 19:45

tsarkar wrote:
Hitesh wrote:You lose the economies of scale and the spares supply chain, maintenance and training becomes much more expensive which contribute to a higher life-cycle cost. And you won't get many platforms as you hope to get.

Bheeshma wrote:As hitesh mentioned, it means you need to have separate logistical chain for each sub type. Its a waste of resources.
As mentioned earlier, both Type 15B and Type 17A have four engines. Assuming each engine costs Rs 100, the total cost will be Rs. 800

Suppose we standardize on one engine type, the engines will still cost 8 x 100 = Rs 800
So where does the saving come from?

Larger orders, economies of scale, bulk pricing.. ?

tsarkar wrote:If each engine requires 10 spares and 10 hours of servicing, does standardizing reduce the need for 10 spares and 10 hours of servicing? No, the cost & effort remain the same.

If a technician requires 10 hours of training on each type, then will standardization reduce the training required? No

Of course it will reduce the amount of training and resources required. To illustrate, lets say you need a super specialist for the maintenance of each machine. This super specialist gets a problem that needs his skillset only 40% of his time, but you need to pay his salary for 100% of his time, because you need to retain him as a full time employee. If you have two different types of machines, you need two different people for this role, if there is only one type of machine, you utilize your expert and give him work 80% of the time. What you are saying goes against everything that every factory floor walla knows in his bones.

tsarkar wrote:Standardization is a false logic created my manufacturers that practically does not lead to any savings. It creates a monopoly. And costs actually go up when one vendor holds you by the balls.

Are you saying that its preferable to have several manufacturers each of whom hold you by the balls.

You can do dual sourcing to get away from monopoly situations but to maintain a menagerie of machines is just.. madness. Even when dual sourcing, you need to own the design and have your design done in a way that it can incorporate both sources. Can the P17 and P15 ships both take either the Zorya or the GE Gas Turbines? If so, Ill doff my hat to the Naval Design Bureau. If not, we still dont have any capability to play off GE against Zorya.. One of our balls is in the hands of GE and the other in the hands of Zorya.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 12 May 2016 22:50

sudeepj wrote:Larger orders, economies of scale, bulk pricing.. ?

Suppose I buy a packet of wafers with a unit price of Rs 10. If I buy 10 packets, will the unit price become Rs 5? If I buy 100 packets, will the unit price become Rs 1? No. Price cannot fall beyond a point because the cost of potatoes, cooking oil, utensils, premises rent and cook labour wont become zero.

In real life, for military hardware, the volume discounts are barely 5-10%. On the other hand, manufacturers have the propensity to increase prices 100-200% on realizing your dependence on them.

sudeepj wrote:
tsarkar wrote:If each engine requires 10 spares and 10 hours of servicing, does standardizing reduce the need for 10 spares and 10 hours of servicing? No, the cost & effort remain the same. If a technician requires 10 hours of training on each type, then will standardization reduce the training required? No
Of course it will reduce the amount of training and resources required. To illustrate, lets say you need a super specialist for the maintenance of each machine. This super specialist gets a problem that needs his skillset only 40% of his time, but you need to pay his salary for 100% of his time, because you need to retain him as a full time employee. If you have two different types of machines, you need two different people for this role, if there is only one type of machine, you utilize your expert and give him work 80% of the time. What you are saying goes against everything that every factory floor walla knows in his bones.

Your illustration might accurately reflect the service personnel of Meru Cab where one technician might work on 10 cars a day.

Your illustration is completely out of context in terms of military hardware, where a Zorya GT or GE LM 2500 or Rolls Royce Pegasus engine or Elta 2238 radar requires multiple personnel to service each equipment.

So rest assured, there is no idle time among the personnel. In a class of 3 ships with 12 engines between them, some engines are always being serviced

If two engines each requires 10 people to service it, then we need 20 people.

If I standardize both engines to one engine, then in the military environment, I cant reduce the number of people to 10 and overwork them. I will still need 20 people.

INS Shivalik has GE Gas Turbines and needs Engineering Department staffed by 10 people.

INS Kolkata has Zorya Gas Turbines and needs Engineering Department staffed by of 10 people.

If I build INS Kolkata with GE Gas Turbines, does it do away my need for an Engineering Department on it?

Can I fire 10 engineers of INS Kolkata and ask the 10 engineers of INS Shivalik to operate the engines of INS Kolkata ziplining between the ships at sea?

No, 10 engineers will still be required on each ship to run the engines. Same for servicing.

Examples of other industries might not be relevant in the military context.

sudeepj wrote:
tsarkar wrote:Standardization is a false logic created my manufacturers that practically does not lead to any savings. It creates a monopoly. And costs actually go up when one vendor holds you by the balls.
Are you saying that its preferable to have several manufacturers each of whom hold you by the balls........We still dont have any capability to play off GE against Zorya.. One of our balls is in the hands of GE and the other in the hands of Zorya.

Actually we do

The military market is a restricted market. India, China, Europeans, etc build finite number of ships every year. I would guess around 20 destroyers & frigates built worldwide every year. That translates into 80 engines. Losing orders can financially impact a vendor.

Now, if one vendor does any hanky panky in my class of 3 ships, I would design my next class of 3 ships around other vendors that is T1 & L1 in my next RFP.

That actually ensures innovation among vendors to be technically superior (T1) and commercially cheaper (L1)

Re-engining is also common. BMP-2 have their engines replaced. One of the Type 1241PE ships had its Russian engines replaced by German ones.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 12 May 2016 23:06

^^^Economies of scale relate primarily to the amortization of fixed costs (e.g. R&D) over a production run. The F-16s and JSFs are examples. It should not be confused with quantity discounts although the concepts do overlap. The latter relates to the concept of marginal cost (variable cost curves) and marginal revenue. This theory holds that as a seller, you have an incentive to sell at an ever diminishing profit margin as long as it covers the incremental cost of production because any profit however small, covers your fixed costs.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 12 May 2016 23:29

srai wrote:We should ask the IAF how it's doing with seven (soon eight) types of combat aircraft (MiG-21, MiG-27, MiG-29, Su-30MKI, Mirage-2000, Jaguar, LCA, and Rafale). They seem to have taken your logic to heart

The IAF is doing quite well, thank you.

And they're not using any logic of mine

rather I am trying to explain their sound logic that is based on years of experience and knowledge.

Firstly, multiple types insure against enemy tactics & technology

Please understand that you've the enemy forces constantly trying to develop new tactics to beat you.

You've enemy R&D and Manufacturing constantly trying to develop new equipment to out-perform you.

Its easier to develop tactics against one aircraft flight characteristics. Its difficult to develop and use tactics against two classes of aircraft having different flight characteristics.

Like the Mirage 2000 and MiG-29 flying together from Adampur to Kargil.

The MiG-29 extremely maneuverable with HMCS & R-73E while the Mirage 2000 had extremely reliable RDM-7 radar with continuous wave illumination (CWI) for Super 530D BVRAAM

While everyone is trying, its impossible to build a jack of all trades fighter. The F-111 failed. The JSF compromises heavily on maneuverability.

Secondly, unforeseen technical issues, like the Su-30MKI automatic ejection or Tejas landing gear lock issues resulted in flight restriction and in some cases, grounding of the type fleet.

If your air force is standardized on one type, then the entire air force is grounded by any unforeseen technical issue.

More the standardization, higher the percentage of grounded fleet.

Thirdly, the biggest de-merit of standardization is block obsolescence.

Our MiG-21s, the last of which were manufactured mid to late 80s, became obsolete in the early 90s. This gives the enemy a huge advantage. Had the Pressler Amendment not kicked in, the 100s of F-16 Pakistan was acquiring would've given then huge advantage over MiG-21

It also comes with a huge cost impact of replacing large number of planes.

Economically, its wasteful, because the last MiG-21 built in late 80s at a certain cost becomes obsolete in the 90s with an additional financial burden of buying a replacement.

If you have multiple types, you face obsolescence in batches and not your entire air force.

As wise men said, it takes all sorts to make the world. And military forces.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 May 2016 23:37

We should buy 25 fighters of each type in the MMRCA then. That way no opponent will know which fighter they are facing.

Jokes apart, the serviceability issues faced by the IAF do relate to the plethora of types it operates challenges it faces in dealing with multiple vendors.

While not standardizing on one type alone is preferable, the IAFs menagerie of far too many types was driven by short sighted politics & serviceability took a dive several times.

At best, go with 2-3 proven vendors and countries for your primary platforms each of a single type.

MiG-21, 23, 27, 29
Su-30 MKI
Jaguar
Mirage 2000

Hawk
Pilatus
Kiran

all with their unique spares lines, test equipment and what not.

Upgrades cost a bomb cause they cannot be spread over a larger run.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 12 May 2016 23:44

Cosmo_R wrote:^^^Economies of scale relate primarily to the amortization of fixed costs (e.g. R&D) over a production run.

Fixed costs like R&D are a small percentage of Life Cycle Costs.

R&D needs to be continuous. Like the French developed RDM from RDM-4 to RDM-7 to RDI to RDY to RDY-2 radars for Mirage 2000, that had a relatively lower production run.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 May 2016 23:53

Going forward,

Su-30 MKI
Rafale
LCA
AMCA
FGFA

Upgraded MiG-29, Jaguar, Mirage 2000 (hopefully at least these three will be replaced by one type, the AMCA).

We are still looking at some 5 types of fighters at the least. Thankfully (if IAF persists), we will finally have a local supplier with Tejas and AMCA, who will work with the IAF for its needs.

If the Russians had not effed up so much with Su-30 spares and TOT till IAF put its foot down, I suspect IAF would have not even asked for Rafale.
Even FGFA has that cloud hanging over it.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 12 May 2016 23:57

Karan M wrote:the serviceability issues faced by the IAF do relate to the plethora of types it operates challenges it faces in dealing with multiple vendors.

No. On the contrary, plethora of types ensured IAF stayed operationally ready and numerically sufficient

Operationally Ready -

Soviet aircraft came at lower unit cost of acquisition. However, Soviet did not build airframe life as high as western fighters because in the cold war, the high rate of technology progression made aircraft quickly obsolete. However, the meltdown of Soviet industries lead to spares issues.

Similarly for Su-30MKI, the AL-31FP engine and specifically the nozzles were one off designs for India in the days of the demise of Soviet Union. Their higher than expected wear & tear was not anticipated but is being rectified now.

These are the design specs http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/info-su30mki.html#11

The Mean Time Between Overhaul (MTBO) for the AL-31FP is given at 1,000 hours with a full-life span of 3,000 hours. The titanium nozzle has a MTBO of 500 Hrs.

The much lower MTBO, especially for nozzles, was known at the time of acquisition as a cost for TVC capabilities.

However, the reliable Jaguar and Mirage 2000 shouldered A2G and A2A responsibilities.

Numerically Sufficient -

At the same time, the lower cost of acquisition of MiG-29 and Su-30MKI ensured we built up sufficient numbers to prevent relatively smaller numbers of Mirage 2000 & Jaguars being overtasked and overwhelmed.

In the 80's, we could've financially never ordered the quantity of Jaguars needed and low cost MiG-23BN and MiG-27 quite effectively filled the gap.

Like Pakistan acquired A-5 and F-7 the same time as F-16. The A-5 and F-7 had even more poorer serviceability than MiG-21/23/27 but provided the numbers. A small airforce like Pakistan with 300-400 fighters had 4 types - F-16, Mirage 3/5, F-7 PG, F-7 and A-5. A mix of quality & quantity.

Seasoned Planning and Operations Staff Officers plan force structures. Each acquisition was for a purpose, as explained above.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 13 May 2016 00:01

Karan M wrote:If the Russians had not effed up so much with Su-30 spares and TOT till IAF put its foot down, I suspect IAF would have not even asked for Rafale.

The 126 aircraft requirement started after Kargil when 10 additional Mirage 2000 were ordered. MoD correctly ordered competitive bidding instead of outright purchase of an aircraft at the end of its production run and the MMRCA story started.