Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Jan 2017 08:07

this thread is now the Al-bab thread - multiple players lauching HWT, LWT, ASMs and depth charges randomly from all directions. people hiding under a reef hoping a errant missile does not hit them.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Jan 2017 08:10

GD, I am locking this thread for 24 hours.

Please open on Saturday your time.
ramana

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Jan 2017 22:11

I have unlocked the thread

no more boo boo personal wars though

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Jan 2017 22:11

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 09 Jan 2017 22:19

THANK YOU SINGHA!

INS Betwa Accident: Flood water pumped out, inflated floats placed below ship
http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... p-4462847/

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 09 Jan 2017 22:20

Indian Navy to induct INS Kalvari only when fully operational
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indi ... 49911.html

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 09 Jan 2017 22:20

Ferry Craft Manohar inducted into assets of Commodore of the Yard division at Naval Dockyard Mumbai. It can carry 250 personnel.
https://twitter.com/writetake/status/817622314393206784

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 09 Jan 2017 22:20

Indian Navy $5 Billion MCMV Program Hits Roadblock
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/ind ... -roadblock

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 09 Jan 2017 22:21

Navy and Coast Guard to ink Rs 1,000-crore MoUs
http://indianexpress.com/article/cities ... s-4462652/

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 09 Jan 2017 22:25

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 09 Jan 2017 22:26

Second Scorpene class submarine to be launched on January 12
http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-new ... aiAZL.html

Pictures of Khanderi as per twitter link....
https://twitter.com/tweetateeq/status/8 ... 7388385280

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Jan 2017 22:28

Philip, In old days the Kolkata class would be called light cruiser!!!!
With its 16 Brahmos its heavy bruiser.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 09 Jan 2017 22:30

Traditional Cake Cutting by Jr most sailor & CO on 1st Anniversary (07/01) of the indigenous ASW frigate
https://twitter.com/indiannavy/status/8 ... 1088183297

The vessel in question is a ASW corvette and not a ASW frigate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Kadmatt_(P29)

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 09 Jan 2017 22:31

INS Darshak completes hydrographic survey in Mauritius. Deployed for Joint Survey from 3 Dec 16 to 3 Jan 17
https://twitter.com/SpokespersonMoD/sta ... 8504685568

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 09 Jan 2017 22:56

ramana wrote:Philip, In old days the Kolkata class would be called light cruiser!!!!
With its 16 Brahmos its heavy bruiser.

Can someone expand on the hits these "destroyers" are designed to take. The destroyers of the old were designed for taking hits and still keep fighting. Especially the gun cages were super protected to even take a direct hit. What is the story with the new designs. Also, does it make sense for things like ERA on these ships. Just thinking loud. One look at he picture above, one can see the defensive, offensive, tracking & communications pieces but not how well equipped is it to take hits and of what kinds and where?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 09 Jan 2017 23:00

ERA would not work on ships. I could be wrong, but the kinetic energy of a AShM is greater than a tank round....and that is a subsonic missile like the Harpoon or Exocet. You take a supersonic missile like the BrahMos and all bets are off.

brar_w may know more on this....

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 09 Jan 2017 23:19

There is some talk of Dynamic ERA et al. I have a nagging suspicion that "future" reserve power of the Ford and maybe the Zumwalt is reserved for things like these. But, let experts opine.

John · Post by **John** » 09 Jan 2017 23:22

ramana wrote:Philip, In old days the Kolkata class would be called light cruiser!!!!
With its 16 Brahmos its heavy bruiser.

Even if you go by definition of old days it is still a Destroyer, it is ship designed to escort and protect convoy or battle groups. Where as Cruisers are ships that can operate alone and raid enemy shipping lanes which is definitely not what Kolkata is designed for. Vessels like Slava, Ticon and Kirov fit that designation. It just so happens ships have become over sized these days and destroyer have become the size of cruisers and ironically few navies have done with Destroyer designation for political correctness and are labeling them as frigates.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 09 Jan 2017 23:42

ShauryaT wrote:
ramana wrote:Philip, In old days the Kolkata class would be called light cruiser!!!!
With its 16 Brahmos its heavy bruiser.
Can someone expand on the hits these "destroyers" are designed to take. The destroyers of the old were designed for taking hits and still keep fighting. Especially the gun cages were super protected to even take a direct hit. What is the story with the new designs. Also, does it make sense for things like ERA on these ships. Just thinking loud. One look at he picture above, one can see the defensive, offensive, tracking & communications pieces but not how well equipped is it to take hits and of what kinds and where?

Watched documentary about Bismark, my understanding is that only sides were heavily armored. The top was not that protected. Almost all ships that were not torpedoed sank because of shell hits on the deck.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 09 Jan 2017 23:56

Rakesh wrote:ERA would not work on ships. I could be wrong, but the kinetic energy of a AShM is greater than a tank round....and that is a subsonic missile like the Harpoon or Exocet. You take a supersonic missile like the BrahMos and all bets are off.

brar_w may know more on this....

My knowledge on this is quite limited so I would defer to those that know a lot more on the subject.

sohamn · Post by **sohamn** » 10 Jan 2017 02:33

^^^^
Modern Destroyers don't have armour of WW2 era. They rely on air / missile defense and torpedo decoys. If some destroyer has let an enemy ship(capital) come within gun range then it is toast - as modern torpedoes and guns are highly accurate. The warship most likely is going to land multiple hits from the enemy craft before it can retaliate.

sohamn · Post by **sohamn** » 10 Jan 2017 02:41

Karthik S wrote: Watched documentary about Bismark, my understanding is that only sides were heavily armored. The top was not that protected. Almost all ships that were not torpedoed sank because of shell hits on the deck.

Bismark was heavily protected even on deck side. It was HMS Hood that was not protected in the deck as it was converted from a WW1 battlecruiser which lacked heavy armour. Bismark took immense punishment before sinking which is the testimony of its superb armour. Even lookup how many hits yamato took before she went down. Warship armour development was at its peak during WW2 and early cold war era before it started decline due to the advent of the missile. Brahmos is packed with 300 kg of explosives, Styx I believe comes with 500 kg HE.
No armour can withstand a 300kg-500kg HE + all the kinetic energy that comes with the missile + the fuel left in the missile itself. The armour game is over in warships, all they need to do is design to withstand fragments, small arms and RPGs.

ManuJ · Post by **ManuJ** » 10 Jan 2017 03:22

Any news about the followup plans once the last two P28 are delivered, hopefully this year?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 10 Jan 2017 03:47

IN's $5 billion MCMV program hits roadblock

NEW DELHI - Indian Navy's $5 billion program to build 12 high-tech new generation mine counter-measure vessels (MCMVs) has run into rough weather, as Kangnam Corporation of South Korea virtually refuses to provide a performance guarantee for supervision of construction of the vessels by state-owned Goa Shipyard Ltd.

The design and technology transfer agreement worth over $ 1 billion with Kangnam Corporation for 12 MCMVs in India is "not in sight as of now" an MoD official added. "There are several parameters of the technology transfer which need to be finalized before the agreement with Kangnam is signed."

"The real bone of contention is we want full intellectual property rights of the MCMVs which is not acceptable to the selected design and technology partner," the MoD official disclosed.

No executive of Kangnam Corporation was available for comment.

MoD official noted that since an additional order of 12 MCMVs is likely to top the existing order of 12 to Goa shipyard the negotiations with the South Korean company will cover large parameters of technology transfer.

Goa Shipyard was nominated by MoD to build 12 MCMVs in 2015, which in turn shortlisted Kangnam Corporation to transfer technology to build the vessels. India does not have the technology to build these specialized vessels.

Equipped with specialized composite material, the MCMVs are expected to be deployed by the Indian Navy to detect variety of underwater mines. Currently the Indian Navy operates outdated Russian made MCMVs.

"It is very important to build an indigenous capability to build these specialized vessels even if it means paying steep price to acquire technology from Kangnam Corporation," a senior Indian Navy official said, adding that the acquisition of MCMV is already delayed with 24 vessels needed.

Earlier an attempt was made through a 2008 global tender to acquire these vessels. In response, South Korea's Kangnam Corporation emerged as the lowest bidder against Intermarine of Italy.

However, the deal could not be signed with the South Korean company because of charges of alleged use of defense agents in the 2008 tender, a violation of Indian law. The tender was cancelled in early 2014. The Indian government then put the tender in the Buy & Make (India) category, which restricted it only to domestic shipyards.

In 2015, GSL floated a global tender to Kangnam Corporation of South Korea, Intermarine of Italy, Navantia of Spain, Lockheed Martin of USA, Thyssenkrupp of Germany and two Russian shipyards seeking design and technology transfer for the MCMVs. Only Kangnam Corporation responded to the tender as a single bidder, which was eventually approved by MoD defense in January 2016.

"The acquisition of much needed MCMV has suffered in the MoD where the procurement process is very arduous and cumbersome," defense analyst Nitin Mehta said.

Bheeshma · Post by **Bheeshma** » 10 Jan 2017 04:20

What is so special about MCMV's that it has to be acquired from abroad?

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 10 Jan 2017 04:48

sohamn wrote:^^^^
Modern Destroyers don't have armour of WW2 era. They rely on air / missile defense and torpedo decoys. If some destroyer has let an enemy ship(capital) come within gun range then it is toast - as modern torpedoes and guns are highly accurate. The warship most likely is going to land multiple hits from the enemy craft before it can retaliate.

aegis arliegh burke class are better armored with double space armor around vital areas and kevlar lining to protect against spalling.

ww2 fletcher class had .75 " hull steel and .5" deck steel.

here is a vital clue:

fletcher - Length: 376.5 ft (114.8 m)
Beam: 39.5 ft (12.0 m)
Draft: 17.5 ft (5.3 m)

full load displacement 2500 tons
crew 329

arleigh burke - Length:
Flights I and II: 505 ft (154 m)
Flight IIA: 509 ft (155 m)
Beam: 66 ft (20 m)
Draft: 30.5 ft (9.3 m)

full load displacement 8,000 - 10,000 tons depending on model

crew 323

the arleigh burke looks like a cruel joke with its one dinky little gun.

but I can assure you, it is the fighting tip of the spear of the US Navy and it doesn't make a move w/o them.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Jan 2017 04:53

They are demagnetized ships.
The real issue is how was the tender approved by same MoD in Jan 2016 a year ago without nailing down the details from the sole bidder which was eliminated in 2008 for using agents?

I think a few MoD heads should be rolled before its settled.

Key issue is how can any outside vendor guarantee Indian state owned and union run GSL performance without any oversight authority?

GSL is asking for a CYA clause to protect their anticipated non-performance.

I think IN should speak up if they want the ships. Already 8 years were lost from 2008.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Jan 2017 07:15

ShauryaT wrote: Can someone expand on the hits these "destroyers" are designed to take. The destroyers of the old were designed for taking hits and still keep fighting. Especially the gun cages were super protected to even take a direct hit. What is the story with the new designs. Also, does it make sense for things like ERA on these ships. Just thinking loud. One look at he picture above, one can see the defensive, offensive, tracking & communications pieces but not how well equipped is it to take hits and of what kinds and where?

ERA woks by exploding and dissipating the energy of an incoming round. For the energy to be dissipated - the expanding gases have to go somewhere. In the case of tank ERA there is tank armour on one side and atmosphere on the other side - so the explosion energy dissipates away from the armour. In the case of underwater explosion near a ship hull a pressure wave is generated that can buckle or puncture the hull and damage the ship permanently or temporarily - because water does not allow the escape/dissipation of energy the way air does. An underwater explosion does not have to actually hit the hull - an explosion close by can transmit enough pressure to do damage.

A hit above waterline may be survivable.The HMS Sheffield was hit above the waterline in the Falklands and was crippled by fires - but took several days to sink from the hole taking in water

However even modern warships have armour that makes them less susceptible to damage than other ships. This pdf has the explanations and a table on page 69
http://www.amw.gdynia.pl/library/File/Z ... romski.pdf

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Jan 2017 07:21

A ddg or ffg might be able to take a couple of harpoon hits and still function...damage control and redundancy is much better than ww2. But its career woukd be over and a tug will be required.

Uss cole was in no danger of sinking.

No ddg will survive a heavy torpedo under the keel though. A light torpedo it might be able to absorb and limp away under tow

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Jan 2017 07:24

Cvn ships apart from soft and hardkill measures have classified anti torpedo armour packages in the bottom levels underwater. They have lot more weight and volume budget in play.

My boo boo theory is the large 12000 teu container ships and tankers full loaded will be able to survive a hwt hit. They have good watertight compartments, strong trucklike chassis and spine and in tankers case huge reserve buoyancy from the fuel. Atleast i support the tanker riding it out....may sit low in the water and look weak but ww2 proved tankers are very hard to put down...sometimes the fuel would catch fire and burn out and the ship still be recovered. Gas tankers carrying cng i would abandon ship asap. Almost all tankers are double hull and large internal volumes absorb explosions well.

Given a volume budget of 2x todays mbt, people claim they can easily use basic spaced armour concepts to defeat any apds from any angle.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Jan 2017 07:25

A torpedo or a mine could lift one section of the ship out of water and drop it down "fracturing its spine" so to speak

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 10 Jan 2017 07:30

shiv: the US Navy's Mk 48 ADCAP heavy weight torpedo do exactly that. bloody scary to be on that ship and survive.

see this video at 0:26 onwards....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vaImLvZbPw

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Jan 2017 07:31

All hwt do that yes even the varunastra

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Jan 2017 07:49

Singha wrote: My boo boo theory is the large 12000 teu container ships and tankers full loaded will be able to survive a hwt hit. They have good watertight compartments, strong trucklike chassis and spine and in tankers case huge reserve buoyancy from the fuel. Atleast i support the tanker riding it out....may sit low in the water and look weak but ww2 proved tankers are very hard to put down...sometimes the fuel would catch fire and burn out and the ship still be recovered. Gas tankers carrying cng i would abandon ship asap. Almost all tankers are double hull and large internal volumes absorb explosions well.

There is a "explosive shock damage" aspect to controls, electrics and machinery that tankers are not designed to withstand - so they may leak oil and float but may be crippled

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Jan 2017 08:21

I would imagine tanker ship control systems are tested and designed to withstand explosions and fires given the nature of cargo...perhaps not on a warship scale but good level.
an epic incident in ww2 during supply run to malta

http://ww2today.com/14th-august-1942-th ... e-the-ohio

one of the things I read about is that people who served in that era and saw terrible bloodshed never want to talk much about it, if at all....they lost a lot of good friends ..... they prefer to live the rest of their lives quietly and open up only with former comrades in arms.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Jan 2017 09:08

Singha wrote:I would imagine tanker ship control systems are tested and designed to withstand explosions and fires given the nature of cargo...perhaps not on a warship scale but good level.
an epic incident in ww2 during supply run to malta

http://ww2today.com/14th-august-1942-th ... e-the-ohio

one of the things I read about is that people who served in that era and saw terrible bloodshed never want to talk much about it, if at all....they lost a lot of good friends ..... they prefer to live the rest of their lives quietly and open up only with former comrades in arms.

The table of damage to ships from explosions below is copied from the pdf linked under
http://www.amw.gdynia.pl/library/File/Z ... romski.pdf

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Jan 2017 13:55

Buy the damned MCMs fro SoKo,at least the first 6, and ensure that the contract is watertight(pun intended) with huge penalty clauses for failure to meet specs/performance.We can't build everything at home.Then let GSL build another 12. Otherwise,examine /evaluate the new inshore MCM class being built for the RuN. ,since our Natya and Yevgenya Mine warfare vessels were from Russia.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 10 Jan 2017 15:35

ShauryaT wrote:Can someone expand on the hits these "destroyers" are designed to take. The destroyers of the old were designed for taking hits and still keep fighting. Especially the gun cages were super protected to even take a direct hit. What is the story with the new designs. Also, does it make sense for things like ERA on these ships. Just thinking loud. One look at he picture above, one can see the defensive, offensive, tracking & communications pieces but not how well equipped is it to take hits and of what kinds and where?

WW2 destroyers were smaller than modern destroyers - late war destroyers were 2500 tonnes - like Old Rajput https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_and_R-class_destroyer

Modern destroyers are 5000-9000 tonnes.

Coming to protection, primarily its -

1. Electronic - long range deceptive / barrage / burn through jamming
2. Long Range Weapons
3. Short Range Weapons
4. Decoys - Chaff/Flares/Towed and released decoys.

US is experimenting with lasers to burn missile guidance, fuel, motor. Maybe brar_w can share something on this.

While there is spall lining to prevent human injuries, that is all about it. A missile cannot be stopped by armour, and its explosive warhead and residual fuel will cause explosions. However, ships are divided into watertight bulkheads and adjoining bulkheads will keep the ship afloat, as well as contain any fires started.

No amount of armour can resist the pressure wave generated by torpedo/mine.

Minesweepers are designed with extensive shock proofing to resist pressure waves from close range detonations, however they suffer from weight and propulsion penalties.

However, even minesweeper's shock proofing is like a Bomb Disposal Squad's suit. The suit looks impressive, weighs a lot, hampers dexterity and will not save the person defusing the bomb if it explodes.

Modern fighters, with the exception of CAS fighters, do not have any armour other than self sealing fuel tanks. What's the use of armouring the body if the control surfaces are ripped by expanding rod warhead.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Jan 2017 17:26

a concept WW2 borrowed from the american civil war era - the monitor ship - pack a heavy BB sized turret onto a small cheap hull. not a fleet asset and limited in range and speed but useful for seaward defence and bombarding weak hamlets perhaps...a mobile artillery

HMS Erebus

nits · Post by **nits** » 10 Jan 2017 20:16

From Rediff

Minor fire on Navy warship INS Pralaya, no injuries: A minor fire was reported on board Navy warship INS Pralaya at Naval Dockyard in Mumbai on Tuesday afternoon.

The fire was reported in the gyro compartment and was extinguished immediately, a defence spokesperson said. There were no reports of any injury, the spokesperson added.