Indian Navy News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 28 Sep 2016 20:37

probably just 10-12 extra for spares or replacement to keep sortie rates up.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Sep 2016 12:30

TOI today listed out the huge pending eqpt. required for the services,crippling our mil capability.We are very unprepared to conduct a war over two weeks.Ammo stocls low and sev. deals already finalised have yet to take off.Sikorsky and KA-226 helos,127mm main guns desperately rweqd for warships under construction.Caught up in the FinnMecc. scandal.Not to mention subs situ which is in an apalling state.Even if quick decisions are made it will take at least 3-4 years before the first deals start arriving.As far as the IN is concerned,we must lease out more N and conventional subs from Russia,apart from placing new orders for u-boats and new Ru diesel/AIP boats.

kit · Post by **kit** » 29 Sep 2016 23:54

thats the problem with imported stuff.. indigenous solutions could have steady orders on depleting inventories

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 30 Sep 2016 00:11

haha..that's the proper reply to Philip who always comes with his Russian wares pitching for sales. Lol. Regarding the shortage, it was there when the govt took over..recently some report which mentioned that the gap is closed or almost all items are stocked up again.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Sep 2016 12:12

"Indigenopus solutions" ! What is the track rcord of the DPSUs?

Look guys,umpteen reports by the CAG etc. have exposed the huge logjam in domestic weapons production.ammo production,defective ammo,etc.,etc.Who is responsible for the decades old delay in the LCA? The Russians? Americans? Chinese? Even after the go ahead for the first two sqds to be based in S.India a few years ago,how many have been delivered to the IAF? Not even in double figures.The only weapon systems that seem to be in good production/dev mode are the BMos missiles and other tactical and strategic missiles. Warship blg. of all types of warships and subs are running v.late.The Vikrant (IAC-1) is again delayed with the late 2018 date being given as the date of commissioning.It was supposed to be entering service at the end of this year coinciding with the retirement of the Viraat.Orders have yet to be given for the Amphibs.In retrospect we should've picked up the two Mistrals meant for Russia,from France along with the 50+ KA-52 maritime helos and built the remaining two in India.Instead Egypt picked up the lot!

Indian pvt. industry must be tasked with the slack that the DPSUs cannot handle-which they're doing their best to sabotage as it would expose their sluggish performance and maintain their inefficient ,costly endeavour.UNless this is done,achieiving the holy grail of 70% of self-sufficiency will be like the labours of Hercules.Even decisions on firang systems is taking years to seal.The TOI just a few days ago had a feature on how many critical items were pending deeply affecting our capability.They ranged from naval guns,various helos,subs,aircraft,etc,,etc.Even items like Sikorsky and KA-226 helos,decisions already made have not started functioning.Pl. read the article.The gapr emains and is widening,not getting smaller!

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 02 Oct 2016 08:27

Bheeshma · Post by **Bheeshma** » 02 Oct 2016 10:02

Does IN really need 24 MCMVs? The most they have had is 16? Why can't Dhruv fill the role of utility choppers? I doubt IN would lease another akula, use the first one for training and churn out our own SSN's.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 02 Oct 2016 12:11

Bheeshma wrote:Does IN really need 24 MCMVs? The most they have had is 16? Why can't Dhruv fill the role of utility choppers? I doubt IN would lease another akula, use the first one for training and churn out our own SSN's.

First sign of costs and all military ambitions watered down.

IN must have provided justification for these, if indeed these figures are true.

Zynda · Post by **Zynda** » 02 Oct 2016 12:13

Life extension engineering & manf contract for Sea King choppers has been "in works" for some time now. No contracts have been awarded though AFAIK. Only RFE info. I think contract will go to desi firms onlee. Heard Navy is dragging its feet...perhaps it hopes that it will receive newer helos.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Oct 2016 00:48

Churn out our own SSNs? We are yet to launch ATV-2 .The SSN design is nowhere,we require firang/Ru collaboration.The fastest available N-sub is another Akula but we want the Yasen.The Yasen is even larger but its tech,etc. could be available for our smaller SSNs.

ASW helos and extra subs most urgent.

Bheeshma · Post by **Bheeshma** » 03 Oct 2016 01:32

I doubt there is any use of a neutered akula or yasen which can only fire 300 km range missiles. Have russians allowed integration of Nirbhay or other long range missiles? So yes its is better to speed up work on own own design and let L&T start building them.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 03 Oct 2016 02:41

The only use of the Akula is for training yet we keep pushing for them. Do we want to buy neutered mega weapons so that we can have a neutered IN? That seems to be the intent in pushing for these.

Guddu · Post by **Guddu** » 03 Oct 2016 04:55

Training on a nuke submarine is the main reason...

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Oct 2016 07:11

upto 3 crews can use the same submarine for training . I do not see the need for any more training subs given our slow N-sub built rate at present.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Oct 2016 11:33

If anyone thinks that the Chakra has been acquired merely for training,take along swig of the good stuff! For the moment the Arihant with its K-15 missiles could hit land targets with conventional warheads from 750+ km away,but our land based missiles could do the business equally well.MTCR rules limit the Chakra possessing Klub missiles,but she carries a large weaponload of approx 40 weapons and could carry at least a dozen Klubs unlike the Kilos which can carry approx 4 only.The PN could find a swift but short and exciting future should the balloon go up.One key role for the Chakra would be protecting the VikA and CBG which would definitely swing into action.In fact the Chakra has the same or even greater speed than the carrier.

The Kashalot was reportedly on offer a while ago,which could arrive within 3 years time.Our sub building capability for much smaller Scorpenes is not less than 5 years for a boat.The sub fleet is our weakest link in the IN and unless we lease soms subs,more Kilos,Akulas,etc., we will be at a disadvantage vis-a-vis the Sino-Pak JV.These subs could be returned when new ones arrive.The IN has been ranked 4th in one survey given its 120+ combat vessels,,but until our SSBN fleet is fully built with ICBMs aboard,we in strategic terms are inferior to the RN,French,PLAN navies apart from the two mil superpowers.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 03 Oct 2016 20:15

deejay wrote:
Bheeshma wrote:Does IN really need 24 MCMVs? The most they have had is 16? Why can't Dhruv fill the role of utility choppers? I doubt IN would lease another akula, use the first one for training and churn out our own SSN's.
First sign of costs and all military ambitions watered down. IN must have provided justification for these, if indeed these figures are true.

Historically and in the present day, mines have been the biggest destroyers of ships.

In the 1905 Russo-Japanese war, Stepan Makarov, the talented Russian Admiral was killed when his ship struck a mine. The victorious Japanese lost 8 major warships to mines.

In the Dardenelles/Gallipoli Campaign in WW1, Turkish mines sank 3 allied battleships in minutes, and decided the battle.

In WW2 Operation Starvation destroyed the Japanese mercantile fleet

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Starvation

Operation Starvation sank more ship tonnage in the last six months of the war than the efforts of all other sources combined.The Twentieth Air Force flew 1,529 sorties and laid 12,135 mines in twenty-six fields on forty-six separate missions. Mining demanded only 5.7% of the XXI Bomber Command's total sorties, and only fifteen B-29s were lost in the effort. In return, mines sank or damaged 670 ships totaling more than 1,250,000 tons.

Post WW2, more ships have been attacked by mines than missiles.

With modern mines becoming smarter, the 24 minesweepers were required yesterday.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 04 Oct 2016 04:51

Not sure if this news was reported earlier or not.

L&T wins contract to deliver patrol vessels to Vietnam

Indian defence company Larsen & Toubro (L&T) has signed a contract with the Indian Ministry of Defence (MoD) to supply high-speed patrol vessels to the Vietnam People's Army's paramilitary Border Guard Force.

L&T said in a filing to the Bombay Stock Exchange on 22 September that the contract is worth USD99.7 million and that it represents the company's biggest export order to date.

Design and engineering of the vessels will be undertaken at L&T's warship design centre, with construction at its Kattupalli Shipyard in Chennai. Although not confirmed by L&T, the programme is expected to feature four vessels.

L&T said the contract also includes the transfer to Vietnam of the design and related technologies as well as equipment and materials that will enable the construction of follow-on vessels at an unspecified Vietnamese shipyard.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 Oct 2016 11:43

MCMs are sorely needed because the simple act of a sub laying mines outside our major ports/naval bases is a v.cost-effective way in which asymmetrical warfare can be waged. The US mined Haiphong during the Viet War,mines were used in the Gulf,with tankers preceeding warships as they were less susceptible to damage! One contemp method of detecting and dealing with mines is using UUVs.Some are kamikaze UUVs,others disable the mines remotely/with explosives. Helos are used by the USN which tow mine countermeasures gear.

We could've easily built by now 20+ MCMs at home incorporating some eqpt. from abroad had we begun a decade ago.Thank AKA,the "Saint" for the current shortfall.

The naval multi-role helos are more urgently required than the utility ones,some of which can easily be bought off the shelf,not waiting for them to be made in India.The MR ASW ones must be decided upon v.soon as like the first Scorpene (no torpedoes!),our new surface combatants will possess now ASW air capability at all.

rpartha · Post by **rpartha** » 04 Oct 2016 16:59

Hi,
@manish_sharma

Not sure whether this is the right platform... but any update on the landing platform dock contract? Any idea who got the contract? It is supposed to be awarded early this month, right?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 Oct 2016 17:03

I think L&T and Pip are competing for two.Two more to be built at HSL if I'm not mistaken.

rpartha · Post by **rpartha** » 04 Oct 2016 17:19

Philip wrote:I think L&T and Pip are competing for two.Two more to be built at HSL if I'm not mistaken.

Yes you are correct l&t and reliance (formerly pipavav) were competing and the other two to be done at HSL. I thought either l&t or reliance to be chosen by now - at least that was the news on this...

sarang · Post by **sarang** » 04 Oct 2016 17:24

Last I heard that there is some dispute with south korean mine-sweepers, NO?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 Oct 2016 17:40

GSL supposed to be building the minsweepers.

A good feature by IDSA on our future sub plans Apols. if this was posted earlier.Relevant in the light of the criticism of the OZ-DCNS deal in the intl td.

http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/indias- ... ngh_050516

IDSA COMMENT
India’s Submarine Modernisation Plans

Abhijit Singh
May 05, 2016
India’s submarine modernisation plans have long been a subject of conjecture and debate in the Indian strategic affairs community. After an August 2013 explosion gutted the INS Sindhurakshak – the Navy’s premier Kilo class submarine – there has been much introspection over the depleting status of its submarine arm. Unfortunately, with the Navy unable to stick to scheduled timelines in the Scorpene programme – its principal submarine project – all talk of revamping the submarine arm has sounded hollow.

Last week, however, brought some cheery news. As Kalvari, India’s first indigenous stealth submarine, commenced sea-trails outside Mumbai Harbour, there was renewed optimism among naval managers. The Kalvari is the first of six Scorpene-class submarines being built under the much-delayed Project-75. Its sail-around was widely seen as an important step forward in meeting the September 2016 target for the submarine’s commissioning.

Despite the absence of its "primary weapon" – ‘Black-Shark’ torpedoes – the Kalvari’s presence in the open seas emphasized India’s efforts at rejuvenating its indigenous submarine production programme. While the project has faced long delays, naval technicians and project-managers have worked tirelessly to meet construction deadlines. Kalvari’s appearance in the open seas last week consequently created new hope for India’s submarine ambitions.

The cheery tidings aren’t limited to the conventional submarine programme. Indian maritime watchers are pleased with the impending induction of the first indigenous nuclear-powered submarine, the Arihant. Having cleared its diving trials and missile tests, the Arihant could soon be commissioned into the fleet as India’s first nuclear ballistic missile platform (SSBN). At 6,000-tons of displacement, the new submarine is a unique technology demonstrator and showcases the best of Indian naval design capability. Even though it draws heavily from Russian technology and has a limited ballistic missile capability (its twelve indigenous K-15 Sagarika missiles have a range of only 700 kms) the Arihant’s commissioning is a milestone for Indian designers who have worked tirelessly for years to refine procedures for the submarine’s construction.

Needless to say, the prospects of the induction this year of two submarines – one conventional, the other nuclear ballistic – has caused a fair bit of curiosity about the Navy’s proposed submarine force structure, particularly in the wake of reports that India has been exploring the possibility of manufacturing nuclear attack (SSNs) submarines. At an international seminar in New Delhi a few days ago, a participant wondered why the Navy was continuing with its dependence on conventional submarines when most advanced navies have shifted to all-nuclear submarine forces.

Indeed, there has been a long-running debate in the Navy about the inherent attributes of an all-nuclear undersea arsenal. Notwithstanding the distinct advantages that nuclear submarines (SSNs) enjoy over their conventional counterparts (SSKs), an all-nuclear Indian submarine force, in the Indian context, is an essentially flawed idea. This is because a conventional submarine offers benefits in littoral waters that more than adequately offset its most glaring constraint – limited operating endurance. A diesel electric submarine’s biggest advantage is that it has a smaller hull that is easier to manoeuvre in shallow waters and harder to detect. The fact that it costs a fraction of the price for a typical nuclear submarine makes a diesel electric an irresistible proposition for a mid-sized navy. Its attractiveness is only enhanced by the ease of operation and the absence of the risk of dangerous nuclear leaks. Simply put, developing maritime states like India cannot afford to overlook the practical utility and effectiveness of an SSK in South Asia’s littoral spaces.

That said, nuclear submarines confer an edge to a fighting force that diesel electrics find difficult to match. The fact that SSNs are bigger, tougher, more heavily armed and longer-ranged than conventional submarines makes them indispensable assets. They can also perform functions that diesel-electric submarines generally cannot – like cross an ocean underwater and at high speed or remain submerged for weeks outside critical littoral spaces. The powerful weapons and sensors they host far outweigh the combat capabilities of conventional submarines.

In 1999, when the Navy first proposed a 30 year building plan for the construction of 24 submarines, it did not intend constructing nuclear attack submarines. The plan then was to construct six submarines each with Western and Eastern-stream technology in the initial phase, before undertaking the development of 12 conventional submarines of an indigenous design. Unfortunately, the plan failed to take off as intended. Many reasons have been attributed for the lack of success in its implementation: the apparent lack of funds, strong divisions within the Navy over the proposal for a mix of conventional and nuclear submarines, and the apparent absence of visionary leadership. Whatever be the reasons for its initial failure, New Delhi is now making up for lost time and opportunity by combining its ongoing construction of conventional submarines with a proposal to build six nuclear attack submarines.

Notably, barring some top-tier navies such as those of the US, UK and France, no other submarine operating force has completely done away with conventional submarines. While the SSK’s simple advantages like ease and quietness of operations have been a factor of interest, the past few years have seen technological advances that have helped diesel electrics overcome their traditional disadvantage of less submerged time before surfacing to charge batteries. Air independent Propulsion technology and fuel cells have made it possible for conventional submarines to remain underwater much longer than earlier.

Not surprisingly then, navies today prefer a combination of nuclear and conventional submarines, with each class filling in a specific role. Increasingly, modern maritime forces deploy advanced non-nuclear submarines like the German Type 214 for sensitive operations. Some European navies, like the Norwegian Navy, have prioritized procurement of non-nuclear submarines to carry out specific tasks, such as protecting the Arctic’s fringes. Expectedly, there have been offers to partner the Indian Navy in developing the design of the new class of nuclear-powered attack submarines. The US has made an expression of interest, though New Delhi is said to have its heart set on the new Baracuda SSN being developed by the French firm DCNS. Meanwhile, reports that New Delhi has approached Moscow for the lease of a second Akula class submarine (after the INS Chakra) has caused speculation of another India-Russia collaborative venture for the construction of SSNs.

India’s choice of partners for its tactical submarines, however, is independent of its efforts to develop a nuclear ballistic missile submarine. A cherished endeavour of the Indian defence scientific community for over two decades, New Delhi has invested a great deal of financial and political capital in making the dream a reality. After the Arihant, three more submarines in the same class are currently under construction at the shipyards in Visakhapatnam. There are plans for a fifth submarine that will incorporate improvements over the lead boat. While India’s “No first use” nuclear policy mandates the establishment of a “triad” of air, sea and land deterrence capabilities, policy makers and strategic experts appear convinced that the sea-based leg is the most survivable component.

Looking ahead, India’s future submarine fleet operations are likely to involve SSKs and SSNs operating in the littoral spaces, in a strategic environment sanitized and protected by SSBNs. If New Delhi can ensure compliance with present construction deadlines, it could put its submarine modernization plans back on track.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 05 Oct 2016 01:48

Japan promotes flexible US-2 sale to India

Japan is ready to be flexible with the cost of ShinMaywa Industries' US-2i amphibious search-and-rescue (SAR) aircraft in order to push through a deal to export the platform to India.

Talks between the governments of Japan and India about the sale of the aircraft have been continuing for several years, with the requirement centred on a programme to supply the Indian Navy (IN) with 12 US-2i aircraft. The deal is reportedly worth about USD1.6 billion.

A spokesperson from Japan's Ministry of Defense (MoD) told IHS Jane's in late September that it would look to respond "flexibly" to India's requirement in a bid to accelerate the sale. This flexibility is understood to apply to not only the cost of the aircraft but also the programme to involve Indian industry in the aircraft's production.

The spokesperson also indicated, however, that the potential programme had stalled until Japan receives greater clarity from New Delhi about the finer details of India's US-2i procurement policy. The IN had previously indicated that it wanted to import two US-2is from ShinMaywa, with the remaining 10 aircraft licence built in India, although the MoD did not confirm this.

The MoD spokesperson said, "On the US-2 Japan and India have agreed to accelerate consideration between both defence authorities.

"[But] in order to move on to stages of discussion on specific conditions of co-operation [the Japan] Ministry of Defense hopes that the Indian side will establish its procurement policy as soon as possible."

The spokesperson added that "after India has determined its procurement policy we would like to flexibly respond to requests from India and make our co-operation concrete".

The export of the US-2i was the subject of government-to-government agreements signed in December 2015. These accords were signed in Tokyo and, according to the Indian government, related to the "transfer of defence equipment and technology" and the "protection of classified military information".

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 06 Oct 2016 18:23

Strategic boost to Navy as Cochin International Airport too now available for operations

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 09 Oct 2016 05:03

RFI for 7nos next gen corvettes

http://tenders.gov.in/viewtenddoc.asp?t ... no=1&td=TD

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 09 Oct 2016 12:01

Having read the minimum qualification criteria, the tender does a good job of disqualifying most Pvt sector yard's.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 09 Oct 2016 20:58

Admiral DK Joshi's Interview (old)

Bheeshma · Post by **Bheeshma** » 09 Oct 2016 21:12

So there will be seven follow on Kamorta's geared towards Anti Ship role? It does look like a follow on P-28A.

titash · Post by **titash** » 09 Oct 2016 23:08

Bheeshma wrote:So there will be seven follow on Kamorta's geared towards Anti Ship role? It does look like a follow on P-28A.

That's what it looks like...these are not tarantul/khukri replacements...these are frigates in every sense.

The helicopter will be smaller (ALH/NUH) as opposed to SeaKing/SeaHawk in the Kamortas, and the HWT tubes are replaced by LWT. The RBU-6000 will go as well, and the space/weight saved will be used to mount 8 Harpoons or Urans (doubt they can fit 8 BrahMos).

A very decent general purpose frigate...quite like what the Phillippines would have if they'd gone with the GRSE design.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 10 Oct 2016 04:37

Is India building two kamorta class frigates for Philippines?
This above ship RFP / tender is EXACTLY what the Philippines wanted, down to the 3x2 torpedos requirement.

Bheeshma · Post by **Bheeshma** » 10 Oct 2016 05:18

No, thankfully they went with Koreans design. SoKo was willing to donate upto 6 pohang class corvettes(Like the one sunk by NoKo). I would like GRSE to focus on delivering the P-17a's and P-28a's to IN first.

In the general purpose version of Kamorta, if the RBU-6000's are removed then you would want 8 klubs not garbage like Harpoon or Uran which is EOL now.

titash · Post by **titash** » 10 Oct 2016 05:58

Bheeshma wrote:No, thankfully they went with Koreans design. SoKo was willing to donate upto 6 pohang class corvettes(Like the one sunk by NoKo). I would like GRSE to focus on delivering the P-17a's and P-28a's to IN first.

In the general purpose version of Kamorta, if the RBU-6000's are removed then you would want 8 klubs not garbage like Harpoon or Uran which is EOL now.

Not necessarily Bheeshma-ji. A Harpoon/Uran will do plenty of damage if it strikes a target (150-250 Kg warheads). Most if not all of the likely targets on the west coast simply do not have the area air defence capability to neutralize a salvo of subsonic AShMs. Their best SAM is a Crotale ripoff and their missile boats/auxiliaries/merchant vessels have nothing! zilch! nada!

Why waste a BrahMos on minor targets of opportunity? Also, the Klub seems to be out of favor since all newer heavy combatants are displacing Klub in favor of BrahMos (wonder if that was a reliability issue just like the R-77s or a cost issue).

I wonder if this signals a strategic shift in the Indian Navy's composition. Moving away from small FACs to frigate sized helicopter + SAM equipped vessels that can duke it out with the occasional JF-17 or Agosta en route to clobbering Karachi/Omara. After all, the FACs speed buys you nothing these days given advanced radar and fighter cover.

Bheeshma · Post by **Bheeshma** » 10 Oct 2016 06:28

Please no ji and all. I doubt IN will buy any more Urans. The only ones available will be from old Koras. IN should never have to use their destroyers and Frigates for tackling the pakis. I am hoping those can be kept for dealing with chinese. Corvettes like Kamortas and Tarantuls should be be used to take out paki surface fleet and I would rather have Klub or Brahmos-M for the purpose.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 11 Oct 2016 00:04

Patrol vessel highlights improving India-Mauritius security co-operation

•India has delivered the first of two 48 m fast patrol vessels to Mauritius
•The patrol vessel programme, along with the introduction of 10 interceptor boats, is part of a sustained Indian effort to build security and influence across the Indian Ocean region

India's regional security outreach to countries bordering the Indian Ocean has been boosted by the delivery of the first of two India-built fast patrol vessels (FPVs) to the Mauritius Police Force National Coast Guard (NCG).

India's state-owned Goa Shipyard Limited (GSL) handed over MCGS Victory (pennant CG 32) to the Mauritius Coast Guard on 26 September. According to the Mauritius Police Force (MPF), Victory is expected to reach Mauritius next month; delivery of the second vessel, Valiant , is expected in 2017.

The 48.14 m long Victory-class FPVs are a variant of a GSL in-house design developed for the Indian Coast Guard. Powered by triple waterjets, each driven by an MTU 16V4000 M90 diesel engine through a ZF 7600 gearbox, top speed is more than 35 kt. Range is more than 1,500 n miles, and endurance is seven days. The armament fit comprises a 30 mm CRN-91 gun mount with fire-control capability provided by an electro-optical director. In addition 12.7 mm heavy and 7.62 mm light machine guns are fitted.

According to GSL, even though the project faced some difficulties, including sourcing of steel, that resulted in a six-month delay, the vessel was delivered on time. "Despite all the challenges ... we have successfully delivered this ship as per [the] contractual schedule of September 2016, within 20 months of keel laying," noted GSL's head, Rear Admiral Shekhar Mittal, quoted in a GSL press release.

The pair of FPVs (valued at USD41 million) and 10 recently inducted GSL-supplied 15.65 m fast interceptor boats (valued at USD6 million) were funded by a credit line from India's Export-Import Bank under the auspices of a long-standing India-Mauritius security co-operation effort.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 11 Oct 2016 22:14

titash wrote:.... Their best SAM is a Crotale ripoff and their missile boats/auxiliaries/merchant vessels have nothing! zilch! nada!

....)

I wonder if this signals a strategic shift in the Indian Navy's composition. Moving away from small FACs to frigate sized helicopter + SAM equipped vessels that can duke it out with the occasional JF-17 or Agosta en route to clobbering Karachi/Omara. ....

As it happens even PN is equipped with the same crotale rip off.

Note there is a separate tender for NGMV which will replace the missile boats.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Oct 2016 10:51

Falling further behind.The pace of Chinese naval shipbuilding is most alarming for us as our homebuilt warships and subs are in almost every project years behind schedule. The order for the second CV must be placed asap.

http://www.defencenews.in/article.aspx? ... iers_[PICS]

China races ahead of India in construction of Aircraft Carriers [PICS]
Tuesday, October 11, 2016
By: NDTV

New images indicate that China is racing towards completion of its first home-grown aircraft carrier.

A month after NDTV reported that the hull of the ship, designated the Type 001-A, appeared complete, a fresh set of images indicates that the "island" of the carrier, in many ways the nerve-centre of the warship, has now been installed ahead of sea-trials commencing. The "island" consists of the warship's bridge, aviation facilities and battle-control spaces. Radars and sensors are mounted on the island in addition to air intakes and funnels from its engines.

The Type 001-A, which is being constructed at a dry dock in the port city of Dalian to the East of Beijing, will likely weigh in at 60,000 tonnes and host close to 50 aircraft including 36 J-15 fighters, a Chinese replica of the Russian Su-27.

The process of completing trials will, however, take a few years and the new Chinese carrier is unlikely to join the navy before 2020.

The 001-A is the second Chinese aircraft carrier and its design is thought to be based on the Russian-designed Liaoning, from the Ukraine several years after the collapse of the USSR.

Significantly, new images have emerged on Chinese social media of a new variant of the J-15 fighter, designated the J-15A. The nose-wheel of the fighter features a catapult launch mechanism which clearly indicates that subsequent Chinese aircraft carriers and their strike fighters will likely be more capable.

A catapult launch system, which is hooked up to the nose-wheel of planes launched from ships, uses a compressed steam-driven piston drive or an electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS) to propel a fully-loaded fighter jet off the small deck of an aircraft carrier. At the moment, the Liaoning and the Type 001-A use a "ski-jump" ramp where fighter jets use only the power of their own engines to accelerate down the runway of the ship before being propelled off its deck. Without the additional acceleration provided by a catapult system, China's existing J-15 fighters have to be lighter to take off and consequently carry fewer weapons and possibly fuel, making them significantly less capable during operational deployments.

The pace of completion of China's first home-grown aircraft carrier is a matter of concern for the Indian Navy. India's indigenous aircraft carrier, named Vikrant (after the first carrier to enter its fleet), is nowhere close to completion despite having been launched in Kochi a full three years before China's 001-A.

The Vikrant will, at the very least, take nine years from start to finish point of joining the navy. The Chinese warship, on the other hand, will have made that same journey in three years.

Though the hull, superstructure and engines of the Vikrant have been integrated, its primary sensor, the Israeli MF-STAR (Multi-Function Surveillance, Track and Guidance) radar and Barak 8 Long Range surface to air missiles have not yet been acquired for this project.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 15 Oct 2016 00:46

Indian Naval LPD Program Making Headway With 2 Domestic Vendors

L&T has a tie-up with Navantia of Spain, and RDEL with DCNS of France.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 15 Oct 2016 04:13

Are we getting the frigates as well along with S 400 and other items? One advantage is that they can be inducted quickly as they are already at various stages of construction, thus can help increase navy's foot print.

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... n-3081666/

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Oct 2016 04:15

Oui.It appears a done deal.