Indian Naval Discussion

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Mar 2013 18:13

And now,presenting the latest defence scam,the ....sting-in-the-tail Scorpene scam!

The MOD has reportedly ordered an inquiry into the deal ,against the former head/director ,delays (3-4 yrs) extra costs,etc.Folks will remember that in the aftermath of the NDA defeat,the deal was put on hold and then renegotiated.PC then the FM was against the extra costs being asked for and it took some time before the deal was confirmed.However,Pranab M then denied the allegations,but the project ran into trouble thereafter.

The Scorpene Saga:

http://beforeitsnews.com/military/2013/ ... 50386.html

Some press reports also sought to establish a link between the Scorpene project and the breach of security that had occurred in the Directorate of Naval Operations in the Naval Head Quarters. On the issue of breach of security, during the course of a Court of Inquiry held in May 2005 by the Air HQrs, it was established that a pen drive recovered from Lt (Retd) Kulbhushan Parashar, a former Indian Navy Officer, contained classified information pertaining to the Directorate of Naval Operations. A Board of Inquiry was convened to hold a full investigation into the matter. The Board established that there had been a leakage of information, primarily of commercial value, to unauthorized persons. However, the leaked information did not pertain to the Scorpene project.

The Board severely indicted three Naval Officers namely Captain Kashyap Kumar, Commander Vinod Kumar Jha and Commander Vijyendra Rana. It also showed the involvement of some retired officers and civilians. The three Naval Officers severely indicted by the Naval Board of Enquiry were dismissed from the Navy on 26th October 2005, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 15 of the Navy Act, 1957 read in conjunction with Regulation 216 of the Regulations of the Navy Part II (Statutory). One of the dismissed officers, Capt. Kashyap Kumar has filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court in Nov. 2005 challenging his dismissal from Service.

On 18th February 2006, the Ministry of Defence referred the matter relating to the leakage of information from the Directorate of Naval Operations in the Naval Headquarters to the Central Bureau of Investigation for further investigation and filing of criminal proceedings against the dismissed officers as well as the civilians and retired officers involved in the leak of information".

On 14 November 2008 14 the NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation, seeking CBI investigation into the Rs 1,600 crore Scorpene submarine deal, contended before the Delhi High Court that the Centre was trying to protect the middlemen involved in the deal. "Investigation of the CBI clearly points in the direction of the involvement of middlemen and payment of commissions in the Scorpene deal, the Government is still maintaining that no investigation is required," said NGO's counsel Prashant Bhushan. The petitioner alleged that 4 percent kickbacks were paid to middlemen in the the Rs 16,000 crore deal with French company Thales. The government informed the court that the investigating agency found no evidence of involvement of kickbacks in the deal. But on 19 December 2008 the CBI expressed its willingness to reconduct the preliminary inquiry into allegations of kickbacks in the Scorpene submarine deal after it failed to convince the Delhi High Court that it had made an honest effort to investigate the matter earlier.

The Indian Ministry of Defence, under pressure from the Indian Navy and facing an ultimatum from the French government, agreed to buy the six Scorpene submarines for $4.6 billion - $1.4 billion more than the price tag negotiated in 2002. The increased cost was blamed on the prolonged negotiations that invalidated the $3.2 billion price tag agreed in 2002. .....

DCNS, the French firm that developed the Scorpene, assured the Indian Navy in early 2008 that issues surrounding technology transfer had been taken care of and the first of the six Scorpene submarines would roll out by 2012. The remaining five were scheduled to follow at a rate of one per year. But by May 2008 the Rs 18,798-crore Scorpene submarine project had run into rough weather due to delay in technology transfer. The navy may not be able to induct the first submarine by the 2012 deadline, with the French yet to part with crucial details of technological know-how, including design and drawing documentation. A senior navy official confirmed to HT that the project had been delayed by a year due to "teething problems".

Complexity of the construction can be judged from the fact that the first submarine of the series will be delivered in year 2012 and the rest in the following five years one annually. By late 2007 there had been slippages in the gigantic Rs 18,798 crore project to construct six Scorpene submarines at MDL, slated for delivery between 2012 and 2017.

On 26 March 2009 French naval defence system contractor DCNS said there had been initial "teething trouble" in the transfer of technology for the Indian Navy's Scorpene submarine project but they had been resolved. Three of the six Scorpene submarines are being built at the Mazagaon Dock Limited (MDL) as part of the Indian Navy's P75 project. By one estimate the project is worth Rs 13,000 crore and all the submarines would be delivered by 2017 end, Patrick Boissier, Chairman and CEO of DCNS Group said.

Mazagon Dock Limited (MDL) is manufacturing SSK Scorpene submarines (P75) under transfer of technology (ToT) from DCNS. Simultaneously, DCNS India, DCNS Group’s subsidiary based in Mumbai, is working at the selection and qualification of Indian companies as partners for local production of the Scorpenes’ equipments. As of 2012 DCNS said that the first Scorpene submarine was to be launched at the end of 2013 and commissioned in 2015. The last Scorpene is expected to be commissioned in 2018. But DCNS also said they were to be delivered at a rate of one per year, and if the first were launched in 2013 and commissioned in 2015, the sixth would be launched in 2019 and commissioned in 2021.

Costs:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ect-75.htm

Planned costs for the Project 75 deal had a range of reported figures, until a contract was signed. In the end, the reported figure was Rs 15,400 crore, or $3.5 billion converted equivalent at the time. Subsequent auditor reports indicated that the program would actually cost about 18,798 crore (about $4 billion), and escalations to 20,798 crore/ $4.38 billion and then 23,562 crore/ $4.56 billion have followed. That makes for about a 25.4% cost increase from the auditors’ baseline.

Tracking actual contracts is more difficult. Contracts signed as of August 2009 totaled INR 207.98 billion/ Rs 20,798 crore. The contracts were signed at different times, and will be paid over different periods, so a true currency conversion is difficult. A weakening American dollar and Euro have cushioned the increases somewhat, but most of the project’s cost involves local currency purchases. Contracts reportedly include:

Rs 6,315 crore contract with DCNS’ predecessor for transfer of technology, combat systems and construction design.
Rs 1,062 crore contract with MBDA for sea-skimming Exocet missiles and related systems
Rs 5,888 crore contract with MDL for local submarine construction
Rs 3,553 crore set aside for taxes
Rs 2,160 crore for other project requirements
Rs 2,000 crore added in March 2010 to cover added finalized costs of the “MDL procured material (MPM) packages”
Rs 2,764 crore unaccounted for yet in public releases, but envisaged in final INR 235 billion program costs.

Escalations now make the deal $4.5 billion,for just 6 subs ,that is almost $750million per sub fro the non AIP version,when the Akula-2 SSGN,4-5 times the Scorpene's size,40+ weapons vs 18,and virtual unlimited endurance and range,30kts speed as against 20kts.,costs ....er $900m,almost the same as the Scorpene too! Mischief,thou surely are afoot!

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/i ... 829121.ece

State of art

In terms of the platform, the Akula II represents the state of art in SSN design, the programme having been launched in the mid 1990s. The nearest in terms of design vintage is the British ‘Astute' class also of the mid 1990s,but in terms of capabilities it is smaller and less accomplished; while the American Los Angeles class predates the Chakra by a decade. Also, the design philosophy harmonises with the orientation of our strategic nuclear submarine project.

As far as the economics of the matter is concerned, $920 million for a 10-year lease with certain support features attached must be viewed in perspective of what the SSN represents and the fact that a new SSN of similar capability with a 30-year life would have a price tag of about $3billion and a through life cost of (thumb rule) $9 billion would suggest that the deal is a sound one.

PS:The many myriad quality problems of the British "Astute" are now too well know for it to compare with the proven Akula,wrong metal used-parts giving way ,wrong lead for reactor shielding-a very serious problem,etc., etc.,has made the Astute reflect anything but its name.

http://beforeitsnews.com/military/2013/ ... ttedPage=2

March 11/13: Torpedoes. Defense minister Antony offers a written Parliamentary reply to say that India still hasn’t finalized a contract for torpedoes. A Special Technical Oversight Committee (STOC) was convened to review the complaints about the proposed Black Shark buy, and approved it as fair and to procedure. The high-level political Defence Acquisition Committee accepted the report in September 2012 (6 months ago), and has done… nothing. The purchase has now been delayed for over 3 years.

Welcome to India. Part of the reason involves allegations that WASS’ parent firm Finmeccanica paid bribes to secure a contract for 12 AW101 VVIP helicopters. In Italy, its CEO is facing bribery charges, and has been deposed. That sort of thing could get the parent firm blacklisted, which would also scuttle the torpedo buy and could make it difficult for India to build its Vikrant Class indigenous aircraft carriers. As of March 11/13, Finmeccanica subsidiary AgustaWestland has been given a ‘show cause’ notice regarding cancellation, but had not had the contract cancelled, or been blacklisted. See also Jan 12/10, Jan 31/11, Oct 28/12. India PIB.

Jan 4/13: Investigation. India’s Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has launched an inquiry against Commodore (ret.) Gopal Bharti, who heads up Project 75. The inquiry is in response to an unnamed internal whistleblower. the financial irregularities which include train fare reimbursement and taking his son abroad at public expense, aren’t earth-shattering. On the other hand, the CVC is investigating allegations that Bharti deliberately refused to place orders for 170 critical items, and are curious about the disappearance of 15 high pressure specialized underwater valves from his department.

Innocent until proven guilty, but the range of allegations are pretty broad. Times of India.

Nick_S · Post by **Nick_S** » 18 Mar 2013 19:25

Philip wrote:There is a very neat new Russian frigate design which looks much better stealthwise than the Krivak-3/4 Talwar class.where all the missiles are in VLS silos,larger main gun,etc.,not much larger than the Talwars.I think that it also has a new SAM system,better capability than the Shtils and could carry upto 16 Brahmos class SSMs.If tweaked,it could accommodate two ASW helos or helo+ UAV.It seems to be smaller than the P-17s and would probably take just the same amount of time as the Talwars.

Referring to Gorshkov class?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiral_Go ... ss_frigate

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Mar 2013 20:54

I wonder why they need that gigantic gun more worthy of the kirov on the foredeck? the russian obsession with being badass in firepower I suppose.
there are no pirates in the artic so assuming this ships role is EEZ patrol, they would have been better served with a smaller gun and more helicopter capacity at the back.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 18 Mar 2013 21:05

Given that Nishant is hydro-pneumatic rail launched, These ships can carry more than 1 UAV right?

If Nishant can be tweaked to carry a larger payload and a good radar systems, it can be a good platform for Ships?

John · Post by **John** » 18 Mar 2013 21:13

That is not the Gorshkov class that is Type 21630/1. A 100 mm would would make it very useful for artillery bombardment, IDF have used Saar 4.5 quite effectively in that role.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Mar 2013 22:03

Singha wrote:I wonder why they need that gigantic gun more worthy of the kirov on the foredeck? the russian obsession with being badass in firepower I suppose.
there are no pirates in the artic so assuming this ships role is EEZ patrol, they would have been better served with a smaller gun and more helicopter capacity at the back.

How about breaking through ice?

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 18 Mar 2013 22:08

shiv wrote:
Singha wrote:I wonder why they need that gigantic gun more worthy of the kirov on the foredeck? the russian obsession with being badass in firepower I suppose.
there are no pirates in the artic so assuming this ships role is EEZ patrol, they would have been better served with a smaller gun and more helicopter capacity at the back.
How about breaking through ice?

In our relations with Pak? A 8-cell VLS of Nirbhay would do that nicely on first 3 ships of the class.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 18 Mar 2013 22:48

JTull wrote:
shiv wrote:
How about breaking through ice?
In our relations with Pak? A 8-cell VLS of Nirbhay would do that nicely on first 3 ships of the class.

:doffs hat:

John · Post by **John** » 18 Mar 2013 23:10

JTull wrote:n our relations with Pak? A 8-cell VLS of Nirbhay would do that nicely on first 3 ships of the class.

I suspect the indigenous Brahmos VL are compatible with Nirbhay (in other hand Russian Universal launch system might not be).

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 18 Mar 2013 23:21

The ship seen is the Buyan class small artillery ship and the MG is a 100 mm A190-01 gun , Since its based in the land locked Caspian Sea it does not need more than that to protect its EEZ

Ship in action http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOnWIAoYDPQ

http://warfare.be/db/catid/271/linkid/2 ... lery-ship/

Nick_S · Post by **Nick_S** » 19 Mar 2013 05:14

John wrote:That is not the Gorshkov class that is Type 21630/1. A 100 mm would would make it very useful for artillery bombardment, IDF have used Saar 4.5 quite effectively in that role.

Sorry, my bad.

srin · Post by **srin** » 19 Mar 2013 09:07

NRao wrote:
/Trouble for India in the future with large port facilities for the PLAN at Hambantota and in Myanmar.With a huge naval base at Gwadar too,one can now clearly see the strategic dimensions of the Chinese masterplan to challenge India in the IOR and protect its merchant/petro fleet transiting the IOR with events in the Maldives being part of its strategy to install anti0-Indian regimes around us.
You do realize that a Chinese ship coming out of one of those facilities means that that host nation is fair game, right?

Precisely - when two elephants fight, the ants get trampled and the elephants won't even notice.

When it really matters, neither Myanmar nor Srilanka will do anything that doesn't give them plausible deniability. Everyone knows that India is capable of annihilating those bases without a second thought and they will not do anything that would cause that.

srin · Post by **srin** » 19 Mar 2013 09:10

Phillip - trying to understand the comparison between Scorpene and Akula. The cost comparison you have given is fair only if we are *building* Akula locally.

Even for the second Akula we want to lease, it will be completed at the Russian yard and one only hopes that they haven't misplaced the design etc like they did for Gorshkov.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Mar 2013 10:54

No,not the Gorky frigate class.I will cross check with the number later.

Srin,no,the hull of Akula number two is ready.The design hasn't been lost! The costs I've given are hard facts.There is simply no way that a Scorpene non-AIP sub should cost $750m+,that too under 2000t,when a 12,000t nuclear SSGN Akula-2 with 40 weapons,including missiles that are far superior to the Scorpene's Exocets,cost just $900m+ for a 10 yr. lease.After the lease we are supposed to have the option of buying the sub at depreciated value or return it .The estimated cost of the Amur/Lada 1650t sub is approx $150M only.Even if is double that,one can get two of them for just one Scorpene.

Some Amur news.

http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20130213/179449203.html

MOSCOW, February 13 (RIA Novosti) - Foreign customers have shown high interest in Russia’s advanced Amur-1650 class submarine, state-run arms dealer Rosoboronexport said on Wednesday.

“Of the nine countries that are planning to modernize or develop their submarine fleets…three have already chosen the Amur-1650 project,” Rosoboronexport’s director Anatoly Isaikin said.

He did not name the countries in question.

The ongoing work on air-independent (closed cycle) propulsion systems for the submarine should further fuel the customers’ interest, he added.

The Amur 1650 is one of several participants in a tender by the Indian Navy for six submarines with a total value of $11.8 billion. The Amur 1650 is up against the Scorpene (France), Type 214 (Germany) and S-80 (Spain), among others.

The Amur has an armament of multirole torpedoes and anti-ship missiles, and can also effectively engage land targets with advanced cruise missiles, which may include the Indian-Russian Brahmos.

The Amur 1650 has the ability to remain submerged for over 25 days using its air-independent propulsion, five to 10 days longer than similar-class foreign boats.

Air-independent submarines, which usually use hydrogen-oxygen fuel cells, are quieter than conventional diesel-electric boats and do not have to surface or use snorkel tubes to breathe air, thereby exposing themselves to detection by radar and other sensors.

Details of the 5th upgraded Kilo Sindhurakshak handover here.

http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20130126/179045141.html

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Mar 2013 14:20

I think it has been mentioned time and again that neither the scorpene nor the amur whether aip or non-aip are in any shape or form long haul subs that can wage war in the east china sea. we wont ever have enough SSNs for that job, so the next best thing is something like the Soryu or U216...enough range , enough missiles to atleast make some impact greater than a couple pinpricks on a dragons thick scaly hide.

firing a couple missiles to stir the hornets nest and then having to crawl back submerged on AIP at 5 knots along the sea bottom, sweating and praying everytime a ships screws are heard is not a offensive plan...it is tokenism

pls end this - the Amur cannot fill the P75 role if we want offence. if we want defence, producing more scorpene's is the cheapest idea.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Mar 2013 17:08

Dear Singha,pl. note,reg. the Amur,it CAN carry upto 8 BMos missiles,plus Klubs fired from the tubes,whereas none of the European subs has an equiv. missile comparable to BMos.German U-boats have no missile capability other than Harpoon or Exocet either and BMos will never be allowed to be installed on competiotion to Russian subs. With the current spat with Italy,there is little chance that the proposed Russo-Italian JV for a sub will find favour with the IN/GOI.

Amur in this format is what is being offered to the IN from reports.Secondly, if you study WW2 sub warfare, you will find that those subs,of that vintage carried out attacks in every ocean,and from bases on our eastern coast/A&N islands,a 45-60 day voyage for an conventional sub/AIP sub,will give it enough time for substantial patrol time in the Indo-China Sea.In '71,even the Ghazi was able to lie off Vizag in wait for the Vikrant.Using the A&N islands as a forward base for both subs and LRMP aircraft will give us an edge If we also take up the Vietnamese offer of either a base or logistic support ,we would be able to further extend our reach into the Asia-Pacific region.

Let me give you a simple calculation.At a cruising speed of only 10-15 kts per day,with a 10 day schedule to reach the patrol zone,a conventional sub would be able to travel a minimum of 2500-3000nm.It would then be able to spend 3 weeks on offensive patrol and return home-that too for a non-AIP sub.With a 60 day patrol for an AIP sub,the range and time on patrol would be greater.Let us examine the Kilo class,already in service with us,which has a range of 6000-7000nm and an endurance of 45 days.

Travel time between Vizag and Shanghai ,port to port distances,on an "East China Sea" patrol,at a speed of 10 kts would take 16 days,distance just under 4000nm,giving a two week patrol time for a non-AIP sub. For Hong Kong/Hainan,Indo-China Sea patrol,distance to Hainan less than 3000nm,the time taken at the same speed would be only 10-12 days giving an on patrol time of 3 weeks,and more than a month for an AIP sub! This too without any refuelling/logistic support during its operational period.In comparison,A Delhi class DDG has a range of 5000nm,less than a Kilo,a Talwar class FFG a range of just under 5000nm at a speed of 14 kts. So you can see why the sub is the preferred weapon system of sea denial and for long range surprise offensive ops.Remember also how Japanese mini-subs reached Pearl Harbour and only faulty torpedoes (one even hit a battleship in battleship row) saw them fail in their task.

John · Post by **John** » 19 Mar 2013 17:58

Phillip
Amur with 8 Brahmos exist as a plastic model only, most are highly skeptical of it since that amount of payload will seriously hamper performance (even the LA class SSN can carry only a module of 12 VLS cells which is less than half the weight of 8 cell Brahmos module). Besides' Russian navy is highly skeptical of Amur and there are numerous editorials slamming the design. Even going as far as calling Kilo a far superior submarine than Amur. Lets wait till Amur is built and Russian navy inducts the darn thing before jumping all over Amur Bandwagon again.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Mar 2013 18:50

The sub has. reportedly passed its modifications/trials whatever and two subs are being completed for induction into the Russian fleet.There are supposedly a lot of improvements over the Kilo and let's wait and see and not write off the sub.Putin and co. from their track record do not reward failure and throw away good money after a sub-standard product.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Mar 2013 19:32

The sub has. reportedly passed its modifications/trials whatever and two subs are being completed for induction into the Russian fleet

Perhaps you are talking of the Lada class, of which one seems to have been delivered/inducted and two are under construction.

The export version of the Lada is the Amur and none seem to have been started so far.

Is it possible that the Ladas were built in Amur shipyard and thus the confusion?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Mar 2013 05:06

Quite correct NR,Lada is the Russian version,Amur,the export version,which has this difference in that they are equipped with VLS silos for missiles unlike the Ladas.Both can carry the KLUB series though.This is because the Russian navy has missile armed SSNs and SSGNs with a heavy weaponload for the anti-ship land attack strike,where US carrier task froces require massed salvoes of missiles.There are two versions of Amur,the larger 1650t and smaller 950t version,which has a crew of only 20.This is meant for smaller navies with mainly brown water ops.With a slight hump abaft the sail,they both can carry 8-10 missiles approx. 9m long and 1m dia.AIP options exist.

The frigate design I was earlier referring to is the 22356 "multi-purpose frigate"design.There is a model pic at this link,shown at Euronaval Nov. 2012.Pic in middle row,not that great,but can be enlarged.
http://www.severnoe.com/en/news/news/20 ... euronaval/

However,the same design is shown at the keel laying of the new frigate "Adm.Glovko",22350 at the Severnoye (builder's site) site.
http://www.severnoe.com/en/news/news/20 ... 7/golovko/

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 20 Mar 2013 08:19

Philip wrote:Quite correct NR,Lada is the Russian version,Amur,the export version,which has this difference in that they are equipped with VLS silos for missiles unlike the Ladas.Both can carry the KLUB series though.This is because the Russian navy has missile armed SSNs and SSGNs with a heavy weaponload for the anti-ship land attack strike,where US carrier task froces require massed salvoes of missiles.There are two versions of Amur,the larger 1650t and smaller 950t version,which has a crew of only 20.This is meant for smaller navies with mainly brown water ops.With a slight hump abaft the sail,they both can carry 8-10 missiles approx. 9m long and 1m dia.AIP options exist.

So John is right. The Amur with VLS is still a paper model. Only the Lada without the VLS has been reportedly built.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Mar 2013 14:54

Check out this article.It has some innovative ideas.

World navies: Where do they plot their courses to?
http://old.nationaldefense.ru/5380/5522 ... ml?id=7763

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Mar 2013 12:24

Sub-launched BMos is now ready,after vesterday's test,in VLS format,but we have no subs ready for the missile-bad planning say many.The media reported that AKA congratulated both Indian adn Russian scientists after the test.In fact,the IN must take its share of the blame because it has had 10 Kilo class subs of which most are at varying stages of refit-5 already upgraded to fire Klub missiles.Well knowing the delays in Scorpene construction and the delay in finalising the second -line tender,one of our Kilos should've been used as a trials sub.Years ago we did the same to our Foxtrots,used to test our indigenous sonars.The BMos armed Amur/Lada design has been around for quite a long time.The IN/GOI well knowing how long it takes to get a new requirement/system from abroad should've earmarked at least one sub as a trials ship a long time ago.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 100380.cms

India tests underwater BrahMos missile, but has no submarine to fire it
Rajat Pandit, TNN | Mar 21, 2013, 04.25 AM IST

India tests underwater BrahMos missile, but has no submarine to fire it
The Project-75 India submarines are nothing but a mere pipedream at present.
RELATED
Loading
NEW DELHI: The utter lack of long-term strategic planning in the Indian defence establishment was once again evident on Wednesday when the country for the first time tested the 290-km range BrahMos supersonic cruise missile from underwater.

The submarine-launched version of the missile was "successfully" tested from an underwater pontoon off Visakhapatnam around 2.10pm. BrahMos chief A Sivathanu Pillai promptly declared, "The missile is fully ready for fitment in the 'Project-75 India' submarines of the Indian Navy in vertical launch configuration, which will make the platform (submarine) one of the most powerful weapon platform in the world."

Defence minister A K Antony also chipped in soon after by saying, "It's a wonderful achievement and proud moment for India." DRDO chief V K Saraswat said it was "a significant step towards boosting India's military strength". Other defence scientists proclaimed this was "first time any supersonic cruise missile has been launched vertically from a submerged platform".

Amid all these gushing accolades, they however forgot to mention one critical fact: the Project-75 India submarines are nothing but a mere pipedream at present. With even the initial global tender or RFP (request for proposal) for them yet to be floated, the Navy will not get the first such submarine anytime before 2023.

"What's the use of having bullets but no gun to fire them from? Even if the defence ministry gets cracking immediately on the long-delayed P-75I, it will take three to four years to select the foreign submarine-manufacturer for technological collaboration. Thereafter, it will take another seven to eight years for the first submarine to roll out," said a senior official.

The BrahMos missile cannot be fitted on the Navy's existing fleet of 10 ageing Russian Kilo-class and four German HDW submarines, half of them in any case are fully operational at any given time. Nor can it be deployed on the six French Scorpene submarines being constructed in the Rs 23,562-crore Project-75 underway at Mazagon Docks (MDL) in Mumbai, under which the vessels will now be delivered in the 2015-2020 timeframe three years behind schedule.

Project-75 India, in turn, has failed to take off after going around in circles for several years now. The Cabinet committee on security will have to clear the RFP before it is issued because two of the submarines have to imported from the foreign vendor finally selected. Three will subsequently be built at MDL, and the last at Hindustan Shipyard at Visakhapatnam, after transfer of technology.

All this of course does not detract from the utility of the air-breathing BrahMos, which flies at the speed of Mach 2.8, as a "precision strike weapon". It has been inducted by some artillery regiments in the Army as well as a few naval warships.

The Army is moving ahead to induct three versions of the multi-role BrahMos, having already placed orders worth Rs 9,484 crore, over the next two-three years. Navy and IAF, in turn, have ordered BrahMos missiles worth Rs 3,568 crore and Rs 1,295 crore, respectively, as of now.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Mar 2013 14:19

Brahmos cannot be fired from Kilo or other subs as it needs 650 mm TT or VLS launcher , I read the sub firing would be done in Russia from a test sub platform having those capabilities.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 21 Mar 2013 15:18

How are CM's launched from Torpedo tubes like say Excocet from Agosta, would it be possible to fire a Brahmos from INS CHakra's torpedo tubes.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Mar 2013 15:47

with those fixed fins, the brahmos diameter is listed as 60cm. ie 23.62 inches so with an adapter it could be fired from russian torpedo tubes that fire the 11m, 4.7ton, type65 heavy torpedo. the Kursk was one such.
some of the Akula also has 4 such tubes 4 × 650mm torpedo tubes ..however the Nerpa is listed as having 8x533mm only

CM/Exocet are sized to fit in 21" TT, exocet SM39 has a power cartridge that moves it away from launch sub before breaking suface to mask the exact location of sub from observers.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Mar 2013 15:49

AFAIK INS Chakra does not have 650 mm TT all are 533 mm TT so firing a Brahmos from Chakra may not be possible. Reason why proposed Amur have VLS tube for Brahmos and even Yasen SSGN have VLS tubes.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Mar 2013 16:16

Std. Akula-2 subs have 4 X 533mm (28 nos)+ 4 X 650mm (12nos) tubes. The Nerpa/Chakra is supposed to have 8 533mm tubes only.One doesn't have accurate figures,but we should also explore the idea of leasing other Russian SSGNs,as proposed by Russian analysts themselves,so that we can take advantage of the BMos development.The fastest way to induct the missile is to place an order for a few more BM/AIP Kilos/Amurs,or to send over two Kilos for modification to insert the extra BMos plug.We would then be able to have the subs back in service by 2015.The Russians are taking just 3 years to build Kilos/Amurs.

MN Kumar · Post by **MN Kumar** » 21 Mar 2013 16:37

Remember this is a the second underwater missile after Sagarika in India's arsenal. And what was the range that was specified for Brahmos test last year, iirc around 500KM. Doesnt it easily fit inside Arihant?
I am not convinced that you can test a system without a platform to hold it. The platform may already be in the works or who knows its even ready.

JMT.

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 21 Mar 2013 16:51

MN Kumar wrote:Remember this is a the second underwater missile after Sagarika in India's arsenal. And what was the range that was specified for Brahmos test last year, iirc around 500KM. Doesnt it easily fit inside Arihant?
I am not convinced that you can test a system without a platform to hold it. The platform may already be in the works or who knows its even ready.

JMT.

Possibilities???

1. 2nd or 3rd vessel in the Arihant class could come with a VLS module for Brahmos instead of SLBM cells? Unlikely that we willl waste a platform (SSBN) for nuclear triad to convert it into a carrier killer !!!

2. Last 2subs or additional 2-3subs in Scorpene line can be modified to fit a VLS for Brahmos?

3. A SSN class based on Arihant with VLS for Brahmos is a possibility as a complement to the SSBN class Arihant!!

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 21 Mar 2013 21:23

The underwater missile launches are occuring one after the other.
I think there is a russian sub in Indian waters that is the launch platform.

DRDO scientists were talking earlier about waiting for the arrival of the launch platform.
Is this a Delta class sub or the typhoon class sub?

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 21 Mar 2013 21:25

Why would Russia offer India a SSBN? Both K-15 and Brahmos can most likely be tested from the Arihant itself.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 21 Mar 2013 21:28

But this is NOT the arihant firing off these missiles.
Either it is the pontoon that is being used, (most likely) or there is a russian sub in indian waters.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 21 Mar 2013 22:05

It definitely is not any russian sub. They would have to be stupid to let India test an untested missile on their sub and risk loosing a nuke sub.

John · Post by **John** » 21 Mar 2013 22:11

MN Kumar wrote:Remember this is a the second underwater missile after Sagarika in India's arsenal. And what was the range that was specified for Brahmos test last year, iirc around 500KM. Doesnt it easily fit inside Arihant?
I am not convinced that you can test a system without a platform to hold it. The platform may already be in the works or who knows its even ready.

Brahmos range is still capped 300 km and would require 24 inch torpedo tubes (besides' it hasn't been tested for torpedo tube launch). IMO sub launch is primarily to test the mechanism that would be used for any future Nirhant sub launch variant.

sohamn · Post by **sohamn** » 21 Mar 2013 22:49

No navy on earth would test an untested missile from a submarine. It would be foolhardy and could lead to a big disaster in case the missile explodes, or say the propellant leaks. This was definitely an underwater pontoon, and drdo simply added a twist by saying underwater launch platform. But thinking straight a underwater pontoon is also a launch platform.

krishna_krishna · Post by **krishna_krishna** » 22 Mar 2013 05:34

Chaiwala says, it was from arihant's multipurpose launcher. Furthermore he says there are pictures of missile being loaded into arihant. Will try to find out link

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 22 Mar 2013 05:53

Just the launcher or Arihant itself?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 22 Mar 2013 06:14

krishna_krishna wrote:Chaiwala says, it was from arihant's multipurpose launcher. Furthermore he says there are pictures of missile being loaded into arihant. Will try to find out link

Not possible. period

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Mar 2013 09:29

the underwater phase is via gas generator , so its not too risky....no ignition takes place underwater.
at worst the gas generator might fizzle or the missile fall back in the water without igniting.

there are plenty of videos of SLBM tests that failed with the missile turning like a diwali chakra in the air. must be failures underwater as well. no reports of any SSBN lost in such tests.....at low water pressure 40m below there is almost nothing harder than a sub hull .. made of highest quality steel ever invented.