Will wrote:The TOI reports that India is negotating for a second nuke sub form Russia. Heard this after a longtime after initial reports. Wonder how far its true. While they are at it they should just go ahead and lease a total of 5.
NEW DELHI: India's long hunt for a nuclear submarine is finally over. But it will take the country another 10-12 months to get an operational nuclear weapon triad - the capability to fire nukes from land, air and sea.
India on Monday became the world's sixth country after the US, Russia, France, the UK and China to operate nuclear-powered submarines when the Russian Akula-II class submarine `K-152 Nerpa' was commissioned into Indian Navy as INS Chakra on a 10-year lease under a secretive almost $1-billion contract inked in 2004.
The 8,140-tonne INS Chakra, however, is not armed with long-range nuclear missiles, like the Russian SS-N-21 cruise missiles with an over 2,500-km range due to international non-proliferation treaties like the Missile Technology Control Regime.
The Indian nuclear triad's elusive underwater leg will only come when the homegrown nuclear submarine, the over 6,000-tonne INS Arihant equipped to carry a dozen K-15 (750-km) or four K-4 (3,500-km) ballistic missiles, becomes fully operational by early-2013. India has the land and air legs in the shape of the Agni series of missiles and fighter jets capable of carrying nuclear weapons.
Defence ministry sources said INS Chakra, commissioned at the Primorye region in far south-eastern Russia in a ceremony attended by top Indian and Russian officials, would soon set sail for India. It will be based at Visakhapatnam, next to where INS Arihant is slated to begin extensive sea trials in February-March after the ongoing harbour-acceptance trials.
Though it may not add to India's nuclear deterrence posture, INS Chakra will give some much-needed muscle to India's depleting underwater combat arm, which has only 14 ageing conventional submarines to brandish. India is in talks for the lease of another Akula-II class submarine from Russia, say sources.
Nuclear-powered submarines are stealthy since they can operate underwater at long ranges for months unlike diesel-electric submarines that need to surface every few days to get oxygen to recharge their batteries and have limited endurance due to fuel requirements.
INS Chakra will also be armed with the 300-km range Klub-S land-attack cruise missiles, which India deploys on its Kilo-class conventional submarines as well as other missiles and advanced torpedoes.
"It will be deadly `hunter-killer' of enemy submarines and warships, as also provide effective protection to a fleet at sea. It can also provide cover to the nuclear-armed INS Arihant if required. With a dived speed of 30-35 knots, INS Chakra will be able to outrun any current Pakistani or Chinese submarine," said a source.
The Navy will also use INS Chakra to train its sailors in the complex art of operating nuclear submarines. The `Charlie-I' class nuclear submarine India had leased from Russia from 1988 to 1991 was also named INS Chakra but the expertise gained on it was steadily lost since the Navy did not operate any other nuclear submarine thereafter.
The new 10-year lease flows from the January 2004 agreement, with India funding a major part of Nerpa's construction at Komsomolsk-on-Amur shipyard after Russia stopped it midway due to a fund crunch. It was slated for induction much earlier but technical glitches delayed the process, which included a toxic gas leak in November 2008 that killed 20 Russian sailors.
Why do you think India puts up with delays,price escalations and all sort of crap from Russia? The simple reason is that no other country will provide you stuff like nuclear subs.SagarAg wrote:I just wanted to ask a random question out of curiosity. Have ever before any other country had sub-leased a nuclear submarine to any other country except India-Russia ?
Leasing a nuclear submarine for a 10 years basis clearly indicate how much Russia trust us and that all over these years we have been able to maintain that trust.
Cheers to India-Russia friendship !!
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnava ... 20123.aspxOther Indian naval officers have already admitted that they were partially to blame for the Gorshkov fiasco. They admit that when they signed the deal in 2004 Indian engineers had not closely inspected the Gorshkov and agreed, after a cursory inspection, that many electrical and mechanical components buried within the ship's hull were serviceable. It turned out that many of those components were not good-to-go and had to be replaced, at great expense. Shortly after the contract was signed the Russians discovered that the shipyard had misplaced the blueprints for the Gorshkov and things went downhill from there.
Total BS. There are two sets of blueprints - one with the designer bureau, the second one with the construction yard.Philip wrote:A quote from a report about the Gorky delayed arrival,hopefully this year end.
PS:Shipyard "misplaced the drawings..." ? A fishy tale indeed.
From a non-expert viewpoint, I think that would need a very large amount of gas (tough) being ejected through several pores in the large hull (tough). It would also be very noisy.koti wrote:Maybe OT, but can the supercavitation be used for subs too?
Sources have told TIMES NOW that four Indian Naval officers allegedly leaked sensitive naval information. The Navy had been tracking the four officers for a few months and action against the officers was recommended in January. In August 2011, a sweep conducted by Command Intelligence of the WNC chanced upon a trail wherein four officers of Commander level rank were found allegedly misusing their online networks and releasing information which were detrimental to Navy's interests. This information included location of ships, frequency and location of patrolling, nature of ammunition on board and other technical details. The Navy personnel's personal hard disks allegedly contained confidential data that they were not supposed to carry home.
Perhaps, IF they had known the fiasco that the Gorky kicked up.Just for comparison with our adventure to acquire the Gorky,here is a link to the intriguing tale of the new PLAL carrier,Shi Lang/Varyag.Once rejected by India (some must be ruing the decision in South Block)mwe now have to devise tactics in the worst case scenario where we have to sink it.
Indian Navy officers and seamen are familiarising themselves with INS Teg (Sabre), which is being built by the Yantar Baltic shipbuilding plant in Kaliningrad, spokesman for the plant Sergei Mikhailov said.
“Some 200 Indian seamen and officers have “settled” on INS Teg, the first of the three ships of the 11356 project, which has been completed at Yantar – they have been introduced to the new frigate and have started familiarising themselves with its equipment under the guidance of their Russian counterparts from the Baltic Fleet,” Mikhailov said
Philip wrote:Just for comparison with our adventure to acquire the Gorky,here is a link to the intriguing tale of the new PLAL carrier,Shi Lang/Varyag.Once rejected by India (some must be ruing the decision in South Block)mwe now have to devise tactics in the worst case scenario where we have to sink it.
It also spurs debate on the shape and size of IAC-2,which should be larger and perhaps rely on both N-powered reactors as an option.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-2 ... chase.html
Floating-Casino Bid Turned Into China’s Biggest Aircraft Carrier Purchase
Cain Marko wrote: Where are those damned backfires?
Had a doubt... As per Wikipedia the MW output for the propulsion units seem to be similar for the Arihant class submarines and the Vikrant class carriers. So does it mean that they are keeping the above-mentioned option open?Philip wrote:It also spurs debate on the shape and size of IAC-2,which should be larger and perhaps rely on both N-powered reactors as an option.
General characteristics
Class and type: Arihant-class submarine
Type: SSBN or SSGN
Length: 111 m (364 ft)[2]
Beam: 15 m (49 ft)[2]
Draft: 11 m (36 ft)[2]
Propulsion: PWR using 40% enriched uranium fuel (80 MWe );
[2] one turbine (47,000 hp/70 MW); one shaft; one 7-bladed, high-skew propeller (estimated)
General characteristics
Class and type: Vikrant class
Type: Aircraft Carrier
Displacement: 40,000+ tonnes[1]
Length: 262 metres (860 ft)
Beam: 60 metres (200 ft)
Draught: 8.4 metres (28 ft)
Propulsion: 4 General Electric LM2500+ gas turbines, 2 shafts 80+ MW
Speed: 28 kn (52 km/h)
Green Water Navy
Hence, in 2005, TNI-AL announced its "Green-Water Navy" blueprint to achieve a 274-ship force structure by 2024, divided into a Striking Force (110 ships), Patrolling Force (66 ships), and Supporting Force (98 ships). In addition, it is also upgrading existing assets with new systems and armaments. This is Indonesia's largest naval modernisation plan in over 40 years. The last major modernisation was during 1959-1961 when Indonesia purchased a substantial number of Soviet-made naval vessels.
The blueprint has since been gradually realised with some new platforms joining the fleet. All four Sigma-class corvettes built in the Netherlands have been in service with TNI-AL since 2009. In 2011, Indonesia's amphibious capabilities were also boosted with the commissioning of the fourth Makassar-class Landing Platform Dock (LPD) vessel. One of them even participated in a hostage rescue operation in the Gulf of Aden in March 2010.
For its patrol muscle, Indonesia's naval shipyard, PT PAL, has been able to manufacture fast attack craft and arm them with Chinese C-802 anti-ship missiles. PT PAL is also keen to integrate various naval weapon systems into different platforms. In April 2011, a Russian Yakhont missile mounted aboard an ex-Dutch Van Speijk frigate was successfully test-fired. Such integration of "hybrid" systems would most likely characterise Indonesia's naval shipbuilding capacity in the near term, rather than the more ambitious whole-platform construction of submarines or frigates.
Regardless, TNI-AL also has plans for a major procurement for this decade. PT PAL is about to jointly construct frigates and submarines with foreign naval shipbuilding companies. In August 2010, a project was agreed to locally construct four to 16 guided missile escorts (Perusak Kawal Rudal, PKR) in cooperation with Dutch Damen Schelde. This 2,400 tonne 105m multi-purpose frigate will be fitted with an array of anti-submarine, anti-surface, anti-air, and electronic warfare systems. TNI-AL's two Cakra-class (Type-209/1300) submarines will also be complemented with three Type-209 Chang Bogo procured from South Korea. With the procurement budget recently increased from Rp.47.5 trillion (US$5.28 billion) in 2011 to Rp.64.4 trillion (US$ 7.15 billion) in 2012, TNI-AL's future fleet might be one step closer to fruition.
Obstacle Course
Nevertheless, Indonesia still has to face several obstacles. Corruption, a hodgepodge of platforms and systems, and a continental-based defence strategy have often plagued Indonesia's naval modernisation schemes and warfighting effectiveness. Former Defence Minister Juwono Sudarsono acknowledged corruption practices, in that up to 40 percent of procurement proposals could be mark-ups. Standardisation is also a significant challenge as the Indonesian Defence Forces (TNI) operates 173 main weapon systems from seventeen different countries. Lastly, Indonesia still retains its "Total Defence" strategy which puts heavy emphasis on manpower and land operations.
For the Navy to be effective, an overarching maritime defence strategy is required. This means that the sea, rather than the land, should become TNI's main operational environment. As the Senior Service, the Army would be strenuously opposed to such a shift. Given that these obstacles remain unaddressed, Indonesia's naval modernisation is not something for other countries to get nervous about. Though not a sea change yet, it is still quite a change to be reckoned with.
Ristian Atriandi Supriyanto is a research analyst in the Maritime Security Programme at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University and a former researcher at the Centre for East Asian Cooperation Studies, University of Indonesia.
Nuclear-powered attack submarine (SSN) Nerpa leased by Russia to India a week ago will leave Russian waters by Feb 10, reported Khabarovsk regional government on Jan 30.
According to release posted on Khabarovsk government's official website, the sub will stay at Vostok marine equipment plant in Bolshoi Kamen during the first decade of Feb 2012 undergoing preparatory activities.
"The sub is being fully equipped with appropriate hardware, armaments, and other supplies needed for journey to a new basing site, i.e. naval base Vishakhapatnam on India's east coast. SSN Nerpa will be navigated by Indian crew which had passed training near St. Petersburg. However, the crew will be assisted by Russian experts", said Vladimir Bychenko, Minister of Industry and Transport, Khabarovsky Krai.
Is there a link that says so? TIA.Philip wrote:The US is looking for a new basing agreement with Manila.
The Washington Post on Wednesday reported that officials were possibly in the early stages of negotiating the return of US bases to the country, "the latest in a series of strategic moves aimed at China".[/quote]27 January 2012
Philippines seeks to strengthen US defence ties
Manila complains over China ships
South China Sea tensions rattle China's neighbours
The Philippines has confirmed that it is discussing ways to "maximise" defence ties with the US amid territorial disputes in the region.
In a statement, the foreign affairs secretary cited the need for more joint military exercises to protect national interests.
The statement was in response to a Washington Post story alleging a possible return of US bases.
Philippine Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario speaks in Manila in August 2011. The Philippines announced plans on Friday to allow a greater US military presence on its territory.
:Pentagon officials confirmed that the discussions with the Philippines covered more joint military exercises and more frequent American naval visits to Philippine ports. “This is not about looking for U.S. bases in the Philippines,” said Capt. John Kirby, a Pentagon spokesman. “This is simply about trying to move our relationship with the Philippine military forward.”
The talks, which were first reported by The Washington Post on Thursday, are the latest attempt to bolster the American presence in the Asia-Pacific region to counter a rising China. President Obama toured the region in November, announcing in Australia that he would deploy thousands of Marines to a base there. During Mr. Obama’s Asia tour, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton visited the Philippines to reaffirm the military relationship. The Philippines and China both have territorial claims to islands in the South China Sea, or, as it is called in Manila, the West Philippine Sea — a term that Mrs. Clinton pointedly used.
The delegation of four American senators visiting Manila last week included Joseph I. Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, who saluted what he called “the dawn of a new era in the relationship between the United States and the Philippines.”
The two countries maintain a mutual defense treaty, signed in 1951, and negotiated an agreement in 1998 that allowed the American military to visit and conduct joint operations in the Philippines. The United States provided the Philippines a coast guard cutter in May, and the two countries have been holding joint military exercises near the islands at the center of the territorial dispute with China.
Subic Bay is now a civilian special economic zone. Although American ships can visit the area, it is unclear how the United States can operate there under the limits imposed by the Philippine Constitution. “That is what is being discussed right now,” Mr. Galvez said. The delegation in Washington is led by Pio Lorenzo F. Batino, the Philippine Defense Department’s under secretary for legal and legislative affairs and strategic concerns.
Philippine groups that fought to have American military bases ejected in the early 1990s have been monitoring the developments with concern. “The United States military is violating our sovereignty and intruding on our internal affairs,” said Lana Linaban, secretary general of the women’s rights organization Gabriela. “In the guise of military support, they are influencing our government.” She said American bases had created many problems, like increased prostitution, that still erupt after the port calls and joint military exercises.
“We should defend our country with our own military,” she said.
But a Philippine senator, Richard J. Gordon, who administered Subic Bay after the departure of the Americans, said in a recent interview that greater American military engagement had become vital for the Philippines and for the United States. “The United States has been losing ground in this region,” he said. “You have a China that is beginning to flex its muscles, and it is pushing us around. I don’t like that. Its record with its neighbors is not very good. We need to have a fireman nearby.”
http://news.yahoo.com/philippines-flags ... 41521.html
Philippine Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario speaks in Manila in August 2011. The Philippines announced plans on Friday to allow a greater US military presence on its territory, in a move analysts said was directly aimed at trying to contain a rising China.
Philippines flags greater US military presence
AFPBy Mynardo Macaraig | AFP – Fri, Jan 27, 2012
Philippine Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario speaks in Manila in August 2011. The Philippines announced plans on Friday to allow a greater US military presence on its territory, in a move analysts said was directly aimed at trying to contain a rising ChinaEnlarge Photo
Philippine Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario speaks in Manila in August 2011. …
Kurt Campbell (front L), US Assistant Secretary of State, Philippine Foreign Affairs Undersecretary for Policy Erlinda Basilio and other officials meet in Manila, in 2011. The Philippines announced plans on Friday to allow a greater US military presence on its territory, in a move analysts said was directly aimed at trying to contain a rising ChinaEnlarge Photo
Kurt Campbell (front L), US Assistant Secretary of State, Philippine Foreign Affairs …
The Philippines announced plans on Friday to allow a greater US military presence on its territory, in a move analysts said was directly aimed at trying to contain a rising China.
Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario said the Philippines was looking for more joint military exercises with its former colonial ruler, as well as having a greater number of US troops rotating through the Southeast Asian country.
"It is to our definite advantage to be exploring how to maximise our treaty alliance with the United States in ways that would be mutually acceptable and beneficial," del Rosario said in a statement.
Admiral Robert Willard, head of the US Pacific Command, welcomed the offer, saying the US was looking for ways to bring troops into Southeast Asia without the costs of permanent bases.
"We would welcome discussions with the Philippines along those lines, but there's no aspiration for bases in Southeast Asia," he told a news conference in Washington.
Del Rosario did not specifically name China as driving the Philippines' push for a greater US military presence, but highlighted "territorial disputes".
The most pressing territorial dispute for the Philippines is with China over rival claims to parts of the South China Sea, home to some of the world's most important shipping lanes and believed to hold vast deposits of fossil fuels.
The Philippines and Vietnam, which also claims parts of the South China Sea, complained repeatedly last year of what they said were increasingly aggressive acts by China in the decades-long rift.
The alleged acts, which included a Chinese naval ship reportedly firing warning shots at Filipino fishermen, fuelled fears among some nations in the region about China as its military and political strength grows.
In his statement, del Rosario said a greater US military presence in the Philippines would help bolster regional security.
"Such cooperative efforts would as well result in achieving a balance of influence to ensure peace, stability, and economic development in the region," he said.
Nevertheless, del Rosario and other officials emphasised there were no plans to allow a return of the large-scale US military bases that existed in the Philippines until 1992, when Filipino senators voted to close them down.
Del Rosario said the increased US military presence could include "planning more joint exercises to promote interoperability and a rotating and more frequent presence by them".
Aside from regular military exercises, the most notable US presence in the Philippines in recent times has been a rotating force of about 600 troops that has been stationed in the southern Philippines for the past decade.
The US special forces train local troops in how to combat Islamic militants, but are not allowed to have a fighting role.
Philippine officials said more talks would be held in March to determine specifics of the plans.
Political analysts in Manila said the Philippines' decision to allow a bigger US military presence was a direct reaction to China's perceived increased aggressiveness, particularly regarding the South China Sea.
"The Philippines is now playing the US card to get more leverage against China," said Rommel Banlaoi, head of the Philippine Institute for Peace, Violence and Terrorism Research.
Rene de Castro, a lecturer in international studies at De la Salle University said: "We are playing the balance of power game because we have no means to deal with an emergent and very assertive China."
In a strategic shift that has angered China, the United States has been looking to increase its military presence across the Asia Pacific.
US President Barack Obama said in November the United States would deploy up to 2,500 Marines to northern Australia. The next month a US admiral wrote that the US expected to station several combat ships in Singapore.