Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21118
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Austin » 12 May 2018 21:07

Pakistan Navy Says It Helped 12 Indian Fishermen Stuck At Sea For 8 Days

ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan Navy on Sunday said it had delivered "medical and humanitarian assistance" to 12 Indian fishermen on a boat which was lost at sea after developing engine trouble.

The Pakistan Navy in a press release claimed that about eight days back its ship PNS Alamgir delivered assistance to the Indian fishermen travelling on the 'ST Mars' boat.

The fishermen were close to running out of food and water after their boat developed engine problems eight days back. Despite repeated appeals, no Indian boat had come to their rescue, the release said.

It said there were 12 Indian fishermen on the ST Mars and medical and other assistance was provided to them on humanitarian grounds.

2
COMMENTSThe Pakistan Navy said it also delivered food and medical supplies and helped the fishermen repair the boat.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3051
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 12 May 2018 22:22

Chetakji,

not saying that there are no differences but the point I am making is that if the Navy and the air Force order is combined the basic airframe will remain the same. There will be savings in terms of economies of scale. This is all the more so for the fulcrum because Indian services already operate about 100 of these. And I'm willing to bet these will be a lot cheaper than Rafales or shornet.

The mig 29k and the 35 are both based on the land based M version. The difference of course is in extra strengthening and hook required for the naval variant apart from the other details mentioned in your article. The avionics are the same including the fbw flight controls, sensors, and engines too. Weapons commonality as well.

Iows, there is probably as much commonality between the K and the 35 as there is between the Rafale M and Rafale C. They are considered unified family designs based on the original fulcrum M.

And I think the Mod is thinking along similar lines which is why they have a won't folding requirement in the new mrca rfi

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16667
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chetak » 12 May 2018 23:03

Cain Marko wrote:Chetakji,

not saying that there are no differences but the point I am making is that if the Navy and the air Force order is combined the basic airframe will remain the same. The mig 29k and the 35 are both based on the land based M version. The difference of course is in extra strengthening and hook required for the naval variant apart from the other details mentioned in your article. Production I think happens in the same plant.

Iows, there is probably as much commonality between the K and the 35 as there is between the Rafale M and Rafale C. They are considered unified family designs based on the original fulcrum M


Cain Marko saar,

Even the basic airframe will remain not be the same. One is made for carrier landing with all the attendant strengthening, heavier under carriage, tail hook for arrested landing, for the much higher shock loading, marinizing in terms of maybe different alloys and certainly very different treatments for corrosion prevention. A common airframe for this would be a huge and very expensive overkill for the standard Airforce version, hence the different airframes.

Even the alloys used for the sheet metal may not be the same, the testing and qualification procedures for the K's components would be very different and more elaborate because of the stringent onboard as well as the shipboard EMI/EMC requirements and also the marine environment itself.

LRUs in the K would be rated higher for shock and vibration, cabling and cabling runs would be different, rack sizes could vary because of installation and space limitations in the two aircraft and the costing would increase significantly for almost all parts because of the navalising. The multi channel fly by wire system in the K could impose very stringent shielding and EMI/EMC requirements which may not be standard on LRUs of the standard Air Force version.

To use the K's parts in another older and less sophisticated variant or even vice versa would require extensive re qualification of almost all parts to be done by us because the ruskis would not touch it with a barge pole.

I am not raining on your parade but merely pointing out only very few of the myriad set of problems that will need to be solved. The manufacturer will not help because no other customer will have such a unique requirement. They would have to set up a very expensive and a huge new team to deal with this. In the end it will simply simply drive up the costs.

I am again pointing out that it is not as simple as it seems. Buying aircraft from the same manufacturer may make sense in terms of scale and for these exotic birds, a large part of the supply chain would be substantially different.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3051
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 13 May 2018 07:36

^nothing to really disagree here, as a layman, I probably oversimplified it. But the larger point I'm trying to make is that it will be worse if two altogether different birds are chosen... Fewer economies for starters. And it won't help to get the Rafale, which is dramatically more expensive. The shornet is not that much cheaper than the Rafale.

All in all this is why I'd take a good look at transferring fulcrum production with suitable rights to desh.

maz
Webmaster BR
Posts: 316
Joined: 03 Dec 2000 12:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby maz » 13 May 2018 07:41

If I recall, Sandeep Unnithan wrote many moons ago that the P!5 class were indeed designed with the Moskit in mind. Notice the large blast deflectors. Of course, supply chain and other issues eventually led to the use of Urans and to detail changes in the next two ships.

There have been other media reports http://www.brahmand.com/news/Govt-gives-nod-to-new-aircraft-carrier-BRAHMOS-missiles-for-six-ships/13975/1/10.html since 2015 about B'mos being fitted aboard the P15 class.

Therefore, I think the L&T B'mos quad launchers are meant for the Delhi which is in MLU. Expect the ship to emerge from its refit sporting all kinds of new kit. :D

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16667
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chetak » 13 May 2018 09:39

Cain Marko wrote:^nothing to really disagree here, as a layman, I probably oversimplified it. But the larger point I'm trying to make is that it will be worse if two altogether different birds are chosen... Fewer economies for starters. And it won't help to get the Rafale, which is dramatically more expensive. The shornet is not that much cheaper than the Rafale.

All in all this is why I'd take a good look at transferring fulcrum production with suitable rights to desh.


In weapon systems as in life, may be better to diversify supply sources to avoid the big risk of all eggs in one basket syndrome.

Even if the " fulcrum production with suitable rights " is done, they will still not part with the crown jewels of engine and other lethal weapon tech. No country will.

Our supply chain and the people involved are not sophisticated enough to either appreciate the finer points and nuances of such complex technology or even pick up specific technical details during negotiations. The devil will be in the details or by practical experience, let me stress that the devil is actually in the absence of detail in ruski drawings and technical literature. This absence of detail will invariably come back to bite you at the most crucial moments.

I have seen this aspect in action in the supply chains for the vikas engines, many components of the cryogenic engine where problems were gradually overcome after much struggle and experimentation. No country will part with the technology. It cost them a lot of money to develop and when they sell, they fully expect a huge payback, and many a time, irascible, obdurate individuals, acting independently can easily scuttle successful tech transfers by simply not giving you the key aspects.

In principle, I agree with you but practically it may be another kettle of fish.
Last edited by chetak on 13 May 2018 10:02, edited 1 time in total.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3051
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 13 May 2018 10:01

chetak wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:^nothing to really disagree here, as a layman, I probably oversimplified it. But the larger point I'm trying to make is that it will be worse if two altogether different birds are chosen... Fewer economies for starters. And it won't help to get the Rafale, which is dramatically more expensive. The shornet is not that much cheaper than the Rafale.

All in all this is why I'd take a good look at transferring fulcrum production with suitable rights to desh.


In weapon systems as in life, may be better to diversify supply sources to avoid the big risk of all eggs in one basket syndrome.

Even if the " fulcrum production with suitable rights " is done, they will still not part with the crown jewels of engine and other lethal weapon tech. No country will.

In principle, I agree with you but practically it may be another kettle of fish.

Thing is we might not need the crown jewels. Just the rights to source our own spares, engines and sensor kit. Baaz with snecma kaveri and uttam would be nice.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16667
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chetak » 13 May 2018 10:12

Cain Marko wrote:
chetak wrote:
In weapon systems as in life, may be better to diversify supply sources to avoid the big risk of all eggs in one basket syndrome.

Even if the " fulcrum production with suitable rights " is done, they will still not part with the crown jewels of engine and other lethal weapon tech. No country will.

In principle, I agree with you but practically it may be another kettle of fish.

Thing is we might not need the crown jewels. Just the rights to source our own spares, engines and sensor kit. Baaz with snecma kaveri and uttam would be nice.


Nothing stops you from experimenting with an alternate power plant or pursuing a developed variant on your own. Don't the cheeni do it all the time??

You are expected to do it, the supplier may well grumble but then why hasn't it been done?? I suspect that you know the answer just as well as I do.

We have made under licence so many aero engines in India and have we ever leveraged this golden opportunity to absorb some of the technology and redeploy it on our own projects or maybe even develop a growth version of such engines by amalgamating technology as required from different engines??

The same goes with airframes too. Why did we not go for a growth version based on the DO228 for our regional aircraft project?? We have already made so many variants of the MiG series, jaguar, hawk, HS 748 and what not. No lessons learned?? no design insights??

or saras with pusher engines is our answer?? The wheel reinvented??

Doesn't anyone care to see what the IN has done with russian designs that we imported decades ago?? and how they have been adopted, adapted and grown indigenously??

or may be we only prefer to deal with garam garam, bana bana halwa, delivered to us on a platter, all ready to eat, no??

just asking onlee.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2268
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby darshhan » 13 May 2018 17:30

Have Russians ever even indicated that they are ready to sell fulcrum's design and other ipr for a price? Why would they do so? It wouldnt be easy to convince them.

Looks to me that we are discussing hot air only.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19086
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 14 May 2018 17:44

DPSU yards must be celebrating!
http://www.thehindu.com/business/Indust ... 874383.ece

Vijaya Bank tags Reliance Naval as NPA
PTI MUMBAI , MAY 13, 2018
State-run Vijaya Bank has classified the Anil Ambani group-led Reliance Naval and Engineering, whose auditors had recently expressed doubts about the company’s ability to continue as a “going concern”, as non-performing asset from the March quarter.

The company, which was earlier known as Pipavav Defence and Offshore Engineering, was bought over by Anil Ambani Group in 2016 and renamed as Reliance Defence and Engineering. It owes more than ₹9,000 crore to more than two-dozen banks, mostly state-run, led by the troubled IDBI Bank.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2201
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chola » 14 May 2018 20:20

^^^ I knew Reliance had fiscal issues but this is a bad blow. We need the private sector to contribute otherwise we’ll be stuck on the PSU treadmill of delays leading to cost inflation leading to more delays leading to more cost inflation . . .

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2201
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chola » 14 May 2018 20:25

And I need news on the Vikrant. The goddam chinese casino copy is on on sea trial and on world wide news despite being laid down seven years later.

sahay
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 28
Joined: 11 Apr 2017 19:45

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby sahay » 15 May 2018 00:26

chola wrote:We need the private sector to contribute otherwise we’ll be stuck on the PSU treadmill of delays leading to cost inflation leading to more delays leading to more cost inflation . . .

As opposed to private sector's delays leading to cost inflation leading to bankruptcy? L&T is the only shipyard doing a better job than DPSUs. Pipavav and ABG have been a total disappointment, with severe delays and contract cancellations.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2268
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby darshhan » 15 May 2018 00:35

chola wrote:^^^ I knew Reliance had fiscal issues but this is a bad blow. We need the private sector to contribute otherwise we’ll be stuck on the PSU treadmill of delays leading to cost inflation leading to more delays leading to more cost inflation . . .


Anil bhai(younger brother) simply does not have it in him to run a major company. Armed forces should steer clear of him and his organisation when it comes to procurement of critical weapons systems.

On the other hand if you are a hot young actress or model and in need of some extra money, you can choose to pay him a personal visit. You wouldnt be disappointed.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2407
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby kit » 15 May 2018 02:54

Why is the Vikrant delayed ?

Meanwhile, in July 2017 the CAG revealed that the commissioning of aircraft carrier Vikrant ,deferred by more six years to 2018, would be further delayed to 2023 following ‘disagreements’between CSL and the IN over projected timelines. The cost of the carrier has multiplied almost sixfold . from INR32.61 billion to INR193.41 billion.
IN sources, however, told Jane’s that delays by Russia’s Nevskoye Design Bureau in installing the carrier’s ‘aviation facility complex’ were responsible for the delay.

Source : Jane's

Vips
BRFite
Posts: 741
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Vips » 15 May 2018 04:07

Unless and until officials are held accountable and responsible for delays, this is going to continue forever. This 'casual delay' of 5 years is the time self respecting and committed ship builders would normally take to build a big complex ship.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19086
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 15 May 2018 05:31

The irony is that the Chin Casino-2 was started long after
our "Cochin-Carrier" , and the delays are simply unacceptable, whoever is to blame.Surely after operating the VikA for a few years now, we couldn't replicate the so-called "aviation complex" required if that was the reason.However, the delays started accumulating a long time ago and can't be attributed to any single reason.

I am sure looking at the state of affairs with IAC-1, the GOI/ MOD rightly decided to can IAC-2, the larger EMALS vessel well knowing that at the current rate it would take us 15 years to deliver the same apart from the massive cost of carrier, aircraft and escorts. It would be far better to either build a future CV with a foreign yard with strict penalties , with some fitting out work done locally, or get it built by another capable yard like L& T.

The decision of where the LPDs will be built will indicate the govts. policy on the matter of building future flat tops.

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2828
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby arshyam » 15 May 2018 06:59

^^ "Whoever is to blame" ? It's the damn Russians again, but you will not find the words to call them out as is. Hide behind some long sentences attributing multiple reasons as the reason for the delay. First, it was DMR249A grade steel, now this. Wonder what else is in store.

I am sure we all will be treated to a long post on why the lily-white Russians are not to be blamed, only poor us, who couldn't replicate the so-called aviation-complex even if someone pointed a gun to our head.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19086
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 15 May 2018 08:02

Yes, just like US and UK honchos, it was the dastardly Russians! We never look at our failings but are ever ready to blame someone else.I don't see the same enthusiasm to level blame when the UK or Israel were responsible for delays/ failures for the Hawk or missiles.The IJT has still not arrived.Russians to blame? And what about the great Kaveri engine yet to arrive after 3 decades.Had their been a firang partner some would've blamed it! Warship delays? Take your pick.

Today's media has an item saying that we are going to boost naval capability in the current situ where China is threatening our interests in our own backyard.However, no great capital ships but more smaller vessels.If true then we need a new corvette class which is smaller and far cheaper than the P-28s.Perhaps between 1750 and 2000t,
which can carry smaller numbers of the same weaponry aboard our FFGs and DDGs.The Ru Buyan corvette of around just 1000t fired Kalibir missiles 1500 to 2000km distance to hit ISIS targets in Syria. We could easily design such a multi-role corvette with an ASW helo too, with an endurance of at least 30 days using greater automation and a smaller crew.Large numbers of these could patrol the chokepoints giving ingress into the IOR and remain on station for a decent time.

The second vessel type that we should acquire is the unmanned surveillance drone , the " Sea Hunter", that the USN is building in large number, costing only $20M! Just a dozen of these would cost only $250M, half the cost of a P-28! These have phenomenal endurance-months, and can track and follows enemy subs continuously.These would be of immense help in tracking Chin and Paki subs which will be the greatest threat to the IN and Indian mainland and islands as they will carry long range anti- ship and land attack missiles.The PN has also developed a sub-launched cruise missile which ( like the Israelis) will carry N-tipped cruise missiles , their second-strike capability.

jaysimha
BRFite
Posts: 462
Joined: 20 Dec 2017 14:30

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby jaysimha » 15 May 2018 12:49

INTEGRATED HEADQUARTERS OF MINISTRY OF DEFENCE(NAVY)
DIRECTORATE OF ARMAMENT PRODUCTION & INDIGENISATION
WING 5(FIRST FLOOR), WEST BLOCK V, RK PURAM, SECTOR-1
NEW DELHI - 110066
PHONE NO: 011-26194649, FAX NO: 011-26194273
OPEN TENDER
TENDER NOTICE NO. API/4148/Oxy PH DATED 01 MAY 18
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL(RFP) FOR INDIGENOUS DEVELOPMENT OF
PRACTICE HEAD FOR OXYGEN TORPEDO

https://www.indiannavy.nic.in/sites/default/files/tender_document/NIT%20No%20API-4148-Pratice%20Head.pdf

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2385
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby tsarkar » 15 May 2018 16:23

Pipavav went with an OPV design from Severnoye Design Bureau and serious design deficiencies were discovered late in build. The rectification in a fixed price contract is killing Pipavav/Reliance ADAG.

Sadly Indian Naval Directorate of Naval Design, while providing designs to MDL & GRSE yards for Project 15/A/B 17/A 28 & 71, did not help the fledgling private shipyards. An OPV design would have been a easy matter for them.

ABG struggled building Pollution Control Vessel for ICG and is unable to build Cadet Training Ships for Indian Navy.

Only L&T developed the know how all by themselves based on their sheer depth of engineering talent.

sahay
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 28
Joined: 11 Apr 2017 19:45

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby sahay » 15 May 2018 16:43

tsarkar wrote:Pipavav went with an OPV design from Severnoye Design Bureau and serious design deficiencies were discovered late in build. The rectification in a fixed price contract is killing Pipavav/Reliance ADAG.

Severnoye's design was dropped quite early. By late 2013 they had moved to a design from Alion Science USA. They did have to do a substantial rebuild to fit the new design, but that was quite early in the build process.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19086
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 15 May 2018 16:52

The problem with Pip was lack of skilled manpower pointed out by an Ru team which inspected both Pip and L& T some time ago for JVs for ships and subs.Pip also lacked a track record whereas L& T has done far more work for the IN and CG.But it is true that the GOI must give pvt. entities the same generous yardstick that it gives DPSUs! If DPSU entities were penalised like pvt. yards they would cease to exist!

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7665
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Pratyush » 15 May 2018 16:58

This is an excellent opportunity for MDL to take over the reliance yard and move part of its shipbuilding to this yard. We can compress dilivever schedule for the big fat order book that MDL has.

sahay
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 28
Joined: 11 Apr 2017 19:45

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby sahay » 15 May 2018 17:08

Philip wrote:If DPSU entities were penalised like pvt. yards they would cease to exist!

The issue is the tendering process. When DPSUs get nominated for DND-designed ships like P15/P17/P28, they usually get a cost plus contract for the first couple of ships and a fixed price contract for the rest based on the costs of the first couple of ships. When there is an open tender with L1 winner, they get a fixed price contract for the entire order. Cost inflation due to supplier side delays get absorbed by MoD in cost plus contracts, but not in fixed price contracts. So, nominated shipyards never have to worry about financial issues the way private sector shipyards do. MoD could give cost-plus contracts to private sector shipyards too, but that'll probably never happen without SP policy as it can be trivially misused.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19086
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 15 May 2018 17:40

Correct.DPSUs are protected every time! Look at the huge time and cost delays for warships and subs in DPSU yards, why the IN wants the 4 Grigs/ Talwars. The TOO must assist pvt. industry with a level playing field if the " make in India " mantra is to succeed.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2385
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby tsarkar » 15 May 2018 19:01

sahay wrote:
tsarkar wrote:Pipavav went with an OPV design from Severnoye Design Bureau and serious design deficiencies were discovered late in build. The rectification in a fixed price contract is killing Pipavav/Reliance ADAG.

Severnoye's design was dropped quite early. By late 2013 they had moved to a design from Alion Science USA. They did have to do a substantial rebuild to fit the new design, but that was quite early in the build process.

They won the contract based on Severnoye's design. On a fixed price L1 contract, doing a rebuild takes away whatever margin was there. And Alion was brought in precisely because of issues in Severnoye's design. If Severnoye's design was perfect, there would have been no need of Alion. That started the financial woes of Pipavav. They had anyways over-invested in creating one of the largest dry docks in the world. Sad to see all the investment gone waste.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16667
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chetak » 15 May 2018 19:20

darshhan wrote:Have Russians ever even indicated that they are ready to sell fulcrum's design and other ipr for a price? Why would they do so? It wouldnt be easy to convince them.

Looks to me that we are discussing hot air only.


This info, even if it existed would not be in the public domain.

No harm in discussions, the forum is meant just for things like that.

If such an offer were indeed firmed up, no amount of discussions here would change even a single solitary comma in the contract.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16667
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chetak » 15 May 2018 19:25

tsarkar wrote:
sahay wrote:Severnoye's design was dropped quite early. By late 2013 they had moved to a design from Alion Science USA. They did have to do a substantial rebuild to fit the new design, but that was quite early in the build process.

They won the contract based on Severnoye's design. On a fixed price L1 contract, doing a rebuild takes away whatever margin was there. And Alion was brought in precisely because of issues in Severnoye's design. If Severnoye's design was perfect, there would have been no need of Alion. That started the financial woes of Pipavav. They had anyways over-invested in creating one of the largest dry docks in the world. Sad to see all the investment gone waste.


They would not have gone into the project blindly and without due diligence. They would have had advisors who probably did not do their jobs.

Why did reliance buy a pig in the poke??, especially an untested pig??, when successful designs are floating around in plenty??

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3331
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Aditya G » 15 May 2018 22:17

I think the GSL Nopv design is a qualified success which has also been exported, and set the basis for ICG Samarth class ships.

The most important KRA from these ships should be their sea time given their mandate to patrol the seas. The record for sea time was a Nilgiri class frigate.

The ships do feel underarms though. I would like to add a STRALES kit to the main gun, and a Revathi radar for surveillance. Lastly, I would include a bow mounted sonar as well. Obviously this does increase the cost and Manning levels of ship. 2 main guns in a super configuration will be nice.

tsarkar wrote:Firepower onboard INS Sumedha. Oto 76/62 forward. Two NSV machine guns on the bridge with gun shield of one more.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dc198RbUQAAxlgK.jpg

In the rear AK-630 and gun shield of one more NSV
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dc19-o6VAAAzklq.jpg

An MMG in the rear gun shield
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Db2KGV5WAAElrnw.jpg

A whopping total of 8 HMG/MMG, two AK-630, one OTO 76/62 along with other systems like Carl Gustaf & LMGs will enable it take out a whole Somali pirate harbour. INS Sumedha is presently on joint patrol off Maldives. Can single handedly establish law and order in the archipelago if required.

In the meantime, INS Sahyadri, INS Kamorta and INS Shakti are patrolling Straits of Malacca in the event the PLAN try to interfere at Maldives.

This is how Naval Diplomacy works.

INS Sahyadri firing supersonic Klub S missile with a range of 220 km
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Db2XtGYW0AA9Mu8.jpg

NSV manufactured for T-72 and T-90 tanks but adapted for naval use. Similarly 2A42 for BMP-2 is also adapted for naval use.

The many ways of controlling weapons.

On Type 17 - Barak 1, OTO 76/62 and AK-630 are controlled using Elta 2221 STGR
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Db2XnfXWsAATrBt.jpg

On Type 28 - OTO 76/62 and AK-630 are controlled using BEL Shikari / Contraves Oerlikon TMX
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dcg3hbeXcAAqket.jpg

On Deepak class AK-630 are controlled using BEL/Elbit Compass EO
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dcg3gCTXkAAEUrb.jpg

The same systems can be used for land based AA, viz, AK-630, 2A42, L70, ZSU-23-4 & ZU-23-2 guns coupled with Flycatcher/Atulya and/or Compass EO with no need of imports.

Compass EO is the same CCD Day Camera, FLIR, LRF and LD as Litening Pods on Su-30, Tejas, Mirage 2000 & Jaguar. Compass is used on IN Ships, Rudra, LCH and new NAMICA (two sights). The two sights on NAMICA can be replicated on Arjun.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3051
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 15 May 2018 23:28

chetak wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:Thing is we might not need the crown jewels. Just the rights to source our own spares, engines and sensor kit. Baaz with snecma kaveri and uttam would be nice.


Nothing stops you from experimenting with an alternate power plant or pursuing a developed variant on your own. Don't the cheeni do it all the time??

You are expected to do it, the supplier may well grumble but then why hasn't it been done?? I suspect that you know the answer just as well as I do.

We have made under licence so many aero engines in India and have we ever leveraged this golden opportunity to absorb some of the technology and redeploy it on our own projects or maybe even develop a growth version of such engines by amalgamating technology as required from different engines??

The same goes with airframes too. Why did we not go for a growth version based on the DO228 for our regional aircraft project?? We have already made so many variants of the MiG series, jaguar, hawk, HS 748 and what not. No lessons learned?? no design insights??

or saras with pusher engines is our answer?? The wheel reinvented??

Doesn't anyone care to see what the IN has done with russian designs that we imported decades ago?? and how they have been adopted, adapted and grown indigenously??

or may be we only prefer to deal with garam garam, bana bana halwa, delivered to us on a platter, all ready to eat, no??

just asking onlee.


My guess is that the negotiating committee on the Indian side has been a mixture of nehruvian morals type babus with gents from hal, which has a conflict of interest in getting simple CKD type screwdriver tech, wherein it has little to no accountability and can keep showing profits year after year. It is a massive PSU and lotsof jobs on the line makes it hard for any politicos to make them change tack.

Iirc Hal originally had the option to get deeper tot for the Al 31 but did not pursue the chance.

All in all not very good deals for India.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6540
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Indranil » 15 May 2018 23:35

Philip wrote:Correct.DPSUs are protected every time! Look at the huge time and cost delays for warships and subs in DPSU yards, why the IN wants the 4 Grigs/ Talwars. The TOO must assist pvt. industry with a level playing field if the " make in India " mantra is to succeed.

Surely the DPSUs are protected much more than they should be. But that has got nothing to do with the Pipavav debacle. Do you know how many extensions they got?

tsarkar wrote: That started the financial woes of Pipavav. They had anyways over-invested in creating one of the largest dry docks in the world. Sad to see all the investment gone waste.

Somebody will buy that infra. But who and why? There are no significant orders to the private sector on the horizon which require that kind of infra. It will be interesting if a foreign company would show interest to build civilian/cargo ships there.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16667
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chetak » 16 May 2018 09:52

Indranil wrote:
Philip wrote:Correct.DPSUs are protected every time! Look at the huge time and cost delays for warships and subs in DPSU yards, why the IN wants the 4 Grigs/ Talwars. The TOO must assist pvt. industry with a level playing field if the " make in India " mantra is to succeed.

Surely the DPSUs are protected much more than they should be. But that has got nothing to do with the Pipavav debacle. Do you know how many extensions they got?

tsarkar wrote: That started the financial woes of Pipavav. They had anyways over-invested in creating one of the largest dry docks in the world. Sad to see all the investment gone waste.

Somebody will buy that infra. But who and why? There are no significant orders to the private sector on the horizon which require that kind of infra. It will be interesting if a foreign company would show interest to build civilian/cargo ships there.


why not enter into a JV with any of the PSUs in a Ltd company??

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2201
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chola » 17 May 2018 06:40

darshhan wrote:
chola wrote:^^^ I knew Reliance had fiscal issues but this is a bad blow. We need the private sector to contribute otherwise we’ll be stuck on the PSU treadmill of delays leading to cost inflation leading to more delays leading to more cost inflation . . .


Anil bhai(younger brother) simply does not have it in him to run a major company. Armed forces should steer clear of him and his organisation when it comes to procurement of critical weapons systems.

On the other hand if you are a hot young actress or model and in need of some extra money, you can choose to pay him a personal visit. You wouldnt be disappointed.


LoL. Actresses and models. Ability to buy pretty things are perks of the masses. Ability to buy pretty people are perks of the wealthy.

If we ever needed the big bhai Mukesh, this was it. Oi.

PSU don’t go bankrupt nor should they for items of national security. But we need the private sector to step up and provide that competitive balance otherwise we end up with the efficiency of the USSR but none of ruthlessness that still got things done.

Rishi_Tri
BRFite
Posts: 139
Joined: 13 Feb 2017 14:49

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Rishi_Tri » 17 May 2018 06:59

Reliance ADAG does not say anything about quality of Indian PVT sector in Defense. In fact exactly the opposite ... the younger brother has destroyed value in every industry where others have thrived... It means there is value to be created and others will do it. DPSU rejoicing is fine.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21118
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Austin » 17 May 2018 15:33

A Look Inside Floating Fortress INS Kochi


Vips
BRFite
Posts: 741
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Vips » 17 May 2018 23:16

Indonesia likely to give India access to deep seaport in Sabang.

Indonesia might give India access to a deep sea port in Sabang, including to its naval vessels. Addressing a Delhi audience here today, Luhut Pandjaitan, maritime affairs minister in the Jokowi government, said, “India and Indonesia have started naval drills in 2017, but we can explore doing more between our coast guards. This will become even better when the Sabang seaport is established with India. Sabang port has a depth of 40 metres which is good even for submarines.”

Prime Minister Narendra Modi is expected to travel to Indonesia for a bilateral summit with Joko Widodo in the next couple of weeks. Among his engagements, Modi is expected to announce an Indian hospital in Sambang, which is just over 700km from Andaman & Nicobar islands. Luhut said the Jokowi government wanted India to invest in an economic zone in that same area, which is not particularly developed. There is speculation that Modi might undertake a sea journey to Sambang to highlight how close Indonesia is to India, but sources say defence and space would be areas of cooperation during Modi’s forthcoming visit.

“Indian coast guard ships now make regular visits to Indonesian ports and emphasize the closeness between the two countries. The Indonesian side has expressed interest in getting commercial investment in the port of Sabang, which is the westernmost point of Indonesia. This port has a deep draft but rudimentary facilities,” said Gurjit Singh, former ambassador to Indonesia.

Questioned about Indonesia’s response to OBOR and China’s decision to station missiles on the disputed Spratlys in the South China Sea, Luhut said it was a “sensitive matter”. He said they had raised the issue with the Chinese side, but “in a friendly manner.”

Luhut said, “I spoke with my Chinese counterpart about the 9-dash line. They don’t deny that Natuna island is ours. But then the 200-mile EEZ is also ours and that goes beyond the line. I ask why they are claiming the South China Sea. They say they have a historical claim, its part of the sentiment of the mainland, and it was the route taken by the Chinese explorer Zheng He. I said if this is true, then, when Krakatoa exploded, Indonesian ash settled around the world including Beijing, and we could claim this.” After years of denying they had a problem with China’s claiming the seas and territory around, Indonesia renamed its sea the Natuna Sea.

In fact, in a rare admission, the Indonesian minister, considered to be very close to Jokowi, described OBOR as a “Chinese proposal”. “We do not want to be controlled by OBOR. We would like it to link to our maritime policy, of a global maritime fulcrum.” Chinese premier Li Keqiang was in Jakarta earlier this week pushing OBOR projects with the Jokowi government.

“India-Indonesia relations are important for the balance of power in Asia,” Luhut said.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21118
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Austin » 18 May 2018 22:11

Navy well-prepared as net security provider in Indian Ocean: Vice Admiral Pawar

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 218562.cms

pushkar.bhat
BRFite
Posts: 232
Joined: 29 Mar 2008 19:27
Location: prêt à monter dans le Arihant
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby pushkar.bhat » 20 May 2018 14:12

Slightly OT. I was wondering if anyone is monitoring INSV Tarini. The Sailing vessel with 6 IN Women officers on board has completed the circumnavigation and returned to home base Goa. Currently anchored off Goa port. Official Flag-in ceremony by CNS and RM tomorrow.

Twitter Link


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ajacob and 28 guests