Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

General News, Questions And Discussions : Indian Navy

Discussion in 'Indian Navy' started by Ankit Kumar 001, Oct 23, 2016.

  1. Sancho

    Sancho Major Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,223
    Likes Received:
    2,453
    Well long time of negotiations certainly haven't changed with the new government either. I was shocked to see many of the procurements still pending, after my 2 year break. The minesweeper are not procured either right?
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2017
  2. Ankit Kumar 001

    Ankit Kumar 001 Major Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2016
    Messages:
    2,406
    Likes Received:
    4,598
    Country Flag:
    India
    Yes. There are small steps taken, but they are not significant.

    Therefore I wasn't even 1% worried when Parrikar was to give up for Jaitley. Both are same.

    If not for "no corruption revealed" till now , and the triad , there is not much difference between this and the previous government.

    PS:- Triad refers to the Tri of Piyush Goyal, Suresh Prabhu and Nitin Gadkari. These three are the only who can say that they have tried their best to keep the promises made in 2014.
     
    Sancho likes this.
  3. Ankit Kumar 001

    Ankit Kumar 001 Major Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2016
    Messages:
    2,406
    Likes Received:
    4,598
    Country Flag:
    India
    GSL has a fiberglass vessel moulding facility under construction now.

    The Minesweeping equipment is being bought separately.

    But the design is the problem as GSL/MoD has yet not signed any contract with Kangam Corp.

    Russians offered their design last year and we told them that once their first vessel is operational , we will send a team to inspect its performance.
     
    GSLV Mk III and Sancho like this.
  4. Sancho

    Sancho Major Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,223
    Likes Received:
    2,453
    So much for being decisive.

    No ASW helicopters, no additional MPA's, no additional SSKs, so how is IN suppose to provide any credible defence against Chinese subs?

    I really thought the S70B were an easy deal with Tata already producing cabin parts of the Blackhawk in India. If there was a fast and easy chance to improve the Make in India campaign, this was it
     
    Ankit Kumar 001 likes this.
  5. Ankit Kumar 001

    Ankit Kumar 001 Major Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2016
    Messages:
    2,406
    Likes Received:
    4,598
    Country Flag:
    India
    Navy Takes Control Of Indian Vessel Hijacked By Somali Pirates
    Press Trust of India | Updated: Apr 14, 2017 08:04 IST

    New Delhi: The Indian Navy on Thursday took control of a dhow with 10 crew members, nearly two weeks after the vessel was hijacked by pirates off the island of Socotra in the Arabian sea.

    The Indian Navy accepted the Dhow 'Al-Kausar' from the Mayor of Hobyo in Somalia and escorted it into international waters and onward towards its next destination.


    The Indian registered dhow was hijacked off the island of Socotra on April 1 and then the vessel was taken to the port of Hobyo, on the eastern coast of Somalia. The 10 crew members were captured and held by pirates.

    Following the incident, the Navy had redeployed its ship, operating in the Gulf of Aden for Anti-Piracy Patrol, to the east coast of Somalia to monitor the ongoing situation and remain standby for any other contingency operations, the Navy said in a statement.

    "In the interim, negotiations commenced between the owner and the hijackers for the safe release of the vessel, its cargo and crew. All inter-government agencies maintained a close watch and effective coordination during the progress of negotiations.

    "Based on the outcome of the negotiations, the dhow along with its cargo and two crew members were released on 11 Apr 17, and the balance eight crew were released on Apr 12," it said.

    The Navy said Somalian Security Forces also provided support and assistance during this operation with armed guards being positioned on the dhow off Hobyo harbour as well as search parties undertaking operations to locate the balance crew ashore.

    http://m.ndtv.com/india-news/navy-takes-control-of-vessel-hijacked-by-pirates-1681218
     
    Sancho likes this.
  6. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,151
    Likes Received:
    2,305
    Country Flag:
    United States
    Naval Air: India Buys, Sells And Buys

    https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/articles/20170415.aspx

    April 15, 2017: In early 2017 Burma ordered $40 million worth of the new Indian made Shyena lightweight anti-submarine torpedo. This is the first export sale and the Indian Navy has apparently only received a few dozen of them. For India Shyena replaces the Italian A244S, a 254 kg (559 pound) model widely used (by 16 nations) since the early 1980s model. These smaller torpedoes are used mainly for anti-submarine warfare and are usually fired from helicopters, naval patrol aircraft or warships. India bought 450 of the A244S but obtained a license to manufacture their version (called NST58) in India and because of that was able to develop local suppliers for nearly all the components.

    Shyena was supposed to be an improved A244S but apparently was that in name only and not as capable as the latest MK 3 version of the A244S, which has a longer range (13.5 kilometers compared to six kilometers) and a much more effective sensor and guidance system. In 2012, after two decades of development, India put Shyena into production and at least 25 were delivered to the Indian Navy for use on helicopters.

    Meanwhile in 2011 India ordered 32 American Mk54 lightweight anti-submarine torpedoes to equip their eight new P-8I anti-submarine aircraft. The existing P-3 aircraft (which the P-8 is replacing) usually carries eight torpedoes. The Mk54 is, like Shyena, a 324mm (12.75 inch) weapon, weighing about 340 kg (750 pounds) and with a warhead containing 45 kg (100 pounds) of explosives. Its guidance system has been designed to work well in shallow coastal waters. In addition, the U.S. Navy has two glide kits for air-launched anti-submarine torpedoes like the Mk54. Putting wings on torpedoes is all about U.S. Navy concern about the growing use of anti-aircraft missiles by submarines. To deal with that problem, it sought to equip some Mk54 torpedoes that are normally dropped into the water at a low altitude, by P-3 patrol aircraft, with an add-on glide kit. These systems consist of wings, control flaps, a flight control computer, battery and GPS for navigation. The kit allows a torpedo to be released at 6,300 meters (20,000 feet), which is outside the range of submarine launched anti-aircraft missiles, and glide, for 10-15 kilometers, down to about 100 meters (300 feet) altitude, where the glide kit would be jettisoned, and the torpedo would enter the water and seek out the sub. Normally, the P-3 has to descend to under a 330 meters (a thousand feet) to launch an Mk54 torpedo. This takes time, and puts stress on the aircraft. Reducing stress on these larger maritime patrol aircraft was apparently one reason for introducing the glide kit. There apparently not a lot of subs out there equipped with anti-aircraft missile systems. These systems have been around for years, and many are basically shoulder fired type missiles adapted for launch from a water-proof container that is released by a submerged sub. The P-8s are jet powered, and prefer to remain at higher altitudes.

    There are other reasons for the glide kits. Many subs have sensors that are sensitive enough to detect low flying helicopters (the main target for the subs anti-aircraft missiles) and aircraft. The P-3 is also more effective if it can stay at high altitude all the time. Moreover, the glide kit is easy to build, since it can use items already used for smart bombs (JDAM) and earlier glide kits.

    The Mk54 lightweight torpedo entered production in 2003 and is a good example of how to handle development of systems like this. Costing about a million dollars each, the Mk54 is a cheaper, and somewhat less capable replacement for the Cold War era high tech Mk50 and the old reliable Mk46. The Mk54 is a more cost effective alternative to the three million dollar Mk50, which was in development for over two decades. The Mk50 was difficult to build because it was meant to be a "smart" torpedo that was light enough to be carried by helicopters, and could go deep to kill Russian nuclear subs. But when the Mk50 finally became available in the late 90s, the typical target was a quieter diesel-electric sub in shallow coastal waters. So the Mk54 was developed, using cheaper, off-the-shelf, electronic components, some technology from the Mk50 and larger Mk48, as well as the simpler, but not deep diving, frame and propulsion systems of the older Mk46 lightweight torpedo. Thus the 3.25 meter (ten foot) long Mk54 is a bit of a hybrid, created to save money, and also be more capable against quieter subs operating in shallower water. The Mk54 has a range of about ten kilometers and a top speed of about 72 kilometers an hour. It has a built in sonar that can search for the target sub, as well as acoustic sensors (listening devices to pick up any sounds a sub might make). The Mk54 also has an onboard computer and a data file of underwater noises and search tactics, which are used as it tries to find its target, and keep after it until it can hit the sub and destroy it with the explosives in the warhead.

    In the last 40 years, some 25,000 of the older Mk 46 torpedoes were made, and at least a few thousand Mk54s have been manufactured. Mk50s are kept in inventory to deal with the few hostile nuclear subs that are still out there, although the Mk54 also has a capability of going deep, just not as deep as the more expensive Mk50.

    There is still a market for lightweight torpedoes that are produced in smaller quantities. A few thousand built and sold over a decade or so is economically viable. This was the case with the A244S and similar models from European nations. China also developed its own lightweight torpedo based on some A244S ones it bought. In addition to selling the torpedoes the manufacturer makes a lot of money selling upgrades, customer modifications and maintenance and repair services. Most of these torpedoes are never used as intended and eventually retired when they are so old they are unreliable and not worth refurbishing. In light of all this India will have a difficult time establishing Shyena as a economically and militarily worthwhile effort.
     
  7. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,151
    Likes Received:
    2,305
    Country Flag:
    United States
    April 16, 2017: On April 6 India finally signed a deal to buy $2 billion worth of air defense systems from Israeli firms. The purchase is mainly about customized (for India) Israeli Barak 8 SAM (surface-to-air missile) systems. India wanted a modified naval version (LRSAM) and land version (MRSAM) of the Barak 8. Although this project has been in the works since 2006 it encountered problems, mainly on the Indian side, that held up completing the work, and getting everyone to sign off on the contracts..

    Since 2015 India has made extraordinary efforts to get the Indian developed features of the Israeli Barak 8 SAM working. Progress on that was disappointing until 2016. What was embarrassing about all this was that Barak 8 entered Israeli service in 2013. While the Israelis got the missile into service ahead of schedule the Indian version was hobbled by poor management. Indian officials kept insisting on additional changes for both its naval version (LRSAM) and land version (MRSAM) of the Indian Barak 8. As experienced Indian naval officers warned, these simple requests (actually demands) caused a lot of problems. Not surprisingly the LRSAM/MRSAM soon fell way behind schedule but three years after the Israeli version entered service India caught up. Several tests since June 2016 have been successful and the LRSAM/MRSAM Barak 8 did indeed get accepted for Indian service by early 2017. All that remained was for senior Indian officials to sign the purchase agreement.

    Endless delays have long been the norm for Indian military procurement and state run defense firms. It was always believed that there was not much anyone could do about a situation like this because Indian politicians and defense officials insisted that Indian (mainly state owned defense firms) do the Barak 8 modifications. The Israelis could have done it more quickly and inexpensively but having Indian involvement has become popular with Indian voters and the Israelis can appreciate how difficult that can be to deal with.

    With Barak 8 these minor modifications enabled Indian politicians to claim LRSAM and MRSAM are Indian developed and made. The Israelis go along with this because India is a big customer. A growing number of Indians, especially those in the military who are put at risk by all this political posturing, know what is going on and want change. Israeli firms involved have long struggled to find an effective, and diplomatic, solutions. This has involved a lot of meetings in Israel and India between engineers and managers from both countries. It’s been a big help that this issue has gotten a lot more Indian media attention in the last few years. The Indian media has also made it clear that the Barak 8 delays are not unique and show up so often that a growing number of foreign suppliers will not even bid on Indian projects. Something had to change and slowly that is happening for several projects.

    This is all about the persistent Indian problems with managing the development of military technology. The Barak 8 fiasco began in 2006 when India and Israel agreed to jointly develop and manufacture Barak 8. India called their naval version LRSAM (Long Range Surface to Air Missile) and the land version MRSAM. Israel designed Barak 8 as a naval system. Both LRSAM and MRSAM will replace older Russian weapons as well as Russian offers of new Russian made replacements.

    While most (70 percent) of the Barak 8 development work was done in Israel, India is the major customer because it is buying billions of dollars’ worth of LRSAM for their warships and to replace older Russian SA-6 and SA-8 land based systems. Since India has larger armed forces (and weapons needs) than Israel they will be the major user. The two countries evenly split the $350 million development cost.

    The Indian delays are the result of several problems. In addition to finding Indian engineers to implement features India wanted there were different problems setting up manufacturing facilities for the few Indian made components. There were also disagreements over the transfer of some Israeli technology to India. This has also been a problem with other Western nations and the Indian government has not been willing to change Indian laws and patent protections to avoid these problems. The tech transfer problem was eventually worked out but many foreign firms are fed up with inflexible Indian attitudes when it comes to tech transfer.

    The problems with Barak 8 were not really a surprise to anyone involved. As early as 2010 Indian defense officials realized they had a major, and embarrassing, problem because they did not have enough engineers in the government procurement bureaucracy to quickly and accurately transfer the Israeli technical data to the Indian manufacturers. In addition, some of the Indian firms that were to manufacture Barak 8 components either misrepresented their capabilities or did not know until it was too late that they did not have the personnel or equipment to handle the job. In early 2016 another self-inflicted problem arose when two state owned defense manufacturing firms got into a dispute with each other and the government over which of them would be in charge of managing the Indian work on LRSAM/MRSAM. This dispute also involved efforts by state owned defense firms to get more political support for increasing pressure on Israel to give ground on exporting defense tech to India.

    What no one wanted to say openly was that the corruption in India, especially in defense matters, is epic and most Western states do not trust the Indians unless there are strong (and embarrassing to Indian officials) legal guarantees about the security of exported tech.

    Meanwhile Israel has already manufactured and installed Barak 8 on its three 1,075 ton Saar 5 class corvettes. Thus Barak 8 was ready for action over a year before its scheduled 2015 service date. Israel is believed to have rushed this installation because Russia has sent high speed Yakhont anti-ship missiles to Syria and Barak 8 was designed to deal with this kind of threat. Barak 8 is also Israel’s first air defense system equal to the American Patriot (and similar systems like the U.S. Navy SM-2, Russian S-300, and European Aster 15). An improved Barak 8 would be able to shoot down short range ballistic missiles.

    The Barak 8 is a 275 kg (605 pound) missile with a 60 kg (132 pound) warhead and a range of 70 kilometers. The warhead has its own seeker that can find the target despite most countermeasures. The missiles are mounted in a three ton, eight cell container (which requires little maintenance), and are launched straight up. The compact (for easy installation on a ship) fire control module weighs under two tons.
     
  8. PARIKRAMA

    PARIKRAMA Angel or Devil? Staff Member ADMINISTRATOR

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,421
    Likes Received:
    6,453
    Country Flag:
    India
    Buzz in the air suggests

    • As told in general IAF thread, DM MP and a core group is focusing on acquisition of 2nd hand ships, subs, guns, planes, etc
    • There is a certain buzz of acquiring Kilo subs and upgrading them as well to serve next 15-20 years

    @Ankit Kumar 001 -
    Can you please find out from where possibly we can acquire Kilo subs 2nd hand? Countries i mean where our buying helps us get strategic advantage later
     
    Ankit Kumar 001 likes this.
  9. Ankit Kumar 001

    Ankit Kumar 001 Major Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2016
    Messages:
    2,406
    Likes Received:
    4,598
    Country Flag:
    India
    Second hand Submarines won't exactly translate into Kilos. Because the problem is , upgrading a 2nd hand kilo will cost almost equal to buying a new kilo which will obviously be better and have 15 years of life more. So I feel if kilos are to come, they will come through a JV and all new.

    Apart from that there is a possibility of a Romanian Kilo. It was used very less and that too only for 10 years and has been held as a reserve for decades. Romania is trying to get rid of it at low costs. We can actually get that 1 kilo , overhaul it and use it as a attrition replacement of our one kilo.

    Apart from Romania , other than Russia, all other users have old kilos and which have been used too extensively.

    There are around ~5 Kilos held in reserves by Russia , but their condition is very bad. Overhauling them back to service was so costly that Russia has placed a order of 6 new Kilos for their pacific fleet.

    Personally speaking, if talks are about 2nd SSKs, then chances of Type 209 submarines are more likely.
     
    PARIKRAMA likes this.
  10. PARIKRAMA

    PARIKRAMA Angel or Devil? Staff Member ADMINISTRATOR

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,421
    Likes Received:
    6,453
    Country Flag:
    India
    hmm so 1 kilo and possibly more Type 209s.. and which countries we may potentially target for used 209s.

    Bcz Romanian kilo buy helps our footprint expansion so that will be a good choice.

    Similarly what about 209s?

    Might buy Indonesian ones and make them go for Kilos 636 under a credit line
    Peru too..
    Not sure about Turkey but Atilay class might be targeted
    Venezuela is also a chance..
    It would be good if we can republic of Korean subs and try for Brazilian ones too
     
  11. A_poster

    A_poster Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2016
    Messages:
    988
    Likes Received:
    1,434
    Country Flag:
    India

    What do we need SSKs for?
     
  12. Ankit Kumar 001

    Ankit Kumar 001 Major Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2016
    Messages:
    2,406
    Likes Received:
    4,598
    Country Flag:
    India
    To guard our coastal waters, to have enough SSK for our CBGs, to accompany our Foreign naval deployments, and to carry out the offensive missions.

    Our bare minimum need is 24 SSK.
     
    Sancho and PARIKRAMA like this.
  13. Ankit Kumar 001

    Ankit Kumar 001 Major Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2016
    Messages:
    2,406
    Likes Received:
    4,598
    Country Flag:
    India
    Talking about Type 209s, options are that of Argentina[2 Type 209s who have not seen much action due to budget constraints] ,Greece [~4 Type 209s had their planned overhauls cancelled due to financial problems and with new Type 214 submarines coming, Greece is looking to give up the Type 209s] and Venezuela [2 Type 209s are not being used for some time for financial problems and had a overhaul recently ]

    Apart from them other users are either buying more Type209s meaning they would want to enhance the numbers and have the advantage of commonality too, meaning they won't be willing to give up. And others have their submarines either in overhaul or have had a recent overhaul and have good financial status to keep operating them.
     
    Dagger and PARIKRAMA like this.
  14. A_poster

    A_poster Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2016
    Messages:
    988
    Likes Received:
    1,434
    Country Flag:
    India

    The question still stands. Reasons:

    (1) Surface ships could guard our coastal waters more efficiently. Submarines are good at sinking surface ships which none of our opponents have in plenty.

    (2) SSKs do not have range to accompany CBGs. If it happens, it is juggad technology in practice.

    (3) For offensive missions: Again there are not enough ships with our enemies to justify submarine based offensive missions. Surface ships could do nearly all offensive operations better than SSKs.

    (4) 24 SSK means nearly $24billion in investment. Given the limited utility they have in case of India, the idea of having large SSK fleet is balls out retarded due to cost-benefit ratio. We should short circuit SSK phase and make a push for SSNs which would bring actual value to the table.
     
  15. PARIKRAMA

    PARIKRAMA Angel or Devil? Staff Member ADMINISTRATOR

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,421
    Likes Received:
    6,453
    Country Flag:
    India
    @vstol jockey

    As we see more French cooperation, We till have not seen the true contours for IN sub deal. I hope we see some encouraging news there too.. Scorpene follow on is close but what about Barracuda tech part? Are we getting enhanced tonnage and value for every buck we are planning to spend?

    and this 2nd hand sub thing- whats your opinion and where you see possibilities?
     

Share This Page