Indian Navy (IN) News and Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

contedicavour

New Member
MBDA makes Aster, it doesn't make the radars, & would happily sell the missile with any radar it can get it integrated with. Aster is already integrated with S1850M, Sampson, Arabel, Empar, Herakles . . . IIRC Empar is made by Selex (Italy/UK), Arabel & Herakles by Thales, S1850M by Thales Nederland & BAe Insyte, Sampson by Insyte. Looks to me as if everyone & his dog in European radar makers already has a finger in the Aster pie. So what's the problem? We're not talking about competitors radars, we're talking about radars made by one of the existing radar suppliers, i.e. Thales - which is, right now, simultaneously selling radars packaged with US missiles. Packaging the same radars with Aster is going to hurt who? Depends on whether it replaces SM-2/ESSM sales or Empar sales, doesn't it?
Well the problem is that MBDA belongs to a consortium of companies including Finmeccanica-Selex and the French Thales. I agree that these companies might make sacrifices to win tenders against SM-2/ESSM, but if you were working for Finmeccanica you'd fight against anything else than EMPAR (by the way, the active array version is almost ready and will be installed on the FREMMs) and if you were working for Thales you'd fight for herakles.

cheers
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Well the problem is that MBDA belongs to a consortium of companies including Finmeccanica-Selex and the French Thales. I agree that these companies might make sacrifices to win tenders against SM-2/ESSM, but if you were working for Finmeccanica you'd fight against anything else than EMPAR (by the way, the active array version is almost ready and will be installed on the FREMMs) and if you were working for Thales you'd fight for herakles.

cheers
No, MBDA belongs to EADS (37.5%), BAe (37.5%) & Finmeccanica (25%). Thales isn't one of the shareholders.

BTW, Thales also makes APAR as well as Herakles, so would be quite happy to sell that along with Aster, if someone wanted it (would require some integration work, I presume).

Let's think for a moment about how Finmeccanica would influence the selection of a radar by some hypothetical country which was seeking to buy ships. By fighting within MBDA against the pairing of Aster with a rival radar? If so, it would be bloody stupid, as it would harm MBDA. No point in killing the goose. Better to forget your (minority) shareholding & try to sell your radar directly to the customer. Emphasize its performance, & how ready you are to integrate it with whatever they want. Don't start trying to sabotage any other aspects of their purchase, or they'll think of you as difficult to deal with, obstructive, & might shy away. In their place, at this point I'd worry about any other equipment I want on the ship that Finnmeccanica makes a rival product for, & whether you might start trying to get that changed, thus disrupting the building of my ships.
 

contedicavour

New Member
No, MBDA belongs to EADS (37.5%), BAe (37.5%) & Finmeccanica (25%). Thales isn't one of the shareholders.

BTW, Thales also makes APAR as well as Herakles, so would be quite happy to sell that along with Aster, if someone wanted it (would require some integration work, I presume).

Let's think for a moment about how Finmeccanica would influence the selection of a radar by some hypothetical country which was seeking to buy ships. By fighting within MBDA against the pairing of Aster with a rival radar? If so, it would be bloody stupid, as it would harm MBDA. No point in killing the goose. Better to forget your (minority) shareholding & try to sell your radar directly to the customer. Emphasize its performance, & how ready you are to integrate it with whatever they want. Don't start trying to sabotage any other aspects of their purchase, or they'll think of you as difficult to deal with, obstructive, & might shy away. In their place, at this point I'd worry about any other equipment I want on the ship that Finnmeccanica makes a rival product for, & whether you might start trying to get that changed, thus disrupting the building of my ships.
Ehm EADS belongs to the french government (and Lagardere and Daimler) which in turn controls Thales. Thales is a creature of the French government so expect it to push for any material made in France...
Which explains why it was France who refused to build a FREMM with ESSM/SM-2 for instance.
One last thing, the interest in ordering most material from the same company is that it lowers integration fees and overall cost (higher discounts for bulk purchase, etc)

cheers
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Ehm EADS belongs to the french government (and Lagardere and Daimler) which in turn controls Thales. Thales is a creature of the French government so expect it to push for any material made in France...
Which explains why it was France who refused to build a FREMM with ESSM/SM-2 for instance.
One last thing, the interest in ordering most material from the same company is that it lowers integration fees and overall cost (higher discounts for bulk purchase, etc)

cheers
You're confusing companies (which can be state-controlled or influenced, but aren't the same thing) with governments. Who owns the rights to the FREMM design? I think you'll find it's the French (majority) & Italian governments. Now imagine a ship designed & built outside France, not by a French company, & MBDA or Thales trying to sell the missiles & sensors for it. Different situation, no? And that's how this all started out.

Thales has no majority shareholding, but the largest shareholders are the French government (27.1%) & Alcatel-Lucent (not Lagardere!) 21.6%. Between them they have just under half. Alcatel-Lucent is a publicly quoted company with very substantial US ownership. The two largest shareholders (with almost 15% between them) are US investment firms.

The French government is restricted to a maximum EADS shareholding of 15%, through agreed bodies only (it may not own shares directly), & has just under that limit. Not quite ownership :) . Most of it is through a 50% stake in a holding company (Lagardere has the other 50%) which owns 29.6%. Daimler controls 22.5% (15% owned, 7.5% owned by its German partners) & the Spanish state 5.5%, & those stakes are in a partnership which controls the company. The partnership has rules which mean that in effect Daimler can't be outvoted by the French government & Lagardere acting together, because it can force them, in that case to buy its shares at a favourable (to Daimler) price. Bloody complicated, but all done to make sure the French don't control EADS. Just strong influence,

BTW, Sarkozy is talking of selling French state shareholdings in EADS, Thales, & other firms.
 

contedicavour

New Member
I meant that Lagardere was part owner of eads not thales.
I doubt Sarkozy will ever sell state ownership of the key french defence companies, unless it's one of his closest friends who buys those stakes (again, lagardere, dassault, bouygues, etc). He is centre-right and mildly liberal but when it comes to big companies based in France he is very heavily nationalist.
Anyway I understand your point that for orders outside of France and Italy Thales may have an interest in being very flexible about which components to integrate into its weapons suite, and this with limited government intervention.
The only question I'd have then is why I haven't seen any offers on the market for anything else than the French FREMM (Herakles or previously Arabel) or the Italian one (with active EMPAR). May be it's kept confidential within tender process, still strange...

cheers
 

aaaditya

New Member
hey guys,seems that indian navy has narrowed down the contenders for its 8 aircraft maritime patrol aircraft order to boeing p8i mma based on the b737-800 platform and the airbus a319 based platform being offered by eads.

here check out this link and article:

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2827661&C=america

Indian Navy officials involved in the eight-plane, $800 million maritime surveillance aircraft program will study Boeing and Airbus aircraft in France, Germany, Spain and the United States, a Navy official said.
The team will evaluate the nascent Boeing P-8A in the United States June 18-29. They will see the A319 at Airbus facilities in France July 7-15; visit EADS’ center in Hamburg, Germany, for lab testing; and watch trials of EADS-built systems, installed aboard a P-3 Orion, in Madrid in late July.
The Navy official said India is evaluating systems under development in other planes: a Boeing 737-800 for airworthiness trials and a C-40 for operations-and-maintenance trials.
The evaluation will go to the Defence Ministry by September, a request for bids will emerge shortly thereafter, and a short list of bidders evaluated for technical parameters. Finally, price negotiations will begin within two years.
The surveillance aircraft must serve for more than 15 years, fly faster than 200 knots on patrol and operate by day or night.
Its sensors must include an identification-friend-or-foe system, electronic support measures system, data links, electro-optic devices, inertial navigation system, GPS receivers, standard avionics, and be able to track up to 80 surface and air targets at a time.
Its armament must include air-to-surface missiles, an internal bomb bay, sonobuoys, torpedoes and depth charges. •
 

aaaditya

New Member
hey guys,interesting news here,it seems that the indian navy is interested in land and sea based hawkeyes.

here check out this link and article:

http://www.defensenews.com/paris/story.php?id=2840677

With the April 30 rollout of the first Advanced Hawkeye prototype behind them, the Northrop Grumman’s E-2D product team is working on several modifications designed to make the maritime surveillance aircraft more appealing to export customers.
Such enhancements are likely to include a nonfolding wet wing that would raise endurance from 3½ to eight hours, plus a robust air-to-air refueling capability. Northrop Grumman is also considering adopting mission recording and intercom systems that the French navy is installing on its E-2C Hawkeyes.
“The capabilities that come out of the process can be made available to the U.S. Navy, and then to foreign customers,” said Capt. Tom Carroll of the U.S. Naval Air Systems Command’s PMA-231 component. “They get the benefit of that development change, whether it’s in hardware, software or weapons systems.”
Two E-2Ds are in production at St. Augustine, Fla., with first flight of the initial prototype expected later this summer. The first aircraft will be used to evaluate the aircraft’s handling characteristics and re-establish its flight envelope.
The mission system, built around the Lockheed Martin APY-9 search radar, will debut on the second aircraft. Early trials of this equipment, Carroll said, are being performed aboard an NC-130 testbed aircraft.
According to Jerry Spruill of Northrop Grumman, the nonfolding wing option is geared mainly toward operators with shore-based applications. These could include nations with recent interest in acquiring E-2Ds, including the United Arab Emirates and Malaysia. India, Spruill said, is considering both land- and shore-based variants of the Advanced Hawkeye.
The next step, according to Spruill, is approving the E-2D mission system for foreign military sales.
“We expect interest in the Advanced Hawkeye to ratchet up dramatically once these approvals are received,” he said.
 

kams

New Member
hey guys,interesting news here,it seems that the indian navy is interested in land and sea based hawkeyes.

. India, Spruill said, is considering both land- and shore-based variants of the Advanced Hawkeye.
.
Huh!!! what is the difference b/w Land and Shore based versions?:unknown
 

kams

New Member
Read the rest of Aadityas post. It's in there.
Swerve,

The report does mention non-foldable, wet wings and air-air refueling capability (both of which differentiates the carrier based version from Shore based version). However I could not figure out how 'Shore' based version is different from 'Land' based version. Could you please amplify.

Thanks.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
.... However I could not figure out how 'Shore' based version is different from 'Land' based version. Could you please amplify.

Thanks.
Shore-based is navy speak for land-based. E.g. my cousin is "shore-based", & he works well inland, at Northwood. The fixed wet wing version of E-3D could be called shore-based or land-based. Makes no difference. Either is a valid name for it.
 

kams

New Member
Shore-based is navy speak for land-based. E.g. my cousin is "shore-based", & he works well inland, at Northwood. The fixed wet wing version of E-3D could be called shore-based or land-based. Makes no difference. Either is a valid name for it.
Exactly Swerve, now if we look at what Mr. Spruill said,

India, Spruill said, is considering both land- and shore-based variants of the Advanced Hawkeye.
'Both Land and Shore based', that left me wondering. (Unless the journalist screwed up, wouldn't be the first time, but I doubt it.)

Is there one more varian for Air-force?


Another interesting news, there was a report in Indian media that IN is not interested in Amur as second line of conventional sub.Apparently Brahmos corporation wanted to trial sub launched Brahmos on an Amur, but Navy said no. So they are going to modify an IN Kilo.

Now that throws up some interesting scenario for future second line of Submarines:) . The decision will have to be made soon.
 

aaaditya

New Member
hey guys,check out this interesting news article,it seems that indian wants to deploy its navy abroad to protect its oil interests ,i wonder what would be the implication of this move,i believe this move would be carried out on a reciprocal basis.

here is the link and the article:

http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=168952

KOLKATA, JUL 2 : The Union government is thinking of sending the Indian Navy to places where the country has oil interests and especially in areas where ONGC Videsh Ltd (OVL) has invested in oil and gas exploration.
Pranab Mukherjee, Union external affairs minister, said that maritime diplomacy has become an essential component of India's foreign policy and its maritime interests have to grow far beyond its primary area.



Indian Navy to keep eye on oil interests abroad : The Union government is thinking of sending the Indian Navy to places where the country has oil interests and especially in areas where ONGC Videsh Ltd (OVL) has invested in oil and gas exploration.
Pranab Mukherjee, Union external affairs minister, said that maritime diplomacy has become an essential component of India's foreign policy and its maritime interests have to grow far beyond its primary area.
"We have to look at the investments ONGC Videsh is making in energy rich areas such as Sakhalin, Sudan, Nigeria and Venezuela and extend our maritime interests through maritime diplomacy," Mukherjee said.
OVL has 24 oil and gas properties in 14 countries at present.
Mukherjee said as the Indian Navy and Coast Guard function as a "major stabilising force in the movement of energy resources across the Indian ocean for all the energy intensive economies", so the naval forces of other countries are expected to co-operate with the Indian Navy for India's oil interest.
"Almost 1000 million tonne of oil from West Asia passes along the international shipping lanes of the Indian Ocean, close to our shore, annually, and the greater portion of this is destined for oil intensive economies of the US, China and Japan," Mukherjee said.
He said that around 45% of the world's oil demand is attributable to the rising energy needs of China and 70% of its oil import comes from West Asia and Africa through the shipping lanes of Indian Ocean.
"Therefore Indian Navy and Coast Guard are functioning not just for India's interest but for the world at large," Mukherjee said.
He told FE that the international law makes it "perfectly legal for ships to (come) close to the coast of another nation to as little as 12 nautical miles, which is the maximum breadth of any nation's territorial waters".
So, he said, Indian naval ships cannot be deprived of the rights of `innocent' passage within the 12 nautical mile belt of other nations. India is already engaged with the US, Russia, France UK and Japan to address strong maritime challenges and has recently concluded bilateral arrangements with Thailand and Indonesia for co-ordinated patrols by the three navies at the north of Malacca Straits in the Bay of Bengal. Suresh Mehta, chief of naval staff, said the Indian Navy is conducting peacetime exercise with the US, China, Japan, Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand and Philippines. It plans to hold international naval symposium in Delhi early next year with 32 countries participating in it.
 

kams

New Member
Biggest joint naval exercise in Bay of Bengal in September

Link

NEW DELHI: India will hold its biggest naval exercise with the U.S., Japan, Australia and Singapore in the Bay of Bengal in September this year, senior security officials here said on Wednesday.

The decision comes amid China’s concerns over last month’s meeting between India, the U.S., Japan and Australia and assurances by India and Australia that security and defence issues did not form part of the meeting’s agenda.

The concern over “encirclement of China’ was strong enough for Beijing to issue a demarche to all four nations, demanding the purpose behind the meeting. A demarche is a formal diplomatic communication from a country seeking information from another.

Sources said the naval exercise would see the participation of three aircraft carriers, two from the U.S. and one from India, besides several warships. This could be a rare occasion of a large flotilla undertaking manoeuvres in international waters close to India.

The spadework for the exercise was done earlier this year, well before the June meeting. The location of has been chosen to maintain distance from the arc of the Pacific Ocean skirting the borders of Russia and China where such moves could arouse Beijing’s sensitivities.
Interesting development.
 

aaaditya

New Member
Link



Interesting development.
i wish the indo-australian defence relationship reaches the level of maturity to enable india to be offered the collins class of submarines by australia,hey kams what do you think are the chances for such a defence technologies cooperation between india and australia?
 

kams

New Member
i wish the indo-australian defence relationship reaches the level of maturity to enable india to be offered the collins class of submarines by australia,hey kams what do you think are the chances for such a defence technologies cooperation between india and australia?
As of now, chances of such large scale defence co-operation is low.
Australia does not own all the technology related to Collins. GF is a better person to answer this question than me.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
As of now, chances of such large scale defence co-operation is low.
Australia does not own all the technology related to Collins. GF is a better person to answer this question than me.
The signature management technology is australian. the rest of the electronics would require clearance by the offshore IP owners.

Indian 3rd parties have had discussions with a few australian companies, but the issue of complete ToT has been the consistent hurdle.
 

aaaditya

New Member
The signature management technology is australian. the rest of the electronics would require clearance by the offshore IP owners.

Indian 3rd parties have had discussions with a few australian companies, but the issue of complete ToT has been the consistent hurdle.
are these discussions related to the collins class of submarines or only to the signature management technology?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top