Indian Navy (IN) News and Discussion

[kams]

Reports indicate that IN's sole carrier INS Viraat will be undergoing major refit/up gradation which will last till Mid 2009. Upgradation will include Propulsion, Sensor fit, Weapons and underwater hull sections. I think the by the time Viraat upgradation program is completed, Harriers should be ready with their own upgrades.

Interestingly, Standing committee on Defence reports from 2006-7 indicate that IN was aware of slip ups in Gorshkov program and repeatedly brought up the issue with Russians, only to be assured that it will be completed on time.

Lot of money is being wasted in these upgradation programs.

 

[harryriedl]

Reports indicate that IN's sole carrier INS Viraat will be undergoing major refit/up gradation which will last till Mid 2009. Upgradation will include Propulsion, Sensor fit, Weapons and underwater hull sections. I think the by the time Viraat upgradation program is completed, Harriers should be ready with their own upgrades.

Interestingly, Standing committee on Defence reports from 2006-7 indicate that IN was aware of slip ups in Gorshkov program and repeatedly brought up the issue with Russians, only to be assured that it will be completed on time.

Lot of money is being wasted in these upgradation programs.

just wondering what will the Harriers train on for a year as the sole carrier is out of service. I do agree that Viraat upgrade is unnecessary but they don't have much choice as Goskove could take forever and the indgions carrier is taking a very long time and won't be finished till after Viraat decommissioned

 

[kams]

just wondering what will the Harriers train on for a year as the sole carrier is out of service. I do agree that Viraat upgrade is unnecessary but they don't have much choice as Goskove could take forever and the indgions carrier is taking a very long time and won't be finished till after Viraat decommissioned

Oh Viraat upgrade is very much necessary now, what I meant was with some foresight it could have been avoided. If only GoI had released the adequate funding for IAC from the word go and had not got itself trapped with Groshkov, this would not be necessary.

As to Harriers, I think they are also undergoing upgradation, hence the timing of Viraat's refit program.

 

[contedicavour]

Why update now the Viraat if it takes it out of service until mid-09 if the old carrier is anyway supposed to decommission around 2010-11 ? Couldn't it have just been patched up without costly upgrades ?
Or should this be taken as yet another sign that Gorshkov and the IAC aren't coming until after the latest known dates, respectively 2010 and 2012 ?

cheers

 

[kams]

Why update now the Viraat if it takes it out of service until mid-09 if the old carrier is anyway supposed to decommission around 2010-11 ? Couldn't it have just been patched up without costly upgrades ?
Or should this be taken as yet another sign that Gorshkov and the IAC aren't coming until after the latest known dates, respectively 2010 and 2012 ?

cheers

Gorshkov is supposed to start Sea Trials in 2010 and commissioning in to IN in 2012. IAC in 2012-2014. So Viraat had to undergo refit.

 

[Sea Toby]

I am sure if India wished to wait for the new ships, and decommissioning their old carrier today, they would. But while the Indians wish for an early delivery, they also have to maintain their old carrier until at least one of the new carriers are delivered. They do not wish to go two or three years without a carrier. I suspect in the eyes of the navy leaders, the old carrier needs a refit.

 

[contedicavour]

Gorshkov is supposed to start Sea Trials in 2010 and commissioning in to IN in 2012. IAC in 2012-2014. So Viraat had to undergo refit.

Ah okay, 2012 and 2014 as in service dates for Gorshkov and IAC are even worse than I thought... so it makes sense to patch up the Viraat yet again

cheers

 

[Salty Dog]

Ah okay, 2012 and 2014 as in service dates for Gorshkov and IAC are even worse than I thought... so it makes sense to patch up the Viraat yet again

cheers

It also makes sense for keeping personnel qualified and training new ones. They will certainly form the cadre for all IN aircraft carriers to follow.

Alternatively they can send IN personnel onboard other navy's aircraft carriers as "shipriders" to gain knowledge and expertise.

 

[Firehorse]

USN refutes Indian claim about sale of vessel

US: No curbs on use of Jalashwa
29 Mar 2008, 0209 hrs IST,TNN

NEW DELHI: The US on Friday declared there were no special restrictive clauses against the deployment of the amphibious transport warship USS Trenton, bought by India for $50.63 million in 2006-2007, for offensive roles.
"There was no such unique terms or language associated with the warship's transfer. The same terms apply to the hundreds of our warships that have been transferred (to other nations)," said visiting US Navy Secretary Donald C Winter.
"There are no limits on the use of the warship by a sovereign nation in support of its national defence objectives," he added, responding to queries about the CAG report which has expressed concern over the "restrictive clauses" in the Trenton contract.

So, where is that "restriction" issue came from?

 

[Salty Dog]

Once again . . . .

I seriously doubt the validity of the article that a "restrictive clause" of the nature mentioned was signed. A FMS (foreign military sales) contact is pretty much "boilerplate language" and includes EUM (end use monitoring) as standard items required by the US Government. Especially in the transfer of a used ship.

The actual verbage used is "purchasers must agree to use articles, training, and services only for their furnished purpose".

The main concern of the US Govermment is that the purchaser not use the articles, training, and services for non-military action, e.g. against civilians.

See the instruction: http://www.dsca.mil/samm/Chapter 08 - End-Use Monitoring (EUM).pdf

National defense is a legitimate end use purpose.

 

[Aliph Ahmed]

Auditors when passing opinions be them qualified or disqualified leave a bunch of paper trail based on which the final conclusion is issued.

Now I do not know how good the standard of Accounting in India is but going by the general standard of Auditors globally, I would take the word of Indian Auditors anyday over some politically affiliated spokesperson.

 

[Sea Toby]

Unfortunately, the rest of the world have bought used US equipment, have the same boiler plate language on their contracts, yet, none of the other nations have thin skins as much as the Indians. As Salty Dog has said several times, national defense is a legitimate usage of the ship. Offensive or defensive. Indians act as if they have never bought used US equipment ever before.

Just sign on the dotted line and forget the document. Its easier. You can do whatever you want with your new ship. You don't see the Israelis holding anything back when it comes to their defense.

The Boiler Plate language is for legal reasons, the US don't want to held liable with whatever India does with the ship. The boiler plate language ain't for auditors.

 

[niteshkjain]

Navy's ambitious plans

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/aw/dti0408/index.php?startid=22
I cant copy the content. It mentions that india wants to have 60k + ton carrier hmmm lot of action in this front. Gurus please comment

 

[AegisFC]

Auditors when passing opinions be them qualified or disqualified leave a bunch of paper trail based on which the final conclusion is issued.

Now I do not know how good the standard of Accounting in India is but going by the general standard of Auditors globally, I would take the word of Indian Auditors anyday over some politically affiliated spokesperson.

The problem is that it certainly does appear that in this case the Auditor did use or was instructed to make this a political issue and blow way out of proportion a very standard document.
So far the only real problem India has had with this ship was the unfortunate gas leak, which turned out to be caused by a lack of training on an unfamiliar system.

 

[aaaditya]

Navy's ambitious plans

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/aw/dti0408/index.php?startid=22
I cant copy the content. It mentions that india wants to have 60k + ton carrier hmmm lot of action in this front. Gurus please comment

india has plans for constructing a second ads carrier ,the project is to be launched in 2010 at csl,this carrier will be of 46000 ton displacement,india also has plans for acquiring upto 6 lhd's these are likely to be built at grse kolkatta,grse is currently studying the french mistral design,however the last choice would be indian navy's.

60000 ton carrier is not impossible to build considering that csl has the ability to build 100000 ton vessels,however it does not meet india's requirements.

in my opinion india will not build a 60000 ton carrier and will concentrate more on its nuclear submarine programme.

 

[Sea Toby]

I believe India wants three aircraft carriers, they are building two and are buying one from Russia of about the same size, about 45,000 tons displacement. This will provide most of the time one carrier to the east and west of the subcontinent, with a third carrier in a maintenance period.

India may decide to build a larger carrier at a later date, but I think India would be better off building an LHD/LPH ships instead, and probably more than one. They can be used as an amphibious assault ship or as a small carrier. I believe India will be testing the old Trenton's well dock, deciding after its experience with a well dock whether to incorporate a well dock with their LHDs. The key factor is whether India will be able to acquire more jump jets in the future, or will India be happy with troop and attack helicopters instead.

Frankly, its my opinon a 45,000 ton carrier will provide plenty of aircraft for offensive and defensive air operations. Adding a larger carrier won't greatly increase the number of aircraft, whereas adding a few LHD/LPH with or without a well docks will provide more power projection for the joint forces.

 

[swerve]

I believe India wants three aircraft carriers, they are building two and are buying one from Russia ...

[Pedantic mode] They're only building one so far. They want to build another one, but it hasn't been ordered yet, & when construction will start, & whether it'll be the same design as the first one, is still uncertain. What aaditya says is only a proposal so far.[/Pedantic mode]

 

[Sea Toby]

I stand corrected, but its planned to build two carriers. While the second carrier could be larger, ain't 45,000 tons enough? Both financially and with the number of aircraft sorties? And let's not forget the price of new aircraft.

 

[aaaditya]

I stand corrected, but its planned to build two carriers. While the second carrier could be larger, ain't 45,000 tons enough? Both financially and with the number of aircraft sorties? And let's not forget the price of new aircraft.

as of now 45000 tons is enough and hence the govet of india is going for this design ,but we cannot say about the future.

in believe it will be advantageous to to go for larger (above 45000 ton) carriers once you have developed nuclear propulsion and support systems for the surface warships.

 

[g2g1]

i think India should upgrade to nuclear reactor on there CV
it will save theme fuel, they can carry more jet fuel for there planes
it will increase the range