Indian Navy Discussions and Updates

[dragonfire]

It's been done before and its done today. SF are deployed in whatever asset has the utility and availability for the requirement at a given point in time.

The US deployed assets like Parche as a keel scraping level during the cold war. they physically entered soviet harbours and tapped harbour located comms cables. Parche received a number of Presidential citations for this kind of work.

The truck in trade for SF is a sub - any sub. Nukes - esp SSBN's have substantial capacity for extra non standard guests. When they deploy it is the mission set which determines how far they go and what they do, so (eg) SF taxi runs don't need the same food support (which is what clutters up the spaces) (eg) sprint compared to long run to do a specific "job."

The Israelis deploy full teams in small conventionals, so the carriage opportunities (not just bodies) that a nuke brings to the table are significant. - esp boomers if and when the need arises.

I doubt if the IN SSBNs which would come under the dual Strategic Forces and Naval command would be utilised for deploying the midget submarines, unless in extra-ordinary circumstances. It would not be its strategic role. The Arihant class is expected to have 3 nos (hulls under construction) and then a larger class of SSBNs is expected along with SSNs.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I doubt if the IN SSBNs which would come under the dual Strategic Forces and Naval command would be utilised for deploying the midget submarines, unless in extra-ordinary circumstances. It would not be its strategic role. The Arihant class is expected to have 3 nos (hulls under construction) and then a larger class of SSBNs is expected along with SSNs.

there are two separate issues here.

carrying the midgets into deep battle
carrying special forces

they can be mutually exclusive.

btw, the ultimate decider of what the IN will do to execute the military will of the government of the day is actually New Delhi - not the Chief of Navy. They drive the assets as temporary owners on behalf of the actual owners ie the Govt.

 

[dragonfire]

there are two separate issues here.

carrying the midgets into deep battle
carrying special forces

they can be mutually exclusive.

btw, the ultimate decider of what the IN will do to execute the military will of the government of the day is actually New Delhi - not the Chief of Navy. They drive the assets as temporary owners on behalf of the actual owners ie the Govt.

I was refering to the vessels which could give the piggy-back to the midget subs, SF can be carried on any vessel, Infact a decision was made today / yesterday top deploy INS Savitri - a Patrol Vessel to be deployed in the anti-piracy role near Maruitus and Seychelles. The INS Savitri will be deployed with the IN SF the MARCOS.

DAWN.COM | World | India deploys warship off Seychelles

If you noticed my post i was clearly mentioning the Strategic Forces Command under which the SSBNs would come to be. The Strategic Forces Command is directed by the NCA - National Command Authority - which is a political body headed by the PM. Not only the SSBNs but the entire nuclear triad assets would be part of this command structure

 

[harryriedl]

Thanks for the inputs riksavage,




Does the Royal Navy currently operate any midget submarines. The Virginia class is designed keeping in mind the requirements of deploying Advanced SEAL Delivery System, whereas the LA class had to be modified for deployment. The ASDS is as per wiki about 60 tons, and yet can deliver 16 SEALs and has two crew, wonder what the IN wants, maybe some torpedoe tubes !

Yep the RN operates minsubs off its subs and is procuring a new model whos name I forgot which supposedly had the interstest of the USA
SEAL Delivery Vehicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[kay_man]

Naval version of LCA rolled out

NAVAL VERSION OF LIGHT COMBAT AIRCRAFT ROLLS OUT: A DEFINING AND MEMORABLE OCCASION FOR THE NATION – ANTONY

New Delhi: Asadha 15, 1932
July 06, 2010


The country’s first Naval variant of Light Combat Aircraft, the LCA (Navy) Trainer Naval Project (NP) – 1 was rolled out by the Defence Minister Shri AK Antony from Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) Aircraft Research and Design Centre at a glittering function in Bengaluru, today. The Chief of Naval Staff Admiral Nirmal Verma, Secretary Defence Production Shri RK Singh, Scientific Advisor to the Defence Minister Dr. VK Saraswat, Chairman, HAL Shri Ashok Nayak, Director Aeronautical Development Agency Shri PS Subramanyam were present on the occasion.


Congratulating the stakeholders in the development of the first indigenously developed carrier-bone Naval Trainer Aircraft, Shri Antony described today’s development as a ‘defining and memorable event’ for the nation. He said the prophets of doom have been silenced by a series of major breakthroughs of DRDO-led projects in recent times. He gave the examples of MBT Arjun, LCA and Akash missiles, which are now being adopted by the Forces. Shri Antony said the goal of self-reliance can be achieved by developing synergy among the scientists, the Forces and the public and private sectors.


The LCA (Navy) will form the air element of the Indian Navy. Its primary role will be that of air defence and will provide a formidable platform with a higher thrust engine and an optimised mass for suitable replacement to the ageing Sea Harriers at a later date. The only carrier-bone aircraft in the light category in the world, it will be operating with a wide variety of operational weapons and equipment like the Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missile, Anti-Ship missiles, Conventional bombs, Air Defence guns, CCMs and drop tanks. The NP1 is now ready to undergo the phase of systems integration tests leading to ground runs, taxi trials and flight. The first flight of the NP1 would happen by the end of this year. The aircraft would be flying with GE-F-404-IN 20 engine and is specifically designed for ski-jump take off and arrested recovery, with high-landing loads compared to its Air Force counterpart.


The formal sanction by the Government for the Naval programme was accorded in the year 2003. The first stage of development includes design and fabrication of one Trainer and one Fighter, NP1 and NP2 respectively, along with a Shore Based Test Facility (SBTF) at Goa, to simulate carrier take off and arrested landing. A complete airframe called Structural Test Specimen required for structural testing is also being and tested as part of the Programme. Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), Bangalore has been responsible for the design, development, and building of the Naval version of the Light Combat Aircraft with HAL being its Principal Partner.


Technical Features of the Aircraft


Ø The LCA will operate from an Aircraft Carrier with a concept of Ski-jump Take off But Arrested Recovery (STOBAR). Aircraft gets airborne over a ski jump in about 200 m and lands 90 m using an arrester hook engaging an arrester wire on the ship.


Ø Derived from the Air Force version it is a longitudinally unstable fly-by-wire aircraft, making it an agile war machine.


Ø Flight Control system is augmented with Leading Edge Vortex Controller (LEVCON) aiding reduction in approach speed for Carrier Landing


Ø Auto throttle function reduces pilot load by maintaining constant angle of attack during the critical phase of a flare-less carrier landing


Ø Fuel Dump System enables safe landing by reducing weight in event of an emergency landing immediately after launch from Carrier


Role of the Aircraft
Ø Air to Air
Ø Air to Sea
Ø Air to Ground


Dimensions
Ø Span :8.2 m
Ø Length : 13.2 m
Ø Height : 4.52m

 

[benithisrael]

three carrier battle groups max

The USN has type critical mass and redundancy across all its fleet support assets - thats why she can do it.

By the way, the US also has between 10 and 12 Amphibious Response style groups as well - those carriers are also bigger than most nations aircraft carriers. In effect, the USN has over 22 flat deck carriers able to deploy vertical lift fighters at a full USN squadron level (not French Naval Squadrons which are half the size)



They don't travel at flag level by themselves.



See above - the bulk of the information you are asking can be found on the internet.



The IN is best placed to determine what it needs within the budget it gets allocated by Government.

I have a launcher preference, but thats irrelevant to this debate.

Indian navy's second carrier would be 60k tons with steam catapult launch, RFI for naval fighters with long legs have been sent out and if naval tejas doesn't have required range and payload, they would be dropped. The next one would mostly feature emals in the 70+ tonnage caegory. Each carrier group would consist of no less than 50 aircraft. The IAC-1 and vikramaditya, would be part of same group after IAC-3 with Emals arrive.

 

[T.C.P]

Indian navy's second carrier would be 60k tons with steam catapult launch, RFI for naval fighters with long legs have been sent out and if naval tejas doesn't have required range and payload, they would be dropped. The next one would mostly feature emals in the 70+ tonnage caegory. Each carrier group would consist of no less than 50 aircraft. The IAC-1 and vikramaditya, would be part of same group after IAC-3 with Emals arrive.

Can you post a link to your source

 

[swerve]

Indian navy's second carrier would be 60k tons with steam catapult launch, RFI for naval fighters with long legs have been sent out and if naval tejas doesn't have required range and payload, they would be dropped. The next one would mostly feature emals in the 70+ tonnage caegory. Each carrier group would consist of no less than 50 aircraft. The IAC-1 and vikramaditya, would be part of same group after IAC-3 with Emals arrive.

You're making some oddly definite statements there, about ships which hasn't been designed yet. Either you're guessing, or you have access to Indian state secrets, & I know which I believe.

There are a couple of inconsistencies in your claims.By the time IAC 2 is built, EMALS should be proven. The only reason to prefer steam catapults would be if the USA refuses to export EMALS. It could be a waste of money to build a third IAC to a different design to IAC2, if IAC 2 is a large ship with catapults. Why do you believe India would build a succession of unique ships, instead of settling on a class design & sticking to it?

 

[benithisrael]

You're making some oddly definite statements there, about ships which hasn't been designed yet. Either you're guessing, or you have access to Indian state secrets, & I know which I believe.

There are a couple of inconsistencies in your claims.By the time IAC 2 is built, EMALS should be proven. The only reason to prefer steam catapults would be if the USA refuses to export EMALS. It could be a waste of money to build a third IAC to a different design to IAC2, if IAC 2 is a large ship with catapults. Why do you believe India would build a succession of unique ships, instead of settling on a class design & sticking to it?

EMALS were tested way back in 1950sby canadians to launch satellites in space. [Mod Edit: You are required to provide proof of such a claim, upon your return from your 1 week ban.

While you cannot yet post links, you can cite the name of the publication source, the page number and "quote" the relevant text published. Let me give an example of a citation for reference purposes: "Rethinking the Basis of Infantry Close Combat" by David Kilcullen (pages 29-40, Vol. 1 No. I, June 2003 of the Australian Army Journal).

Failure to provide a source with 48 hours of the expiry of your ban will lead to you being subject to further administrative action by the Mod team.]

 

[benithisrael]

[Mod Edit: Various posts consolidated as one.]

The second and third ships would be named INS Vishal and INS viraat , of course a name swap is possible. Makes me wonder if the Defence ministry has run out of names. the swap would happen only between the second and third carriers of course. India needs to shed its bloody [Mod Edit: Text deleted. For goodness sake have some self respect. Do not use language or phrases that is disrespectful of another person's ethnicity, religion or culture. You are hereby banned for 1 week for this statement and post-whoring.] and opt for some classy names.

If nuclear reactor is completed, second would be fitted with nuclear propulsion, otherwise it would be gas turbine LM2500. the third I hope would be nuclear propelled. sorry for all the trash But i need to complete 10 posts. [Mod Edit: I see that you are aware that your behaviour is unacceptable. You will not post further trash in this forum. Any recurrence of such behaviour will lead to a permanent ban.]

the domain only contains this much info, if u happen to read defence magazines regularly you may get a clearer perspective.
[Mod Edit: Two points to note:
One, you are not text messaging. Spell your words in full - it's 'you' and not 'U'.
Two, unlike you, some members of our forum are paid to write for reputable defence magazines. Learn to adopt a respectful tone. Do not behave like a know it all.]

India is actually working with Israel to build emals.
[Mod Edit: You are required to provide proof of such a claim, upon your return from your 1 week ban. Failure to provide a source with 48 hours of the expiry of your ban will lead to you being subject to further administrative action by the Mod team. See below for an example of how to cite an article or source.]

I don't see why US would refuse such a technology anyway. A strategic partnership goes a long way and military cooperation is a very essential part, ask the Israelis and swedes, they weren't even part of NATO. The Indian Leadership is just too slow to move its lazy butt to leverage this. In future it would change wiith new leaders and new blood among politicians and government bureaucrats.

The Airawat project of India to build amphibious ships and the INS jalaswa connection.

The offer of kitty Hawk.
[Mod Edit: As AegisFC has pointed out below, this claim is false.]

The sale of the British Elizabeth class carrier- prince of Wales.
[Mod Edit: You are required to provide proof of such a claim, upon your return from your 1 week ban.

While you cannot yet post links, you can cite the name of the publication source, the page number and "quote" the relevant text published. Let me give an example of a citation for reference purposes: "Rethinking the Basis of Infantry Close Combat" by David Kilcullen (pages 29-40, Vol. 1 No. I, June 2003 of the Australian Army Journal).

Failure to provide a source with 48 hours of the expiry of your ban will lead to you being subject to further administrative action by the Mod team.]

The reason to build different tonnage ships. thats the nature of an arms race, be ahead of the adversary's capabilities. The better the design more the aircraft can be carried and more airspace it can control, not to mention the launch and recovery of fixed wing awacs and anti-submarine helicopters. Once the fighter that would board the IAC-2 is selected, appropriate design would be frozen for the next carrier. the jump from IAC-2 to IAC-3 would be along the lines of USS kitty hawk to USS enterprise.

Learning to read between the lines can get you close to the truth than relying on media info. though I personally prefer a fourth one, a 160 ship force may not be able to support 4 carrier battle groups.

 

[OPSSG]

[Edit to Mod Warning: benithisrael, your string of 7 consecutive posts could be done in one post. You are spamming or post-whoring in the thread - your current method of increasing your post count is frowned upon. Further, you have been moderated for unacceptable content that can be seen disrespectful of another person's ethnicity, religion or culture.]

 

[AegisFC]

The offer of kitty Hawk.

You obviously have no clue what you were talking about. The Kitty Hawk was NEVER OFFERED TO INDIA. It was made up by a bunch of Indian journalists and perpetuated on the internet by uninformed posters. Both the Indian and US Govt have denied that the offer was ever made.

 

[OPSSG]

benithisrael, you have been banned for 1 week.

You have also put forth a number of knowledge poor posts that are based on erroneous information. The Mod Team requires that upon your return from a 1 week ban to provide reputable sources that prove the following dubious claims by you (you have 48 hours upon the end of the 1 week ban to provide such info or retract the statements cited below):

(i) EMALS were tested way back in 1950s by Canadians to launch satellites in space.

(ii) India is actually working with Israel to build EMALS.

(iii) The sale of the British Elizabeth class carrier- prince of Wales.

Failure to do so will result in further administrative action by the Mod team.

Read the Forum Rules before posting again.

 

[funtz]

three kilo submarines @ mumbai

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_0HCJq6B1w...C1w/X0xS9HJTXEI/s1600/20100901INDIANKILOS.jpg

from imint and analysis blog

so at least three of these are in working order.

staying on submarines government controlled public sector units which had a huge amount of trouble finishing up the current project-75 scorpion submarines with France have been given another tender for the next generation project-75I, while the only guys who did their job in time (a private sector unit called L&T) have been given the cold shoulder, bad show indeed, it seems that the MoD has taken made it a policy to defer the artillery and submarine projects as much as they can.


Project 75I : Unexplained decision to sideline L&T

L&T’s Chairman and Managing Director, AM Naik, told Business Standard, “We are extremely concerned that our engineering expertise, our facilities already set up at Hazira in line with our commitment to serve the national interest, and our experience in building submarines will be grossly under-utilised if such a decision were to be implemented.”

L&T sources stress that the company’s experience of building the INS Arihant --- at 5000 tonnes, thrice as large as the average conventional submarine and significantly more complex --- has given the company the expertise, the facilities and the confidence to build conventional submarines faster and more cheaply than any MoD yard. The MoD, allege these sources, is giving the Project 75I submarine contract to its own shipyards to keep them in business.

The Indian defence sector seems very communist in nature.

N-subs: India debates, China struggles

 

[Type59]

The Indian defence sector seems very communist in nature.

N-subs: India debates, China struggles

Struggling is not a bad thing. Chinese are well on way to make 3rd SSN model. JL 2 repeated failures? maybe but China is very top secret on weapons programs so unlikely to announce if successful or not.
To confirm successful military programs in PRC, we rely on photos such as seen with J 10, however since missile is placed in submarine, we unlikely gonna get any proof. Unless the navy allows someone to take picture of missiles in their hatchs, very unlikely. :

 

[dragonfire]

three kilo submarines @ mumbai

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_0HCJq6B1w...C1w/X0xS9HJTXEI/s1600/20100901INDIANKILOS.jpg

from imint and analysis blog

so at least three of these are in working order.

staying on submarines government controlled public sector units which had a huge amount of trouble finishing up the current project-75 scorpion submarines with France have been given another tender for the next generation project-75I, while the only guys who did their job in time (a private sector unit called L&T) have been given the cold shoulder, bad show indeed, it seems that the MoD has taken made it a policy to defer the artillery and submarine projects as much as they can.


Project 75I : Unexplained decision to sideline L&T


The Indian defence sector seems very communist in nature.

N-subs: India debates, China struggles

I believe the MoD will come around to give part order to the L&T ship yards as well, its a matter of time really, there was also a talk of two of the subs being constructed in foriegn shipyards, however it is critical for the MoD to make sure that the IN gets its subs at the earliest. I also read some reports quoting former admirals that the past two IN chiefs were Aviators (naval) and that in the navy there is contant bickering between the surface mariners and the submariners and within the proponents of subs there is debate between nuclear powered and conventional powered subs, all this added with the previous two chiefs being aviators has apparently delayed further the plans for subs for the IN

 

[dragonfire]

Struggling is not a bad thing. Chinese are well on way to make 3rd SSN model. JL 2 repeated failures? maybe but China is very top secret on weapons programs so unlikely to announce if successful or not.
To confirm successful military programs in PRC, we rely on photos such as seen with J 10, however since missile is placed in submarine, we unlikely gonna get any proof. Unless the navy allows someone to take picture of missiles in their hatchs, very unlikely. :

AFAIK the IN has not come out with a solid plan for SSNs. However when the INS Arihant was launched there were talks of 2-4 SSBNs in two classes and about 4 SSNs, plans if any are yet to be finalised.

 

[funtz]

I believe the MoD will come around to give part order to the L&T ship yards as well, its a matter of time really, there was also a talk of two of the subs being constructed in foriegn shipyards, however it is critical for the MoD to make sure that the IN gets its subs at the earliest.

I also read some reports quoting former admirals that the past two IN chiefs were Aviators (naval) and that in the navy there is contant bickering between the surface mariners and the submariners and within the proponents of subs there is debate between nuclear powered and conventional powered subs, all this added with the previous two chiefs being aviators has apparently delayed further the plans for subs for the IN

I doubt the MoD has the ability to learn from its mistakes, just look at the tender for big guns (for the army).

There is no real submarine based long range/medium range ballistic missile program going on, the agni 5 is yet to be tested in a land based role, so i think the program might just go on for another decade or so before we have any real sea based deterrent capability, for the time being the 700-1000km ranged missile being tested for the Arihant class nuclear submarines might be the only option.

I think the MoD assigned the money to different programs for the navy with equal thought, i doubt the navy chiefs would have been so naive as to let their own history come in the way of the needs of the navy. The delays seem more because of the problem with outdated shipyards and docks which have very small amount of trained manpower, and the great big bureaucratic mess.

The sad part is that all these program are still on paper, very few new vessels join the navy, many of the plans are over a decade old.

 

[dragonfire]

I doubt the MoD has the ability to learn from its mistakes, just look at the tender for big guns (for the army).

There is no real submarine based long range/medium range ballistic missile program going on, the agni 5 is yet to be tested in a land based role, so i think the program might just go on for another decade or so before we have any real sea based deterrent capability, for the time being the 700-1000km ranged missile being tested for the Arihant class nuclear submarines might be the only option.

Actually there is a SLBM Sagarika which was developed for arming the Arihant class and subsequent classes of the IN SSBNs, Sagarika with range between 700-1900 km (depending on payload) has been tested successfully 6 times and is going to be deployed on the INS Arihant. There are also talks of future versions being developed with extended ranges to enable the subs to target cities further inland (however i dont have any proof to provide for this)

Also Sagarika is designed to deliver nuclear payloads

I think the MoD assigned the money to different programs for the navy with equal thought, i doubt the navy chiefs would have been so naive as to let their own history come in the way of the needs of the navy. The delays seem more because of the problem with outdated shipyards and docks which have very small amount of trained manpower, and the great big bureaucratic mess.

The sad part is that all these program are still on paper, very few new vessels join the navy, many of the plans are over a decade old.

Actually if you examine the acquisitions of the three services, the IN stands out in being able to acquiring contemporary capabilities, and its record in acquiring more vessels and construction going on for more is far ahead than that of the IA and the IAF. The IN plans for surface ships except for the delays in the acquisition of the ex-Gorshkov look more or less successful in that the track record is better, the designs are up to date (The Naval Directorate of Design collaborates with the shipyards and is probably unique in that the IAF and the IA dont seem to have invested in such collaborative initiatives) and the plans for the future acquisitions also look like they will come in time. The submarine acquisitions is a totally different story though

 

[funtz]

Actually there is a SLBM Sagarika which was developed for arming the Arihant class and subsequent classes of the IN SSBNs, Sagarika with range between 700-1900 km (depending on payload) has been tested successfully 6 times and is going to be deployed on the INS Arihant. There are also talks of future versions being developed with extended ranges to enable the subs to target cities further inland (however i dont have any proof to provide for this)

Also Sagarika is designed to deliver nuclear payloads

I know i quoted that in my previous post a 700-1200 km ranged missile, however that is not a nuclear deterrent, just to deliver the missile the submarine will have to go near shore, and the longer ranged missile is not going to come up in 4-5 years.

Actually if you examine the acquisitions of the three services, the IN stands out in being able to acquiring contemporary capabilities, and its record in acquiring more vessels and construction going on for more is far ahead than that of the IA and the IAF.

The IN plans for surface ships except for the delays in the acquisition of the ex-Gorshkov look more or less successful in that the track record is better, the designs are up to date (The Naval Directorate of Design collaborates with the shipyards and is probably unique in that the IAF and the IA dont seem to have invested in such collaborative initiatives) and the plans for the future acquisitions also look like they will come in time.

The submarine acquisitions is a totally different story though

Its been near 10 years since the sivalik and kolkata class projects, and we dont have much to show for these 10 years, every single delay caused more delays (as technology keeps on jumping).

Right now a lot of orders are in the shipyards or in the MoD, and if the same BS (that happened with the shivalik and kolkata class projects, and is happening in the scorpene class project) continues then i have little hope of the navy actually meeting its potential even after the funds have been provided.