Indian Navy (IN) News and Discussion

[zenith_suv]

So as far as current projections of aircraft carriers go - we should have 2 of them by 2012 with Mig-29k and LCA Naval (god willing) and Dhruv on board , not a perfect scenario but one deployed and eat and west costs would be significant deterrents.

[funtz]

So as far as current projections of aircraft carriers go - we should have 2 of them by 2012 with Mig-29k and LCA Naval (god willing) and Dhruv on board , not a perfect scenario but one deployed and eat and west costs would be significant deterrents.
The way things have been progressing, it seems a bit too early to say that.
2012 time line is set on the ship leaving for trials by 2010 i think, lets see what happens.
LCA naval might have to wait around considering the issues with the program.

[Firehorse]

From DefenceTalk.com

Naval Forces
Russia's New Nuclear Attack Submarine Starts Sea Trials

http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/index.php
Oct 29, 2008

Vladivostok, Russia: The Amur shipyard in Russia's Far East said on Monday it had started sea trials of a newly built nuclear-powered attack submarine, which according to media reports may be leased to India.
The construction of the Akula II class Nerpa nuclear attack submarine started in 1991 but has been suspended for over a decade due to lack of funding. Akula II class vessels are considered the quietest and deadliest of Russian nuclear-powered attack submarines.
"The submarine, built under a contract with the Russian Defense Ministry, has been moved from the shipyard in Komsomolsk-on-Amur to a maintenance facility in the Primorye Territory and fitted with all necessary equipment. At present it is undergoing sea trials," a spokesman for the shipyard told RIA Novosti.
Indian media have reported on various occasions that the construction of the submarine was partially financed by the Indian government. India has reportedly paid $650 million for a 10-year lease of the 12,000-ton submarine.
According to Indian defense sources, Nerpa is expected to join the Indian navy under the designation INS Chakra in the second half of 2009.
The submarine will not be equipped with long-range cruise missiles due to international restrictions on missile technology proliferation, but India may later opt to fit it with domestically designed long-range nuclear-capable missiles. [Don't they jointly develop CMs?]
However, a spokesman for the Amur shipyard earlier said that Nerpa differed considerably from the previous Akula-class submarines.
"Our Nerpa is fitted with more sophisticated navigation, sonar, and hydraulic systems," he said.
Russian state officials have categorically denied reports of a possible lease of a nuclear submarine to India.
Asked in late September to comment on media reports on alleged plans to export nuclear submarines, in particular to India, Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov said: "The press discusses lots of things. We do not export nuclear submarines."
India previously leased a Charlie I class nuclear submarine from the Soviet Union from 1988 to 1991.
Russia recently handed over to India the INS Sindhuvijay diesel-electric submarine after an extensive overhaul at a shipyard in northern Russia.

Meanwhile,
"The ex-Gorshkov will be launched soon. At the end of October the installation of engines and other heavy gear will start." Nice picture-
http://www.ng.ru/nvo/2008-10-22/100_avianosets.html

I wonder, besides for the AW, will it carry any AShMs?

[funtz]

India rejects Russian aircraft carrier price demand
By Radhakrishna Rao

ndia's finance ministry has for the second time rejected a proposal from the nation's defence ministry to approve an additional $1.2 billion in funds to complete a retrofit project to the decommissioned Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov.

Moscow had originally agreed to deliver the modernised vessel for $1.5 billion, but demanded the additional payment after citing factors including an underestimation of the level of work required at its Sevmash shipbuilding yard.

India, which has already paid Russia two-thirds of the original programme cost, has made no further payments since January 2007, and the 44,500t carrier's expected delivery date has slipped from 2009 until at least 2012. The finance ministry's latest decision also stemmed from a request to allocate $60 million to perform sea trials of the refurbished vessel during 2011.

The Indian navy has ordered 12 RSK MiG-29K fighters and four MiG-29KUB trainers to operate from the ex-Russian navy ship.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/10/31/318150/india-rejects-russian-aircraft-carrier-price-demand.html


This is not going to be resolved before the next government (2009-2010 budget), meanwhile russia might have to spend from its own pocket (will they be willing to?).

[aaaditya]

hey guys,great news here ,fincantieri of italy is to build a 27500 ton fleet tamker for the indian navy.

here is the link and the article:

http://www.yourindustrynews.com/fincantieri+to+build+new+fleet+tanker+for+the+indi an+navy_14194.html

Fincantieri to Build New Fleet Tanker for the Indian Navy

Thursday, Oct 30, 2008

On the occasion of the international exhibition Euronaval – the most important trade fair for the defence industries currently in progress in Paris-Le Bourget – Fincantieri has announced the company has gained an order to build a fleet tanker for the Indian Navy.

Following previous orders to Russian industries, this is the first order for a surface vessel for which India has chosen a foreign company, Fincantieri, which competed to win the order against leading international players, especially from Russia and Korea.

The vessel, which will be built at the shipyards in Liguria, for delivery at the end of 2010, will be 175 metres long, 25 wide and 19 high and will have a displacement at full load of 27,500 tonnes. The ship will be powered by two 10,000 kW diesel engines which will enable it to reach a maximum speed of 20 knots and its propulsion system will feature an adjustable blade propeller. There will also be a flight deck on board for medium-heavy helicopters (up to 10 tons).
The ship will accommodate up to 248 passengers – crew and supplementary personnel.

Equipped with double hatches, the vessel will be able to service four ships at the same time.

In accordance with the new Marpol regulations of the International Maritime Organization concerning the protection of the environment, this will be the first ship of this type to be built with a double hull thereby improving protection of the fuel tanks and avoiding the risk of pollution in case of collision or damage.

Fincantieri has already built the “Sagar Nidhi” for India, an oceanographic vessel for the National Institute of Ocean Technology (NIOT) in Madras which was delivered at the end of 2007. In addition, in 2004 the company drew up two contracts with Cochin shipyard regarding the design of the engine, technology transfer and the provision of complementary services for the construction of the Air Defence Ship (ADS); activities are also in the process of being finalized for the sharing of the functional design and details of the propulsion system. The assistance stage at the Indian shipyard is about to start up shortly.

In order to better service the Indian area, Fincantieri has set up a permanent, representative office in New Delhi.

Commenting on the order, Giuseppe Bono, Fincantieri C.E.O., said: “This further, important order confirms that the Indian market is strategic for our company, as it should be seen within the framework of a process of growing internationalization of our activities and a return to the military export market.”

In view of the experience Fincantieri has gained in the construction of this vessel type, both for the Italian Navy and for a number of foreign navies, the company has recently been admitted, together with another three yards, to the final stage of the tender for the high prestige British programme MARS (Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability), which involves the construction of six fleet replenishment tankers for the Royal Navy.

In view of such a significant order, and to consolidate its presence on the British market, Fincantieri has recently formed an alliance with NSL (Northwestern Shiprepairers and Shipbuilders Ltd), a British yard specialized in ship repair, conversion and military refit.

NSL has built some of the Royal Navy's finest vessels including HMS Ark Royal along with the first guided missile destroyer and a number of submarines, and is today a prime contractor to the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) Service.

[aaaditya]

hey guys,strange news here,the chinese naval chief is on a visit to india and is likely to visit the karwar naval base and the dabolim naval base.

here is the link and the article:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Chinese_navy_chief_to_arrive_on_first-ever_visit/articleshow/3660608.cms

NEW DELHI: In a first ever visit by a Chinese Navy chief to india , Admiral Wu Shengli will arrive in New Delhi on Saturday. He is slated to hold discussions with defence minister A K Antony and his Indian counterpart Admiral Sureesh Mehta to boost military confidence-building measures.

This comes at a time when India and China are jostling for the same strategic space in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) to secure their energy and other needs. India, of course, does not want this "competition" to escalate into "conflict".

With China on course to acquire aircraft carriers, the one capability lacking in its otherwise potent naval force, its Navy chief is especially keen to get a first-hand look at India's operation of 'INS Viraat' and its Sea Harrier jump-jets.

"Apart from holding talks with Antony and Admiral Mehta during his visit from November 1 to 5, he will be visiting the Western Naval Command at Mumbai, the naval airbase at goa and the upcoming naval base at Karwar," said an official.

Indian and Chinese armed forces have been incrementally building up their military ties, which in December 2007 led to the first-ever joint counter-terrorism exercise between the two armies at Kunming, with the return exercise planned at Belgaum in India this December.

Apart from other concerns, India remains worried about strategic moves by China in maritime domain. In keeping with the "string of pearls" strategic construct, China is forging linkages with eastern Africa, Seychelles, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Myanmar and Cambodia, among others, in a bid to encircle India.


[Mod edit]aaaditya, this message is not only for you, but also others posting in a similar style. Yours is merely the latest example.

I'd like to remind you that posts should contain your own input. Please read the forum rules (http://defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php), particularly rule 2. We expect some decent commentary rather than a de facto RSS news ribbon feed.

PJI[/Mod edit]

[ASFC]

NSL has built some of the Royal Navy's finest vessels including HMS Ark Royal along with the first guided missile destroyer and a number of submarines, and is today a prime contractor to the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) Service.

WRONG!

NSL did not build Ark Royal (Swan Hunter did), although I will give NSLs predcessors credit in building Type 42s and Nuclear Subs-but that was a long time ago (infact their last sub was an Upholder, now with the CF's, about 15 years ago).

[Firehorse]

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/10/31/318150/india-rejects-russian-aircraft-carrier-price-demand.html
This is not going to be resolved before the next government (2009-2010 budget), meanwhile russia might have to spend from its own pocket (will they be willing to?).

I got a gut feeling that this ship will end up in the Russian Pac.Fleet, and India will be compensated with other Russian weapons/favorable contracts. India will have to keep her older CV sailoring on for extra few years before a new one is built. BTW, does Thailand really needs her carrier/Royal Yacht? With all the turmoil there I'm surprised that India hasn't offered to buy it!

[irtusk]

i know the Kitty Hawk for India has been repeatedly been shot down, but what about the Tarawa?

- it's not a super carrier so less security and balance of power issues
- it's more 'right size' for india (crew complement of less than 1000 vs 5600+ for the KH)
- it has amphibious capabilities
- excellent disaster relief facilities
- it's longer than the Viraat (ex-Hermes)
- it's 20 years newer than the Viraat
- it's being decomissioned in a few months

[Feanor]

I got a gut feeling that this ship will end up in the Russian Pac.Fleet, and India will be compensated with other Russian weapons/favorable contracts. India will have to keep her older CV sailoring on for extra few years before a new one is built. BTW, does Thailand really needs her carrier/Royal Yacht? With all the turmoil there I'm surprised that India hasn't offered to buy it!

I seriously doubt the Russian gov. has the money to procure, refurbish, deploy, arm, train pilots for, and use for that ship. Not to mention India has already 1) Signed the Fulcrum contracts. 2) Agreed to purchase the additional aircraft under option. It really doesn't look likely.

[funtz]

I got a gut feeling that this ship will end up in the Russian Pac.Fleet, and India will be compensated with other Russian weapons/favorable contracts. India will have to keep her older CV sailoring on for extra few years before a new one is built. BTW, does Thailand really needs her carrier/Royal Yacht? With all the turmoil there I'm surprised that India hasn't offered to buy it!

I think that should be a really acceptable way for both parties involved. India gets the money (+fine) back Russia gets the carrier.

From the looks of it, the gorshkov will be the last second hand carrier, or one manufactured outside india.

[funtz]

i know the Kitty Hawk for India has been repeatedly been shot down, but what about the Tarawa?

- it's not a super carrier so less security and balance of power issues
- it's more 'right size' for india (crew complement of less than 1000 vs 5600+ for the KH)
- it has amphibious capabilities
- excellent disaster relief facilities
- it's longer than the Viraat (ex-Hermes)
- it's 20 years newer than the Viraat
- it's being decomissioned in a few months
US is not offering these systems to IN, even if they did I dont think the navy will get any more funds for any such purchase programs.

The indian navy is looking at development of a Mistral type of platform.

[Salty Dog]

US is not offering these systems to IN, even if they did I dont think the navy will get any more funds for any such purchase programs.

The indian navy is looking at development of a Mistral type of platform.

The USA does not "offer" systems. Countries have to send a "request". We will never know if any transfers can occur unless a "request" is made.

Further to this, "requests" are generally "classified" to begin. Once in the approval process within the US government, they are generally made public.

[StevoJH]

WRONG!

NSL did not build Ark Royal (Swan Hunter did), although I will give NSLs predcessors credit in building Type 42s and Nuclear Subs-but that was a long time ago (infact their last sub was an Upholder, now with the CF's, about 15 years ago).

Cammell Laird (NSL) built two aircraft carriers called HMS Ark Royal, one in the late 1930's, and one in the 1950's.

[indian bull]

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=157774#post157774

Don't post news without comments.

Don't use RED (light or dark) color to highlight sentences. You can use any other. Red is used by moderators (light) & super moderators (dark) to give out warnings & notifications.

- SABRE

[swerve]

The USA does not "offer" systems. Countries have to send a "request". We will never know if any transfers can occur unless a "request" is made.
But the formal process you describe can be - and often is - initiated by the USA. A "request" can be - and very frequently (mostly?) is - in response to an offer, accompanied by very heavy marketing, from a US firm, which will previously have ascertained that there is no objection in principle to it selling the goods. If I, as head of the air force of US ally or neutral country X, let it be known that I have a requirement for n fighters, do you honestly think there will not be approaches from LM & Boeing salesmen (with the approval of the relevant US authorities) very soon afterwards?

[ASFC]

Cammell Laird (NSL) built two aircraft carriers called HMS Ark Royal, one in the late 1930's, and one in the 1950's.

Well it did not state which Ark Royal, and as Ark Royal V was completed 50 yeas ago, then how is it an indication of the quality of the yards work when the workforce will have changed?

[funtz]

The USA does not "offer" systems. Countries have to send a "request". We will never know if any transfers can occur unless a "request" is made.

Further to this, "requests" are generally "classified" to begin. Once in the approval process within the US government, they are generally made public.
All the well then, does not seem to be any chance of that happening.(IN sending a request).

The IN has a Austin Class(ex-USS Trenton), which seemed to have procured for throw away prices, chances of going for a similar one seem to be more realistic.

'The Indian Navy has expressed interest in the USS Nashville. Congress has not yet approved the ship for transfer (sale). That is likely to happen next year and we can then begin negotiations,' Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kohler, director of the US Defence Security Cooperation Agency, told reporters here.

http://www.indiaenews.com/india/20070714/60707.htm

[Salty Dog]

But the formal process you describe can be - and often is - initiated by the USA. A "request" can be - and very frequently (mostly?) is - in response to an offer, accompanied by very heavy marketing, from a US firm, which will previously have ascertained that there is no objection in principle to it selling the goods. If I, as head of the air force of US ally or neutral country X, let it be known that I have a requirement for n fighters, do you honestly think there will not be approaches from LM & Boeing salesmen (with the approval of the relevant US authorities) very soon afterwards?

You are correct that US contractors must have a US Government commercial licensing permission prior to marketing major defense equipment (MDE) to a specified country overseas. In the case of MDE, such as fighter aircraft, these can only be sold abroad via the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) system which only responds to a letter of request (LOR), which in the case you describe would be a formal request for proposal or RFP by country X. As in all FMS, all purchases are via the US Government (Department of Defense) and not the contractor. No doubt that contractors will be all over the Country X in marketing, but in the USA case, there are guidelines they must follow. Bottom line is the request process must be formally initiated by country X, there is never any "offer".

[Salty Dog]

The IN has a Austin Class(ex-USS Trenton), which seemed to have procured for throw away prices, chances of going for a similar one seem to be more realistic.

http://www.indiaenews.com/india/20070714/60707.htm

This a yet another FMS process, however in this case is probably considered under "excess defense articles" (EDA). There is no price for sale of the ship, just costs for transfer and administration. EDA is formally requested by any eligible country and must have US Presidential approval prior to the transfer.

[swerve]

You are correct that US contractors must have a US Government commercial licensing permission prior to marketing major defense equipment (MDE) to a specified country overseas. In the case of MDE, such as fighter aircraft, these can only be sold abroad via the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) system which only responds to a letter of request (LOR), which in the case you describe would be a formal request for proposal or RFP by country X. As in all FMS, all purchases are via the US Government (Department of Defense) and not the contractor. No doubt that contractors will be all over the Country X in marketing, but in the USA case, there are guidelines they must follow. Bottom line is the request process must be formally initiated by country X, there is never any "offer".
I think you've missed the point. There are two distinct processes here:
1) the formal request-offer process.
2) the marketing process.

How many times do you think 1) follows 2)? Very often, I think.

Saying there is never any "offer" may be true, but only for a limited, technical, meaning of the word "offer". In normal usage, the informal proposals firms make before a formal request is issued would certainly be considered offers. The USA (considered both as a collectivity, & the government considered as one entity) is entirely passive in the model you describe, only reacting after a potential customer has initiated contact, but you cannot believe that is what actually happens.

[gf0012-aust]

actually, just a fine point, State Dept have the final release authority for FMS (same as ITARs issues)

[irtusk]

well regardless of who has to 'request' and who has to 'offer',

would the US sell the Tarawa to India?

would India want to buy the Tarawa?

should India want to buy the Tarawa?

[Feanor]

No, no, and no. At least in my opinion.

[irtusk]

No, no, and no. At least in my opinion.

so why do you say the US wouldn't sell?

because of possible loss of sensitive information?

because of balance of power issues?

is it really that different than the Trenton?


and then why do you say India wouldn't/shouldn't be interested in it?

too old and decrepit? (even though it's 20 years newer than the Viraat, perhaps the USN runs their ships harder?)

too manpower intensive? (although crew requirements don't seem that different than Viraat)

something else?

[harryriedl]

well regardless of who has to 'request' and who has to 'offer',

would the US sell the Tarawa to India?

would India want to buy the Tarawa?

should India want to buy the Tarawa?
It depends on how long Hermes can hang on?

How long it will take for replacements to arrive?

How cheap can they get a replacement? they could get a Tarawa for very low price and bolt a Ski jump on it. It could make senses

[Salty Dog]

I think you've missed the point. There are two distinct processes here:
1) the formal request-offer process.
2) the marketing process.

How many times do you think 1) follows 2)? Very often, I think.

Saying there is never any "offer" may be true, but only for a limited, technical, meaning of the word "offer". In normal usage, the informal proposals firms make before a formal request is issued would certainly be considered offers. The USA (considered both as a collectivity, & the government considered as one entity) is entirely passive in the model you describe, only reacting after a potential customer has initiated contact, but you cannot believe that is what actually happens.

Sorry mate. It's not a model. It is a fact. US contractors are not suppose to make offers for MDE, however informal. They are not even suppose to be discussing technical details as these are most likely classified and would require US Gov't clearance.

[Salty Dog]

It depends on how long Hermes can hang on?

How long it will take for replacements to arrive?

How cheap can they get a replacement? they could get a Tarawa for very low price and bolt a Ski jump on it. It could make senses

It's not that easy. While the flight deck could probably take the weight of the Mig-29K, it would need an angled landing area and arresting gear installed.

[irtusk]

It's not that easy. While the flight deck could probably take the weight of the Mig-29K, it would need an angled landing area and arresting gear installed.

i presumed they would use it for their harriers and helicopters like the Viraat . . .

[gf0012-aust]

They are not even suppose to be discussing technical details as these are most likely classified and would require US Gov't clearance.

and the final nail is hammered in by State Dept. Even if suppliers want to get their gear into a country it can be Vetoed by State.

It's one of the methods to control and manage military sales at the civilian level.


State are the ones who determine whether conversations will even be allowed to take place. Granted some will try and circumvent where poss, and may seek to appeal to the Executive (ie President, Sec State, Sec Def etc..) but in absolute terms. No tick, no talk, no sale.

[harryriedl]

It's not that easy. While the flight deck could probably take the weight of the Mig-29K, it would need an angled landing area and arresting gear installed.
I was working with the Idea of the SHAR's and possibly a few Av-8 in the deal where it would just be bolting on a Ski Jump.

EDIT: irtusk as already said it

[Rish]

I guess its out? India's leasing the Akula II from russia. Just wondering, what missile do you think is going to be armed on this submarine? also, is it going to be deployed on the western front or is going to move around?


http://www.india- defence.com/reports/4066

Indian Navy crews to move to Russia to start training on Chakra

Batches of Indian naval personnel are to shortly leave for the Russia's far eastern port of Vladivostok to train on board the Chakra, (formerly the Nerpa) a Russian Akula-2 nuclear powered attack submarine which is to be transferred to India on a 10-year lease next year.

[Firehorse]

I seriously doubt the Russian gov. has the money to procure, refurbish, deploy, arm, train pilots for, and use for that ship. Not to mention India has already 1) Signed the Fulcrum contracts. 2) Agreed to purchase the additional aircraft under option. It really doesn't look likely.

That ship and assosiated costs are less than Kuznetsov follow-on; besides, with impending Army restructuring they'll save a lot of money for other things. MiG-29s can be used on other CVs, and if not, they can be modified for the regular, land-based version. There are many ongoing Russia-India deals that can smooth this mess out, at least IMO. As you say, "time will tell"!

Update:
Gorshkov's Delivery to Indian Navy Delayed Till 2012 (http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/printer/navy/printer_Gorshkov_s_Delivery_to_Indian_Navy_Delayed _Till_2012.php)

Bottom line:
Why should Russia "go in the red" to supply India a CV, while she is in the process of naval buildup and needs carriers herself?
Good luck to India!

[Firehorse]

The article below essentually says that Russia will keep Admiral Gorshkov if India fails to pay for it in full. the international situation is complicated and such ships will come handy to patrol the Atlantic and the Med. Sea. $400M are already spent, and $2B more are needed to complete modernization."
http://www.izvestia.ru/news/news192438

[funtz]

Sounds like the perfect oppertunity for the two nations to solve this mess, the amount can be adjusted with several ongoing deals like the Mig-29K upgrade deal, T-90 deal.

And the 16 or so Mig-29Ks can be used by the IN to replace the grand old Marine Jaguars.

[tatra]

The article below essentually says that Russia will keep Admiral Gorshkov if India fails to pay for it in full. the international situation is complicated and such ships will come handy to patrol the Atlantic and the Med. Sea. $400M are already spent, and $2B more are needed to complete modernization."
http://www.izvestia.ru/news/news192438

They hinted at that last February as well IIRC. Sound to me like a ploy, just so that the shipyard can say "hey, you don't want to p(l)ay, we got another taker for the ship. so pay up". IMHO just a negotiation tactic.

[Sea Toby]

I am sure an American government would be interested in selling an old Tarawa class ship to India under the proper channels. Harrier type aircraft can be operated off the ship, only a ski jump would have to be added. I do not see why America would not sell an old Tarawa class to India. There may be some sensitive American equipment removed, but the ship and the all important flat top flight deck would be included. If India can get twenty years out of the ex-HMS Hermes, I would think they could get the same out of an old Tarawa.

[harryriedl]

I am sure an American government would be interested in selling an old Tarawa class ship to India under the proper channels. Harrier type aircraft can be operated off the ship, only a ski jump would have to be added. I do not see why America would not sell an old Tarawa class to India. There may be some sensitive American equipment removed, but the ship and the all important flat top flight deck would be included. If India can get twenty years out of the ex-HMS Hermes, I would think they could get the same out of an old Tarawa.
it will 30 years in 2012 which is when Hermes decommissions[at present plans] which the Indians will get out of it.

I think if the India buy's another tep harrier carrier I would have thought would want to have more harriers as they only have 13 and only 9 of them are single seat they would want some more espeicaly as MIG 29 will be useless for there original perpous

[irtusk]

I think if the India buy's another tep harrier carrier I would have thought would want to have more harriers

well it's certainly possible they still could

the UK has decom'd a few and might be able to pickup some from italy/spain/thailand

but the only critical need is a bridge to the IAC as the Viraat is increasingly unable to put to sea

as i understand it, typically the Viraat doesn't even deploy with harriers, only helicopters

so for the normal use a tarawa could certainly fulfill the duties and in an emergency, yeah it could run those handful of harriers

and then even after the IAC, an amphibious ship with the capabilities of the tarawa is always handy, even if it's just for disaster relief

[ASFC]

They should buy Invincible-the RN can offload a ship that they can't use but is costing them, the Indians get a Harrier ready ship, there is no need to buy more Harriers as she can't operate many anyway and she will make an excellent stop gap until their newer carriers come on line.

I also suspect that unlike a Tarawa LHA, Invincible will have less secret stuff that needs removing and might be in slightly better condition that an LHA.

Downside? She only carries about 22 Aircraft (including Helos).

I don't see the Indians buying anything else European as they are going to be using their current and future Carriers for a while yet. The Thai navy likes the usefulness of its Carrier for disaster relief so I can't see them easily parting with it.

So if they wanted a stopgap it is either Tarawa or Invincible. Not much choice.

[Feanor]

India accepted the Russian cost hike on the Gorshkov carrier, the current price will now be 2.2 billion USD.

http://arms-tass.su/?page=article&aid=63456&cid=24

[Firehorse]

President Dmitry Medvedev said on Thursday Russia might lease out nuclear-powered submarines to India as part of deepening defence ties.
http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=476487

That's the highest official confirmation to date. "It's not if, but when"! Russia and USA are competing for India's attention, big time!

[gf0012-aust]

That's the highest official confirmation to date. "It's not if, but when"! Russia and USA are competing for India's attention, big time!


The russians have leased a nuke to india before - precedent is set
The russians will lease a nuke because it's illegal to sell one. nukes must be built in the host country
the indians are looking more and more at western technology - and its been increasingly so since 1989 - guess who'd like to protect their export market - esp in the current economic climate - and especially since they mistrust the chinese to buy any more platforms and not harvest whatever tech is available?



what's "big time" when any of the previous is vividly apparent?

[Feanor]

I have to add that the news of payment for the Gorshkov refit has been overturned by Indian and Russian officials. Apparently the Indians are willing to pay 500 million out of an additional 700 million requested.

[Salty Dog]

I have to add that the news of payment for the Gorshkov refit has been overturned by Indian and Russian officials. Apparently the Indians are willing to pay 500 million out of an additional 700 million requested.

It would be great to see the big picture on the ex-Gorshkov deal as well as the details. There could be some offsets or even something tied to the Nerpa.

[yasin_khan]

Russia To Lease Sub to India Despite Fatal Accident

NEW DELHI - Moscow has told New Delhi that it remains committed to leasing a nuclear submarine to the Indian Navy despite the Nov. 8 accident that killed 20 crew members aboard a Russian nuclear sub, say Indian Defence Ministry sources.
The Akula-2 nuclear-powered attack submarine, the Nerpa, which is being built by Russia for the Indian Navy, was on sea trials off the Sea of Japan Nov. 8 when 20 personnel were killed in an accident reportedly involving activation of the submarine's fire-fighting system.
However, the sea trials of the submarine have been temporarily halted, said sources. The Indian Defence Ministry has already asked the Russian yard building the submarine to extend the trials.
The Indian Navy is acquiring the Nerpa in the run-up to its own secretive, classified nuclear submarine Advanced Technology Vehicle (ATV) under construction. The crew trained on the leased Nerpa would eventually take over the indigenous ATV, expected to be inducted by 2010-11.
The nuclear submarines will give India the third leg of its nuclear triad by acquiring submarine-launched nuclear capable missiles.



http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3841306&c=SEA&s=ASI

[nevidimka]

Isnt the Indian Submarine project is based on the Soviet Charlie class Sub? They got the blueprint of the vessel form the Soviet's.

[yasin_khan]

These are Akula-2 nuclear-powered attack submarine they are not carlie class

[Firehorse]

The russians have leased a nuke to india before - precedent is set
The russians will lease a nuke because it's illegal to sell one. nukes must be built in the host country
the indians are looking more and more at western technology - and its been increasingly so since 1989 - guess who'd like to protect their export market - esp in the current economic climate - and especially since they mistrust the chinese to buy any more platforms and not harvest whatever tech is available?

what's "big time" when any of the previous is vividly apparent?

IMHO, Both USA & Russia will help India (which will play them off each other to get maximum advantage) to be a superpower. "Balance of power" considerations are as valid now as during the ascent of the British Empire.

India, Russia ink nuclear deal (http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=477612)

[Salty Dog]

IMHO, Both USA & Russia will help India (which will play them off each other to get maximum advantage) to be a superpower. "Balance of power" considerations are as valid now as during the ascent of the British Empire.

It's not just the USA and Russia. . . You must also include France, Sweden, Germany, Italy, Spain, Israel and everywhere else there are defense contractors. India is willing spend Billions on defense procurement, naturally everyone wants a piece of that pie.

[roberto]

It's not just the USA and Russia. . . You must also include France, Sweden, Germany, Italy, Spain, Israel and everywhere else there are defense contractors. India is willing spend Billions on defense procurement, naturally everyone wants a piece of that pie.
Russia still has the largest share of Indian market. When You look back at 1989. IAF had only MIG-29 and Mirage-2000 as front line Aircraft. Now Front line aircraft is Su-30MKI. MIG-29 is being upgraded (with license of engines)but Mirage-2000 upgrade is languishing. 150 MIG-21Bison has been upgraded but LCA is still under development.(Western Components). Arjun is on Trial basis (Western Engine) But T-90 has already been inducted.
Smerch has been inducted but Bofors are suspended. 80 MI-17V5 has moved ahead but 197 light chopper contract is languishing.
So Russia has increased its share with time. Similar is case with Missiles. There is no Western equivalent of R-77/R-73 in IAF. It is the quantitis that matters. I have yet to see large quantities of Tri service systems from West in Indian armed forces. Even Phalcon system is on IL-76 platform (PS-90A engines and reinforced airframe certified for it).
About future. there is 5th generation combat aircraft and MTA transport plane. ships/missiles for Navy/Space expoloration/manned space flight.
It is just India has more money to spend compared to 1980s so it feels that they are diversifiing but reality is different.

[funtz]

Russia still has the largest share of Indian market. When You look back at 1989. IAF had only MIG-29 and Mirage-2000 as front line Aircraft. Now Front line aircraft is Su-30MKI. MIG-29 is being upgraded (with license of engines)but Mirage-2000 upgrade is languishing.

150 MIG-21Bison has been upgraded but LCA is still under development.(Western Components). Arjun is on Trial basis (Western Engine) But T-90 has already been inducted.
Smerch has been inducted but Bofors are suspended. 80 MI-17V5 has moved ahead but 197 light chopper contract is languishing.

So Russia has increased its share with time. Similar is case with Missiles. There is no Western equivalent of R-77/R-73 in IAF. It is the quantitis that matters.

I have yet to see large quantities of Tri service systems from West in Indian armed forces. Even Phalcon system is on IL-76 platform (PS-90A engines and reinforced airframe certified for it).

About future. there is 5th generation combat aircraft and MTA transport plane. ships/missiles for Navy/Space expoloration/manned space flight.
It is just India has more money to spend compared to 1980s so it feels that they are diversifying but reality is different.

If its Russia (east) vs. the rest of the world (as west), for Russia the forward is to offer joint development (MTA, Brahmos-2, PAK-FA).

Similar examples of joint development program with other nations exist, Israel with the Barak-2 (naval and surface based) SAM systems, France with another SAM system, etc. etc.

Historically during the build up to the 71 situation and after it Soviets were the only choice available as the planes were affordable and they were willing to provide the weapons, which leads to the 90s and the logistics question (which would be one of the prime reason for the T-90 over Arjun that you mentioned).

[roberto]

If its Russia (east) vs. the rest of the world (as west), for Russia the forward is to offer joint development (MTA, Brahmos-2, PAK-FA).

Similar examples of joint development program with other nations exist, Israel with the Barak-2 (naval and surface based) SAM systems, France with another SAM system, etc. etc.

Historically during the build up to the 71 situation and after it Soviets were the only choice available as the planes were affordable and they were willing to provide the weapons, which leads to the 90s and the logistics question (which would be one of the prime reason for the T-90 over Arjun that you mentioned).
There is nothing joint development about PAK-FA/MTA/Brahmos. Joint development means that u bring some thing which otherside cannot make it. Ruaf PAK-FA/Yakhont is 100% Russian made. It is just for public consumption in India so funds can be allocated so they called it joint.
If India can afford Jaquar/Mirage 2000 in early 80s where economic size was way small than it can surely afford EF/Rafale/JSF for 21st century.

[kay_man]

Ok now i am really confused. What do they mean by "imported design"...does it mean licence production...or someting else.
Also im not sure if ay nation other than france and russia will be willing to provide such a cutting edge design to India.
It gives hint about the U.S.A but im not sure how enthusiatic the U.S.A will be to provide such a technology ( im presuming ththat these subs will be more advanced than the scorpenes ).
and Does Israel even produce submarine sub systems??


Tenders for Six More Diesel Electric Submarines for Indian Navy in 2009
Dated 11/12/2008
Printer Friendly Subscribe
India is planning to issue a Request for Proposals for construction of six new diesel-electric submarines in India by the middle of next year.

"The issuance of RFP for the submarines under P-75 (I) is envisaged in mid-2009," Defence Minister A K Antony said while replying to a question in the Rajya Sabha yesterday.

Antony said the new submarines would be built indigenously on an imported design and the partners would be chosen on a multi-vendor basis.

"The submarines will be built on an imported design with an overseas collaborator to be selected on multi-vendor basis," he said.

Commenting on the measures taken by the government to ensure on-schedule delivery of imported weapon systems, the Minister said: "Necessary provisions are included in contracts to ensure that defence equipments are received as per agreed delivery schedule and negotiated price and other contractual term and conditions." He said there was a clause in the contract regarding levy of Liquidated Damages (LD) in case of delay in delivery of equipment.

Replying to another question, the minister said Russia, United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany and Israel were the major exporters of military hardware to India.

He said the import option for procuring defence equipment was exercised when it became necessary to procure items with in definite time frame on operational grounds to bridge the capability gap and when the equipment could not be procured indigenously.

[gf0012-aust]

There is nothing joint development about PAK-FA/MTA/Brahmos. Joint development means that u bring some thing which otherside cannot make it. Ruaf PAK-FA/Yakhont is 100% Russian made. It is just for public consumption in India so funds can be allocated so they called it joint.

No it's not that simple - and it is a joint development..

The Russians are signatorys to the MTCR - as such they could not sell India any missile that had a range over 300km's. Hence the Yakhont was sold as a delimited model sub 300km to avoid the MTCR caveats.

It was sold as a co-operative weapons system that was delimted on range and minus the Glonass guidance system due to Russian concerns about India having access (at that time)

Because the missile is now "co-operative" and regarded as a indigenous due to being developed at a guidance level etc for Indian conditions, the it means that Russia and India are technically not breaching MTCR, it also means that as a locally iterated product, India could technically sell it to non MTCR buyers (although I doubt they would as they are consious of being good international citizens and ended up with this partnership due to international obligations and caveats anyway). It also means that they now have the base technology to go out and extend the range beyond the original MTCR limitations.

The irony of this all is that India is now seeking to include Glonass guidance (as its not a true 7 seas bluewater capability without constellation capability) and they could end up basically having paid for a Yakhont in its fundamental form. Good business for the russians, as they ended up with a customer who paid for the continued development of the Yakhont when they needed the money - and now they have a partner willing to be part of Glonass (when the existing constellation is woefully inadequate (in a blue water 7 seas theatre management context).

The russians have had a win win - the indians have had a win in the sense that they got to improve their own missile technology with an already semi developed missile based on the P800 family.

[gf0012-aust]

and Does Israel even produce submarine sub systems??


well, considering that the Israelis have been working with the Indian navy for the last 5 years on sub launched cruise missile solutions - I'd say yes :)

There was an image one stage of a Dolphin test firing a missile off of the west coast of Indian with indian sailors and technicians on board - that image was pulled and hasn't been since.

I do know of an Israeli tech who worked on that project - and like all good israelis, he won't "fill in the gaps".

The Israelis have been selling minor capital systems for subs for a few years - they don't advertise their customers though.

[funtz]

There is nothing joint development about PAK-FA/MTA/Brahmos. Joint development means that u bring some thing which other side cannot make it. Ruaf PAK-FA/Yakhont is 100% Russian made. It is just for public consumption in India so funds can be allocated so they called it joint.

If India can afford Jaquar/Mirage 2000 in early 80s where economic size was way small than it can surely afford EF/Rafale/JSF for 21st century.

I think joint development is just making something, the reasons can be several (capability, economy, laws, tech transfer etc.)

Brahmos has indian parts in it, developed in India as highligted by gf0012-aust.

FGFA according to news reports is already a bit different from PAK-FA (a more customised version, which could include indian parts as the project matures), MTA, BRAHMOS-II (will) have more co development.

60 Mirage-2000, and the jaguar (i dont think it was expensive in 80s money) a excellent bomb truck that has seen a lot of indigenous production.

JSF might be available post 2020, current production Euro & US planes along with Ru planes are participating in a tender and we will know which way that flows as 2012 approaches.

[mig3535]

Admin: Deleted. Read the Rules re expected posting behaviour. This is not a forum designed to promote your presence on other links.

Warning issued.

[roberto]

No it's not that simple - and it is a joint development..

The Russians are signatorys to the MTCR - as such they could not sell India any missile that had a range over 300km's. Hence the Yakhont was sold as a delimited model sub 300km to avoid the MTCR caveats.

It was sold as a co-operative weapons system that was delimted on range and minus the Glonass guidance system due to Russian concerns about India having access (at that time)

Because the missile is now "co-operative" and regarded as a indigenous due to being developed at a guidance level etc for Indian conditions, the it means that Russia and India are technically not breaching MTCR, it also means that as a locally iterated product, India could technically sell it to non MTCR buyers (although I doubt they would as they are consious of being good international citizens and ended up with this partnership due to international obligations and caveats anyway). It also means that they now have the base technology to go out and extend the range beyond the original MTCR limitations.

The irony of this all is that India is now seeking to include Glonass guidance (as its not a true 7 seas bluewater capability without constellation capability) and they could end up basically having paid for a Yakhont in its fundamental form. Good business for the russians, as they ended up with a customer who paid for the continued development of the Yakhont when they needed the money - and now they have a partner willing to be part of Glonass (when the existing constellation is woefully inadequate (in a blue water 7 seas theatre management context).

The russians have had a win win - the indians have had a win in the sense that they got to improve their own missile technology with an already semi developed missile based on the P800 family.
I mean Russia scientific and miliary developments is not dependend on join products with China/India/Iran/France. They usually enter into those projects for cost reasons and expand markets. For projects like Borie/Bulva/Topol-M/PAK-FA/Su-35(Su-27SM2)/Su-34. They did it by themselves because they had no intention of export in beginning.
With Brahmos they have given enough technology that i can easily be modified for longer ranges. I bet airlanhced version will already exceed 300KM. there u goes MTCR.


Mazurkevich, who heads international cooperation department of the Russian defence ministry, said that one of the reasons for not Russia not keen to export this weapon, "highly lethal for potential enemies", is that its range could be easily extended from the current 300 km, allowed under Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR).
"We are not worried about it as we have nuclear weapons, but this (unauthorised extension of range) may pose threat not only to India but also to our other friends and allies," Mazurkevich underscored. He said Brahmos is initially an anti-ship cruise missile and Russia is closely cooperating with India in the development of its other variants including land and air based.

"Coupled with Sukhoi Su-30MKI it makes a highly potent weapon system," General Mazurkevich said.

However, the trial of this system requires heavy financing and Russia would help India in this, he said.

"Two-three trials of Brahmos air force version would equal the cost of a SU-30MKI fighter, but we have expertise, how to do this at much lesser cost," Mazurkevich said adding that "unveiling and enhancing" the hidden potential of new weapon systems like Brahmos cruise missiles, Su-30MKI fighters and T-90S main battle tanks would be one of the thrust areas Indo-Russian military-to-military cooperation






During a recent defence expo in Indonesia, BrahMos Aerospace displayed a poster comparing the characteristics of its missile with those of other missiles available in the international market, the report said.

The BrahMos, named after the Brahmaputra and Moskva rivers, is described by India and Russia as an example of the cutting edge defence hardware that can be created through cooperation. The missile has been inducted into the Indian Navy.

The BrahMos poster was virtually an "anti-ad" of the Russian anti-ship missiles, said the report, which also virtually accused "Indian specialists" of lying as characteristics quoted by them are supposed to be Russia's "top secrets" to which they could never have any access

[gf0012-aust]

I mean Russia scientific and miliary developments is not dependend on join products with China/India/Iran/France. They usually enter into those projects for cost reasons and expand markets. For projects like Borie/Bulva/Topol-M/PAK-FA/Su-35(Su-27SM2)/Su-34. They did it by themselves because they had no intention of export in beginning.
With Brahmos they have given enough technology that i can easily be modified for longer ranges. I bet airlanhced version will already exceed 300KM. there u goes MTCR.


Can you at least make the effort to read what people have posted before responding with reams of copy and paste to support a non existent argument?

The fact that India has a locally developed iteration to a partnered product means that she can develop whatever enhancements she wants into that system as it's now indigenous to her requirements.

The issue of MTCR breaches is with respect to Russia - thats the fundamental reason for Russians restrictions on the initial Brahmos development. India is not an MTCR signatory and is able to do whatever she elects to do from this point on.

Can you stop posting irrelevant commentary to fill up a post with noise. It's getting very very tiresome.

This is the third time we've had to visit a post because of a report by Members for trolling. Either you stay within the rules or you're going to run out of options. I have warned you before - so this is your second. A third may see you on a short holiday.

[gf0012-aust]

Thread temporarily closed pending Mod discussion