Naval Forces - Asia

[Jade]

I would like to focus on Asian Naval Forces.

I would like to discuss them in 3 categories:

1) Surface Naval Force

2) Surface NAval Air Froce

3) Submarine Force (including missile capabilities)

Anyone interested ??

[nero]

.


As far as SSK & SSBN capability goes china is head & shoulders above the rest.

SSBNS

JIN-class : 1
XIA-class: 1

SSKs

kilo-class : 12
yuan-class: 03
song-class: 12
ming-class: 17

with such fierce submarine power china stands tall in asia , as far as subs r concerned.


.

[Scorpius]

doesn't Russia has naval forces in Asian waters?

[Aussie Digger]

.


As far as SSK & SSBN capability goes china is head & shoulders above the rest.

SSBNS

JIN-class : 1
XIA-class: 1

SSKs

kilo-class : 12
yuan-class: 03
song-class: 12
ming-class: 17

with such fierce submarine power china stands tall in asia , as far as subs r concerned.


.

Numbers of subs are irrelevent. If you guys took nothing else out of Desert Storm, take out the fact that sheer numbers are no longer relevent in modern warfare

Japan as I understand has the most capable Sub force in Asia, apart from the USA that is...

[nero]

doesn't Russia has naval forces in Asian waters?.
.

the problem is. that most people refuse to accept russia as an asian country, as a result russia is invariably not considered asian.

although u r right !!

russia has some presence in asian naval waters but mostly in the north near the kuril-islands

by the way the pacific ocean is not considered part of asian waters.


.

[nero]

Numbers of subs are irrelevent. If you guys took nothing else out of Desert Storm, take out the fact that sheer numbers are no longer relevent in modern warfare

Japan as I understand has the most capable Sub force in Asia, apart from the USA that is...

.
but brother aussie... apart from the SS oyashio class, which other japanese subs can u claim as modern ??

also japan dosent posess advanced frigates to counter the ever growing sub-force of china.

personally i think that south-korea has a better chance with it's latest U-214s.

.

[Jade]

.


As far as SSK & SSBN capability goes china is head & shoulders above the rest.

SSBNS

JIN-class : 1
XIA-class: 1

SSKs

kilo-class : 12
yuan-class: 03
song-class: 12
ming-class: 17

with such fierce submarine power china stands tall in asia , as far as subs r concerned.


.

Both China and India have Russian Kilo subs, but who has the better model ?

Is the chinese navy better trained then the Indian Navy ?

What about surface ships ? I think India is asia's leader there ?

In aircraft carriers too, I think India leads !!!

[Aussie Digger]

.
but brother aussie... apart from the SS oyashio class, which other japanese subs can u claim as modern ??

also japan dosent posess advanced frigates to counter the ever growing sub-force of china.

personally i think that south-korea has a better chance with it's latest U-214s.

.

Japan possesses a very strong surface fleet, including very capable Destroyers, a very modern and capable submarine fleet and excellent maritime patrol aircraft (P-3C Orions) and excellent anti-submarine warfare helo's (SH-60J's).

Combined with the new helicopter carrier vessels Japan is building, their ASW capability is VERY high, they possesses excellent anti-surface capability and a strong anti-air capability with a large fleet of excellent AEGIS class destroyers.

Quite simple it is a qualitatively superior force to any in Asia and has the numbers to present a very large threat to any other force in Asia.

[nero]

Both China and India have Russian Kilo subs, but who has the better model ?

Is the chinese navy better trained then the Indian Navy ?

What about surface ships ? I think India is asia's leader there ?

In aircraft carriers too, I think India leads !!!

.

how can u say that indian surface ships r better than the chinese ??

never pass any comment on training, every country has their own training methods.

for ur informatoin india dosent have any answer to the Julang-II SLBMs of china.

as for carriers, china too is building it's own aircraft carrier

.

[nero]

.

by the way can anyone update me on the south korean navy?

how does the south-korean navy stand vis-a-vis othre naval powers of asia ??

iam also keen to know more about the capabilities of the SAUDI navy

.

[Izzy1]

iam also keen to know more about the capabilities of the SAUDI navy

The Royal Saudi Naval Force (RSNF) maintains the most capable GCC naval component both in terms of equipment and operating tempo.

Numbering a strength of 15,500 the RSNF relies heavily on foreign-sourced personnel to fill its ranks - Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Baluchi nationals forming the largest elements.

Split between two fleets - the Western Fleet is responsible for Red Sea Operations and Headquartered in Jeddah, this fleet deploys the most capable elements of the RSNF - namely all 7 frigates. The Jubail Headquartered Eastern Fleet operates in the Gulf and concentrates its strength on the smaller corvettes, Fast Attack Craft-(Missile) and nearly all of Saudi's Minesweeping capability.

The main doctrine and strategic priority for the RSNF has been maintaining free navigation through the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz (vital to the Gulf's oil-shipping routes). Despite the arrival of Iranian Kilo-Class SSKs however, the fact that the Gulf is a poor submarine-operating environment (at its maximum depth, the Gulf is less than 60 meters) has meant little concentration or investment in ASW capability here. Instead, countering mine-warfare is seen as the priority in the Gulf.

The same can not be said of the Red Sea however and keeping this sea lane open has taken on an increasing importance. With a maximum depth of 1000 meters, potential adversory submarines could operate easily and thus Saudi has felt the need to deploy its limited ASW assets to this area.

Increasing the RSNF ASW capability remains the major priority at this time.

Operating tempo is good by GCC/Arab standards and there has been a marked increase in joint exercises with other foreign navies - recent exercises have been held with the US, UK, France, other GCC nations and even ranged-deployments to Pakistan. The RSNF has also (slowly) begun to develop a long-ignored joint operating capability with the Royal Saudi Air Force - especially its AWACS assets. The RSNF is also blessed with a comprehensive C3I system and excellent shore facilities.

Some very significant problems do exist however. The main issue is manpower - recruiting and retaining skilled crews to serve on ever increasingly sophisticated ships is a major problem. Saudi has faced great problems putting its most effective units to sea with skilled crews. The heavy grounding of the newly commissioned F-3000S Frigate Makkah underlined such problems. Short deployment tempos are also an issue - cruise deployments in the Gulf for example rarely last over 10 days. Shore-based skilled maintenance assets also hinder capability and certainly do not match the berthing facilities Riyadh has invested in.

A description of some of the RSNF's major units:

Al Riyadh Class (Type F-3000S) FFGHM Frigate - 3 in service.

The most advanced Saudi capital ships, the F-3000S is an expanded development of the French La Fayette Class displacing at a maximum of 4,650tons. Part of the 1989 Al Sawari II order, they carry Exocet Block II AShM; Aster 15 SAM; a 76mm OTO main gun with a further 2xGIAT 15B CIWS and ECAN F17P Torpedoes. A Europcopter Dauphin II helicopter is currently carried also, however provision in the design for NH-90. Sensors include the Thales DRBV26C Jupiter II air search radar and Thomson Marconi's CAPTAS 20 active sonar. The class is also network capable with the RSAF's E-3 AWACS.

Madina Class (Type F-2000S) FFGHM Frigate - 4 in service.

Ordered in 1980 as part Al Sawari I, these French-built frigates displace at just over 2800tons. Equipped with OTO Otomat Mk2 AShM; Crotale Naval SAM; one 100mm main gun and 4xBreda 40mm and ECAN F17P Torpedoes. One Europcopter Dauphin II helicopter can also deploy. Principle sensors are the Thomson-CSF Sea Tiger DRBV15 air search radar and Thomson Sintra Diodon TSM 2630 active sonar.

Badr Class Corvette - 4 in service.

These US-supplied corvettes were ordered in 1977 and form the backbone of Saudi's Gulf-based naval forces. Displacing at just over 1000tons, the Badr Class is equipped MDD Harpoon AShM; one OTO 76mm main gun; one 20mm Phalanx CIWS and a further 2 Oerkilon 20mm. One 81mm mortar and 2x40mm grenade launchers were fitted to counter Irainian Republican Guard speed boats. US Mk32 Torpedpoes are also carried as standard. A Lockheed SPS-40B air search radar and Raytheon SQS-56 active sonar provide the main sensors. No helicopters can be carried.

Al Siddiq Class PGGF - 9 in service.

Displacing at 495 tons, these US built patrol craft were ordered in 1977 and provide the most numerous Saudi combat element in the Gulf. Armed with MDD Harpoon AShM; one OTO 76mm main gun; one 20mm Phalanx CIWS and two Oerkilon 20mm. Like the Badr Class, they carryOne 81mm mortar and 2x40mm grenade launchers. Their principle sensor is the ISC Cardion SPS-55 surface radar.

Al Jawf (Sandown) Class MHC Coastal Minehunter - 3 in service.

The most capable minehunters in the region, the Al Jawf were ordered as part of Al Yamamah in 1988. With GRP hulls and remote-controlled mine detonating systems, the Al Jawf are possibly the most well-used ships in the fleet. Regular deployments in the Gulf with allied navies and also a recent deployment to exercise in Pakistan. Armament is limited to a twin 30mm cannon and the main sonar is a Plessey/MUSL Type 2093.

[vikas kanitkar]

All world knows that there is only two country who aiming for superpower that is INDIA AND CHINA. Both the countries are inducting new and morden naval ships in their arsenal.
So kindly discuss about these two countries.

[mrtp-33]

All world knows that there is only two country who aiming for superpower that is INDIA AND CHINA. Both the countries are inducting new and morden naval ships in their arsenal.
So kindly discuss about these two countries.
.
whats wrong with pakistan ??

pakistan according to me has the most potent sub force in the eastern hemisphere.

Agosta-90Bs & now there is talks about the U-214 SSK. a true blue-water navy in the making.

also never forget the MRTP-33 patrol boats that r being inducted having a top speed of around 60-knots. it's unparalled

.

[Izzy1]

Originally Posted by mrtp-33

.
whats wrong with pakistan ??

pakistan according to me has the most potent sub force in the eastern hemisphere.

Agosta-90Bs & now there is talks about the U-214 SSK. a true blue-water navy in the making.

also never forget the MRTP-33 patrol boats that r being inducted having a top speed of around 60-knots. it's unparalled

.


Are you Nero by any chance?

[f-22fan12]

.
but brother aussie... apart from the SS oyashio class, which other japanese subs can u claim as modern ??

also japan dosent posess advanced frigates to counter the ever growing sub-force of china.

personally i think that south-korea has a better chance with it's latest U-214s.

.

Japan, aside from the superb Oyasio class, has more than 5 modern Harushio class submarines in service. Japan also purchased EH 101s to help in the Anti-sub role. Also, Doesn't Japan have P-3C maritime patrol aircraft? I agree that Japan has the most capable submarine fleet in Asia. Also they probobly have the most capable surface fleet as well. They have a total of 6 AEGIS destroyers. (4 Kongo, 2 Atago)

Missile and land attack capability is an entirely different story however. Japan doesn't arm its ships with offensive missiles. China does. Therefore, China would have greater stricking power. Don't forget China's new Jin class SSBN. Second would be South Korea, which also arms its ships with offensive weapons.

[f-22fan12]

.
whats wrong with pakistan ??

pakistan according to me has the most potent sub force in the eastern hemisphere.

Agosta-90Bs & now there is talks about the U-214 SSK. a true blue-water navy in the making.

also never forget the MRTP-33 patrol boats that r being inducted having a top speed of around 60-knots. it's unparalled

.

Really, your have to be Joking. :onfloorl: Their agosta 90s are nothing special compared to modern improved Kilos, Oyashios, and Collins class subs. And they don't have the type 214 yet so don't act like they do. Their military has a lot LESS MONEY TO SPEND on procuring items like subs.

[f-22fan12]

The Royal Saudi Naval Force (RSNF) maintains the most capable GCC naval component both in terms of equipment and operating tempo.

Numbering a strength of 15,500 the RSNF relies heavily on foreign-sourced personnel to fill its ranks - Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Baluchi nationals forming the largest elements.

Split between two fleets - the Western Fleet is responsible for Red Sea Operations and Headquartered in Jeddah, this fleet deploys the most capable elements of the RSNF - namely all 7 frigates. The Jubail Headquartered Eastern Fleet operates in the Gulf and concentrates its strength on the smaller corvettes, Fast Attack Craft-(Missile) and nearly all of Saudi's Minesweeping capability.

The main doctrine and strategic priority for the RSNF has been maintaining free navigation through the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz (vital to the Gulf's oil-shipping routes). Despite the arrival of Iranian Kilo-Class SSKs however, the fact that the Gulf is a poor submarine-operating environment (at its maximum depth, the Gulf is less than 60 meters) has meant little concentration or investment in ASW capability here. Instead, countering mine-warfare is seen as the priority in the Gulf.

The same can not be said of the Red Sea however and keeping this sea lane open has taken on an increasing importance. With a maximum depth of 1000 meters, potential adversory submarines could operate easily and thus Saudi has felt the need to deploy its limited ASW assets to this area.

Increasing the RSNF ASW capability remains the major priority at this time.

Operating tempo is good by GCC/Arab standards and there has been a marked increase in joint exercises with other foreign navies - recent exercises have been held with the US, UK, France, other GCC nations and even ranged-deployments to Pakistan. The RSNF has also (slowly) begun to develop a long-ignored joint operating capability with the Royal Saudi Air Force - especially its AWACS assets. The RSNF is also blessed with a comprehensive C3I system and excellent shore facilities.

Some very significant problems do exist however. The main issue is manpower - recruiting and retaining skilled crews to serve on ever increasingly sophisticated ships is a major problem. Saudi has faced great problems putting its most effective units to sea with skilled crews. The heavy grounding of the newly commissioned F-3000S Frigate Makkah underlined such problems. Short deployment tempos are also an issue - cruise deployments in the Gulf for example rarely last over 10 days. Shore-based skilled maintenance assets also hinder capability and certainly do not match the berthing facilities Riyadh has invested in.

A description of some of the RSNF's major units:

Al Riyadh Class (Type F-3000S) FFGHM Frigate - 3 in service.

The most advanced Saudi capital ships, the F-3000S is an expanded development of the French La Fayette Class displacing at a maximum of 4,650tons. Part of the 1989 Al Sawari II order, they carry Exocet Block II AShM; Aster 15 SAM; a 76mm OTO main gun with a further 2xGIAT 15B CIWS and ECAN F17P Torpedoes. A Europcopter Dauphin II helicopter is currently carried also, however provision in the design for NH-90. Sensors include the Thales DRBV26C Jupiter II air search radar and Thomson Marconi's CAPTAS 20 active sonar. The class is also network capable with the RSAF's E-3 AWACS.

Madina Class (Type F-2000S) FFGHM Frigate - 4 in service.

Ordered in 1980 as part Al Sawari I, these French-built frigates displace at just over 2800tons. Equipped with OTO Otomat Mk2 AShM; Crotale Naval SAM; one 100mm main gun and 4xBreda 40mm and ECAN F17P Torpedoes. One Europcopter Dauphin II helicopter can also deploy. Principle sensors are the Thomson-CSF Sea Tiger DRBV15 air search radar and Thomson Sintra Diodon TSM 2630 active sonar.

Badr Class Corvette - 4 in service.

These US-supplied corvettes were ordered in 1977 and form the backbone of Saudi's Gulf-based naval forces. Displacing at just over 1000tons, the Badr Class is equipped MDD Harpoon AShM; one OTO 76mm main gun; one 20mm Phalanx CIWS and a further 2 Oerkilon 20mm. One 81mm mortar and 2x40mm grenade launchers were fitted to counter Irainian Republican Guard speed boats. US Mk32 Torpedpoes are also carried as standard. A Lockheed SPS-40B air search radar and Raytheon SQS-56 active sonar provide the main sensors. No helicopters can be carried.

Al Siddiq Class PGGF - 9 in service.

Displacing at 495 tons, these US built patrol craft were ordered in 1977 and provide the most numerous Saudi combat element in the Gulf. Armed with MDD Harpoon AShM; one OTO 76mm main gun; one 20mm Phalanx CIWS and two Oerkilon 20mm. Like the Badr Class, they carryOne 81mm mortar and 2x40mm grenade launchers. Their principle sensor is the ISC Cardion SPS-55 surface radar.

Al Jawf (Sandown) Class MHC Coastal Minehunter - 3 in service.

The most capable minehunters in the region, the Al Jawf were ordered as part of Al Yamamah in 1988. With GRP hulls and remote-controlled mine detonating systems, the Al Jawf are possibly the most well-used ships in the fleet. Regular deployments in the Gulf with allied navies and also a recent deployment to exercise in Pakistan. Armament is limited to a twin 30mm cannon and the main sonar is a Plessey/MUSL Type 2093.

Great response, what is the status of the Type 45 destroyer sale to Saudi Arabia? Was it cancelled due to the corruption? Didn't know the Saudis had that many capable ships. I personally admire the Al Riyadh class ships. They are stealthy and deadly.

Thanks. :)

[SaudiArabian]

The Royal Saudi Naval Force (RSNF) maintains the most capable GCC naval component both in terms of equipment and operating tempo.

Numbering a strength of 15,500 the RSNF relies heavily on foreign-sourced personnel to fill its ranks - Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Baluchi nationals forming the largest elements.

now thats something new , what is the source ?

btw , foriegners in the RSNF (Pakistanis) are too rare i don't even understand why they are there , perhaps as military cooperation , the only effective foriegners whom are found in the navy are American trainers for the RSNF Marines and the SEALs


@ f-22fan12

to read enough of the Saudi Navy you may check this (.PDF) file from CSIS (http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/060728_gulf_saudi.pdf) on page 37

[crobato]

Both China and India have Russian Kilo subs, but who has the better model ?

This is one situation that actually went to the Chinese, since the Kilo 636 model is quieter than the Kilo 877 model. The latest versions and modernizations of both Kilo types are capable of using Klub missiles.

[Izzy1]

now thats something new , what is the source ?

btw , foriegners in the RSNF (Pakistanis) are too rare i don't even understand why they are there , perhaps as military cooperation , the only effective foriegners whom are found in the navy are American trainers for the RSNF Marines and the SEALs



One source that comes to mind off-hand is Jane's Sentinel Security - Navy, Saudi Arabia. I have something else with numbers somewhere, I will post it here.

Now come on, lets be fair here SA - Pakistanis are far from rare within the Saudi Armed Forces. I agree, the days of whole-Pakistani RSAF squadrons are long over and the common misconception that Saudis don't serve is also very false. But the RSLF and RSNF do still rely on very large numbers of Pakistani, Baluchi, Bangladeshi and other Asian/Arab nationals to fill out their ranks.
Saudi is no different than nearly every other Arab nation in that it employs and sustains its military capability with foreign manpower.

Indeed, there are a very few modern armed forces in the world nowadays who can say they are totaly homegenous.

[Jade]

This is one situation that actually went to the Chinese, since the Kilo 636 model is quieter than the Kilo 877 model. The latest versions and modernizations of both Kilo types are capable of using Klub missiles.

Pls expand on what you said.
Kilo 363 vs Kilo 877

And the modernisations - do they upgrade the Kilo 877 to the Kilo 636 level or what ?

[f-22fan12]

Pls expand on what you said.
Kilo 363 vs Kilo 877

And the modernisations - do they upgrade the Kilo 877 to the Kilo 636 level or what ?

The 636 Kilo is a newer, quiter model. Usually the Indians get the better stuff but this time the Chinese got it. China at first purchased the 877s and then got 636s.

[aaaditya]

The 636 Kilo is a newer, quiter model. Usually the Indians get the better stuff but this time the Chinese got it. China at first purchased the 877s and then got 636s.

indian navy also has 636 kilos,however the indians were not happy with the performance of the russian sonars and batteries on the kilos and had them replaced with indigenous sonars and batteries ,the indigenous sonar was found to be much superior to the russian ones particularly in the indian waters.

the indian kilos are equipped with the klub cruise missiles ,however they are now to be equipped with the brahmos missiles ,the indian navy has loaned a kilo to the drdo and the brahmos corporation for carrying out the inregration work,also the indian navy has developed indigenous thermal torpedoes the thakshak and the varunastra to arm the kilos and the scorpenes.

[f-22fan12]

Again, Izzy 1, would you kindly explain to me the status of the type 45 destroyer sale to Saudi Arabia. Was it cancelled after the corruption/bribe scandal? Thanks.

I noticed you are now a moderator. Good job. :)

[Jade]

.

how can u say that indian surface ships r better than the chinese ??

never pass any comment on training, every country has their own training methods.

for ur informatoin india dosent have any answer to the Julang-II SLBMs of china.

as for carriers, china too is building it's own aircraft carrier

.

Well, I was only quoting what the Indian web sites were claiming about their new surface frigates.

What can you tell us about the Julang-II SLBM's ?

China has no aircraft carrier, perhaps Japan has ?

[Preceptor]

Often information is already available on the web for many questions regarding systems and various defence forces. Please make use of these resources when they are available to educate oneself about capabilities.

-Preceptor

[sashikanth]

I think aircraft carriers can be statergically important in asia.

How many countries in asia have aircraft carrers??

I know India has one,, and i also know China has no aircraft carriers yet and they are in the process of procureing them

India has already has another carries ordered from russia and will shortly be able to build its own aircraft carrier.

What i really wanna know is how many countries in asia have aircraft carriers???

[Aussie Digger]

I think aircraft carriers can be statergically important in asia.

How many countries in asia have aircraft carrers??

I know India has one,, and i also know China has no aircraft carriers yet and they are in the process of procureing them

India has already has another carries ordered from russia and will shortly be able to build its own aircraft carrier.

What i really wanna know is how many countries in asia have aircraft carriers???

Besides India?

Thailand has one.

The USA has around 14.

A number of Countries have "helicopter carriers".

That's about it. I guess "strategic importance" is relative...

[Ramjetmissile]

I say china is in the process of building them:) . as reported that china will be increasing its defence budget significantly to some US$70 Billion and thats a lot of money:) .

[Jade]

I think aircraft carriers can be statergically important in asia.

How many countries in asia have aircraft carrers??

I know India has one,, and i also know China has no aircraft carriers yet and they are in the process of procureing them

India has already has another carries ordered from russia and will shortly be able to build its own aircraft carrier.

What i really wanna know is how many countries in asia have aircraft carriers???

Big dissapointment for India !!!

The Gorshkow will now take another 4 yrs to complete !!!

They say it would have been easier to start with a new aircraft carrier than try to modernise the Gorshkov. I wonder if that is what is going on as the earlier claims of refitting the Gorshkow have turned it into a huge mess !!

Anyone know the truth ?

[Galrahn]

I say china is in the process of building them:) . as reported that china will be increasing its defence budget significantly to some US$70 Billion and thats a lot of money:) .

I tend to think the number is closer to $400 billion US when you weigh all conversions.

The most opaque element is defense spending. The official Chinese figure for 2006 is $36 billion. Beijing, moreover, has announced that the 2007 budget will rise by 18 percent.

Outside of China, however, few if any accept the official figure. Unofficial estimates vary wildly. Defense Intelligence Agency analysts put Chinese military spending between $85 billion and $125 billion. The International Institute for Strategic Studies in London comes in at $75 billion, while the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimates $140 billion when adjusted for purchasing power parity, which measures actual local costs. Using the same method, John J. Tkacik Jr. of the Heritage Foundation in Washington asserts that China spends $430 billion.

That is from an August 2007 Airforce Magazine Online (http://www.afa.org/magazine/Aug2007/0807china.asp) article I cover and source in detail on my blog (http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2007/08/dragon-emerges-has-china-arrived.html).

With all the information you too can have an informed opinion, and not guess at budgets or projects! ;)

[swerve]

I tend to think the number is closer to $400 billion US when you weigh all conversions.... ;)

There are two distinct things you're trying to count here.

One is the economic burden of military spending. For that, any kind of conversion is meaningless. All that matters is 1) the local currency cost, related to the size of the economy, & 2) the hard currency cost, related to hard currency earnings. Any attempt to estimate a PPP figure as a share of the economy subtracts significance from this type of estimate, rather than adding it.

The other thing is the value of military spending, for international comparison. In this case, calculating a military PPP - or better, PPPs for the different constituents of military spending - is meaningful, & potentially valuable.

From reading John Tkaciks articles, it's clear that what he's done to get his figure is mix up the two aims. It's a "burden to the economy" estimate converted at an (inappropriate) whole-economy PPP. He uses an estimate of real Chinese military spending as 4.5% of GDP in local currency, & total GDP at $10000 billion at PPP (from the CIA). Does that make military spending at PPP $450 billion? Errr no - probably not, because the PPP for that spending is very unlikely indeed to be the same as for the whole economy. Military spending is probably much more capital-intensive than the whole economy, with a considerable hard-currency component. One of the rules here is that anything which is traded internationally should be priced at the international price for a PPP conversion. The PPP for military spending is probably much closer to the exchange rate than the PPP for the whole economy.

The methodology is grossly flawed. You must use sectoral PPPs for sectoral comparisons! The articles are polemics, not analyses.

BTW, I believe the SIPRI figure of $140 billion in 2003 is an attempt at a true (i.e. sectoral) PPP estimate.

[Grand Danois]

Curiously it could be argued, that a J-10 puts as much "burden" on the Chinese economy as the F-22A does on the American...

In fly away costs, that is.

[aaaditya]

Big dissapointment for India !!!

The Gorshkow will now take another 4 yrs to complete !!!

They say it would have been easier to start with a new aircraft carrier than try to modernise the Gorshkov. I wonder if that is what is going on as the earlier claims of refitting the Gorshkow have turned it into a huge mess !!

Anyone know the truth ?

not much of a major disappointment ,ultimately indian navy will have 3 aircraft carriers iac1 ,iac 2 and the admiral gorshkov.

[tphuang]

Curiously it could be argued, that a J-10 puts as much "burden" on the Chinese economy as the F-22A does on the American...

In fly away costs, that is.

J-10 is extremely cheap, $20-25 million each. How much does F-22A cost? J-10 puts no burden on the Chinese economy.


not much of a major disappointment ,ultimately indian navy will have 3 aircraft carriers iac1 ,iac 2 and the admiral gorshkov.

if you don't think this is a major disappointment, you are far too optimistic. You are stuck with an old hull, with no catapult and only 45k in displacement flying the worst naval fighter in the world (unless you count Sea Harrier).

[kams]

if you don't think this is a major disappointment, you are far too optimistic. You are stuck with an old hull, with no catapult and only 45k in displacement flying the worst naval fighter in the world (unless you count Sea Harrier).


While there is no doubt that it is a disappointment, the decision to go for Gorshkov was political to begin with. As to Mig-29K, you are coming down to 'Boys with toys' arguement. I am not aware of any of India's immediate security threats capable of fielding anything remotely close to even Sea harrier on a flat top. So F/A18 E/F (for the western camp), or Su-33 (or it's copy for China), may be the greatest, meanest, advanced naval fighters...they don't mean squat for IN, as IN is not facing any of them now or not likely to face them in near future.

Every country plans for it's defence based on it's threat perception for next 20-30 years (projection atleast) and there are certian constraints they have to operate within. While it is easy for internet Generals/admirals/Air Chief marshals to pass judgements soley based on public reports, life is not so easy for real decision makers.

[crobato]

indian navy also has 636 kilos,however the indians were not happy with the performance of the russian sonars and batteries on the kilos and had them replaced with indigenous sonars and batteries ,the indigenous sonar was found to be much superior to the russian ones particularly in the indian waters.

the indian kilos are equipped with the klub cruise missiles ,however they are now to be equipped with the brahmos missiles ,the indian navy has loaned a kilo to the drdo and the brahmos corporation for carrying out the inregration work,also the indian navy has developed indigenous thermal torpedoes the thakshak and the varunastra to arm the kilos and the scorpenes.


India does not have Kilo 636s. All their Kilos are 877s. Also the Brahmos integration has not yet happened.

[crobato]

Curiously it could be argued, that a J-10 puts as much "burden" on the Chinese economy as the F-22A does on the American...

In fly away costs, that is.


I don't see the comparison. The US has an 8 trillion dollar debt, of which around 7 to 8% is owed to China, while China is running (currently) a 1.4 trillion dollar surplus.

J-7C/D on China in 1990 has probably a greater social burden than a J-10A is to China in 2007.

[nero]

India does not have Kilo 636s. All their Kilos are 877s. Also the Brahmos integration has not yet happened.

. there seems to be great confusion sorrounding the project-76 of the indian navy.

while it was supposed to be based on the amur/lada class SSK. now there is talk about kilo-636.

can somebody please clear the air on this one ??

i visited bharat-rakshak & found that the project-76 designated as amur

which one is it actually ???

.

[crobato]

. there seems to be great confusion sorrounding the project-76 of the indian navy.

while it was supposed to be based on the amur/lada class SSK. now there is talk about kilo-636.

can somebody please clear the air on this one ??

i visited bharat-rakshak & found that the project-76 designated as amur

which one is it actually ???

.


Amur is Project 677, not the same project. Kilo 636 first came out in 1999, which is almost a decade after India signed for its Kilos. The last two Indian Kilos were still built shortly after the 636 introduction, however the contract signing for the last two Kilos would have well preceded the 636 introduction and would have been too late to incorporate the 636.

[swerve]

... J-10 puts no burden on the Chinese economy....

Of course it does, in the way that any military spending does.

[Grand Danois]

J-10 is extremely cheap, $20-25 million each. How much does F-22A cost? J-10 puts no burden on the Chinese economy.

I thought it was $25-30 million a pop. But $25m agrees with me.

Burden on economy is affected by RER. The US has a RER of 1; China 4.5 (iirc).

As it is burden on economy, it is not sectoral, i.e. RER should apply.

A thought experiment:

Nominal value, fly away cost of the Raptor is $116m; same for the J-20 is $25m. Converted into PPP it gives $116m for the Raptor and $112.5m for the J-10.

Producing a J-10 represents the same burden to Chinese economy as producing a Raptor does to the US.

[eaf-f16]

I don't see the comparison. The US has an 8 trillion dollar debt, of which around 7 to 8% is owed to China, while China is running (currently) a 1.4 trillion dollar surplus.

J-7C/D on China in 1990 has probably a greater social burden than a J-10A is to China in 2007.

I thought it was $880 billion or am I wrong?:confused:

[Galrahn]

I thought it was $880 billion or am I wrong?:confused:

Actually it is lower, but you were right as of FY06 (which was almost 2 years ago).

[kams]

. there seems to be great confusion sorrounding the project-76 of the indian navy.

while it was supposed to be based on the amur/lada class SSK. now there is talk about kilo-636.

can somebody please clear the air on this one ??

i visited bharat-rakshak & found that the project-76 designated as amur

which one is it actually ???

.

The decision on Project 76 has not been made yet. The Bharat-Rakshak article on Project 76, clearly mentions that Amur may be one of the candidates.

However in one the recent news reports, Brahmos corp. CEO Dr.Pillai said they wanted to integrate sub-launched Brahmos with Amur and IN turned it down. (That's the reason Brahmos tech demonstration will be done on an IN Kilo). So as of now there is no public information on Second line of submarines for IN.

Amur is Project 677, not the same project

Crobato , Project 76 is IN designation for Second line of Submarines (well not official yet any way).

[eaf-f16]

Actually it is lower, but you were right as of FY06 (which was almost 2 years ago).

Yeah, I thought there was something wrong with 8 trillion dollars. I actually thought it would be higher now given the situation with Iraq and Afghanistan and all. The US has been spending huge amounts of money trying to rebuild these countries.

[swerve]

Actually it is lower, but you were right as of FY06 (which was almost 2 years ago).

US government net debt is a hell of a lot more than $880 billion dollars. The total is on the US treasury website (I can't be bothered to look now), & it's closer to the previously mentioned $8 trillion than $880 billion. China alone holds almost that much US government paper.

Or if he was referring to Chinese foreign currency holdings, the $1400 billion figure is probably pretty close.

[swerve]

I thought it was $25-30 million a pop. But $25m agrees with me.

Burden on economy is affected by RER. The US has a RER of 1; China 4.5 (iirc).

As it is burden on economy, it is not sectoral, i.e. RER should apply.

A thought experiment:

Nominal value, fly away cost of the Raptor is $116m; same for the J-20 is $25m. Converted into PPP it gives $116m for the Raptor and $112.5m for the J-10.

Producing a J-10 represents the same burden to Chinese economy as producing a Raptor does to the US.

No, no! Economic burden should always be calculated in local prices, & sectoral comparisons at local prices or sectoral PPP, depending on the type of comparison. Whole-economy PPP should only be used for whole-economy comparisons, even if it actually gives much the same answer for economic burden, for fear of the false apparent equivalence that you end up with, that a J-10 is worth as much as an F-22.

BTW, that's how Mr. Tkacik calculated Chinese defence spending. His figure implicitly assumes that a J-10 & an F-22 are worth much the same. So your little thought experiment is very useful indeed for highlighting the implications of his methodology.

[Grand Danois]

No, no! Economic burden should always be calculated in local prices, & sectoral comparisons at local prices or sectoral PPP, depending on the type of comparison. Whole-economy PPP should only be used for whole-economy comparisons, even if it actually gives much the same answer for economic burden, for fear of the false apparent equivalence that you end up with, that a J-10 is worth as much as an F-22.

BTW, that's how Mr. Tkacik calculated Chinese defence spending. His figure implicitly assumes that a J-10 & an F-22 are worth much the same. So your little thought experiment is very useful indeed for highlighting the implications of his methodology.

I did indeed use the Tkacik approach and waited for you to comment on it. ;)

I do understand why he is wrong when assessing defence spending compared to an entire economy, didn't see myself walking into the same trap re sectoral PPP...

RER for the Chinese aerospace industry should be somewhere between 1 and 4.5 (and probably closer to 1 than 4.5).

[eaf-f16]

US government net debt is a hell of a lot more than $880 billion dollars. The total is on the US treasury website (I can't be bothered to look now), & it's closer to the previously mentioned $8 trillion than $880 billion. China alone holds almost that much US government paper.

Or if he was referring to Chinese foreign currency holdings, the $1400 billion figure is probably pretty close.

Yeah, sorry I was wrong the budget deficit is somewhere around a trillion dollars and according to US national debt clock the public debt is close to 9 trillion.

[f-22fan12]

I don't see the comparison. The US has an 8 trillion dollar debt, of which around 7 to 8% is owed to China, while China is running (currently) a 1.4 trillion dollar surplus.
J-7C/D on China in 1990 has probably a greater social burden than a J-10A is to China in 2007.

About their "surplus" That is their foreign currency reserves. They do NOT have a budget surplus. They have a budget defecit of less than 30 billion.
China is the second largest holder of U.S. treasury bonds after Japan.

China= $350 billion
Japan= $600 billion

About the foriegn currency reserves, that is their money to spend on what they want, isn't it. I'm asking because I'm confused as to whether that $1.3 trillion is the government's money or someone else's.

Thanks.:)

[kato]

No, no! Economic burden should always be calculated in local prices, & sectoral comparisons at local prices or sectoral PPP, depending on the type of comparison.

You could also idle it up by including the socio-economic impact of domestic (!) procurement.

[contedicavour]

doesn't Russia has naval forces in Asian waters?

Good point. There are 7 SSBNs of the Delta III class, plus 5 Victor III and 6 (tbc) Akula SSNs. Add < 5 operations Kilo. May be in bad operational shape still quite a lot of assets.
There is one Slava CG (the Kirov is deleted) and approx 10 (probably not all operational) Sovremmenny and Udaloy DDGs. Plus the 7 Krivak III of the Border Guard.

cheers

[crobato]

I thought it was $880 billion or am I wrong?:confused:


That is how much China holds in US treasury bonds right now.

[crobato]

Of course it does, in the way that any military spending does.

The Chinese government also thinks that its a jobs generator, though the same can be said of the F-22. The money is only circulated within the economy, with the exception of the 3 million dollars spent on the engine, which goes to the Russians. So which is really more harmful? Hypothetically you spend $150 million on a domestic product that helps pay for domestic jobs, or spend $60 million which flies away to another country.

[tphuang]

I thought it was $25-30 million a pop. But $25m agrees with me.

Burden on economy is affected by RER. The US has a RER of 1; China 4.5 (iirc).

As it is burden on economy, it is not sectoral, i.e. RER should apply.

A thought experiment:

Nominal value, fly away cost of the Raptor is $116m; same for the J-20 is $25m. Converted into PPP it gives $116m for the Raptor and $112.5m for the J-10.

Producing a J-10 represents the same burden to Chinese economy as producing a Raptor does to the US.
something is only a burden if it is spent extravagantly. If you order 60 J-10s at $20 million each, that's only $1.2 billion a year on purchasing J-10s. Not a lot, is it?

when i mention $20-25 million is cost including R&D. Think about it this way, J-10's development cost 20 billion Yuan = 2.5 billion USD. If they order 800 J-10s, that's only $3 million in the overall cost for R&D. F-22 on the other hand cost $350 million including R&D cost. Also, I believe F-22's flyaway is 125 - 135 million.


I did indeed use the Tkacik approach and waited for you to comment on it.

I do understand why he is wrong when assessing defence spending compared to an entire economy, didn't see myself walking into the same trap re sectoral PPP...

RER for the Chinese aerospace industry should be somewhere between 1 and 4.5 (and probably closer to 1 than 4.5).

well, when you get people with agenda doing estimations, you get ridiculous figures. I love how PPP is first used by DoD to get the 3x defense budget figure. And then PPP is used again by the China threat people).



About the foriegn currency reserves, that is their money to spend on what they want, isn't it. I'm asking because I'm confused as to whether that $1.3 trillion is the government's money or someone else's.

it's the gov't money, as you can see they've been spending it US treasury bond (which is possibly the lowest yielding investment in the world) and most recently blackstone IPO (which they lost huge on).

[10ringr]

.


As far as SSK & SSBN capability goes china is head & shoulders above the rest.

SSBNS

JIN-class : 1
XIA-class: 1

SSKs

kilo-class : 12
yuan-class: 03
song-class: 12
ming-class: 17

with such fierce submarine power china stands tall in asia , as far as subs r concerned.


.

I think you'd better look at Japan who's naval forces are second only to the US in technological sophistication, probably better in some ways though I don't care to argue that point. As far as SSBN's go if the topic is what asian countries have the best ones....... well, that's easy since China is the only one with SSBN. This duzn't include Russia all or part which of course are second only to the US and superior in numbers of both. It's actually exciting reading up on what Japan is doing right now and no one seems to be paying attention. Even talking about and developing light carriers. Hutch

[Incognito129]

something is only a burden if it is spent extravagantly. If you order 60 J-10s at $20 million each, that's only $1.2 billion a year on purchasing J-10s. Not a lot, is it?

when i mention $20-25 million is cost including R&D. Think about it this way, J-10's development cost 20 billion Yuan = 2.5 billion USD. If they order 800 J-10s, that's only $3 million in the overall cost for R&D. F-22 on the other hand cost $350 million including R&D cost. Also, I believe F-22's flyaway is 125 - 135 million.


well, when you get people with agenda doing estimations, you get ridiculous figures. I love how PPP is first used by DoD to get the 3x defense budget figure. And then PPP is used again by the China threat people).


it's the gov't money, as you can see they've been spending it US treasury bond (which is possibly the lowest yielding investment in the world) and most recently blackstone IPO (which they lost huge on).

Well comparing PPP depends on what is specifically being compared. In this case, I seriously doubt J-10 is anywhere near the F-22 in terms of quality.

Another thing thats important is that China is using a fixed exchange rate, and they have successfully made it credible thus far. Their gargantuan trade surplus is because of this and offsets the economic burden of the ever increasing government budget.

[Jade]

Amur is Project 677, not the same project. Kilo 636 first came out in 1999, which is almost a decade after India signed for its Kilos. The last two Indian Kilos were still built shortly after the 636 introduction, however the contract signing for the last two Kilos would have well preceded the 636 introduction and would have been too late to incorporate the 636.

The Indian Kilos have since been upgraded - would that bring them up to or better the 636 Kilos ?

[swerve]

something is only a burden if it is spent extravagantly. If you order 60 J-10s at $20 million each, that's only $1.2 billion a year on purchasing J-10s. Not a lot, is it?...

Ah. I see it. A semantic problem. You are misinterpreting the word burden. It means not only something which is difficult to support, but anything which is carried. "Economic burden" can - and in this context does - mean any cost imposed on the economy, even the lightest, most easily supportable one. It does not necessarily have connotations of excess, though it can, & clearly, that is how you have interpreted it.

[swerve]

The Chinese government also thinks that its a jobs generator, though the same can be said of the F-22. The money is only circulated within the economy, with the exception of the 3 million dollars spent on the engine, which goes to the Russians. So which is really more harmful? Hypothetically you spend $150 million on a domestic product that helps pay for domestic jobs, or spend $60 million which flies away to another country.

A sound point, but doesn't affect the basic fact that most military spending is government consumption. Better when spent internally than externally, as you say, but still spending diverted from elsewhere.

[crobato]

The Indian Kilos have since been upgraded - would that bring them up to or better the 636 Kilos ?

Upgraded in terms of weaponry and electronics. The same with the Project 636EM of which the Project 877EKM is the direct equivalent. What does upgrades don't include is the main thing that makes the 636 different from the 877---a much quieter slow turning seven bladed skewed prop compared to the older six bladed screw. Accompanying this screw are mechanical changes that should include a different gearbox for the new gear reduction ratios. Overall, the length of the 636 is slightly longer than the 877. Its hard to see or say why the 636 ended up being slightly longer, and one reason in my mind is that it was probably meant to accommodate a longer gearbox.

[crobato]

A sound point, but doesn't affect the basic fact that most military spending is government consumption. Better when spent internally than externally, as you say, but still spending diverted from elsewhere.

Spending it on like in lavishingly reconstructing Beijing City into a sci-fi futuristic city? The government just built the most expensive building in the world, the CCTV building at 800 million US dollars, with its strange Z like architecture. Then they went on and built the second most expensive building in the world right next to it. Spend the money like buying the Blackstone group, which then went on to acquire the Hilton hotel chain? More US treasury bonds? They got money to burn, and they have a problem what everyone wants to have---how to use that money. The interest alone the US has to pay for those bonds are in the billions each year, more than enough to soak up many times over the purchases of J-10s each year.

[Jade]

Upgraded in terms of weaponry and electronics. The same with the Project 636EM of which the Project 877EKM is the direct equivalent. What does upgrades don't include is the main thing that makes the 636 different from the 877---a much quieter slow turning seven bladed skewed prop compared to the older six bladed screw. Accompanying this screw are mechanical changes that should include a different gearbox for the new gear reduction ratios. Overall, the length of the 636 is slightly longer than the 877. Its hard to see or say why the 636 ended up being slightly longer, and one reason in my mind is that it was probably meant to accommodate a longer gearbox.

Thnx, how would you rate it after the upgrade vs the Kilo 636 say or the Scorpene ?

[crobato]

The Kilo 636 itself had an upgrade called the 636EM. So essentially the 636EM and the 877KEM are weapons and systems wise, identical. The only difference is that the 636EM should be more quiet because of the asymmetrical screw when everything else is the same.

[Jade]

crobato, what do you think of Russia'a Akula sub?

How does it match up with the european and American competition ?

[crobato]

I don't know that much about the Akula class SSN sub. So far from what I heard and in my opinion, the sub is probably around the early to mid 688 class when it comes to noise, but probably behind the later 688s or the latest refitted 688s. Compared to previous Soviet sub classes, the Akula class SSN is noted for being the first SU sub to be fitted with a slow turning skewed screw, whose complex geometries are made possible by a 5 axis milling machine that Toshiba sold to the Soviet Union. Of course that made a furor in the Congress. The Akula class also benefited from the information the spy John Walker handed over to the Soviets. The Akula was the last Soviet sub to be fitted with such, since the SU would become history, but similar screws would be fitted on later Russian flagged subs like the Kilo 636 and the Borei.

The late 688 is probably as far as you can get with a nuclear sub using pressurized steam nuclear reactors and these asymmetrical screws. To get to the next level, ala Seawolf/Virginia/Astute/Truimphant and so on, you need to go screw less on the propulsion, using pump jet or magnetic-caterpillar drive technology (or magnetoheterodyne or whatever its called). Further down the road, we have to leave pressurized steam cooled reactors and go with new reactor types, like HTGR or gas cooled reactors.

So in a way, the Akula is already obsolete against the next generation of pump jet propulsion submarines.

[contedicavour]

I wonder if the Severodvinsk new class of SSNs is approaching operational status or if all priority has been given to Borei SSBN construction ?

Does the new SSN have pump jet propulsion ?

cheers

[aaaditya]

hey guys,check out this interesting article,it gives some information on the type of steel used on the indian navy warships and submarines.

here is the link and the article:

http://www.financialexpress.com/news/story/138755/


Kolkata, May 29 Government-owned Steel Authority of India Ltd (SAIL) is set to develop special steel plates for use by the Indian Navy’s submarine project. The Navy has plans to build 12 submarines, for which it needs DMR 249B grade plates, as specified by the Defence Metallurgical Research (DMR) Laboratory. SAIL has given the job to its Bhilai Steel Plant, which earns the highest profits in the SAIL family.
Vice-admiral Pravesh Jaitly, chief of materials of the Indian Navy, recently visited Bhilai to discuss the issue with the plant’s managing director RP Singh and other senior officers. Bhilai has already developed DMR 249A grade plates with the support of the SAIL’s research wing. This grade is used in warship hulls. Both grades are nickel-bearing micro-alloyed steel, characterised by higher strength and superior toughness at temperatures as low as -60 degree C. The DMR 249B grade will have more strength, toughness and corrosion resistance than the former.
“We have asked the Navy to submit their specifications for submarine grade plates. As soon as we get them, we will start putting up facilities and take other proactive steps to develop this grade as well,” Mr Singh told FE.
He admits that the Navy’s order for the special grade of plates may not be of significant commercial value. “For us, partnering in meeting the nation’s defence needs would certainly be a matter of pride,” he said.
The Chhattisgarh-based plant reported a profit before tax (PBT) of over Rs 4,000 crore in 2004-05 against SAIL’s PBT of Rs 9,365 crore. The Navy has focussed on indigenisation since the 1960s and now has a fleet that boasts of ships with 85 to 90% components made in India in critical areas like propulsion, radar and weaponry. But what was so far missing was the steel plates, which had to be imported. The Navy has placed orders for 18 warships with the Cochin Shipyard in Kerala and Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers Ltd in Kolkata. For this order, Bhilai is to supply 4,910 tonne of DMR 249A grade plate

[crobato]

I wonder if the Severodvinsk new class of SSNs is approaching operational status or if all priority has been given to Borei SSBN construction ?

Does the new SSN have pump jet propulsion ?

cheers


That one I really don't know. The Borei is a little bit disappointing that it still came out with a screw, albeit the skewed one. The latter is also seen on the new Lada subs, but for diesels, you are not in the rush to use pump jets as the value of using that comes in only at higher water speeds.

As one poster brought out the topic of steel, it is interesting Soviet sub often use titanium to reduce magnetic detection of subs. It is also said that the Type 212 also uses anti-magnetic metals or alloys, but the export Type 214 uses steels.

[Jade]

That one I really don't know. The Borei is a little bit disappointing that it still came out with a screw, albeit the skewed one. The latter is also seen on the new Lada subs, but for diesels, you are not in the rush to use pump jets as the value of using that comes in only at higher water speeds.

As one poster brought out the topic of steel, it is interesting Soviet sub often use titanium to reduce magnetic detection of subs. It is also said that the Type 212 also uses anti-magnetic metals or alloys, but the export Type 214 uses steels.

Yeah, Aaditiya, why don't the Indians use Tataniums for theior hulls ?

[aaaditya]

Yeah, Aaditiya, why don't the Indians use Tataniums for theior hulls ?

indians have one of the largest reserves of titanium in the world,however the problem is that though they have mining capability ,they do not have the machining capability to develop ultra high grade titanium products,so they export most of their titanium as raw material to russia and japan,however one of the leading indian private sector companies (the tata limited) is setting up one of the largest titanium mines and production facility in southern india ,i believe that they are recieving russian assistance for this project ,about 30% of the production from this facility will be exclusively for the indian navy.

there were in reports in a janes(i believe 1988 edition) magazine ,that india wanted to use titanium for the construction of its atv and that the russians were assisting india with the machining capability ,however it proved to be very expensive at that time when there was a severe shortage of foreign exchange and the collapse of soviet union considerably delayed the efforts ,forcing india to use steel.

[su-30mki]

Yes, truely,,,

the russians are our true friends.Time ppl understand this.

[su-30mki]

The Asia-Pacific region has emerged as the hub of global geo-political, geo-economic and geo-strategic significance in the post-Cold War period. The rise of China and the resurgence of India will be the hallmark for the next 50 years. How this surge in power is accommodated by the incumbent powers like the United States and Japan, and how the new regional powers like China and India manage the power politics that emerge will be the key determinants of regional stability.

This volume examines the national maritime doctrines as well as the nuclear weapons developments at sea of the four major powers in the Asia-Pacific, namely, China, India, Japan and the United States, to see if the evolving dynamic is a cooperative or a competitive one. In particular, the volume looks at the evolving paradigms of maritime transformation in strategy and technology; the emergent new maritime doctrines and evolving force postures in the naval orders of battle; the role and operations of nuclear navies in the Asia-Pacific; and the implications and impact of nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and sea-based missile defence responses in the region.

[crobato]

indians have one of the largest reserves of titanium in the world,however the problem is that though they have mining capability ,they do not have the machining capability to develop ultra high grade titanium products,so they export most of their titanium as raw material to russia and japan,however one of the leading indian private sector companies (the tata limited) is setting up one of the largest titanium mines and production facility in southern india ,i believe that they are recieving russian assistance for this project ,about 30% of the production from this facility will be exclusively for the indian navy.

there were in reports in a janes(i believe 1988 edition) magazine ,that india wanted to use titanium for the construction of its atv and that the russians were assisting india with the machining capability ,however it proved to be very expensive at that time when there was a severe shortage of foreign exchange and the collapse of soviet union considerably delayed the efforts ,forcing india to use steel.

The Russians, despite having the most titanium in the world, has quit using titanium for their subs and now going for using high strength demagnetized steel instead.

Its a true pain to work with titanium especially if you are trying to weld it with other metals.