Saturday, January 3, 2009

Fair Winds And Smooth Sailing In Calm Waters



Let us begin in the New Year with some wonderful, positive updates. We start off with the Indian Navy, whose eight Tu-142M long-range maritime reconnaissance/ASW aircraft have all been fitted with ELTA-supplied EL/M-2022(V)3 multi-mode search radars. The last two of the eight aircraft were declared operational with the new belly-mounted radars last month and as a result, these eight platforms will remain in operation until 2016 at least. Meanwhile, within the first quarter of this year the contract for acquiring eight Boeing P-8I LRMR/ASW platforms will be inked, with deliveries beginning in 2014. By June, four out of the six Sea Harrier FRS Mk51s each equipped with ELTA-supplied EL/M-2032 X-band multi-mode radars and RAFAEL-supplied Python-5 and Derby air combat missiles will be operational under Project LUSH. At the same time, by then the first six MiG-29K/KUBs along with eight pilots, 39 technicians and four ground engineers will have arrived at Dabolim. The supplementary contract for an additional 29 MiG-29K/KUBs was inked early last month and includes four MiG-29KUBs, Thus, in all the Indian Navy will have, by 2012, eight MiG-29KUBs and 37 MiG-29Ks. As for UAVs, the Navy’s sole Kochi-based UAV squadron will be supplemented in future by three additional UAV squadrons that will be equipped with the MRUAV vertical takeoff-and-landing machines that are now being co-developed by Israel Aerospace Industries and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL). The Navy, however, remains firmly opposed to inducting the HAL-developed Dhruv ALH as a shipborne platform unless HAL overcomes certain performance deficiencies that have been described by the Navy as being ‘formidable’.

Also to be inducted into service by early 2010 will be a virtual wargaming simulator to be designed and supplied by Russia’s Kronshtadt Ltd, which will also include several naval tactical training modules. The simulation system, in its entirety, will be used for replicating expeditionary naval campaigns wages by an aircraft carrier-based battle group (CBG), which would normally comprise an aircraft carrier and up to eight escorting principal surface combatants (frigates and destroyers) as well as two diesel-electric submarines (SSK). The virtual wargaming simulator, to be sited in Mumbai (HQ of the Navy’s Western Naval Command, which also has operational control over CBGs), will be capable of replicating a composite warfighting scenario and will be able to conduct a 56-hour virtual exercise that will duplicate all the fierce intensity of naval warfare, thereby attaining an unprecedented level of reality in wargam­ing simulation. The wargaming scenario will encompass continuous wartime plan­ning and execution and will allow participants the opportunity to train at all levels. It will also promote coordination between warfare commanders, will execute joint and combined battle force opera­tions, and will familiarised warship crews with real-time joint and combined operations in both a high-tension and combat environment. To be interfaced with the vistual wargaming simulator will be a shore-based naval tactical & command trainer (NTCT) being sourced from Israel’s ELBIT Systems, including a module dedicated for the conduct of CBG-based air campaigns conducted by both fixed-wing combat aircraft and helicopters, as well as for airspace and air traffic control management within the CBG’s air defence identification zone. For warship commanders, the NTCT is widely regarded as the jewel in the crown of naval trainers, designed to facilitate advanced networked training in all naval warfare spheres. Located in a single facility, each NTCT will include more than eight cubicles each representing a single warship’s combat management system (CMS) and hundreds of computer-generated forces. The NTCT will enable training of various operator levels and skills along with the coordination of the attack team and the entire CBG. Designed as a distributed live-virtual trainer, the NTCT will also enable inter-operable training with other training systems already in use by the Navy, thereby forming a multi-echelon joint-force training network. The CMS modules will be designed to train the operators of a warship’s sensors such as radars, sonars, electronic warfare suite, optronic systems and communications suites, as well as guided-weapons ranging from surface-to-surface cruise missiles, surface-to-air missiles, torpedoes, sea mines, to close-in defence systems. For INS Vikramaditya, the Navy will procure a dedicated module (from Kronshtadt Ltd) that will include a fully replicated CMS, and air traffic control simulator, a ship-handling simulator, a propulsion system simulator, and an integrated platform management simulator. The CMS simulator will be used for effective team training in the handling of command, control and communications centres of the aircraft carrier, and it will have a dedicated module for the CBG’s air defence commander and his watchstanders, who
are responsible for the coordination of the CBG’s resources (warships and aircraft) and efforts to conduct surveillance, detection, identification, intercept, and engagement of aircraft within the operational area with the primary objective of defending the aircraft carrier (or other high-value units.

As far as new principal surface combatants go, the first Project 17 guided-missile frigate (FFG), INS Shivalik, is now expected to be commissioned in the second quarter of 2009, with the latter two be commissioned at successive intervals of eight months. The number of Project 15B guided-missile destroyers (DDG) to be built by Mazagon Docks Ltd has been increased from three to seven. Under the Maritime Capabilities Perspective Plan 2022’s indigenous construction component, the Navy will acquire two Cadet Training Ships, five more offshore patrol vessels (OPV) to add to the four already ordered from Goa Shipyard Ltd, three LPDs, seven Project 17A FFGs, six SSKs under Project 75(I), eight guided-missile corvettes under Project 28A (to add to the four Project 28 ASW vessels now being built by Garden Reach Shipbuilding & Engineering), eight GRP-hulled MCMVs, and another integrated aircraft carrier. In terms of off-the-shelf imports, Fincantieri is now negotiating the possible sale of another fleet replenishment tanker.


As for the silent service, the 10 Type 877EKM Kilo-class SSKs are all going to be refitted with new-generated integrated masts (for which a global RFI has already been issued) as has been the case with the four upgraded Class 209/Type 1500 SSKs. All operational Indian Navy SSKs are also being retrofitted with SATCOM-based thin-wire antennae and DRDO-developed Link-2 terminals, which will enable the SSKs to stay submerged and yet stay in regular contact with their respective fleet HQs and receive mission updates. Interestingly, the Navy has also developed a tactical procedure under which the SSKs, using Link-2 terminals, will now be able to communicate with warships at sea via shore-based MALE UAVs like the Heron-2 (acting as airborne repeater stations and being controlled by shipborne control centres) and this for the first time will give the Navy’s task forces the capability to carry out coordinated and simultaneous operations out in the deep seas, involving both surface combatants and submerged SSKs.—Prasun K. Sengupta

70 comments:

Anonymous said...

isnt the mig 29 beautiful?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Yes, it 'looks' beautiful. The second batch of 29 MiG-29K/KUBs, however, could be equipped with the BARS-29 PESA. That's what is now being negotiated.

Anonymous said...

Prasun,

Wish you a very happy year ahead.

sachin_sathe said...

Hi prasun,
wish u a very happy new year.Can u plz post a direct comparison between Zhuk Me from phazatron & Bars 29?
also regarding the ADS what is your estimate regarding how many aircrafts it will carry. It seems to be closer in size to Charles de gaulle which i belive can carry & sustain upto 40 aircrafts. Also post about the max time ADS can spend at sea at a stretch before replenishment.

Raghav said...

why does the navy need OPV? isn't that the job of the coast guard?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Wishing you all a joyous and prosperous new year as well.

Sachin, actually, the BARS-29 is about 2 times more effective than the Zhuk-ME in all respects. Regarding the aircraft complement of the IAC, it will be about 16 on-board combat aircraft and some 10 helicopters. Without any replenishment (especially fuel), the IAC will be able to be at sea for only a fortnight. With replenishment, the IAC will able to stay deployed for up to three months.

Raghav, the Coast Guard OPVs have a completely different mission profile as the Coast Guard is a policing agency, not a warfighting one as it is in the case of the Navy. The naval OPVs have far more on-board armaments and mission sensors and are often used for guarding the approaches to a naval base in concert with warships like ASW corvettes and MCMVs.

sachin_sathe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
sachin_sathe said...

thx for the info.
I myself deleted the comment. the naval opv looks a bit similar to project 28 corvette.wht do u think?
the scorpene subs we will be producing under lisence seem to be at the lower end of modern ssk's displacing around 2000 tons or so.So it looks more like a bit defensive purchase.how is it compared to the current chinese & pakistani ssks?
also will it carry cruise missiles(developed in house)?

Sontu said...

Sachin,
If i remeber correct that French had offerd to integrate the Brahmos with Scorpene.
May be from 4th one onwards..not very sure although.
But I doubt this offer as the Scorpene do not have torpedo tubes capable of firng Brahmos like(bigger dia) missile.And reworking on scorpene basic design to accomodate VLS ..at this stage is not possible too..I guess.
Prasun da tumi ki bolo?

Regards,

sachin_sathe said...

i also read tht some time back but i was thinking about torpedo tube launched cruise missiles like club
i.e modify the ADM to be fired from torpedo tube as i believe it is launched using VL system.Also, about can it carry any useful in nos along with decent torpedo complement.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Sachin & Sontu: The GSL-built naval OPV is actually a derivative of the modular SIGMA design from Holland's Schelde Shipbuilding, and has nothing in common with the Project 28 ASW corvette. The Scorpene SSK is a hunter-killer submarine and as such is optimised for seeking out and engaging hostile diesel-electric submarines operating in shallow waters. Hence it does not need AIPs or cruise missiles. Rather, all it needs to prosecute its missions successfully are a good complement of heavyweight wire-guided torpedoes and thin-linbe towed-array active/passive sonar systems. As the Scorpene wasn't originally designed to be a multi-role platform capable of land attack, it will be unwise to install the BrahMos in a VLS configuration, or carry modified torpedo tubes to launch BrahMos or the ADM. For anti-ship strike, the SM-39 Exocet is available and 36 are on order from MBDA for the Indian Navy. For the six Project 75(I) submarines, on-board AIP will be a standard feature, as will the capability to launch Club-type anti-ship/land attack cruise missiles from torpedo tubes. There is also the option of carrying eight BrahMos VLS.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Am cross-posting somethinh I had posted yesterday at http://bengalunderattack.blogspot.com/2009/01/mumbai-attacks-conspiracy-theory.html

Here's how my own scripted conspiracy theory will be put to action (LOL) over a two-month period: India attacks Pakistan-based terrorist camps and related logistics installations conventionally, Pakistan retaliates by attacking Israel with about six conventionally-armed Ghauri-1 missiles (as the M-11s, M-9s and M-18s with nuclear warheads will be in Chinese custody and therefore will not be available for being fired against Israel--therefore that's why I guess Pakistan bought the Ghauri-1s from North Korea afterall!). But regretably, the Ghauri-1s flying over Iranian airspace are able to reach only the West Bank and this results in hundreds of innocent Palestinians being killed indiscriminately. Immediate eaxmination of the Ghauri-1's debris confuses the Israelis, Palestinians, the Saudis and the US, with the Saudis and the Arab League along with the Palestinian Authority eventually 'reaching' an informed conclusion that the Ghauri-1s were in fact Iranian Shihab-3s (there's no external or internal difference between the two anyway) and that the Iranians launched them to punish the Palestinian Authority and Israel together for butchering Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Tensions rise further as the infuriated Saudis and the Arab League (dominated by Sunnis) conclude that this is in reality the long-predicted conquest for dominance of the Islamic 'ummah' by Shia Iran (with the support of Hezbollah and Hamas and the Iraqi Shias). This in turn ushers in the climactic clash between the Sunnis and Shias (as predicted by the Holy Prophet in his Hadith), with the Shias from Iran and Iraq converging under the crossed swords (in Baghdad that was built by Saddam Hussein) and jointly attacking Saudi Arabia in order to march to Mecca and Medina and free them from the clutches of the Sunnis. The desperate Saudis consequently turn to the Pakistan Army and Bangladesh Defence Forces for desperately needed infantry reinforcements, due to which Pakistan has no choice but to send about five infantry divisions to Saudi Arabia. This in turn tilts the operational balance of power in India's favour and India in turn mounts a limited high-intensity operation under which the Pakistan Army's two armoured divisions are totally decimated by IAF airpower and limited offensive campaigns by the Indian Army's armoured forces, while Brigade-level Indian Army's heliborne and para infantry forces, over a 72-hour period, capture Gilgit and Skardu and consequently begin airlifting two infantry divisions aimed at re-liberating the Northern Areas. This objective is achieved over a three-wek period and results in the creation of a four-faced border junction involving China, India, Afghanistan and Tajkistan. Both China and India then decide that through this area will pass the gas pipelines from Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan before being bifurcated into two final destinations: one towards China's Tibet Autonomous Region and another into Jammu & Kashmir. Both in the Deosai Plains and beyond the Wakhan Corridor, both India and Afghanistan next discover substantial deposites of oil, gas and rare minerals and consequently, along with a willing China, decide to exploit such geological reserves on a collective and equitable basis. Consequently, two demilitarised but highly secure SEZs are created. Thus begins the new great game, with these SEZs also being utilised to cater to the enormous consumer requirements of the populace of the Central Asian republics. China and India now call the shots and become Central Asia's strategic economic stakeholders and security umbrella guarantors for the years to come. Following the conclusion of hostilities and the re-drawing of boundaries due to which both Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas are now part of the re-unified Indian state of Jasmmu & Kashmir, a major archeological discovery takes place quite soon after the conclusion of hostilities, which reveals that Jesus Christ, contrary to popular belief, was not resurrected after his crucifiction, as per popular belief, but was instead 'resuscitated' and he succeeded in escaping from the clutches of the Jews and Romans and migrated eastwards, eventually settling down in Kashmir and living on to a ripe old age of 120. He was eventually buried in a mausoleum which today is a mosque. His 'wife' Mary Magdalene was buried earlier in Muree, while his mother was buried in Kashgar, as claimed in some ancient historical records now existing within the four walls of an erstwhile 'Royal Library' in Nepal. As time goes by, historians begin to connect all the dots and reach the conclusion that it is due to such earlier suspicions about the existence of such a possibility regarding Jesus Christ's whereabouts, the Western world led by secular but Christian-dominated nation-states, along with Russia and Israel, had always tacidly supported India's legitimate claimover a unified J & K State, especially those areas that bore the footprints of Jesus Christ, since both the Jews and Christians would never condone the possibility of such areas belonging to any Muslim-majority country hell-bent upon spreading the gospel of global Islamic supremacy.

Maximus said...

Nice article Prasun! Any chances of AIP being installed in the first 6 Scorpenes? Read somewhere that the IN has an option of installing AIP in the first batch at the rate of $ 50 Million a piece, which i feel is quite affordable for a country lie India. Comments?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Maximus (aka Vishal?): As I explained above, it will be unwise to equip the Scorpene with AIP since the Scorpene will be operating in shallow waters in the hunter-killer mode. AIP is reqd only when the SSK is operating in the deep seas, where it is more susceptible to detection by ASW sonars. When operating in shallow waters an AIP will not give any extra survivability to the submarine.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

UPDATE: The P-8I LRMR/ASW aircraft too will have on board ELTA's EL/M-2022(V)3 multi-role search radars, just as those on board the eight existing Tu-142Ms.

happy new yr said...

^

sachin_sathe said...

prasun,

Does tht developement mean tht the american govt. and Boeing is comfertable with the offset clause?
Also will the naval opv's have anti ship missiles looking at the current developement it looks like navy can open an ashm shop.Jokes apart the IN seems to be integrating almost all a ashm's available on market except the chinese.The urans are there for migs(i think),harpoons for IAF's Jaguars and the comming P-8I,the sm-36 exocets for scorpenes and PJ-10's for bears and surface ships as well as the Kh series for migs & IAF's Flankers.Wont it be a logistics nightmare though it will have its opponants guessing which one is exactly going to be used if push comes to shove.

on a sidenote can u post about the SMG derived from INSAS SAR i think it was called MINSAS or something?

Anonymous said...

News from Prasun after a longtime. Thanks. That really was an excellent and detailed update on the Indian Navy. Could we have a similar one for the Indian Air Force please ??? Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun,

Happy New year. Nice one - kind of a annual report on the IN.
Also nice conspiracy theory -ever thought of doing a book ala Tom Clancy. I will surely read.

On a more serious note can you Please do a peice on what needs to be done to beef up Human resources in the defence research and Industries space. We spend a ton of money buying off the shelf stuff.... but surely we need to develop indegenous capability. Its not like we are dumb people in India. A change in approach can do the country wonders simply by generating top quality jobs. Why havent we atleast started reverse engineering off the shelf stuff - like china? If a nation the size of Israel can do stuff why not us?
Too many questions

Rahul Singh said...

Prasun Sir: You sure, its BARS? I read somewhere that its ‘Zhuk AE’ (AESA) which will be fitted in follow-on Mig-29Ks. BTW why IN will opt for relatively old PESA technology when AESA is available and also when one very similar and almost equivalent variant i.e Mig-35 is flying with Zhuk AE.

Anonymous said...

Does the additional orders for mig-29k means an end to tejas naval??

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Sachin: Boeing had already committed itself to the offsets clause and began spending money on a Boeing aircraft MRO facility in Nagpur WAY BEFORE the P-8I contract was inked. As for the varied inventories of ASCMs, it won;t impose any logistics problems since the missiles have a shelf-life of 10 years without any maintenance. The only additional investments are reqd in terms of acquiring missile-firing part-task trainers and field-test hardware.

To Rahul Singh: The Phazotron Zhuk-AE is still undergoing flight-tests on the MiG-35 and is not yet a validated design. On the other hand, the BARS-29 is already flight-certified on the MiG-29K and is evailable immediately.

The additional MiG-29K acquisitions will not impact the naval Tejas LCA programme.

BENGAL UNDER ATTACK said...

I don't think I have seen such beautiful colored Migs before.

Prasun, when are Phalcons due? And what would be its like configurations? And where are they now ?

Thanks

sachin_sathe said...

Thx prasun,
continuing with the flow here,if IN desides to design its own ocean going
ssk can will it be possible for them to come up with a efficient design
so that this new tender can be canceled (if they decide to incorporate technologies and ideas from the scorpene program and the ATV program from drdo?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To BuA: The first PHALCON should arrive in Agra by the month's end. The PHALCONs will be commissioned into service by 2010. The MoU for acquiring another 3 PHALCONs was inked last November. BTW the MiG-29KUB prototype indeed looks colourful and that's good for aerobatics during air shows. But that is definitely not a low-visibility colour scheme and I for one would not fly such a coloured aircraft into combat.

To Sachin: You are greatly over-estimating India's/DRDO's design capabilities for submarines. It will be another 10 years before any existing Indian shipyard can acquire the requisite expertise for undertaking detailed design of diesel-electric SSKs. I'm sure due to this the Navy can't wait that long to order the follow-on six SSKs under Project 75(I). Mind you, the Scorpene fabrication programme is just that, for licenced-manufacture only. There is no technology transfer involving the Scorpene's engineering design data being transferred to Mazagon Docks Ltd. Only the fabrication data/expertise and product support data packages are being transferred to MDL. But engineering design data remains firmly with ARMARIS. The same will be the case with Project 75(I).

Regarding the ATV technology demonstrator, everything depends on the first unit successfully undergoing sea trials. This alone will take another five years and only if the trials are successful will the production-series SSBN be built. The ATV WIL NOT be the definitive SSBN, as I've repeatedly explained. And this was recently confirmed by Admiral (Ret'd) Arun Prakash as well in one his articles.

The other option is to follow the Brazilian way, i.e. ARMARIS helping India design a nuclear-powered SSGN only (the non-nuclear component), with the DRDO designing the nuclear reactor/propulsion system.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

By the way, the Cabinet Committee on National Security last week formally approved the construction of the first SSGN's hull. And no, the Russians are NOT involved in this venture in any way. But it will be a foreign design incorporating the India-designed nuclear reactor.

Sontu said...

Prasun Da,
If this update of yours is true..i.e."UPDATE: The P-8I LRMR/ASW aircraft too will have on board ELTA's EL/M-2022(V)3 multi-role search radars, just as those on board the eight existing Tu-142Ms."
Then I think this will be first time when US agreed to allow integrate any third party sensors to it's aircraft..as I have heard earlier that..US even not allowed Israelis to integrate their own AESA radars to US supplied F-16I s.. ?
Regards,

Sontu said...

Prasun da,

My second question regarding P-8I are ..
1. Why this deal concluded so quickly …that too when there is no field evaluation has not happened in India? Field Evaluation is mandatory as per Defense Procurement Policy.
2. Even any demo version has not been integrated/ready yet and first production version will arrive in late 2011 only. Boeing is busy integrating the first demo version.
Just to get some US sympathy and bargain US support on global politics…can we just throw off all our evaluation policies and standard procedures regarding OUR defense procurement …why?

Regards,

Anonymous said...

how u doing macha?? ok u said "Cabinet Committee on National Security last week formally approved the construction of the first SSGN's hull" - wait a min is this for the ATV or the SSGN? why would they start construction of first hull of SSGN when even ATV TD is not ready? huh macha??

Prasun K Sengupta said...

No, Sontu Da, this is not the first time. Even Israeli F-16Is and AH-64Ds have on board Israel-built EW systems. The Pakistani F-16A/B Block 15 in the early 1980s too had THALES-built Atlis-2 LDPs and MBDA's AS-30L laser-guided air-to-surface missiles on board.

When a G-to-G agreement is inked with the US, it is the US armed services that are the contract implementing authority, and not the product's OEMs. Which means if you buy a Super Hornet with US-funded credits and that too through the FMS financing route, it is the US Navy that becomes the prime contractor, not Boeing IDS. Which means the buyer will get exactly the same Super Hornet as that operated by the US Navy. And Boeing will become the principal sub-contractor to the US Navy for executing the export order. AT NO POINT will Boeing even be allowed to do the marketing, it will be only the US Defense Security & Cooperation Agency via the Systems Programme Office of the US Navy. In the buyer's country, the US DSCA will then establish what is called the JUSMAG, or joint US military advisory group, which reports directly to the DSCA and not the Defence Attache. This system was put into place when India bought the TPQ-37 Firefinder radars from the US ARMY (and not from THALESRaytheon, the OEM).

On the other hand, if the buyer inks a government-to-company contract, as has been the case of the P-8I, it means the OEM, Boeing IDS, is free to substitute US-origin systems with non-US systems at its own risk in mutual consultation with the buyer. In this case, the DSCA will have no role to play, nor will the US Navy. All product support will be extended by Boeing IDS. Only the Indian progress payments will be made via the FMS channel (and thus be subject to US Congressional oversight), making this a truly transparent deal (in terms of financing) with no middlemen involved.
In fact, I posed a question about the key differences between a G-to-G contract and a G-to-OEM contract in LIVEFIST an hour ago. But I very much doubt if anyone will be able to give any answer simply because Indians generally are still unaware of how exactly the US military export system works.

Now, regarding the pace of competitive evaluations leading to contract signature, all this has been going on since June 2005, when the US State Dept first authorised Boeing IDS to begin its marketing efforts. Actually, the decision should have been made exactly a year ago.
Regarding field evaluations, the mandatory clause comes in only if there are readily available systems. In the case of the P-8I and A319MPA, none of them were available as definitive products and therefore it boiled down to which of the two OEMs coild be realistically expected to deliver as contracted for. In case of the A319MPA, EADS Military Aircraft has yet to get any firm orders from any customer, whereas the P-8I already has an assured order from the US Navy and is therefore relatively risk-free, compared to the A319MPA. If you ask me, the choice was very clear, evident and very easy to make, with no rules being broken. Now that this big hurdle has been overcome, it is time to make a decision on the MRMR/ASW aircraft competition, for which the EADS C-295 and Alenia Aeronautica's ATR-72-600 are on offer. But given the problematic status of the ATR-72-600MP's launch order (from Turkey), the Indian Navy would be well-advised to go for the C-295 fitted with the FITS mission management suite and EL/M-2022(V)3 search radar (which is already operational with the Chilean Navy). This is the time for quick decision-making, no more pussy-footing. I can't thank the Pakistanis enough for giving India the much-deserved shock therapy (since 1999) once in a while, as this alone has proven to be the only formula for expediting quick and decisive decision-making by the MoD.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Are Macha, as you very well know, after formal approval is given, another 90 days pass before any money is allocated (not paid, mind you). The money will reach the shipbuilder only after six months, following which another another 9 months will pass before the steel begins arriving. Only then will hull fabrication begin! This approval was for the SSGN (attack submarine), nothing to do with the ATV. Now it will be up to the DRDO to decide whether to stick to Larsen & Toubro for prototype fabrication, or select Mazagon Docks Ltd. Depending on who is selected, a foreign collaborator will be sought (Fincantieri or ARMARIS) for designing the non-nuclear part of the SSGN.

Anonymous said...

oh ok macha.. then its only wise they start now... i just wondered why build an operational SSGN before even testing the parameters using the ATV TD which was wat it was for. but after hearing about all the 3 months + 9 months (....), then it would be fine... by the time construction starts conclusins can be drawn from ATV's trials / studies.. how was new yr celebrations?

Anonymous said...

hey wait, why Fincantieri macha? they never built any nuclear subs did they?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Everything went off as planned. Nothing much to celebrate, though. Stayed sober. Thanks.

Sontu said...

Ok Prasunda,
Thanks a lot for the details on G-to-G and G-to-C procurement process.
Taken your point on "No Rules Broken on the inking the P-8I deal."

Please let us know what kind of Tailoring/Customization is being done on India’s version of P-8I and compared to P-8A (USN version) ..what are the differences among this two versions.

Now do you really and honestly think and expect that GOI will ink the MRMR/ASW deal with EADS too for Casa-295 option with the same speed as happened with P-8I deal with US backed Boeing ?

I don't think it will happen so soon...because in India Geo-Political Impact/Factors are more..rather I would say MOST important factors than Capabilities, Prices etc for inking any Military Sales deal...and priority varies based on Govt/Regimes in power in India.

Regards,

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Ayo Macha, the chosen foreign shipbuilder will help design the NON-NUCLEAR part of the SSGN, including the propulsion system MINUS the nuclear reactor.

Anonymous said...

i see... celebrations this year weree quiet dull b'coz of the market crunch as u know... but at least it gave some opportunity for some joy n happiness that i njoyed..

Anonymous said...

ayo macha prasun, thats why i asked why Fincantieri because they got no experience in building submarines of that size (SSGN should be over 6000 tons displacement). its just like going into a jv with tata motors to build a luxury car when merc and bmw are out there...

Anonymous said...

i mean desigining submarines of that size..

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Exactly my point, Sontu Da. Thanks to the Mumbai terror attacks, both the Coast Guard and Navy must now BE SEEN to be plugging the surveillance gaps. Which translates into more Do-228s for coastal surveillance, new medium-range MPAs and MRMR/ASW platforms for EEZ surveillance. The AMASCOS/Oceanmaster package from THALES is facing enormous problems in both Turkey and Malaysia, whereas the FITS/EL/M-2022(V)3 has been relatively free of any snags. The latter is also cheaper.
Regarding the P-8I's sensors, apart from the EL/M-2022(V)3, the EW suite too will be of Israeli origin, whereas the FLIR will come from L-3/WESCAM. For supplying the heavyweight torpedoes, global bids will be called for from France, the US, Italy and Germany. The same goes for the anti-ship cruise missiles as well, with the AGM-84A Harpoon and Kongsberg's NSM being the frontrunners. IFF transponder will come from HAL, while BEL will supply the Link 2 data link suite. Boeing IDS will handle final systems installation/integration. Via Link 2, two on-board consoles will be able to control the flight ops for one Heron-2 MALE-UAV. Boeing's MRO facility in Nagpur will handle all depot-level product support requirements. The contract with Boeing IDS also includes the supply of one flight simulator and one mission management simulator.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Ayo ayo macha, why did you forget so fast what I wrote last year about the S-800 SSK programme? Fincantieri already has a back-to-back agreement with Russian nuclear submarine designers RUBIN. Therefore, getting access to critical design inputs is no problem for Fincantieri. TATA too can make luxury cars provided it too engages the same car designers and engine makers as those engaged by Mercedes or BMW, just like Toyota did by going to Pasadena in oder to develop the Lexus.

Anonymous said...

oh ya agreement with RUBIN. but wont it then be wiser for india to team up with RUBIN itself? whats your take on this? since russia has been insurumental in our nuclear submarine programme anyway. i actually used the wrong comparison - tata has access to 2 luxury marques Jag and LR. should have spoken about hindustan motors or something

Prasun K Sengupta said...

No macha, because RUBIN may be a credible designer of submarines, but it is not the best when comes to hull fabrication using the latest TRIBON CAD tools. That's where one needs an established Western shipbuilder capable of generating engineering production data utilising the latest design tools as well as fabrication techniques.

Sontu said...

Thanks Prasun da,

So it seems Boeing and EADS must thank LET/JEM and off course ISI to carry out Mumbai attack :-)
B-coz GOI is on a buying spree now and generating quite a lot business very quickly during this slow down phase.

Do you think India should phase out Tu-142s ..these are nothing but Tu-95 variant with LRMR/ASW sencors..Tu-95 has been considered as a very potent STRATEGIC BOMBERS which RuAF/RuN still operates in good numbers and hence Pentagon (US DOD),Australian and Chinese defense analysts were never happy with India having this kind of capable strategic/heavy bombers and reach.

What do you say?

Regards,

Anonymous said...

oh i c.. Romba nandri macha..

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Sontu Da, as you very well know, it will become cost-prohibitive for the Tu-142M's airframe and engines to be in flightworthy condition by 2018. Now, if in the meantime the Russians come up with a service life-extension package that results in a reduction of the Tu-142M's direct operating costs, plus a relifing of the airframe and possibly a re-engining package that includes new-generation propellers, and a glass cockpit to top it up. then I would definitely like to see such upgraded Tu-142Ms remaining in service for at least another decade. As per the Indian Navy's long-term perspective plans, at least 28 LRMR/ASW are required to operate within the Navy's maritime awareness domain. Therefore, every available but cost-effective platform must be utilised to the fullest for as far as possible.

Sontu said...

Thanks Prasun Da,

BTW..if I remember correct..India had orderd 6 nos of a newer engine for a trial/evaluation for Tu-142.

Shubho Ratri,

Prasun K Sengupta said...

That's right, but they are new-build NK-12MV engines, not a new design per se. The full-scope structural upgrade exists on paper and is called the Tu-142MSD. Shubho Ratri.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

“In an attempt to get back into the competition to supply India with an updated long-range maritime patrol aircraft, Russia’s Taganrogskaya Aviatsiya (TAVIA) has created an updated Tu-142M, designated the Tu-142MSD. The new aircraft is the export version of the design Russia plans to use itself. The Tu-142MSD reportedly carries, in addition to other ordnance, either eight air-to-surface Kh-35E anti-ship missiles, or six BrahMos missiles. India has been searching for a replacement to its Tu-142Ms and has most recently thrown-open the competition internationally. India's earlier programme to upgrade its eight Tu-142Ms by Russia fell through in 2004 due to an estimated cost of US$888 million, at which time India turned to Israel Aerospace Industries However, in December, 2004, Russia stomped-down that deal by refusing to cooperate if Israel was involved. TAVIA’s latest proposal includes a deal to rework the aircraft airframes with the goal of enabling the lowest-time airframes to remain in service until 2026”.

Anonymous said...

hey prasun sometime ago u said both p8i and a319 r contender for navy now what p8i
deal has been signed even if p8i is inferior to tu142 in all aspects

p8i got not so effective rage payload and many penaltise coming with this aircraft
and this has not yet flown

airbus offered its aircraft at much less price for the same qualities advertised

tu142 is still cutting edge with israeli electronics

our idiot govt and armed forces fuck

sachin_sathe said...

ok got the drift.
But to speed up tht process cant DRDO & IN's designing wing team up with some firm like fincantieri to produce the ssk?that way western expertise can be brought in for designing a completely diff design (since the P 75(I) wom't be in IN service before at least 2014) also if IN is taking help in designing (atleast some part of) SSGN from foreign shipyard can't it do the same for an ssk?

also regarding mrmp the C-295 is i believe a cargo plane which in this case was modified for this role.How is it performance wise compared to AN-32?

Also has there been any progress on the Indo-Russian MTA project i.e when can we expect the work on first prototype to start? Can it be modified from the start to do the maritime survailance like the C-295?

with the government clearing the SSGN will some elements of the ATV project(non-nuclear) be incorporated in it?

Anonymous said...

i was juz wondering segupta..... why pay so much and develop a nirbhay t simulate cruise missile when we can use klubs w/ dummy warheads warheads for the same job?

Anonymous said...

8 Dhruv's are already operating in the Utility role and only the Anti-Submarine version will not be inducted.

Vikas said...

@Anonymous said - Tuesday, January 06, 2009 3:03:00 AM

------------
i was juz wondering segupta..... why pay so much and develop a nirbhay t simulate cruise missile when we can use klubs w/ dummy warheads warheads for the same job?
------------

Klub in this cannot be reused.

Anonymous said...

Vikas - thanx.

but isnt using [disposable] klubs cheaper than cost of development of nirbhay + cost of 36MT engine + cost of production?

Anonymous said...

apart from saving money it saves time

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@1:09PM: Kindly explain in what way the Tu-142M is superior to the P-8I.

To Sachin: it takes years (almost a decade) to nurture and build up a credible warship design team, and that time is not available at this pount in time for Project 75(I). Only the Naval Design Bureau currently has a team of warship designers/architects, the DRDO doesn't.
Regarding the C-295 versus the An-32B, the former is far more advanced and the first MPA version of the C-295 flew a decade ago. Also, its FITS mission management suite is well-proven and is operational worldwide. The MTA can be developed as a LRMR/ASW aircraft in theory, but in practice it will require an enormous amount of funding to be allocated for R & D.
The SSGN will be totally different from the ATV in several respects, but the Indian industrial OEMs associated with the ATV project will definitely be associated with the SSGN's construction effort.

To Anon@3:03AM: Based on your comments, one presumes that you know what's the cost of developing the Nirbhay cruise missile simulator, and what's the cost of buying one Club-S/M cruise missile. Would you like to share those figures? Only then can we decide which option is more economical.

Anonymous said...

to sengupta

tu142 is superior to p8 in all aspects

1. unmatched range(most important)
2.more combat load+brahmos
3.with israli elta2022a,ELINT,COMINT COMPARES with american electronics

4.new kuznetsov engines

and all this comes at waaaaay lower prices and these aircraft still have 20 years of life


moreover US vill have reservations on this aircraft and it doesn't sell its elctronic warfare systems

airbus offer is cheaper

Anonymous said...

if US can operate its b52 bomber and c5 galaxy till 2040 then i c no problem in operating tu142 for 20 more years

Anonymous said...

Sengupta, you were the one who said the price of 200 36MT engines were $100 million USD. - so that is $500,000 USD per unit (only engine cost!) Now add on the cost of R&D and the rest of the Nirbhay systems - an extremely modest estimate would be $600,000 per piece (again extremely modest)

Here are the prices for various missiles / unit for comparison:

Exocet MM40 Block: $350,000 USD
AGM 119 Penguin: $500,000 USD
AS.34 Komoran 1: $540,000 USD
Sea Skua: $316,000 USD

Anonymous said...

not to forget:

AGM-84 Harpoon: $527,416 USD

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@9:56AM: There you go again, comparing performance parameters like range etc, without realising that no matter what the range figures are, the on-board crew is BIOLOGICALLY constrained from operating beyond 8 hours! Secondly, the primary role of aircraft like Tu-142M is maritime reconnaissaance and ASW, and not anti-ship strike. Therefore it makes no difference whether the aircraft carries two or four or six BrahMos missiles. Also note that for the B.737NGs now operated by the IAF's VIP Flight, ALL on-board EW systems came from the US, the latest state-of-the-art, with no operational restrictions. As regards the A310MPA, it has no firm orders from anyone, and not even a simulator of the A319MPA exists, it is just a paper design and therefore neither Airbus nor EADS can give an accurate and guaranteed cost of one A319MPA.

To Anon@9:57AM: The prices you've given were valid a decade ago. Today, an Exocet MM-40 Block 3 or Harpoon Block IIL and its related test-equipment/operating consoles/part-task trainers costs no less than US$3.6 million. The BrahMos costs more than US$6 million (this is the price the Indian Navy is paying to BrahMos Aerospace.

Anonymous said...

prices are taken from FAS and missile threat.com and based on the citations are from 2002 and 2003. a $500,000 missile in 2003 aint gonna cost 3 million today. i know about brahmos being over 6 million, but prices for the rest come from the internet and come from between 02 and 03.

Anonymous said...

test related and operating consoles cost is not based on the per-missile price. those are standard to be procured at the beginning, and there after the cost of missiles wont exceed $700,000 / piece. Anyway those test consoles etc. are also needed for the nirbhay arent they?

Anonymous said...

test related and operating consoles cost is not based on the per-missile price. those are standard to be procured at the beginning, and there after the cost of missiles wont exceed $700,000 / piece. Anyway those test consoles etc. are also needed for the nirbhay arent they?

Anonymous said...

to sengupta

operating envioment is no constraint for armed forces

if soldiers can drive t72 in desert in intense heat,if soldiers can go to siachen and climb on mountains ,if soldiers can operate submarines in constraint environment so there should b no problems in operating tu142

by the way in armed forces r preopared to fight in all types of envirements and flying tu142 is waaay easier than doing all above i mentioned

and tu142 has enough space for its crew

and brahmos air launched can b equipped with tu142 when its ready with problem

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@10:34AM: "operating envioment is no constraint for armed forces...if soldiers can drive t72 in desert in intense heat,if soldiers can go to siachen and climb on mountains,if soldiers can operate submarines in constraint environment so there should b no problems in operating tu142..."
-------------------------------
Show me even I photograph showing a T-72 MBT being used by the Indian Army in desert conditions at noontime. Tell me for how many hours are soldiers reqd to climb mountains. Tell me how many operating shifts are there on board a submarine for crewmen and how many sets of crewmen are there on board submarines.

To Anon@10:25AM: FAS or Globalsecurity or Wikipedia can't be trusted with cost figures. Instead, the price and availability quotes from missile manufacturers are far morte credible. Just visit the US DSCA site and see their sales figures for probable weapons exports and only then come to a realistic conclusion on the pricing levels. Also, no missile manufacturer will give you a price and availability quote for just missiles. Either you buy the entire package (including test equipment, operating consoles and training aids) or you don't. All manufacturers quote for a complete package, and not just for missile rounds. What is the use of buying only a missile round if you don't buy the operating console as well? Therefore, talking about the price of just a single missile round is fallacious and wrong.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@10:00AM: The quoted offer for 24 AGM-84 Harpoons by the US DSCA for the Indian Air Force is for US$170 million. That works out to US$7.08 million per missile round. Now go tell your 'gurus' at FAS to update their figures.

AkI said...

Why are the Russians screwing us for higher price for additional MiG 29K without any addition of equipment? (news on www.idrw.org dated 08/01/2009)

the news report mentions "As per earlier agreement signed in 2004 Indian navy ordered 16 Mig-29k carrier borne for $46 million apiece, deal included an option to buy 12 more at the same price. Now Indian navy has plans for 29 more carrier borne aircrafts but the price of still to be inducted jet as gone up by 60 % and the latest price tag is cool $75 million apiece, without any better technical advantage over the current manufactured Mig-29k"

What is the correct information on this?

AkI said...

Dear Prasun Da,

have you any information on my post of 8th Feb 2009. I would appreciate feedback on same.