What's new

BD to Purchase Submarines

Do not overdream, please. A naval blockade by a few Indian junks? It will leave your Bombay harbour to be taken by Pakistani bombardment. It is painful to imagine such a scenerio. Don't you understand that because of India's such a mind we are after buying naval helicopters and submarines?

We are also building a few hundred small patrol vessels fitted with missiles in our own shipyard. This venture was supposed to be with Pakistan initially. But, I do not know if it is now by BD alone or not. These small missile crafts will fly like bees around your junks and hit them with missiles.

I honestly thought that you had some knowledge about a blockade, but apparently you don't. A naval blockade is not me parking a car outside your gate, it happens on the high seas, with Indian warships intercepting and re-routing ships meant for BD. And talk about Indian junk, its not like BD is fielding a titanium-zirconiums alloy ships with anti-matter drives armed with photon torpedoes. So lay off whatever you are smoking.

IN has a western and eastern naval command, it does not need to move ships to counter a perceived BD threat. And why in heavens would PAK attack India? whats in for them? From what I am reading in the news, they are now looking to get their economy back on track and hopefully not default on international loans. Besides, I am not aware of any mutual aggression pact signed between the two nations.

Your small attack vessels that you mentioned is for coastal defense, not taking on frigates on the high seas. They do not have the range or the endurance to perform such a task. These interdiction missions are carried by the airforce, NOT navy boats. Rest assured that with phalcon and P-8i flying there will be no surprises for IN and they would enjoy an excellent air cover.

Now somehow you do manage to tug these small boats and deploy them on high seas, it will be more or less a suicide mission. They will be detected (Unless you are taking about missile equipped zodiacs :)) and taken care of by the strike package accompanying the armada.

Having said all that, India has no intention to blockade BD, at least not over a few subs, but talk practically rather than from your backside...
 
Congratulation. Good news for BD. Nation should always be ready for its own defense.
 
Big words from a set of people who were handed over their nation by us. Say thanks and move on. .
We fought our war and got a separation from Pakistan. In the process we lost many lakhs of people, some martyred and some died of diseases. But, we did not give up. We invited Indian Army. They came, we saw the fear in their suspecting eyes. India lost a big 1300 souls. Next time, when you come, only 1300 will not suffice. Come only then, when you are ready to sacrifice 1.3 million of your troops.
 
The highlighted part of your post is the one I am in agreement with. Wild_fire had it right. I don't think any Indian planner needs to go crazy about Bangladeshi intentions. I don't know what it is with Indian & Bangladeshi posters here. If you listen to them, you would probably think that India & Bangladesh are about to commence hostilities. If Bangladesh wants to buy submarines, that's your decision. It is difficult for me to inderstand why exactly & why now but I also realise that I can never know what the fears are in the minds of others. If Bangladesh feels that having submarines makes it feel more secure, then so be it. It's much easier to deal with a confident neighbour than a paranoid one.

Internet warriors are just what they are, Internet warriors, they are not policy makers.


I realize a decent discussion is too much to ask.
 
Territorial tangle casts shadow on Santos’ Bay of Bengal block
Maritime boundary row with Bangladesh forces government to suspend contractual obligations of Australian explorer

Utpal Bhaskar, utpal.b@livemint.com
New Delhi


The Indian government plans to suspend the contractual obligations of Australian explorer Santos Ltd’s subsidiary relating to its block in the Bay of Bengal because it has been unable to resolve a maritime boundary dispute with Bangladesh, said people familiar with the matter.

The Bangladesh Navy has repeatedly denied Santos International Operations Pty Ltd access to its NEC-DWN-2004/2 block in the northern Bay of Bengal, said the people, who didn’t want to be named.

In the sixth edition of India’s New Exploration Licensing Policy, or Nelp, the subsidiary was awarded a 100% working interest and operatorship of blocks NEC-DWN-2004/1 and NEC-DWN-2004/2, covering about 16,500 sq. km. in the Bengal Basin, Santos says on its website.

The northern waters of the Bay of Bengal have been a subject of contention between India, Bangladesh and Myanmar as the land mass of the three countries surround these waters.

The two blocks are around 250km south-east of Kolkata and 175km from the Indian coast.

Santos signed a production sharing contract (PSC) for NEC-DWN-2004/2 on 2 March 2007 and commenced its first phase of exploration from 8 May 2007.

PSC obligations include work programme commitments and a bank guarantee pursuant to that. Santos has committed to an eight-year $70-million work programme covering the two offshore deep water exploration licences.

But due to the dispute, Santos was denied access to most of its NEC-DWN-2004/2 block and was finally forced to suspend seismic operations there from 10 February 2009.

Mint could not ascertain the status of the NEC-DWN-2004/1 block.

“This is a fit case for excusable delay. The relief to the company is imminent,” said a senior petroleum ministry official, one of the people familiar with the matter.

According to communications between Santos International and India’s petroleum and natural gas ministry, the Union government has decided “there exists excusable delay thereby suspending performance of production sharing contract obligations for this block”.

In a communication from John Chambers, regional manager, South and South-East Asia, Santos International, to D.N. Narasimha Raju, joint secretary in the petroleum and natural gas ministry, the company has asked for the implementation of the government’s decision.

Mint has reviewed copies of these communications.

The management committee for the block—comprising representatives of the Union government, the directorate general of hydrocarbons (DGH), a body under India’s ministry of petroleum, and Santos—is in favour of the draft agreement, according to the communications.

Mint could not ascertain whether an agreement for suspending the PSC obligations has been signed.

Raju and S.K. Srivastava, the director general of hydrocarbons, did not respond to phone calls or messages left on their cellphones.

Chambers could not be reached since he was away on a vacation.

Bangladesh has already taken recourse to arbitration to settle the dispute by taking it up with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Analysts say India is due to submit a memorandum to the UN body by May 2012 regarding its contentions with Bangladesh.

India’s plan to leverage the January visit of Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to India to upgrade the bilateral relationship and resolve the issue was not successful.

“We had requested MEA (ministry of external affairs) to take up the issue with the Bangladesh government, but there has been no success,” said another petroleum ministry official, who also requested anonymity.

Vishnu Prakash, spokesman for the Indian foreign ministry, and Enamul Hoque Chowdhry, minister, press, at the Bangladesh high commission in New Delhi, did not reply to emails.

“The fallout of the ongoing impasse is on the oil and gas exploration efforts in the contentious areas of the Bay of Bengal. The production sharing contracts issued by the government of India to Santos are impacted, as nearly 50% of the demarcated blocks are claimed by Bangladesh,” said Gokul Chaudhri, partner at audit and consulting firm BMR Advisors.

He said it was logical that, under the circumstances, the operators cannot be held responsible for not completing the work in time as committed under the production-sharing contract.

“Hence, the government of India should release the operators from the obligations by accepting force majeure (a provision freeing a party from an obligation because of circumstances beyond its control) as provided in the production-sharing contracts,” he said, adding that such a suspension could continue until the territorial limits are settled between the countries.

http://www.livemint.com/2010/12/30003549/Territorial-tangle-casts-shado.html?atype=tp
 
We fought our war and got a separation from Pakistan. In the process we lost many lakhs of people, some martyred and some died of diseases. But, we did not give up. We invited Indian Army. They came, we saw the fear in their suspecting eyes. India lost a big 1300 souls. Next time, when you come, only 1300 will not suffice. Come only then, when you are ready to sacrifice 1.3 million of your troops.

I reiterate big words with nothing to back it up with. If India wouldn't have intervened, it would have been a civil war followed by a genocide on an even larger scale. And India did not intervene on the 'invitation' of the BD people, it came 'cause it saw an opportunity to reduce the PAK threat to half and secure their eastern borders in case of future wars.

Nevertheless, we committed soldiers and gave lives so that 'YOU' can live in a free country. So saw thanks and enjoy your country, cause Mukti Bahini could not have toppled the might of the Pakistan army on their own (Unless you can provide facts that Mukti Bahini and the resistance had the numbers and firepower to take on PA on their own!)
 
I honestly thought that you had some knowledge about a blockade, but apparently you don't. A naval blockade is not me parking a car outside your gate, it happens on the high seas, with Indian warships intercepting and re-routing ships meant for BD.

So, what happens next when you put blockade on ships bound for BD? Are these ships owned by BD companies. Most of these ocean-going ships are owned by other countries. So, how these countries will react? Please think also of this repercussion.

Moreover, we will be buying submarines so that such a situation does not arise. This is as simple as that. We are not to depend upon other countries' deceitful good behaviour.
 
Territorial tangle casts shadow on Santos’ Bay of Bengal block
Maritime boundary row with Bangladesh forces government to suspend contractual obligations of Australian explorer

Utpal Bhaskar, utpal.b@livemint.com
New Delhi


The Indian government plans to suspend the contractual obligations of Australian explorer Santos Ltd’s subsidiary relating to its block in the Bay of Bengal because it has been unable to resolve a maritime boundary dispute with Bangladesh, said people familiar with the matter.

The Bangladesh Navy has repeatedly denied Santos International Operations Pty Ltd access to its NEC-DWN-2004/2 block in the northern Bay of Bengal, said the people, who didn’t want to be named.

In the sixth edition of India’s New Exploration Licensing Policy, or Nelp, the subsidiary was awarded a 100% working interest and operatorship of blocks NEC-DWN-2004/1 and NEC-DWN-2004/2, covering about 16,500 sq. km. in the Bengal Basin, Santos says on its website.

The northern waters of the Bay of Bengal have been a subject of contention between India, Bangladesh and Myanmar as the land mass of the three countries surround these waters.

The two blocks are around 250km south-east of Kolkata and 175km from the Indian coast.

Santos signed a production sharing contract (PSC) for NEC-DWN-2004/2 on 2 March 2007 and commenced its first phase of exploration from 8 May 2007.

PSC obligations include work programme commitments and a bank guarantee pursuant to that. Santos has committed to an eight-year $70-million work programme covering the two offshore deep water exploration licences.

But due to the dispute, Santos was denied access to most of its NEC-DWN-2004/2 block and was finally forced to suspend seismic operations there from 10 February 2009.

Mint could not ascertain the status of the NEC-DWN-2004/1 block.

“This is a fit case for excusable delay. The relief to the company is imminent,” said a senior petroleum ministry official, one of the people familiar with the matter.

According to communications between Santos International and India’s petroleum and natural gas ministry, the Union government has decided “there exists excusable delay thereby suspending performance of production sharing contract obligations for this block”.

In a communication from John Chambers, regional manager, South and South-East Asia, Santos International, to D.N. Narasimha Raju, joint secretary in the petroleum and natural gas ministry, the company has asked for the implementation of the government’s decision.

Mint has reviewed copies of these communications.

The management committee for the block—comprising representatives of the Union government, the directorate general of hydrocarbons (DGH), a body under India’s ministry of petroleum, and Santos—is in favour of the draft agreement, according to the communications.

Mint could not ascertain whether an agreement for suspending the PSC obligations has been signed.

Raju and S.K. Srivastava, the director general of hydrocarbons, did not respond to phone calls or messages left on their cellphones.

Chambers could not be reached since he was away on a vacation.

Bangladesh has already taken recourse to arbitration to settle the dispute by taking it up with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Analysts say India is due to submit a memorandum to the UN body by May 2012 regarding its contentions with Bangladesh.

India’s plan to leverage the January visit of Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to India to upgrade the bilateral relationship and resolve the issue was not successful.

“We had requested MEA (ministry of external affairs) to take up the issue with the Bangladesh government, but there has been no success,” said another petroleum ministry official, who also requested anonymity.

Vishnu Prakash, spokesman for the Indian foreign ministry, and Enamul Hoque Chowdhry, minister, press, at the Bangladesh high commission in New Delhi, did not reply to emails.

“The fallout of the ongoing impasse is on the oil and gas exploration efforts in the contentious areas of the Bay of Bengal. The production sharing contracts issued by the government of India to Santos are impacted, as nearly 50% of the demarcated blocks are claimed by Bangladesh,” said Gokul Chaudhri, partner at audit and consulting firm BMR Advisors.

He said it was logical that, under the circumstances, the operators cannot be held responsible for not completing the work in time as committed under the production-sharing contract.

“Hence, the government of India should release the operators from the obligations by accepting force majeure (a provision freeing a party from an obligation because of circumstances beyond its control) as provided in the production-sharing contracts,” he said, adding that such a suspension could continue until the territorial limits are settled between the countries.

Territorial tangle casts shadow on Santos? Bay of Bengal block - Home - livemint.com
Thanks for the post. It shows how India is trying to steal our oil and gas in the BoB. Our navy did good job by forcing the australian survey ship to abandon the bad effort.

Indian stealing attitude provides a good reason for us to strenghtehen our navy. This is why BD govt is franticall looking for 3 new frigates and 4 to 6 new submarines. 3 years ago, it was Burmese encroachment, and today, it is Indian one. Good job BD govt and navy!
 
So, what happens next when you put blockade on ships bound for BD? Are these ships owned by BD companies. Most of these ocean-going ships are owned by other countries. So, how these countries will react? Please think also of this repercussion.

Moreover, we will be buying submarines so that such a situation does not arise. This is as simple as that. We are not to depend upon other countries' deceitful good behaviour.

For one, if a formal declaration of war happens, then most ships would like to stay outside the war zone for obvious reasons that these ships are not owned by govts but private companies who would not like to place their property or personnel in harms way. So nothing much will happen other than they companies lodging a strong protest with Ministry of External affairs India. The govt can't so much either than lodge a protest or call a session in UN, which is a long drawn process.

I agree with you that subs does provides a strike capability and if war commences than subs will be the first to be launched into the seas 'cause they won't like being caught in shallow waters :)

But then obviously we will have the P-8i hunting for these subs and since BD airforce will not have air superiority over BoB airspace there is not much they can do to stop these anti-sub sorties. So just having them won't ensure a blockade won't happen, it will be an annoyance for IN at best. Unless, BD also acquire sea launched harpoons for them too, in which case these subs will become a priority target and IN would like to launch sorties to take them out.

And... This is precisely the reason, I wrote a comment before that as a 'sovereign nation' if BD want's to buy subs, they can, if they feel more secure and if subs fulfill their defense needs, they should go for it.

Besides, I feel other people (Indians and BDs both) are plain overreacting over something which is a good 10-12 years away :)
 
the way our indian friend reacting to this purchase of submarine which is not going to be scorpion/type 224/marlin but just few 209 i just wonder what would happens if we declare that we are going to buy scorpion ? may be the indian member would have a mild heart attack.
reaction shows us that we need to think about our big neighbor who is not ready to live peacefully with its small neighbor .he can not digest any country getting some muscle which is nothing comparing to its big jaw.we are a peaceful country wants to live around our boundary and not to make threat to anyone what we are buying is to protect us from any aggregation.
 
some option bangladesh can utilize :
SSK Andrasta Coastal Submarine, France
2-andrasta.jpg

The Andrasta design draws heavily on the proven configuration and systems adopted for the Scorpene submarine.
The 19-crew, 855t displacement, Andrasta submarine, announced by DCNS in September 2008, has been optimised for littoral operations in coastal waters, but remains a formidable adversary in blue (deep) water environments.

The submarine is named after Andrasta, the Celtic goddess of war whose name means victorious or invincible. The prime contractor, DCNS, considers that the Andrasta has no equivalent for littoral missions in terms of manoeuvrability and stealth.

The submarine design draws heavily on the proven configuration and systems adopted for the Scorpene family and has about 70% commonality with the Scorpene. The Andrasta surfaced displacement is 855t compared to the 1,790t to 2,010t displacement of the Scorpene. The submarine incorporates the same level of safety, stealth signatures and systems integration as the Scorpene.
"The SSK Andrasta submarine has been optimised for littoral operations in coastal waters."

The Andrasta can lurk on the seabed in coastal waters where the water depth is typically less than 100m. At a speed of 4kt the range is more than 3,000nm and more than 1,800nm at 8kt.

Andrasta is being presented to world markets at about half the cost of attack submarines such as the Scorpene. The Andrasta design can incorporate extra performance options which are not mandatory for littoral missions but which customer countries may require, without degrading the submarine’s efficiency.

For specials operations, the Andrasta has a deployment airlock for combat swimmers, electronic warfare and intelligence gathering systems.
Andrasta missions

The submarine missions cover anti-submarine warfare, anti-surface warfare, intelligence gathering, special operations, offensive mine mooring, covert tracking of illegal activities, single ship operations and cooperative operations with other ships or maritime assets. The Andrasta is equipped to communicate easily with other assets and command centres.

Design

The double-hull structure gives good survivability and surfaced sea keeping characteristics. An X-configuration rudder has independently operated surfaces for a high level of manoeuvrability including a small turning radius.

The small hull helps contribute to the submarine's stealth characteristics. The submarine has a diving depth to 200m and a submerged endurance of five days. It also has a very low acoustic and visual signature.

Command and control

The Andrasta is equipped with the DCNS SUBTICS submarine tactical integrated combat system. SUBTICS systems are in operation aboard Scorpene submarines of the Chilean Navy and Agosta 90B submarines for the Pakistan Navy

The combat management system is integrated with the sonar and other sensors (optical, optronic, electronic support measures, radar) and carries out the location and identification of vessels, target tracking, tactical analysis, decision making, action management, exchange of tactical data via datalinks, the control of weapons systems and engagement of targets.
"Andrasta's double-hull structure gives good survivability and surfaced sea keeping characteristics."

The submarine is equipped with high-precision navigation and surveillance systems for operation in littoral waters. Surveillance missions can be successfully carried out while the submarine is at rest on the seabed.

Weapons

The Andrasta can accommodate new-generation heavyweight torpedoes such as the Black Shark, anti-ship missiles such as the Exocet SM-39 and a mine-laying system. The torpedoes and missiles are stored and carried in the six forward torpedo tubes. The small hull size of the submarine does not accommodate torpedoes and missiles for reload.

Special forces

The Andrasta submarines, which can carry two passengers plus a team of six divers, can be deployed for special forces missions which gives the Andrasta an enhanced attack capability comparable to larger submarines. The submarine is fitted with a lock-out / lock-in chamber for combat swimmers.

Performance:
Diving Depth Over 200m
Maximum Submerged Speed Over 15kt
High-Speed Autonomy 3 hours
Submerged Endurance Up to 5 days
Transit Range Over 3,000nm
Typical Mission Duration 5 days

Ula class submarine

800px-The_Norwegian_ULA_class_submarine_Utstein_(KNM_302)_participates_in_NATO_exercise_Odin-One.jpg


Ula class submarine
Class overview
Builders: Kongsberg/Nordseewerke
Operators: Royal Norwegian Navy
Preceded by: Kobben class
Built: 1987–1992
In commission: April 1989[1] – present
Completed: 6
General characteristics
Type: Submarine
Displacement: Surface: 1,040 tons
Submerged: 1,150 tons
Length: 59 m (194 ft)
Beam: 5.4 m (18 ft)
Draft: 4.6 m (15 ft)
Propulsion: Diesel-electric
2 MTU 16V 396 diesel engines (970kW each)
1 electric motor, 6,000 shp
Speed: Surface: 11 kn (20 km/h)
Submerged: 23 kn (43 km/h)
Range: 5,000 miles at 8 knots (15 km/h)
Test depth: 200+m (700+ft)[2]
Complement: Approx. 18–21[citation needed]
Sensors and
processing systems: Radar: Kelvin Hughes 1007 Surface Search
Sonar: Atlas Elektronik CSU83
Thomson Sintra flank array
Armament: 8 bow 21" torpedo tubes
14 Atlas Elektronik DM2A3 torpedoes
Notes: Unit cost: 700,000,000 NOK[1]


The Ula class is a Norwegian submarine type which was assembled in Germany in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The class, consisting of 6 vessels, is currently the only submarine type in service with the Royal Norwegian Navy.Contents
History

The ordering of a new Norwegian submersible design stemmed from a 1972 decision to modernize the Royal Norwegian Navy (RNoN) submarine flotilla, which then consisted of the aging Kobben class submarines.

The construction of the vessels was an international project. The combat systems were made in Norway by Kongsberg, the attack sonar is German and the flank sonars French. The hull sections were produced in Norway, and then assembled in Germany by Thyssen Nordseewerke, Emden. In Germany, the design is known as the U-Boot-Klasse 210.

When commissioned Ulas were the first Norwegian submarines with bedding for the entire crew and a shower.
The Ula class submarines are among the most silent and maneuverable submarines in the world. This, in combination with the relatively small size, makes them difficult to detect from surface vessels and ideal for operations in coastal areas. The Ula class submarines are regarded as both the most effective and cost-effective weapons in the RNoN.

Missions

In recent years, several submarines of the Ula class have been deployed in the Mediterranean Sea in support of the NATO Operation Active Endeavour, where their intelligence gathering ability have surpassed expectations. Their operational availability proved to be the highest of all the ships taking part in the operation. However, this deployment has highlighted the need to make the Ula class submarines better able to keep temperatures from getting too high for the crew when operating in warm waters. As a response to this, the HNoMS Ula have now been "tropicalized" by installing new cooling systems, and two more of the class are due for "tropicalization".

Future plans

During the period 2006-2008, the Ula class will be modernized. Most notably, the submarines will get new communication equipment (Link 11), new electronic warfare support measures and a periscope upgrade. In May 2008, the contract for new sonars was signed. The first submarine will have new sonar in 21 months time, and the last in 52 months (mil.no article). The Ula class will probably be kept in service until 2020.
Vessels

Six submarines were delivered (1989-1992) to the RNoN. All of them have their home base at Haakonsvern in Bergen. The boats are all named after places in Norway, with the exception of the S305, Uredd, which literally translates to "unafraid" or "unfearing." The ship prefix for RNoN vessels is KNM (Kongelig Norsk Marine, Royal Norwegian Navy) in Norwegian, HNoMS (His Norwegian Majesty's Ship) in English
 
the way our indian friend reacting to this purchase of submarine which is not going to be scorpion/type 224/marlin but just few 209 i just wonder what would happens if we declare that we are going to buy scorpion ? may be the indian member would have a mild heart attack.
reaction shows us that we need to think about our big neighbor who is not ready to live peacefully with its small neighbor .he can not digest any country getting some muscle which is nothing comparing to its big jaw.we are a peaceful country wants to live around our boundary and not to make threat to anyone what we are buying is to protect us from any aggregation.

Are you implying that the 0.0001% of Indian population which posts on these forums are the voice of the rest of the country and how they feel about their neighbors? I am quite sure that if I were to visit BD or if you were to visit India or the both of us were to visit Pakistan, we would not face the hostility, suspicion and propaganda as we witness on these forums or in the general media.

So don't form impressions about a country based on your interaction on a defense forum, I have met plenty fine BDs and PAKs in the US and they are ordinary people like me and probably face the same insecurities and worries that I do.

So peace Bro! :)
 
Thats a Good Decision , Bangladesh Navy Must Be ready to tackle any Threat Put forth them, and Especially in the Seas where Danger is always Lurking around, what could be better than a Submarine!! Congratulations!!
 
So don't form impressions about a country based on your interaction on a defense forum, I have met plenty fine BDs and PAKs in the US and they are ordinary people like me and probably face the same insecurities and worries that I do.

So peace Bro! :)

I think I will not be able to misbehave with any Indian or else in real life. We are doing it here because we are discussing about our own interests, national-affairs and sensitive issues.
 
I think I will not be able to misbehave with any Indian or else in real life. We are doing it here because we are discussing about our own interests, national-affairs and sensitive issues.

I agree!! The relative obscurity this platform (Internet) provides allows us to be as rude and inconsiderate as we would like towards others. While in real life we would never mention how we feel towards others or their countries.

Being in the software industry, I work with Pakistanis, we go out and have beer, discuss cars and girls but never bring about the subject about our respective nations. Cause none of us want to sound even remote rude to the other :)

My family had to move to India during the partition, my family was influential and used to live in a huge mansion, we were reduced to living in a single room with seven people. But I am sure someone must have faced the same tragedy moving to Pakistan. I bear no ill will towards PAK and even now my grand mother fondly remembers the time spent in Lahore.

My point being, our relative obscurity brings the worse in us to the forefront 'cause we know there are no relative repercussions...
 
Back
Top Bottom