In underwater battle, India 'annihilates' American n-submarine

[faithfulguy]

Precisely the reason I mentioned Lada class or their export version Amur 1650.At 8.2 billion dollar we can get more than 12 of these even after counting 33% extra per sub for TOT.What IN needs to understand is that volume is its own quality.IN is offering almost $1.4 billion per sub.In comparison France got Barracuda class for €1.3 billion and Britain got Astute for £1.2 billion.At the price IN is offering per sub,5 kilo subs could be bought.Lets forget kilo for a sec,at 8.2 bill we can get 16 more Scorpenes at 500 mill per piece.

How about India build a diesel sub from scratch and acquire the skills to build a modern sub. that way, the price per unit would be much cheaper...

 

[The Huskar]

How about India build a diesel sub from scratch and acquire the skills to build a modern sub. that way, the price per unit would be much cheaper...

No need.Why reinvent the wheel when cheaper option are available everywhere and also we already paid an arm and 3/4 of a leg for Scorpene tech.Might as well continue that.
BTW Thanks for the concern

 

[jaiind]

No it didn't and your own Navy freely admitted the hallmarks of an accident. His reply has nothing to do with India and yet you sunk your post so low, even mocking dead sailors. Pathetic.

Here are the details from firstly Commodore KS Subra Manian;

At that time, I put down the cause of the GHAZI’s sinking as a case of internal explosion due to her own mines blowing up or due to hydrogen. Looking back now after the lapse of so many years, it seems to me that the cause of her blowing up was most probably a hydrogen explosion. I base this conclusion on the fact that the hull had blown outwards near the mid section of the submarine and not right forward near the torpedo tubes.

Here is the commentary from Commander Shafi Sayad;

“In my view, the likely cause of the explosion which led to the sinking of the GHAZI appears to be hydrogen accumulation, which takes place during normal charging and discharging of submarine batteries. A submarine of the displacement of GHAZI would have something like 350 tonnes of battery.

“I rule out the explosion being caused by an external mine because the intensity of the explosion was such that the entire length of the submarine was affected internally. There was no external damage to the submarine casing or the conning tower.

i never and didnt mocked any deaths of any one on forum.
From Commander Dhingra, the deep diver from NISTAR

“I have no doubt that the hull was blown outwards. I think it was due to an explosion from within the submarine. But I cannot say for sure whether it is on account of hydrogen from the batteries or from some other kind of explosion inside the compartments.”


Commodore KP Mathew

“If GHAZI had been damaged from an external explosion, the damage would have been all internal and not of the kind which I saw, of the area totally split and all ripped apart. This can only happen from an explosion taking place next to the damaged portions. This leads to the conclusion that it could only have been an internal explosion that caused the damage to the GHAZI the way it did”.




Read more at:
1971 War: The Sinking of the Ghazi » Indian Defence Review | Page 2

 

[Pak_Sher]

In real battle if India was to destroy a US Nuclear Submarine then India will get a massive retaliatory response from the US Armed Forces.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

Nothing to boast of. I suspect the Americans got what they wanted.

In real battle if India was to destroy a US Nuclear Submarine then India will get a massive retaliatory response from the US Armed Forces.

USA can destroy IAF or IN. But in reality they cannot invade India nor defeat us. One cannot simply invade a nation of 3.2 sq million miles with 125 crore population.

 

[Mrc]

Nothing to boast of. I suspect the Americans got what they wanted.



USA can destroy IAF or IN. But in reality they cannot invade India nor defeat us. One cannot simply invade a nation of 3.2 sq million miles with 125 crore population.

Well if history is any thing to go by..... i wont count on that

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

Well if history is any thing to go by..... i wont count on that

These are not the days of East India company. One needs to have a leader of one country on its payroll. The prospect of Indian PM on US payroll is too much unlikely. Particularly not Modi or MMS or Vajpayee or Indira Gandhi.
Rajiv might have been.

 

[raj76]

Well if history is any thing to go by..... i wont count on that

By history u mean not united india but small kingdoms current scenario only fools can compare

 

[ConcealCarry]

LOL a few days ago IAF also annihilated British Air Force..................that is before the actual news came out

 

[Mamsalaphala]

An increible overreaction to a single exercise just like Cope India 2004/5. Would these same members suggest that the IAF should have invested in porcuring more MiG-21 Bisons after a combination of circumstances meant that the MiG-21 Bisons were scoring kills on the USAF's F-15s? I guess the MKI and Rafale purchases are pointless as you could get 1000s of MiG-21s for the same price.

The Kilos are old tech and whilst okay for now, 5-10 years in the future they will be woefully outclassed even agaisnt PLA(N) SSNs. Again, we can't simply think we know better than the professionals whos job it is to come up with such plans simply because we can do a expensive:cheap ratio calculation.

+ SSKs are good when they are close to your shores but simply inadequate for long range patrols, keeping up with your CBG and force projection.

++ I don't see the P-75(I) running its course- more Scorpenes will be procured and perhaps a deal with Russia for some more upgraded Kilos whilst the IN gets to work on their indigenious SSNs.

What overreaction ?

Multitudes of thread on Rafale is not an over reaction, but this genine reported victory in a exercise is ?

Upgraded Kilo are even today a deadly weapons system and can serve for the net 30 years if war capabilities was the only requirement.

Passive sonars are not very effective against quiet SSKs because of the frequent lack of data on the target signature. Active sonars are impeded by the environmental clutter and the inability to reliably check the entire search area. Most of the noise signature of SSKs is in broadband (flow noise over the hull), while SSNs' signature is in narrow band (or tonal).

However reality is CREW COMFORT and Diving depth is the MOST important criteria in this century.

Scorpene -class SSK has a maximum operating depth of about 1,000 feet (214 is 1,400ft)

SSKs are much more capable of searching for and destroying enemy submarines operating in shallow waters, and of defending merchant shipping in coastal areas. They are also better suited to lay mines covertly off approaches to enemy naval bases and ports, and in straits and narrows. SSKs can be used for detection and localization of enemy mines, and for delivery of special-operations teams.

However SSN are more suitable for being part of a Carrier Group and for True Blue Water Navy capability. They have more crew to reduce crew fatigue over extended period and are large enough to be spacious and relatively comfortable.

This exercise showed how vulnerable SSN's are in and around India. They can enter, but might not leave. And that is a wonderful knowledge to have, for Friends and Foes alike.

Yup,the quietest submarine at present in the world is the Gotland class of Sweden.
Gotland-class submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually Type 212A is the quitest submarine in the world. It ash drastically reduced waterborne noise, magnetic, radar, infrared and pressure signature. It has a carefully shaped hull and sail with no straight lines, resulting in low target-echo strength.

212 also has Non Magnetic Hull which NO OTHER Submarine has which makes it harder still to detect.

Gotland are the most manoeuvrable submarine in the world.

 

[PARIKRAMA]

The form of detection or noise levels produced by a submarine or in simple words TKMS claims of 214/212A/216 being of very quiet is actually based on a simple principle of "Endurance versus Acoustic Noise Produced by a submarine versus Transit Speed". A three way analysis

I will quote here from a Anonymous Source who had defined this concept in Pete Coates blog with respect to Australia specifically but does provide a very interesting perspective

It is not the Max speed that matters, it is the transition [transit] speed that is critical for Australia. The batteries of the submarine are consumed by 2 factors: the propulsion load and hotel load (stuff like air conditions, lights, combat systems...etc). The propulsion load is about the square or cubic of the speed. So, if you want to double the speed, you need about 4 times (2X2) or 8 times (2X2X2) of propulsion load.

And so, how does the Type 212/214 achieve that "superior" endurance? Sail at very slow speed (4 to 5 knots), very low crew numbers and a much less power hungry but less capable combat systems (so much less hotel load). It takes 2 weeks to cover 1500km, and [Australian] submarines have to sail nearly 7,000km to reach the operation area. If we do it in German's way, we have to return to base (with 70 days provision as in Collins) before we reach our target.

For the record both Collins subs and Soryus have transit speed of 10-12 Knots, making them have a higher noise imprint then so called quiet TKMS subs but they react faster, reach faster to the area of operations and gives the advantage of manning bigger shorelines.

If we understand that principle a big size N sub with propulsion load, hotel load and a capable combat system (US Combat systems are miles ahead and closest comes Russians) with speed in excess of 30 Knots (N subs reach even 37 knots) hunting and transit speed of at least 10-12 Kns will anyway imply more noise. As compared to AIP based TKMS subs where transit speeds are much lower (4-5 Kn). So,

higher speed == higher propulsion load == higher work of reactors == more steam == more noise produced but advantage is range covered and advantage of speed in engagements plus higher depth in oceanic environment

In Conventional subs, more speed == higher propulsion load == more load on conventional diesel engines == lesser endurance of batteries for conventional sub == frequent surfacing for recharges

Reduced speed == low propulsion load == longer endurance == limited range == low noise

In India's case SSBN having low noise and lower transit speed is fine but with vast coastlines similar to Australia, a sub where we want low noise for staying undetected may be counterproductive for lack of transit speed and implication of longer duration for sector of coverage and patrolling. This concept works well if India deploys say a much larger number of SSKs say 25 or more types each having patrolling zones to handle vast shorelines. With half the numbers, this throws a much bigger challenge in hand to remain undetected yet able to complete the mission/patrolling or A2/AD etc.

This is where economics comes into play where a Kilo EKMS costs say $ 350Mn versus a much modern Scorpene for approx $775 Mn to a higher costing TKMS U boat (in the rannge of a Bn$ or more). India should get beyond 6 Scorpenes at least 4 more and make it 10. But in the same time, having 8-12 more Kilo EKM with modern sub systems locally made at Pipavav is not a bad bet especially with upgraded kilos specifically for littorial warfare. Effectively, We can remove P75I and concentrate on SSBN/SSN projects and let these 25+ SSKs handle India's vast shoreline.

 

[Mamsalaphala]

In India's case SSBN having low noise and lower transit speed is fine but with vast coastlines similar to Australia, a sub where we want low noise for staying undetected may be counterproductive for lack of transit speed and implication of longer duration for sector of coverage and patrolling. This concept works well if India deploys say a much larger number of SSKs say 25 or more types each having patrolling zones to handle vast shorelines. With half the numbers, this throws a much bigger challenge in hand to remain undetected yet able to complete the mission/patrolling or A2/AD etc.

This is where economics comes into play where a Kilo EKMS costs say $ 350Mn versus a much modern Scorpene for approx $775 Mn to a higher costing TKMS U boat (in the rannge of a Bn$ or more). India should get beyond 6 Scorpenes at least 4 more and make it 10. But in the same time, having 8-12 more Kilo EKM with modern sub systems locally made at Pipavav is not a bad bet especially with upgraded kilos specifically for littorial warfare. Effectively, We can remove P75I and concentrate on SSBN/SSN projects and let these 25+ SSKs handle India's vast shoreline.

You are confusing issues, SSBN are required to operate in deep waters and require long endurance if they have to launch missiles across continents.

SSN on the other had is required for its speed since it is required to keep up with a Carrier Group which has an speed of 28-30 Knots. Only an SSN can match those speed and have the endurance to match that of the carrier surface vesselr

Its a misconception that they an be detected by their Thermal signature, they cannot be. Not if they are travelling deep enough, which is how they normally travel.

SSK are for littoral patrolling and Kilos are Amazing for that role. Cheap, silent, deadly and effcient.

But there are two factors that go against them. Primary being Crew Comfort. If you add AIP to them, these vessels are required to remain underwater for upto 60 days without surfacing.

Secondly nowadays there are other means to detect submarines, especially those that travel closer to the surface.

Systems like the P-8I can identify subtle disturbances on or below the ocean's surface that can indicate a sub at depth.

A sub traveling at depth can still broadcast its location. The bulges on the ocean surface made by an object moving underwater, called the Bernoulli hump (red, in the image above), may be detectable from a craft as deep as 1,000 feet. A subs also leave a V-shaped trail (green), known as a Kelvin wake, which can also be detected on the surface.

 

[gslv mk3]

and then they woke up and realised it was just an excercise.......

oh wait.....sory they are still dreaming......

(could not resist, please dont report)

Shut up,idiot

 

[Mamsalaphala]

There is another point that needs to be mentioned.

For a sub to sneak past Magnetic Mines and Anomaly detectors they need to be built using Non Magnetic Steel.

This is done by using Stainless Steel with 16% Nickel. This is the same steel that is used in Type 212 submarine. Its Stainless steel EN 1.3964. This however is FAR more expensive that Steel normally used to build submarines.

That is why the new IN tender for Project 75I is 11 Billion $.

 

[Stag112]

Well if history is any thing to go by..... i wont count on that

We were not united under a nation state (which is a new concept) and no sense of nationalism existed.

Things are very different now. Very very different.

Besides we have trouble controlling this huge nation, foreigners would have no chance