Indian Navy News & Discussions

[Mig-29]

Gearbox problems delay the Car Nicobar class Fast Attack Craft

By Ajai Shukla

India’s coastal and maritime problems are growing faster than the fleet of ships needed to deal with them. Here in Kolkata, at Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers (GRSE), two newly built patrol ships have lain for two months, waiting for collection by the Indian Navy. But the admirals insist: first meet the navy’s performance requirements. Meanwhile, Defence Minister AK Antony travels on Thursday to the Maldives to extend India’s maritime security network to that island nation. And an unauthorised North Korean freighter, espied lurking in Indian waters off the Andaman Islands early this month, underscores the urgent need for more patrolling

GRSE, India’s second-biggest defence shipyard, got a Rs 514 crore order in March 2006 to build ten Water Jet propelled Fast Attack Craft (WJ-FACs), whose high-tech German MTU water-jet engines could propel these sleek vessels through the water at 65 kmph, tackling threats along the coastline for up to 3600 km without refuelling. After the Mumbai attacks on 26/11, the need for such craft was felt more than ever. The first two WJ-FACs --- INS Car Nicobar and INS Chetlat --- were press-ganged into the navy in February 09, even though they were restricted to just 50 kmph by flawed gearboxes supplied by Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Limited (KPCL).

But now the navy has refused to accept the next two WJ-FACs --- INS Kora Divh and INS Cheriyam --- until KPCL rectifies the transmission systems that it had developed and supplied to GRSE. Rear Admiral KC Sekhar, GRSE Chairman and Managing Director, told Business Standard that KPCL had already supplied 30 defective gearboxes (three go into each WJ-FAC), but had now taken some back to diagnose and resolve the problem.

“I expect three gearboxes to come back very shortly”, said Admiral Sekhar, “And we have a commitment from KPCL that they will be responsible for their product. Any additional expenditure incurred will be their responsibility.” KPCL is unlikely, however, to pick up the tab for the growing expenditure on trials. And GRSE supervisors say the morale of workers --- who are pushed hard to get vessels ready for on-time delivery --- suffers when buyers reject a completed ship.

KPCL has not responded to repeated requests for their comments. As coastal security grows in importance, the Indian Navy and the Coast Guard are acquiring greater numbers of patrol vessels and attack craft. These smaller, lightly armed vessels, like the Car Nicobar Class WJ-FACs, are lighter, cheaper, easier to build, and better suited for coastal surveillance than the capital warships --- corvettes, frigates and destroyers --- that are designed and built for war.

Vice Admiral Arun Kumar Singh, who until recently commanded the Eastern Naval Command in Vishakhapatnam points to the growing importance of coastal security: “The term ‘a balanced Navy’ has now acquired a different meaning altogether; a ‘brown water’ coastal force is as relevant and essential as a ‘blue water’ force. In recent years, the navy has built 7 Sukanya Class offshore patrol vessels (OPVs), one of which was sold to Sri Lanka; 4 Trinkat Class fast patrol vessels (FPVs), one of which was given to Maldives and one to Seychelles; 7 Super Dvora Mark II class FPVs; and 4 Bangaram Class fast attack craft (FACs). In addition, four Saryu Class offshore patrol vessels are being built by Goa Shipyard Limited.

The 10 Car Nicobar class WJ-FACs, with their ability to react quickly at high speeds, are purpose designed for coastal security. These 50 metres long, 600-tonne vessels are crewed by 35 sailors. Each WJ-FAC is armed with a 30 mm CRN-91 automatic cannon that can engage targets up to 3 kilometers away.

ASIAN DEFENCE: Gearbox problems delay the Car Nicobar class Fast Attack Craft

 

[Screaming Skull]

Eight is the number of N-LCA that INS Vikramaditya should get (as far as I know), not sure about how many the Vikrant class carrier will get, but the fact that IN seems to take the option for more Mig 29Ks, means that the number will be similar and of course there will be some in reserve, or for training. How should N-LCA replace Sea Harrier on INS Viraat? They are not VTOL capable and the Viraat don't has an arrested landing system, very doubtful!

When did I say that the N-LCA will replace the Sea Harriers ‘on Viraat’? Both the Viraat and the Harriers will retire in 8-10 years time. By replacing the Harriers I meant, filling in the void created by them, just to make up the numbers of the naval air arm. We will have 3 carriers by 2017 (assuming the present Viraat retires by then), and all of them will be capable of carrying N-LCAs. So, 40 N-LCAs is a decent number for three carriers. Also, there are roomers that the navy is planning to build another carrier after inducting the 2 Vikrant class carriers. Btw, I think the Vikrant class carriers, with a displacement of 40k tons and capacity of 30 aircrafts will carry more than 8 N-LCAs each (maybe 10 or more).

I agree with you in avionics, but come on mate the landing gear?
I doubt that we are able to include more than avionics and some own weapons in this development, but more is just not realistic. I expect some co-developments maybe on weapon and electronics side but the main parts like airframe (except the double seat config), gears, engine, radar will be the same. But this is another issue that we don't need to discuss here

You think landing gears are easy to make? Think again buddy! Only six countries in the world can make titanium half alloy tubes used for the landing gears of fighter jets. India is one of those countries. For LCA, it was developed by the Nuclear Fuel Complex (NFC) under DAE. Recently there was a report that HAL is going to make the MKIs indigenously, but if you think that Irkut gave ToT for the landing gear or even the tires then you must be kidding yourself. No one gives ToT for such tech.

Anyway, I made that point in response to your assertion that HAL will learn things from the naval FGFA to incorporate into the Naval MCA. To put my point bluntly, HAL will learn ‘thenga’ from the FGFA! While you can get FGFA off the shelf or produce it in the country, you won’t learn anything of significance to build a good naval aircraft in the future. India has to develop tech in house if it wants indigenize the full production cycle and shrug off any dependence on other countries. Full ToT is an absolute myth!

As I told you above the Sea Harriers can't be replaced, by any of this aircafts, because they are not VTOL capable, so having a replacement is not the point. Also IN officially showed interest in F35B which are more expensive than Rafale and Rafale could even win MMRCA, which gives IN the chance to licence produce them too, so I wouldn't rule them out that easy.

I said Rafale is ruled out as a replacement for the N-LCA. Obviously, the Navy won’t operate the 29Ks and the Rafales on the same carrier. However, Rafale or F-35 can replace the Mig-29K in the future and in that sense the Navy is justified in wanting to evaluate these aircrafts as future options.

Without an offense, but I think your assumption that N-LCA is mainly for air defense is wrong! If so, the airwing would look like this, 15 - 20 N-LCA (only single seats, cause for air combats and short missions 2 pilots are not needed) and only a few double seat Mig 29K for the strike role. But it is just the other way around right?
Mig 29K will be the main aircraft in bigger numbers, on both carriers (if not Mig 29K another double engine fighter on Vikrant class), most of them will be single seated and the fact that they was designed for agility and maneuverability, makes them clearly the first choice to defend an expensive carrier group and not the few N-LCAs! The double seated versions will be for training and strikes, which leaves no main role for N-LCA.

My dear friend, understand this- the N-LCA is to the carrier what the LCA is to the air force- an interceptor or a point defence aircraft. In carrier terms, it is meant for ‘fleet air defence’ or simply ‘fleet defence’. But that doesn’t mean that only the N-LCA will be entrusted with this responsibility. Obviously, you don’t expect all 20+ Migs to be away from the carrier for strike missions at any given point of time? The responsibility of ‘fleet defence’ will be shared between the N-LCAs and ‘some’ Migs which will spare the bulk of the Migs to be used for strike missions.
You don’t have to take my word for it. Just read what Admiral Sureesh Mehta said in a recent interview-

In fact, we’ve planned a mix of both the aircraft for the IAC as each has a definitive role to play. As for the LCA programme, the Navy has thrown its weight behind it from the beginning. I was personally responsible for the programme not being dumped midway. I had stated on file that the Navy would like to have this kind of an aircraft. What had initially begun as a naval project turned out to be an Air Force affair along the course.
?I hope she?ll last 30 years and more? : Chief of the Naval Staff - TH-Delhi

To be honest the only role for N-LCA that I see in this configuration (double seat, only in few numbers, enough payload to carry a2a missiles for self defense, some fuel tanks and maybe a pod), are recon, or EW missions. A small aircraft, fast and with low RCS, one pilot and a flight engineer, add a good pod and you have a good fighter for such roles.

Glad to hear that you finally agree that N-LCA is capable of doing something. At least it is a small deviation if not a departure from your earlier stand that the N-LCA is an exercise in futility. Yes it will be used for recon missions apart from its primary role of ‘fleet air defence’. I think by saying that it is only good for recon missions, you are doing way too much injustice to the capabilities of the N-LCA. Heck, even an AJT of the kind of BAE Hawk can carry out recon missions successfully. Why do you need a EJ-200/F-414 powered, cropped delta with- a large flight envelope, an AESA of the kind of Elta 2052, full FBW optimized for the Indian carriers, auto take off ability, an FCS with the highest rating by the IAF test pilots, combined payload capacity equivalent or higher than the Migs/Rafales, best of Russian and Indian armaments………………etc. for merely recon missions? I am astounded!

I think you missunderstand me here! I also said that the maintenance will be cheaper, but a carrier has only a limited payload like you said before and carrying spares, engine parts and different weapons of different fighters will be a logistic problem and would be easier and cheaper they has only one type of aircraft.

Well I can’t buy that argument. You have 30 Migs, you carry spares for say 6 Migs ie for 1/5th of your fleet. Use 20 Mig and 10 N-LCA you need to still carry spares for 1/5th of your fleet ie spares for 4 Migs and 2 N-LCAs. No addition or reduction in weight. And there is no logistics problem in merely carrying spares of different types. So, it is neither easier nor cheaper to operate the same aircraft type. On the contrary, 20Migs+10LCAs will atleast cost less if not anything else.

I would say the cheap costs of N-LCA are not a real point for IN, otherwise they would get them in huge numbers and don't you think? But they are not and getting numbers of expensive Migs and shows even interest in more expensive, but also more capable fighters. So they are ready to pay for a capable main fighter!

‘Huge numbers’ is a relative term. 40 N-LCA is almost double the number of INs current fighter force. So, yes 40 itself is a huge number for the IN. Moreover, you can’t buy something just for the sake of buying. How will the Navy operate more than 40 N-LCAs when there is no capacity? They are getting a number of expensive Migs partly because it was thrust on them as part of the Gorshkov deal and partly because the IN has a totally different role in mind for them. The IN shows interest in even more expensive aircrafts only as another option for 29Ks in the distant future. Neither the induction of 29Ks nor the interest in more expensive aircrafts has anything to do with the N-LCA. They are meant for different roles.

I said it before, there is no real need for N-LCA, neither from a capability point of view, nor because it is cost-effective. I think we only get it to have also an indigenous carrier aircraft.

The benefits to cost ratio of the N-LCA project is far too high. The Navy realizes that and so does the gov. Finally, I will put it this way, if N-LCA was another country’s product then there would be no need for ‘buying’ it and rest I leave to your interpretation.

 

[sancho]

By replacing the Harriers I meant, filling in the void created by them, just to make up the numbers of the naval air arm. We will have 3 carriers by 2017 (assuming the present Viraat retires by then), and all of them will be capable of carrying N-LCAs. So, 40 N-LCAs is a decent number for three carriers. Also, there are roomers that the navy is planning to build another carrier after inducting the 2 Vikrant class carriers. Btw, I think the Vikrant class carriers, with a displacement of 40k tons and capacity of 30 aircrafts will carry more than 8 N-LCAs each (maybe 10 or more).

But the void of the Sea Harriers will not be filled by N-LCA! It was our main carrier aircraft in the past and this role will be taken over by Mig 29K in numbers and roles. If at least the Vikrant class carrier would get more N-LCAs than Migs, I would agree, but it won't and N-LCA will be only a small addition.
Also, this is a part of a new article posted by Ironman (page 2, #29)

We’ll be paying out the Viraat in eight to 10 years’ time, and by when we’ll have two carriers [the IAC and the Vikramaditya]. We are already working on the design of a second indigenous carrier, slightly bigger maybe, to cater for the aircraft we will have in future.

So only 1 Vikrant class carrier, which also means less N-LCAs and they can carry 30 aircrafts including helicopters, possibly 16 Mig 29K (12 single and 4 double seat), 8 N-LCA and 6 helicopter. Do you really think 16 N-LCA (and some in reserve) are worth all the effort?

You think landing gears are easy to make? Think again buddy! Only six countries in the world can make titanium half alloy tubes used for the landing gears of fighter jets. India is one of those countries. For LCA, it was developed by the Nuclear Fuel Complex (NFC) under DAE. Recently there was a report that HAL is going to make the MKIs indigenously, but if you think that Irkut gave ToT for the landing gear or even the tires then you must be kidding yourself. No one gives ToT for such tech.

No, I meant if they will develope the whole airframe anyway, why should we bother with developing just a landing gear for our own?
Isn't it better to take those things from them where they clearly are better (engineering, design, radar and engine develoment) and just add things from fields where we are better (avionics, electronics, computer)? Actually the article you posted comfirms my view!

Later this year, India and Russia would sign a design accord for a fifth generation fighter aircraft they agreed to build jointly in 2007. India would be responsible for the manufacture of composite-material parts of the airframe, avionics and software packages, Mr. Balakrishnan said.

Don't let us think again we can develope everything on our own and need only a minimum of commonality. Let us join and complement them in the development to get a really great fighter for both countries!

My dear friend, understand this- the N-LCA is to the carrier what the LCA is to the air force- an interceptor or a point defence aircraft. In carrier terms, it is meant for ‘fleet air defence’ or simply ‘fleet defence’. But that doesn’t mean that only the N-LCA will be entrusted with this responsibility. Obviously, you don’t expect all 20+ Migs to be away from the carrier for strike missions at any given point of time? The responsibility of ‘fleet defence’ will be shared between the N-LCAs and ‘some’ Migs which will spare the bulk of the Migs to be used for strike missions.

But in IAF it will be send in numbers for interception, can we do it with N-LCA also if there are just a small number of them? Normally you send two fighters for air defense patrole and another 2 in a different direction. But can we send only 2 N-LCAs? No because it wouldn't be a good air defense in such a small number, so we have to send Migs with them just to counter there disadvantages.
Now think about the config I mentioned in my last post! Only 6 Mig 29K(= 8 N-LCA in weight) for strikes and nearly 22 N-LCAs (=16 Mig 29K in weight) mainly for air defense. Wouldn't it totally change the situation? You can send 3 - 4 of them to each direction, would get a way better chance for interceptions (even without Migs) and still got numbers left in reserve. If IN really believes in N-LCA wouldn't they take such an airwing config at least for Vikrant class carrier?

Glad to hear that you finally agree that N-LCA is capable of doing something. At least it is a small deviation if not a departure from your earlier stand that the N-LCA is an exercise in futility...

Come on, I'm not a bad guy! I am not against LCA, actually i think it will be a great addition for IAF (at least the MK2 version) on the lower end, in numbers and specially able to carry enough weapons, or payload! That is the point I try to make you understand, in the situaton on a carrier it is limited by the fact that most of the payload must be fuel. Just to start via ski jump will burn a lot of fuel and in contrast to land missions, they will be always in long range missions.
In IAF LCA is not that limited, that's why it would be better to take fighters on the carriers with more internal fuel, or more weapon stations to carry both, a useful weapon load and fuel.
That all combined makes the N-LCA less capable/useful as a carrier fighter, of course you don't need a double engine fighter for recon missions, but they could do the job at least as good if not better and can do a2a and a2g missions too.

And there is no logistics problem in merely carrying spares of different types. So, it is neither easier nor cheaper to operate the same aircraft type.
Then why are all AF and naval airwings are trying to achive more commonality and less different types of aircraft if it is not easier to handle and cheaper? USN from 4 different types to 2 and soon to 1, USAF from from 3 to hardly 2. Rafale will replace 7 different aircrafts in FAF and FN and so on. In terms of logistics it is always easier to have as much common parts as possible.

We don't have to agree on each other, that's the good thing on discussions, you can talk about things and see different point of views. At the end everybody has to come to their own conclusion
and mine is simply that we should go for a single, capable type of carrier aircraft, or with N-LCA in numbers as the main aircraft and Migs/Rafale, only as an addition. But just a few of them are not worth all the efforts!

 

[sms]

Indian Navy To Buy Ka-31 Helos

New Delhi, Aug 6 (PTI) In a bid to strengthen the Navy's capabilities to detect airborne and surface-based maritime threats, Government has approved the acquisition of five Russian Kamov-31 early warning choppers.

Defence Ministry officials said the Cabinet Committee of Security (CCS) at a meeting on Tuesday gave its approval for procuring these choppers, which can track 30-40 targets on ground and air simultaneously with its airborne electronic warfare radar, mounted on the underbelly of the chopper.

The deal for the five choppers between India and Russia is expected to be signed in the next couple of months, they said.

Navy already has a fleet of nine Ka-31 helicopters, which are deployed on India's only aircraft carrier INS Virat and the Talwar Class Guided Missile frigates of the Navy. They are also operated from Navy's shore based air stations.

fullstory

 

[notting hill]

the thing looks cute rather than scary ..

 

[Beskar]

the thing looks cute rather than scary ..

Attack choppers are designed to look "Scary". The KA-31 would be used in the Indian navy as an airborne early warning helicopter. With a few upgrades, it can also be used for an Anti-ship/submarine role.

 

[ratolz]

@luoshan::


Its already 50 years old. How more they can stretch it?? Moreover refitting also has a limit on this much old carrier.They said it will run smoothly for another 5 years, it doesn't mean only 5 why not 6 or 7. But one thing is sure, it was last refit.

 

[pmukherjee]

India's solitary aircraft carrier INS Viraat will be fully-operational in another two months or so

Buddy, I think that the refit is already complete, Though TOI is giving it another two months:-

"INS Viraat refit complete, gears up for golden jubilee"
INS Viraat refit complete, gears up for golden jubilee- Politics/Nation-News-The Economic Times

It's an old warhorse, 50 years old to be exact. But after a life-extending refit, India's lone aircraft carrier INS Viraat is back to show it still has enough steam to give the jitters to the enemy.
INS Viraat gears up for golden jubilee

August 20, 2009: India's sole aircraft carrier, the 29,000 ton INS Viraat, has completed a 16 month visit to a shipyard, where it was refurbished and upgraded.
Naval Air: Where There Were None, Now There Is One

 

[pmukherjee]

Ratolz and Loushan

"The INS Viraat was to be retired in 2012, after 53 years service. But now the INS Viraat has had its engine and hull refurbished, and its electronics upgraded, so that it can serve for up to ten years more. That would mean sixty years in service.

Such long service is becoming more common for warships and combat aircraft (like the B-52, Tu-142 and P-3). This is all possible because of advances in engineering and equipment design over the past half century. There are now more reliable techniques and sensors for evaluating the condition of old ships and aircraft. There are new materials and equipment to replace the older stuff and keep the old warriors serving for decade after decade."

Naval Air: Where There Were None, Now There Is One

 

[ratolz]

@pmukherjee:: Well, i too said same that it doesn't mean that ship will serve only five years, so it can go easily up to10 ( As we in India always do,taking full advantage of anything)

 

[pmukherjee]

@pmukherjee:: Well, i too said same that it doesn't mean that ship will serve only five years, so it can go easily up to10 ( As we in India always do,taking full advantage of anything)

I agree, Ratolz. The refurbishings are good for another 10 years.

 

[sancho]

to both sreeming skull &sancho,we can go on discussing what is better for IN,what would b the best a/c in terms of capabilities,etc..BUT the fact is that there is an a/c that has been selected for IN which can b debated on its so called disabilities & its so called abilities,but there is no use of it ,is there.Both the MIG & lca has been selected for certain roles which acording to IN suits the role to b played but we bassed on external knowledge,knowledge bassed on the infos from different external sources r discussing the same suitability of its role,i mean its ok to discuss but we r surely not comming to any terms or conclusion,r we?..

But we also know that not every procurement will be made by the best capabilities, or what suits the best. In many cases there are also political, or economical influences.
As I said before, I only wish that our carriers are as capable as possible and that LCA will be inducted in IAF soon. We can discuss and share infos and opinions, but at the end everybody has his own conclusion.

 

[sancho]

Viraat refit done, but where are the jets?

As it is, India solitary aircraft carrier, the 50-year-old INS Viraat, is being flogged to ensure it can operate for another five years. To make matters worse, Navy is fast running out of fighter jets to operate from its deck. This is just another example of how the utter lack of long-term strategic planning and execution continues to be a bane for India, which harbours notions of being a major player on the global stage.

The crash of another Sea Harrier jump-jet off Goa on Friday, which killed its pilot, means Navy is left with barely eight single-seater fighters and three twin-seater trainers. Beginning 1983, Navy had inducted around 30 Sea Harriers, which take off from the angled ski-jump on INS Viraat and land vertically on its deck. But it has lost over half of them in accidents. The remaining have undergone a "limited upgrade'' under a Rs 477-crore project, which includes Israeli Elta EL/M-2032 multi-mode fire control radar and Derby beyond visual range air-to-air missiles.

The latest crash comes at a time when the 28,000-tonne INS Viraat is finally getting ready to become operational again after an 18-month extensive refit to boost its longevity as well as weapon and sensor packages, as reported earlier. "A carrier without fighters is like a tiger without teeth,'' said a senior officer. Incidentally, as per earlier plans, both INS Viraat and its Sea Harriers were to be junked by this time. But the plans were revised since the Navy wanted two fully-operational "carrier battle groups'' (CBGs), with their own complements of fighters, by 2009 to project force as well as act as a "stabilising influence'' in the entire Indian Ocean and beyond.

CBGs or "carrier strike groups'', with a complement of guided-missile destroyers, multi-purpose frigates, attack submarines and tankers, after all project power like nothing else. The US, for instance, has 12 CBGs deployed around the globe as a crucial ingredient of its power projection policy. But repeated failures of successive Indian governments to take timely decisions has put paid to all such plans. For one, the refurbished 44,570-tonne Admiral Gorshkov, undergoing a refit at the Sevmash Shipyard in North Russia, will be available to the Navy only by 2013 at the earliest now.

For another, the 40,000-tonne indigenous aircraft carrier (IAC) being built at Cochin Shipyard, will be ready only by 2015-2016 after meandering through political and bureaucratic apathy for several years. Navy, of course, will soon start getting the 16 MiG-29Ks contracted in the original $1.5-billion Gorshkov package deal signed with Russia in January 2004, under which the carrier refit cost was pegged at $974 million.

India and Russia, however, are still enmeshed in renegotiating Gorshkov's final refit cost, with Moscow demanding as much as $2.9 billion and India keen on shelling out around $2.2 billion. The acquisition of another 29 MiG-29Ks for around Rs 5,380 crore is also on the cards, especially since both Gorshkov and IAC will require these fighters when they are ready to enter service.

http://theasiandefence.blogspot.com/2009/08/viraat-refit-done-but-where-are-jets.html

 

[ratolz]

NEW DELHI: The Navy has grounded the entire Sea Harrier fighter jet fleet in the backdrop of one of the aircraft crashing off Goa last week,

rendering its lone aircraft carrier INS Viraat without its aerial firepower.

"The Sea Harriers have been grounded following the crash that left a fighter pilot dead," Navy officials said here on Tuesday.

With the grounding of the 10 Sea Harrier jump jets, INS Viraat, which got afloat at the Cochin Shipyard's dry dock after a 18-month refit a fortnight ago, may have to sail to Gulf of Aden next month without its fighter jets.

"We cannot operate the aircraft till the Board of Inquiry is complete and the reasons for the crash is known. The problems identified by the probe needs to be rectified before the jump jets are airborne again," officials said.

And, the probe could take a long while as the aircraft does not have a flight data recorder and the wreckage needed to be examined minutely to arrive at the reasons for the mishap, they said.

Following a series of crashes since induction, the Navy is now left with just 10 Sea Harriers of the over 20 it had bought in mid-1980s.


Navy grounds Sea Harrier fleet - India - NEWS - The Times of India

 

[AnGrz_Z_K_Jailer]

Shipyard takeover underlines govt's defence urgency

By Niladri Bhattacharya
KOLKATA (Reuters) - India's Defence Ministry will take over a commercial shipyard to build military vessels for its navy, the junior defence minister said on Tuesday in a move underlining a new urgency in upgrading defence capabilities.

The Hindustan Shipyard is strategically located in Visakhapatnam, where the government intends to build frigates, destroyers and submarines for the navy from later this year.

"Hindustan Shipyard is being taken over by the Ministry of Defence," Pallam Raju, the junior defence minister, said in Kolkata, capital of the eastern state of West Bengal.

"There will be suitable investments regarding alterations and modernisation of the shipyard, suiting the requirement of the Indian Navy," Raju told reporters in the biggest commercial city in the region.

The exact capacity of the Hindustan Shipyard was not immediately clear, but India wants to build 100 warships over the next 10 years and phase out old vessels.

Experts said the takeover would help India improve its ageing naval fleet.

"It signifies our indigenous capabilities and the fact that the navy needs more ships," said Commander P.V.S. Satish, a naval officer.

Last month, India launched its first nuclear-powered submarine capable of firing ballistic missiles and has plans to induct two aircraft carriers, including one from Russia.

Military ships are currently built in three shipyards, but the government decided to take over the Hindustan Shipyard to speed up defence modernisation, defence officials said.

The Defence Ministry would upgrade other existing shipyards and take over smaller ones to help speed up plans to build more military vessels and submarines, defence officials said.

India is one of the world's biggest arms importers. The government plans to spend more than $30 billion over the next five years to upgrade its largely Soviet-era arsenal to counter potential threats from Pakistan and China.