Indian Defence

Indian Defence

a forum dedicated to the defence analysts of india
 
HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistUsergroupsRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 which deisel SSK should india choose

View previous topic View next topic Go down 

which diesel ssk should india choose ????
Amur 1650 ( russia )
63%
 63% [ 5 ]
A-26 kocums ( sweden)
25%
 25% [ 2 ]
U-214 HDW ( germany )
0%
 0% [ 0 ]
Marlin Dcns ( France )
0%
 0% [ 0 ]
S-80 navantia ( spain )
0%
 0% [ 0 ]
S-1000 ( Italy )
12%
 12% [ 1 ]
Total Votes : 8
 

AuthorMessage
Admin
Admin
avatar

Posts : 41
Join date : 2009-12-08

PostSubject: which deisel SSK should india choose   Mon Dec 06, 2010 1:08 pm

PLease discuss which is the best Diesel SSK option for india......


Question
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://indiandefence.forumotion.com
indian
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
avatar

Posts : 23
Join date : 2009-12-12

PostSubject: Amur-1650   Mon Dec 06, 2010 6:29 pm

i strongly back the Amur-1650 of russia , it is without doubt the quitest diesel submarine in the world

i found a video of Amur in youtube i think you guys will like it



just check it out



study farao
Back to top Go down
View user profile
mao
fresh
fresh
avatar

Posts : 3
Join date : 2010-12-05
Location : beijing

PostSubject: hmmm.......   Mon Dec 06, 2010 6:47 pm

i just hope that india opts for the spanish s-80 or italian s-1000

because both u-214 & amur will be dangerous for china

s-80 & s-1000 are not even equal to our yuhan class ssks

cheers
Back to top Go down
View user profile
pakistani
fresh
fresh
avatar

Posts : 6
Join date : 2009-12-15

PostSubject: no to u-214   Fri Dec 10, 2010 2:38 pm

i agree with brother mao totally as long as india does not choose u-214 it's all right for both pakistan & china....

Amur-1650 is a huge threat so is A-26, but i somehow feel that uncle sam will tell sweden not to offer the A-26 as for the amur, india-russia relations are not what they used to be

so it boils down to S-80 which we know is not even a proper submarine & the s-1000 of italy ....neither will be of any danger to pakistan cheers Very Happy Razz
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Jaydeep
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
avatar

Posts : 37
Join date : 2010-12-04

PostSubject: Re: which deisel SSK should india choose   Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:42 am

they will be surely amurs!!
cheers for indo-rus!! proud friend
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Jaydeep
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
avatar

Posts : 37
Join date : 2010-12-04

PostSubject: @ mao   Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:45 am

how can you compare something which has not joined yet with some other product?? because any defence equipp which we sign undergoes heavy modification before entering into our defence forces(rather it happens with every country, original package is always modified), so who knows what they will look like???
Back to top Go down
View user profile
sameep99
fresh
fresh
avatar

Posts : 9
Join date : 2010-12-17
Age : 31
Location : Lucknow

PostSubject: Re: which deisel SSK should india choose   Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:43 pm

I although opted for s-1000 only for the reason that technology transfer would be easy and home manufacture will lead to better results, but technically AMUR1650 are best as they are quite, have got a big array of weapons, the torpedo launch tubes can be used with different torpedo sizes and russian engineering is always simple and effective with which Indian submariners are familiar as they have been operating on Kilo class subs.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
JineshJK
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
avatar

Posts : 24
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 28
Location : Keralam

PostSubject: Amur 1650..   Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:41 am

Definitely Amur1650..
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.jineshjkviews.blogspot.com
aayush
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant


Posts : 23
Join date : 2011-03-13

PostSubject: Re: which deisel SSK should india choose   Sat May 28, 2011 2:06 am

SOME NEWS ABOUT SUBMARINES ...........
_________________________________________________________________________

Australia Defence -
Saving Billions on Naval Defence :
Air Defence Destroyer HMS Coventry sinks after hit by two 1,000 lb bombs during the Falklands War (UK MOD)

"Surface warships and transport vessels are highly vulnerable - and susceptible - to air and missile attacks. This ugly reality has been demonstrated repeatedly since the early 1940s, but the message seems to be forgotten with remarkable regularity."Carlo Kopp, Air Power Australia. (Warship Vulnerability)

Scrapping the Frigates :
HMAS Farncomb destroys HMAS Torrens from over the horizon with one torpedo.(Wikipedia).

Despite Billions being spent on upgrades, the existing Frigates can not ethically be deployed to any serious conflict due to their extreme vulnerability. Some of the newer Frigates are still useful in maritime policing and fisheries protection roles and should be transferred to a new Australian Coast Guard. Older frigates and the elderly Kanimbla Class vessels should be decommissioned.

Expensive and futile attempts to improve the survivability of these vessels in the face of swarms of ever more sophisticated anti-ship weapons should be abandoned.


Cancelling the Destroyers & Corvettes :


The three proposed Hobart Class Air Warfare Destroyers are primarily for protecting ADF units invading other countries. While these vessels can provide some air-defence it is not clear how they (or any other surface combatant) can defend against sustained attack from submarine, air and shore launched anti-ship weapons. Newer warship designs (such as the new $US2.8 Billion Zumwalt Class Destroyers) would seem to be more viable but it is hard to see them being more cost-effective than equivalent spending on submarines.


In May 2009 it was announced that a further eight destroyers would be built, along with 14 new Corvettes (read frigates).

Off-The-Shelf SubmarinesLabor's $100 billion defence plan has Australia building 12 new long range submarines over two decades to replace the current six Collins Class for a staggering $2 billion each.

Huge savings in time and money can be achieved by buying off-the-shelf diesel electric submarines for self -defence.

Rubin Submarines :
- Saving $6 Billion Plus
The Amur 1650 submarine. Click to enlarge. (Image: Rubin CDB non-nuclear submarines.)

Five or Six state-of-the-art Rubin diesel-electric submarines could be purchased for about the same price as one Air Warfare Destroyer and provide much more effective and survivable defensive capacity. (See articles on the right of this page documenting Rubin sub sales. See also Wikipedia entry on Kilos.)

'Amur' class submarine variants available for purchase. This needs a crew of just 35 .

"The principle feature of 'Amur' class submarine is the capability of striking salvo missile blows at different targets. The sonar signature level of the submarines of this class is several times less in comparison with 'Kilo' class submarines which are considered at present the most silent in the world. The provision is made for the outfitting of the submarines of this class with Air Independent Propulsion on the basis of fuel cells thus permitting to increase considerably the submerged endurance and cruise range. Such plant with the stock of reagents is located in the special compartment-module which can be incorporated into the submarine during construction or in the course of repairs or modernization." - Rubin.

The Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) module allows fully submerged operation for days at a time.

One option is to buy a small number of submarines such as the above to augment the existing Collins Class fleet. Net savings from cancelling the proposed 3 Air Warfare Destroyers and purchasing about six diesel- electric submarines would run to about $6 Billion while significantly boosting Australia's defences.

Ideally CDB Rubin could be persuaded to build a production facility in Australia, or at least build maintenance facilities here.

Note that the range of the Amur 1650 is around 9,500 km while snorkling. Given NewZealand is 2,000 km away this should be entirely adequate for defensive purposes.

Kilo Submarine SafetySafety is paramount for any defence purchase. We view diesel-electric submarines as inherently safer than surface naval vessels as they are hidden from anti-ship missiles.

We know of no accidents involving Kilo, Amur or Lada class Russian submarines.

There are many accidents involving Russian nuclear submarines - which we do not recommend. Here is a list of Russian Submarine Accidents. This list includes only three accidents involving diesel-electric boats. Of these only the ones involving the old (unrelated) Golf-Class ballistic missile submarines were serious. The accidents involving nuclear-powered Rubin submarines seem to have been caused by faults in reactors or torpedoes which were not made by Rubin. (An example is the Kursk disaster, which was caused by a faulty torpedo.)

"The (Kilo) submarine consists of six watertight compartments separated by transverse bulkheads in a pressurised double-hull. This design and the submarine's good reserve buoyancy lead to increased survivability if the submarine is holed, even with one compartment and two adjacent ballast tanks flooded." - Federation of American Scientists on the Rubin Kilo submarine safety.

Kockums Submarines :
HMS Gotland onboard M/V Eide Transporter in San Diego. (Image: Wikipedia.)

Kockums manufacture the Gotland class submarine which features:

Stirling engine air-independent propulsion (AIP) system, which extends their underwater endurance from a few days to about a month.
High shock resistance.
A high degree of automation allowing for a small crew of 24.
However this boat is smaller than the Amur 1650 (above), more expensive and has a shorter range.

Navantia Submarines:
Navantia produce the Scorpene class submarines. These are smaller than the Amur 1650 and about $500 million each.

ASC SubmarinesThe Australian government-owned company ASC eventually built and now maintains the six Collins Class submarines we have now. It is believed that only three Collins Class are currently operational and all are subject to depth limits due to poor construction by ASC. ASC submarines are estimated to cost $36 billion for 12 submarines which are principally designed to attack other countries. See also ASC Future Submarines (PDF).

Nuclear Submarines :
- Not RecommendedNuclear-powered submarines are inherently noisier than diesel-electric submarines as well as being much more expensive. New US Nuclear attack submarines cost over $US2.5 Billion each. The key advantage of nuclear submarines is their range which allows them to attack shipping far from Australia. Thus they are primarily an offensive weapons system. Because of their higher cost and noise profile, nuclear submarines are not a cost-effective defensive asset. Note that Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) systems are available on new non-nuclear submarines. This allows the submarine to remain fully submerged for days or weeks at a time. Note also that modern diesel-electric submarines can recharge their batteries at periscope depth in about half an hour and then run on batteries for over 24 hours. Cancelling the Assault Ships


The proposed Canberra Class Large Amphibious Ships are again primarily for invading other countries. A key feature is the ability to land large numbers of tanks and deploy up to 8 helicopters simultaneously. These vessels are $A1 Billion each so cancelling this project saves $A2 Billion. In addition there is talk of equipping these vessels with the JSF-B which is the jump-jet (VTOL) version of the JSF. This could escalate this cost by $A2 to 3 Billion. It is not at all clear how these vessels could ever be defended from modern anti-ship weaponry.

The Incat Option - Saving $1 Billion
Incat 98m wave piercing catamaran design (Source: INCAT Tasmania).

Smaller wave-piercing catamarans built by Incat Tasmania (above) can be purchased for a fraction of the price of the larger assault ships. Incat ferries would be able to rapidly shift light armoured vehicles and helicopters to regional problem areas and provide timely humanitarian assistance. This can be supplemented by the RAAF's existing air lift capability.

These vessels can travel at up to 75km/h. Their non- magnetic all-aluminium construction, shallow draft and high speed gives them a degree of protection from mines & torpedoes. However, they are still quite vulnerable and should not be used in a conflicts where they are likely to be exposed to missile attack.

A Recovery Assist, Secure Traverse (RAST) system should be fitted to these vessels to allow safe launch and recovery of RAST- equipped helicopters in most sea states. Consideration may also be given to angling the sides of these vessels to reduce radar visibility as per the experimental Sea Shadow.

Air Power Australia Why surface Warships are so vulnerable.

Buy INCAT 7th Mar 2011: Australia should rent or buy INCAT fast catermarans to replace rust bucket Manoora, Kanimbl and Tobruk, says Australian Strategic Policy Institute's Andrew Davies.


ASC subs poor value 19th Feb 2010: "Australia's insistence on maintaining a strong defence industry means it pays vastly more than other nations for its equipment, a study has found."


ASC subs broken 11th Feb 2010: Two of Australia's six trouble-racked Collins class submarines will be out of action for a combined total of at least nine years.


ASC subs to cost $36 billion 30th Oct 2009: Twelve missile-carrying submarines to be built for the navy will cost more than $36 billion, or more than $3 billion each, an expert report has found.


Nuclear Subs? 17th July 2009: Navy League pushes for nuclear subs.


$15 Billion for Subs? 20th Feb 2009: Rudd government announces it wants to spend $15 billion on new submarines - a staggering $2 billion each.


Global Security on Kilos "The Kilo is considered to be to be one of the quietest diesel submarines in the world...China was negotiating with Russia to purchase eight more Kilo-class Project 636 submarines for $US1.6 billion".


Indonesia buys 2 Kilos 5th Sep 2007: Indonesia will acquire two of the most advanced conventional submarines built by Russia, 22 helicopters and 20 tanks for $A1.2 Billion.


Indian Kilos "These boats have been nicknamed 'Black Hole' by NATO for their silent operation".


Amur-1650's @ $M330 each 22nd Feb 2007: Venezuela is reported to be interested in nine submarines type AMUR1650, at a cost of some $3 billion including AIP.

http://www.newaustralia.net/defence_navy.html

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: which deisel SSK should india choose   

Back to top Go down
 
which deisel SSK should india choose
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Help me Choose - R9 Forge irons / Titlest AP 1/2 / TM TP irons
» What Shaft should i choose?
» How do you choose a TV?
» How to choose a putter?
» India Do Not Want Referral System in England Test Series

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Indian Defence :: Navy-
Jump to: