Indian Navy Developments & Discussions

[SwordOfDarkness]

IMEC is not really a practical route considering the long distance ground link which makes it extremely expensive. Why would you want to unload in Dubai and then use a long land route instead of directly unloading in Israeli Eilat and carrying the goods for a short distance on Israeli land? If that route becomes unfeasible, unload in Kuwait which also reduces land distance significantly.

Strategic stability

All other routes are prone to being harassed (and blockaded) like they are right now to a degree.

No one has the balls in ME to attack UAE-Saudi-Jordan. And no one has the access to attack Haifa either.

Safest route, unlike others that can be cut off easily on chokepoints by ragtag non state actors.

 

[SwordOfDarkness]

Is it feasible to keep only nuclear attack submarine and midget submarine in force and retire all conventional submarine

Nope. Midget submarines wont work in blue waters and we havent gotten a good nuclear attack sub yet. Better to use for training et cetra

Navies tend to move to a higher nuclear ratio with increased funding, so that might happen when ours increases too.

 

[Corvus Splendens]

 

[Samej Jangir]

Strategic stability

All other routes are prone to being harassed (and blockaded) like they are right now to a degree.

No one has the balls in ME to attack UAE-Saudi-Jordan. And no one has the access to attack Haifa either.

Safest route, unlike others that can be cut off easily on chokepoints by ragtag non state actors.

If there is a major escalation in Israel, then even KSA, UAE will blockade that route. It has already happened in 1973. Also, as I said, the heavy goods trade with Israel is very low. Most of the trade is with high tech items and there is no reason to make big arrangements for shipping route during tensions. As for strategic stability, the shipping route via Africa-Gibraltar-Mediterranean to Haifa is the safest as one side of the Mediterranean is guarded by European countries like Spain, France, Italy, Greece, Cyprus who will never allow any blockade of Mediterranean route to Israel. So, in case of emergency, this is the best route instead of IMEC.

So, practically, IMEC serves no purpose and is a needless expense. However, if it is a project completely funded by USA & Middle Eastern countries while India is only involved in providing the materials, labour & planning. then it is beneficial to India.

 

[Samej Jangir]

Is it feasible to keep only nuclear attack submarine and midget submarine in force and retire all conventional submarine

Conventional submarines are much faster and cheaper to build, operate, repair and maintain compared to nuclear submarines. The diesel submarines with AIP are also more quiet and difficult to detect. The only advantage of nuclear submarines is its range and endurance. For USA, nuclear subs are most suitable as USA navy is mostly for deployment in Europe, Africa, Asia and does not have much work in the Americas. However, for any other country, diesel submarines will be the warhorse and nuclear submarines are used less frequently.

For India, diesel submarines are more important as in case of wars in Arabian sea & Bay of Bengal, these submarines will be able to work much better and be able to be repaired quickly in case of damages.

HaiYaa !!

How come these conventional submarines are safe for Zhongguo then Uncle Han , which has so many conventional submarine , when Zhongguo itself is surrounded by US treaty allies like Japan , RoK , Philippines & of course Taiwan over which the US could well go to war with you ?

Then there's Vietnam , Malaysia & Indonesia who aren't Treaty allies of the US but in each of the aforementioned named countries CCP has a running maritime dispute against.

Pulling logic out of your no good wumao arse again aren't we uncle Han ?

https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/china-submarine-capabilities/

What kind of logic is this? China uses conventional submarine as workhorses while its nuclear submarines are mainly for deterrence against NATO. Majority of Chinese submarines are diesel

 

[Azaad]

Conventional submarines are much faster and cheaper to build, operate, repair and maintain compared to nuclear submarines. The diesel submarines with AIP are also more quiet and difficult to detect. The only advantage of nuclear submarines is its range and endurance. For USA, nuclear subs are most suitable as USA navy is mostly for deployment in Europe, Africa, Asia and does not have much work in the Americas. However, for any other country, diesel submarines will be the warhorse and nuclear submarines are used less frequently.

For India, diesel submarines are more important as in case of wars in Arabian sea & Bay of Bengal, these submarines will be able to work much better and be able to be repaired quickly in case of damages.


What kind of logic is this? China uses conventional submarine as workhorses while its nuclear submarines are mainly for deterrence against NATO. Majority of Chinese submarines are diesel

Did you even make the attempt to understand what I posted there & why ? Check out who was I responding to & why did I post what I did before jumping in right in the middle , unasked for , with your gyan .

 

[Longewala]

Perhaps the lowest IQ post I've read. Educate yourself on how they operate before you boast about their "achievements." In fact your larping of love (lol) for them is shameful. BTW, I'm not Pro palestine. But I'm definitely anti Israel and jew.

Would you rather prefer Israel to treat muslims the way other religions are treated in muslim majority countries?
A. Yes
B. No
C. I have more than one father

 

[Samej Jangir]

Did you even make the attempt to understand what I posted there & why ? Check out who was I responding to & why did I post what I did before jumping in right in the middle , unasked for , with your gyan .

Being illogical and arbitrary to anyone, even if he is Pakistani only reflects poorly on your character. You must maintain sense of logic and reason regardless of who are replying to. Moreover, he sounded perfectly logical in his comment and I saw no reason to behave like a crackpot with him

 

[Azaad]

Being illogical and arbitrary to anyone, even if he is Pakistani only reflects poorly on your character. You must maintain sense of logic and reason regardless of who are replying to. Moreover, he sounded perfectly logical in his comment and I saw no reason to behave like a crackpot with him

So let me get this right. India fielding SSKs is detrimental to India's littoral defence whereas China doing the same is par for the course. Is that what you're saying ?

 

[Samej Jangir]

So let me get this right. India fielding SSKs is detrimental to India's littoral defence whereas China doing the same is par for the course. Is that what you're saying ?

No. Even that guy said the same thing.

He was replying to another guy's question of whether it is feasible to retire all diesel subs. He clearly said that although it was feasible, it is detrimental to Indian security. He gave the example of USA by saying that USA has all nuclear submarines to show it is feasible. But he further states that USA can manage it because it has safe neighbourhood. Then he says that India is not having safe neighbourhood implying USA's context can't be applied to India.

His argument was perfectly logical and you went on a rant for no reason out of personal hatred

 

[Azaad]

No. Even that guy said the same thing.
View attachment 249613

He was replying to another guy's question of whether it is feasible to retire all diesel subs. He clearly said that although it was feasible, it is detrimental to Indian security. He gave the example of USA by saying that USA has all nuclear submarines to show it is feasible. But he further states that USA can manage it because it has safe neighbourhood. Then he says that India is not having safe neighbourhood implying USA's context can't be applied to India.

His argument was perfectly logical and you went on a rant for no reason out of personal hatred

I don't think you've understood the half of it . He clearly said that India can retire the SSK but the neighborhood seas were not conducive for it. Not conducive to what ? Submarines or SSKs or SSNs ? Has India opted for a mixed fleet of submarines because it doesn't have the financial clout of a US otherwise we'd have a fully N based submarine fleet or did we opt for a mix because SSKs fit our littoral defence needs or is it a bit of both ?

 

[Samej Jangir]

I don't think you've understood the half of it . He clearly said that India can retire the SSK but the neighborhood seas were not conducive for it. Not conducive to what ? Submarines or SSKs or SSNs ? Has India opted for a mixed fleet of submarines because it doesn't have the financial clout of a US otherwise we'd have a fully N based submarine fleet or did we opt for a mix because SSKs fit our littoral defence needs ?

I understood every word of it. He is saying exactly what I would have said. Diesel submarines is much more functionally better than Nuclear submarines for Indian needs of fighting in IOR region.

Financial clout is irrelevant here as nuclear submarines are made indigenously, can carry much more ammunition and can do the work of 2 conventional submarines. It also has no fuel cost and made in India completely at lower cost. The cost of imported Kalvari & its fuel over 20 years will be similar or more than nuclear subs.

The real problem of using all N-fleet is:
1) Even minor repairs take long time as the reactors take long time to shut down, cool off, dismantled safely, reattached safely and long time to restart to criticality. In the middle of a major war with Pakistan, aided by Gulf countries, Indonesia, Malaysia etc, India will not be able to afford such long wait times.
2) In wars, one can expect submarines to be destroyed. Diesel submarines are much cheaper and faster to manufacture. Since fuel cost becomes irrelevant if subs are destroyed, the diesel submarines are much more handy during wars due to this. Only during peacetime, nuclear subs cost less due to low operational costs over long time.
3) K-subs can also be loaned out to allied countries like Myanmar, Singapore, Thailand etc to fight off interference of Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia which can't be done with N-subs due to sensitivity of tech.
4) N-subs produce a noise due to water flow as nuclear reactor needs water for coolant and reactors can't be completely shut down as restarting them is complex. Also, the water pumped out will be very hot which creates thermal signatures. K-subs with AIP work on stored energy in fuel cells and don't produce much heat or noise, making them far stealthier

Nuclear submarines are useful for deterring EU, USA in case they interfere as in 1971. They are also useful in acting as underwater station that lays large number of mines, monitors and attacks critical enemy supply lines over long duration deployment such as deploying near Suez or Southern IOR. N-subs have huge payload capacity due to huge size which means it can carry large amount of mines, missiles, torpedoes for multiple functions. However, in direct combat, it is the diesel submarines which are much better due to its quietness and small size helping it stay and move undetected.

This is why India is focusing on mainly diesel submarines. India will always prefer to have diesel submarines in much larger numbers than N-submarines. Both serve their purpose but the function of K-sub is much more useful than N-sub for Indian context

 

[SwordOfDarkness]

If there is a major escalation in Israel, then even KSA, UAE will blockade that route. It has already happened in 1973. Also, as I said, the heavy goods trade with Israel is very low. Most of the trade is with high tech items and there is no reason to make big arrangements for shipping route during tensions. As for strategic stability, the shipping route via Africa-Gibraltar-Mediterranean to Haifa is the safest as one side of the Mediterranean is guarded by European countries like Spain, France, Italy, Greece, Cyprus who will never allow any blockade of Mediterranean route to Israel. So, in case of emergency, this is the best route instead of IMEC.

So, practically, IMEC serves no purpose and is a needless expense. However, if it is a project completely funded by USA & Middle Eastern countries while India is only involved in providing the materials, labour & planning. then it is beneficial to India.

Bruh

First, why the obsession with trade with Israel? Its clearly mentioned its for keeping channels with Europe open

Secondly, looping around africa is not at all feasible, thereis a reason why suez canal is used.

 

[SwordOfDarkness]

I understood every word of it. He is saying exactly what I would have said. Diesel submarines is much more functionally better than Nuclear submarines for Indian needs of fighting in IOR region.

Financial clout is irrelevant here as nuclear submarines are made indigenously, can carry much more ammunition and can do the work of 2 conventional submarines. It also has no fuel cost and made in India completely at lower cost. The cost of imported Kalvari & its fuel over 20 years will be similar or more than nuclear subs.

The real problem of using all N-fleet is:
1) Even minor repairs take long time as the reactors take long time to shut down, cool off, dismantled safely, reattached safely and long time to restart to criticality. In the middle of a major war with Pakistan, aided by Gulf countries, Indonesia, Malaysia etc, India will not be able to afford such long wait times.
2) In wars, one can expect submarines to be destroyed. Diesel submarines are much cheaper and faster to manufacture. Since fuel cost becomes irrelevant if subs are destroyed, the diesel submarines are much more handy during wars due to this. Only during peacetime, nuclear subs cost less due to low operational costs over long time.
3) K-subs can also be loaned out to allied countries like Myanmar, Singapore, Thailand etc to fight off interference of Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia which can't be done with N-subs due to sensitivity of tech.
4) N-subs produce a noise due to water flow as nuclear reactor needs water for coolant and reactors can't be completely shut down as restarting them is complex. Also, the water pumped out will be very hot which creates thermal signatures. K-subs with AIP work on stored energy in fuel cells and don't produce much heat or noise, making them far stealthier

Nuclear submarines are useful for deterring EU, USA in case they interfere as in 1971. They are also useful in acting as underwater station that lays large number of mines, monitors and attacks critical enemy supply lines over long duration deployment such as deploying near Suez or Southern IOR. N-subs have huge payload capacity due to huge size which means it can carry large amount of mines, missiles, torpedoes for multiple functions. However, in direct combat, it is the diesel submarines which are much better due to its quietness and small size helping it stay and move undetected.

This is why India is focusing on mainly diesel submarines. India will always prefer to have diesel submarines in much larger numbers than N-submarines. Both serve their purpose but the function of K-sub is much more useful than N-sub for Indian context

This isnt actually that accurate.

Main reason for non nuclear arsenal is tech and financial barrier. If we overcome those, we will likely go for mostly nuclear subs, as we have a dominant position in the Indian ocean which is pretty big. Deisel subs are fine for anti shipping but not really optimal for deterring capital ships.

 

[Samej Jangir]

Bruh

First, why the obsession with trade with Israel? Its clearly mentioned its for keeping channels with Europe open

Secondly, looping around africa is not at all feasible, thereis a reason why suez canal is used.

Looping around Africa is much more feasible cost wise. Remember that shipping costs a fraction of cost of railways. Shipping is much cheaper even if one has to go around Africa. Moreover, to go to EU, one will have to reload in Haifa even after reaching Israel for a 2nd shipment which increases costs due to extra loading & unloading

 

[Samej Jangir]

This isnt actually that accurate.

Main reason for non nuclear arsenal is tech and financial barrier. If we overcome those, we will likely go for mostly nuclear subs, as we have a dominant position in the Indian ocean which is pretty big. Deisel subs are fine for anti shipping but not really optimal for deterring capital ships.

Can you explain how is N-subs better for capital ships? AFAIK, N-subs are good for cargo ships which have poor sensors and hence can't detect the noise and heat signatures. But warships have the sensors and hence can hunt down a N-sub and it is far worse if the capital ships have choppers with ASW capacity,

Also, financial constraints is not a big factor when the subs are made 100% indigenously. It will just act as an employment generation scheme that boosts the economy and industrial capacity.

 

[SwordOfDarkness]

Looping around Africa is much more feasible cost wise. Remember that shipping costs a fraction of cost of railways. Shipping is much cheaper even if one has to go around Africa.

Lmao.

 

[Azaad]

I understood every word of it. He is saying exactly what I would have said. Diesel submarines is much more functionally better than Nuclear submarines for Indian needs of fighting in IOR region.

Financial clout is irrelevant here as nuclear submarines are made indigenously, can carry much more ammunition and can do the work of 2 conventional submarines. It also has no fuel cost and made in India completely at lower cost. The cost of imported Kalvari & its fuel over 20 years will be similar or more than nuclear subs.

The real problem of using all N-fleet is:
1) Even minor repairs take long time as the reactors take long time to shut down, cool off, dismantled safely, reattached safely and long time to restart to criticality. In the middle of a major war with Pakistan, aided by Gulf countries, Indonesia, Malaysia etc, India will not be able to afford such long wait times.
2) In wars, one can expect submarines to be destroyed. Diesel submarines are much cheaper and faster to manufacture. Since fuel cost becomes irrelevant if subs are destroyed, the diesel submarines are much more handy during wars due to this. Only during peacetime, nuclear subs cost less due to low operational costs over long time.
3) K-subs can also be loaned out to allied countries like Myanmar, Singapore, Thailand etc to fight off interference of Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia which can't be done with N-subs due to sensitivity of tech.
4) N-subs produce a noise due to water flow as nuclear reactor needs water for coolant and reactors can't be completely shut down as restarting them is complex. Also, the water pumped out will be very hot which creates thermal signatures. K-subs with AIP work on stored energy in fuel cells and don't produce much heat or noise, making them far stealthier

Nuclear submarines are useful for deterring EU, USA in case they interfere as in 1971. They are also useful in acting as underwater station that lays large number of mines, monitors and attacks critical enemy supply lines over long duration deployment such as deploying near Suez or Southern IOR. N-subs have huge payload capacity due to huge size which means it can carry large amount of mines, missiles, torpedoes for multiple functions. However, in direct combat, it is the diesel submarines which are much better due to its quietness and small size helping it stay and move undetected.

This is why India is focusing on mainly diesel submarines. India will always prefer to have diesel submarines in much larger numbers than N-submarines. Both serve their purpose but the function of K-sub is much more useful than N-sub for Indian context

I ask you once again - he clearly stated the neighbouring seas were not conducive to India . What's the meaning of that in this context ? That N submarines are not safe ? Or SSK conventional submarines are not safe ? If the neighbouring seas are not safe for N submarines how'd it be safe for conventional submarines ?

Besides why're you answering on behalf of a Chinese bot ? That post was addressed to the Chinese bot . Are you their official in house spokesman clarifying their posts when they refuse to do so ?

 

[Samej Jangir]

I ask you once again - he clearly stated the neighbouring seas were not conducive to India . What's the meaning of that in this context ? That N submarines are not safe ? Or SSK conventional submarines are not safe ? If the neighbouring seas are not safe for N submarines how'd it be safe for conventional submarines ?

Besides why're you answering on behalf of a Chinese bot ? That post was addressed to the Chinese bot . Are you their official in house spokesman clarifying their posts when they refuse to do so ?

How do you know it was a bot and not a real human? Moreover, why is he posting from Australia?

As for his reply, he was saying that N-submarines are not safe for Indian neighbourhood, thus India needs K-submarines to deal with Indian neighbouhood.

The reason also was given by him sometime back saying that N-submarines are more noisy. I have also mentioned above that N-reactors produce noise from continual waterflow and give out heat signatures due to the inability to shut down reactors whereas diesel submarines can shut down diesel engines and run on AIP/battery power only which is extremely quiet. This is why N-submarines are not safe in close combats.

 

[SwordOfDarkness]

Can you explain how is N-subs better for capital ships? AFAIK, N-subs are good for cargo ships which have poor sensors and hence can't detect the noise and heat signatures. But warships have the sensors and hence can hunt down a N-sub and it is far worse if the capital ships have choppers with ASW capacity,

Because they are harder to hunt and can be sent out for much longer missions than diesel subs. Also, ASW is not that simple, read up on shadow zones etc. Nuke subs can properly exploit this, by not having to reveal location periodically.

Also, financial constraints is not a big factor when the subs are made 100% indigenously. It will just act as an employment generation scheme that boosts the economy and industrial capacity.

20-30 billion dollars for some 5000-8000 ish jobs? Terrible employment scheme lol. And Indigenous doesnt imply cheap, all countries with nuke subs make their own and still have to pay ~4x for even the smallest nuke subs, compared to the most modern diesel subs