India — Rising Power, Growing Responsibilities — Building India’s 2020 Navy

Again, cred­i­ble nuclear deter­rence is firm­ly pro­vid­ed by ship borne Anti Bal­lis­tic Mis­sile Defence sys­tems. The recent suc­cess of the Advanced Air Defence Mis­sile pro­gramme of the Defence Research and Devel­op­ment Organ­i­sa­tion (DRDO) augurs well for the Navy. Future Indi­an Destroy­ers, quite like the Arliegh Burke, Kon­go or KDX-III all of which have the Aegis Sys­tem, should be equipped with the indige­nous Advanced Air Defence Sys­tem. At a min­i­mum, this would require a Bal­lis­tic Mis­sile Defence Fleet of 6 Destroyers.

The P75 project for the indige­nous con­struc­tion of DCNS designed Scor­pene sub­marines required that first deliv­ery com­mences in 2012 and the bal­ance five sub­marines deliv­ered at one-year inter­vals to com­plete by Decem­ber 2017. Now, the first Scor­pene will only be ready in August 2015 and MDL will deliv­er the bal­ance five by May 2019. The cost over­run is about Rs 4,700 crore. For the sec­ond line of sub­marines, Project P75I, the RFI was issued in Sep­tem­ber 2010 and the glob­al firms that have respond­ed to it are Russ­ian Rosoboronex­port, French DCNS / Armaris, Ger­man HDW, Kock­ums and Span­ish Navan­tia. The ini­tial plan (Sep­tem­ber 2010) required that three sub­marines would be made by MDL, one by Hin­dus­tan Ship­yard Lim­it­ed (HSL) and Larsen & Toubro and Pipavav Ship­yard were to com­pete for build­ing the bal­ance two sub­marines. Under the new plan (Feb­ru­ary 2011) India would order two sub­marines from a col­lab­o­rat­ing for­eign ship­yard and the oth­er four will be built indige­nous­ly under trans­fer of tech­nol­o­gy with three con­struct­ed at MDL and the fourth built at HSL. The point is that the total require­ment of the Navy’s sub­ma­rine fleet is 24. Of this only 6 have been ordered, so far, after more than 8 years of approval of the 30 Year sub­ma­rine con­struc­tion Plan which entailed con­struc­tion of 24 sub­marines until 2030. Order­ing anoth­er 6 has already tak­en more than three years and the pro­duc­tion is dis­trib­uted over three ship­yards which, to say the least, is a com­plete­ly uneco­nom­i­cal mod­el of sub­ma­rine con­struc­tion. It would appear that greater econ­o­my and effi­cien­cy would be obtained had the entire bal­ance of 18 sub­marines been ordered in one tranche rather than go through this process in small incre­ments of six each every six-sev­en years. This would require the Navy to freeze the staff require­ments for all 18 sub­marines and then per­haps dis­trib­ut­ing it in three ship­yards may make some sort of eco­nom­i­cal sense. 

Click to enlarge

How­ev­er, the key con­sid­er­a­tion and the divi­sive issue that dom­i­nates the dis­cus­sion on cat­e­gori­sa­tion / nom­i­na­tion is of time­ly induc­tion. The Comp­trol­ler and Audi­tor Gen­er­al has been quite scathing in his com­ments on the tar­di­ness of the Defence Pub­lic Sec­tor Ship­yards in deliv­er­ing on time and cost the ships that the Navy had ordered. It is not as if only the DPSUs are to be blamed for these delays but the malig­nance is sys­temic. Cog­ni­sance must also be tak­en of the con­tin­ued revi­sion of staff require­ments to get the best and the lat­est; and, in the bar­gain get­ting too lit­tle too late. 

Click to enlarge

World war­ship build­ing schedules

To put mat­ters in per­spec­tive the Table below com­pares the world stan­dard for war­ship pro­duc­tion of sophis­ti­cat­ed warships. 

Click to enlarge

Expen­di­ture towards acqui­si­tion and maintenance

In this time, Chi­na and our oth­er com­peti­tors would march ahead and gar­ner the resources and cor­ner the mar­kets of the world whilst our ships and sub­marines con­tin­ue to be built at an ele­phan­tine pace. Regret­tably, nei­ther Chi­na nor oth­er com­pet­ing nations will allow a strate­gic ‘time out’ to India for sort­ing out its war­ship pro­duc­tion sched­ules in order to build indige­nous capa­bil­i­ties. There­fore, nom­i­na­tions to DPSU ship­yards must no longer be auto­mat­ic and a sys­tem of syn­er­gis­tic ship­build­ing using the capac­i­ty in the pri­vate ship­yard with the exper­tise in the DPSU ship­yards need to be con­ceived to has­ten the ship­build­ing pro­grammes. But, Gar­den Reach Ship­builders and Engi­neers have been nom­i­nat­ed, as late as Octo­ber 2011, to build eight 800 Ton Land­ing Craft (Util­i­ty) at a bud­get­ed cost of Rs 2,100 crore with the first LCU to be deliv­ered after 35 months !! In com­par­i­son, M/s Fin­cantieri deliv­ered two 27,500 ton Fleet Tankers in three years. Pos­si­bly, the require­ments of LCUs are high­er and the Navy could have ordered its entire require­ment in one tranche on both DPSU and Pri­vate ship­yards on a com­pet­i­tive basis to reduce costs and improve deliv­ery sched­ules. On the oth­er hand, a recent RFI for shal­low water ASW craft has been cat­e­gorised under the Buy Indi­an Route which is a heart­en­ing devel­op­ment for Indi­an shipbuilders.

The sec­ond con­cern is of bud­getary sup­port. For the record the five year expen­di­ture on induc­tion and main­te­nance of fleet and avi­a­tion assets is as follows:

There­fore, the Navy has aver­aged only about Rs 1,200 crore per year for avi­a­tion induc­tions and about Rs 6,200 crore for ship con­struc­tion over the past few years. Going by pub­lic domain data the order book on war­ships and sub­marines is about Rs 2,25,000 crore to be induct­ed by 2022 or near­ly Rs 22,500 crore per year. Avi­a­tion orders would be worth about Rs 18,000 crore for the ongo­ing pro­grammes and anoth­er Rs 32,000 crore or near­ly Rs 5,000 crore per year for new induc­tions to be achieved by 2022. The obvi­ous con­clu­sion is that unless bud­gets increase sig­nif­i­cant­ly and the capac­i­ty to absorb these allo­ca­tions or the Navy designs and build much cheap­er ships and air­craft, the induc­tion tar­gets will not be achievable.

As per media reports only four nuclear sub­marines may be on order and this itself may take us upto 2022 to induct. Cal­cu­la­tions by many experts sug­gest that the deliv­ery capac­i­ty should be at least a min­i­mum of 4 mis­siles per val­ue tar­get and two per force target

Sur­veil­lance systems

Mar­itime Domain Aware­ness is a key require­ment for suc­cess­ful oper­a­tions. Sus­tained and unin­ter­rupt­ed sur­veil­lance is the key to mar­itime domain aware­ness. This can be achieved through a vari­ety of sys­tems. The first is of course space based satel­lite sur­veil­lance. The Indi­an Navy is on course to acquire its own com­mu­ni­ca­tions and sur­veil­lance satel­lite capa­bil­i­ty with a 1,000 Nm foot­print. The sec­ond cat­e­go­ry is air­borne sur­veil­lance. In this cat­e­go­ry are the shore based options of Mar­itime Patrol Air­craft, Aerostats and Unmanned Aer­i­al Vehi­cles (UAVs) and the ship based options of Air­borne Ear­ly Warn­ing Heli­copters and air­craft and VTOL UAVs. A third way is through coastal and off­shore sur­veil­lance sys­tems con­sist­ing of a chain of Radar, AIS and Elec­tro-Optics sen­sors with a sophis­ti­cat­ed com­mand and con­trol soft­ware that enables gen­er­a­tion of a sin­gle com­pos­ite pic­ture. This seg­ment is with the Coast Guard. Since all of them have inher­ent advan­tages and dis­ad­van­tages there­fore an opti­mal fusion of these three sys­tems is the way ahead. No clear advan­tage would accrue unless these sys­tems are inter­con­nect­ed and net­worked to pro­vide dif­fer­en­ti­at­ed and spe­cif­ic action­able intel­li­gence and pre­sent­ed as a sin­gle holis­tic and com­pos­ite oper­a­tional picture.

Sur­veil­lance sys­tems for coastal secu­ri­ty are under acqui­si­tion. A report stat­ed “An indige­nous­ly built coastal sur­veil­lance sys­tem would be deployed in 46 strate­gic west­ern and east­ern loca­tions in the coun­try from this Novem­ber 2010 to check intru­sions from sea and counter such threats, offi­cials said today. Being devel­oped by the Ban­ga­lore­based defence PSU Bharat Elec­tron­ics Ltd (BEL), the sys­tem includes radars and elec­tro-optic and mete­o­ro­log­i­cal sen­sors and would be mount­ed on light­hous­es or tow­ers.” In this com­plex sys­tem, “The cam­eras and radars are Israeli,” admit BEL oper­a­tors … but we are work­ing on devel­op­ing them indige­nous­ly.” It also states that this indige­nous sys­tem would “give com­plete oper­a­tional pic­ture of the sea up to 20 km deep into the sea.” For phase two of the pro­gramme the options of bet­ter tech­nol­o­gy such as High Fre­quen­cy Sur­face Wave Coastal sur­veil­lance Radars or even “X” Band over the Hori­zon Radars that pro­vide detec­tion and iden­ti­fi­ca­tion ranges in excess of 200 km with reac­tion time of more than 3 hours com­bined with Long Range Optron­ic Sen­sors of about 50 km range should be inducted.


Tech­nol­o­gy pro­vides the best solu­tion if one is inclined to appre­ci­ate it. High Alti­tude Long Endurance Unmanned Aeri­als Sys­tems (HALE) with high­ly sophis­ti­cat­ed mul­ti­far­i­ous pay­loads sup­port­ed with mul­ti-spec­tral data fusion engines is the way for­ward for ocean­ic sur­veil­lance. The low­er cap­i­tal cost of acqui­si­tion, faster deliv­er­ies and the near equiv­a­lent oper­at­ing cost must be the dom­i­nant con­sid­er­a­tion for rapid aug­men­ta­tion of sur­veil­lance capa­bil­i­ties. These infor­ma­tion­al inputs must again be dove­tailed into a nation­al mar­itime intel­li­gence grid.

Inte­grat­ing the HALE with Long Range Mar­itime (armed) Patrol air­craft would pro­vide an effi­cien­cy div­i­dend. The Navy has on order 12 Boe­ing P8I mar­itime patrol air­craft. Con­sid­er­ing that the gen­er­al­ly recog­nised area of inter­est of the Indi­an Navy extends from the East Coast of Africa to the South Chi­na Sea this force lev­el is clear­ly inad­e­quate par­tic­u­lar­ly when nuclear sub­marines are the dom­i­nant threat of the future. These would be deliv­ered by 2015. In addi­tion, an RFI has been issued for anoth­er 6 Medi­um Range Mar­itime Air­craft and these may only be ordered in 2014–15 going by the nor­mal time lines of pro­cure­ment. So far as UAVs are con­cerned the Navy’s present force lev­els of 8 Searchers and 4 Herons is woe­ful­ly inad­e­quate to meet even a frac­tion of the sur­veil­lance require­ment. The Navy has issued an RFI for Long Range High Alti­tude UAVs only in Decem­ber 2010 and induc­tion is there­fore clear­ly a very dis­tant propo­si­tion. It is also under­stood that the ser­vices are putting togeth­er a sin­gle pro­pos­al for their com­bined require­ment of Medi­um Alti­tude Long Endurance UAVs, though no RFI has been issued as yet. Rotary Wing UAVs for ship­borne appli­ca­tions are at the devel­op­ment stage at Hin­dus­tan Aero­nau­tics Lim­it­ed and these may only be induct­ed no ear­li­er than 2016–17. This is ques­tion­able acqui­si­tion since Ver­ti­cal Take Off and Land­ing UAVs are avail­able using mul­ti­ple tech­nolo­gies such as Tilt Rotors and Duct­ed Fan also. Not­ing that there are now at least four major Indi­an com­pa­nies with licences to man­u­fac­ture UAVs and the total require­ment may be in excess of a 100 sys­tems the future induc­tion of UAVs must be through the Buy and Make Indi­an procedure.

The oth­er area of inter­est is Sea­planes. This tech­nol­o­gy has been res­ur­rect­ed with sev­er­al man­u­fac­tur­ers across the world notably in Cana­da, Ger­many, Japan and Rus­sia. Sea­planes can pro­vide much need­ed island sup­port and off­shore assets pro­tec­tion, sur­veil­lance, long range SAR and CASEVAC, ultra long range fleet logis­tic sup­port, long range Vis­it Board Search and Seizure (VBSS) Oper­a­tions, Human­i­tar­i­an assis­tance and dis­as­ter relief oper­a­tions, coun­ter­ing small arms and drugs traf­fick­ing, human migra­tion, poach­ing, tox­ic car­go dump­ing etc. Unlike con­ven­tion­al heli­copters and air­craft sea­planes can land at the loca­tion and enforce the will or the law of the coun­try. It is worth not­ing that Iran already has a strong fly­ing boat squadron of ten crafts. In India, whilst an RFI has been issued for induc­tion of sea­planes the dif­fi­cul­ty would be to avoid a sin­gle ven­dor sit­u­a­tion. Assum­ing a Main­te­nance Reserve of 20 per cent, a Strike Off and Wastage Reserve for a 15 year peri­od as 20 per cent and an assured abil­i­ty to launch two simul­ta­ne­ous mis­sions from the four coastal com­mands, 12 oper­a­tional sea­planes and two train­ing sea­planes would be required. These must be built in India and tak­en up as a Buy and Make Indi­an or as Buy Glob­al acqui­si­tion. How­ev­er, since the sub­stance of the sea­planes are its engines it may not be pos­si­ble to achieve 50 per cent indige­nous con­tent. Sea­planes also have civ­il appli­ca­tions and thus a nation­al capa­bil­i­ty can be cre­at­ed in niche sector. 

How­ev­er, the key con­sid­er­a­tion and the divi­sive issue that dom­i­nates the dis­cus­sion on cat­e­gori­sa­tion / nom­i­na­tion is of time­ly induc­tion. The Comp­trol­ler and Audi­tor Gen­er­al has been quite scathing in his com­ments on the tar­di­ness of the Defence Pub­lic Sec­tor Ship­yards in deliv­er­ing on time and cost the ships that the Navy had ordered

So far as inte­gral avi­a­tion assets are con­cerned the key deter­mi­nant must be the future of the Fleet Car­ri­er. The present capa­bil­i­ty is to be able to work with­in a 200 Nm bub­ble and going into the future the bub­ble should grow to a sani­tised space of about 350 Nm. For this the require­ment would be for “medi­um” fight­ers of the Mig 29K pro­file or bet­ter. With a Com­bat Air Patrol of four fight­ers and a turn-around time of 90 min­utes, detailed cal­cu­la­tions aside, the min­i­mum force lev­el would be two and half fight­er squadrons (40 air­craft). In addi­tion, two squadrons of Mul­ti-Role Heli­copters, one flight of HALE Ear­ly Warn­ing UAVs, one flight of loi­ter­ing mis­siles and one flight of com­mu­ni­ca­tion and util­i­ty heli­copters should be the min­i­mum embarked Air Group for the future car­ri­er to be con­sid­ered a potent force.

Both the Sea king and the Chetak heli­copters are due for replace­ment. A case for 16 Mul­ti-Role Heli­copters (MRH) and an RFI for Chetak replace­ment is under process. Anoth­er RFP for 91 Naval Mul­ti-Role Heli­copters is await­ing approval. The require­ments for these heli­copters are in the range of 80–100 MRH and about 70–90 twin engine util­i­ty heli­copters. The Navy could have con­sol­i­dat­ed its total require­ment of MRH instead of induct­ing in a piece­meal man­ner. Both these induc­tions, had they been tak­en up as bulk acqui­si­tions, could have been through the Buy and Make Indi­an Route and thus help devel­op a nation­al com­pe­ten­cy in heli­copter man­u­fac­tur­ing. Be that as it may, the option clause (8 MRH) and the repeat order option (16 MRH) should be availed so that induc­tion can reach 40 MRH with­out retender­ing. Sim­i­lar­ly, Coast Guard require­ments for util­i­ty heli­copters can also be merged to make a very attrac­tive propo­si­tion for for­eign OEMs to estab­lish man­u­fac­tur­ing facil­i­ties in India. Even now, fur­ther induc­tions should be explored under the Buy and Make Indi­an cat­e­go­ry to help build an alter­nate to HAL for indige­nous man­u­fac­ture of heli­copters. How­ev­er, licenced pro­duc­tion must be taboo and the busi­ness mod­el should be devel­oped by the Indi­an and for­eign OEMs on the basis of co design, co-devel­op­ment and co-pro­duc­tion as part­ners not as licenced pro­duc­ers. No OEM will ever trans­fer enough know-how to its licenced pro­duc­tion part­ner for fear it may become its com­peti­tor and there­fore Joint Ven­tures and prof­it shar­ing col­lab­o­ra­tions is the way to go in the future. 

Team GlobDef

Seit 2001 ist im Internet unterwegs, um mit eigenen Analysen, interessanten Kooperationen und umfassenden Informationen für einen spannenden Überblick der Weltlage zu sorgen. war dabei die erste deutschsprachige Internetseite, die mit dem Schwerpunkt Sicherheitspolitik außerhalb von Hochschulen oder Instituten aufgetreten ist.

Alle Beiträge ansehen von Team GlobDef →