INS Sindhurakshak Tragedy: Navy should Strengthen and Safeguard its Submarine Fleet

Radhakrishna Rao, 

Visiting Fellow, VIF

Even as the Indian Navy, the youngest of the three services, had every reason to rejoice over India’s home-grown nuclear powered submarine INS Arihant attaining criticality and the launch of the indigenous aircraft carrier INS Vikrant in the first fortnight of August, a massive blow in the form of the wrecking of the INS Sindurakshak submarine in a devastative explosion on August. 14, turned the” mood of celebration” into a “moment of sorrow and introspection”.

The death of eighteen Indian Navy personnel on-board the ill fated Sindhurakshak, considered the key, frontline conventional submarine in service with the Indian Navy, made the tragedy all the more painful and shocking. Evidently, Sindhurarkshak was a sort of prized possession for the Indian Navy as it had come back from Russia after an extensive refurbishment. Incidentally, Sindhurakshak was deployed at the Mumbai dockyard following a US alert about the possible LeT(Lashkar-e-Toiba) attack along India’s coastline.The 2,300-tonne Sindhurakshak was, by all means, the operationally best submarine at the command of the Indian Navy since it got new sensors and underwent structural modifications which extended its lifespan by almost a decade .Following its midlife refit programme at Russia’s Zvezdochka shipyard at an estimated cost of US$80-million, Sindhurakshak, originally built in 1997, was equipped with the tube launched Club-5 cruise missile effective against the surface vessels and submarines at a range of about 200-kms. Sindhurakshak is one of the ten kilo class submarines that India bought from Russia between 1986 and 2000.

In the aftermath of this tragedy, Defence Minister A K Antony informed the Indian Parliament that “The navy has ordered a Board of Inquiry (BoI) and it has started with all the seriousness. Its terms of reference are to look into all aspects of causes of this incident. Nothing is ruled out. All likely aspects would be examined by BoI” said Antony. In a way, Antony’s statement implies that sabotage angle could not be ruled out.

Antony also revealed that the entire operational submarine fleet of the Indian Navy is currently undergoing extensive checks on the weapons related safety system and an audit of the current standards operational procedure has also been ordered. But then a serious question that begs answer is as to why the political dispensation in New Delhi slept over for more than a decade over a proposal for the acquisition of the submarine rescue system. Naval warfare experts point out that the timely deployment of the state of the art Deep Submergence Rescue Vessel (DSRV) could easily save the lives of the sailors on-board the submarine under disintegration. Naval forces of Russia, USA, China, UK and Singapore all have deep sea rescue systems in place. It may be recalled that in August 2000, more than 100 Russian sailors on-board the nuclear powered submarine Kursk, which sank in the Barents Sea, had to pay with their lives on account of the failure to deploy DSRV on time. The moral of the story is that by deploying a submarine rescue system, India could have easily managed to save the lives of the sailors on-board Sindhurakshak.

And in what seems to be the case of bolting the stable after horses have left, just a week before the Sindhurakshak tragedy, an RFI (Request for Information) was issued for a “Submarine Rescue Bell System with LARS”(Launch and Recovery System). Whether it is the procurement of the much needed artillery systems for the Indian armed forces or the acquisition of submarines for the Indian Navy, dithering and delay reinforced by a “deadly indifference” seems to have become the order of the day. And the country and its defence forces ultimately pay a very high price for the painfully slow decision making process of the poorly motivated bureaucracy associated with the defence acquisition programme.

On the other hand, India as a country has not exactly covered itself with glory in so far as ensuring safety in all its manifestations is concerned. It is high time that the Indian Navy took steps to decongest its facilities at Mumbai and Vishakhapatnam. To begin with, quickening impetus should be given to the completion of the phase two of the “Sea Bird” project at INS Kadamba at Karwar in Karnataka to help relocate some of the ships and submarines from Mumbai. It is in the fitness of things that it has been decided to berth the retrofitted aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya at Karwar naval base. In Vishakhapatnam, where the nuclear submarines are stationed, a refinery and a fertilizer plant are in close proximity to the naval facilities. What’s more, the harbour here with its narrow entrance can easily be blocked by sinking trawlers. As such, there is a need for a new green-field naval yard somewhere on the eastern coast. The principle that one cannot put all the eggs in one basket should be the guiding force of the Indian Navy.

Becoming wiser after the event seems to have become a norm rather than an exception for the Indian ruling elite. Antony has now directed for according a top most priority for sustaining the “operational efficiency” of the thirteen conventional diesel electric submarines left with the Indian Navy after the Sindhurakshak tragedy. Of course, an overwhelming majority of them are already into the evening of their lives .And only half of them will be available for deployment at a given time since the ageing submarine fleet is being forced to spend much of their time for repairs and maintenance. Further, Antony had made it clear that there should be no more delays in the construction of the six Scorpene submarines with the technology to be provided by the French firm DCNS. Antony has also asked for expediting the thirty year submarine building project which was approved by the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) way back in July 1999.

By all means, submarines constitute the sinew of under-sea warfare strategy for they play a key role in neutralizing hostile naval vessels and blockading enemy harbours by laying mine fields. And now it looks as if India’s under sea combat arm stands compromised. Indeed, a fact filled CAG (Comptroller and Auditor General) report tabled in the Indian Parliament in 2008 had raised the alarm bells by stating that due to “ageing fleet and prolonged refit schedules, the average operational availability of the Indian Navy submarine was as low as 45%”. The report had also pointed out that the “the availability of the submarines with the Indian Navy is much below the envisaged force level and a large number of submarines in the existing fleet have become due for decommissioning in the immediate future.” Indeed, the grim ground reality is that Indian Navy has not been in a position to boost its sub-sea patrol by acquiring new submarines after the year 2000.

To make the matter worse, Indian Navy is yet to acquire air independent propulsion (AIP) system driven submarines which can stay under-sea for longer periods in comparison to the conventional diesel electric submarines which are required to surface once in a few days for recharging their batteries. In the context of the expanding responsibilities being thrust upon it, the Indian Navy would need a minimum of 24 submarines to take care of the security on both the eastern and western coasts of the country. In comparison, China has about 60 submarines of which ten are nuclear powered. China is also into building ten more nuclear powered submarines.

Indeed, India’s ambitious plan for building six new generation conventional submarines under Project 75I stands behind schedule by three years due to the delay in decision making and finalizing the purchase of equipment to be fitted into the submarine including sensors and propulsion. As things stand now, the first of the six Scorpene submarines will be delivered only by 2015 with 2022 as the deadline for the delivery of the entire lot. Under Project 75I, two of the six submarines will be delivered in ready to use condition by the French firm DCNS. The DCNS will transfer the technology to India for building the remaining four submarines. The Indian part of the project will be executed by Mazagon Docks Ltd (MDL) in Mumbai and Hindustan Shipyard at Vishakhapatnam. These submarines will come equipped with the advanced AIP system. This project forms a part of the thirty year plan to boost the under- sea capability of the Indian Navy and strengthen the indigenous base for the design, development and production of the submarines. As part of the thirty year plan, it is envisaged that 24 new submarines will join the Indian naval fleet.

Currently, the only operational nuclear powered submarine at the command of the Indian Navy is INS Chakra which was launched in 2012. It was acquired on lease for a period of ten years from Russia. This Akula-II class “Nerpa” submarine has a maximum speed of 30 knots and can go to a depth of 600-metres.Chakra armed with four 533-mm and four 650-mm torpedo tubes is, by all means, a formidable undersea combat system .Of course, under the lease terms, Chakra cannot be equipped with nuclear weapons. But then Chakra would substantially strengthen the Indian Navy’s capability for power projection in the Indian Ocean region and beyond.

Indeed, India’s home grown nuclear powered submarine Arihant going critical on August 10 as a first step towards its extensive sea trials was a landmark event for the Indian Navy. Unlike the conventional diesel driven submarines, the 6,000-tonne Arihant will remain submerged in water for months on end, thus making its detection a really difficult task. Powered by a compact, indigenous Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR) capable of generating 83-MW of power, Arihant has catapulted India into the elite league of a handful of countries which have mastered the technological complexities involved in building a nuclear powered submarine. Incidentally, India happens to be the only nation in the IOR (Indian Ocean Region) to possess a nuclear powered submarine.

On its part, the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is planning to induct BO-5 medium range nuclear missile into Arihant. It is also planned to equip Arihant with K-15 nuclear tipped missile which has a range of 700-km.Further into the future, Arihant can serve as a formidable platform for launching the under sea version of the Indo- Russian supersonic cruise missile BrahMos. Three more nuclear propelled submarines would be constructed under Indian Navy’ high profile Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV) programme.

Clearly and apparently, Arihant and its follow on submarines including Aridhaman will substantially strengthen India’s nuclear strike capability. In the context of India’s national policy of “no first use of nuclear weapons”, the submarine arm of the nuclear triad will provide India a “credible second strike capability” to inflict “unacceptable damage” on the adversary. By all means, the submarine based ballistic missiles are considered the most effective and difficult to detect nuclear weapons delivery system.

But then it would be sometime before India’s fully home grown nuclear powered submarines go operational and become a part of the under sea arm of the Indian Navy. As such, with a view to beef up the rapidly dwindling submarine capability of the Indian Navy in the immediate future, India is now negotiating with Russia for the lease of the another nuclear powered submarine. All said and done, ensuring the safety of submarines is as critical as acquiring and maintaining them. For not long back, a US navy lieutenant who chose to remain anonymous through his blogs had expressed his unhappiness over the poor empowerment of Indian Navy personnel in terms of enforcing safety measures at all levels in a professional manner. Evidently, the US Navy blogger is known to have spent a few days with an Indian Navy ship in the Arabian Sea under the exchange programme.

Because the entire submarine fleet with the Indian Navy is both old and obsolete, the problems associated with ensuring their safety are too many and complex. For example, the fighting equipments past their designed life span are prone to mishaps and accidents. And the delay in procurement of new systems to replace the older ones only adds to the problem of ensuring safety. As is the case with the proposals for the procurement of battlefield hardware for the Indian Army and the Indian Air Force (IAF), the plan for the acquisition of submarines for the Indian Navy has been hanging fire for many years now. Unless our defence bureaucracy develops a vision and motivation for fast tracking the battlefield hardware in a time bound, transparent and cost effective manner, accidents like the Sindhurakshak tragedy is bound to repeat time and again. It may be recalled that the diesel electric driven submarine INS Sindhughosh had run into collision with a fishing boat in 2006 followed by a merchant vessel in 2007.

India should also probe thoroughly the observation of the Russian side that the violations of safety regulations could be the most likely cause of the explosion that wrecked Sindhurakshak. But here again, it would also be appropriate for the Indian Navy to evaluate the quality of Russian workmanship as well as the integrity of the systems and weapons forming part of the submarine. Of course, Indian Navy has in place well formulated and time tested procedures for ensuring the safety of submarines. But then to what extent they are implemented with all the seriousness they deserve, no one is sure as yet. And in particular this angle should be probed in depth.

For the navy personnel, living and operating in an undersea environment of the submarine, makes for a demanding and unforgiving task, for they lead a check by jowl existence with a bank of chemical batteries requiring periodic charging, inflammatory and dangerous gases as well as highly explosive warheads. This implies that even a small “mistake or lapse” could be dangerous and could cause a huge explosion leading to a certain catastrophe. Especially, while working in a submarine acquired from overseas source, the Indian Navy sailors should display a greater level of circumspection and caution as there are many “grey areas” in the safety measures and principles devised for them. There is no denying the fact that only a home grown system could ensure a greater level of safety and security in comparison to imported hardware. For here Indian naval personnel could have access to the entire range of data—starting from design phase to the level of integration and final assembly. In case of doubt, they can always go back to the original source. And this advantage would not be available with an imported system. This is one more major argument that goes to boost the case of indigenization from the word go.

Coming to the Sindhurakshak tragedy, greater stress should be placed on the safety of the propulsion system of a submarine. For it is speculated that the failure of the safety system related to the propulsion module of Sindhurakshak was responsible for the explosion. Because the diesel electric powered submarines are run on chemical batteries requiring occasional charging, the chances of their being subjected to explosion cannot be ruled out. By going in for the air independent propulsion system, the chances of submarine accidents could be minimized. All said and done, the argument of Uday Bhaskar, former Director of the National Maritime Foundation that “the zero error safety tenet will have to be reemphasized and internalized” should be the guiding principle of the safety procedures being implemented for the Indian submarine fleet. In the ultimate analysis, the security aspects of the mechanism of man machine interface should receive utmost priority to obviate the Sindhurakshak type tragedy. Under no circumstance should the safety principles be compromised. And the Indian Navy should lose no time in insulating its submarine fleet from “mishaps and accidents” by implementing safety rules and regulations at every stage of the operation.

President Putin in India

PP Shukla 

(Joint Director, VIF)

 

The thirteenth Indo-Russian Summit was a fleeting affair, with President Putin spending less than twenty-four hours in Delhi. It came as the stakes in the extended neighbourhood are growing higher – Afghanistan, Iran, and the broader West Asian region are all in a state of flux that has serious implications for both India and Russia. Similar stakes are in play in the East, and once more, as India seeks to step up its engagement in the Asia-Pacific Region, there are implications for our interface with Russia here too.

The bilaterals are reasonably well-known, and there are serious attempts ongoing at all levels to find ways to deepen the engagement, and to find solutions to issues that have dominated the discourse over the past few years – the Vikramaditya, the nuclear liability, the low levels of trade and investment, etc. So, too, are the benefits of the cooperation, whether it is INS Chakra, or Brahmos, or diplomatic support on key issues like permanent membership of the UN Security Council, which we take for granted from a country like Russia.

There are also problematic issues that need to be addressed, and were discussed in some detail. Apart from the issues of our defence cooperation, there were the nuclear liability question, and that of the 2G license for the Sistema-majority owned SSTL. On these, there is nothing in the public domain, but the Russian press commentaries have suggested that the nuclear liability issue could be resolved by raising the cost of the projects, thus building in some element of protection in the event that the supplier has to pay compensation. On the Sistema issue, there does not seem to have been much progress.

Where there was welcome progress, it was on the purchase of LNG from Russia. This is an issue that has long been discussed, including at the highest levels. However, while there had been no progress so far, we seem to have made the breakthrough. Of course, there is a better way to take this forward to higher levels: this would involve a four-way swap arrangement, involving the Persian Gulf suppliers, and their buyers in East Asia [South Korea, Japan], India and Russia. The swap arrangement would involve the Gulf suppliers diverting their supplies to East Asia to India; in return, Russia would make good the diverted deliveries and supply to East Asia. All four parties would gain from reduced transportation costs, and that would be welcome in these times, when all major economies are facing difficult challenges.

Another noteworthy outcome of the visit was the reference to the discussions between India and the Eurasian Economic Commission on a possible Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement. There has been one such study done between India and Russia in 2007, but that was never seriously pursued. Now that Russia has formed the Customs Union with Belarus and Kazakhstan, it is a good time to launch another such examination. Hopefully, this can provide answers to the current slow growth of economic relations between India and Russia.

However, there is insufficient attention being paid to the regional issues that affect both India and Russia, and on which there is not enough dialogue at the official level, and which do not get sufficient attention among commentators. And it is important to understand these issues from the Russian perspective. That way, we shall not face any surprises in what our friends in Moscow do, and they, in turn, will understand how we in New Delhi are looking at things and deciding on policy choices.

Without doubt, the most important is Afghanistan and the impending pull-out/thinning out of the ISAF in 2014. From our perspective, things do not look very reassuring: recent reports of the activities of the High Peace Council suggest that a serious effort is in hand to pave the way for the Taliban to return to at least some share in power in Kabul, with Pakistan being accepted as the major arbiter. The accepted view is that the US is agreeable to such a dispensation, as is NATO. China, of course, will back Pakistan. Alone among the major powers, then, Russia could be expected to show some understanding of the Indian fears over such a plan.

Regrettably, we are not seeing enough engagement between India and Russia on this issue, even though both countries share similar approaches. Indeed, we had collaborated in the 1990’s – a time when Russia under Yeltsin had not fully recovered from the trauma of the destruction of the USSR – in order to blunt the Taliban offensive inside Afghanistan. Today, what we are seeing is Pakistani service chiefs visiting Russia, the DG ISI in Moscow, and the Pakistan President offering Russia access to the warm waters on his own visit. There is a real risk of our being isolated, all the more so because we are also seeking to put distance between ourselves and Iran – the other country that might be expected to share our concerns over the plans for post-2014 Afghanistan. This remains true, notwithstanding the high-level bilateral contacts we have maintained with Iran over the years.

The second issue of concern flows from the Iran situation, and the related one of Syria’s future. During the Putin visit, the two sides found agreement on Iran’s right to peaceful uses of, and research in, nuclear energy, while calling for all issues to be settled by peaceful means only. On Syria, too, there is common ground in terms of the UN Resolutions and a call to all sides to seek a peaceful settlement. But, of course, there will be no peaceful settlement that is the one thing all sides are agreed upon. But, more important, shorn of this kind of fudge, there are clear differences between India and Russia on how to approach both Iran and Syria. It is instructive to compare what we have said in the current Joint Statement, and what the Russians said with the Chinese when Putin visited Beijing in June 2012. The Russian-Chinese statement contained a more forthright expression of support for Syrian independence and territorial integrity; it also spoke bluntly against foreign interference and said that the two countries were “resolutely opposed the attempt to resolve the Syrian crisis by way of foreign armed intervention and imposition of ‘regime change’. This would suggest that the Russian position on Syria did not get the full endorsement from India that it got from the Chinese.

The last substantive issue relating to the immediate neighbourhood is that of the so-called New Silk Road strategy for South and Central Asia. The Russians have their own approach to the region, and they are themselves keen to develop ties between the two regions. They call it CASA, and are keen to begin by selling surplus electricity from Tajikistan to Pakistan. They have a quadrilateral of their own – themselves, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Tajikistan – which has been pushing this project for several years now. It was under this rubric that President Putin was to visit Pakistan earlier in October last year. These transport and other linkages have been much in contention ever since the break-up of the Soviet Union, and are invested with heavy geo-strategic significance. Both India and Russia will need to tread carefully, and be willing to engage each other in an open and honest dialogue to remove any potential for misunderstanding in any of these projects.

There is also the emerging situation in the Asia-Pacific Region. America and some of the other key members in the region have been promoting the idea of a Concert of Democracies to stabilise future developments in the area. Much of this is driven by concerns over how China will evolve as it grows both economically and militarily. Here, Russia is not considered a major actor by any of the other leading actors; neither is it a potential partner, nor is it seen as being in the Chinese camp. However, India is very much in the reckoning of almost all the drivers of such a policy. 

However, we need to recognise that Russia sees China – at least in the short term – as an important partner in the difficulties it is facing with the West in general and America in particular. It will therefore not be sympathetic to any combined effort that will have China as its objective. Equally, if it has serious frictions with any country in the region, it is Japan; and Japan is obviously an essential component of any strategy involving the democracies of the region.

All of this argues for an open and candid dialogue with Russia, so that each side understands the other’s concerns, and red lines. This has not been happening so far, and the truth is that where we are willing for a substantive conversation, they are not; China is an example. On the contrary, where they seek a frank dialogue, we tend to hold back; Afghanistan is an illustration. And yet, it is the interests of both sides to keep up a regular conversation. Both India and Russia face the problem of isolation; we have a tradition of friendship and trust that few other major powers have, and it needs to be maintained and nurtured.

A Force Multiplier for The Indian Naval Capability

Radhakrishna Rao

Research Fellow, VIF

In a major technological breakthrough for the Defence Research and Development Organisation(DRDO) and a significant boost to the strike capability of the Indian Navy, the naval variant of India’s home grown fourth generation fighter aircraft Tejas LCA had its successful debut flight on April 27.

The 20-minute long maiden flight Tejas naval at Bangalore has been described as “outstanding success” by the DRDO chief V.K.Saraswat. As envisaged now, the two seater Tejas naval is expected to get Initial Operational Clearance(IOC) by the middle of this decade. According to DRDO, Tejas naval has catapulted India into the elite league of countries capable of design, development and production of four plus generation carrier borne fly by wire fighter. Indeed, the design and development of the Tejas naval involved many formidable technological challenges since it was required to operate under saline and humid environment with restricted availability of deck run for launch and recovery of high operating load conditions. Many new and novel technologies including Leading Edge Vortex Control(LEVCON) surface fitted at the front end of the aircraft wing operated by a concealed rotary actuator with aerodynamic profiling to ensure low landing speed, ground controllability and better vision for the pilot were developed for the first time in the country.

Moreover, Tejas naval has the distinction of being the only carrier borne fighter aircraft in the light category and the second STOBAR (Ski Take off but Arrested Recovery) carrier borne aircraft in the world. Not surprisingly then DRDO points out that Tejas naval fighter will provide a complete marine force multiplier that will help the Indian Navy to position itself as a blue water, maritime force. In yet another boost to the Indian Navy, Defence Minister A.K.Antony informed the Parliament that an exclusive naval satellite for dedicated communications will be launched during 2012-13. The GSAT-7 satellite which will be launched by means of the three stage Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle(GSLV) will help Indian Navy provide secure and reliable communications channel to link up its “resources and assets” for an integrated operational strategy.

On another front, the induction of the nuclear powered Nerpa class submarine Chakra that Indian Navy has taken on lease from Russia is also expected to enhance the fighting fitness of the Indian Navy. With INS Chakra in operational trim, India has become the sixth country in the world to operate a nuclear submarine. The submarine, considered one of the stealthiest and deadliest in the world, can carry four 533-mm torpedoes and four 650-mm torpedoes. Defence analysts say that with a diving speed of 30-35 knots, INS Chakra will be able to outrun any Chinese or Pakistani submarine.

In a related development, with Russia planning to hand over 45,000 tonne class augmented aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya with forty years of service life to the Indian navy by 2012 end, the sixty years old Indian navy, the youngest of the three services, can look forward to boost its strike capability . There is no denying the fact that aircraft carriers hold a key to expand the reach and boost the strike capability of a naval force. Indeed, early this year Admiral Nirmal Verma, Chief of the Indian Navy, had stressed on the importance of an aircraft carrier in augmenting the capability of the navy to take care of the Indian interests in the Indian ocean area and beyond.

“Carrier building is very expensive but it is certainly there in our long term plans,” observed Verma. Giving an inkling into the futuristic aircraft carrier that the Indian Navy is keen on operating, Verma pointed out that the navy was firming up the design of a future aircraft carrier by taking into account the emerging advances in the field of aviation and the potentials of unmanned aerial vehicles(UAVs) in the scheme of the naval warfare. “There would be far more capable aircraft and far more expected of an aircraft carrier by the late 2020,” observed Verma. As envisaged now, Indian Navy is keen on operating three aircraft carriers by the end of this decade. The idea is that at any given time, two aircraft carriers should be in full operational trim.

As part of the growth strategy of Indian Navy, Verma has also hinted at deploying UAVs(Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) on INS Vikramaditya sometime in the future. Currently, the INS Viraat, whose refurbishment has resulted in its life being extended upto 2015, is the only aircraft carrier in service with the Indian Navy. And India’s 40,000-tonne home-grown aircraft carrier being built by the Cochin shipyard at Kochi in South India is expected to join the Indian naval fleet by the middle of this decade. Indian navy has also a clear cut plan for a vastly improved second generation indigenous aircraft carrier for deployment by 2018.

Though youngest of the three services, the Indian Navy has been ahead of two other wings in getting its requirements met from the indigenous sources to the maximum extent possible . Indeed, Indian Navy continues to play a pro active role in encouraging the shipyards and industries in the country to take up the development of complex systems involving advanced technological elements. As it is, the allegation of kickbacks associated with German HDW submarine deal in early 1990s had seriously dented Navy’s modernisation plan with a large indigenous contribution. Like the spectre of Bofors which continues to haunt Indian army’s artillery modernization programme, the HDW scandal did seriously sap Indian navy’s combat readiness plan for many years. “After the lost decades, we are now able to place orders and acquisitions are happening; only that our ship yards are unable to deliver at globally competitive rates. But notwithstanding that in the next five years, we would be commissioning on an average five ships or submarines a year,” noted Verma. According to Verma, today Indian Navy is poised for a very good growth path.

In a development of significance to meeting the needs of the Indian Navy, private shipyards such as Pipavav, ABG and Larsen and Toubro(L&T) have invested heavily in technology up-gradation and are more than willing to take up the challenge of building advanced ships, submarines and other systems for the Indian navy. While L&T has made a significant contribution to the construction of India’s first home grown nuclear submarine INS Arihant, Pipavav shipyard, rated as the country’s best shipyard, is building six offshore patrol vessels for the Indian Navy. The state owned Garden Reach Ship Builders and Engineers(GRSE), which has on hand order for building six fast attack craft, has delivered first of the craft well before the deadline, thereby signalling the maturity of the Indian ship building industry. To meet the growing and diverse needs of the Indian Navy, the Ministry of Defence has cleared the participation of private shipyards in the bids along with the public sector shipyards. Mazagaon Dock which is now building three advanced Delhi class destroyers, three Shivalik class stealth frigates and six Scorpene submarines, is focussing on the modular ship design, which is one of the components of the programme for the up-gradation and modernization of shipyards in the country.

In another development of significance, the Ministry of Defence has taken over the Hindustan Shipyard from the Ministry of Shipping with a view to transform it into a hub of nuclear powered submarines. However, the lack of proper ground work and foresight resulted in Government being forced to withhold the joint venture plan between Mazagaon Dock and Pipavav shipyard. Certainly, this would have been a win-win combination, making for a formidable technological base to take up the challenging assignments from the Indian navy. Pipavav is considered one of the most sophisticated shipyards with the largest dry dock in the world and as such has a potential to contribute to self reliance in a big way.

Indian Navy is also working towards boosting its aviation assets aimed at positioning itself as a formidable maritime force. It has already ordered 49 deck based Mig-29K combat aircraft from Russia .Some of the aircraft that navy is planning to acquire in the near future will be designed to operate in the contemporary and futuristic electronic warfare environment with cutting edge technological features. Similarly, Indian Navy is looking at acquiring a range of state of the art helicopters to realize its long term strategic goals. Indeed the plan to acquire six P-81 Boeing long range maritime surveillance aircraft is quite relevant and timely to enhance Indian Navy’s situational awareness domain in the Indian ocean region where the menace of sea pirates has assumed a serious dimension. When Boeing hands over the first P-81 sometime next year, India will become the first non-US operator of this aircraft that will ultimately replace Soviet vintage Tupolev-142 M and Illyushin-38 long range patrol aircraft. Indian navy is also interested in acquiring four more of P-81.

In the ultimate analysis, the accretion plan of the Indian Navy, the forth largest maritime force in the world, looks at operating 150 plus warship of various categories and 500 aircraft including fighter jets, helicopters and maritime reconnaissance aircraft by 2027. Indian Navy’s strike capability will stands enhanced by a substantial extent when Long Range Surface to Air Missile(LRSAM), a guided weapon that the state owned Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is building in tie up with Israel Air Force Industries(IAI) gets ready for operational use. With a range of 70-km and weighing around 275-kg, the LRSAM with a high performance guidance system will be a force multiplier and game changer for the Indian navy. The trump card of the Indian Navy is the Indo-Russian supersonic cruise missile BrahMos which has already been inducted into some of its warships. The 290-km range BrahMos with a phenomenal destructive power has been described as the “most powerful and most formidable ”naval missile of its kind.

In a related development, Arihant is now poised for extensive sea trials as a prelude to make it fully operational by early 2013. Incidentally, over 6,000-tonne Arihant equipped with a dozen K-15 ballistic missiles will constitute the robust undersea leg of the Indian nuclear triad. As India has a policy of no “first use” of nuclear weapons, survivable retaliatory strike capability is dependent on the this nuclear powered submarine .

Chakra in tandem with Arihant will give Indian Navy a greater manoeuvrability to hoodwink the enemy’s surveillance system and strike hard as they can remain submerged indefinitely . Meanwhile Pakistan, which is, trying to match the Indian Naval capability has said it will build nuclear submarine to meet its defence requirements. “The nuclear submarine would be built in the country” said a government official and added “it would take 5 to 8 years to build the nuclear submarine after which Pakistan would join the list of countries that have a nuclear submarine.”

With China rapidly expanding its naval capability to realize its long standing ambition of challenging the might of American naval fleets moving across the high seas of the world, Indian navy is not willing to be left behind in the race to take care of the Indian interests across the vital global sea lanes. For realizing this vision, Indian Navy would need to strengthen its submarine fleet by a substantial extent. However, right at the moment the submarine asset of the Indian navy, leaves much to be desired. According to India’s public audit watch dog Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), navy’s submarine fleet is aging fast and by 2012, 63 percent of the vessels would have completed their operational life. The Navy which currently operates just 14 submarines has a submarine strength much below the envisaged force level. All the six Scorpene submarines being built with French assistance at the Mumbai based Mazagaon Dock under Project75 will be delivered between 2015 and 2018. The Scorpene production programme has been marred by delays and cost overruns. Indian Navy is also planning for a new production line of the next generation diesel electric submarine with Russian technology. This project has been cleared by the Defence Ministry.

The Indian Navy is fully well aware of the implications of the rights secured by China’s Ocean Mineral Research and Development Association(COMRA)from the International Seabed Authority for exploring poly-metallic nodules in the Indian ocean region. Indeed, this could serve as a cover to strengthen Chinese naval presence in this vital oceanic body. “The world has anxieties over the rise of China but the two countries that should watch out are India and Japan as China has the capacity to cast a shadow on them,” says Geir Lundestad of Norway’s Nobel Institute. For China, India’s joining hands with Vietnam for oil exploration in South China Sea, over which China claims total and absolute rights, has become a hard nut to crack.

However India’s endeavour to build Chabahar port at the mouth of the Persian Gulf in Iran close to Pakistan’s coastal stretch has entered a phase of stalemate presumably owing to international pressure in the wake of Iran’s vow to continue with its nuclear programme. “If India accelerates the work, the port of Chabahar will come up in record time because the Iranian side is fully equipped and willing to help India in completing the project,” says Mostafa Dolatyar of Teheran’s Institute for Political and International Studies, “For India, access to central Asian oil and gas is entirely dependent on its use of the Iranian ports and Chabahar will be a port dedicated to the Indian needs”.

On his part, Verma is clear in perception, “the Indian Navy’s current perspective level planning is driven by a conceptual shift from numbers of platforms—that is from the old bean counting philosophy to one that concentrates on capacity”.Giving details, Verma points out “In terms of force accretions in the immediate future, we are acquiring ships in accordance with Navy’s Maritime Capability Perspective Plan. Our preferred choice of inducting ships and submarines has been through the indigenous route and of the 49 ships and submarines on order, 45 are from Indian shipyards.”

For with China enlarging its footprint all over the Indian Ocean region through what is being viewed as its aim of creating a “string of pearls” of listening posts around India, Indian navy cannot afford to remain idle. China has already constructed an ultra modern port in Hambantota in Sri Lanka in addition to a number of maritime projects in Myanmar. And to India’s discomfiture, China has also bagged a project to build a deep sea harbour at Sonadiya near Chittagong in Bangladesh. Of course, for geo-political and strategic reasons, China has not obliged Pakistan in so far building a naval base at Gwadar is concerned.

Against this backdrop Indian Navy’s strategy to transform itself into a satellite augmented, network centric three dimensional force, assumes significance. As it is, the Indian Navy has drawn up an ambitious plan to acquire a range of satellites for a variety of end uses in the years ahead. To begin with, it would get GSat-7, a multi band communications satellite built by the Indian Space Research organisation(ISRO). GSAT-7 will help the Indian Navy link up its long range missiles , radar and air defence networks to a central room through a dedicated satellite communications network. The most striking advantage of GSAT-7 is that it would provide secure, reliable and hassle free communications channel. GSAT-7 which will encase the rich and varied experience of ISRO in building INSAT series of communications spacecraft will help smoothen naval plan for a robust net centric war platform. This satellite with 600-100 nautical miles footprints over the Indian Ocean will enhance maritime domain awareness of the Navy over the Indian ocean region which India considers to be the primary area of responsibility in terms of maritime security.

Not even sky seems to be the limit for Indian navy’s ambitions to acquire space assets. Looking ahead, it is keen on acquiring dedicated satellites for applications such as navigation, ocean watch, reconnaissance and surveillance, electronics intelligence and weather prediction in addition to communications and data transfer . The ultimate objective of the Indian Navy is to create and sustain a three dimensional, technology enabled, satellite augmented network centric system to transform itself into a forward looking, formidable sea power. Indian Navy’s radical shift in its strategic outlook is clearly exemplified by the fact that it is aiming for a global reach from being a just regional sea power worried about the threats from China and Pakistan. That Navy is looking well beyond China and Pakistan to position itself as a maritime force capable of taking care of Indian interests across the high seas of the world augurs well for India’s long term strategic vision of attaining the status of a major military power.