GROSSLY OFFENSIVE SNIPPET - not the snippet but the story it conveys! 13th August 2013 - with
a sad post script of the 14th August 2013 plus!


Year in and year out, the UK, with all the stupidity it can command at Westminster and in the Hall's of the do-gooders, have given £Billions to so-called second and third world countries in Aid. Many of these 'needy/poor' countries, who are in reality parasite-states, taking all and giving nothing back, not even to those in need [the reason for the aid],  are so sophisticated technology-wise that many have their own space programmes.

In the last three years alone, India, just one of the parasites, has taken getting on for £1B from the UK [and who knows the cost to other foolhardy nations and organisations] and has now had the audacity to announce that she has been able to produce "an indigenous"  made ballistic- firing submarine. It is probable that not only the money but the technology also was gained through parasitic means, and for those reasons, the expression "foreign assisted" should supplant their word of "indigenous". 


We, us UK'ites, at least so we are told, are in the mire and yet we deny our own national institutions, the NHS for example, the funds it needs to enable it to look after us as we deserve, so that our sickening Government can be seen to be a global philanthropist, a quintessential 'goody two-shoes'! These parasitic-nations really must pinch themselves and wonder whether they have died and gone to heaven, thanking, in India's case, 'Lakshmi' for her guile and for organising a meet-up with an easy-touch, gullible, stupid and naive nation. In the light of things, £1B is probably not a great deal of money and it certainly wouldn't fund a ballistic-firing nuclear submarine throughout all its build phases, from drawing board to R&D, to build proper to trials, tests and evaluations, commissioning and operational readiness inspection. On the other hand, it would, I am sure, provide many much needed medical scanners for UK hospitals, or a few extra bank notes into the purses of our truly needy elderly and infirmed people. They at least, and if not them, their near relatives, have paid into the British system in years gone by and they should see the benefits of those contributions.


I have written quite a bit on this site about the old Royal Navies extant at the end of WW2. Amongst them, fighting for the Allies and so meritorious, was the R.I.N., Royal Indian Navy. I have now changed R.I.N. to mean 'Rapacious Indian Navy', and if it doesn't fit there, I would use it to mean 'Rapacious Indian Nation'.


So my dear readers, meet India's first nuclear submarine, a vessel which could well help to expedite the draining of the Indian Navy's coffers, and this, at a time when India cannot provide the basic needs of its ever growing population {hence their need for aid} let alone them joining the UK inter alia, and become a 'giver' to nations many times poorer than India!


Some will argue that India needs to be able to combat the spread of extremism in Islamic countries, particularly those virtually surrounding it to the North [Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Afghanistan] and also to have a part to play in the growing Chinese expansion and its rapidly expanding navy into the Indian and Pacific Oceans, with Japan also taking on a massive increase in self-defence expenditure, and I agree that she should. However, humanitarian aid should not end up in the pockets of the wealthy or be used for armaments, and there are ways to control their population expansion to a manageable level! Loans, with interest and pay-back times with tight fiscal controls in place, should be made available to countries like India [manifestly border-line poor but their salvation well within their power to correct were they inclined to do so, and not really in need of aid as are several African countries, even after addressing and curtailing corruption].


If India wants to become a Nuclear Super Power {that incidentally is many steps ahead of being self-sufficient in defence, and statistic show in August 2013 that only the USA can claim that title}, then let them 'cut their coat according to their cloth'! Every existing nuclear  power - France, UK, Russian/CIS [Commonwealth of Independent States], China -  and a whole host of would be aspirants - Brazil, Iran, North Korea, Japan, Pakistan etc - know the cost, sacrifice and challenge to their economies in trying to out do their peers in the arms race. Iran, North Korea and Pakistan in particular are, despite oil in some, poor to the poorest countries and their nuclear-ego programmes will make them poorer still. Their subjects are subdued to a point where going without for the sake of 'might', but only as they themselves see it, is a price worth paying.  In the one and only true Super Power, the USA, the population see the very opposite for they have plenty [despite statistic of street-sleeping-poor] in every cupboard and as long as the status quo remains they are happy to spend enough to keep them top dogs.


India, a land of extremes of the mega rich and the poorest of the poor, is a nation evolving and might not, in the future, accept poverty for a nuclear option. The attainment of being a nuclear super power, means a change of life for the population, a change so dramatic that it might lead to a counter productive reaction, producing a want to sustain their betterment in economic terms moving every forward to Western style materialism, with little of size left in the coffer to squander on weapons other than for self-defence. Population is obvious: it must be reduced to Western standards, but 'pigs might fly', and we all know that will be an impossible task to achieve. The UK is not a nuclear super power, but a power with nuclear defensive weapons - so don't mess with!


Whatever their aspirations are, other than having the first of a nuclear defensive weapon, the UK should immediately withdraw all aid to India, and only if necessary, renegotiate the original reasons, terms and promises of the aid. If it is doing things other than feeding the poorest in their vast lands, then the money is better spent in the UK. The India's are not known for their prowess as submariners, and currently, they have a fleet which is a mixture of reasonably 'new' and demonstrably 'old' boats purchased from several sources. It is known that she has many defects in percentage terms, similar and sadly like the Canadians and the Australians, and has few boats I would like to serve in!

As for the boat's name in Sanskirt  [see below] the Indian's might well use my interpretation here where each word, minus punctuation of course, starts with a letter [used once only] from the basic word of 'Arihant' moving left to right:

 ALWAYS REMEMBER, I HOPE, A NUCLEAR THREAT.............can be combated by the 'Arihant'

paid for by the British tax payer.


India’s first nuclear sub leads quest to join superpowers

Manmohan Singh says India has taken a major step forward in its ambition to become a nuclear superpower




Published at 12:01AM, August 12 2013

Its Sanskrit name, Arihant, means “Destroyer of Enemies”. Once fully operational, its dozen nuclear-tipped missiles will be capable of devastating foreign cities such as Karachi or Shanghai from hundreds of miles away deep beneath the sea.

Manmohan Singh, the Prime Minister of India, declared the country had taken a major step forward in its ambition to become a nuclear superpower as it switched on the reactor of its first indigenously designed and built nuclear submarine, giving it the power to launch nuclear missiles from land, air and sea for the first time.

The 6,000-tonne vessel’s 85-megawatt nuclear reactor went “critical”



A sad day indeed for the Indian Navy as the news broke early today of a serious explosion in one of her boats whilst at Mumbai.

Indian submarine explodes and sinks in Mumbai, trapping 18 crew

Huge fireball lights up Mumbai dockyard after Russian-built INS Sindhurakshak reportedly ignites two warheads



Video footage shows the extent of the fire in Mumbai after the explosion on board INS Sindhurakshak. Photograph: Reuters

A Russian-built submarine of the Indian navy has exploded in Mumbai harbour, with 18 sailors believed to be trapped inside.

Several other crew members were reported to have escaped by jumping off the submarine when it blew up on Tuesday night, sparking a huge fire. Several injured navy personnel were being treated in a naval hospital.

"Naval divers are trying to rescue the sailors still inside the semi-submerged submarine," said naval spokesman PVS Satish. "We will not give up until we find them."

After the explosion in the Russian Kilo-class INS Sindhurakshak, two torpedoes from the submarine were set off, damaging other vessels in the naval dockyard.

The diesel-electric submarine, built in St Petersburg in 1997, had undergone a two-year upgrade in Russia after a battery on board gave trouble in April 2010.

Capable of firing cruise missiles at a range of 125 miles (200km), it had been reintroduced into the Indian navy only in April.

The explosion is believed to be an accident, and investigations are likely to focus on the same cause as in 2010 – a defective battery.

Social media film of the explosion, repeatedly aired on Indian TV networks, showed a huge ball of fire lighting up the naval dockyard in Mumbai.

Besides navy firefighting units, 16 fire engines from the Mumbai Fire Brigade battled the inferno, which was brought under control at around 3am.

According to TV news reports, the fire set off two torpedoes on board the INS Sindhurakshak, and the deadly missiles hit another submarine and a naval vessel. The damage to the second submarine was minor, the reports suggested.
"It's a major setback, as out of around 14 submarines, the Indian navy only has a few operational subs available," said Srinjoy Chowdhury, defence correspondent of Times Now. "The INS Sindhurakshak was one of them."

The Indian navy has been celebrating two breakthroughs in the past week in its quest to emerge as a "blue-water navy", capable of operating across vast stretches of ocean.

Its first home-built aircraft carrier, INS Vikrant, was launched on Monday, though it will not be battle-ready until 2020. And on 10 August the reactor in India's first indigenously built nuclear submarine, INS Arihant, went critical.

The nuclear-powered submarine is due to begin sea trials before it is made fully operational. The navy already has on lease a Russian-built nuclear submarine, the INS Chakra. But the Chakra cannot be armed with nuclear-tipped missiles due to international non-proliferation treaties.


May these men be rescued, freed and made safe, and may the resultant damage be minimised. May God Bless the loved one's of any deceased crew member. Battery fires in diesel electric boats occur infrequently but when they do they can have devastating consequences. Nuclear submarines carry small batteries not used for primary propulsion unlike diesel electrics which carry enormous batteries, which are fitted midships, usually running through the whole length of the accommodation space and into the control room, weighing many hundreds of tons - *see below for an example. This picture shows a typical British diesel electric fit with the batteries clearly shown, with NO1 battery forward and NO2 aft of it. Clearly if those ratings off-watch were in their messes taking leisure, then you can imagine what would happen as the deck plates [designed to be lifted to service the battery] buckled under their feet with hydrogen explosions abounding, the spreading of battery acid with its burning affect on human flesh and the ferocious fire which would be inevitable.  Fortunately she was on the surface when the accident occurred which would lessen the outcome on personnel, especially if she was being towed by tugs and not using her main diesel engines which would have had a wafting affect on the flames of the fire, because of the increased volume of air being dragged down the conning tower to feed the 'hungry engines' in the proverbial combustion triangle of heat, fuel and oxygen.


 As well as being the  submerged energy source, the Batteries also provides the Submarines ballast which is an essential design feature impacting on trim, stability, buoyancy and manoeuvrability.    This feature and the fact that the Batteries must fit exactly into specifically designed and configured Battery Compartments means that battery weight and size parameters must be very closely controlled throughout the manufacturing process.   To put this into context, the Battery can be 12 – 18% of the Submarines weight.


* Take two types of boats, old'ish @ 220V DC and post-modern @ 440V of  UK submarines: I served in both 220 and 440 Boats!    As well as being the  submerged energy source, the Batteries [two, three or four  in number] giving a PRESSURE or a VOLTAGE of 22OV or 440 V DC.  Each battery depending upon the voltage of the system has either 112 or 224 cells, and each cell produces approximately 2 V DC - just like your car battery. Each cell is connected in SERIES giving in theory 224V or 448V DC for the UK 'O' Class boats.  Each of these cells fits into an envelope measuring 2' x 1' x 3.5 ' high. Each cell configuration weighs no less than one half of a ton. The magic figure for a submarine skipper to hear is that his batteries have been fully charged so that they have a specific gravity of 1280.  The batteries also provides the Submarines ballast which is an essential design feature impacting on trim, stability, buoyancy and manoeuvrability.    This feature and the fact that the Battery must fit exactly into specifically designed and configured Battery Compartments means that battery weight and size parameters must be very closely controlled throughout the manufacturing process.   To put this into context, the Battery can be 12 – 18% of the Submarines weight. Naval vessels are not weighed although of course they have a physical weight. Instead we calculate the amount of water displaced when a vessel enters a given measuring area, a bath for Archimedes. That water is collected and weighed and the weight is what the vessel has displaced. Naval vessels therefore have a displacement, and the displacement of a typical UK O-Class is 2200 tons on average, average being when the boat is on the surface and when it is submerged - they differ greatly. Taking the measurement of 12 to 18 percent of the boats displacement, the battery can weigh up to {taking the 15% mark} 330 tons. 

Pray for the crew, for the families and for the submarine service, no matter what the nation. 

On the 15th August this news story broke.............

India's submarine tragedy leaves navy facing awkward questions

Inquiry set up into sinking of INS Sindhurakshak after unexplained blasts sink vessel leaving 18 sailors missing

India's navy has suffered its worst accident in more than 40 years when a fire on board a Russian-built submarine triggered two explosions and sent the vessel nosediving into the dockyard at Mumbai. Eighteen sailors on the vessel were missing, feared dead.

The explosions, believed to be caused by onboard weapons detonated by the fire, broke out overnight on Tuesday on the INS Sindhurakshak, described by analysts as India's most potent submarine.

Naval chiefs were facing awkward questions after it emerged that there was an accident on the same vessel three years ago, in which one sailor died.

Three crew members who were on watch on top of the submarine managed to jump off the hull, escaping with minor injuries.

"But they are in total shock, and unable to add very much to what we saw of the explosion on TV," said the Indian navy chief, Admiral DK Joshi. "This is a tragedy, and a dent in our capability for the time being."

The 16-year-old, Kilo class submarine, which had undergone a £50m refit and upgrade in Russia and returned to active duty earlier this year, had docked at Mumbai for supplies and maintenance and was due to leave the next day.

Most of its 58-strong crew, including the commanding officer, were on shore when the submarine exploded.

"It was the Indian navy's best and most potent submarine," said defence expert Mohan Guruswamy, who had visited the INS Sindhurakshak last week. "It was the most modern and versatile submarine in all of Asia."

Naval dockyard in Mumbai, India

The naval dockyard in Mumbai: INS Sindhurakshak is described by analysts as India’s most potent submarine.

Besides anti-ship torpedoes, the submarine was fitted with missiles capable of attacking targets on land 125 miles away.

As naval divers opened the first hatch in the partially submerged vessel in the hope of finding survivors trapped inside watertight compartments, the twisted and mangled nose of the submarine clearly indicated that the ordnance stored inside had exploded.

The explosion damaged another submarine docked alongside the Sindhurakshak. Two frigates and a tanker were also hit, though none of the other vessels suffered serious damage.

It was initially suspected that the submarine's batteries, located in the nose, had caught fire while being recharged, detonating at least two torpedoes. Hydrogen gas is used for the recharging, making it a risky operation. But this was ruled out by the navy chief.

{Comment by me Godfrey Dykes}

It is highly unlikely that batteries are fitted forward where there is a great deal of ordnance fitted and stowed. Batteries are not recharged with  "hydrogen gas" which is an undesirable and highly dangerous by-product of battery charging which is done by running the main diesel engines with the propeller/shaft clutches/gearing disengaged if doing a harbour-charge, or engaged at sea, thereby charging the batteries at the same time as propelling the vessel through the water.  This procedure for a diesel electric boat is called "snorting". Battery Compartments which are prone to 'gassing' giving off highly explosive hydrogen, are widely fitted with hydrogen gas measuring devices which are regularly observed. There is a strictly imposed rule of no smoking or naked flames when hydrogen levels are high.  If, as is stated, the last charge, which makes operational sense, was conducted three days before arrival in Mumbai, the 'gassing problem' would be non- existent. Heading for Mumbai from her last dived position, would have almost certainly been a "surface-run" using the main engines and not the battery/main motors.

{Back to media report}

"The battery recharging was over on this submarine three days ago," said Joshi. "As of now, we do not have an answer to the basic question of what caused the fire."

Although he said that sabotage could not be ruled out at this stage, "all indicators suggest that the fire was nothing but an accident". The navy has set up a board of inquiry to investigate the disaster.

The accident occurred just when the Indian navy was celebrating two important breakthroughs in its quest to emerge as a "blue-water navy", capable of operating across vast stretches of ocean.

Its first home-built aircraft carrier, INS Vikrant, was launched on Monday, though it will not be battle ready until 2020. And on 10 August, the reactor in India's first indigenously built nuclear-powered submarine, INS Arihant, went critical. The Arihant is due to begin sea trials before it is made fully operational.

But defence analysts point out that the Indian navy has fallen behind badly in its operational capability.

"The navy is functioning under strength," said Guruswamy. "For instance, it is supposed to have 24 submarines – it has only 14. And only half are operational." A recent report by a government auditor painted a bleak picture of the navy's preparedness.

The construction of six French Scorpene-class submarines in Mumbai has been delayed, as has the navy's plan to acquire new submarines from foreign manufacturers.

"The Indian navy currently holds just 67% of the force level envisaged in its 1985 (maritime expansion) plan," the auditor's report said.

Defence analysts blame the government for the failure. "The defence ministry takes too long for every decision. There is a lack of urgency over everything," said Guruswamy.



Date Line 16th August 2013


Three bodies found in sunken India submarine

In this handout photograph released by the Ministry of Defence, Chief for Indian Naval Staff, Admiral D.K. Joshi (L) briefs Indian Defence Minister A.K. Antony (C) at the scene as Indian Navy personnel work at the conning tower of the stricken INS Sindhurakshak, after the submarine sank following an explosion at the naval dockyard in Mumbai on August 14, 2013
The navy says that it will continue the search until all bodies are located or it can be stated with finality that none remain to be found

Indian navy divers have recovered three bodies from a submarine which sank after it exploded in a Mumbai dockyard, with 18 sailors feared dead on board.

"Three bodies have been located and extricated... They are severely disfigured and not identifiable due to severe burns," a navy spokesman said.

"A search is on for more but finding any survivors is unlikely," he added.

Earlier, the navy released names of the 18 missing crew members, whose families have begun arriving in Mumbai.

It is not clear what caused the blasts on the diesel and electricity-powered INS Sindhurakshak.

An inquiry is under way and sabotage has not been ruled out, although officials say that looks unlikely.


Diving teams have been working "non-stop to reach into the compartments of the submarine" since rescue operations began on 14 August, the navy said.

"Access to the inner compartments of the submarine was made almost impossible due to jammed doors and hatches, distorted ladders, oily and muddy waters inside the submerged submarine resulting in total darkness and nil-visibility even with high power underwater lamps," the spokesman told reporters on Friday.

Divers were only able to reach "the second compartment behind the conning tower" where the bodies were found "after 36 hours of continuous diving effort", he said, adding that the bodies had been sent to the naval hospital for possible DNA identification.

The state of the bodies and conditions within the submarine "led to [the] firm conclusion that finding any surviving personnel within the submarine is unlikely", the spokesman said.

The operation was made even more difficult "as the explosion and very high temperatures, which melted steel within, would have incinerated the bodies too", he added.

"However, the navy will continue to search every inch of the submarine till all bodies are either located or it can be stated with finality that no bodies remain to be found.


"Salvage of the submarine would only be attempted thereafter for which many alternatives including deploying professional salvers are being considered," he said.

On Thursday night, the navy released the names of the 18 missing crew, which included three officers and 15 sailors.


A Navy press note said the three officers are:

Lt Commander Nikhilesh Pal

Lt Commander Alok Kumar

 Lt Commander R Venkatraj.


The sailors are identified as:

 Sanjeev Kumar

KC Upadhyay

Timothy Sinha

Keval Singh

Sunil Kumar

Dasari Prasad

Liju Lawrence

Rajesh Tootika

Amit Singh

Atul Sharma


Naruttam Deuri

Malay Haldar

Vishnu V

 Sitaram Badapalle.


The INS Sindhurakshak is one of the 10 Kilo-class submarines bought from Russia between 1986 and 2000. It is equipped with Russian Club-S cruise missile systems.

The vessel had recently been upgraded at a cost of $80m (£52m) and it was armed with missiles and torpedoes.