Piracy Reports 31 October to 7 November 2013

INDIAN OCEAN: On 6 November, a merchant vessel reported a pirate attack near position 05:40 S – 046:59 E, approximately 450 nm east-southeast of Mombasa, Kenya. The ship reported being attacked by five heavily armed pirates in one skiff, with the pirates reportedly exchanging gunfire with the ship’s embarked security team. The alarm was raised as the attack started, and the ship increased speed, activated the fire pumps, and started evasive maneuvers. The pirates reportedly moved away from the ship after the embarked security team returned gunfire.

INDIAN OCEAN: On 5 November, FGS NIEDERSACHSEN interdicted a pirate attack off Somalia. The PAG reportedly consisted of one whaler and skiff. There
were ten suspected pirates sighted in the boats along with numerous large fuel barrels. Upon closer surveillance, personnel in the boats were reportedly seen throwing two long ladders overboard before heading back to the beach.

INDONESIA: On 4 November, an anchored chemical tanker experienced an attempted boarding near position 03:54 N – 098:46 E, Belawan Anchorage. Duty crew spotted one boat with robbers attempting to board the tanker via anchor chain but alert crew thwarted the boarding. A second boat was hidden near the propeller and the crew could not chase them away with fire hoses. The propeller was turned on resulting in the robbers moving away. The robbers were spotted with some stolen hull anodes in their boat. Port Control informed of the incident.

INDIA: On 2 November, an anchored container ship experienced a boarding near position 21:40 N – 088:01 E, Sagar Anchorage. 15 armed robbers boarded the ship and were spotted by ship’s duty officer, who raised the alarm. The robbers were stealing ship’s stores and jumped overboard when the alarm was raised.

Source: United States Navy, Office of Naval Intelligence.

Piracy reports 24-31 October, 2013

It appears to have been a quiet week in the Gulf of Aden and the Gulf of Guinea, but not so much in Asian waters.

On 30 October, an underway chemical tanker experienced a boarding approximately 2.5 nm southwest of Outer Tuna Bouy, Kandla Anchorage. During routine rounds, a duty crewman noticed intruders boarding the vessel near the amidships storeroom. He immediately informed the duty officer who raised the alarm and mustered the crew. Upon seeing the crew response, the intruders fled the scene with stolen ship’s stores. Kandla Port Trust relayed details of the incident to the local Coast Guard office.

On 30 October, an underway asphalt tanker experienced a boarding in position 01:21 N – 104:24 E near the Horsburgh Lighthouse, Straits of Singapore. Five robbers armed with guns and knives boarded the ship unnoticed. They took hostage the Officer of the Watch and duty crewman and tied their hands. The pirates stole personal belongings and cash from crew cabins before escaping.

On 28 October, an anchored container ship experienced a boarding at position 21:50 N – 091:38 E in the Chittagong Anchorage. A duty crewman noticed five to six intruders at the poop deck while conducting routine rounds. He immediately informed the bridge and the alarm was raised. Upon hearing the alarm, the boarders jumped overboard and escaped with ship’s stores in their unlit boat.

On 27 October, an anchored chemical tanker experienced a boarding near position 03:56 N – 098:45 E, Belawan Outer Anchorage, Indonesia. Three skiffs approached the ship from the stern, forward and amidships. From the aft skiff, three pirates boarded the vessel and stole ship’s property. The crew noticed the boarders and raised the alarm, resulting in the pirates escaping.

On 26 October, an underway chemical tanker experienced an attempted boarding near position 03:40 N – 103:55 E approximately 35 nm east-southeast of Kuantan Port, Malaysia. Two small craft approached the tanker and tried to come alongside while underway. The Duty Officer raised the alarm and mustered the crew. The Master activated the Ship Security Alert System (SSAS), switched on all the deck lights, and steered a course away from land. Seeing the crew response, the boats aborted the boarding and moved away.

Indian Navy anti-piracy convoy schedule for Gulf of Aden, November 2013

Indian Navy anti-piracy convoy schedule for November, 2013:

GULF OF ADEN: Indian Navy convoy escort schedule for October and November 2013. To register, email antipiracyescort@dgshipping.com or dgcommcentre@satyammail.net, or visit http://www.dgshipping.com. Telephone numbers for contact are: 91-22-22614646 or fax at 91-22-22613636 (MSCHOA).

Source: US Navy, Office of Naval Intelligence

India to lease 2nd nuclear submarine from Russia

Under the deal, India would provide funds to restart construction on the Akula I attack boat Iribis that was laid down at the Amur shipyard in 1994 and had its construction halted in 1996 at 42% completion due to lack of funds. (The “mighty Soviet navy” being neither mighty, nor Soviet, nor barely a navy in those days.)

India may finalize deal to lease second nuclear submarine from Russia during PM’s visit

NEW DELHI: Faced with a depleting fleet of submarines, India is expected to acquire on lease a nuclear submarine from Russia, a deal for which may be finalized during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit there starting on Sunday.

The move to acquire the second nuclear submarine from Russia comes two months after the Navy’s frontline Russian-origin Kilo Class INS Sindhurakshak submarine sank at the Mumbai harbour after an explosion suspected to have occurred in its torpedo section.

A proposal in this regard was approved by the Cabinet Committee on Security headed by the Prime Minister in its recent meeting. The deal is expected to cost India more than Rs 6,000 crore, highly-placed government sources told PTI.

The Indian Navy is already operating one Akula II Class nuclear submarine — Nerpa. The over 8,000-tonne warship was inducted in April last year at the Visakhapatnam-based Eastern Naval Command and renamed ‘INS Chakra’.

Under the project, India is planning to finance the construction of an old Akula Class submarine ‘Irbis’ in Russia, which could not be completed during the 1990s due to the lack of funds after the break up of the erstwhile USSR.

The two countries have been holding negotiations in this regard for quite some time and they were concluded recently. The construction of the submarine is expected to take at least three to four years.

India’s submarine fleet, which is getting old, suffered a huge blow after the sinking of the INS Sindhurakshak at the Mumbai harbour, killing all the 18 people on-board.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-10-20/india/43220501_1_akula-ii-class-ins-sindhurakshak-submarine

The sneaky-beaky Cold War adventures of Australia’s Oberon-class submarines

Love, love, love those Oberon-class boats. First submarine I ever set foot on was HMS Opossum as a small awestruck lad. Loved them ever since. This troy about the RAN’s O boats is an absolute corker.

Cold War exploits of Australia’s secret submarines

The Oberon-class submarine HMAS Onslow at the Singapore Naval Base 1974. Picture: The Australian National Maritime Museum Source: Supplied

ON February 20, 1986, six senior naval officers came to the cabinet room in Canberra to brief prime minister Bob Hawke on Australia’s secret Cold War submarine operations in Asia.

Defence minister Kim Beazley had invited them to explain to Hawke what the navy’s ageing Oberon-class submarines were capable of, and what they’d achieved on dangerous, clandestine missions to Vietnam and China. Beazley wanted to lock in Hawke’s support for the costly and contentious plan to build six Collins-class subs in Australia.

The large and genial defence minister understood the strategic value of submarines as offensive and defensive weapons. When Hawke arrived, he looked like thunder and his crabbed body language signalled he wanted to be anywhere but hearing a presentation from the navy.

That was soon to change. Commander Kim Pitt began explaining he had been on patrol in HMAS Orion in the South China Sea from September 17 until November 9 the previous year; the focus of that patrol was Cam Ranh Bay on the east coast of Vietnam, then the largest Soviet naval base outside the USSR.

Pitt began a video that grabbed Hawke’s attention and immediately transformed his mood. The PM appeared transfixed as he watched dramatic and brilliantly clear footage taken by HMAS Orion as it slipped in behind and beneath a surfaced Soviet Charlie-class nuclear submarine heading into the Vietnamese port.

The video began with distant pictures of the Soviet submarine motoring towards the harbour, well outside the 12-nautical mile (22.2km) Vietnamese territorial limit. The video was shot through a camera in Orion’s periscope as the submarine loitered, barely submerged in the choppy sea.

Then Pitt took the Orion deep, ran in close behind the Soviet boat, and came up to periscope depth again. Now the video showed the Soviet submarine’s wake boiling and bubbling on the surface. Hawke watched, startled, as a clear image of the turning propeller appeared on the screen just above and ahead of Orion.

Pitt ran beneath the Soviet submarine, filming sonar and other fittings mounted along its hull. The remarkably clear pictures exposed the underwater secrets of Charlie-class technology. The only other way to get them would be for a western spy to penetrate dry-docks in the Soviet Union.

Pitt positioned Orion ahead of and beneath the Soviet submarine, slowed almost to a stop, and then allowed the Soviet boat to pass him while he filmed the other side of its hull.

Hawke grasped intuitively that this video intelligence would add immensely to Australia’s prestige in the US. It could be used to Australia’s advantage in negotiations with Washington and gave Australia a seat at the top table in the global Cold War intelligence collection game. For 45 minutes, Hawke asked questions about how the patrols were organised; their duration, their frequency, their success. He was told how the submarines recorded radio transmissions to deliver vital intelligence to the Western effort to track and identify the Soviet fleet.

The officers put up a photograph of a Soviet Kirov-class nuclear-powered cruiser, much admired by Western navies. US spy satellites had picked up the cruiser leaving its base in Murmansk and tracked it around the Cape of Good Hope and into the Indian Ocean.

The RAN sent the guided missile frigate HMAS Canberra to intercept the cruiser off Sri Lanka and follow it through the Strait of Malacca and up towards Cam Ranh Bay. The frigate took vital photographs and monitored the cruiser’s communications until it approached Vietnam.

Pitt, in HMAS Orion, was waiting, submerged outside Cam Ranh Bay with the submarine’s communications masts deployed to record the cruiser’s arrival. He recorded its procedures and protocols, which deepened Western understanding of Soviet naval communications and command and control systems, meaning the West might be able to jam them in the event of hostilities.

The cautious admiral Mike Hudson, chief of the naval staff, dismayed the submariners by telling Hawke that while the operation was professional and produced good intelligence, it was very hazardous. A submarine might be detected and possibly captured, with serious international consequences. “As we do more and more patrols, the likelihood of this happening will increase,” Hudson said.

Hawke rounded on him. “No, you are wrong,” he replied. “I’ve got a degree in statistics and I can tell you that the probability of detection does not increase as the number of patrols increase. They are discrete, one-off events and the probability of detection is constant.”

Beazley was delighted with the meeting. Hawke’s support for new submarines was locked in. The submarine officers were also triumphant. They had put together a show that had convinced Hawke, converting him from curmudgeon to champion.

They did not tell Hawke that Pitt had also video-taped a submerged conventional Soviet submarine going into Cam Ranh Bay. It was brilliant submarine seamanship, but some of his colleagues regarded it as dangerous and unnecessary and Pitt as “a bit of a pirate”. He later became director of submarine warfare.

The mystery boat operations were shrouded in secrecy as the submarines collected intelligence on the Soviet nuclear submarine and surface fleets and reinforced the US-Australia alliance. They also won Australian submariners their spurs in the Cold War’s global espionage game, as they showed uncommon bravery, dash and initiative on about 20 patrols between 1977 and 1992.

Their success ensured the Collins-class submarines were built and secured the future of Australia’s submarine service.

But the last patrol in the series proved a dangerous failure, with HMAS Orion at grave risk of detection and capture.

On October 22, 1992, she left Sydney Harbour and headed for Shanghai to gather intelligence on the Chinese navy, especially its new submarines. Orion’s CO was commander Rick Shalders, who later commanded Australia’s Collins-class submarine fleet.

The Americans wanted better intelligence on the Chinese navy, but US nuclear submarines were too big to be sent into the shallow waters of the East China Sea. Australia’s smaller O-boats were ideal for the task.

Shanghai was China’s biggest mainland harbour at the wide mouth of the Yangtse river; the water was shallow and murky, and busy with non-military shipping, including the local fishing fleet and ferries. The shoreline was heavily urbanised.

It would not be easy to stay unseen and undetected while barely submerged and trying to collect intelligence, and the consequences of detection could be grave for the submarine’s crew and for Australia-China relations.

Shalders’s trip to the area of operations was uneventful and the submariners were looking forward to getting their work done and getting back to the relatively safety of the open sea. Orion was equipped with the best photographic and electronic intelligence collection equipment; civilian language specialists were on board to translate Chinese navy transmissions.

But the patrol proved a nightmare, with the harbour crowded with fishing boats, many trailing long fishing lines and nets.

Shalders had to raise his periscope periodically to check the intelligence-collection aerials.

The fishermen constantly watched for signs of fish and could not miss minor disturbances made by Orion’s equipment and by the presence of the submarine not far below the surface.

They followed Orion around the harbour. Shalders could not surface and could not risk moving quickly away from the danger.

Things started to get desperate when Orion fouled the fishing lines and nets. One fishing boat started to sink by its bow as its net became entangled with the submarine. The fisherman saved himself by cutting away the net from the boat with an axe.

By now Shalders knew he was facing possible disaster. It was only a matter of time before the Peoples’ Liberation Navy became aware something was seriously amiss and investigated what was going on in the shallow water. Shalders and his crew faced the real prospect of detection, surrender, capture, imprisonment, trial and possible execution as spies. Relations between Australia and China would be in tatters. Shalders decided he had no choice but to abandon the operation.

Summoning all his skills, he took the submarine out of the harbour and into the relative safety of the East China Sea. The Australians returned home with nothing to show for their hair-raising experience.

The then chief of the naval staff, admiral Ian McDougall, a former submarine commander, told defence minister Robert Ray the O-boats were reaching the limits of their service lives and the patrols should be stopped because of the growing danger.

The submarine service was incandescent. It saw the patrols as invaluable for its reputation at home and abroad, and for continuing access to funding. The submariners wanted to preserve the skills they had developed.

The Defence Intelligence Organisation argued that despite the Soviet collapse there was an acute need to collect intelligence on the military activities of other countries, especially China, India and Indonesia, and that submarines were the most effective means. But Ray accepted McDougall’s advice and ordered an end to the patrols.

A senior submariner, commander John Dikkenberg, met Hawke’s successor as PM, Paul Keating, to argue for reinstatement of the patrols. Keating listened carefully, but would not over-rule his defence minister.

Four years later, when Ian McLachlan was appointed John Howard’s first defence minister, he asked to be briefed on the cancelled patrols. The navy urged their resumption and was given the OK for a carefully controlled and limited mission off Indonesia to re-establish intelligence-collecting skills.

Bronwyn Bishop, then minister for defence science and technology, also accepted that skills were being lost and gave her blessing to resumed patrols. Six more patrols were undertaken, mainly monitoring Indonesian military communications around Indonesia and East Timor. The Howard government wanted more information on Indonesian military activities in Timor, where Fretilin guerillas were still fighting for independence.

The new Abbott government is considering whether to acquire a fleet of 12 new submarines, which would represent Australia’s largest defence project. If it does, the proud Cold War history of the O-boats will have helped persuade decision-makers that submarines, despite their daunting cost, can be very good value indeed for taxpayers’ dollars.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/cold-war-exploits-of-australias-secret-submarines/story-e6frg6z6-1226742599268

Police in India arrest crew of US-owned maritime security vessel

Police in India have arrested the crew of a US-owned ship that is operated by maritime security company AdvanFort. In a statement issued on the AdvanFort website, the company states “as is routine in such matters, Indian authorities are auditing the vessel’s records during the port stay while supplies, provisions and fuel are being transferred.” Always good to be positive about things like this instead of pointing fingers, I suppose.

MV Seaman Guard Ohio: India police arrest crew of US ship

Indian officials say the ship is owned by a private US-based security firm and registered in Sierra Leone.

Police in India say they have arrested the crew of a US-owned ship accused of illegally entering Indian waters with a huge cache of weapons on board.

Officials say MV Seaman Guard Ohio was detained on 12 October by the Indian Coast Guard and is currently anchored at port in southern Tamil Nadu state.

Its 35-member crew include Indians, Britons, Ukrainians and Estonians.

The ship’s owner, AdvanFort, said the vessel was involved in supporting anti-piracy operations in the Indian Ocean.

But there have been differing accounts of the chain of events from the Indian authorities and the US-based security firm.

Piracy threat

The Indian authorities say they intercepted the American ship last weekend when it was reportedly sailing off the coast of Tamil Nadu.

Police also said they found weapons and ammunition on board, which had not been properly declared.

But in a statement released on Monday, AdvanFort said India’s coast guard and police allowed the vessel to enter the port to refuel and shelter from a cyclone which hit India’s eastern coast last weekend, even thanking officials.

It added that all weaponry and equipment on board was properly registered.

In recent years piracy has emerged as a major threat to merchant ships in the Indian Ocean and the Arabian Sea, with ships and their crews sometimes hijacked for ransom.

There have been fewer attacks recently, partly because more armed guards are now deployed on board.

On Friday, police said that 33 crew members had been taken to a local police station for questioning. Two had been allowed to remain on the vessel at port in Tuticorin.

Six of the crew members are Britons and the British high commission in Delhi said consular officials had been in touch with them by email and with the local authorities, but they were still trying to clarify exactly what had happened and on what grounds they had been detained.

The US embassy told the BBC it had “no comment” to make.

Protection

According to AdvanFort there were privately contracted security personnel on board the Sierra-Leone registered MV Seaman Guard Ohio.

It said that as these men routinely provide counter-piracy protection they also had uniforms, protective equipment, medical kits, rifles and ammunition – “all of which is properly registered and licensed to AdvanFort”.

The company added that the vessel “provides an accommodations platform for AdvanFort’s counter-piracy guards between transits on client commercial vessels transiting the high risk area”.

Analysts say that anti-piracy measures on high-risk shipping routes are poorly regulated and India is increasingly sensitive to violations of its maritime boundaries.

Since February 2012 India and Italy have been embroiled in a bitter diplomatic row after two Indian fishermen were killed by Italian marines off the coast of southern India.

They were guarding an Italian oil tanker and said they mistook the fishermen for pirates.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-24577190

Russia will turn over 35-year old aircraft carrier to India on 15 November

Laid down in for the Soviet Navy as Baku, renamed Admiral Gorskhov in the post-Soviet era, and rechristened (or should that be rehindued?) as the Vikramaditya when sold to the Indian Navy. When accepted into Indian service on 15 November, the hull will already be 35-years old.

INS Vikramaditya to be handed over to Navy on Nov 15

NEW DELHI: After a delay of around five years, aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya is now expected to be handed over to the Indian Navy on November 15 in Russia, where it is presently undergoing refit.

Vikramaditya, formerly known as Admiral Gorskhov, completed all its trials in the last two months in the Barents Sea and the White Sea after delays of around five years on several counts.

The carrier is on course to be handed over to the Indian Navy in November 15, Navy officials said today.

Once inducted, it will be the second aircraft carrier in the Navy after INS Viraat and give it an strategic advantage in the Indian Ocean.

Vikramaditya, which is already years past its original 2008 delivery date, was supposed to have been handed over on December 4, 2012, but sea trials in September that year revealed the ship’s boilers were not fully functional.

It then returned to the shipyard to fix the problems that were detected during the sea trials.

The ship had demonstrated excellent seaworthiness, speed of 27.9 knots (about 52 km per hour) and manoeuvrability during the three-month sea trials.

India and Russia had signed a USD 947 million deal for 45,000-tonne Gorshkov in 2004. The deal amount was revised later to USD 2.3 billion.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/ins-vikramaditya-to-be-handed-over-to-navy-on-nov-15/articleshow/22718865.cms

Indian delegation flies to Russia, demands assistance in salvaging sunken submarine

Wouldn’t you love to be a fly on the wall when the Indian delegation arrives at the Admiralty Shipyard?

The Russians have already insisted that the explosion could not possibly be their fault, because we all know how reliable Russian technology is… right? So telling the Indians to their face that clearly they’re to blame should be interesting.

India wants Russia to help raise sunken submarine

Photo: EPA

Indian and Russian officials are discussing options for raising Russian-built Indian diesel-electric submarine Sindhurakshak, which caught fire after a series of explosions on board and sank off Mumbai on August 14, killing all its crew of 18, said a source close to Russia’s shipbuilding industry.

There remain unexploded torpedoes on board, which is an obstacle to raising Sindhurakshak, the source said.

Indian Navy officials have asked for technological and physical help in bringing up the submarine from the seafloor but neither the Russian government nor any Russian firm has received any official request for this from India.

United Shipbuilding Corporation declined to comment, while a spokesman for Admiralty Shipyard, which built Sindhurakshak, said that an Indian delegation was due to visit the shipyard on Friday but did not disclose what would be discussed during the visit.

One explanation of the Mumbai accident that has been offered is that the first explosion was caused by high concentration of hydrogen in an accumulator in the head compartment, which is next to the torpedo unit.

India received Project 877EKM Sindhurakshak in 1997.

A fire on board the vessel in 2010 that was caused by a hydrogen explosion killed one of the sailors.

The submarine was repaired and modernized at Russia’s Zvyozdochka shipyard in 2010-2012.

Russian experts still denied access to sunken Indian sub

A group of Russian experts from the Zvyozdochka ship repair center have not been allowed to visit the site of India’s sunken Sindhurakshak submarine in Mumbai, Zvyozdochka’s official spokeswoman Nadezhda Shcherbinina confirmed to the Voice of Russia.

“They may not be allowed to visit in principle,” she said.

“This is a prerogative of the country that owns the ship. We have contacted our warrantee group in Mumbai. They remain at their hotel. They have not been invited, so to say. They may be or may not be invited to participate.”

Earlier, Russian media reported, citing an unnamed source, that the Russian experts had been granted access to the sunken submarine.

Voice of Russia, Interfax

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2013_08_23/India-wants-Russia-to-help-raise-sunken-submarine-source-2775/

Faulty Russian technology to blame for Indian submarine disaster? Not according to Russia.

Voice of Russia dismisses theory that Indian submarine disaster has anything whatsoever to do with Russian technology. Nope. Must be human error by Indians. Couldn’t possibly be faulty Russian technology.

Three reasons behind Indian submarine disaster

India has ordered a review of its submarines’ weapons safety systems, after initial investigations showed arms on board the INS Sindhurakshak may have played a role in its sinking. The Voice of Russia has reviewed three possible reasons that led to an explosion on board Indian submarine in Mumbai dockyard on August 14.

First version – sabotage or terrorist attack

The INS Sindhurakshak exploded and sank in the Mumbai port on August 14, on the eve of India’s Independence Day. Most likely, this circumstance stirred a discussion about a possible terrorist attack. Theoretically, extremists might have planned to carry out a “demonstrative subversive act” ahead of the national holiday. However, at the very begging of the investigation into the accident in Mumbai port, the Indian authorities and the majority of local experts dismissed such a version saying that the port and the submarine were guarded around the clock, and a well-organized plot was needed to commit the sabotage.

Second version – technical failure and defect in design

The INS Sindhurakshak was built at the Admiralteiskue Shipyard in St. Petersburg in 1995, and two years later, it was handed over to the customer. In the late 2012, it underwent planned repair and was upgraded at the base of the Zvezdochka Shipbuilding Centre in Severodvinsk which is specialized in repairing the 877 Project submarines. After Indian organization accepted the submarine, it sailed some 10,000 nautical miles and reached the Mumbai port. It has been on combat duty twice. According to Indian media, the night before the accident, Sindhurakshak ended preparations for another outward bound. According to an official at the Zvezdochka Shipbuilding Centre, the specialists of the guarantee group visited the submarine on the eve of the accident, and all systems under their control were completely operable.

In short, from the experts’ point of view, technical or design defect cannot be examined as an apparent reason that led to the accident.

Third version – human factor: violation of safety standards and engineering instructions

A. As part of this version, experts are discussing first and foremost possible violations by the crew during the recharging of the submarine’s accumulators.

Hydrogen emits during the charging and exploitation of batteries, and when its concentration increases, an extremely explosive mixture is formed in the air. In this case, submarine is equipped with a hydrogen burner that is aimed at neutralizing a possible threat of an explosion.

In an interview with the Voice of Russia, retired Commodore Parambir Singh Bawa pointed to the possibility of exploding hydrogen. Several Indian dailies said that there were three explosions on board the submarine: originally, a small blast and then two powerful blasts occurred on board the submarine causing a fire. Then the submarine sank. It was suggested that originally, hydrogen exploded, and then ammunition might have exploded.

However, some experts dismiss possible explosion of hydrogen and diesel fume.

B. According to several Indian dailies, short circuit triggered by a sailor’s mistake might have caused the explosion on board the submarine.

C. Addressing the parliament Defence Minister A.K. Antony said that preliminary investigations had indicated that blasts on INS Sindhurakshak submarine were caused by “possible ignition” of armament.

The cause of ignition, has not established yet.

The Indian Defence Minister said that this would be possible only after the partially submerged submarine is afloat and dewatered.

At present, the Defence Ministry has ordered to check security systems of all submarines of the Indian Navy.

According to several local experts, if a warhead had really exploded on board the submarine, then the submarine’s forward end was completely destroyed because a warhead of a Club anti-ship missile contains 400 kilograms of powerful explosive. Most likely, the entire hull is destroyed, and it will not be expedient to repair the submarine.


http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2013_08_20/Three-reasons-behind-Indian-submarine-disaster-0377/