Indian Naval Discussion

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 24 Jul 2012 19:05

Russian naval jet makes touch-and-go landing on Gorshkov

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Jul 2012 19:50

well it did more than tough-and-go.. just check the video I posted in the previous page

member_23364 · Post by **member_23364** » 24 Jul 2012 20:25

@Abhi_J and others on the P-28 Armament fit.

Slight correction on the P-28 Armament fit, it includes a 8X vertically launched Klub N module. Somehow, it was missed in the posts above.

@Jaeger

NO AShW or ASW strike weapons? With 2 RBU-6000 rocket launchers and 2X3 Torpedo tubes for ASW and a 8 tube Klub-N module in vertical launchers for AShW? What are you smoking? The Shivalik class also has 8 tube Klub-N module as a AShW component. Not to mention it can carry a ASW helicopter as well. And the 8 tube Klub-N module can be used to launch Brahmos as well, they are fully inter-changeable. Heck, this carries a 16X Barak SAM module as well. Kora class neither had the RBU-6000's, a inferior AShW missile (Kh-35) and no Barak's, not to mention no Helicopter.

I agree that the gun could be a 100MM, 76MM is a pansy for a 3100T corvette.

Armament:

1 X 76.2 mm Oto SRGM
2 x AK-630M CIWS
8 x 3M54 Klub
2 X RBU-6000 (IRL) anti-submarine rocket launcher
16x Barak SAM
2x3 Torpedo tubes
Aircraft carried: 1 Westland Sea King Mk.42B

This is from wikipedia, link below-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamorta_class_corvette

Armament is to include a license-built Otobreda 76 mm Super Rapid gun in a stealth mount and the usual assortment of weapons similar to what is found on the Talwar class frigates and Shivalik class frigates including a Klub-N missile system in vertical launchers, two Larsen & Toubro built derivatives of the RBU-6000 anti-submarine rocket launcher, as well as Larsen & Toubro torpedo launchers. Revati, the naval variant of the DRDO-made Central Acquisition Radar (CAR), is a confirmed sensor aboard the vessel. Hangar and aviation facilities will also be standard features.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 24 Jul 2012 20:51

P-28 ASW CORVETTE -

via p sengupta's blog.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 24 Jul 2012 21:07

Where do the KLUBS go in that model ? Why KLUBS when Brahmos is ready ?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Jul 2012 21:15

^Cybaru, Klubs have a ASW version, brahmos does not.

there is no space for klubs/brahmos if that model is accurate and to scale...the only potential place was where the RBUs are .....
between the funnel and the rear mast there is a narrow gap...thats where I figure a few Urans can be mounted in inclined tubes....not 16 but more like 8...it might also be able to take 4 klubs in tubes.

John · Post by **John** » 24 Jul 2012 21:42

Off topic but the same universal launcher can be used for Klub or Brahmos. But as i indicated earlier the whole idea of P-28 having Klub was taken from inaccurate wiki article. It doesn't have FCR and there is really no room to safely mount (without changes to handle exhaust) even 2 4 pack Uran's amid ship.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 24 Jul 2012 21:46

Have to agree with Singha. It will most likely be the 8 Urans (inclined) from the Koras or delhis (when being replaced with Brahmos). There is no space for Klub or Brahmos VLS.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 24 Jul 2012 22:28

no sign of vls in this model either:

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Imag ... ect28b.jpg

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Jul 2012 22:51

the chinese, british, americans and many more typically mount harpoons sized missiles amidships in inclined tubes with no issues. no special blast deflectors except rudimentary one seems necessary.
the web is full of pix. no reason we cant stuff a few urans there atleast.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 24 Jul 2012 23:30

SaiK wrote:well it did more than tough-and-go.. just check the video I posted in the previous page

Saik Sahab, that is a old video from Kuznetsov and not Vikramaditya.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Jul 2012 23:50

aah!

. my bad not checking it.

John · Post by **John** » 25 Jul 2012 00:56

Singha wrote:the chinese, british, americans and many more typically mount harpoons sized missiles amidships in inclined tubes with no issues. no special blast deflectors except rudimentary one seems necessary.
the web is full of pix. no reason we cant stuff a few urans there atleast.

There is only one place i see we can just strap a bunch of launchers without worrying about missile or exhaust causing any damage to any electronics or RIB (granted we also need Garpun to be mounted as well). But it would kill the $$ we spent on RCS reduction since the launchers would not be hidden away (i.e Formidable class).

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 25 Jul 2012 01:28

So they built a 3000t warship with no AShMs?

Maybe Tsarkar saab can shed some light on what the IN was looking for here.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 25 Jul 2012 01:31

If it is packed with purely AsuW maal then it can always be escorted by other ships. Though I think putting 8 Urans fon it shouldn't be a problem.

anand_sankar · Post by **anand_sankar** » 25 Jul 2012 02:54

http://englishrussia.com/2012/07/22/dee ... e-cruiser/

Nice photo essay that shows the entire INS Vikramaditya rebuild.

Some of the old pictures of the ship show it when it arrives for the refit. I wonder how the initial assessment was done, it looks a total mothballed rustbucket.

The finish now is though simply stunning, love the lines. Yeah its smaller than Uncle's flatops, but way more beautiful!

titash · Post by **titash** » 25 Jul 2012 02:58

On the topic of Urans amidships, note that there is a serious lack of surface opposition in the areas where these ships are expected to operate. We have plenty of destroyers/frigates/missile boats that carry a heavy AShM fit to sink the PN, attack Karachi, etc

This corvette is designed to have a long range and endurance (big hull + diesels) and run quiet. Its primary sensor is the long range towed array and primary weapons system is the large ASW helicopter. The Barak/OTO-76/AK-630 is purely for self defence

These ships will replace the retired Petyas 1 on 1, and my guess is they will be used to protect merchant shipping against PN or PLAN submarines that sneak into shallow waters

Regards,

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Jul 2012 10:47

I'd say keep 4 urans in stealthy trapezoidal shaped tubes amidships for emergencies. one can never predict.

this ship if desired for a dedicated ASW role should have been enlarged in beam to accomodate 2x10t class helicopter. one helicopter is too less considering downtimes.

the old submarine chaser concepts are becoming passe with high quality AIP SSKs lurking around. you either "go in" heavily armed or avoid the place, not go in lightly armed.

Jaeger · Post by **Jaeger** » 25 Jul 2012 11:13

Guru_Tat wrote: @Jaeger

NO AShW or ASW strike weapons? With 2 RBU-6000 rocket launchers and 2X3 Torpedo tubes for ASW and a 8 tube Klub-N module in vertical launchers for AShW? What are you smoking? The Shivalik class also has 8 tube Klub-N module as a AShW component. Not to mention it can carry a ASW helicopter as well. And the 8 tube Klub-N module can be used to launch Brahmos as well, they are fully inter-changeable. Heck, this carries a 16X Barak SAM module as well...

Armament:

1 X 76.2 mm Oto SRGM
2 x AK-630M CIWS
8 x 3M54 Klub
2 X RBU-6000 (IRL) anti-submarine rocket launcher
16x Barak SAM
2x3 Torpedo tubes
Aircraft carried: 1 Westland Sea King Mk.42B

This is from wikipedia, link below-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamorta_class_corvette

Armament is to include a license-built Otobreda 76 mm Super Rapid gun in a stealth mount and the usual assortment of weapons similar to what is found on the Talwar class frigates and Shivalik class frigates including a Klub-N missile system in vertical launchers, two Larsen & Toubro built derivatives of the RBU-6000 anti-submarine rocket launcher, as well as Larsen & Toubro torpedo launchers. Revati, the naval variant of the DRDO-made Central Acquisition Radar (CAR), is a confirmed sensor aboard the vessel. Hangar and aviation facilities will also be standard features.

@Guru_Tat, I would suggest you get your facts from places other Wikipedia before questioning what I smoke (Classic Ultra Milds).

As you have no doubt seen in the models as well by now, there is NO VLS. If you are convinced that there is an 8-cell VLS, then go right ahead and point out where it is on the model, and where the guidance radars are, as well.

And do a little reading about system capabilities as well. Kindly research the range of the RBU-6000 as well as that of 324mm torpedoes. Then compare to a Sub-launched AShM or even a 533mm heavy torpedo. Then you will understand why RBUs and LWTs are NOT strike weapons, but are primarily defensive/reactionary.

By the way, I am aware that the ship has 16x Barak fitted. Please go through the earlier post where I have actually detailed out the weapons fit. And this information is relevant to ASW/AShW strika capabilities (MY point of interest) how?

And FINALLY, do some more research and figure out whether P-17s have a UVLS that will accommodate both BrahMos and Klub or is single-missile (Klub) use only.

I suggest that next time you have the urge to indulge your fertile imagination you do a little fact-checking before unleashing a Pindi-channa fueled tirade.

AbhiJ · Post by **AbhiJ** » 25 Jul 2012 18:48

Is it some BSing?

aniket · Post by **aniket** » 25 Jul 2012 22:58

Is it only me or were earlier avatars of the MARCOS better looking ?

titash · Post by **titash** » 25 Jul 2012 23:00

@ Singha

I agree that adding a second 10T helo makes a huge difference to ASW capabilities. However, this is only a 3000 ton hull. If I understand correctly, the experience of operating 2 Sea Kings from the 4000 ton Godavaris wasn't very pleasant altogether. They invariably carry 1 Sea king + 1 Chetak. The Kamortas are a full 15-20m shorter and 1m narrower, i.e. a substantially smaller warship

Note that the majority of JMSDF fleet destroyers (30 ships of Akizuki, Takanami, Murasame, Asagiri, Hatsuyuki classes ranging from 3500 - 6500 tons) carry only 1 Sea Hawk inspite of being ASW focus ships facing the very capable SSNs of the Soviet Pacific fleet. They do all mount ASROC however...which in turn may be indicative of rough weather not permitting helicopter ops

@ tsarkar / SNaik / Kapil / Maz...I think this forum would be much obliged if you could shed some light on above matter

In the meantime, this is a very good beginners link for understanding how dipping sonar/sonobuoys should be used operationally:
http://www.ultra-ms.com/pdfs/Multiplyin ... %20ASW.pdf

Regards,

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 25 Jul 2012 23:30

I think NURAV should show up sometime soon. That with a dipping sonar would make a lot of sense. Perhaps 2 Nuravs along with one sea king would be enough for any ASW mission. The dipping sonars don't weigh more than 400 Kgs with the 750 meter cable and housing and in this net centric world these could transmit all data back to ship for realtime onboard processing, which would be more powerful anyways. Cheap and efficient. They would be limited to LOS operations though.

member_23364 · Post by **member_23364** » 25 Jul 2012 23:40

@Jaeger

Ahhh...Classic Ultra Milds, Loved that brand...don't get Milds like that here in US. And all the good milds here are menthols :-(

I totally agree that 1. The guidance radar and the 2. Placement of VLS is not visible in the models and the 324 mm torpedoes is not a good offensive weapon. The upgraded RBU-6000 built by L&T however is not a pansy, it is a Soviet Navy standard offensive ASW platform.

But on the armament front, Ajai Shukla's blog told the same thing, which i had read quite some time back, and this was from a GRSE site visit. link below

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2009/08/ ... -anti.html

Also, I am from Kolkata and have a friend of working in GRSE (tradesman). Last time we met (end 2010), when i had gone to India, he did say that they were fitting some "big" missile systems into these vessels. "big" does not necessarily mean Brahmos/Klub-N, but....

I may be mistaken but we will see soon, the first P-28 is due to be commissioned in August (hopefully).

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 26 Jul 2012 01:32

From Ajai shuklas blog it clearly shows no AShM. But I assume it will be possible to have inclined launchers. Even 4 urans is not a bad load.

titash · Post by **titash** » 26 Jul 2012 01:52

@ Cybaru

2 x NURAV with dipping SONAR seems like a good solution. If the naval satellite comes through, I don't think it should be limited to LOS operations. I am more concerned with the feasibility of deploying dipping SONAR from a unmanned platform (using surveillance radar and deploying sonobuoys is much easier prima facie)...just seems like too many things can go wrong due to high sea states, moving parts, etc

The Sea King came about because the USN wanted to combine hunter and killer in a single platform. It will be interesting to see how the roles evolve now that rotary UAVs are much more feasible. I think the Sea King will still be used as the sensor platform; the NURAV will probably be used to deliver homing torpedoes at the determined location

Regards,

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 26 Jul 2012 03:04

Would you really want to automate releasing weapons from a remote platform which can fail/hacked/jammed etc ? Its one thing to put a dipping sonar out of use or if some mechnical part gets stuck then use some method of recovery when the platform reaches the boat, but to put a primed weapon in hands of enemy to be used against you is too dangerous esp something like a torpedo which carries 500-1000KGS of explosives.

srai · Post by **srai** » 26 Jul 2012 06:31

titash wrote:On the topic of Urans amidships, note that there is a serious lack of surface opposition in the areas where these ships are expected to operate. We have plenty of destroyers/frigates/missile boats that carry a heavy AShM fit to sink the PN, attack Karachi, etc

This corvette is designed to have a long range and endurance (big hull + diesels) and run quiet. Its primary sensor is the long range towed array and primary weapons system is the large ASW helicopter. The Barak/OTO-76/AK-630 is purely for self defence

These ships will replace the retired Petyas 1 on 1, and my guess is they will be used to protect merchant shipping against PN or PLAN submarines that sneak into shallow waters

Regards,

Great points!

According to this BR page on PETYA II CLASS, there were 10 of these ASW corvettes. Even the names (Kamorta, Kadmatt, Kiltan, and Kavaratti) are the same on the new P-28 ASW class, which seems be have double the displacement of its predecessor.

Code: Select all

PETYA II CLASS

Vessel Type: Corvette.

Names & Pennant Numbers with commission dates:
Arnala P68 (29 June 1972) - decommissioned on 09 April 1999
Androth P69 (30 June 1972) - decommissioned on 09 April 1999
Anjadip P73 (23 December 1972) - decommissioned on 13 December 2003
Amini P75 (12 December 1974) - decommissioned on 16 September 2002
Kamorta P77 (21 November 1968) - decommissioned on 31 October 1991
Kadmatt P78 (23 December 1968) - decommissioned on 30 November 1992
Kiltan P79 (30 October 1969) - decommissioned on 30 June 1987
Katchall P81 (23 December 1969) - decommissioned on 31 December 1988
Kavaratti P80 (23 December 1969) - decommissioned on 31 July 1986

Note: INS Andaman P74, commissioned on 28 December 1973, was lost at sea on 21 August 1990.
Note: INS Andaman P74, commissioned on 28 December 1973, was lost at sea on 21 August 1990.

Displacement: 950 tons standard and 1100 tons full load.

Dimensions: Length - 82.29 metres.
................Beam - 9.19 metres.
................Draught - 2.9 metres.

Main Machinery: Two gas turbines with 30,000 hp. One diesel engine with 5400 hp sustained and three shafts.

Maximum Speed: 32 knots.

Maximum Range: 4000 miles at 20 knots.

Complement: 98

Radar: Surface; One (NATO: Slim Net) radar at E/F-band frequency.
.........Navigation; One Don-2 radar at I-band frequency.
.........Fire Control; Refer to 'Weapons' sub-section.
.........IFF; (NATO: Pole B).

Sonar: One Hercules hull mounted sonar, active search & attack with medium frequency.

Weapons: Four 76mm guns at 80º elevation and 90 rounds/minute to 8n miles; 15 km. Fire control is provided by a single (NATO: Hawk Screech) radar at I-band frequency.

Three 533mm triple torpedo tubes with SAET-40 with active & passive homing torpedoes to 5.4n miles; 10 km at 30 knots. Four RBU-2500 16-tubed mortar launchers, with a range of 2500 meters.

Two racks of depth charges and two rails of mines.
...

titash · Post by **titash** » 26 Jul 2012 10:04

@ Cybaru

The idea of putting live torpedoes on an UAV is not new. The USN tried it in the 60s (The DASH gyrodyne was an integral part of the FRAM upgrade and could deliver two torpedoes up to 25 miles from the ship). The program was cut short due to low reliability of the electronics in those days

With today's electronics, the armed NURAV is on the table again. I'm not an electronics engineer, but hijacking a drone and turning on the parent ship seems a bit far fetched, specially for a submarine

Check out this pic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:QH-50C_DD-850.jpg

Regards,

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 26 Jul 2012 10:07

I also don't agree with you Cybaru ji.

In that case there would have been no armed drones in the world.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 26 Jul 2012 11:49

titash wrote:@ Cybaru

The idea of putting live torpedoes on an UAV is not new. The USN tried it in the 60s (The DASH gyrodyne was an integral part of the FRAM upgrade and could deliver two torpedoes up to 25 miles from the ship). The program was cut short due to low reliability of the electronics in those days

With today's electronics, the armed NURAV is on the table again. I'm not an electronics engineer, but hijacking a drone and turning on the parent ship seems a bit far fetched, specially for a submarine

Check out this pic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:QH-50C_DD-850.jpg

Regards,

I understand what you are saying. In my opinion, I think having a dunking sonar would be more preferable than having a UAV carry things around for multiple reasons. If the P-28s are going to be armed with 50 km range anti sub klubs, why task the UAV's to carry torps? I think having 2 UAV's and a Sea King with Sonar gives you far greater coverage than tasking the UAV with torpedoes, Plus man in loop on the scene ( Seaking based torps) can perhaps make better judgement in either EMCON or in a scenario where the enemy is jamming everything possible or the enemy can quite cleverly employ subversion to gain control of a unit. It's one thing to subvert a drone with 25 kg missile or two, its another thing to be able to gain a 1000 pound charge that can be used against your own asset in sea.

K_Rohit · Post by **K_Rohit** » 26 Jul 2012 11:55

Cybaru wrote:
I understand what you are saying. In my opinion, I think having a dunking sonar would be more preferable than having a UAV carry things around for multiple reasons. If the P-28s are going to be armed with 50 km range anti sub klubs, why task the UAV's to carry torps? I think having 2 UAV's and a Sea King with Sonar gives you far greater coverage than tasking the UAV with torpedoes, Plus man in loop on the scene ( Seaking based torps) can perhaps make better judgement in either EMCON or in a scenario where the enemy is jamming everything possible or the enemy can quite cleverly employ subversion to gain control of a unit. It's one thing to subvert a drone with 25 kg missile or two, its another thing to be able to gain a 1000 pound charge that can be used against your own asset in sea.

I think it is established that the P28 does not have any missiles (ship or sub).

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 26 Jul 2012 12:27

The P-28s armament is quite disappointing,if what has been depicted on the model is the whole lot.Small ASW corvettes in the past that we can compare the P-28 with are the Soviet Grisha class,Petyas,and smaller Pauks-which we possess as well as the K class corvettes,which actually have no worthwhile ASW armament at all !

The requirements would basically be for a very stable platform which can operate an ASW helo in rough seas,with a TAS and hull mounted ASW sonar as well.The limitations of hull mounted sonars have neccessitated TAS arrays and even here there have been new developments in TAS arrays.Equipped with both types,the P-28 therefore appears to be adequately equipped to detect silent subs in the littorals,but her armament appears to be quite limited.The familiar ASW MBUs are there,but there appears to be no integral LR/MR armament other than one ASW helo to prosecute a contact.In rough weather,operating the helo will be difficult.There is no info about any UUVs that she may carry so in the absence of any statement,we can rule that out.

Secondly,unlike the Pauks,which have a stern mounted VDS-the same as that on the KA-28 ASW helos,two sizes of torpedoes,a set of std. sized tubes would've allowed both the ASW Klub and std. heavyweight and long endurance TTs (as the French have devised,which have several hours of endurance),to give the corvette real teeth.There is no info about the type of ASW fish she carries,which appears to be a lightweight TT.One presumes that two Barak cells are located on either side of the stack.If they aren;t then she is woefully inadequatelly equipped for self defence against missile defence.She also has no capability at defending herself against any surface vessel as she lacks any form of anti-ship missile.

Thirdly,she was never meant to be a littoral,coastal ASW unit,as there is another IN requirement for about a dozen+ for that role,ostensibly to replace our Pauks.With such poor armament,she cannot adequately defend herself against air and surface attacks and has only a limited ability to prosecute subs.Had she had an 8 cell module for the ASW version of Klub,it would've given her the option of also carrying half that load with anti-ship Klubs,a quantum leap in capability.Unless this vessel is better equipped,I fear that in any hot spot she may need protection from the other units in the fleet instead of protecting them!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Jul 2012 13:40

for their size IN ships always tended to be overarmed and multifunctional given our lack of khan backing or mass produced cheap hulls.
P28 seems to have the Type45 disease of being large but underarmed.

Jaeger · Post by **Jaeger** » 26 Jul 2012 13:43

Guru_Tat wrote:@Jaeger
The upgraded RBU-6000 built by L&T however is not a pansy, it is a Soviet Navy standard offensive ASW platform.

But on the armament front, Ajai Shukla's blog told the same thing, which i had read quite some time back, and this was from a GRSE site visit. link below

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2009/08/ ... -anti.html

Also, I am from Kolkata and have a friend of working in GRSE (tradesman). Last time we met (end 2010), when i had gone to India, he did say that they were fitting some "big" missile systems into these vessels. "big" does not necessarily mean Brahmos/Klub-N, but....

I may be mistaken but we will see soon, the first P-28 is due to be commissioned in August (hopefully).

@Guru_Tat,

1. Shukla's blog says nothing about AShMs/ASW strike weapons whatsoever.

Broadsword blog wrote: The Project 28 corvettes, when they join the navy’s fleet, will be silent and heavily armed. An Otomelara Super Rapid Gun Mount (SRGM) on the bow can pour 76 millimetre shells onto aerial and surface targets. Flanking it will be two Indigenous Rocket Launchers (IRLs) that can fire at both submarines and ships. Submarines can also be engaged through six torpedo tubes. Two AK 630 Gatling guns, one on either side, can shoot down attacking aircraft. Finally, vertically launched missiles are likely to be mounted for engaging aerial targets.

2. The RBUs are not an offensive weapon at all, not even for the Soviets. For ASW strike, they had Metel, Viyuga and Vodopad and the RuN uses these + Klub/Medvedka. Once again, I suggest you compare ranges of these missiles vs. RBUs. That will immediately give an idea of the expected roles, especially against a modern SSK/SSN.

3. You may have word of mouth information but as you yourself have pointed out "big missiles" are not at all a clear confirmation of Klub.

Jaeger · Post by **Jaeger** » 26 Jul 2012 13:49

Singha wrote:for their size IN ships always tended to be overarmed and multifunctional given our lack of khan backing or mass produced cheap hulls.
P28 seems to have the Type45 disease of being large but underarmed.

Absolutely Darth Singha - not even 533 tubes that could take a HWT. Type 45 at least has upgradability in terms of space and fitted sensors. P-28s seem to lack that too - unless the Revathi radar can perform surface tracking/targeting duties as well, allowing for fitment of unknown AShMs in the near future... but where?

AbhiJ · Post by **AbhiJ** » 26 Jul 2012 14:43

Some Chinese Psy Ops against Indian and Russian Navies using BRF Images.

How Chinese Shipbuilding is Superior to Indian and Russians

Image from BRF: Link

Original Article in Chinese

However, India and China's paths have been different. After purchasing the Gorshkov from Russia, India chose to get it repaired in Russia because it lacked the capacity and technology to undertake such a difficult project.

India has spent billions of US dollars upgrading the carrier Vikramaditya without improving its own shipbuilding abilities. Instead the upgrade improved the shipbuilding capabilities of the Russian shipyard. No wonder Russia plans to send its own carrier to the shipyard for upgrading after the upgrade of the Vikramaditya is completed.

China purchased the unfinished aircraft carrier Varyag from Ukraine at a price of US$20 million. Depending solely on its own industry and advanced ship building craft, China repaired and made improvements to the carrier. By doing so, China spent less money, accumulated experience in aircraft carrier remodeling and learned valuable lessons which will help it to construct its own carrier.

More importantly, China and India are not at the same industrial level. Over the past ten years, the Chinese navy has built 16 large missile frigates and at least 10 guided-missile destroyers, as well as advanced submarines. Most of the weapons have been designed and made by China. India has started to build 6 destroyers and 6 frigates over the past 10 years, but currently only one frigate has been put into service. And it seems that the Indian navy will rely on overseas purchases in order to maintain its fleet in the future.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 26 Jul 2012 15:42

Nope three stealth frigates have been put into service. and the first of three destroyers is also ready.

And the Chinese are conveniently forgetting the sovremenny's from Russia they have brought into service during the same period.

Having said that we need to rev up and I think we are doing that now.

Yes, their yards have done much better than ours in the last ten years but that is going to change heading into the next ten.

adityadange · Post by **adityadange** » 26 Jul 2012 16:04

More importantly, China and India are not at the same industrial level. Over the past ten years......

what a lame claim! if indian industry is not up to the level, how can it start construction of a carrier from scratch? there is a clearcut indication to "mine is biggel" and "china stlong" mentality.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 Jul 2012 19:39

AbhiJ wrote:India has spent billions of US dollars upgrading the carrier Vikramaditya without improving its own shipbuilding abilities. Instead the upgrade improved the shipbuilding capabilities of the Russian shipyard. No wonder Russia plans to send its own carrier to the shipyard for upgrading after the upgrade of the Vikramaditya is completed.

China purchased the unfinished aircraft carrier Varyag from Ukraine at a price of US$20 million. Depending solely on its own industry and advanced ship building craft, China repaired and made improvements to the carrier. By doing so, China spent less money, accumulated experience in aircraft carrier remodeling and learned valuable lessons which will help it to construct its own carrier.

Vikramaditya repair needs Original Drawing which are with the OEM and the conversion etc are more accurately done by OEM as they have detailed drawing , manufacturing industry , machinery/spares of the design , This could be million of small and big parts that goes into the ship.

Not to mentioned Vikramaditya comes with guaranteed support and spares for 30 years of its operational life all through OEM.

China could modify Varyag but what happens when say some machinery parts needs to be repaired and its only available with some non-operational Ukranian or Russian manufacturer what is the guarantee those industry will be still operational 10 years from now and can they guarantee spares and support for Varyag million of small and big machinery part with the necessary reliability and guranteed service life ? Even if say its available what will be the golder rip-off price that China will have to pay to get it.

For Varyag china is on its own and you cant really gurantee uptimes at sea without having any kind of guranteed agreement for spares and support from the OEM.

I suspect in couple of year from now Varyag operational availability will get low , it will spend more time at Yards then at Sea and the reason would be lack of spares/machinery/support availability for it and they might end up doing some Jugad which will make the problem more worse over time.

Varyag at best can train their air crew for few years where operational uptimes at sea are not of paramount importance but when it comes to CBG operational readiness and long distance voyage Varyag would have tough times to keep up.