Indian Navy News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 06 Oct 2015 22:14

What happened to the Makar class survey vessels that have the same hull?

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 06 Oct 2015 22:47

Bheeshma wrote:What happened to the Makar class survey vessels that have the same hull?

Makar class employs a more advanced SWATH type hull. It is twin hull, but technically not a cataraman.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 06 Oct 2015 23:11

Hello good looking!

Curious choice of pennant and name, as A61 was not used by older TRVs. Perhaps more are planned. I also suspect that these ships are purchased on DRDO's account, as Navy was not counting this one under their ships on order.

The 50-metre catamaran hull vessel is the first indigenously built warship of the Navy to be built in a private shipyard with machine gun mounts.

Well we have inducting ISVs and FACs with MG mounts. Unless, they mean that the Astradharini is the first armed cataraman, which isnt much of an achievement since the first cataraman vessel title goes to this docile beauty

:

It is really nice to see innovative designs coming from largely unknown builders.

http://www.shoft.in/products/defence_security.php

arun wrote:50 meter catamaran hulled Torpedo Launch and Recovery Vessel (TLRV) built by Bharuch based private sector yard Shoft Shipyard, INS Astradharini, commissioned.

Torpedo launch vessel commissioned

titash · Post by **titash** » 07 Oct 2015 02:20

Interesting to read the product portfolio page; I did not know that these guys (and not GSL) built the hulls of the Saryu class OPVs. Looks like GSL was primarily a procurement & outfitting yard as opposed to hull construction.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 07 Oct 2015 07:01

Sujeet Samaddar, a retired Indian Navy commodore said, “There is no need to make every nut and bolt of a ship or aircraft in India. Prudent self-reliance is a smart mix of Indian and global content.”

Why not Sirj? If we can make nuts and bolts, no need to import them while paying them in gold. Not necessary that it has to be made by PSU's but the local guy at the nearby local shed do it while eating pakoda and sipping tea.

Prudent self reliance is when we are able export out systems fitted with our own nuts and bolts.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 07 Oct 2015 07:49

^I think the operative word is "every."

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Oct 2015 08:06

what kind of sea state can these ships operate in. if they can operate in bombay high and coastal surf, would be a ideal platform for marcos teams given their wide and roomy superstructure and space to stow gear and smaller boats. even a deck for helis to land and pickup troops could be arranged.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Oct 2015 12:01

Singha,there are some classified boat designs for special forces worldwide,rarely do they get spotted.JNI/some mags sometimes spot them.V.narrow,for high speed,40kts+,v.stealthy,some completely enclosed,usually carrying about 8 nos of special forces.These craft have to infiltrate enemy coastlines/bases without being spotted.Ingress and egress v.quickly. The desi cats ,unless Oz Incat/Austal designs ,would not be able to perform the role.The USN has acquired the Oz design for a fast logistic vessel type.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Oct 2015 12:09

Philip sir, I was envisioning these being the floating base for the marcos and the kind of small boats you speak of deploying off when going on missions.
right now marcos have to share some cramped space on a warship and sending a warship attracts more attention. they need decided special ops sea going ships to run around on their own freeing up a valuable warship. a couple of older Sukanya class OPV could be repurposed for this role.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Oct 2015 12:32

Since they have to operate not too far off the enemy coastline,a lesser armed OPV would be more vulnerable than a reg. warship which could defend itself better.The platform of choice these days are subs,for stealth and ingress as close to the chore as poss.,with the larger ones possessing special forces' modules placed above the hulls.These can be removed when not required. The French concept for a new sub has an extension of the sail into an integrated spl. forces module.

Vishnu · Post by **Vishnu** » 07 Oct 2015 13:57

Hi .. this had come earlier when Kolkata was commissioned. The P-15A ships can carry only 32 LRSAMs in total with no possibility of rearming at sea. India sorely needs a universal VLS launcher which gives the Navy the option of configuring the payload ships carry depending on the type of operation. In a carrier support mission, for example, where air defence is a priority, do we necessarily require 16 Brahmos ?

Thanks
Vishnu

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Oct 2015 14:00

^^Vishnu I believe there is space in front and rear to add more LRSAM , they simply choose not to add it.

For that kind of ship they need 48 LRSAM

Vishnu · Post by **Vishnu** » 07 Oct 2015 14:38

Hi Austin, I asked both on this occasion, during the Kolkata commissioning and in briefings in South Block ... and I am told ... repeatedly .. that there is no space. And, in having walked on the fore-missile deck (on the Kolkata), I would tend to agree ... the gap between the heavy Brahmos silos and additional silos of the LRSAM would be nothing ... and I am not sure they can do that ..

I should also mention .. that among other things .. they also have living spaces in that part of the ship ... !

Vishnu · Post by **Vishnu** » 07 Oct 2015 14:40

On an unrelated note ... the Indian Navy will be decommissioning its SHARs when Viraat goes ... they wont be transferred to the Vikramaditya. Not worth the cost of transferring Harrier specific equipment I am told.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 07 Oct 2015 14:47

I don't see any space on the front Austin. There maybe space for 16 more cells on the back.

I agree that a ship of this size and class must have atleast 48-56 SAMs, TSarkar sir's point about SSKP of Barak 8 nothwithstanding. In the armed forces we always cater for backups, misfires, unforseen situations. 32 SAMs are way too low.

Vishnu I completly agree on the UVLS. Do you know if the Navy is thinking about that ? Are they complex and expenive? I do believe that 16 Brahmos are a good destroyer fit...P15 and P15A should be able to operate alone as well in support of the fleet, so a destroyer needs to be very good in all dimensions - surface, air and sub surface. Having 18 Brahmos should not have comprimised the SAM fit. Space could have been made for more SAMs at design.

Akshay

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Oct 2015 14:50

Vishnu wrote:Hi Austin, I asked both on this occasion, during the Kolkata commissioning and in briefings in South Block ... and I am told ... repeatedly .. that there is no space. And, in having walked on the fore-missile deck (on the Kolkata), I would tend to agree ... the gap between the heavy Brahmos silos and additional silos of the LRSAM would be nothing ... and I am not sure they can do that ..

I should also mention .. that among other things .. they also have living spaces in that part of the ship ... !

Vishnu , Thanks for clarifying.

Traditionally IN ships have always been balanced with a bisaed towards anti-ship missile , In good old days they never carried more than 4 Styx on older Frigates and destroyers i.e the G and R class , it only changed with Delhi class that carried 16 Uran and 48 Shtil-1 !

Even if they go for a universal launcher and if at the port before a mission they can reduce the number of Brahmos from 16 to 8 the number of LRSAM wont go up drastically may be at best they can trade it off with 8-10 LRSAM for the same number.

To have a large number of LR-SAM they need built it up from design.

kit · Post by **kit** » 07 Oct 2015 15:01

Austin wrote:
Vishnu wrote:Hi Austin, I asked both on this occasion, during the Kolkata commissioning and in briefings in South Block ... and I am told ... repeatedly .. that there is no space. And, in having walked on the fore-missile deck (on the Kolkata), I would tend to agree ... the gap between the heavy Brahmos silos and additional silos of the LRSAM would be nothing ... and I am not sure they can do that ..

I should also mention .. that among other things .. they also have living spaces in that part of the ship ... !
Vishnu , Thanks for clarifying.

Traditionally IN ships have always been balanced with a bisaed towards anti-ship missile , In good old days they never carried more than 4 Styx on older Frigates and destroyers i.e the G and R class , it only changed with Delhi class that carried 16 Uran and 48 Shtil-1 !

Even if they go for a universal launcher and if at the port before a mission they can reduce the number of Brahmos from 16 to 8 the number of LRSAM wont go up drastically may be at best they can trade it off with 8-10 LRSAM for the same number.

To have a large number of LR-SAM they need built it up from design.

I suppose one way to get over that limitation would be to have a refilling capability while at sea ?

kit · Post by **kit** » 07 Oct 2015 15:03

The chinese seems to have got hold of a "revolutionary" universal launch system that can launch any type of missile ?! ..not sure this is hype

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Oct 2015 15:41

people have tried out at-sea replenishment of missiles and concluded too hard and complex.

http://defensetech.org/2010/06/10/vls-u ... t-serious/

so a UVLS with adapters to accomodate any current or future missiles is the way forward. could be arranged as 2 rows, 4 column modules (8-cell) and scaled up by adding modules keeping in mind size and role of the ship. a Saryu type might carry 8 cells but with 32 SRSAM, while a P15C might have 48 cells, with 32 barak8 , 8 ASM, 8*4=32 SRSAM.

we also need to increase our superstructure from current low-slung types to increase living space and go for edge-to-edge samsung note edge type UVLS layout seen in most western ships, while we occupy maybe half the ships width.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 07 Oct 2015 16:46

More missiles like the Nirbhay LACM and other anti-ballistic missiles will be introduced pretty soon. So a large cruiser of about 15000 tons that can carry large number of missiles is missing. Around five cruisers will be a decent number.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Oct 2015 16:56

cheen is hard at work on the 055 CG for this reason only. large hull with good radar and huge loadout. it might focus on ABM, SLCM and LRSAM leaving close in protection to other ships.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Oct 2015 17:09

Pak and China accelerate Yuan subs delivery,building 4 simultaneously in China and Pak.
China to transfer submarine technology to Pakistan
http://www.thenewstribe.com/2015/10/07/ ... -pakistan/

The IN now needs to also accelerate our own sub acquisition prog. making everything in India won't meet timeframes,unless the pvt. sector is also allowed to build subs and lots of them.JUst MDL building subs isn't going to meet our reqs. given its track record.

sudhan · Post by **sudhan** » 07 Oct 2015 19:28

The P15B (Vizag class) heavies dont seem to have any change in the load out configuration either (from open sources). I feel this to be a serious draw back. While 16 Brahmos rounds seems like a good fit for a heavy-hitter, 32 round anti-air loadout will probably not cut it, especially against swarm attacks from cheap subsonic AShM. The IN playbook probably talks about battle groups and this doctrine probably enables the IN to have a small loadout.

Need a TFTA load out of at least 64 AA missiles per ship.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Oct 2015 19:32

the ddg51 class accomodates a huge vls array near the helicopter hanger by partitioning the space into two, with a thick area in the middle that houses the missiles. one room seems to be an office and the single sh60 goes tightly into the other with its tail folded.
http://www.cdss.us/Kirov/SpruanceHangar.jpg
http://oi37.tinypic.com/29fxiqa.jpg
http://www.highgallery.com/carrier/carr ... trak-a.jpg

infact it has more missiles in the back than the front
http://alternathistory.org.ua/files/250 ... Sejong.jpg

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Oct 2015 19:36

we need to quit playing games with low slung, sleek cruiser hulls and go the 20m beam boxy route of ddg51 types that permits this kind of arrangement.

our ships are too narrow to have this VLS thing in between the two parts of the hangar
http://pages.intnet.mu/warbirds/warship ... 50621f.jpg

time to change tack because ships are long lead items and last 40 years. a 32 SAM loadout in 2025 just isnt going to hack it.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Oct 2015 20:20

the world changed today. 1000t corvettes moved in to unleash 4 kalibr missiles each when most of our far bigger ships have 8 feasible tubes for nirbhay by removing brahmos. its like egypt osa boat sinking israeli destroyer from within its harbour.

its better the IN go back to drawing board and arrange for way more tubes. new designs are needed . just a few mods on delhi-kashin hull is not enough. we need a clean sheet DDG/CG design.

its like the iphone came to market. "the only thing that changed is everything"

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 07 Oct 2015 21:57

Vishnu wrote:Hi .. this had come earlier when Kolkata was commissioned. The P-15A ships can carry only 32 LRSAMs in total with no possibility of rearming at sea. India sorely needs a universal VLS launcher which gives the Navy the option of configuring the payload ships carry depending on the type of operation. In a carrier support mission, for example, where air defence is a priority, do we necessarily require 16 Brahmos ?

Thanks
Vishnu

In delhi class there are 2 ak-630 and 2 barak-1 vls cells. Alphas and bravos have 4 ak-630s.

The easiest way is to replace 2 ak-630 mounts with lrsam vls cells. Use the 76mm cannon for cwiz as well.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 07 Oct 2015 22:18

perhaps IN needs dedicated AAW ships, with more focus on Barak VLS/MFSTAR, have only 1 chopper, with Towed array AntiSUb should be covered. leave the land strike mission to someone else.

srin · Post by **srin** » 07 Oct 2015 22:42

If you have standardized VLSes, you'll probably get that. Quad-pack LRSAMs for each VLS silo, and it is AAW with 96 missiles. Put back Brahmos and you'll get the balanced ship.

And are we really sure that there is no underdeck magazine for LRSAMs ? Because 32 looks like a very small number.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 07 Oct 2015 23:52

Bit more on the force levels of the surface navy. This is how it looks like in 2025:

I have taken only confirmed orders. For example, I have not considered INS Vishal.

Corvettes remain the crucial concern area, which can be addressed by placing an order for (mythical?) Project-28A ships.

- The Next Generation Missile Vessels is not even an RFP at the moment.
- Coastal ASW is unclear as well.

With no more destroyer/frigate orders on the horizon, we should take a hard look at the Russian offer of more Talwars. Or at least place an order of 'P28 Mod1' types with Brahmos instead of RBUs.

Aditya G wrote:Indian Navy ship numbers.

Aircraft Carriers: 02
Destroyers & Frigates: 25
Corvettes: 25
OPV: 10

With INS Kochi inducted the surface fleet numbers have hit a high when it comes to capital ships. 2016 unfortunately will see the start of a new wave of retirals beginning with INS Viraat & INS Godavari. INS Rajput should be on its way out sometime soon. LCU Mk3 should start retiring as well.

Ships on order:

Latest news reports indicate 44 on order. I can count 47. If I exclude INS Arihant, Aridaman and OSS then 44 matches. +1 is a target vessel by ABG, which I guess Navy doesnt count under 44.

Following projects are at risk:

2 x CTS: ABG is bankrupt but it is trying to deliver.
2 x Makar Class: Alcock Ashdown is bankrupt. I think Navy should write off this acquisition.
5 x NOPV: Pipavav. No news but recent acquisition by ADAG should help

John · Post by **John** » 08 Oct 2015 01:47

kit wrote:The chinese seems to have got hold of a "revolutionary" universal launch system that can launch any type of missile ?! ..not sure this is hype

Both Russian and L&T launchers for Brahmos are U-VLS there are some notable differences between the two, with former capable of firing Klub and Brahmos.

The easiest way is to replace 2 ak-630 mounts with lrsam vls cells. Use the 76mm cannon for cwiz as well.

They can replaced with Barak-1, Barak-8 requires considerable space below deck.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 08 Oct 2015 01:58

IN needs more P-28A's and P-17a's. Instead of these useless RBU's IN should pack them with U-VLS in the missile corvette variant. The AK-630 is also long in the tooth, 16-24Barak- VLS would cerainly be helpful.

srai · Post by **srai** » 08 Oct 2015 03:05

Fantasy numbers

64 UVLS -> 12 x DDG (9000t)
48 UVLS -> 24 x FFG (6000t)
24 UVLS - > 24 x Corvette (3000t) [Brahmos-M size instead of Brahmos-1]

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 08 Oct 2015 07:07

We also need to bring down the build time of warships.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 08 Oct 2015 07:11

Bheeshma wrote:IN needs more P-28A's and P-17a's. Instead of these useless RBU's IN should pack them with U-VLS in the missile corvette variant. The AK-630 is also long in the tooth, 16-24Barak- VLS would cerainly be helpful.

I would give the IN more credit, they know their waters and their threats and the best weapon systems in such an environment - if they feel the RBU is worth mounting on their flagships, so be it. Wouldn't diss it off hand.

On another note, is DRDO working on a quad-pack type UVLS - both the US and China seem to have got this figured out...would preclude the need for stuffing more VLS in prime real estate.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Oct 2015 07:12

due to lack of TAS on ships and/or salinity and temp conditions in our operating areas , probably RBU has become a necessity due to lack of ability to detect submarines - the assumption is subs will be able to fire torpedoes before the ship detects it and sends a helicopter to target it. so its a underwater CIWS system.

I wonder if catamaran hull unmanned fast ships with shallow draught and plastic construction would be useful as submarine chasers with zero magnetic signature and electric motors for drift and search mode. a swarm could be controlled from a manned ship. people are playing around with such ideas.

member_24684 · Post by **member_24684** » 08 Oct 2015 09:17

Vishnu wrote:Hi Austin, I asked both on this occasion, during the Kolkata commissioning and in briefings in South Block ... and I am told ... repeatedly .. that there is no space. And, in having walked on the fore-missile deck (on the Kolkata), I would tend to agree ... the gap between the heavy Brahmos silos and additional silos of the LRSAM would be nothing ... and I am not sure they can do that ..

I should also mention .. that among other things .. they also have living spaces in that part of the ship ... !

Is there any chances to re arm those missiles in sea .. using those Fleet Support Ships

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 08 Oct 2015 09:21

deleted

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Oct 2015 10:11

there is no possibility of rearming at sea. the missiles are heavy and rearming too slow. I posted the link already.

considering the delhi class was designed in early 1990s we needed to let go of it 25 yrs later and go with a more clean sheet design but still P15B is little more than a stretched delhi with a big radar and some clutter cleaned up. sure it reduces risk and build times but we did go with a new design for Shivalik and it worked out well.

plenty of next gen designs suitable for copying are already sailing around.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 08 Oct 2015 12:36

It'll be difficult standardizing VLS in IN. Or Russian Navy for that matter.

BrahMos, Klub and K-15 use cold launch with gas generators.

LRSAM, SRSAM, Barak-1 & VL Shtil use hot launch requiring exhaust vents.

Cold launch is relatively safer because it ensures missile is ejected if missile rocket motor misfires.

SAM's need to have least reaction time and cannot afford the few seconds required for motor firing after ejection in cold launch, so they have to be hot launched.

All US missiles are hot launched, so they can standardize.