Indian Naval Discussion

John · Post by **John** » 26 Jul 2012 19:41

Chinese navy is very in efficient (too many DDG platforms in case of war how they heck are they going to maintain them and their diesel engined frigates can't even keep up with gas turbine destroyers) considering it is budget is around 40 billion (god knows how much they truly spend) if S Koreans had that much money they would operating a fleet of carriers with SSNs by now. That said IN does need to do case study and see how quickly Koreans shipbuilding and capabilities have improved in past decade.

As for P-28 it is deja vu all over again we had the same discussion on its armament and capabilities 4 years ago

. It is niche vessel designed to perform a specific role not a multi purpose FFG like Talwar. Ironically Severnoye Design Bureau did show off a smaller version of Talwar frigate a while back, the vessel around the same size as P-28 had Tor SAM system installed in the rear and 2 AK-630 instead of Shtl-1+Kashtan.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 26 Jul 2012 19:43

India might be slow in building them ships but are they technologically inferior to Chinese ships? Yes, if you are smoking something strong.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Jul 2012 19:57

imo heavy torpedoes or harpoon/exocet/C8xx are likely to be launched by SSK/SSN from a distance of >20km to give it a nice chance to shoot a couple and escape ..... this is well outside the range of the RBU system to attack the submarine itself...its a purely defensive play that might stop the torpedoes. no sub skipper will sit under a warship to fire a torp, he will like some distance preferably from the rear where the ships noise will mask his movements.

hence the klub 91RE2 with a 50km range would appear to be only option on table to attack hostile contacts reported by third parties or onboard sonar.
it is a small missile with a weight of only 1300kg - only slightly heavier than a KH59 which our MKIs carry around. it has a small motor that likely falls away and releases the slim LWT into water
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ks2009.jpg

mashallah the IN needs to cut us some slack and mount 6 of these inclined tubes amidships ...

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 Jul 2012 21:30

Moderately Armed for Self Defence and quite big ship for sustainment at high seas with specialised ASW role , I think P-28 would be equivalent of IN SURTASS in capability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillan ... sor_System

John · Post by **John** » 27 Jul 2012 00:12

merlin wrote:India might be slow in building them ships but are they technologically inferior to Chinese ships? Yes, if you are smoking something strong.

Apart from the fact that PLAN spends more money than Japan/India/Korea/Pakistan/East Asian navies combined, yes there is disparity in SSKs thanks to Scorpene. On FFGs P-17 is superior to 054 (CODOG vs CODAD, better air search radar and weaponry) but don't have numbers china has. On destroyer front, P-15A would be welcome addition and in size and armament will be bigger than anything china has right now incl Sovermenny.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 27 Jul 2012 01:53

What is the total displacement of P-15A? The Sovermenny was 7900 tonnes fully loaded.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 27 Jul 2012 02:04

I think in P28 IN put all it's money in making a compact ultra low signature ship that will protect/escort major battle ships from lurking subs. Other ships will provide it protection from surface and air threats.

John · Post by **John** » 27 Jul 2012 02:04

Bheeshma,
Won't know till it is in trials, but considering Shivalik ended up over 6000 Tonnes (projected around 5000) won't be surprised P-15A is over 8000 Tonnes making them the largest modern non Aegis DDGs.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 27 Jul 2012 02:17

True but the Sov carries the heavy sunburns else in sheer length and width the Delhi's are already bigger. Aren't you forgetting Type-45? They are 8000 tonne fully loaded, though poorly armed.

John · Post by **John** » 27 Jul 2012 02:20

Brahmos along with its canisters weight about as much as a Moskit and P-15A will carry 16 of them vs 8 just for Sov and that is not even taking into account the Univ. VLS weight. Off topic but its worth noting that two AK-130 mount not moskit which contribute to significant portion of sovremenny's load (PLAN newer Sov has only 1 Ak-130 mount).

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 27 Jul 2012 03:09

John wrote:
merlin wrote:India might be slow in building them ships but are they technologically inferior to Chinese ships? Yes, if you are smoking something strong.
Apart from the fact that PLAN spends more money than Japan/India/Korea/Pakistan/East Asian navies combined, yes there is disparity in SSKs thanks to Scorpene. On FFGs P-17 is superior to 054 (CODOG vs CODAD, better air search radar and weaponry) but don't have numbers china has. On destroyer front, P-15A would be welcome addition and in size and armament will be bigger than anything china has right now incl Sovermenny.

Of course they spend a lot of money. They are transferring from brown water to blue water and they are building a damn number of all classes of ships. They build SSBNs and SSNs which Japan/India/Korea/Pakistan/East Asian do not and which cost a lot. They build DDGs and FFGs and LSDs and LSTs and tankers and replenishment ships and you just name it. There's no big surprise that a massive shipbuilding program costs a lot, isn't it?
IN surface ships may have more advanced features (although both PLAN and IN still use a lot of Soviet/Russian tecnology) but they are outnumbered by equally modern Chinese ships. Under water - single 971 is definitely superior to what China has right now. But it can't be cloned and deployed in more than a single location at a time. China's SSBNs may be lousy, but they are there already, while India still has to make Arihant operational. Scorpenes may be superior to Yuans, but there are no Scorpenes around right now and there are at least 4-5 Yuans. And so on.
Balance is tipping rapidly. Ten years ago IN was able to be a blue water Navy against a brown water Navy. It is less and less so. Technological edge against sheer numbers has to be maintained there and now, not in some distant future. Speed up your shipbuilding program.

John · Post by **John** » 27 Jul 2012 03:43

SNaik,
Yes that is my point so comparing number of vessels when you spending that much is like US boasting about how many vessels they are building compared to Russia.

That said SSNs may not necessarily cost more than current generation SSKs, our Scorpene is great example of that. Also China was always about sheer numbers even 20 years ago they operated a fleet surface vessels far more numerous than IN so it is not something that changed in last decade, the rapid ship building was mainly to maintain number and to make up for 13 Luda and around 25 Jianghu's which will be retired in the coming years'.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 27 Jul 2012 04:19

Katare wrote:I think in P28 IN put all it's money in making a compact ultra low signature ship that will protect/escort major battle ships from lurking subs. Other ships will provide it protection from surface and air threats.

But still what about subs? Let's say it detects a sub 60 kilometers away, what weapon it'll use to hit that sub?

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 27 Jul 2012 05:13

John wrote:SNaik,
Yes that is my point so comparing number of vessels when you spending that much is like US boasting about how many vessels they are building compared to Russia.

That said SSNs may not necessarily cost more than current generation SSKs, our Scorpene is great example of that. Also China was always about sheer numbers even 20 years ago they operated a fleet surface vessels far more numerous than IN so it is not something that changed in last decade, the rapid ship building was mainly to maintain number and to make up for 13 Luda and around 25 Jianghu's which will be retired in the coming years'.

Luda and Jianghu although built in 70s and 80s were essentially 1950 vintage. 052C, 054A, 071 et al are not 20 years behind there time any more. China is rapidly narrowing the technology gap and sheer numbers will start to count if India will continue it's leisurely pace of naval shipbuilding.

titash · Post by **titash** » 27 Jul 2012 05:32

One must remember that no other IN ship in service or on the drawing board carries a rocket launched torpedo weapon

Even the backbone of the Royal Navy's ASW frigate fleet, the 4500 ton Type 23 carries only 2 triple 324 mm + 1x ASW Helicopter; no ASROC/IKARA type weapons

Perhaps the P28 isn't all that poorly armed for ASW

titash · Post by **titash** » 27 Jul 2012 05:50

@ Manish_Sharma

It will use the embarked Sea King to deliver homing torpedoes at said submarine

The RN Type 23 also deploys the exact same long range weapons package - they came to that conclusion after years of deploying IKARA on the Leanders / HMS Bristol

I would be interested in knowing typical HMS / TAS detection ranges in the Arabian Sea/Bay of Bengal...probably no more than 5nm / 20nm respectively, which means that engagement ranges are going to be much shorter. In such a case, the RBU-6000, which is virtually useless if the forum discussions are to be believed, will be a very useful weapon...specially for SSKs lying quietly on the seabed

Open for discussion...

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 27 Jul 2012 06:07

SNaik wrote:
John wrote:SNaik,
Yes that is my point so comparing number of vessels when you spending that much is like US boasting about how many vessels they are building compared to Russia.

That said SSNs may not necessarily cost more than current generation SSKs, our Scorpene is great example of that. Also China was always about sheer numbers even 20 years ago they operated a fleet surface vessels far more numerous than IN so it is not something that changed in last decade, the rapid ship building was mainly to maintain number and to make up for 13 Luda and around 25 Jianghu's which will be retired in the coming years'.
Luda and Jianghu although built in 70s and 80s were essentially 1950 vintage. 052C, 054A, 071 et al are not 20 years behind there time any more. China is rapidly narrowing the technology gap and sheer numbers will start to count if India will continue it's leisurely pace of naval shipbuilding.

True, High time to drive home the tech advantage by adding numbers. Enough of ordering stuff in 2-3's. Just go ahead and order 6 ships and place the order between 1 PSU and 1 Private yard.

srai · Post by **srai** » 27 Jul 2012 08:48

Manish_Sharma wrote:
Katare wrote:I think in P28 IN put all it's money in making a compact ultra low signature ship that will protect/escort major battle ships from lurking subs. Other ships will provide it protection from surface and air threats.
But still what about subs? Let's say it detects a sub 60 kilometers away, what weapon it'll use to hit that sub?

The main anti-sub weapon on the P-28 is its medium ASW helicopter, such as the Sea King. It can fly 400km around the ship if need be. Besides a modern SSK/SSN are hard to detect very far. A ship may get some suspicious pings and will send its ASW helicopter to investigate further. The helo will drop sonbouys in a specific pattern around the area of interest to triangulate a SSK/SSN. Once triangulated, the helo will drop a light-weight torpedoe almost right on top of the submarine and from which there will be no escape at that close range.

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 27 Jul 2012 11:26

Chinese claims on pindigenous development is rubbish. Just ask them to take their nuke submarines to go into blue water for patrols. Once fully tested and deployed Arihant will be able to do that from day one, something which the Chinese claim to be able to, but havent done in 30 years. So much for their tall claims. One to one, Indian technology can own Chinese technology any day in terms of quality and innovation. This is stark contrast from several thousand years ago when Indian and Chinese tech were on par. China today has quantity which it tries to pass off for quality.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 27 Jul 2012 13:25

they have a habit of putting something in the water strictly as a test platform by cutting corners and using that as a H&D thing. the 1st HAN class , the 1st Xia class were strictly protos with no real operational use....they got their 1st working Shang/Jin n-boats fairly recently the 1st Shang in 2006 IOC and their 1st Jin onlee around 2008.

we need to scale up, and we need to get the A3SL working, we are not that far behind in timeline and not behind in other areas of tech. their weakness is also our weakness is in terms of power plants and more refined noise signature reduction...only experience can cure that.

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 27 Jul 2012 14:39

SNaik wrote:First touch-and-goes by MiG-29KUB over the weekend. First landing should be in couple of days.

http://kuleshovoleg.livejournal.com/84203.html

Jaeger · Post by **Jaeger** » 27 Jul 2012 14:40

titash wrote:@ Manish_Sharma

It will use the embarked Sea King to deliver homing torpedoes at said submarine

The RN Type 23 also deploys the exact same long range weapons package - they came to that conclusion after years of deploying IKARA on the Leanders / HMS Bristol

I would be interested in knowing typical HMS / TAS detection ranges in the Arabian Sea/Bay of Bengal...probably no more than 5nm / 20nm respectively, which means that engagement ranges are going to be much shorter. In such a case, the RBU-6000, which is virtually useless if the forum discussions are to be believed, will be a very useful weapon...specially for SSKs lying quietly on the seabed

Open for discussion...

Surely you're not saying "if the RN did it, it MUST be correct!"? And while the Type 23s have no ASW strike weapons, they DO have 8x Harpoons. The P-28 has no AShMs either -and I've been consistently mentioning the lack of BOTH AShMs/ASW strike weapons.

Global Security wrote: The Pakistan Navy's acquisition of "silent" Daphne class submarines made it unlikely that they could be detected on passive sonars. The vagaries of hydrology in the Arabian Sea favoured the submarine because the temperature layers in the sea refracted a ship's sonar transmissions. The range of the Daphne's class submarine's latest homing torpedoes exceeded by far the maximum detection range and the weapon range of the Navy's anti submarine frigates. There was, therefore, a pressing need for longer range sonars, longer range homing torpedoes, and variable depth/dunking sonar which could overcome hydrological constraints.

The last three Petyas KILTAN, KAVARATTI and KATCHALL commissioned in end 1969. The Russian Petyas which started arriving from 1968 onwards greatly increased anti submarine capability. Their medium range sonars had a maximum detection range of several thousand meters; their anti submarine rockets had a range of a few thousand metres and the range of their heavy, anti submarine, homing torpedoes matched that of their medium range sonars.

Just an idea of some of the challenges faced by the IN at the time of Petya induction. Note the solutions referred to: increased sonar range, RBUs and Heavy Torpedoes with range matching that of sonars!

Obviously finding sonar ranges for the P-28 will be impossible, but I'm sure they will exceed
A244:~10+km for Mod 3 as per manufacturer - Eurotorp
TAL: range unknown, but probably comparable
...these are the two 324mm torpedoes likeliest to be used.
RBU 6000:~6km as per - The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapon Systems
...which is even less.

I'm sure that in the right conditions, our sonars can pick up subs at greater ranges than 10km - so what are we going to hit them with? You can't assume your helo (of which there is ONE) is going to be flying around armed 24/7. What happens the rest of the time?

Bliss to note, the sub is going to be using SOMETHING LIKE THIS against you:

Atlas Elektronik DM2A4 SeaHake which apparently (I have no official information other than Wiki, so apparently) has a 50km/50kt performance envelope and according to the Atlas Electronik link above is already integrated with Agosta 90B and according to Wiki is in use with the PN.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 27 Jul 2012 17:18

^ virtually nanga against these latest speedy HWTs. the sub can also loose off a harpoon/exocet from another tube to create a ASM threat also....

Pakis chose the seahake over the finmeccanica black shark.

Jaeger · Post by **Jaeger** » 27 Jul 2012 17:47

^Singha, exactly. AShM threat can still be neutralised defensively by Barak + AK630. Against HWT shots, there is no option of retaliatory launching of a Klub against the sub to at least force guide-wire severance. Nothing.

And of course, this totally rules out any "networked" shots - chopper dipping sonar picks up sub 20NM out, P-28 launches Klub to designated coordinates. What about the chopper's torpedo? Well, if the P-28 has a strike system, maybe the chopper can be unarmed to maximize fuel load and endurance - especially since there is only one chopper or in fact, if we have NRUAV in the future!

Roperia · Post by **Roperia** » 27 Jul 2012 18:54

India’s Vikramaditya to participate in Russian Navy Day Parade (July 29)

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 27 Jul 2012 19:18

Just thinking, do you think INS Chakra main duties will be with the Vikramaditya CBG group since a SSK cannot keep up? Thats why it has come roughly 7-8 months before VIK. I think Arihant will be alone in the Sea with its main defense being silence

member_23360 · Post by **member_23360** » 27 Jul 2012 20:03

Indian Navy's future CBG will be having maximum risk from enemy sub's(given that enemy's lacks offensive air capabilities over sea), IN need to have maximum possible range for sonar and weapon system.

As Admiral Hiranandani had stated:“The lesson learnt from the loss of the KHUKRI was that longer range sonars and longer range weapons had to be inducted if ships were to have a fighting chance against modernsubmarines and their long range homing torpedoes

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 27 Jul 2012 23:01

Kamorta class seem to be made for longer-duration patrol (maintain sanitized areas in far seas) during peace and provide large volumes of space for flexible loading of mission modules during action time. Maybe cheaper to operate a Kamorta for anti-piracy or anti-panda patrols in distant areas, than say a Shivalik. The earlier Tarantuls seem more of heavily armed brown-water defense ships.

khan's LCS concept done the injun way, maybe?

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 28 Jul 2012 00:46

The LCS is an economic disaster lets hope P-28 does not follow.

kit · Post by **kit** » 28 Jul 2012 01:37

One question to those who know.If the IN is going to rely on one comm satellite for its net centric war fighting ability., wont it be an Achilles heel in times of war ? how much of redundancy does one satellite have ? wont it have been better to have a constellation of say., microsats ?

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 28 Jul 2012 02:02

So far no one has demonstrated the ability to hard-kill a geo-stationary satellite. Jamming could be a problem - but that's a problem with all network centric warfare situations. Ability to launch micro-sats on demand needs to be seriously explored though. Dr. Saraswat said that A5 could be modified for this purpose

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 28 Jul 2012 02:34

Singha, Jaeger: do any IN ships carry the Klub 91RE2?

I feel ASROCs should become a standard fit like Baraks or AK-630s. For some reason, it seems to be a seriously under-utilized weapon. We should even build our own - we have built the TAL and are pretty good at accurate ballistic missiles. Why not put the two together? We could even go beyond 50 KM, with the ASW helos or P8Is detecting subs at a long range

titash · Post by **titash** » 28 Jul 2012 04:04

@ Prem Kumar

+1 to you. Should be within DRDO's current capabilities to add a nosecone with guidance and a booster stage to the TAL. Not sure why the IN hasn't pushed for it

titash · Post by **titash** » 28 Jul 2012 04:06

@ Jaeger

I am definitely not saying that if the RN did it, it must be correct. Like all professional navies, they have made their own share of stupid decisions over the last 300 years

My point was, the RN operated the IKARA from several ships after WWII. The Leanders used IKARA + Limbo + light Wasp helo, and the HMS Bristol used IKARA + Limbo only. Their experience using these ships was fed into the subsequent class of ASW vessels - the Type 22 and the Type 23. In both these cases, the long range ASW weapon is the helicopter...either 2x Lynx or 1x Merlin; the IKARA was subsequently retired

In a nutshell, they probably came to a conclusion that as far as effectiveness was concerned, the long range ASW weapon of choice was the helicopter, and moreover just 1x heavy helicopter would suffice for the bulk of their frigate force. From what I understand, the RN has been reasonably happy with both classes of warships. The following series of Type 26 frigates has the same fittings

(Contd...)

titash · Post by **titash** » 28 Jul 2012 04:19

(Contd...)

Perhaps it comes down to a choice of operational philosophies. Possibly in the RN and IN, ASW ships are not meant to prosecute submarines by themselves; instead they are meant to operate in pairs, or in conjunction with maritime patrol aircraft, or as part of a task group, etc

Rocket launched torpedoes have been around for 50 years, but the IN has never looked to purchase any from the French or Russians (obviously the Americans & Australians wouldn't sell) and neither have they pushed the DRDO to design one. This must be a well thought out decision, or a series of stupid decisions by several generations of naval strategists

The RN has extensive ASW experience and the IN is clearly influenced by the sinking of INS Khukri. I am sure a lot of thought has gone into what ASW equipment to procure, ship design philosophies, and operational tactics. On that note, the P28 sensor/weapons fit must be a well thought out design

I would like to try and understand why the IN designed the ship as such, and focus on possible operational strategies for the existing design. It is all too easy to criticize without knowing how the user intends to operate said equipment

Regards,

srai · Post by **srai** » 28 Jul 2012 05:31

^^^

Agree.

Naval ships are not deployed alone. They are paired with other ships as a task force or pickets.

Hiten · Post by **Hiten** » 28 Jul 2012 06:54

GSAT-7: "brief overview of India's first dedicated military communication satellite being built for the the Indian Navy"

http://www.aame.in/2012/07/gsat-7-insat ... itary.html

Nick_S · Post by **Nick_S** » 28 Jul 2012 15:07

Kuz + Vik

from - http://forums.airbase.ru/2012/07/t86374 ... .4574.html

John · Post by **John** » 28 Jul 2012 23:51

Jaeger wrote:Atlas Elektronik DM2A4 SeaHake which apparently (I have no official information other than Wiki, so apparently) has a 50km/50kt performance envelope and according to the Atlas Electronik link above is already integrated with Agosta 90B and according to Wiki is in use with the PN.

It will be foolish if Agosta does try to engage a P-28 it will give away its location and every ASW asset will coverage on it (with its 9 knot submerged speed it cannot exactly fire and scoot away like an SSN), In all likely it will be used in shipping lanes or mine harbors and key choke points. Detecting subs at ranges greater than 10nm is extremely unlikely one of the reasons ASROC like weapons have not been deployed much (even if you happen to detect a submarine and fire dozen of them chance of LWT torpedo finding a SSK running on batteries is extremely low), a helicopter with 500 Km operating radius and 200 Kmph speed is far more potent than ASROC.

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 29 Jul 2012 00:00

First landing of MiG-29KUB on Vikramaditya - 28 July 2012.