Indian Naval Discussion

[Shrinivasan]

Read that most, if not all, of the ASW in IN is done by frigates and destroyers.
What sized area can each of these sanitize, assuming they (including the corvette) do not have the same capability?

I am surprised by this assertion, Destroyers are considered capital ships for offensive use and using them for ASW is not the best use (they should have self protection capabilities for sure).
Frigates could be dual tasked with ASW when they are part of a battle group.
Corvettes SHOULD BE the primary ASW platform.
IN's penchant for Multi-role platforms has made it design multiple platforms performing ASW, this has been the norm for decades, It might have been acceptable (even desirable) in the days of shoe-string budgets, in the current decade they should start focusing on dedicated platforms. the first place to start this could be ASW Corvettes. Separate Missile Corvettes from ASW Corvettes. the order for dedicated Gun-boats is also a step in this direction.

[bmallick]

As pointed out by John, Cheonan sinking has definitely shown the vulnerability of small vessels and their lack of survivability on taking a hit. This has led me think, whether a multi-hull vessel would be more survivable. Modern catamarans have been built upto 4000-5000 tons. Hence would it be prudent to design the smaller ASW vessel on a catamaran design. Two hulls would provide greater survivability.

[Singha]

japan has a long history of capable and specialized ASW ships, incl large DDGs with 3 helis (somewhat unique in the world).

maybe we can study their kit and arrive at the optimal config that works for us . they prepared very seriously to do ASW against the soviet pacific fleet.

[NRao]

So ........................ am I to take that none of you know what ASW area is covered by each of these ship types?

Adm. Srini,

Just noticed you may trek to Dayton. TStorms on Sat + Sun. Weather bad between IA and OH.

[John]

^ ASW coverage depends on the frequency,active/passive, type of sonar and typical ship based active sonar can cover a area of 10-15 nm radius.

As pointed out by John, Cheonan sinking has definitely shown the vulnerability of small vessels and their lack of survivability on taking a hit. This has led me think, whether a multi-hull vessel would be more survivable. Modern catamarans have been built upto 4000-5000 tons. Hence would it be prudent to design the smaller ASW vessel on a catamaran design. Two hulls would provide greater survivability.

Yeah there are many different strategy for ASW, Japanese employed large number of airborne assets, Russians had dozens of Krivak frigates for ASW which were cheap to build and afford to lose. In future it looks like we are moving towards unmanned platforms (submersibles, uavs).

[SNaik]

Teg ready for Indian CNO's inspection.

[Shrinivasan]

Adm. Srini, Just noticed you may trek to Dayton. TStorms on Sat + Sun. Weather bad between IA and OH.

Let us wait for couple more days... then we can plan... I'm positive about driving upto Dayton.. let us see.. Can you drop me an EMAIL using my emailId from my profile please... or should i email you

[chackojoseph]

Read that most, if not all, of the ASW in IN is done by frigates and destroyers.
What sized area can each of these sanitize, assuming they (including the corvette) do not have the same capability?

I am surprised by this assertion, Destroyers are considered capital ships for offensive use and using them for ASW is not the best use (they should have self protection capabilities for sure).
Frigates could be dual tasked with ASW when they are part of a battle group.
Corvettes SHOULD BE the primary ASW platform.
IN's penchant for Multi-role platforms has made it design multiple platforms performing ASW, this has been the norm for decades, It might have been acceptable (even desirable) in the days of shoe-string budgets, in the current decade they should start focusing on dedicated platforms. the first place to start this could be ASW Corvettes. Separate Missile Corvettes from ASW Corvettes. the order for dedicated Gun-boats is also a step in this direction.

This is what ruined Soviet Union. While seperate ASW is desirable, every capital ship should have mid to advanced capabilities from undersurface and ariel threat. The idea should be right mix. Capital ships should not be tied down to the limitation of combat consort.

[bmallick]

This is what ruined Soviet Union. While seperate ASW is desirable, every capital ship should have mid to advanced capabilities from undersurface and ariel threat. The idea should be right mix. Capital ships should not be tied down to the limitation of combat consort.

Rightly said. Thats why IN's capital ships ( Frigates & Destroyers) are multi-role and provide enourmous flexibility in deployment.

However, there definitely is a limit onto what you can squeeze into a smaller hull. For example, if you take a 500-800 ton vessel, then either you make it a missile boat like the Veer Class or a ASW vessel like the Pauk Class. This means that smaller crafts tend not to be multi-role. At the same time smaller vessel size means there are limits on the weapon system they can carry.The size limitation means that if you try to pack in more/heavy weapons, you might not be able to pack in the sensors to support the same. For example, having a long range missile like Uran/Klub/Brahmos on a Veer class missile boat definitely sounds cool, but would require long range radar systems or other OTH target information provider, mainly performed by Helicopters. But a heavy radar high up means heavy top weight. Or the need for a helicopter means that aviation facility need to be factored in, which drives up the size. Hence such a missile boat would depend on other assets for providing the targeting information. Therefore it would depend on other assets for doing its primary task of sinking enemy vessels.

It would be far easier to build a dedicated ASW boat than a missile boat, because the ASW gears are not located high up. Thus the ASW boat can have a towing sonar, UUVs and torpedos all packed in it hull, thus can act independently while doing its primary task of ASW. However, here too the ASW boat would definitely need to be operating with in our defensive envelope, else it would be sitting duck for a enemy helicopter/MPA. However they can be easily deployed around our ports/naval bases, from 0-200 km range, well within our defensive perimeter. Such a deployment means that they can start looking for enemy subs waiting just outside our ports for opportunistic shots, mine laying or intel. Remember PNS Ghazi was in Vishakhapatnam laying mines. Hence the need for small ASW boats/corvettes.

[chackojoseph]

bmallick,

First of all, the capital assets are matched with their importance to their protection needs. Smaller assets have lesser protection. So logically, uniform level of ASW and A2A cannot be provided in all. So, the weight argument etc dosen't come into picture.

Secondly, I have said that capital ships should not be tied down to the limitation of its combat consort. I said capital ships should have this and that.

Thirdly, I haven't denied that we don't need smaller ASW units for area denial.

The argument that capital ships should not have ASW is what I replied to.

[bmallick]

Yeah there are many different strategy for ASW, Japanese employed large number of airborne assets, Russians had dozens of Krivak frigates for ASW which were cheap to build and afford to lose. In future it looks like we are moving towards unmanned platforms (submersibles, uavs).

Being overly dependent on a single strategy for ASW might not be best option. Aviation based ASW definitely is the most flexible. It is faster to respond and easier to re-deploy. Also can cover a larger area in much shorter time. However, sea based ASW provide the most persistence in an area. So we need a judicious mix of both. Also going forward, even though the future belongs to the UAVs, these I think would be deployed by Sea based assets, surface/subs.

One question, Sonobouy's have UHF/VHF radio connectivity with their parent MPA/Helicopter. Can a nearby ship to listen to the radio from the sonobouy grid, thus augmenting its ASW picture. Corollary, can a Ship used Sonobouys for submarine hunting.

[bmallick]

bmallick,

First of all, the capital assets are matched with their importance to their protection needs. Smaller assets have lesser protection. So logically, uniform level of ASW and A2A cannot be provided in all. So, the weight argument etc dosen't come into picture.

Secondly, I have said that capital ships should not be tied down to the limitation of its combat consort. I said capital ships should have this and that.

Thirdly, I haven't denied that we don't need smaller ASW units for area denial.

The argument that capital ships should not have ASW is what I replied to.

chackojoseph, relax and please note that I agreed to what you said and at no point did I question your understanding, I just simply added my two naya paisa to the discussion. If you feel offended then I am sorry.

[uddu]

290 KM Brahmos and 1000 km Nirbhay will eliminate any need for sea based missile boats in the western sector. We can have large number of them that can be launched from Naval bases and road mobile launchers. ASW assets will be needed in large numbers. Especially since we lack ASW aircrafts in good numbers. It will be cost effective and effective to have smaller boats of about 1000 tons, that's highly automated, stealthy and with less manpower to hunt for enemy submarines. Having good defensive capablity in terms of AAM's will not be a bad thing either. One notable feature is the introduction of light weight composite materials to build the mast. This will be seen in the Kamorta class of corvettes. It's coming from Sweden or Norway.

[chackojoseph]

chackojoseph, relax and please note that I agreed to what you said and at no point did I question your understanding, I just simply added my two naya paisa to the discussion. If you feel offended then I am sorry.

Absolutely not. Why I should be offended. You haven't slandered and you have stuck to the point. Yes you have agreed to the omni role ships. I just listed out the points. My earlier post was just two liner. So, this time, I was listing it out more comprehensively.

[chackojoseph]

Between Japan, ROK, Taiwan and USN (near chinese main land) P-3 orion no's should be some 50 odd units. The they have ASW assets etc.

We should be having not just arial/ mobile units. We should be constructing permenant sensor grid within the Indian terrirorial waters for Submarine monitering, so that the other assets can be more skewed on ASK (Anti Submarine Killer).

An hostile sub will be more vulnerable in our territorial waters.

[uddu]

Something on the lines of Visby class corvettes, but our corvette may not be that stealthy, light and costly, but something that works well, May be a mini-version of the Kamorta without helos will do. But must have lighter, smaller AShm's (Mini-Brahmos or Mini-Nirbhay ASHm) and AAM's (barak-1 type). Even if it's 6 Ashm's and limited AAm's it will suffice,but is a must. Without these the ship will be very vulnerable.

[Shrinivasan]

I am surprised by this assertion, Destroyers are considered capital ships for offensive use and using them for ASW is not the best use (they should have self protection capabilities for sure).

This is what ruined Soviet Union. While seperate ASW is desirable, every capital ship should have mid to advanced capabilities from undersurface and ariel threat. The idea should be right mix. Capital ships should not be tied down to the limitation of combat consort.

See my point above, bolded for your convenience. We both are saying the samething Viz Destroyers, they need self protection but SHOULD NOT BE TASKED with ASW. Which is why INS Delhi is classified as a "Guided Missile Destroyer".

[Shrinivasan]

The argument that capital ships should not have ASW is what I replied to.

CJ, I agree will all your points EXCEPT this assertion. ASW is different from "protection from under sea threats". Destroyers or Frigates SHOULD have tools to detect and protect themselves from Subs. But they should not be tasked with ASW which is looking out for Sub-surface platforms like Submarines.
Auty wiki says

Anti-submarine warfare (ASW, or in older form A/S) is a branch of naval warfare that uses surface warships, aircraft, or other submarines to find, track and deter, damage or destroy enemy submarines.

@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-submarine_warfare
Ciao

[Shrinivasan]

290 KM Brahmos and 1000 km Nirbhay will eliminate any need for sea based missile boats in the western sector. We can have large number of them that can be launched from Naval bases and road mobile launchers.

This Assertion is flawed IMHO, Khan with it huge arsenal of Ballistic and Cruise missiles, launched its attack on Libya positioning its Assets in the Mediterranean Sea to fire a barrage of T'hawks from Ships and Submarines. Attacking a target like Gawadar would be best accomplished from the sea. You might retort saying, a barrage of Nirbhays can be launched from say Okha from an onshore battery targeting Gawadar which is say approx 900Km... (just for argument sake) but you are better off to position your assets SW of Gawadar and launch your barrage from a ship. Anyway, it is good to have multiple arrows in ones quiver!!!

[uddu]

Not talking about the roles of Destroyers, Frigates or Corvettes but smaller, short range missile boats are unnecessary in an India-Pakistan context. We'll not be doing operation python type of limited attacks on Karachi, but massive attacks followed by complete blockade. And the longer range of missiles will help us to launch them from Naval bases and road mobile launchers. Also the effort and cost associated with building, keeping such missile boats can best be diverted to providing better strike power to naval bases by basing Brahmos (Dual role that's Ashm+Land attack variants will be better in this regard) and Nirbhay LACM there.
Andaman and Nicobar can have such missile boats if the Chinese are attacking.
Also the Air defense of our Naval bases by basing AAD's and PAD's must be top priority.

[Shrinivasan]

Also the effort and cost associated with building, keeping such missile boats can best be diverted to providing better strike power to naval bases by basing Brahmos
Andaman and Nicobar can have such missile boats if the Chinese are attacking.

you are contradicting yourself with these points, I gave Gawadar/Pakistan as an example. Andaman based missile boats to attack Chinese targets is a possibility but I don't want to go into an area where there is no strategic clarity of mission.

[bmallick]

I think we should look at things in a more holistic manner. Mostly vessels, whether Frigates,Destroyers,Carriers, Amphibious Vessels, Corvettes etc, would not be working alone. They would invariably be part of a squadron or task force. We would not have anything like a lone warship going and working a-la special forces Rambo type. Such operation if required are better done by Subs.

Since almost all surface vessels would be working in a team, they would individually pitch in for the overall offensive as well as defensive power of the team. So we may be erroneous when we say capital ships should not be tasked with ASW per se. If the primary aim of the task force is ASW, then the capital ships ASW capability would be actively adding to the team's ASW capability, whereas its AAW & Anti-Surface capability would be forming the secondary protective envelope. In case of Anti-Ship tasks for the team, the Anti-Surface capability would be actively adding to the capability of the team, whereas AAW & ASW capability would be providing the protection. For example, in case of a CBG, the destroyers & frigates would primarily be providing defensive ASW & AAW envelop. The offense is better taken care of by the Carrier's fighters. However, if a Destroyer based task force is formed for hunting down PLAN sub in South China Sea then the destroyers AntiShip & AAW capability would primarily be for protection.

Of course as we can see, that having a multi role ship, with all the required weapons & sensors, enables this ship to act flexibly and contribute to the team's effort in a much better way. It also enables the planners to have the flexibility to reconfigure a task force based on the current threat perception. For example, lets say we form a task force for ASW 1 Delhi class, 1 Talwars & 2-3 P28 Corvettes, hunting PN subs in the northern Arabian Sea. However we get confirmed intelligence that the PN ships are trying to heading out to sea to attack, then we can quickly ask the same task force to shift to Anti-Surface task.

[bmallick]

290 KM Brahmos and 1000 km Nirbhay will eliminate any need for sea based missile boats in the western sector. We can have large number of them that can be launched from Naval bases and road mobile launchers.

This Assertion is flawed IMHO, Khan with it huge arsenal of Ballistic and Cruise missiles, launched its attack on Libya positioning its Assets in the Mediterranean Sea to fire a barrage of T'hawks from Ships and Submarines. Attacking a target like Gawadar would be best accomplished from the sea. You might retort saying, a barrage of Nirbhays can be launched from say Okha from an onshore battery targeting Gawadar which is say approx 900Km... (just for argument sake) but you are better off to position your assets SW of Gawadar and launch your barrage from a ship. Anyway, it is good to have multiple arrows in ones quiver!!!

+1 to that. Instead of basing our strategy and tactics on one platform or idea, we should spread our arrows as much as possible, so that the enemy has to deal with more headaches. Also this acts as an insurance, just in case the enemy develops a counter for one of the arrow wielders. Same is the premise for having a triad of nuclear weapons rather than a single delivery method.

[bmallick]

Not talking about the roles of Destroyers, Frigates or Corvettes but smaller, short range missile boats are unnecessary in an India-Pakistan context. We'll not be doing operation python type of limited attacks on Karachi, but massive attacks followed by complete blockade.

But having the missile boats, means that PN's P3-C & other assets need to keep look out for them much nearer to shores, just to ensure that we do not attempt anything again on the Operation Python lines. This ties at least some of there resources nearer to the shore, thereby reducing there resources which they can deploy much farther to sea.

[bmallick]

We'll not be doing operation python type of limited attacks on Karachi, but massive attacks followed by complete blockade.

Here we should also understand the context of the Operation Python against the then general doctrine of Missile boat usage. Missile boats were primarily defensive weapons. They were supposed to be the last line of defense, much nearer to home. It was the ingenuity of the IN, that they came up with a plan to tow this small boats long distances and use them as offensive weapons, much nearer to the enemy's home.

Would we be needing the same tactics again, well probably not with longer range missiles in our arsenal, but does this mean that this capability is not required for their original usage. No.

[chackojoseph]

PNS Ghazi submarine and OSA class by Indian Navy deployments were very daring. Both did not achieve their original intentions. OSA Class over performed and Ghazi under perfomed.

Both show that when war comes, all plans and targets vanish. Warships are on piracy missions.

[John]

As noted missile boats don't have the range to traverse that far for any such attack besides P-3s can easily be scrambled to intercept and sink them after any attack. The Orion threat cannot be understated. IMO you better of using Su-30 with stand off weapons for any such attack.

[bmallick]

PNS Ghazi submarine and OSA class by Indian Navy deployments were very daring. Both did not achieve their original intentions. OSA Class over performed and Ghazi under perfomed.
Both show that when war comes, all plans and targets vanish. Warships are on piracy missions.

Precisely. All the more reason to have multiple platforms for accomplishing similar tasks. This would provide us multiple options and flexibility to change plans once original ideas/tactics/strategies go for a toss

[Philip]

I favour the views put forward by BMallick in general.It is the sum of assets and not the infividual capability that counts and naval assets work together as a team.With NCW the best available platform will be used to prosecute the enemy,surface or subsurface.These smaller corvettes will play a very useful role.We miss the capabilities of the erstwhile Petyas,though they lacked any air assets.If I remember right,the Petyas were about 1100t displacement,much smaller than the P-28s being built,which will be used as assets part of a task force.The smaller corvettes with a heli-deck will be able to operate UAVs and shore/ship based helos as support platforms,without requiring a hangar.

There does however seem to be an incongruity in the IN acquiring OPVs and two types of ASW corvettes (P-28s and the new planned smaller vessels).In my opinion,OPVs which come with lesser capabilities should be acquired primarily by the CG.They could be even larger than the smaller corvettes as they would require reqd. endurance for patrols,which would include anti-piracy,protecting the EEZ from rogue fishing fleets,anti-pollution,etc.An OPV would need to have a helo and a hangar,as rescue ops would be one reguloar role for it.In a crisis,an OPV would be a valuable asset to naval forces in sanitising the coastline.The OPVs could also be designed to accomodate mine-counterneasure eqpt. and UUVs for the same.Dedicated ASW warfare however would have to be done by more specialised vessels .The use of IN OPVs to carry Dhanush seems to be more of a bonus (similar to AN-12s being used for bombing raids in Indo-Pak wars) than intention,and this role should strictly be carried out by larger warships as a Dhanush fitted OPV would not be able to operate on the high seas without adequate protection being very lightly armed,without even a BPDMS.Once the K-15/ Prahaar missiles are developed,we could see them being fitted to larger warships replacing Dhanush,as the max. range of Dhanush does not appear to be more than 500km.
The Danish STANFLEX corvettes are an excellent example of a small corvette design which through modular packages could alter roles easily,though their Arctic requirements made them somewhat heavy.

[uddu]

The missile boat idea, must have been thought about and discarded by the Indian Navy. Today we don't have one. May be the Navy decided it's of no use. The reasons can.
1. Why missile boat?
To launch attack Karachi and Gwadar.
2. Can it be done without them.
Yes with long range cruise missiles.
Missile boats will not make a comeback in the western sector, but in the eastern sector we may need them as Chinese increase the number of vessels and when A&N become vulnerable.

Now regarding the Pakistani Navy searching for missile boats during war. It can be made possible. But what are the advantages?
As said the advantage can be like more ships and they have to search for them and engage them.
Disadvantage?
Very vulnerable to attacks. Will only give the Pakis chance to do propaganda if taken out. Better will be Indian navy can taking out all the targets with Destroyers, frigates and corvettes.
If it's about the number of missiles launched from sea, better to have cruisers, that can not only be deployed around Pakistan but anywhere in the world.

[uddu]

For defense of our coastline, it's better to have corvettes rather than the missile boat, kind of defense. The main threat of attacks will be from Pakistani subs rather than their surface combatants. Kamorta class of ships to deal with such threats from surface combatants and submarines will be ideal. Usually today it's quite possible that the Pakistani surface combatants will be monitored very closely and kept watch on. So they getting into Indian territorial waters to launch an attack against Indian territory do exist but in a very very limited manner. Can the defense be possible from land based assets. It's very much possible without the limitations like the size of the ship, the weapons it can carry etc. The enemy ship can be taken out by land based missiles. But we'll need large number of patrol vessels to do patrolling duties off the coast (to deal with terrorists, pirates, smugglers etc in the short term and long term scenarios).

[Singha]

regardless of size, any credible ASW vessel against the quiet generation of sub threat has to have
- hull mounted sonar
- towed sonar
- good onboard processing capacity
- RBU launcher
- Klub ASW missile
- 3 x HWT launcher
- a couple of medium helis armed with LWT and dipping sonar
- a UUV for scouting out undersea terrain
- 2 x CIWS systems to shoot at ASMs unleashed by submerged subs
- probably a 8-cell barak1 for the same purpose
- extremely good quieting measures, isolation
- probably a electric motor to drive the ship at low speed for 'drift n listen' mode and a gas-turbine/diesel for normal cruising
- patrol endurance of minimum around 2 weeks @ 500km away from its base
- datalink to LRMP and other ships
- a good 3D surveillance radar to be aware of airborne threats
- a thales sirius type IR ball for spotting heat plumes of missiles
- very good damage control , even a near miss by a HWT is a terrible event

this seems to suggest a ship of atleast P28 size if not bigger. anything smaller will have to compromise on some of the above and hence quite vulnerable.

the days of cheap small noisy submarine chasers are truly gone unless we want to use human wave tactics in the sea and kill our own. a good SSK will see it coming from 50km away and unleash 4 harpoons or exocets down its throat long before the ship has a chance to detect the sub and do something.

P28 kamorta is the ticket and we need to build quickly around 12 of these ... perhaps have a pvt yard build in parallel with GRSE to speed things up.

[prithvi]

did you guys check out the shipping corporation of India's Vessel under construction list..?

all the major ones are built in Chinese Shipyards....

http://www.shipindia.com/fleet/vessels-on-order.aspx

dont we have capability to build civilian vessel beyond a certain size and technicality?

what are possibilities of Chinese putting bugs in these ships even if they are civilian (non military) .. during war is not it common to commandeer civilian ships for replenishment, oil tanker etc.....

[chackojoseph]

Delhi HC to hear petition for reinstatement of women officers in Navy on 10th August

[NRao]

PNS Ghazi submarine and OSA class by Indian Navy deployments were very daring. Both did not achieve their original intentions. OSA Class over performed and Ghazi under perfomed.

Both show that when war comes, all plans and targets vanish. Warships are on piracy missions.

Nope.

Both show that in THAT era it WAS true.

Today, if need be, most surface aspects of a war CAN be in real-time. Today, perhaps, the PM + DM + Chiefs of Staff would have watched Karachi burn, on a HD 108" screen, in real-time.

A lot of discussion on BR, even today, is based on fairly old data points.

[Kersi D]

regardless of size, any credible ASW vessel against the quiet generation of sub threat has to have
- hull mounted sonar
- towed sonar
- good onboard processing capacity
- RBU launcher
- Klub ASW missile
- 3 x HWT launcher
- a couple of medium helis armed with LWT and dipping sonar
- a UUV for scouting out undersea terrain
- 2 x CIWS systems to shoot at ASMs unleashed by submerged subs
- probably a 8-cell barak1 for the same purpose
- extremely good quieting measures, isolation
- probably a electric motor to drive the ship at low speed for 'drift n listen' mode and a gas-turbine/diesel for normal cruising
- patrol endurance of minimum around 2 weeks @ 500km away from its base
- datalink to LRMP and other ships
- a good 3D surveillance radar to be aware of airborne threats
- a thales sirius type IR ball for spotting heat plumes of missiles
- very good damage control , even a near miss by a HWT is a terrible event

This is more or less the size of our Leander / Godavari class frigates. Kamorta are similar sized. Meet your "demands" requires a vessel of about 2500 ~ 3000 T.

Think of the Leander class frigates
a) Replace the boilers and steam turbines with CODAD or CODOG. Perhaps we can save some volume and weight.
b) The 375 mm Bofors ASW rocket launcher is replaced with a indigenous (L&T) made ASW rocket launcher, call it RBUxyz
c) The twin 115 mm gun turret can be replaced with a Oto Melra 76 mm gun. A lot of volume & weight is saved.
OR
The twin 115 mm gun turret can be replaced with Klub VLS 8 missile pack with say 6 ASW missiles and 2 ASuW missile
d) HUMSA and towed array sonar already exist on the Leander / Godavari
e) Hangar for 2 large, Seaking sized, ASW helicopters already exist on the Godavari
f) If possible replace the twin triple ASW light TT with trainable HWT launchers, akin to something on the Talwars
g) The Seacat SAM launchers have been long replaced by AK 630 mounts

The Revathi radar replaces the DA05 radar

As the automation level will be more, less space maybe required for crew and hotel supplies

And you have a very potent ASW paltform with very good secondary ASuW and AAW capabilites.

Kersi


PS How do I patent this design ?

[arun]

Datelined back to July 14th but I do not see it posted on this thread so here goes.

INS Sharabh decommissioned:

INDIAN NAVAL SHIP SHARABH DECOMMISSIONED

[Shrinivasan]

PNS Ghazi submarine and OSA class by Indian Navy deployments were very daring. Both did not achieve their original intentions. OSA Class over performed and Ghazi under perfomed.

I like this

OSA Class over performed and Ghazi under perfomed.

Dunno if IN expected such an impact of Op Python on Karachi Harbour

[Singha]

more than raw size i rhink sensors and weapons drive the overall cost and also the quality of powerplant epqt and mtbf. for instance the std cold war asw ship of usn in cold war was the spruance class weighing in at a hefty 9000t !!

[Singha]

that and the speciakized s3 viking planes and hundreds of sh60 types with hundreds of p3