Indian Naval Discussion

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 20 Jul 2011 08:48

Singha wrote: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.

IF you remove the 2 medium helis requirement, the rest can be fit into a 1000-1400 ton vessel. Compare the specs with the Petya Class and see whether Petya had those.

- hull mounted sonar - YES
- towed sonar - NO - But had a dipping Sonar. ( can be easily changed to carry a Towed Sonar)
- good onboard processing capacity - YES ( it definately had what was there during those times. This capability is far easier to accomodate than others ).
- RBU launcher - YES, 4 Lanuchers
- Klub ASW missile - NO
- 3 x HWT launcher - YES
- a couple of medium helis armed with LWT and dipping sonar - NO
- a UUV for scouting out undersea terrain - NO. These are moderng inventions.
- 2 x CIWS systems to shoot at ASMs unleashed by submerged subs - NO but had Four guns. So fitting 2 CIWS should not be a problem.
- probably a 8-cell barak1 for the same purpose - Can be fitted with.
- extremely good quieting measures, isolation - This is a modern thing.
- probably a electric motor to drive the ship at low speed for 'drift n listen' mode and a gas-turbine/diesel for normal cruising - New thing.
- patrol endurance of minimum around 2 weeks @ 500km away from its base - YES
- datalink to LRMP and other ships - YES
- a good 3D surveillance radar to be aware of airborne threats - YES
- a thales sirius type IR ball for spotting heat plumes of missiles - NO
- very good damage control , even a near miss by a HWT is a terrible event - Cannot say.

What this shows is that the requirement for adding a helicopter facilities, including a hangar, increases the size considerably. There is not doubt that the Helicopter would provide the most flexible sea based ASW option, but at what cost. IN's idea for smaller ASW corvette is for coastal surveillance. Hence the small ASW corvette, with maybe a helideck, like Khukri class, so as that it can provide limited facilties to shore based Helicopters flying from shore. Remember we have a number of Sea Based Oil rigs operational, which would require full protection during war. Since these Rigs are spaced out from each other we need numbers to cover the large area involved. This is one of the requirements, which comes to my mind, that drives this plan of IN for a small ASW vessel.

The small ASW corvette would always be a support element. Its like the good old poor mud-dripping, infantry, which accompany's the heavy tanks. Both work with each other and improve their fighting capabilities. 2-3 smaller ASW corvettes, working with a larger Frigate or Destroyer, thus increasing our coverage of sea estate considerably.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 20 Jul 2011 09:01

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

Hahahah.. You could be right. IIRC, when I was quizing last Chief of IN he said a simple thing and all of us press guys shut up. I don't remember the context (probably deployment of a particular ship), he said "when war comes, all well laid plans go bust. So, we cannot be sure that the ship can be deployed for its role, hence it has to be omnirole."

IIRC, he was asking if there is no target for the ship in its main role, will it be sitting in the port? We have to prepare our ships for many possibilities.

The crux he said was, we have this asset and we need to deploy it for this particular role. Touching upon piracy, he mentioned (not his exact words) the ships are differently equipped etc etc.

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 20 Jul 2011 09:04

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

Fully concur with you. The best ASW platform, is always a flattop with specialized ASW planes & choppers.

Wonder why the ASW planes like Alize, Fairey Gannet etc are no more designed. How difficult is it to design one ourselves for our needs. Something which can carry 2 pilots, 2 operators, has good range, internal space. Multiple versions:
1. ASW / MPA
2. ELINT
3. Configured as an ASTOR (Airborne STand-Off Radar)
4. Ground Attack - Only with 2 pilots. the extra space used for fuel or ordinance, weight permitting.
5. Small general utility carrier - Only 2 pilots.
6. Basic Trainer, Side by Side seating like Kiran. ( This would be a little smaller in size)
7. Maybe can also be used as a flying controller for UAV's ?

What would be total numbers needed, 20-40 for ASW//MPA , 15-20 for ELINT, 15-20 for ASTOR, 60-80 for Army aviation, 40-60 as cargo, Basic trainer maybe 80-100 more, if as a flying controller another 10-15. Thus totalling 240 - 340 in numbers. Thats good numbers.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Jul 2011 10:17

I like the idea of a proper ASW helicopter carrier like the JMSDF Hyuga far more than a Mistral class LHD...in terms of warfighting utility in the Indic context.

perhaps we should curtail our LHD project to two hulls (not four) and build the other two as a ASW helicopter & UUV platform, with a secondary task force command staff hotel capability. with a usual load of 10 medium helis and a surge load of 15, plus a few rotary UAVs, it should project a formidable power. for good measure fit a ABM radar (using its large power capacity) and a 16-pack of AAD missiles too

Vasu · Post by **Vasu** » 20 Jul 2011 10:39

prithvi wrote: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.....

Unfortunately Prithvi, Indian shipyards do not have the capacity or the speed to put out bulkers and tankers the way Chinese shipyards can manage. All these yards are not Chinese/state owned, for example STX, which is Korean and is building vessels for not just SCI but a number of other Indian carriers.

I think if a vessel has to be commandeered during war for replenishment, there's no need for bugging, but it has to be done the old-fashioned way - by taking over the ship. No expensive bugging required, these are poor worker ships whose talk is simply carrying crude and dry bulk over the sea, plus China has plenty, plenty more of them, so unlikely they'll need the services of Indian tonnage.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Jul 2011 11:02

prithvi and vasu ji, there's a shipping thread in econ forum, please use it. this thread is not for non-mil shipping sector.

singha ji, I didn't get the logic behind cutting down on amphib assets to build even more ASW ones, of which we already have built and planned for quite a lot.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Jul 2011 11:07

we do not have sea-control ASW heli ships in the USN mould in the pipeline - just a small bunch of P28 corvettes - we should be churning out corvettes like a car assembly line but thats another story.

what exactly are we looking at that needs 4 LHDs ? crushing a invasion of a IOR island by bands of terrorists/faithfool hardly needs a single battlion, its vehicles and air support which a single Mistral/Juan carlos can provide. we can have two such that one is always available. there are no plans to invade somalia yet (outside of BRF

)

but dealing with 'dozens' of sino-pak SSK needs some heavy hitting and proper planning - thats the clear and present danger.

we should get spain/france to build the 2 x LHD in their own yard for speedy delivery and make the "desi Hyuga/Moskva class" ourself, perhaps with italian or korean collab....it should be a fast and sleek warship, not a pot bellied, sluggish LHD that holds LST or LCAC in a bulging stern...should be fully capable of 30 knot sustained cruising with DDG/FFG task forces and lead the attack.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 20 Jul 2011 11:16

^^^

Singha, the answer could be to retain the hull numbers at 4 and have one/two dedicated airgroup of ASW aircrafts deployed from the ships.

So that the role of the ship can change according to the mission on hand.

Mission 1 suppress piracy in the Horn of africa. Send the ship as proper LHD/P.
Mission 2 Conduct an ASW patrol off the TSP coast, Form a battle group with the Flat top as the center piece by changing the aircrafts deployed.

What this will require, would be a Helo like the sea king. Avalable as both troop carriers and ASW wersions.

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 20 Jul 2011 11:20

Singha wrote:should be fully capable of 30 knot sustained cruising with DDG/FFG task forces and lead the attack.

And pray what or where are we attacking. Also why would not our Carrier be leading that attack. And if the carrier is leading it why not put in extra helos on the carrier, if the threat of submarine is high. Also having the carrier means that we have some aircrafts too, which can join the party and attack.

Although please note that I fully concur with the need for a heli based ASW flattop.

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 20 Jul 2011 11:35

Pratyush wrote:^^^

Singha, the answer could be to retain the hull numbers at 4 and have one/two dedicated airgroup of ASW aircrafts deployed from the ships.

So that the role of the ship can change according to the mission on hand.

Mission 1 suppress piracy in the Horn of africa. Send the ship as proper LHD/P.
Mission 2 Conduct an ASW patrol off the TSP coast, Form a battle group with the Flat top as the center piece by changing the aircrafts deployed.

What this will require, would be a Helo like the sea king. Avalable as both troop carriers and ASW wersions.

Would it be possible to design such a vessel with in a displacement of 10-12 thousand. Carrying 10-14 helicopters. The reason I am saying so is because if we design something which is around 20-30 thousand tons, then perhaps only Kochi Shipyard would be able to make it. Which already is busy with the carriers. So if we make it within 10-12 thousand tons, then maybe other shipyards can take up the job.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Jul 2011 13:03

singha ji, you picked the lesser of objectives of the amphib forces. in pak context they will seek to land a force in TSPA V corps karachi's AoR, pinning down some of its forces and allowing IA XII corps to create enormous pressures on sindh. for that we would need a self contained brigade strength force at the minimum. and because this will have to be a combined arms force, it will be larger than regular brigades because it will contain elements that are normally held at division level in IA. the 4 LPH are thus absolutely essential.

coming to ASW, what do we need so many ASW platforms for ? even the RN that faced the full might of red navy sub fleet didn't need as many ASW assets !
our current fleet and future plans are as follows :
12 X P28 kamorta class (1 ASW helo each)
3 X P17 (2 ASW helo each)
7 X P17A (likely to be 2 ASW helo each)
6 X talwar (1 ASW helo each)
3 X P15 (2 ASW helo each)
3 X P15A (2 ASW helo each)
4 X P15B (2 ASW helo each)
3 X P16 (2 ASW helo each)
3 X P16A (2 ASW helo each)
4 X P25 (1 ASW helo each)
4 X P25A (1 ASW helo each)

in addition the present and future carriers carry 10-15 helo's. the mistral class too, can carry 16 heavy helo's. nothing to be scoffed at.
______________
5 X IL-38SD
8 X Tu-142M
20 X Do-228
12 X P-8I in future

all this to counter what ? 3 modern SSK from TSPN ? plan SSK's are no threat to us unless we deploy in south china sea. how many modern SSN's do they have ? 2 ? 3 ?
even if they do deploy the clown jewers in our waters, why would we need dedicated helo carriers to counter them ?

please note that each and every one of our Indian made frigate+ sized warships carry 2 helos, a deliberate IN decision to make up for its lack of MPA. does it look like we lack ASW helos or platforms to carry them ?
ASW flattops are not always the best solution, helos are slow and in a high threat environment, when the flat-tops will be stationed near the centre of the fleet, they will spend most of their flying time just getting in and out of the areas of interest.
there is nothing a dedicated ASW flat-top can do that 3 (say) dedicated ASW ships can't do better.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Jul 2011 13:53

Look,the enormity of the Indian coastline makes it impossible for 4 or even more heavily armed amphib class flat tops doing ASW duty,as the range and endurance of the helos will be inadequate.We have a string of ports,bases and on shore major industries like refineries,power plants,etc. all well within the range of a sub-launched missile.One can install ocean-bed sensors off the major ports and bases but will not be able to do so all round the country's coastline.Land based ASW helicopters also have their range and endurance limitations.It is why I've been advocating for years the acquisition of ASW amphibians,which can land on the sea and use their sonars.Thankfully the need has been realised and acquisition processes are on.

But even with a large amount of LRMPs amd MRPs,the nature of littoral waters makes it extremely difficult to detect and track successfully a small conventional sub,esp. an AIP sub.Such a sub would be used mainly for surveillance ,insertion of special forces,laying mines at the entrance of ports and naval bases,and ambushing any naval assets or even key merchantmen entering or exiting the port/base.A further role could be closing in on the coastline to launch land attack missiles against key industrial or military targets based inland.

Therefore,sufficient numbers of surface patrol vessels are the answer an a "fully-loaded" blue-water ASW corvette comes in very expensive and in inadequate numbers.Hence the need for a smaller vessel with far lesser multi-role capabilities dedicated towards anti-sub and an anti-mine ops,since the same sonars can also be used to detect mines,or special UUVs as described in earlier posts can be used for mine-warfare purposes.A heli-deck is an absolute must as it can/should service and support both land and ship based med. sized ASW helos.As we see with both the Pauk and Petya classes,a small hull can still carry quite a punch!

With the progress in tech,especially electronics,sensors and on-board eqpt. like computers,displays,combat centres,etc., have become much more compact and smaller than in older warships and their legacy eqpt.New USN N-subs are so sophisticated that the commander can operate the sub even from his cabin.Multi-function displays abound,reducing crew sizes.As I've said before,if this corvette can operate a helo,its own ASW sonars and also launch a UUV,it will be able to obtain the sub coordinates from 3 sources ideal for prosecuting a sub.However,the vessel though small will require a good speed needed to outflank a sub when operating with other assets and possess MBUs,TTs and longer range ASW weaponry like Medvedka.ASW Klub missiles can be fired from std. 21" TTs if need be but I doubt that such a long range ASW weapon system would be required for a coastal ASW warship.

Interestingly,the Petyas -1150t,came with a CODAG propulsion and a top speed of 30+ kts.The smaller "coastal patrol and inshore anti-submarine warfare" Pauks of only 500t with diesels,produce a speed of upto 34 kts.Their armament and sensors are quite interesting.

Sensors and
processing systems: Radar: Spin Trough, Bass Tilt, Air surface search
Sonar: Medium frequency hull mounted and Bronza dipping sonar

Armament: 1 SA-N-5 SAM (1x4)
1 x 76-millimetre (3.0 in) gun
1 x 30 mm (1.2 in) gun (AK-630)
2 x RBU 1200 anti submarine rocket launchers
4 x 406 mm (16 in) anti submarine torpedo tubes; some ships have 2 x 533 mm (21 in) torpedo tubes)

Increasing the size to 1000t,one should be able to get a longer corvette with a heli-deck,plus a better anti-air BPDMS system astern,a new gun-missile mount like that replacing Russian Kortik/Kashtans,larger RBUs in "B" osition and anti-sub TTs and Medvedkas on either beam.

There is a very sleek looking Russian 22350 frigate being launched this year.Excellent pic and drawaing here.This warship is 4500t and possesses much of what some have been advocating for a dedicated ASW vessel.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/sh ... te-in-2011

Russia to float out new missile frigate in 2011
ST. PETERSBURG, October 30 (RIA Novosti) - The first Russian Project 22350 frigate being built at a shipyard in St. Petersburg will be launched in 2011, a Russian deputy prime minister said on Thursday.
The St. Petersburg-based Severnaya Verf shipyard started building the Admiral Sergei Gorshkov frigate in February 2006. According to military sources, Russia's Navy intends to procure up to 20 such vessels.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Jul 2011 13:57

Rahul M - you are talking of a force in 2025 at best. 12 x P28, 7 x P17A, 4 x P15B will take atleast that long to emerge if not more. in 15 yrs the SSK threat will get even worse if anything, and the 093A SSN "Shang-MKI" class will be around, we are dealing with a country that did $20b in capex on bullet trains alone just to prove a point. they have bigger points to prove vs India than thumb their noses at shikansen.

bMallick,
And pray what or where are we attacking.
we need to sanitize large areas of ocean using ASW ships led by principal combatants of the Hyuga/Wasp variety.
the real carriers can attempt to attack the submarine bases themselves and provide air cover. this means all/most the helis in the 'cloud swarm' can use the ASW carrier while 'beating the bushes' can be done by P28 or even smaller sensor equipped ships that lack heli decks or have just one heli or have a fair-weather heli parking open deck only...you could NOT need jmsdf haruna or spruance types.

Also why would not our Carrier be leading that attack.
because at best our carriers for near future our 40K tons (ADS1, G) - so they need to focus limited airwings on air patrols not asw. note they also need some CSAR helis moment they embark fighters. so unless we progress to 70K beasts after a couple of decades, our carriers will NOT have the room for a scary load of ASW helos, let alone S3 viking type niche products. moreover a nimble 15,000t ASW carrier will be easier to slip into certain waters and ports vs a 40k+ t CV.

And if the carrier is leading it why not put in extra helos on the carrier, if the threat of submarine is high
you cannot - as explained above and still retain the air cover necessary to protect the fleet - the prime imperative of having a CV in first place. not with 40,000t baby carriers. ideally you need a 55,000t carrier to have enough of a strong airwing, 40,000t is the lower end of the capability scale but we are doing it due to lack of $$ and experience.

Also having the carrier means that we have some aircrafts too, which can join the party and attack.
Tejas-N, Rafale-M and Mig29K have no ASW features and never will. helis have their downtime and so does ASW mission kit. merely having 10 doesnt mean all are ready 24x7, you might have 6 ready to go at best. and helis inherently cannot have the endurance of a rafale-M moving with 3 huge drop tanks....small helis do not make the cut, something truly big and meaty like EH101 or EC725 with ER tanks are needed to reach out 100s of KM in bad weather and hunt for subs and make it back in one piece.

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 20 Jul 2011 14:09

Singha Sir, I thought when you said "Leading the attack" you meant attacking land based targets from Sea. Hence thought that why need a ASW Vessel to lead the attack on land, rather use the Carrier.

But now I see, that by "leading the attack" you are only talking about ASW warfare. Hence the need for a ASW flattop. I totally concur with this, as mentioned in my earlier posts. Having a 15000 ton ASW flat top, with 18-24 Heli's would definately make for a formidable ASW asset. This can form a ASW task force with smaller ASW ships, as proposed by Philip and myself. The smaller ships will only have Helideck, no hangar. Thus can re-fuel & reload the choppers, ofcourse a limited number of times. But thereby increasing the choppers reach. A Single large ASW flattop can then act as the mother ship for 3-4 smaller vessels. Thus forming a formidable sub hunting force. The flattop should have provision for AAW. It can have 12-16 ASW choppers & 2-3 AEW. Located surface contacts can be prosecuted using the heli's.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 20 Jul 2011 14:21

Ultimately, you need hydrophones to cover the IOR. That is the only way you can protect large ocean space against submarines more efficiently. India is owrking on it.

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 20 Jul 2011 14:28

L&T’s shipyard in TN near ready; waits for Defence orders

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 20 Jul 2011 14:47

bmallick wrote:
Would it be possible to design such a vessel with in a displacement of 10-12 thousand. Carrying 10-14 helicopters. The reason I am saying so is because if we design something which is around 20-30 thousand tons, then perhaps only Kochi Shipyard would be able to make it. Which already is busy with the carriers. So if we make it within 10-12 thousand tons, then maybe other shipyards can take up the job.

I don't know about 10-12K tons. My thinking is more in the range of ~20K tons. With 20 helos and a section of fixed wing UAVs like the avenger or Jet injuned rustum for wide area survelance. As far as shipyard space is concerned, MDL is looking to expand in Gujrat, the L&T yard is nearly ready, Pipav is on stream. So the yard space exists / will exist for the ships to be built.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Jul 2011 15:16

@ singha ji,
>>
Rahul M - you are talking of a force in 2025 at best. 12 x P28, 7 x P17A, 4 x P15B will take atleast that long to emerge if not more. in 15 yrs the SSK threat will get even worse if anything, and the 093A SSN "Shang-MKI" class will be around, we are dealing with a country that did $20b in capex on bullet trains alone just to prove a point. they have bigger points to prove vs India than thumb their noses at shikansen.
>>
fine, strike off 8 of the P28, P17A and P15B, that still leaves a fleet able to carry about 60 helo's by 2012-13, in addition to 30+ MPA. all that to counter 3 SSKs and 2 SSNs which are unlikely to be here in the first place.

I still didn't get why we need dedicated ASW flat-tops.

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 20 Jul 2011 15:27

Rahul M wrote:I still didn't get why we need dedicated ASW flat-tops.

Rahul sir, we do not need a dedicated ASW flat top per se. What is being proposed is a helicopter based Flattop, as proposed by Pratyush. The flattop can shift role from ASW & heliborne ampibious assault, as required by circumstances. If a big amphibious assault is planned, then it would use its helicopter for vertical assault and augment the capabilities of the LHD's. If a big ASW operation is required for some reason, we use it for that.

Just as multirole destroyers & frigates provide us flexibility, the Helicopter based 12-15000 flat top would provide us the same flexibility.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Jul 2011 15:38

but why add an additional type to the mix when an LPH can do the job as well and have more tricks up its sleeve viz. an amphib component ?

p.s please drop the sir.

p.p.s ASW flat-top and helo based flat-top are the same thing, no one creates a dedicated ASW flat-top around fixed wing aircraft. call it a helicopter carrier if you want.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 20 Jul 2011 15:47

Infact, I was thinking of INS Vikrant or Viraat as dedicated Helio Carrier skewed towards ASW. If cost of operating them is too much, they must consider alternatie cheaper like a light carrier.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Jul 2011 15:54

at the cost of fielding a fighter group ? why on earth would you want that ?

Will · Post by **Will** » 20 Jul 2011 16:07

Rahul M wrote:at the cost of fielding a fighter group ? why on earth would you want that ?

Does the Viraat have any fighters left?

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 20 Jul 2011 16:14

^^^^^ helios plus whatever left of Viraat's complement of Harriers should do a fine job.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Jul 2011 16:20

Hahahah.. You could be right. IIRC, when I was quizing last Chief of IN he said a simple thing and all of us press guys shut up. I don't remember the context (probably deployment of a particular ship), he said "when war comes, all well laid plans go bust. So, we cannot be sure that the ship can be deployed for its role, hence it has to be omnirole."

I detect a difference between this (as a reason for plans to go awry/bad) vs. the 1971.

In 1971 India (for sure) did not have the technologies they have today - to communicate, gather intel, etc. So, in 1971 a plan going bad would have been most likely due to technologies (to figure out what is happening and react in real-time).

From the comments you have posted it seems to me that THIS issue - "go bust" - is more due to assets being prepared for a role. My read is that if the asset was capable for a role the chances are far less that the "plans go bust".

IIRC, he was asking if there is no target for the ship in its main role, will it be sitting in the port? We have to prepare our ships for many possibilities.

The crux he said was, we have this asset and we need to deploy it for this particular role. Touching upon piracy, he mentioned (not his exact words) the ships are differently equipped etc etc.

Again, he seems to be referring to assets being equipped for certain roles.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Jul 2011 16:26

Will wrote:
Rahul M wrote:at the cost of fielding a fighter group ? why on earth would you want that ?
Does the Viraat have any fighters left?

chackojoseph wrote:^^^^^ helios plus whatever left of Viraat's complement of Harriers should do a fine job.

viraat is too old to stay a moment longer after vik(rant) or vik(ramaditya) joins.

chacko mentioned vikrant too, which is the name of IAC-1, hence my surprise.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 20 Jul 2011 16:36

Vikrant = IMS

Regret the mix up. At the same time, IAC - 1 is too small to be an aircraft carrier. Can be a helio + LCA N carrier id IAC-2 joins. IAC-1 is more of first ever demo carrier to be made.

Viraat has another 10 years + life incase they use it as the role I mentioned. It is good till the IAC-1 can be used as a Helio ASW role. Such roles take years to perfect (one of the reasons, they did not ditch Viraat and wait for the Vikrant).

IMO, IMS Vikrant can be anchored somewhere, given cap and combat consorts to be an effective ASW platform, a base far away.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 20 Jul 2011 16:37

Rahul M wrote:but why add an additional type to the mix when an LPH can do the job as well and have more tricks up its sleeve viz. an amphib component ?

p.s please drop the sir.

p.p.s ASW flat-top and helo based flat-top are the same thing, no one creates a dedicated ASW flat-top around fixed wing aircraft. call it a helicopter carrier if you want.

Rahul, the idea is to have 4 LPHs and 4+1 (ASW Airgroup) for them. One of the ships will have flexible tasking in time of crisis to act as a dedicated ASW task force leader. With 12 / 16 ASW machines and UAVs. Leaving the carrier force free to roam about hitting targets of opportunity & keeping the enemy off balance.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Jul 2011 17:04

>> I still didn't get why we need dedicated ASW flat-tops.

imo cost and size. the Mistral/Juan carlos types are quite a bit bigger and need their multi level parking and well deck magic in the rear even if not carrying any landing craft. all this can be deleted and a more compact Hyuga/Ark Royal type form actor used. delete the Harriers and the 20,000t Invincible class design becomes a ASW ship...likewise the garibaldi class.

John · Post by **John** » 20 Jul 2011 17:41

Why do we exactly need that many ASW assets? Pakistan operates just a handful of SSKs. If you want to cover the shipping lanes with light carriers you are going to need a lot of them, since helos operating radius is no more than 200 km from their mother ship.

chackojoseph wrote:Vikrant = IMS Regret the mix up. At the same time, IAC - 1 is too small to be an aircraft carrier. Can be a helio + LCA N carrier id IAC-2 joins. IAC-1 is more of first ever demo carrier to be made.

Why do you feel Vikrant is too small? It should be able to carry the same complement as Vikram and has a longer runaway than the latter.

khukri · Post by **khukri** » 20 Jul 2011 17:44

John wrote:Why do we exactly need that many ASW assets? Pakistan operates just a handful of SSKs.

chackojoseph wrote:Vikrant = IMS Regret the mix up. At the same time, IAC - 1 is too small to be an aircraft carrier. Can be a helio + LCA N carrier id IAC-2 joins. IAC-1 is more of first ever demo carrier to be made.
Why do you feel Vikrant is too small? It should be able to carry the same complement as Vikram and has a longer runaway than the latter.

....and how many does the PLAN operate?

John · Post by **John** » 20 Jul 2011 17:50

khukri wrote: ....and how many does the PLAN operate?

Apart from SSNs, only the Song/Yuan have the range to attack the shipping lanes or operate in Indian ocean. In such a scenario PLAAF is much bigger threat since a light carrier with no fighters is sitting duck to PLAAF flankers.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 20 Jul 2011 17:58

John wrote:
chackojoseph wrote:Vikrant = IMS Regret the mix up. At the same time, IAC - 1 is too small to be an aircraft carrier. Can be a helio + LCA N carrier id IAC-2 joins. IAC-1 is more of first ever demo carrier to be made.
Why do you feel Vikrant is too small? It should be able to carry the same complement as Vikram and has a longer runaway than the latter.

IMHO Vikram too is small. Vikrant is our product, modifiable. Don't want to send Vikram to Papa for another hard barganing and missed deadlines.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Jul 2011 18:02

I understand why helo carriers are more cost effective than LPH at ASW, that much is obvious. I am questioning the need for such a ship in the first place.

Rahul, the idea is to have 4 LPHs and 4+1 (ASW Airgroup) for them. One of the ships will have flexible tasking in time of crisis to act as a dedicated ASW task force leader. With 12 / 16 ASW machines and UAVs. Leaving the carrier force free to roam about hitting targets of opportunity & keeping the enemy off balance.

it's unlikely all 4 LPH can be deployed simultaneously, the most likely number is 2.

but again, why can't a task force comprising of a destroyer(for C&C) in addition to frigates and ASW corvettes accomplish the same thing with additional support from the carrier air group ?

the only countries that have built helicopter carriers are russia, UK and japan. out of these 3, russia has already abandoned the concept as has the UK. it will drop the helo carrier concept and go for a much larger and well rounded fleet carrier. japan, faced with millions of PLAN and NoKo subs is the only country planning to use ASW carriers in the future. even then, most people suspect that hyuga is a stepping stone to a proper VSTOL aircraft armed carrier and in any case their future helicopter carrier design is a LPH, not a pure helicopter carrier.
all countries that built ASW carriers faced MASSIVE submarine threats (japan faces the PLAN SSK fleet, UK faced the soviet fleet and red navy faced the USN SSN fleet), the likes of which we will not face in the next 15-20 years if not more.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 20 Jul 2011 18:05

Rahul M wrote:...., the likes of which we will not face in the next 15-20 years if not more.

We have to start now to meet that threat. it takes a lot of experience to do it.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Jul 2011 18:08

chackojoseph wrote: IMHO Vikram too is small. Vikrant is our product, modifiable. Don't want to send Vikram to Papa for another hard barganing and missed deadlines.

air group of 35, 20+ mig-29/NLCA and ~ 15 helo is not small by any stretch of imagination chacko saar.

We have to start now to meet that threat. it takes a lot of experience to do it.

of course, but is a dedicated ASW carrier the only way ? the navy that arguably faced the largest amount of sub threat (USN) never developed one. only navies that had massive constraints in terms of resources and/or doctrine did.

added later : although built as so, the invincible class was almost never used as just helicopter carriers.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 20 Jul 2011 18:24

Rahul M wrote:
chackojoseph wrote: IMHO Vikram too is small. Vikrant is our product, modifiable. Don't want to send Vikram to Papa for another hard barganing and missed deadlines.
air group of 35, 20+ mig-29/NLCA and ~ 15 helo is not small by any stretch of imagination chacko saar.

We have to start now to meet that threat. it takes a lot of experience to do it.
of course, but is a dedicated ASW carrier the only way ? the navy that arguably faced the largest amount of sub threat (USN) never developed one. only navies that had massive constraints in terms of resources and/or doctrine did.

added later : although built as so, the invincible class was almost never used as just helicopter carriers.

Rahul Saar,

As I see, in slow motion, USN + IN will have to draw a red line near Vietnam. I expect, larger capital assets to be deployed there for economies of scale. Vikram can intermediate. IAC - 2 + IAC 1 (helios), will be a formidable team on the East China sea.

Avid · Post by **Avid** » 20 Jul 2011 19:13

Helicopter Carriers are effective in ASW role if you are fighting off a swarming of subs within a small region.

Consider the following factors:
1. Range of a Helicopter, especially in a loitering ASW role. ~100-150 km from the carrier. Helicopter is responsible for detection and destroying sub threats in 25-30+ km beyond the carrier, while within the 25-30 zone, it is the carrier itself or other surface fleet assets that are responsible for neutralization.

2. From a point of operation, increasing number of helicopter only allow for more intense S&D operation against swarming subs. Even then with the capabilities of helicopters having gone up, this does not scale very well beyond 3-4 helicopters.

A second factor which influenced adoption of helicopter carriers is CAS in offensive or defensive roles. In the offensive role of providing CAS for amphib landing against artillery/armor. In defensive role for flanking and pinning down aggressors.

So while ASW was distinct often mentioned reason for adoption of the helicopter carriers, in case of Japan and RN it was also the defensive role against amphib assault. The very geography of UK and Japan make it a necessity. Where as those conditions do not exist in our case.

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 20 Jul 2011 19:25

I again went through this ASW discussion that we are having now and I definitely see a trend called "Scope Creep" . The discussion started because of a news item saying that IN is interested in small ASW vessel for coastal patrolling. We started discussion on the need for small ASW ship. This discussion then slowly crept upto Helicopter based ASW. Even I have contributed to this scope creep

.
The 800 ton ship has grown to a 20000 ton behemoth on to which we have added Amphibious assault capability too.

Just my observation. Lets carry on

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 20 Jul 2011 19:59

L&T Shipyard in TN near ready; waits for Defence orders

Larsen & Toubro's Rs 2,000-crore shipyard at Kattupalli in Tamil Nadu is almost ready but hardly has any order worth its capability.

The yard, which has been designed for building large Defence vessels, is yet to find favour with the Defence Ministry.

“Merchant ships are not what we are looking for. The yard is built for making large high-end warships,” said Mr Naik.

“Right now, we have no choice but to go for commercial ships and repairs,” he said in an interview to Business Line.

The Kattupalli yard has been set up jointly with Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation and is expected to be fully commissioned early next year.