Indian Naval News & Discussion - 12 Oct 2013

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Karan M » 18 Oct 2014 00:20

Antony is one of the most shameless defence ministers we have had. Couldn't even get batteries procured and blames the brass.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Cosmo_R » 18 Oct 2014 04:51

Karan M wrote:Antony is one of the most shameless defence ministers we have had. Couldn't even get batteries procured and blames the brass.


+ 1

LKA did more damage than the Pakis /PRC

Intentionally too, in order to cater to his Muslim constituency in KL

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24186
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby SSridhar » 18 Oct 2014 08:20

‘Meticulous planning helped us protect operational assets’ - The Hindu
The premier operational command of the Indian Navy, the city [Vishakapatnam] headquartered Eastern Naval Command, has retained its operational effectiveness despite being battered by the Very Severe Cyclonic Storm Hudhud that hit the city on October 12.

“The infrastructural loss at the naval base is heavy and I submitted a preliminary estimate of Rs. 2,000 crore to the government,” Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief Eastern Naval Command Vice Admiral Satish Soni told The Hindu in an exclusive interaction. All the roofs covered by asbestos and other sheets were blown away and a couple of old cranes in the Naval Dockyard collapsed due to the impact of the cyclonic winds, he said.

“We cannot stop a natural calamity like cyclone from hitting us, it is a natural phenomenon on the coast and we seafarers are always ready for it, but with planning we can minimise the damage. Thanks to our meticulous planning, we have not lost any operational assets as we had taken steps to secure the fleet of 40 ships and seven submarines,” he said. The cyclone did damage the over 50,000 trees across the naval base, these trees were as old as the base which is gearing up for its Platinum Jubilee. The falling trees snapped power lines, blocked roads and cut off all communication. Even our residential areas suffered damage but mostly minor like window panes and or doors that broke, he pointed out.

“Looking at it positively it is an opportunity for us to rebuild our infrastructure to be more cyclone proof,” Vice Admiral Soni said.

The ENC teams were actively participating in humanitarian relief in coordination with civil administration. “With the efforts of the Navy, the airport has become operational and we have a hydrographic survey of the port and have cleared the channels enabling some commercial ships come to the harbour,” he said.

koti
BRFite
Posts: 1119
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby koti » 19 Oct 2014 22:42


Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Kersi D » 20 Oct 2014 12:10

Cosmo_R wrote:
Karan M wrote:Antony is one of the most shameless defence ministers we have had. Couldn't even get batteries procured and blames the brass.


+ 1

LKA did more damage than the Pakis /PRC

Intentionally too, in order to cater to his Muslim constituency in KL

LKA did more damage than the Pakis /PRC

Intentionally too, in order to cater to his Muslim constituency in KL[/quote]


LKA ?? Lal Krishna Advani ?

Mis-spelt AKA ?

Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Vipul » 20 Oct 2014 20:32

Russia offers India 3 additional Talwar class frigates.

Russia offered India three additional Project 11356 or Talwar class frigates, after New Delhi made a formal request, Vladimir Spiridopulo, the general director working on this project at the Northern Design Bureau, said. Negotiations have been taking place since this spring, TASS said.

Russia supplied India with two sets of three Project 11356 frigates, with the last one being the INS Trikand.

“Negotiations on the third set of three frigates have been taking place with the Indian side since this spring. India sent us a request and we presented a proposal in response,” Spiridopulo said. “I cannot talk about all the details of the third set of three frigates,” he added.

Spiridopulo also would not specify which shipyard might be given the order – the first three ships were built in the Baltic Shipyards of St. Petersburg, and the second set in Kaliningrad’s Yantar Shipyards.

The general director of the bureau reported that negotiations are underway for the modernization of the first three Indian Project 11356 frigates, handed over in the early 2000s. “But the contract for the modernization has not been signed yet,” said Spiridopulo.

Speaking about the other areas of military-technical cooperation with India, Spiridopulo said that the Northern Design Bureau is helping to install a combat information and control system, of its own design, on Indian Project 17 destroyers (Kolkata-class). According to him, this system is now being installed on the third ship of this project.

India would be looking for the next frigates to be equipped with BrahMos missiles. The Indian Navy’s existing Project 11356 frigates are not BrahMos-equipped because they were designed before the BrahMos naval variant could be developed.

These ships, a modification of Krivak III class Russian frigates, are designed to carry and operate one heavy duty early warning helicopter which can provide over-the-horizon targeting. The frigates can also have the indigenously built Dhruv light combat helicopter.

The frigate’s efficacy in anti-submarine warfare can be gauged by the fact that its RPK-8 rocket system has a firing range from 600 to 4300 metres and the depth of engagement of up to 1000 metres. Its combat data system independently generates combat missions based on situation analysis, determines optimal number of missile firings, displays information on the state of ship-borne weaponry and transmits data to protection systems.

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_26622 » 20 Oct 2014 22:43

^ Our days of importing ships/platforms are over - over x million times.

What this article points out is the fallacy of importing to build up numbers in a hurry - paying maintenance and upgrade costs for lifetime (30 years is typical lifetime of a ship).

Russia is a good friend but friendship should not be at the cost of breaking our legs and been dependent.

member_23370
BRFite
Posts: 1103
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_23370 » 20 Oct 2014 23:00

What happened to P-17a???

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2508
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby John » 20 Oct 2014 23:42

Bheeshma wrote:What happened to P-17a???

As it stands it costs much more than billion each and as we know final cost will likely be much more. Not sure why we can't just modify P-17 with Barak-8/Brahmos and build them in interim.

member_23370
BRFite
Posts: 1103
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_23370 » 21 Oct 2014 01:41

True. Shivaliks with Brahmos and MF-STAR/BArak-2 combo is sufficient for Plan/Pn.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2508
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby John » 21 Oct 2014 03:40

Also do keep in mind even If Shivalik mast cannot accommodate MF-Star we can still integrate 3D-CAR/EL/M 2238 with Barak-8, it is performance might be little diminished but still should get the job done.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby abhik » 21 Oct 2014 07:22

AFAIK the p17a IS a modified Shivalik to be built using modular construction with MF-STAR, Barak-8 etc.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2508
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby John » 21 Oct 2014 08:32

abhik wrote:AFAIK the p17a IS a modified Shivalik to be built using modular construction with MF-STAR, Barak-8 etc.

In terms of design as it stands if conceptual diagrams is true it is much bigger leap from Shivalik to P-17A than from Delhi to Kolkata. Not worth the risk and the wait IMO when we can be building P-17s right now.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21055
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 21 Oct 2014 10:06

If the article is true,then augmenting the IN with a few more Talwars would be a good step.Don't forget that our yards are chock-a-block with orders which they cannot meet on time.The speed with which they are built abroad (Talwars) cannot be equalled at home.Even our pvt. yards have to walk before they can run and are being given smaller ships to build to get them moving.I would suggest that the MOD fast tacks building the minesweepers asap now that the SoKo deal has sunk!

P-17s,Kols have taken a v. long time to build,why the follow on Shivaliks were to have been built with some input of foreign assistance.They need VLS SAMs,anti-ship BMos missiles,etc.in far greater qty.The Talwars appear to be an economical acquisition fpr the IN.Let's wait until Dec. and Pres.Putin's visit to see what deals emerge.

Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2196
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Shrinivasan » 21 Oct 2014 11:36

Philip, both L&T and Pipavav have the capacity to build Frigates and are starved of orders... Building a follow-on to P-17 Shivalik class frigates could be farmed out to these two... Private yards can build thesuperstructure and Hulls, fitment may be done by MDL..? This way we build capability all around

member_28782
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 7
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_28782 » 21 Oct 2014 18:09

Came across this analysis on Chinese Navy power projection, done by National Defense University, USA. Using this thread as it is largely about Indian Ocean Region hence relevant to IN
Complete pdf at http://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Docu ... ives-7.pdf

Key findings:
■■ There is little physical evidence that China is constructing bases in the Indian Ocean to conduct major combat operations, to encircle India, or to dominate South Asia.
■■ China’s current operational patterns of behavior do not support the String of Pearls thesis. PLAN ships use different commercial ports for replenishment and liberty, and the ports and forces involved could not conduct major combat operations.
■■ China is unlikely to construct military facilities in the Indian Ocean to support major combat operations there. Bases in South Asia would be vulnerable to air and missile at- tack, the PLAN would require a much larger force structure to support this strategy, and the distances between home ports in China and PLAN ships stationed at the String of Pearls network of facilities along its sea lines of communication would make it difficult to defend Chinese home waters and simultaneously conduct major combat operations in the Indian Ocean.
■■ The Dual Use Logistics Facility Model’s mixture of access to overseas commercial facili- ties and a limited number of military bases most closely aligns with China’s future naval mission requirements and will likely characterize its future arrangements.
■■ Pakistan’s status as a trusted strategic partner whose interests are closely aligned with China’s makes the country the most likely location for an overseas Chinese military base; the port at Karachi would be better able to satisfy PLAN requirements than the new port at Gwadar.
■■ The most efficient means of supporting more robust People’s Liberation Army (PLA) out of area military operations would be a limited network of facilities that distribute functional responsibilities geographically (for example, one facility handling air logis- tics support, one facility storing ordnance, another providing supplies for replenishment ships).
■■ A future overseas Chinese military base probably would be characterized by a light footprint, with 100 to 500 military personnel conducting supply and logistics functions. Such a facility would likely support both civilian and military operations, with Chinese forces operating in a restrictive political and legal environment that might not include permission to conduct combat operations.
■■ Naval bases are much more likely than ground bases, but China might also seek to establish bases that could store ordnance, repair and maintain equipment, and provide medical/mortuary services to support future PLA ground force operations against terror- ists and other nontraditional security threats in overseas areas such as Africa.
■■ A more active PLA overseas presence would provide opportunities as well as challenges for U.S.-China relations. Chinese operations in support of regional stability and to address nontraditional security threats would not necessarily conflict with U.S. interests and may provide new opportunities for bilateral and multilateral cooperation with China.
■■ Long-term access to overseas military facilities would increase China’s strategic gravity and significantly advance China’s political interests in the region where the facilities are located. To the extent that U.S. and Chinese regional and global interests are not aligned, the United States would need to continue to use its own military presence and diplomatic efforts to solidify its regional interests.
■■ A significantly expanded Chinese military presence in the Indian Ocean would compli- cate U.S. relations with China and with the countries of the region, compel U.S. naval and military forces to operate in closer proximity with PLA forces, and increase competitive dynamics in U.S.-China and China-Indian relations.
■■ Finally, if some of the countries of the Indian Ocean region and elsewhere agree to host PLA forces over the long term, their decision will imply a shift in their relations with the United States, which may ultimately need to rethink how it engages and interacts with these countries.

member_28722
BRFite
Posts: 333
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_28722 » 21 Oct 2014 23:46

According to U.S. military sources, the Indian and U.S. leaders also set up military cooperation projects, such as the use of U.S. technology by India to build an aircraft carrier as well as India's licensed production of U.S. weapons, although the two countries refrained from announcing these agreements.

Gurus, any information on the carrier part?

Full article

member_28722
BRFite
Posts: 333
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_28722 » 21 Oct 2014 23:49

Shrinivasan wrote:Philip, both L&T and Pipavav have the capacity to build Frigates and are starved of orders... Building a follow-on to P-17 Shivalik class frigates could be farmed out to these two... Private yards can build thesuperstructure and Hulls, fitment may be done by MDL..? This way we build capability all around

I agree with you ... but wouldn't the cost of future Shivaliks shoot up if built by Pipav and will Russian's give us partially built ships?

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_26622 » 22 Oct 2014 03:23

^ On the contrary, Pipav shipyards can supply us at lower costs.

Anything built in Mazgoan dock is going to much more expensive - cost of living in Mumbai is 3 to 4 x of nearest city. Other costs will be similar -steel, missiles and radar package. Obviously Mazgoan docks is holding on by all means and will never divulge labor component of ship building....

Heck, we could easily build another two larger shipyards from scratch if we just sell Mazgoan dock land to developers - online auction! Mumbai like NY will one day get rid of these industries and defense bases > natural outcome of economic growth.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11209
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Gagan » 22 Oct 2014 07:04

Oh c'mon
Anything that MDL can do, the two big private shipbuilders can do it and do it better, faster, and cheaper.

They will simply throw money, get the latest equipment, advisors, leech key staff away from MDL and abroad if need be and get the job done.

The only reason, these pvt shipyards are not being given orders is that, once they get one big order, after that no one will want these sarkari shipyards to get any further orders. The netas' and babus' source of income from all the financial bungling will be gone.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1739
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Thakur_B » 22 Oct 2014 07:21

Gagan wrote:Oh c'mon
Anything that MDL can do, the two big private shipbuilders can do it and do it better, faster, and cheaper.

They will simply throw money, get the latest equipment, advisors, leech key staff away from MDL and abroad if need be and get the job done.

The only reason, these pvt shipyards are not being given orders is that, once they get one big order, after that no one will want these sarkari shipyards to get any further orders. The netas' and babus' source of income from all the financial bungling will be gone.


Cheaper and throwing money does not go together. These shipyards do not have the experience of system integration and testing, so their is no other option than starting on smaller ships. MoD is already considering giving them major orders, like the LPD ships, that will quickly bring them up to the government owned shipyards. Expect the now cancelled minesweepers to go to private shipyards too.

Hobbes
BRFite
Posts: 219
Joined: 14 Mar 2011 02:59

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Hobbes » 22 Oct 2014 08:09

And that makes complete sense. Building that many minesweepers in a Korean yard brings no benefit to anyone except the Koreans, the middlemen and the MoD babu's who sanctioned the deal. Built at L&T And Pipavav it encourages domestic production, boosts our economy and is a great starter project for the new private yards.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 22 Oct 2014 09:01

India re-releases LPD tender to private-sector shipyards

India's Ministry of Defence (MoD) reissued a request for proposal (RfP) in mid-September to three local private sector shipyards to build four amphibious assault ships for an estimated INR250 billion (USD4.16 billion.

The RfP to ABG, Larsen & Toubro (L&T), and Pipavav Defence and Offshore Engineering - all located on India's west coast - seeks a builder for 40,000-tonne landing platform docks (LPDs) for the Indian Navy (IN). Completion is requested by 2027.

IN officials said all three contenders would be permitted to enter into joint ventures (JVs) with foreign original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to design and build the LPDs.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8308
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 22 Oct 2014 09:29

:eek: :shock:

40000 Tons, this has to be DDM, No?

If not then :twisted:

member_23370
BRFite
Posts: 1103
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_23370 » 22 Oct 2014 09:36

Maybe 14000 tonne.

member_28797
BRFite
Posts: 188
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_28797 » 22 Oct 2014 09:42

Given that it will cost 4.6 billion USD (~1.5 billion USD each), it proabably is 40,000 tonnes. Home made ships aren't supposed to be that costly

member_28719
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 1
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_28719 » 22 Oct 2014 10:25

narendranaik wrote:Given that it will cost 4.6 billion USD (~1.5 billion USD each), it proabably is 40,000 tonnes. Home made ships aren't supposed to be that costly


40,000 would be too much tonnage for an LPD. Must be some kind of error.

member_23370
BRFite
Posts: 1103
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_23370 » 22 Oct 2014 10:26

True..thats almost the Vikramaditya. I think it shd be 14000 tonne.

Rupesh
BRFite
Posts: 895
Joined: 05 Jul 2008 19:14
Location: Somewhere in South Central India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Rupesh » 22 Oct 2014 11:23

IN might be looking for LHD's in the 40K tonne similar to wasp class

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_26622 » 22 Oct 2014 11:42

Even the first in class Japanese Izumo-class helicopter destroyer costs $1.2 billion $ and is 30,000 tons loaded.

Kind of expensive to have 1+ billion budgeted for Indian made 40,000 tons LPD.

On a good note - we are finally taking submarine threat seriously. Would have preferred having smaller under 1000 ton ships x 25 numbers over 4xLPD's, as helicopter surveillance is expensive to maintain over prolonged period of time.

Ideally should have both - under 1000 ton vishby style boats spread out in a wide net, supported by an LPD. Smaller boats are stealthier against anti ship missiles and can have high speed to evade torpedoes .... they can take on more risk compared to larger platforms

Ranjani Brow

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Ranjani Brow » 22 Oct 2014 12:20

narendranaik wrote:Given that it will cost 4.6 billion USD (~1.5 billion USD each), it proabably is 40,000 tonnes. Home made ships aren't supposed to be that costly


The RFP was issued to three Private Shipyards to build four LHD for INR 25000. That's INR 6250 crore per ship.

member_20453
BRFite
Posts: 613
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_20453 » 22 Oct 2014 13:10

Can't be 14,000 tons since even the Mistral is heavier. I think IN might be looking upto 40K Tons, that widens the net, I think this is to bring the Izumo class in as well, now I think it comes down to Juan Carlos vs Izumo, they can carry plenty. Juan Carlos being the best.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8308
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 22 Oct 2014 13:32

Izumo is in the 30 K ton bracket. She is a light Carrier for all intents and purposes.

Will
BRFite
Posts: 637
Joined: 28 Apr 2011 11:27

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Will » 22 Oct 2014 14:11

nik wrote:Even the first in class Japanese Izumo-class helicopter destroyer costs $1.2 billion $ and is 30,000 tons loaded.

Kind of expensive to have 1+ billion budgeted for Indian made 40,000 tons LPD.

On a good note - we are finally taking submarine threat seriously. Would have preferred having smaller under 1000 ton ships x 25 numbers over 4xLPD's, as helicopter surveillance is expensive to maintain over prolonged period of time.

Ideally should have both - under 1000 ton vishby style boats spread out in a wide net, supported by an LPD. Smaller boats are stealthier against anti ship missiles and can have high speed to evade torpedoes .... they can take on more risk compared to larger platforms


The LPDs primary role wont be as submarine hunting helicopter carriers but just what they are named for - Landing Platform Docks. India has a large number of islands. These are meant for transporting men and materials .

member_28640
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_28640 » 22 Oct 2014 15:01

Will wrote:The LPDs primary role wont be as submarine hunting helicopter carriers but just what they are named for - Landing Platform Docks. India has a large number of islands. These are meant for transporting men and materials .


Also for extending the reach of the naval arm, Navy would be better equipped to carry out Replenishment at sea and have longer expeditionary missions (not to mention better SAR)
Last edited by member_28640 on 22 Oct 2014 16:17, edited 1 time in total.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 22 Oct 2014 15:53

I feel we have MUCH more of a operational need for LPHD to be submarine hunting/sea control ships(wide ocean surveillance, anti piracy, marcos floating base, seaward ABM/OTH radar installation) than marine assault vehicles. we do not have many islands and none are remotely under any form of takeover threat even in a tri-cornered war.

this means we should emphasize the ships helicoper loadout vs how many deckloads of stores/vehicles/LSTs it can take in the back. and they need to be fast upto 30 knots sustained to operate in concert with CTOL carrier groups, DDGs and nuclear submarines. fat, merchant standard rotterdam type LPDs do not hack it for India. this means CODAG or COGAG powerplant , CODAD does not impart such speeds in that form factor iirc.

that way the american and japanese LPH HYUGA designs look more suited to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hy%C5%ABga ... _destroyer

it has a full suite of self defence missiles and radars to deal with threats from submarines...it will operate with large ASW DDG task forces and provide the additional helicopters needed.

http://www.jeffhead.com/worldwideaircra ... uga-01.jpg

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 22 Oct 2014 16:12

a couple of cheap Ro-Ro ferries are more than enough to rush reinforcements to the Andamans provided we built a few jetties here and there...as they would not carry LSTs to enter really shallow or unprepared areas.

I am at a loss of cook up any scenario where the andamans or laccadives face any takeover threat.

ravip
BRFite
Posts: 270
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby ravip » 22 Oct 2014 19:30

Yesterday in NDTV interview with BDutt, Arun Jately was asked about ADM Joshi's comment about lack of authority to act...he simply stated that it is a over stated statement and continued that the forces are one's who conduct the trials and on who's advice we buy.

Don't know whether it is a positive sign or MoD babu's prevailing over again.

Nikhil T
BRFite
Posts: 1286
Joined: 09 Nov 2008 06:48
Location: RAW HQ, Lodhi Road

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Nikhil T » 22 Oct 2014 22:20

GopiN wrote:Also for extending the reach of the naval arm, Navy would be better equipped to carry out Replenishment at sea and have longer expeditionary missions (not to mention better SAR)


Not sure what threat IN is seeing. According to me, India has no foreseeable threat to any of its own islands. Even if it arose the Shardul-class can help us get a few MBTs and soldiers there. For farther missions such as a remote island in Andamans, the Jalashwa is available. Plus have no expeditionary needs for a 40k ton ship unless we're thinking of sending in troops to support Vietnam vs China!

I'd rather spend the money on beefing up our ASW assets such as giving Pvt Sector contract to build the 8xP28A!

Ranjani Brow

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Ranjani Brow » 22 Oct 2014 23:21

Agree with Singha. We need something like (smaller) Wasp/America class rather than San Antonio class.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests