Indian Naval News & Discussion - 12 Oct 2013

[Cosmo_R]

Got this from here http://www.larsentoubro.com/lntcorporat ... 090813.pdf

Look at the caption above:

"The photograph is for representational purpose only, and does not purport
to be a photograph of the actual nuclear -powered submarine built by L&T"

IOW, Ohio Class.

[brar_w]

with the trios of hunter sats in orbit, there is no easy way to deny tracking data. space based sensors will only get better and more. Triton type uavs will only get better. SOSUS arrays will be put in. even floating tsunami type buoys would be able to gather useful data like silent rats and sea mines.

we are struggling to find money to build P17A, so any arsenal ship is out of question. it has to be land based launchers or atleast rig up some cheap container ships for this as I explained.

Not sure how the IN views this, but from following some of the talks at the US Naval Institute, there is an increasing number of strategists within the USN that does not take access to space for granted in the Chinese context. They are also not going to let the opponent to take access to space for granted. So do expect the Chinese to follow along as well, i.e. develop a capability to disrupt space based targeting if they want to develop a capability to come close and maintain that capability out at sea (not clear whether they do as reports of their carrier planned strength aren't firm). For the USN the first and foremost thing to do would be to disrupt the space based targeting system. Thats the no. 1 thing to do to keep a CBG hidden out at sea. The USN has a different position to the iN since they can rapidly push their carrier back and still be effective (UCLASS, FA_XX et al) however.

DF-21 type of missiles will be able to inflict some damage on a ship only if they employ a big fragmentation warhead which explodes at some height above the target or a small tactical nuke , look CEP of a modern ballistic missile when engaging a target on land is at least a meter or two , now unless the missile has terminal guidance and moving surfaces to actually steer towards the target how can a ballistic missile actually hit a moving ship unless latter does not change it's course and former is using some elementary predictive technique to meet the ship on it's course.

Its not like a Ballistic Missile would all of a sudden begin to maneuver like a cruise missile upon entry . As I mentioned earlier, you can develop a BM for the Anti-Ship role but the kill chain involves a tremendously complex juggling of assets on land, sea and in the air and space domains. Each one of those links can be disrupted or lost. Furthermore, due to this very nature (complexity) testing such a system over time is extremely crucial, yet without a single documented realistic test out at sea that integrated the entire kill chain - many in the west have given a near mythical status to the DF21. Now if the US fielded a missile in any category without a single realistic test that involved even a remotely realistic scenario the forums and the media at large would be lighting up .

Here is an interesting perspective form a extremely well informed person on most Naval matters:

http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedin ... ting-couch

[Thakur_B]

HSL to build two midget submarines for navy.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Vis ... 872552.ece

[member_28840]

^^

"...each costing an estimated amount of Rs.3,000 crore..."

500 million usd for a midget sub? is it a typo, or are some babus robbing us?

[member_23370]

No way a midget sub will cost that much. Livefist (Aroor) seems to think the new NGMV's are closer to 2-2.5K tonnes. The Saryu hull would be ideal if GSL wants to submit a bid.
http://www.livefistdefence.com/2015/02/ ... t.html?m=1

[Aditya G]

I somehow doubt that the NGMV will be configured like the Tarantul class.

One low cost config could be using sideways inclined launchers, with either Urans or Harpoons:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cA6gXnTUD0Y/V ... NOPV-2.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-y5JCkv9pUAE/V ... NOPV-3.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VeuDy3FcMGM/V ... NOPV-1.jpg

I am in favour of Steregushchy type design:





PS: Yakhont being fired from Indonesian Navy Leander frigate

[John]

One low cost config could be using sideways inclined launchers, with either Urans or Harpoons:

Don't think IN would order another batch of Uran once they hit NEOL they will be replaced by Brahmos. As for Harpoon they won't be cheap just ordering 20 or so to equip a corvette will cost around 200 mill. Locally developed under 500 kg missile for light missile boats and helicopter would be a great project.

The big problem with RFI is that there is not many designs out there that can do 35+ knots and can carry such a payload. Might have to go with more along the lines of Visby class to get that performance.

[Sid]

A lot of IN surface ships operate Urans, even latest Mig 29K carry them. Replacing all of them + upgrading platforms is nearly impossible. Plus it will have prohibitive cost, PJ 10 ain't cheap mate.

For small ships, Urans has the best size, weight and range.

[member_26622]

^ Guessing these new corvettes will be for anti submarine and anti mine missions, likely to not venture far from home base. 35 knots top speed makes sense to move quickly into target area and out of harms way.

Missile complement aka Brahmos and Urans is not meaningful given mission profile. Hopefully we can get something similar to US navy's littoral ship anti sub and mine module capabilities in this small package.

Vishby class would be perfect from tonnage and stealth point of view but its performance in recent submarine hunting operations left much to be desired. Given the size of our coastline, low cost and high numbers is paramount.

[member_23370]

The missile corvettes are meant for Anti surface warfare/. The RFI is pretty clear on that. Makes no sense putting ASW equipment when the kamortas do the same. These will replace the Koras and ideally should have heavy duty Brahmos to maximize damage to opponents. These will obviously operate in confluence with shore based aircrafts and other ships.

[Prem Kumar]

India's Dhanush Undergoes 1st Night Test

Putting my CT hat on, I think these Dhanush tests are for proofing some of the systems needed for an AShBM that Dr. Avinash Chander was hinting at in the Saurav Jha interview (DF-21 like 1500 Km range missile). They may be testing out terminal guidance/seeker for instance. Dhanush tests are like the "Prithvi tests" (wink, wink)

[Karan M]

You might well be right!! Prithvi with its maneuverability is a perfect vehicle to test out seeker schema as test bed.

[Cosmo_R]

^ ...
Vishby class would be perfect from tonnage and stealth point of view but its performance in recent submarine hunting operations left much to be desired. ..

Yeah but the Visby's stealth meant that the sub couldn't see it either

[John]

A lot of IN surface ships operate Urans, even latest Mig 29K carry them. Replacing all of them + upgrading platforms is nearly impossible. Plus it will have prohibitive cost, PJ 10 ain't cheap mate.

For small ships, Urans has the best size, weight and range.

KH-35E isn't exactly cheap the current cost is around $1.5 mill each based on supplies to Turkmenistan not sure how much Russians subsidized and if real cost are even higher.

[Karan M]

wow! just reiterates our need to get free of the import nexus and start making our own missiles with our own seekers.

[Sid]

But isn't Uran license manufactured in India? Given the stocks and number of platforms, cost should be much less.

[negi]

^ Licence manufacturing is not cheap not unless you produce it in volumes high enough to reach the breakeven point . It is like buying a Diesel car , well when you deal with RU it is actually worser than that.

[Philip]

Look at the high cost of the sub-sonic Harpoons,to arm our P-8!s and maritime Jags.

The 20380 design is a terrific one,packed with weaponry and sensors, but perhaps too large for our surface warfare corvette requirement. There is no need for a helo deck,though if it is there would give the vessel an added extra capability in a crisis. I would plump for an MBU launcher,single mount,as it can fire both ASW/anti-torpedo rounds as well as decoys. A 3" lt/wt main gun should suffice,8-16 SSMs can be carried amidships as seen in the upgraded Tarantulas/Molniyas,just 500+t. A SAM module aft with extra smaller decoy launchers and two gatling mounts. if a helo deck is added,the corvettes could be approx. the same displacement as the Khukris/Koras.

What would be most ideal if the same hull is also used for our shallow water ASW corvettes,providing commonality of engine,machinery,etc.,with the differences being in the weapons fit. a TAS/VDS at the stern ,under the helo deck,TTs,an MBU,plus extra anti-sub weaponry/missiles instead of the SSM package. With the corvettes operating closer to the coast,there would be little need for an extensive SAM system,which could be deleted with only IGLA type MANPADS used.

[Aditya G]

If #makeinindia lens is primary concern, then ngmv can be a project-28 design with following diff's:

- replace rbu launcher with brahmos vls

- barak-8 vls on either side of lynx installation

- delete the torpedo tubes

[Singha]

imo thats better than yet another type of hull..we never really attain any economy of scale building ships in lots of 3 over 10-12 years.

we need to use hulls in lots of 12-15 over 10 yrs and multipurpose the hulls using modular weapon systems like Aditya is saying.

use either P28 or Saryu design and adapt.

[Philip]

For commonality of eqpt. and weaponry,speed of construction,economies of scale,there must be a single-hull ,multi-role approach for several types of warships. This would make it far easier for maintenance,logistics, and training ,apart from a lot of common components for differing variants. This is easier accomplished with the smaller combat vessels,which have more focused priorities rather than larger more complex multi-role warships.

Some interesting advice in this piece from the USN's experience. Points for the IN's Dir of Naval Design to chew upon.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... html[quote]
The Navy Just Sank Its High-Speed Future

The ship was supposed to zoom over the ocean top, 50 percent faster than its competitors. Then things changed.

The future of the Navy was supposed to be speedy, thanks to its new Littoral Combat Ships. The Navy has built two versions of the LCS, a conventional-looking single-hull ship from Lockheed Martin and a trimaran—a ship with a slender hull and two outriggers—developed by General Dynamics. Tiny by U.S. warship standards, at 3,000-plus tons, the LCS is distinguished by its 45-knot-plus top speed—50 percent faster than most warships. But now the Navy wants to rebrand the LCS as a frigate—that is to say, a real warship, capable of fighting in any circumstances alongside the rest of the fleet or performing long oceanic patrols, with revamped armament and mission equipment. The future version may sacrifice the original ships’ speed, according to Vice Admiral Thomas Rowden, commander of naval surface forces.

To understand why the speed requirement may be ditched, it helps to know why anyone thought it was needed in the first place. The Persian Gulf campaigns of the 1980s and 1990s and the attack on the USS Cole in October 2000 made the Navy worry about the threat of a swarm attack by small, fast boats. Conventional warships were at a speed disadvantage, particularly in shallow water, where their movements were restricted. The risk was that a ship’s cumbersome weapons could not destroy the attackers quickly enough to stop some of them getting through.

A few pioneers invented a fast, austere warship called Streetfighter, to protect larger ships in the littorals. But the Pentagon views fast, austere, lean concepts the way that certain French farmers view ducklings, so the Navy stuffed a funnel and tube down the Streetfighter’s throat and fattened it up into a
The Navy has now decided that the LCS’s speed is unnecessary—probably because a new generation of very accurate, automated, stabilized medium-caliber gun mounts now provide an effective counter-swarm defense. multi-role oceanic combatant. Why? The Navy wanted to sustain a force of around 300 warships, but wanted to replace its Ticonderoga cruisers with the expensive DDG-1000, later the Zumwalt class. It therefore needed a relatively cheap ship to make up numbers.
Is it a good idea to saddle the fleet, to 2050 and beyond, with the burden of the original speed requirement?

There are few things more wasteful than the lifetime cost of meeting a requirement that no longer matters. Consider the space shuttle, its wing and payload bay sized to retrieve from orbit a huge spy satellite that was never built. The Joint Strike Fighter’s overall length had to fit the elevators on Britain’s now-retired Invincible-class carriers.

Both LCS designs need twice the power of a 30-knot-class ship so their hulls must accommodate big turbine engines and their large inlet and exhaust ducts. They have waterjets for high speed and shallow draught, but at cruising speeds the waterjets are less efficient than propellers. Hull forms are always a compromise between speed, weight and seakeeping, and the trades get tougher as the speed increases.

Consider the space shuttle, its wing and payload bay sized to retrieve from orbit a huge spy satellite that was never built. The Joint Strike Fighter’s overall length had to fit the elevators on Britain’s now-retired Invincible-class carriers.

Redesigning the LCS would not mean developing a new suite of engines, weapons, and systems—they will mostly be imported in any event, because the U.S. warship industry does not make radar, sonar, weapons, combat systems, or even modern diesel engines for smaller ships.

So why not start over with a proven hull design, probably from Europe, and state-of-the-art propulsion, weapons, and systems? The best answer is a sad one, summarized in a recent report from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “A modified LCS may be the Navy’s only option to meet this timeline,” the report says, noting that it takes six to nine years from construction contract to delivery for a new class. The document then adds that it will take another two years to write the requirements.

Want to see a new frigate in service in 2023? It’s already too late.

But the watchword may also be “better the devil you know” because the Navy’s track record on its new combatant designs has been consistently appalling. The Zumwalt class was cut short at three ships for a total of $12 billion, which was not enough to buy an excuse for designing a stealth ship around a 75-nm.-range gun. The Ford-class aircraft carrier was billed as a pragmatic upgrade of the Nimitz hull, using new technology to support more combat sorties, reduce crew size, and cut maintenance costs: It is late and far over budget and there are no guarantees as to when any of those advances will be delivered.

Root causes include the sheer inertia of the shipbuilding process. The service does business with a handful of shipyards that have no other customers; a hiccup in the flow of orders costs millions, and this militates against taking time to think or to produce a new design.

Warship design authority is still divided among the Navy’s designers, their hired naval architects, and shipyards that still have one foot in an era when the yards were build-to-print operations. In that system—more so than in most military acquisitions—it is hard to find the person or team who can say “You can have 45 kt., or such-and-such a radar cross-section, but this is what it will cost?” Or “With all the other new technology on this ship, is this really the time to go turbine-electric?”

Rather than lamenting the impossibility of improvement, it would make sense to use the small surface combatant—which at least in its Block 1 version can be built entirely with off-the-shelf technology—as a prototype for a better way of doing business.
[/quote]

[Sid]

If #makeinindia lens is primary concern, then ngmv can be a project-28 design with following diff's:

- replace rbu launcher with brahmos vls

- barak-8 vls on either side of lynx installation

- delete the torpedo tubes

IN does not have the luxury which USN has.

Its ships may not always work in a battle group with dedicated anti-sub platforms. Hence most of its ships are multi-role.

[member_24684]

.

Found these

should we have a RFI for Coastal Batteries

from





from
http://www.innovasjonnorge.no/PageFiles ... ystems.pdf

[Aditya G]

Looking at the Saryu design; at 105 m she is a fairly large ship (see Chetak relative size in the pic below). Much bigger than the Sukanya class, yet there does not seem to be any free real estate available for weapons and sensors.



One possibility is to position inclined launchers behind the main cannon, which precludes Brahmos installation:





What about the PDMS? I think the only option is to shift the AK-630 mounts above the hangar and use the free space for the missiles:



Grapun Bal can sit beside the Shikari EO ball above the bridge. Revathi can be hoisted on a modified mast.

All this will add considerable weight ofcourse, and I am not sure if the ships can simply be modified like that without any other modifications. Then there is question about internal configuration. Where will the operator controls go.

I think P-28Mod is the simplest way forward. Cost and weight increase may be minimal assuming all of the ASW kit (sonar, torpedo, RBU, operator consoles) will be replaced by missile analogues. You get a stealth platform (hull shaping, sound dampening, low IR signature) with helicopter hangar and long range persistence.

BUT: This config cannot meet the speed requirement.

Btw, note that IN is demanding 'only' 8 SSMs unlike 16 on Kora class.

[Aditya G]

IN does not have the luxury which USN has.

Its ships may not always work in a battle group with dedicated anti-sub platforms. Hence most of its ships are multi-role.

You may want to review that. Aside from our destroyers and frigates, the remaining vessels (i.e the majority) are not multi-role. The fleet is rather lopsided in capability with several classes devoted to surface warfare with few concentrating on ASW and Mine counter measures.

The very reason you stated is what has been used to justify lack of multi-role ships by the Navy.

When the Saryu and Kamorta were commissioned, most on the forum including self lamented the apparent under-arming of these ships. But due to budget factors we have to go with this else you will have a much smaller fleet.

[member_23370]

Saryu class if equipped with 2 KMGT might be able to do 35 knots. It is the smallest big ship in IN. Kamortas are bigger.

[Singha]

why exactly is a helicopter needed on a fast attack missile boat class? tarantuls and osas never had them.

I say use the Saryu hull but use the helicopter hanger for other stuff like barak1, brahmos VL silos like the Indonesia ship has done, a good sized 3D search radar on a meatier front mast, TT tubes .

the deck can be kept to receive helicopters for casevac and utility like some of the earliest Burke class had a heli deck but no hangar.

[member_23370]

Khukris and Koras have choppers and the new corvettes seem to be ideal replacement for them. The corvettes need a helipad the hangar can be used as Singha has mentioned. Tarantuls are glorified missile boats and will hopefully be replaced by something on the 16 ASW junta class corvette hull (~640 tonne) IN is demanding. Whatever happened to them?

[John]

When the Saryu and Kamorta were commissioned, most on the forum including self lamented the apparent under-arming of these ships. But due to budget factors we have to go with this else you will have a much smaller fleet.

Saryu is OPV not surface combatants they generally have light armaments for example check the Royal Navy's River class or new class OPV being planned. Kamorta has decent armaments the twin RBU-6000 systems weights more than 8 Klub missiles (even talwar can carry only one) and vessel grew in displacement due to added emphasis of RCS which navy added late in development cycle.

[Aditya G]

I would rather have a helicopter with hangar.

Helicopter has two important roles (aside from communication & casevac):

#1 Over the horizon targeting.

#2 Missile launch platform (ref Sea King)

#3 Visual Recon for targets using onboard sensors at day & night

- It is also a self contained ASW platform. Critical if none is aboard the ship itself.

[Aditya G]

Saryu is OPV not surface combatants they generally have light armaments for example check the Royal Navy's River class or new class OPV being planned. Kamorta has decent armaments the twin RBU-6000 systems weights more than 8 Klub missiles (even talwar can carry only one) and vessel grew in displacement due to added emphasis of RCS which navy added late in development cycle.

agree. My point to fellow member was that these are not multi-role ships.

[Prem Kumar]

I get the feeling that IN is excessively focused on Anti-Ship role and not enough on ASW vessels & SOSUS. Submarine saga is well known. It could be a case of staying within the comfort zone & doing more of what you do well

[shaun]

Well IN right now have a very formidable array of aerial ASW platforms in the IOR . What is deficient with IN is Active Towed Array Sonar ( ATAS ) and specialized ASW ships , indigenous effort on ATAS is still going on so Atlas Elektronik will be supplying six low frequency Active Towed Array Sonar (ACTAS) systems . Atlas will also be transferring technology to state-owned Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) in Bangalore to build 10 additional ATAS/ACTAS systems for other IN warships, these would be supplemented by another 20 sonar systems to equip other IN platforms.

With Kamorta Class getting inducted and 16 more ASW platforms planned for , IN is well focused on ASW.

[srai]

.

Found these

should we have a RFI for Coastal Batteries

from

...



from
http://www.innovasjonnorge.no/PageFiles ... ystems.pdf

Stick to Brahmos for coastal batteries. Order two Brahmos-I regiments, each with three batteries. Each battery consists of six-road mobile autonomous launchers. In future, add three Brahmos-M regiments to the mix.

[Leo.Davidson]

About the Mobile Missile Coastal Battery, the Brahmos will not work with each missile weighting over 2 tonnes. On the other hand, the NSM missile is a brown water (littoral warfare) missile.
Lets be realistic and not try and stretch the Brahmos beyond its capabilities lest it becomes a jack of all, master on none.

[shaun]

^^^
Other than putting some blank statements , Please give us 5 points why Brahmos can't take up the job of Mobile Missile Coastal Battery and what advantages NSM missiles have over Brahmos .

[uddu]

Brahmos Mini will come in 2017 and will weigh 1.5 tons.
Currently the Navy is using missiles that are above 2 tonnes and will not have issue using Brahmos in this role. Brahmos with higher hit probability is best choice for Coastal defense role.
Also Naval Strike Missile dont have the warhead weight of atleast 150 kg which is required.
http://www.aame.in/2013/10/bolstering-i ... -navy.html

So let's say Brahmos for the time being and Brahmos-M from 2017 onwards.

Also we have to develop sub sonic missiles that are very cheap and can be based on the Nirbhay missiles which gives us extensive range and also Nirbhay-M which are very light weight and in the range of Naval Strike Missile/Klub which can give the numbers to be fired during war in large numbers by all the three services and from platforms like Tejas and from land based mobile carriers, Coastal batteries, on smaller ships and patrol boats.

[shaun]

^^^^
Uddu ji ...let Mr Leo answer the specific question .

Right now we have 4K40/4K51 Rubezh Coastal Defence System for that purpose.

[Singha]

does anyone know the incremental opex cost of a vessel that is 15m longer to accomodate a hangar? if its not much, why not do a enlarged SARYU2 type design to open up more space on the foredeck and near the funnels , push the hangar back and get the best of all worlds. 8 exocet mm40 or uran missiles can be placed in a inclined tubes midships like many do. a 16 x barak1 unit can be placed atop the hangar area. a proper RBU unit put in behind the main gun.

[Leo.Davidson]

All this is speculative talk, not worth a paisa. Actually the Brahmos weighs 3 tonnes and the air launched version is 2.55 tonnes, that'e even more pitiful.
Brahmos is not a brown water/littoral missile. The Brahmos-M will come like the LCA/Arjun, my grandkids will see it fly.
The Brahmos may be able to do a supersonic S-turn; that does not make it littoral.
The detection and tracking of Coastal Missile Batteries is less than 100km; the 300 km range of the Brahmos is an overkill. Also the lo-hi-lo path used by the Brahmos is not suitable for distance within 100km.
DRDO does not have the expertise or vision to develop the technology for MMCB's to defeat moving targets at max range. Note the key word here is MMCB.
The assumption that the Brahmos has the best or higher hit probability is a supposition without comparative analysis.

The NSM missile is less than 500 kg, a range of 180 km and developed for all naval scenarios. A 125 kg warhead is sufficient for most practical purposes especially for invasion scenarios, namely the mother-ships will not be as armoured or defendable as combat ships.