Indian Navy News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

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.
Locked
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Post by Philip »

:rotfl: Rising intolerance indeed!
The Kochi's "pr*ck",its massive mast reminds me of the masts of WW2 battlewagons. Something must be done for the next batch to reduce its size,improving its stealth also.I wonder what effect it has on the ship's handling in bad weather. Once the Kochi tests its B-8 missiles,the IN would've passed a significant milestone,possessing both LR BMos SSMs and LR Barak SAMs.One only wishes that the Kochi had another layer of anti/air-missile defence.It appears to have a limited no. of SAMs.

This brings one back to the point made by Sandeep U,about smaller warships with large arsenals,like Russian Burans,which cost a lot less than an 8,000t DDG. One could get 8 Burans,at least 6,compared to one Kochi,or 5-6 1500t corvettes which have an integral ASW helo as well. 8 Burans would possess a BMos/Nirbhay arsenal of 48-64 missiles when compared with 16 on a Kochi.It makes you think. A new class of 16 corvettes of approx. 1250-1500t is required ,6/8 on each seaboard,giving the IN enough numbers with which to protect its island territories and key bases from attack,at long ranges. Our NOPVs are very lightly armed and a new design ,with stealth features is required. Eventually IN OPVs could be transferred to the CG .The CG could take over the role of anti-piracy using the OPVs instead of using frontline FFGs and DDGs for the task.
uddu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2091
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Post by uddu »

8 Buyans launching Brahmos from Dal lake, our Caspian sea. :D
What's lacking are the Kirov's.
There was a time when they used to say that we are building 50 ships nowadays they say 45 ships. :(( P28A can come online with more missiles and more capability. Large numbers is what's required.
Nick_S
BRFite
Posts: 533
Joined: 23 Jul 2011 16:05
Location: Abbatabad

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Post by Nick_S »

New boss of Vikramaditya

Image

Read more at: http://www.oneindia.com/india/bengaluri ... 16043.html
Kapil
Webmaster BR
Posts: 282
Joined: 16 Jun 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Post by Kapil »

Fine Guy, and it was a formidable selection pool.
So, now Vikramaditya's second commision begins.
And finally, Delhi class COs can now go on to one more afloat command, Headaches for P branch.
8)
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Post by Philip »

The author is echoing what I've been saying for over a decade,actually since the last century!
I've advocated that all warships above 12,000t have flat tops,with a bank of silos for missiles and the ability to operate a few STOVL aircraft and extra helos,esp for the ASW role.

These "pocket carriers",or "multi-role amphibs" of around 35-40000t,a better nomenclature,equipped with the NLCA/Sea Gripen sized aircraft would be extremely useful. In an amphib role the vessel would possess the required close-support aircraft to pound the shore defences,provide a measure of air defence,conduct strike missions against enemy warships,and are large enough to operate maritime variant KA-52 heavy attack helos,KA-31 AEW/ASW helos,NH-90,even Merlin heavy ASW/multi-role helos.

3-4 of these multi-role flat-tops would relieve the dedicated CVs from their role when conducting less taxing ops and support them in a crisis admirably with their NLCAs and ASW helos. We could build two of these for the price of one large CV ,of which at least one would always be available in a crisis.

However,to my mind ,equipping the sub fleet with at least 36+ subs,a min of 24 conventional/AIP and 12 nuclear boats should be the top priority.They will survive better than any surface ship and would not be easily detected in permanent patrols in the Indo-China Sea.One musn't also forget the UUV/mini-sub dimension,often overlooked .These subs operating out of our island territories,patrolling the chokepoints.required for special forces,and long endurance UUVs,which can penetrate enemy harbor defences are "part of the parcel". The UUV/mini-sub arena is where Indian pvt. industry working with the DRDO could be given a free rein to innovate,as acquiring these cutting edge tech is v.difficult.
tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Post by tsarkar »

Pocket carriers are not very useful in terms of being able to carry support & maintenance equipment, fuel & munitions for the embarked aircraft. The cost of a hull is very low compared to cost of equipment, electronics & aircraft. If one is investing in them, then it makes sense to invest in a larger hull.

The US America class ditches the well deck for more aviation support facilities. The later ships bring back the well deck with the understanding that marine fighters will operate from US Navy aircraft carriers, that already operate a marine squadron as a part of their air wing.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Post by Philip »

"T-Shark",here's a nice blast from the past.

http://in.rbth.com/blogs/stranger_than_ ... awe_536583
Missile boats: Making waves, causing shock and awe
3 November 2015 Rakesh Krishnan Simha

More than 40 years ago the Indian Navy’s Russian missile boats set fire to Karachi. The petite corvettes currently hammering ISIS as well as US-backed terror groups are the descendents of those legendary vessels.

In this photo made from the footage taken from Russian Defense Ministry official web site, Wednesday, Oct. 7, 2015, a Russian navy ship launches a cruise missile in the Caspian Sea. Four Russian navy ships in the Caspian launched 26 cruise missiles at Islamic State targets in Syria. Source:AP

Admiral Sergei Gorshkov was arguably the greatest naval strategist of the 20th century. In his book, ‘The Sea Power of the State’, the man who transformed the Russian Navy into a global force, wrote: “Naval warfare aimed directly against land targets will play an ever greater part in any future major conflict.”

On the night of October 5, four Russian missile boats with a displacement of a mere 1000 tons each started raining down cruise missiles down the throats of ISIS and US-backed terror groups. Flying at treetop level over a distance of 2600 km through Iran and Iraq, and avoiding populated areas, the missiles slammed into terrorist hideouts without warning.

The precision strikes left the US and its allies shocked, rattled and envious. Many observers couldn’t begin to fathom how these tiny ships could be so devastating.

Some showed grudging respect. According to Bryan Clark, a naval analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, the Russian corvettes armed with the accurate Kalibr provide much more effective land-attack lethality than what the US Navy is pursuing.

He was referring to the US Navy’s 3,000 ton Littoral Combat Ships that carry small, short-range missiles. “We have a new class of ships that we’re not equipping with anything that’s like this missile,” Clark told Defense News. “The Navy should feel embarrassed that they let this happen.”

Small wonder

The success in the Syrian war is nothing new for Russian missile boats. These vessels were star performers during the 1967 Arab Israeli War and the 1971 India Pakistan War. In the official history of the Indian Navy, Transition to Triumph, Vice Admiral G.M. Hiranandani writes:

“In June 1967, during the six-day Arab Israeli War, an Egyptian missile boat sank an Israeli frigate, the Eilath, at a range well beyond the frigate’s own guns. Navies all over the world woke up with a start to the effectiveness of this new Russian weapon – the surface to surface, anti ship, homing missile – which enabled a small boat to sink a ship several times its size within a matter of minutes. At one stroke, this new weapon altered the centuries old concept of prolonged gun battles between opposing warships.”

With a displacement of 200 tons, the missile boats were tiny and extremely thin skinned, but they had powerful engines that could propel them to a blistering 34 knots. Plus, the boat was hard to spot because of its small radar cross section.

Hirandani explains: “Its sophisticated radar was more advanced than any other known radar – it enabled the missile boat, with its low radar reflectivity, to detect a larger ship well before the latter was even aware of its presence, to fire its missiles and to speed away faster than any other ship. The Russian naval architects had deliberately designed these characteristics so as to give the small boats this advantage against much larger American naval ships attempting to attack the Russian coast.”

From UK to Russia

The Indian Navy, which had until then relied on Britain for its ships and weaponry, now started looking at Russian naval equipment. The Egyptian strike had clearly got the naval brass’ attention. But there was another reason for India wanting these small vessels.

In the 1965 India Pakistan War, the tiny Pakistan Navy had conducted a sneak attack on the city of Dwarka on the Gujarat coast. Although there were no casualties and only a solitary cow was killed, it left the Indian Navy seething because it couldn’t respond with a fitting counter attack.

India’s political leadership had ordered the navy not to launch offensive operations north of Porbandar because of Indonesia’s aggressive postures against India. Jakarta had not only declared support for fellow Muslim nation Pakistan, but more worryingly it was vocal about its intentions to annex the Andaman & Nicobar Islands which lie close to South East Asian waters.

The shells lobbed at Dwarka got the navy brass thinking of a possible Pakistani attack on Mumbai in a future conflict. In his book ‘We Dared: Maritime Operations in the 1971 Indo-Pak War’, Vice-Admiral S.N. Kohli writes: “Intelligence had suggested the Pakistan Navy was considering the acquisition of missile fitted frigates. In order to forestall the dangers of a missile attack by Pakistan on Mumbai, I had, on one of my visits to Russia, enquired from Admiral Sergei Gorshkov whether they had a mobile missile battery which could be deployed for the defence of Mumbai. He replied in the negative. He was later able to persuade the Indian Navy that for the defence of Mumbai and other major ports, the small Osa class of missile boats would be ideal. Their mere presence would prove a great deterrent to the enemy embarking on an attack.”

Admiral Gorshkov’s advice was simple and effective. In January 1969, an Indian delegation visited Moscow and the Russian naval base in the Caspian Sea, where they went out to sea in a missile boat. Vice-Admiral Nilakanta Krishnan writes in his book ‘No Way But Surrender’ that the acquisition of attack missile boats had become a “personal obsession” for him. The delegation signed an agreement for the acquisition of a squadron of eight boats armed with Styx missiles.

The Osa boats arrived under complete secrecy in 1970. They were based in Mumbai while crew training and ship overhaul facilities were to be located in Visakhapatnam. Admiral Hiranandani writes: “By this time, the Russian Navy had come to realise the Indians were diligent learners and professionally far more confident than the navies they had earlier helped to train. The crews...were deputed to Russia for just six weeks to take over the ships and sail them back to India. The Russians were impressed with their efficiency and professional knowledge, considering that they had neither received any training in Vladivostok nor had adequate training facilities been set up in Visakhapatnam.”

Russian boats, Indian ingenuity

Like Admirals Kohli and Krishnan, Admiral Sardarilal Mathradas Nanda, India’s navy chief in 1971, had been smarting under the step motherly treatment shown towards the navy by the political leadership. He was determined the Indian Navy wouldn’t sit out the next war.

A few weeks before the war started, he called his directors of naval operations and naval intelligence, and said he had obtained clearance for an attack on Karachi. In his autobiography, ‘The Man Who Bombed Karachi’, Nanda writes: “Everybody looked at me and said Karachi is a very heavily defended port. They've got six inch guns, while our guns are only four inch. We will be well within their range before they come into our range. So I said we have these Russian-made Osa class missile boats with Styx missiles.”

The commanders weren’t very keen. They said the boats did not have the range to reach Karachi and return. Secondly, though the Styx was highly accurate, they were anti-ship missiles and not designed to attack shore targets. Some naval officers – probably of the Gandhian mould – objected on the grounds that if Indian missiles hit Karachi, then there would be an international uproar over civilian casualties.

Admiral Nanda threw all such objections into the sea. Like all great ideas, his was simple too. To overcome their short range, he towed the boats from their base in Mumbai to Diu in Gujarat, which was a short distance from the target.

On the night of December 4, 1971, the missile boats carried out their first attack on Karachi. However, one of the vessels reported seeing a Pakistani aircraft and radioed this wrong information to the Indian flotilla. Worse, the captain of this missile boat withdrew from the designated area without the permission of the flotilla commander, thereby causing considerable confusion.

Only a couple of missiles were launched towards Karachi. Despite their hasty withdrawal the boats sank two Pakistani warships and crippled a third. They also destroyed a Pakistani merchant vessel bringing ammunition from an American depot in Saigon. Had the missile boats released all their missiles, the destruction could have been massive.

The Indian Navy launched a second attack on Karachi on the night of December 8. This time, it lost one ship but the rest rained hell on Karachi, setting fire to the tanker farms and lighting up the entire night sky.

Admiral Nanda made good on his promise that he would make the “world’s biggest bonfire” – Karachi burned for a week.

Small is big now

Small missile boats, which had until now not figured in the calculations of most militaries, are likely to be a game changer. A number of countries possess such vessels in good numbers, and the Russian Navy’s clinical strikes will make them a highly sought after weapons delivery platform. For, besides being potent, they offer great bang for your rials, pesos, dinars, yuans or rupees.

Swarm attacks by Iranian and Chinese vessels, for instance, could be a nightmare for thin-skinned US Navy warships forward deployed near the Persian Gulf or the South China Sea. They also dramatically increase the vulnerability of America’s floating cities – its nuclear powered aircraft carriers with more than 100 aircraft and 6000 sailors aboard.

Russia has supplied anti-ship and land attack missiles to a number of countries including India, Vietnam, Algeria and more ominously Iran and China. The success of the Kalibr (export version Klub) will result in the export of even more potent versions of the missile.

There are few known defences against this class of missile. The Kalibr, for instance, makes a supersonic sprint towards its target during the last few kilometres, making interception a waste of effort and bullets.

Again, the Oniks missile (export version Yakhont) is fired in groups that act like a wolf pack. When launched, the missiles wait until the last one is out of the launch tubes and then line up, just like a wolf pack, and begin to home in on their prey. Swapping information, the pack decides which missile attacks which target and how.

Although US carriers are heavily defended, the beauty of a Kalibr or an Oniks is that even if they don’t completely destroy a large vessel, a single hit will ensure enough damage to put the ship out of commission for months.

The success of Russia’s Caspian Flotilla will undoubtedly cause changes in military doctrine worldwide and in the way warships are built, armed and deployed. Clearly, small is the new buzzword.
PS:Chinese planning to build upto 14 095 SSNs with a total SSN fleet of 20.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Post by Philip »

"T-Shark",here's a nice blast from the past.

http://in.rbth.com/blogs/stranger_than_ ... awe_536583
Missile boats: Making waves, causing shock and awe
3 November 2015 Rakesh Krishnan Simha

More than 40 years ago the Indian Navy’s Russian missile boats set fire to Karachi. The petite corvettes currently hammering ISIS as well as US-backed terror groups are the descendents of those legendary vessels.

In this photo made from the footage taken from Russian Defense Ministry official web site, Wednesday, Oct. 7, 2015, a Russian navy ship launches a cruise missile in the Caspian Sea. Four Russian navy ships in the Caspian launched 26 cruise missiles at Islamic State targets in Syria. Source:AP

Admiral Sergei Gorshkov was arguably the greatest naval strategist of the 20th century. In his book, ‘The Sea Power of the State’, the man who transformed the Russian Navy into a global force, wrote: “Naval warfare aimed directly against land targets will play an ever greater part in any future major conflict.”

On the night of October 5, four Russian missile boats with a displacement of a mere 1000 tons each started raining down cruise missiles down the throats of ISIS and US-backed terror groups. Flying at treetop level over a distance of 2600 km through Iran and Iraq, and avoiding populated areas, the missiles slammed into terrorist hideouts without warning.

The precision strikes left the US and its allies shocked, rattled and envious. Many observers couldn’t begin to fathom how these tiny ships could be so devastating.

Some showed grudging respect. According to Bryan Clark, a naval analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, the Russian corvettes armed with the accurate Kalibr provide much more effective land-attack lethality than what the US Navy is pursuing.

He was referring to the US Navy’s 3,000 ton Littoral Combat Ships that carry small, short-range missiles. “We have a new class of ships that we’re not equipping with anything that’s like this missile,” Clark told Defense News. “The Navy should feel embarrassed that they let this happen.”

Small wonder

The success in the Syrian war is nothing new for Russian missile boats. These vessels were star performers during the 1967 Arab Israeli War and the 1971 India Pakistan War. In the official history of the Indian Navy, Transition to Triumph, Vice Admiral G.M. Hiranandani writes:

“In June 1967, during the six-day Arab Israeli War, an Egyptian missile boat sank an Israeli frigate, the Eilath, at a range well beyond the frigate’s own guns. Navies all over the world woke up with a start to the effectiveness of this new Russian weapon – the surface to surface, anti ship, homing missile – which enabled a small boat to sink a ship several times its size within a matter of minutes. At one stroke, this new weapon altered the centuries old concept of prolonged gun battles between opposing warships.”

With a displacement of 200 tons, the missile boats were tiny and extremely thin skinned, but they had powerful engines that could propel them to a blistering 34 knots. Plus, the boat was hard to spot because of its small radar cross section.

Hirandani explains: “Its sophisticated radar was more advanced than any other known radar – it enabled the missile boat, with its low radar reflectivity, to detect a larger ship well before the latter was even aware of its presence, to fire its missiles and to speed away faster than any other ship. The Russian naval architects had deliberately designed these characteristics so as to give the small boats this advantage against much larger American naval ships attempting to attack the Russian coast.”

From UK to Russia

The Indian Navy, which had until then relied on Britain for its ships and weaponry, now started looking at Russian naval equipment. The Egyptian strike had clearly got the naval brass’ attention. But there was another reason for India wanting these small vessels.

In the 1965 India Pakistan War, the tiny Pakistan Navy had conducted a sneak attack on the city of Dwarka on the Gujarat coast. Although there were no casualties and only a solitary cow was killed, it left the Indian Navy seething because it couldn’t respond with a fitting counter attack.

India’s political leadership had ordered the navy not to launch offensive operations north of Porbandar because of Indonesia’s aggressive postures against India. Jakarta had not only declared support for fellow Muslim nation Pakistan, but more worryingly it was vocal about its intentions to annex the Andaman & Nicobar Islands which lie close to South East Asian waters.

The shells lobbed at Dwarka got the navy brass thinking of a possible Pakistani attack on Mumbai in a future conflict. In his book ‘We Dared: Maritime Operations in the 1971 Indo-Pak War’, Vice-Admiral S.N. Kohli writes: “Intelligence had suggested the Pakistan Navy was considering the acquisition of missile fitted frigates. In order to forestall the dangers of a missile attack by Pakistan on Mumbai, I had, on one of my visits to Russia, enquired from Admiral Sergei Gorshkov whether they had a mobile missile battery which could be deployed for the defence of Mumbai. He replied in the negative. He was later able to persuade the Indian Navy that for the defence of Mumbai and other major ports, the small Osa class of missile boats would be ideal. Their mere presence would prove a great deterrent to the enemy embarking on an attack.”

Admiral Gorshkov’s advice was simple and effective. In January 1969, an Indian delegation visited Moscow and the Russian naval base in the Caspian Sea, where they went out to sea in a missile boat. Vice-Admiral Nilakanta Krishnan writes in his book ‘No Way But Surrender’ that the acquisition of attack missile boats had become a “personal obsession” for him. The delegation signed an agreement for the acquisition of a squadron of eight boats armed with Styx missiles.

The Osa boats arrived under complete secrecy in 1970. They were based in Mumbai while crew training and ship overhaul facilities were to be located in Visakhapatnam. Admiral Hiranandani writes: “By this time, the Russian Navy had come to realise the Indians were diligent learners and professionally far more confident than the navies they had earlier helped to train. The crews...were deputed to Russia for just six weeks to take over the ships and sail them back to India. The Russians were impressed with their efficiency and professional knowledge, considering that they had neither received any training in Vladivostok nor had adequate training facilities been set up in Visakhapatnam.”

Russian boats, Indian ingenuity

Like Admirals Kohli and Krishnan, Admiral Sardarilal Mathradas Nanda, India’s navy chief in 1971, had been smarting under the step motherly treatment shown towards the navy by the political leadership. He was determined the Indian Navy wouldn’t sit out the next war.

A few weeks before the war started, he called his directors of naval operations and naval intelligence, and said he had obtained clearance for an attack on Karachi. In his autobiography, ‘The Man Who Bombed Karachi’, Nanda writes: “Everybody looked at me and said Karachi is a very heavily defended port. They've got six inch guns, while our guns are only four inch. We will be well within their range before they come into our range. So I said we have these Russian-made Osa class missile boats with Styx missiles.”

The commanders weren’t very keen. They said the boats did not have the range to reach Karachi and return. Secondly, though the Styx was highly accurate, they were anti-ship missiles and not designed to attack shore targets. Some naval officers – probably of the Gandhian mould – objected on the grounds that if Indian missiles hit Karachi, then there would be an international uproar over civilian casualties.

Admiral Nanda threw all such objections into the sea. Like all great ideas, his was simple too. To overcome their short range, he towed the boats from their base in Mumbai to Diu in Gujarat, which was a short distance from the target.

On the night of December 4, 1971, the missile boats carried out their first attack on Karachi. However, one of the vessels reported seeing a Pakistani aircraft and radioed this wrong information to the Indian flotilla. Worse, the captain of this missile boat withdrew from the designated area without the permission of the flotilla commander, thereby causing considerable confusion.

Only a couple of missiles were launched towards Karachi. Despite their hasty withdrawal the boats sank two Pakistani warships and crippled a third. They also destroyed a Pakistani merchant vessel bringing ammunition from an American depot in Saigon. Had the missile boats released all their missiles, the destruction could have been massive.

The Indian Navy launched a second attack on Karachi on the night of December 8. This time, it lost one ship but the rest rained hell on Karachi, setting fire to the tanker farms and lighting up the entire night sky.

Admiral Nanda made good on his promise that he would make the “world’s biggest bonfire” – Karachi burned for a week.

Small is big now

Small missile boats, which had until now not figured in the calculations of most militaries, are likely to be a game changer. A number of countries possess such vessels in good numbers, and the Russian Navy’s clinical strikes will make them a highly sought after weapons delivery platform. For, besides being potent, they offer great bang for your rials, pesos, dinars, yuans or rupees.

Swarm attacks by Iranian and Chinese vessels, for instance, could be a nightmare for thin-skinned US Navy warships forward deployed near the Persian Gulf or the South China Sea. They also dramatically increase the vulnerability of America’s floating cities – its nuclear powered aircraft carriers with more than 100 aircraft and 6000 sailors aboard.

Russia has supplied anti-ship and land attack missiles to a number of countries including India, Vietnam, Algeria and more ominously Iran and China. The success of the Kalibr (export version Klub) will result in the export of even more potent versions of the missile.

There are few known defences against this class of missile. The Kalibr, for instance, makes a supersonic sprint towards its target during the last few kilometres, making interception a waste of effort and bullets.

Again, the Oniks missile (export version Yakhont) is fired in groups that act like a wolf pack. When launched, the missiles wait until the last one is out of the launch tubes and then line up, just like a wolf pack, and begin to home in on their prey. Swapping information, the pack decides which missile attacks which target and how.

Although US carriers are heavily defended, the beauty of a Kalibr or an Oniks is that even if they don’t completely destroy a large vessel, a single hit will ensure enough damage to put the ship out of commission for months.

The success of Russia’s Caspian Flotilla will undoubtedly cause changes in military doctrine worldwide and in the way warships are built, armed and deployed. Clearly, small is the new buzzword.
PS:Chinese planning to build upto 14 095 SSNs with a total SSN fleet of 20.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5722
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Post by Kartik »

BEL and L&T submit bid to upgrade Vietnam's 5 Petya class frigates
An Indian consortium consisting of engineering firm Larsen & Toubro (L&T) and state-owned company Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) has submitted a bid to upgrade the People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN) Navy's five Petya (Project 159A/AE)-class frigates, an official from India's Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) confirmed with IHS Jane's on 4 November.

A major part of the upgrade work will be aimed at improving the platform's anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capabilities. "This includes a replacement of the vessel's hull-mounted sonar and anti-submarine weapons", said the DRDO representative.
Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3565
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Post by Aditya G »

Philip wrote:....These "pocket carriers",or "multi-role amphibs" of around 35-40000t,a better nomenclature,equipped with the NLCA/Sea Gripen sized aircraft would be extremely useful. In an amphib role the vessel would possess the required close-support aircraft to pound the shore defences,provide a measure of air defence,conduct strike missions against enemy warships,and are large enough to operate maritime variant KA-52 heavy attack helos,KA-31 AEW/ASW helos,NH-90,even Merlin heavy ASW/multi-role helos.

3-4 of these multi-role flat-tops would relieve the dedicated CVs from their role when conducting less taxing ops and support them in a crisis admirably with their NLCAs and ASW helos. We could build two of these for the price of one large CV ,of which at least one would always be available in a crisis.
....
I think we all agree that IN should have more carriers. I am not so clear whether IN really needs 35-40K Ton amphibs. Moreover, configuring a LPH for STOBAR or CATOBAR flying ops is doubtful, as both especially the latter require a lot of below deck cabling and stuff.

I doubt GoI is going to launch an amphibious invasion too far from our shores. I think we should have the capability, which LSTs such as Shardul class provide. Combined with the smaller LCUs we should be able to cover Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Maldives and countries around the A&N islands.

However, there may very well be a need to do small scale commando operations from ships in Africa and Indo China Sea. For this INS Vikrant with appropriate medium helicopter load out should suffice. Perhaps mount LCVPs like INS Viraat for small beachings as well.

So I would rather have IN trade two LPH for 1 Vikrant CV. In this scheme of things, 2 quick off the shelf Mistral purchases would have fitted in nicely.
Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3565
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Post by Aditya G »

B'deshi Navy going to operate Submarines too ... hmmm which Navy's subs are a danger to them?

http://www.brahmand.com/news/Bangladesh ... /1/15.html
....
"We cannot tackle those threats alone. It requires cooperation so that we can together fight non-traditional threats and make the area peaceful," the visiting Navy chief said.

He added that the Bangladesh is going to buy two used submarines from China for "training" its surface crew and Sonar crew in anti-submarine warfare.

Bangladesh has been seeking to acquire the submarines from China for the past few years.....
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Post by ShauryaT »

Philip: Do not think your idea of acquisition of smaller tonnage ships with ability to fire long range missiles and other littoral warfare assets is a good fit for India. It makes sense for Russia, Pakistan, China, Iran as each one of them faces a larger opponent capable of reaching their shores and do not have the wherewithal, to challenge their opponents on the high seas. India does not face such a threat, so why would we invest precious resources on these assets?
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Post by Philip »

Remember how we operated 3 Nanuchkas.These were even smaller than the Buyans. Yet they took part in high seas ops. The area that the IN has to sanitise is increasing by the day.We've embarked upon alliances with some of the littoral/island nations in the IOR.There are a limited number of larger warships,FFGs and DDGs to spare for patrols,esp when they have to escort our carrier task forces.3 planned for the future.The smaller missile corvettes will be more numerous and can be stationed at forwards bases on both seaboards as well as the A&N islands,where they will be easier to support than larger warships. Cost wise,they would be attractive.The cost of a P-28 is quite high.That vessel is actually FFG size,larger than our erstwhile Leanders the Russians have a very innovative corvette design where the ASW helo is parked below deck through a deck lift. These multi-role corvettes pack almost as much weaponry as a std. FFG.Certainly far more than the USN's LCS!
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Post by Viv S »

What happened in 1971 is irrelevant. What matters is the threat scenario that exists today. Between its destroyers, frigates, submarines and carrier based fighters, reinforced by the IAF's Su-30s, it can handle any hostile surface threat in the IOR over the short term.

The primary threat is from enemy submarines and obvious response has to be the form of Kamorta class sub-hunters, LRMPs in the form of more P-8Is and preferably a C-130J based MRMP. Importing a set of missile boats without any ASW capability would be a simple waste of foreign exchange.
soumik
BRFite
Posts: 133
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 21:01
Location: running away from ninja monkey asassins

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Post by soumik »

I would actually support Philips assertion, the Kora class cost us only 36$ million each, that's dirt cheap for something that carries 16 Klubs and conceivably has the capability to kill a CBG. Pity we stopped at four!
The PLAN is building high value assets faster than we can build or can afford to build currently.We need to counter these assets in the same way that the PLAN plans to counter the USN in a future conflict namely by using swarm missile attacks from both airborne ad seaborne platforms.
Just imagine a cheap 10 Kora group at the Andamans between them the boats would carry 160 klubs and operating under air cover provided by a fighter wing operating from the Andaman base would cause dhoti shivers for any PLAN CBG trying to transit the seas.
We need more submarines yes, but we need more missile carrying surface craft as well.
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Post by John »

Even if you can build Kora for dirt cheap to arm them with 8 Brahmos (20 Brahmos order incl spares and tr rounds) would come to well over 60 million. Arming them with 16 Uran would cost even more..
Thakur_B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Post by Thakur_B »

uddu wrote:The calmness and quietness in the torpedo acquisition could be because we do have our own torpedoes.
It has nothing to do with indigenous torpedo programs but rather the fact that Atlas Electroniks is upgrading our existing torpedoes for the Shishumar fleet and the upgraded torpedoes will be compatible with Kalvari class.
http://armingindia.com/German%20Firm%20 ... arines.htm
Thakur_B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Post by Thakur_B »

Indian Navy Indigenisation Plan (INIP) 2015-2030.
LINK

Treasure trove document.
Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1769
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Post by Khalsa »

Aditya G wrote:B'deshi Navy going to operate Submarines too ... hmmm which Navy's subs are a danger to them?

http://www.brahmand.com/news/Bangladesh ... /1/15.html
....
"We cannot tackle those threats alone. It requires cooperation so that we can together fight non-traditional threats and make the area peaceful," the visiting Navy chief said.

He added that the Bangladesh is going to buy two used submarines from China for "training" its surface crew and Sonar crew in anti-submarine warfare.

Bangladesh has been seeking to acquire the submarines from China for the past few years.....
India. Who else ?
One of the things the commanders of 71 war in East saw was the reluctance of Mukti Bahni to recogonise the Indian War Machine once Niazi had capitulated. There was considerable argument and pushing between the IA and MB on the treatment of POWs. I am glad we treated the Pakistanis well because thats us. That defines us that makes us.

One of these officers had visited the museum in Dacca after the war and was surprised to see single photograph of an Indian soldier in the Bangladesh War of Liberation section.

The Bangladeshis are again super confused like my good cousins to the west.
We are Banglas but we are also muslim so lets hate the Indians and start recreating love relationships with the Pakistanis again but after all we both pray to allah five times a day.

For those who run away from their past fail to create a future for themselves.
Pakistan has failed itself and its society and Bangladesh will follow.

On a more technical level, China can gift them all they want... running costs will be prove to be an excellent dillution of their focus.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Post by Philip »

It's all very well to want heavier warships to do the business,but these cost a bomb.Large numbers of FGGs,DDGs,and CVs are simply unaffordable in the IN's context.Look at the share of the def. budget that the IN gets.The Chinese are giving the lion's share of their def. budget to the PLAN! Their numbers will swamp us. Operating these larger warships also costs a huge amount. Let's get realistic. Even a navy as large as Russia's has put its hard money in the best place,top priority,its N-sub fleet.It is building smaller sized FFGs and corvettes,which pack a DDG punch in larger numbers to be spread across its various fleets. For a wide range of ops,we do not need capital ships. A carrier task force of which we plan to have 3,will require at least 4-5 accompanying escort and logistic vessels and a sub. So a goodly part of the fleet's principal combatants will be tied up.Yes,the missiles cost the same whatever vessel they're on,but there's a huge diff between the cost of a 15OOt corvette and a 5-6000t FFG (P-17/17A) or 8000T DDG (P-15A/B).The P-28s are again almost 3000t ,v.expensive to build and are also underarmed as we can see.

So we need to have affordable vessels of smaller tonnage ,with greater automation,smaller crews,which can punch well above their weight in larger number which can operate on both seaboards. Corvettes are the largest type of combatants being built at the moment for the world's navies,with the Russian designs having the greatest bang for the buck.

One is waiting to see the config of the 16 shallow water ASW corvettes. These are supposed to be around 750t+.The same hull could be used for a suitable missile corvette design to replace/complement the Tarantulas.These could carry both BMos and perhaps even Nirbhay.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Post by Singha »

sea legs is a must boys....need to be ready to send gunboats to east africa , red sea, yemen and so on.

weapons can be just 6 urans and 2 76mm guns. a couple of 20mm cannons in remote control turrets maybe(not a costly ciws kit). housing and equipment space for 20 marcos, their rigid hull boats, chariots etc. room for a big NH90 sized helicopter.
hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4635
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Post by hnair »

Philip, a cliche, but the times have changed. These smaller ships are best for coastal defense, which is kind of been taken over by the vastly superior IAF+LRMP+coastal sensor combo, who seems to be slated to deal with enemy capital ships. LRMP+sensor grid are going to replace the Sub-hunter corvettes too. The running of picket lines of smaller ships loaded heavily with AShM seems to be less efficient, now that Indian coast has become far more target rich, compared to the '71 war era. Will need a lot of smaller ships and they are not going to be easy to co-ordinate and cue. Plus they are kind of iffy in a Bay of Bengal wet-weather conditions, based on anecdotes.

The kind of action India might get into, has shifted far from Indian shores nowadays. The larger Kamorta + lower-cost Saryu is a great choice for having large sized hulls with good seakeeping, primed and ready for swing roles. More sensor nodes that gets strung out farther, the better. The shooters can be any asset nowadays and not all needs to be heavily armed

Singha, except for the second 76mm, that definition fits Kamorta. If you use Urans in armoured box launchers, Saryu can swing in
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Post by Viv S »

Philip wrote:It's all very well to want heavier warships to do the business,but these cost a bomb.Large numbers of FGGs,DDGs,and CVs are simply unaffordable in the IN's context.
Large enough numbers of capital combatants already exist/being constructed. Between the Delhi, Kolkata, Visakhapatnam, Shivalik & Talwar classes, the IN has two dozen capital ships. To which you can add two carriers.

Did they 'cost a bomb'? Maybe. Maybe not. Unless you're suggesting we auction them off and invest the proceeds into missile boats, what's the point? The IN can handle any surface threat in the IOR for the next decade.
Look at the share of the def. budget that the IN gets.The Chinese are giving the lion's share of their def. budget to the PLAN! Their numbers will swamp us. Operating these larger warships also costs a huge amount. Let's get realistic. Even a navy as large as Russia's has put its hard money in the best place,top priority,its N-sub fleet.It is building smaller sized FFGs and corvettes,which pack a DDG punch in larger numbers to be spread across its various fleets.
A 'navy as large as Russia's' doesn't have hope against its primary adversary i.e. USN in any fleet action. Which is why it has to depend on stealthier approaches; submarines and small surface vessels (operating close to shore).

But what you've repeatedly refused to accept is that we're not in Russia's shoes. Never have been. Where the Russian Navy is spread out over five distant zones (Caspian, Black Sea, Baltics, Arctic, Pacific), the Indian Navy is tasked with securing only one. And that one front has limited approaches forming choke-points with the A&N Islands serving as a natural gatekeeper.

The Chinese will perhaps eventually have the numbers to forward deploy a fleet in the IOR (Gwadar) or force-in a CBG-centric naval taskforce, but that's not going to happen in the next 10 years. Any interim (and subsequent) challenge can be countered by stepping up the IAF's fighter force in the ANI.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Post by Viv S »

Speaking of missile craft, here's a video from the Azmat class' induction in the PN.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Post by Philip »

Who's advocating "auctioning off" our FFGs and DDGs? No one. In fact the extra 3-4 Talwars would very welcome,said before many a time,as they're the least expensive of the 3 main surface warship classes. Whatever has been approved and in the pipeline is fine.What is being advocated is that we build more multi-role missile corvettes ,a class of which we are short of,which will be able to carry out a wide range of lesser duties instead of sending a larger warship for the same purpose. The IN's role these days is not confined to just the IOR.Our carrier task forces will not remain confined in IOR waters and will require when deployed several escorts,tankers,etc. Using larger warships for anti-piracy duties is overkill. Our NOPVs too are underarmed. This class could be better suited for the CG and replaced by 1500t+ missile corvettes equipped with BMos/Nirbhay missiles. Many major navies are ordering corvettes for such tasks.

The Russian missile strikes using Burans has literally "exploded" the possibilities of the class. These warships were not restricted by their size to coastal duties! They have far more firepower than the 3000t+ USN's LCS,acknowledged by the USN which is now rethinking about such warships in its fleet. IN missile corvettes equipped with similar missiles based in the A&N islands could even influence events in the ICS .

PS:China is already constructing a series of such missile corvettes,the 056 type details here:
The Type 056 (NATO reporting name: Jiangdao) is a Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy corvette. They replace older patrol craft and some of the Type 053H frigates.[1] The first Type 056 entered service in February 2013.[2] An anti-submarine warfare (ASW) variant, commonly known as Type 056A, has also entered service.[3]

The P18 is the export version of the Type 056. The P18 has been delivered to Nigeria,[4] with additional units under construction for Bangladesh.[5]

YJ-83 ASM launchers FL-3000N SAM launcher Radar
The Type 056 fills the capability gap between the Type 022 missile boat and the Type 054A frigate.[6] It is 90 metres long, displaces 1500 tons,[7] and incorporates anti-radar features.[8] The Type 056 is suited for mid-range missions and littoral duties, but not for major blue-water combat operations.[1]

The Type 056 has crew of 78 with a top speed of 25 knots (46 km/h), and a range of 3,500 nautical miles (6,500 km) at 16 knots (30 km/h).[9]

Surface armament is reported as a AK-176 76 mm. gun, two 30 mm. cannon,[9] and four YJ-83 anti-ship missiles.[7] FL-3000N surface-to-air missiles are carried in a single eight-cell launcher.[9] Finally, there are two triple-tube 324 mm. torpedo launchers;[7] these may carry Yu-7 light ASW torpedoes.[9]

The basic Type 056 is equipped with Type 347G (LR66) radar and bow-mounted sonar.[9] The Type 056A adds towed array and variable depth sonars (VDS);[7] the towed body suggests the VDS is not an exact copy of the Italian/US DE-1163 or the French DUBV-43.[10]

The Type 056 has a helicopter deck for a Z-9-sized helicopter, but no hangar.[7]

The Type 056A were in production by late-2013. One of the first, 593 Sanmenxia, was launched in November 2013 with a modified hull to accommodate the added ASW gear.[10]

In late-2012, corvettes were being produced by four shipyards.[14]

By March 2015, 18 Type 056s and seven Type 056As had been launched.[15] 30 to 60 may ultimately be built.[1] :eek:

At least 20 were operational in early-2015,[1] and 23 in October 2015.[16]
Last edited by Philip on 06 Nov 2015 17:28, edited 1 time in total.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Post by Singha »

the Buyan class corvette of caspian sea fame:
Range:
4,300 km at 12 knots (21631)
Endurance: 10 day
---
the distance from mumbai to djibouti is 3300km. she will need a week to steam there @ 12 knots and use most of her fuel.


--
Saryu - range 11,000km @ 16 knots
Kamorta would be similar
with helicopter and marcos units.

once you locate a target you dont need a picket line of 500t klub armed shooters, a few MKIs armed with brahmos will finish the job or use sub launched ASM.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Post by Philip »

It's the missile's range that is the "meat"! 2500km for the Kalibir. The crew can launch their missiles while catching fish. :rotfl:
srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2509
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Post by srin »

So - are you saying that we'll be getting a 2500km missile along if we order this ? And it would still be cheaper ?
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Post by Viv S »

Philip wrote:Who's advocating "auctioning off" our FFGs and DDGs? No one. In fact the extra 3-4 Talwars would very welcome,said before many a time,as they're the least expensive of the 3 main surface warship classes. Whatever has been approved and in the pipeline is fine.What is being advocated is that we build more multi-role missile corvettes ,a class of which we are short of,which will be able to carry out a wide range of lesser duties instead of sending a larger warship for the same purpose.
It was the complaint about the cost of our surface fleet (which is already built and sailing) that doesn't hold water. Over the short-to-medium term the primary threat to the IN comes from PN & PLAN submarines not from their surface fleets, which we can handle perfectly well.

And plain logic would suggest that enemy subs are countered by ASW forces not by missile boats. That means more LRMPs, more MRMPs and more ASW corvettes equipped with a supporting helicopter.
The IN's role these days is not confined to just the IOR.Our carrier task forces will not remain confined in IOR waters and will require when deployed several escorts,tankers,etc. Using larger warships for anti-piracy duties is overkill. Our NOPVs too are underarmed. This class could be better suited for the CG and replaced by 1500t+ missile corvettes equipped with BMos/Nirbhay missiles. Many major navies are ordering corvettes for such tasks.

The Russian missile strikes using Burans has literally "exploded" the possibilities of the class. These warships were not restricted by their size to coastal duties! They have far more firepower than the 3000t+ USN's LCS,acknowledged by the USN which is now rethinking about such warships in its fleet. IN missile corvettes equipped with similar missiles based in the A&N islands could even influence events in the ICS .
- There's no conceivable reason why anti-piracy duties would require a ship to pack eight Klub missiles. Pirate dinghies are not usually required to be sunk from a 100 miles away. What is a necessity is a helicopter for scouting/SF insertion. Something a 1000 ton missile corvette usually doesn't pack. For anti-piracy, a Saryu class OPV is easily a better option than a Buyan-M type corvette.

- The Russian missile strikes were quite simply a marketing exercise for the ignorant. From a military point-of-view it was an utterly absurd action. The RuAF had two dozen Flankers based a few minutes flight time away over an uncontested airspace. They could have achieved the same outcome at a fraction of the cost. Minus the PR impact of course.

- Its even more absurd to project that onto an Indian scenario. Seeing as we share a 3000 km long border with Pakistan, it makes no sense to direct the IN to dispatch a 500 ton boat into the middle of the ocean to do what a barrage of Nirbhays can do from land.
Last edited by Viv S on 06 Nov 2015 18:44, edited 1 time in total.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Post by Singha »

2500km is only for land attack not ASM. its only now with advanced networks that USN might think of bringing a 1000km long asm.

plus thats the strike , not patrol. 99.99% of time its patrolling thats the meat of it.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Post by Austin »

Anybody access to Janes for full article ?

Details of Indian P-17A multimission frigates emerge
Mrityunjoy Mazumdar, Alameda, California - IHS Jane's Navy International
05 November 2015
Key Points

http://www.janes.com/article/55807/deta ... tes-emerge

Further details of India's Project 17A frigates have emerged
Details suggest a departure in construction methodology from previous ship projects

Details of the Indian Navy's new multi-mission frigate programme, being developed under Project 17A (P-17A), are beginning to emerge as pre-production activities ramp up.

Local media reported in February 2015 that India's Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) had approved the P-17A project; a contract was expected to be signed with the two shipyards to be involved in the build programme in early 2015. The planned budget for the seven ship programme is an estimated INR500 billion (USD7.5 billion); the initial outlay to commence the project is INR40 billion.
soumik
BRFite
Posts: 133
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 21:01
Location: running away from ninja monkey asassins

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Post by soumik »

John wrote:Even if you can build Kora for dirt cheap to arm them with 8 Brahmos (20 Brahmos order incl spares and tr rounds) would come to well over 60 million. Arming them with 16 Uran would cost even more..
The price of one KH-35 as on wiki( I couldn't find a better source) is 500,000$(2010 prices) this should put the cost of a whole set of 16 to 8 million$ now considering even a 50% increase 16 Uran should cost no more than 12 million$.
Considering the 36$million quoted is a bare bones vessel with Ashm, the cost of a fully armed Kora should be well below 50$ million. I estimate a mordenised stealth kora using the same base would cost us 75$ million tops.

Now considering the price of one P17A as 1 billion$ each ship is going to cost the same as 15 mordenised Kora class vessels. I suggest we build six of these and transfer the rest of the cost to building more Kora class vessels. Ask yourself what would scare you more as a PLAN commander transiting the Malaccas , one P17A with maybe 16 BRAHMOS sitting under the air cover provided by fighters based in the Andamans or 15 Stealth missile corvettes with 16 Urans each sitting under the same aircover.
Last edited by soumik on 06 Nov 2015 20:16, edited 2 times in total.
titash
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 26 Aug 2011 18:44

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Post by titash »

+400% to Viv S and Singha
Viv S wrote:- There's no conceivable reason why anti-piracy duties would require a ship to pack eight Klub missiles. Pirate dinghies are not usually required to be sunk from a 100 miles away. What is a necessity is a helicopter for scouting/SF insertion. Something a 1000 ton missile corvette usually doesn't pack. For anti-piracy, a Saryu class OPV is easily a better option than a Buyan-M type corvette.

- The Russian missile strikes were quite simply a marketing exercise for the ignorant. From a military point-of-view it was an utterly absurd action. The RuAF had two dozen Flankers based a few minutes flight time away over an uncontested airspace. They could have achieved the same outcome at a fraction of the cost. Minus the PR impact of course.
The Russians expended 26 missiles @ $2-3 million a pop...$50 million odd to knock off targets in Syria with no worthwhile air defences...something that a couple of Flankers could have done with dumb bombs and < $500k of flying costs. This was (1) a marketing gimmick, (2) a not-so-subtle display of "don't f*** with me" to the Americans, and (3) an effort to regain "izzat" with the rest of the world. In all 3 respects it was a spectacular success.

If we wanted to attack a static target such as Karachi harbor with impunity, we don't need expensive missile corvettes with the latest Russian SS-N-27 Kaliber LACMs. A half dozen ultra cheapo SDRE daal-roti Prithvi missiles fired from Gujarat will demolish the harbor facilities just as well.

If we want to hit moving ships at sea, then you have 2 problems:
(1) finding targets...which takes loiter time and good sensors
(2) killing targets...which requires a launch platform + cruise missile

In both these scenarios, the unsupported 1000-1500 ton corvette is not the ideal platform. They simply don't have the persistence and/or high mounted radar/ESM to do the job. They are also vulnerable to helicopters firing stand off missiles. Not to mention their suspect ability to withstand rough weather in the open ocean vs. the protected waters of the Caspian Sea. These craft function best when played to their strengths...i.e. as deterrence against a stronger adversary attempting an amphibious landing, or an adversary attempting a 1965 Dwarka style raid etc.

In a real Indo-Pak shooting war, it was proven that the Osa was too small and needed to be towed to Karachi...hence the procurement of Nanuchka & Tarantul classes. Also, the 1991 Gulf war showed that missile boats are extremely vulnerable to aircraft + needed better electronics (radar/ECM/ESM) and better secondary weapons. So now the "ideal" fast attack craft has grown to a 1000-1500 ton boat of the Khukri/Kora class size with 8 SSMs, an expensive radar mounted much higher, and a 76-100 mm gun + point defence SAMs. But unfortunately even at this size, the loiter times for such ships and ability to withstand rough weather are significantly lesser.

Check out these recent image...INS Kora has been recently upgraded with superior ELTA EL/M-2238 radar, superior Varuna ESM, and a superior 76 mm SRGM with Lynx U2 tracker. I wouldn't be surprised if they ripped out the helipad and put in a Maitri PDMS once it arrives...in fact, I never understood how exactly the helipad helps; it's too small to host a SeaKing/Ka-28 that can provide OTH missile targeting information, and the Chetak that can be hosted doesn't have a radar.

Image
Image
Last edited by titash on 06 Nov 2015 20:27, edited 1 time in total.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Post by Cain Marko »

Would be good to see a larger force of mpaa. India has too few for a coastline so big. We need double the current number. But these need to carry some long range, and preferably fast missiles like the bmos m. That way we address the two points raised by titash in the above post.

Unfortunately there is no such platform available today unless we get more bears, which are loud and old. The p8 is great but does not have the sting.

These would be cheaper than building large numbers of corvettes, and serve a much wider purpose.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Post by Singha »

another example is the now retired spruance class ASW 'frigates' - massive @ 8000t, 33 knots .... big hulls with relatively light weapons and sensors except in ASW dept. they had to go hard and long to even reach the operating areas of soviet union subs and patrol there and to keep pace with CBGs as asw escorts.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Post by ShauryaT »

There is one area, where it does make sense for India to build littoral warfare ships, not for ourselves but to provide to others. Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Tanzania, Seychelles and others (like Baluchistan!). Armed with Brahmos and an ASW chopper and even a few TAL, it will serve a purpose. Their land air forces can provide air cover, if threatened with such. We do lack our own CIWS. we sorely lack indigenous arms across the board and are dependent on fire power on others. Need this corrected with Make in India!
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Post by kit »

http://www.janes.com/article/55807/deta ... tes-emerge

The planned budget for the seven ship programme is an estimated INR500 billion (USD7.5 billion)
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Post by ShauryaT »

Singha wrote:sea legs is a must boys....need to be ready to send gunboats to east africa , red sea, yemen and so on.

weapons can be just 6 urans and 2 76mm guns. a couple of 20mm cannons in remote control turrets maybe(not a costly ciws kit). housing and equipment space for 20 marcos, their rigid hull boats, chariots etc. room for a big NH90 sized helicopter.
Make those guns 155MM, with the ability to carry at least a 1000 shells and now you have some decent gun support for forced entry operations.
Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3565
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Post by Aditya G »

^ Do you see a scenario where we will conduct a beach landing requiring that level of Naval Gun Fire Support?

Majority of our amphib operations have been evacuations, with civilians involved. Even where our military was involved we have not employed NGFS. In fact, Naval HQ did not allow our fleet to bombard Pak coast by shells in 1971.

We are better of with two 76mm cannons per destroyer thanks to their air defence value - rather than one 127 mm cannon. There is no 155 mm cannon available to us.
Locked