Indian Naval Discussion

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 10 Jun 2011 08:30

Singha saar, as mentioned in my earlier posts, we probably need both. A decent number of subs of 1000-1500 tons like the T1500 that we already have would be needed for patrolling the Arabian Sea, Bay of Bengal & the Choke points around A&N island. Also because of our smaller budget these could provide us the numbers. Also as you said & I have said in my earlier post, a bigger class of sub, is needed for ocean going.

Singha wrote: bigger subs can have say 8xVLS, escape spheres for the whole crew

Well I think, the escape spheres should be must in all our subs, even the smaller ones. Even the T1500 of the IN have escape modules, so incorporating such a module is a design decision rather than size ( in any case anything smaller than 1000 tons may not be idle for us). Such modules surely would be great morale booster. If India is sending her sons/daughters in harms way, she should try to provide every means possible for their safety.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Jun 2011 10:22

and get those DSRVs too and modern sub rescue diving support ships...fwd base them in Andamans/Kochi/karwar/mumbai, C17s with special racks for DSRV, seems we had wanted to procure two DSRV from Canada but it got snagged in some corruption charges and so fresh bid was floated last yr.
http://frontierindia.net/indian-navy-fl ... ue-vessels

from Prasun sengupta's comment http://livefist.blogspot.com/2008/09/pr ... avies.html
Another Asian navy that is likely to acquire customised DSRVs is the Indian Navy, which already selected the Remora 2000 (Photo 2) remotely operated rescue vehicle (RORV) for its submarines by mid-2005, along with its launch-and-recovery system (LARS) and a fully integrated self-contained emergency life support system (ELSS) package, all to be supplied by Canada's Ocean Works International of North Vancouver. The yet-to-be-signed contract, however, ran into rough weather two years ago amidst allegations of irregularities (i.e. kickbacks) during the contractual negotiations phase. The 20.6-tonne Remora 2000 RORV has a depth rating to 610 metres, can accommodate 18 men, can dry-transfer personnel under pressures up to 6 atmospheres into surface decompression facilities, and is designed for operations in Sea State 5 and transport in Sea State 6. The related surface decompression facility can treat more than 100 personnel. The entire Remora 2000 system can be air-transported for rapid deployment. Similar systems built by the same company are currently operational with the navies of Australia, Russia and Singapore.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Jun 2011 10:24

just like MTA deal and 155mm arty, DSRV is another thing going on and off since Kargil era.
the gorshkov & hawk deals finally escaped the cage and the MRCA is enroute.

some of these long running mahabharat's are mentally exhausting to track.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 10 Jun 2011 10:32

INS Kesari exercises with Kiwi frigate TE MANA in Bay of Bengal

John · Post by **John** » 10 Jun 2011 19:23

bmallick wrote:I too want a huge sub inventory of around 40 subs at least. However I do not see it happening in the near to medium term, because of what our budgets are. Thats why 20-24 AIP subs. Also I think, we should invest a lot more in MPAs. We should take a leaf out of Japan in this case, which operates about 80+ P3Cs. We too should invest heavily in this department. 20-24 P8I and 20-30 Medium Range MPAs. All this augmented by at least 40-60 IN Su-30 (land based). This should be a formidable capability in keeping the Andaman Sea and the Arabian Sea clean.

I have been thinking if we can make a nuclear submarine, why cannot we start our own convention sub design. Involve L&T. Those chaps have chipped in for the ATV project. Its time we also give them the oppurtunity to make a conventional sub. Design the sub around capability to fire Brahmos & Nirbhay. DRDO is already making a fuel cell based AIP. Include this in design. Gosh we already have world class Sonars in the HUMSA. And who says we need to make it the most compact. it could be 3000-3500 tons. Atleast lets start.

Problem with SSKs is that they are primarily an offensive platform and unlike Frigate sized surface combatant it cannot be use for other missions such as patrol, search and rescue, escorting convoys, ground support etc.

With escalation of submarine prices it raises a question is it worth spending $700 million for a diesel submarine with their limited speed and capability especially during times of peace. You can justify that cost for vessel like Arihant which will have nuclear deterrence capability. I just don't see the value of procuring that many SSKs.

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 10 Jun 2011 20:23

Of course John, subs are offensive platform and not perform search & rescue, escorting convoys, ground support etc...which can be getter served by a frigate as pointed by you. But the same can be said of a Tank, it cannot do border patrol, search & rescue, intellegence gathering etc, which can be done by humans. A tank is an out and out offensive weapon (which also is used in defensive warfare, but so can a sub be), but this does not mean that the tank is useless. Both tank and Subs have their utility, hence both are needed in adequate numbers base on the threat perception. Moreover remember the old adage, offense is the best form of defense

John · Post by **John** » 10 Jun 2011 21:07

bmallick wrote:Of course John, subs are offensive platform and not perform search & rescue, escorting convoys, ground support etc...which can be getter served by a frigate as pointed by you. But the same can be said of a Tank, it cannot do border patrol, search & rescue, intellegence gathering etc, which can be done by humans. A tank is an out and out offensive weapon (which also is used in defensive warfare, but so can a sub be), but this does not mean that the tank is useless. Both tank and Subs have their utility, hence both are needed in adequate numbers base on the threat perception. Moreover remember the old adage, offense is the best form of defense

It is not apples and orange you are comparing army platform with navy. Navy has many other duties to perform and money used to procure submarines will lead to short fall in other.

Even in your comparison a diesel Submarine is not most effective offensive platform for $$ (a SSN with its speed, range is far more potent or maritime strike aircraft like Tu-22m3) or for threat perception (Carrier,DDGs). IMO once we deploy Arihant we should focus on moving towards SSNs and perhaps even unmanned submersibles rather than more SSKs.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Jun 2011 07:25

BM,Singha have express it.Diff. types for diff. ops.Littoral and multi-ocean ops.The value of small AIP conventional subs ahs not been lost on the USN,which is leasing small Swedish subs to train against.These subs have regularly "sunk" US carriers say some reports! The proliferation of mini/midget subs,small UUVs,some torpedo sized and smaller ,is increasing the threat of underwater attack to ports/naval bases.There is nohing like having healthy numbers of subs in one's inventory.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 11 Jun 2011 09:32

95 Officer Cadets complete 81st Integrated Course of the Indian Navy and Coast Guard

Bolasani · Post by **Bolasani** » 12 Jun 2011 11:30

Hindu: Delivery of INS Kamorta next June

INS Kamorta, the first in a series of four anti-submarine corvettes being built by the Kolkata-based Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers (GRSE), a defence shipyard, will be delivered to the Navy in June 2012.

“We have also concluded negotiations with the Navy for construction of eight-Landing Craft Utility (LCU) for which contract will be signed shortly."

The yard, he said, had strengthened its Engineering Department, which had patented an easy-to-install portable steel bridge. “It's in high demand from the Border Roads Organisation as well as in the power sector. We got a turnover of Rs. 60 crore from this last year.”

The fully automated indigenous Common Helicopter Traversing System that the shipyard developed with technical support from the U.K.-based Mactagart Scott would be installed on the helicopter deck of the ASW corvettes under construction.

What is a "Common Helicopter Traversing System"?

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 12 Jun 2011 11:42

@Bolasani

Commom Helicopter Traversing System:

Helicopter traversing and securing system for seaborne helicopters is installed on the quarterdeck of the vessel. Its purpose is to secure and safely move the helicopter from the landing area to the hangar and vice-versa.
Various types of systems offered include single rail systems, dual rail systems (straight and curved rails), & winch type Traversing system.

The Traversing System can handle one or two helicopters - Sea-King /ALH / other types. It can secure & safely move the Helo from landing grid to Hangar and vice-versa. Permanent mooring coupling to the deck allowing the transfer of Helicopter with safety & handling of Helicopter in compliance with crew and equipment safety regulations are its other features.

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 12 Jun 2011 15:47

Three Ts, Part2.
Teg is expected to start sea trials 1st July.

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 12 Jun 2011 17:35

old newz

Russian amur class sub has been offered to india . isn't it fit for indian navys requirement since 6-9 scorpion subs we are getting
6 Russian subs will provide the variety & 10 vls cells in the sub. will be good for bhramhos navy version

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amur_class_submarine

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Jun 2011 01:28

The Amur/Lada reportedly had some problems with some of the eqpt. Whether they have been sorted ou or not is a moot point.The model with B'Mos silos was not seen at this year's Aero-India show.There was an offer of a joint Italian-Ruso design for India. If the IN is bent upon a sub-launched BMos equipped sub,it can only come from Russia.Kilos are still in favour,being built for VZuela,Vietnam and others.who knows whether a new type or modified exg. design will be acquied.

kit · Post by **kit** » 13 Jun 2011 01:54

John wrote:
bmallick wrote:Of course John, subs are offensive platform and not perform search & rescue, escorting convoys, ground support etc...which can be getter served by a frigate as pointed by you. But the same can be said of a Tank, it cannot do border patrol, search & rescue, intellegence gathering etc, which can be done by humans. A tank is an out and out offensive weapon (which also is used in defensive warfare, but so can a sub be), but this does not mean that the tank is useless. Both tank and Subs have their utility, hence both are needed in adequate numbers base on the threat perception. Moreover remember the old adage, offense is the best form of defense
It is not apples and orange you are comparing army platform with navy. Navy has many other duties to perform and money used to procure submarines will lead to short fall in other.

Even in your comparison a diesel Submarine is not most effective offensive platform for $$ (a SSN with its speed, range is far more potent or maritime strike aircraft like Tu-22m3) or for threat perception (Carrier,DDGs). IMO once we deploy Arihant we should focus on moving towards SSNs and perhaps even unmanned submersibles rather than more SSKs.

Those new SSKs would probably have a capability and armament equivalent to a nuclear hunter killer sub .. call it a submarine extensively modified ... like a Su MKI .. the arihant class nuke boats will be the boomers.

Avid · Post by **Avid** » 13 Jun 2011 06:17

Bolasani wrote:Hindu: Delivery of INS Kamorta next June

INS Kamorta, the first in a series of four anti-submarine corvettes being built by the Kolkata-based Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers (GRSE), a defence shipyard, will be delivered to the Navy in June 2012.

“We have also concluded negotiations with the Navy for construction of eight-Landing Craft Utility (LCU) for which contract will be signed shortly."

The yard, he said, had strengthened its Engineering Department, which had patented an easy-to-install portable steel bridge. “It's in high demand from the Border Roads Organisation as well as in the power sector. We got a turnover of Rs. 60 crore from this last year.”

The fully automated indigenous Common Helicopter Traversing System that the shipyard developed with technical support from the U.K.-based Mactagart Scott would be installed on the helicopter deck of the ASW corvettes under construction.
What is a "Common Helicopter Traversing System"?

The article has too many discrepancies.

The length, displacement, etc. for the P28 are dramatically different from those on Wiki.

For example: Hindu states displacement of 1200 tons, Wiki says 2500 tons
Hindu states 75m in length, Wiki says 109m in length

What gives? Was there a "Wash Cold, otherwise it will shrink" warning that GRSE did not pay heed?

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 13 Jun 2011 07:19

No patrol boats to stop Qasabs this monsoon
http://www.mid-day.com/news/2011/jun/09 ... ttacks.htm

By: J Dey Date: 2011-06-09 Place: Mumbai

Bought at a cost of Rs 125 crore, the 38 interceptors cannot sail in the rough seas during the rainy season

BESIDES holding the promise of rain, the looming monsoon clouds could very well signal the onset of another wave of 26/11-like terror attacks that could crash on the city's shores.
For, nearly 38 high-speed interceptors, which were procured at a cost of Rs 125 crore and hold the key to apprehending terrorists who dare to venture within five nautical miles of the city, will be out of commission till September because of the rains.

The boats, say policemen, have been docked because it is too risky to operate them when the waves are high, like they are in the monsoon.

This leaves the area of five nautical miles from Mumbai's coast to be patrolled only by the Indian Navy and Coast Guard, whose boats are bulky and largely incapable of patrolling the shallow waters found here.

{if the problem is true, then it need to be sorted out by having boats that can operate in such conditions. We have to improve the current boats that cannot operate in such sea state.}

John · Post by **John** » 13 Jun 2011 07:22

Avid that quote is referring to the OPV not for P28 Corvettes'.

Kit, are you referring to Scorpene its payload is better than U-209s but no where as much as significantly larger SSN.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 13 Jun 2011 07:38

uddu wrote:No patrol boats to stop Qasabs this monsoon
http://www.mid-day.com/news/2011/jun/09 ... ttacks.htm

By: J Dey

OT : the author of this article has been shot dead.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Jun 2011 07:43

"Marry in haste,repent at leisure!" Knee-jerk responses to 26/11 instead of careful thought and planning have nowleft us with boats that cannot operate in bd weather.Vessels that can operate in the littorals during the worst of the monsoon is an absolute requisite for the IN/CG.As said before,the CG should be tasked with the littoral defence ops.There are many western designs of vessels designed for the North Sea/Atlantic hurrricane weather which should be examined fo acquisition.

Here are two interesting analyses (must read) of the PLAN's naval strategy with respect to carriers and subs and the USN's need for more subs,preferably diesel! These two articles underscore the comments that one has made in earlier posts echoed by sev. members too.

http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... ds/438793/
Nitin Pai: General Liu can close his eyelids
Nitin Pai / New Delhi June 13, 2011,

Quote:As early as 1987, General Liu Huaqing, the recently deceased father of the modern People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Navy, said, “Without an aircraft carrier, I will die with my eyelids open; the Chinese Navy needs to build an aircraft carrier.”

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =FEA&s=COM

U.S. Navy Needs Diesel Submarines
By Gary Schmitt
Published: 12 June 2011

Quote:The U.S. Navy faces a fundamental dilemma: It needs more submarines, but the overall defense budget required to build those submarines is headed south. How should it square this circle?

The answer is that the Navy should procure a fleet of diesel-powered subs. Not only are diesels cheaper than nuclear-powered subs, but they have the advantage of being better platforms for many of the tasks the Navy faces today.

The demand for attack submarines is both quantitative and qualitative. Over the past two decades, for example, China has added more than 40 new submarines. Although they are not equivalent to ours, they still need to be tracked - and that takes numbers. Meanwhile, the list of actual and potential submarine missions, including close-in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, special operations, and blockade and mining, continues to grow.

These growing operational demands are coupled with the exigencies of new undersea requirements. In addition to the deep-sea dives and prolonged blue-water missions that became the staple of submarine operations during the Cold War, there are a number of scenarios today that are focused on the littoral areas, the green water within 100 miles of land, be they in the strait of Hormuz or Malacca, off the shores of Taiwan or in the South China Sea.

It is these missions that often favor diesel submarines. Diesel subs are smaller, stealthier and more maneuverable in tight spaces than nuclear submarines. For example, unlike a nuclear submarine's power plant, a diesel's primary engine can be turned off when submerged, reducing noise emission. Indeed, unlike a nuclear-powered submarine, a modern diesel can hide on the ocean's floor, deadly silent, while monitoring whatever passes over and around it.

And with the advent of Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) technology, today's diesel subs can remain submerged for weeks at a time. When deployed to bases in the Far East or Middle East, the range and reach of today's AIP-equipped diesels would put them well within striking distance of critical choke points.

The U.S. Navy is not ignorant of the advantages of diesel subs. Time and again, American naval crews have struggled to detect their diesel-electric "foes" at sea. Over the past two years, for example, Peruvian and Chilean diesels have made life extremely tough for the U.S. in naval exercises.

Nor is this new; in a joint training exercise in 2005, a Swedish AIP-outfitted Götland-class sub scored a "strike" on the carrier Ronald Reagan. And, most famously, in 2006 a Chinese Song-class diesel submarine surfaced undetected within striking distance of the carrier Kitty Hawk off Japanese waters.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Jun 2011 08:42

are there interceptor type boats anywhere (at that size x cost) suitable for sea state 4 ? my weak knowledge of basic laws of physics would indicate unless a boat has a deeper draught, higher decks and the stabilizers of bigger ships...it will get roughed up by heavy seas? perhaps land based coastal surveillance radar can be beefed up for monsoon conditions with a couple of helicopters armed with machine guns on standby? [ we have contracted saab for a coastal surveillance system ]

imo the US could move to a new SSK design for the littorals - around the Soryu class size or slightly bigger (4500t full load) , with a "tea kettle" nuclear reactor to keep the AIP system running indefinitely (they have strong hold on naval reactors) and a downsized sensor fit from the virginia class...less number of weapons...

but the urge to be bigger , badder, the most heavily armed and badass runs deep in the psyche of the US mil community and the urge to overload stuff with 100s of requirements and multi-tasks is again in the psyche of the mil contractors...so even this "austere" SSK design will likely cost not less than $1.5bil a pop once they are done over-engineering it . just like the $700 mil "cheap" LCS

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Jun 2011 13:01

the mumbai police boats are of two types both supplied by goa shipyard. the ability of such size boat to perform effectively and survive anything like sea state 4+ is quite iffy per readings on the web...so the police is right in not risking it during monsoon.

Invader and Hellraiser Class Interceptors
In 2009, Goa Shipyards delivered 44 of these interceptor boats to the coastal security police of various Indian States. Intended for day and night surveillance in Indian territorial waters, the vessels are designed to be unsinkable, with 10% reserve buoyancy even when filled with water. The vessels are available in two sizes, designated the 5T and 12T.5T Invader Class Interceptors
http://www.goashipyard.co.in/products_4 ... _craft.asp
http://www.goashipyard.co.in/products_3 ... _craft.asp

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 13 Jun 2011 13:48

Wouldn't it also be difficult for the militants too to use the Sea during the monsoons. Unless the militants are using the large fishing trawlers which can venture out in heavy seas. So if its difficult for the police to put to sea, shouldn't the same apply to the militants. However, the local police can liason with the CG , and plan special patrols for the monsoon season.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Jun 2011 14:06

difficult yes - impossible no - given the involvement of AWOL/retired/active SSG-N members with the karachi jihadis. the mumbai 26/11 batch was also trained by such veterans in basic seamanship, swimming, beaching , ship seizure etc.

they only need to succeed once to cause a new round of mayhem.

parshuram · Post by **parshuram** » 13 Jun 2011 17:33

Is This P- 28 ?

Link

John · Post by **John** » 13 Jun 2011 18:10

Singha wrote:are there interceptor type boats anywhere (at that size x cost) suitable for sea state 4 ? my weak knowledge of basic laws of physics would indicate unless a boat has a deeper draught, higher decks and the stabilizers of bigger ships...it will get roughed up by heavy seas? perhaps land based coastal surveillance radar can be beefed up for monsoon conditions with a couple of helicopters armed with machine guns on standby? [ we have contracted saab for a coastal surveillance system ]

Yes a larger vessel like Super Dvora should be able to operate in that sea state they are operated by CG and Navy, can always transfer a few of them over. Or switch to unmanned patrol vessel like the hammerhead.

parshuram wrote:Is This P- 28 ?

Link

It is good to see P-28 will be finally handed over, hopefully we start pictures of her in trials later this year.

sarabpal.s · Post by **sarabpal.s** » 13 Jun 2011 21:49

What pity we could not secure few and they(TU 22M Bombers) left in a open to become junk

http://englishrussia.com/2011/06/10/aba ... more-54845

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 13 Jun 2011 22:52

And now for something completely different.....

I had a crazy thought: What about a cross between a submarine and an aircraft carrier? It would basically be a submarine with a flat topside, which could surface and launch aircraft with a catapult system, the planes would land using arrestor wires, then they'd take the elevator down, the topside lid would seal water-tight, and down she goes.

Is this an entirely impractical idea, or has someone already proposed it?

Any thoughts on this crazy idea would be welcome.

BijuShet · Post by **BijuShet** » 13 Jun 2011 22:58

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:And now for something completely different.....

I had a crazy thought: What about a cross between a submarine and an aircraft carrier? It would basically be a submarine with a flat topside, which could surface and launch aircraft with a catapult system, the planes would land using arrestor wires, then they'd take the elevator down, the topside lid would seal water-tight, and down she goes.

Is this an entirely impractical idea, or has someone already proposed it?

Any thoughts on this crazy idea would be welcome.

This one would need to be a very long boat and if so how would you make this beast stealthy? IMHO it is not very useful in warfare if everyone knows where you are underwater or can hear you a mile away.

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 13 Jun 2011 23:17

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:And now for something completely different.....

I had a crazy thought: What about a cross between a submarine and an aircraft carrier? It would basically be a submarine with a flat topside, which could surface and launch aircraft with a catapult system, the planes would land using arrestor wires, then they'd take the elevator down, the topside lid would seal water-tight, and down she goes.

Is this an entirely impractical idea, or has someone already proposed it?

Any thoughts on this crazy idea would be welcome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_aircraft_carrier

Cheers....

John · Post by **John** » 13 Jun 2011 23:25

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:And now for something completely different.....

I had a crazy thought: What about a cross between a submarine and an aircraft carrier? It would basically be a submarine with a flat topside, which could surface and launch aircraft with a catapult system, the planes would land using arrestor wires, then they'd take the elevator down, the topside lid would seal water-tight, and down she goes.

Is this an entirely impractical idea, or has someone already proposed it?

Any thoughts on this crazy idea would be welcome.

It will be a very large submarine with all folding mechanisms you are alluding to, to carry even miniscule load of 10 aircraft will easily be the largest submarine ever built.
But a more cheaper alternative would be similar to what Imperial Japanese navy did with its class ofsubmarine aircraft carriers and they deployed sea planes.
Or with advent of UAVs develop small sub 600 kg sea plane UAV and launch it from torpedo tube of any submarine.

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 14 Jun 2011 01:13

^^^ Thanks everyone for your input. I should have Googled the idea before raising it here. I appreciate your indulgence.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 14 Jun 2011 01:20

The hybrid ac/sub concept: you get the worst of both and none of the best. The Miller Light Commercial: More taste and less filling--doesn't work here.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Jun 2011 03:26

The Imperial Japanese Navy in WW2 operated a sub that carried two aircraft.I'm not sure if it was the I-28 type.The French also have a radical design of a sub that appear to be a hybrid surface combatant/sub offfered to India as follow on to the Scorpene.The USSR also developed during the Cold War a missile boat that could submerge itself for stealth.

However,the concept is already with us in the USN's radical conversion of Ohio class SSBNs into SSGNs,where the huge missile silos now carry almost 200 Tomahawk missiles ,or a combination of weaponry,able to launch from underwater UAVs/UCAVs which can are recovered at sea after completing their mission!

ARay · Post by **ARay** » 14 Jun 2011 14:39

After having read your insightful post , this humble zimble SDRE says IB4TL
P.S. use the existing navy thread dude, the mods are sure to dish out some tough love if you keep starting new threads like this---ticky

Your advice well taken dude, so I now post where you suggested, scared of tough love----

Guys/Gals,
My last post was about distinct unwillingness of Indian Navy to buy any guided missile cruiser. I was advised for IB4TL. No worries, I am concerned about it but reluctant in posting because being a green horn I may sound as a very odd voice there.

Before I start I presume you fellows may have gone through HMS Ulysses by Allistier McLane. What a novel! Put aside the emotional outcomes, it is a cut throat fight between surface navy and the subs occasionally backed by heavy cruisers/Destroyers/Condors (Naval version of Folk Wolf 190). Now think of today. Let there be a tussel in Bay of Bengal-->China Sea--->Pacific. What a scenario and how good India will perform. Till now if you look at average displacements of Indian Navy warships (except VIRAAT, AUSTIN class Jalsawa) you can very well feel that the Navy is slowly stretching from Shallow Water--->Green water. Well, hues and cries are everywhere. Some occasional visits by some foreign navy chiefs, some mutual backpatting (mostly in the interest of selling their craps/ old wagons)---- we turn to say India is becoming Blue Water Navy country. Is it a joke or a IPL cheerleader dance! Think of a fight with much more potent adverseries than pakis (who can only fume for a couple of weeks and go for a military coup in threafter), you may have to hold on for months with adequate reseves. To support a true blue water navy you need a massive industrial backup, lot of capital and a storehouse of technology. A country like ours, with only few decades of Democracy,--- its a far cry. If you face, say--- PLAN in the vast theatre of Bay of Bengal---->Indian Ocean---> China sea--- you never know what is in store for you but can imagine. China, being a old Soviet block country, must inherently stuck to their way of Navy--- few surface shps backed by huge group of subs. Please do not cite wikipedia as the PLAN source---for China nothing is certain. Literally India may have to go through a rerun of Maclane's novel--- Indian Surface fleet vs. PLAN subs backed by few destroyers, frigates and planes(!!!!). And you may pretty well guess what will be the fate. Even in 71 war agains a much inferior enemy Inda lost INS Khukri against P.S. Hangor!! Now think had Ghazy been let loose, what might have come on the way for Indian Navy---- A vintage almost crap like carrier Vikrant vs. Ghazi----- May god bless.

What actually I wanted to say is that when some country's Navy is leaping forward to blue water, pls. do not forget the surroundings and please do not get obsessed by so called Anglo-Saxon (US-UK think tank). There are other school of thoughts too. A medium stron guided missile cruises by the side of INS Vikramaditya and INS Viraat not only shows the potency but enhances the active cover that the NAvy can provide. If India really has to fight (locally or globally!!!!) within next 20 years it will be a stringent test against subs. Instead of a carrier, a battle group raised with a missile cruiser atcentre, may be small, but diminutive in nature and far effective than carrier group when the battle spreads at the extreme or beyond Bay of Bengal. Best of luck.

Jai Hind

++++ If you are really interested to see how good the cruisers, destroyers, frigates fare, please study the 1940---1943 period particularly against Jap navies. I am not talking about
legendery dives by Mitsubishi bombers, but talking of the resistance offered locally or on pockets for quite a long time by Allied forces (to make their presence felt) until US started pouring new carriers. A country like Inida, leap frogging to regain its lost status, the best is to think globally, work locally. Not to be biased seeing some other's assets.

ticky · Post by **ticky** » 14 Jun 2011 15:27

ARay wrote: Now think of today. Let there be a tussel in Bay of Bengal-->China Sea--->Pacific. What a scenario and how good India will perform. Till now if you look at average displacements of Indian Navy warships (except VIRAAT, AUSTIN class Jalsawa) you can very well feel that the Navy is slowly stretching from Shallow Water--->Green water.

What has the average displacement got to do with anything? Should the navy start buying ULCC's and mount some guns on them? Well IN will sure be TFTA in the tonnage department

ARay wrote:To support a true blue water navy you need a massive industrial backup, lot of capital and a storehouse of technology. A country like ours, with only few decades of Democracy,--- its a far cry.

Going by this logic China ain't even a democracy yet so no worries.

ARay wrote:If you face, say--- PLAN in the vast theatre of Bay of Bengal---->Indian Ocean---> China sea--- you never know what is in store for you but can imagine. China, being a old Soviet block country, must inherently stuck to their way of Navy--- few surface shps backed by huge group of subs.

Which rarely puts to sea, if ever, f.e. those damn commmies never let their boomer go on deterrence patrol lest it sink at the harbor mouth and end up blocking the port for months

ARay wrote:Please do not cite wikipedia as the PLAN source---for China nothing is certain. Literally India may have to go through a rerun of Maclane's novel--- Indian Surface fleet vs. PLAN subs backed by few destroyers, frigates and planes(!!!!). And you may pretty well guess what will be the fate. Even in 71 war agains a much inferior enemy Inda lost INS Khukri against P.S. Hangor!! Now think had Ghazy been let loose, what might have come on the way for Indian Navy---- A vintage almost crap like carrier Vikrant vs. Ghazi----- May god bless.

Saar the PNS Ghazi was indeed let loose and sunked off the eastern seaboard by Rajput.

ARay wrote:What actually I wanted to say is that when some country's Navy is leaping forward to blue water, pls. do not forget the surroundings and please do not get obsessed by so called Anglo-Saxon (US-UK think tank). There are other school of thoughts too. A medium stron guided missile cruises by the side of INS Vikramaditya and INS Viraat not only shows the potency but enhances the active cover that the NAvy can provide. If India really has to fight (locally or globally!!!!) within next 20 years it will be a stringent test against subs. Instead of a carrier, a battle group raised with a missile cruiser atcentre, may be small, but diminutive in nature and far effective than carrier group when the battle spreads at the extreme or beyond Bay of Bengal. Best of luck.

What exactly do you expect a missile cruiser to do against subs, if you think the fight's between IN surface fleet and PLAN subs? Lob a few of our version of TLAM's at the sub? OTOH an AC can also carry more than a handful of ASW helos which can prosecute subs at a fair distance away form the battle group. Fighting subs is properly the job of the ASW screens/escort, which means ASW frigate, corvette, MPA's, ASW helos aboard warships.
Further, what in general do you expect to be achieved by a missile cruiser which can't be done by a DDG? If it lobbing CM's at Chinese land target, its much simpler to shoot from locations in the NE up and over the mountains.

ARay · Post by **ARay** » 14 Jun 2011 16:00

Dear Ticky,

Bit by bit answering you----

1. Its true PNS Ghazi was let loose and destroyed by INS Rajput as it appers. Though there are other visions on that. What I am talking off is if there was not the sinking of Ghazi, what would have happened? Have you ever thought of it? Few days fighting in Arabian sea claimed INS Khukri. Can you deny that? Its not that I am countering for word's sake but just trying to gaze what is happening at the closest proximity.

2. Average displacement: Please compare with deep see vehicles, the USA or Russia has with ours. The average displacement is a mark (~~~ rough approximation) of the resouces, logistics, armament, vehicles---- whatever on earth required on that occasion of war --- carried by the ship.

3. It seems you have very little respect of PLAN subs. Well reports are there of failures, particularly sources are very skeptical about their Han (correct me if I am wrong) class nuke sub. However you can not take anything for granted. Why I have drwan the example of Soviet Block becuse after'71 war when USSR Navy chief visited India, he bluntly sid that the US 7-th fleet was throughout followed by USSR sub if in case possible intervention happens. What I wanted to point is that China is unlike India. India procured Russian arms, modernized, license produced, develop new tactics (compare Mig 21 in Arb -Israel war and in Indo-Pak war)
but never reverse engineered it. The thread of reverse engineering knows no bounds. And please do not doubt capabilities of China---- particularly their contribution in today's science. The communist block mentality of Navy might remained the same---- as I feel. Thats why I brought up the issue of Indian surface fleet vs. PLAN subs.

4. Well 'missile cruiser to do against subs', you got me utterly wrong. I war sometimes it means that you may have to attack the enemy in advance, in phases, in pockets and whtever way possible. Your view is utterly defensive, which India did most of the time and presently biting the nails. Offence not always means capturing other's territory but to secure your defence. If you look at the vast of Bay of Bengal----> south china sea, you may see the diversity in oceanography. See the numerous eyelands. If you use it carefully its a Bhulbhulaya. A group centered with carrier is easy to spot, easier to locate (GPS) and bomb/shell/missile attack it. But a small group centered around missile cruiser, a destroyed (Mysore class) as rear gurd, couple of figates and one corvetterfor immediate ASW and if you can fancy out a Scorpene (with its long endurance AIP)----- forms a group small enough to locate, easy to harbour on some island and can deliver punches/ambush time to time--- swift, precise, devastating and then vanish almost instantaneously. Not only you secure entry of bay of bengal but secure Anadamman command and far eastern side of India too.

5. I understand China is not a democracy. So the pace at which they develop, many time we can not match. And do not make a mistake of degrading China as opponent, they fought two wars (proxy) with USA. I have taken China as an example only, to expand the Navy you need to harbour different school of thoughts thinking about different possible adversary. Infact I have no bitterness about China. But Indo-China reationship has always been blow hot-blow cold now a days. Can you deny?

ticky · Post by **ticky** » 14 Jun 2011 17:29

Slow day today and I am a bit bored so here goes

ARay wrote:Dear Ticky,

Bit by bit answering you----

1. Its true PNS Ghazi was let loose and destroyed by INS Rajput as it appers. Though there are other visions on that. What I am talking off is if there was not the sinking of Ghazi, what would have happened? Have you ever thought of it? Few days fighting in Arabian sea claimed INS Khukri. Can you deny that? Its not that I am countering for word's sake but just trying to gaze what is happening at the closest proximity.

Like what? The paki navy claiming it was destroyed by one of its own mine which exploded. I will let you in on a secret, it is true.. one of the paki sailor somehow managed to get off the sinking sub which by the way underwater mind you and swam all the way to Krachi to inform their naval HQ. As to your question about what would have happened if the ghazi had not been sunk? It probably would have been found and sunk and if not would have tucked its tail between its leg and downhill skied all the way to Krachi. How much endurance do you think a diesel sub has operating that far away from home base without replenishment in sight? FYI IIRC the Vikrant group was somewhere off near the andamans during that timespan.

ARay wrote:2. Average displacement: Please compare with deep see vehicles, the USA or Russia has with ours. The average displacement is a mark (~~~ rough approximation) of the resouces, logistics, armament, vehicles---- whatever on earth required on that occasion of war --- carried by the ship.

How is average displacement an approximation of resources, explain? Do we induct some ULCC to boost average displacement? USN is the largest navy in the world, larger than the next four combined with a self appointed role of policing the oceans, why should we compare IN with USN or that matter with Russian Navy?
Don't you read the news? IN routinely deploys fleet units at the horn of africa to combat piracy, do you think its possible for warships to deployed for a month at a time w/o being able to provide logistics support.
IN regularly exercise including with other navies, do call on port visits at far off places. Do you know what it means? It means IN regularly trains for war and other contingencies and has the capability to project at least limited power far from its shores.

ARay wrote:3. It seems you have very little respect of PLAN subs. Well reports are there of failures, particularly sources are very skeptical about their Han (correct me if I am wrong) class nuke sub. However you can not take anything for granted.

Yes sir not a bit. There best subs are the soviet made kilos which we also operate and whose capability we are well versed with. Anyway the point is that why shouldn't one be skeptical about their capability when they always remain tied up at the docks and their crew get minimal training. The man behind the machine matters a lot.

ARay wrote:Why I have drwan the example of Soviet Block becuse after'71 war when USSR Navy chief visited India, he bluntly sid that the US 7-th fleet was throughout followed by USSR sub if in case possible intervention happens. What I wanted to point is that China is unlike India. India procured Russian arms, modernized, license produced, develop new tactics (compare Mig 21 in Arb -Israel war and in Indo-Pak war)
but never reverse engineered it. The thread of reverse engineering knows no bounds. And please do not doubt capabilities of China---- particularly their contribution in today's science. The communist block mentality of Navy might remained the same---- as I feel. Thats why I brought up the issue of Indian surface fleet vs. PLAN subs.

This is plain ol' dhoti shivering.. saar.

ARay wrote:4. Well 'missile cruiser to do against subs', you got me utterly wrong. I war sometimes it means that you may have to attack the enemy in advance, in phases, in pockets and whtever way possible. Your view is utterly defensive, which India did most of the time and presently biting the nails. Offence not always means capturing other's territory but to secure your defence. If you look at the vast of Bay of Bengal----> south china sea, you may see the diversity in oceanography. See the numerous eyelands. If you use it carefully its a Bhulbhulaya.

Oceanography, geography, biography whatever. India sits comfortably astride the SLOC to China. Think about its implication.

ARay wrote:A group centered with carrier is easy to spot, easier to locate (GPS) and bomb/shell/missile attack it. But a small group centered around missile cruiser, a destroyed (Mysore class) as rear gurd, couple of figates and one corvetterfor immediate ASW and if you can fancy out a Scorpene (with its long endurance AIP)----- forms a group small enough to locate, easy to harbour on some island and can deliver punches/ambush time to time--- swift, precise, devastating and then vanish almost instantaneously. Not only you secure entry of bay of bengal but secure Anadamman command and far eastern side of India too.

How the hell do you locate and track a CBG constantly maneuvring & moving on the open sea with GPS. And how does exchanging a flatop with a cruiser with all things remaining the same suddenly render the group invisible.

ARay wrote:5. I understand China is not a democracy. So the pace at which they develop, many time we can not match. And do not make a mistake of degrading China as opponent, they fought two wars (proxy) with USA. I have taken China as an example only, to expand the Navy you need to harbour different school of thoughts thinking about different possible adversary. Infact I have no bitterness about China. But Indo-China reationship has always been blow hot-blow cold now a days. Can you deny?

Again dhoti shiver. Pleased to know that you are not bitter about China while I OTOH am extremely pissed at those <DELETED>. They been messing in our NE for long time now and we have nasty little insurgencies in the area sucking up life, resources and time and since I am from NE, my life is being inconveninced.So yes I am big time pissed off.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 14 Jun 2011 17:52

@ticky ^^^ Since you are from the NE, you would naturally be sensitive to racial epithets such as 'slant-eyed' . I suggest you don't employ them.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 14 Jun 2011 18:00

ARay wrote:My last post was about distinct unwillingness of Indian Navy to buy any guided missile cruiser.

.How did you reach the conclusion? What parameters did you use to conclude we lack guided missile cruiser capabilities?

How is 90's vintage INS Delhi not adequately fulfilling the role of guided missile cruiser, whichever name you choose to use?

It has the same loadout of 48 SAM and one S and one L band AD radar as UK Dauntless/similar classes have. 32 short range point defence missiles. 16 ASuW missiles with limited land attack capabilities. 48+32+16=96 which is within the range of 128 missiles carried by the US Ticonderoga class.

Do note Ticonderoga class carries a fraction of its full loadout, because missile life diminishes with carriage.