Indian Naval Discussion

[John]

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.

You say a missile cruiser but what are you referring to. Well lets first start by asking what is your of a definition of a missile cruiser even the vessels with full fledged Aegis system (Burkes', Kongo, KDX-3) are technically cruisers.

Anyway what missile cruiser can we buy the Kirov/Slava, i doubt the Russians will be willing to sell either. Which leaves us with Ukrainians who have uncompleted Slava rusting in their SY.

Which leads us to next problem which is most of armament has to be replaced to compatible equipment even if Ukrainians sold the hull for free cost of refit alone will be over half a billion. Worth spending that much for one ship? Slava can be refit with 24-32 Brahmos and likely 64 Barak-8 and 4 Kashtan/16 Barak-1 modules. Its arsenal would be good but not whole lot better than P-15A. Or the other solution is procuring Aegis combat system and using that for P-15B.

[ARay]

Technicalities for later discussion. My feel is to raise small battle groups in the IN centered around missile cruisers for employment and aggressive/non aggressive patroling at the mouth of Bay of Bengal (Eastern side) and nearing China sea. For next couple of decades this strategy could be followed to keep our presence felt.

[Rahul M]

let me get this right, because PLAN is inducting many submarines, we have to discard our carriers (which have a very strong ASW component) and start inducting missile cruisers (whatever you mean by that) with no or little ASW component ? interesting.

[ticky]

@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.

I know, my bad. OT but I was figuring one SL calling another SL, "SL" wouldn't amount to hill of beans and while i guess we would be better off w/o the C word etc., it doesn't bother me much.

[ARay]

let me get this right, because PLAN is inducting many submarines, we have to discard our carriers (which have a very strong ASW component) and start inducting missile cruisers (whatever you mean by that) with no or little ASW component ? interesting.

Looks like a statement of politics embedded. Well, to answer that I never insisted on closing the initiatives of carriers. Though history of acquiring carriers not very good--- at least for Gorshkov case. For other old carriers also its a saga of refits. Anyway, carriers are really important assets but could only be frequently afforded by big powers like USA or Russia (too some extent). India will be having a period of couple of decades when this carrier centric phase transformation will go on. I felt battle groups with Missile cruisers could be an alternative to make the presence felt at far sea. And who told you that cruisers do not have ASW? For the sake of argument if we even make the cruiser devoid of depth charge, torpedo tube or anything ASW (say rocket, see Kirov class), still there remains helicopters who can very well serve as ASW. Making hue and cry about carriers will not solve the problem of ongoing couple of decades.

[John]

let me get this right, because PLAN is inducting many submarines, we have to discard our carriers (which have a very strong ASW component) and start inducting missile cruisers (whatever you mean by that) with no or little ASW component ? interesting.

Looks like a statement of politics embedded. Well, to answer that I never insisted on closing the initiatives of carriers. Though history of acquiring carriers not very good--- at least for Gorshkov case. For other old carriers also its a saga of refits. Anyway, carriers are really important assets but could only be frequently afforded by big powers like USA or Russia (too some extent). India will be having a period of couple of decades when this carrier centric phase transformation will go on. I felt battle groups with Missile cruisers could be an alternative to make the presence felt at far sea. And who told you that cruisers do not have ASW? For the sake of argument if we even make the cruiser devoid of depth charge, torpedo tube or anything ASW (say rocket, see Kirov class), still there remains helicopters who can very well serve as ASW. Making hue and cry about carriers will not solve the problem of ongoing couple of decades.

A single Aegis class DDG whether it is Burke/Kongo etc has far better flagship capabilities than the Kirov class if you that's what you looking for. Once again as i said asked what exactly do you think should be procured?

If you want Soviet era cruisers loaded with large Shipwreck missiles, only way we can even get a hands on missile cruiser is purchase rusting uncompleted Slava from the Ukrainians.

[Singha]

or roll out the arsenal ship concept - a lot of missile tubes but very minimal radar and point-defence SAM boxes only. base it on COTS stds like a 15,000t 25knot top speed small container ship and stuff it say 100 tubes of your fav missile be it brahmos block3 or nirbhay or both. keep a FFG to give ASW cover until it joins the general protective bubble of the CBG and starts unleashing its tubes. USN did not make a success of it, but nothing says it cannot be made to work...it just needs to be fast enough 25knots+ to keep up with a CBG and have additional crew to manage and look after the vast missile array.

[ticky]

let me get this right, because PLAN is inducting many submarines, we have to discard our carriers (which have a very strong ASW component) and start inducting missile cruisers (whatever you mean by that) with no or little ASW component ? interesting.

Looks like a statement of politics embedded. Well, to answer that I never insisted on closing the initiatives of carriers. Though history of acquiring carriers not very good--- at least for Gorshkov case. For other old carriers also its a saga of refits. Anyway, carriers are really important assets but could only be frequently afforded by big powers like USA or Russia (too some extent). India will be having a period of couple of decades when this carrier centric phase transformation will go on. I felt battle groups with Missile cruisers could be an alternative to make the presence felt at far sea. And who told you that cruisers do not have ASW? For the sake of argument if we even make the cruiser devoid of depth charge, torpedo tube or anything ASW (say rocket, see Kirov class), still there remains helicopters who can very well serve as ASW. Making hue and cry about carriers will not solve the problem of ongoing couple of decades.

1. Carriers can carry a squadron or 2 of helos as opposed to couple on a cruiser. Big carrier can even carry fixed wing asw birds with long legs and loiter time.
2. Gorshkov procurement saga and combat capability of a carrier is an apple and orange comparison. Missile cruiser aren't exactly available for purchase on the fly either.
3. The cost of procuring, manning and operating a Kirov type ship is not cheap either
4. John has already covered the points and made my post redundant. still post count bump

[John]

or roll out the arsenal ship concept - a lot of missile tubes but very minimal radar and point-defence SAM boxes only. base it on COTS stds like a 15,000t 25knot top speed small container ship and stuff it say 100 tubes of your fav missile be it brahmos block3 or nirbhay or both. keep a FFG to give ASW cover until it joins the general protective bubble of the CBG and starts unleashing its tubes. USN did not make a success of it, but nothing says it cannot be made to work...it just needs to be fast enough 25knots+ to keep up with a CBG and have additional crew to manage and look after the vast missile array.

Reason the concept fell thru is:
-That cost of arming such as ship was exuberant. One of reasons Euro navies have scaled back number of launchers for their DDGs, because they simply did not have $$ to arm a vessel with that many missiles (include the spares and replacements and you can easily get into $200 mill just to arm a Type 45 DDG).
-Cutting back on sensor did not cut down the cost/maintenance much ( 1 bill+)
-A half squadron of B-52 could deliver that payload to anywhere in the world within a day vs 30+ days for arsenal ship. Even with all bases US had it didn't make sense.
-Even positioning that ship for a strike would require resources losing the element of surprise (vs B-52). A Ohio class was far better suited with 154 TLAMs.
-The ship would be useless for any other operation: patrol missions by somalia, enforcement of UN blockade etc.

[Rahul M]

singha ji, there's a very good reason why the arsenal ship/the tomahawk hedgehog/whateveryoucallitship didn't make it. a cruise missile is a very inflexible weapon as compared to the air wing operated by a carrier, which in turn provides the commanders with far too few options compared with a carrier. what tilts the balance further away from the arsenal ships is the fact that a CBG will anyway have a decent cruise missile component from its escorts.

ARay, sorry to say but your comments are coming across as quite a bit disjointed. you said something about guided missile cruisers (I would think the P15 etc qualifies but you seem to go mum on this topic) but did not explain why you have to build a battle group around them, not to mention that such a fleet would be extremely vulnerable from all 3 spaces, air, surface and undersea.
the ASW component of a missile cruiser would be obviously much lesser than that of a carrier, not to mention the AEW component would be non-existent.

and how will these almost mythical missile cruisers (since no one seems to know what you mean by that or where they are coming from) solve the problems that 'hue and cry about carriers' won't ?

[Avid]

Technicalities for later discussion. My feel is to raise small battle groups in the IN centered around missile cruisers for employment and aggressive/non aggressive patroling at the mouth of Bay of Bengal (Eastern side) and nearing China sea. For next couple of decades this strategy could be followed to keep our presence felt.

Now, only if our defense planners went with feel instead of meticulous strategic and technical evaluations

Please pause and take a deep breath to evaluate the scenarios.
"You have subs, I need subs" type of "feeling" is (to mildly put) error of the worst type. The reason Soviets went for the large missile cruisers and number of subs was to counter USN CBG. Secondly, given the northern coastline for USSR (which can be considered relatively safe) it was more advantageous for them to have more subs than large CBG. Finally, since USN had already positioned itself with large surface fleets, the best counter was combination of numbers of missile cruisers (to attack large number of surface vessels in near proximity to each other) combined with subs.

As you say PLAN is growing number of subs, poorest solution to counter that is a missile cruiser. That in itself defeats your own reasoning for missile cruisers. For countering the subs, the solution would be what IN is doing -- increasing the number of ASW and maritime recon platforms. Current IN CBG is not aimed at countering China, i.e. ground strikes into Chinese territory or even large scale sea denial in South China Sea. On Chinese side, it would serve to minimize access to Bay of Bengal because of choke points for surface vessels wanting to pass through. What little filters through (likely small number of subs) will be taken care of by the ASW assets (which then would need to focus on smaller areas).


By the way,
"Hiding" along islands for surface vessels is easiest to allow identification using aerial/satellite imagery because it reduces the area needed to monitor. Surface vessels will maneuver in open seas to avoid aerial detection. In contrast, a sub will typically choose littoral conditions or temperature inversion zones in the open sea to avoid detection.

[Shrinivasan]

Technicalities for later discussion. My feel is to raise small battle groups in the IN centered around missile cruisers for employment and aggressive/non aggressive patroling at the mouth of Bay of Bengal (Eastern side) and nearing China sea. For next couple of decades this strategy could be followed to keep our presence felt.

The Kolkatta class destroyers carry a pretty big punch... they can carry 32 Brahmos, 64 Barak and a decent CIWS. Apart from this it can carry TWO ASW. The next step would be a larger Destroyer with say 64 Brahmos, ityaadi.
Eventhough IN calls it a destroyer it is more in the class of a Cruiser. it is not far off to visualize a super-heavy destroyer with 100+ land attack cruise missiles, 40+ SAM etc.

[D Roy]

they have only 16 brahmos VLS not 32.

[ARay]

"You have subs, I need subs"

Its nice to see so many comments. However I want to make certain things clear before I catch the thread:

1. PLAN subs: Han class nuke sub is often on aggressive patrol on Jap coast or even shadows US battle group. Type 093 Shang (---> VICTOR III Russia) is on move. For AIP capable Disel Electric attack sub the Song and Yuan classs is a new addition to earlier force of Kilos. Overall impression is the thread of reverse engineering is quite prominent in PLAN sub arm. The Song and Yuan received some effective modifications (like better SONAR, improved noise) over the Kilos.

2. Encirclement: The region in and around Bay of Bengal---> China sea : I think only Vietnam (Singapore!!) will stand by India in marine crisis time. PLAN is doing a precalculated encirclement starting from Koko---->Gwadar.

3. Auxiliary sub force: On occasions of Sea war I am sure that Paki Agostas (with AIP) will merrily join hands with PLAN.

On the contrary INS does not have either an existing encirclement policy or a friendly navy (in the time of needs). Indian sub force is reduced to 4 HDWs and 10 Kilos. Foxtrots are anyway retiring/ retired. The present sub force does not have AIP. The current acquisition from DCN about Scorpene (with AIP) is running years behind schedule, second line of subs (if Amur is chosen) is still on wishlist (RFI launched). The NAval air arm has squadron of improvised BAE Harrier jump jet with old carrier Viraat, 29Ks are delivered but floating platform (Gorshkov) yet to bereceived. For homegrown future carriers the design & production line is open, yet to fix where to stress---Ski jum or Vertical Take off aircraft and lastly apart from 29 k, which other Naval variant of Rafael/Typhoon orrrrr F 18 (Naval)!!! will be fixed. Infact its a mammoth plan where onne can see a definite outline within next couple of decades. Infact for raising CBGs INS need 3 carriers for ensuring security to its own coast and 1 additional carrier at disposal for reaching beyond green water. Have you ever thought how long its going to take? Also our so called adverseries will not be sleeping then.

The ambitious but much needed plan for rasing CBGs must be augmented with plan B toproject the might of Navy during this carrier centric transformation phase. In my view the BGs centered around missile cruisers will serve as an effective tool during this phase. Certainly do not interpret me that missile cruisers are famous for ASWs. Missile cruisers are not famous for ASWs (leave that role for corvettes, destroyers, helicopters etc.). The idea is to raise the BG where the individual might of the ship does not matter, its the collective strength.
As I said earlier a BG with missile cruise at center, one destroyer rear guard, two light figates (flanking) and one manouevering corvette (ASW) is a good enough group which has several punches: ASW, Missile rech, Fire power, survellience (through helicopters). Further a Scorpene with AIP will add the underwater punch. Two such BGs raised and put at two extremes (Kolkata, Andaman) will secure the security of Bay of Bengal. Further the long range Tu bombers, Maritime Jaguar and 29Ks will provide the air cover (though land based). For missile cruisers, Moskva (Slava type) will be better accomodatable for INS. With a loaded displacement of < 15000 Ts the ship will tune nicely with Indian facilities and handling experience. Further the Slava is lighter than Kirov and quite fast (32 nts). Though the effective ASW is little less in MOSKVA, it may be modified.

Now, only if our defense planners went with feel instead of meticulous strategic and technical evaluations

Well, funny statement. I think its a forum with an open mind. For your kind information please try to revisit the history of beginning of tank warfare. A small scale German officer wrote a little manual just on his Feel thereafter follows Panzers---> Blitskrieg---> so on and on. I think this is quite sufficient for you. If you can not imagine or imagine in adavance you stand a little chance as a survivor.

Back to the thread again. I am not praising the chinese army or downgrading the INS. The Bay of Bengal---> soth china sea may well become a safe harbour of Chinese edition of WOLFPACKS. Technically Chinese equipment may be inferior but thir strength is in numbers. To counter such a threat, one has to go in advance. Instead of getting encircled better to encircle.

++++ A small statemet on PIRATE bursting: Somalia is a poorest of poor nation. Bursting some poverty stricken haggards with small fire arms is not synonymous with bursting a well advanced navy.

****** Nothing is undetectable in the age of GPS. A ever moving CBG is as vulnerable (may be a few pecentage less) as the ships docked home. But a small diminutive cruise centric BG can well be dipersed and joined with far less crosssection for detection. Also the islands in the bay of bengal---> china sea can easily be used as harbours for such a small group. INDIA does not have its own time standard (atomic clock--- either Primary/portable carrier borne). She buys primary time from others, hence no indegeneous GPS for us)

[merlin]

Please explain how GPS helps in detection

[ARay]

Search for GPS on net and look at the architecture. It will be clear to you. US provide GPS data on agreement but purposefully add noise (degraded version) to limit the resolution. Clocks are inseparable part of GPS and GPS is inseparable from Defence. US use Cs standard clocks, Russia uses hydrogen maser----

[Shrinivasan]

they have only 16 brahmos VLS not 32.

2x 16 Cell brahmos, we also have 4 cell Brahmos VLS. hence i mentioned 32 Brahmos.

[Singha]

is the Barak2 program delayed?

I am wondering if we will see commisioning of the INS Kolkata this year or its held up awaiting the Barak2 IOC ?

[Rahul M]

ARay, you are not making much sense, not surprising given your obvious lack of understanding. you had your chances but you keep stepping around the questions others are asking. I would request you to post in the newbie thread for the time being and not here.

>> 2x 16 Cell brahmos, we also have 4 cell Brahmos VLS. hence i mentioned 32 Brahmos.

16 brahmos on P15A.

[bmallick]

ARay, please note that what you proposing can also be achieved by 1-2 P15/P15A destroyers, 2 Shivalik/Talwar frigates and throw in a corvette & sub in the mix.

The idea is to raise the BG where the individual might of the ship does not matter, its the collective strength.

You are in the above statement are yourself emphasizing on capability of system, but then still insisting that the same capability can only be achieved by a missile cruiser.

As everybody else has been pointing things out to you, the capability of the P15/P15A destroyers are comparable to that of missile cruisers. Let me put out some numbers for you to illustrate it out.

Slava : 16 P-500 Bazalt , 64 S-300PMU , 2 x 2 OSA-M SR SAM, 6 AK-630 CIWS, 2 RBU-6000 ,10 533mm torpedo, 1 Helicopter

P15A :16 BrahMos, 64 Barak II SAM, 32 Barak 1, 2 AK-630 gatling guns, 2 RBU-6000, 5 533 torpedo, 2 Helicopter

So with the P15A we already have a missile cruiser. The capability is there and if IN thinks that such a BG is required it can be made from existing resources.

[parshuram]

let me get this right, because PLAN is inducting many submarines, we have to discard our carriers (which have a very strong ASW component) and start inducting missile cruisers (whatever you mean by that) with no or little ASW component ? interesting.

You got a Great sense of Humor Sir ... ... I like the way you answered. Adding to what you said if IN actually implement what Mr Ray is saying then just was wondering where would Our Poor Captains of INS delhi, Mysore find place to land Spanking New MIG 29 K 's ....

So For Christ Sake, For Mig 29 sake ... Mr. Ray .. Let us have 1-2 Carriers... just like old school...

[D Roy]

First an aside : <The Slava was never a ship the Soviets were too confident about. the design is actually flawed and susceptible to fires, loads of wood present in the wrong places.>

the Bazalt is a much bigger missile than the Brahmos and accommodated on angled launchers.
now hypothetically - make the design of the Slava better and put in brahmos VLS, it could accommodate a lot more than 16.Maybe. Or Maybe not ( given the shit that ship is).


and why stop at the Slava, hain? Let's go straight to the Kirov. After all the Kirov carries 20 SSMs in the form of the Granit.
so 20 not much >> than 16 hence kirov also not much >> than Kolkata class.. by this reasoning.

Okay I am kidding. but you get the drift.

Get over it gentlemen, a cruiser is a cruiser is a cruiser. A 6800 tonne destroyer does not a cruiser make.

its not just about numbers, its about the type of weaponry you carry. because things like the laws of physics with respect to centre of gravity and buoyancy do not change on the basis of cruiser wet dreams. If you want to carry something like a mid-course interceptor or a granit you need a seriously *******ng big ass ship.

and despite the wet dreams of all fanboys here - An Oniks does not a Granit make. Even an Oniks as highly evolved as the Brahmos.

We'll need cruisers someday. that someday is when we start graduating our ASA ... ooops 300 km alt exo-atmospheric interceptors
to the sea.

[Gurinder P]

India will only need a cruiser if it decides the Navy needs a mobile missile launching platform; wait can't a boomer do that?

In all respects to the Kirov and Slava, those ships move with picket ships and are designed to move against the CBG's of the USN. I do not think China or Pakistan can field USN style punishment against India, so nimble, stealthy ASW ships are what I believe to be the future of the IN.

[D Roy]

sure ... we'll directly graduate to operating ASATs from converted SLBMs

why not, after all the russians have met with "success" with their converted Shtils in placing satellites in orbit. An SL-ASAT is after all only a step away

Face it, we will have to go via the cruiser route sometime. for space not for sea.

--------------- Separate topic ----------------------------------------

so nimble, stealthy ASW ships are what I believe to be the future of the IN.

yeah as long they escort conventionally powered mid-sized carriers fine. But once you graduate to CVNs you'll need those SSNs just to keep up.

And yes, despite the fantabulous advances in combined cycle conventionals, you need a few nukes to keep up with nukes.

[Singha]

the A70 sylver module and the deepest version of the Mk41 VLS are both said capable of fielding the TBMD interceptors of the the Aster30(if it ever happens) and the SM2(already tested but not funded more?). so ships of the Type45/horizon/DD51 size - 7500-9000t range can carry such missiles. our P15A can exchange it for the brahmos

that being said , chinese and paki missiles will be fired at india from the land mostly and any from the Sea would be SLBMs with a speed and height thats beyond ship-based-TBMD. so we do not need this capability as yet on ships...

[ARay]

We'll need cruisers someday. that someday is when we start graduating our ASA ... ooops 300 km alt exo-atmospheric interceptors to the sea.

The day is very near. SLAVA can further be modified. Infact Battle cruisers may be more potent, but its not free for sale. SLAVA has 32 Knots----quite faster as a cruiser. P15A not that fast (claim 30 Knots). However once the ship frame is obtained, can be modified to load more punches. BARAK II is already delayed.


you had your chances but you keep stepping around the questions others are asking. I would request you to post in the newbie thread for the time being and not here.

I do not have much free time to answer such mixed bag sermons.

[D Roy]

A ship just off the coast of either bengal or maharashtra will be pretty useful for targeting land based missiles from our main rivals. its not just about positioning, its about survivability and flexibility which is what makes sea based BMD attractive.

and I am talking about ASAT. yes the americans did **** USA-193. but I would like an SM-3 do that to something at 650 km and not re-entering the atmosphere ...

Nope we'll need something big ass much beyond TBMs and that's where we'll need the big ass cruiser. someday.

[ARay]

<del>

do heed my earlier request and cut down on the confrontation quotient.

[Philip]

Nothing like the firepower that a carrier brings with it.Check the MMRCA thread for the effect carrier Rafales are having in Libya and the moan from the chief of the RN about Britain's inability to pursue the Libyan war because of the mothballing of its carriers and Harriers.Aircraft can deliver sortie after sortie of ordnance on the battlefield,that too able to do it with greater on the spot surveillance.The mobility of the carrier is tremendous and in the open ocean looking for a carrier is like looking for a needle in a haystack or grain of sand on the beach.Its rgeater size also makes it able to absorb more punishment when hit.WW2 is full of such data.The "arsenal ship" concept-,missile-armed battlecruisers/battleships was abandoned by the USN,but emerged,or should we correctly say "submerged" with the conversion of Ohio SSBNs into SSGNs carrying a huge load of Tomahawks and other missiles.

One must not forget the USN's large amphibious warfare vessels,essentially 40-50,000t flat-tops,with well decks and able to carry a large complement of USMC VSTOL Harriers and assualt helos.In time,the Harriers will be replaced by JSFs,but still do an admirable job.The RNs early retired Harriers and Illustrious class carriers should be examined for a quick-fix towards our amphibious vessel acquisitions and to fully load the Viraat with Harriers until 2020 when she could retire,the aircraft then switched to new-build vessels,Mistrals/Juan Carlos types.In supporting amphib ops,the Harriers can soldier on very well for another 15 years at least.

I did suggest that we acquire the Ukranian Slava,but it was some time ago.The problem is that we do not have a missile to go replace those on the ship as they would come under MTCR rules.If we can develop a large naval missile ,then the nuclera -powered Kirov class battlecruisers are a better bet.In fact one Russian analyst recommended the sale of Kirovs to india to counter China.I agree with DRoy on this.The major problem is development and construction time,for the reactor and ship.Russia has supposedly reactivated one or more of its Kirovs,perhaps with new long-range missiles to go with it.There are apparently new Russian heavy cruiser designsin the offing.Since we have a workign relationship with the Russian naval design bureau,we should examine whether any of these designs would suit our purposes.I would personally put the large sub fleet on a higher priority rating to counter the underwater threat from the Sino-Pak axis,where the IN is completely outnumbered in both conventional/AIP and nuclear subs.

[ARay]

I would personally put the large sub fleet on a higher priority rating to counter the underwater threat from the Sino-Pak axis,where the IN is completely outnumbered in both conventional/AIP and nuclear subs.

True but the procurement is delayed. To sustain a broad operation theatre starting from Bay of Bengal---> trace of Indian Ocean----> south China sea a pretty long underwater endurance capacity for a sub is required. Arihant under trial phase, Akula (Nerpa) is yet to appear. Can not risk these vital assets to release beyond Andaman sea at such a premature stage.

Subs in hand are Scorpene (with AIP, 45 days) and second line of subs (say Amur, not fixed yet). The BG raised with missile cruiser should be augmented with a line of subs (I prefer scorpene, AIP) raised under Andaman command. It gives atleast a coverage to end of Burma (iii) coast line.

[Rahul M]

>> The problem is that we do not have a missile to go replace those on the ship as they would come under MTCR rules.

that's not the problem. the problem is slava is a 40 year old design, based on even earlier hull designs that have no place in IN. it has no signature reduction measures whether noise or radar, maintenance would a massive headache and it would end up spending the majority of its time in shipyards. and in any case it does not offer any substantial improvement in performance over what we would get from the kolkata class. sure, it would have a few more missiles but that's about it. platform management systems etc will be FAR inferior.
does that justify the mammoth acquisition and maintenance costs ? I think not.

[Singha]

imo we should speed up the production of P15B and P17A classes, the P17 has taken a really long time in coming online. ensure that 2 new principal combatants (DDG/FFG) and 2 new corvettes join the IN each year, every year without fail. if that means a new Mazgaon2 somewhere on the MH coast opp mumbai so be it. make it happen.

our destiny cannot wait. these are time bound dimensional portals.

[ARay]

Cost overruns and maitenance hazards are always hell of a problem. Regarding opearting with older design---- other than recent destroyers (Delhi, Kolkata) and Frigates most of the assets worked on older designs. Take case of two aircraft carriers: (i) WWII vintage Vikrant (an example of refits) and (ii) Viraat. Even Gorshkov (Kuznetsov class!!) was also rusting before contract signed. True, SLAVA is a old design, but can be well modified or may be new design be obtained in collaboration with Russian Naval Design Bueroe. If SLAVA beats such a odd tune why not ask US to sell Triconderoga (2 pieces). Acceptable than SLAVA but will they sell?

[Avid]

I would personally put the large sub fleet on a higher priority rating to counter the underwater threat from the Sino-Pak axis,where the IN is completely outnumbered in both conventional/AIP and nuclear subs.

Underwater threats are not best countered with large sub fleets, but require a combination of surface and air ASW assets (P-8I + Ka-28/Ka-31), complemented with attack subs. Sub fleets, by themselves, to counter sub threats are highly inefficient in detection and limited by their weapons on board.

[John]

We'll need cruisers someday. that someday is when we start graduating our ASA ... ooops 300 km alt exo-atmospheric interceptors to the sea.

The day is very near. SLAVA can further be modified. Infact Battle cruisers may be more potent, but its not free for sale. SLAVA has 32 Knots----quite faster as a cruiser. P15A not that fast (claim 30 Knots). However once the ship frame is obtained, can be modified to load more punches. BARAK II is already delayed.


you had your chances but you keep stepping around the questions others are asking. I would request you to post in the newbie thread for the time being and not here.

I do not have much free time to answer such mixed bag sermons.

Till P-15A undergoes trials it max speed will not be known not that it matter traveling at high speeds will burn fuel at accelerated pace. Slava's cruising speed is 18 knots same as Delhi but it does have impressive range which our vessels with exception of P-17 can't match.

.

Even Gorshkov (Kuznetsov class!!) was also rusting before contract signed. True, SLAVA is a old design, but can be well modified or may be new design be obtained in collaboration with Russian Naval Design Bueroe. If SLAVA beats such a odd tune why not ask US to sell Triconderoga (2 pieces). Acceptable than SLAVA but will they sell?

No Gorshkov was well maintained since Rosoboronexport funded its maintenance (even if India did not buy Russia was willing to repair it). Where as Slava that is uncompleted is in poor condition and Russians will not sell the operational one's. Fyi Ukraine tried to sell them to China which even they turned it down

[Avid]

Cost overruns and maitenance hazards are always hell of a problem. Regarding opearting with older design---- other than recent destroyers (Delhi, Kolkata) and Frigates most of the assets worked on older designs. Take case of two aircraft carriers: (i) WWII vintage Vikrant (an example of refits) and (ii) Viraat. Even Gorshkov (Kuznetsov class!!) was also rusting before contract signed. True, SLAVA is a old design, but can be well modified or may be new design be obtained in collaboration with Russian Naval Design Bueroe. If SLAVA beats such a odd tune why not ask US to sell Triconderoga (2 pieces). Acceptable than SLAVA but will they sell?

Correct, the earlier frigates are older designs because they are older.

Vikrant and Viraat acquisitions are also from a much earlier time when the threat faced in the region was quite different and despite their old technology they sufficed in their ability to allow countering these threats effectively.

Kuznetsov-class: You would do well to go through the posts on Vikramaditya. Every few months we have someone walk in and start spouting things that have been discussed numerous times on BR.

Ticonderoga (not Triconderoga. It might be Tri-con-deroga if adopted in tri-colors): US has not sold the ship to anyone. You want 2 pieces as if ordering from local shop? By the way, that is older design than Kuznetsov and last one was built in 1994. The line is closed and 5 have been retired already. Now you have come down from SLAVA/Kirov to Ticonderoga, which is ~10000 tons as opposed to the new destroyers built in India ~7000 tons. So, can you justify why you would want 2 pieces of old Ticonderoga vs. 4 pieces of newer destroyers? How are you going to re-equip these older missile cruisers with missiles currently used by IN? or are you going to buy the missiles also? Given the refit time, costs, can you justify that vs. new construction?

[Rahul M]

Even Gorshkov (Kuznetsov class!!) was also rusting before contract signed.

boss, your posts are replete with elementary mistakes like this. it is painful to see someone embarrass himself in this way. could you please lurk around for a few weeks, brush up your facts a little before posting strong opinions ? there's no shame in that, most of us here (me included) have gone through a newbie phase.
it's a little difficult to take you seriously if you keep making elementary goof-ups repeatedly.

True, SLAVA is a old design, but can be well modified or may be new design be obtained in collaboration with Russian Naval Design Bueroe. If SLAVA beats such a odd tune why not ask US to sell Triconderoga (2 pieces). Acceptable than SLAVA but will they sell?

why do we need either of those ?
why not simply build a large design ourselves if we need it ? Indian shipyards and designers are quite adept at designing and building ship superstructures and fitting them with sensors and weapons.

and no, slava can't be modified to make it a brand new ship. that's not how things work. the superstructure would remain same and the cost of modernizing its innards would be prohibitive. much better to use that kind of money for new ships.

also, there's a very real difference between carriers and missile carriers, aircraft are the primary weapons of a carrier, change the air wing and you have effectively modernized it. not possible to do the same on a missile carrying ship.

Underwater threats are not best countered with large sub fleets, but require a combination of surface and air ASW assets (P-8I + Ka-28/Ka-31), complemented with attack subs. Sub fleets, by themselves, to counter sub threats are highly inefficient in detection and limited by their weapons on board.

+1
I would add seabed sensors to that.

[ARay]

Well, I am not advocating for Ticonderoga (correct or not). What I felt is that the name SLAVA beats an odd tune. But think its the only thing we have as cruiser and option is open.

Organizing SLAVA in a new way may be a problem. But not as time consuming as the CBGs will be. To built three CBGs will sliceout another quarter of a decade. In between its better to nourish something oriented to BGs raised with cruisers.

The nos. 2 I referred because we need to raise two small BGs to operate at the moth of bay of bengal, one from Kolkata/Orissa coast and the other from Andaman. True thst sub sv. sub ASW is not promising. The BGs will help if accompanied with Corvetter and light frigated with sufficient ASW. However for reaching beyond/around end of Burma coastal line occasional patrolling by Tu bombers, maritime Jaguars will be useful. In summary you have to make your strong presence felt.

Report on Gorshkov over its rusting at port was floating around quite sometime. Russia (~ 6 Yrs) back was not that keen on reemploying it. More or less the INS Vikramaditya is quite puzzling issue unless it formally joins INS.

[ARay]

The fourth of the Project 1143 aircraft carrying cruisers, Baku had many differences to the rest of the class, trialing technologies to be used on the Admiral Kuznetsov.

As it appears on wikipedia about Gorshkov. Gorshkov designated as Kiev class but still there is reference of Kuznetsov. Genesis looks quite interrelated

[Anujan]

^^^

Agreed. Both seem to be ships.