Indian Naval Discussion

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 16 Jul 2011 10:41

Singha wrote:can junta pls get over their fetish to fit brahmos to everything from a harbour tug upwards ?

there are not enough targets out there in the sea for such a vast horde of brahmos ..a few principal ships having them is more than enough. there are far more chances of a IA brahmos being used in bulk.

ASW capabilities, quietening, better living conditions, C3I networking, HWT, UAVs, better radars and ECM are far more important....on all ships.

I would stress aon anti-air and anti-sub sensors & weapons. We must rationalise our SSM inventory, Styx, Uran, Klub, Brahmos, Nirbhay ? etc etc. WTH is happening ?

K

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 16 Jul 2011 10:45

Singha wrote:Shrinivasan, the ASW rockets if you meant the RBU6000 units have a range of 400m to 5000m and are hence defensive weapons to knock out torpedoes in the water or target subs which are detected when the ship is right on top of them. I suspect we view it as a defensive weapon vs torpedoes.

the torpedoes (HWT on ships, LWT from embarked helis) are the offensive weapons.

not sure if IN ships carry separate depth charges any longer...rbu6000 is the modern depth charge thrower.

Tarantuls have a range of only 1500km and endurance of 10 days...so nothing more than a coastal patrol vessel vs sneak surface attacks and marginally useful for sneaky karachi type attacks. it has no ASW defences and only a couple of ak630 for close-in defence, its radar is surely some weak old cold-war relic. this kind of ship is not survivable alone vs any modern FFG. maybe it can run along as a "camp-follower" with a bigger surface group, but will contribute nothing much to the ASW mission or its paltry 4-8 missile loadout is not exciting.

Some of our vessels also carry LWT e.g. A 244 launchers on Leanders as well as Godavari.

K

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 16 Jul 2011 12:39

shukla wrote:Indian Navy planning to induct anti-submarine ships
"We are looking to induct indigenously-built craft for anti-submarine warfare operations in coastal waters and combating the threat posed by submarines," Indian Navy officials told media here. "The craft would also be used for undertaking low intensity maritime operations and laying of anti-ship and anti-submarine mines," they said.
The Navy intends to acquire these class of ships under 'Buy Indian' category, which means that the ships should be built indigenously.

Excellent news, once again the IN has played the indigenous pipe, kudos to them... Hopefully they release the RFI ASAP and select a vendor... L&T, Pipavav, Alcock Ashdown and ABG Suj are dying for orders and they should have a surfeit of capacity for this project.
I just have one question, why this fetish for multi-role? you know when Project 25A was conceived, they wanted to have three different class of ships, Anti-Ship, Anti-Sub and a third class i forgot (may be Anti-Air)... shortly after starting the project they abandoned it and beat the oft-beaten path to multi-role... why now? is it a cultural thing? or for better protection?

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 16 Jul 2011 12:41

Rahul M wrote:^^ from the latest MOD report a couple of ships have been de-comm'ed. do you already have this info ?

Which report Rahul? 2011 one, let me check and revert? I would presume none of the major surface combatants are slated for de-comm only some patrol vessels were decommd, I think CJ had a feature on this ceremony.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 16 Jul 2011 12:47

Shrinivasan wrote:
Rahul M wrote:^^ from the latest MOD report a couple of ships have been de-comm'ed. do you already have this info ?
Which report Rahul? 2011 one, let me check and revert? I would presume none of the major surface combatants are slated for de-comm only some patrol vessels were decommd, I think CJ had a feature on this ceremony.

Rahul.. the following ships were Decommissioned in 2010 by the Indian Navy
Submarine: INS Vela and INS Vagli
Ships: INS Dunnagiri and Seaward defense boat T-58
(as per top left corner of Page 38 of the doc or page 42 of the PDF)
this report can be accessed at http://www.scribd.com/doc/58526113/Annu ... ence-India

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 16 Jul 2011 12:51

Rupak wrote:FWIW, the naval design bureau is working on 20,000+ tons designs for our LHDs.

Rupak, If IN's design Bureau is working on a 20K ton plus design (which will the second largest design ever attempted by Desh), then what is the relevance of this RFI for Four LPDs for IN? Is it to have a Dekho of vessels under different flag to asses their strengths and weaknesses?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Jul 2011 13:00

^^^ AFAIK, DND no longer does the detailed designs. I guess this is more like the NHQ equivalent of GSQR.

Shrinivasan wrote:
Rahul M wrote:^^ from the latest MOD report a couple of ships have been de-comm'ed. do you already have this info ?
Which report Rahul? 2011 one, let me check and revert? I would presume none of the major surface combatants are slated for de-comm only some patrol vessels were decommd, I think CJ had a feature on this ceremony.

you are the one who cleaned up the pdf and uploaded it for us !

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 Jul 2011 13:14

in the discovery ark royal program I did notice although her air arm was very limited, all the helis seemed kitted up with rwr panels on the side (similar to rafale)...this is something we dont seem to have done. pre-kargil none of our transport or helis even had basic flares. to give the devil their due, NATO does pay careful attention to self-protection measures and pays for it.

that green cover at left chin bottom
http://www.flownit.com/userimages/RIAT08melynx8.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ac-M0_bqRHU/S ... 70-UNC.jpg

http://planesandchoppers.com.s3.amazonaws.com/474.jpg

so far I am yet to see a single IN heli - young or elderly with such spiffy kit. suppose tomorrow there is a IN mission that needs these embarked helis to fly above potential manpad threats over land , someplace like somalia ... are we ready for such duty cycles?

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 16 Jul 2011 13:28

Rahul M wrote:you are the one who cleaned up the pdf and uploaded it for us !

see my post above.. details are there...

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Jul 2011 13:51

>> pre-kargil none of our transport or helis even had basic flares.

so how did they use them during kargil ?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Jul 2011 14:07

They quickly retro fitted choppers that took part in the operations with flares , there was one famous incident where one of the retrofitted Mi-17 choppers couldnt fire the flares and lost to stingers in high mountain.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 16 Jul 2011 14:16

i dont think the one that we lost had the counter measures dispensing system. IIRC the chief said it was a risk that the crew/co undertook despite warnings that they dint have cmds and after the incident it was made mandatory to have cmds before flying into those zones

Will · Post by **Will** » 16 Jul 2011 14:21

Wasnt it reported that the copter dogged multiple missiles before being hit?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Jul 2011 14:44

Austin, not correct we had flares equipped aircraft before kargil. check vayushakti-99 vids or pics if you get the chance.

suryag, correct, it didn't have flares. all the other helos in that flight did.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Jul 2011 15:17

Vayushakti is a media event so they could have added those for the exercise , it was reported at that time that most of our chopper and transport fleet lacked flares and only when we lost heli that all choppers taking part in Op Safedsagar was quickly retrofitted with flares.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Jul 2011 15:18

suryag wrote:i dont think the one that we lost had the counter measures dispensing system. IIRC the chief said it was a risk that the crew/co undertook despite warnings that they dint have cmds and after the incident it was made mandatory to have cmds before flying into those zones

The chief said the chopper had CMDS but it dint work. this is for the gunship Mi-17 we lost conducting high altitude rocket attack.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Jul 2011 15:32

Singha wrote:I have always wondered why RBU is not housed in a stealth (or normal) turret with a sliding door that opens only when weapon needs to fire. its reload is already automatic and from below-decks.

Most of our ships today including the new built ones have crowded deck and superstructure with missile,guns and many electronics , these ships are optimised for low RF returns where ever possible by using angled surface but at the same time they have not gone to lengths like French Fremm frigate ( or Lafayette) to reduce over all deck/superstructure signatures

So having RBU in a stealth mount would not have significant impact on ships signature and it would depend on the angle of RF and wavelenths of the platform(airborne/surface) it would be facing.

Its a reasonable trade off with reducing signature where ever possible and accommodating available weapons and sensors

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 Jul 2011 15:37

the P17 could definitely use a VL-SAM and stealthy rbu mount though.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Jul 2011 18:37

Austin wrote:
suryag wrote:i dont think the one that we lost had the counter measures dispensing system. IIRC the chief said it was a risk that the crew/co undertook despite warnings that they dint have cmds and after the incident it was made mandatory to have cmds before flying into those zones
The chief said the chopper had CMDS but it dint work. this is for the gunship Mi-17 we lost conducting high altitude rocket attack.

vishnu did a 10years of kargil segment and it said that particular helo did not have CMDS. we were already using flares on helos by that point. so it is not correct to say we started using flares after losing that helo.
CMDS might not have been fitted on each and every aircraft but it certainly wasn't absent. I don't think in peacetime an aircraft is loaded with the whole fit.

John · Post by **John** » 16 Jul 2011 20:28

Rahul M wrote:the russians have moved on to a VL ASROC type weapon for that role. makes sense, RBU on stealth boats must light up like a christmas tree.

Yes i am surprised that they havn't developed some kinda stealth housing for RPK-8, as for the system itself keep in mind unlike Medvedka (ASROC) it is essentially a depth charge so it can also be used against incoming torpedoes/ships or even targets on the land or saturate an area with charges when a submarine can no longer be detected.

Rupak · Post by **Rupak** » 16 Jul 2011 23:46

INS Sarabh decomissioned

http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/n ... 57304.html

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Jul 2011 03:48

Good news about the coastal operations corvettes,which many of us have been hankering for for quite some time.Despite using so many Russian warships,like the Tarantula and Abhay,we seem not to have taken their standardisation concepts to heart.The Tarantul and Abhay (Pauk) share the same hull.The dipping sonar for the Pauk is the very same used by the KA-28 ASW helo.The Danish Stanflex hull can be used for several roles with quick change of eqpt. aboard.These are very cleverly desgned ships.

What we should do is to design a hull for these corvettes which will be smaller,less than 1000t in displacement which will also be used for a new classs of missile corvettes that are large enough to carry at least 8 Brahmos with adequate range,better than the Tarantuls.I know that some are quite fed up with the desire by many to put BMos on every bumboat including tugs,but Klub is for the greater part of its launch life,subsonic,with only the terminal section of the missile,seeker and warhead ,supersonic.BMos is larger and more deadly,giving the enemy far less reaction time.These corvettes will not need any anti-ship missiles,but will perhaps also need a flat dek for helo ops as in the Khukri/Koras,which lack any ASW capability whatsoever.If the Pauk design can be upgraded ,made larger to include a heli-deck ,one could see the shape of a versatile ASW corvette which would carry its own dipping sonar,MBU,ASW TTs,a medium sized gun and BPDMS.In the missile corvette version,the TTs on either beam would be replaced by BMos,with composite radar absorbing panels concealing the missiles fitted in an inclined launcher configuration as done in the Rajput trials ships,addiing to stealth .A more capable anti-missile VLS SAM system would be located on the heli-deck,capable of dealing with superonic missiles as many nations are following the Indo-Russian BMos example an are developing their own systems. What would be great if these new ASW corvettes also had space at the stern for mine warfare eqpt.unmanned vehicles used for both mine warfre and for ASW.There are several new small UUVs the size of a lightweight torpedo being developed by some navies,ideal for coastal/harbour defence.Small "suicide" mine warfare UUVs also exist which give another option for eqpt. aboard.

I feel that a number of around 16 of these corvettes will be required as the number of strategic ports and naval bases is rapidly increasing.If you total up the number of ports and bases right from Kutch all the way around the Indian coastlin and island territories,a massive area for patrolling appears.

The MBUs are also supposed to have missile decoy round capabilities.I don't know why we haven't adopted the Medvedka system as well.Perhaps the MBUs in the littoral context have been found more useful,though for larger blue-water surface combatants,an integral long-range ASW missile is essential.At least the ASW Klub version which can be launched from he std. 21" torpedo tubes found on our destroyers ,Rajputs and Delhis.Relying solely on AW helos is unnwise especially when we suffer the vagaries of monsoon weather twice a year.

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 17 Jul 2011 10:36

These light corvette need is better late than never. Even though we are focusing on the Blue water capability, what these smaller vessels do is free up the larger combatants for bigger role. Even though we are calling them Coastal Vessels, apart from the area around ports, these can easily patrol the Northern Arabian Sea ( 300 -400 miles from shore) & South Andaman Sea, thus forming a first line of patrol.

I think the existing Khukri class at around 1300 tons can provide a good template. If we replace the 4 Styx with 8 Uran/Klub, fit 16-24 Barak-1 in the empty place between the current styx launcher. ( Infact this place was initially designed to take in Trishul SAM). In the stern section, just aft of the helipad, where currently we have the boats, put a dipping sonar mount between the boat placeholders. Also amid ship, just ahead of the AK CIWS, put in triple Light torpedo launchers. Also instead of helo, have a UAV like Firescout and have a small hangar for servicing between the two AK mounts, just behind the funnel. This provide a very good all around vessel. The dedicated ASW version can remove the SSM and have twin heavy torpedos or ASW Klub.

wig · Post by **wig** » 17 Jul 2011 13:06

Inshore patrol vessel ‘Rani Rashmoni’ launched

Union Minister of State for Defence MM Pallam Raju launched the fifth Inshore Patrol Vessel (IPV) of the Coast Guard at a function here yesterday.

The launch of the vessel, ‘Rani Rashmoni’, constructed by Hindustan Shipyard, is a significant step in the context of security and maritime needs of the country, he said on the occasion.

The vessel has an overall length of 51.5 metres, breadth 8.36 metres, depth 4.55 metres, loaded displacement of 275 tonnes, and a crew of 35.

Raju said Hindustan Shipyard had been able to overcome its financial crisis after being taken over by the Defence Ministry in 2010. The Defence Ministry had cleared all its overdue and extended financial support for modernisation and investing new technology and training to fill up the gap, making the shipyard one of the best in the country, he said.

Complimenting the shipyard for achieving milestones in production, he said the Ministry of Defence was considering placement of orders with the shipyard for construction of high-value ships and submarines.

Raju said the Indian Navy, Port Trust and Coast Guard had placed orders with the shipyard for its requirements.

He said the shipyard had delivered 164 vessels and repaired over 2,000 ships since its inception in 1941 and was capable of undertaking modernisation and refitting of submarines

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/20110717/nation.htm#2

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Jul 2011 19:01

Given that the Pauk class is only some 450-500t,an ASW corvette twice its size of about 750-800t,or even just around 1000t,would be able to carry all the kinds of armament and sensors that the Pauk carries,with improved ASW weaponry,plus a heli-deck for an aircraft the size of the ALH or the unmanned version of Chetak being developed with Israel or any other rotor UAV acquired ,and a BPDMS system like Barak.the same hull could be used for a missile corvette to patrol "brown waters" and from a key attack capability as some have suggested,remembering how we towed tiny Osas to Karachi in '71!

John · Post by **John** » 17 Jul 2011 19:53

bmallick wrote:These light corvette need is better late than never. Even though we are focusing on the Blue water capability, what these smaller vessels do is free up the larger combatants for bigger role. Even though we are calling them Coastal Vessels, apart from the area around ports, these can easily patrol the Northern Arabian Sea ( 300 -400 miles from shore) & South Andaman Sea, thus forming a first line of patrol.

Bmallick, the role you specify is best suited for OPV not a missile corvette. Sukanya are getting close to retirement IMO we need work with private SYs asap and build a second line of Saryua class OPV.

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 17 Jul 2011 20:53

John wrote: Bmallick, the role you specify is best suited for OPV not a missile corvette. Sukanya are getting close to retirement IMO we need work with private SYs asap and build a second line of Saryua class OPV.

John, maybe I didn't specify the role I envisaged properly. When I said patrol, I really meant ASW/AntiShip patroling, hence a missile corvette based on the Khukri class is what I proposed. I should have been more specific, my mistake.

Ofcourse for basic general patrolling we do need a new long range OPV. something derived from the hull of p-28 corvette would be nice. It has long legs and helo hangar. remove the weapon system and associated equipments and we have a really long range OPV.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Jul 2011 21:47

What would make surface ships, specially small ones, reluctant to enter an area?

I read long back that no foreign naval ship uses the sea between Indian Western coast and the Lakshadweeps.

We seem to talk a lot about defensive assets - coastal ships, etc. I would think there has to be some technologies that would be passive in nature and deter foreign ships that could make the lives of such small ships much, much easier.

Hydrophones is my pet tech.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Jul 2011 22:17

I am scratching my head (again?) on the proposal to build corvettes (based on a 1980 design? Hull I guess), when the IN (as I just found out) has four Kamorta class pups - delivered by 2014!!!

Each has (sorry unable to format it like I would like it to be):
Class and type: Project 28
Type: ASW Corvette
Displacement: 2,500 tons[2]
Length: 109.1 m
Beam: 13.7 m
Propulsion: 4 x Pielstick 12 PA6 STC Diesel engines
CODAD, DCNS raft mounted gearbox
Speed: 32 knots
Sensors and processing systems:
Revati Central Acquisition Radar
EL/M-2221 STGR fire-control radar
BEL Shikari
BEL RAWL02 (Signaal LW08) antenna communication grid - Gigabit Ethernet-based integrated ship borne data network, with a fiber optic cable backbone running through the vessel
HUMSA (Hull Mounted Sonar Array)
Bomber Electronic warfare (EW) suites - BEL Ajanta
Electronic warfare
and decoys: DESEAVER MK
Armament: 1 X 76.2 mm Oto SRGM
2 x AK-630M CIWS
6 x 3M54 Klub
2 X RBU-6000 (IRL) anti-submarine rocket launcher
Barak SAM
Torpedo tubes
Aircraft carried: 1 Westland Sea King Mk.42B

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauk_class_corvette

Indian Navy

Four ships (Of Pauk Class) transferred in the late 1980s and are known as the Abhay class. A plan to license-produce more units in India was abandoned in favor of the indigenous Kamorta class.

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 17 Jul 2011 22:20

^^^

AFAIK, a while ago DRDO was testing their sea bed sonar systems. IF by any case we have to go by conservative information a significant part of IOR towards Andamans has been plotted with those sea bed arrays. there were reports of going for a similar run on the west coast, but no news after that.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 17 Jul 2011 22:28

Rao sahab, why go to inaccurate wiki when BR is there ?

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Ship ... ct-28.html

the number expected is 12 (4+8) not 4.
last I heard the type does NOT have SSMs like klub.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Jul 2011 22:45

jaladipc wrote:^^^

AFAIK, a while ago DRDO was testing their sea bed sonar systems. IF by any case we have to go by conservative information a significant part of IOR towards Andamans has been plotted with those sea bed arrays. there were reports of going for a similar run on the west coast, but no news after that.

I would imagine that effort to be more tuned towards, and rightly so, national naval presence.

On land armies (and border patrols) have adjusted to asymmetric warfare. The LoC with Pakistan, I feel, is a great example. Over time Indian efforts, augmented by help from the Israelis and then US, seem to have gained the upper hand.

I would, in fact, place a great deal of emphasis on automated underwater vehicles and micro UAVs . Of course, the center of all efforts needs to be on sensors. I would also ping the Nordic nations to see what their thinking is on coastal ships.

Enough of this coastal drama - serious as it is.

Time to put the fear into the hearts of Them. India, IMVVHO, needs some peace time offensive stuff that can be denied. I mean some serious stuff that can be deployed from the Iranian/Somali coast to the other end of the South China Sea.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Jul 2011 22:49

Rahul M wrote:Rao sahab, why go to inaccurate wiki when BR is there ?

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Ship ... ct-28.html

the number expected is 12 (4+8) not 4.
last I heard the type does NOT have SSMs like klub.

Pardon my insolence.

I will check that out the next time around.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 18 Jul 2011 01:08

Philip wrote:Given that the Pauk class is only some 450-500t,an ASW corvette twice its size of about 750-800t,or even just around 1000t,would be able to carry all the kinds of armament and sensors that the Pauk carries,with improved ASW weaponry,plus a heli-deck for an aircraft the size of the ALH or the unmanned version of Chetak being developed with Israel or any other rotor UAV acquired ,and a BPDMS system like Barak.the same hull could be used for a missile corvette to patrol "brown waters" and from a key attack capability as some have suggested,remembering how we towed tiny Osas to Karachi in '71!

Our Khukri class covettes can also be converted into fairly powerful ASW vessles. Have ASW Klubs, add some RBU and 4 x 21" TT

K

John · Post by **John** » 18 Jul 2011 01:54

bmallick wrote:
John wrote: Bmallick, the role you specify is best suited for OPV not a missile corvette. Sukanya are getting close to retirement IMO we need work with private SYs asap and build a second line of Saryua class OPV.
John, maybe I didn't specify the role I envisaged properly. When I said patrol, I really meant ASW/AntiShip patroling, hence a missile corvette based on the Khukri class is what I proposed. I should have been more specific, my mistake.

Ofcourse for basic general patrolling we do need a new long range OPV. something derived from the hull of p-28 corvette would be nice. It has long legs and helo hangar. remove the weapon system and associated equipments and we have a really long range OPV.

An airborne platform is much better suited for that role since it won't be hampered by radar horizon and have better coverage with their speed?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Jul 2011 14:17

The role of the ASW corvettes will in the main be patrolling the waters off our coastline,to sanitise it from enemy subs.The waters in the littorals are also notorious for affecting sonar returns with varying degrees of salinity,temperature,silt,etc.,literally "muddying" the waters.I don't envisage a major anti-surface role for these vessels,so we can dispoense with the anti-ship missiles.However,a dual purpose gun would still be required for self-defence ,against air and small surface combatants/intruders such as terrorist infiltrators.Whether a 30mm gatling is sufficient,or a heavier 57mm or 76mm dp is needed is a moot point.Perhaps a Kashtan type mounting would suffice for both, defence against air and surface targets.as the anti-air missiles can also be used against small craft.What is essential are MBUs,TTs a heli-deck for use by a ASW helo of size sufficient to have its own dipping sonar like the KA-28,which can then transfer/receiv data from the corvette so that its own anti-sub long range weaponry-either LR TTs or + Medvedka,can add to prosecuting the sub apart from the helos own lightweight fish.No helo hangar is reqd. as the vessels will be operating not too far off the coastline ,easily wihtin range of either land-based helos or even a med. size ASW helo from a larger frigate sized vessel. The ability to also carry a UUV will be a great added force multiplier,as it can track the intruder by steallth ,thereby giving the "home team" coordinates for a 3 point solution (ASW corvette's hull and VDS sonar,UUVs integral sonar, and ASW helo's dipping sonar) to prosecuting the underwater intruder.If the ASW torpedos are like the new French fish,which have huge staying power,for a few hours allowing continuous search even if initially fooled by decoys,the lethality of these humble corvettes will be terrific.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Jul 2011 16:20

Read that most, if not all, of the ASW in IN is done by frigates and destroyers.

What sized area can each of these sanitize, assuming they (including the corvette) do not have the same capability?

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 18 Jul 2011 17:12

NRao wrote:Read that most, if not all, of the ASW in IN is done by frigates and destroyers.

Well the reason for the same being that apart from the Pauk Class, non of the smaller combatants are fitted with ASW equipments. The Khukri/Kora class have a heli deck to support a copter, but still do not have full fledged aviation hangar etc. Hence bulk of the surface based ASW work falls on the Frigates & Destroyers.

IN, had always wanted a smaller ASW vessel to replace the Petya class. The Khukri class initially was planned for ASW work, but ended up as AShW vessels. The P-28 corvette is the actual realization of that yet to be full-filled plan for a smaller ASW vessel.

ASW is a very time intensive work. The bigger Frigates & Destroyers would be required for taking the fight to the enemy and for battle groups. Hence the need of smaller ASW assets, which are inexpensive enough to be put in harms away and capable enough to work there. Therefore this two fold ASW assets requirement, 2400 tons P-28 and smaller ASW corvette.

John · Post by **John** » 18 Jul 2011 17:32

Even if you manage to fit in hangar in smaller sub 1000 ton vessel, the vessel will be extremely crammed and won't be able to carry enough aviation fuel to adequately support it You can't have best of both worlds unless you plan to come up with revolutionary design like the Visby. Fyi Koreans actually operate many light ASW corvette like Cheonan which was recently sunk by NK heavy torpedo. Goes to highlight how much vulnerable they are operating alone.

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 18 Jul 2011 18:05

Adding a helicopter hangar is definitely not feasible in such a small vessel. The current Khukri class only has a heli deck. In fact with current UAV technology it is better to just have one or two small UAV's like Scaneagle or single a Firescout and do away with the helicopter requirement.

Of course smaller vessels ability to survive a hit is low as demonstrated by the Cheonan sinking episode. This episode also demonstrate the difficulty in locating a sub in littoral environment. Hence even the bigger assets to would be under threat. The idea with a smaller vessel is to have the ability to augment the numbers, so that we can put more vessels at sea.

Please note that apart from general war fighting IN would also be required to provide good old fashion convoy protection for our Oil flowing the gulf, which requires numbers, so that we can generate enough convoy sorties to keep the oil flowing. Unfortunately, the route of the oil is smack along the Pakistani coastline. Hence the greater strategic importance of Gwadar for PN. Gwadar is far away from our bases, but right at the beginning of our Oil route. Thats precisely the reason why its so important for PLAN too. From Gwadar they too can threaten out OIL lifeline.

No matter what we say, apart from the big guns, we need the smaller vessels too, just to ensure that we have a higher number of sensors out there in the sea.

Is the small Corvette panacea for us. No. Its there to augment our capabilities and support the big guns. 2-3 such corvettes along with a Frigate or two can provide a good task force.