Indian Naval News & Discussion - 12 Oct 2013

nash · Post by **nash** » 18 Feb 2015 08:38

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... IIndiaNews

The complex project for the nuclear-powered submarines (SSNs) will take longer. After the CCS approval, technical parameters or naval staff qualitative requirements (NSQRs) will now be drafted for the over 6,000-tonne submarines.

The SSNs are likely to be constructed at the secretive ship-building centre (SBC) in Vizag, where India's first three SSBNs (nuclear-powered submarines with nuclear ballistic missiles) are being built to complete the country's nuclear weapons triad

The government has basically "reworked" the 30-year diesel-electric submarine-building plan, approved by the CCS in 1999, which envisaged induction of 12 new conventional submarines by 2012, followed by another dozen by 2030. But with no new submarine inducted till now, the government has decided to go in for six SSNs and 18 conventional vessels, said sources.

SSN with 6K tonnes which means it will be modified version of INS Arihant and probably by end of this decade there will be multiple port building submarines simultaneously.

Boreas · Post by **Boreas** » 18 Feb 2015 09:14

Now this is a good morning indeed. AI2015 kickoff and possibility of three simultaneous submarine lines

member_28840 · Post by **member_28840** » 18 Feb 2015 09:26

About time the order for the Shivalik follow on was placed. Its been several years since we completed the original 3. I really like the approach taken with the P-15B being laid down even as the P-15As are rolling off the block. Hope it doesn't take much longer for the P-17A design to get finalized and for them to start getting built.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Feb 2015 09:53

I hope they set a realistic goal for the P17A design, it does not have to match the zumwalt or the P15B, just be a smaller bro. construction need to start asap.

>> over 6,000-tonne submarines

this could mean anything incl a 9000 virginia sized design or a 14000t Le Terrible like design with 8-12 K4
we are not going to waste precious resources on pure play SSN even SSBN is the crying need.
it could even 3 SSBN and 3 SSGN of different size but using common systems.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 18 Feb 2015 10:25

The TOI reports states that the specification for the SSN will be released later. The boat could be a clean sheet design. Leveraging the learning from the Arihant.

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 18 Feb 2015 10:56

xave wrote:About time the order for the Shivalik follow on was placed. Its been several years since we completed the original 3. I really like the approach taken with the P-15B being laid down even as the P-15As are rolling off the block. Hope it doesn't take much longer for the P-17A design to get finalized and for them to start getting built.

This could not have come a moment sooner.
It was in 2012 that the CCS had approved the P-17A project and since then the bickering over whether two ships be built outside the country was going on. All this in the name of saving time and today we have 2.5 years wasted. Even the 300t modular crane was functional at MDL in mid 2013. Now, as the article says, we will spend 2 years just preparing to build the frigates i.e ordering engines and transmission - stuff that could've been done much earlier.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Feb 2015 10:57

the engine and transmission should be a no brainer given recent trends in IN - the same LM2500 and Renk kit as P17 suitably adjusted for increased tonnage.
weapons - brahmos/nirbhay, rbu, oto76mm srgm, ak630, barak1 (harvested from viraat), barak8, varunastra hwt, atlas electronik towed sonar if domestic not available.

a pair of SH60 helis with harpoons and LWT

its all set with no gaps, all they need is churn out the hulls and fit the equipment.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Feb 2015 11:55

from a aeroindia article, it seems there is a internal reload system for the brahmos on P15A class.

Eighth missiles cane be fired at different targets and the turnaround time is only two minutes to load the next set of 8 missiles," an official with BrahMos said.

---
from photos i am unable to make out if the kolkata has 8 or 16 vl tubes .. there are two complexes side by side with a gap in between.

member_28840 · Post by **member_28840** » 18 Feb 2015 12:59

P15A has 16 VLS tubes at the fore (excluding the B8). This internal reload is very interesting, it might imply that the loadout might be 8 Anti Ship Brahmos and 8 Nirbhay / Brahmos land attack carried as a standard load with internal reloads. I certainly hope it is.

I agree we have certainly wasted enough time waiting on P17A, i just hope that it doesn't get derailed further with talk of Integrating AEGIS into it or some other such gold plating. IIRC AEGIS was offered for the 17A.
If you ask me, just stick with with the El/M 2248

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Feb 2015 14:28

we'd only get a watered down SPY1F anyway, not the 1D or the next gen SPY3.

yes xave, that thought has entered my mind...makes for a very delicious prospect of 16 brahmos and 16 nirbhays onboard. I doubt the brahmos official would be mistaken by so much.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Feb 2015 14:50

nash wrote:http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... IIndiaNews

The complex project for the nuclear-powered submarines (SSNs) will take longer. After the CCS approval, technical parameters or naval staff qualitative requirements (NSQRs) will now be drafted for the over 6,000-tonne submarines.

The SSNs are likely to be constructed at the secretive ship-building centre (SBC) in Vizag, where India's first three SSBNs (nuclear-powered submarines with nuclear ballistic missiles) are being built to complete the country's nuclear weapons triad

The government has basically "reworked" the 30-year diesel-electric submarine-building plan, approved by the CCS in 1999, which envisaged induction of 12 new conventional submarines by 2012, followed by another dozen by 2030. But with no new submarine inducted till now, the government has decided to go in for six SSNs and 18 conventional vessels, said sources.
SSN with 6K tonnes which means it will be modified version of INS Arihant and probably by end of this decade there will be multiple port building submarines simultaneously.

What a news sirji!!

Achhe din for the Indian Navy!!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Feb 2015 15:07

The best news for a long time.What many of us have been saying for aeons. The IN has finally come around to the fact that there is nothing like a true nuclear boat for open ocean sub warfare. Conventional boats are fine for the littorals and shallow water.AIP subs cannot supplant nuclear boats.

If Vizag can establish two lines of N-subs,both SSBNs and SSN/SSGNs in parallel,the SSGN design with a lot of commonality with the SSBNs,it would be fantastic. The attack boats could carry LR cruise missiles apart from BMos,perhaps have similar universal silos as in the SSBNs. Thus a variety of strike missiles could be carried

The P-75I sub design however should not aim to emulate as much of the capability and characteristics of an N-boat. There simply is no comparison even though much of the weaponry may be the same. We should not end up like Oz with its over-spec Collins class which has been found to be a "duck". The German U-boats,Russian Amurs and French designs all give a basic platform with which to modify to suit our needs. At the very least,our AIP subs must carry BMos/Nirbhay/Klub,plus a variety of torpedoes including Shkval.The quietness factor,reliability of the AIP system-of which there are new developments,better batteries,fuel cell designs,sonars,self-defence suite ,commns eqpt.,automation/smaller crews,etc.,are other principal factors including the cost .According to the report,the ambitious P-75I programme,is going to cost about 75-80% of the cost of 6 SSGNs!

Upgrading the basic P-17 design with extra bang,BMos,B-8s,etc.,may work out a tad cheaper than the P-15Bs.Both the DDGs and the FFGs well carry BMos,B-8s,2 ASW helos and perhaps the same suite of ASW warfare weaponry and sensors.There may be less LR SAMs though.MDL is chock-a-bloc with work and orders and it is good to see GRSE getting larger frigates to build.The pvt. yards and Goa can take up the slack of building the smaller combatants,missile craft,shallow water ASW craft,mine countermeasure vessels,auxiliaries and even the 4 large amphibs.CSL will after the IAC-1 be tasked with building IAC-2 of larger size.

However,if the planned number is 18 conventional/AIP boats,6 SSGNs and 5-6 SSBNs ,with a min. size of 30 subs,plus hopefully a number of midget/mini subs as well,the IN should have a very potent sub fleet for the IOR and beyond.With China and Pak combined to possess around 80+ new subs,we may find by the next decade that 30 subs will not be enough.

srin · Post by **srin** » 18 Feb 2015 15:55

What's even better is that they are giving orders for P17A to two different shipyards at the same time. This will ensure we don't have classes with small number of ships that still take a long time to be commissioned.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 18 Feb 2015 22:32

Singha wrote:...weapons - brahmos/nirbhay, rbu, oto76mm srgm, ak630, barak1 (harvested from viraat), barak8, varunastra hwt, atlas electronik towed sonar if domestic not available.

a pair of SH60 helis with harpoons and LWT....

Surprisingly, there are no torpedos on the Shivaliks. Not even LWT. Delhi class has HTT amidships and if I recall single LWT tubes towards the stern.

I havent quite understood why this crucial ASW weapon was omitted?

Will · Post by **Will** » 18 Feb 2015 22:35

Does the CCS need to clear the P-75I before the RFP? Haven't seen anything on CCS clearance for the same.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 18 Feb 2015 22:50

Is the new SSN order above and beyond the 3 Arihant class subs?

IMHO, the P-17As should not be called Frigates. They are destroyers in every sense of the word. I speculate that the designation may be for political reasons ... to ensure funding.

I am assuming Kolkata & P-15Bs are generally more capable than P-17A. But to what extent? Why not build more Project-15Bs instead?

John · Post by **John** » 18 Feb 2015 23:03

Aditya G wrote:IMHO, the P-17As should not be called Frigates. They are destroyers in every sense of the word. I speculate that the designation may be for political reasons ... to ensure funding.

It is not characterized by tonnage but rather their purpose in the fleet.

Aditya G wrote:I am assuming Kolkata & P-15Bs are generally more capable than P-17A. But to what extent? Why not build more Project-15Bs instead?

It seems like more of a attempt to follow what the Europeans are doing (Type 26, FREMM) . That's why i am not fan of P-17A IMO we can order more modified Shivalik and as you said P-15Bs.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Feb 2015 23:14

John, could you elaborate on that role difference ?

weapons and sensor wise there's not a world of diff b/w P15A/B or P17A AFAIK.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Feb 2015 23:23

Rahul,probably in the number of weapons/missiles carried. The Russian "destroyer leader" pic posted elsewhere (intl naval td) shows a massive load of missiles,both SSMs and SAMs.a mini-battle cruiser. Thus if the P-17As can carry 16 BMos missiles,LR and SR Baraks,not as many as the P-15s,they could also serve as principal escorts for the carriers .The IN will therefore in the future have 10 DDGs of the Delhi classe,10 FFGs of the Shivalik class and 6 Talwar FFGs. With this order,one does not expect another batch of 3 Talwars,but who knows.The GOI has certainly put its finger on the right spot in that maritime security and dominance of the IOR is absolutely essential to ensure the security and future of India during this century. The IN needs a fleet strength of at least 200 combatants,ships and subs and about 50 auxiliaries to sanitise the IOR and reach out into the Asia-Pacific region to stop China in the Indo-China Sea itself and prevent it from a major breakout into the IOR.

John · Post by **John** » 19 Feb 2015 00:55

Rahul M wrote:John, could you elaborate on that role difference ?

weapons and sensor wise there's not a world of diff b/w P15A/B or P17A AFAIK.

FFGs were supposed to be primarily just have limited point defense capability when it comes to anti aircraft, where as DDG were tasked with providing air defense (similar to how Royal Navy did it). But however RN Frigate do have great emphasis on ASW due to cold war.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 19 Feb 2015 02:13

John & others: a request. For my understanding, in the Indian Naval war doctrine, what are the relative roles of Frigates vs Corvettes vs Destroyers? In terms of their duties & what kind of warfare they specialize in (air-defense, anti-ship, anti-submarine etc)?

Thanks in advance

John · Post by **John** » 19 Feb 2015 03:19

Prem Kumar wrote:John & others: a request. For my understanding, in the Indian Naval war doctrine, what are the relative roles of Frigates vs Corvettes vs Destroyers? In terms of their duties & what kind of warfare they specialize in (air-defense, anti-ship, anti-submarine etc)?

Thanks in advance

Corvette are highly specialized based on their armament suite (ASW, ASuW).
Frigate multi-purpose vessels with point defense capability.
Destroyer multi-purpose surface combatants with air defense capability.

I believe P-15B will be fitted extended range Barak-8 which should give a different armament fit than P-17A, perhaps latter may even get scaled down MF STAR radar.

Singha wrote:from a aeroindia article, it seems there is a internal reload system for the brahmos on P15A class.

Eighth missiles cane be fired at different targets and the turnaround time is only two minutes to load the next set of 8 missiles," an official with BrahMos said.

---
from photos i am unable to make out if the kolkata has 8 or 16 vl tubes .. there are two complexes side by side with a gap in between.

That is mis phrased i don't think he meant actual reloading of the missile which is impossible without a crane. 2 minutes is reaction time for the system.

VibhavS · Post by **VibhavS** » 19 Feb 2015 03:37

I guess the answer Prem is "it depends". Please this by no means is an official answer just my interpretation of current or modern roles for ships. Gurus please do correct me if I get something wrong somewhere.

Corvettes - the ultimate single role ship lying between 1000 to 2500 tons. Usually are restricted to coastal or littoral waters since they have limited long range capabilities. Examples of a typical corvette are Project 25 and 25A of the Indian Navy. These are skewed towards surface warfare with point defense anti air capabilities. Now interesting are the Project 28 ASW corvettes since these ships are the extreme end of the weight limit (2500 tons) yet are single role ASW vessels.

Frigates - Typically single role ships lighter than destroyers, but heavier than corvettes. Frigates were made for Anti-Submarine Warfare (primary) and escort roles (merchant shipping) or at least that was the rationale. Also navies needed ships which had longer range than corvettes. Some had Medium Range air defenses added as well to protect itself and the escorted vessels. Though in modern times because of lighter and more capable systems it is getting increasingly difficult to judge what is a frigate and what is a destroyer. Another yardstick was Tonnage frigates typically being defined as lying between 2500 tons to 5000 tons (give or take a few 100) but again morden frigates are easily heavier. Examples are the Spanish F100 Alvaro de Bazan Class Frigate or the French Horizon Class. Though again in the modern navy frigates are typically classified for political reasons than capability ones. For example the Project 17A being planned for the Indian Navy and Australian Navies Air Defense Destroyer Project which is taking a ship the originating country calls a frigate and classifying them as destroyers.

Destroyers - Ultimate multi-role warships of any Navy. The destroyer has evolved from WW1 and WW2 fleet escort vessels (I mean fleet as in Battle Fleet not merchant shipping) these ships were shields and scouts for Battleships and Battle Cruisers and always acted in Squads. Though as time went by and technology and missiles got added in. Destroyer roles changed to the current 6000 ton plus ships with significant Anti-Air, Surface and Sub-surface capabilities (i.e. multi-role). Typical examples - American DDG - 52 Arleigh Burkes, Indian Navy - Delhi and Kolkata Class, Russian Navy Udaloy and Sovremenny-class Destroyers.
Though navies still try and give more weightage to a certain role. In my humble opinion this is now a publicity gimmick than reflection of actual capabilities. Udaloys are classified as large anti-submarine ships. Though they are equally capable on the surface and have decent short range anti air capabilities.

Cruisers - As the name itself reveals in olden times these ships were any ship that were expected to perform their roles by their own merry self. In WW2 that meant a ship larger than destroyers to mount significant Anti-Surface Guns and Anti-Air capability. In the modern times except for US and Russia no other Navy even has cruisers since the Destroyers have taken up most roles. Again if you look at the weight capabilities cruisers would be 10000 tons and upwards. Cruisers are again typically multi-role. In fact if you really go by the book meaning other classes would not be defined as multi-role only crusiers would be.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Feb 2015 06:22

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nA1wHOk6QVg/V ... /SBTF2.jpg

a reference pic for us to use.

http://www.livefistdefence.com/2015/02/ ... ed_15.html

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 19 Feb 2015 09:07

Thanks John & VibhavS! Very helpful

member_27581 · Post by **member_27581** » 19 Feb 2015 10:19

Vibhav!

Very informative post, I had this doubt for long time but never bothered to research. I am saving your post with me!

Thanks a lot

VibhavS wrote:I guess the answer Prem is "it depends". Please this by no means is an official answer just my interpretation of current or modern roles for ships. Gurus please do correct me if I get something wrong somewhere.
Corvettes - the ultimate single role ship lying between 1000 to 2500 tons. Usually are restricted to coastal or littoral waters since they have limited long range capabilities. Examples of....
.........

srai · Post by **srai** » 19 Feb 2015 11:02

VibhavS wrote:I guess the answer Prem is "it depends". Please this by no means is an official answer just my interpretation of current or modern roles for ships. Gurus please do correct me if I get something wrong somewhere.

Corvettes - the ultimate single role ship lying between 1000 to 2500 tons. Usually are restricted to coastal or littoral waters since they have limited long range capabilities. Examples of a typical corvette are Project 25 and 25A of the Indian Navy. These are skewed towards surface warfare with point defense anti air capabilities. Now interesting are the Project 28 ASW corvettes since these ships are the extreme end of the weight limit (2500 tons) yet are single role ASW vessels.

Frigates - Typically single role ships lighter than destroyers, but heavier than corvettes. Frigates were made for Anti-Submarine Warfare (primary) and escort roles (merchant shipping) or at least that was the rationale. Also navies needed ships which had longer range than corvettes. Some had Medium Range air defenses added as well to protect itself and the escorted vessels. Though in modern times because of lighter and more capable systems it is getting increasingly difficult to judge what is a frigate and what is a destroyer. Another yardstick was Tonnage frigates typically being defined as lying between 2500 tons to 5000 tons (give or take a few 100) but again morden frigates are easily heavier. Examples are the Spanish F100 Alvaro de Bazan Class Frigate or the French Horizon Class. Though again in the modern navy frigates are typically classified for political reasons than capability ones. For example the Project 17A being planned for the Indian Navy and Australian Navies Air Defense Destroyer Project which is taking a ship the originating country calls a frigate and classifying them as destroyers.

Destroyers - Ultimate multi-role warships of any Navy. The destroyer has evolved from WW1 and WW2 fleet escort vessels (I mean fleet as in Battle Fleet not merchant shipping) these ships were shields and scouts for Battleships and Battle Cruisers and always acted in Squads. Though as time went by and technology and missiles got added in. Destroyer roles changed to the current 6000 ton plus ships with significant Anti-Air, Surface and Sub-surface capabilities (i.e. multi-role). Typical examples - American DDG - 52 Arleigh Burkes, Indian Navy - Delhi and Kolkata Class, Russian Navy Udaloy and Sovremenny-class Destroyers.
Though navies still try and give more weightage to a certain role. In my humble opinion this is now a publicity gimmick than reflection of actual capabilities. Udaloys are classified as large anti-submarine ships. Though they are equally capable on the surface and have decent short range anti air capabilities.

Cruisers - As the name itself reveals in olden times these ships were any ship that were expected to perform their roles by their own merry self. In WW2 that meant a ship larger than destroyers to mount significant Anti-Surface Guns and Anti-Air capability. In the modern times except for US and Russia no other Navy even has cruisers since the Destroyers have taken up most roles. Again if you look at the weight capabilities cruisers would be 10000 tons and upwards. Cruisers are again typically multi-role. In fact if you really go by the book meaning other classes would not be defined as multi-role only crusiers would be.

Good explanation.

Looking at it from modern trends, general categorisation of vessels tend to be something along these lines:

Destroyers (>7000t) - defined by its long endurance, powerful radar & electronics, weapons caliber & capacity (blue-water navy)
Frigates (<7000t) - one-size fits all: decent endurance, radar & electronics, weapons package (blue-water navy)
Corvettes (<3000t) - typically a specialist smaller version of a Frigate: "designed to operate in littoral zones and has the competency to operate in the open oceans of its surrounding region" (green-water navy); larger versions provider longer endurance

All three categories could be designed as a specialist or multi-role. It is typical to have multiple variants of the same design for different roles. Those navies that aspire to project powers to distance shores will tend to have heavier designs in each of the categories for longer endurance.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 19 Feb 2015 11:13

Not to nit-pick but Kamorta class and Valor class corvettes both exceed 3400 tonne.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 19 Feb 2015 15:23

New rotor fold mechanism for IN and CG Dhruvs. I think folding width is less than 3.5m of the NLUH tender requirement.

Both should order in large number as their key requirement is met.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 19 Feb 2015 19:34

Just to add to the posts above. Another aspect of the corvette-frigate-destroyer-cruiser-battleship classification is degree of independence.

- Corvettes are specialist ships which require protection,
- Frigate is multi mission vessel and may operate independently.
- Destroyers are expected to be all-mission warships and can operate independently as well as offer fleet protection. In western navy's perception this has come to mean area air defence capability.

Bheeshma wrote:Not to nit-pick but Kamorta class and Valor class corvettes both exceed 3400 tonne.

Valor class is based on German MEKO and both are classified as corvettes per wiki.

Kamorta (Project-28) is a large ship by tonnage, just like her contemporaries the Shivalik and Kolkata. However, her weaponary fits a corvette bracket (ASW).

VibhavS · Post by **VibhavS** » 19 Feb 2015 22:05

Thanks Prem, Ranjan.
What I gave you as an answer was probably more apt from 1970-2000 period of time. As Srai sahab pointed out there has been a certain amount of weight creep in the classes and his definitions are vastly more accurate for the 21st Century. AdityaG sahab on the other hand has given us the weaponry fit definition as well and also answered the question why Kamorta class is considered a corvette and not a frigate.

P28 Kamorta is defined as a Corvette and the 3400 ton Full Load weight is due to the fact that it is designed to handle a Heavy ASW helicopter (per wiki, could not find any other source which suggests the same) not too many corvettes really support that kind of aviation capability. That is the reason for the added weight. Valor is classified as light frigates by some and corvettes by some confusing at best. My take is that both are actually light frigates more than corvettes. Having helicopter handling facilities for housing a helicopter for the duration of deployment makes them more frigatish than corvettish.

John · Post by **John** » 19 Feb 2015 22:15

VibhavS wrote:P28 Kamorta is defined as a Corvette and the 3400 ton Full Load weight is due to the fact that it is designed to handle a Heavy ASW helicopter (per wiki, could not find any other source which suggests the same) not too many corvettes really support that kind of aviation capability.

Actually originally P-28 was supposed to have displacement around 2500 tons but the weight grew as Navy changed its requirement and wanted further emphasis on lower radar cross section. Which also ended up delayed the delivery by years.

VibhavS · Post by **VibhavS** » 19 Feb 2015 22:17

Sorry about the long posts but I will try and keep this brief. AdityaG Sir has already answered the usage concept. I will see if I can elaborate a bit more. (While attempting to not make too much of a mess

Please also note I am giving only my interpretation and this is not actually Indian Navy's doctrine that I am stating.

1) Corvettes - P25 and P25A would be used to deliver devastating single strikes at one go against enemy shipping or other surface targets once located by aviation or other recon assets. Since these ships have longer legs than our Veer Class Corvettes (actually missile boats) they allow for more flexible approaches to the target and can transit vast distances. Their chances of being used as Carrier escorts are slim since they would not be able to keep up due to their lower top speeds. The P28 would be used as ASW assets against enemy submarines trying to attack shipping off our coasts. Again the low top speeds 25 knots (http://www.naval-technology.com/project ... corvettes/ ) hamper their efforts at being escorts. I believe the Navy is planning to build replacements for the Abhay class corvettes which actually are typically used for harbor protection.
2) Frigates – Used primarily for escorts. My guess is that they would escort the various large ships we have in the fleet namely INS Vikramaditya, INS Vikrant (new one being built), 4 LPDs, and various Landing Ships… in an Amphibious Group. The idea being as others have pointed out ASW protection of these assets as well as decent medium range Air Defense and Anti -Surface capability. They also have the top speeds to keep up with Carriers. Most Indian frigates are designed to support 2 large (Seakings currently, S70B in the future AMEN!!) ASW helicopters which give them a formidable ASW capability.
3) Destroyers – The sword arm, used independently as well as escorts. The idea would be that destroyers would enforce blockades against surface and sub-surface targets, perform other maritime tasks like land attack single handedly due to the omni-role capability (Anti-Air (BARAK 8, Kashmir, BARAK 1), Anti-Ship (Brahmos, Klub). Also used as Carrier escorts since they bring in the LR SAM component as well as weight of numbers (48 SAMS in the case of Delhi Class as against 24 that are carried by Krivaks and Project 17s, only the Kolkata Class brings the LR SAM to the table).

(I will try and be brief he said....)

VibhavS · Post by **VibhavS** » 19 Feb 2015 22:27

John wrote:
VibhavS wrote:P28 Kamorta is defined as a Corvette and the 3400 ton Full Load weight is due to the fact that it is designed to handle a Heavy ASW helicopter (per wiki, could not find any other source which suggests the same) not too many corvettes really support that kind of aviation capability.
Actually originally P-28 was supposed to have displacement around 2500 tons but the weight grew as Navy changed its requirement and wanted further emphasis on lower radar cross section. Which also ended up delayed the delivery by years.

Yes John, the Navy is known to do that to its ship building projects. Almost all of them suffer the inevitable, change in design during construction, lack of weapons systems and also of course scope creep. From what I have read in the Open Sources the P28 (and keep me honest here please) got delayed due to scope creep (Stealth), lack of indigenous steel (warship grade) and lastly change in propulsion requirements (raft mounting).

Though funnily enough 2500 tons is the empty displacement of the P28 class. 3400 tons is the full load displacement.

VibhavS · Post by **VibhavS** » 19 Feb 2015 22:28

sankum wrote: New rotor fold mechanism for IN and CG Dhruvs. I think folding width is less than 3.5m of the NLUH tender requirement.

Both should order in large number as their key requirement is met.

Sankum sir are those electrically folded ones? Or manually folded ones? The Navy had demanded auto folding of blades if I remember correctly. Can you shed some light on that?
Thanks in advance.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 20 Feb 2015 01:18

It is manually folded as was the requirement in NLUH tender.

negi · Post by **negi** » 20 Feb 2015 02:50

Electrical or hydraulic folding of rotor blades is a viable option on large/heavy helicopters , for small helicopters the weight penalty will be huge. Logistically we operate with at least 30-40% more crew than western navies on our ships I do not see why manual folding is such a big issue.

VibhavS · Post by **VibhavS** » 20 Feb 2015 02:53

sankum wrote:It is manually folded as was the requirement in NLUH tender.

Thank you for the answer. I apologize I mixed up the requirements. Would I be correct in stating that was the Navy's objection to the Dhruv?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Feb 2015 08:06

yes lack of folding rotor was main killer of naval dhruv.
lack of payload + range for 2 LWT to match the Sea King/NH90 was the other one which cannot be fixed......so naval dhruv as the ASW heli is not going to happen, its too small.
our ships have big hangars for NH90 sized helis and it pays to max them out and get the biggest stick possible esp as ships survival depends on best ASW.
a HWT under the hull will sink any DDG and every miscreant in the mohalla is walking around with advanced HWTs like blackshark and sea hake these days.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Feb 2015 09:57

being Friday its time for my weekly rant.

there is a mix of vessels in the IN:
- some have no TT at all
- some have only LWT to save cost/space
- some P15 have HWT
- almost all have helicopters with LWT because helis cannot cart the HWTs.

imo we are putting at risk the lives of all the crew not to speak of the vessel with this patchy policy.

helicopters will have downtimes and cannot be everywhere, and bad weather will affect ops..not so for a hunting submarine.
unlike the USN we do not have enough LRMP and no SSNs to spare to sanitize the path of a task force properly, and our SSKs cannot keep up with 30 knot ships
hence enemy SSKs present a mortal danger.

the LWTs are very limited in range so even if someone reports a contact 25km away, the ship cannot engage it.

we also need atleast 6 x 15000t LPH ships to function as 'destroyer leaders' and mount a strong organic ASW fleet of helis. unlike DDGs these will be high off the sea and operate in all conditions with good number of the big asw helis. some of our ships like talwar have such a low heli deck I almost feel they will be awash in heavy seas!

imo everyone from Saryu upward needs to be refitted with HWT, and if space permits then reloads also.

and everyone needs towed sonar, whatever be the cost. there will be situations where ships are strung out on their own without mutual cover...precisely the kind of vulnerable zebras away from the herd, the predators like to attack.