Indian Naval Discussion

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Jul 2011 13:03

I am also confused between LPD and LHD. everytime I say 'x' some guru here slaps me and says it should be 'y'. so I started to use the hybrid term LPHD to keep everyone happy.

is Trenton/LPD17 San antonio class == LPD - a huge deck and hanger in the rear but no proper underdeck hanger and no through-deck...ie no ability to embark VSTOL jets. big superstructure in front to house the people, leaving below decks mostly free for the parking garage.

while LHD = Mistral/tarawa/Wasp/juan carlos - look of a carrier, with hanger level below decks - lot more helis, ability to launch VSTOL, but with a well deck and parking area in the rear for LST/LCAC and troops/vehicles....and these are generally bigger than LPD?

so how about 2 x LPD and 2 x LHD for the IN for the == ?

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 13 Jul 2011 13:07

Singha, Trenton is Austin class and not San Antonio class. Austin class is older and less capable.

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 13 Jul 2011 13:26

An amphibious assault force typically contains both LPD & LPH. For our argument lets say it has 1 LPD & 1 LPH. Together they have lets say 1000 men, 50 Vehicles ( all types), 24 helicopters, 20 LCU/LCAC. So why cannot we design a single class, whereby each carry half as many each. Then 2 of that design can fulfill the same above required numbers.

A single design, with a large well deck. Through deck for aviation. Large Hangar, which can keep both vehicles as well as helicopters. Lifts in the center ( not on the edge), with the lifts capable of going to the well deck too. Thus we can move vehicles down as well as helicopter up.
Large island superstructure, so as to embark good number of troops. Fill yourself up with vehicles & helicopters based on the mission requirement.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 13 Jul 2011 15:30

Shrinivasan wrote:CJ, what does delivered mean? Ready for IN trials pending commissioning or is it ready for commissioning? INS sayadri should also be ready correct?
This frees up Mazagon docks to focus on the Kolkatta class ships, currently all three ships are under fitment!!!

I have replies to your Q's here

INS Sahyadri to be delivered in 2012

prithvi wrote:
chackojoseph wrote:INS Satpura delivered to Indian Navy
good news... pics?

August

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 13 Jul 2011 15:39

Thanks CJ, Did you ask about future plans for MDL? When a they laying keel for project 15B? They are also building some offshore patrol vessels, any updates on these?

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 13 Jul 2011 15:46

Shrinivasan wrote:Thanks CJ, Did you ask about future plans for MDL? When a they laying keel for project 15B? They are also building some offshore patrol vessels, any updates on these?

In good time my friend.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Jul 2011 15:50

The ageless Viraat,50+ years old and now almost completing 25 years in IN service alone,indicates as I've said for decades,that a flat top is unique,lasts far longer than any other class of warship simply because any new development (aircraft) in naval aviation can land on the deck of carrier no matter what its age is,as long as the deck is long enough and the lifts can accomodate the aircraft below deck.It is why I've also advocated building all surface warships of 122000t+ with flat tops,so that VLS missile launchers can be fitted flush with the deck,plus the vessel can accomodate VSTOL aircraft,large multi-role helos and UCAVs as well,the future directoion of naval avialtion.The Viraat can sail on until 2020 if need be and there are enough (dozens) of early-retired RN Harriers that can be bought if need be to augment our depleted numbers.The IN should take the opportunity now and augment it Sea Harrier/Harrier fleet for the Viraat.

As is being debated in posts above,the role of amphibious warships is taking a newer meaning,as these warships are actually in the context of weaponry today fast becoming "multi-role carriers".With aircraft hangars,vehicle decks,and a well-deck,the amphib flat-top can perform a variety of roles,acting as light/med. carriers if need be with the ability to "swing" role depending upon circumstances.There are even in the USN,advocates of constructing light carriers-which are actually the size of USN amphibious vessels,to operate along with super-carriers of which fewer will be built.Not all tasks require a super-carrier's intervention and smaller ski-jump equipped flat-tops like the Juan Carlos or Mistral must be acquired by the IN.OZ is in fact acquiring upto 4 Juan Carlos amphib carriers and Russia 4 more mistral amphib vessels.A naval version/STOVL version too of the FGFA should be developed for operating from the decks of our future carriers,planned to be larger than ICA-1.

srai · Post by **srai** » 13 Jul 2011 20:38

bmallick wrote:An amphibious assault force typically contains both LPD & LPH. For our argument lets say it has 1 LPD & 1 LPH. Together they have lets say 1000 men, 50 Vehicles ( all types), 24 helicopters, 20 LCU/LCAC. So why cannot we design a single class, whereby each carry half as many each. Then 2 of that design can fulfill the same above required numbers.

A single design, with a large well deck. Through deck for aviation. Large Hangar, which can keep both vehicles as well as helicopters. Lifts in the center ( not on the edge), with the lifts capable of going to the well deck too. Thus we can move vehicles down as well as helicopter up.
Large island superstructure, so as to embark good number of troops. Fill yourself up with vehicles & helicopters based on the mission requirement.

You might want to look at this page:
List of United States Navy amphibious warfare ships

John · Post by **John** » 13 Jul 2011 20:52

Philip wrote:It is why I've also advocated building all surface warships of 122000t+ with flat tops,so that VLS missile launchers can be fitted flush with the deck,plus the vessel can accomodate VSTOL aircraft,large multi-role helos and UCAVs as well,the future directoion of naval avialtion.The Viraat can sail on until 2020 if need be and there are enough (dozens) of early-retired RN Harriers that can be bought if need be to augment our depleted numbers.The IN should take the opportunity now and augment it Sea Harrier/Harrier fleet for the Viraat.

Even if we manage to get the docks, support vessels and capability to build a such a vessel who is going to pay for its maintenance the vessel that size will cost 20x times as much to maintain as a Talwar class Frigate and not to mention if its non Nuclear you need fleet of tankers to keep it running in overseas deployments.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Jul 2011 08:46

One 12,000t flt top will cost far less than "20 times" the cost of maintaining a Talwar.In fact the Japanese and SoKos are doing exactly what I've been advocating,by building their own light carriers (Dodko/Osumi) which will eventually operate JSFs,calling them amphib. vessels as of now.Oz's 4 Juan Carlos flat tops will be virtual medium carriers when it acquires the JSF by 2020.Aaprtf rom carriers,the In neds several llti-role amphib. vessels.Building a class of large amphibs such as the Spanish design will enable us to have the extra medium sized flat tops acting as extra carriers when we need them for that role ,saving a lotof money in the process.For several littoral crises-less intensiveops,we could use the smaller amphib. multi-role vessels instead of our large strike carriers.

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 14 Jul 2011 09:31

A single 12000 tons Flat top design with two versions: Version 1 LHD with well deck, thus providing dedicated Amphibious support, which can be used for other operations. Version 2 Helicopter based ASW ship, which can also be used for Helicopter borne Assault.

Both these maybe 6 + 4 would provide us with great ASW, Amphibious Assault force.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 14 Jul 2011 09:58

bmallick wrote:An amphibious assault force typically contains both LPD & LPH. For our argument lets say it has 1 LPD & 1 LPH. Together they have lets say 1000 men, 50 Vehicles ( all types), 24 helicopters, 20 LCU/LCAC. So why cannot we design a single class, whereby each carry half as many each. Then 2 of that design can fulfill the same above required numbers.

A single design, with a large well deck. Through deck for aviation. Large Hangar, which can keep both vehicles as well as helicopters. Lifts in the center ( not on the edge), with the lifts capable of going to the well deck too. Thus we can move vehicles down as well as helicopter up.
Large island superstructure, so as to embark good number of troops. Fill yourself up with vehicles & helicopters based on the mission requirement.

there is no need to blindly copy what others (read US) do. our needs are not same. it can be argued that we do need LPD's because our LST's can do the same job. I would rather concentrate our resources on LPH that can add a potent airborne force component to the mix .

p.s. you would need about 10 LPD to carry 20 LCAC.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 14 Jul 2011 10:59

IN should get started on the Four Planned LPDs (officially designated LPD even though they seem like LHDs) ASAP and get them inducted. In the meantime we can fine-tune our "Amphibious warfare" doctrine to see what we need next. A fleet of 12K Tonne LHD which can accommodate 15-20 helos would be ideal and 1200 troops would be ideal.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Jul 2011 22:28

The news that a maintenance and support agreement with Russia for the three new Talwars (Teg,Tarkash and Trikand) being built,is to be shortly signed when the CNS visits Russia is very welcome and indicates that our concerms about after-sales support is being met.This shoul allay fears in many quarters,esp. some on BR that we are bein led up the garden path by Ruia.The quote below gives key details.It wuld also be interestin to see whether there is any news of the option of a further 3 Talwars being ordered.

ROS(I) is a JV formed through a strategic alliance between eight world renowned original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of defence equipment from Russia and Krasny Marine Services Pvt Ltd as the sole Indian partner. It was created by a Russian presidential decree to render after-sales service to all Russian origin assets of the Indian Navy in 2005.

Under a standard company practice, ROS(I) will engage a number of ex-Indian Navy specialists to undertake the after-sales service, thereby ensuring retention of talent and availability of trained, experienced manpower to the Indian Navy.

(http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=14980)

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Jul 2011 04:33

Moved to here

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 15 Jul 2011 10:16

NRao wrote:Good to see Moscow wake up after the international tender issued by India.

Indo-Russia JV to service Talwar frigates

The title is misleading, the JV should cover more than the Talwar class.

However, this is a JV that has yet to come into existence. The model of the JV is exactly what the International tender wanted a company responding to the tender

The IAF has also clarified that the bidders need to have the support of the Ilyushin Design Bureau which is the Russian OEM in this case.
Now only if another "JV" can satisfy the IAF and IA requirements (see below).

Would it be a front company fro giving kickbacks ?

Next, it is really sad that the OEMs could not perform their job. There is no need for a JV to exist if the OEMs had done their jobs!!!!!!

Next, this JV is between multiple Russian OEMs and what seems to be an private Indian company (true???). And that this Indian company will hire ex-IN people to support the IN!!!! Nice that they are hiring, but, that is just another person in the middle. IN should have support facilities and people and really no need for this "Krasny Marine Services Pvt Ltd as the sole Indian partner". I view this as an increase in costs of support.

Next, "Krasny Marine Services Pvt Ltd as the sole Indian partner" will be the face that the IN sees and deals with. What if it folds, which it can. It is a for profit outfit and needs to make money to be in service. Hopefully it is financially solvent enough to outlast the Talwars.

Next, the talk of signing the deal when the Navy chief visits Russia needs to be viewed in the right light - this JV has nothing to do with the IN and the Naval Chief's visit to Russia. It is a JV between 8 Russian OEMs and an Indian Pvt company.

Lastly, this does NOT resolve the issues that the IAF has (for which the IAF issued an international tender):

The stop-and-start supply of spares, the irregular maintenance and unreasonable price hikes have been a stumbling block for India. Besides the current Ilyushin aircraft maintenance issue, the IAF has been looking for countries other than Russia for special tools and spares and global tenders have been floated for parts and tools related to MiG fighters, AN-32 transport aircraft, Mi-17 helicopters and OSA-AK surface-to-air missile systems.
(The old MiG-29 related problems seemed to have been solved - as stated in some other posts, but these are new problems.)

Then:

Even the Indian Army sidelined Russia recently by issuing a Request for Information (RFI) for the acquisition of active protection and counter-measure systems for its T-90S main-battle tanks (MBT) bought from Russia.
Not to talk of my fav: barrels for the T-90!!!!

I think this JV is a joke.

added l8r:

Krasny Marine Services Pvt Ltd is an ex-IN daggha!!!!! Perfect front. I suspect this is the only way that India and Russia could agree to cost escalations.

A perfect front for giving kickbacks

K

srai · Post by **srai** » 15 Jul 2011 13:47

Shrinivasan wrote:IN should get started on the Four Planned LPDs (officially designated LPD even though they seem like LHDs) ASAP and get them inducted. In the meantime we can fine-tune our "Amphibious warfare" doctrine to see what we need next. A fleet of 12K Tonne LHD which can accommodate 15-20 helos would be ideal and 1200 troops would be ideal.

If you go through the List of amphibious warfare ships in service around the world, you will notice that most are designed around one battalion sized (around 400-600 troops) deployment (long duration). For short duration, troop capacity can be doubled.

For what you are proposing (1,200 troops and 15+ helos), you would need a LHD vessel with a displacement of at least 25,000 tonnes. It would be hard to do with a LHD design of 12K tonnes.

srai · Post by **srai** » 15 Jul 2011 14:18

^^^

IMO, to come up with a design and eventual displacement of an LPD/LHD here are the major selection matrix:

Range -> 5,000km to 20,000km (at 15 to 20 knots)
Number of Troops -> 450 to 1,200+ (long/short duration capacity)
Vehicle Space (square meters) -> 500 to 4,000+ (enough for 15 to 50+ vehicles - MBT, APC, AAV, light vehicles)
Helicopters -> 2 to 24 (heavy/light sized helo capacity)
Helo Landing Spots -> 1 to 6
Landing Craft -> 2 to 4 LCM (or 1 to 2 LC Air Cushion)
Crew -> 250+
Displacement -> 10,000 tonnes to 30,000 tonnes

Based on the choices above, a rough displacement could be figured out with tonnage reaching 30K for higher capacity in the categories above. Lower capacity choices would mean a design closer to 10K tonnes.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 15 Jul 2011 17:04

looking at the less numbers of ships we build, better to do it bigger than smaller. so no rotterdam/ocean type small guys pretending to play with the big boys.

something like mistral or juan carlos..whichever is cheaper...

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 15 Jul 2011 17:32

something like swedish visby class high speed stealth corvettes, perhaps with brahmos and other desi missile systems?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Jul 2011 17:37

If the GOI is also outsourcing IAF IL-76 maintenance and support,does that also not imply that that contract could encourage "kickbacks"? In the Indo-Russian JV,the "outsourcing" is within the "family" so to speak.It is not a complete privatisation outsourcing exercise.The IN can then avoid stocking an abnormal inventory of spares,etc.,which has been the practice in years gone by (5 years spares),and fix the amount to be paid for each item of service just as one pays a service charge when one sends a car to the garage for servicing or repair,where the rates are all put up on the board.Many western countries have gone outsourcing to extreme levels (Blackwater),where in Iraq,Afghanistan,etc.,almost the entire train of logistic support has been carried out by "contractors".This has been found to be more practical and efficient.It will now be easier for the CAG to monitor the performance of the support co.,as work done will be specific in nature.In earlier times,one would've made available a huge sum in the budget for annual maintenance,etc.,with crores worth of spares gathering cobwebs in some warehouse.The cost of stocking the spares,etc. will now not be to the IN's account.

John · Post by **John** » 15 Jul 2011 17:57

Philip wrote:One 12,000t flt top will cost far less than "20 times" the cost of maintaining a Talwar.In fact the Japanese and SoKos are doing exactly what I've been advocating,by building their own light carriers (Dodko/Osumi) which will eventually operate JSFs,calling them amphib. vessels as of now.Oz's 4 Juan Carlos flat tops will be virtual medium carriers when it acquires the JSF by 2020.Aaprtf rom carriers,the In neds several llti-role amphib. vessels.Building a class of large amphibs such as the Spanish design will enable us to have the extra medium sized flat tops acting as extra carriers when we need them for that role ,saving a lotof money in the process.For several littoral crises-less intensiveops,we could use the smaller amphib. multi-role vessels instead of our large strike carriers.

You said 122000 ton vessel not 12000 ton vessel.

It is why I've also advocated building all surface warships of 122000t+ with flat tops,so that

Mistype? anyway Yes we need at least 4 LPD for relief operations we showed some progress in that area by procuring a Trenton class but after that it seems to have stalled.

SaiK wrote:something like swedish visby class high speed stealth corvettes, perhaps with brahmos and other desi missile systems?

Unfortunately making it smaller won't make it cheaper whole lot cheaper (as we are also finding out with P-28 Corvettes). While Visby looks great it has huge price tag and its capability is minimal (range, payload and sensor suite) plus while it can do 35+ knots it cannot sustain its high speed for more than a couple hours.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 15 Jul 2011 18:48

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.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 15 Jul 2011 20:08

srai wrote:
Shrinivasan wrote:IN should get started on the Four Planned LPDs (officially designated LPD even though they seem like LHDs) ASAP and get them inducted. In the meantime we can fine-tune our "Amphibious warfare" doctrine to see what we need next. A fleet of 12K Tonne LHD which can accommodate 15-20 helos would be ideal and 1200 troops would be ideal.
If you go through the List of amphibious warfare ships in service around the world, you will notice that most are designed around one battalion sized (around 400-600 troops) deployment (long duration). For short duration, troop capacity can be doubled.

For what you are proposing (1,200 troops and 15+ helos), you would need a LHD vessel with a displacement of at least 25,000 tonnes. It would be hard to do with a LHD design of 12K tonnes.

Srai, See my text in braces... IN stated LPD but gave a requirements of a LHD. Indian requirement is to transport a Brigade of troops...this brigade should be inserted, supported and sustained for a limited period by the LPHD (thanks Dr. Shiv ) and support vessels before a larger IN force comes into play in the theater.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 15 Jul 2011 20:18

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.

Thakns Singha was pointing this out.. I just jumped out when some in this board suggested fitting a Brahmos on a Corvette. IN Corvettes tradditionaly been missile corvettes and sometimes larger than many Frigates in other navies.. (ditto for our IN's Frigates and Destroyers too) but putting a 3T Brahmos on a Corvette takes the cake. a dozen clubs in VLS launchers along with a decent ASW rocket loadout would be ideal.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 15 Jul 2011 20:21

Do IN Ships carry Torpedos/Depth Charges or only ASW rockets? Wouldn't torpedos be a better option for ASW freeing up the available club space for Anti-Ship/anti-land attack Clubs (based on mission profile)

Does IN designate a class of ships as Anti-Ship or Anti-Land attack or Anti-Sub or they are all Multi-Role?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 15 Jul 2011 20:27

Shrinivasan wrote: Thakns Singha was pointing this out.. I just jumped out when some in this board suggested fitting a Brahmos on a Corvette. IN Corvettes tradditionaly been missile corvettes and sometimes larger than many Frigates in other navies.. (ditto for our IN's Frigates and Destroyers too) but putting a 3T Brahmos on a Corvette takes the cake. a dozen clubs in VLS launchers along with a decent ASW rocket loadout would be ideal.

well, the styx missiles on the original osa class missile boats weren't that much lighter than brahmos.the P25 corvettes still have them.

John · Post by **John** » 15 Jul 2011 20:49

Tarantula class can be fitted with 4 to 8 Yakhont/Brahmos missiles, Brahmos did show models in defexpo with Tarantula class carrying 8 Brahmos in inclined launchers. I expected that IN would have phased Styx by 2010 and upgraded older vessels with Brahmos, i guess cost deterred them from doing that (Remember originally 1000+ missiles were to be procured?).

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 15 Jul 2011 22:53

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.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 15 Jul 2011 22:56

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.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 15 Jul 2011 22:59

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.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 16 Jul 2011 02:01

Cross posting from AWACS Dhaga... posted by "Krishnakg"
P-8I news update by Boeing

"A new maritime patrol aircraft is taking shape in Seattle, Wash. Boeing employees there are building the P-8A Poseidon for the U.S. Navy and its variant, the P-8I, for the Indian navy. The aircraft are on track to be fielded by the U.S. and Indian navies in 2013. The programs are cruising ahead due to several factors, including using the existing Boeing 737 commercial airliner as their platform. They also expect to gain efficiencies from in-line production, meaning aircraft modifications unique to the P-8 are made during fabrication and assembly, not after."

Video Embedded in the following link
http://www.boeing.com/Features/2011/07/ ... 13_11.html

P-8A animated sub hunting video

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 16 Jul 2011 02:20

Rahul M wrote:
Shrinivasan wrote:I just jumped out when some in this board suggested fitting a Brahmos on a Corvette. IN Corvettes tradditionaly been missile corvettes and sometimes larger than many Frigates in other navies.. but putting a 3T Brahmos on a Corvette takes the cake. a dozen clubs in VLS launchers along with a decent ASW rocket loadout would be ideal.
well, the styx missiles on the original osa class missile boats weren't that much lighter than brahmos.the P25 corvettes still have them.

Exactly my point, see the highlighted portion form my post... IN Corvettes have traditionally been Missile Corvettes putting a mixed complement of 12 or even 16 Club would be better... than Brahmos.. Styx is 2300Kg against VLS Brahmos which is 3000+Kg vs Klub (1300-AShM, 1780-ASM, 2300-LACM). Using a VLS Klub also frees us deck space.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 16 Jul 2011 02:24

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.

This would be a good option... either raised and lowered or with a sliding door.
Can we not use a VLS model for these Anti-sub rockets ala VL ASROC for launching Mk-46 torpedos.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 16 Jul 2011 07:26

Indian Navy planning to induct anti-submarine ships
Economic Times

"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 wants the vessels to be able to operate within 200 nautical miles from its launch base and be able to travel at speeds of above 25 knots. "The ship should also be equipped with torpedos and rocket launchers as its fire power," they said.

Expressing its interest to procure such vessels in a Request for Information document, the Navy has sought responses from Indian shipyards for manufacturing these vessels indigenously at their facilities here.

The Navy intends to acquire these class of ships under 'Buy Indian' category, which means that the ships should be built indigenously. Not disclosing the number of vessels to be procured by it, officials said, "There is also a possibility of the contract being divided between two different shipyards."

On the design for the ships, the Navy wants that the vendors should have an MoU with a design partner for the construction of vessels at the time of submission of tender.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 16 Jul 2011 07:30

Indian navy chief in Russia to push warship deliveries

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 Jul 2011 07:41

looks like these new ships would be a rung lower than the P28 corvette and be the designated low-end of INs fleet - mine layer, submarine chaser, odd jobs handyman , escort for convoys kind of thing - the kind of role the OHP frigates likely had in the USN.

Rupak · Post by **Rupak** » 16 Jul 2011 07:46

These are direct, if somewhat more capable replacements for the Abhay class. With the new overhaul, I expect the Abhay's will last for some more years to come.

Rupak · Post by **Rupak** » 16 Jul 2011 07:48

Shrinivasan wrote:
For what you are proposing (1,200 troops and 15+ helos), you would need a LHD vessel with a displacement of at least 25,000 tonnes. It would be hard to do with a LHD design of 12K tonnes.

Srai, See my text in braces... IN stated LPD but gave a requirements of a LHD. Indian requirement is to transport a Brigade of troops...this brigade should be inserted, supported and sustained for a limited period by the LPHD (thanks Dr. Shiv ) and support vessels before a larger IN force comes into play in the theater.[/quote]

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

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Jul 2011 08:16

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