Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 27 Apr 2018 00:16

Specs -

MDL Stealth Frigate P-17A Class Info by Delhi defence Review, on Flickr

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 27 Apr 2018 00:18

That stealth frigate was among the 3 future projects they'd listed -

GSL_FutureProducts_Info by Delhi defence Review, on Flickr

kit · Post by **kit** » 27 Apr 2018 02:48

Prasad wrote:Specs -

MDL Stealth Frigate P-17A Class Info by Delhi defence Review, on Flickr

quite clean layout ! .. now if they replace that smallish oto melara with this

John · Post by **John** » 27 Apr 2018 09:05

kit wrote:
Prasad wrote:Specs -

MDL Stealth Frigate P-17A Class Info by Delhi defence Review, on Flickr
quite clean layout ! .. now if they replace that smallish oto melara with this

I highly doubt P -17a will resemble the CGI image, the model is more accurate representation.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 27 Apr 2018 12:20

The second CGI is accurate, ironically better looking than the model. They have created some space amidships by 'cutting' into the hull... I am guessing they will install davits there - not good for stealth. The fore deck has been flushed which is good.

The GRSE ASW-SWC resembles a mini Project-28 ship.

maz · Post by **maz** » 27 Apr 2018 13:28

The P17A model and the image in the GRSE future projects poster clearly shows that the RCS of the actual design appears lower than the earlier renderings. One industry source thinks it has to do with operational feedback from from the IN regarding the enclosed boat hangars on the P17 Shivalika. The translation is that the the boat handlers are having difficulty in operating the ships' boats from the hangars. This is really a pity because most contemporary design have enclosed boat hangars and having exposed boat davits cannot be good for the RCS unless some magic has been done elsewhere to compensate.
It would be nice to get the viewpoints of the naval veterans on BR. TSarkar, Chetak, et. al. where art thou?

As for the ASW SWC, logically both yards should build a common design but it is unclear if GRSE will agree to build the CSL's design. If two designs are built, then the whole idea of standardizing goes out the window.....

TheIndonesian Navy - Angkatan Laut - has a similar problem. They are building 42 x 40m-45m patrol boats - supposedly to a common design from 3 or 4 shipyards. They tried and failed to get the builders to work to a common design. Two built near identical designs with internal differences and the other one to two yards have a rather different external appearance.

My 2 cents: the IN should make this sort of thing very clear from the outset. i.e. shipsyards in a multi-yard program like that of the ASW SWC have to build to the winning shipyards design or to a common design with the best features of both designs that would be determined by the DND. The downside of this approach is the added time to refine the design. But it is doable if there is a clear timeline goal - say +6 months - and strong project management to ensure adherence to schedules and prevent scope creep and suchlike.

again curious to know what people think.

kit · Post by **kit** » 27 Apr 2018 14:46

maz wrote:The P17A model and the image in the GRSE future projects poster clearly shows that the RCS of the actual design appears lower than the earlier renderings. One industry source thinks it has to do with operational feedback from from the IN regarding the enclosed boat hangars on the P17 Shivalika. The translation is that the the boat handlers are having difficulty in operating the ships' boats from the hangars. This is really a pity because most contemporary design have enclosed boat hangars and having exposed boat davits cannot be good for the RCS unless some magic has been done elsewhere to compensate.
It would be nice to get the viewpoints of the naval veterans on BR. TSarkar, Chetak, et. al. where art thou?

As for the ASW SWC, logically both yards should build a common design but it is unclear if GRSE will agree to build the CSL's design. If two designs are built, then the whole idea of standardizing goes out the window.....

TheIndonesian Navy - Angkatan Laut - has a similar problem. They are building 42 x 40m-45m patrol boats - supposedly to a common design from 3 or 4 shipyards. They tried and failed to get the builders to work to a common design. Two built near identical designs with internal differences and the other one to two yards have a rather different external appearance.

My 2 cents: the IN should make this sort of thing very clear from the outset. i.e. shipsyards in a multi-yard program like that of the ASW SWC have to build to the winning shipyards design or to a common design with the best features of both designs that would be determined by the DND. The downside of this approach is the added time to refine the design. But it is doable if there is a clear timeline goal - say +6 months - and strong project management to ensure adherence to schedules and prevent scope creep and suchlike.

again curious to know what people think.

The modular construction works perfectly well for mass production .. witness china producing different classes at same time in different yards, how can it happen that one yard can make a ship of same class differently than the other ? same blueprints ?.. dont they use the same suppliers for components

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 27 Apr 2018 15:04

kit wrote:
maz wrote:The P17A model and the image in the GRSE future projects poster clearly shows that the RCS of the actual design appears lower than the earlier renderings.
As for the ASW SWC, logically both yards should build a common design but it is unclear if GRSE will agree to build the CSL's design. If two designs are built, then the whole idea of standardizing goes out the window.....

again curious to know what people think.

The modular construction works perfectly well for mass production .. witness china producing different classes at same time in different yards, how can it happen that one yard can make a ship of same class differently than the other ? same blueprints ?.. dont they use the same suppliers for components

The challenge is to insure that the blue prints are not deviated from. That requires the navy to take ownership of the construction process regadless of which yard is building the ship. Internal fittings can be different from ship to ship. But the design once frozen, will be unchanged from yard to yard.

The P 16 is an example of that approach. Majorly built by MDL and Garden reach. The ship structure was identical across the 2 yard's. Even if the finished ships were different majorly because of the time period of the construction of the ships.

Besides which, the yard is indifferent to which ship it builds. As long as it gets work.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 27 Apr 2018 16:00

Maz

Any news of Project-28A and Project-18 DDG? Do these even exist?

chola · Post by **chola** » 27 Apr 2018 18:11

maz wrote:The P17A model and the image in the GRSE future projects poster clearly shows that the RCS of the actual design appears lower than the earlier renderings. One industry source thinks it has to do with operational feedback from from the IN regarding the enclosed boat hangars on the P17 Shivalika. The translation is that the the boat handlers are having difficulty in operating the ships' boats from the hangars. This is really a pity because most contemporary design have enclosed boat hangars and having exposed boat davits cannot be good for the RCS unless some magic has been done elsewhere to compensate.
It would be nice to get the viewpoints of the naval veterans on BR. TSarkar, Chetak, et. al. where art thou?

As for the ASW SWC, logically both yards should build a common design but it is unclear if GRSE will agree to build the CSL's design. If two designs are built, then the whole idea of standardizing goes out the window.....

TheIndonesian Navy - Angkatan Laut - has a similar problem. They are building 42 x 40m-45m patrol boats - supposedly to a common design from 3 or 4 shipyards. They tried and failed to get the builders to work to a common design. Two built near identical designs with internal differences and the other one to two yards have a rather different external appearance.

My 2 cents: the IN should make this sort of thing very clear from the outset. i.e. shipsyards in a multi-yard program like that of the ASW SWC have to build to the winning shipyards design or to a common design with the best features of both designs that would be determined by the DND. The downside of this approach is the added time to refine the design. But it is doable if there is a clear timeline goal - say +6 months - and strong project management to ensure adherence to schedules and prevent scope creep and suchlike.

again curious to know what people think.

Whoa. That Indonesian example. That’s completely insane!!! As someone in the business community, there is no way a company sourcing a product would ever allow that — let alone a nation state. You would take away contracts from manufacturers/yards that can’t produce to the design agreed upon.

When we go to multi-yard production like the LPD project, there shouldn’t even be a discussion on this. One design and all yards must build exactly to the same blueprints. Anything else is simply unacceptable.

You know, I didn’t think this kind of thing is even possible because no buyer would ever pay for a disjointed production run like this and all the issues with maintenance, upgrade and training that will result from it. But if this actually happened in Indonesia, now it scares me that it could happen here.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 27 Apr 2018 19:29

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/989858896910176257

BREAKING: India clears $470 million deal for 13 @BAESystemsInc Mk45 naval main guns for under-build @IndianNavy warships.

any Idea for which ships?
aren't the Navy getting Otobreda 127/64

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 27 Apr 2018 19:50

All four P 15B are supposed to have 127 mm gun. But Oto Malera was mentioned. 7 for P 17A. Wonder what the remaining 2 are for.

sahay · Post by **sahay** » 27 Apr 2018 20:11

The fallout from Augusta Westland scam was blocking the contract for Oto Melara 127 mm. I guess this is the resolution for that conundrum. I would expect some delays in announced timelines for P15B and maybe even P17A, now that they have to be redesigned to accommodate a different gun.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 27 Apr 2018 20:34

P 15Bs are already delayed by 3 years for each ship.

sahay · Post by **sahay** » 27 Apr 2018 21:08

Wasn't that only for the first ship? MDL was expecting to deliver subsequent ships within a gap of one year, instead of two to maintain the overall timeline. Although the new timeline does sound a bit too ambitious.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 27 Apr 2018 21:17

Indeed, it's 2021 till 2024. Pathetic and depressing, considering no new DDGs in sight.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 27 Apr 2018 21:18

Livefist Verified account @livefist
1m1 minute ago
More
For those asking, the 13 Mk.45 guns are for:
* 4 x Project 15B (Visakhapatnam class) destroyers
* 7 x Project 17A stealth frigates
* 2 x INS Dronacharya & INS Valsura training schools

John · Post by **John** » 27 Apr 2018 21:49

sahay wrote:The fallout from Augusta Westland scam was blocking the contract for Oto Melara 127 mm. I guess this is the resolution for that conundrum. I would expect some delays in announced timelines for P15B and maybe even P17A, now that they have to be redesigned to accommodate a different gun.

Should not be that big of a redesign since below deck requirements for mk.45 aren't much different from oto 127/64. That said latter more capable it's shame politics once again impending progress.

sahay · Post by **sahay** » 27 Apr 2018 23:02

I wouldn't be too sure of that. According to a CAG report, the late switch from AK-100 to 76 mm SRGM caused significant delays during P15A construction. That switch was made after one ship was launched, but now we have two hulls in the water that need to be modified for Mk 45.

John · Post by **John** » 28 Apr 2018 05:03

sahay wrote:I wouldn't be too sure of that. According to a CAG report, the late switch from AK-100 to 76 mm SRGM caused significant delays during P15A construction. That switch was made after one ship was launched, but now we have two hulls in the water that need to be modified for Mk 45.

P15A from what I understand was delayed mainly due to steel, SY delays and Barak-8 being delayed. Also Ak-100 is significantly bigger than oto 76mm, so it's not that same as current situation where as we are taking gun systems that are quite similar in size.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 28 Apr 2018 06:11

Kakarat wrote:https://twitter.com/livefist/status/989858896910176257
BREAKING: India clears $470 million deal for 13 @BAESystemsInc Mk45 naval main guns for under-build @IndianNavy warships.
any Idea for which ships?
aren't the Navy getting Otobreda 127/64

IS this the gun ?

arun · Post by **arun** » 28 Apr 2018 10:23

Kakarat wrote:https://twitter.com/livefist/status/989858896910176257
BREAKING: India clears $470 million deal for 13 @BAESystemsInc Mk45 naval main guns for under-build @IndianNavy warships.
any Idea for which ships?
aren't the Navy getting Otobreda 127/64

Another take on the same report that the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) has approved procurement of 13 Naval 127 mm guns from BAE Systems:

Meanwhile, the DAC also approved the procurement of thirteen 127 mm calibre guns for the Navy, the ministry said. "These guns will be fitted on-board new construction ships for undertaking surface engagements including Naval Gunfire Support Operations. The guns will enable Naval ships to provide fire support and engagement of targets on the land," the ministry said.

These guns have engagement range of 24 kilometres, which could be extended further by using Extended Range Gun Munitions.

From Economic Times:

DAC approves procurement of Nag missile system, 13 guns

wig · Post by **wig** » 28 Apr 2018 10:31

http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation ... 80866.html

night landing aid for naval helicopters
excerpted

The Central Scientific Instruments Organisation (CSIO) here has joined hands with a Mumbai based firm for the indigenous development of night-vision goggles compatible Helicopter Visual Landing aid System (HVLAS) for maritime operations.
This equipment guides a helicopter for safe landing on the flight deck of a ship at sea. It comprises optical references and lights for directing the helicopter and also predicts the optimum future moment for safe touchdown on the deck.
A memorandum of understanding in this regard was signed by the CSIO with Elcome Integrated Systems Private Limited

and

HVLAS will be the first-ever indigenous equipment of its kind that will improve the operational capability of Indian warships. The immediate target for such a solution is the current project for seven stealth frigates of the P-17A class being built by Mazagon Docks Limited for the Navy.

maz · Post by **maz** » 28 Apr 2018 10:39

The P17A is already running late. As of now, it looks like 3 or more years for the last hulls. But those involved will maintain that everything is on time until they miss the initial milestones. No surprise there. My hope is that after the initial start up delays, both yards can adjust the build schedules to deliver ships more frequently...

Not including a a shiplift at MDL or GRSE - the 2 yards that build complex warships - during their yard modernization seems to have been a major oversight. Being that these 2 yards have the entire combatant platform market cornered between them, maybe they don't feel the pressure to stay on target. Reading the Def Ctee reports and CAg reports will show that the same factors including a 'lack of resources' seems to recur every year. Hard to understand why resources continue to be lacking when projects are running late. This is when a lack of competition really hurts as institutional inertia to change dominates...

On the other hand, GSL has a shiplift and they continue to achieve significant reductions in build times for OPVs. Not quite to the extent that L&T has demonstrated but nevertheless credible for a govt yard. CSL, whose bread and butter is commercial work, has a different culture. For example, they rapidly constructed the DRDO TDV and launched it in Feb 2018 within a respectable time frame.

If the likes of L&T are awarded a complex warship project, I think they will reset the bar for the other naval shipyards. But then, the MoD yards will lobby for nominations so then its back to square 1.

The market for new naval and CG vessels is so large that there is more than enough to be shared among the better yards. It would be a 'win win win' situation for the PSU yards, good pvt yards like L&T and Shoft - not the fly by night types- and ultimately the users (navy/CG) who desperately need new vessels to replac eageing legacy platforms. The problem, as we know is really pressing for the Navy.

It is really such a pity that the powers that be do not seem to see the wisdom in levelling the playing field - bet PSU entities and the serious pvt sector players - and awarding shipbuilding contracts on merit and actual capability to deliver ships on time.... instead of consistently opting for the L1 route - often with disastrous results.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 28 Apr 2018 10:50

I don't think that nomination of PSU yard's by mod will be a problem. As long as the MOD can say that the L1 Pvt yard will work on the prices quoted by PSU yard.

This is the most common process followed for central government tenders. That being the case it can be executed for mod tenders as well.

However, in this scenario, the biggest challenge will be small order quantity to justify splitting up of the orders.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Apr 2018 11:50

The AW scandal where AW paid a penalty/returned our money should've blacklisted only the helo wing fr a limited period.In a huge group like Leonardo,what has also suffered are our torpedoes and now main guns too.Why do the Israelis get preferential treatment after one of their cos. was allegedly blacklisted for bribe giving? The Spike deal with Rafael was cancelled in Jan 2018, but we now have news that only 3 months later the deal is on again for the IA! What gives? Cui Bono?!

Bart S · Post by **Bart S** » 28 Apr 2018 12:23

Pratyush wrote:I don't think that nomination of PSU yard's by mod will be a problem. As long as the MOD can say that the L1 Pvt yard will work on the prices quoted by PSU yard.

This is the most common process followed for central government tenders. That being the case it can be executed for mod tenders as well.

However, in this scenario, the biggest challenge will be small order quantity to justify splitting up of the orders.

The problem is that the PSU yards don't follow legitimate costing systems that are on par with what the pvt yards do and quote ridiculous amounts that the private yards can't compete with. Since they work for the MOD the costs get adjusted elsewhere and escalations are handled out of the govt's money, so in the end the cost to the nation ends up being higher than if it would have been built by a pvt yard, but yes they bid pretty low.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 28 Apr 2018 12:34

maz wrote:The P17A model and the image in the GRSE future projects poster clearly shows that the RCS of the actual design appears lower than the earlier renderings. One industry source thinks it has to do with operational feedback from from the IN regarding the enclosed boat hangars on the P17 Shivalika. The translation is that the the boat handlers are having difficulty in operating the ships' boats from the hangars. This is really a pity because most contemporary design have enclosed boat hangars and having exposed boat davits cannot be good for the RCS unless some magic has been done elsewhere to compensate.
It would be nice to get the viewpoints of the naval veterans on BR. TSarkar, Chetak, et. al. where art thou?

Ideally the boats should have been moved to stern ramps with enclosed covers like US coast guard designs. The stern should have additional ramps for towed array sonars, towed torpedo decoys, towed array sonar for mareech etc. However our designers are very conservative. Also launching of boats is required for anti terrorist / anti piracy / HADR secondary missions while the primary mission of these ships is anti air / ship / surface / land attack. Ideally secondary criteria shouldn't cloud primary requirements but sadly we're doing more of secondary stuff than primary most of the time.

maz wrote:As for the ASW SWC, logically both yards should build a common design but it is unclear if GRSE will agree to build the CSL's design. If two designs are built, then the whole idea of standardizing goes out the window.....

TheIndonesian Navy - Angkatan Laut - has a similar problem. They are building 42 x 40m-45m patrol boats - supposedly to a common design from 3 or 4 shipyards. They tried and failed to get the builders to work to a common design. Two built near identical designs with internal differences and the other one to two yards have a rather different external appearance.

My 2 cents: the IN should make this sort of thing very clear from the outset. i.e. shipsyards in a multi-yard program like that of the ASW SWC have to build to the winning shipyards design or to a common design with the best features of both designs that would be determined by the DND. The downside of this approach is the added time to refine the design. But it is doable if there is a clear timeline goal - say +6 months - and strong project management to ensure adherence to schedules and prevent scope creep and suchlike.

again curious to know what people think.

Impossible in the Indian context. Indian shipyards modernise and purchase different equipment at different points of time and there is no standardisation of equipment, processes or training of shipwrights and fitters between yards. Employees at MOD yards are civilians. Which is why IN/ICG FAC built at GSL, CSL, HSL or GRSE for same role with same engine (MTU) or armament (Medak gun) differ in design or layout.

Standardisation will be hugely capital intensive without proportionate benefits. Even Arleigh Burke destroyers built at Ingalls and Bath differ, though not externally.

Even in FMCG industry, instant noodles or soups of same brand and product differ in manufacturing and sales depending on regions. Primary reason being to cater to different taste expectations in North, South, West & East India. Standardisation is a generic achievement - when one goes specific, there will be lots of minor differences.

maz · Post by **maz** » 28 Apr 2018 12:47

TSarkar, thank you for your insights. While full standardization does not appear to be feasible, perhaps there's a lot to be learnt from Damen's model of using modular hull sections to rapidly construct variants of a base design as in the SIGMA concept?

Yes, stern ramps for ships' boats is the way to go isn't it? Way quicker than the manpower intensive and time consuming davit launch or crane launch methods...

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 28 Apr 2018 13:04

maz wrote:TSarkar, thank you for your insights. While full standardization does not appear to be feasible, perhaps there's a lot to be learnt from Damen's model of using modular hull sections to rapidly construct variants of a base design as in the SIGMA concept?

Yes, but we're very far from there. For starters all Govt shipyards could start with a common training program for shipwrights, fitters, welders, electricians during induction. This will result in basic commonality.

maz wrote:Yes, stern ramps for ships' boats is the way to go isn't it? Way quicker than the manpower intensive and time consuming davit launch or crane launch methods...

Plus unaffected by rolling motion of ship that during davit launch bangs boat and crew against the hull. Stern launch will enable operations in higher sea states. The Helicopter Hanger and rest of superstructure needs to move forward to enclose the space currently occupied by boats and move the boats to stern. Added benefit is a longer flight deck in the stern that can accommodate landing by bigger helicopters. Plus the hanger accommodating helicopters moves closer to ships centre of gravity improving stability.

Needless to say will require extensive redesign and tank testing and both 15B and 17A are quick modifications of existing designs.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 28 Apr 2018 13:27

Pratyush wrote:I don't think that nomination of PSU yard's by mod will be a problem. As long as the MOD can say that the L1 Pvt yard will work on the prices quoted by PSU yard.

This is the most common process followed for central government tenders. That being the case it can be executed for mod tenders as well.

However, in this scenario, the biggest challenge will be small order quantity to justify splitting up of the orders.

PSUs don't include many of the costs and are more likely to get additional payments if there are cost overruns / delays. If there was similar behaviour by private yards then later on 'corruption' investigation will ruin the yard and the powers be. Only Ambani bros have the wherewithal of creative accounting to compete in that universe.

Simply said, L&T etc have more to lose if they win contract by underestimating.

maz · Post by **maz** » 28 Apr 2018 13:34

Prasad, would you have any contact with the Delhi Defence Review outfit? I need a high rez pix of that GRSE poster. Can you help Sir?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Apr 2018 13:37

I'm sure a great degree of standardisation can be obtained.Isn't the P-17A order split between two yards? In any case when it comes to weaponry and sensors,there is a lot of standardisation,but we need to leverage common hulls for diff. types like the Sovs. did.It brings in a better cost-effective factor plus allowing greater orders to be placed with pvt. industry. At a recent expo I asked the various yards who were exhibitors about standardisation of simple items like pumps,etc.Each yard appeared to have little or no "diplomatic relations" with their sister DPSU yards.Thus the numbers of items displayed for either supply or import substitution were paltry.A simple example SS ladders.If items like ladders and hatches be standardised through sev. types,orders like 8-10 ,a truly paltry sum, could be in the hundreds,making it more attractive for a pvt. entity interested in competing .Then there are the propulsion systems. It is truly a shame that after decades,we don't manufacture a desi GT marine engine which could power our corvettes and frigates at least. The talk of a Kaveri-M some years ago has been just that,talk.The reso of the diesels manufactured are mostly German engines manufactured uuner licence.

Maz has gone a step further for standardised pre-fittedmodules,but for this we need really large orders,at least a doz. of a class. perhaps this could be done first with the smaller craft,where numbers are much larger.

maz · Post by **maz** » 28 Apr 2018 13:47

Very insightful comments, TSarkar, JTull.

Reliance Naval not doing as well as one would expect from what I gather. Besides the law suits between Ambani and Nikhil Gandhi cannot be good for business and must be affecting operations adversely at Pipavav. It will be interesting to see when the NOPVs are actually delivered and how the rest of their projects pan out. Hopefully these projects won't go down the path of 'ABG and the three cadet ships'......

Philip, yessir, larger order qtys are needed.There is some discussion about more P17a hulls and i really, really hope that this ends up being the case. The problem is that shipyards and their designers will always offer differing designs. It is up to the customer to clearly spell out the onditions from the outset and enforce them regarless of the lobbying power of the shipyard.

Yes, something as elementary as standardized work practice sacross all PSUs would be a huge thing. That is one of the keys to Lean production where workers are cross trianed in different jobs and crucially, they all follow the same process so one worker can seamlessly take the place of another. This really works well - within the margin of human errors and good planning of course.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 28 Apr 2018 15:01

maz wrote:Prasad, would you have any contact with the Delhi Defence Review outfit? I need a high rez pix of that GRSE poster. Can you help Sir?

Uh i shot all those pictures

I'll see if I have a higher res shot. Don't think there is but will look.

sahay · Post by **sahay** » 28 Apr 2018 18:21

John wrote:P15A from what I understand was delayed mainly due to steel, SY delays and Barak-8 being delayed. Also Ak-100 is significantly bigger than oto 76mm, so it's not that same as current situation where as we are taking gun systems that are quite similar in size.

The change of gun mount caused significant delay too. Check this CAG report on page 48:

Similarly, the changes in the gun mount were decided by Navy in March 2008 after the first ship was launched. This necessitated re-design of the entire structure in and around the gun mount and barbette.

You may be right that the redesign may not be as large this time, but it is still a different gun with different mounting requirements.

maz · Post by **maz** » 29 Apr 2018 00:26

Prasad wrote:
maz wrote:Prasad, would you have any contact with the Delhi Defence Review outfit? I need a high rez pix of that GRSE poster. Can you help Sir?
Uh i shot all those pictures I'll see if I have a higher res shot. Don't think there is but will look.

Prasad, you have done a great job capturing the images of the posters and kit. It is hard work, so a very BIG thank you for your coverage!

Please check your BR pm inbox.

maz · Post by **maz** » 29 Apr 2018 00:37

Aditya G wrote:Maz

Any news of Project-28A and Project-18 DDG? Do these even exist?

I have come across the P-18 next gen DDG on some of the other fora on the interweb. Some of the defence journalists have also referred to the next gen DDG in news reports. I think MDLs boss also referred to it in one of the Defexpo 2018 show dailies.

Clearly, there is a DDG roject. Beyond that, I have no idea. It takes many years for these things to crystallize. Just look at the P17A. First media reports in 2008 or earlier, first rendering in April 2010 or so, then more renderings over the years. Finally, 10 years later, a model that is hopefully close to the real thing. Even so, the final config will be different. Wait until the next Defexpo for more changes.

I am guessing some renderings of these new DDGs (P18?) will be released when the first P17A is launched. Its supposed to be in Nov 2018 but who knows.

As for the notional P28A, i have no idea at all. Anyhow, there are too many projects as it is so what is the purpose of adding more when everything is running late?

maz · Post by **maz** » 29 Apr 2018 00:49

The good news is that IN force levels of commissioned ships dipped to 131-132 or so and have now climbed back up to about 133 with the delivery of LCU L-54. But force levels will stay at about the high 130ish/ low 140-ish ship mark for many more years because of all the decommissionings that are due.

This is a far cry from the 212-ship or 198-ship or even the 175-ship goal by 2027. I estimate about 150-something platforms by 2027 would be a realistic achievement. But, the new platforms entering service possess a significant boost in combat power and operational capabilities over the ships they are replacing. So maybe it is not as bad as just the raw numbers would suggest.

Still, in comparison to the PLA Navy's growth and the scale and pace of their naval shipbuilding programs, things are looking.... how to say it ... a bit grim.

maz · Post by **maz** » 29 Apr 2018 01:00

Regarding stern launching of small boats from ships, there is hope! The Bharati built CG interceptors have a stern ramp.
Maybe the IN can learn something from the CG?

and