Indian Navy Discussions and Updates

[RobWilliams]

India Will Relaunch First Domestic Carrier Vikrant Next Week, More Money Approved for Second Carrier - USNI News

INS Vikrant is due to be launched in May 28th, apparently she's pretty far along now, much further than the accompanying photograph which is from 2013. I'll be looking forward to it, another flat-top in the world.

The article also mentions that more money for the Indian Navy's second carrier has been stumped up, only ~$5 million though. It's still not been decided if they're going conventional/nuclear or STOBAR/CATOBAR for the type yet.

 

[Adioz]

Indian Navy wants a 5 carrier fleet

I read a recent article on The Diplomat titled "India's New Aircraft Carrier May Face Further Delays".
The last line of the article caught my eye : "In February 2015, retired Indian rear admiral Ravi Vohra was quoted as saying that India’s ultimate goal is the eventual establishment of a five-carrier fleet, comprising a mix of large and small carriers."

That makes me wonder......
1. INS Vikramaditya (40000t.)
2. INS Vikrant (40000t.)
3. INS Vishal (65000t. possibly)
4. INS ????
5. INS ????
The ???? might be a small carrier or a large carrier depending on what the Indian Navy considers a large carrier is. There are two options 1. ???? is a small carrier 2. ???? is a large carrier
Option 1 : Small carrier
That puts it in the 20000t. category and capable of operating only jump jets like the sea harriers (obsolete) or F-35Bs (out of reach). One might consider the LPH (Landing Platform Helicopter) / Multi role support vessel programme as the aircraft carrier they are talking about. The only one that would qualify for both roles is the Juan Carlos I. However the Indian Navy has reportedly asked for a version without the ski jump to limit the total length of the vessel. Also it has put forth a requirement of 4 such vessels. I am confused.

Option 2 : Large carrier
That puts it in atleast the 65000t. category with CATOBAR and possibly nuclear propulsion (i.e. similar to INS Vishal). This can only mean that they will be a follow on project of the Vikrant class aircraft carriers and would be operational only by 2030. This makes sense if the Indian strategy is a larger naval air fleet of 4th generation fighters (Mig-29Ks and Naval LCAs) to counter the smaller naval air fleet of 5th generation Chinese fighter aircraft (J-31). But the Indian naval air arm would then require a mammoth increase in its manpower (Also considering that they plan to have forward airfields on various naval bases in the Andaman and Nicobar islands).

Anyhow, given the smaller number of major surface combatants at Indian Navy's disposal, I would argue that they are not thinking of operating more than two CVBGs at a given time (with a third CVBG in reserve and refit)

 

[dragonfire]

INS Vikrant, undocked from dry dock. a good portion of the basic hull work seems to be completed, some superstructure also seems fabricated. Attached images show progress in the construction from a layman perspective

 

[RobWilliams]

Looks good, been having some fun modelling Indian carrier battle groups in Command recently and it's been interesting.

Should be a solid ship when she comes out, is it still the plan to have 3 carrier groups with 2 operational at any given time?

 

[kev 99]

INS Vikrant, undocked from dry dock. a good portion of the basic hull work seems to be completed, some superstructure also seems fabricated. Attached images show progress in the construction from a layman perspective

She is coming together nicely, and it's so obvious to see her lineage from those images.

 

[dragonfire]

INS Kochi Commissioned

Indian Navy's deadliest indigenous warship, missile destroyer INS Kochi enters service

Mumbai: India's deadliest warship, missile destroyer INS Kochi was commissioned by Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar on Wednesday at the Naval Dockyard in Mumbai. Naval warship INS Kochi is the second ship of the Kolkata-class (Project 15A) Guided Missile Destroyers.
The contract for three ships of Kolkata class was signed as follow-on of the legendary Delhi-class Destroyers, which were commissioned into the Navy more than a decade ago, a defence spokesperson said.

Indian Navy's deadliest indigenous warship, missile destroyer INS Kochi enters service - IBNLive

With the addition of INS Kochi, the Indian Navy has currently 10 destroyers. Although the new classes of Frigates in IN the Shivalik Class and Talwar Class almost same level of capability. Shivalik class is 6200 Tons whereas the Delhi class is only marinally higher at 6700 Tons.m (Talwar Class carries only one heli though, compared to the destroyer classes and the Shivalik class of frigates).

Can someone here who is more knowledgable share why Shivalik class is termed as a Frigate when to layman like me it seems having almost same level of capability

 

[Blackshoe]

Can someone here who is more knowledgable share why Shivalik class is termed as a Frigate when to layman like me it seems having almost same level of capability

As often as not, it's somewhat artificial.

For lots of navies, it's about warfare areas. Frigates are for ASW/ASUW; destroyers are for AAW.

For others, it's about size. Note, though, that the size of ships has grown significantly; the Arleigh Burke destroyers are roughly the same size as World War II light cruisers (and arguably have the same mission, incidentally).

There isn't really good rhyme or reason, to be honest.

 

[Adioz]

As often as not, it's somewhat artificial.

For lots of navies, it's about warfare areas. Frigates are for ASW/ASUW; destroyers are for AAW.

For others, it's about size. Note, though, that the size of ships has grown significantly; the Arleigh Burke destroyers are roughly the same size as World War II light cruisers (and arguably have the same mission, incidentally).

There isn't really good rhyme or reason, to be honest.

Can we conclude that Frigates and Destroyers are more defence oriented than Cruisers?

In the Indian Navy's context, I believe, Destroyers are ships that are supposed to be all-rounders with a focus on being the fleet's sword arm and Frigates are role-specific with a design to be the shield of the fleet.

In context of Zumwalt class destroyers, how would you define a modern cruiser?

 

[Blackshoe]

Can we conclude that Frigates and Destroyers are more defence oriented than Cruisers?. ?

Personally, I wouldn't. Your confusion is understandable; many of us in the business are confused by the lack of rigor to the process (at least in the US Navy we are).

In context of Zumwalt class destroyers, how would you define a modern cruiser?

Well, I'd note the Zumwalts would be cruisers, if not for the stupid element of the '08 NDAA that says the Navy must place preference for making all ships from cruisers and larger nuclear-powered, and explain to Congress why they aren't.

(a) Integrated Nuclear Power Systems.--It is the policy of the United States to construct the major combatant vessels of the strike forces of the United States Navy, including all new classes of such vessels, with integrated nuclear power systems.
(b) <<NOTE: Notification.>> Requirement To Request Nuclear Vessels.--If a request is submitted to Congress in the budget for a fiscal year for construction of a new class of major combatant vessel for the strike forces of the United States, the request shall be for such a vessel with an integrated nuclear power system, unless the Secretary of Defense submits with the request a notification to Congress that the inclusion of an integrated nuclear power system in such vessel is not in the national interest.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Major combatant vessels of the strike forces of the United States Navy.--The term ``major combatant vessels of the strike forces of the United States Navy'' means the following:
(A) Submarines.
(B) Aircraft carriers.
(C) Cruisers, battleships, or other large surface combatants whose primary mission includes protection of carrier strike groups, expeditionary strike groups, and vessels comprising a sea base.
(2) Integrated nuclear power system.--The term ``integrated nuclear power system'' means a ship engineering system that uses a naval nuclear reactor as its energy source and generates sufficient electric energy to provide power to the ship's electrical loads, including its combat systems and propulsion motors.
(3) Budget.--The term ``budget'' means the budget that is submitted to Congress by the President under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code.

Otherwise, I always like to revert back to the classic Mahanian definition...but I'm not sure that even really works.

Zumwalts are nothing more than test platforms at this point, anyway, since they are down to a buy of 2.

The Indian definition could be correct; it would certainly make sense as an internal guideline. But it's only internal, and only a guideline. Organizations disagree as to what the delineations should be, and then they don't follow established guidance anyway.

 

[Blackshoe]

In context of Zumwalt class destroyers, how would you define a modern cruiser?

Realizing my last wall of blathering didn't answer the latter half of this question, I'd say functionally the ZUMWALTs (if they had a full size production run), the KIROV class, the SLAVAs.

Large capital ships that are capable of providing their own area-air defense, ASUW, ASW, and command and control for the above along with other units. What I would say are the core elements of sea control.

I like to retain the Mahanian idea of performing sea control in it, but that's me.

 

[AegisFC]

Keep in mind that one of the biggest functional difference between the Burkes ("destroyers") and Tico's ("cruisers") are basically the space for an embarked staff. However even then calling the Ticonderoga's "cruisers" is a political decision since originally they were ordered as "destroyers".

 

[ASSAIL]

Even the Spanish Armada and the Australian Navy can't agree on classification of the same ship. The F-100's are Frigates in Spain and DDG's in Australia

 

[rockitten]

Even the Spanish Armada and the Australian Navy can't agree on classification of the same ship. The F-100's are Frigates in Spain and DDG's in Australia

Well, as a matter of fact, there are more than a few occasion, that some RAN and exRAN personals I had been work with, commented that the ship should be called frigate rather than destroyer.

But even in USN, the CG-47 is a cruiser, the Spruance and the Kidd are destroyers, but they share the same hull.

 

[gf0012-aust]

its not displacement or hull size that defines the category

its the mission and fitout.

euro skimmers don't use the USN classification conventions so its irrelevant to the argument.

the F-100 under USN conventions with its fitout would be an FFG if primarily ASW, it would be a DDG if primarily air defence/airwarfare or localised control etc....

the Tico's were originally classified as Destroyers as their primary design role was air defence. when thei scope increased to include greater C2 and flag roles of the group they became CG. so DDG to CG based on conops (capability role changes due to Aegis fitout)

nowadays current DDG's are just as powerful in capability as the old CG - and in fact one of the reasons why the sale of 4 Ticos to RAN fell apart was because they offered no extra capability beyond what was in service (and in fact were less capable in some areas) but had greater manning reqs.

 

[Adioz]

its not displacement or hull size that defines the category

its the mission and fitout.

I agree, but the mission and fitout of ships is different according to different navies due to different resources, threat perception and technology at their disposal. Hence the classification of different navies is different and only adds to the confusion.
Isn't there some way to classify these ships as an international standard by somewhat redefining from scratch (and not biased by earlier classifications) the roles of Corvettes, Frigates, Destroyers and Cruisers? This will offer a better insight into a navies true capability at a glance and prevent some navies from disguising more powerful (or sometimes less powerful) vessels by simply changing their classification.
As a first step, sworn allies should be able to do it. In that regard I find this lack of standardization in NATO navies a bit surprising.

Also, I believe this confusion over nomenclature is not only prevalent in the world navies but also in the world air-forces (the air-superiority role and multi-role classifications)

Thankfully we dropped the different nomenclatures for different types of tanks and avoided all the additional confusion.Sadly we cannot do the same for warships.

Well, I'd note the Zumwalts would be cruisers, if not for the stupid element of the '08 NDAA that says the Navy must place preference for making all ships from cruisers and larger nuclear-powered, and explain to Congress why they aren't.



Otherwise, I always like to revert back to the classic Mahanian definition...but I'm not sure that even really works.

Zumwalts are nothing more than test platforms at this point, anyway, since they are down to a buy of 2.

The Indian definition could be correct; it would certainly make sense as an internal guideline. But it's only internal, and only a guideline. Organizations disagree as to what the delineations should be, and then they don't follow established guidance anyway.

Are the Zumwalts armored like battleships?
If yes, they would qualify as a battleship because they have already been designed with direct fire support in mind.
Personally, I believe the Zumwalt is a ship version of the F-35. Too damn ambitious.

In the future deployments of Indian Navy, the flag ship of a :-
CVBG would be an aircraft carrier.
ARG would be an LHD (from the Multi-role support vessel program).
SAG would be Destroyers? Or do we need Cruisers?
Also, considering that Indian Navy and Army are investing in developing an augmented amphibious capability, should they opt for a new class of battleships (indigenous) for direct fire support?
Personally I believe an accretion in numbers of Destroyers and Frigates is the need of the hour.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Are the Zumwalts armored like battleships?
If yes, they would qualify as a battleship because they have already been designed with direct fire support in mind.

physical and/or hardened armour on warships is fundamentally redundant - the definition of armour on warships nowadays includes electronic self defence....

eg, some recent warships (some under construction) considered the use of compound armour to protect the citadel - that was soon removed as an option as it was seen as unnecessary and cost ineffective....

NGFS is also almost a redundant concept as enhanced rounds can travel further than any of the large calibre naval guns. accuracy (tight CEP) to target is more important than distributed effect

NGFS also in absolute terms includes any weapons system able to be used in contributing to the destruction of a land based target - so that includes cruise missiles, surface to ground weapons etc....

 

[Adioz]

physical and/or hardened armour on warships is fundamentally redundant - the definition of armour on warships nowadays includes electronic self defence....

eg, some recent warships (some under construction) considered the use of compound armour to protect the citadel - that was soon removed as an option as it was seen as unnecessary and cost ineffective....

NGFS is also almost a redundant concept as enhanced rounds can travel further than any of the large calibre naval guns. accuracy (tight CEP) to target is more important than distributed effect

NGFS also in absolute terms includes any weapons system able to be used in contributing to the destruction of a land based target - so that includes cruise missiles, surface to ground weapons etc....

Passive armour might be redundant but I recently read about a new Dynamic armour being proposed for the Gerald R. Ford class of the USN. I believe its only for the supercarriers though, as they have a spare reactor onboard.

Naval Gun Fire Support (traditional) is only redundant in the sort of limited conflicts that are being fought currently. However, only the USN has the capability to supplant NGFS with air power fielded from its supercarriers. For other navies, during amphibious operations against a well equipped enemy, NGFS will be indispensable. I believe that saturation firepower for a distributed effect is necessary in mounting an attack on an island that presents a situation that USN faced on Iwo Jima (though the Japanese were well defended by their cave network) and the Japanese faced on Guadalcanal.
Maybe even the Indian Navy should expend on NGFS, though not too much. Guided rounds and Missiles can allow the naval force attacking an encircled island to destroy prime installations like SAM sites and artillery batteries, but in the next stage, when landing in the face of a ground force that is spread out, only NGFS can get the job done.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Passive armour might be redundant but I recently read about a new Dynamic armour being proposed for the Gerald R. Ford class of the USN. I believe its only for the supercarriers though, as they have a spare reactor onboard.

Naval Gun Fire Support (traditional) is only redundant in the sort of limited conflicts that are being fought currently. However, only the USN has the capability to supplant NGFS with air power fielded from its supercarriers. For other navies, during amphibious operations against a well equipped enemy, NGFS will be indispensable. I believe that saturation firepower for a distributed effect is necessary in mounting an attack on an island that presents a situation that USN faced on Iwo Jima (though the Japanese were well defended by their cave network) and the Japanese faced on Guadalcanal.
Maybe even the Indian Navy should expend on NGFS, though not too much. Guided rounds and Missiles can allow the naval force attacking an encircled island to destroy prime installations like SAM sites and artillery batteries, but in the next stage, when landing in the face of a ground force that is spread out, only NGFS can get the job done.

The capacity for any nation to undertake beach head assaults en masse has basically collapsed since D-Day - and the last major opportunity was GW1 where it was only ever intended as a feint and was not a military option

Think of the mechanics involved in conducting a sea to land assault of any significant mass - nobody wants to do it and nobody sees it happening as the things that need to be done in advance to make it successful are enormous.

for any low order sea to land assault there is really no reason why skimmers would not be able to provide fire support with existing weapons - and that includes missiles - and it includes "aerial artillery" via organic air etc....

I worked in a number of projects involving the application of compound armour on a variety fo platforms - when you work on those projects the platforms CONOPs is front and centre - and the CONOPs includes tactical vignettes on how and why and what the platform will be doing in a variety of tactical scenarios.

For 20+ years I've never come across any conops from a modern military where concerted beach head assaults by large forces is sitting in the top drawer of the desk.

NGFS used to be the biggest critical tool to trigger when going sea to land prior to dumping soldiers on the dirt - but certainly since 82 and even 61 the primary delamination tool has been SOF "capable" forces - or whatever is the better option to neutralise red

Skimmers are big easy targets with minimal room to manouvre freely when offshore - so they only come in close once the battlespace is controlled and any threats to the skimmers have been managed to a point of confidence where risk is down to acceptable.levels

 

[gf0012-aust]

catchall thread for Indian Navy issues

 

[gf0012-aust]

https://gcaptain.com/two-dead-after-indian-navy-ship-capsizes-at-mumbai-dockyard/

RIP to the poor unfortunates caught in the rollover