Indian Navy Developments & Discussions

[vampyrbladez]

Agree to lot of points with few objections.

1. Minesweeper is very basic - They are trying to go with USV, Mothership concept. But still the good old Minesweeper will protect our Maritime routes from big ass sea mines. May be minesweeper should have Anti-USV systems to take them out.

2. LRCM is not KH-35 replacement as the former is completely more advanced missile interms of Range. Point is Nirbhay with current NPO Saturn engine still travel 1500Km. With Manik Engine missile reliability could be better. Inducting Nirbhay with Block upgrades will be beneficial in long run since is expensive. It is our Tomahawk replacement.

3. Army have Artillery at door system, but still not inducting it.

4. For MRFA it is more on Bajapa than IAF. If IAF is happy with Rafale, then Bajapa should directly sign the second order 72 (2 Squadrons) with French government. But Bajapa got scared of evil Spawn of Rajiv Gandhi and italian bar dancer. MRFA is hogwash to save Bajapa assess. 56inch should signed the second GoG deal. Already an decade passed now. Rafale deal signed in 2015.

Just to add to a few points.

1. A minesweeper is a platform with low acoustic signature. The US Avenger class was made of plywood and fiberglass. The ASW-SWC should have low acoustic signature features which could make them decent minesweepers on an adhoc basis sans dedicated platforms.


View: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1020025416798255&id=100063724188409&set=a.381862537281216

Warship Design Bureau should go in for an indigenous design instead of trying to co-opt outside naval builders.

2. LR-LACM is not a tomahawk replacement since we don't use tomahawk missiles. KH 35 is the closest weapon we employ in that class. A cheaper, longer range weapon is beneficial but the Navy wants speed and range and thus LRAshM is clearly the future.

3. ATAGS is coming through because bids (L1 = Bharat Forge, L2 = TATA) have been opened. Signing could happen very soon. K9 deal just went through with another 100 to follow after this.

4. Rafale won't help the IAF in any way since it's 4.5+ gen. IAF was hellbent on MMRCA for 20 years to the point it actively tried to kill Tejas program like an evil parent. IN stepped in like a kind maternal uncle and helped the Tejas to grow into MK1A, MK2, AMCA, TEDBF and has certified Tejas from both aircraft carriers.

 

[Fatalis]

I was going through the Sino Forum and found this:

Now, with the construction of two aircraft carriers—one conventional and one nuclear—underway, the large nuclear-powered aircraft carrier will have very impressive main dimensions. The size of aircraft it can accommodate will definitely not be limited to just the J-15T or J-35 alike; it will be capable of much more.

Looks like PLAN is developing two carriers simultaneously with one being similar to Fujian and other being a larger nuclear powered one. With this PLAN will be having 5 carriers in service by 2030.

 

[shade2]

I was going through the Sino Forum and found this:

Now, with the construction of two aircraft carriers—one conventional and one nuclear—underway, the large nuclear-powered aircraft carrier will have very impressive main dimensions. The size of aircraft it can accommodate will definitely not be limited to just the J-15T or J-35 alike; it will be capable of much more.

Looks like PLAN is developing two carriers simultaneously with one being similar to Fujian and other being a larger nuclear powered one. With this PLAN will be having 5 carriers in service by 2030.

Once they get the Nuclear EMALS flat top one into production you can be sure the ~3 ramp carriers and Fujian will be progressively decommissioned and replaced by the same Nuclear EMALS class ships.

What all prep these Chinkus have to do to grab one island

 

[Fatalis]

Once they get the Nuclear EMALS flat top one into production you can be sure the ~3 ramp carriers and Fujian will be progressively decommissioned and replaced by the same Nuclear EMALS class ships.

What all prep these Chinkus have to do to grab one island

If we follow this trend then PLAN will be having 02 STOBAR + 02 CATOBAR + 01 Nuclear Powered carrier by 2030. They will definitely build 4 more CVN by 2040 and have a final number of around 9.

They are doing capability build up because they are surrounded by adversaries and USA.

 

[Ayan Barat]

First of all...God damn it Mate!!!

First time seeing someone challenge my urge of doodling everything. Also nice handwriting, way better than my "doctor writing physics stuff" handwriting

No, I meant a secondary air search radar for over-the-horizon targeting, like this -

Yeah but slowly we're moving away from that design with more and more navies going with an integrated mast type layout.

Maybe the back panels, but the front panels?? No way!! 15 at most, although I do realize that I'm just being pedantic here.

I was using ShipBucket's estimation for the X band ones, not the S band ones

You think that will be big enough a window to get enough number of SAMs in the air, especially if the salvo happens to be on the larger side??

This is a problem one would have with an arm launcher where you'd need to reload after each shot. With VLS, especially ships that have two VLS "farms" one fore and one mid-ship the capability of launching multiple missile almost simultaneously (you still few milliseconds gap) increases drastically.

reacquire the target and plot out a new intercept point back from the scratch

what I meant to say in my last comment.

I guess you're confusing anti-aircraft guns with missiles. In AA guns you need to find out a firing solution based on where exactly the missile would be in future and then aim at that point. In missile it's proportional navigation, the missile continuously changes its course but keeps the direct line of sight at constant.

PLAN will be having 5 carriers in service by 2030

If the rumour about 2 under construction is true, then it would be bit more than 5
1. Liaoning; 60kT STOBAR diesel
2. Shandong; 70kT STOBAR diesel
3. Fujian; 85kT CATOBAR diesel
4. Fujian-II; 90kT CATOBAR diesel
5. Fujian-III; 100kT CATOBAR nuclear
6. Yulan; 50kT CATOBAR diesel
7. Yulan follow up; 50kT CATOBAR diesel

 

[Corvus Splendens]

If the rumour about 2 under construction is true, then it would be bit more than 5
1. Liaoning; 60kT STOBAR diesel
2. Shandong; 70kT STOBAR diesel
3. Fujian; 85kT CATOBAR diesel
4. Fujian-II; 90kT CATOBAR diesel
5. Fujian-III; 100kT CATOBAR nuclear
6. Yulan; 50kT CATOBAR diesel
7. Yulan follow up; 50kT CATOBAR diesel

Don't worry we're ordering another Vikrant class STOBAR carrier

 

[Fatalis]

First of all...God damn it Mate!!!

First time seeing someone challenge my urge of doodling everything. Also nice handwriting, way better than my "doctor writing physics stuff" handwriting

Yeah but slowly we're moving away from that design with more and more navies going with an integrated mast type layout.

I was using ShipBucket's estimation for the X band ones, not the S band ones
View attachment 20499

This is a problem one would have with an arm launcher where you'd need to reload after each shot. With VLS, especially ships that have two VLS "farms" one fore and one mid-ship the capability of launching multiple missile almost simultaneously (you still few milliseconds gap) increases drastically.


I guess you're confusing anti-aircraft guns with missiles. In AA guns you need to find out a firing solution based on where exactly the missile would be in future and then aim at that point. In missile it's proportional navigation, the missile continuously changes its course but keeps the direct line of sight at constant.

If the rumour about 2 under construction is true, then it would be bit more than 5
1. Liaoning; 60kT STOBAR diesel
2. Shandong; 70kT STOBAR diesel
3. Fujian; 85kT CATOBAR diesel
4. Fujian-II; 90kT CATOBAR diesel
5. Fujian-III; 100kT CATOBAR nuclear
6. Yulan; 50kT CATOBAR diesel
7. Yulan follow up; 50kT CATOBAR diesel

From what I read the plan is for two follow on Type 076 LHA for totalling 3 and a total 08 Type 075 LHD.

 

[shade2]

How do our Nilgiri class compare to these Chinese Type 54A Frigates?



Paper specs are sem2sem, both have

• 8x AShm
• 32x SAM
• Torpedo tubes
• 76mm main gun
• 2x 30mm CIWS
• RBU style rocket launcher

 

[FactsPlease]

How do our Nilgiri class compare to these Chinese Type 54A Frigates?

View attachment 20530

Paper specs are sem2sem, both have

• 8x AShm
• 32x SAM
• Torpedo tubes
• 76mm main gun
• 2x 30mm CIWS
• RBU style rocket launcher

Diesel engine (054A) vs GT. That already says a lot about different combat profiles (roles). Hint: one is more “expendable”.
- I truly believe that back 2016/7, Pak purchase it simply b’cos available (& affordable ofc, as they had been thinking this so long) VLS (first time Pak have it), esp after USA force it returned 2 (?) Perry classes. Nevertheless, short-leg though economic run cost also only provide some “better than nothing”.

 

[karn]

How do our Nilgiri class compare to these Chinese Type 54A Frigates?

View attachment 20530

Paper specs are sem2sem, both have

• 8x AShm
• 32x SAM
• Torpedo tubes
• 76mm main gun
• 2x 30mm CIWS
• RBU style rocket launcher

Their ASHMS are stored in reclined launchers above deck. Unless their missiles can do U turn without expending fuel unnecessarily It takes an L while firing a salvo (only 4 in a single direction). And those inclined launchers can only hold lighter CMs.

 

[FactsPlease]

Their ASHMS are stored in reclined launchers above deck. Unless their missiles can do U turn without expending fuel unnecessarily It takes an L while firing a salvo (only 4 in a single direction). And those inclined launchers can only hold lighter CMs.

As said, heavier & high-end CM won’t fit 054A’s order of combat.
But, Chinese do put/integrate rocket-propelled torpedoes (Yu-8?) on its VLS, which I deem correct move as its “expendable” (again) role in CBG against submarines.
Don’t think India got that armaments. Or I’m wrong?

 

[shade2]

As said, heavier & high-end CM won’t fit 054A’s order of combat.
But, Chinese do put/integrate rocket-propelled torpedoes (Yu-8?) on its VLS, which I deem correct move as its “expendable” (again) role in CBG against submarines.
Don’t think India got that armaments. Or I’m wrong?

We have the SMART anti submarine missile but it's still in development.
This is basically a missile, then it drops the torpedo into the ocean using a parachute like American ASROC missile IIRC

Their ASHMS are stored in reclined launchers above deck. Unless their missiles can do U turn without expending fuel unnecessarily It takes an L while firing a salvo (only 4 in a single direction). And those inclined launchers can only hold lighter CMs.

I also found out they have some subsonic YJ-83 missiles launched from these inclined launchers, as compared to our which is much longer range and supersonic also.

Like the other guy says guess these Ching frigates are "expendable" while our Nilgiris are basically mini-me's of P15A/P15B.

 

[Fatalis]

How do our Nilgiri class compare to these Chinese Type 54A Frigates?

View attachment 20530

Paper specs are sem2sem, both have

• 8x AShm
• 32x SAM
• Torpedo tubes
• 76mm main gun
• 2x 30mm CIWS
• RBU style rocket launcher

They cost penny to build. They are their work horses. They are building them at a unprecedented pace. They already have 40 units in the water.

From what I have observed PLAN is designing ships based on a specific role like Type 054A is for combat patrol and ASW and Type 052D is for Area Air Defence but IN on the other hand is simply building ships and calling them multi-role. No clear cut distinction between two vessels be it Destroyers or Frigates.

 

[Fatalis]

Ideally, IN should have given proper role to each vessel class like Destroyers for Area Air Defence and Frigates for ASW and Land Attack but since we don't have that much liberty so difference between these two types have diluted alot.

 

[karn]

I also found out they have some subsonic YJ-83 missiles launched from these inclined launchers, as compared to our which is much longer range and supersonic also.

Like the other guy says guess these Ching frigates are "expendable" while our Nilgiris are basically mini-me's of P15A/P15B.

Yeah but they have 40 of these while we have single digit numbers. It's only expendable cause (only) they can afford to expend it. Any fakir country buying one of these cannot afford to "expend" it.

 

[shade2]

They cost penny to build. They are their work horses. They are building them at a unprecedented pace. They already have 40 units in the water.

From what I have observed PLAN is designing ships based on a specific role like Type 054A is for combat patrol and ASW and Type 052D is for Area Air Defence but IN on the other hand is simply building ships and calling them multi-role. No clear cut distinction between two vessels be it Destroyers or Frigates.

Chings have production capacity and can afford to do these specializations I think.
Our guys need all in ones.

If rumors about P18 are true then we will have 10k ton "destroyer"

While P-17A/B and P-15A/B will be almost sem2sem in terms of armament and tonnage inspite of one being "frigate" and the other "destroyer".


tfw I wish our defense budgets weren't decided by penny-wise, pound-foolish chindis

 

[Ayan Barat]

It's extremely shallow to compare just some random specifications like length, number of missiles, weight to gauge effectiveness. There are numerous Indian YouTube channel if you want these kinds of comparisons, "JF-17 ki lambai 14.3m hai wohin Tejas ki lambai 13.2m hai".

Comparisons should be bit more nuanced like they use YJ-83 subsonic AShMs in inclined launchers, it'd take hardly a week to replace them with inclined launchers for YJ-12 supersonic AShMs. We don't have that luxury.

So it'd better if you reframe your question...

How do our Nilgiri class compare to these Chinese Type 54A Frigates?

....as; How do our 7 Nilgiri class compares to the 50 or so Chinese Type 54A frigates?

Their ASHMS are stored in reclined launchers above deck. Unless their missiles can do U turn without expending fuel unnecessarily It takes an L while firing a salvo (only 4 in a single direction).

If a side launched AShM does a U turn then it'll hit back the launching ship; it's hardly ever more than a 90° turn.

Expending fuel unnecessarily applies only to short range surface to air missile as they already have limited fuel for a straight line path. For a missile that has to travel atleast 200km, this wastage is insignificant.

Harpoons, Exocet, Kh-35 all are getting launched in this fashion only.

And those inclined launchers can only hold lighter CMs.

YJ-12 has a reported weight of 2,000kg with a warhead being atleast 400kg, range of atleast 500km travelling at Mach 3.

When we were working on unlocking the max range of P-800 Oniks in our BrahMos, the Chinese were working on scaling up a Kh-31 into a full-fledged supersonic AShMs.

 

[Ayan Barat]

We have the SMART anti submarine missile but it's still in development.
This is basically a missile, then it drops the torpedo into the ocean using a parachute like American ASROC missile IIRC

SMART is no ASROC analogue; it's like saying Tejas is similar to F-35 as they both can drop a 1,000lbs PGM.

SMART weighs few tonnes (based on the same platform as Sagarika, Shaurya and Pralay) and ASROC is mere 0.6t. SMART goes up to 700km while in ASROC it's hardly 30km. Most importantly, the same Ticonderoga Class that has detected a submarine on hydrophone some 20km away can fire an ASROC from its VLS to engage it; in technical terms both the sensor and effector are one the same platform. Not in the case of SMART.

Both have completely different warfighting doctrine; one's more of a tactical weapon and other's more of an area denial.

 

[shade2]

It's extremely shallow to compare just some random specifications like length, number of missiles, weight to gauge effectiveness. There are numerous Indian YouTube channel if you want these kinds of comparisons, "JF-17 ki lambai 14.3m hai wohin Tejas ki lambai 13.2m hai".

Comparisons should be bit more nuanced like they use YJ-83 subsonic AShMs in inclined launchers, it'd take hardly a week to replace them with inclined launchers for YJ-12 supersonic AShMs. We don't have that luxury.

So it'd better if you reframe your question...

....as; How do our 7 Nilgiri class compares to the 50 or so Chinese Type 54A frigates?

No, just wanted to know apples-to-apples armament comparison, we aren't going to face 50 of their frigates, that number is meant for the Anschluss of Taiwan while USN just watches, fearful of the 150 White Warships of Xi Jinping, including their YJ-12 missiles.

Since most people including yours truly are blackpilled over IN's P-15A/B destroyer's anemic missile load as compared to Chini Type 52D or even the much more well equipped Sejong the Great class of BTS or their Arleigh Burkes of USN.

It feels nice to see atleast in terms of "frigates" the armament in numbers is comparable to peers including the local Papa John's franchisee Navy which also has the same model of frigate in service, but with YJ-12 so as to be equal-equal & sem2sem to BrahMos

 

[shade2]

SMART is no ASROC analogue; it's like saying Tejas is similar to F-35 as they both can drop a 1,000lbs PGM.

SMART weighs few tonnes (based on the same platform as Sagarika, Shaurya and Pralay) and ASROC is mere 0.6t. SMART goes up to 700km while in ASROC it's hardly 30km. Most importantly, the same Ticonderoga Class that has detected a submarine on hydrophone some 20km away can fire an ASROC from its VLS to engage it; in technical terms both the sensor and effector are one the same platform. Not in the case of SMART.

Both have completely different warfighting doctrine; one's more of a tactical weapon and other's more of an area denial.

Wait so you mean SMART is supposed to be land-launched?

Why haven't we developed a smaller rocket to launch the torpedo from VLS like ASROC then?