Indian Navy Developments & Discussions (19 Viewers)

[FalconSlayers]

MDL to get submarine contracts worth over ₹1 lakh crore ($12 billion) in FY25-26
The first contract is the ₹70,000-crore Project 75I under which the Mumbai-based MDL and German yard Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems will build six advanced submarines.

The second contract estimated to be worth ₹36,000 crore is for constructing three more Scorpene

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/mdl-to-get-central-submarine-contracts-worth-over-1-lakh-crore-in-fy2526-101752050049664.html

 

[snakeeyes07]

MDL to get submarine contracts worth over ₹1 lakh crore ($12 billion) in FY25-26
The first contract is the ₹70,000-crore Project 75I under which the Mumbai-based MDL and German yard Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems will build six advanced submarines.

The second contract estimated to be worth ₹36,000 crore is for constructing three more Scorpene

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/mdl-to-get-central-submarine-contracts-worth-over-1-lakh-crore-in-fy2526-101752050049664.html

If India is going German for P75I then I hope it is Type-212CD. With this India can absorb the active sonar stealth shaping technology.

TKMS Offering Type 212CD E Submarine to the Netherlands - Naval News

With the Type 212CD E design, TKMS is pitching a military off-the-shelf solution to the Royal Netherlands Navy (RNLN).

www.navalnews.com

 

[randombully]

If India is going German for P75I then I hope it is Type-212CD. With this India can absorb the active sonar stealth shaping technology.

TKMS Offering Type 212CD E Submarine to the Netherlands - Naval News

With the Type 212CD E design, TKMS is pitching a military off-the-shelf solution to the Royal Netherlands Navy (RNLN).

www.navalnews.com

View attachment 42917

That angular "stealth shaping" has kinda dubious benifits.
Unlike EM waves in air, Sound waves does definitely does not travel in straight lines underwater, and it's hard to predict exactly their trajectory. So most "tricks" used in RCS reduction won't work. -The sharp edges used in RCS reduction are all but hydrodynamic. In worst case You'll end up making a lot of water noises, easily detected at long range by passive sonar.
You would want to design the hull in such a way that it doesn't produce much sound when moving through water, a hydrodynamically compatible hull, sharp angluar Features are kinda opposite of that.

But again, tkms must have thought about it, bit I still doubt it's benifits.

 

[shade2]

If India is going German for P75I then I hope it is Type-212CD. With this India can absorb the active sonar stealth shaping technology.

TKMS Offering Type 212CD E Submarine to the Netherlands - Naval News

With the Type 212CD E design, TKMS is pitching a military off-the-shelf solution to the Royal Netherlands Navy (RNLN).

www.navalnews.com

View attachment 42917

Type 212CD with it's goodies isn't coming

We will get a cutdown export version.

Admirols still will be happy since they finally get AIP tho.

For e.g Type 212A had a non magnetic hull, but Germs wouldn't sell this to non-Euro jamaatis.
Type 214 was the export edition with a normal hull.

That angular "stealth shaping" has kinda dubious benifits.
Unlike EM waves in air, Sound waves does definitely does not travel in straight lines underwater, and it's hard to predict exactly their trajectory. So most "tricks" used in RCS reduction won't work. -The sharp edges used in RCS reduction are all but hydrodynamic. In worst case You'll end up making a lot of water noises, easily detected at long range by passive sonar.
You would want to design the hull in such a way that it doesn't produce much sound when moving through water, a hydrodynamically compatible hull, sharp angluar Features are kinda opposite of that.

But again, tkms must have thought about it, bit I still doubt it's benifits.

imo Admirals must get a normal shaped submarine for the 6 P75I subs order
They can place another order for 6 with angular hull shaping.

Aside from questionable benefits since this is a new design there's bound to be teething problems, better go for a proven design only.

For the Australian submarine tender, TKMS had made a Type 216 submarine design, this had 4000t displacement and 90m length.

 

[liberalredditor]

Red colour is the coating.
International 300 Red epoxy coat.
Common base coat for ships.

The brown bits is rust.

which steel is used in ship building? any special alloy or normal steel which is extra thick? steel would rust, but its subsequent alloys like stainless steel, chromium steel would not rust even if you keep it for years in sea and moisture

 

[KAB7777]

which steel is used in ship building? any special alloy or normal steel which is extra thick? steel would rust, but its subsequent alloys like stainless steel, chromium steel would not rust even if you keep it for years in sea and moisture

Production of DMR 249A Steel at SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant | Scientific.Net

Low alloy steels are an attractive option for high performance structural applications due to cost and availability factors. A low carbon low alloyed steel, DMR 249A, was developed for strategic applications by Indian Navy at Steel Melting Shop II, Bokaro Steel Plant (SMS II, BSL). This paper...

www.scientific.net

 

[snakeeyes07]

I was looking into potential terminal velocity (<10 km altitude) of Anti-Ship BM that IN is likely to face and if Barak-8 could intercept these.

On the internet, DF-21D is said to have mach 10 terminal speed. But I believe this is bogus because there is quite a bit of plasma sheath if RV/missile is entering the atmosphere with velocity greater than mach 5. As these kind of missiles need an active radar seeker or a dual seeker with IR, significant plasma sheath would make these sensor duds. So, for practical purpose the terminal speed needs to be less than mach 5.

DF-21 missiles are based on Pershing 2. Pershing 2 at 15 km altitude when it starts using radar seeker has a minimum terminal speed of 600-650 m/s (1.75-1.89 mach). I think the estimate of terminal speed of Pershing 2 is in the range of 1.75 - 3 mach.

DF-21D RV could have a sustainer solid motor which gives it an estimated terminal speed of <= 4.5 mach. I expect YJ-21 ALBM to have a similar terminal speed.

https://en.topwar.ru/68512-iskander-m-protiv-pershing-2.html

There is a possibility of a vertical dive to the target at an angle close to 90 ° at a speed of 700-800 m / s

For reference, Iskander-M has a terminal velocity of 2-2.35 mach with a steep dive attack.

With CM-400 or CM-401 or SMASH/P282, I estimate the terminal speed (< 10km altitude) to be in 1.5-2.5 mach range. I think Barak-8 is sufficient to deal with these threats especially considering the 60kg warhead but not optimal as they lack lateral divert control system.

The optimal solution for IN is to induct Kusha M1 (S-350 9M96 equivalent) preferably with some sort of DCS ASAP. For PLAN threats, a missile adopted from AD-1 (>50-60km kill altitude capability) with DCS will be needed.

 

[Interested]

You really think the dhoti-baboon group give a shit about Admirol's MPA requirements?

You think that's why they are buying 5-6x P8I now after sitting on it's file for only God knows how many years?

View attachment 42863

It's for Jaziya, they saw it was a pending request and pulled it out of the tower of files which MoD baboos sit upon.

Now aside from some 9 years worth of inflation, i'm sure an addtional India tax will be applied to the amount to be "fair" to America since "Indians are ripping us off".


I really hope for this jaziya they don't sacrific the Scorpene order or P17B CCS clearance, Jaziya will be paid out of Navy budget ofc

The P8 is a very good plane . Highly reccomended by the Navy. If they have to buy something then this is a good one . Why they take so long on things is another matter ...

 

[randombully]

On the internet, DF-21D is said to have mach 10 terminal speed. But I believe this is bogus because there is quite a bit of plasma sheath if RV/missile is entering the atmosphere with velocity greater than mach 5. As these kind of missiles need an active radar seeker or a dual seeker with IR, significant plasma sheath would make these sensor duds. So, for practical purpose the terminal speed needs to be less than mach 5.

Df-21D RV doesn't have a seeker, it receives constant updates via ku band datalink.
And in terminal dive it's *RAM bharose* with the assumption that carrier wouldn't move because it would be take ~15-30 seconds for it to hit the carrier in terminal from 10km altitude.
It is mach 10 in terminal.


Also our LR-ASHM does have a seeker and has minimum speed of Mach 6+ in terminal.

 

[vin pahadi (kumauni)]

Indian destroyer fleet
india hv/will hv near 13 destroyers.

1:- rajput class = india hv currently 3 remaining rajput class ships in operation. two are already retired. these ships commissioned in indian navy from 1982 to 1987. they r very near of their retirement. these ships is near 5000 tons displacement.


2:- delhi class = we made total 3 this type of ships. these comissioned in indian navy from 1997 to 2001. these are 6200 ton displacement ships. it need modification.


3:- Kolkata class = we made 3 of these. these commissioned in indian navy near 2014 to 2016. these ships are 7500 tons in displacement.


4:- vishakhapatnam class = we made 4 of these ships. they r with little improvement over Kolkata class. they commissioned in indian navy from 2021 to 2025. last ship will be commission in 2025. these are 7600 ton displacement.


we hv plan to induct 6-8 project 18 class destroyers. but they r in drawing board. they r in cruiser class, not in destroyer class. we r expecting them to commission in 2035-40 period.
so untill then, we will operating 10 destroyers. i think we should buy 2-3 more improved vishakhapatnam class. so our manforce nd facility dont sit idle. i know we r making near destroyer size frigate (nilgiri class) in 7+8 (upcoming) = 15 numbers. but still both hv capabilities difference.

 

[randombully]

Indian destroyer fleet
india hv/will hv near 13 destroyers.

1:- rajput class = india hv currently 3 remaining rajput class ships in operation. two are already retired. these ships commissioned in indian navy from 1982 to 1987. they r very near of their retirement. these ships is near 5000 tons displacement.
View attachment 42964

2:- delhi class = we made total 3 this type of ships. these comissioned in indian navy from 1997 to 2001. these are 6200 ton displacement ships. it need modification.
View attachment 42965

3:- Kolkata class = we made 3 of these. these commissioned in indian navy near 2003 to 2006. these ships are 7500 tons in displacement.
View attachment 42966

4:- vishakhapatnam class = we made 4 of these ships. they r with little improvement over Kolkata class. they commissioned in indian navy from 2021 to 2025. last ship will be commission in 2025. these are 7600 ton displacement.
View attachment 42967

we hv plan to induct 6-8 project 18 class destroyers. but they r in drawing board. they r in cruiser class, not in destroyer class. we r expecting them to commission in 2035-40 period.
so untill then, we will operating 10 destroyers. i think we should buy 2-3 more improved vishakhapatnam class. so our manforce nd facility dont sit idle. i know we r making near destroyer size frigate (nilgiri class) in 7+8 (upcoming) = 15 numbers. but still both hv capabilities difference.

Kolkata class, 2003-2006?
All Kolkata class were commissioned between Agust 2014 to November 2016.

 

[silentassassin265]

Kolkata class, 2003-2006?
All Kolkata class were commissioned between Agust 2014 to November 2016.

But what happens next?
We don't have any new destroyers which is ready to be manufactured as vishakhapatnam class is completed

 

[liberalredditor]

But what happens next?
We don't have any new destroyers which is ready to be manufactured as vishakhapatnam class is completed

Either the admirals will request for a reorder of vizag class, or they will wait for a decade.

 

[randombully]

But what happens next?
We don't have any new destroyers which is ready to be manufactured as vishakhapatnam class is completed

The new p17B in consideration is rumored to be 8000tons.
P15A/B destroyer are 7500-7600 tons.
P17A frigates are 6700 tons.

P18 destroyer project is on drawing board.
But some components are being tested.
Like this.

View: https://x.com/AdithyaKM_/status/1686410678649966592
A nice thread.

View: https://x.com/Flankerchan/status/1886091977160269903

View: https://x.com/Flankerchan/status/1886093994456953211

 

[snakeeyes07]

Df-21D RV doesn't have a seeker, it receives constant updates via ku band datalink.
And in terminal dive it's *RAM bharose* with the assumption that carrier wouldn't move because it would be take ~15-30 seconds for it to hit the carrier in terminal from 10km altitude.
It is mach 10 in terminal.


Also our LR-ASHM does have a seeker and has minimum speed of Mach 6+ in terminal.

If that's the case then I am skeptical about the effectiveness (Probability of Kill), CBG could easily be moving at 25+ knots. DF-21C has a CEP of 50m or more when it is attacking a fixed target, DF-21D relying on just satellite datalink updates will definitely have a larger CEP.

Won't EW (jamming/disruption of enemy satellite datalink) around the CBG further decrease the accuracy.


Is DF-21D air burst to increase the chance of causing damage, it would't make sense relying on impact fuse if it has no seeker?

 

[randombully]

If that's the case then I am skeptical about the effectiveness (Probability of Kill), CBG could easily be moving at 25+ knots. DF-21C has a CEP of 50m or more when it is attacking a fixed target, DF-21D/LR-AShM relying on satellite datalink updates will definitely have a larger CEP.

Won't EW (jamming/disruption of enemy satellite datalink) around the CBG further decrease the accuracy.


Is DF-21D air burst to increase the chance of causing damage, it would't make sense relying on impact fuse if it has no seeker?

You reached all the right conclusions here.

Plan is to fire multiple missiles at the target, not only to increase the probability of getting past defenses, but also the probability of hitting the carrier.
Yes it's a airburst.

It's a rather lathergic means of attacking a ship.
But at that time that was the only way china can develop a missile potent enough to get past carrier defenses, so they worked on it.

Russia, India or any other country hasn't explored this concept.

Another downside of df21 is the constant reliance on external guidance.
Which makes it's usage lot more complicated and expensive, and also makes it lot more vunrable to distrusbances in kill chain/guidance.


For example our lrashm is kinda like fire and forget missile. it only needs initial coordinates of the target ship as a bare minimum, it will reach it within few minutes, and at the speed ships move deviation in position will be small at most 5-10km well within seeker capability of LR-ASHM.

 

[snakeeyes07]

Df-21D RV doesn't have a seeker, it receives constant updates via ku band datalink.
And in terminal dive it's *RAM bharose* with the assumption that carrier wouldn't move because it would be take ~15-30 seconds for it to hit the carrier in terminal from 10km altitude.
It is mach 10 in terminal.


Also our LR-ASHM does have a seeker and has minimum speed of Mach 6+ in terminal.

There is conflicting info re terminal guidance

Supporting no terminal guidance with seeker

DF-21 (CSS-5) | Missile Threat

The Dongfeng-21(CSS-5) is a Chinese medium-range, road-mobile ballistic missile.

missilethreat.csis.org

The DF-21D is a conventionally armed DF-21 variant designed to attack ships at sea. Sometimes dubbed the “carrier-killer,” U.S. reports suggest a range a 1,450 to 1,550 km. Similar to the DF-21B, the warhead is likely maneuverable and may have an accuracy of 20 m CEP. This missile entered service in 2006 along with the DF-21C. In 2013, the missile was tested against a ship target that was roughly the same size as contemporary U.S. aircraft carriers.9

Supporting terminal guidance with seeker

WU-14 Dong Feng-21D (DF21D) / CSS-5 Mod 5 - Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile (ASBM)

www.globalsecurity.org

A 2006 unclassified assessment by ONI stated that “China is equipping theater ballistic missiles with maneuvering reentry vehicles (MaRVs) with radar or IR [infrared] seekers to provide the accuracy necessary to attack a ship at sea.”

https://www.ausairpower.net/PDF-A/DT-PLA-ASBM-Dec-2011.pdf

Once the air is dense enough for the controls to work, the RV will effect a course correction to remove any drift it experienced during uncontrolled flight, adjusting the trajectory to hit the aim point programmed at launch. The RV will be travelling at some speed between Mach 5 and 7 at this point.Once low enough, the protective ablative nosecone will be jettisoned to expose the optical window for the terminal seeker, which may have to be cooled from an internal gas bottle. The stabilised gimballed seeker will be pointed at the intended point of impact and take a snapshot of the area, large enough to capture any course changes by a CVBG steaming at 30+ knots. Software in the seeker will identify ship wakes, select the CVN in the CVBG likely by size, and compute a trajectory correction, resulting in another trajectory change. The latter will be repeated until the RV hits the target or the ocean very near, if the design is deficient. The impact velocity is apt to be in the vicinity of Mach 4 to 5.From a lethality perspective, even an ASBM armed wi

 

[shiphone]

no...there is a seeker and it's simliar to Pershing (the early models of DF-21D) ...lol...anyway this is an old model ,isn't it?

 

[snakeeyes07]

no...there is a seeker and it's simliar to Pershing (the early models of DF-21D) ...lol...anyway this is an old model ,isn't it?

Then the widely quoted mach 10 terminal velocity can't be true. The velocity in <15km altitude zone has be less than mach 5 to use the RF or IR seeker, otherwise plasma sheath is going to make them dud.

Pershing 2 velocity in this altitude zone was in range of 1.75-3 mach. It's RV didn't have any solid motor. Does DF-21D have a solid sustainer motor in it's RV otherwise it's terminal velocity is going to be less than mach 4.5 (actually more close to Pershing 2).

 

[shade2]

The P8 is a very good plane . Highly reccomended by the Navy. If they have to buy something then this is a good one . Why they take so long on things is another matter ...

Navy might have de-prioritized it and planned to spend the budget on ships and subs after no movement from babooze 4-5 years back.

Now babooze and Leaderji suddenly want to buy more P8I to appease Trump.