[R2D2]

Watching the live stream and the number of ex 1971 Naval war vets and those who served on the Vikrant at some point in their career in the IN are participating on the chat is amazing. Some familiar names. This is close to my heart and takes me back in time. My Dad was the XO on the INS Vikrant in 1977-78.

[dragracer567]

The Indian Navy has announced that they have taken delivery of the INS Visakhapatnam, the first warship from Project 15B Visakhapatnam class destroyers which are a further development of the Project 15A Kolkata class destroyers - easily the most potent ships in the Indian navy fleet. I believe Visakhapatnam class destroyers will take the place of the Rajput class which are slowed being phased out.

I must say, the Kolkata class and Visakhapatnam class ships are some of the most beautiful destroyers out there! And the Navy’s fleet will see quite the expansion in the 2020s with the 4 Visakhapatnam class destroyers and 7 Nilgiri class frigates (massive for a frigate at 6,600 tonnes).

These images were posted by the navy on twitter.

[saikarthik]

I have a question about the main gun and the CIWS selection on 15B destroyers. Initially they were planned to have bigger main gun 127 mm and I think due to delays and cost escalation they are equipped with the indigenously produced Oto Melara 76 rapid fire gun.

But what is the advantage or disadvantage when put against the Chinese type 52D as it has bigger gun with longer range? Does main gun caliber really matters against another ship or just for the surface and air threats?

Also, our Talwar class frigates are being equipped with Kashtan system, but our frontline destroyers with AK 630. I can assume that the destroyers have powerful MFSTAR, but incase of any damage to it, the AK 630 CIWS becomes useless. Why didn't we go with independent tracking CIWS? At least 2 of 4 in our destroyers.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by saikarthik

I have a question about the main gun and the CIWS selection on 15B destroyers.

Initially they were planned to have bigger main gun 127 mm and I think due to delays and cost escalation they are equipped with the indigenously produced Oto Melara 76 rapid fire gun.

Thank you for your questions. Oto Melara have for long designed and built some of the best, most reliable and effective naval guns for decades. Equivalent British & French don't even deserve a comparison in practical use. Overlook here the nameplate statistics we see on the net. The 76 mm is a real dual purpose gun effective against both surface and air targets and to that extent acts as a back up in both dimensions against the primary missile based weapon system. Also the 76mm being lighter {7.5 tonnes vs 17 tonnes} lends it self to being fitted to ships down to 500 tonnes in size. And this has led to uniformity in the gun being used in over 7 or 8 different types of warships in the Indian Navy today. The 127mm version of Oto Melara is also a effective gun focused on anti-surface warfare and shore bombardment. As an anti-air weapon it only has limited use and that too only against helicopters. So a designer has to decide on how best to use the limited top weight in the design - a smaller multi-purpose gun or a larger limited purpose gun. The 127mm could have been fitted onto the Type 15B but it would detract from the significant benefits in training, spares and munitions standardization. These humbler factors often have a greater bearing in war than the ideal weapon. So all these decisions are a balance of many factors.

But what is the advantage or disadvantage when put against the Chinese type 52D as it has bigger gun with longer range? Does main gun calibre really matters against another ship or just for the surface and air threats?

A gun duel ship vs ship is a very unlikely scenario as the attack would have taken place at SSM missile ranges long before they close in to gun ranges. A bigger gun calibre's main benefit is in shore bombardment. And if you are tackling an adversary without missiles or a main gun a 127mm or 76mm or even 57mm will do the job.

Also, our Talwar class frigates are being equipped with Kashtan system, but our frontline destroyers with AK 630. I can assume that the destroyers have powerful MFSTAR, but incase of any damage to it, the AK 630 CIWS becomes useless. Why didn't we go with independent tracking CIWS? At least 2 of 4 in our destroyers.

Both systems are good. The Talwar class had the Kashtan built in to their design so we accepted it. Our primary preference has been two AK630s on either beam. I do not have full information but I doubt that AK630 is reliant only on the MFSTAR for guidance and fire control. Every weapon system will have either 2 or 3 methods by which that weapon's firing can be controlled. Given that the AK630 is the last ditch defence as the enemy's SSM is homing in it is almost 100% certain there are more than one ways of firing it accurately. The middle name of all naval weapon systems is 'Redundancy'. I hope this helps. The Kashtan in my view {and this is only my view} looks overly complex. The AK630 by itself is a highly proven weapon which has gotten better with each new fire control system it has been integrated with.

Hope this answers what you are seeking.

[saikarthik]

INS Vela, fourth of the Kalvari class under project P75 (Scorpene) submarine is delivered to the Indian Navy. Vela, a diesel-electric submarine is laden with advanced stealth capabilities like acoustic silencing (similar to moise cancellation), low noise emissions etc...

Image source: Hindustan Times

Hope we get to see P76A getting the much needed push soon.

[V.Narayan]

Know your enemy better than yourself.

Adding here the Pakistan Navy's first major new surface vessel acquisition in a while. Till now that force relied on second hand ships from USA or Britain which were handed over as a defence grant with the vessels well past three quarters of their life. The only exception were the 4 Type 53 {Zulfikar class} light frigates from China. Now thanks to old friend Xi Jinping the Pak Navy is acquiring 4 guided missile frigates of the Type 54 class - all new construction. It is very roughly equivalent in size and armament to our Talwar class frigates. Hitherto the only new vessels the Pak Navy acquired were its submarines. With 8 SSK subs from China on order we will be facing a different Navy in 12 years time.

Parts of our press and all of the Pak press are getting over excited. Its two key offensive weapons are 8 C-803 SSMs, 32 vertically launched HQ-16 medium range SAMs and a helicopter.

The Pak Navy is the cindrella of its armed forces over shadowed by the over bearing political-commercial army. But at least as far as its submarine force goes they have shown they know their stuff and are not to be under estimated.

More on the Type 54 here -
underestimated.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_054A_frigate

Photo below of a Chinese Type 54 shows lines similar to our Shivalik's and size similar to our smaller Talwar's. Source: Wikipedia

[dragracer567]

A great opinion piece with which I can't help but agree with. Source

While we are certainly proud of our new destroyers (Kolkata class, Visakhapatnam class etc.) and frigates (Nilgiri class and new ships from the Talwar class etc), the PLAN is ahead in both quantity and tonnage by mind-boggling proportions. Get this, China has five times as many destroyers as India, 3.5 times as many frigates and 4.6 times as many submarines. And, moreover, the PLAN has 9 more destroyers being fitted out taking the total to 59. Note that 9 of these are Type 055s which are essentially 'Guided Missile Cruisers' and are almost twice as big as our latest INS Vishakhapatnam class ships. These numbers make sense when we realize that the Chinese economy is now almost 5.5 times the size of India's in 2021.

In India's case, we have 3 more destroyers from the Visakhapatnam class, 7 more frigates from the monstrous Nilgiri class and 4 more frigates under the smaller Talwar class either under construction or being fitted out. So, this would bring our total to 13 destroyers and 23 frigates by 2030. But then again, the 4 frigates from the Brahmaputra and Godavari classes and the 3 destroyers from the Rajput class might be retired by then giving a net increase of just 7 ships by 2030. I am ignoring Corvettes and smaller patrol vessels though the Kamorta class itself is almost as big as Frigates of some other countries.

An interesting observation in that article is how the PLAN almost mass produces identical ships from the same class like the Type 052D destroyer and the Type 054A frigate (same strategy as the US Navy with the Arleigh Burke class destroyers) while the Indian Navy prefers to buy smaller numbers of different classes over the years with incremental improvements (eg. Kolkata class to Visakhapatnam class destroyers or Shivalik class to Nilgiri class frigates).

In effect, the PLAN is closer to the US Navy in terms of numbers while the Indian Navy is closer to the Royal Navy or the French Navy (but with a much bigger coastline to protect). Even if the PLAN stop constructing new ships, it would take decades for India to catch up, if ever.

Offcourse, the primary competitor for the PLAN is the US Navy and given their number of enemies in the Pacific and the SCS, projecting power in the Indian Ocean will remain a challenge for now. But can the Indian Navy handle 2 Chinese carrier strike groups roaming around the Indian Ocean in 2035?

[torquecurve]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

A great opinion piece with which I can't help but agree with. Source

But can the Indian Navy handle 2 Chinese carrier strike groups roaming around the Indian Ocean in 2035?

There is no simple asnwer to this question. There are gurus on this forum much more knowledgeable, but here is my 'Armchair Admiral' answer.

Yes, the PLAN has the edge when it comes to the sheer number of 'hulls' that they can put out to sea. Also, the 'Malaka Strait' chokepoint can be countered by PLAN effectively owning some bases in Sri Lanka, Pakistan and North Africa.

Naval warfare has two doctrines typically, sea-denial and sea-dominance.

The IN in this case is well poised for the 'area-denial type of warfare.

The biggest advantage we have it the availability of two island chains which can act as 'permanent aircraft carriers' - with land-based aircraft on both our seaboards. These typically will be more difficult for an adversary to take out esp. with shore-based Brahmos batteries located here (if they are).

Additionally, we have good surveillance capabilities now on both fronts - The P8i's, Searchers, and our very own satellites.

Also, our capital ships are equipped with long-range 'proven' missile systems such as the Klub, BrahMos.

On the Pakistan side - some of our coast guard ships (OPV's) are as large as frigates - can be armed with BrahMos 'containers' when required, we have long-range maritime aircraft (Su's and Jag-M) which can literally lock their closest naval base and keep their capital ships within the harbour!. Additionally, we have superiority when it comes to the total tonnage we can put at sea compared to them.

The key difference in PLAN and IN is that IN being the 'cinderella' force has had to do more with limited budgets - meaning we have high quality 'multi-role' ships. the INS Delhi Series for example - pack a punch and though a couple of decades old now, still very relevant ships with upgrades.

Any PLAN ship has to traverse a 'long' distance to attack us and that sir - is our biggest advantage.

Can the IN handle two PLAN CBG's - Yes!

[V.Narayan]

INS Mormugao, second Project 15B guided missile destroyer, commences sea trials

https://www.livemint.com/news/india/...928087500.html

INS Mormugao, follows INS Visakhapatnam in the Project 15B class of destroyers. She commenced her sea trials on 19th December i.e. the 60th anniversary of Goa's liberation from Portuguese rule. Two more are planned - INS Imphal and INS Surat. These new destroyers will allow the Navy to decommission the old Kashin destroyers all of which are 30+ years old now.

These are a follow-on i.e. improved version of the INS Kolkata class which in turn were an improved version of the INS Delhi class. This way staying with the same basic {very fine} hull design and reliable powerplant the weapons suite i.e. the business end has been upgraded for the third time. This step by sensible step upward movement has served the Navy well. We now have the building infrastructure and monetary resources to build 6 or 8 of a class at one go and must out grow this trend of building 3 or 4 of a class. I think it is time now for a post on the comparison of the three classes.

File photo of INS Visakhapatnam, lead vessel of the class. {Source- Indian Navy}

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

We now have the building infrastructure and monetary resources to build 6 or 8 of a class at one go and must out grow this trend of building 3 or 4 of a class.

I guess the resources were allocated to build more of the cheaper Nilgiri class frigates which in itself is larger than most Indian surface combatants except the Kolkata and Visakhapatnam class destroyers and probably just as capable for Area Air Defense given they have the same MF-STAR radar and the same number of Barak-8 SAMS. While we have the infrastructure and resources, the funding for the Navy has declined in percentage terms and they have to make tough choices.

The next destroyer class is supposed to be the 12,000 tonne Project 18 with the first destroyer to be commissioned by 2028. But given the complexity of developing and building such a large vessel from scratch (the first Kolkata class destroyer took 11 years from steel cutting to commissioning), I am guessing that the 10 vessels from the Delhi (3), Kolkata (3) and Visakhapatnam (4) classes will remain our only destroyers till atleast 2030 (unless India learns to mass produce quickly like China), augmented by 20 frigates from the Talwar (10), Shivalik (3) and Nilgiri (7) classes and some large corvettes.

Meanwhile, the Indian Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence have made a strong recommendation for a third carrier. I am not sure if this recommendation is binding but nice to see the legislature play a bigger role in defense affairs as we've seen from the US Congress.

"Taking into account the long coastline and hostile adversities on both sides of the Indian peninsula, an aircraft carrier on both sides of the coast is quintessential to uphold operational requirements. However, repair work of a huge vessel such as an aircraft carrier takes a considerably long time. Therefore, to bridge operational deficiencies thus arising, three aircraft carriers are an unavoidable requirement to meet any eventualities," the committee has suggested.

Source

There is also some media chatter that during the recent visit of the French Defense minister to India, along with the well-publicized readiness to export more rafales specifically for the Navy's new carrier, there were discussions regarding the Barracuda class nuclear submarines as well. This would make France the first country to offer nuclear submarines to India for sale as even the Russians have only provided nuclear submarines on lease. I guess AUKUS really broke the glass ceiling on selling nuclear submarine technology and India has generally been a reliable partner. This would also mean that the Project 75 (l) might be scrapped for nuclear submarines reminiscent of AUKUS. This is all media speculation offcourse.

Source

[benu9714]

Dear Mr Narayanan

Re "We now have the building infrastructure and monetary resources to build 6 or 8 of a class at one go and must out grow this trend of building 3 or 4 of a class."

I asked a very well-informed person to comment, and this is what he said :

"While it would be desirable to build 6 or 8 ships of a class, unfortunately our defence shipyards collectively do not have the capacity to build large series fast enough to avoid obsolescence. That's why the Naval Design team had advocated private yards also to build naval ships instead of loss making construction of commercial ships at which our private yards were uncompetitive and hence wanted subsidies to benefit foreign vendors and customers.

Unfortunately, private shipyards failed to appreciate the complexities of naval ships and the need for large skilled workforce and could not successfully execute whatever orders they grabbed and all (except L&T) have been forced to shut shop rendering thousands jobless."

Regards

[directinjection]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

These new destroyers will allow the Navy to decommission the old Kashin destroyers all of which are 30+ years old now.

Were our Kashin class destroyers purchased new or second hand?

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by directinjection

Were our Kashin class destroyers purchased new or second hand?

Thank you for your question. They were brand new constructed for us to design requirements from the Indian Navy. We asked for (i) an on board ASW and surveillance helicopter {Kamav Ka-25} with hangar; (ii) 4 surface to surface missiles {Styx SSN-2C}; (iii) 4 close in weapons {30mm} to be added. The Soviets redesigned the original Kashin for us. There were to be six of the class but by end-1980s we were running low on defence budgets for the Navy and the order for the 6th was scrapped. Alongside our order the Soviets partly modified their own Kashins with the latter two weapons and a helicopter landing pad. These ships have served us very well despite some very ill informed nasty press in 1980-82. This habit of the press hasn't changed even today a generation later.

Originally Posted by benu9714

Re "We now have the building infrastructure and monetary resources to build 6 or 8 of a class at one go and must out grow this trend of building 3 or 4 of a class."

I asked a very well-informed person to comment, and this is what he said :

"While it would be desirable to build 6 or 8 ships of a class, unfortunately our defence shipyards collectively do not have the capacity to build large series fast enough to avoid obsolescence. That's why the Naval Design team had advocated private yards also to build naval ships instead of loss making construction of commercial ships at which our private yards were uncompetitive and hence wanted subsidies to benefit foreign vendors and customers.

Unfortunately, private shipyards failed to appreciate the complexities of naval ships and the need for large skilled workforce and could not successfully execute whatever orders they grabbed and all (except L&T) have been forced to shut shop rendering thousands jobless."

Thank you for sharing your inputs. Much appreciated. I half agree half disagree with your friends inputs. What your friend said very well applied to the PSU yards in 2005 or even 2010 but not to what they are today in 2021. However the PSU yards still have a long way to go to being fully efficient and released from the debilitating shackles of CAG-CBI-CVC. Some of the delay in constructing warships in India lies at the doorstep of the IN itself for its habit of modifying specs continuously after steel has been cut. Of the private yards L&T can very well build destroyers if given an order. After all they are building the SSBNs. The Pipav unit is a wash out due to poor ownership & management. The gating item today is defence budget and not ability to build a class of say 12 destroyers if the will to unshackle the PSUs and sanction the budgets exists. I am pinning my hopes on the recent reforms of the ordnance factories.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

The next destroyer class is supposed to be the 12,000 tonne Project 18 with the first destroyer to be commissioned by 2028.

Interesting. I'm not sure if such a massive destroyer is necessarily a good idea for India. I know the discourse recently has been on pure numbers in light of the quite simply incredible Chinese naval build up. I think that is a bad example for India to follow. Firstly we have to be realistic that such a rapid naval build up at breakneck pace is frankly not practicable in the Indian context, and nor do we necessarily need it. China's requirements centre around primarily matching up to the USN within the First Island Chain and then being able to push them out to the Second Island Chain and beyond. Then you've got the fact that China needs to push the PLAN way out to extra territorial waters in line with protecting their supply lines. The IN has to requirement for projecting power per se beyond the IOR, instead, it's a case of holding fort within the already vast IOR and consolidating.

Here however the problem still persists of numbers. Given the usual 1 at sea, 1 undertaking training and 1 under refit, we start to see the need for ample hull numbers given that in essence the IN is stretched on two fronts. To that end part of me wonders if a 12000 ton hull might be a stretch too far for our requirements. From what I recall it would be a case of supersizing the existing Kolkata class basic hull form? But I thought the latter and all it's derivatives already had a lot of lee room built in for growth given the IN's preference to build roomier than strictly necessary. And given the sensible incremental build up of sub types, surely what would be needed in the scenario you paint below:

I am guessing that the 10 vessels from the Delhi (3), Kolkata (3) and Visakhapatnam (4) classes will remain our only destroyers till atleast 2030 (unless India learns to mass produce quickly like China), augmented by 20 frigates from the Talwar (10), Shivalik (3) and Nilgiri (7) classes and some large corvettes

.. the requirement would by then be to have more destroyers in an up to date spec of the latest Kolkata class hull form. From what I recall, for the size of these existing destroyers, they're on the lighter side in terms of VLS load out. And they have enough head room built in endurance wise for the duration of deployments necessary in the IOR which to me negates the advantages of having an even bigger 12000 ton vessel. I guess it's also partly a case of having an asset then that becomes an even bigger material loss should anything happen, whereas with more of the sort of 7500 or 8000 ton range destroyers you have I suppose distributed lethality. To me it just feels that with a modern weapons load out that sort of tonnage in the 7-8k range is the sweet spot for a modern destroyer. Any extra is just flexing to borrow modern parlance.

Meanwhile, the Indian Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence have made a strong recommendation for a third carrier. I am not sure if this recommendation is binding but nice to see the legislature play a bigger role in defense affairs as we've seen from the US Congress.

Interesting. Late CDS Rawat was quite clear in prioritising the nuclear submarine programmes over a third carrier. This would be another about turn unless his successor maintains his stance. While in a sense it's good to see our legislature get more involved, I hope it doesn't get to the frankly ridiculous nature in the US where you have clear pork barrel contracts.

There is also some media chatter that during the recent visit of the French Defense minister to India, along with the well-publicized readiness to export more rafales specifically for the Navy's new carrier, there were discussions regarding the Barracuda class nuclear submarines as well.

Interesting. I've not seen much doing the rounds along these lines. Certainly makes for fascinating conjecture. There's no doubt the French are smarting after being so publicly dumped by a partner on such a high profile export project. I'm not sure how keen I am in an export Barracuda class though it depends on how far along the domestic SSN project is. What India definitely needs is more SSKs, just a logical additional order of Scorpenes. To me an advanced Scorpene derivative for Project 75I just makes too much sense in terms of bolstering the domestic manufacturing, spare parts and maintenance chain already being built out for the current Kaveri Class build out. And as V Narayan has sagely noted before, with a strategic capability like nuclear submarine tech, do you really want to be beholden to another power (because let's not kid ourselves, the Aussies have decided that it was worth being intrinsically tied to US policy in order to combat China)? When we've done the hard yards with the Arihant Class SSBNs, we might as well soldier on with plans for the domestic SSN.

Where I think there is synergy between the French desire for a big ticket export project, their own requirements long term, IN long term requirements and the recent comments by the Standing Committee on Defence, is for that third carrier. Longer term, particularly with the ridiculous pace at which the PLAN will soon have a true flat top in service, India will need to return to having a true flat top CATOBAR carrier. The CdG is in need of replacement longer term as well. If I were an enterprising diplomat from South Block the hook I'd use would be to leverage the French smarting still over the AUKUS humiliation, the need of the Brits for a win right now as well, and get the ball rolling on kickstarting the QE class flat top again (the designs are there considering how late stage the shift was made - the only spanner in the works being the French wanting nuclear propulsion only, not sure how much accommodation was made for a nuclear powerplant on the QE class blue print). But yeah, longer term I definitely think there's room for like minded partners in the naval space for India, more so with the South Koreans quite publicly kicking off their own carrier ambitions, the Japanese finally lifting the sheeps clothing off the Izumo class, and the Brits pretty much tied to their two enormous new carriers and an extremely tight budget.

[saikarthik]

Originally Posted by ads11

I guess it's also partly a case of having an asset then that becomes an even bigger material loss should anything happen, whereas with more of the sort of 7500 or 8000 ton range destroyers you have I suppose distributed lethality. To me it just feels that with a modern weapons load out that sort of tonnage in the 7-8k range is the sweet spot for a modern destroyer. Any extra is just flexing to borrow modern parlance.

Completely agree, we need to add more destroyers in this class, may be even with a couple of focused ones with more fire power integrating more VLS modules than multirole ones. Multi-role ones are good, but can have a few for just countering any overwhelming force being lethal and fast. We need more ASW corvettes that can bridge gap if we go with this approach.

Originally Posted by ads11

I'm not sure how keen I am in an export Barracuda class though it depends on how far along the domestic SSN project is. What India definitely needs is more SSKs, just a logical additional order of Scorpenes. To me an advanced Scorpene derivative for Project 75I just makes too much sense in terms of bolstering the domestic manufacturing, spare parts and maintenance chain already being built out for the current Kaveri Class build out.

Again agree. I think our navy is more keen on pumpjet propulsion and that's why they are interested to give some cushion to the French. Also, there is no proven AIP yet, so we might have to roll-back on that clause if we go with conventional attack subs.

Originally Posted by ads11

Longer term, particularly with the ridiculous pace at which the PLAN will soon have a true flat top in service, India will need to return to having a true flat top CATOBAR carrier. and get the ball rolling on kickstarting the QE class flat top again (the designs are there considering how late stage the shift was made - the only spanner in the works being the French wanting nuclear propulsion only, not sure how much accommodation was made for a nuclear powerplant on the QE class blue print).

We are in a compromise with the current ones and can't launch jets with full payload and carrier borne AWACs, CATOBAR should be a priority for third carrier. I like the twin island (bridge) design, improves survivability and offensive continuance incase of attack on the control bridge. We must look into this as well. It might be a costly approach but still can spend couple hundred millions on a multi-billion $ asset.