Cruisers for the IN- A discussion

Discussion in 'Indian Navy' started by bengalraider, Oct 14, 2009.

  1. bengalraider

    bengalraider DFI Technocrat Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,688
    Likes Received:
    2,173
    Location:
    in a fast food joint next to the imperial shipyard
    Currently only four nations in the world operate warships classified as cruisers(United states, Russia, France & Peru)and only two are building new ones(Russia- one Slava Class,United States CG-X program)though many people believe the era of cruisers coming to an end due to the fact that modern destroyers like the INS Delhi are almost as heavily armed as cruisers i believe otherwise. a cruiser adds prestige to a naval fleet like no destroyer can it has more of a psychological fear effect on an enemy ship than a destroyer(example the arrival of the Pyotr velikly in venezuela created ripples in the USN like no Russian destroyer could ). i believe that the IN should enlarge the current Kolkata class design into a Nuclear powered cruiser of around 14,000 tonnes(Comparable to the Virginia Class), armed with around 20-30 Brahmos 2 and around 40 Nirbhay class CM's each.These vessels could become the Base for the heavy hitting power the IN needs to become a true Blue water navy . i would like you guys to express your views in this matter.
     
  2.  
  3. natarajan

    natarajan Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    2,592
    Likes Received:
    750
    I have raised this issue several times in many threads but our members are not interested in cruisers and nuke subs like oscar class:)>
     
  4. K Factor

    K Factor A Concerned Indian Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,316
    Likes Received:
    139
    Well, prestige will not cover the operating costs of such a large ship. Also, we would need to provide escorts, tying up valuable resources in case of hostilities, as it would be a High Value Target for the enemy.

    US can do whatever it wants, their military budget is more than the next 20 countries' military budget's sum. Russia has no real possibility of hostilities with any major military nation in the near future.

    But India has, and so, in our case, a cruiser will not be such a viable option.
     
  5. bengalraider

    bengalraider DFI Technocrat Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,688
    Likes Received:
    2,173
    Location:
    in a fast food joint next to the imperial shipyard
    @Kommunist - Instead of requiring extra escorts an air-defense cruiser (or two)could add great capacity to the defense of a CBG .As for high value targets, any Important vessel is a high value target in case of hostilities, a cruiser would have marginally higher target value than a frontline destroyer or frigate, on the flipside a cruiser could tie down many enemy resources who would be busy hunting it.As for operating cost one must compare the cost of operating a cruiser with the cost of operating any other ship(or ships) which can bring down hell on a an enemy like a cruiser,for example a Ticonderoga class cruiser can rain down nearly 120 tomahawks on an enemy from 1000km away what else apart from an AC can do that?
    I personally believe that a flotilla of four comparably armed cruisers provided with submarine and air cover operating out of the Andamans should be able to deter the PLAN from crossing the straits of Malacca in the event of hostilities.
     
  6. Vladimir79

    Vladimir79 Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,404
    Likes Received:
    65
    If you look at the USN, you will find their destroyers displace just as much as their cruisers. CG(X) is not likely to be when the Zumwalts are outweighing their current cruisers and price escalation has cut most of that programme. In the RN, we are not building any new cruisers, unlike that stated of the Slava class in the OP. Ukraine owns a rusted hulk of a Slava, but we aren't going to buy it. Current debate is arguing whether to spend $1 billion for the refit of our second Kirov class cruiser Nahkimov. I pray that fiscal heads prevail and don't waste the money. After the Gorshkov debacle, it would just be another national scandal. Russia doesn't have plans to build any capital ships in the near future. We don't need cruisers, we need air defence ships. Since we aren't affraid to buy French, I want to see us get in on the FREMM programme.
     
  7. jackprince

    jackprince Turning into a frog Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    2,535
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    Location:
    Seema Andhra
    A cruiser can only be a one place at one time and two destroyer can be at two places. A good hit with a AShM can kill a crusier, but it would take two equally good hit to kill two destroyers. :)>

    Anyways Cruiser like Aircraft carrier is a show of muscle, which India yet doesn't have. IN has more priority to protect it's ocean-lanes and the current or projected strength of future could barely cover the vast ocean-lanes. A cruiser or a fleet of will only tie down IN's resources. Besides a Naval threat from by it's surface fleet is unlikely given the distance and lanes it has to cover to come and attack India. It's submarine fleet is more of a danger and destroyers are excellent in hunting them down.
     
  8. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,118
    Likes Received:
    23,543
    Location:
    Somewhere
  9. gopalking

    gopalking New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    A modern cruiser is over 10,000 tons
    A destroyer is below 10,000 tons.
    India should develop cruiser carrier like Kiev, is more benefit
     
  10. Dark Sorrow

    Dark Sorrow Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,629
    Likes Received:
    418
    Location:
    Mumbai
    I think we had this discussion if India should have brought Kiev class cruiser.
    At the end most of the members came to a view that it would not be worth to get such a costly ship due to heavy and costly maintaince, logsitic problem and need of escorts. With current spending and total budget(which i think to be low) of indian navy, currently we won't be even able to afford it.
    I also have a view that indian navy won't require it as our frigates can handle PN and niether PLAN would be foolish to come close to indian backwates nor we would go close to theirs.
     
  11. bhramos

    bhramos Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    13,206
    Likes Received:
    6,638
    Location:
    Telangana/India/Bharat
    this is true, and a big option and leap of tech.
    as my friends said above, the Cruisers does not need a big escorts, as its capable of facing each and every threat via air, surface or underwater.
     
  12. bengalraider

    bengalraider DFI Technocrat Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,688
    Likes Received:
    2,173
    Location:
    in a fast food joint next to the imperial shipyard
    The article by Ray sir makes an interesting point, The USN is developing it's future destroyers in such a way as to be comparable to present day cruisers in terms of displacement and capability, i.e allowing cruiser class ships to fill in the roles which today are accomplished by modern destroyers; though the point about cost is ever relevant the USN is still forging ahead with it's plans to remain the primary naval power in the world. We cannot march the PLAN in terms of no. of surface combatants also the no. of naval yards in china is far more than in india so they shall continue to add ships at a faster rate,what we can do is upgrade our existing programmes to have the Kolkata abd subsequent destroyers morph into cruisers, and our subsequent frigate classes morph into destroyers,i.e match the PLAN'S superiority in numbers by having more heavily armed larger surface combatants. i feel that if we want to retain/Regain our ancient position as master of the IOR this is the only way.
     
  13. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,118
    Likes Received:
    23,543
    Location:
    Somewhere
    One must understand naval tactics to comment.

    They don't operate as single units in a war.
     
  14. bengalraider

    bengalraider DFI Technocrat Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,688
    Likes Received:
    2,173
    Location:
    in a fast food joint next to the imperial shipyard
    Sir,
    wouldn't that make cruisers(when i say cruisers here i include destroyers that are cruiser sized) even more logical assets, for example a CBG with 5 destroyers would have maybe a total of 200 SAM's shielding it (40 per destroyer), it may also have around 80 Cruise missiles with which to hit the enemy; apart from the aircraft launched weapons. whereas a CBG with only 3cruisers comparable to the Ticonderoga would be able to call on 270 SAM's to shield it and have nearly 360 Tomahawk cruise missiles and another 24 Harpoon missiles to hit the enemy. Hence reducing the overall size of the flotilla accompanying the Carrier and making it less detectable.
     
  15. Vladimir79

    Vladimir79 Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,404
    Likes Received:
    65
    Ticonderoga only has 122 VLS launch tubes. Arleigh Burkes have 90 so it is not a big difference in capability.
     
  16. bengalraider

    bengalraider DFI Technocrat Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,688
    Likes Received:
    2,173
    Location:
    in a fast food joint next to the imperial shipyard
    the displacement of an Arleigh Burke is nearly 9200 tonnes (full load) while that of a Ticonderoga is 9600 tonnes, albeit the Arleigh Burke is a cruiser masquerading as a destroyer.I calculated the no. of CM's based on the Delhi class which carry 16 SS-N-25 each.
     
  17. venom

    venom DFI Technocrat

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    601
    Likes Received:
    8
  18. StealthSniper

    StealthSniper Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Messages:
    1,111
    Likes Received:
    56
    Location:
    With Stealth Ninja Assassins

    As I mentioned before in another thread we don't need battlecruisers yet in our navy. We are not an America or Russia and we don't have the resources or the infastructure to maintain these ships. We don't have the knowhow in nuclear propulsion like America, Russia or even China to sufficently operate these ships without any help and frankly our destroyers and frigates we have are good enough for what we need.
     
  19. venom

    venom DFI Technocrat

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    601
    Likes Received:
    8
    What are you saying...?
    If we can afford to operate two Ac's[44500 tons each] at a time than we can surely operate a battle cruiser[28000 tons].And regarding Nuclear propulsion we have had a good experience in case of Charka-1[Charlie class sub] & we are about to lease 1[might be 2] Akula-2 SSN which is the deadlist of the Russian Submarines, not to forget the Arihant SSBN which is already launched & is under going sea trials. The sailors have already completed the training in Russia for operating Nuclear reactor.Kirov Battle cruisers are equipped with hell of sensors & radars which are highly integrated.

    Armament: [Kirov Class]
    20 P-700 Granit (SS-N-19 Shipwreck) AShM
    14 SS-N-14 Silex ASW cruise missiles
    12x8 (96) S-300PMU Favorit SA-N-6 Grumble surface-to-air missiles
    96 S-400 (SA-NX-20 Gargoyle) long-range SAM
    192 9K311 Tor (SA-N-9 Gauntlet) point defense SAM
    44 OSA-MA (SA-N-4 Gecko) PD SAM
    2x RBU-1000 305 mm ASW rocket launchers
    2x RBU-12000 (Udav-1) 254 mm ASW rocket launchers
    1 twin AK-130 130 mm/L70 dual purpose gun
    10 533 mm ASW/ASuW torpedo tubes, Type 53 torpedo or SS-N-15 ASW missile
    8x AK-630 hex gatling 30 mm/L60 PD guns
    6x CADS-N-1 Kashtan missile/gun system

    Armament: [Delhi Class Destroyer]
    16 x Kh-35 Switchblade (SS-N-25) SSM(4 x quadruple KT-184 launchers)
    32 x Barak SAM(4 x 8 cell VLS units)
    2 x Shtil SAM systems
    1 x 100 mm AK-100 gun
    2 x 30 mm AK-630 gatling guns
    2 x RBU-6000 Anti-submarine mortar arrays
    5 x 10-21 inch torpedo tubes

    Armament: [Kolkata Class Destroyer]
    16-cell BrahMos UVLM
    2 x 32-cell Barak II SAM
    2 x Kashtan or combinataion of AK-630 30mm guns and Barak SAM in CIWS role
    Torpedo tubes
    Anti-submarine rockets

    Now u can compare them........
     
  20. bengalraider

    bengalraider DFI Technocrat Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,688
    Likes Received:
    2,173
    Location:
    in a fast food joint next to the imperial shipyard
    Becaude the Kirov is outdated i.e of 1970's vintage, what we should be looking at is a cruiser for the 21st century i.e a Ticonderogsa or a CG(X).
    Some of you may feel that i am being partial to the western cruisers i am outlining my reason below.

    The Kirov calss and Slava class cruisers were built to serve as the pivots of soviet battlefleets , whereas the Americans fielded CBG's. a CBG is fundamentally different from a cruiser battlegroup.

    A CBG is built a round a carrier supported and protected by cruisers, destroyers , frigates and submarines. A CBG has the basic task of sea denial to an enemy and carrying out airstrikes on ports and dock facilities of the enemky;this is also the operating philosophy of the IN.The Western Cruisers were built as capable and formidable carrier escorts , exactly what the IN needs.

    The Soviet cruisers were built to serve as Battlegroup centrepieces in their own right. A Soviet Battlegroup was designed for one thing; killing an american Carrier, the operating philosophy was for soviet detroyers to attack american cruisers and destroyers while the Battlecruisers went for the Jugular(i.e the Carrier). This does not fall into the threat perception of the IN hence a soviet battlecruiser is something the IN does not need.
     
  21. K Factor

    K Factor A Concerned Indian Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,316
    Likes Received:
    139
    Comparison is incomplete without the price. This heavy armament comes with a heavy price. Russia had to cannibalise Kirov to get the Pyotr Velikiy operational. Add the nuclear reactor to the equation. Then add maintenace costs.

    Also, we will not be able to deploy the long-range P-700 Granit (over 300 km range, which cannot be transferred due to MTCR), which would make it somewhat weak against similar surface combatants. Do not forget that PLAN has Sunburns on its Sovremenny class destroyers which has same ranhe as Brahmos.

    Also since, Missiles and sub-systems are costly (example, lets take Nirbhay ship-launched version), it would be wise to have two destroyers instead of one cruiser. If one is damaged (and has to retire from combat) or sunk, the other would still remain operational.

    India cannot afford CG (X) type ships. Moreover, CG (X) class being nuclear powered (most likely), US will not be selling it.
     

Share This Page