RFP issued for India navy amphibious vessels (LHD or LPD type)

Discussion in 'Indian Navy' started by plugwater, Oct 5, 2010.

  1. Thrishul

    Thrishul Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2016
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    28
    Location:
    India
    LHDPicture1.jpg
    Hi,
    You have extremely valid point that are important to the Indian Navy of 2030 to 2040. But these ships will be there till 2060. So in answer to you point...
    • We do have a jet, Naval LCA which will be operational by the time these ships are ready. The LCA is the smallest carrier capable fighter in the world. Harriers are being retired. And they ship with modifications will be able to fit the fighters.
    • The added capability works as a want not a need.
    • A new plane does not need to be designed, the LHD needs to be redesigned. A 10 meter Hull section for the trap system will need to be added. An angled flight deck will need to be added and the aft elevator will need to be re-positioned from the aft to the port or starboard aft side. The lower deck at the aft will have to be raised with the flight deck. this will increase the fight deck to 230 meters, 240 with the added hull section. For INS Vikrant and Viraat/Hermes, both had angled flight decks added after the ship was constructed. This was done on the 1950's. INS Vikramaditya had a jump ramp and a 10 meter hull section added during its conversion.
    • All of the above were done on completed ships not ships that have not yet been constructed, actually each and every carrier in the IN till date has had major structural modifications done to it. Design changes need to be made to the LHD before they are laid down.
    • Operating the Jets will not reduce the capability of the ships as the Ships already have the aviation facilities for fighter as it is used as a carrier in the Spanish Navy. The Ship has a lower hanger/ Bay for vehicles and upper for Harriers and Helicopters.
    • This is not about prestige but about deterrence. No nation will want to fight a country with 7 Carriers. Lose 3 carriers we still have 4 left to fight with . "Quantity has a Quality of it's own".
    • This conversion into "Landing Aircraft Dock" will add even more capabilities to the Navy.
    • And the F-35B, The squadron would cost more than 2 ships.
     
  2. IndianHawk

    IndianHawk Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,788
    Likes Received:
    3,140
    There is not much point in having mini carriers when we can build a full fledged carrier.
    Your argument about quantity more suits to smaller vessels.
    Why not invest more into frigates and submarines.

    Having more carriers without proper strategic role is not a sound policy.

    Aircraft carriers are tools of power projection they take the fight to enemy's land. We have our enemies just cross the border.

    Also with advent of supersonic and hypersonic missiles aircraft carriers will become more of a liability than asset.

    For example a Chinese aircraft carrier in Indian ocean will be unnerved by a frigate armed with bramhos cells.

    Similar debates are rising against US carriers.

    If we look into future we need to invest into faster more potent small vessels which can carry stealth and hypersonic weaponary.
    Carriers should be kept at minimum.

    Btw no nation wants to fight a nuclear power.
    So having more Carriers doesn't reassure much.
     
    tsunami and Adioz like this.
  3. Thrishul

    Thrishul Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2016
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    28
    Location:
    India
    Currently the Indian Navy is looking to dominate the Indian Ocean. Aircraft Carriers apart from being tools of Power Projection create a Massive bubble of area denial. With 5 active carriers and 2 in refit, the navy will be able to dominate the Indian Ocean. The issue with Bramos armed frigates is that they have a firing range of 300 km's i.e. a no go radius of 300 kms around it.
    The Bramos NG which is 50% lighter and a meter shorter will be fitted on the LCA Navy Mk-2. This gives the weapon a range of 700 Km's + 300 Km's i.e. a 1000 Km no go area.

    With the advent of Super & Hyper-sonic weapons the LHD is even more vulnerable than the LAD. The LAD can at least hit back, while the LHD has no true offensive capability against other naval vessels. At maximum it can be used as a ASW carrier.

    In advent of a war with Pakistan, the PAF will have to face up against 3 to 4 squadrons on their coast instead of 1. They will have to dilute their defenses against the IAF on the borders.
     
  4. Filtercoffee

    Filtercoffee Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2016
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    136
    Mistral or America class is the only choice.
     
  5. IndianHawk

    IndianHawk Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,788
    Likes Received:
    3,140
    Dominating India ocean is a tall order.
    By the time we'll have 5 active +2 carriers chinese might have 10 (given their speed to build).

    Meanwhile Chinese subs are already lurking in IOC.
    In the long run as economy grows we can look for more CBGs. But in medium term we need more small vessels. For better coverage .

    For every carrier you need full company of frigate,corvette and submarine.
    It's very expensive .

    I'll put my money on 3carriers. + As many subs as possible. Submarine are most potent deterrent against china especially nuclear once .

    Pakistan has total width of 300km we can hit it any which way. With s400 and Rafael (meteor) we can dismantle PAF over Lahore itself.
    It's china we need to counter .nuke Submarine + frigate armed with hypersonic missiles is our best bet. in which case 3carriers are enough.
    With k4 missiles (3500) subs will become more potent. They are most cost-effective deterrence
     
    HailIndia, tsunami and SilentKiller like this.
  6. IndianHawk

    IndianHawk Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,788
    Likes Received:
    3,140
    Dominating India ocean is a tall order.
    By the time we'll have 5 active +2 carriers chinese might have 10 (given their speed to build).

    Meanwhile Chinese subs are already lurking in IOC.
    In the long run as economy grows we can look for more CBGs. But in medium term we need more small vessels. For better coverage .

    For every carrier you need full company of frigate,corvette and submarine.
    It's very expensive .

    I'll put my money on 3carriers. + As many subs as possible. Submarine are most potent deterrent against china especially nuclear once .

    Pakistan has total width of 300km we can hit it any which way. With s400 and Rafael (meteor) we can dismantle PAF over Lahore itself.
    It's china we need to counter .nuke Submarine + frigate armed with hypersonic missiles is our best bet. in which case 3carriers are enough.
    With k4 missiles (3500) subs will become more potent. They are most cost-effective deterrence
     
    HailIndia and MKM like this.
  7. IndianHawk

    IndianHawk Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,788
    Likes Received:
    3,140
    Dominating India ocean is a tall order.
    By the time we'll have 5 active +2 carriers chinese might have 10 (given their speed to build).

    Meanwhile Chinese subs are already lurking in IOC.
    In the long run as economy grows we can look for more CBGs. But in medium term we need more small vessels. For better coverage .

    For every carrier you need full company of frigate,corvette and submarine.
    It's very expensive .

    I'll put my money on 3carriers. + As many subs as possible. Submarine are most potent deterrent against china especially nuclear once .

    Pakistan has total width of 300km we can hit it any which way. With s400 and Rafael (meteor) we can dismantle PAF over Lahore itself.
    It's china we need to counter .nuke Submarine + frigate armed with hypersonic missiles is our best bet. in which case 3carriers are enough.
    With k4 missiles (3500) subs will become more potent. They are most cost-effective deterrence
     
    HailIndia and Adioz like this.
  8. MKM

    MKM Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2016
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    131
    Location:
    Rajasthan
    I agree with you.
    Even Chinese ships can support multiple carriers but they have only one that sums up.
    We should add more & more frigates, destroyers & submarine...
    Recent developments supports it like NGMV, NGC projects but delaying submarine & helicopter projects is concern.
    America might have came when ABG selected but now only L&T-DCNS & Reliance-Navantia are competing so I think Juan Carlos I may come.
     
    Adioz likes this.
  9. Thrishul

    Thrishul Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2016
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    28
    Location:
    India
    Yes, China might have 10 CBG's But we have Geography working for us. The Straits of Malacca, Sunda and Lombok are natural Barriers. Any one of our CBG's can be parked withing a 100 nautical miles of those straits. And the Chinese will not be able to move. A combination of submarines to block the straits and carrier fighters to shoot down ASW Helicopter and aircraft and launch Brahmos NG at surface ships, and we have the Chinese fleet bottled up. They will not be able to enter the Indian Ocean.
    The issue is that the cost of doing these changes to the ships will not be that much. At the maximum it will cost $1 Billion, which is the cost of just 1 frigate or 1.5 submarines. The main reason is that the ships have not been laid down yet, so changes in design will not cost as much.
    While I agree with submarines being the most important procurement decision for the entire military after the S-400.
    The reason why I am pushing this is that the cost over the long run especially given the long life times of these ships is actually very low. $1 Billion extra for 4 Escort carriers that will last into the 60's. Or 1 frigate that will last till the 60's, or 2 corvettes, choose.

    The best part is we are the only country that can do it, the Juan Carlos with modifications is just large enough for it and we are the only nation with a low cost front line carrier based fighter in the works.
     
  10. Adioz

    Adioz Irregular member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2015
    Messages:
    865
    Likes Received:
    1,372
    Location:
    Bottom of the Andaman sea planting mines for PLAN
    DAMNIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    animals-surprised-16.jpg
    I thought that we were done with these pocket carrier discussions.

    I have no idea what you are trying to say here. You mean we do not need dedicated amphibious capabilities till 2030-2040? I hope, for your sake, that that is not what youare trying to say here.

    Dude, the maximum Tejas you will be able to place on this ship is 4.

    Again the message I am getting from your words here is:-
    "IN does not need dedicated amphibious capabilities. Its a want not a need."
    So you want us to defend our island territories without amphibious capabilities?

    How much would the redesign cost? Do a cost vs benefit analysis on the benefit a single flight of Tejas will provide you over the cost of redesign and lesser helos carried.
    Done?Thank you.

    We need more ASW and multirole Choppers in the sea than the Spaniards do for our ship to be able to act as an LHD. Think of it like this: we attach the LHD with Vikrant and hence we can now shift the rotary air wing of Vikrant to the LHD and now Vikrant can carry more LCA.

    No nation has benighted fools like you running their Navies. They actually leave that job to the professionals who do not get deterred if you simply drop a letter saying "WE GOT 7 CARRIERS. YOU MOFOS CANT DO SHIT TO US."
    These professionals assess the quality of your quantity. They can easily see a token 4 carrier fleet as a bluff with no real offensive power.

    And the added redesign costs will make this a fool's venture since you can get 3 more Vikrants in the amount of money a redesign and building a larger ship (Landing Aircraft Dock) will take. And do tell me if 4 tejas flying from a demi-carrier qualifies as an added capability, especially in wake of the added liability such an exercise will create for the navy.

    Motion seconded. Thank you for not trying to force a discussion on this one. F-35B is not worth it even if they cost for 1/4th that amount.

    Dude carriers are tools of sea control, not denial. Area denial is the prerogative of the submarines.
    Agreed that LAD (very funny acronym) can defend itself better than an LHD as a stand-alone ship. But LHDs do not stand alone. They are part of a fleet. LHDs carry troops. They are never exposed to a threat like the other ships. They come in once sea control has been established. Even enemy shore-based defenses are effectively suppressed by the time they come in.
    Choose! <echo><echo><echo><echo><echo><echo><echo>
    Erabe!<echo><echo><echo><echo><echo><echo><echo>
    [​IMG]
    :rofl:
    On a more serious note:smile::- Dude cost is not the only factor. Its cost vs capability. 1 billion $ can get you a Visakhapatnam class destroyer. It can get you a ship load of infantry gear that our troops currently lack. The Navy has already made the right choice. Unlike this certain someone in the picture above:lol:.


    "Large enough"?:hehe: If a single flight of tejas is good enough:lawl:







    A few more points:-
    • More carriers is not the answer. We need more surface combatants. Escort ships aside, we need more surface action groups. We need more ASW assets. We need more submarines.
    • Look at how the Chinese played this out. They first built a giant fleet of surface combatants. Now they will be able to concentrate on carriers and will go from a no carrier fleet to a 5 carrier fleet by 2030. Look at the JMSDF; they also need only construct 3 carriers and they will become stronger than Indian Navy in any context.
    • A fleet with 7 carriers and 10 destroyers is a paper tiger.
    • The defense acquisition budget will be USD 17 billion per year by 2020. We need only hold back till we have enough funds by 2027. I will not be surprised if the navy finishes Vishal class design till then and then decides to make three ships of Vishal class.
    • If you think about it, the navy can attach a LHD with a carrier and have the carrier's rotary air wing transferred (asset and role) to the LHD while the carrier itself will be able to embark more fighters. You suggest modifying the LHD but the end result will be the same (and with extra costs and time incurred).
     
  11. republic_roi97

    republic_roi97 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2016
    Messages:
    1,511
    Likes Received:
    1,514
    Location:
    Lucknow
    Get over this pocket carrier "jugad" discussion. When IN says it needs LHD it means LHD not AC. Get over it guys.
     
    HailIndia and Adioz like this.
  12. syncro

    syncro Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2012
    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    127
    Location:
    Tuscany, Italy
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    The new 30,000 ton italian LHA "TRIESTE" (pics from Euronaval 2016)
    1.1 billion euro (the smallest LHDs... about 200 meters... are around 700 millions euro)
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2016
    sthf, Adioz, MKM and 1 other person like this.
  13. Indx TechStyle

    Indx TechStyle Perfaarmance Naarmal Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    9,254
    Likes Received:
    11,562
    Location:
    21°N 78°E / 21°N 78°E
    L&T Shipbuilding All Set To Deliver Under The Govt’s Make In India Initiative
    November 22, 2016 Posted by Anupama Airy
    Anupama Airy
    As India gears up to place some major orders in the Defence sector on Indian Companies in the coming days, DefenceAviationPost.com (a leading news portal on Defence and Aviation) has decided to bring for its readers a special series that will include visits to various Indian facilities of leading public and private sector players in the defence sector as also detailed interactions and interviews with the who’s who in the Defence sector.
     
    Bahamut, Adioz and republic_roi97 like this.
  14. Adioz

    Adioz Irregular member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2015
    Messages:
    865
    Likes Received:
    1,372
    Location:
    Bottom of the Andaman sea planting mines for PLAN
    After these are inducted, our entire amphibious force (LHDs + Magar LSTs + Shradul LSTs) should have a sealift capability of around 2 brigades !!!!! :bounce:

    [​IMG]

    What tanks will these carry? Hopefully Army will place a new order for some 80-odd Arjun MBTs for the amphibious forces. IMHO T-72 is too under-protected for a beach-head assault armour role.

    Also, where will we get the LCACs from? Has an order been placed?

    Hope we also get some Naval LCH to operate from the LHDs for fire support.:drool:
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2016
  15. Filtercoffee

    Filtercoffee Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2016
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    136
    This is sad a decision, I thought this Navy would veto superficial wants and go in for American/Indian designs. Juan Carlos class won't do much but bum our AMCA with the JSF.:tsk:
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2016
  16. Adioz

    Adioz Irregular member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2015
    Messages:
    865
    Likes Received:
    1,372
    Location:
    Bottom of the Andaman sea planting mines for PLAN
    Juan Carlos if gets into IN service will have no relations to fighter jets. Keep fighter jets off the decks of LHD even in your imagination. We have ALREADY HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS earlier in this very thread. Read that first.
     
  17. Filtercoffee

    Filtercoffee Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2016
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    136
    Sir, get this in order of sales to IN. First deny info about the acquisition then add some more required tech to the deal. I wouldn't think that but obvious choice was JSF to acquire late in the tenure.
     
  18. Immanuel

    Immanuel Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1,336
    Likes Received:
    1,512
    Juan Carlos is poised to win, it is the bigger & better ship. It can deploy a whole lot more than the Mistral. It also gives the Navy the possibility to operate fighters like F-35 from it. As for, will the Navy actually choose to operate fighters from it, is another question and far too early to tell. Eitherway, an F-35B purchase in the future is not far fetched by any means. IN has always loved operating it's Harriers. If the F-35B is purchased, it won't be permanently deployed on the LPDs. IN will probably order a squadron of around 24, so small elements of 6-12 can be deployed on LPDs on select ops when the need arises.

    On pure combat roles, its always nice to have a small fighter element, the F-35B is essentially deigned to be a bomb truck ideal for over the beach ops.
     
    Hemu Vikram Aditya and kstriya like this.
  19. Filtercoffee

    Filtercoffee Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2016
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    136
    I only have a strategic problem with this choice for IN. Further if they do buy the aircraft then we might underplay the AMCA.
     
  20. HailIndia

    HailIndia Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2017
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    3
    But AMCA is still in design phase and now HAL is just dreaming to launch AMCA on 2025. So IN have to choose any foreign bird right now. But IN still backing AMCA for future replacement of Mig 29.
     

Share This Page