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

[bengalraider]

@pmaitra-
interesting history there but the truth is the Ekranoplane was scrapped for one reason only, with the demise of the USSR the Russian navy simply couldn't find the moolah needed to keep these huge multi engined)monsters running(the only ones that kept running are the small single or twin engined ones).
The first large ekranoplane Rostislav Evgenievich Alexeyev designed was the KM or "korabl-maket". This "ship-prototype" was also the first in a series of Soviet "ekranoplan" ("screen plane") developments .This monster
weighed more than 550tonnes and used no less than 10 Dobryin VD-7 turbojets making it hugely expensive to run.this monster first first took to the air in October 1966; 2 examples were built The first copy suffered from accident in 1969, when the pilot lost the visual horizon and had water impact at high speed, because of the strong fog. The second copy also suffered an accident in 1980 by pilot error and sank in the Caspian Sea, but all the crew were rescued.


While the KM programme was ongoing, Alexeev began work on a medium-sized ekranoplan suitable for military transportation duties. Dubbed A-90 "Orlyonok" ("Eaglet"), the 140 tonne, 58 metre long aircraft had its maiden flight in 1972. The A-90 boasted two turbojets and one turboprop engine which propelled it to a speed of 400 km/h for 1,500 km at an cruise altitude of 5-10 m.

Four flying examples were built, one of which crashed in the Caspian in 1975 and was subsequently rebuilt. The aircraft entered military service in 1979 with three A-90s reportedly still operational in 1993. Thereafter, they were reportedly mothballed at the Kaspiysk naval base on the Caspian.
The 280 tonne, 74 metre long M-160 Lun was another ekranoplan developed from Alexeev designs. One was built in 1987, which entered service in 1989. A second example was under construction when the Soviet Union collapsed and, despite subsequent refitting as a search-and-rescue aircraft, remained unfinished when the authorities effectively pulled the plug on ekranoplan funding.

also The apparent success of these machines hid some very real problems, not least of which were serious stability and control deficiencies, as well as tremendous power requirements to get off the water. Under low flying conditions radar sensors measuring altitude, tilt and velocity of craft trace the variable profile of wave disturbance practically without averaging, thus making it difficult to gauge the motion parameters in relation to the undisturbed level of the sea surface. It is necessary to combine radar with other sensors in order to provide high accuracy. It has a massive turning circle, and is fairly slow to accelerate. Its poor manoeuverability means it cannot turn and run from a fight, and so is a fairly easy target if caught in a confined space, or if surrounded and pushed against the shoreline.

Also alexeyev was not the only soviet ekranoplane designer Robert Ludvigovich Bartini kept designing and testing ekranoplanes for the soviet hierarchy until his death, he was the designer of the bartini -beriev VVA-14(Pic below)

as for alexeyev

In 1975 during the tests the ekranoplane was sat on stones. Then the pilot switched the blowing-under on, and the machine left on water, flew up, and without any undue incident has reached base. But landing on stones did not pass without consequences. One case of the pre-series "Orlyonok" was made of an alloy K482T1, which is very rigid and strong, but fragile. Probably, the impacts with stones damaged the case, in the tail there were cracks, which were not noticed in the external survey. The next tests were spent at the heavy sea. During a rise from water, from impact of the damaged case about crest of a wave, the tail together with tailwings and mid-flight engine simply fell off. The pilot dumped gas of the start engines. R.E.Alekseyev, who sat in the pilot's cabin too (Main designer personally attended practically all tests), did not become puzzled, took control himself. He set the start engines on the cruiser mode, which kept the ekranoplane from plunging into water (in this case ship would sink, which would be unavoidable, as the tail was not present). This set the "Orlyonok" on the gliding mode and it landed on the coast. The people sitting in the ship got rid by a fright, but for Rostislav Alekseyev, this failure had much heavier consequences. Everyone expected, that Alekseyev would receive the rank of a Hero of the Socialist Labor for creation of ekranoplanes. But instead of the Minister of a ship-building industry B.E.Butoma, already "having a grudge" against Alekseyev for the independence of his character has used failure as the pretext and removed Alekseyev from his post of the Main designer and the CKB chief, by lowering him down to the chief of a department, and then to the chief of perspective sector.
credits for data

P.S- found a kewl pic of the Orlyonok unloading a BTR

Lun Class Ekranoplane - Project 903
In search of the Caspian Sea Monster "¢ The Register
Ekranoplanes

 

[pmaitra]

Ekranoplan: Caspian Sea Monster (1,2,3/3)

@pmaitra-
interesting history there but the truth is the Ekranoplane was scrapped for one reason only, with the demise of the USSR the Russian navy simply couldn't find the moolah needed to keep these huge multi engined)monsters running(the only ones that kept running are the small single or twin engined ones).

The demise of the USSR cut short the funding of many projects. However, Ekranoplan was relegated to the back-burner long before the demise of the USSR. It was a political reason, not economic. Please see the three videos posted at the bottom for more information on what I stated above:

also The apparent success of these machines hid some very real problems, not least of which were serious stability and control deficiencies, as well as tremendous power requirements to get off the water. Under low flying conditions radar sensors measuring altitude, tilt and velocity of craft trace the variable profile of wave disturbance practically without averaging, thus making it difficult to gauge the motion parameters in relation to the undisturbed level of the sea surface. It is necessary to combine radar with other sensors in order to provide high accuracy. It has a massive turning circle, and is fairly slow to accelerate. Its poor manoeuverability means it cannot turn and run from a fight, and so is a fairly easy target if caught in a confined space, or if surrounded and pushed against the shoreline.

• Stability control problems have been addressed and newer Ekranoplans are devoid of such deficiencies.
• Tremendous power requirement is only while takeoff. Not too different from cars that run on first gear when starting and on overdrive when cruising on a highway.
• Turning circle is massive because the craft in itself is massive. Even ships have massive turning radii. The only ships that have small turning radii are the ones that use Voith-Schneider propulsion systems (Voith Schneider Propeller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), that are good for close quarter and slow maneuvering but poor for high speed propulsion.
• Landing Ships are landing ships (ships as in boats or any other kind of crafts) and they are not used all alone. They are supported by other vessels. Hence, whenever Ekranoplans are deployed, they will be supported by other vessels (covering fire is an old concept in battles). Thus, there is very little need for turning away from a fight. Nonetheless, I think a ship will not be able to turn away from a fight any faster than an Ekranoplan. The only thing that I can think of is that it might not have good armour like ships.

P.S- found a kewl pic of the Orlyonok unloading a BTR

Indeed, it is a cool picture and that is why I introduced the Ekranoplan into this thread. I have already posted this picture in Post #20.

Thanks for doing so much research about the Ekranoplan and posting such valuable information.

Videos:

 

[bengalraider]

Just read this

UK POLITICS

18 October 2010 Last updated at 22:02 GMT
Defence review: HMS Ark Royal to be scrapped
The Royal Navy's flagship, the aircraft carrier Ark Royal, is to be scrapped early as part of the government's defence review, the BBC has learned.
The move is part of the price paid by the Royal Navy for the decision to go ahead with two new aircraft carriers.
The Ark Royal - launched in 1985 - will be decommissioned almost immediately, rather than in 2014 as planned.
David Cameron will unveil details of the first strategic defence and security review in 12 years later.
It is expected to see big spending cuts for the armed forces.
Chancellor George Osborne signalled on Sunday that the construction of two new aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, would go ahead, when he told the BBC it would cost more to cancel the projects than proceed with them.
The BBC has also learned that at least one of the new carriers will be redesigned so that it can deploy normal fighter aircraft that do not need a Harrier-style vertical lift capability.
Emerging threats
The new design would allow American and French joint strike fighters to land on the new carrier.
Mr Cameron is preparing to unveil details of cuts to the armed forces at 1530 BST on Tuesday, when he announces details of the first large-scale defence review since 1998.
It is being published in two phases. The first, on Monday, revealed the government's new national security strategy - which sets out the strategic thinking behind the review.
It ranked attacks on computer networks as one of the biggest emerging threats to the UK, alongside terrorism and a flu pandemic.
Downing Street said Mr Cameron had spoken to US President Barack Obama on Monday evening about the review.
A Downing Street spokesman said: "The prime minister said that the UK would remain a first-rate military power and a robust ally of the United States, we would be reforming our defence and security capabilities for the challenges of the 21st Century [and] we remained committed to meeting our responsibilities in Nato and would continue to work closely with the US on the full range of current security priorities."
The review is intended to decide the future shape and size of the armed forces but there have been criticisms it has been rushed and driven by the need to cut spending.
The Army is expected to have to cut personnel and lose some tanks and heavy artillery - seen as weapons of the Cold War.
'Rushed process'
It is thought the navy's new ships will have fewer new aircraft and the overall size of its fleet will be reduced.
And the Joint RAF/Fleet Air Arm Harrier force may face the axe, while some squadrons of RAF Tornado jets could be saved instead - although some air force bases will close.
The Army may have to cut up to 7,000 or so personnel over the next five years, while the MoD itself could face substantial cuts to its civilian staff.
Sources say £750m will be saved over four years on the Trident nuclear deterrent missile system but it is not yet clear how those savings will be made.
Meanwhile, the BBC has learned that BAE Systems fears thousands of jobs could go if there are cuts to the Eurofighter programme or joint strike fighters and in Scotland there are concerns two of its RAF bases - Kinloss and Lossiemouth - could close.
But the Financial Times reports that Mr Cameron will also say spending will double on alleviating poverty in areas of conflict - such as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia - to £4bn by 2015, while funding to other states like Russia and China will be reduced.
The strategic defence review is intended to look at the threats likely to be faced in the future. Defence Secretary Liam Fox has previously said it would "make a clean break from the military and political mindset of Cold War politics".
But the government has been accused of rushing the process. The last strategic defence review in 1998 took over a year while this one has been carried out in five months.
And it has been undertaken at the same time as the Spending Review - due to be published on Wednesday - which is expected to see huge cuts to departmental spending across Whitehall.
A leaked letter from Defence Secretary Liam Fox last month showed he was concerned the defence review was looking more like a "super comprehensive spending review" than a proper strategic defence review and warned the prime minister against "draconian cuts" at a time of war.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11570593?print=true

even though she's a carrier what i was thinking of was that maybe just maybe if we could buy her she could complement the jalashwa much in the same way a Tarawa class LHD complements the San Antonio class in the USN by serving as a platform for choppers and STOL aircraft providing CAS to troops and material being embarked onto the shore by the Jalashwa .

 

[Parthy]

20,000-crore boost for Navy's snooping power


The LPD project will be executed under the "buy and make" category of the Defence Procurement Procedure , which basically involves licensed indigenous manufacture in collaboration with a foreign manufacturer.

"At least two of the LPDs will be constructed at Hindustan Shipyard Ltd (HSL) at Visakhapatnam, which was transferred from the shipping ministry to the defence ministry last year to meet national security requirements of building strategic vessels," said a source.

Rs 20,000-cr booster for Navy's sea lift, snooping capabilities - The Times of India

Yes. I think thats the actual deal to be made.. But MoD should include private sectors like L&T into role for this...

 

[bengalraider]

a few of the new designs for LPD'S; LHD's going around from euronaval 2010

all the concepts are named within the pictures themselves.

 

[Crusader53]

all the concepts are named within the pictures themselves.

I wouldn't be surprised if India in fact select's a LHD Design and not a true LPD. As the former is far more flexiable ton for ton. Plus, the can operate STOVL Fighters if need be.

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

after buying 4 amphibious lpd i think we should start building our own indegeneous lpd using fusion of design based on ins jalashwa,lpd(which we are going to buy) and our own design capabilties.

 

[ace009]

As I have trying to discuss in another post, without a marine expeditionary force, what good is the procurement of LPD, LHD etc?

 

[Neil]

As I have trying to discuss in another post, without a marine expeditionary force, what good is the procurement of LPD, LHD etc?

we already have nearly 10000 soldiers from the army trained for sea assault so its completely makes sense....

why would US outsource its tech or jobs to us at this point of time.....??4 of this ships can create thousands of jobs in US....so they would rather open another line than outsourcing it to us...

 

[ace009]

That is precisely the starting point for a separate marine corps. LPDs and LHDs are effective if they have a proper strike force to go with it. Marines are specially trained for that purpose and having a separate corps helps in fast mobilization, specialized equipments and focused training. The LPDs and LHDs along with the landing crafts and attack helicopters should belong to the marine corps. Without all this, the navy equipment vs Army personnel conflict will crop up and LHD and LPDs will become just another set of unused/ underused assets of Indian military.
I will direct you to the discussion we were having in that post ...
http://www.defenceforum.in/forum/showthread.php?t=16314

 

[dineshchaturvedi]

For novice like me Amphibious means Ships that can be used to support land wars? Is that correct definition at high level?

 

[Maverick007]

Why take design for the ship from a country like Singapore, a country smaller than Delhi. We should work on our own design capabilities and get the private shipyards to built it in order to learn the skillsets

 

[plugwater]

Navy gets nod for LPDs' acquisition

The Indian Navy is fast building up on its capabilities to sea lift and to launch assault on both water and land.

The central government has given approval for the acquisition of four landing platform docks (LPDs) to transport and land various elements of amphibious force to support ashore operations.

The amphibious warships, with helipads and capacity to move large number of troops and tanks or humanitarian aid, would be a match to the second largest combat ship in the Indian Navy's flotilla INS Jalashwa (earlier USS Trenton).

The approval for LPDs has been given by the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) 'Buy and Make Indian' clause of the the Defence Procurement Policy (DPP-9).

"Under the 'Buy and Make Indian' category, the defence ministry would invite proposals from those Indian industries that have requisite financial and technical capabilities to enter into joint ventures and also absorb technology and undertake indigenous manufacture of the warships," said chief of the Indian Navy Admiral Nirmal Verma.

The Navy has also invited information from the global vendors for supply of Landing Craft Mechanised (LCMs) that can be carried by amphibious warships to land troops or tanks during assaults on the coastline. So far, the Indian Navy has four LCM's which were bought during the acquisition of Jalashwa from the US.

The Navy is looking for LCMs which are able to carry 150 troops with gear or a T-90 or T-72 tank from ship to shore. Country's armed forces have been importing new technologies and ideas of warfare that demand coordinated operations of the Army, the Navy and the Air force. Presently, the Navy's amphibious armada comprise of one LPD (INS Jalashwa) and five Landing Ship Tanks – INS Kesari, INS Shardul, INS Airavat, INS Magar and INS Ghariyal. The LSTs can carry as many as 10 main battle tanks, 11 combat trucks and 500 troops and has considerable range and endurance at sea

http://www.financialexpress.com/news/navy-gets-nod-for-lpds-acquisition/722260/0

 

[Tshering22]

Why take design for the ship from a country like Singapore, a country smaller than Delhi. We should work on our own design capabilities and get the private shipyards to built it in order to learn the skillsets

It is important that we diversify in such a manner that supplier countries from whom we buy initially are compliant enough of our whims and fancies rather than a nation that signs deals worth $ 10 billion here and announces a $ 2 billion package-a-year announcement the moment they get back to their own country. Singapore is likely to offer limited resistance to our wishes and would be a willing partner in future JVs and even sell us their design for a competent price. Israel is not even the size of Haryana and still is our second largest suppliers of weapons.

The point is, how much can our quota-based educated pool of people absorb fast in terms of technology and how fast can they apply these technologies to real good use. Ripping off is not the answer but that also doesn't mean to be as abysmal as what our rate of defence innovation us. In such a case you will find Singapore a more compliant and friendly supplier than a not-used-to-treating-equal superpower.

 

[StealthSniper]

French ships "Mistral" and "Forbin" : nice visit by 360°


http://jdb.marine.defense.gouv.fr/SERVEUR/index.html

 

[Kunal Biswas]

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
LPD CLASS OF SHIPS FOR INDIAN NAVY

1. The Ministry of Defence, Government of India, intends to acquire Landing Platform Dock (LPD) class of ships for the Indian Navy under Buy and Make (Indian) category as amplified in Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) 2011.



2. This Request for Information (RFI) consists of two parts as indicated below:-

(a) Part I. The first part of the RFI incorporates operational characteristics and features that should be met by the LPDs. Few important technical parameters of the proposed ships are also mentioned.

(b) Part II. The second part of the RFI states the methodology of seeking response of Shipyards. Submission of incomplete response format may render the Shipyard liable for rejection.



PART-I

3. The Intended Use of LPDs (Operational Requirements). These are specified in the brief Requirements placed at Appendix A of this document.

4. Buy and Make (Indian)' Procedure. In accordance with the provisions of 'Buy and Make (Indian)' procedure, a Capability Definition Document (CDD) would be forwarded to Indian Shipyards, short listed based on RFI responses. The Indian Shipyards, in turn would forward a Detailed Project Proposal outlining the road map for development of design and construction of the ships. The Detailed Project Proposal, thereafter, would be examined by a Project Appraisal Committee (PAC) constituted by the Acquisition Wing of MoD to verify credentials of foreign partner together with confirming acceptability of joint venture of the shipyard with the foreign collaborator.

5. Important Technical Parameters. These are specified in the brief requirements placed at Appendix A of this document. Detailed specifications will be given in the Request for Proposal (RFP) which will be issued to Indian shipyards after verifying their credentials and capabilities to build the ships indigenously with own infrastructural resources based on the assessment of Detailed Project Proposal by the PAC and as highlighted vide para 4 above.


6. Shipyard should confirm that following conditions are acceptable:-

(a) The solicitation of offers will be as per 'Single Stage-Two Bid System'. It would imply that a 'Request for Proposal' would be issued soliciting the
technical and commercial offers together, but in two separate sealed envelopes. The validity of commercial offers would be at least 18 months from the date of submitting of offers.

(b) The technical offers would be evaluated by a Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) to check its compliance with RFP.

(c) Amongst the Shipyards cleared by TEC, a Contract Negotiations Committee (CNC) would decide the lowest cost bidder (L1) and conclude the appropriate contract.

(d) The Shipyard would be bound to provide product support for the time period specified in the RFP, which includes spares and maintenance tools/jigs/fixtures/documentation for training for field and component level repairs.

(e) The vendor would be required to accept the general conditions of contract given in the Standard Contract Document at Chapter V of DPP 2011 placed on www.mod.nic.in.

(f) Offset Clause. Implementation of Offset provisions will be required as applicable in accordance with Appendix D of Chapter I of DPP-11.

(g) Integrity Pact (if applicable). An integrity pact along with appropriate EMD will be required if applicable in the instant case (refer Annexure I to Appendix H of schedule I of Chapter I of DPP-11).

(h) Performance-cum-Warranty Bond. A Performance-cum-Warranty Bond equal to 5% value of the contract is required to be submitted after signing of the contract.

(j) ToT (If applicable). In accordance with the provision of Buy & Make (Indian) procedure.



PART-II
7. Procedure for Response.

(a) Shipyard must fill the form of response, as applicable, as given in Appendix B (Appendix E of Chapter I of DPP-11) and Appendix C of this document. Apart from filling details about Shipyard, following details about the exact vessel meeting the mentioned Operational/ Technical specifications (Appendix A) are to be submitted:-

(i) Feasibility to build the LPDs with the enclosed specifications (Appendix A). Any modification to the specifications can be suggested by the Shipyard with suitable justification.
(ii) Budgetary quotes with break up of cost.
(iii) Build Period
(iv) Experience in Building similar vessels along with client details.
(v) MOU, if any, with respect to design aspects
(b) The filled form should be dispatched at under mentioned address: -

The Principal Director of Ship Production
Directorate of Ship Production
IHQ-MoD(N), D-II Wing, Sena Bhavan, New Delhi 110011.
Tele: 0091-11-23010758
Fax : 0091-11-23010803 / 23010142
E-Mail: [email protected], [email protected]

(c) Last date of acceptance of filled forms along with details sought is 07 Mar 2011. The Shipyards short listed for issue of RFP would be intimated.

8. The Government of India invites responses to this request only from Indian Shipyards, having their own infrastructure and capability of building LPD class of ships. The end user of the LPDs is the Indian Navy.

9. This information is being issued with no financial commitment and the Ministry of Defence reserves the right to change or vary any part thereof at any stage. The Government of India also reserves the right to withdraw it, should it be so necessary at any stage. The acquisition process would be carried out under the provisions of DPP 2011




OPERATIONAL / TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR LPD

1. The Indian Navy seeks information from prospective Indian ship builders for design and construction of Landing Platform Dock (LPD) class of ships. The ships would be constructed in India under Buy and Make (Indian) categorization as amplified in Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) 2011.


2. The design of basic hull form, propulsion machinery and major equipment except the weapon and sensors fit, should be derived from a proven world class design of an LPD of similar dimensions. The details of proposed classification society and class notation are also to be provided. In case the design is being bought, the shipyard should have an MOU with the designer for construction of LPD at the time of submission of tenders. The design would be vetted by IHQ, MoD (N), at the time of technical evaluation of tenders.
3. The broad specifications of the ship are as follows:-


(a) The length of the ship would be approx 200 m . Breadth is to be commensurate with the length and tonnage of the ship.

(b) The draught of the ship is not to exceed 8 m.

(c) The ship is expected to have an endurance of 45 days.

(d) The ship is to have Diesel-Electric propulsion in either of the following configuration:-
(i) Twin shaft configuration, with twin rudders and Fixed Pitch Propellers or,
(ii) Shock graded podded propulsion.

(e) The ship is to have a suitable well deck for amphibious operations. The ship would carry amphibious crafts like LCMs or LCACs and LCVPs on davits and should have capability to launch these crafts when underway.

(f) The ship is expected to have a carriage of combat vehicles on one or more vehicle deck. This area should be adequate to embark Main Battle Tank (MBT), AAVs/BMP Class armoured vehicles and heavy trucks.

(g) The ship would be equipped with a Point Defence Missile System, Close In Weapon System, Anti Torpedo Decoy system, Chaff System and HMGs/ LMGs. In addition, ship would have one E/ F band combined air and surface surveillance radar and one C/D band air surveillance radar. All of these would be buyer nominated equipment.

(h) The ship is expected to carry army troops in addition to ship crew.

(j) The ship should have capability of simultaneous operation by day/ night of Special Operation Helicopters and Large Helicopters (upto 35 tons).

4. Construction. The construction must be undertaken employing modern Build Strategy allowing for integrated construction to derive benefits of high degree of pre-outfitting at block level to facilitate very short build period.

5. Contract. All terms and conditions of the contract will be in accordance with the latest Defence Procurement Procedure DPP- 2011 that is available on the MoD www.mod.nic.in.


6. The following information is required from shipyards:-

(a) Proposed time frame for construction of ships, in terms of number of years for the delivery of vessels

(b) Capabilities of the shipyard to undertake this project, both in terms of capacity building and past experience in constructing vessels of similar size and tonnage.

(c) Capacity for ship design and equipment integration.

(d) Possible tie-ups with foreign shipyards, if any.

http://www.tenders.gov.in/viewtenddoc.asp?tid=del371125&wno=1&td=TD





As per Specifications: Only One Ship is around little more than 200m..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Antonio_class_amphibious_transport_dock

 

[Crusader53]

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
LPD CLASS OF SHIPS FOR INDIAN NAVY




http://www.tenders.gov.in/viewtenddoc.asp?tid=del371125&wno=1&td=TD







As per Specifications:

http://www.military-today.com/navy/mistral_class.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dokdo_class_amphibious_assault_ship




Only Two with Length of 199m and Draught under 8ms

Dokdo fits the bill better as per cost and Draught of 7m, not to mention abt Shipyard..

Either, would be a excellent choice. Yet, if the Dokdo was selected the first one could be constructed in South Korean Yard and quickly.

 

[Ray]

Making LST just to deck up the inventory is not adequate.

What is the op task?

It has to be tailor made to it.

What is the Threat Analysis that leads to the Op Task.

Now, what is the Op task?

5 LST with different carrying capacity is fine?

Adhocism is the bane of our defence preparedness.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Making LST just to deck up the inventory is not adequate.

What is the op task?

It has to be tailor made to it.

What is the Threat Analysis that leads to the Op Task.

Now, what is the Op task?

5 LST with different carrying capacity is fine?

Adhocism is the bane of our defence preparedness.

Either, would be a excellent choice. Yet, if the Dokdo was selected the first one could be constructed in South Korean Yard and quickly.

Post edited..

I posted Pics Of amphibious assault ship..

Now i Posted landing platform dock (LPD)..


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_warfare_ship

 

[debasree]

i think mistral will be the ultimate choise,as if us sell a weapon system they add some provission on them,like visit after selling a weapon system & tendency of impose sanction at the time of conflict , the us is very reluctant to tot ,so french weapon system is good for us,as they will not apply any condition on us.