The Future Indian Navy !

Discussion in 'Indian Navy' started by SPIEZ, Nov 2, 2011.

  1. SPIEZ

    SPIEZ Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,507
    Likes Received:
    1,009
    Should the IN look at Battle Cruisers (BC)

    Battlecruiser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Large Bc's have the advantage of being Blue water navy vessels which can stay away from the coast for extended periods of time. This will give the IN blue water capability.

    Also nuclear powered BC's will not require refueling for a long period of time, for eg~30 years.

    They would be able to beef up our attack capabilities with long range missiles like Nirbhay (Nirbhay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and the K15( missiles.
     
    W.G.Ewald likes this.
  2.  
  3. sayareakd

    sayareakd Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2009
    Messages:
    15,623
    Likes Received:
    11,703
    PDV/PAD and AAD ship with Navy version of LRTR.......
     
  4. p2prada

    p2prada Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    10,233
    Likes Received:
    3,896
    Location:
    Holy Hell
    I guess you are talking about an AAW Destroyer like the Aegis equipped ABs.

    Battlecruisers are expensive and difficult to maintain. Two destroyers are a better option instead of one battlecruiser. More flexibility.
     
  5. SPIEZ

    SPIEZ Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,507
    Likes Received:
    1,009
  6. SPIEZ

    SPIEZ Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,507
    Likes Received:
    1,009
    When the ship is bigger isn't it harder to drown ?

    Also refueling, won't it be a burden ?
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2011
  7. p2prada

    p2prada Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    10,233
    Likes Received:
    3,896
    Location:
    Holy Hell
    Smaller American ships have survived big hits, like USS Cole. You need to do major damage in order to sink the ship, big or small.

    Smaller ships are more stealthy and pack excellent firepower.

    USS Stark and HMS Sheffield were attacked using Exocets. Both suffered major damages, but did not sink.

    Tactics can always overcome size. The only ships that deserve to be big are carriers, tankers and LPDs.
     
  8. SPIEZ

    SPIEZ Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,507
    Likes Received:
    1,009
  9. W.G.Ewald

    W.G.Ewald Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2 Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    14,140
    Likes Received:
    8,528
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
  10. ace009

    ace009 Freakin' Fighter fan Elite Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Messages:
    1,662
    Likes Received:
    513
    Location:
    New England, USA
    "Battlecruisers" or "cruisers" or pocket battleships were a class of warships being built between 1850 till the early parts of 2nd world war. They had thick armor to protect them against gunfire and were considerably slow. They were considered to be the "queens" of a fleet and were frequently considered the flagships of a navy.

    However, 2nd WW showed the limitations of these design due to the development of advanced torpedoes (launched from submarines and aircraft) that could penetrate the armor of the battle ships. In addition there were dive bombers that could destroy a battleship (a la Pearl Harbor). Battleships became less and less effective and useful as WW2 went on and were eventually replaced by Destroyers (to counter submarines) and Aircraft Carriers (to counter other surface ships and land attack).

    Since WW-2, the shift has been towards speed, stealth and missile firing capabilities (both for defense and offense) for naval vessels (Destroyers, Submarines and Frigates). Russian Navy is the only major navy that still maintains some "Cruisers" which carry ballistic missiles. They are also mainly nuclear powered to give them the extra leg. As Ewald pointed out, the USN planned and then cancelled it's own Dreadnought battleship project.

    We have discussed about the use of a nuke powered cruiser for IN - I personally think it might not be a bad idea - as a "patrol vessel" that can carry balistic missiles, have Aegis type ABM defense and can launch large drones for strike (like the MQ-9 Reaper). But most people on this forum do not like the concept of large Cruisers ...
     
    SPIEZ likes this.
  11. Armand2REP

    Armand2REP CHINI EXPERT Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,397
    Likes Received:
    2,314
    I know we have already had this discussion before. It was agreed more cheaper ships are better than a few large ones.
     
  12. SPIEZ

    SPIEZ Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,507
    Likes Received:
    1,009
    Old project, but a good read !
     
  13. SPIEZ

    SPIEZ Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,507
    Likes Received:
    1,009
    Amur class submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    SPECS :
    [TABLE="class: infobox"]
    [TR]
    [TD][/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Displacement:
    [/TD]
    [TD]950 long tons (970 t) surfaced[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Length:
    [/TD]
    [TD]58.8 m (192 ft 11 in)[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Beam:
    [/TD]
    [TD]5.65 m (18 ft 6 in)[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Height:
    [/TD]
    [TD]6.4 m (21 ft 0 in)[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Speed:
    [/TD]
    [TD]20 knots (23 mph; 37 km/h)
    [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Range:
    [/TD]
    [TD]350 nmi (650 km) AIP
    3,000 nmi (5,600 km) Snorkel[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Endurance:
    [/TD]
    [TD]45 days
    [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Test depth:[/TD]
    [TD]250 m (820 ft)
    [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Complement:[/TD]
    [TD]18
    [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Armament:[/TD]
    [TD]• 4 × 533 mm (21 in) Torpedo tubes
    • 16 torpedoes
    • 10 VLS cells
    [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]
     
    W.G.Ewald likes this.
  14. Payeng

    Payeng Daku Mongol Singh

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,521
    Likes Received:
    767
    Location:
    Neistan
    Good thought, for a ship of that class India will need a heavy air defence, both long range and point defence,
    battle cruisers like the Kirov class employees massive air defence some 100 long range SAM, 250+ point defense SAM with CIWS plus anti submarine and Anti ship capabilities with a speculation of more then 500 missiles in the single ship. Now that's some huge armament for probability for IN to maintain a ship of that class.

    To the max I have seen 32 Barak point defense SAM plus other armaments fitted on Mysore Class Destroyers, India still have a gap in Long range SAM capabilities for Naval Ship defense.

    Zumwalt Class Destroyers looks impressive as an alternative

    [​IMG]

    The US have currently scrapped such an concept of massive firepower known as Arsenal ship


    [​IMG]

    Arsenal ship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    India needs Long range SAM for destroyers to escort her CV before such a concept. I hope Shaurya be tested as ABM defence as it might result to in Indian's Long range SAM work horse :)>

    Shaurya uses cold launch similar to that of S-300 which Kirov Class Battle cruisers uses, and with a surface to surface range of 750 KM, I believe it can reach atleast 300 km minimum as LR-SAM role

    500 kg warhead payload altered for a kill vehicle gimbal controlled third stage, this technology is already available as it had been tested in PADM.

    Shaurya is even known as capable of maneuvering at mid course.

    What you folks think about it?
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2011
  15. SPIEZ

    SPIEZ Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,507
    Likes Received:
    1,009
    @ Payeng
    [TABLE="class: infobox"]
    [TR]
    General characteristics [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Displacement:[/TD]
    [TD]24,300 tons Standard, 28,000 (Full Load)[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Length:[/TD]
    [TD]252 m (827 ft)
    230 m (750 ft) (Waterline)[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Beam:[/TD]
    [TD]28.5 m (94 ft)[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Draft:[/TD]
    [TD]9.1 m (30 ft)[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Propulsion:[/TD]
    [TD]2-shaft CONAS, Nuclear propulsion with steam turbine boost
    140,000 shp[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Speed:[/TD]
    [TD]32 knots (59 km/h)[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Range:[/TD]
    [TD]1,000 nautical miles (2,000 km) at 30 knots (56 km/h) (combined propulsion),
    Essentially unlimited with nuclear power at 20 knots (37 km/h)[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Complement:[/TD]
    [TD]727
    Aircrew: 18
    Flag staff: 15[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Sensors and
    processing systems:[/TD]
    [TD]·Voskhod MR-800 (Top Pair) 3D search radar on foremast
    ·Fregat MR-710 (Top Steer) 3D search radar on main mast
    ·2 × Palm Frond navigation radar on foremast
    ·2 × Top Dome for SA-N-6 fire control
    ·4 × Bass Tilt for AK-360 CIWS System fire control
    ·2 × Eye Bowl for SA-N-4 fire control
    ·Horse Jaw LF hull sonar
    ·Horse Tail VDS (Variable Depth Sonar)[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Armament:[/TD]
    [TD]20 P 700 Granit
    14 SS-N-14 SILEX ASW missile
    12x8 (96) S-300PMU Favorit SA-N-6 Grumble surface to air missiles
    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
    2x AK-100 100 mm/L60 DP guns
    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
    [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Armour:[/TD]
    [TD]76 mm plating around reactor compartment, light splinter protection
    [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Aircraft carried:[/TD]
    [TD]3 Kamokov Ka 27 or Ka 25[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Aviation facilities:[/TD]
    [TD]Below-deck hangar[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]
     
  16. W.G.Ewald

    W.G.Ewald Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2 Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    14,140
    Likes Received:
    8,528
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
  17. SPIEZ

    SPIEZ Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,507
    Likes Received:
    1,009
    Yup! They are the latest pieces of tech to hit the world!

    But I stress on nukes because they can power for a longer period of time, outside littoral waters.
     
  18. sandeepdg

    sandeepdg Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    2,333
    Likes Received:
    216
    Location:
    Gurgaon/Noida
    I would love to see ships like this with such lethal firepower, although somewhat tweaked in configurations, to carry a heavy load of Brahmos, Nirbhay cruise missiles in good numbers by decreasing the number of SAMs in IN.

    Kirov class battlecruiser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    428 SAM payload on a single ship !! Including, short, medium and LR-SAMs. Mind blowing firepower ! A single ship like this can scare away an entire country's AF !!
     
  19. SPIEZ

    SPIEZ Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,507
    Likes Received:
    1,009
    From an educational point of view I would like to know the pro's and con's of nuclear powered Blue-water ships!

    And 458 missiles are impossible !
     
  20. sandeepdg

    sandeepdg Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    2,333
    Likes Received:
    216
    Location:
    Gurgaon/Noida
    Its not impossible, its a fact as stated above. And, its 428 SAMs. Obviously, I am not saying that we have ship with a payload of 400 cruise missiles, I want to see ships with a payload of around 100 SAMs of different ranges and around 50-100 cruise missiles. That is very possible when compared to a Kirov class cruiser.

    Pyotr Velikiy is in active service. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_battlecruiser_Pyotr_Velikiy
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2011
  21. Payeng

    Payeng Daku Mongol Singh

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,521
    Likes Received:
    767
    Location:
    Neistan
    sandeepdg I think you miscalculated the numbers S-300PMU and S-300FM are different versions expected to be installed in different versions of Kirov Class still Peter the Great is believed to have a massive amount of fire power with a speculated total amount of missile exceeding 500 different types of missiles.

    SPIEZ I think you misunderstood my point, as per the thread title 'Future Indian Navy' it is most necessary to produce or procure a LRSAM before any plans for Battle cruisers, Chinese air defence destroyers will carry LRSAM. BTW US cancelled one of its project upon a version of a concept of modern battleships. More or less it is seen as a lesser feasible option.
     

Share This Page