Indian Navy Developments & Discussions

[karn]

You guys should know there is a concept that the Japs looked at .. Which is converting a San Antonio class to an Aegis . This configuration would have 228 VLS.

 

[binayak95]

You guys should know there is a concept that the Japs looked at .. Which is converting a San Antonio class to an Aegis . This configuration would have 228 VLS.

Not just the Japs, USN was seriously considering too a few years ago.

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

Not just the Japs, USN was seriously considering too a few years ago.

Why did they drop it? Would have been half an arsenal ship. Maybe because it goes against the tenet of small, distributed, networked and agile?

 

[binayak95]

Why did they drop it? Would have been half an arsenal ship.

Just sub optimal use of a design, much more efficient to make a purpose designed ship. Feature and mission creep essentially scared USN away

 

[Knowitall]

Mogami excel in their stealth characteristics but lack in air defence capabilities, they only have 16 Mk41 VLS cells which carry Type 03 Naval SAM

Mk41 launchers quad pack missiles in them. So 16 cells result in 64 air defence missiles. Along with seperate cells for 8 anti ship missiles.

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

Mk41 launchers quad pack missiles in them. So 16 cells result in 64 air defence missiles. Along with seperate cells for 8 anti ship missiles.

They don't use all 16 for SAMs, they also use some for VL-ASROC. Around 8-12 cells I think. Also, they don't use ESSM which can be quad packed. Not sure if their indigenous ones can be, although they could be looking at Japanese missile tech.

You guys should know there is a concept that the Japs looked at .. Which is converting a San Antonio class to an Aegis . This configuration would have 228 VLS.

In any case, such large Missile Cruisers of around 20,000 tons don't make sense for India. Our largest ship size should be dictated by the largest sensor suite we plan to put on board and a large-enough VLS system that most of it can be used up in one fight. That would mean around 12,000 tons.

 

[karn]

In any case, such large Missile Cruisers of around 20,000 tons don't make sense for India. Our largest ship size should be dictated by the largest sensor suite we plan to put on board and a large-enough VLS system that most of it can be used up in one fight. That would mean around 12,000 tons.

If Iran was pointing nukes at us it would be relevant. Besides.. the aircraft carrier is obsolete gang will point to these missile carrying cruisers to be the new fleet flagship.
Edit:
This concept is actually very relevant with respect to protecting the southern coast from missiles fired from balochistan.

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

If Iran was pointing nukes at us it would be relevant. Besides.. the aircraft carrier is obsolete gang will point to these missile carrying cruisers to be the new fleet flagship.
Edit:
This concept is actually very relevant with respect to protecting the southern coast from missiles fired from balochistan.

Nah, even Iran BMD can be taken care of by our land based stuff. Even ones fired from Balochistan. I'd say even Chinese SLBM fired from SCS can be taken care of if we make radars facing that direction on East Coast and A&N isles.

 

[karn]

Nah, even Iran BMD can be taken care of by our land based stuff. Even ones fired from Balochistan. I'd say even Chinese SLBM fired from SCS can be taken care of if we make radars facing that direction on East Coast and A&N isles.

Taking down a BM early is always easier na ..Also futureproofs for HGVs. This would also further enhance radar coverage. According to rumors the project 18 will be 10,000 ton + IN is probably looking in this direction.

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

Taking down a BM early is always easier na ..Also futureproofs for HGVs. This would also further enhance radar coverage. According to rumors the project 18 will be 10,000 ton + IN is probably looking in this direction.

Project 18 are going to sport a 6 meter AESA radar. You don't need a bigger radar than that for any purpose (USN is also going the same route with a 6 meter AMDR GaN AESA on DDG(X)). So that is a good direction to take. BMD on Indian ships is not what I am against. I am against getting 20,000 ton behemoths for BMD. Our needs don't dictate that. We can simply have our P-18 and follow on classes of Destroyers sport some BMD and HGV-defence missiles along with a 6 meter radar to take out threats in that direction in advance while Indian mainland BMD and HGV defences should handle the rest. Kind of like how USA does it.

 

[karn]

Project 18 are going to sport a 6 meter AESA radar. You don't need a bigger radar than that for any purpose (USN is also going the same route with a 6 meter AMDR GaN AESA on DDG(X)). So that is a good direction to take. BMD on Indian ships is not what I am against. I am against getting 20,000 ton behemoths for BMD. Our needs don't dictate that. We can simply have our P-18 and follow on classes of Destroyers sport some BMD and HGV-defence missiles along with a 6 meter radar to take out threats in that direction in advance while Indian mainland BMD and HGV defences should handle the rest. Kind of like how USA does it.

Well .. the americans cover themselves with this TBF.

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

Well .. the americans cover themselves with this TBF.

The missile that thing is meant to calculate a solution for is a much larger than anything a ship can carry. Its for the GBI, or the American equivalent of PDV MkII.

 

[IndianHawk]

Gotta look at the trend chinese have come up up with 13000 ton destroyer/ cruisers.
American zumwalt was 15000 ton though design didn't work.

Now japanes are mulling 20000 ton vessel.

It won't be long before we too will have to look at much bigger ships with hundreds of vls.

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

Gotta look at the trend chinese have come up up with 13000 ton destroyer/ cruisers.
American zumwalt was 15000 ton though design didn't work.

Now japanes are mulling 20000 ton vessel.

It won't be long before we too will have to look at much bigger ships with hundreds of vls.

No. according to me, trend will stop at around 13000 tons. Unless future designs with railguns or lasers demand something else. Japanese 20,000 ton is a special case.
Future of warfare is all about having distributed and networked sensors and shooters. The size of the largest surface combatant should be dictated primarily by the size of the largest sensors you plan to carry and enough weapons in VLS that can be expended in one or two large engagements.
No point having a 500 VLS arsenal ship sunk before it gets a chance to launch a quarter of its missiles. Replace that with three-four ships of around 100 VLS each and you have a more survivable system with multiple sensors and even if total VLS are a little less, the latter system would win.

 

[karn]

No. according to me, trend will stop at around 13000 tons. Unless future designs with railguns or lasers demand something else. Japanese 20,000 ton is a special case.
Future of warfare is all about having distributed and networked sensors and shooters. The size of the largest surface combatant should be dictated primarily by the size of the largest sensors you plan to carry and enough weapons in VLS that can be expended in one or two large engagements.
No point having a 500 VLS arsenal ship sunk before it gets a chance to launch a quarter of its missiles. Replace that with three-four ships of around 100 VLS each and you have a more survivable system with multiple sensors and even if total VLS are a little less, the latter system would win.

Yeah I suppose you are correct. Besides 228 missiles would probably bankrupt the navy lol.

 

[IndianHawk]

No. according to me, trend will stop at around 13000 tons. Unless future designs with railguns or lasers demand something else. Japanese 20,000 ton is a special case.
Future of warfare is all about having distributed and networked sensors and shooters. The size of the largest surface combatant should be dictated primarily by the size of the largest sensors you plan to carry and enough weapons in VLS that can be expended in one or two large engagements.
No point having a 500 VLS arsenal ship sunk before it gets a chance to launch a quarter of its missiles. Replace that with three-four ships of around 100 VLS each and you have a more survivable system with multiple sensors and even if total VLS are a little less, the latter system would win.

We heard the same argument against aircraft carriers yet no one is stopping building to them and the size keeps on increasing too.

Who knows what's tommorow holds. Battlefield is evolving too fast. All we can do is look at those trends and try to understand the logical rational behind them

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

We heard the same argument against aircraft carriers yet no one is stopping building to them and the size keeps on increasing too.

Who knows what's tommorow holds. Battlefield is evolving too fast. All we can do is look at those trends and try to understand the logical rational behind them

Aircraft carriers aren't the same argument. A supercarrier gives you a higher sortie generation rate and carries many more aircraft. So it makes sense to have them built up to that size.
.
But see, we don't get 200,000 ton or even 150,000 ton carriers. Do we? No. Because beyond that, they don't add much capability.
.
100,000 tons is the most optimal. Others have budget constraints or tech constraints or even operational requirements that don't call for bigger carriers so they make do with smaller ones.
.
Military wide, the move towards more distributed systems is only accelerating. Maybe the balance for destroyers/cruisers will change from 13000 tons to something else like 20,000 tons when lasers or railguns come online, but the overall trend will still be towards "fitting the most capable system in the smallest, most survivable package possible".

 

[Rassil Krishnan]

They might have provided space for additional VLS in the future which for now is FFBNW.

When talking about future upgrades,it must be noted that many of the USA's plans of upgrading their ships which they had planned to upgrade midlife like their cruisers and destroyers with retrofits did not pan out for one reason or the other reason.this is why they were made to last 35-40 years.the cruisers they are about to decommision did not undergo their proposed upgrade and this way of thinking will cause a lot of workhorse ships in the US Navy to be scrapped in the coming 20 years and there is even a possibility that they may even reach to the size of the Indian Navy in ship numbers in coming 20 years.

So it is better in my opinion to plan for ship to last 20-max 30 years with no plan for upgrade and a system that keeps churning out ships in numbers to keep the yards and socks and other facilities running too.

US also is having issues with sustainability of their fleet and potential war replenisent issues as most of their facilities have withered away since their peak in the cold war.if a war starts in the Pacific and china launches a surprise strike on major ships of the US,the US won't be able to make up for the losses in a timely manner.this issue will not be solved soon too.if a china-US war starts today ,it will be the US which will be in the position of Japan with their more highly. Capable but irreplaceable ships and crews.recruiwnt across all branches are facing issues too.

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

When talking about future upgrades,it must be noted that many of the USA's plans of upgrading their ships which they had planned to upgrade midlife like their cruisers and destroyers with retrofits did not pan out for one reason or the other reason.this is why they were made to last 35-40 years.the cruisers they are about to decommision did not undergo their proposed upgrade and this way of thinking will cause a lot of workhorse ships in the US Navy to be scrapped in the coming 20 years and there is even a possibility that they may even reach to the size of the Indian Navy in ship numbers in coming 20 years.

So it is better in my opinion to plan for ship to last 20-max 30 years with no plan for upgrade and a system that keeps churning out ships in numbers to keep the yards and socks and other facilities running too.

US also is having issues with sustainability of their fleet and potential war replenisent issues as most of their facilities have withered away since their peak in the cold war.if a war starts in the Pacific and china launches a surprise strike on major ships of the US,the US won't be able to make up for the losses in a timely manner.this issue will not be solved soon too.if a china-US war starts today ,it will be the US which will be in the position of Japan with their more highly. Capable but irreplaceable ships and crews.recruiwnt across all branches are facing issues too.

While I don't think that the Cruiser retirements will push USN down to IN ship numbers, this still presents India with a problem because now that PLAN fleet buildup is starting to catch up to USN fleet numbers (with the latter falling), it will mean PLAN will have more ships to spare for IOR incursions. This could happen sooner than we expected. Although without carriers covering such ships, they won't be an insurmountable challenge.

While people are expecting Chinese warship building to slow down due to less personnel, I think they might take a chance and keep expanding by leveraging automation the kind of which Japan is already using.

Still we shouldn't read much into this stuff. It could just be that situation in USN is being overblown in the media to secure funding for DDG(X) or maybe even to extend production run of Flight III AB class.

 

[bhramos]