Don't have capability/intention to match China force for force: Navy

[DivineHeretic]

Re: Don't have capability/intention to match China force for force: Na

Too bad we don't have diplomatic relations with Taiwan.

No idea what we have worked out with Australia, Singapore, Japan etc in secret.

Anyway, we currently have plans of building 3 SSBNs and 6 SSNs. Those 3 SSBN may also double up as SSGNs with the K-14s. We have plans for 6 Scorpenes, 6 P-75I and 12 domestic SSKs. All of this between today and 2030. There is a clause for 3 more Scorpenes on option, no idea if it will be exercised or not. P-75I also should have a 3 or 6 more as options.

Nerpa is currently available on a ten year contract, with an extension clause for 10 more years. A second Akula II is also available.

Overall, our plans for SSKs is quite robust while SSNs and SSBNs are quite modest. Perhaps gives India a credible deterrent + some added teeth for whatever CBG plans we have.

Actually we have already decided on atleast 6 SSBNs, with four already in various stages of construction. The fifth and sixth will be deep modifications when they come, presumably by 2022.
The number of SSNs have always been higher with every navy operating the duo. As such the number of SSNs will easily exceed 6, maybe to 9 or even 12.

And I am not aware of any domestic SSK plans. Could you shed some light on it?

The arihants can be used as SSGNs, but not with the K-14. The S-1,2,3 carries very few Shauryas to make any real impact in a non-nuclear role. The US SSGNs by contrast carries as many as 154 tomahawks. The S-1,2,3 if it can hold as many as 40-50 Nirbhays would only then be a viable SSGN platform.

Actually, our nuclear Sub pkans are far more ambitious than our diesel SSK plans. While we are scheduled to aquire 12 SSKs by 2025, our nuke fleet will swell to atleast 12, and that is assuming we aquire only 4 domestic SSNs.

 

[DivineHeretic]

Re: Don't have capability/intention to match China force for force: Na

Too many eggs in one basket. I remember talking to a retired USN rear admiral who taught military history; he explained that the cost to fill a single VLS with a missile (or quad-packed SAM) was about $2M, so a boat packed with 250 missiles would risk half a billion dollars of ammunition in a larger radar signature. It made more sense to spread all that ordnance across a number of smaller destroyers, each packing sensor suites just as powerful as the larger CG, but with smaller radar signatures and more tactical flexibility (to spread out, pincer, flank, etc.)

The only real advantage an arsenal ship like that would have is more relative fuel efficiency than a number of smaller craft, especially if it was nuclear powered, but a nuclear reactor would simply make it even more expensive than even three or four equivalent destroyers. Finally, the US has been building Burkes for years now, so building additional Burke Flight IIAs (and possibly IIBs) means declining unit costs and economies of scale.

EDIT: To quote my notes from our conversation



Presumably, he was referring to the fact that a linear increase in sensor power requires a linear increase in displacement, but only increases the square root of the detection range.

To be honest, an arsenal ship as a surface entity is a very unusual prospect. However arsenal ships do exist, albeit under a different name. The Ohio class SSGN carry a complement of 154 tomahawks, qualifying as an arsenal ship by all rights.

The reason the Arsenal ships did not go into production was the thinking that such a monster was not necessary, and expensive. The Ship had a RCS reducing structure, and so its RCS would most likely be several orders smaller than the Arleigh Burke DDGs. Its survivability and ability to operate undetected was never a real cause of concern.

But then again, why build a arsenal ship that floats on the surface, when you can afford higher undetectibility by staying under?

 

[arnabmit]

Re: Don't have capability/intention to match China force for force: Na

Can anyone please summarize India's current and planned SS fleet?

Class/Designation/in service/planned

for SSN, SSBN, SSGN, SSK, SSK(AIP)

 

[natarajan]

Re: Don't have capability/intention to match China force for force: Na

At this rate even we lost interest to match pak

 

[p2prada]

Re: Don't have capability/intention to match China force for force: Na

Too many eggs in one basket. I remember talking to a retired USN rear admiral who taught military history; he explained that the cost to fill a single VLS with a missile (or quad-packed SAM) was about $2M, so a boat packed with 250 missiles would risk half a billion dollars of ammunition in a larger radar signature. It made more sense to spread all that ordnance across a number of smaller destroyers, each packing sensor suites just as powerful as the larger CG, but with smaller radar signatures and more tactical flexibility (to spread out, pincer, flank, etc.)

The only real advantage an arsenal ship like that would have is more relative fuel efficiency than a number of smaller craft, especially if it was nuclear powered, but a nuclear reactor would simply make it even more expensive than even three or four equivalent destroyers. Finally, the US has been building Burkes for years now, so building additional Burke Flight IIAs (and possibly IIBs) means declining unit costs and economies of scale.

EDIT: To quote my notes from our conversation

Presumably, he was referring to the fact that a linear increase in sensor power requires a linear increase in displacement, but only increases the square root of the detection range.

There is one minor little hiccup to this. There are two types of arsenal ship types. One is what he talked about. The one with large displacement, high power sensor suites, multi-tier firepower etc. For this you will need something like 30000 tonnes as displacement.

The one I was referring to is merely a ship with a lot of VLS, basically a floating missile silo. You can stick anywhere between 250-500 cells on something like a 10000-15000 tonne ship without all the bells and whistles. This ship will be of a similar size as a cruiser and still deliver twice the firepower over a long distance. Of course this is something only a navy like the USN can afford currently.

You don't need nuke propulsion on this. Conventional ships will do. They are all basically the same weight as a LHD.

 

[t_co]

Re: Don't have capability/intention to match China force for force: Na

There is one minor little hiccup to this. There are two types of arsenal ship types. One is what he talked about. The one with large displacement, high power sensor suites, multi-tier firepower etc. For this you will need something like 30000 tonnes as displacement.

The one I was referring to is merely a ship with a lot of VLS, basically a floating missile silo. You can stick anywhere between 250-500 cells on something like a 10000-15000 tonne ship without all the bells and whistles. This ship will be of a similar size as a cruiser and still deliver twice the firepower over a long distance. Of course this is something only a navy like the USN can afford currently.

You don't need nuke propulsion on this. Conventional ships will do. They are all basically the same weight as a LHD.

But... why?

It's more efficient (and less risky) to put your missiles on an airborne, as opposed to floating, platform. The primary benefit of ships is that they can mount exceedingly powerful sensors and conduct fleet air defense over long ranges, which does not require the hundreds (or even thousands, if your 500xVLS are quad-packed) of SAMs such a ship would carry.

Since we've already established such a vessel wouldn't necessarily let you get much of an improvement in the sensor suite, nor would the extra VLS cells help in surface-to-air duties, let's address the issue of packing more VLS cells onto a single hull for anti-shipping warfare and shore bombardment.

The overall verdict on both these counts is that shore bombardment with ships is slow and risky; surface-to-surface combat with ships is the same to a lesser extent. The reason for this is that A) a carrier loaded with planes that have standoff munitions can cover a much wider area in a six-hour window than a ship loaded with standoff munitions (e.g. tactical flexibility to changing threat vectors, etc.), and B) once that ship starts launching, it might as well broadcast its location to the world (missile launches give off huge radar and IR signatures - they're called 'blooms' in Navy parlance).

To extend on point B: Sure, an aircraft blooms too when it launches a missile, but that signature is next to useless since the jet has probably done an Immelmann turn and is accelerating away at supersonic speeds within thirty seconds of launch. In contrast, when a ship launches a missile, it can't run away after it's done launching and now the enemy can draw a 30nm radius circle around the launching signature and spam the area with terminal-radar-seeking AShMs (or AShBMs) at any time in the entire next hour and get a >50% chance of a positive target lock (which means the missile is going to hit the ship unless it's shot down). And believe me, if a ship is within range of a land or sea target worth using cruise missiles on, that ship is probably also within range of AShM launchers.

So then the only real tactical use of such a ship is volleying a huge amount of missiles in one go, in a sort of surprise attack - but then wouldn't such a function be better done by an SSGN, which is essentially invisible to long-range surface-search radars and can carry 150+ cruise missiles too?

Of course, if you are reasonably certain your enemy doesn't have AShMs that can threaten you, such a ship is useful - but if you've already deleted their AShM threat, chances are you're probably kicking their asses any how, and you 500 more VLS tubes of precision firepower won't really help you much.

Again, this is just that rear admiral talking. If you've got a better idea, go ahead.

 

[p2prada]

Re: Don't have capability/intention to match China force for force: Na

It's more efficient (and less risky) to put your missiles on an airborne, as opposed to floating, platform. The primary benefit of ships is that they can mount exceedingly powerful sensors and conduct fleet air defense over long ranges, which does not require the hundreds (or even thousands, if your 500xVLS are quad-packed) of SAMs such a ship would carry.

No. My intention is not to put SAMs in them. My intention is to put Tomahawks in them and attack vehicles from 1000 Km away.

Again, this is just that rear admiral talking. If you've got a better idea, go ahead.

His opinion in based on a capability based ship, AAW, ASW etc. I agree with this opinion since extra large ships can be a danger to themselves.

My opinion is simply based on a floating platform for carrying a looottttt of Tomahawks, between 250 and 500 based on design. This could be half the size of a LHD. I am not talking about some 200000 ton ship. Probably 10000, maybe 15000 tonnes at best. Probably take the Ticonderoga hull, remove most of the sensors and make the main structure smaller, add a lot of VLS.

Also I don't understand why an arsenal ship is less defensable than the ship you talk off especially when the arsenal ship is supposed to work within a CBG and look like a Ticonderoga while it is at it.

 

[binayak95]

Re: Don't have capability/intention to match China force for force: Na

@t_co I think you haven't seen this.

 

[ice berg]

Re: Don't have capability/intention to match China force for force: Na

No. My intention is not to put SAMs in them. My intention is to put Tomahawks in them and attack vehicles from 1000 Km away.



His opinion in based on a capability based ship, AAW, ASW etc. I agree with this opinion since extra large ships can be a danger to themselves.

My opinion is simply based on a floating platform for carrying a looottttt of Tomahawks, between 250 and 500 based on design. This could be half the size of a LHD. I am not talking about some 200000 ton ship. Probably 10000, maybe 15000 tonnes at best. Probably take the Ticonderoga hull, remove most of the sensors and make the main structure smaller, add a lot of VLS.

Also I don't understand why an arsenal ship is less defensable than the ship you talk off especially when the arsenal ship is supposed to work within a CBG and look like a Ticonderoga while it is at it.

They already exist. They are called SSGN.

USS Florida (SSGN-728) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[t_co]

Re: Don't have capability/intention to match China force for force: Na

@t_co I think you haven't seen this.

Nice pic - I visited the Missouri in Pearl Harbor. Beautiful ship

 

[t_co]

Re: Don't have capability/intention to match China force for force: Na

No. My intention is not to put SAMs in them. My intention is to put Tomahawks in them and attack vehicles from 1000 Km away.

Except surface bombardment is not the primary role of a naval vessel, since the real question is: would you risk an expensive ship to nail a few (relatively speaking) cheap T-90s?

His opinion in based on a capability based ship, AAW, ASW etc. I agree with this opinion since extra large ships can be a danger to themselves.

Fair enough.

My opinion is simply based on a floating platform for carrying a looottttt of Tomahawks, between 250 and 500 based on design. This could be half the size of a LHD. I am not talking about some 200000 ton ship. Probably 10000, maybe 15000 tonnes at best. Probably take the Ticonderoga hull, remove most of the sensors and make the main structure smaller, add a lot of VLS.

The concept is sound, but if you're going to remove most of the sensors, why not just go all the way and make it a submarine? SSGNs have limited sensor range, huge firepower, and are very tough and concealable.

Also I don't understand why an arsenal ship is less defensable than the ship you talk off especially when the arsenal ship is supposed to work within a CBG and look like a Ticonderoga while it is at it.

Of course an arsenal ship is just as 'tough', relatively speaking, as a DDG - perhaps a bit tougher since it's larger and would have heavier CIWS (but not by much). The real thing is that 'toughness' for a naval vessel is essentially moot in an era of AShMs, as the performance of Exocets in the Falklands War already showed us. Instead, ships defend themselves by hiding, while striving to find the opponent before they find them. That's why sensor performance is such an important benchmark for ships (and it's something I would even be willing to sacrifice some degree of firepower for). If your naval fleet can find the other guy's planes, or better yet, their ships, subs, and airfields, even a half hour before they do to you, you will gain an enormous, enormous advantage.

Indeed, much of the arms race between China, Japan, and the US is taking place out of sight, as China builds (or buys) better and better subs, longer-range OTH radars, and puts high-powered AESAs on literally every single 4th and 5th gen fighter in the PLAAF - and the US and Japan counter with the F-22, better ASW, anti-radiation missiles; and both sides are investing a crapton in AEW&C and new ship/land-based radars. All that talk of J-20s and J-31s and a carrier is just fluff for the fanboys - the real competition is taking place across the electromagnetic spectrum and sonar (and to a lesser extent, cyber), and it's not really visible to any of us.

 

[binayak95]

Re: Don't have capability/intention to match China force for force: Na

@t_co @p2prada, on a different but interesting note, in the 1991 Gulf war, an Oliver Perry class frigate fired the Phalanx CIWS on the Wisconsin. All of the several hundred rounds bounced off the ships armour.
The point is :Is WWII armour effective in today's scenario say against a cruise missile like the one that took out the HMS Sheffield? And should navies have a relook and armoured ships?

 

[t_co]

Re: Don't have capability/intention to match China force for force: Na

@t_co @p2prada, on a different but interesting note, in the 1991 Gulf war, an Oliver Perry class frigate fired the Phalanx CIWS on the Wisconsin. All of the several hundred rounds bounced off the ships armour.
The point is :Is WWII armour effective in today's scenario say against a cruise missile like the one that took out the HMS Sheffield? And should navies have a relook and armoured ships?

No, not really. A modern AShM will slam into the hull at Mach 2+ and can dig a hole fifteen meters deep and three meters wide in a standard ship, filling it with burning rocket fuel. That's a lot more damage than a WW2 battleship shell would cause.

 

[binayak95]

Re: Don't have capability/intention to match China force for force: Na

No, not really. A modern AShM will slam into the hull at Mach 2+ and can dig a hole fifteen meters deep and three meters wide in a standard ship, filling it with burning rocket fuel. That's a lot more damage than a WW2 battleship shell would cause.

Agreed. But what about new age composites or alloys. Surely one could try but no one seems to give this a thought!!

P.s: My greatest disappointment with WWII: USS Iowa didn't take on the IJN Yamato in a one-on-one slugfight!!

 

[p2prada]

Re: Don't have capability/intention to match China force for force: Na

They already exist. They are called SSGN.

USS Florida (SSGN-728) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SSGNs have other issues, like a serviceable base is much farther away than a port for surface fleet around the world.

Foreign ports won't like SSGNs around, not allowed anyway.

SSGN is very expensive compared to what I have in mind.

Except surface bombardment is not the primary role of a naval vessel, since the real question is: would you risk an expensive ship to nail a few (relatively speaking) cheap T-90s?

Why not, when those T-90s are posing a direct threat to a major city. The point of an arsenal ship is to stop a land invasion as best as possible.

The concept is sound, but if you're going to remove most of the sensors, why not just go all the way and make it a submarine? SSGNs have limited sensor range, huge firepower, and are very tough and concealable.

Costs won't be justified. The Ohio replacement may very well cost anywhere between $4 - 8 Billion a piece, without weapons. The ship could cost something like $500 Million without weapons, since a Ticonderoga is something like a Billion today, but that includes AEGIS.

Ships can be refueled and rearmed in a lot of ports around the world. Submarine ports are very few. At least with USN in mind.

Indeed, much of the arms race between China, Japan, and the US is taking place out of sight, as China builds (or buys) better and better subs, longer-range OTH radars, and puts high-powered AESAs on literally every single 4th and 5th gen fighter in the PLAAF - and the US and Japan counter with the F-22, better ASW, anti-radiation missiles; and both sides are investing a crapton in AEW&C and new ship/land-based radars. All that talk of J-20s and J-31s and a carrier is just fluff for the fanboys - the real competition is taking place across the electromagnetic spectrum and sonar (and to a lesser extent, cyber), and it's not really visible to any of us.

I would agree on this one. The one that controls the EMR spectrum, wins the war.

 

[p2prada]

Re: Don't have capability/intention to match China force for force: Na

@t_co @p2prada, on a different but interesting note, in the 1991 Gulf war, an Oliver Perry class frigate fired the Phalanx CIWS on the Wisconsin. All of the several hundred rounds bounced off the ships armour.
The point is :Is WWII armour effective in today's scenario say against a cruise missile like the one that took out the HMS Sheffield? And should navies have a relook and armoured ships?

The wrong weapon was used. That's all.

Give a 100 troops SMGs and ask them to fight off a WW2 tank with em. No chance at all.

 

[ice berg]

Re: Don't have capability/intention to match China force for force: Na

SSGNs have other issues, like a serviceable base is much farther away than a port for surface fleet around the world.

Foreign ports won't like SSGNs around, not allowed anyway.

Why will that be a problem if you dont intend to dock there anyway? When was the last time someone docked a SSGN in another country anyway?

SSGN is very expensive compared to what I have in mind.

Your arsenal ship wont be cheap either, not to mention far more likely to be detected and carry less land attack missiles.

Why not, when those T-90s are posing a direct threat to a major city. The point of an arsenal ship is to stop a land invasion as best as possible.



Costs won't be justified. The Ohio replacement may very well cost anywhere between $4 - 8 Billion a piece, without weapons. The ship could cost something like $500 Million without weapons, since a Ticonderoga is something like a Billion today, but that includes AEGIS.

The Ohio costs around 2 billions and carries like 154 cruise missiles. How many land attack missiles does your arsenal ship carries and how many surface to air missiles to defend her-self?

Ships can be refueled and rearmed in a lot of ports around the world. Submarine ports are very few. At least with USN in mind.

You got be kidding, You gonna refueling and rearm your arsenal ship in some third country? With a SSGN, you dont need to refuel. That is the wonder of a nuclear sub. Your arsenal ship will be dogmeat long before she can rearm herself again.

I would agree on this one. The one that controls the EMR spectrum, wins the war.

The age of arsenal ship is long gone. Dont take my words for it. The USN who rules the oceans are converting more and more subs to SSGNS.
End of discussion.

 

[p2prada]

Re: Don't have capability/intention to match China force for force: Na

The age of arsenal ship is long gone. Dont take my words for it. The USN who rules the oceans are converting more and more subs to SSGNS.
End of discussion.

If Arsenal ships, which is simply a Ticonderoga, is dead meat, then all surface ships are dead meat. Don't forget that the Arsenal ship is within a CBG, where killing it would mean killing the CBG first.

Yeah, if you are capable of taking out an entire CBG, then what is an arsenal ship.

SSGNs are expensive. The $2Billion price tag with weapons for a Ohio class is from the 80s. The current costs for replacement of the Ohio class is something between $4-8 Billion on the sub alone.

I am talking about resupply and rearming a ship in any of the NATO bases around the world. SSGNs don't have that facility. Meaning after expending all their missiles they need to go back to home base in the US. Not so for arsenal ships which can use NATO bases for rearming and any base for refueling and resupply.

Anyway, the USN has only 4 SSGNs carrying 150 odd missiles each. I am talking of a cheap ship carrying anywhere between 250 and 500 missiles depending on the displacement.

More importantly, the number of cruise missile submarines are limited by the START treaties with the US. The Ohio class's conversion from SSBN to SSGN was primarily meant to reduce forward deployed ballistic missiles with a mixture of nuclear and conventional cruise missiles. With arsenal ships, the SSGNs could be freed for more specialized aspects of warfare, like anti-shipping and special forces.

 

[ice berg]

Re: Don't have capability/intention to match China force for force: Na

If Arsenal ships, which is simply a Ticonderoga, is dead meat, then all surface ships are dead meat. Don't forget that the Arsenal ship is within a CBG, where killing it would mean killing the CBG first.

Ticonderoga is a cruiser. You may look up the difference between an arsenal ship which is basically a missile platform and a cruiser which is to provide a protective screen for ACs. Again why use an arsenal ship when there are far better tools?

Yeah, if you are capable of taking out an entire CBG, then what is an arsenal ship.

See the answer above

SSGNs are expensive. The $2Billion price tag with weapons for a Ohio class is from the 80s. The current costs for replacement of the Ohio class is something between $4-8 Billion on the sub alone.

The fact that USN keep building means that they think it is worth the cost. How much does your arsenal ship costs?

I am talking about resupply and rearming a ship in any of the NATO bases around the world. SSGNs don't have that facility. Meaning after expending all their missiles they need to go back to home base in the US. Not so for arsenal ships which can use NATO bases for rearming and any base for refueling and resupply.

You tell me you expecting your arsenal ship to launch all their missiles , get back to some naval base and going out again? seriously???

Anyway, the USN has only 4 SSGNs carrying 150 odd missiles each. I am talking of a cheap ship carrying anywhere between 250 and 500 missiles depending on the displacement.

You still dont get it. 4 SSGNS with 600 missiles are far far more dangerouse than one lone arsenal ship. It is far easier to detect an arsenal ship than it is to detect nuclear submarines. Never heard the expression dont put all your eggs in one basket? What assets are you gonna use to protect it? Assets that are needed to protect your ACs. Think hard on this.

More importantly, the number of cruise missile submarines are limited by the START treaties with the US. The Ohio class's conversion from SSBN to SSGN was primarily meant to reduce forward deployed ballistic missiles with a mixture of nuclear and conventional cruise missiles. With arsenal ships, the SSGNs could be freed for more specialized aspects of warfare, like anti-shipping and special forces.

And USN already showed you that they are not looking for specialized ships like arsenal ships. They are looking for versatile ships that can be fitted for different missions. When professional navy like USN, the russians etc are investing heavily in nuclear subs instead of big bloated arsenal ships, what does that tell you?

 

[ice berg]

Re: Don't have capability/intention to match China force for force: Na

More importantly, the number of cruise missile submarines are limited by the START treaties with the US. The Ohio class's conversion from SSBN to SSGN was primarily meant to reduce forward deployed ballistic missiles with a mixture of nuclear and conventional cruise missiles. With arsenal ships, the SSGNs could be freed for more specialized aspects of warfare, like anti-shipping and special forces.

New START at a Glance | Arms Control Association

Trident submarines converted to carry conventional cruise missiles would not be counted under the treaty, nor would formerly nuclear-capable bombers that have been fully converted to conventional missions, such as the B-1B.