Indian Navy Developments & Discussions

[Aniruddha Mulay]

Which MRSAM is Vishakapatnam equipped with?

Most likely Barak 8 ER(150km).

 

[WolfPack86]

INS Visakapatnam destroyer

 

[Sir pe tapla]

Most likely Barak 8 ER(150km).

Isn't that an LRSAM?

 

[Neeraj Mathur]

Isn't that an LRSAM?

yup

its possible that Navy might like to carry both LRSAM and MRSAM. Right now Navy has not bought the Barak ER.

 

[flanker99]

Model of new dry dock and ins anvesha.

 

[Abdus Salem killed]

The Chinese on Vikrant

https://min.news/en/military/815d74ca678303befd074b58b2431a00.html

 

[Marliii]

The Chinese on Vikrant

https://min.news/en/military/815d74ca678303befd074b58b2431a00.html

Your ship has two trails ahsan!!! your ship is not stable indians !!!send ur ship back to the dry dock or else I will eat your dog!!!

 

[mist_consecutive]

So I am no expert in naval warfare, wanted to understand what are the advantages/disadvantages for this decision.
All our latest destroyers/frigates (Shivalik/P15A/P15B) are armed with Oto Melara 76mm super-rapid cannon. What are the advantages of a bigger cannon (127mm) in todays or future naval warfare?

IMO most of the naval battles will be either fought with anti-ship missiles or torpedoes. Even for land-attack, CMs will be used. Is the concept of main-gun outdated?

 

[Tactical Doge]

So I am no expert in naval warfare, wanted to understand what are the advantages/disadvantages for this decision.
All our latest destroyers/frigates (Shivalik/P15A/P15B) are armed with Oto Melara 76mm super-rapid cannon. What are the advantages of a bigger cannon (127mm) in todays or future naval warfare?

IMO most of the naval battles will be either fought with anti-ship missiles or torpedoes. Even for land-attack, CMs will be used. Is the concept of main-gun outdated?

Not reaching any conclusions per se
127 mm fires slow, the video is an Italian navy destroyer

While the 76 fires super rapid, true to it's name, the video is INS Kolkata herself

Indian navy is trying to find the middle ground between higher number of shots on target with respect to larger and hard hitting rounds at longer ranges

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

So I am no expert in naval warfare, wanted to understand what are the advantages/disadvantages for this decision.
All our latest destroyers/frigates (Shivalik/P15A/P15B) are armed with Oto Melara 76mm super-rapid cannon. What are the advantages of a bigger cannon (127mm) in todays or future naval warfare?

IMO most of the naval battles will be either fought with anti-ship missiles or torpedoes. Even for land-attack, CMs will be used. Is the concept of main-gun outdated?

Naval guns still required for:-
Shore Bombardment
Littoral warfare against brown water fleets heavy on smaller fast attack boats.
Anti-piracy
Sea Control in peacetime (when you are restricted with ROEs and you need to fire warning shots at a PLAN destroyer obnoxiously sailing through your EEZ).

As to why the Navy wants to upgrade to 127mm, maybe the amount of boom in 76mm is not enough for shore bombardment and littoral warfare. Also, if a peacetime sea control mission with a gray warfare practitioner like the PLAN goes awry when you are in close quarters, your missiles are useless, you endup using all cannons you have. In such a situation, difference between 127mm and 76mm is who will get crippled first.

Its basically the same purpose that the railguns on the Donnager class ships fulfill. Its for CQB. During the battle over Ganeymede, when the two fleets were too damn close and the skirmish started abruptly, having railguns came in clutch. A similar scenario can happen with us as well.

 

[Tactical Doge]

Naval guns still required for:-
Shore Bombardment
Littoral warfare against brown water fleets heavy on smaller fast attack boats.
Anti-piracy
Sea Control in peacetime (when you are restricted with ROEs and you need to fire warning shots at a PLAN destroyer obnoxiously sailing through your EEZ).

As to why the Navy wants to upgrade to 127mm, maybe the amount of boom in 76mm is not enough for shore bombardment and littoral warfare. Also, if a peacetime sea control mission with a gray warfare practitioner like the PLAN goes awry when you are in close quarters, your missiles are useless, you endup using all cannons you have. In such a situation, difference between 127mm and 76mm is who will get crippled first.

Its basically the same purpose that the railguns on the Donnager class ships fulfill. Its for CQB. During the battle over Ganeymede, when the two fleets were too damn close and the skirmish started abruptly, having railguns came in clutch. A similar scenario can happen with us as well.

Cost was the reason for dropping it, mostly the reason

And another half assed reason too

 

[mist_consecutive]

Naval guns still required for:-
Shore Bombardment
Littoral warfare against brown water fleets heavy on smaller fast attack boats.
Anti-piracy
Sea Control in peacetime (when you are restricted with ROEs and you need to fire warning shots at a PLAN destroyer obnoxiously sailing through your EEZ).

As to why the Navy wants to upgrade to 127mm, maybe the amount of boom in 76mm is not enough for shore bombardment and littoral warfare. Also, if a peacetime sea control mission with a gray warfare practitioner like the PLAN goes awry when you are in close quarters, your missiles are useless, you endup using all cannons you have. In such a situation, difference between 127mm and 76mm is who will get crippled first.

Its basically the same purpose that the railguns on the Donnager class ships fulfill. Its for CQB. During the battle over Ganeymede, when the two fleets were too damn close and the skirmish started abruptly, having railguns came in clutch. A similar scenario can happen with us as well.

Then isn't our decision to downgrade to 76mm gun due to cost-overrun is like buying JF-17s over Rafale because they cost cheaper?

Won't this adversely affect our capability? Navy has this tendency of accepting sub-par indigenous products over required capabilities from foreign vendors? (now don't go all ballistic over me)

For example, P15A/B has only 16 VLS + 32 VLS while Chinese, American, and Japanese destroyers sport > 90 VLS? Refusing to import heavy-weight torpedoes and instead choosing to be toothless instead? And now this.

Cost was the reason for dropping it, mostly the reason
View attachment 117181


And another half assed reason too
View attachment 117182

11 Ships is a good number for logistics and maintenance. If we had any indigenous option that does not compromise our warfighting capabilities, that might have made sense.
The Navy is just axing its own leg.

 

[Haldilal]

Then isn't our decision to downgrade to 76mm gun due to cost-overrun is like buying JF-17s over Rafale because they cost cheaper?

Won't this adversely affect our capability? Navy has this tendency of accepting sub-par indigenous products over required capabilities from foreign vendors? (now don't go all ballistic over me)

For example, P15A/B has only 16 VLS + 32 VLS while Chinese, American, and Japanese destroyers sport > 90 VLS? Refusing to import heavy-weight torpedoes and instead choosing to be toothless instead? And now this.



11 Ships is a good number for logistics and maintenance. If we had any indigenous option that does not compromise our warfighting capabilities, that might have made sense.
The Navy is just axing its own leg.

Ya'll Nibbiars Mist_consecutive-Amerike Agent.

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

Then isn't our decision to downgrade to 76mm gun due to cost-overrun is like buying JF-17s over Rafale because they cost cheaper?

Won't this adversely affect our capability? Navy has this tendency of accepting sub-par indigenous products over required capabilities from foreign vendors? (now don't go all ballistic over me)

For example, P15A/B has only 16 VLS + 32 VLS while Chinese, American, and Japanese destroyers sport > 90 VLS? Refusing to import heavy-weight torpedoes and instead choosing to be toothless instead? And now this.

I agree. Navy tends to temporarily go toothless if indigenous option is around the corner. Case in point: waiting for VL-SRSAM therefore having underarmed destroyers and frigates.

But Navy is hard pressed for funds. Its CAPEX is less than 2/3rds of the Air Force's CAPEX. And its supposed to build an entire fleet including SSN, SSBN, Carriers, etc with it. Another thing is, Naval ships are much more amenable to upgrades than an aircraft or a tank is. A third reason could be due to a lack of regular PLAN carrier fleet in IOR. Once PLAN starts showing up regularly in strength in IOR, expect Navy's patience to markedly reduce.

 

[Covfefe]

Regarding this issue of underarming the Indian naval ships, I had a few queries. Would be appreciable if any of you could contribute-

1) This claim of Brahmos being more "effective" weapon, how true is it? Like have they simulated it on a target and the missile defence systems or CIWS were unable to tackle it? If at all this missile gets shot down, you lose both the numerical edge for a saturation attack and any positive effect its higher KE would have brought about.

2) Is there any wargamed scenario available in the open-source as to how many missiles the ship will be able o fire before being sunk? If a ship carrying 100 missiles goes down only after firing 10-15 missiles, that's a huge stockpile of missiles getting wasted (one Brahmos costing 2-3 million USD). Plus there is a higher opex in terms of timely replacement of the ageing missiles, the higher you keep the higher they get obsolete.
Better to have a distributed firepower philosophy or concentrated firepower with one ship carrying enough punch to take on a group?

@mist_consecutive @Okabe Rintarou @SavageKing456 @Gessler @MonaLazy

 

[mist_consecutive]

Regarding this issue of underarming the Indian naval ships, I had a few queries. Would be appreciable if any of you could contribute-

1) This claim of Brahmos being more "effective" weapon, how true is it? Like have they simulated it on a target and the missile defence systems or CIWS were unable to tackle it? If at all this missile gets shot down, you lose both the numerical edge for a saturation attack and any positive effect its higher KE would have brought about.

This is true that a single BrahMos strike will completely disable a ship, if not sink it immediately. For example, look at this video of the Indonesian navy testing P-800 Yakhont (similar missiles).


However, assuming that it won't be intercepted/shot down will be a dangerous bet.

2) Is there any wargamed scenario available in the open-source as to how many missiles the ship will be able o fire before being sunk? If a ship carrying 100 missiles goes down only after firing 10-15 missiles, that's a huge stockpile of missiles getting wasted (one Brahmos costing 2-3 million USD). Plus there is a higher opex in terms of timely replacement of the ageing missiles, the higher you keep the higher they get obsolete.
Better to have a distributed firepower philosophy or concentrated firepower with one ship carrying enough punch to take on a group?

Ships don't only carry anti-ship missiles but also ground-attack CMs. For example, during the Iraq invasion, USN started with launching hundreds of cruise missiles onto airbases and critical infrastructure to completely cripple Iraq.
P15A/B or any other current ship in IN inventory don't have such power projection or offensive capability. You can argue we don't need it as we are not going to invade anyone, but geopolitical scenarios change anytime, so I will rather have a ship with 60 empty VLS cells lying unused than drill holes on the deck when required.

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

Regarding this issue of underarming the Indian naval ships, I had a few queries. Would be appreciable if any of you could contribute-

1) This claim of Brahmos being more "effective" weapon, how true is it? Like have they simulated it on a target and the missile defence systems or CIWS were unable to tackle it? If at all this missile gets shot down, you lose both the numerical edge for a saturation attack and any positive effect its higher KE would have brought about.

2) Is there any wargamed scenario available in the open-source as to how many missiles the ship will be able o fire before being sunk? If a ship carrying 100 missiles goes down only after firing 10-15 missiles, that's a huge stockpile of missiles getting wasted (one Brahmos costing 2-3 million USD). Plus there is a higher opex in terms of timely replacement of the ageing missiles, the higher you keep the higher they get obsolete.
Better to have a distributed firepower philosophy or concentrated firepower with one ship carrying enough punch to take on a group?

@mist_consecutive @Okabe Rintarou @SavageKing456 @Gessler @MonaLazy

That number of 8 or 16 AShM is pretty much standard. European destroyers usually have 8 AShM complement. But they focus on anti-air warfare, whereas Indian Naval destroyers aim to be more balanced between strike and air defence roles.

That "underarmed" situation arose with all the ships that have Barak 8 are the primary SAM because all these ships were also meant to sport a point-defence SAM, but all DRDO attempts at point-defence SAM have failed (before QRSAM and VL-SRSAM came along). Now the hope is for a VL-SRSAM upgrade to arm up our ships similar to how the British Daring class destroyers are about to get the CAMM.
The other issue is RBU-6000 taking up space that could have been used to house VLS cells, as pointed out by @Gessler

Its definitely better to have distributed firepower. As I stated elsewhere, the size of your largest surface warfare destroyer should be based on the largest primary set of sensors you want to field. Such as NGD is likely to have a 6 meter diameter AESA radar, which is sufficient for every purpose including BMD. US Navy has a similar requirement from its future destroyers (AB class follow ons). So if a ship can carry the largest sensor array you want to field and can carry enough fuel and machinery to power those sensors while having the endurance you desire, then that is the ideal size. VLS is secondary to that consideration, I think.

I have tried to find studies regarding missile defence of ships, and the calculations revolve around probability of interception, etc. Here are a couple of professional analyses with mathematical models. The first one is a particularly informative:-

• https://www.jhuapl.edu/Content/techdigest/pdf/V02-N04/02-04-Farris.pdf
• 

  Self-Protection Task for Surface Ships - EMSOPEDIA

  Self-Protection Task is part of Defensive Electronic Attack and performs Smart Electromagnetic Neutralization and/or Degradation of the use of the Electro Magnetic Spectrum (EMS) to enemy radars for the self-protection of own platform against terminal threats (endgame).Delivering non-kinetic EW...

  www.emsopedia.org

Here are some unrelated but interesting documents:-
Official doc on US Navy force planning: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RL32665.pdf
1990 study by Indian Naval Officer: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/36720921.pdf

 

[Kuldeepm952]

Does the recent talk of lifting ban on Italian defense firms has something to do with cancelling Bae 127mm gun deal as there were previous plans of inducting OTO 127mm gun and we would also have got some portion of local manufacturing here by BHEL?

 

[Neeraj Mathur]

Does the recent talk of lifting ban on Italian defense firms has something to do with cancelling Bae 127mm gun deal as there were previous plans of inducting OTO 127mm gun and we would also have got some portion of local manufacturing here by BHEL?

Could be. Blacklisting OTO was a foolish move. We just banned the company that provides an essential piece of hardware to our navy.

Also just like Super Rapid we might get 127mm gun made in india.

 

[Aniruddha Mulay]

Then isn't our decision to downgrade to 76mm gun due to cost-overrun is like buying JF-17s over Rafale because they cost cheaper?

Won't this adversely affect our capability? Navy has this tendency of accepting sub-par indigenous products over required capabilities from foreign vendors? (now don't go all ballistic over me)

For example, P15A/B has only 16 VLS + 32 VLS while Chinese, American, and Japanese destroyers sport > 90 VLS? Refusing to import heavy-weight torpedoes and instead choosing to be toothless instead? And now this.



11 Ships is a good number for logistics and maintenance. If we had any indigenous option that does not compromise our warfighting capabilities, that might have made sense.
The Navy is just axing its own leg.

The BHEL SRGM is basically a reverse engineered OTO Melara 76mm and is in no way sub-standard.
IN Destroyers have 16 Brahmos, double the number of anti-ship missiles onboard most of the USN, Royal Navy, Japanese Navy, French Navy and other European navies, while also being superior.
The VLS shortage is temporary, in the coming years once VL-SRSAM has completed its developmental and user trials, it will be integrated onto IN warships (24-32 VL-SRSAM VLS cells per ship for short range AD) taking the total no of VLS cells to 72-80 VLS cells.
There is no need to import HWT since our surface ships are already equipped with Varunastra HWT and the Kalvari class SSK are being integrated with sub-launched variant of Varunastra(some member had reported this quite a long time back).