Project-17A Nilgiri-class Frigate Thread

[abingdonboy]

The more I think about it the more the single hanger makes no sense and if it is the case then the Navy has made an inexcusable mistake.

- predecessor class with near identical profile and less automation has 2 hangers
- for ASW helos are essential, having only 1 means that if the sole helo goes u/s that’s the entire ship out of the fight and also that 1 helo will be unable to maintain sufficient time on station to allow complete coverage
- in the certain near future VTOL UAS are going to become standard complement on naval vessels, the navy has already made their billion dollar state of the art future frigates outdated with the ability to only house a single helo or UAS.

My only thought to redeem them could be that whilst there’s a single door the hanger is designed for 2 aircraft and that there is a rail that can guide aircraft from the landing pad to either side of the hanger.

If this isn’t the case than the designers and navy officers in charge deserve to be shot. Even the IN’s ASW corvettes have 2 hangers ffs!

 

[aditya10r]

The more I think about it the more the single hanger makes no sense and if it is the case then the Navy has made an inexcusable mistake.

- predecessor class with near identical profile and less automation has 2 hangers
- for ASW helos are essential, having only 1 means that if the sole helo goes u/s that’s the entire ship out of the fight and also that 1 helo will be unable to maintain sufficient time on station to allow complete coverage
- in the certain near future VTOL UAS are going to become standard complement on naval vessels, the navy has already made their billion dollar state of the art future frigates outdated with the ability to only house a single helo or UAS.

My only thought to redeem them could be that whilst there’s a single door the hanger is designed for 2 aircraft and that there is a rail that can guide aircraft from the landing pad to either side of the hanger.

If this isn’t the case than the designers and navy officers in charge deserve to be shot. Even the IN’s ASW corvettes have 2 hangers ffs!

35 years old Godavaris had 2 helicopters.

__________________________________________

Nothing can justify this massive step backwards.

 

[Bleh]

But in such a scenario, won’t the ships use their main guns like they did in the world wars? The missiles have been depleted, not the main gun or even the ciws. It won’t be so easy to just capture modern naval ships.

Not to mention the 200 odd armed and angry crew members on board

Naaaah, when a ship has even 1 anti-ship missile left, it won't come within range of the puny gun & smaller arms of the "200-odd armed & angry crew members" of the spent enemy ship/s!

Think realistically! The moment 2 ships on one side are out of ammunition & has no hope of killing or immobilising (to run away) the 1 enemy ship... their crew will very likely choose surrendering, over 50% chance of getting pointlessly killed for nothing.

Try to put yourself on one of those ships! Would you surrender in such situation if the enemies offered a chance, or would you refuse thinking "maybe those guys on one of the other sitting duck will be blown to bits instead of us" or "maybe, just maybe, the CIWS would be able to stop every single missile of enemy's next volley" (you won't know how many they have left)?? ...And, if one of two ships surrender then definitely the other will do too immediately, for obvious reasons.

Real people are much less likely to embrace stupid deaths than in movies or stories, especially if they're toothless & sitting ducks... In reality, a Dreadnaught or Battleship would have been far less likely to surrender than today's warships. They often sank slowly while taking a lot of damage & sending off volleys of shells (lack of ammo was almost never the reason). Still they often surrendered on getting immobilised, or losing their rangefinder, or if fuel/magazine were hit. Modern ships would be ripped to shreds by 1 anti-ship missile along with all its crew.

The more I think about it the more the single hanger makes no sense and if it is the case then the Navy has made an inexcusable mistake.

- predecessor class with near identical profile and less automation has 2 hangers
- for ASW helos are essential, having only 1 means that if the sole helo goes u/s that’s the entire ship out of the fight and also that 1 helo will be unable to maintain sufficient time on station to allow complete coverage
- in the certain near future VTOL UAS are going to become standard complement on naval vessels, the navy has already made their billion dollar state of the art future frigates outdated with the ability to only house a single helo or UAS.

My only thought to redeem them could be that whilst there’s a single door the hanger is designed for 2 aircraft and that there is a rail that can guide aircraft from the landing pad to either side of the hanger.

If this isn’t the case than the designers and navy officers in charge deserve to be shot. Even the IN’s ASW corvettes have 2 hangers ffs!

Maybe better sonars or other submarine detection sensors?.. Or, expected to operate alongside Corvettes & Destroyers with their own ASW helicopters (don't think it's very likely for a Frigate to operate alone)? ...or maybe we're expecting good news regarding smaller naval Dhruvs soon?

 

[abingdonboy]

35 years old Godavaris had 2 helicopters.

__________________________________________

Nothing can justify this massive step backwards.

The comparison I can make is the T45s of the Royal Navy. At 8,700tons they are ever so slightly larger than P17As and they too have reverted back to a single hanger but it is a single large hanger that can house 1 EH101 or 2 Wildcats (roughly ALH class). So it seems to me the P17As will be able to house 1 Sea king/NMRH OR 2 ALH/NUH, possibly 1 Sea King/NMRH and a UAS.


It certainly looks like the IN has thrown away the chance to be able to house 2 NMRH but maybe they figured this wasn’t ever going to be a operational requirement.


Seems like a step backwards but there’s surely some logic behind it.

 

[uoftotaku]

The more I think about it the more the single hanger makes no sense and if it is the case then the Navy has made an inexcusable mistake.

- predecessor class with near identical profile and less automation has 2 hangers
- for ASW helos are essential, having only 1 means that if the sole helo goes u/s that’s the entire ship out of the fight and also that 1 helo will be unable to maintain sufficient time on station to allow complete coverage
- in the certain near future VTOL UAS are going to become standard complement on naval vessels, the navy has already made their billion dollar state of the art future frigates outdated with the ability to only house a single helo or UAS.

My only thought to redeem them could be that whilst there’s a single door the hanger is designed for 2 aircraft and that there is a rail that can guide aircraft from the landing pad to either side of the hanger.

If this isn’t the case than the designers and navy officers in charge deserve to be shot. Even the IN’s ASW corvettes have 2 hangers ffs!

There is sufficient space inside for 02 medium copters like S-70B category or 01 large category like Sea King or Merlin + reserve space for UAVs etc

Single door because the blast shield separating the 2 hangers has been removed as it was deemed restrictive. If you have 02 small spaces they can only fit 02 medium or small choppers, no flexibility for larger copter or mix of copters or UAVs etc. Single door hanger is now a standard fitment on most world navy projects.

Edit: The T45 hanger space is compromised as they also house their RHIBs in the same superstructure, cutting available internal volume. On Nilgiri, no such restrictions so larger internal volume available

 

[G10]

Whats about aircraft carrier drydock about rajnath’s visit?

 

[abingdonboy]

There is sufficient space inside for 02 medium copters like S-70B category or 01 large category like Sea King or Merlin. Single door because the blast shield separating the 2 hangers has as it was deemed restrictive. If you have 02 small spaces they can only fit 02 medium or small choppers, no flexibility for larger copter or mix of copters or UAVs etc. Single door hanger is now a standard fitment on most world navy projects.

Edit: The T45 hanger space is compromised as they also house their RHIBs in the same superstructure, cutting available internal volume. On Nilgiri, no such restrictions so larger internal volume available

The Sea King is 10 tons and the MH60 is designed to be able to fit into the same profile as the Sea King so I wouldn’t classify the sea king as “large” but perhaps the Navy is thinking ahead to the IMRH which will be in the 11-12 ton class

 

[vampyrbladez]

Indra Lanza radar.

30 chars.,.,.,.,.

Source please............................................................................

 

[ladder]

Whats about aircraft carrier drydock about rajnath’s visit?

In naval dockyard in Mumbai a large dry dock will be inagurated. Primary purpose being dry docking and repair of aircraft carrier.

 

[uoftotaku]

The Sea King is 10 tons and the MH60 is designed to be able to fit into the same profile as the Sea King so I wouldn’t classify the sea king as “large” but perhaps the Navy is thinking ahead to the IMRH which will be in the 11-12 ton class

MH 60 is significantly smaller in deck profile than the Sea King. It was designed as a single replacement for both the Sea King on large vessels and the Sea Sprite on smaller vessels so necessarily is small enough for the latter task.

Of modern copters the AW 101 / Merlin is the one actually comparable in footprint to the Sea King

 

[abingdonboy]

MH 60 is significantly smaller in deck profile than the Sea King. It was designed as a single replacement for both the Sea King on large vessels and the Sea Sprite on smaller vessels so necessarily is small enough for the latter task.

Of modern copters the AW 101 / Merlin is the one actually comparable in footprint to the Sea King

I wouldn’t be too sure about that. The AUW of the MH60 is nearly identical (actually a bit more) more than the Sea King, it’s longer too. They are of similar heights and disc area.

Anyway this is neither here nor there. It is factually correct to say that the navy has given up the ability to house 2 Sea Kings on the P17A like they could on the P15/A/B and P17. I will need to see confirmation of the fact that the 17A can house 2 MH60s because I find that very doubtful indeed.

I can only think that the navy has considered the IMRH in their plans and it is possible that’s easier to support the IMRH from 1 single large hanger than one of the 2 smaller hangers found on previous vessels.

 

[uoftotaku]

I wouldn’t be too sure about that. The AUW of the MH60 is nearly identical (actually a bit more) more than the Sea King, it’s longer too. They are of similar heights and disc area.

Anyway this is neither here nor there. It is factually correct to say that the navy has given up the ability to house 2 Sea Kings on the P17A like they could on the P15/A/B and P17. I will need to see confirmation of the fact that the 17A can house 2 MH60s because I find that very doubtful indeed.

I can only think that the navy has considered the IMRH in their plans and it is possible that’s easier to support the IMRH from 1 single large hanger than one of the 2 smaller hangers found on previous vessels.

Just for comparison, take a look online at images of the Freedom class LCS heli hanger. It looks small and has a single door. I have personally been inside that hanger on both USS Fort Worth and USS Freedom and I can assure you they easily fit 02 x Sea Hawks inside there with space to spare. The P17A hanger is larger internally than that so yes it will fit both 02 Sea Hawks now and 02 IMRH in future

 

[nongaddarliberal]

The more I think about it the more the single hanger makes no sense and if it is the case then the Navy has made an inexcusable mistake.

- predecessor class with near identical profile and less automation has 2 hangers
- for ASW helos are essential, having only 1 means that if the sole helo goes u/s that’s the entire ship out of the fight and also that 1 helo will be unable to maintain sufficient time on station to allow complete coverage
- in the certain near future VTOL UAS are going to become standard complement on naval vessels, the navy has already made their billion dollar state of the art future frigates outdated with the ability to only house a single helo or UAS.

My only thought to redeem them could be that whilst there’s a single door the hanger is designed for 2 aircraft and that there is a rail that can guide aircraft from the landing pad to either side of the hanger.

If this isn’t the case than the designers and navy officers in charge deserve to be shot. Even the IN’s ASW corvettes have 2 hangers ffs!

Can we be certain that the graphic is accurate? Maybe the representative image is faulty.

 

[ezsasa]

INS Godavari is 14.5 mts wide
INS Nilgiri is 17.5 mts wide..

 

[G10]

New dry dock length is 200 mtr. Viky and vikram 250+ mtr. Length
Apologies. New dry dock is indeed 250 mtr long

In naval dockyard in Mumbai a large dry dock will be inagurated. Primary purpose being dry docking and repair of aircraft carrier.

 

[uoftotaku]

Source please............................................................................

Partnership with Tata SED for MII. 23 systems in total will replace all LW-08L across the fleet

https://m.economictimes.com/news/de...rom-defence-ministry/articleshow/68521044.cms

 

[ladder]

Thanks for detailed explanation except this i still find very possible;

Captured cruisers & battleships have been taken as prize in World War 1 & 2, no significant naval battles after that. Moreover now ships don't need to be badly damaged with volleys of artillery fire to be captured!

Imagine a serious battle between 10-12 ships of Indian & Chink navies!
They'd prefer to do it where there's less aerial threat present, ideally the naval air-arms engaged elsewhere. Then can load their universal-VLS with even more ASMs instead of SAMs, which ours can't do.

Even if we somehow prevail, after an engagement of intercepting & sinking (both sides will eventually have supersonic SSMs & SAMs that can intercept them) say the Chinks have only 1 ship left with only 2 missiles, while India has 3 ships but no missiles left. What will happen then?... All 3 Indian ships will be forced to surrender to avoid getting sunk with all hands, like defenceless sitting ducks.
Ships now-a-days won't need to be towed. The winners can board the surrendered ships & steer them away, like 18th/19th century again!

.

What do you think of my idea of using missile-boats & unmanned, underwater bots as decoys by faking radar/sonar signatures?

To capture a ship one needs to board it. Boarding is carried out by humans who are susceptible to small arm fire. Small arm simulator is present on all large ship of IN and ICGS for a certain purpose. If PLAN has a plan to loose their sailors in dozens for a 'prize', they are welcome.
If in a situation, wherein only 1 out of 10 PLAN survives with minimum weaponry, I as PLAN fleet commander would instruct all assets with own propulsion be looking for overboard sailors who would be rolling, pitching with the oceanic waves, being overboard due to various reason like fire in their ships or due to sunken ship. Loosing more men in that situation for 'prize capture' will be the last thing any one would think of.

Yes, before WW1, taking ships for prize was common, now its not common.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prize_(law)

only modern example I could find is the below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Ajr

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuttling

IN Captain will prefer to go down with the boat! CIC of a ship contains vital information which shouldn't be leaked.
If in a unfortunate situation (theoretical), a ship falling into enemy hand is inevitable, sailors will damage CIC and leak all fuel, so that the ship cannot be used under own propulsion.

 

[ladder]

Idea: @binayak95 @porky_kicker @Indx TechStyle
How feasible it is to have small MissileBoats with half-dozen Brahmos/Akash-NG accompany a fleet (like floating MLRS) being re-supplied by fuel tanker, that will have extra exposed metal surfaces to fake radar signatures of a larger stealth destroyer?? ...Also unmanned pods pretending to be submarines & misguiding enemy serveillance???????????????

Fuel tanker is a prime target as it is large, slow moving un-maneuverable. Re-supply at sea is a risky task. Fire control teams are at edge when resupplying. What if fuel tanker is taken out, how will the small ship operate?
Deception is valuable (soft inflated aircraft and tanks have been used) until detected. When positively identified, the value of larger metal surfaces will only be its weight, which the ship would be lugging around.
Pods as submarines will be good idea. But will it be stationary or moving?

 

[LordofLight]

Naaaah, when a ship has even 1 anti-ship missile left, it won't come within range of the puny gun & smaller arms of the "200-odd armed & angry crew members" of the spent enemy ship/s!

Think realistically! The moment 2 ships on one side are out of ammunition & has no hope of killing or immobilising (to run away) the 1 enemy ship... their crew will very likely choose surrendering, over 50% chance of getting pointlessly killed for nothing.

Try to put yourself on one of those ships! Would you surrender in such situation if the enemies offered a chance, or would you refuse thinking "maybe those guys on one of the other sitting duck will be blown to bits instead of us" or "maybe, just maybe, the CIWS would be able to stop every single missile of enemy's next volley" (you won't know how many they have left)?? ...And, if one of two ships surrender then definitely the other will do too immediately, for obvious reasons.

Real people are much less likely to embrace stupid deaths than in movies or stories, especially if they're toothless & sitting ducks... In reality, a Dreadnaught or Battleship would have been far less likely to surrender than today's warships. They often sank slowly while taking a lot of damage & sending off volleys of shells (lack of ammo was almost never the reason). Still they often surrendered on getting immobilised, or losing their rangefinder, or if fuel/magazine were hit. Modern ships would be ripped to shreds by 1 anti-ship missile along with all its crew.

Maybe better sonars or other submarine detection sensors?.. Or, expected to operate alongside Corvettes & Destroyers with their own ASW helicopters (don't think it's very likely for a Frigate to operate alone)? ...or maybe we're expecting good news regarding smaller naval Dhruvs soon?

I get what you are trying to say. But similar to these two ships having no idea how much ammunition is left with the single enemy ship, the enemy ship also doesn’t know if these two ships are actually out of ammo. The odds in such a scenario are against the single enemy ship. I also said about using the main gun and ciws because someone pointed out about boarding the ships like the 17th and 18th century naval battles.

 

[Bleh]

Fuel tanker is a prime target as it is large, slow moving un-maneuverable. Re-supply at sea is a risky task. Fire control teams are at edge when resupplying. What if fuel tanker is taken out, how will the small ship operate?
Deception is valuable (soft inflated aircraft and tanks have been used) until detected. When positively identified, the value of larger metal surfaces will only be its weight, which the ship would be lugging around.
Pods as submarines will be good idea. But will it be stationary or moving?

It's already made of metal, just exposed & shaped to reflect more radar signature. Kinda opposite of stealth!

Warships today may be detected by radar at distances of hundreds of kilometres, not always will it be visually confirmed. Mounted with a radar & 4 LRSAM (2 armytruck's load on land), the Missile-boat's chances to go on pretending to be warship will be even higher.
Very small fishing trawlers or whaling ships go pretty far out into the seas too, I'm sure missile-boats may be used for coastal warfare... They struck Karachi itself.

The submarine pods can be mobile, released by ships or subs. A propelling unit with just enough power to move it at real submarine's speeds, a battery for it, a tiny GPS for locating & retrieving.

I also thought of dropping sonars with underwater cells of long-ranged torpedoes (650km under development) & forming a network all over India's territorial waters, even in International waters if they're not permanent. They can be used to track & hit any surface or submerged vessel within hundreds of kilometres!

I get what you are trying to say. But similar to these two ships having no idea how much ammunition is left with the single enemy ship, the enemy ship also doesn’t know if these two ships are actually out of ammo. The odds in such a scenario are against the single enemy ship. I also said about using the main gun and ciws because someone pointed out about boarding the ships like the 17th and 18th century naval battles.

Oh no no no no no!!! You have misunderstood me completely.
I didn't mean boarding action, but back in those days, ships used to even deliberately carry extra men to crew & drive a surrendered prize ship to a home port with all the prisoners... With comparatively soft-skinned warships today, either that will happen or the enemy ship will be obliterated by ASM. Towing of immobilized/damaged ship won't be possible.

Anyways, the Chinese ships carry almost 50% more anti-ship missiles even without replacing SAMs in their universal VLS, & in most scenarios Indian ships will run out of ammo first. THEY'LL KNOW WHEN THE FIRING STOPS.