RFP issued for India navy amphibious vessels (LHD or LPD type)

[IndianHawk]

Why do people get a boner for pocket carriers is something I can never understand. LHD is meant for humanitarian and disaster relief as well as amphibious ops. In peacetime, LHD would be preoccupied either exercising HADR and amphibious ops or performing HADR ops. These ops require a large fleet of helicopters, not NLCA.

LHD can also be used as a centerpiece for powerful Anti-Submarine Warfare task-forces.

Now assuming we use LHD as carriers, will they be able to establish sea-control against much larger carriers of PLAN or maybe USN? No. Will the limited space aboard the LHD afford enough flexibility to allow a high sortie generation rate? Most certainly not. Does the Indian Navy not have much bigger carriers for purposes of sea control and to shadow PLAN carrier fleets when they arrive in Indian ocean after 2030? They do have much bigger carriers to take on PLAN. So why-oh-why would you divert these LHD from their primary roles in ASW, HADR and amphibious ops to that of a limited fleet defence pocket carrier? There is absolutely no reason for that.

Exactly . All other nations which are trying to get f35b to operate from LHD are doing it out of desperation of not having proper aircraft carriers except USA . But then USA has aircraft carrier size LHD( with 40k displacement) . So it's not really comparable.

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

 

[Thrishul]

Why do people get a boner for pocket carriers is something I can never understand. LHD is meant for humanitarian and disaster relief as well as amphibious ops. In peacetime, LHD would be preoccupied either exercising HADR and amphibious ops or performing HADR ops. These ops require a large fleet of helicopters, not NLCA.

LHD can also be used as a centerpiece for powerful Anti-Submarine Warfare task-forces.

Now assuming we use LHD as carriers, will they be able to establish sea-control against much larger carriers of PLAN or maybe USN? No. Will the limited space aboard the LHD afford enough flexibility to allow a high sortie generation rate? Most certainly not. Does the Indian Navy not have much bigger carriers for purposes of sea control and to shadow PLAN carrier fleets when they arrive in Indian ocean after 2030? They do have much bigger carriers to take on PLAN. So why-oh-why would you divert these LHD from their primary roles in ASW, HADR and amphibious ops to that of a limited fleet defence pocket carrier? There is absolutely no reason for that.

Because The IAF and Army are playing spoilt child by giving opposition to INS Vishal. In the 1965 War INS Vikrant was in dry dock, during highten Indo-Pak tensions in 2017, INS Vikramaditya was in dry dock. When We get the new INS Vikrant 40% of the time one ship is out, the other is in short or long refit. leaving us only one carrier. The USN, the largest operators of LHD's with 10 of them flies either harriers or F35B's off of them. 8 Fixed winged fighters with ASM's create a large no go zone.

 

[IndianHawk]

Because The IAF and Army are playing spoilt child by giving opposition to INS Vishal. In the 1965 War INS Vikrant was in dry dock, during highten Indo-Pak tensions in 2017, INS Vikramaditya was in dry dock. When We get the new INS Vikrant 40% of the time one ship is out, the other is in short or long refit. leaving us only one carrier. The USN, the largest operators of LHD's with 10 of them flies either harriers or F35B's off of them. 8 Fixed winged fighters with ASM's create a large no go zone.

Third carrier will come. That has been long in naval planning to have two carrier operational while one in yards for refit/ maintenance. The debate is around its size ( 40k 50k or 65k) and technology ( catapult steam or electric).

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

 

[Filtercoffee]

Both the mentioned classes in design can have two catapults at least with an angled deck for a squadron of fixed wing aircraft with another with helicopters. I dont think it will be a problem to add these (Catapult system - EMALS or steam and an angled deck with extra lifts) to the selected class. I hope the brass do think of this and not just do it later for requirements in the future, then. It also makes more space on the deck for amphibious operations.

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

Both the mentioned classes in design can have two catapults at least with an angled deck for a squadron of fixed wing aircraft with another with helicopters. I dont think it will be a problem to add these (Catapult system - EMALS or steam and an angled deck with extra lifts) to the selected class. I hope the brass do think of this and not just do it later for requirements in the future, then. It also makes more space on the deck for amphibious operations.

Not sure which two classes you are referring to here. Vishal class will have three catapults and will allow simultaneous launch and recovery operations. In fact, I was wondering if we can maybe put four catapults on Vishal. IAC-II will be similar in size and displacement to the Queen Elizabeth class of British carriers. That means that the area of the flight deck will be 4.5 acres. An American supercarrier has a flight deck of about 5 acres. So its not entirely impossible, but I am not sure if the benefits of that will outweigh the costs.

Vikramaditya and Vikrant will never be able to retrofit a catapult within a reasonable cost limit.

LHD/MRSV will also not be able to mount an EMALS because it would take up too much space and completely defeat the purpose of buying these vessels i.e. amphibious and HADR ops.

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

Because The IAF and Army are playing spoilt child by giving opposition to INS Vishal. In the 1965 War INS Vikrant was in dry dock, during highten Indo-Pak tensions in 2017, INS Vikramaditya was in dry dock. When We get the new INS Vikrant 40% of the time one ship is out, the other is in short or long refit. leaving us only one carrier. The USN, the largest operators of LHD's with 10 of them flies either harriers or F35B's off of them. 8 Fixed winged fighters with ASM's create a large no go zone.

I understand the refit problem and so does the Navy. Hence the Navy calls for five carriers ideally which gets pared down to three due to budget and shipbuilding constraints. Hence the Navy has already decided that it can make do with 3 carriers, one for each front with a third in refit. The Navy has also released RFP for LHD type ships under the title Multirole Support Vessels. In the NSQR specified by the Navy, they are looking for a ship with a very specific set of multirole capabilities as listed out in the RFP itself. Nowhere does the Navy say it wants fixed-wing capable flight deck. It has laid emphasis that the ship not be larger than a certain size (20,000 tons) and accomodate 900 soldiers apart from the air crew and ship crew. Emphasis is on helicopter carriage capacity and amphibious capacity.

However jingos like us, in our wisdom, have decided that the Navy can not make do with just three carriers. That we need to divert the multirole support vessel into tiny aircraft carriers. In times of tensions, Indian Navy will not be facing a mere Chinese surface action group. They will be facing an entire Chinese Carrier fleet. Facing a full fledged carrier is not something the LHD can handle. 8 Fixed wing fighters, out which a mere 5 will be flight worthy. Even in peacetime, an LHD would be hard-pressed to maintain a deterrent patrol. And who says that the LHD will be able to handle 8 fixed wing fighters? What about SAR and AEW helicopters? You think carrier ops are possible without them?

As for what the Americans do, they don't do fixed wing ops off of LHD. They do Harrier and F-35B ops off of LHA class of ships which are much larger than the LHD that the Indian Navy is looking for. Wasp and America class of LHA are similar in displacement to the INS Vikramaditya and INS Vikrant (IAC-1).

Tell me something. The only reason you are asking for a mini carrier is because the Navy wants LHD which looks like an aircraft carrier. But the Navy's requirements stem from the 2004 tsunami experience and the experience with INS Jalashwa, which is an LPD. So the Navy initially wanted an LPD. Later on, they decided that an LHD also adds a large helicopter carrying capacity that enables better HADR, airborne assault and logistics during amphibious ops and a strong ASW mothership. All this by simply converting LPD requirement to LHD. And the Navy has enough cash to pay for 4 such ships. So the Navy is already stretching rqeuirements above what was originally envisaged. Now you want them to extend further and go for an LHA class ship? Such a ship whose design is only available with American shipbuilders who will not face any competition and will hence ask a higher price!! At the end of the day, the Navy would be able to buy two LHA.
So effectively, going from LPD to LHD gave a ton of new requirements at a fraction of the cost increase. Going from LHD to LHA, however, gives only one new capability that might be too costly an affair given that aircraft carriers are already available for that new capability. Is it really worth it? Two LHA instead of 4 LHD?

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

8 Fixed winged fighters with ASM's create a large no go zone.

Who said 8 fixed wing fighters?
Where are the AEW and SAR helicopters?
Still, let us assume 8 Naval Tejas.
Let us say 4 are operational and can be put into air simultaneously.
They will have a combat radius of what? 500 km?
What range will the Brahmos NG have? 290 km?
So 800 km strike range against hostile ships with 8 Antiship missiles.

That is something that any Indian Navy frigate or corvette armed with Brahmos can do. 8 Missiles at an 800 km range.

 

[debasree]

With extended deck VTOL aircraft can be operated on lpd if we choose Juan carlos sappose

 

[aarav]

LHD programme will move at snail pace because of financial crunch and other priorities especially submarine programme ,L&T has the capacity to build something like this but we are not giving these to pvt yards because of babudom ,LHD will most probably have only helicopters ,no jets, HAL has been pitching HAL IMRH for navy ASW and ASu operations but the prototype is atleast a couple of years away,imagine a brahmos a or brahmos NG being fired by this

 

[Snowcat]

Doesn't make sense to put jets on LHD's. India doesn't have a humongous budget to deal with the costs. Let's just keep the naval fighters onboard carriers and focus on that. Also safety margins will be a lot smaller on smaller landing platforms and it won't have the cover of a CBG(probably).

 

[Filtercoffee]

Not sure which two classes you are referring to here. Vishal class will have three catapults and will allow simultaneous launch and recovery operations. In fact, I was wondering if we can maybe put four catapults on Vishal. IAC-II will be similar in size and displacement to the Queen Elizabeth class of British carriers. That means that the area of the flight deck will be 4.5 acres. An American supercarrier has a flight deck of about 5 acres. So its not entirely impossible, but I am not sure if the benefits of that will outweigh the costs.

Vikramaditya and Vikrant will never be able to retrofit a catapult within a reasonable cost limit.

LHD/MRSV will also not be able to mount an EMALS because it would take up too much space and completely defeat the purpose of buying these vessels i.e. amphibious and HADR ops.

I was talking about the Mistral and Juan Carlos 1 class LHDs. 4 is a right number for catapults for IAC 2. The benefit of course is one more aircraft with the three on the other catapults. Quicker launches are the only benefit an aircraft carrier is made for. They wouldnt bother to make the type if the quick response factor wasnt imperative. About the catapult retrofit, in the time line for the service life of Vikramaditya and Vikrant 2, if the need arises and the equipment ready, I dont see a problem to do so. The heavier the load a Navy Aircraft carries, the better the type of of missions are then planned. I meant in terms of types of missions. I have attached two pics about mission types just for reference. The LHD will be better off with their own fighter wing for protection of the carrier and the amphibious assault teams.

 

[Armand2REP]

Vikramaditya and Vikrant will never be able to retrofit a catapult within a reasonable cost limit.

C-13 steam catapults are not that expensive. Making sure they get an adequate supply of steam without nuclear reactors would be the costly part. Carriers that served in WWII were retrofitted with steam catapults to operate the new jets that came after, it is not unfeasible or impossible to convert them. It is the EMALS that is prohibitively expensive and something you would want designed into it from day one.

 

[WolfPack86]

Government gives green signal to build worth over Rs 20,000 crore
NEW DELHI: In a major move to ramp up naval strength, the Defence Ministry has given an in-principle approval for construction of four amphibious assault ships, also called the Landing Platform Docks (LPD), in the private sector at a cost of over Rs 20,000 crore.

It will be the largest ever naval project involving the private sector and the ships will be the biggest to be built in India after the under-construction aircraft carrier INS Vikrant.

The ships are used to transport troops and equipment into a war zone by sea, primarily using landing craft.

The long-pending project was given green signal by the Defence Acquisition Council, the top decision-making body of the Ministry, at its meeting yesterday, informed sources told PTI.

The meeting was chaired by Defence Minister Arun Jaitley. Earlier, the Ministry had indicated that two LPDs will be built by state-run Hindustan Shipyard Limited, Visakhapatnam, while select private firms will be awarded contract to construct two others.

Three private sector companies -- Reliance Defence and Engineering Limited (RDEL), Larsen & Toubro (L&T) and ABG Shipyard -- were in race initially for the mega project but ABG was disqualified on account of poor financial health.

The sources said RDEL and Larsen and ToubroNSE 0.11 % will be asked next week to submit fresh commercial bids for the four LPDs.

L&T has tied up with Navantia of Spain whereas Reliance Defence has tied up with French firm DCNS, considered a global leader in construction of LPDs.

Each of the ships are likely to be in the range of 30,000 and 40,000 tonnes.

The Navy has been strongly pushing for firming up the project as soon as possible.

A top Navy official last month had said the contract for procurement of the four LPDs will be finalised by the end of this year.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...20000-crore/articleshow/58775978.cms?from=mdr

 

[WolfPack86]

The meeting was chaired by Defence Minister Arun Jaitley. Earlier, the Ministry had indicated that two LPDs will be built by state-run Hindustan Shipyard Limited, Visakhapatnam, while select private firms will be awarded contract to construct two others.

 

[WolfPack86]

Hindustan ship yard limited will build to 2 warships and other private ship yard limited will build 2 warships.

 

[uoftotaku]

LPD plan has been put on back burner long ago. Don't re-post old news from 2018 again..

 

[Akula]

LPD plan has been put on back burner long ago. Don't re-post old news from 2018 again..

I think there is a legal battle going between L&T and Reliance over this contract.

 

[Prashant12]

Indian Navy battles defense ministry over future of $3 billion contract

Hindustan Shipyard, which has a shipyard at Visakhapatnam, India, was nominated by the Indian Ministry of Defence to build two of the ships that would be able to carry an army battalion, including tanks and armoured carriers. (Adityamadhav83/Wikimedia Commons)

NEW DELHI – A war of nerves has brewed between senior Indian Navy officials and the Ministry of Defence over the possible cancellation of a program to replace top priority landing dock platforms.

Despite requests made by several naval planners not to cancel the procurement of four landing platform docks from domestic shipyards, costing around $3 billion, MoD is threatening to withdraw the tender said a top Indian Navy official. MoD wants to cancel the tender, because one of the last two bidders faces severe financial crunch. Considering another was eliminated in 2015 due to bankruptcy, that leaves only one player in the fray.

After the original 2012 call for bids was cancelled, the MoD refloated the tender in 2017. After receiving both commercial and technical bids, and revalidating the bids five times, MoD is now threatening to cancel the project again amid RNEL’s significant debt and the rejection of a debt resolution plan by the consortium of bankers.

Despite requests, MoD officials declined to comment.

L&T Ltd has teamed with Navatia of Spain, while RNEL has forged partnership with Naval Group of France to construct the LPDs. The ships would be roughly 30,000 ton helicopter landing platforms with the ability to carry an army battalion, including tanks and armored carriers.

“If MoD cancels the much needed LPD program, it will be signalling that MoD does not want to pursue and promote ‘Make in India’ initiatives," said a senior representative of the industry chamber Confederation of Indian Industries.

If the program is withdrawn, it will be the second time an LPD tender will be cancelled by MoD within the last 15 years.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/...e-ministry-over-future-of-3-billion-contract/

 

[Immanuel]

Why not a simple G2G deal with Spain for a localized version of Juan Carlos?

 

[republic_roi97]

They can build 45000 tons aircraft carrier but not helicopter carriers ? Its time for them to design, develop, launch and deploy indigenous version of LHDs.