Comparing PLAN to Indian Navy

[tphuang]

For the same reason I left out Type 16 and Leander class frigates . When will people understand its not only numbers that matter, but strategy, doctrine and location also play a big role.

On the bright side, they should still be able to take on pirates : nfloorl:
And when the time comes, they will be good hulls to test out your anti ship missiles on!

 

[Gollevainen]

according to SARguy, 165 and 166 also got the HQ-7 upgrade. But yeah, most of the time when I'm discussing PLAN, I'm too ashamed to bring up the Ludas and Jianghus.

Well no protographic evidence of this so therefore I rely on documented information.

For the same reason I left out Type 16 and Leander class frigates

Actually Leanders and P16s are much more usefull as the both have far better sonar suites than most of the chinese ships. P16 has a capability to carry two Sea Kings which is quite good benefit for it and has pretty much the same airdefence capability as the chinese ships fitted with Crotale.

 

[chinawhite]

I'm sure you just forgotted to mention that of those 16 Ludas four have C803

DF sites state that

Since the late 1990s, the PLA Navy have been upgrading its Type 051 fleet with more advanced weapon suites. By 2004 most of these ships have been upgraded to the Type 051G standard. Modifications include the more capable YJ-83 anti-ship missile replacing the original HY-2 missile; the introduction of HQ-7 air-defence missile system and automatic twin-37mm anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) guns, and an indigenous combat data system to provide basic C3I capabilities.

...what is said, and what is left unsaid...makes wonders to these "listings" doesen't it??

One of the reasons why i left them out of the count at the end

 

[chinawhite]

When people make a list of ships, they include ALL ships. We dont pick and choose which ones are our favourites when compiling data

 

[Gollevainen]

DF sites state that

Well It's quite commonly known that Only 4 Ludas have been modernised, the quote what you posted is quite superficial and wont stand closer examination. If you take deeper look to the subject from accurate references you will notice how the things are.

One of the reasons why i left them out of the count at the end

That wasen't the "sin", but the fact that you mentioned china having 16 Ludas with Yj83 and HQ-7s when there is only 4 Ludas modernised in the first place...

EDIT: I said earlier that there is no photographic evidence of other than the 109 and 110 beeing fitted with HQ-7. I have to now eat my words becouse a minutes ago I just saw a picture of 165 having HQ-7 fitted (It was done so when the new 100mm maingun was fitted also) I still haven't found pics about the 166 with similar fittings so For certain we can now say that there is a four modernised Ludas with at least three have a hq-7 fitted.

 

[chinawhite]

Well It's quite commonly known that Only 4 Ludas have been modernised

I would have to assume the other sites are using outdated information since their sites are based on information gathered by sites like sinodefence. I have to assume the "commonly" known data is outdated

That wasen't the "sin"

As information from Sino-defence indicates. The majority of the Luda class had been moderized.

 

[Gollevainen]

Well I wasen't refering to sinodefence...But if you refuse to belive me, you can easily proove me wrong, just show me a picture of modernised Luda which has different number than those already mentioned...

 

[chinawhite]

Why dont you annoy DF for the information?........... Since CDF changed severs, you cant find a site with archieved pictures

 

[Gollevainen]

Why dont you annoy DF for the information?...........

Dongfeng manages his own site by his own way, and he keeps all these squables in various forums out of it...

Since CDF changed severs, you cant find a site with archieved pictures

Those archives wuoldn't help you beocuse there is no pictures of other Ludas been modernised as no Ludas outside the already mentioned four has been modernised...

 

[contedicavour]

Ok here is the confirmation from Horses mouth, err..rather from Admiral Arun Prakash. The enclosed article narrates the fascinating story behind Indian Navy's tryst with carriers and how ADS (now called IAC - Indegenous Aircraft Carrier) evolved from a 16,000 T Harrier carrier to 37,000 STOBAR and how Mig-29K and Naval LCA were chosen as fighters.

Indigenous aricraft carrier by Arun Prakash

Thks for the article, interesting story.
How wide is the IAC ? Length-wise 830feet=249meters, so I don't understand how come the ship weighs 37,000 tons vs Cavour's 27,000 while the length is almost identical (249 vs 244 for Cavour). Also, the n° of planes+helos is very close : 30 for IAC and 25 for Cavour (F35B). I guess the IAC has a wider flight deck and probably a larger hangar, hence my question on the ship's width at sea level and max width at flight deck.

cheers

 

[kams]

When people make a list of ships, they include ALL ships. We dont pick and choose which ones are our favourites when compiling data

Chinawhite,
Its not that we are including our favourites in the list, but including modern ships which can take care of themself. I was responding to Zoolanders comment that we are including many obselete ships in our lists (which are don't stand a chance of defending themself, let alone carry out offensive operations) in making a list of IN ships and tphaung, WP2000 did the same for PLAN.

 

[wp2000]

I agree with Chinawhite on this point:

When we compile a list of Naval ships, an easier and accurate way is to include all ships.

If we start to pick "Modern" ones, it really depends on each one's personal standard and knowledge. For example, already someone recons India's Type16 is modern. And I can hear some chinese would say Luda 166 can give Delhi class a very hard time. And according to my personal standard, PLAN only has 2 modern war ships, 170 and 171. The 2 051Cs are close to modern. As of IN, well, the 3 Talwars are close to modern in some degrees. But in reality, I can't always use USN as the benchmark.

That's why I think his list is better than mine. Let's face it, get the actual figures right first and leave out any thing on paper.

BTW, the 4th Sov for PLAN will reach China in a few days, so Chinawhite you should update your list.

 

[aaaditya]

I think Harriers will be in service as long as INS Virat is in service (2010). The ADS being built will have Mig-29K and/or Naval LCA. IN has the option to buy 30 Mig-29K in addition to 16 already ordered for Gorshkov.

i believe the harriers would be capable enough to remain in service till atleast 2020,indian navy is also trying to acquire at least 18 additional harriers from uk which is trying to replace them with the f35.

 

[aaaditya]

Thks for the article, interesting story.
How wide is the IAC ? Length-wise 830feet=249meters, so I don't understand how come the ship weighs 37,000 tons vs Cavour's 27,000 while the length is almost identical (249 vs 244 for Cavour). Also, the n° of planes+helos is very close : 30 for IAC and 25 for Cavour (F35B). I guess the IAC has a wider flight deck and probably a larger hangar, hence my question on the ship's width at sea level and max width at flight deck.

cheers

hey buddy ,the specifications of the indian air defence ship from the bharat rakshak are as follows:

length- 252 metres (839.9 feet) and not 249 metres as you had mentioned.

beam- 58 metres ,what is cavour's beam?

draught- 8.4 metres,what is cavours draught?

depth- 25.6 metres ,what is cavour's depth?

fight deck - 2.5 acres.

if the cavour's beam,draught and depth is lesser than that of the ads ,then automatically it would be smaller than the ads in terms of volume and consequently lesser in terms of tonnage.

here check out this link for full information on the air defence ship:

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/ADS.html

 

[kams]

i believe the harriers would be capable enough to remain in service till atleast 2020,indian navy is also trying to acquire at least 18 additional harriers from uk which is trying to replace them with the f35.

India is not buying F35. Please look in to the article by Admiral Arun Prakash, I linked in my earlier post. It will be Mig-29K and Naval LCA.

 

[aaaditya]

India is not buying F35. Please look in to the article by Admiral Arun Prakash, I linked in my earlier post. It will be Mig-29K and Naval LCA.

kams you had misunderstood my post ,i mentioned that india is acquiring additional harriers from uk,uk wnts to sell these harriers sice they are buying the f35.

so i meant that uk is buying the f35 and not india,though it would be great if india could buy some f35's too.

 

[kams]

kams you had misunderstood my post ,i mentioned that india is acquiring additional harriers from uk,uk wnts to sell these harriers sice they are buying the f35.

so i meant that uk is buying the f35 and not india,though it would be great if india could buy some f35's too.

Oh ok..my bad.. . But is India buying additional Harriers from UK? I thought IN is not intrested as they want to standardize Mig-29K and Naval LCA. or are these Harriers meant to replace the attrition?

 

[kams]

I agree with Chinawhite on this point:

When we compile a list of Naval ships, an easier and accurate way is to include all ships.

If we start to pick "Modern" ones, it really depends on each one's personal standard and knowledge. For example, already someone recons India's Type16 is modern. And I can hear some chinese would say Luda 166 can give Delhi class a very hard time. And according to my personal standard, PLAN only has 2 modern war ships, 170 and 171. The 2 051Cs are close to modern. As of IN, well, the 3 Talwars are close to modern in some degrees. But in reality, I can't always use USN as the benchmark.

That's why I think his list is better than mine. Let's face it, get the actual figures right first and leave out any thing on paper.

BTW, the 4th Sov for PLAN will reach China in a few days, so Chinawhite you should update your list.

Well its based on one's personal knowledge and data available on public domain we are debating right? Comparing IN's X no. of ships against PLAN's Y no. of Ships can't be called a debate. Reason I excluded Type 16 is they seem to have some kind of stability problem and may be retired prematurely. One more thing, it's childish to compare ship vs ship only. World Navies do not operate this way, they co-ordinate all their assets - Air, Amphib etc.However the first step in understanding the capability of a Navy is to know what they can field and how relevent these assets are in Modern warfare.

 

[contedicavour]

Oh ok..my bad.. . But is India buying additional Harriers from UK? I thought IN is not intrested as they want to standardize Mig-29K and Naval LCA. or are these Harriers meant to replace the attrition?

Good question. Buying second hand Sea harriers from the UK would complicate things a bit... to start with (i) are the UK Sea Harriers compatible with Israeli Python/Derby or would they need a new radar ? (ii) why bother at all to modernize IN Harriers if you can have 18 modern UK Sea Harriers (iii) would Amraams and Asraams or AIM-9M be transferred ?
Quite a good deal of questions to take into account before buying those Sea Harriers second hand.

cheers

 

[contedicavour]

hey buddy ,the specifications of the indian air defence ship from the bharat rakshak are as follows:

length- 252 metres (839.9 feet) and not 249 metres as you had mentioned.

beam- 58 metres ,what is cavour's beam?

draught- 8.4 metres,what is cavours draught?

depth- 25.6 metres ,what is cavour's depth?

fight deck - 2.5 acres.

if the cavour's beam,draught and depth is lesser than that of the ads ,then automatically it would be smaller than the ads in terms of volume and consequently lesser in terms of tonnage.

here check out this link for full information on the air defence ship:

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/ADS.html

Thks for the data, it explains the difference in tonnage.
Because despite similar lengths (244 vs 252 - by the way, it was the article by IN admiral that stated 830 feet ), the ADS is larger (ours is limited at 40 meters because of the size of the exit to our main naval base in Taranto). Draught is basically identical (Cavour = 8.7). Size of the flight deck, if you only calculate the rectangle that excludes the ski jump and the area aft and fore of the superstructure, is 222x34mt. I'm not sure it's measured the same way on your ADS. I must check back home with my Italian naval sources.

cheers