Indian Navy Discussions and Updates

[swerve]

The USMC thinks it relevant. It's the only fighter they have that can take off from the LHAs & LHDs, & the USMC cares about that. I keep reading how (just like the UK) they're worried about how to keep enough Harriers operational until F-35B can replace them, because their Harriers are piling up hard hours, & still have to last a good few years. F-35Bs aren't suddenly going to appear in large numbers: they'll trickle in gradually to start with, & won't be fully operational for a while after significant numbers have been delivered.

Don't expect many sound Harriers to be for sale, ever. Retired ones will be stripped for parts while there are still Harriers in service.

 

[dragonfire]

in case there are more crashes in fufre it makes more sense to buy new / used harriers.

Only 11 outof 30 are left and out of that 11 only 8 are fighter versions. 8 Fighters for the Aircraft carriers is already a very weak number, if there are are any more crashes it would be too late to make any decsions, whatever POA is to be made it should be made now

 

[Sea Toby]

I don't see why India buys these older USN or Russian ships.

Of the USN ships USS Nassau will be retired soonish, and history has shown if you want to buy a USN ship (or any other) get in as soon as its retired to avoid the rot that sets in once decommissioned. Then there is a big gap before any of the Wasp class would be retired. The other ships in those lists are not really suitable or really old (Iwo Jimas etc)

Something like a JCI would provide heaps of capability and a much longer service life. Not to mention far more capable and lower operating costs.

I'll agree something like the Mistral or Juan Carlos I would be better than acquiring two old US LPDs like the former Trenton and Nashville. However, until India decides whether they wish to build a Rotterdam type LPD or a LPH/LHD, and when they can build them after their two new indigenous aircraft carriers are built, the old US LPDs will last another ten to fifteen years from the last thorough refit. While the Americans may sell off old equipment, they do refit them as part of the sale. Besides, the two carriers can be operated as LPHs as well....

 

[Sea Toby]

The USMC thinks it relevant. It's the only fighter they have that can take off from the LHAs & LHDs, & the USMC cares about that. I keep reading how (just like the UK) they're worried about how to keep enough Harriers operational until F-35B can replace them, because their Harriers are piling up hard hours, & still have to last a good few years. F-35Bs aren't suddenly going to appear in large numbers: they'll trickle in gradually to start with, & won't be fully operational for a while after significant numbers have been delivered.

Don't expect many sound Harriers to be for sale, ever. Retired ones will be stripped for parts while there are still Harriers in service.

True, up to a point. But there will be a few old and used Harriers which may become available to fill a short term shortage. Not many, but a few. Ten Harriers would go a long way until the first indigenous aircraft carrier is built....

 

[kay_man]

True, up to a point. But there will be a few old and used Harriers which may become available to fill a short term shortage. Not many, but a few. Ten Harriers would go a long way until the first indigenous aircraft carrier is built....

exactly my point.
the INS Vikramaditya can operate mig-29 and lca tejas and so can the indegenous carrier.
henca a few old harriers that can last as long as the Viraat is in service will be sufficient.

 

[swerve]

I'll agree something like the Mistral or Juan Carlos I would be better than acquiring two old US LPDs like the former Trenton and Nashville. However, until India decides whether they wish to build a Rotterdam type LPD or a LPH/LHD, and when they can build them after their two new indigenous aircraft carriers are built, the old US LPDs will last another ten to fifteen years from the last thorough refit. While the Americans may sell off old equipment, they do refit them as part of the sale. Besides, the two carriers can be operated as LPHs as well....

The Spanish have both LPDs & an LHD. So does the USA, & the UK has LPDs & an LPH. Indias ambitions are large - why not both?

Why should the IN wait until after the carriers are built? There are at least half a dozen European or Korean yards that could build new LPDs or LHDs & deliver them before the first IAC will enter service, & would be happy to do so. Allow them into a joint venture with an Indian private firm, & they could do it almost as quickly. The chief constraints on Indian naval procurement are the slowness of the decision-making process & Indias state-owned shipyards.

The USA doesn't give its ships a thorough refit as part of the sale, only a minor one to ensure that everything aboard is in working order. Trenton, for example, was sold for $48 mn, including the cost of refit, delivery, & associated training. That would not cover a thorough refit. They might last 10-15 years, but they cost a lot to run, need a lot of skilled labour to keep going (& despite the size of the population, skilled workers are at a premium in India), & have a lot more down time than a new ship. Over 15 years, it'd probably be cheaper to buy new.

 

[dragonfire]

I'll agree something like the Mistral or Juan Carlos I would be better than acquiring two old US LPDs like the former Trenton and Nashville. However, until India decides whether they wish to build a Rotterdam type LPD or a LPH/LHD, and when they can build them after their two new indigenous aircraft carriers are built, the old US LPDs will last another ten to fifteen years from the last thorough refit.

The Spanish have both LPDs & an LHD. So does the USA, & the UK has LPDs & an LPH. Indias ambitions are large - why not both?

Why should the IN wait until after the carriers are built? There are at least half a dozen European or Korean yards that could build new LPDs or LHDs & deliver them before the first IAC will enter service, & would be happy to do so. Allow them into a joint venture with an Indian private firm, & they could do it almost as quickly. The chief constraints on Indian naval procurement are the slowness of the decision-making process & Indias state-owned shipyards.

Apparently the IN is in the process of ramping up it's Amphibious Capability, as per GlobalSecurity.org the IN is in the process of acquiring three LPH/LHD. However a design is yet to be finalised and the following companies have submitted designs

14,500 tons South Korea - Hanjin Heavy Industries assault landing ship
15,000 tons Germany - ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems MHD-150
16,160 tons Netherlands - Schelde Shipbuilding Enforcer LPD
20,000 tons Italy - Finantieri LHD
21,300 tons France - Armaris Mistral LHD
21,500 tons Spain - Navantia Strategic Projection Ship
21,578 tons UK - BAE Systems Marine Ocean-class LHD
25,000 tons US - Raytheon San Antonio-class LPD-17

The spanish one being the JCI design and the Netherlands one being the rotterdam one, as per globalsecurity.org

The Navy is looking for a hybrid design called Multi-Role Support Vessel (MRSV) which is similar in design to the ARMARIS-built Mistral, Hanjin's Dokdo and the GNG's MHD-150.

A Notional pic is also provided on their site

Multi-Role Support Ship (MRSS)

Another imp aspect is that the Amphbious capability / requirement is quite new in the IN even the INS JalAshwa was accquired only after the need assesment post the Tsunami relief work. Also unlike other modern millitaries India doesnt have a dedicated Marine Force, it has however dedicated an Indian Army brigade for such a role as well as a dedicated Armoured Regiment apart from other smaller units, whereas neigbouring China has about 12000 - 24000 personnel, the USMC having over 200k the spanish and UK marine force levels am not aware of, hope India makes a lot progress in this area

True, up to a point. But there will be a few old and used Harriers which may become available to fill a short term shortage. Not many, but a few. Ten Harriers would go a long way until the first indigenous aircraft carrier is built....

Hope the IN sees it the same way and expedite acquiring additional harriers

 

[Salty Dog]

Apparently the IN is in the process of ramping up it's Amphibious Capability, as per GlobalSecurity.org the IN is in the process of acquiring three LPH/LHD. However a design is yet to be finalised and the following companies have submitted designs

The spanish one being the JCI design and the Netherlands one being the rotterdam one, as per globalsecurity.org

A Notional pic is also provided on their site

Multi-Role Support Ship (MRSS)

Another imp aspect is that the Amphbious capability / requirement is quite new in the IN even the INS JalAshwa was accquired only after the need assesment post the Tsunami relief work. Also unlike other modern millitaries India doesnt have a dedicated Marine Force, it has however dedicated an Indian Army brigade for such a role as well as a dedicated Armoured Regiment apart from other smaller units, whereas neigbouring China has about 12000 - 24000 personnel, the USMC having over 200k the spanish and UK marine force levels am not aware of, hope India makes a lot progress in this area

Hope the IN sees it the same way and expedite acquiring additional harriers

What do Indian government sources say about acquiring/growing an amphibious capability? It does seem logical to go with new builds after their experience with INS Jalashwa. I've also seen a possible acquisition of a 2nd LPD (ex- USS Nashville) which will decommission at the end of September, however this looks unlikely.

Is the IN really serious about employing LCACs? (per your reference).

 

[swerve]

Another imp aspect is that the Amphbious capability / requirement is quite new in the IN even the INS JalAshwa was accquired only after the need assesment post the Tsunami relief work.

All interesting stuff - ta. But I'm puzzled by the comment above. India has had landing ships for many years, i.e. the old Round Table copies (Magar class), & the upgraded Shardul versions built recently.

Hope the IN sees it the same way and expedite acquiring additional harriers

Sensible, but not easy, since the IN turned down the last good opportunity.

 

[dragonfire]

What do Indian government sources say about acquiring/growing an amphibious capability? It does seem logical to go with new builds after their experience with INS Jalashwa. I've also seen a possible acquisition of a 2nd LPD (ex- USS Nashville) which will decommission at the end of September, however this looks unlikely.

Is the IN really serious about employing LCACs? (per your reference).

It was only very recently that the Indian Millitary got serious about Amphibious Capabilities. Only in 2008 was a Joint Doctrine for Amphibious Operations unveiled. I had a few months earlier posted in DefTalk that a Joint Andaman and Nicobar Comand was being created where the Amphibious force would be HQd - strength - 3000. Other reports have also suggested that 5th Armoured Regiment is paired with the INS Shardul a new LST(L) of the IN. Also apparently the 54 Infantry Division has been earmarked for the amphibious ops

Amphibious Operations

Not too sure about the USS Nashville, as the reports have been around that Indian offiicials have visited the vessel, and yet there is yet to be a seen an overt agreement for the ship, I say if it comes at less than 50 Million USD (like the Trenton) then go for it so that till the time the new LHD comes into service (which is going to take time as a design is not yet finalised) there is an capability available.

Am not sure about the LCAC with the IN, however the Indian Coast Guard has 6

Air Cushion Vehicle

Also Importantly India as per the Globalsecurity page does not have the light Amphibious Tank needed for Amphibious ops, what should India opt for considering the T-90 and Arjun are above 50 tons

 

[dragonfire]

All interesting stuff - ta. But I'm puzzled by the comment above. India has had landing ships for many years, i.e. the old Round Table copies (Magar class), & the upgraded Shardul versions built recently.

The Shardul class of vessels were commisioned post the Tsunami (2004), IIRC the vessels came in post 2007, also i dont think the INS Magar and the other ship in its class (INS Gharial) have either the range or the capacity of the Shardul class; while the Shardul class is maintained as LST (L) the magar class is LST (M) if IIRC.

 

[Salty Dog]

It was only very recently that the Indian Millitary got serious about Amphibious Capabilities. Only in 2008 was a Joint Doctrine for Amphibious Operations unveiled. I had a few months earlier posted in DefTalk that a Joint Andaman and Nicobar Comand was being created where the Amphibious force would be HQd - strength - 3000. Other reports have also suggested that 5th Armoured Regiment is paired with the INS Shardul a new LST(L) of the IN. Also apparently the 54 Infantry Division has been earmarked for the amphibious ops

Amphibious Operations

Not too sure about the USS Nashville, as the reports have been around that Indian offiicials have visited the vessel, and yet there is yet to be a seen an overt agreement for the ship, I say if it comes at less than 50 Million USD (like the Trenton) then go for it so that till the time the new LHD comes into service (which is going to take time as a design is not yet finalised) there is an capability available.

Am not sure about the LCAC with the IN, however the Indian Coast Guard has 6

Air Cushion Vehicle

Also Importantly India as per the Globalsecurity page does not have the light Amphibious Tank needed for Amphibious ops, what should India opt for considering the T-90 and Arjun are above 50 tons

Thanks for your reply. I was hoping you would cite Indian government sources vice Global Security.

I doubt any deal was signed for the USS Nashville as it decomms at the end of this month and ideally India would want a "hot transfer" as was the case of INS Jalashwa.

The info on the Indian Coast Guard ACVs is interesting. These would be used for troop transport only as LCACs can carry tanks, APCs other wheels vehicles, etc, in addition to troops. In either case the ACV or LCU would need to be operated from a well deck. Do you know if the ICG ACVs have operated from the INS Jalashwa´s well deck?

LCACs and the IN LCUs (latter needs to be verified) should be capable of operating with MBTs in the 60 ton class. The USN LCUs are capable of docking with all USN well decks. AFAIK the IN LCUs are quite a bit larger and are unable to enter a well deck.

 

[swerve]

The Shardul class of vessels were commisioned post the Tsunami (2004), IIRC the vessels came in post 2007, also i dont think the INS Magar and the other ship in its class (INS Gharial) have either the range or the capacity of the Shardul class; while the Shardul class is maintained as LST (L) the magar class is LST (M) if IIRC.

The Magar class is a slightly modified version of the British Round Table class, also known as the Sir or Sir Lancelot class. The British originals participated in the Falklands invasion in 1982.

Shardul is an updated version of the same design, built on the same hull. It's the same size, & has the same capacity, though AFAIK more modern engines & other equipment, & some other improvements. All three ships of the class were laid down (& Shardul launched) before the the tsunami, so it could not have been a factor in the decision to build them.

The Indian navy has not given a high priority to amphibious capability in the past, but it has taken care to have some capability for many years, & ordering the Shardul class in 2001 suggests that a decision to upgrade it significantly had probably been taken by 2000. They are old-style ships, but still perfectly good, & IMO ordering them was a good way to boost capability relatively quickly, cheaply & easily, & a sound decision, as well as proof that the IN was thinking seriously about amphibious capabilities long before the tsunami. They'll continue to be useful for many years, as supplements to any new amphibious ships.

Also Importantly India as per the Globalsecurity page does not have the light Amphibious Tank needed for Amphibious ops, what should India opt for considering the T-90 and Arjun are above 50 tons

The USA does not have any light amphibious tanks. Nor do the UK, Netherlands, Spain, France or Italy. None of them think such vehicles are needed for amphibious operations. The USMC has M1s, weighing over 60 tons.

BTW, I note that you linked to an article describing a major tri-service Indian amphibious exercise in 2001.

 

[Salty Dog]

The USA does not have any light amphibious tanks. Nor do the UK, Netherlands, Spain, France or Italy. None of them think such vehicles are needed for amphibious operations. The USMC has M1s, weighing over 60 tons.

Good point. The USMC uses an amphibious family of 8 x 8 wheeled Light Armored Vehicles (LAV) in lieu of a light tank.

Should the IN prefer tracks to wheels, perhaps the Austrian SK-105 may fit the bill.

 

[swerve]

Good point. The USMC uses an amphibious family of 8 x 8 wheeled Light Armored Vehicles (LAV) in lieu of a light tank.

Should the IN prefer tracks to wheels, perhaps the Austrian SK-105 may fit the bill.

But it's not amphibious, & went out of production some time ago. I don't know if production could be resumed.

The USMCs amphibious LAVs are mostly no longer amphibious, IIRC, because of additional armour & equipment fitted to them, & in any case, the LAV (a licence-built Piranha) has never been amphibious in anything other than calm water. Excellent at fording, but it needs a landing craft to put it on a beach, like almost all AFVs. The main exception is the AAV of the USMC & various other marine corps, which is not a tank, but a tracked amphibious troop carrier.

 

[dragonfire]

Thanks for your reply. I was hoping you would cite Indian government sources vice Global Security.

Was unable to get a source for the new acquisition plans however pls find below a link from PIB (Press Information Buerau) of the Indian Govt. which talks about the unveiling of the Joint Doctrine for Amphibious Operations

PIB Press Release

The info on the Indian Coast Guard ACVs is interesting. These would be used for troop transport only as LCACs can carry tanks, APCs other wheels vehicles, etc, in addition to troops. In either case the ACV or LCU would need to be operated from a well deck. Do you know if the ICG ACVs have operated from the INS Jalashwa´s well deck?

LCACs and the IN LCUs (latter needs to be verified) should be capable of operating with MBTs in the 60 ton class. The USN LCUs are capable of docking with all USN well decks. AFAIK the IN LCUs are quite a bit larger and are unable to enter a well deck.

The ACVs of the ICG are for Patrol duties, however they were part of India's largest Amphibious excercise "EXERCISE TROPEX-2009". I am not aware of the exact roles however. I doubt if the ACV's would replace the LCM-8 of the INS JalAshwa as they LCM would definitely have more capacity as well as firepower (2*12.7 mm guns vs 1*12.7mm gun), the ACV would however have the better speed. Also the ACV is twice as wide as an LCM-8 and as such technicaly only two ACV's could be accomodated in the well deck of the INS JalAshwa (the length being almost the same as that of the LCM-8s) compared to the four LCM-8s. However i havent heard the ACV's being used in the INS JalAshwa. The INS JalAshwa was procured along with the LCM-8's apart from the helos, so they are able to enter the well deck (I have seen it on TV in the Mission Navy Prog)

 

[Salty Dog]

But it's not amphibious, & went out of production some time ago. I don't know if production could be resumed.

The USMCs amphibious LAVs are mostly no longer amphibious, IIRC, because of additional armour & equipment fitted to them, & in any case, the LAV (a licence-built Piranha) has never been amphibious in anything other than calm water. Excellent at fording, but it needs a landing craft to put it on a beach, like almost all AFVs. The main exception is the AAV of the USMC & various other marine corps, which is not a tank, but a tracked amphibious troop carrier.

Thanks for the LAV info mate. The Brazilian Marines had a requirement for a light tank in the 90´s. The USMC was pushing the LAV, but the requirement was for a tracked vehicle and they bought the SK-105.

The AAV7 production line is shut down as well. It was briefly re-opened in the mid-90´s just for a lot purchased by Brazil.

 

[Salty Dog]

Was unable to get a source for the new acquisition plans however pls find below a link from PIB (Press Information Buerau) of the Indian Govt. which talks about the unveiling of the Joint Doctrine for Amphibious Operations

PIB Press Release



The ACVs of the ICG are for Patrol duties, however they were part of India's largest Amphibious excercise "EXERCISE TROPEX-2009". I am not aware of the exact roles however. I doubt if the ACV's would replace the LCM-8 of the INS JalAshwa as they LCM would definitely have more capacity as well as firepower (2*12.7 mm guns vs 1*12.7mm gun), the ACV would however have the better speed. Also the ACV is twice as wide as an LCM-8 and as such technicaly only two ACV's could be accomodated in the well deck of the INS JalAshwa (the length being almost the same as that of the LCM-8s) compared to the four LCM-8s. However i havent heard the ACV's being used in the INS JalAshwa. The INS JalAshwa was procured along with the LCM-8's apart from the helos, so they are able to enter the well deck (I have seen it on TV in the Mission Navy Prog)

Thanks for your replies mate. The ACV is definitely advantageous for amphibious assault over the LCM-8 due to speed and it can operate over land. The LCM-8 will still be used to support vehicles and heavy equipment.

 

[dragonfire]

The Magar class is a slightly modified version of the British Round Table class, also known as the Sir or Sir Lancelot class. The British originals participated in the Falklands invasion in 1982.

Shardul is an updated version of the same design, built on the same hull. It's the same size, & has the same capacity, though AFAIK more modern engines & other equipment, & some other improvements. All three ships of the class were laid down (& Shardul launched) before the the tsunami, so it could not have been a factor in the decision to build them.

The Indian navy has not given a high priority to amphibious capability in the past, but it has taken care to have some capability for many years, & ordering the Shardul class in 2001 suggests that a decision to upgrade it significantly had probably been taken by 2000. They are old-style ships, but still perfectly good, & IMO ordering them was a good way to boost capability relatively quickly, cheaply & easily, & a sound decision, as well as proof that the IN was thinking seriously about amphibious capabilities long before the tsunami. They'll continue to be useful for many years, as supplements to any new amphibious ships.

BTW, I note that you linked to an article describing a major tri-service Indian amphibious exercise in 2001.

The Shardul class and the Magar class are quite the same - agreed. They both are classified as LST (L), there are further classes of LST the Polnocny class (Kumbhir class) which (5 still active) are classed as LST (M). The IN also has some Transport and Landing ships (smaller classes though).

As far as the Tsunami comment goes I was strictly refering to the acquisition of the INS JalAshwa (pl refer my post) and not the decision of the IN / Indian Military to have a Amphibious doctrine. The Joint Ambhibious doctrine was launched in 2008 - pl refer my previous post for the official link for the press release from Govt of India. Infact it even says that the Doctrine was a result of studies conducted since 2004 (incidentaly the same year as the tsunami )

The INS JalAshwa has a capacity far beyond that of the LST's of the IN, if you were to read the press releases as well as various websites, they all indicate the IN's decision to procure the INS JalAshwa came post the experiences and learnings from the tsunami, India was the first country to send (or was it the first to reach !) massive aid and relief through the IN to the affected populace of Indonesia

Even 2001 is still releatively new for a modern navy to think seriously about Amphibious capabilities

 

[dragonfire]

Thanks for your replies mate. The ACV is definitely advantageous for amphibious assault over the LCM-8 due to speed and it can operate over land. The LCM-8 will still be used to support vehicles and heavy equipment.

My pleasure

Any ideas on the capacity of the ACV vis a vi the LCMs (no of troops / tanks / APCs etc), speed is a given, besides wont the ACV be prone to disablement against ground based enemy fire which is something to be expected in a war scenario unless it being a covert op)