I'm not quite sure what you're trying to argue here. The IN has had amphibious capabilities for all its independent existence. It bought 4 Polnocny class landing ships & some large LCUs in the 1970s, I think in response to an appreciation of the difficulties caused by the INs previously very limited capability.. In the 1980s it bought 4 more Polnocny, plus more LCUs, & INS Magar. I'd call that thinking seriously..... 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
I can't see any sudden switch from nothing to a full-blown amphibious fleet, but a progressive increase in capability. The "amphibious doctrine" is a codification of practice & lessons learned, not something all new. A good idea, but a result, not a beginning, like the post-1971 amphibious expansion. The IN expanded its amphibious fleet steadily & consistently from placing its first Polnocny order in the early 1970s until the 1990s, when there was a hiatus in orders until 2001 when it all started up again. The aberrant period is the ten year gap between the orders for Gharial & Shardul, not the subsequent expansion.
Yes, Jalashwa is far more capable than any of the LSTs, but less capable than the LSTs in combination. And as you say yourself, a result of lessons learned. I would imagine that the two LSTs in service then showed just how valuable they were (thus justifying the decision to build 3 more), & convinced a lot of people that the already-established move to increase amphibious capacity (exemplified by the order for the three Shardul class) should be accelerated.
BTW, Shardul & Kesari are named after retired Polnocny class ships. Magar is named after a WW2 vintage LST transferred from the RN 1949 (ex-HMS Avenger), & used in operations in December 1971. There was an abortive amphibious landing near Cox's Bazaar. I think that the failure of that landing, due to failure to recce the landing site (there were sandbars offshore which prevented the LSTs reaching the beach) may have caused the IN to take amphibious warfare more seriously.
Last edited: