Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Future of Indian Navy : A complete compilation

Discussion in 'Indian Navy' started by Gessler, Aug 31, 2014.

  1. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    12,679
    Likes Received:
    13,291
    Country Flag:
    India
    Kochi shipyard can start construction of IAC-2 as a follow on of IAC-1 tomorrow shud the IN place the order. IAC-1 got delayed for various reasons and one of them was that its gear box and shafts suffered damage during transportation. That delayed it by nearly four years. The follow on ship can be built very quickly and commissioned by 2025.
     
    kiduva21 and kamalakumar like this.
  2. randomradio

    randomradio Mod Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    9,715
    Likes Received:
    4,712
    It's not bureaucracy, it's fleet size. A carrier requires 3-4 destroyers and frigates and at least 1 SSN supporting it. But if so many ships are assigned into CBGs, then we won't have any ships for offensive and defensive operations.

    For 6 carriers we need 6 SSNs, 6 destroyers and 12 frigates minimum if we want 6 CBGs. We can barely maintain those numbers right now, forget SSNs. Right now we only have 5 destroyers and 9 frigates that can actually protect the CBG while relying primarily on SSKs for undersea protection.

    The US has 11 carriers, and they have 54 SSNs, 62 destroyers and 22 cruisers and are still building more.

    We need to get to half the USN fleet if we want 6 carriers. And each of the USN ships are far superior to our own, so we need to boost quality of our ships if we want to keep our carriers safe.
     
    kamalakumar likes this.
  3. kamalakumar

    kamalakumar BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2011
    Messages:
    171
    Likes Received:
    86
    But you dint answer my question- is there a roadmap for it? I read in two places that there was. Anyway, IN still has to bureacratic mess for 3 carriers let alone six. I have no hope that they will finish IAC-3 in time considering their track record in IAC1
     
  4. randomradio

    randomradio Mod Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    9,715
    Likes Received:
    4,712
    As far as open source is concerned, there is no roadmap for 6. Right now it's only for 1 more carrier before 2030.

    But post 2030 I'm sure we will have the infrastructure necessary to build 2 carriers at once.
     
    PARIKRAMA and kamalakumar like this.
  5. Gessler

    Gessler Mod Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    9,217
    Likes Received:
    7,673
    Country Flag:
    India
    Done.

    On-topic :

    We will have 3 carriers by 2030.

    a) Vikramaditya
    b) IAC-1 Vikrant
    c) most likely a follow-on of the Vikrant. As @PARIKRAMA said previously, this could actually be larger than the Vikrant considerably (maybe around 50,000 tons), but is mostly common otherwise.

    I am of the opinion that if we go with the improved-Vikrant design as our 3rd carrier, then for induction in a post-2030 time period (and has to serve till 2060 or beyond), we can do with nothing less than a 85,000 to 90,000-ton CATOBAR design with EMALS. N-propulsion will be certain. Needs to be very similar in size & scope to the Ford.

    Atleast 2-3 such ships will be sufficient.

    I've started believing that 65,000 tons will turn out to be too small for our needs in that time period. What do you guys think?

    @randomradio @vstol jockey and you too, Parik.
     
    PARIKRAMA likes this.
  6. PARIKRAMA

    PARIKRAMA Angel or Devil? Staff Member ADMINISTRATOR

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,421
    Likes Received:
    6,452
    Country Flag:
    India
    If ita IAC1 follow or improved IAC1 or Modified IAC1 with 20-25% more tonnage which is rather achievable due to improvements in our capability as well as Naval Design Bureau also contributing to it, we can churn out this ACC in straight 7 years easily

    Thus if one has to consider in a manner what could be the best possible solution then use a simple manner of incremental capability to build new carriers. An example

    1. Baku/Vicky - retirement by 2040 or reduced ops for stretching life/training platform as well
    2. IAC 1 Vikrant
    3. IAC1 follow on 1st ship - 20-25% better so approx 50k tonnes STOBAR - 2026-27
    4. IAC 1 follow on 2nd Ship - again 20-25% better so 60K ship - STOBAR 2035-36 right at Baku replacement strategy

    The above one is conventional types and should remain conventional only
    1. IAC2 Vishal - 2030 - 60-65K
    2. IAC2 Vishal follow on 1st Ship - 20-25% rule 85K 2040
    3. IAC2 Vishal follow on 2nd Ship - 100K 2050

    Freeze at the config of
    conventional at 60k
    Nuclear at 100K

    Also emphasis on 2 lines of ACC building 1 in east and 1 in west coast.. one conventional and 1 nuclear.

    5 CBG availability by 2045-50 is a much better chance along with components making the CBG
     
    Hydra and Gessler like this.
  7. Agent_47

    Agent_47 Admin - Blog Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Messages:
    2,047
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Country Flag:
    India
    Cross posting: @Picard @BON PLAN
    But, QE class does exist. Franch withdrew not just because of propulsion choice. Its final configuration just before cancellation was diesel IFEP. Even without nuclear and CATOBAR, INS Vikrant will cost around $4.5 billion and QE 6 billion euro. How much can Indian navy spend on INS Vishal (Electromagnetic catapults+ R&D + new reactor + 20,000 ton extra displacement + inflation). Double?. Now add the air wing, (36 Rafales = $110* 36 ). Which will easily cross $10 billion!.:fie: I would buy 8 Project 15B for that kind of money.:big_boss:

    For even a country like france, nuclear propulsion integration give too many problems, Do we have that kind of luxury of time?

    IN put out an RFI for new class of fleet support ship with max displacement around 40,000 ton. Which will take care of your fuel reserve problem.
     
  8. ni8mare

    ni8mare FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 26, 2014
    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    228
    Country Flag:
    India
    The Indian Navy is in a "high degree of operational and combat readiness" to ensure safety and security from any challenges originating from the seas, Western Naval Command chief Vice Admiral Girish Luthra said on Friday.

    Interacting with media personnel aboard the aircraft carier INS Vikramaditya ahead of Navy Day 2016, he said that the maritime environment in the Indian Ocean Region is both challenging and complex.

    Besides developments in the region necessitating high degree of operational and combat readiness, it had led to a very high tempo of operations, including deployments, surveillance and patrolling, he said.

    In this context, Luthra referred to the conduct of major exercise "Paschim Leher" in which a large number of ships, submarines and aircraft participated to test and improve Indian Navy's operational readiness, including mobilisation and synchronisation.

    Describing the current security scenario as "dynamic", he said ships, submarines and aircraft of the command "continue to be deployed and tasked in widely dispersed and diverse locations" at sea to beef up maritime defence and security.

    He assured that the Indian Navy is "alert, watchful and fully ready to safeguard the country's maritime interests and address any threats that may emerge".

    In addition to strengthening physical security, Luthra said impetus is also being given to cyber security.

    Following the immensely successful induction of Delhi-Class and Kolkata-Class destroyers into the Navy, he said now it was working towards the "next-generation destroyers" to give an edge to the three-dimensional blue-water force.

    "We are conceptualising and planning the next-gen destroyers which would be of new designs and more potent. We shall take up the proposal with the centre in due course," he said.

    The planned project would encompass additional features compared to the earlier Projects 15, 15A and 15B.

    Giving hints, he said the next-gen destroyers would be far advanced in terms of capability with more stealth features and an even more deadlier weapons package.


    The Indian Navy celebrates Navy Day on December 4 every year to mark the date of its ships attacking Karachi during the 1971 India-Pakistan war.

    --IANS

    qn/vdhttp://www.business-standard.com/ar...ess-western-command-chief-116120201265_1.html
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2016
    Abingdonboy and Ankit Kumar 001 like this.
  9. Ankit Kumar 001

    Ankit Kumar 001 Major Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2016
    Messages:
    2,406
    Likes Received:
    4,598
    Country Flag:
    India
    2 Classes of Destroyers.
    1 With ABM capability and another only relatively smaller , with focus on Anti Ship and Land Attack Warfare to replace the Rajputs. 8 And 8 both.

    Before that 2 extra P15B are to be ordered.
     
    ni8mare likes this.
  10. Abingdonboy

    Abingdonboy Major Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2016
    Messages:
    2,364
    Likes Received:
    11,142
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    Think the numbers quoted (16) are far too conservative considering the time scale and the implications this has on the budgetary allocation for the IN as well as the scope of India's interests.

    IN is aiming for 200 ships by 2027 but they may will require/request 300 by 2032.

    As for 2 variants for P-18 DDG, couldn't it make more sense to have the P-18 solely for ABM/AAW and the P-17A (and follow on) frigates focused on AShM, ASW and land attack? Naturally the next class of frigates beyond the P-17As could/would have to be 10-20% larger than P-17A.
     
    ni8mare and R!CK like this.
  11. Gessler

    Gessler Mod Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    9,217
    Likes Received:
    7,673
    Country Flag:
    India
    Use this thread to post all relevant discussions about the Indian Navy's future destroyer-class after the Project-15B Visakhapatnam. Unofficially designated as 'Project-18'. Let's keep tabs on the developments on this project from this very early conceptual stage.

    I'll start off with a post I made previously...

    "
    Here's what I think P-18 would/should have -

    Sensors :-

    • Integrated mast (like Thales i-Mast) housing as many active/passive sensors and ECM mounts as possible within a single large superstructure. This will eliminate the need for multiple masts, cluttered top decks etc. (provided the mast integrates both the relatively short-wavelength Fire-Control Radar (FCR) and the long-wavelength Volume Search Radar (VSR), inside of just providing a centralized array for FCR, SATCOM+other sensors not including VSR). Something like this would be perfect IMO, sensory redundancy in case of damage might take a hit, but still this has it's advantages wrt stealth, easy of maintenance etc. -

    [​IMG]

    We'll have to see how well an improved MF-STAR and a Western VSR (let's say SMART-L for sake of argument) can be housed within the same mast. Shouldn't be impossible, but I see a likely hurdle here. The mast will be one big S.O.B either way (if it has to integrate a full-fledged VSR in a distributed fashion). I see the possibility of a pyramid-isqe superstructure.

    • The new PHAROS FCR (for SRGM, CIWS & Point-Defense Guidance) could be developed as a JV between BEL & Thales. This will sit well with a new CIWS system.

    • The HUMSA family will just have to give way to a new sonar system, which should be distributed aperture as a rule, with a main bow array and smaller side arrays. A towed-array sonar should also be mandatory.

    Weapons :-

    • Surface Warfare: Ability to incorporate BrahMos-I Block-I (current ASCM), a possible VLS-based BrahMos-NG, plus the BrahMos-II/3K22 Zircon hypersonic ASCM in the surface-warfare VLS section. Minimum 16 missiles should be there, anything higher is welcome, as long as it doesn't eat into the space for additional SAMs. A larger caliber main gun can be looked at - I seriously suggest developing a Navalized version of ATAGS in 155mm/64-caliber configuration. ATAGS can be a good platform for developing an Advanced Gun System-India.

    • Land Attack: As per Prasun Sengupta, the future destroyer might have as many as 32 dedicated cells for Nirbhay LACM. Having an extensive land-attack capability on surface warships signals a significant change in IN war-fighting policy. This will free up all ~16 ASCMs for a complete surface-dominance role. Provided the base UVLM design is common, this indicates a total of 48 strike-length cells. In an age where even frigate-class vessels like Type-26 will be having 24 such cells, atleast twice that number will be necessary for a full-blown DDG.

    With guided ammunition, even the SRGM can be used in a limited land-attack role (arced trajectory, bombardment of coastal installations should be possible from a distance of ~80-100km out at sea) if actually required to do so.

    • ASW: Why hasn't IN explored the possibility of an ASROC yet? The only limitation I see is that we have few VLS cells on IN warships as it is (no VLS Farm-type installation as on Arleigh Burke etc.), but those RBU-6000s are an absolute eyesore. They ruin frontal signature-reduction efforts to an extent (IN didn't think it mattered for the present classes of ships, and that's fine. But for a post-2020 warship? NOPE.), and besides, I even began doubting their effectiveness against modern submarines. We should atleast explore a streamlined container for these launchers (if at all they're indispensable), or choose to internally incorporate them, with the rockets firing out to sea - like torpedo tubes.

    • Speaking of Torpedos, I haven't much to say. NSTL should continuously pursue working on upgrades/refinements for the Varunastra (Mk.2, Mk.2A etc.) instead of completing a design and sitting on it for a decade.

    Other significant part of ASW is conducted by the choppers, which I've covered below.

    • Air/Missile Defense: It seems BMD might be a possibility, but I'm not 100% sure about it just yet. Let me tell you why - having an effective ship-based ABM is possible only if and when the projected AD-1/AD-2 interceptors are ready. None of the existing technology demonstration platforms (that's what they are) like PAD, AAD or PDV are ergonomic enough to be considered for ship-based vertical launch. Save for AAD, the remaining two are the size of friggin' ballistic missiles for god's sake. We'll have to design a special VLM just to accommodate them, and just 6 such cells will take up impossible amounts of deck area (picture Arihant's silos, on a ship). I just don't see this happening.

    I believe the AD-1/AD-2 will be approximately the size of the US Standard Missile series. Only these can be effectively put on a ship.

    All this is ofcourse, provided we are looking at an indigenous missile platform for the BMD role. If we go for, say, a ship-based Arrow system from Israel - that presents a whole new set of possibilities. Either way, I don't think the BMD component will be ready before 2030. We might get the ships first, incorporate BMD later.

    • The Barak-8 & 8ER will be there. I'm looking at no less than 48 ready-to-launch in VLS units. We might decide to go ahead with the P-15A tradition and store another 24-48 on board as reloads, which can be effected by a Fleet Replenishment Vessel (FRV) out at sea. Accessible if travelling as part of a flotilla/Carrier Battle Group. But I think we should look at eliminating this limitation - some modular cranes (can't occupy more space than the approx area of 4 x VLS cells if we go for a big one) that can be brought up when needed and remain integrated into the decks when not - can be pretty handy. Consider both vertically-deployed designs and something that lies perpendicular to the deck when not in use and is propped up when needed.

    [​IMG]

    I'm not adamant about combined gun-missile systems, but at least a new gun-only CIWS should be looked at. There's nothing wrong with the AK-630M as far as the gun is concerned, but it's supporting guidance/target-acquisition & tracking systems and electronics are due an upgrade. I suppose OFB/DRDO might consider themselves too good to be bothered with this development, so I'm wondering if Mahindra Defence can't tie up with a European maker for licensed-building of a new-generation system. They already built stuff like the Mareech ATDS, so I reckon they know their shyt when it comes to making ship-based systems/mounts etc. At least as much as they need to know.

    • Either way, a Point-Defense Missile System (PDMS) has to be considered. It's not that I don't believe Barak-8 itself can't handle close-in, low-flying threats...it's just that Barak-8s will be too valuable to waste on both high & low-end missile/aircraft threats. I suggest we look at the SeaRAM system. I don't see Maitri PDMS getting anywhere, even if it did, I'm not sure I support PDMS in VLS units. Vertical launch is fine for engaging longer-ranged threats, but when close-range quick-reaction is a priority, a slanted launcher saves time on missile-orientation after launch. Every second counts. Only problem is that a minimum of two launchers might be required, one each for port & starboard.

    [​IMG]

    I know you don't want to go into the whole KALI-10000 business (I don't blame you, I don't wanna go there either) but still, ship-based DEWs are a thing and are already being extensively tested - and will be more so 10 years down the line. I agree right now the power of most such systems is not enough to destroy anything bigger than a hand-launched UAV or something in that region...but improvements will be here before we know it. IN has gotta stay among the cutting edge of naval technologies, and that includes exploring the possibility of prototype-testing with a navalized Gas-Dynamic & Chemical-Oxygen Iodine Lasers (GDL/COIL) that DRDO/LASTEC are already developing...it won't be anywhere near combat-certified, but will yield results that can be used further down the road for true solid-state systems.

    [​IMG]

    Vehicles/Aviation :-

    • The two-chopper formula should be maintained. Redundancy+increased efficiency when needed - a killer. A 12-ton NMRH will be needed though (not the Sea Hawk) - I believe Airbus H225M is likely (in line with ICG's decision). An array of helicopter-based systems will have to be simultaneously procured. That includes new dunking sonars, light torpedoes, and helicopter-launched cruise missiles...Kongsberg HSM comes to mind.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    • In addition, it should all be flexible enough to allow us to substitute one of the choppers for one or more unmanned VTOL platforms (depends on how many can be safely packed in the hangar). There was a proposal from Israel to jointly develop an unmanned version of Chetak called NRUAV. But the proposal went kaput, no interest was shown. But in a post-2020 scenario, unmanned air systems need to be available to deploy from surface ships - the range of uses are endless. I'm confident that purchase of the MQ-8 FireScout is possible (but it may or may not be armed).

    • Another thing to consider are small Unmanned Surface Vehicles. Extremely useful for reconnaissance and a range of other purposes. Modern warship designs (T26 included) are created to be able to deploy USVs, just like RHIBs.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Yet another thing are Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs). Not any tech-demos, but full-fledged AUVs with integrated sonar arrays, optical sensors etc. that can dive down thousands of meters, able to map the surface, the sea floor and anything in between. AUVs that can be launched through the torpedo tubes are an excellent concept IMO (like L&T's Adamya), but given the size restriction, I'm not sure about their endurance & amount of stuff they can carry.

    [​IMG]

    Anyone is free to add whatever they think will be necessary for a post-2020 IN main surface combatant! "
     
    ni8mare, R!CK, Pundrick and 1 other person like this.
  12. Gessler

    Gessler Mod Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    9,217
    Likes Received:
    7,673
    Country Flag:
    India
    @PARIKRAMA @vstol jockey

    Please share anything you know about the future DDG class (as long as it's not restricted info).
     
  13. Pundrick

    Pundrick 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2016
    Messages:
    387
    Likes Received:
    781
    Country Flag:
    India
    The new design team should keep Zumwalt class in their mind, increase automation, try to reduce manufacturing & delivery timeline to less than 7-8 years and also most importantly keep the price below $ 1.5 billion per piece at current rate. The total crew should be reduced to less than 200, the anti-ship armament should have two variety of missiles one with sub 500 km and another with 700+ km range with 16 each, 48-64 SAM with 120+ km range missiles i.e improved B-8, should have the capacity to handle two ASW helicopters. And the total tonnage should not exceed more than 9000 tonnes.

    Some additional thing I am expecting on this beast is indigenous ASW helicopter and domestic guns replacing the main 127 mm gun.
     
    Aqwoyk, R!CK and Gessler like this.
  14. Gessler

    Gessler Mod Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    9,217
    Likes Received:
    7,673
    Country Flag:
    India
    Zumwalt is unique. It is a Tumblehome wave-piercing hull design, somewhat different from conventional hulls like the Kolkata or Arleigh Burke. While it'll be a different branch of development and possibly have applications toward both
    radar and acoustic stealth, it'll be an almost total deviation from the P-15A/B hulls.

    [​IMG]

    I personally believe that a further refined, larger P-15B-based hull with some improvements will be good enough - especially if we keep timelines in mind. But the superstructure can be considerably different (not just because of signature-reduction concepts but also because of the all new stuff that will be incorporated, like Nirbhay LACMs and an AESA VSR).

    Agreed. But I'm good with anything under $2 billion per ship.

    Indigenous heli? Dhruv ASW is definitely not happening anymore...so I suppose you mean Naval IMRH. It could be on the horizon by the 2030 period when these ships will start showing their faces...but for sake of quickly having a reliable ASW capability as soon as commissioning is done, I'd say sticking to the 12-ton NMRH (Airbus H225M) couldn't hurt.
     
    Abingdonboy, GuardianRED and R!CK like this.
  15. Abingdonboy

    Abingdonboy Major Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2016
    Messages:
    2,364
    Likes Received:
    11,142
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    If there is merti in the design then the IN will surely look at it but there is no point in incorporating its features just because it is American, it is facing quite serious issues itself and won't be operational for a long long time.

    Why is this continually parroted? Just because this is what the West does, does not mean this is what the IN has to follow. The West places a huge ammount of importance on automation so they can keep their manpower costs low becuase the relative wages in the West are vastly more than in India the IN does not face such compulsions and in fact its doctrine is almost the exact opposite.

    The IN tries to have as large a crew (within reason) as possibel so as to have the maximum number of well trained hands onboard to deal with wartime operations.

    Entirely doable.

    BARAK-8ER will have a range in excess of 160-170km

    Naval IMRH won't be ready before 2032-5

    Of course the IN is looking to move well beyond the P-15 hull (which is an almost 4 decades old design), not an incremental deisgn otherwise they would simply be going for a P-15C class.
     
    R!CK, Pundrick and Gessler like this.

Share This Page