Amphibious Assault Ship, LPH designs for Indian Navy

[Abingdonboy]

That's why it's not about LPH, but about LHD or LDP and all official documents calls for LDPs, which doesn't hint on a priority on helicopter carriage.

I agree, right now the Indian Military doesn't have the culture of large scale amphibious assaults let alone large-scale airborne amphibious assaults. Whoever speculates about the IN wanting LPHs is plain wrong.

I mean unlike the US we don't have a proper marine expeditionary force.

India is working on it.

 

[Jai_Hind]

What are the possible uses of Amphibious Assault Ship for our navy..?? I mean both china and pakistan are neighbours so we arent using it to land on them... are we..??

 

[Abingdonboy]

What are the possible uses of Amphibious Assault Ship for our navy..?? I mean both china and pakistan are neighbours so we arent using it to land on them... are we..??

Humanitarian assistance, shoring up security of India's (vast) island territories, force projection etc

 

[sancho]

Do we really need an LHD then?
I mean unlike the US we don't have a proper marine expeditionary force.

Only if we actually would use them for ASW or anti piracy roles, by using these vessels to patroling a larger area with more helicopters, which then would be more effective than using many Frigats or a fully fledged Aircraft Carrier. But even here, modern LDP offer good layouts to carry a reasonable number of helicopters too. Since they already have the INS Jalashwa LDP, I think they will continue the LDP route, even if their requirements basically could include LHDs in the evaluation.

 

[Agent_47]

Both! Janes confused LDP and FSS tenders and PSG is speculating as usual, since no LPH tender exist in the navy.

An LHD has a well deck to support amhibious vessel and transport larger payloads and vehicles, an LPH doesn't necessarily need that, since the transporting troops and aircrafts is the priority. INS Viraat is basically an LPH too, just as Japans helicopter carrier, although they call it helicopter destroyer.

This settles somethings - IBNLive :Saurav Jha's Blog :The Indian Navy's quest for amphibious assault ships
RFI don't indicate more large aircraft handling space like mistral, more like Spanish or San antino class

 

[sancho]

What are the possible uses of Amphibious Assault Ship for our navy..?? I mean both china and pakistan are neighbours so we arent using it to land on them... are we..??

Nope, using them against China or Pakistan is just suicide, since their forces are far too strong to make a beach landing practical. Besides that we don't need that capability against both, since we have land borders with them anyway and they will be the main area of conflict.
Our amphibious capability is aimed on reacting to the case that our Islands at A&N could be taken over by an enemy force or even pirate groups that operate in the area. So the chances of actual war / conflict use are very limited. The most important role might be disaster relief or humanitarian missions.

 

[Gessler]

Can anyone tell me WHAT THE FCUK are we really looking to buy here?

Is there a list of offered vessels for the LDPs? I was thinking...we're getting thee two types of things...

1) 4 or 5 x Large Fleet Support Ships (FSS) with around 40,000 tons displacement (i.e. BRAVE-class)
2) 4 x Amphibious Warfare vessels of around 25,000 tons displacement. It is here that I'm going nuts. What exactly
are the competitors?

@sancho - So you're saying the tender includes both LPDs and LHDs? But all the ships we heard of so far as being
part of the tender -> Juan Carlos-I, Mistral, Fincantieri design, etc. are all LHDs, I haven't heard of any LPD (such
as San Antonio-class) being part. Furthermore it's clear whoever enters to compete, will have to tie up with a private
Indian shipyard to build those vessels here. I haven't heard of any Indian shipyard tying up with someone to build
an LPD - only with the same ones as before, who're offering LHDs.

I'm pretty sure I read in an old FORCE magazine that one of the requirements is to be able to carry atleast 8 helicopters
on-deck (not on the launch pads, on all of the deck). I'm not sure if I'm correct or about who wrote that article
(I bet it's Prasun).

Nope, using them against China or Pakistan is just suicide, since their forces are far too strong to make a beach landing practical.

Landing on mainland China is definitely out of the question, we've no business there anyway. But it's possible to
land on A&N, other islands, Bangladesh, Pakistan, or Myanmar. If A&N islands are, say, occupied by a Chinese
contingent, we can sure land there to retake control.

About Pakistan - sure no one would send an LPD/LHD out onto a hotly contested beachhead. If at all we have to land
on Pakistan, we'll saturate the area first with air & land/destroyer/submarine-fired missile attacks, eliminating any potential threat to the mothership before deploying it. But it's possible nonetheless.

 

[sancho]

@sancho - So you're saying the tender includes both LPDs and LHDs?

No the RFI was clearly for LPD's, if that wasn't changed in the RFP they still won't give an importance to maximise the helicopter operations. The issue is, that you can have LHDs in the same size of the LPDs that IN is asking for, that's why DCNS is offering the Mistral class that they already have under production now, but would offer an LPD modifcation if IN really would insist on the LPD layout. The S. Korean Dodko class similarly could be an option, by it's size, while the Juan Carlos class is actually too big and Navantia might prefer to offer the Galica class LPD instead.

Landing on mainland China is definitely out of the question, we've no business there anyway. But it's possible to land on A&N, other islands, Bangladesh, Pakistan, or Myanmar.

A&N yes, because there are no direct landborders, while we have them with all the mentioned neighbors. It simply wouldn't add any advantage to make a complicated and risky beach landing, that must be supported by the Air Force anyway, when you have various land options.

 

[GR!FF!N]

A&N yes, because there are no direct landborders, while we have them with all the mentioned neighbors. It simply wouldn't add any advantage to make a complicated and risky beach landing, that must be supported by the Air Force anyway, when you have various land options.

I agree with you.Beach landing is second most complex and risky job,next to air assault.these LPDs are going to use for A&N as well as to help several neighbours in IOR(in case of emergency).its going to multiply our capability.plus,even though India issued RFP for an LPD,looks like they want something on the line of LPD of Mistral.but in contrast of Mistral 140,the specification shows IN wants an LPD larger than Mistral 210.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

L&T, Navantia

vs

Mazagon, Fincantieri

 

[Ankit Kumar 002]

L&T, Navantia

vs

Mazagon, Fincantieri

And where is DCNS?

 

[Hellfire]

Do we really need an LHD then?
I mean unlike the US we don't have a proper marine expeditionary force.

We have one amphibious brigade and actually an amphibious capable division size force existing right now. 04 x LPDs already under construction right now by L&T and the LHDs/LPHs may be a follow on for that cold stored plan to raise dedicated marine forces on lines of US MEUs/MEFs

In 2009 there was a plan to convert existing forces into Marine forces which somehow was shelved.

 

[CHINA83NEWS]

Italy designed to prevent France?