French mistral for Indian Navy.....

[DMLA]

With the Gorshkov and the Vikrant we already will have 2 similar class carriers

I would beg to disagree. Vikramaditya is a very poor design for an aircraft carrier. We can get into the design issues but I feel it is not the point. The fact is the with the IAC, we get a good carrier with a great price tag (half that of Gorky). I would expect that it fits IN perfectly if it has the desire to go for 5 deployed AC's quickly.

The only advantage LHD's have over LPD's are the ability to operate aircrafts. I feel that they are an overkill unless IN is looking at beach landing's/ invasions!

next carrier should be bigger

Agreed! I personally feel bigger carriers are the way to go. What I am proposing is a combination of LPD's with smaller dedicated carriers (like vikrant) which would provide greater flexibility (example dedicated AC role if need be). We should also remember that larger carriers entail greater construction, manning, operational costs and thus put a limit on the number that IN can operate. I don't see IN going for more than 2 (3 in the longer term).

16Migs, 6 N-LCAs, 3 Ka31 AEW and 5 smaller naval helicopters

We can always reduce the fighters and add more transport helis/ osprey's if need be! However, I don't see any way for a LHD being used as a dedicated carrier and I feel platform use should be maximized for a small force like ours!

america's are going to be very expensive. I am not sure if we have enough facilities in india to produce such big ships (time/state yards)!

 

[sancho]

I would beg to disagree. Vikramaditya is a very poor design for an aircraft carrier. We can get into the design issues but I feel it is not the point. The fact is the with the IAC, we get a good carrier with a great price tag (half that of Gorky). I would expect that it fits IN perfectly if it has the desire to go for 5 deployed AC's quickly.

Don't understand why? It has the same STOBAR design like Vikrant class, but I agree that IN should have gone with 2 Vikrant carriers from the start, instead of buying redesigning Gorshkov.

The only advantage LHD's have over LPD's are the ability to operate aircrafts. I feel that they are an overkill unless IN is looking at beach landing's/ invasions!

But that exaclty makes them more useful, because be it against pirats, or for the ASW roles you need helicopters. LPD's are limited in roles for landings and invasions only, so most of the time they will be at the naval base without a use. That's why the USN don't want a well deck in America class carriers anymore, because it's not cost-effective to carry those LCACs around all the time.

Agreed! I personally feel bigger carriers are the way to go. What I am proposing is a combination of LPD's with smaller dedicated carriers (like vikrant) which would provide greater flexibility (example dedicated AC role if need be). We should also remember that larger carriers entail greater construction, manning, operational costs and thus put a limit on the number that IN can operate.

I don't see IN going for more than 2 (3 in the longer term).
I also only see a need of 5-6 carriers for IN, 2 medium for sea control and ASW (Gorshkov and Vikrant), 1-2 helicopter carriers with and 2-3 bigger aircraft carriers with the best fighters.

We can always reduce the fighters and add more transport helis/ osprey's if need be! However, I don't see any way for a LHD being used as a dedicated carrier and I feel platform use should be maximized for a small force like ours!

america's are going to be very expensive. I am not sure if we have enough facilities in india to produce such big ships (time/state yards)!

That's why I said not only the deck layout! The STOBAR layout will limit the number of heavy transport helicopters, even if we reduce fighters, but more important is the interior design. Where should the Vikrant carry so many troops and their equipment?
America class is also similar in size as our Vikrant, that's why I said we should go for an helicopter class based on the Vikrant. The difference will be STOVL deck layout and an other interior design to operate additional troops.

 

[DMLA]

Don't understand why

Vik was never designed as a AC! We all know what it originally was. It has non-optimal flight deck design with one central deck lift. This leads to a direct impact on possible sortie rates. Moreover, the bridge is also not located optimally making it almost impossible to have more than 2 aircrafts operating simultaneously!

you need helicopters

Agreed! I feel an aircraft carrier can easily juggle with the number of fighters/ choppers it carries. A carrier can also carry out the roles you have stated ( piracy / ASW roles ) and the vikrant will be cheap enough. I just pointed out the additional flexibility that the pure carrier would provide.

LPD's are limited in roles for landings and invasions only

The combination of LPD's (higher in number) with carriers provide much of the same benefits. Why do we need a force of 2000 marines (wasp et al.)? If we do, then why not have them go in 2 large LPDs and have vikrant type escorts with 8-10 fighters (instead of 16-20) and additional 5-6 transport helis/ attack choppers? Anyhow, this discussion can go on forever and I feel I have made my point as best I could. IN has a large force of LST's (in place of LCAC's)!

The STOBAR layout will limit the number of heavy transport helicopters

How? All they need is a good hanger design which vikrant has (unlike vikramaditya). My point has been that vikrant "does not" need to carry troops.

Anyhow, I guess I will rest my case at this point! Whatever IN decides, I am sure they will be taking into account it's requirements and not our fancy desires!

 

[sancho]

Vik was never designed as a AC! We all know what it originally was. It has non-optimal flight deck design with one central deck lift. This leads to a direct impact on possible sortie rates. Moreover, the bridge is also not located optimally making it almost impossible to have more than 2 aircrafts operating simultaneously!

Ah ok, now I get your point and I agree that of course might be a disadvantage.

The combination of LPD's (higher in number) with carriers provide much of the same benefits. Why do we need a force of 2000 marines (wasp et al.)? If we do, then why not have them go in 2 large LPDs and have vikrant type escorts with 8-10 fighters (instead of 16-20) and additional 5-6 transport helis/ attack choppers?

How? All they need is a good hanger design which vikrant has (unlike vikramaditya).

See, that is exactly the way I pointed out which the USN wants to go in future! One medium carrier with a mix of a few fighters, but mainly transport helicopters to deploy the troops and cargo that it carriers and additional LPDs that carries and land the heavy cargo, vehicles, or supplis.
We could use the normal Vikrant class similar, but although it will be in the same size as the America/Wasp class, it will be clearly less capable for this role. The difference is as I said before the design of both carriers! Vikrant is meant to carrier and support as much fighters as possible, that's why the deck layout is mainly to park fighter sized aircrafts. The interior design focus on large hangar and stores, for additional fighters, their spars, weapons and fuel of course.
An LHD, or LHA like the America class instead is designed to carry and support as much troops and transport aircrafts as possible. That's why they use mainly the STOVL deck layout which offers more space to park aircrafts on deck as you can see in the following graphic:

The interior design offers also a hangar deck, but mainly for helicopters, which needs less space for weapons, or fuel. Instead these carriers are designed to accommodate more additional troops!
The Vikrant class might able to accommodate around 800 troops, which is nearly 1000 less than a similar sized LHD, or LHA can.

So in this role, the Vikrant class design will limit the number of helicopters, troops and equipment to support these!
That's why I said, if IN wants an indigenous carrier for this role, it would be better to redesign the Vikrant class a bit to be more useful.
I also don't think that IN will need this much of landing capability, so a smaller helicopter carrier like the Mistral class might be enough, but we need a helicopter carrier in addition to our normal carriers.

Btw, I don't think IN should go for LPDs anyway and if you compare the specs of the San Antonio class and the Mistral class you will see why!

Displacement: 25.300t San Antonio vs. 21.300t Mistral
Crew: 497 vs. 1060 (including aircrew for aircrafts)
Troops: up to 800 vs. up to 900
Landing craft: 2x LCAC vs. 2x LCAC
Helicopters: 4x medium helicopters vs. up to 16 medium helicopters
Cost: $800+ millions each vs. between $400 and 500 million each


San Antonio Class Amphibious Transport Dock | Military-Today.com

Mistral Class Amphibious Assault Ship | Military-Today.com

As you can see, both are in the same size and can carry the same number of troops and landing crafts, but with the way higher number of aircrafts, the LHD can do this role better and faster than the LPD could do it. This advantage also allows the LHDs to serve in other roles like ASW, or costal patrol too, unlike the LPDs that mainly will be anchored in the base till a war, or a disaster breaks out.

Two Mistral class, covered by Gorshkov, or Vikrant for air support, would be a great increase of IN landing capabilites and means also 2 more carriers for ASW.

 

[jha]

^^^ great post..truly what i wanted to post...however i think SAN antonio class costs in upwards of 1 BIL.

 

[sudhir007]

^^^ great post..truly what i wanted to post...however i think SAN antonio class costs in upwards of 1 BIL.

same as our IAC-1 come at that price.

 

[DMLA]

@ sancho

My argument was that we do not need to support such huge number of troops (we are not invading any country) and thus smaller LPD's should do (with AC's and also provide the benefits of additional AC's). You should understand that these ships are to be produced in india and thus will be cheaper to design & produce.

IN has also said that they are looking at "4" ships similar in design to the jalashwa. We will have to wait and see what comes out in future!

 

[sancho]

@ sancho

My argument was that we do not need to support such huge number of troops (we are not invading any country) and thus smaller LPD's should do (with AC's and also provide the benefits of additional AC's). You should understand that these ships are to be produced in india and thus will be cheaper to design & produce.

IN has also said that they are looking at "4" ships similar in design to the jalashwa. We will have to wait and see what comes out in future!

But as I showed you, San Antonio class that you prefered carries nearly the same number of troops as the Mistral class, but is less capable. Why waste so much mony (even if we build them indigenously), if these vessels can only serve one role and will only anchor at the base most of the time, if we can get, or also indigenously build an LHD that is multi role capable?

 

[DMLA]

But as I showed you, San Antonio class that you prefered carries nearly the same number of troops as the Mistral class, but is less capable. Why waste so much mony (even if we build them indigenously), if these vessels can only serve one role and will only anchor at the base most of the time, if we can get, or also indigenously build an LHD that is multi role capable?

I do not prefer the san antonio class per say. I prefer a LPD as it is comparatively cheap to make and can be taken up by smaller yards. IN is not planning for super duper ships with world class amenities. It wants a workhorse which is simple and rugged (and thus cheap). The only yard currently capable of making mistral class ships is CSL and they will be busy for the next 30 years making the IAC's! A carrier which if adequately protected (reports of barack NG and brahmos cells on vikrant apart from ASW, AEW assets) can hold its own and easily support LPD's for any landings required during war. I will be surprised if the proposed LPD's of IN turn out to be longer than 160-170m.

Do you foresee the need to land large number of troops anywhere? I would like to know if you do. LHD's will take up valuable assets for protection (AAW/ASW) and end up being "tied to the dock" as you say since there are going to be "no landings"! Also, we should remember that a bigger ship will entail higher operational costs (money which IN does not have in plenty).

I would prefer 5 AC's with 4 LPD's any day over 3 AC's and 4 LHD's. I cannot fathom any use for carrying large number of vehicles unless we decide on invading another nation!

 

[ramu]

india is buying weapons from everywhere. that is indeed good.

gap is widening by the facts that Chinese have to develop its own industry and technology to get weapons like this, while india can just deny the investment to its people's education/healthcare and buy weapons.

I like the trend.

Dude .. I have read many of your posts and this is your best come back line. Looks like this is the best you have got. Try harder !

We keep buying weapons and have no investment in heatlthcare /education but our country grows at 7+ % without currency manipulation. Take a chill pill and drink the best milk available. That should make you feel better.

 

[manish123]

Instead of lusting after new technology , which may or may not arrive in the next 5-10 years why do we not see the state of affairs of INS shivalik which is way behind schedule and the pathetic submarine force that we have.

 

[sancho]

The only yard currently capable of making mistral class ships is CSL and they will be busy for the next 30 years making the IAC's!

Not true, Japan is making similar helicopter carriers, as well as South Korea, Italy or Spain. Australia are building 2 LHDs on bases of the Spanish Juan carlos class, so besides the French, there are numerous of other options, to buy or at least licence produce them at home.

I would prefer 5 AC's with 4 LPD's any day over 3 AC's and 4 LHD's. I cannot fathom any use for carrying large number of vehicles unless we decide on invading another nation!

Mate didn't you say IN don't need big landing capability? So why do you still want 4 LPDs which at least carry 500 - 600 troops and what is similar to the 2 LHDs that I would prefer with around 900 troops?
Also you are ready to pay $5 billions for 5 Vikrant class and around $2 for the LPDs (at least $500 million each) which will not have any use unless we go for war, or a disaster happens.
The other option you pointed out with 3 carriers and 4 LHDs (a max of $500 million each) would only cost $5 billions and we would have 7 carriers for ASW, instead of only 5.
You exactly pointed out what I tried to make you understand, LHDs are multi role capable, so more cost-effective than LPDs than are limited in use.
Btw 5 Vikrant class carriers with all the fighters would be a total overkill, because even 3 would be enough to cover the costal area around India and provide sea control and to provide power to longer distances these are not capable enough.

However, keep your opinion if you want, but you can't deny that LHDs are more useful and the better addition to aircraft carriers than LPDs, otherwhise all major navy would go for more of them an not for LHDs, but that is not the case!

 

[DMLA]

Not true, Japan is making similar helicopter carriers, as well as South Korea, Italy or Spain. Australia are building 2 LHDs on bases of the Spanish Juan carlos class, so besides the French, there are numerous of other options, to buy or at least licence produce them at home.


Mate didn't you say IN don't need big landing capability? So why do you still want 4 LPDs which at least carry 500 - 600 troops and what is similar to the 2 LHDs that I would prefer with around 900 troops?
Also you are ready to pay $5 billions for 5 Vikrant class and around $2 for the LPDs (at least $500 million each) which will not have any use unless we go for war, or a disaster happens.
The other option you pointed out with 3 carriers and 4 LHDs (a max of $500 million each) would only cost $5 billions and we would have 7 carriers for ASW, instead of only 5.
You exactly pointed out what I tried to make you understand, LHDs are multi role capable, so more cost-effective than LPDs than are limited in use.
Btw 5 Vikrant class carriers with all the fighters would be a total overkill, because even 3 would be enough to cover the costal area around India and provide sea control and to provide power to longer distances these are not capable enough.

However, keep your opinion if you want, but you can't deny that LHDs are more useful and the better addition to aircraft carriers than LPDs, otherwhise all major navy would go for more of them an not for LHDs, but that is not the case!

What I meant by CSL was that it is the only yard (in india) with the ability to build such huge ships!

I personally do not want to see LPD's if I could help it (which I can't). It is the IN which thinks they will be useful in disaster relief (and nothing more)! I am not advocating "5" vikrant class carriers!! I am saying a total of 5 carriers would be the way to go! And it should include more than one vikrant to provide the support I have talked about. LPD's are cheap and can be built in india with ease. LHD's are massive and in all practicality, they cannot be used for ASW ops as they are slow ships with minimal defences. ASW helicopters on their own cannot act as a full-proof submarine deterrent force. They require the backing of surface assets having TAS/ HMS/ Heavy torpedos etc!

LHD's are more potent platforms when compared to LPD's. I have never said otherwise. I have tried to question the efficacy of these in IN!

 

[Abi]

india is buying weapons from everywhere. that is indeed good.

gap is widening by the facts that Chinese have to develop its own industry and technology to get weapons like this, while india can just deny the investment to its people's education/healthcare and buy weapons.

I like the trend.

You're spot on. Like i said in the other thread, i am sure the Chinese armed forces are happy hearing about these purchases.

 

[Mrityunjay Rai]

You're spot on. Like i said in the other thread, i am sure the Chinese armed forces are happy hearing about these purchases.

Sir Thanks for your prediction. We have to buy all these because; we are not able to produce 1400 tn super advance destroyers like your country.

Hope your country and our friend China will assist us regarding this.