Indian Navy News & Discussions

[sancho]

If we try to use Viraat for amphibious assault in today's scenario then the vessel is going to get written off, being incapable of operating over the horizon means that it will have to get dangerously close to the enemy shores (which means shore based ASMs and naval strike air crafts will have a vicious go at it) to disembark troops unless it is used solely for heliborne ops and that too of a limited nature as dictated by its troop carrying capacity...

Buddy, you are highly overestimating IN's capabilities, or even Indias possible amphibious operational requirements. We basically have only 2 enemies and against none of them we will ever use amphibious assaults. Against Pakistan it would serve no purpose with a long land borderline and even IN naval and air bases in close range. Against China it would be even more silly, to send limited capabilities against a far superior power without credible land based support.We are not the US, or NATO, our enemies are far stronger than anything the US or NATO has fought since WW2 and our main battlefields are along the land borders.

The only 2 reason why we need amphibious capabilities, are humanitarian missions (be it disaster relief, or rescue operations like we did in Libya) and attack operations to regain control of our Islands in case an enemy has taken them over.
For both these operations 3 x carriers and 4 x LDPs would be too much anyway and so far the aim is to rely on LCUs and not on costly, but more capable LCACs. Just like an aim on USMC like assault capabilities... would just waste a lot of money. Viraat btw has the capability to carry a lot of troops, but is not meant to transport heavy vehicles, the troops will be transported by helicopters or the smaller landing crafts. Heavier vehicle and cargo on the other side will be transported by INS Jalashwa as I said.

@sancho Btw INS Jalashwa actually has its uses given that it can accommodate a LCAC and be used for amphibious ops without putting it too close to shoe based threats. But we will need relatively larger amphibious transport docks too along with LPHs.

I meant the use of these vessels, when there is no disaster or amphibious landing. JSS for example can be used as replenishment tankers, or cargo transports, to support carrier battle groups, or SSNs / SSBNs at long range operations. LDPs or helicopter carriers like Viraat basically are limited to certain operations only and would just cost a lot of money in peace time operations. With Indias increasing aim on long range operations for SSBNs / SSNs and at least 2 carrier groups at a time, the support fleet will be most crucial.

 

[Agent_47]

 

[Mujraparty]

UAV crashes into coconut grove - The Hindu

some one id the UAV ,n guys chek out them camo's .

 

[Capt.Popeye]

A possibly good option until the procurement of LPDs. But going by how things get done in Def Procurement, is it a better tactic for the IN to decommission the Viraat and then pressurize the Govt to induct LPDs on an urgent basis?

@Indischer;
You and @Dillinger (to some extent) are thinking of Viraat and LPDs interchangably. That is not possible since both the designs and roles conceived for them are quite different. The only similarity in what I am proposing for a future role for the Viraat and the LPDs like Jalashwa (and 4 more proposed) is to carry Amphib troops by sea. Albeit even in that role; there is a difference in capacity: about 500 troops incase of the Viraat v/s about 900 in case of the LPDs.
Consider; the Viraat carries a force of SFs and an air-wing (largely rotorcraft). These forces can be landed by air ahead of the beach-head to help secure the beach-head for the troops coming in by sea (viz. LCMs,LCVPs LCACs etc.). Close Air cover can be provided by AHs like LCA/Apaches. Top Cover by SHARs. All of these can be carried/launched from the Viraat, not the LPDs. This will make the Beaching much more easier and secured. Remember the greatest vulnerability is of troops hitting the Beach. That is where Close Air Cover becomes critical. About the serviceable SHARs, the figure you quote is incorrect. At any given time, upto 6 of them are embarked on Viraat. That figure is adeaquate for the role envisaged for Viraat.

 

[Indischer]

@Indischer;
You and @Dillinger (to some extent) are thinking of Viraat and LPDs interchangably. That is not possible since both the designs and roles conceived for them are quite different. The only similarity in what I am proposing for a future role for the Viraat and the LPDs like Jalashwa (and 4 more proposed) is to carry Amphib troops by sea. Albeit even in that role; there is a difference in capacity: about 500 troops incase of the Viraat v/s about 900 in case of the LPDs.
Consider; the Viraat carries a force of SFs and an air-wing (largely rotorcraft). These forces can be landed by air ahead of the beach-head to help secure the beach-head for the troops coming in by sea (viz. LCMs,LCVPs LCACs etc.). Close Air cover can be provided by AHs like LCA/Apaches. Top Cover by SHARs. All of these can be carried/launched from the Viraat, not the LPDs. This will make the Beaching much more easier and secured. Remember the greatest vulnerability is of troops hitting the Beach. That is where Close Air Cover becomes critical. About the serviceable SHARs, the figure you quote is incorrect. At any given time, upto 6 of them are embarked on Viraat. That figure is adeaquate for the role envisaged for Viraat.

If complemented by Sea harriers, 3-4 good gunships that firstly secure the air for troop-helis(3-4), the Viraat may indeed become successful in this role!

But won't the future LPDs (likely the Mistral class) be far more potent than Viraat troop carrier if they're also equipped with half a dozen AHs and around 3 chinooks?

 

[Capt.Popeye]

If complemented by Sea harriers, 3-4 good gunships that firstly secure the air for troop-helis(3-4), the Viraat may indeed become successful in this role!

But won't the future LPDs (likely the Mistral class) be far more potent than Viraat troop carrier if they're also equipped with half a dozen AHs and around 3 chinooks?

Of course the Mistrals (or equivalent) will be better. The Viraat is from a different age and era. What I proposed is a just a stop-gap for her utilisation in the last phase of her operational life and is well within the realm of possibility along with the peace-time role of Training Ship.

Addendum: this role for Viraat will allow the utilisation of funds more judiciously for creating/acquring assets for the IN which are higher up in the pecking order of importance and precedence.

 

[Gessler]

UAV crashes into coconut grove - The Hindu

some one id the UAV ,n guys chek out them camo's .

CRPF CoBRAs ???

 

[Abingdonboy]

Awesome:

 

[Penguin]

I meant the use of these vessels, when there is no disaster or amphibious landing. JSS for example can be used as replenishment tankers, or cargo transports, to support carrier battle groups, or SSNs / SSBNs at long range operations. LDPs or helicopter carriers like Viraat basically are limited to certain operations only and would just cost a lot of money in peace time operations. With Indias increasing aim on long range operations for SSBNs / SSNs and at least 2 carrier groups at a time, the support fleet will be most crucial.

Spain's BPE (Juan Carlos 1) can also act as refueller to here escorts. She's an LHD that can also function as a sea control ship, when given proper aviation. Add amphib assault and disaster relief. Pretty flexible imho. LPDs are also very versatile, particularly if/when they can support an organic helicopter complement (e.g. Enforcer design a.k.a. Rottderdam/Galicia class > hangar for 4 EH101 or 6 NH90) or can be simply given a decktent in which to park heli's (e.g. Enforcer design a.k.a. Bay class).

Follow Vikramaditya on her current voyage from Russia to India
Live Ships Map - AIS - Vessel Traffic and Positions - AIS Marine Traffic (search: warship R33)

 

[sancho]

Spain's BPE (Juan Carlos 1) can also act as refueller to here escorts. She's an LHD that can also function as a sea control ship, when given proper aviation. Add amphib assault and disaster relief. Pretty flexible imho. LPDs are also very versatile, particularly if/when they can support an organic helicopter complement (e.g. Enforcer design a.k.a. Rottderdam/Galicia class > hangar for 4 EH101 or 6 NH90) or can be simply given a decktent in which to park heli's (e.g. Enforcer design a.k.a. Bay class).

The dutch navy is currently getting the Karel Doorman joint support ship, which is based on the Enforcer design. It includes similar LDP capabilities like the Rotterdam or Galica class, but also has refuelling masts to act as a replenishment tanker, unlike it's sisters:

Karel Doorman-class support ship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


With INs limited requirements for amphious operations, my point is, it would be more useful to have a fleet of 9 x joint support ships, instead of 4 x LDPs and 5 x new tankers (which is the current requirement). The LDPs will hardly being used, since IN is not like the US or other NATO navies and involved in major amphibious operations all over the world. The main aim is to protect our own Islands and to support humanitarian missions in the Indian Ocean area, as the main navy (next to the USN) in the region. In the mean time however, the more important role will be the long range support of SSNs, SSBNs and at least 2 x carrier battle groups at the same time, not to mention that IN is highly committed in exercises all over the world, which again would make it handy to have a large and capable support fleet.
The flexibility this kind of a support fleet offers, is at least imo far greater than operating 4 x amphibious vessels for higher costs, waiting at their bases for anything to happen, where these vessels actually could be used.

Awesome:

Nice, but kind of strange to brag about self reliance and show Russian Frigats, fighters, carriers or SSNs.

 

[Penguin]

The dutch navy is currently getting the Karel Doorman joint support ship, which is based on the Enforcer design. It includes similar LDP capabilities like the Rotterdam or Galica class, but also has refuelling masts to act as a replenishment tanker, unlike it's sisters:

Karel Doorman-class support ship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


With INs limited requirements for amphious operations, my point is, it would be more useful to have a fleet of 9 x joint support ships, instead of 4 x LDPs and 5 x new tankers (which is the current requirement). The LDPs will hardly being used, since IN is not like the US or other NATO navies and involved in major amphibious operations all over the world. The main aim is to protect our own Islands and to support humanitarian missions in the Indian Ocean area, as the main navy (next to the USN) in the region. In the mean time however, the more important role will be the long range support of SSNs, SSBNs and at least 2 x carrier battle groups at the same time, not to mention that IN is highly committed in exercises all over the world, which again would make it handy to have a large and capable support fleet.
The flexibility this kind of a support fleet offers, is at least imo far greater than operating 4 x amphibious vessels for higher costs, waiting at their bases for anything to happen, where these vessels actually could be used.



Nice, but kind of strange to brag about self reliance and show Russian Frigats, fighters, carriers or SSNs.

JSS Doorman does not have a welldeck / dock and cannot (dis)embark landing craft. Which makes it ... not an LPD. Instead, it is designed to serve as replenisher and roro-cargo ship. So, it has ramp, not a dock, and is limited in its capability to independently land forces as well as more dependent on port facilities. In terms of design, there is NO relation to the Rotterdam and its larger sister Johan de Witt, both of which stem from Damen's Enforcer line of LPDs and both of which have a welldeck and can lower their stern to flood the dock and (dis)embark landing craft).

As for the last remark, yes the video showns soviet design (local build) Kashin destroyers and russian built (Indian design modification requirement , based on P17, adopted on Krivak III) Talwar. But it also shows domestically design/built Delhi class, Kukhri class and P17 ships. As for carriers, but for Vikramaditya, those are ex-UK ships. You got a minor point re. the leased russian Akula SSN

JSS

de Witt

The two side by side

HrNLMs Rotterdam

 

[RPK]

Indian Navy's UAV crashes due to technical snag - Economic Times

RAMANATHAPURAM (TN): An unmanned aerial vehicle of the Indian Navy, used for monitoring the sea off Ramanathapuram coast, crashed into a coconut grove near here today.

Naval Commander Abhijit Bhargattagi said the UAV, named Search 922, crashed while returning after several sorties due to some technical snag.

All parts of the UAV had been collected, he said, and described it as a big loss for the navy.

 

[sancho]

JSS Doorman does not have a welldeck / dock and cannot (dis)embark landing craft. Which makes it ... not an LPD...

That's just a matter of design and requirement! The dutch navy already has 2 x LDPs based on the Enforcer design, so they didn't need another well deck design anymore, but retained with tha amphibious capability to transport and land troops, vehicles or cargo and just modified the Enforcer design.
IF IN requires a well deck, you can base the JSS on the LDP design and modiy the deck layout with refuelling masts...

Enforcer LDP

Enforcer LHD

Enforcer JSS

So that is not an issue, the point however was, that IN has very limited operational requirements for amphibious operations, unlike NATO countries and that makes a larger fleet of JSS more cost-effective and useful than 4 x dedicated LDPs + 5 x dedicated tankers, with limited roles and capabilities, in seperated procurements, possibly even from different manufacturers.
Btw, lowering the dock is also dependent on the requirements of the customer, not necessarily a requirement for the amphibious warfare. If the vessels is meant to operate hovercrafts like the LCAC, it can use them over the stern ramp, without flooding the well deck. Landing crafts that can be lifted from the deck or the side of the vessel (see Johan de Witt for example), still could be used in roro from the ramp.

 

[Penguin]

That's just a matter of design and requirement! The dutch navy already has 2 x LDPs based on the Enforcer design, so they didn't need another well deck design anymore, but retained with tha amphibious capability to transport and land troops, vehicles or cargo and just modified the Enforcer design.
IF IN requires a well deck, you can base the JSS on the LDP design and modiy the deck layout with refuelling masts...

Enforcer LDP

Enforcer LHD

Enforcer JSS

So that is not an issue, the point however was, that IN has very limited operational requirements for amphibious operations, unlike NATO countries and that makes a larger fleet of JSS more cost-effective and useful than 4 x dedicated LDPs + 5 x dedicated tankers, with limited roles and capabilities, in seperated procurements, possibly even from different manufacturers.
Btw, lowering the dock is also dependent on the requirements of the customer, not necessarily a requirement for the amphibious warfare. If the vessels is meant to operate hovercrafts like the LCAC, it can use them over the stern ramp, without flooding the well deck. Landing crafts that can be lifted from the deck or the side of the vessel (see Johan de Witt for example), still could be used in roro from the ramp.

At 27.800 ton, the Doorman JSS is not the Enforcer 18000 (which is not NOT called JSS for nothing). Really,... she's substantially bigger (about 10.000 tons bigger) than the largest Enforcer LPD built so far. Point is, she's not an LPD substitute. Being especially designed for maritime support, strategic sealift and sea basing missions, she's more a substitute for replenishment ships and cargo ships, like the Point class sealift ships of the UK. Besides Replenishment at Sea of other ships, the main missions of the JSS will be strategic transport and sea basing: not amphibious assault. Landing craft cannot enter her, and that includes all but perhaps the very smallest of hovercraft (which, if diminuitive, are meaningless for amphibious operations anyway). Check the design of the 'rear ramp', which is for vehicles to offload onto landing craft mored behind the ship. Below the "stern ramp" are the steering engineroom and fuel tanks: not an easy redesign if you want to put an well-deck there (adding ballast tanks, full width water tight door etc). On the Enforcer, the machinery is much further forward, for the very reason a well-deck has to be accommodated. The width of the stern ramp door is less than the width of the LCUs employed.

The Dutch JSS Multi-Purpose Support Ship: No Longer For Sale

HMNLS Karel Doorman Joint Support Ship (JSS)

Your 'Enforcer JSS' is in fact an LPD. Remember, Spain's Juan Carlos 1 LHD also has RAS-station (as had the Principe de Asturias Sea control ship aka stovl-carrier) but that by itself does not make her a JSS.

Of interest.
Ship to Shore Logistics - 09 (Current Capabilities) | Think Defence
UK Armed Forces Commentary: Thinking about MARS Solid Support Ship

 

[Penguin]

Doorman

Rotterdam/Galicia

Bay class