What's new

Indian Navy News & Discussions

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.

Since when is the size a factor to consider if the vessels are based on the same family? Even the Johan de Witt and Rotterdam class have size differences, not to mention the Bay or Galica class and all of them are varients of the Enforcer base design, which as shown is not limited to size, or config. They all however are meant for amphibious operations and therefor share the same capabilities wrt to transport of troops, vehicles, aircrafts, cargo, medical or command personal..., the rest is as said just a matter of requirement and design that is needed. There is no issue in modifing an LDP design to a JSS, if that is required and the manufacturer itself clearly offers the Enforcer design in different size, or weight classes and in different configs (LDP, LHD and JSS).
 
.
India selects PSUs to construct Project 75I submarines
Jon Grevatt, Bangkok - IHS Jane's Defence Industry
18 December 2013


Indian Defence Minister A K Antony confirmed in parliament on 17 December that state-owned public sector undertakings (PSUs) have been selected to build four Project 75I (India) diesel-electric submarines for the Indian Navy (IN).

Project 75I features the acquisition of six submarines with two built by a foreign prime contractor. Antony said that the Defence Acquisition Council has decided that three of the remaining submarines will be built by Mazagon Dock Limited (MDL) and one by Hindustan Shipyard.

The decision effectively rules out any major private sector involvement in the construction project and could pave the way for the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to issue the long-awaited Request for Proposals (RfP) in support of the programme, which is valued at about INR500 billion (USD8 billion).

India selects PSUs to construct Project 75I submarines - IHS Jane's 360
 
.
Something else from the world of the Indian Navy.
The artistic talents of the Commissioning Crew of INS Vikramaditya on display at Sevorodinsk.


BRAVO ZULU you Guys, You did us proud!
 
.
Since when is the size a factor to consider if the vessels are based on the same family? Even the Johan de Witt and Rotterdam class have size differences, not to mention the Bay or Galica class and all of them are varients of the Enforcer base design, which as shown is not limited to size, or config. They all however are meant for amphibious operations and therefor share the same capabilities wrt to transport of troops, vehicles, aircrafts, cargo, medical or command personal..., the rest is as said just a matter of requirement and design that is needed. There is no issue in modifing an LDP design to a JSS, if that is required and the manufacturer itself clearly offers the Enforcer design in different size, or weight classes and in different configs (LDP, LHD and JSS).
I'm sorry but you are simply WRONG: JSS Doorman is not a member of the Enforcer family of ships. It is not meant primariy for amphibious operations (even if it can service a landing craft from a steel beach ramp). It does not have the same capabilities as the Enforcer ships, which all have a well deck and ballast tanks to lower their stern and flood the well deck, in which it carries its own landing craft internally. The official Dutch designation is "Joint Logistiek Ondersteuningsschip", which properly translates to joint logistics support ship. The key operant word here is LOGISTICS SUPPORT, not AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT. It is primarily a supply and transport ship. It hardly carries any troops. It is meant for seabasing i.e. to resupply the LPDs, together with an AOR.

Commissioned
Rotterdam 1998
Galicia 1998
Castila 2000
Bay class 2006-2007
Johan de Witt 2007
Karel Doorman 2012

Displacement (FLD)
Rotterdam 12.750 ton
Galicia / Castila 13,815
Bay 16,200
Johan de Witt 15.325 - 16,800ton
Karel Doorman 26.000 - 27.800ton

Length
Galicia / Castila 160 m
Rotterdam 166 m
Bay class 177 m
Johan de Witt 176 m
Karel Doorman 205 m

Beam
Galicia / Castila 25 m
Bay 26 m
Rotterdam 27 m
Johan de Witt 29 m oa
Karel Doorman 30 m

Draught
Rotterdam 5.9 m (can lower its stern by approx 4m to flood welldeck)
Galicia / Castila 5.8 m (can lower its stern by approx 4m to flood welldeck)
Bay 5.8m (can lower its stern by approx 4m to flood welldeck)
Johan de Witt 5.6-5.8 m (can lower its stern by approx 4m to flood welldeck)
Karel Doorman 8 m (no welldeck, no internal anding deck, no ballasttanks, cannot lower stern)

Craft carried internally in welldeck
Rotterdam 4 LCU/LCM or 6 LCVP's
Galicia / Castila 4 LCM-1E or 6 LCVP
Bay 1 LCU or 2 LCVP
Johan de Witt 2 LCU/LCM or 4 LCVP (4 LCVP's on davids)
Karel Doorman 0 landing craft (no welldeck, 2 LVCP's on davids)

Vehicledeck Capacity
Rotterdam 300 lms (32 Leopard 2 and 90 YPR-765 AIFV)
Galicia / Castila ? (33 mbt and 130 apc)
Bay 1,150 linear metres of vehicles (up to 24 Challenger 2 tanks or 150 light trucks)
Johan de Witt 750 lms
Karel Doorman 1300 lms

Total vehicle capacity (incl hangar, deck and dock)
Rotterdam 1216 lms (1216-300=916=hangar, deck and dock)
Galicia / Castila ?
Bay ?
Johan de Witt 1360 lms (1360-750=610=hangar, deck and dock)
Karel Doorman 2000 (2000-1300=700=hangar and deck)

Troops
Galicia / Castilla 543 / 404 troops
Rotterdam 604 troops
Bay class 356 standard, 700 overload (sacrifices troops and well for vehicle and cargo)
Johan de Witt 555 troops or command staff of 402 (sacrifices welldeck for command functions)
Karel Doorman 130 troops

Amfibische transportschepen | Ministerie van Defensie
Joint logistic Support Ship | Ministerie van Defensie
Sea Basing Logistiek
JLOS Karel Doorman (A833) - Wikipedia
Zr. Ms. Rotterdam (1998) - Wikipedia
Zr. Ms. Johan de Witt - Wikipedia
Rotterdam-class amphibious transport dock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Galicia-class landing platform dock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bay-class landing ship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Galicia Class Logistic Support Ships - Naval Technology
Rotterdam Class Landing Platform Dock (LPD) - Naval Technology
Bay Class LSD(A) Alternative Landing Ship Logistic (ALSL) - Naval Technology
http://www.epicos.com/WARoot/News/AmphibiousAssaultPowerProjection.pdf

enforcer-2006-image2.jpg

Compare data to above.
 
Last edited:
. . .
It was posted earlier bro .

We should be give it to the Directorate of Naval Design . They were able to launch a F15 from a carrier ... :D
Must've missed it. Yet that is disappointing to see they did that.

Other than that a great vid!
 
. . .
It is not meant primariy for amphibious operations (even if it can service a landing craft from a steel beach ramp). It does not have the same capabilities as the Enforcer ships, which all have a well deck and ballast tanks to lower their stern and flood the well deck, in which it carries its own landing craft internally.

Again, a vessel for amphibious operations is not defined by having a well deck, but by having the capability to transport troops, cargo, vehicles, have command or medical facilities and so on. Even INS Viraat has these capabilities, just like the latest America class carriers and none of the have a well deck!
A JSS has these capabilities too, no matter if it is designed with a stern ramp, a well deck, or even with none of them, like LSTs. And as I said, there is no problem in designing a JSS with a well deck, but refuelling masts at the deck and you don't even deny that. The logistical support capability is an additional capability that a JSS/LSS has and that makes it more useful in different roles, but it still remains to be an amphibious vessel!!!
 
Last edited:
.
Again, a vessel for amphibious operations is not defined by having a well deck, but by having the capability to transport troops, cargo, vehicles, have command or medical facilities and so on. Even INS Viraat has these capabilities, just like the latest America class carriers and none of the have a well deck!
A JSS has these capabilities too, no matter if it is designed with a stern ramp, a well deck, or even with none of them, like LSTs. And as I said, there is no problem in designing a JSS with a well deck, but refuelling masts at the deck and you don't even deny that. The logistical support capability is an additional capability that a JSS/LSS has and that makes it more useful in different roles, but it still remains to be an amphibious vessel!!!

A vessel for amphibious operations is not defined by having a well deck BUT AN LPD IS. JSS is not an LPD. As for the capability to transport troops, JSS can take few troops compared to Rotterdam and de Witt and has little organic capability to land them (she has 2 LCVP, no dock, and gets 2 non/navalised Army Chinooks on board). The whole point of the JSS for the Dutch navy is as replacement for an AOR, while adding asefull additional transport capability. It can serve as transport (not assault) ship. As is evident from its vlms and cargo capacitiy, relative to the LPDs, all of which are in addition to oil, fuel, ammo and cargo capabilities the LPDs do not have to the same extent.

Viraat started life as an aircraft carrier of the Centaur class and was subsequently converted to a Commando Carrier. Landing craft and berthing for 800 troops were added and her airwing became approximately 20 Sea King helicopters. A further mild conversion was performed to become an anti-submarine warfare carrier. Later she was made fit for accepting Harriers. But while she got troop carrying capability and 4 david mounted LCU, no one attempted to shoe-horn in a well deck. Nor have there been any such conversions in other vessels. Or design modicications along these lines (please do provide an example of a design being modified to accept a well deck).

The America class (LHA-6) sacrifices the dock to support F-35Bs and MV22s (i.e. removing the ballasting equipment). Removal of the well/dock for landing craft provides for an extended hangar deck with two significantly wider high bay areas, each fitted with an overhead crane for aircraft maintenance. Approximately 45% of the design is based on LHD-8. This is the only design example that I am aware of where this (redesign to loose a dock) has been done.

The USN Harpers Ferry class is a class of dock landing ships completed in the early 1990s that is modified from the Whidbey Island class dock landing ships and that sacrifices landing craft capability for more cargo space, making it closer to an amphibious transport dock per se. Just like the De Witt relative to Rotterdam. Still, as with the Dutch ships, the dock is maintained.

Now, I don´t care about discussion about definitions. Fact is, that JSS is NOT a member of the Enforcer family, there is not a shared design base. (that does not rule out that some Enforcer variants carry a RAS rig, but at the same time, as illustrated by Spain´s PdA and JC1, having a RAS rig does not a replenishment ship make) Moreover, JSS is not intended as an amphibious assault asset like the LPDs are. Rather they provide sealift capability. Sealift can be divided into strategic and tactical sealift. Strategic sealift is the transportation of vehicles and equipment to a staging area equipped with port facilities, with personnel arriving by other methods. Tactical sealift occurs when a ship is carrying personnel along with vehicles and equipment, and is able to deploy them directly and operationally, like in an amphibious assault. JSS has only very limited organic ability to deploy what it carries independently. Her role is more strategic than tactical. Seabasing is a naval capability that provides commanders with the ability to conduct selected functions and tasks at sea without reliance on infrastructure ashore. In that context, JSS supports the LPDs in their primary mission and all ships in the LPD´s protective force.

She does not have a dock, just a steal beach (rear ramp) and a dock cannot be easily designed in (look at waterline relatied to vehicle deck, position of rudder machinery, position of main machinery, absense of LPD ballasting system etc). She carries 2 lcvp on davids, rather than at least 2 LCU and at least 4 LCVP as the LPDs do. She hosts Army Chinooks rather than having an organic helicopter complement. But on the whole, it is in the 8000 m3 of F76 fuel she can carry that she is by design is very significantly different from LPDs (which have 1250 to 2150 m3 each at best) and the 1000 m3 of F44 fuel (compared to 240-300 m3 each for the LPDs).·The LPDs (notably de Witt) are equipped to receive command staffs, the JSS is not. But she has better hospital capability

See also Canada´s JSS defunct project
The Joint Support Ship Project consists of 2–3 multi-role vessels that will replace the underway replenishment capability of the Protecteur-class auxiliary vessel, as well as provide basic sealift for the Canadian Army, support to forces ashore, and command facilities for a Canadian Forces "joint force" or "naval task group".

The Joint Support Ship Project should not be confused with the Amphibious Assault Ship Project, which is another separate procurement project also under consideration by the Royal Canadian Navy; planning for the Amphibious Assault Ship Project is at a much earlier stage.
Joint Support Ship Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You did notice the Dutch navy on its website does not group JSS together with the LPDs as amphibious ships? Also, it carries an A-designation, not an L-designation like the Rotterdam/DeWitt/Bay/Castilla, to signifies its primary role.
 
Last edited:
. . .
^
Interesting layout of the yard there. The single synchro-lift looks capable to handle Destroyer sized ships as it is. Plus there is additional space for more lift(s) and a D/Dock. Should be a viable facility for Ship Construction.

The Design for the Corvette/OPV displays Frigate sized capability.
 
.
Indian Navy missile frigate INS Talwar collides with fishing boat off Maharashtra coast. Rescue operation on. Tweeted by Shiv Aroor
 
.

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom