Indian Navy News & Discussions

[sancho]

You might turn an LPD to a JSS role but decidedly not the other way around.

That's what you say, because you limit your view on the base that a JSS MUST have ro-ro capability only and no well dock, but that's simply wrong, because it's just a matter of the design of the vessel. And repeating the same, doesn't make it true somehow! You always point to the karel doorman, but there is no technical restiction to add a rear section with well dock to the same design. The Enforcer concept itself has a modular design that has different rear sections with well docks, or simpler ro-ro solutions, that can be applied to several different kinds of vessel designs (LDP, LHD, JSS), just depending on the customer request.

Germany's TKMS had even a JSS concept, based on an LHD design:

The idea is similar to Multi Role Transport Tankers of Air Forces, that have 1 main design, but can be modified internally to suit different roles too (cargo or troop transport, MEDIVAC, or even a mix), either switching to a different role or doing both roles even at the same time. A JSS concept can be made in the same way, if you use one design for the vessel, that can be modified according to the need of the customer. The above concept can be used in peace times as a fleet replenishment tanker in peace times, as an LPD during a disaster, or as an helicopter carrier in ASW roles during war times for example.
JSS only means, that the vessel is aimed to be able to do more roles, but is not limited to a single design as you might think, but it's obvious that the increased capability comes with the downside of increased operational costs. Such a JSS should be costlier to operate in "normal" tanker roles, than a proper Tanker, but that's up to the customer and not to up to the design, that's why a JSS design, where the customer requires a well dock, can always be converted to fully fledged amphibious opertations.

I dnt know much about the difference LPD and LHD.
But what do you both think what is better/Suit IN most. from my point of view IN operate INS Jalaswa LPD that is why they go for LPD.

That's what the RFI suggest as well, but as I said earlier, the requirements IN sent out doesn't specify and could fit to LHDs as well. The same nonsense that they made in the MRMR tender, where the vendors didn't knew if IN want jet engined or turbo prop MPAs, if they want large aircrafts like the P8I or business jet platforms like the EMB 145...or what happend in the MMRCA.
So if the specs make it possible, you can offer different types of vessels / aircrafts that are meant for the same role and the customer can evaluate both to determain what suits them better, or which offer is the best.
My personal point of view is, that IN has a very limited need of amphibious capability and that this is visible in the limited use of INS Jalaswa. That's why I would prefer to combine the LPD tender with the FSS tender and go for a larger number of vessels that combines capabilities for different roles (Joint Support Ships).

 

[$@rJen]

@Abingdonboy

why do our P-8s carry missiles under its wings???? will they able to survive from a SAM if going to strike a surface target ??

 

[Krate M]

@sarjenprabhu p8i carries harpoon block II missiles which has far more range than SAMs. The engagement would happen at a long range, where SAM threat is not there.

 

[Abingdonboy]

@Abingdonboy

why do our P-8s carry missiles under its wings???? will they able to survive from a SAM if going to strike a surface target ??

@Krate M has summed it up pretty well. Realistically though, whilst having the capability to fire Harpoons is nice, the IN is unlikely to use this capability on any (relatively) capable enemy, they have supersonic fighters for such strike missions.

 

[Penguin]

That's what you say, because you limit your view on the base that a JSS MUST have ro-ro capability only and no well dock, but that's simply wrong, because it's just a matter of the design of the vessel.

I don't say they must have ro-ro capability. In fact I'm never even discussing ro-ro capability. Existing and proposed JSS typically do not have a dock. These existing designs are not intended for amphibious assault (whereas LPDs are!)

And repeating the same, doesn't make it true somehow!

I point out flawed assumptions. That is not the same as repeating.

You always point to the karel doorman, but there is no technical restiction to add a rear section with well dock to the same design. The Enforcer concept itself has a modular design that has different rear sections with well docks, or simpler ro-ro solutions, that can be applied to several different kinds of vessel designs (LDP, LHD, JSS), just depending on the customer request.]

1) Yes, I do. As it is currently the only operation, in service JSS in any navy.
2) Doorman is NOT (repeat NOT!) part of the Enforcer concept/series of ships. Never was. The Doorman JSS design builds on the experience gained with Rotterdam and De Witt but it is a new design, substantially mating with AOR Amsterdam . You keep making the same mistake: you assume it is part of the Enforcer series. There isn't a single Enforcer family member that doesn't have a well deck....
Indian Navy News & Discussions | Page 180

Germany's TKMS had even a JSS concept, based on an LHD design:
View attachment 182025 View attachment 182026

Again, you CAN use or adapt an LPD design to a JSS role (just like you can easily fit a sea control ship with a RAS rig, but it still in essence remains a sea control ship) B U T N O T V I C E V E R S A! MESHD has a dock from the start. However, you cannot convert a dockless JSS into one with a dock. A dock mean new build, it means total internal rearrangement. Not in the last place because with a dock you also need vehicle ramps (something you forgot during an earlier Brave conversion idea) so it is not just the tail end that changes.

The idea is similar to Multi Role Transport Tankers of Air Forces, that have 1 main design, but can be modified internally to suit different roles too (cargo or troop transport, MEDIVAC, or even a mix), either switching to a different role or doing both roles even at the same time. A JSS concept can be made in the same way, if you use one design for the vessel, that can be modified according to the need of the customer. The above concept can be used in peace times as a fleet replenishment tanker in peace times, as an LPD during a disaster, or as an helicopter carrier in ASW roles during war times for example.

Swing role is not the same. Modular building techniques are not the same. As pointed out in an AOR the engine compartment is located in the rear, with fuel bunkers forward. In an LPD the engine compartment is more amidship. If you tried to put a dock in JSS Doorman, you would have to relocate the machineroom and totally rearrange the internal structure. Likewise for an AOR (and you would look fuel bunkers unles you jumbo-ize the shipm but do you really want to sinks a jumbo-ized ship like that off by the stern, do you even want your replenisher anywhere near a landing area (which is likely to be targeted by your opponent).

I notice you speak in can-be terms. Why not look at what is being actually built and in service?

JSS only means, that the vessel is aimed to be able to do more roles, but is not limited to a single design as you might think, but it's obvious that the increased capability comes with the downside of increased operational costs. Such a JSS should be costlier to operate in "normal" tanker roles, than a proper Tanker, but that's up to the customer and not to up to the design, that's why a JSS design, where the customer requires a well dock, can always be converted to fully fledged amphibious opertations.

Swing role : see e.g. Danish Stanflex vessels, LCS. It is one structure that can house different mission containers. This is different fundamentally from an adaptive design such as e.g. Sigma class or Enforcer. If you look at the JSS history, you see it is in the basis an attempt to combine AOR and Cargo ship (sea lift). Of course that doesn't mean major units can't also give fuel (see Principe d'Asturia SCS, Juan Carlos LHA). But the ability to transfer fuel doesn't make them replenishment ships, obviously.

As I have pointed out it is significant that LPD i.e. a docking well is required. This points to primary assault role, with adaptability to other roles.

I would really like to see how you stick a welldeck into the Doorman, Brave or Berlin without a COMPLETE internal rearrangement (including main machinery moved)

@Abingdonboy

why do our P-8s carry missiles under its wings???? will they able to survive from a SAM if going to strike a surface target ??

Because AShM are much LONGER than depth charges and lightweight ASW torps and often don't fit the weapons bay (if available in the MP design). Alternatively, if there is no weapons bay, all ordnance is carried externally on pylons.

 

[Krate M]

@Abingdonboy it is an area domination asset in the Indian ocean. For an adversary to reach there would need refueller support atleast or an aircraft carrier. Also the distance to be covered would allow IN and IAF assets to intercept or be alert enough to give fighter escort.
Only US would be able to disregard this fact.

 

[Mujraparty]

Saurav Jha's Blog : Terror boat incident brings India's post-Mumbai Coastal Security Network into focus

must read ..
Tones of info & technical details on Coastal Surveillance Network by geek @ large ..

 

[RISING SUN]

What I think has happened (just my opinion) based on:




This is the restraining gear system:


On the Viky:

Replicated at STBF:

The system holds back the fighter as it goes full power (after burner) in order to take off the ramp in such a short distance. I am presuming the N-LCA test involved this system.



On the INS Vikramditya (and IAC-1) there are 2 take off positions:

One at 200 metres and one at 150 (IIRC) so the report is stating the N-LCA was tested at the take-off position 2/long take off spot at the SBTF.


It is obvious that a lot of information has been lost by the restrictions twitter opposes with their 140 character limit.



This is just my take on it. I could be wrong.

I have received a information from news sources that we have already ordered 13 127mm naval guns for our Delhi class destroyers and frigates. No mention of Kolkata class destroyers. Also same thing about long external towed sonar which were ordered for Delhi class destroyers and frigates. No mention of Kolkata class destroyers for long range towed sonar. Now i have got one more confirmation that it is already installed on Kolkata class then inducted in service(towed sonar). Can you confirm both are already on our boats? I am not sure about 127 mm guns on Kolkata class boats as it was stated they will get the change shortly but how soon not confirmed. Any news?

 

[IrbiS]

World Air Forces 2015 FLIGHT International

 

[MehrotraPrince]

COMINT/DF suite revealed on Indian Project 17 frigates
Analysis of the Indian Navy's new Project 17 Shivalik-class frigates has revealed that the vessels are fitted with a new-generation very high frequency / ultra high frequency (VHF/UHF) communications intelligence/direction finding (COMINT/DF) system supplied by Israel Aerospace Industries' Elta subsidiary.

Built by Mazagon Dock Ltd in Mumbai, INS Shivalik , INS Satpura , and INS Sahyadri were commissioned into the Indian Navy between April 2010 and July 2012. The ships mix weapon and sensor systems acquired from European, Israeli, Russian, and indigenous sources.

A distinctive feature of the Project 17 design is a pole mast, mounted on a platform extending just forward of the EL/M-2038 surveillance radar aft, with a distinctive COMINT/DF antenna.

COMINT/DF suite revealed on Indian Project 17 frigates - IHS Jane's 360

 

[MehrotraPrince]

 

[Krate M]

^nice INS Karmuk, INS Jalashwa, INS Jyoti and INS Viraat undergoing mid sea refuelling. Some power projection that is.

 

[Mujraparty]

Bengaluru, Jan 10: The Chief of Naval Staff Admiral R K Dhowan said on Saturday that the Indian Navy has become a Builders' Navy from a Buyers' Navy. "Not a single ship or a submarine is on order any more abroad. Future warships will be built in India," he said during the Second Admiral R L Pereira Memorial Lecture in city.

Read more at: All warships, submarines being built in India: Navy Chief - Oneindia

 

[Abingdonboy]

Bengaluru, Jan 10: The Chief of Naval Staff Admiral R K Dhowan said on Saturday that the Indian Navy has become a Builders' Navy from a Buyers' Navy. "Not a single ship or a submarine is on order any more abroad. Future warships will be built in India," he said during the Second Admiral R L Pereira Memorial Lecture in city.

Read more at: All warships, submarines being built in India: Navy Chief - Oneindia

What about the LHD/LPD or FSS? The first 2 or so units of each are to be built in a foreign shipyard to speed up induction.

 

[jarves]