[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by ads11

Interesting. I'm not sure if such a massive destroyer is necessarily a good idea for India. I know the discourse recently has been on pure numbers in light of the quite simply incredible Chinese naval build up. I think that is a bad example for India to follow. Firstly we have to be realistic that such a rapid naval build up at breakneck pace is frankly not practicable in the Indian context, and nor do we necessarily need it. China's requirements centre around primarily matching up to the USN within the First Island Chain and then being able to push them out to the Second Island Chain and beyond. Then you've got the fact that China needs to push the PLAN way out to extra territorial waters in line with protecting their supply lines. The IN has to requirement for projecting power per se beyond the IOR, instead, it's a case of holding fort within the already vast IOR and consolidating.

I must admit, I was perplexed as well regarding the rationale behind going for massive 12,000 tonne destroyers. As far I can gather, this project hasn't been approved yet, so things might still change. But there are a couple more factors that might have played a part:

1) According to this link, these ships will contain the sea-based element of India's ballistic defense shield, akin to the US and Japanese AEGIS systems in their destroyers (amongst others). The ships are also destined to get electromagnetic railguns and laser weapons (which are currently being tested by both the Chinese and the Americans) according to the link. Now, taking into account the need for these larger weapons and the Indian Navy's preference to build large hull sizes in comparison to its weapons load, it starts to make more sense why a large 12,000 tonne destroyer is envisioned. Now with frigates getting as big as 8,000 tonnes (the Hunter class i.e the Aussie version of the British type 26 Frigate design will be 10,000 tonnes), I guess the larger size is just the next stage of evolution for destroyers in general, considering our Kashin class destroyers are just 5,000 tonnes which was apparently the appropriate size for destroyers back in the day. Our own new Nilgiri class frigates at 6,670 tonnes are running really close to the Kolkata/Visakhapatnam class destroyers in terms of size.

2) It's really hard to limit to the Indian Navy's field of responsibility within the IOR however stretched they are already. The whole concept of the Indo-Pacific came up based on the rationale that the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean are intrinsically interlinked and cannot be treated as two separate entities, much to the annoyance of China and Russia (whose Foreign Minister talked down the concept in a rather uncouth manner during a press conference with our own Foreign Minister). Look at it this way, how much ever we harp about American hypocrisy, modern trade and supply chains are built on the rules-based order (that are largely followed) defended primarily by the US Navy as the net security provider. With the Americans stepping back, it's not impossible to see a day when the Indian Navy is FORCED to step in as a net security provider in the Eastern Pacific or protect the Pacific littoral states like Vietnam and the Philippines with gunboat diplomacy. When the Indian Navy is FORCED (again in all caps) to take this responsibility which is really likely perhaps in the 2040s, the capability needs to be built atleast in the decade prior. The future does seem bleak for the Indo-Pacific and the Indian Navy won't have the luxury of staying in its Indian Ocean comfort zone (though increasingly challenged by the PLAN).

From what I recall it would be a case of supersizing the existing Kolkata class basic hull form?

There is very little information actually available on this but according to this source, the Project 18 destroyers would have electric propulsion systems with Diesel and Gas turbines inline with the new generation European ships and a departure from the COGAG systems in the current destroyers. Being an arm-chair enthusiast, I don't know if it's possible to supersize the same Kolkata class hull form while using a radically different propulsion system. Perhaps you (i.e Ads11) or Narayan would be better-placed to comment on this given my limited knowledge in this field.

Originally Posted by saikarthik

We are in a compromise with the current ones and can't launch jets with full payload and carrier borne AWACs, CATOBAR should be a priority for third carrier. I like the twin island (bridge) design, improves survivability and offensive continuance incase of attack on the control bridge. We must look into this as well. It might be a costly approach but still can spend couple hundred millions on a multi-billion $ asset.

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the QEC carriers originally envisioned to be CATOBARs with F35Cs? So, I am guessing that the design must take into account a potential retrofit to be a CATOBAR (or be built as a CATOBAR from scratch) without too many changes. Again, beyond my field of expertise, other experts would be able to provide more informed answers.

[V.Narayan]

^^^^^^
A 12,000 tonne destroyer has the advantage of more volume and spare weight for survival engineering to be designed in plus sustainability to be designed in. Sustainability is among other things more endurance, ammunition, helicopter fuel bunkerage and living facilities that enable long voyages. A new 12,000 tonne destroyer need not be a scaled up version of the Kolkata/Visakhapatnam class. It can be a new grounds up design. That would be better as the Visakhapatnam class hull and powerplant are at the limit of their growth. It is well within our competence now to do that. A 12,000 tonne destroyer would other than more rounds of VLS carry more land attack cruise missiles. A 80,000 shp powerplant that drives a 8000 tonne hull at 30 knots can with clever designing drive a 12,000 tonne hull at 29 knots or even 30 knots in some cases {numbers here only for illustration} - hydrodynamics of water around a hull are very complex and unpredictable.

[saikarthik]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

1) According to this link, these ships will contain the sea-based element of India's ballistic defense shield, akin to the US and Japanese AEGIS systems in their destroyers (amongst others). The ships are also destined to get electromagnetic railguns and laser weapons (which are currently being tested by both the Chinese and the Americans) according to the link.

One question here. Didn't the US decide against going with railguns? Laser weapons might still be the future even at least for the hard kill strategy with evolving drone situation. Also, the US navy learnt a lesson with operating super advanced unnecessary Zumwalt related to operating costs.

About the ballistic missile defense, in my opinion we can use the islands on either side to protect most of our maritime neighbors. Just for this reason going with a heavy displacement vessel is not so justifying. We already have INS Dhruv, commissioned recently to track the nuclear ballistic missiles, which can also track conventional ones if needed, and we can use reaction missiles on the islands.

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the QEC carriers originally envisioned to be CATOBARs with F35Cs? So, I am guessing that the design must take into account a potential retrofit to be a CATOBAR (or be built as a CATOBAR from scratch) without too many changes. Again, beyond my field of expertise, other experts would be able to provide more informed answers.

I am no expert either, but there was a news to even include EMALS in RFIs. CATOBAR is surely a possibility on the HMS QE. Even the MoD hinted about the passible fitment in a few years to launch F-35C and may be other ones like the E2-"X" Hawkeyes. I saw specs somewhere that the arrestor limit was around 21 tonnes and launch around 24 tonnes. It makes the heavy AWACS launch possible as the E2-C weighs 19.5 tonnes.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

According to this link, these ships will contain the sea-based element of India's ballistic defense shield, akin to the US and Japanese AEGIS systems in their destroyers (amongst others). The ships are also destined to get electromagnetic railguns and laser weapons (which are currently being tested by both the Chinese and the Americans) according to the link.

Funny you should mention BMD because as soon as I read about these proposed 12000 ton destroyers I couldn't help but think AEGIS as well. An Indian at sea BMD capability is an interesting proposition. I have a rudimentary understanding of the radar horizon and the ballistic trajectory but given the provenance directionally of any hypothetical ballistic missile targeted towards India, I'd imagine any contiguous land based Indian BMD assets should have that covered? However I suppose having it at sea does enable you to further the radar horizon and increase the scope in terms of coverage for any SLBM launches I suppose coming from a southern hemispherical direction. But as Saikarthik notes, I feel like a more pragmatic solution for India would simply be to station BMD facilities on islands in the IOR to provide coverage on that front. But of course that would then invite all the potential traps for a key static installation so I guess I can see the attraction for a mobile seaborn BMD shield - thing is that's an expensive naval asset that would sorely stretch already tight budgets.

Other than that I can see the trend towards ever larger surface combatants as globally we move towards a naval build up as we enter another era of great power competition.

The whole concept of the Indo-Pacific came up based on the rationale that the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean are intrinsically interlinked and cannot be treated as two separate entities,

This is your marine biologist hat looking at it from an ocean conveyor belt perspective! Jokes aside I'm not sure I buy this assertion. I think the concept came up more out of a semantic requirement to better sell the massive pivot the entire US govt made at the end of the Obama Administration. It was clear that moving forward the US was going to have to face down a resurgent and bullish China in the Pacific, a major change from the low intensity forever wars in the ME that characterised US policy for the better part of two decades. The Americans also needed a semantic plug in to best sell to Congress the urgency to bring India in to play as a regional counterweight on China's southern flank and thus I think Indo-Pacific came into our lexicon. Note how quickly it went from State Dept to Pentagon and then finally into the daily verbiage of American legislators (not just the bureaucracy). Plus I suppose it also allows to an extent a way to assuage concerns from ME allies that the US isn't abandoning the region entirely as it amps up its presence in the Pacific.

With the Americans stepping back

Again I'm not sure I'm buying this. Sure diplomatically and politically you're seeing America as a whole regressing towards the isolationism that characterised it a century ago but the simple fact that Obama through to Trump, the overall signal of the State Dept and more importantly Pentagon was focussed clearly towards the impending friction with the PLA is sign enough that if anything we'd start to see more US involvement in the Pacific, ECS and particularly SCS. You only need to look at the concerted and overt moves the Americans have made to mobilise their regional allies towards this counter balancing action against the outward pressures exerted by the PLA. Mostly though I think the bulk of this action would be constrained as far south as the SCS, which thankfully should take some of the heat off of the IN in the IOR. That being said, with the PLA establishing a base in Djibouti and with pretty much effective overseas basing in ports like Gwadar and Hambantota, there's still enough going to keep India plenty occupied.

protect the Pacific littoral states like Vietnam and the Philippines with gunboat diplomacy. When the Indian Navy is FORCED (again in all caps) to take this responsibility

Alright, this I think is a bit of a massive reach. For India to undertake policing operations that far out?! I find that a bridge too far. Even with recent, shall we say muscular changes, to India's strategic outlook, going that far out of our own backyard to help defend someone else's turf is a massive stretch for the inherent caution that has been systemic in our approach. I guess it's such a radical assertion I can't help but feel it's wrong. At most I can see India being a net security provider in the IOR, but anything beyond that is a massive risk. You have to remember that the tyranny of distance takes a massive toll on any war fighting force and the biggest untold advantage the US has is that their global logistical and basing framework massively closes those gaps and allows them to fight as close to home base as possible (even then in the Pacific they're massively stretched especially as Guam is their furthest forward base, [not counting those in Japan or South Korea], which predictably the PLA has made a priority of taking out).

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the QEC carriers originally envisioned to be CATOBARs with F35Cs? So, I am guessing that the design must take into account a potential retrofit to be a CATOBAR (or be built as a CATOBAR from scratch) without too many changes. Again, beyond my field of expertise, other experts would be able to provide more informed answers.

So the QE class was from the outset designed as a true CATOBAR flat top, especially so in the early stages when there was some French involvement as they looked to lower costs for their eventual CdG replacement. If memory serves me correct, I think the major defence review around the tail end of the Brown Labour govt or the Coalition govt is when the Brits dumped plans for the catapults (this was because of the fact that EMALS hadn't panned out at all as the Americans were coming to terms with the technology with their own Ford class supercarriers) and primarily for cost reasons. Thus at a fairly late stage the switch was made to go for the ski jump and the QEs became STOVL carriers. Not sure how there was a cost saving really considering the F-35B is the most expensive out of the JSF variants but anyway this is where we are today. In fact there's still considerable rumbling in the UK defence community to just make the switch to a true CATOBAR when the QE vessels undergo their major mid life refit as the hope is that EMALS will have been sorted by the Americans.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by saikarthik

Also, the US navy learnt a lesson with operating super advanced unnecessary Zumwalt related to operating costs.

I doubt these destroyers would be like the Zumwalt class. Perhaps a better benchmark would be the Chinese Type 055 destroyers. I remember reading somewhere that these destroyers have additional power factored in for future weapons though as you said, the future of the railgun is still in limbo because of limitations (for the Americans atleast). Maybe hypersonic missiles?

Originally Posted by ads11

This is your marine biologist hat looking at it from an ocean conveyor belt perspective!

Guilty as charged

Alright, this I think is a bit of a massive reach. For India to undertake policing operations that far out?! I find that a bridge too far. Even with recent, shall we say muscular changes, to India's strategic outlook, going that far out of our own backyard to help defend someone else's turf is a massive stretch for the inherent caution that has been systemic in our approach. I guess it's such a radical assertion I can't help but feel it's wrong

My apologies for my lack of clarity. I don't think that the Indian Navy would be able to challenge the PLAN in the South China Sea in the near future if ever, even the Americans can barely contain them. Rather, having an Indian presence of 2-3 ships at a time is a huge assurance for the SCS littoral states even if though this tiny footprint would in no way be able to take on the PLAN in any shape or form if things get hot. This would also augment the existing presence of the USN, RAN and Europeans who like to send 1 or 2 ships as token every year. We do this already but with smaller frigates or corvettes, so larger vessels should give them the legs to undertake this task more effectively. For the lack of a better metaphor, it's like standing between your friend and a bully in middle school even though you have no chance of taking on the bully alone but with the hope that your additional presence along with others on your side would deter the bully from messing with your friend

Again, we are speaking from the perspective of 2020 and it would be atleast 2040 before all the ships from this new class are operationalized and the world would be radically different then.

I bet this is a debate that plays out in South Block as well - should the Indian Navy just concentrate on the IOR or maintain a minimal presence in the SCS as well?

So the QE class was from the outset designed as a true CATOBAR flat top, especially so in the early stages when there was some French involvement as they looked to lower costs for their eventual CdG replacement .................. In fact there's still considerable rumbling in the UK defence community to just make the switch to a true CATOBAR when the QE vessels undergo their major mid life refit as the hope is that EMALS will have been sorted by the Americans.

Interesting you should mention the French involvement. Just yesterday, news came out that the US had approved the sale of the EMALS technology to France for their upcoming carrier from the PANG program (source) and apparently the Rafale Ms will be tested in the US with the EMALS.

I have a question on the EMALS, why is it still not 'sorted' when the Americans already have an operational carrier using that technology and another one being fitted out? Are there any fundamental problems with the technology?

[ads11]

Originally Posted by saikarthik

One question here. Didn't the US decide against going with railguns? Laser weapons might still be the future even at least for the hard kill strategy with evolving drone situation. Also, the US navy learnt a lesson with operating super advanced unnecessary Zumwalt related to operating costs.

Originally Posted by dragracer567

I doubt these destroyers would be like the Zumwalt class. Perhaps a better benchmark would be the Chinese Type 055 destroyers. I remember reading somewhere that these destroyers have additional power factored in for future weapons though as you said, the future of the railgun is still in limbo because of limitations (for the Americans atleast). Maybe hypersonic missiles?

Oh I missed the discussion on the Zumwalt's. I know for all intents and purposes that the programme might seem to be a colossal waste of money, but I think much like their namesake, in the fullness of time their contribution will turn out to be incredibly poignant and outsized. From the expense standpoint the poor Zumwalt class fell prey to the same trap the B-2 programme did, and that's the immense sunk development cost now having to be spread out over a Much smaller order thus driving up unit costs astronomically. Given the sheer number of radical new ideas the USN tried to shoehorn into one platform, it's scarcely surprising that things have turned out the way they did once budgetary pressures kicked in. As a result now you have an incredibly compromised platform. Take the numerous basic antennae protrusions and appendages that totally nullify the low observability of the tumblehome shape. Then you have the fancy deck gun that was supposed to fire advanced shells. Those shells ended up costing an order of magnitude more than envisioned and thus they were axed and now you have a fairly useless deck gun. All is not lost though because I'm sure lessons and learnings from the Zumwalt will trickle down into every future USN surface combatant going forward. Think of the unprecedented level of automation that means a barebones officer and enlisted crew complement operating a vessel of such size. There's been issues in this regard, and in a warfighting situation its evident it would be suboptimal but all this is valuable knowledge to further inform the manpower requirements for the USN moving forward, allowing them to identify where automation can make savings without compromising warfighting ability. And like you said, the immense power generation capacity overheads built into the Zumwalt means that these ships would allow the USN to use them as a testbed platform for a multitude of new technologies moving forward, without having to sacrifice one of their already overtasked frontline surface combatants. So indeed, you could see either a directed energy weapon (laser) or something equally exotic like a railgun mounted on one of the Zumwalt class ships.

Rather, having an Indian presence of 2-3 ships at a time is a huge assurance for the SCS littoral states even if though this tiny footprint would in no way be able to take on the PLAN in any shape or form if things get hot. This would also augment the existing presence of the USN, RAN and Europeans who like to send 1 or 2 ships as token every year...I bet this is a debate that plays out in South Block as well - should the Indian Navy just concentrate on the IOR or maintain a minimal presence in the SCS as well?

Ah I see what you mean now. When it comes to reinforcing the rules based order and the UNCLOS wrt the SCS, then sure, I think it's well within the remit of the IN to be running Freedom of Navigation patrols further east. I guess to answer your South Block question, it boils down to how well the overall Act East policy is enacted by the various levers of Indian govt. We would need an integrated approach from our diplomats and militarily in order to toe the fine line between assuaging the concerns of ASEAN allies and the requirements of not irking the wolf warrior diplomats of the CPC into retaliatory pressures in our own backyard. I think though it's only a good thing if the IN is seen in the same light as the USN, RAN, and NATO partner navies in operating such patrols in the area. I still think we have our work cut own bringing our neighbours in the IOR back in our orbit (take the likes of say Maldives, Myanmar, or Sri Lanka - I mean in the latter case with the Rajapaksa brothers back at the helm, it doesn't bode well for India at all). So it's clear our priorities should be within our realm first before we over commit elsewhere.

I have a question on the EMALS, why is it still not 'sorted' when the Americans already have an operational carrier using that technology and another one being fitted out? Are there any fundamental problems with the technology?

Right, if we're being pedantic EMALS still isn't fully operational. It's one of a litany of reasons why the Ford class ships aren't cleared by either Congress or the Pentagon for operational use (they only just had their first shock trials). The only reason they're still going ahead with constructing the follow on ships with there still glaring issues left to resolve is entirely the drawback of the policy of concurrency. Basically around the turn of the millennium the Pentagon had bought in entirely on this concept of concurrent development, whereby development of key facets should continue apace with early lot production, with issues in earlier models being resolved through refit at a later stage rather than waiting to iron out all the creases before being able to field a platform. By now you'd probably have cottoned on that this boondoggle was seen to dramatic effect with the fiasco of the JSF programme, which only now is finally hitting it's stride after nearly a decade of getting pilloried by the GAO and others, rightfully so.

Anyway, coming back to EMALS, one of the issues that comes to mind is the iffy calibration. One of the benefits of EMALS is that the electronic calibration of the force the catapult would be able to apply would lead to less wear and tear on platforms and the ability to more precisely dial up/down the force depending on the platform being flung off (which was a big thing in order to enable UAVs to start to operate). Have you seen those silly videos of actuated robotic arms backyard scientists make to say pick up a glass and instead they crush it? Well it's a bit like that in that the EMALS is flinging off the dummy payloads at all sorts of erratic forces. Until a semblance of control is achieved there's no chance it's tested on a manned platform just yet. However the fact that the chatter has died down a fair bit tells me that these issues are close to be resolved. Ultimately the benefits of EMALS are multi-fold, given the ability to maximise air frame lifetime, operate a variety of platforms, integrate better with the electrical network on flat tops, technically be easier to maintain and finally take up less space than old steam cats. That being said, it's not like the Americans have a choice at this point because I don't think they have the tooling anymore to make new steam catapults. So it's all in on EMALS (full steam ahead you can say).

Interesting you should mention the French involvement. Just yesterday, news came out that the US had approved the sale of the EMALS technology to France for their upcoming carrier from the PANG program (source) and apparently the Rafale Ms will be tested in the US with the EMALS.

This is an interesting titbit. The Americans offering EMALS to the French as well means they're quite confident in having got past most of the hurdles then. I know India has a working group with the USN on EMALS. I'd imagine the Brits do too. I guess Americas hand is forced considering the rate of knots at which the PLAN build up is continuing. The Type 3 carrier is already looking very fleshed out, and the rare stories that make it through suggest the Chinese are well into their own EMALS efforts, so we can be sure they're skipping the steam cat and trap approach on their new flat tops.

It'll be great to see Rafale M's operate with EMALS - if anything to drive home the irony when inevitably the Indian defence mandarins decide against a Rafale purchase for the IN before promptly announcing an EMALS equipped Indian carrier.. It would be entirely in keeping with our approach..

[saikarthik]

The third sub of the Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV) project, S4 SSBN is launched few weeks ago according to buzzing YouTube defense channels. While the previous sub S3 (INS Arighat) is a 6000 ton vessel, S4 is speculated to be 1000 tons more. Bigger and more lethal which can carry more missiles of both K15 Sagarika and K4 SLBM as it has 4 more missile tubes (8 instead of 4). The 83 MW pressurized water reactor and propeller is assumed to be same.

According to the same channels, S4* will also be launched soon by the ship building center.

One question to seniors - Why do they say "secretly launched"? it is news anyway in a month or two.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by saikarthik

Why do they say "secretly launched"? it is news anyway in a month or two.

I’m guessing the reason is that there has been no official communication from the government or the navy about the S4 as generally there is a media release or even a ceremony during the launch of new ships and submarine boats. The only reason we know about the launch is because of satellite images.

India has generally been very secretive about it’s SSBNs and if I’m not mistaken, there is no official photo of the submarine, only a vague diagram. There would’ve been more buzz in the western media and commentariat if this was Russia or China but since India is an ally, they aren’t really interested in digging deeper either (offcourse the intelligence agencies would still be interested).

[ads11]

Noticed H I Sutton already had a new schematic of his for the S4 on Twitter yesterday. Linking it below:

You can see clearly the increased length compared to the previous boats, it clearly now not only looks the part of an SSBN but has the proportions we expect of one.
Source

Analysis of high resolution satellite images seen by me (I got them via OSINT, but I am unsure whether the satellite provider intended them to be public so I am not posting them here) suggests that it is about 20 meters longer overall. The forward hull, sail and stern appear, overall, largely unchanged. The hull diameter does not appear to have increased and the missile deck remains narrow. Taken together, this supports reports that the new submarine has 8 instead of 4 missile tubes. These will be arranged in a single row down the centerline.

The newest boat may also have an improved reactor.

Normally he tends to share the link to his OSINT source, but sounds like said source quickly took down the image. I still expect to see it floating about in the defence twittersphere in a day or two.

Have to admit, that the ATV programme is quietly making some decent progress. Sure maintenance of these quite different boats will be a bit of a headache but I understand the logic here with trying to develop and build as they go along, incorporating improvements based on feedback on earlier boats - I can't help but imagine the S2 and S3, but most specifically the Arihant, would end up as a training vessel so to speak if the rest of the class end up with more in common with the B-spec of the S4 onward boats. An 8 tube load out sounds pretty healthy to me, can't imagine a need for any more carrying capacity given most are reducing the numbers on their SSBNs (mostly due to the advancements in the missile technology itself negating a need to carry as many warheads for a retaliatory strike).

[V.Narayan]

https://www.telegraphindia.com/india...re/cid/1856557

It seems the Ukrainian gas turbine makers plant has received some damage in the on going conflict. This may cause some difficulties in timely delivery of spares, sending gas turbines for overhaul, procuring new turbines. It probably does not mean we have an immediate problem but could have one a year down the road. Zorya turbines are, in the main, mounted on our 9 Delhi-Kolkata-Vishakhapatnam class destroyers with DT69 turbines and 6 Talwar class frigates with DT69s for boost and DS17s for cruise. A further 4 Talwar-II class are under construction fitted with the same turbines. A similar situation might be at hand with the An-32s of the IAF. In some ways we are in 1991 again when the break-up of the erstwhile USSR disrupted our supplies. Request members to keep the discussion on this thread strictly limited to technical matters and not stray into politics, economics or views on the situation.

[arijitkanrar]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

https://www.telegraphindia.com/india...re/cid/1856557

It seems the Ukrainian gas turbine makers plant has received some damage in the on going conflict. This may cause some difficulties in timely delivery of spares, sending gas turbines for overhaul, procuring new turbines. It probably does not mean we have an immediate problem but could have one a year down the road. Zorya turbines are, in the main, mounted on our 9 Delhi-Kolkata-Vishakhapatnam class destroyers with DT69 turbines and 6 Talwar class frigates with DT69s for boost and DS17s for cruise. A further 4 Talwar-II class are under construction fitted with the same turbines. A similar situation might be at hand with the An-32s of the IAF. In some ways we are in 1991 again when the break-up of the erstwhile USSR disrupted our supplies. Request members to keep the discussion on this thread strictly limited to technical matters and not stray into politics, economics or views on the situation.

I was reading in another article about a possible course of action where India procures the Marine gas turbine technology from Zorya-Mashproekt.
Would like to know your valuable opinion as to how feasible is it?
Even if India did manage to get the technology, do we have capability locally to build these turbines?

Also, If I'm not wrong, our Navy uses the American LM2500 turbines in the new INS Vikrant.
Are there any comparisons between the Zorya turbines and the LM2500 or are they different in their application and cannot be compared?

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by arijitkanrar

I was reading in another article about a possible course of action where India procures the Marine gas turbine technology from Zorya-Mashproekt.
Would like to know your valuable opinion as to how feasible is it?
Even if India did manage to get the technology, do we have capability locally to build these turbines?

Also, If I'm not wrong, our Navy uses the American LM2500 turbines in the new INS Vikrant.
Are there any comparisons between the Zorya turbines and the LM2500 or are they different in their application and cannot be compared?

I don't know enough to comment confidently. If given the designs yes we can manufacture these turbines. We build jet engines for the IAF. These are similar only larger and designed for marine use with its salt corrosion. We also use the LM2500. Both are good solid reliable designs. Russians got into marine gas turbines for warships more than a decade before the West.

[Gannu_1]

Sharing this development here since we don’t have a different thread for the support fleet.

We’ve formally signed the contract with the Ministry of Defence on 25 March ‘22, for building 2 nos. Multipurpose Vessels for the Indian Navy.

Twitter

These ships will serve as a test platform for the Navy’s upcoming weapons and sensors, will be capable of towing other ships and will aid in HADR (Humanitarian Assist and Disaster Relief) ops.

As the project coordinator for this one, I’m super stoked! The next 3 years is going to be incredibly challenging however. Look forward to share the final ship’s snaps during the delivery.

[directinjection]

It's a shame this nation of 1.3 billion remains helplessly dependent on foreign manufacturers for its defence equipment, notwithstanding the fact that we are the world's third biggest economy and produce 10,000 plus whiz kid IIT graduates every year. Our defence dependence comes in the way of pursuing an independent foreign policy, as the Ukrainian conflict has shown.

Is someone aware of the current status of the marine version of Kaveri? It was planned quite sometime back but there has been a dearth of reports lately. What size ships is it suitable for? If it is successful, I'm sure we can upsize and downsize it as well. BHEL has been making turbines for decades for the power sector. Can't they be used in ships with or without modifications?

[ads11]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

https://www.telegraphindia.com/india...re/cid/1856557

It seems the Ukrainian gas turbine makers plant has received some damage in the on going conflict. This may cause some difficulties in timely delivery of spares, sending gas turbines for overhaul, procuring new turbines. It probably does not mean we have an immediate problem but could have one a year down the road. Zorya turbines are, in the main, mounted on our 9 Delhi-Kolkata-Vishakhapatnam class destroyers with DT69 turbines and 6 Talwar class frigates with DT69s for boost and DS17s for cruise. A further 4 Talwar-II class are under construction fitted with the same turbines. A similar situation might be at hand with the An-32s of the IAF.

Been wondering when we'd start to see some of the first corollaries of the Ukraine war impacting India's warfighting ability. Given the Russian's repeatedly gooing for Hostomel (it being one of the main Antonov facilities to my knowledge), I'm sure that in a reasonable order of battle Russian plans would have involved strikes on Ukrainian military industrial facilities too (you'd want to limit their future ability to wage war). Beyond the obvious ramifications for Antonov customers, there's the marine turbine angle (pretty sure going back to the Crimean annexation, Russia found themselves in a pickle themselves given some of their naval technology was still sourced from Ukrainian manufacturers). Given that Ukrainian turbines are part of the newest large surface combatants (vessels with at least a decade of life left minimum), this is a problem. Hopefully contingencies (if they hadn't already been commenced) are being worked on post haste now.

On another note, wonder how much the PLAN's Liaoning and Shandong would be impacted by any adverse effects to the Ukrainian MIC. It's probably minuscule but surely the PLAN's goal to have further giant Zubr class hovercraft are now kiboshed (those would've been a quite literal massive part of any marine landing by the PLAN in Taiwan). On a similar leviathan scale I remember there being talks between the Chinese and Antonov about potentially funding a revival of the An-225 programme so the PLAAF could get their own super heavy lifter in the C-5 Galaxy category. Given close ties with Russia I wager this is going to be delicate ground to trod for China even though Ukraine would probably welcome the investment post war..

Originally Posted by Gannu_1

We’ve formally signed the contract with the Ministry of Defence on 25 March ‘22, for building 2 nos. Multipurpose Vessels for the Indian Navy. As the project coordinator for this one, I’m super stoked! The next 3 years is going to be incredibly challenging however. Look forward to share the final ship’s snaps during the delivery.

Congratulations!! These are definitely extremely useful ships given their utility in so many cases outside of war time. Is there a more detailed press release floating around anywhere about it other than the twitter confirmation?