[ads11]

Slightly O/T but this has tangential relevance:

Looks like China have signed a pretty open ended security deal with the Solomon Islands

After their small but significant base in Djibouti, this to my knowledge would be their second extra territorial base for the PLA. Given the fact the Pacific theatre is most definitely heating up (take Australia and AUKUS pretty much making it clear Canberra is gearing fully to start standing up for itself vs China), this just adds another element of complication for the RAN in particular and the USN and its allies in the region.

In the IOR, to my knowledge the PLAN doesn't yet possess any direct bases as such, though I suppose there's always the fear that Gwadar or Hambantota might become ones in all but name. Still, I think of interest to India should be the fact that the CPC are willing to adopt basing rights deals with countries in the same vein as the US has done for years (unlike their 9 Dash Line shenanigans in the SCS, wheeling and dealing like this deal with the Solomon Islands is totally within the remit of international law). I'm sure India will be watching the fall out of this deal with interest, as I'm sure will other nations in the IOR.

[torquecurve]

Originally Posted by 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.

- The Green is the color of 'ENVY!' Oh, how I envy you!!

All the very best for this and hope you have a great time during the build,

[shortbread]

A couch observer's query to the experts: The US Navy is retiring dozens of ships way ahead of schedule due to budget restraints and allocating funds for building newer ships. Is it even possible to consider acquiring these soon to be retired but still highly useful assets, by doing a deal with the US?!

[ads11]

Originally Posted by shortbread

A couch observer's query to the experts: The US Navy is retiring dozens of ships way ahead of schedule due to budget restraints and allocating funds for building newer ships. Is it even possible to consider acquiring these soon to be retired but still highly useful assets, by doing a deal with the US?!

I take it you're referring to the LCS (Littoral Combat Ships) yes? If so the fact that relatively new ships are being retired should be a big red flag and it's entirely justified because as a shipbuilding programme, LCS has been a debacle of shocking proportions for the USN and US ship building.


USS Freedom in the background and USS Independence in the foreground

For context, the LCS was envisioned specifically to fight in littoral environments (close to shore, within the continental shelf a lot of the time) where larger surface combatants might struggle. As such there were two sub types. The Independence class (having a uniquely beak-y appearance thanks to its trimaran hull) and the smaller, nimbler Freedom class. It's ships belonging to the latter sub-class that are being mothballed.

The Freedom class to put it bluntly was envisioned as giant armed speedboats (simplifying here). As such they had a complex water jet propulsion system that was supposed to help them absolutely hoon along, but said propulsion system has been a nightmare with none of the vessels coming anywhere close to their lofty top speed goals. Combined with a patchy (ie, scarce) weapons load out on both LCS types, what you have are very expensive, way overbudget ships (once the costs of fixing their myriad problems is factored in) that have light weapons load outs. IIRC in a final damning assessment, the LCS which was meant to be cheap and numerous to lessen the tasking load on say expensive destroyers, ends up costing very close to a much more capable destroyer, totally sinking the whole premise of the LCS to begin with. In an embarrassing climb down the USN is now going the time tested way of fielding a smaller frigate, the Constellation class, (years after they last fielded such a type) and to save both money and time are hoping for an off the shelf solution (I believe Fincantieri's FREMM design is the leading candidate) made by a US subcontractor.

If you'd like to read more about it The War Zone has done plenty of extensive detailed write ups on how royally screwed the whole LCS programme has been.

To memory I think only 1 Middle Eastern customer was found for the LCS and even they are dissatisfied, so I really doubt there's anything to glean from trying to get these ships. Given their propulsion drives are problematic too, I doubt there's much you can extract for parts even.

[V.Narayan]

Soft discussions to consider repairing USN ships in India shipyards

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/us-n...s-here-2883734

Could be an outcome of the 2+2 meeting this week. If this were to happen it is a very big mental leap in proximity to the USN and USA Defence establishment. At the height of Indo-Soviet friendship the IN never had a single exercise with the Soviet Navy out of choice and of course repairing their ships or offering refueling rights was out of the question. The Soviets did seek refueling rights several times but we had to be careful to walk the balance then much as we are doing now (on Ukraine)

[ads11]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Soft discussions to consider repairing USN ships in India shipyards

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/us-n...s-here-2883734

Could be an outcome of the 2+2 meeting this week. If this were to happen it is a very big mental leap in proximity to the USN and USA Defence establishment. At the height of Indo-Soviet friendship the IN never had a single exercise with the Soviet Navy out of choice and of course repairing their ships or offering refueling rights was out of the question. The Soviets did seek refueling rights several times but we had to be careful to walk the balance then much as we are doing now (on Ukraine)

Wooooow. Talk about headlines I wouldn't have expected to see. The fact that this was even mooted is astounding in even the recent context of US-Indian rapprochement, let alone the full historical context.

Let's break this down. What we know for a fact is that US shipyards are backlogged up to the teeth, with order books running long and maintenance schedules a devilishly complicated morass that is starting to impact USN tasking (see the recent decisions involving surging carrier groups beyond their usual active-training-refit rotation - while this keeps adversaries on their toes compared to the clockwork cadence they followed before, it's played havoc on the maintenance slots at the shipyards).

In fact so bad is the US shipbuilding backlog, when news of the AUKUS deal broke, there was genuine skepticism about when realistically US boatyards could start on RAN orders given the backlog on USN boats. Some went on to surmise that a large part of the UK involvement is due to the fact that their boatyards in Barrow where the Dreadnought class SSBNs (as well as the Astute class SSNs) are being built will have a mature workforce once they complete their order book over the next decade or so. It was mooted that the UK boatyards could commence work on any RAN SSBN with perhaps Australian crews seconded for maybe the first two boats of the series before production and assembly is moved to Australian yards.

Here are some potential sticklers though. First off the mere idea of Indian yards actually getting anywhere near active USN vessels will have large portions of the US body politik choking in disbelief. But lets say we can ignore this. First off the Americans will never miss an opportunity to bring up the much higher standards and tolerances to which US warships are built (you frequently see them using that as a stick even against RN vessels, let alone European ones). Set aside the slight hubris in that statement no doubt, it is true that the USN has some of the most stringent requirements for their shipbuilding starting with the very steel they use. Some US policy makers floated the idea of potentially using allied yards to alleviate some of the backlog in their own yards. This was promptly shot down by both the USN and political top brass. And the suggested yards were in the UK, Australia and Japan to name a few. Imagine the reception an Indian yard would get even for looking at an auxiliary vessel for the USN!

Nonetheless, all that being said, the very fact this was even thought about aloud in a 2+2 meeting no less and not some lowly meeting between policy wonks on both sides, is incredibly revealing to just how much the calculus has shifted in terms of White House attitudes towards India. Suffice to say, I'm extremely curious to see how this thread pans out moving forward. Thanks for sharing this!

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Could be an outcome of the 2+2 meeting this week.

It is indeed, infact if I remember correctly, it was part of the readout of the 2 + 2 meeting but I didn't quite understand the significance of this before you put it into context, especially in comparison to such concessions not being given to the Soviets.

All the media jingoism aside about the MEA's comments to the media, the outcome of the 2 + 2 meet was probably the best example of exceptional diplomacy by two mature countries. Both countries met halfway, infact more than 60% of PM Modi's public comments were about the Ukraine conflict while SoS Blinken explicitly conceded that India siding with the Soviets was mostly because of American unwillingness to be a reliable partner. Just compare this with the AUKUS fiasco with France - a much older ally (the oldest infact) where the actual disagreement was much lower than what India has with the US regarding Ukraine right now. Kudos to the ministers and bureaucrats of both sides for moving forward despite such huge disagreements.

From the public comments of the ministers, it seems the Americans are really willing to go the extra mile with ToT of high-end defense equipment perhaps even nuclear submarines that India is so reliant on Russia for (if not the US directly, then probably via an ally like France or UK). Boeing and Lockheed Martin would be over the moon right now. Perhaps the opening up of Indian shipyards to US ships is probably a concession given by the Indian side for access to all this technology. India isn't naïve, it knows that Russia's capabilities will be severely limited after the Ukraine war and will be increasingly subservient to China, so India is really out of options here rather than look West. Even the FTAs lined up with the UK, EU and Canada along with the completed one with Australia are as much a political instrument as an economic one.

Apart from this, there were other interesting defense nick-nacks as well including co-development of Air-Launched UAVs (perhaps similar to the Australian one which Ads11 mentioned in another thread), anti-drone technologies and space defense.

Originally Posted by ads11

Wooooow
Let's break this down. What we know for a fact is that US shipyards are backlogged up to the teeth, with order books running long and maintenance schedules a devilishly complicated morass that is starting to impact USN tasking (see the recent decisions involving surging carrier groups beyond their usual active-training-refit rotation - while this keeps adversaries on their toes compared to the clockwork cadence they followed before, it's played havoc on the maintenance slots at the shipyards).

In fact so bad is the US shipbuilding backlog, when news of the AUKUS deal broke, there was genuine skepticism about when realistically US boatyards could start on RAN orders given the backlog on USN boats. Some went on to surmise that a large part of the UK involvement is due to the fact that their boatyards in Barrow where the Dreadnought class SSBNs (as well as the Astute class SSNs) are being built will have a mature workforce once they complete their order book over the next decade or so. It was mooted that the UK boatyards could commence work on any RAN SSBN with perhaps Australian crews seconded for maybe the first two boats of the series before production and assembly is moved to Australian yards.

Just out of curiosity, aren't Indian shipyards out of capacity as well?

Based on your comments, it does seem like a win-win for Indian shipyards as well, perhaps experience with USN ships could enhance our own ship-building skills as well, given the exceptional standards for USN ships as you mentioned.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Both countries met halfway.. Kudos to the ministers and bureaucrats of both sides for moving forward despite such huge disagreements.

This was indeed a very pleasant surprise! Really impressive that the big differences didn't totally stall proceedings. Instead both sides found ways to skirt around them (because let's be honest, that's what they did), but it means progress was made in a few areas. This is remarkable, you couldn't have thought of this a decade or two ago even. Just goes to show US realpolitik recognises that there needs to be wriggle room wrt India because India won't budge from it's endemic and historic non alignment tendencies, especially when the US needs India as part of their wider containment strategy wrt China.

Just out of curiosity, aren't Indian shipyards out of capacity as well?

I'm not well placed to answer this. Vaguely I think yes this is true, they've got a fairly healthy order book. But maybe this potential servicing agreement provides room for expansion right? Could allow for greater output towards meeting existing tenders.

I guess the biggest problem in this global naval arms race is that Chinese shipyards are churning out ships at a scarcely believable clip not seen since WW2. And it's a fools errand trying to chase that pace of build up but for the US, given their global responsibilities, the USN has no choice. Similarly you're seeing this cascading effect in terms of naval build up in nations in proximity (geographic or otherwise) to China (ROK, Japan, Vietnam, Australia, India, Pakistan, etc). But yeah, coming back to the original point, any potential deal for US collaboration with Indian shipyards can ultimately only be a win win if it alleviates pressure on US yards and in turn through just the cross pollination of ideas and experience, benefit Indian builders. Not sure what the legislative framework is but wonder if the GoI would suppose greenlight JVs between US yards like say Huntingdon Ingalls and a domestic Indian partner (be it public like Mazagon Docks Ltd or private like Garden Reach Shipbuilders Ltd). I'm sure politically Modi would happily accept the benefits in optics if it helps further his flagship Make in India programme and Biden could have a deal to present to Congress to appease the hawks who'd undoubtedly bristle at the prospect. It's conjecture though at this point.

[Shreyans_Jain]

In light of the sinking of Russian missile cruiser Moskva, is the Ukrainian Neptune cruise missile related to Brahmos in any way? Do they share a common ancestor? Also, Neptune is a subsonic cruise missile. How did the defence systems of Moskva, which were supposedly very advanced and the best in the Russian fleet, fail to take it out? How does this bode for our fleets, who use a fair bit of Russian equipment? Especially our flagship, INS Vikramaditya.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by Shreyans_Jain

In light of the sinking of Russian missile cruiser Moskva, is the Ukrainian Neptune cruise missile related to Brahmos in any way? Do they share a common ancestor? Also, Neptune is a subsonic cruise missile. How did the defence systems of Moskva, which were supposedly very advanced and the best in the Russian fleet, fail to take it out? How does this bode for our fleets, who use a fair bit of Russian equipment? Especially our flagship, INS Vikramaditya.

That is a pertinent question which readers would ask. allow me to share what I know.

The Neptune is a Ukrainian development of the Zveda Kh-35 Uran anti-ship missile. The Kh-35 a Russian design is also deployed in large numbers by the Indian Navy. The Ukranians improved the electronics of the missile leaving the hardware the same. It not known whether they make this themselves or used existing stock obtained from Russia (in earlier better times) and improved the resistance to jamming.

The Neptune & Brahmos are quite different and from separate lineages. The Brahmos evolved from the Russian supersonic Oniks cruise missle.

Very briefly the Kh-35 (or Neptune) is a subsonic, 130 kms range missile with a 145 kg warhead and an all up weight of ~600kgs. Later variants had the range increased - it is claimed to 300 kms. The Brahmos is a supersonic, 500 kms range (for the ship launched version) missile with a 300 kg warhead and an all up weight of 3000 kgs. So very different.

Weapons alone don't make a ship. It is the man, the team, the training and the co-ordination between different parts of the ship that make it effective. Just like giving a sniper rifle to me is not going to ensure any target ever being hit but in the hands of a soldier the combination acquires a lethality. In the hands of a professional sniper the combination will be devastating. The Russian Navy, sadly, is a shadow of its former self especially in the areas of manpower & leadership. If indeed it is true that the ship was hit by Neptune missiles and could not deflect the missiles then it is some reflection on the ship's crew. But just because you have top gear does not mean you can detect or deflect or shoot down an incoming missile - it is literally like dodging or shooting down an incoming bullet after spotting it 2 seconds before it is likely to hit you. And that incoming missile also is packed with clever electronics to evade and fool your (the ship's) systems. Also all this happens in seconds not minutes. Nevertheless, in my opinion, a better trained Navy might have had a different outcome.

Our flagship and several other warships are indeed of Russian origin or include Russian weapons. I do not believe we are sitting ducks by any stretch. Russian hardware especially guns and missiles continue to be top class. Also in war aircraft will get shot down and ships will get sunk. Recent overly one sided wars fought by the Americans in Iraq or Libya have given a whole generation the impression that you can bomb with impunity and therefore the loss of a major asset causes surprise. In war the loss of an asset would be the norm rather than the exception. Even the US Navy has been hit in the Gulf over the years.

In this case it is alleged that the Ukrainians distracted the Russians with drones and while their attention was focused on drones fired these shore mounted anti-ship missile. And we do not know what was the state of repair of this 39 year old vessel or if its electronic systems had been modernized or not. Also frankly I don't think the Russians were expecting any attack as the Ukrainians have virtually no Navy.

Militarily the Moskva was a rather old ship having commissioned in 1983. It was a Slava class cruiser built for cold war roles.

I hope this helps.

[saikarthik]

Originally Posted by Shreyans_Jain

How does this bode for our fleets, who use a fair bit of Russian equipment? Especially our flagship, INS Vikramaditya.

In addition to what Narayan sir explained, for your last point, the aircraft carrier never ever sails alone. It's always a strike group comprising Destroyers, Frigates, Corvettes, a submersible ship(submarine), helicopter mounted AEWACs and more. All these ships have detection elements of radars of multiple bands capable for detection and tracking multiple"potential threats". So it's difficult to pull a surprise on a strike group, and even if someone fires a missile, the vessels have multiple layers of defence, Barak 8, CIWS(AK630/Kashtan) which can intercept upto a saturation point. By this time, atleast one ship or the air wing (Mig 29Ks) would have tried and neutralized the source of the missile. It's really difficult to
pull any attack on the flagship.

[V.Narayan]

https://www.thehindu.com/news/nation...le65326853.ece

https://www.thehindu.com/news/nation...le65324255.ece

The Russians state that the two Talwar II class frigates under construction in Russia for the IN will not be affected substantially by the war and by the damage to the Zorya gas turbine plant in Ukraine. I tend to believe them, more or less, as the turbines and the entire power train is the first piece installed in a ship after the external hull has been built. Installation of the power train features very early in the PERT/CPM chart of ship construction. So the turbines from Zorya must have been delivered a long time ago. Two more of these frigates need to be built by Goa Shipyards. I wonder what the status is with them. They were scheduled for delivery in 2026. Goa Shipyards annual report for FY21 states that the keel has been laid down. I suspect the turbines here are likely to cause delays.

For the benefit of readers we are talking here of the Zorya D71 cruise turbines rated at 9850 shp and Zorya DS95 boost or sprint turbines rated at ~22,000 shp. These ratings as you know are at 15 degrees centigrade ambient. At 34 degrees centigrade which is the warmest at sea temperature encountered in our parts the output drops by roughly 25%. While 25% might sound a lot for a ship that translates to about 7% to 8% reduced speed in calm seas and lesser than that in a heavy seaway. Marine gas turbines are marvels of engineering. When you see them it shocks you how something so small drives something so huge.

[V.Narayan]

Proposal in 2+2 talks for joint patrols in the South China Sea by USN & IN
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...w/90966961.cms

India and the US now plan to undertake sea patrols in the South China Sea to counter Chinese belligerence. This would be a very significant step forward after the Quad naval exercises under the Malabar umbrella. There is no pretending that China would love to crush India at the first opportunity it gets and I believe 'Munich 1938' style appeasements are not worth the bother. The only language the PRC understands is the language of strength and will.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Proposal in 2+2 talks for joint patrols in the South China Sea by USN & IN
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...w/90966961.cms

India and the US now plan to undertake sea patrols in the South China Sea to counter Chinese belligerence. This would be a very significant step forward after the Quad naval exercises under the Malabar umbrella. There is no pretending that China would love to crush India at the first opportunity it gets and I believe 'Munich 1938' style appeasements are not worth the bother. The only language the PRC understands is the language of strength and will.

This is really significant. We already saw how the Indian Navy has started naval air patrol & ASW operations with the RAAF using their respective P8s and now this. Despite the best intentions of all the Quad partners, I think the Quad will eventually become a security alliance just that the process will be a slow and long-drawn-out one, unlike NATO which came into existence almost overnight in geopolitical terms. The main reason is that none of the Quad countries can take on the PLAN on its own in the Indo-Pacific. Just have a look at this table made by a friend of mine.



While the cumulative numbers of the Quad countries may look impressive, you need to keep in mind that India and US have other responsibilities. The Indian Navy's Western Fleet which contains our more state-of-the-art assets like the Kolkata and Visakhapatnam class destroyers is primarily geared towards Pakistan while the US Navy needs to deploy ships to protect allies in the Middle East (5th fleet), Europe (6th fleet) etc with only the 7th and perhaps the 3rd fleets being geared towards China. Meanwhile, the PLAN (along with the JMSDF and the RAAN) have the luxury of deploying almost their entire fleet in the Indo-Pacific. So, I think the Quad will eventually end up getting morphed into a security alliance without any of the 4 countries actually realizing it. I mean, it is unprecedented for a US SoD to tell his Indian counterpart that they will defend India's sovereign interests (even if to suit their own goals), I believe the only other country to have promised this even if in mere words was the Soviet Union.

If Quad actually does become a security alliance, this would be just as significant as the rise of China in the 21st century leading to repercussions I can't think of - for example, how will the Indian public take it? Our ex-PM Dr. Manmohan Singh had to face a no-confidence vote just for signing the nuclear deal with the US.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by Shreyans_Jain

How does this bode for our fleets, who use a fair bit of Russian equipment? Especially our flagship, INS Vikramaditya.

Originally Posted by saikarthik

In addition to what Narayan sir explained, for your last point, the aircraft carrier never ever sails alone...It's really difficult to pull any attack on the flagship.

A simple way to summarise what's been said above by others is to look at the cumulative assets assigned to a carrier group as layers of defence, each of them concentrically expanding outwards (start with your CIWS and then progressively build outwards till you have your fleet air defence patrols).

The jury is still out on what exactly the cause of the Moskva sinking was with even the Pentagon being circumspect in their assessment. What everyone agrees on is that it was an aging platform that had foregone modernisation efforts in recent years, with Russian discourse indicating that the crew preparedness in terms of combating fire on board being sub-par. Furthermore, the ship was operating weirdly close to shore when there was no apparent need for it. Anyway, the loss is a Huge one symbolically above all else and with Turkey blocking inbound access to the Black Sea it changes the naval dynamics somewhat (not that I expect the Ukrainian navy to really sortie out).

Coming back to carrier defence, a good way of looking at it is in terms of how you'd attack it. Simply put you can go up top, or down below.

Down below is via an attack submarine, and this is where the ASW component of a carrier group is critical. As the Swedes proved with their Gottland class when exercising with the USN, clever tactics and use of even a little conventional sub can score a hit on a mighty US CBG (it was such an eye opener for the USN, they promptly leased said boat to study it and develop tactics to defend against it).

To me attacking a carrier from above is the complex bit. Essentially you're hoping to hit it with some kind of stand off weapon like a missile. For those who've read Red Storm Rising, there's the example of the Soviet Backfires armed with Anti Ship Missiles, spamming the CBG defences (basically fire off such a huge volley that you hope some of the missiles sneak through and score a hit). Then there are weapons like the Chinese DF-21, a ballistic missile purportedly meant to strike carriers. Just recently the PLAN was spotted testing an air launched variant. Tricky thing here though is you need extremely accurate targeting especially in the terminal stage of the missile descent to score a hit on a carrier. Unlike static land based targets, no carrier will be sitting still on the board and big nuclear ones like the Nimitz can hustle at a fair clip so in the time a land based DF-21 is fired off, it could be miles away. This is part of the reason why the PLAN is now testing an air launched version, not only to they get to push the USN further back based on the reach of the missile, but they can cut the time to target.

At this point it brings me to a school of thought whereby flagships start to become more of a hindrance than an asset. Mostly this stems from the fact that in the case of a big flat top, not only do you have the cost of the kit that comprises the CBG, but you've got the cost of the carrier itself, not to mention the hundreds of sailors on board. The potential of losing one could be the kind of body blow that takes the wind out from the public appetite for any further conflict. It ties in to the simple arithmetic of raising the cost of war beyond what the other side is willing to pay. In the naval domain we've seen this throughout history. The mighty dreadnoughts of WW1 ended up sapping energy in comparison to their destructive power. The German Empire for eg would've been better off focusing on the U-boats instead. In any case this balancing of the scales is a fiendish argument given all the esoteric benefits that come with a flagship (carrier mostly) such as soft power projection for eg.

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

India and the US now plan to undertake sea patrols in the South China Sea to counter Chinese belligerence. This would be a very significant step forward after the Quad naval exercises under the Malabar umbrella. There is no pretending that China would love to crush India at the first opportunity it gets and I believe 'Munich 1938' style appeasements are not worth the bother. The only language the PRC understands is the language of strength and will.

Strong language there. Intriguing step for India, would stretch the legs of the vessels and be useful experience. How common are exercises with ASEAN partners? Could the IN exercise with the Vietnamese? Hopefully these patrols get tied in with the wider Act East policy, have synergy between the diplomatic corps and their efforts with those of the IN.

Thing is the PLAN isn't sitting down. Just as I was mentioning they're deliberately leaking details of tests of an air launched anti ship ballistic missile, new leaks indicate their massive Dreadnought-ish Type 055 destroyer too is testing what might be a sea launched variant. Said before we're in another era of a naval arms race, ships like the Type 055 are emblematic of it. Granted it's built more to dissuade USN CBGs from coming anywhere near Taiwan, less so to sortie out to the IOR, but it gives pause for thought no doubt.

I remain super curious about what impact the Ukrainian war has had on the thinking of the Chinese wrt a Taiwan campaign. How they adapt will be of immense interest to all nearby observers who share an orbit with the PLA, PLAN and PLAAF.