[Reinhard]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

INS Jalashwa and two or more Magar class amphibious warships are being readied for the sealift.

Yes read about it yesterday somewhere too. Amphibious warfare ships, tank carrier landing ships being used for evacuation, is just perfect. Shows one more evidence of the progress the Indian Navy is making in all directions over last decade and half. Not long ago, did we often see the Delhi class GMDs and Godavari class frigates doing evacuation duties. (Basically because these were stationed with the Western naval command and were always nearer to the Gulf regions).

While faster perhaps, the destroyers and frigates have much larger naval staff complement for operations. That would expose more sailors to civilians who may already be carrying the virus. Also - the larger troop/tank carrying ships like the Jalashwa and Magars, will ensure capacity for a much larger amount of people while still ensuring sufficient social distancing between the people taken aboard, along with more spacious medical facilities.

Kudos to these selfless defense personnel as usual risking own life to save others.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by Reinhard

Amphibious warfare ships, tank carrier landing ships being used for evacuation, is just perfect.

Big amphibs, LHDs LPDs what have you, are by far and away the most versatile capital ship you can have. Their sheer utility in peacetime, especially for humanitarian operations or disaster relief is unparalleled. Honestly for many nations, that want the prestige of a big flat top but realistically can't afford the cost of an actual carrier, an amphib is the way to go I think. You'd definitely get far more bang for your buck whilst still getting quite a bit of the soft power utility a carrier would've brought.

It's why I really wished India had swooped in for the orphaned Mistrals that were originally meant for Russia prior to them being sanctioned for their Crimean shenanigans. The Mistrals were fully built, had undergone sea trials and everything and were an entirely capable platform. The French would've had an easy time reasoning such a sale to India and if Russia still really wanted to look at what would've been theirs, I'm sure India would've happily organised joint exercises where Russian Naval personnel could get a nice long look at the vessels. Instead, the Mistrals ended up in Egypt of all places?! Pray tell what utility they'd need out of a big amphib for policing the Suez but that's where we ended up.

Meanwhile in time honoured fashion our own amphib procurement deal ambles on leisurely. Such a shame really. I know the IN had reservations about the independent directional steering propulsion pods the Mistral uses and instead asked for a traditional shaft driven propulsion that will require huge reengineering (as the shaft will eat into the well deck). I just wish India had a mechanism to swiftly make the most of opportune moments such as those. I'm sure we could've learnt to cope with the maintenance needed for the propulsion pods of the Mistrals, if they were already in IN service it probably would've made it Much much easier by now to have had a further license built order to add say 2/3 more hulls at domestic shipyards that would likely include any lessons learnt in the roughly 5 years at least the IN would've had to operate them by now.

Anyway, glad INS Jalashwa is being sent, seems ideal for this sort of work. I'm a bit surprised they haven't pressed the IAF airlift assets like the Globemasters or even the Ilyushins into service but I suppose economically it'll be easier to repurpose what are already idle Air India jets. Plus they'd likely be able to comfortably space evacuees out inside a big widebody like a 777 or even the 787s

[Aviatoraval]

Originally Posted by ads11

Big amphibs, LHDs LPDs what have you, are by far and away the most versatile capital ship you can have. Their sheer utility in peacetime, especially for humanitarian operations or disaster relief is unparalleled.
Anyway, glad INS Jalashwa is being sent, seems ideal for this sort of work. I'm a bit surprised they haven't pressed the IAF airlift assets like the Globemasters or even the Ilyushins into service but I suppose economically it'll be easier to repurpose what are already idle Air India jets. Plus they'd likely be able to comfortably space evacuees out inside a big widebody like a 777 or even the 787s

Sir, I think sending LPDs and Amph ships are better as they will be more economical compared to sending Globemasters.

Globemasters and ILs wont be able to carry out mass evacuation when you need to ensure social distancing. Also as aircraft is pressurised and air is circulated, there is more chances of spreading of Virus.

[bimal_67]

Originally Posted by Reinhard

... Amphibious warfare ships, tank carrier landing ships being used for evacuation, is just perfect. Shows one more evidence of the progress the Indian Navy is making in all directions over last decade and half. ...

Kudos to these selfless defense personnel as usual risking own life to save others.

The amphibious landing ships and LPD can definitely evacuate more people per sortie as compared to the other ships. Maintaining social distancing restrictions over the entire duration of the trip (4-5 days) for any type of ship would be a nightmare.
Apparently, Indian Navy has utilized the landing ships to evacuate / transfer personnel between mainland and our islands in the past, during the cyclone seasons. But this time, this is going to be a different proposition altogether due to the scale. On a rough estimate, there are more than 10 million expats in the Gulf. It would be interesting to follow the planning and execution of this massive evolution.
As per latest news bulletin, Govt. is planning to bring in aircrafts also (about 500 flights), which is inevitable considering the scale of operations.
https://keralakaumudi.com/en/news/ne...xpats-to-india

[ads11]

Originally Posted by Aviatoraval

Sir, I think sending LPDs and Amph ships are better as they will be more economical compared to sending Globemasters.

Globemasters and ILs wont be able to carry out mass evacuation when you need to ensure social distancing. Also as aircraft is pressurised and air is circulated, there is more chances of spreading of Virus.

Ah sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not saying one or the other in the case of ships and planes. I was saying that in the case of the airlift component of the evacuation, they pressed in civilian assets instead of strategic airlift capability.

Well, short of putting folks well spaced out on a barge to get them back, another key issue is time. Airlift is still the quickest way to get that many people out and considering there are still repatriation flights running and based on what I've heard from friends who Had to be repatriated it was pretty much 1 person per row on one side of an aisle. They're not packing the planes to capacity but ultimately, they might have to if it just means getting them out of Point A and back into India where they can be quarantined together at a domestic facility (obviously this has other ramifications but lets just look at it simply as a point A to B operation).

Considering the primary issue here is relieving people who feel that they've been stuck too long I imagine it'll be a combination of most high risk (and sadly best connected I imagine) folks getting an airlift out rapidly whilst others less at risk getting the scenic route back on Jalashwa. I imagine the prudent thing to do would be to have some form of rudimentary screening at the point of departure to segment the evacuees into the respective transport media.

What I'm curious to know and it's alluded in the preceding comment is the scale. Surely not all expats will be repatriated. Because lord almighty that's gonna be a huge logistical undertaking considering the already considerable supply logistical issues back at home. Plus given the whole ensuing debacle with USS Roosevelt, an outbreak of the virus on ships would be a nightmarish scenario to contain so let's pray it doesn't come to that.

[DrPriyankT]

Our Kolkata class destroyers and soon to be launched Vizag Class destroyers weigh in at around 8900 tonnes when at full load, but are armed with only 16 Bramhos Missiles and 32 Barak 2 missiles. Similarly the Shivalik Class and soon to be launched Nilgiri Class Ships weigh in at around 6500 tonnes each, but are again equipped with just 32 Barak-2's and 8 Bramhos Missiles (in case of the nilgiri class). In comparison, the other destroyers in service like the RN Type 45 Destroyer and the French FREMM class are more heavily armed, inspite of having the same tonnage. Why are our ships relatively less armed numerically in numbers of missiles?

As a side note the Russian Navy has the Gorshkov Class weighing in at about 5400 tonnes full load, but is equipped with 32 Redut Surface to air missiles and 16 land/ship attack cruise missiles.

[ads11]

If I remember from what earlier posts about their construction by V Narayan, Indian ships are built a bit larger than they need to with the idea that the larger hull form will likely allow room to grow over the lifetime of the vessel.

That being said the destroyers are indeed under-armed. I think IIRC that's an issue with limited VLS cells being built into the design. I mean the current trend now is to pack even little frigates with a veritable forest full of VLS cells, at least that's where the Russians are going. And the FREMM which is an Italian design by Fincantieri if I'm not mistaken just won the USN FFG(X) next gen frigate order and that too is bristling with armament.

Hopefully in later refit the destroyers will be up gunned in terms of their load out. I think at the time of the Kolkata class commissioning there was a delay in the Barak programme. Imagine someone like V Narayan will have more in terms of answers?

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by DrPriyankT

Our Kolkata class destroyers and soon to be launched Vizag Class destroyers weigh in at around 8900 tonnes when at full load, but are armed with only 16 Bramhos Missiles and 32 Barak 2 missiles. Similarly the Shivalik Class and soon to be launched Nilgiri Class Ships weigh in at around 6500 tonnes each, but are again equipped with just 32 Barak-2's and 8 Bramhos Missiles (in case of the nilgiri class). In comparison, the other destroyers in service like the RN Type 45 Destroyer and the French FREMM class are more heavily armed, inspite of having the same tonnage. Why are our ships relatively less armed numerically in numbers of missiles?

As a side note the Russian Navy has the Gorshkov Class weighing in at about 5400 tonnes full load, but is equipped with 32 Redut Surface to air missiles and 16 land/ship attack cruise missiles.

Thank you for the question. I'll try and share what little I know from people who designed and built these ships. So this may not be the typical response you may get on a defense forum.

Designers and Naval planners do not start with the ship i.e. hull and then say ok how much can we pack into this. They start with what role the vessel will have to fulfill over a 30 to 40 year life and therefore what weapon systems are needed today and what space is needed for growth & modernization tomorrow. A warship is first and second a combination of its weapon systems. The hull and propulsion are mere derivatives.

They then say ok so these are the weapon systems we want now let's see what is the largest hull we can fit them into {note not the smallest hull}. Why largest hull -- endurance, damage protection, space and weight to duplicate machinery, space and weight for future growth, room to accommodate unusual & unforseen tasks. Given that the weight of the ship is supported by water and a 2X increase in displacement leads to a less than proportional increase in power needed for a given speed it pays to go for bigger hulls for a given role-cum-weapon suite.The Indian Navy, the US Navy and Japanese Navy tend to follow this route. The latter two have perfected it to an art. We are on our way. Russians have a different design philosophy. More on that later.

The size of the hull is limited at the upper end by what propulsion system is available to you - indigenous, license production, geo-political limitations etc. You want a hull that can do 28+ knots at the least and 30+ knots preferably.

As you can see the hull size is a derivative and not the starting point. The weapon system is by and far the most expensive component and the missiles/torpedoes even more so. So the Naval planner also has to think that my budget over the next so many years can afford 144 vertical launch systems for a Barak 8 SAM - what is the best way to divide it between hulls -- 1 hull with all 144 {too concentrated} or 12 hulls with 12 VLS each {too diluted} or some combination in between. How do I optimize my hull numbers divided between two coasts and still have enough missiles for a sustained engagement. 24 missiles is much much much better than 12. But 48 is not twice as better than 24 because something else might be getting compromised in another department.

The Russians and the Soviets before them pack too much into a hull or more correctly do not build a big enough hull for the weapon package they wish to put to sea. That creates its own detriment in habitability, ability to perform in situ repairs, spares and munitions carried, buffer volume for hits, cruising range etc. They just have a different warfare philosophy.


To complete answering the question I am making a comparison of the Indian Navy's Kolkata versus Royal Navy's Type 45. The same would apply to the FREMM vs Shivalik:-

Both great designs. But designed for rather different roles facing differing potential opponents. The role decides the weapons - mix, number, reloads. Kolkata is ASW first, anti-ship & land attack next, AA third. Type 45 is AA first and foremost, second ASW, then third anti-ship and no land attack. Both are designed to be leaders of a squadron at sea, both have been built for endurance and good sea-keeping. The weapon mix {other than the dual purpose gun & light manual weapons} reflects the envisaged roles:

Kolkata, 7400 tonnes full load** - First role ASW: 2 x heavy ASW choppers, 2 x 6000 metre ASW rocket launchers*, 4 x 533mm ASW torpedo tube launchers*; Second role ASuW: 16 Anti-ship/Land Attack Brahmos guided missiles; Third role AA: 32 VLS for Barak 8, 4 x 30mm Gatling AK-630 CIWS

Type 45, 9400 tonnes full load: - First role AA: 48 VLS for Aster missiles; 2 Phalanx 20mm CIWS; Second role ASW: 1 heavy or 2 x Medium choppers, note no torpedoes or rocket launchers on the main hull; Third role ASuW: 8 Harpoon anti ship, note no land attack.

The comparison of 48 missiles on Kolkata versus 56 on Type 45 can be misleading as you can see above. A torpedo is also a missile!

Why the two warships have differing priorities we can discuss in another post. Note both are large well armed warships. Even in their third priority their punch is considerable.

I hope this explanation helps. :-)

*with number of reloads.
** the full load shown in Wikipedia simply does not look correct

[DrPriyankT]

Thanks sir for your explanation. It does make sense. However , I have also read that the Type 45 is fitted with but currently not equipped with ability to launch stormshadow cruise missiles, giving it credible land attack capability, and they can carry one merlin chopper which is a pretty capable ASW platform. One more question I currently now have is, why are our Kamorta Class Corvettes, armed with no SAM or SSM ,even though it’s Hull is big enough to carry a few. I know it’s primarily for ASW missions, but isn’t carrying a few short to medium range SAM’s atleast better for overall survival in a contested environment?


Also as a side note I would like to add that the heavily armed American destroyers i.e the Arleigh Burke Class in its Flight 3 iteration is on the verge of hitting its hull limits, as the Americans are adding bigger more power consuming BMD capable radars to it to counter the 15000 ton heavyweight Chinese Type 55 destroyers which weigh in at almost 12-13000 tonnes and are armed with 112 VLS cells. The Zumwalt class which was to replace the Burke’s turned out too expensive, forcing the Americans to upgrade the Burke Class even more.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by DrPriyankT

Thanks sir for your explanation. It does make sense. However , I have also read that the Type 45 is fitted with but currently not equipped with ability to launch stormshadow cruise missiles, giving it credible land attack capability, and they can carry one merlin chopper which is a pretty capable ASW platform.

Yes fitted for but not with. That usually reflects budget shortfalls. They should have fitted it for 2 Merlins instead of one. Two ASW choppers are several times more effective than one. One tracks actively, forcing the enemy sub to weave. The other tracks passively, without the subs knowledge and launches the attack.

One more question I currently now have is, why are our Kamorta Class Corvettes, armed with no SAM or SSM ,even though it’s Hull is big enough to carry a few. I know it’s primarily for ASW missions, but isn’t carrying a few short to medium range SAM’s at least better for overall survival in a contested environment?

Valid question. Yes we should fit them with at least Barak 1 point defence. Again fitted for but not with - Budgets. You can afford only so many Barak VLS and missiles -- how do you spread them between your platforms.

Also as a side note I would like to add that the heavily armed American destroyers i.e the Arleigh Burke Class in its Flight 3 iteration is on the verge of hitting its hull limits, as the Americans are adding bigger more power consuming BMD capable radars to it to counter the 15000 ton heavyweight Chinese Type 55 destroyers which weigh in at almost 12-13000 tonnes and are armed with 112 VLS cells.

The Type 55 Chinese destroyer is really a cruiser sized vessel called a destroyer for political purposes. It is primarily an anti- aircraft carrier and land attack ship. As a lover of naval history my observation is that as authoritarian regimes start enjoying big unlimited naval budgets they tend to build a few superlative surface vessels that actually enjoy only a limited effectiveness in a real battle. The Imperial Japanese Navy, the Kriegsmarine, the old USSR's Navy all went down this path. The Type 55 is certainly an impressive ship. It will certainly frighten China's neighbours in the South China Sea region but its chances versus a submarine are no better than any other destroyer.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

So the Naval planner also has to think that my budget over the next so many years can afford 144 vertical launch systems for a Barak 8 SAM - what is the best way to divide it between hulls -- 1 hull with all 144 {too concentrated} or 12 hulls with 12 VLS each {too diluted} or some combination in between. How do I optimize my hull numbers divided between two coasts and still have enough missiles for a sustained engagement. 24 missiles is much much much better than 12. But 48 is not twice as better than 24 because something else might be getting compromised in another department.

Really appreciated this breakdown! I think it explains why the less than hoped for weapons load is just a reality of the fiscal compromises the planners had to make the most of.

Originally Posted by DrPriyankT

The Zumwalt class which was to replace the Burke’s turned out too expensive, forcing the Americans to upgrade the Burke Class even more.

The Zumwalt class is another fiasco that sits close to but not as high up on the pedestal of USN ignominy as the Littoral Combat Ships. The fact that the Zumwalt's are openly admitted as no more than training ships, the fact that the smooth stealth oriented surfaces instead are dotted with the myriad protrusions of regular antennae; and finally the fact that it's main gun doesn't have the shells it was designed to fire, just comes together to make what is a very pretty but ultimately useless piece of kit in a shooting war. Sure there's a ton of great tech in the Zumwalt, but ultimately it's greatest contribution will be as a sobering reminder of the perils of naval planning run amok. The fact that they named it after Admiral Elmo Zumwalt and his pragmatic philosophies is ironic in the extreme..

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

The Type 55 Chinese destroyer is really a cruiser sized vessel called a destroyer for political purposes. It is primarily an anti- aircraft carrier and land attack ship. As a lover of naval history my observation is that as authoritarian regimes start enjoying big unlimited naval budgets they tend to build a few superlative surface vessels that actually enjoy only a limited effectiveness in a real battle. The Imperial Japanese Navy, the Kriegsmarine, the old USSR's Navy all went down this path. The Type 55 is certainly an impressive ship. It will certainly frighten China's neighbours in the South China Sea region but its chances versus a submarine are no better than any other destroyer.

The Russian Kirov class comes to mind. They're an absolutely enormous capital ship but ultimately as the recent news that the planned follow up Lider class is being shelved, such gargantuan vessels just don't make practical sense. Instead the Russian missile corvettes are much more sensible for them I find. I see them as the marine equivalent of the missile truck concept (ergo a B-52 if you're thinking in the air domain). The Russians have always been more than competent in the stand off weapons domain. Simple enough then, Ivan just packed one of his ships with all the VLS cells he could find. But granted as V Narayan pointed out that doesn't bode well for crew comfort amongst many other things. And the fact that it's a running joke that Russian surface ships might often be accompanied by an ocean going tug, doesn't burnish their reputation for being easy to repair at sea, or even reliable, at all.
The Chinese Type 55 destroyers are impressive looking things. Even more impressive is the cartoonish speed at which their shipyards are pumping them out. In fact they just launched their second LPD last week if memory serves me right. Questions will remain though about just how capable they are in a shooting war. I think a lot of these new surface combatants of the PLAN need to have a few years of deployments for anyone to say for sure how robust their systems are. But as V Narayan alluded to, there comes a point, where a muscular foreign policy is often allied with visible strength and in that regard, it's always been the naval arm that gets precedence. Going back to the father of the ol' Big Stick, Teddy Roosevelt, he had his famous Great White Fleet, that toured the world as the US aspired to be on level footing with the then gold standard of the Royal Navy. Similarly today you see the PLA restructuring with the reforms by President Xi targeted towards focusing more of the budget towards the PLAN after years of primarily being a missile boat and submarine force. Now you're seeing the PLAN make concerted efforts to create viable naval aviation groups, diversifying their marine landing capability in terms of acquiring giant Soviet design hovercraft, new LPDs, big area defence destroyers. They're building quick sharp to be able to catch up to the whole spectrum capabilities of the USN.

For the IN the prescience of a few officers and planners back in the day at least means that there aren't as many institutional learning curves for us in sub disciplines such as carrier aviation for example. I'd probably wager it's the SSBN crews and institutional doctrine building that goes with it there that'll be the area where there's still plenty that'll be learnt as we go on (can't imagine that's a domain Anyone would share knowledge, through any media - joint exercises or not, so we'll just have to learn the hard way). At least with the Akula leases we have been forward thinking in building up operational knowhow of reactors on boats.

[V.Narayan]

We need to be close to our friends: India holds naval exercise with Japan amid stand-off with China to send a signal

The Japanese navy has become one of the principal partners of the Indian Navy. Japan was one of the few countries who publicly supported India during the Doklam crisis.
Indian and Japanese warships conducted exercises in the Indian Ocean on Saturday, announced the navies of both the countries. The Japanese Maritime Self-Defence Force described the manoeuvres as designed to “promote mutual understanding” and consisted of four warships, two from each country. Ships taking part were -- INS Rana, a guided missile destroyer, INS Kulish a guided missile corvette from the India Navy and JS Kashima and JS Shimayuki from the Japanese Navy or Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force as it is officially named.

Naval exercises are now routine between India and Japan, but the timing of the present exercise will be bracketed with the military stand-off between India and China in Ladakh.
“We are using the exercises for strategic communications,” said Vice-Admiral Pradeep Chauhan, director-general of the National Maritime Foundation. The navies were “not there for combat purposes but for signalling,” he added.

One aim of the exercise especially its timing and its location off the coast of China is to let them know despite their perfidy in Galwan we are not frightened of them nor will we lie down.

https://www.navyrecognition.com/inde...ian-ocean.html

All photos sourced from JMSDF (Japanese Navy) Twitter Account
First photo JS Shimayuki leads INS Rana and INS Kulish. Second photo of INS Rana taken from one of the Japanese ships.

[ads11]

The Japanese have plenty of simmering beef with the Chinese territorially. There's the infamous Senkaku/Daioyu islands they fight over and then I recently found this video of interest:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hXQ5wNGdno

I find it amusing that the Chinese are crying foul of Japan building "islands" to declare the area their EEZ in direct contravention of UNCLOS. Pot calling the kettle black considering the Chinese efforts in the SCS.

Anyway, deepening India-Japan ties is only natural, there is incredible synergy in the geopolitical aims of both countries. That training between our navies is steadily increasing is also advantageous. The JMSDF is an incredibly competent and potent force, more so than their air and land counterparts and not without reason. I think it could be possible that India might act as the bridge to get the South Korean navy to also participate in such an exercise considering they too are frequently facing the brunt of muscular Chinese moves abroad (though at last check, ties between Japan and South Korea were at a low point)

Do we not hold a trilateral exercise between the USN, JMSDF and IN usually? Those exercises are another bound to rile up the PLAN.

[SmartCat]

The mainstream media has missed this important development. Almost the entire Indian Navy fleet of ships and submarines have been deployed in the Bay of Bengal. Maritime strike variants of Jaguar are also deployed at Car Nicobar airbase.

Indian Navy deployment sends ‘message’ to China
With tensions in Ladakh brewing, India moves to secure its naval control of the crucial Malacca Strait
https://asiatimes.com/2020/07/indian...sage-to-china/

I think the fleet moved in under the ruse of Naval exercises with US Navy, and stayed there.

[Sutripta]

Originally Posted by SmartCat

I think the fleet moved in under the ruse of Naval exercises with US Navy, and stayed there.

Why do we need a ruse?

Sutripta