What's new

Indian Navy News & Discussions

Something interesting for IN:

dsc03286_tcm46-159832.jpg


These are pics of the Dutch LDP Johan de Witt and some of the pirate boats they catched, during their anti piracy missions alongside the Somalian coast. A single vessel that operates several helicopters and smaller vessels to patrol a wider area. Also interesting that they purposely patroled alongside to the coastline, close to known pirate bases, to catch them faster instead of searching them at sea.

More pics:

21510c4a56be3b4e4f7c3be3083f78be-1672958580-1300696097-4d870c21-620x348.jpg


100507_DISRUPTION-E046-BY-JWIT_U-623x393.jpg


ImageVaultHandler.aspx




Are you suggesting we buy this LDP.?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Are you suggesting we buy this LDP.?

Not necessarily, but we have several competitions going on for LDP/LHDs, or for Fleet Support Ships and this shows that we should look at vessels, that serves multiple purposes. Instead of buying small ammounts of different vessels from different origins, a fleet of multi purpose vessels from a single manufacturer, would give IN a lot of advantages.
Besides that they shows pretty effective tactics in the anti piracy role too, which should be monitored and considered by IN.
The vessel however is interesting and is based on the Enforcer Family of amphibious vessels:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian-defence/30327-indian-navy-news-discussions-134.html#post3631615
 
.
@sancho I know you are pushing for this "multi-role" concept to combine the IN's LHD/LPD requirements with their JSS/FSS requirements and you have used the analogy of the A330 MRTT the IAF is getting. However I think there is legitimate reasoning behind keeping the requirements entirely seperate with two seperate contracts and two different ships. What you do not want is a "jack of all trades,master of none" type situation arising. If the IN goes for a single role ship like a LHD that is optimised for its job and has been designed from the ground up as a platform to support amphibious landings/assaults and expeditionary warfare then it is getting exactly if it wants. If the IN goes for some sort of hybrid wherin a LHD/LPD platform is combined with a FSS/JSS inherently there would have been trade offs somewhere along the line ie the ommision of a well deck or a lack of accommodation to house serious numbers of marine infantry (as well as feeding,bathing and entertaining them) or not enough hanger space etc. Yes with modularity it can be easier these days for ships to have a more multi-role capability but there is always going to be a limitation to this and hence trade-offs somewhere. Unless the IN is willing to put their multi-role platforms through a major overhaul and redesign every time they switch from one role to another to move bulkheads, add facilities and the like then these multi-role ships are going to be consistently failing in their intended roles.


Then there is the issue of crew training and operational rediness, there is a signifcant difference between a crew of a LHD/LPD and that of a JSS/FSS in terms of the skill sets of the embarked naval crew. Once again compromises and trade-offs would have to be made when training the crews of these ships so that they were the aforementioned jack of all trades. A well trained crew can offers be the difference between success and failure in a wartime environment and any issues with training or lack thereof can seriously impact a warship's operational capability.


There is certainly room for "multi-role" assets in the modern day and to this end we no longer see fighters who can only conduct A2A ops or only A2G ops. However on this front I would be glad to see two seperate platforms win that are both optimised in their own rights for their relevant mission profiles.

As such I am glad the IN seems to be of this mindset too and is apparently looking at two entirely seperate procurements.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
@sancho I know you are pushing for this "multi-role" concept to combine the IN's LHD/LPD requirements with their JSS/FSS requirements and you have used the analogy of the A330 MRTT the IAF is getting. However I think there is legitimate reasoning behind keeping the requirements entirely seperate with two seperate contracts and two different ships.

You didn't get the point mate, I have nothing against the Mistral class LHD and the Brave class FSS as winners, although both are different kind of vessels, but by ordering them from a single source, we can have a lot of commonality in systems, parts and spares, which makes it easier and cheaper to procure, operate and maintain the vessels. Not to mention that we could get a lot more industrial benefits out of it. If you remember, that's one reaons why I wanted both based on the Enforcer design (2 x LHDs + 8 x JSS).


Wrt vessels itself, again it's about combining similar requirements! IN issued RFIs for 4 x LDPs and 5 x FSSs, both in similar size and only a few different requirements and that's where modern JSSs perfectly fit in between! That means IN could simply order 9 x JSS => higher operational advantages, lower costs, higher indistrial benefits.

Then there is the issue of crew training and operational rediness, there is a signifcant difference between a crew of a LHD/LPD and that of a JSS/FSS in terms of the skill sets of the embarked naval crew.

That's the point, it isn't if you have a fleet of JSS that would do all roles, instead of spitting the fleet once for amphibious once for tanker roles, so just one training, similar to the training of LDPs or FSS.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
In addition to what I said above:

qyt4jzr4.jpg

(Mistral class LHD + Brave class FSS, both from DCNS and EDA-R landing craft)


mj9vb8b5.jpg


(A custom design based on the Enforcer class, which could be developed with Indian companies and systems, diverted from IAC 1 for example)
 
.
In addition to what I said above:

qyt4jzr4.jpg

(Mistral class LHD + Brave class FSS, both from DCNS and EDA-R landing craft)


mj9vb8b5.jpg


(A custom design based on the Enforcer class, which could be developed with Indian companies and systems, diverted from IAC 1 for example)


I would support the IN's LHD/LPD and JSS being sourced from the same nation/company.
 
.
I would support the IN's LHD/LPD and JSS being sourced from the same nation/company.

That's why I said, combining these competition would get us way more advantages, than consindering them seperately. The French vessels are good, but I think my custom designed JSS is more capable than the Brave class and would offer the chance to include more indigenous parts and develop it from the start according to our requirements.
 
.
That's why I said, combining these competition would get us way more advantages, than consindering them seperately. The French vessels are good, but I think my custom designed JSS is more capable than the Brave class and would offer the chance to include more indigenous parts and develop it from the start according to our requirements.
@sancho I think I may have misunderstood you completely. Are you advocating the IN get their LHD/LPD and JSS based on a COMMON PLATFORM or get some sort of LHD/JSS hybrid?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
@sancho I think I may have misunderstood you completely. Are you advocating the IN get their LHD/LPD and JSS based on a COMMON PLATFORM or get some sort of LHD/JSS hybrid?

No based on the same plattform, as I showed, you could have the same lower half for an LHD and a JSS, only the upper parts will differ externally, but most systems, interiour... would still be the same. The commonalities between and LDP and a JSS are even higher, since the only difference can be the refuelling capability:

http://s7.directupload.net/images/130418/izp8qunv.jpg


LDP in the back, JSS in the front, both based on the same plattform and common systems.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
India's Scorpene subs facing more delays - UPI.com

MUMBAI, April 19 (UPI) -- India's Scorpene submarine project likely will face an 18-month delivery delay after the pullout of consultants from Spanish shipbuilding partner Navantia.

A report by India's Times News Network said Mazagon Dock Ltd., the government shipbuilder in Mumbai where the vessels are being made, informed the navy that the project would be delayed by another 18 months to the end of 2016.

Last year Defense Minister A.K. Antony announced in Parliament that the project would be delayed three years until 2015.

The Scorpene is a diesel-electric attack submarine with additional air-independent propulsion jointly developed by the French shipbuilder DCN -- now DCNS -- and Spain's Navantia.

The submarines were ordered in 2005 under a technology transfer agreement.

The 219-foot-long vessel has a speed of more than 20 knots with a displacement of 1,700 tons. With a crew of 31, it can remain at sea for about 45 days and can dive to depths of more than 1,000 feet.

India's Ministry of Defense approved the six-vessel submarine purchase strategy in 1997 and the go ahead for construction of the subs in September 2005 at a cost of nearly $3.45 billion.

The cost had risen to $4.3 billion by February 2010, a recent Press Trust of India report said.

But this week TNN reported the exit of Navantia after a technical assistance agreement expired at the end of last month. Ten Spanish consultants left India, meaning more delays could ensue, unnamed sources said.

Management personnel from Mazagon are expected to meet with the government to demand additional funds for technical assistance, TNN said.

Delays will put operational pressure on India's submarine fleet of 10 aging Russian Kilo class and four German HDW submarines. India also leases a Russian nuclear submarine, Chakra.

Three of the subs are expected to be retired in the next several years.

TNN said the hulls for all six Scorpene submarines, made of steel supplied by French division of ArcelorMittal, are ready in Mumbai and Mazagon is tooling up of shipbuilding equipment and systems.

But the Spanish consultants were heavily involved in the hull work, meaning their departure likely will affect production.

The original Scorpene contract came under intense scrutiny by the government's public accounts committee, which said the deal gave "undue favor to the vendor," resulting in a financial loss to the government.

A report this week by the Press Trust of India quoted France's ambassador to India saying the first submarine would be delivered by 2014.

Delivery of the first sub will be a "strategic tie-up" for both countries, French Ambassador Francois Richier said during a trip to the western port of Goa.

Richier was visiting the French destroyer Montcalm on training exercises with the Indian navy.

"The submarines are important for the Indian navy considering the long coast it has to guard," he said.



Read more: India's Scorpene subs facing more delays - UPI.com
 
.
Beast and my other chinese brothers,why do you guys get so thrilled to find a delay in our weaponry programs? Let me make you feel better,yes there are delays.
However there is HUGE difference in our manufacturing policies.Chinese make weapons for the sake of making weapons,more or less like a window show piece.On the other hand,we like to make something that actually works. :bounce:
Ill take delays anyday of the week and get a product that does its job.
 
.
Lets talk about your submarines,They make more noise than a punjabi wedding,boy oh boy thats noisy.
So ask yourself,would you wait for a submarine that does its job or get in one that is a sitting duck. :butcher::butcher:
 
.
Beast and my other chinese brothers,why do you guys get so thrilled to find a delay in our weaponry programs? Let me make you feel better,yes there are delays.
However there is HUGE difference in our manufacturing policies.Chinese make weapons for the sake of making weapons,more or less like a window show piece.On the other hand,we like to make something that actually works. :bounce:
Ill take delays anyday of the week and get a product that does its job.

I am just happen to be helpful since none of your Indian dare to post this news in your section :lol:

As for your comment, I admire your great Indian self comforting spirit. :lol:

Chinese 041 submarine with AIP are far superior than your scopene junk that will be outdated by time its commission. :lol: Finally the last blow, 8 have spotted commission and joining the fleet.
 
. .
I am just happen to be helpful since none of your Indian dare to post this news in your section


Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian...-navy-news-discussions-149.html#ixzz2Qy7rxduv

Dnt flater yourself,we are the first to bash,where bashing is needed.

Recheck my post,but then again comprehension is big issue.

Chinese 041 submarine with AIP are far superior than your scopene junk that will be outdated by time its commission. Finally the last blow, 8 have spotted commission and joining the fleet.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian...-navy-news-discussions-149.html#ixzz2Qy9q3DPN

I am available every other sunday to help you with your reading comprehension.:close_tema::close_tema: :omghaha:
Reread my post
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom