Indian Navy LHD/LPD Amphibious Ships : Updates & Discussions

[Speedster1]

Yes agree on most point. My observation for each case was

LT was never going to win any conventional sub deal, no matter how much some fraction within navy wanted or how good the offer was. Yes someday this monopoly of MDL will break but as with the submarine class & origin, it was not to be now with scorpenes getting extended order with aip. They were just placeholder sort of.
This should make the LPD deal a prime target for them, but govt side would have to provide at least 1 big ticket to CSL-HSL lot and the smaller warships L2 portion alone can not sustain those. So both can bid aggressively for this project given the unique nature of this very large ship class, at least CSL should given IAC2 might be further away. CSL already looking into ship repair & commercial ship building opportunity plus exports.

Whatever design is finally chosen be it WDB own or with consultation, it will be heavily customised anyway (hence high overall cost).

We know whom CSL has partnered with so they see this as serious target hopefully. LT in this case can look weak but can be surprising choice who knows. Interesting convergence with the new shipping policy & domestic large shipbuilding momentum about to start so every shipbuilding co in the country is in the process of capacity enhancement. LT just like the Swan shipyard is probably open to sub-contracting which the big 3 are not likely. So that can be interesting.

Pipavav/Swan is looking for foray into defence shipbuilding hence their mou with 2 big psu ie they want the opportunity, but MDL did not seem that serious to me. Might be hedging but lets see. GRSE priority seems like warship deals with NGC L1 done, P17B they also bid aggressively & are shortlisted for the destroyer class ships + waterjet crafts & OPVs are in their basket. All this make their priority lying elsewhere.

The IN was initially enthusiastic about pvt sector participation in defence shipbuilding. But its hopes were dashed after the NOPV fiasco. I'm glad Pipavav/Swan is back in business but this is its last chance to redeem itself. Any delays/problems could call the credibility of pvt shipyards into question. Not good for future business.

One sticking point is the IN requirement for IEPS instead of proven LM2500s (which HAL builds under license) on the LPDs. The UK Royal Navy has had its fair share of problems with the Daring class DDGs, esp on long range deployments. Hope we don't get stuck with a set of really expensive hangar queens like the Vikramaditya.

The IN is reportedly also interested in operating fixed-wing drones off these ships + a full complement of helicopters + 16 X Brahmos. Displacement is now firmly in the light carrier category. This will inevitably push the costs up. The IN should have known better, considering how ruthlessly MoF babus blocked multiple IAC-2 proposals in the recent past.

 

[marich01]

The IN should have known better, considering how ruthlessly MoF babus blocked multiple IAC-2 proposals in the recent past.

This is a completely wrong assumption. At no point did IN approach the MoD with a firm proposal for IAC2 because the IAC1 itself is 5+ years away from its intended carrier jets being delivered.

This other idea is also completely wrong that officials block such proposals. No they do not, by individual authority basis. Decision to pass a high value acquisition goes through a special review committee where the user has to submit all justification along with NOC from every involved stakeholders. How can a committee pass a proposal where the previous deliverable is yet to reach its full operational capability demonstrated over an 18-36 months deployment period? Here we are at a situation where the jets are yet to be ordered. Naturally IAC2 is shelved for now.

Very high value project like IAC do not have provision for extra iteration repeat order in a quickfire way (ie concurrent build within a short time span of 2 - 2.5 yrs) unless its a very strategic project & special authority granted by a very high authority like PM chaired strategic committee, like in case of Arihant where S2 S3 followed due to being high priority & later S4* was granted so they can use the time to not be idle in between batches. An IAC or in this case the LPDs will never be such strategic level project even though a carrier is considered a high value strategic asset.

 

[Speedster1]

This is a completely wrong assumption. At no point did IN approach the MoD with a firm proposal for IAC2 because the IAC1 itself is 5+ years away from its intended carrier jets being delivered.

This other idea is also completely wrong that officials block such proposals. No they do not, by individual authority basis. Decision to pass a high value acquisition goes through a special review committee where the user has to submit all justification along with NOC from every involved stakeholders. How can a committee pass a proposal where the previous deliverable is yet to reach its full operational capability demonstrated over an 18-36 months deployment period? Here we are at a situation where the jets are yet to be ordered. Naturally IAC2 is shelved for now.

Very high value project like IAC do not have provision for extra iteration repeat order in a quickfire way (ie concurrent build within a short time span of 2 - 2.5 yrs) unless its a very strategic project & special authority granted by a very high authority like PM chaired strategic committee, like in case of Arihant where S2 S3 followed due to being high priority & later S4* was granted so they can use the time to not be idle in between batches. An IAC or in this case the LPDs will never be such strategic level project even though a carrier is considered a high value strategic asset.

I don't know what you mean by firm proposal but I do know that it was approved by DAC. MoF flagged the cost of the carrier + airwing as too high and asked the IN to prioritize acquisitions/consider other alternatives. (It didn't help that top officers like late CDS Bipin Rawat didn't favour more carriers)

For example, the 65K ton EMALS equipped IAC-2 was pared down to a Vikrant class follow-on in favour of P77 SSN which in turn got split into 3 batches of 2 instead of 6. Rajat Pandit had reported some time back that P77 had grown in size from ~6000t to over 10,000t. In any case, Arihant and her sisters are funded by the PMO directly.

 

[Ashwin]

I don't know what you mean by firm proposal but I do know that it was approved by DAC. MoF flagged the cost of the carrier + airwing as too high and asked the IN to prioritize acquisitions/consider other alternatives. (It didn't help that top officers like late CDS Bipin Rawat didn't favour more carriers)

For example, the 65K ton EMALS equipped IAC-2 was pared down to a Vikrant class follow-on in favour of P77 SSN which in turn got split into 3 batches of 2 instead of 6. Rajat Pandit had reported some time back that P77 had grown in size from ~6000t to over 10,000t. In any case, Arihant and her sisters are funded by the PMO directly.

MoF comes at the end of the process not from the start. People write too much fiction.

 

[marich01]

I don't know what you mean by firm proposal but I do know that it was approved by DAC. MoF flagged the cost of the carrier + airwing as too high and asked the IN to prioritize acquisitions/consider other alternatives. (It didn't help that top officers like late CDS Bipin Rawat didn't favour more carriers)

For example, the 65K ton EMALS equipped IAC-2 was pared down to a Vikrant class follow-on in favour of P77 SSN which in turn got split into 3 batches of 2 instead of 6. Rajat Pandit had reported some time back that P77 had grown in size from ~6000t to over 10,000t. In any case, Arihant and her sisters are funded by the PMO directly.

A file moves to DAC stage only after all the loose ends are tied up, supply chain all sorted (bar the obvious), every technology building block established & proven. They have to submit/attach COC along with it (hence so much paperwork involved). There is absolutely no proof yet that this was the case for a 2nd IAC proposal.
We can see it easily too, there are 2 active carriers & the jets meant for one new carrier delivered already is yet to be ordered. Impossible for a 2nd IAC case to proceed with capex needed for other projects as well, because a 2nd IAC delivery would be faster than the one. So although that benefit is there, circumstances & pressing need elsewhere means resource spent on other projects.

About the EMALS etc, the tech issue prevails, no proven & usable emals exist & its still in TD phase. So naturally the case for such can not be initiated and this aspect found mention in Navy's future outlook along with nuke propulsion for ships.
We also have to see what form the ssn batch takes , I also think 2 concurrent build is likely than 2 batches of 3 hulls each time due to trained manpower, yard setup & progressive improvement planned.

 

[Speedster1]

There is absolutely no proof yet that this was the case for a 2nd IAC proposal.

To be clear, I'm talking about the Vikrant-2 CV that was cleared by DAC a couple of years back. Not the catobar+ emals CVN. That ship is part of the Navy's long term vision.

(I think the biggest stumbling block is the lack of a 190-200MWe reactor. But since the S5 missile sub will likely share the same reactor, I'd say it will get funded sooner than later.)

The 2nd Vikrant class seems to have been delayed for later this decade/early 2030s to eventually replace Vikramaditya by 2040.

This ship is to be identical to Vikrant-1 so the supply chain/infra already exists.

We can see it easily too, there are 2 active carriers & the jets meant for one new carrier delivered already is yet to be ordered.

Nope. The IN has signed for 26 MRCBF for the Vikrant earlier this year. Deliveries by 2028.

Source: Naval News India Orders 26 Rafale Marine carrier-based aircraft for $7.5 billion - Naval News

ADA is developing TEDBF to equip the Vikrant-2 and future carriers. Although, whether the design evolves into a 5G carrier-based stealth fighter remains to be seen.

About the EMALS etc, the tech issue prevails, no proven & usable emals exist & its still in TD phase. So naturally the case for such can not be initiated and this aspect found mention in Navy's future outlook along with nuke propulsion for ships.

Of course.

 

[marich01]

To be clear, I'm talking about the Vikrant-2 CV that was cleared by DAC a couple of years back. Not the catobar+ emals CVN. That ship is part of the Navy's long term vision.

(I think the biggest stumbling block is the lack of a 190-200MWe reactor. But since the S5 missile sub will likely share the same reactor, I'd say it will get funded sooner than later.)

The 2nd Vikrant class seems to have been delayed for later this decade/early 2030s to eventually replace Vikramaditya by 2040.

This ship is to be identical to Vikrant-1 so the supply chain/infra already exists.

This part is debatable due to widespread reports in media towards the end of 2023 made this look likely, but the actual reports did not specify whether the AoN was granted. In fact it was said it will be soon placed before DAC rather than AoN granted. See report, headline & report was different. At that time the whispers were loud, most likely fueled by some fractions within the Navy talking to the media.
This might be due to cost-benefit offered by a repeat IAC order vis-a-vis a bigger carrier later. A repeat IAC pins down resource worth ~ 15B in the budget where you have to bring the carrier jets anyway vs a future higher spec carrier where TEDBF might be a candidate.

Navy’s proposal for 2nd indigenous aircraft carrier gets DAC approval

NEW DELHI: In a move towards the government approval for the second Indigenous Aircraft Carrier, the Defence Procurement Board has moved ahead with the proposal

www.newindianexpress.com

Nope. The IN has signed for 26 MRCBF for the Vikrant earlier this year. Deliveries by 2028.

Source: Naval News India Orders 26 Rafale Marine carrier-based aircraft for $7.5 billion - Naval News

ADA is developing TEDBF to equip the Vikrant-2 and future carriers. Although, whether the design evolves into a 5G carrier-based stealth fighter remains to be seen.


Of course.

Yes you are right, I did not cross check whether the deal was actually signed with LOI given or they only announced it in PIB. The timing also indicate that once most of the gadget fitment were completed & sam complex also fitted, it possibly was operationally deployed in May due to pressing need.
This further cements the case that once the IAC is ready for op deployment that is after delivery it should take about 12-18 months for all the fitments done radar weapon complex, ciws firing trial, jet takeoff trials etc, will the purchase of the intended jets conclude. We consciously did not initiate and conclude the order placement by 2022 or 2023.
So if this is the practical situation, how can one expect a very quick repeat order being placed? I believe CSL in one past call said they can deliver the 2nd one in 5 years if order placed immediately. This must have echoed in some section within the navy, but not sure for DAC AoN.

I am not sure if deliveries by 2028, or it was delivery to start from 2028 ie first jet after 3 years which is normal schedule?
The same chain of event might repeat in case of LPD if the UHM & Naval ALH/DBMRH process do not pick up enough. The platforms will be ready & delivered but IN will have to import the first batch.

 

[Speedster1]

This part is debatable due to widespread reports in media towards the end of 2023 made this look likely, but the actual reports did not specify whether the AoN was granted. In fact it was said it will be soon placed before DAC rather than AoN granted. See report, headline & report was different. At that time the whispers were loud, most likely fueled by some fractions within the Navy talking to the media.
This might be due to cost-benefit offered by a repeat IAC order vis-a-vis a bigger carrier later. A repeat IAC pins down resource worth ~ 15B in the budget where you have to bring the carrier jets anyway vs a future higher spec carrier where TEDBF might be a candidate.

I missed that. So DAC has not cleared the project after all. Imo, Vikrant-2 is now a necessity if we are to retire the ageing Vikramaditya by 2040. A SLEP may be possible but will most likely involve replacement of the boiler-based propulsion system. Risky proposition.

The Chinese seem to be doing much better with the Liaoning CV which has a similar propulsion plant to the one on Vikramaditya. They have been sailing a lot more than our Vikky.

The timing also indicate that once most of the gadget fitment were completed & sam complex also fitted, it possibly was operationally deployed in May due to pressing need.

Yes, Vikrant and her CBG were deployed off Pak waters as part of Op Sindoor. She has finally received her complement of MRSAM VLS + Elta MF-STAR antennas. Those antenna spaces were just faired over earlier.

Because of her presence, the PN stayed put in port. This time, even their subs were reportedly all accounted for (by naval intelligence) unlike 2019.

So if this is the practical situation, how can one expect a very quick repeat order being placed? I believe CSL in one past call said they can deliver the 2nd one in 5 years if order placed immediately. This must have echoed in some section within the navy, but not sure for DAC AoN.

Depends on whether the IN specifies any design changes. But yes, build time should be shorter.

I am not sure if deliveries by 2028, or it was delivery to start from 2028 ie first jet after 3 years which is normal schedule?

Deliveries are expected to start in 2028-29 per media reports.

The same chain of event might repeat in case of LPD if the UHM & Naval ALH/DBMRH process do not pick up enough. The platforms will be ready & delivered but IN will have to import the first batch.

Flight testing of UHM is reportedly slated for next year. Entry into service should be smooth since the design is proven and rotor/gearbox issues are being addressed. DBMRH is a 2030+ project.

 

[Gautam]

Was looking at the photos/videos of the Indo-US amphibious joint exercises "Tiger Triumph". In all the exercises so far, the Indian side has fielded the INS Jalashwa (L41):
View attachment 42291

And the US has always fielded a San Antonio class amphibious transport dock (ATD) ship. This time they have bought the USS Sommerset (LPD 25):
View attachment 42293

Indian military's expeditionary amphibious capability is still a short range & limited capability. IN currently has 1 amphibious transport dock, 4 LSTs & 8 LCUs. We can deploy a theoretical maximum of ~5000 combatants, ~65 MBTs, ~40 APCs etc. in a radius of ~3000 km from India in one go. This is assuming a fleet availability of 100%, which is not the case most of the time.

It is a pitiful capability. Expeditionary amphibious capability has been long ignored by our govt. & military planners. These joint exercises with the US signal a return of focus on this domain.

IN has an ongoing acquisition program for LHD/LPD. An LHD/LPD will not be a one-to-one replacement for the INS Jalashwa ATD. There is no ATD program running to replace the Jalashwa although she clearly needs to be replaced.

Ironically, IN does have a hull in active service that could be modified into an ATD. This one:
View attachment 42292
This hull is originally a design from the Vik Sandvik India company. This company has also designed other Navy vessels like INS Anvesh, Nistar class Diving Support Vessel (DSV), Arnala class ASW-SWC, HSL-class Fleet Support Ship (FSS) etc.

The Navy could modify this hull design to accommodate a well dock, a large helicopter landing pad, sensors, weapons etc. An Indian ATD based on the INS Dhruv hull & modelled on say the San Antonio class is very much do-able. I have drawn up a prelim spec of what such a ship could be like:
View attachment 42294
Of course, all this is assuming that the powers that be are interested in having expeditionary amphibious capabilities.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2019306972533706866

 

[spice]

Ser​	Purpose	Description
1.​	Dimensions	Length - 200M - 230M (approx.) Displacement — 25000T — 30000T (approx.)
2.	Speed	Max sustained speed > 20 knots (approx.)
3.	Crew	600 approx
4.	Propulsion	Integrated Full Electric Propulsion
5.	Design	Through-Deck design
6.	Key Features	Advanced weapons sensors package for Multi-Threat environment and robust amphibious support including well deck
7.	Sea Worthiness	The ship should be capable of the Well Deck operations, Combat System Operation upto Sea State 5 and Operating Helos at all headings up to Sea State 6

The approved acquisition scheme is related to construction of 04 x LPDs for which RFP would be issued shortly under Buy (Indian-IDDM) category with minimum IC 70% iaw Section 'B', Chapter-Xll of DAP 2020. Further, IC requirement for material/ components/ software is minimum 50%.

 

[Ashwin]

Ser​	Purpose	Description
1.​	Dimensions	Length - 200M - 230M (approx.) Displacement — 25000T — 30000T (approx.)
2.	Speed	Max sustained speed > 20 knots (approx.)
3.	Crew	600 approx
4.	Propulsion	Integrated Full Electric Propulsion
5.	Design	Through-Deck design
6.	Key Features	Advanced weapons sensors package for Multi-Threat environment and robust amphibious support including well deck
7.	Sea Worthiness	The ship should be capable of the Well Deck operations, Combat System Operation upto Sea State 5 and Operating Helos at all headings up to Sea State 6

The approved acquisition scheme is related to construction of 04 x LPDs for which RFP would be issued shortly under Buy (Indian-IDDM) category with minimum IC 70% iaw Section 'B', Chapter-Xll of DAP 2020. Further, IC requirement for material/ components/ software is minimum 50%.

Where is the document from?

 

[spice]

Where is the document from?

https://eprocure.gov.in/epublish/app

 

[Speedster1]

This means Mistral is definitely out. RfP looks tailor made for JC-1.

Ser​	Purpose	Description
1.​	Dimensions	Length - 200M - 230M (approx.) Displacement — 25000T — 30000T (approx.)
2.	Speed	Max sustained speed > 20 knots (approx.)
3.	Crew	600 approx
4.	Propulsion	Integrated Full Electric Propulsion
5.	Design	Through-Deck design
6.	Key Features	Advanced weapons sensors package for Multi-Threat environment and robust amphibious support including well deck
7.	Sea Worthiness	The ship should be capable of the Well Deck operations, Combat System Operation upto Sea State 5 and Operating Helos at all headings up to Sea State 6

The approved acquisition scheme is related to construction of 04 x LPDs for which RFP would be issued shortly under Buy (Indian-IDDM) category with minimum IC 70% iaw Section 'B', Chapter-Xll of DAP 2020. Further, IC requirement for material/ components/ software is minimum 50%.

 

[Parthu]

This means Mistral is definitely out. RfP looks tailor made for JC-1.

Neither Mistral nor Juan Carlos is fitted with IFEP.

As I've said before, it's not tailor made for any existing design. Any foreign partner will have to come up with a fresh design with significantly modified power & propulsion layout.

Fincantieri's Trieste has electric propulsion, but I'm afraid it's current design might be too big for our requirement. Will have to be downsized.

So yeah, everyone has to go to the drawing board. But I'm still hopeful that eventually we'll end up with a ground-up indigenous design.

 

[YoungWolf]

This means Mistral is definitely out. RfP looks tailor made for JC-1.

Has been that way since the TPCR-25 came out.

Neither Mistral nor Juan Carlos is fitted with IFEP.

As I've said before, it's not tailor made for any existing design. Any foreign partner will have to come up with a fresh design with significantly modified power & propulsion layout.

Fincantieri's Trieste has electric propulsion, but I'm afraid it's current design might be too big for our requirement. Will have to be downsized.

Trieste features CODLAG, a combo of 2x RR MT-30 and 2x MAN 20V32 diesels, with 2x 2.2MW GE electric engines.

JC-1 too features CODLAG (Combined Diesel-Electric and Gas) propulsion, with a GE LM2500 and MAN 16V32 diesel with 2x 11MW Azimuth pod thrusters (electric).

Use of a combined diesel n GT setup to generate electric power for propulsion is quite similar to the RN's Type-45 destroyers. So both these ships can be considered electrically propelled.

Agree that a fresh design (with foreign involvement) looks highly likely.

 

[Parthu]

Has been that way since the TPCR-25 came out.


Trieste features CODLAG, a combo of 2x RR MT-30 and 2x MAN 20V32 diesels, with 2x 2.2MW GE electric engines.

JC-1 too features CODLAG (Combined Diesel-Electric and Gas) propulsion, with a GE LM2500 and MAN 16V32 diesel with 2x 11MW Azimuth pod thrusters (electric).

Use of a combined diesel n GT setup to generate electric power for propulsion is quite similar to the RN's Type-45 destroyers. So both these ships can be considered electrically propelled.

Agree that a fresh design (with foreign involvement) looks highly likely.

No, IFEP/IEP in the context basically means an electric transmission. Electric motor in place of reduction gearbox. That's what Type 45's got.

JC-1 uses a conventional gearbox and now that I looked it up, Trieste does too.

So actually neither fit the bill as they exist.

 

[YoungWolf]

No, IFEP/IEP in the context basically means an electric transmission. Electric motor in place of reduction gearbox. That's what Type 45's got.

JC-1 uses a conventional gearbox and now that I looked it up, Trieste does too.

So actually neither fit the bill as they exist.

Thank you. So what do you think is the purpose of the Azimuth pod on the JC-1 then? I thought it replaced the standard gearboxes n propellers.

 

[Speedster1]

Thank you. So what do you think is the purpose of the Azimuth pod on the JC-1 then? I thought it replaced the standard gearboxes n propellers.

Mainly useful for port side docking manuovers w/o the need for tugs and navigating narrow port entrances, afaik.

 

[Parthu]

Thank you. So what do you think is the purpose of the Azimuth pod on the JC-1 then? I thought it replaced the standard gearboxes n propellers.

Station keeping & slow maneuvering inside harbours.

 

[Ashwin]

No, IFEP/IEP in the context basically means an electric transmission. Electric motor in place of reduction gearbox. That's what Type 45's got.

JC-1 uses a conventional gearbox and now that I looked it up, Trieste does too.

So actually neither fit the bill as they exist.

Why do you think the swapping is a big ask. It's a proven system, and we already have all agreements in place with RR.

https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press-releases/2021/20-10-2021-rr-keen-to-partner-the-indian-navys-electrification-journey-for-its-fleet-of-the-future.aspx

India-UK marine engine collaboration sets tone for Navy’s next-generation warships - The Tribune

Inside the Capital.

www.tribuneindia.com