India Navy Destroyers

[Tupolev16]

Yes it is currently undergoing refit at HSL (Vizag) and has been since late 2021 I believe.

I had a poke around Vizag in google earth, we have a relatively current picture from 2023:

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

View attachment 53873

Here's how it looked like late 2021:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1474264146786938884

Thank you for the prompt and informative reply! And another question if I could: as far as I remember. INS Mumbai D62 did not have two AK-630 swapped for Barak-1 (contrary to other two ships). Did any changes in close-defense AAA or SAMs take place? Or we just need to wait for photos of the refitted ship in sea?

 

[Nilgiri]

Thank you for the prompt and informative reply! And another question if I could: as far as I remember. INS Mumbai D62 did not have two AK-630 swapped for Barak-1 (contrary to other two ships). Did any changes in close-defense AAA or SAMs take place? Or we just need to wait for photos of the refitted ship in sea?

It is very hard to make out what is happening on INS Mumbai refit regarding the CIWS area, here is the google image location (this time looking around dockyards at MDL):

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.ca

I can just about make out (red arrows) that maybe the front 2 spots are now blank (well at least 1 of them) suggesting Barak 1 will replace there to bring it in line with other 2 (that got them around early 2000s iirc) in the class during this refit.

I can just about make out the 2 rear AK-630 still there for comparison compared to these two spots.

We might just be better off waiting for the ship to be at sea like you say.

Maybe @Gessler @Anmdt @Paro or another can say more on all this.

 

[Tupolev16]

It is very hard to make out what is happening on INS Mumbai refit regarding the CIWS area, here is the google image location (this time looking around dockyards at MDL):

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.ca

View attachment 53875

I can just about make out (red arrows) that maybe the front 2 spots are now blank (well at least 1 of them) suggesting Barak 1 will replace there to bring it in line with other 2 (that got them around early 2000s iirc) in the class during this refit.

I can just about make out the 2 rear AK-630 still there for comparison compared to these two spots.

We might just be better off waiting for the ship to be at sea like you say.

Maybe @Gessler @Anmdt @Paro or another can say more on all this.

Much obliged!

 

[Tupolev16]

Good evening, guys! Could anybody tell what happened to INS "Rajput" after decomissioning? Is there any chance it will be preserved as a museum?
Thank you in advance for sharing info!

 

[Nilgiri]

Good evening, guys! Could anybody tell what happened to INS "Rajput" after decomissioning? Is there any chance it will be preserved as a museum?
Thank you in advance for sharing info!

I'm not sure. On google maps I can see it sitting at the naval dockyard. They are probably keeping it as reserve for some time while they decide what to do with it later. I cant find any more information on it.

Hopefully will be a museum like you say, let us see.

 

[Zapper]

I'm not sure. On google maps I can see it sitting at the naval dockyard. They are probably keeping it as reserve for some time while they decide what to do with it later. I cant find any more information on it.

Hopefully will be a museum like you say, let us see.

More likely to be scrapped given the fate of INS Viraat which is an aircraft carrier having better prospects to attract bidders and tourists

 

[Tupolev16]

Thank you for the comments! let's hope that the legendary ship will make it out!

 

[Nilgiri]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1651957465817161731

 

[Nilgiri]

INS Delhi After Undergoing Mid-Life Refit; Data-Links on IAF MRCAs & Combat-Support Platforms

VHF/UHF/L-Band Tactical Data-Links on IAF MRCAs VHF/UHF/L-Band Tactical Data-Links On IAF Combat-Support Aircraft

trishul-trident.blogspot.com

I see you are active in comments there @Gessler

 

[Nilgiri]

INS Mormugao Barak 8 test

https://www.aninews.in/news/national/general-news/indian-navy-warship-ins-mormugao-engages-sea-skimming-supersonic-target20230523095255

 

[Nilgiri]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1664630161206042624

 

[Gessler]

INS Chennai reached France ahead of Bastille Day

 

[Nilgiri]

MDL delivers 'Imphal' to Navy 4 months ahead of contractual time; first warship with accommodation for women staff

Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Limited (MDL) has delivered the third stealth destroyer of Project 15B Class guided missile destroyer, 'Imphal', to the Indian Navy, four months ahead of schedule. This warship is the first to have accommodation for women officers and sailors. It is armed with...

economictimes.indiatimes.com

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1715309136735527318

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1715310328500662644

 

[Marlii]

So p18 will be an 8 ship class.

 

[Nilgiri]

View attachment 63165
So p18 will be an 8 ship class.

Its about time. Building just 3 of a class (or 3 + 3 in A, B-upg format) is not sufficient given lack of true economy of scale and the force levels PLAN has achieved already. 8 ship builds is minimum going forward.

BTW, INS Imphal did a test:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1727190089514770798

 

[Marlii]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1728601443031208347

What p18 may look like

 

[Joe Shearer]

Its about time. Building just 3 of a class (or 3 + 3 in A, B-upg format) is not sufficient given lack of true economy of scale and the force levels PLAN has achieved already. 8 ship builds is minimum going forward.

BTW, INS Imphal did a test:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1727190089514770798

Not so open-and-shut, champ.

The PLAN has been feeling its way cautiously forward from its laser-focus on coastal defence to (first) a near shore navy, focussed on anti-submarine warfare, replete with weird schemes for underwater traps and obstacles to get hostile submarines lurking too close to Chinese shores (too close = 1,000 kms, give or take half an ocean), and then (second) a proper blue water navy, capable of operating at distances from Chinese shores. In parallel, they were jamming these vessels with technology - on better, more powerful radar and sonar in the matter of sensors, and vertical launch systems with more and more capacity (currently 3 or 4 missiles can be sandwiched into the same VLS tube), and CIWS and ASW armament outside missiles, and, to fit in all these, different combinations of hull size (beam and length, and displacement) and propulsion and transmission systems.

The situation about their destroyers will help to understand what they faced and addressed.

They began by 'reverse-engineering' Soviet naval craft. Still in inventory is the Sovremenniy class destroyer. They shifted as soon as money started pouring in to, first, the Type 051, of which only one or two sub-types remain (Type 051B, and Type 051C), then the Type 052, that is now present in all its variants, Type 052, Type 052B, Type 052C and Type 052D. Finally, they built the big ones - for want of a better description than destroyer, we can them 'super-destroyers', or, in the interests of orthographic and nominal parsimony, 'light cruisers' (WWII Royal Navy light cruisers were around 6,000 MT, and heavy cruisers, around 8,000 MT, with bigger ordnance for the heavies).

This last is the intriguing Type 055 class, that has a displacement of around 13,000 MT; its predecessor class, the Type 052s, were around 7,500 MT.

So if we look at the Type 052 and its variants, we notice that the original 052 was a maid-of-all-work version, running around hunting submarines, shooting at aircraft and it was hoped attack all surface craft crazy enough to approach the PLAN Grand Fleet. They gradually tinkered with the model, until today, as the 052D, it is more or less the AA platform of choice in a PLAN Task Force. The big brothers, the 055 types, took over the fleet defence against surface vessels, and submarines role rather smoothly.

Do we need to do that ? - 3 hulls at a time, make modifications and changes, freeze requirements, go into bulk production.

Yes and no. That depends on what we have in mind for our Navy. I am not sure that we have worked out what our naval roles under the integrated theatre command Southern Command is going to be. That in turn will depend the equipment, sensors and armaments, and will allow us, after some time spent in assessing different variations, to freeze on one design. So, yes.

There is also a case for no.

 

[Nilgiri]

Not so open-and-shut, champ.

The PLAN has been feeling its way cautiously forward from its laser-focus on coastal defence to (first) a near shore navy, focussed on anti-submarine warfare, replete with weird schemes for underwater traps and obstacles to get hostile submarines lurking too close to Chinese shores (too close = 1,000 kms, give or take half an ocean), and then (second) a proper blue water navy, capable of operating at distances from Chinese shores. In parallel, they were jamming these vessels with technology - on better, more powerful radar and sonar in the matter of sensors, and vertical launch systems with more and more capacity (currently 3 or 4 missiles can be sandwiched into the same VLS tube), and CIWS and ASW armament outside missiles, and, to fit in all these, different combinations of hull size (beam and length, and displacement) and propulsion and transmission systems.

The situation about their destroyers will help to understand what they faced and addressed.

They began by 'reverse-engineering' Soviet naval craft. Still in inventory is the Sovremenniy class destroyer. They shifted as soon as money started pouring in to, first, the Type 051, of which only one or two sub-types remain (Type 051B, and Type 051C), then the Type 052, that is now present in all its variants, Type 052, Type 052B, Type 052C and Type 052D. Finally, they built the big ones - for want of a better description than destroyer, we can them 'super-destroyers', or, in the interests of orthographic and nominal parsimony, 'light cruisers' (WWII Royal Navy light cruisers were around 6,000 MT, and heavy cruisers, around 8,000 MT, with bigger ordnance for the heavies).

This last is the intriguing Type 055 class, that has a displacement of around 13,000 MT; its predecessor class, the Type 052s, were around 7,500 MT.

So if we look at the Type 052 and its variants, we notice that the original 052 was a maid-of-all-work version, running around hunting submarines, shooting at aircraft and it was hoped attack all surface craft crazy enough to approach the PLAN Grand Fleet. They gradually tinkered with the model, until today, as the 052D, it is more or less the AA platform of choice in a PLAN Task Force. The big brothers, the 055 types, took over the fleet defence against surface vessels, and submarines role rather smoothly.

Do we need to do that ? - 3 hulls at a time, make modifications and changes, freeze requirements, go into bulk production.

Yes and no. That depends on what we have in mind for our Navy. I am not sure that we have worked out what our naval roles under the integrated theatre command Southern Command is going to be. That in turn will depend the equipment, sensors and armaments, and will allow us, after some time spent in assessing different variations, to freeze on one design. So, yes.

There is also a case for no.

I often take a somewhat devil's advocate absolutist position just to see if someone will produce a reply like this

You are very correct it ultimately boils down to confidence and maturity developed of the platform w.r.t the physical capacities (shipyards and funding).

India is lacking in a number of aspects here and yes we have to develop something actually concrete in core strategy on this matter on the naval roles in integrated command-battle space.... along with the more typical reactionary responses we have as the default (though some parts of this are understandable and expected given the sheer levels we have fallen behind on)

 

[Joe Shearer]

I often take a somewhat devil's advocate absolutist position just to see if someone will produce a reply like this

You are very correct it ultimately boils down to confidence and maturity developed of the platform w.r.t the physical capacities (shipyards and funding).

India is lacking in a number of aspects here and yes we have to develop something actually concrete in core strategy on this matter on the naval roles in integrated command-battle space.... along with the more typical reactionary responses we have as the default (though some parts of this are understandable and expected given the sheer levels we have fallen behind on)

Push this a little further?

 

[Nilgiri]

Push this a little further?

It has to do with the combat space taken comprehensively (the intent of the integrated command space).

In the naval domain, the A&N islands role for example as its a massive asset, a very large but fixed bunch of aircraft carriers in a prime location. What will its role be, how can be further leveraged here while the overall wherewithal lags the main opponent.

What are the things that will have to be worked upon with allied nations, what roles are they willing to play in the various tiers of conflict concerning us.

Then yes, exactly things like what you have described with the actual final production of war assets and training of their crew and research into improving all of these (sensoring and weapons especially, either hosted by the naval mobile assets themselves or stationed on land, air assets, space etc that will play a more effective role in the naval domain with more integration).

i.e If MDL, GRSE et al have (or soon will have) X shipyard berths and capacities at hand that are now larger than Y of yesteryear that allow say a 4+4 economy of scale compared to 3+3. Or is an 8 at one go even possible? i.e is there a significant chokepoint in this layer....along with considerations of capacity for building other (especially smaller) ships and tradeoff studies here for their numbers required (in that comprehensive combat space reality and projection regarding frigates, corvettes, subs and so on).

I have simply not looked at the shipyards themselves regarding this potential. I would assume 4+4 is the natural transition from 3+3 though.

Then the next layer is very much the maturity + confidence invested in the system from operation of preceding blocs and their subsystems reliance etc.

i.e assuming for sake of argument all 8 production slots open and available, do you commit all 8? Or commit 4 (and wait and see w.r.t operations and tech developments) and commit the next 4 later (to take advantage of what was developed in the interim and also having 4 production slots available for other warships that may be more appropriate for the force level ramping strategy picked), very much like you have described.

There was only some fairly nominal upgrades between the Kolkata and Vizag classes from what I have looked at (compared to their total costings)....so maybe these indicate more cohesion in the successor class for all 8. Or maybe the raw tonnage increase and all other considerations are the imperative default and a 4+4 conservative approach (essentially scaling 3+3) is preferable even with 8 slots.

If the shipyard berths are constrained to 4+4 anyway (i.e thats the chokepoint), its moot point largely as at that point you want the next 4 to take advantage of the time they were unable to be produced earlier.