Indian Navy LHD/LPD Amphibious Ships : Updates & Discussions

LHD/LPD is set to enter the tendering stage this year iirc. A couple of local designs are apparently in the fray as well (apart from JC-1 and Mistral). Imo, any of these designs could be adapted for the ATD role if there was a requirement.

Also, the IN wants a large displacement hospital ship which could well come with a dedicated transport variant. Then there's the FSS program too. But it's all up in the air right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RationalGuy and marich01
Gautam said:
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.
Click to expand...


At this point, India doesn’t need amphibious or expeditionary capabilities. I read somewhere that Nehru in his one of his wisest speech said India needs to have the capability to protect Indian & Indian origin people worldwide. But since then, Indians have been exiled in Burma, Uganda, Fiji & currently facing problems in Malaysia, Guyana (from Venezuela) and Lanka. At some point , India needs to develop her capabilities, but today it should be focused on offensive/defensive weapons system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RationalGuy and marich01
Vicky said:
India doesn’t need amphibious or expeditionary capabilities.
Click to expand...

Gives us capabilities to land troops from south of Sindh. From south of Bangladesh. Gives us capabilities to deploy big numbers from mainland to both our island chains. Gives us capabilities to secure Mauritius, Seychelles and Maldives.

With our current amphibious capabilities, we will not be able to service our A&N chains even.

PS: Burma has a more modern amphibious ship than whole of Indian Navy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PhotonVish, Ununennium ❁, RationalGuy and 1 other person
Ankit Kumar said:
Gives us capabilities to land troops from south of Sindh. From south of Bangladesh. Gives us capabilities to deploy big numbers from mainland to both our island chains. Gives us capabilities to secure Mauritius, Seychelles and Maldives.

With our current amphibious capabilities, we will not be able to service our A&N chains even.

PS: Burma has a more modern amphibious ship than whole of Indian Navy.
Click to expand...


If someone is able to invade A&N, then that means Indian armed forces have already failed. FYI tri service command with 40k troops trained in amphibious operations are already based in AN islands. For servicing, we have transport aircraft’s.

Invading Sindh or BD is out of question “today”. I want India to develop expedition capabilities, but not today when AF is bereft of aircraft, Army without modern gear still in 20th century and Navy with enough offensive platforms to fight China in Indian Ocean.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RationalGuy
GuA09a3WMAEf3m4


INS Jalashwa of the EasternSword SunriseFleet, a Landing Platform Dock of the IndianNavy proudly celebrates 18 years of glorious service under the Indian Naval Ensign on 22nd June.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chicu01, Gautam, Parthu and 3 others
Ashwin said:
G0EXJDiXUAEkYaT

TPCR 2025
Click to expand...
Given the length and tonnage specifics, it seems Juan Carlos ship is the closest fit. LHD Trieste (Italy) is the main alternative, though is slightly above the 29,000+10% tonnage. France's Mistral isn't big enough, neither is SoKo's Dokdo class. In fact, Dokdo is the smallest of all possible contenders. Russian Project 23900 Ivan Rogov and US' San Antonio could be good shouts, but 23900's construction at glacial pace and the latter lacking a full length flight deck (and being American) may count against them.

All in all, remains interesting to see if it actually progresses in the next 10 years. The MRSV RFI was floated 4 years ago, and nothing has happened since.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aditya g, _Anonymous_ and Speedster1
YoungWolf said:
Given the length and tonnage specifics, it seems Juan Carlos ship is the closest fit. LHD Trieste (Italy) is the main alternative, though is slightly above the 29,000+10% tonnage. France's Mistral isn't big enough, neither is SoKo's Dokdo class. In fact, Dokdo is the smallest of all possible contenders. Russian Project 23900 Ivan Rogov and US' San Antonio could be good shouts, but 23900's construction at glacial pace and the latter lacking a full length flight deck (and being American) may count against them.

All in all, remains interesting to see if it actually progresses in the next 10 years. The MRSV RFI was floated 4 years ago, and nothing has happened since.
Click to expand...
In its previous avatar, the LPD contract looked almost certain to go to Reliance-owned Pipavav SY. The IN wanted a pvt sector alternative to state-owned yards. Now, only Cochin SY, HSL and perhaps L&T might be cleared to bid for this project based on their previous experience of building large tonnage ships.

I'd say Cochin SY could be the frontrunner this time with a scaled down Vikrant design. All they'd need to do is add a well deck and remove the ski jump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YoungWolf
Ashwin said:
G0EXJDiXUAEkYaT

TPCR 2025
Click to expand...
Looks like they increased size from ~200 meter of earlier tender to 220 meter. @Parthu

Old RFI: Indian Navy LHD/LPD Amphibious Ships : Updates & Discussions

Speedster1 said:
In its previous avatar, the LPD contract looked almost certain to go to Reliance-owned Pipavav SY. The IN wanted a pvt sector alternative to state-owned yards. Now, only Cochin SY, HSL and perhaps L&T might be cleared to bid for this project based on their previous experience of building large tonnage ships.

I'd say Cochin SY could be the frontrunner this time with a scaled down Vikrant design. All they'd need to do is add a well deck and remove the ski jump.
Click to expand...
It was reserved for private sector, Pipavav vs L&T (2017).
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: RISING SUN, aditya g, Parthu and 1 other person
Ashwin said:
Looks like they increased size from ~200 meter of earlier tender to 220 meter. @Parthu
Click to expand...

Yes - the previous one was pretty much tailored for the Mistral in that respect. Now it's much more open.

But of course these numbers are far from binding.

Fatalis said:
Yes they increased the length. Now it favours the modified Juan Carlos I.
Click to expand...

There is no off-the-shelf design as far as our LPD/LHD is concerned because none of the existing contenders have an operational IEP/IFEP solution on their designs. The other requirements (like lifts) are also quite demanding and require redesign.

Any contender has to offer a heavily modified version of whatever they have now.

Regardless, this doesn't seem like a priority requirement. I doubt IN even has a clear plan on where & how to use these ships.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RISING SUN, aditya g and Ashwin
Parthu said:
Yes - the previous one was pretty much tailored for the Mistral in that respect. Now it's much more open.

But of course these numbers are far from binding.



There is no off-the-shelf design as far as our LPD/LHD is concerned because none of the existing contenders have an operational IEP/IFEP solution on their designs. The other requirements (like lifts) are also quite demanding and require redesign.

Any contender has to offer a heavily modified version of whatever they have now.

Regardless, this doesn't seem like a priority requirement. I doubt IN even has a clear plan on where & how to use these ships.
Click to expand...
How about modified trieste LHD/LPD but without second island, and not requiring modifications to operate stovl fighters.
A modified derated version at around ~35000 tons.

Then there's also older cavour design at 28000-30000 max displacement.
 
The old RfP had a significant land attack component w/16 Brahmos AShM to support amphib ops. The concept is not too different from the ex-Gorshkov (Kiev) class carrier, except that ship was also designed for Yak-38 jump jets.

Given how much influence the USN has had on shaping IN future carrier/big deck ship ambitions, I'm surprised the IN isn't looking at a navalized LCH variant already.
 
babablacksheep said:
How about modified trieste LHD/LPD but without second island, and not requiring modifications to operate stovl fighters.
A modified derated version at around ~35000 tons.

Then there's also older cavour design at 28000-30000 max displacement.
Click to expand...

Given that this seems to be a very long-term requirement, I'm willing to bet that eventually we'll gravitate towards an indigenous design from WDB.

Not unlike how we wrestled with foreign design partners for the FSS for over a decade (Korean, then Turks) and eventually settled on our own design, which must have been in iterative development in parallel.

Speedster1 said:
The old RfP had a significant land attack component w/16 Brahmos AShM to support amphib ops. The concept is not too different from the ex-Gorshkov (Kiev) class carrier, except that ship was also designed for Yak-38 jump jets.

Given how much influence the USN has had on shaping IN future carrier/big deck ship ambitions, I'm surprised the IN isn't looking at a navalized LCH variant already.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, the old requirement also had very specific requirements for the aviation complex. It required lifts that can accommmodate V22 Osprey-sized aircraft and a flight deck that had to be capable of handling a CH53K (but not the lifts). So they probably had cross-decking with USN/USMC in mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ununennium ❁, Speedster1 and babablacksheep
Parthu said:
Given that this seems to be a very long-term requirement, I'm willing to bet that eventually we'll gravitate towards an indigenous design from WDB.

Not unlike how we wrestled with foreign design partners for the FSS for over a decade (Korean, then Turks) and eventually settled on our own design, which must have been in iterative development in parallel.



On the other hand, the old requirement also had very specific requirements for the aviation complex. It required lifts that can accommmodate V22 Osprey-sized aircraft and a flight deck that had to be capable of handling a CH53K (but not the lifts). So they probably had cross-decking with USN/USMC in mind.
Click to expand...
Since the IN is developing CCAs with Newspace, the LPDs could well feature angled decks to launch them from. This could be one reason for the increased length and displacement. We cannot afford dedicated drone carriers like the Chinese so a larger, multi-role LHD makes sense.

At 30,000t+, this could well turn out to be a light carrier in all but name.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sathya
Parthu said:
Given that this seems to be a very long-term requirement, I'm willing to bet that eventually we'll gravitate towards an indigenous design from WDB.

Not unlike how we wrestled with foreign design partners for the FSS for over a decade (Korean, then Turks) and eventually settled on our own design, which must have been in iterative development in parallel.



On the other hand, the old requirement also had very specific requirements for the aviation complex. It required lifts that can accommmodate V22 Osprey-sized aircraft and a flight deck that had to be capable of handling a CH53K (but not the lifts). So they probably had cross-decking with USN/USMC in mind.
Click to expand...
Yes, seems that way only. Also the experience gained from designing INS Vikrant will also come in handy. Maybe a consultancy from Fincantieri, be on the cards as well.
It will bode well for our local industry as well. Maybe NGF/NGDs, programs propulsion & power generation & other components commonality can come in handy or maybe they will stuck with INS Vikrant's System but with IEP.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aniruddha, YoungWolf, Paro and 1 other person
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom