Indian Navy LHD/LPD Amphibious Ships : Updates & Discussions


 
  • Like
Reactions: Aditya b7777
Parthu said:
More I look at it, more it seems like the previous tender was just a way to solicit responses, get a feel for the Pvt sector's tie-up, and then develop a new RFI that specifically excludes their offer. Won't be the first time MoD/IN played dirty games with L&T with regard to the LHD/LPD program.
Click to expand...

The previous tender was serious, not just an experiment. Also, HSL and L&T are likely to share, the navy is not going for a winner-takes-all approach. They are interested in creating a private competitor in the entire shipbuilding business. Which is also why the P-75I will be shared. Plus the fact that they want their NUH to come in from the private sector.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aditya b7777 and Chain Smoker
Gautam said:
Nirbhay derivates ? 16 of them. Our destroyers can barely carry 8 AShMs/LACMs. I guess these ships will be a bigger than a destroyer but still. I guess the ITCM will be ready by the time these ships get to weapon outfitting stage.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking more along the lines of Brahmos.

All our strike corps have a dedicated regiment of Brahmos with 36 operational missiles each. Since amphibious operations are offensive, they will benefit from a dedicated land-attack capability delivered by the Brahmos. This way, the commander on the ground has the same firepower as the Strike Corps.

LR-LACM and/or ITCM may not be as suitable as the Brahmos against some types of targets. Of course, it could be split between Brahmos and ITCM. 16 cells is a lot for a battalion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amal and Aditya b7777
randomradio said:
I'm thinking more along the lines of Brahmos.

All our strike corps have a dedicated regiment of Brahmos with 36 operational missiles each. Since amphibious operations are offensive, they will benefit from a dedicated land-attack capability delivered by the Brahmos. This way, the commander on the ground has the same firepower as the Strike Corps.

LR-LACM and/or ITCM may not be as suitable as the Brahmos against some types of targets. Of course, it could be split between Brahmos and ITCM. 16 cells is a lot for a battalion.
Click to expand...
Stick two quad launchers for Shaurya or K15 Sagarika on a vessel. Everytime it sets sail, our friends across the border will be Shitting bricks.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: Amal, suryakiran, Aditya b7777 and 2 others
randomradio said:
The previous tender was serious, not just an experiment. Also, HSL and L&T are likely to share, the navy is not going for a winner-takes-all approach. Which is also why the P-75I will be shared
Click to expand...

Are you saying HSL & L&T will both be building LHDs? Like 2 each?

Would seem to be a waste of resources as the total order is only 4 and we won't be building any more ships of this scale for quite a while after these are over (20+ years easily). This type of shared order designed to create infrastructure at new yards makes sense for surface combatants (<180m, <10,000T) or even for submarines considering we'd always be building them.

But capital ships/flat tops?

randomradio said:
They are interested in creating a private competitor in the entire shipbuilding business.. Plus the fact that they want their NUH to come in from the private sector.
Click to expand...

Well they're actions so far don't indicate any such intention. Even if the political will was there, the bureaucracy of MoD won't ever allow it. Look at the SOV midget submarine program: on one hand they had a Pvt company that built the hulls of SSBNs and on the other a mediocre DPSU that couldn't even refurbish a Kilo-class in 9 years.

Guess which one was 'nominated' for building the 2 x SOVs?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amal, Aditya b7777 and Chain Smoker
Parthu said:
Are you saying HSL & L&T will both be building LHDs? Like 2 each?

Would seem to be a waste of resources as the total order is only 4 and we won't be building any more ships of this scale for quite a while after these are over (20+ years easily). This type of shared order designed to create infrastructure at new yards makes sense for surface combatants (<180m, <10,000T) or even for submarines considering we'd always be building them.

But capital ships/flat tops?
Click to expand...

Two ships are plenty for just 1 shipyard. Also, there's no telling what the future will hold, since our finances will be at a different level by the time these ships are delivered.

Anyway, the previous tender was also split between HSL and either Rel or L&T.

Parthu said:
Well they're actions so far don't indicate any such intention. Even if the political will was there, the bureaucracy of MoD won't ever allow it. Look at the SOV midget submarine program: on one hand they had a Pvt company that built the hulls of SSBNs and on the other a mediocre DPSU that couldn't even refurbish a Kilo-class in 9 years.

Guess which one was 'nominated' for building the 2 x SOVs?
Click to expand...

You mean the SDVs? HSL was assigned by nomination years before. L&T has designed two new submarines, one is a 400T midget sub and the other is a so-called "coastal sub", the IN is interested in both.

HSL took 9 years because they worked with only 1 shift. Three shifts would have cut the time to 3 years if they did what the Russians do. But we do joke around about how L&T will deliver both their ships before HSL launches their first one. But the IN is serious about creating dual capacities for major surface combatants, meaning at least two shipyards should be available for construction, and for certain projects the private sector will also be roped in, like this one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aditya b7777 and Chain Smoker
Paro said:
With all the twists and turns lets hope they dont end up in a single vendor paradox.
Click to expand...
This should've been thought out earlier. The GoI should've shown some spine & declared it'd split the order equally between the PSU & Pvt Sector. In fact the GoI could've gone right ahead & nominated the PSU & floated the RFP to those foreign OEMs with the stipulation they'd have to team up with a PSU & a Pvt Sector company.

Of course , I'm assuming the government isn't in contravention of any laws here which I don't think it is .
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Paro
Paro said:
With all the twists and turns lets hope they dont end up in a single vendor paradox.
Click to expand...
Last time it went to single vendor because it was reserved for private shipyards. This time not the case. Only L&T can take this up from private sector.
Parthu said:
would certainly look tailor-made for Mistral (Naval Group-HSL consortium offer) and might very well be designed to create conductive environment for nominating HSL. MoD leaves no stone unturned to sideline/exclude L&T.
Click to expand...
It's was RNEL/Pipavav with Mistral vs L&T with Juan Carlos not HSL.
Parthu said:
More I look at it, more it seems like the previous tender was just a way to solicit responses, get a feel for the Pvt sector's tie-up, and then develop a new RFI that specifically excludes their offer. Won't be the first time MoD/IN played dirty games with L&T with regard to the LHD/LPD program.
Click to expand...
Definitely not the case. MoD reserved the last tender for private sector. Then accusing them of working against private industry is a bit stretch. It's not their fault Pipavav got bankrupt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amal, Chain Smoker and Aditya b7777
randomradio said:
You mean the SDVs? HSL was assigned by nomination years before. L&T has designed two new submarines, one is a 400T midget sub and the other is a so-called "coastal sub", the IN is interested in both.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the requirement for 2 x SOV originally requested in 2015. That's what the L&T "SOV400" was developed for.

SDVs are the small 4-man vehicles that attach to larger submarines. These 400-ton SOVs will be carrying 2 x SDVs one on each side. I don't know if there's any tender for that.

The 400t midget sub & the "coastal sub" are one & the same, it's been a continuously evolving design since at least 2018, but the general concept has remained the same - a diesel-powered midget sub that can dock multiple SDVs for special forces operations.

DDR did a full rundown on the program:

Is This The Indian Navy’s New Special Operations Midget Submarine? | Delhi Defence Review

delhidefencereview.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aditya b7777
Parthu said:
I'm talking about the requirement for 2 x SOV originally requested in 2015. That's what the L&T "SOV400" was developed for.

SDVs are the small 4-man vehicles that attach to larger submarines. These 400-ton SOVs will be carrying 2 x SDVs one on each side. I don't know if there's any tender for that.

The 400t midget sub & the "coastal sub" are one & the same, it's been a continuously evolving design since at least 2018, but the general concept has remained the same - a diesel-powered midget sub that can dock multiple SDVs for special forces operations.

DDR did a full rundown on the program:

Is This The Indian Navy’s New Special Operations Midget Submarine? | Delhi Defence Review

delhidefencereview.com
Click to expand...

The tender itself doesn't exist, since it's a nomination only an RFP will be sent to HSL. HSL was nominated long ago to provide a design for it. L&T followed suit with their own. But MoD decided it's not a high priority. While HSL was looking for a foreign partner to give them a design, it seems L&T used MoD's apathy to catch up.

I don't agree with the nomination process for PSUs. It's how Reliance lost the Ka-226 deal to HAL. All because govt laws did not allow nomination of private companies and Russia wanted the Indian partner to be nominated by the govt and not be their responsibility. They changed it a few years down the line. I'm hoping L&T does not become a victim to this as well.

Anyway, the coastal sub seems to be different. Yeah, it can use the same design, but it has been designed for a different role.

Example:

SSK Andrasta Littoral Submarine

The 19-crew, 855t displacement, Andrasta submarine, announced by DCNS in September 2008, has been optimised for littoral operations in coastal…
www.naval-technology.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chain Smoker
randomradio said:
I don't agree with the nomination process for PSUs. It's how Reliance lost the Ka-226 deal to HAL. All because govt laws did not allow nomination of private companies and Russia wanted the Indian partner to be nominated by the govt and not be their responsibility.
Click to expand...
Well reliance's Mihan plant was supposed to be this:
1630125897449.png
1630125657014.png


It turned out to be instead this wretched thing.

1630125633565.png

Building KA226 in this dump would be a challenge imo.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: Paro, Amal, Chain Smoker and 1 other person
randomradio said:
I asked around and someone sent this to me.

View attachment 20697

Anyway, this is DRAL, a Reliance-French unit. Had Reliance gotten the Ka-226T contract, the Reliance-Russian unit will obviously be built elsewhere.

Dunno why you're making a big deal about a shed.
Click to expand...
Because you have been cheerleading for a scamster for quite a while now.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: suryakiran
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom