Analysis:The Rise Of The Asian Navies(Part I and II)

[Afro-European]

Part I



by Andrei Chang
Hong Kong (UPI) Jul 9, 2008
After 10 years of steady effort, both India and China have made significant qualitative changes in their navies, but in terms of submarine capabilities -- the construction of SSNs and SSBNs -- China is now far ahead of India, however.

China has built two 094 class SSBNs and two 093 class SSNs, along with JL2 and JL1M submarine-launched ballistic missiles -- SLBMs -- that are ready to go into service in the People's Liberation Army navy, if they have not already done so.
In contrast, India is only preparing to receive one Russian-made Akura SSN for testing purposes by the end of 2008. In February 2008 the Indian navy also launched from under water a 420-mile-range K-15 ballistic missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.
Nonetheless, India's pace in the construction of large-tonnage surface battleships and an aircraft carrier is faster than China's. Thanks to the 174-mile-range BrahMos supersonic multi-role missile jointly developed by India and Russia, the overall technological standard of the Indian navy's ship-to-ship missile is superior to that of China's PLA navy. India's surface warships currently being built will all be fitted with BrahMos SSMs, according to the plan of the Indian navy.
Ships added to the PLA navy over the past 10 years include two 051C DDGs, two 052B DDGs, two 052C DDGs, four 956E/EM DDGs and one 051B DDG, all of which have a full-load displacement of more than 6,000 tons. Six additional ships, 054 and 054A FFGs, also have been built. These surface warships are the flagships of the modern Chinese navy.
In the Indian navy over the past 10 years three Delhi Class DDGs and three 4,000-ton class Type 1135.6 FFGs have been commissioned, with the latter armed with 180-mile-range Club-N surface-to-surface missiles. The Indian navy also has received three Type 16A FFGs with full-load displacement of 4,500 tons and armed with 16 units of H-35 surface-to-surface missiles.
As a result, in terms of the construction of surface battleships above 6,000 tons, China is temporarily ahead of India, while in the building of 4,000-ton class missile frigates, India and China are about equal, with India slightly ahead in technology.
The Indian navy also is armed with one Hermes aircraft carrier with a full-load displacement of 28,000 tons as well as 12 Sea Harrier FRS Mk 51 fighters. Obviously, the Indian navy's experience in the use of an aircraft carrier is superior to that of the PLA navy.
Regarding the surface warships under construction right now, India seems to be much more ambitious than China. Since 2007 the only large surface warship China has been building is the 054A FFG. In contrast, the Indian navy has started to build three P-15A DDGs at its Mazagon Shipyard. This is an upgraded variant of the Delhi Class DDG, with drastic changes. So far one P-15A has been launched already.
A source from the Mazagon Shipyard told the author in New Delhi the P-15A construction program is now giving way to the Shivalik, or P-17 FFG. The first P-17 will be delivered to the Indian navy within this year, and the second and third will be delivered in 2009 and 2010, respectively. The two types of surface warships mentioned above all will be fitted with a vertical-launched version of the BrahMos SSM supersonic cruise missile. The P-15A will be armed with 16 such missiles. The P15A DDG has a full-load displacement of 7,000 tons, and still uses the Shtil-1 ship-to-air missile. The P-17 is India's indigenous stealthy FFG and has a full-load displacement of 5,300 tons. It is also armed with Shtil-1 ship-to-air missiles.



Part II



by Andrei Chang
Hong Kong (UPI) Jul 10, 2008
Russia's Yantar Shipyard currently is building a second batch of three Type 1135.6 FFGs for the Indian navy.

The first three vessels of this model were built at the Baltic Sea Shipyard, but the contract for the latest three vessels has been awarded to the Yantar Shipyard, which has no experience building this type of missile frigate.
Apparently Russia intends to bail out the Yantar Shipyard, which has not received such an order in recent years through Russia's system of allocating contracts. For this reason, it is worth watching the progress of this construction project to see if the shipyard can deliver a quality product. India is also concerned whether the overall price of building these vessels will rise as a result.
India has also begun building its own indigenous aircraft carrier, which is proceeding faster than China's program. India is building its aircraft carrier at Cochin Shipyard and is expected to complete it in 2013. However, past experience has shown that the Indian navy's vessel construction projects are usually delayed by two to three years.
With the Italian Fincantieri Co. providing design assistance, this indigenous Indian aircraft carrier has a full-load displacement of 37,000 tons and will be powered by four LM-2500 heavy-duty gas turbines, with a maximum speed of 28 knots. China's first indigenous aircraft carrier also very likely will be powered by heavy gas turbines.
The design blueprint of the Indian aircraft carrier already has been published, with a deck length of 830 feet and a runway of 600 feet. The aircraft use ski-jump takeoff and landing. The steel plate used to build the aircraft was imported from Russia, and the cutting process was completed in 2007.
As for the Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier that India purchased from Russia, it should have been delivered to the Indian navy within this year, according to the original agreement. The retrofitted Admiral Gorshkov's full-load displacement has been increased to 45,400 tons, and it will be equipped with 12 MiG-29K fighters. India and Russia held the latest round of meetings concerning this aircraft carrier in February in Moscow, and the two sides reached a final consensus on the increased price of retrofitting the carrier. The new delivery time is now set at 2011.
It is not presently known what production plans the Chinese navy has in terms of the construction of large-tonnage surface battleships before 2010. Yet, judging from the current status of shipbuilding within the People's Liberation Army navy, and with two aircraft carriers entering service in the Indian navy before 2012, India will resume its absolute technological and tonnage lead in the construction of surface warships above 6,000 tons. Of course, with China initiating its aircraft carrier construction soon, such a trend may be reversed later.
As far as the construction of conventional submarines is concerned, China still holds an obvious lead. The PLA navy is already armed with two Yuan Class submarines, about 10 Song Class submarines, four Kilo 877 and eight Kilo 636M submarines.
The Indian navy has a fleet of more than 10 Kilo 636 and four Type 209 1500 submarines. India's most ambitious submarine construction plan is to build Scorpene Class submarines at its Mazagon Shipyard under license, code-named P-75.
The first batch of P-75s involves importing and assembling six submarines, and India plans to assemble the first P-75 independently in 2012. After that, production of the P-75 will proceed at the pace of one submarine each year. Based on this calculation, the whole project will not be completed until the end of 2017. India's latest plan shows the Indian navy may very likely expand its Scorpene sub fleet to 12. In terms of shipbuilding technology and production craftwork, however, especially in such production processes as cutting, welding and spray-painting, the military vessels produced by China -- particularly those vessels built at the two shipyards in Shanghai -- are far superior to the Indian navy ships


Part I: http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Analysis_Asian_navies_Part_1_999.html

Part II:http://www.spacewar.com/reports/The_Rise_Of_The_Asian_Navies_Part_Two_999.html

[AtomicAardvark]

Only had a quick glance at the articles, but they seem to raise some interesting points regarding the developing naval strengths of both India and China.

However, they fail to point out the most obvious issue - from an analytical point of view. It's all well and good the Chinese having 2 Yaun class, approx. 10 Song class, 4 Kilo 877 and 8 Kilo 636M but like all navies they cannot support continous deployment of these submarines (or surface fleet). They will always have a small number at sea whilst the rest are coming off patrol, gearing up for patrol and undertaking training.

[AtomicAardvark]

Given the geographical locations of the two countries in question, China and India, and their geopolitical history then it's not really surprising that both navies have focused on different priorities. No two countries are the same, or have the same ambitions afterall.

The Chinese PLAN have focused on submarines and smaller surface vessels such as destroyers primarily due to their location and their historical hostility towards Taiwan and Japan (both of who they have territorial disputes with). When you factor in the case of Taiwan, and the fact that the US is technically acting as a guarantor of Taiwanese independence, then the PLAN's only viable option for countering US naval supremacy and power projection capabilities is through the use of submarines. The ability to patrol both the South and East China Seas, as well as the Yellow Sea and further out into the Pacific Ocean(and even the Sea of Japan and Indian Ocean) would give the PLAN the ability to act as a tripwire against the US Navy should any hostilities be opened with Taiwan. Concentrating on the likes of destroyers would also imply that the PLAN are looking to pursue ASW around their coastal and territorial waters, a factor which could prevent the USN successfully operating in the area in response to a crisis.

The Indian Navy however has, as a former colonial establishment, focused on the power projection capabilities associated with an aircraft carrier coupled with a small but highly capable submarine service, and a surface fleet.

As both China and India continue to industrialise at staggering rates it is only natural that they seek to develop their maritime forces for power projection to ensure not only territorial security, but also security of resources and their Sea Lanes of Communications (SLOCs). One only has to look at the development of the Royal Navy to see a historical precedent for what China and India are seeking to achieve. Afterall, the Royal Navy was largely born out of the need to defend the UK from foreign threat and to ensure the security of Britain's vast empire and the vital SLOCs running from places such as India, Sri Lanka and Australia for example.

[Adux]

Atomic Advark,

Couple of things to be noted.

India controls the IOR after the USN ofcourse.
The Tri-Services base in the Andaman & Nicobar Islands, is a permeanent aircraft carrier, in the most important juncture especially for the Chinese, the straits of Malacca.
The Indians plan for the Year 2025

Akula -2 , SSN : 2
ATV, SSGN : 3
SSBN: 2
Kilo : 10
Scorpene : 6
S-80/Amur 1850/U214/Marlin (not decided, RFP to be issued this year): 6
HDW 209 : 4

[AtomicAardvark]

The Tri-Services base in the Andaman & Nicobar Islands, is a permeanent aircraft carrier, in the most important juncture especially for the Chinese, the straits of Malacca.

The Andaman and Nicobar Islands are to the Indians what Gibraltar is and what Malta historically was for the Royal Navy, namely Foward Operating Bases from which to ensure the security of vital SLOCs.

What I was trying to highlight, maybe not very well, was that both India and China are developing their power projection capabilities as a result of their need for raw materials to continue their industrialisation in much the same way as the Royal Navy was developed. Although without the colonial responsibilities that the British Empire entailed, for which the Royal Navy acted as the policeman if you will.

[Adux]

Atomic Aardvark,

What is your opinion on the "String of Pearls" Strategy, India has a naval culture but China seems to be far ahead in Strategic positioning. Wether it is the coco islands, Gwadar etc

[AtomicAardvark]

What is your opinion on the "String of Pearls" Strategy, India has a naval culture but China seems to be far ahead in Strategic positioning. Wether it is the coco islands, Gwadar etc

I must admit that first off I had to look up the strategy, not being a student anymore means I've not really kept up with some geopolitical/military ideas:oops:. Funny that, considering after a quick read the whole strategy about sums up how the Royal Navy developed bases across the world during the age of Pax Britannica from which to secure her SLOCs and further expand the British Empire.

Right, back on topic:). I'd have to agree with you Adux.

China is much further ahead with strategic positioning than India, not only that but definitely very ambitious with what she wants to achieve. Having Burma/Myanmar lease China the Coco Islands, and the development of Gwadar in Pakistan as an alternate port to Karachi are both good examples of quid pro quo. Burma/Myanmar gets the hard currency that it desperately needs, whilst Pakistan not only get a nice amount of hard currency but also gets its defensive needs met by moving the majority of operations from the vulnerable port of Karachi to a more secure one at Gwadar and also cuts down the length of time it takes for ships travelling between Pakistan and the Arabian Peninsula.

India has a more developed naval culture, perhaps it could be argued as a result of being within the British Empire and exposed to the naval supremacy of the Royal Navy which guaranteed the security of the Empire. India's aircraft carrier, and the fact that other than Thailand she is the only country with one within that region may, however, have given India the justification for not developing a 'string of pearls' but relying upon the power projection capabilities that an aircraft carrier can provide. Rightly or wrongly, if China continues to push into what India must rightly see as her sphere of influence than the more India will feel her back is being pushed up against the wall - as the saying goes. When you take the development of Gwadar into consideration, then India must have some concerns regarding the partnership being forged by her historical adversary Pakistan and the other rising industrial powerhouse China.

From a western perspective China's 'string of pearls' is a worrisome development, given the huge resources that China is consuming in order to industrialise which in turn provides the Chinese government with the capital to further develop her military armed forces and the 'string of pearls'. Any move into the Straits of Hormuz by the Chinese PLAN is problematic, not only for the US and the rest of the western world but also for the likes of the Iranians and Saudis.

[Adux]

Atomic Aardvark,

Thank you for the reply, Its 1: 05 in the morning here, I have couple of points I want to add and contest, for the sake of discussion. I will give you a reply by tommrow. Meanwhile, There are couple of things I consider important while looking at the Chinese "String of Pearls" Strategy.

American and Indian interest will coincide in the near future and beyond. The String of Pearls is negated by the American presence in the area. Secondly the shape of the Indian Pensula, the way physical presence of India, which projects itself to the Indian Ocean itself is its biggest strength, coupled with Islands of Andaman Nicobar to the East, and the Lakshadweep to the West. Karachi (which was already pumelled to the ground in 1971 Indo-Pak war***very innovative methodolgy, I suggest you take read)and Gwadar, are inside the aims of the Indian Navy. Which is atleast 10 times more powerful than the Pakistani Navy, and the trump card albiet a foreign one. Deigo Garcia.

Couple of other points to ponder from the Naval perspective, India is building bases in Iran, Chabbar(Bandar Abbas) and Vietnam. And has a Look East policy intiated to all the countries which are vary of the Chinese dragon. But I dont think it will be a success, Indian lack political will, cohesion and vision.



http://www.tamilnation.org/images/intframe/indian_ocean/IndianOcean.jpg

[Adux]

Forgive for not giving you a structured replay, Its bloody late in the night and I got work tommrow morning at 8 am. Will reply within tommorrow evening.

[KuroiRyu]

For sure this is not a rise in terms of self-reliance and may be not so much quality.

Indian Navy is a bunch of mess Soviet and U.S./European hardware.
OK, India in a couple of years will have nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers, but still from Soviet designs and hardware entered in service in the 1970's and 1980's. The Brahmos is an interesting toy...but again the Russian assistance here is meaningful.

This is not the way that India need follow if want became one of the great nations of the future.

Related for P.R.C., yes they are acheving some indipendence in the naval sector but also here not much far the situation is from the Indian one. P.L.A. Navy by 2015 will have 2 aircraft carriers powered by nuclear but some news says that the design will be nearly similar to the Varyag class, so...

I wonder what kind of vessels us we could be made, following the tradition of the Imperial Japanese Navy...if just we could.
For sure finest nuclear submarines and aircrat carriers that easy we could compare to the latest U.S. vessels or even superior in some sectors...

And soon will arrive the Hyuga destroyer (light carrier, 2 planned), so fine ship...woot

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/JMSDF_DDH_181_Hyuga.jpg