Support NeoGAF

[Phoenix]

While Chinese naval modernization efforts are capturing the attention of Western naval officials and analysts as well as journalists and even bloggers, little attention is being given to the Indian Navy's massive expansion effort. Mohammed Ahmedullah, a leading defense writer, wrote in Military Technology (2/2008):

"With the second biggest Army in the world and a rapidly expanding Navy, India knows that it needs to modernize fast, leapfrog in technology and accumulate military assets rapidly over the next decade if it has to safeguard it growing economic might with military teeth. . . ."

Within a decade the naval forces of India will include two large aircraft carriers, a large force of missile-armed surface warships, and a significant submarine flotilla, probably including three nuclear-propelled attack submarines. The rationale for the expansion of the Indian fleet is to protect the flow of oil to India's rapidly growing economy.

However, the Indian subcontinent sits astride the tanker sailing routes from the Middle East to Chin and Japan. And, Indian naval forces could come into play with respect to the continuing turmoil and quest for resources in Africa.

The current Indian Navy expansion program provides for the rehabilitation of the Soviet-built, 44,570-ton carrier Admiral Gorshkov in a Russian shipyard. That project is far behind schedule and over cost; the ship should be fully operational about 2015. India has also begun construction of an "air defense ship" -- a 40,000-ton carrier to be completed about 2018. (India now operates the 28,700-ton, ex-British VSTOL carrier Hermes; she was originally launched in 1953 and completed in 1969, and has been extensively rebuilt.)

Now being procured are advanced missile-armed destroyers and frigates. Some are being fitted with the highly-touted Israel Barak-8 air-defense system.

With respect to submarines, the Navy currently operates 14 relatively modern submarines: four German Type 209/1500 (built in Germany and India) and ten Russian-built Kilo/Project 877EM. Some of the latter are being fitted to fire the Russian-developed Klub-S submerged-launch, anti-ship missile. However, there have been some problems encountered with that modification to the submarines.

Six French-built Scorpene torpedo-attack submarines are under construction in at the Mazagon Dockyard in Mumbai. These will replace the last of the Foxtrot/Project 641 submarines operated by India.

Most significant, India will again operate nuclear-propelled submarines in the near future. Three Akula/Project 971 torpedo-attack submarines are on order, being constructed in Russia. These are 33-knot, relatively quiet submarines, capable of operating to 1,970 feet feet, armed with four 21-inch and four 25.5-inch torpedo tubes and carrying 40 tube-launched missiles and torpedoes. (India previously operated a nuclear submarine from 1988 to 1991, when a Soviet Charlie I/Project 670 cruise missile submarine was leased to India. Soviet personnel operated the submarine's reactor-propulsion plant.)

For the past two decades India has also been working on the development of an indigenous nuclear-propelled submarine, officially labeled the Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV). The project has encountered numerous difficulties, but there are reports that the first ATV submarine is now under construction at the Mazagon Dock Yard. The first of several such craft may be completed as early as 2010. She will have a submerged displacement of some 7,000 tons and will carry cruise missiles as well as torpedoes.

The Indian Navy is also procuring advanced aircraft to support fleet operations: These include MiG-29K multi-role aircraft and Ka-31 airborne early warning helicopters for the carriers, and land-based Il-38D maritime patrol aircraft.

Whereas in the past few decades the Indian Navy has relied upon Soviet and -- to a lesser degree -- British naval technology, Indian leaders are shopping world-wide. Israeli, French, and South African as well as Russian weapons are being sought. And, the former U.S. amphibious ship Trenton (LPD 14) was transferred to India in 2007 and it is likely that six Lockheed Martin C-130J Hercules aircraft will be acquired. Obviously, there are other U.S. naval platforms and systems of interest to India.

Thus, the Indian Navy is undergoing a massive expansion. By some criteria the naval expansion is greater than that of the other services. And, unlike the Chinese naval modernization, India's efforts are taking advantage of essentially all of the world's naval technologies and are being undertaken with relatively little publicity.

All the developing and emerging economies are getting all this money from the US and they know just what to do with it :lol

 

[xbhaskarx]

While Chinese naval modernization efforts are capturing the attention of Western naval officials and analysts as well as journalists and even bloggers, little attention is being given to the Indian Navy's massive expansion effort.

Wow, shocking! Could that be because Western nations view China (an authoritarian regime) as a potential threat, but don't view India (one of the more stable secular democracies in the developing world) as a threat?
Most of India's weaponry is from the EU, US, Russia, and Israel, so why would Western nations worry about Indian military expansion?
The US and Indian militaries sometimes conduct training exercises together now, whereas in most American war games the "Red Team" represents China....

 

[PantherLotus]

Scary!

1. China
2. India
3. USA

 

[ToxicAdam]

Is India still hostile with Pakistan? I've lost track.

I don't really see any alarm about this. Kind of a natural progression for any nation.

 

[Tyrannical]

China is an evil, repressive, fascist dictatorship that we have no business trading with period. It's democratic India where the west should have been building it's outsourced factories in. I just hope it's a lesson we won't later live to regret.

Is India still hostile with Pakistan? I've lost track.

Ummm, yes.

 

[Tyrannical]

BTW, what ever happened to that rumor that the US was going to give India one of it's older carrier battle groups?

 

[Timbuktu]

I wouldn't say India's ignored, just read this article in The Economist last week, which paints a slightly wider picture, talking about the China/India relationship and that things don't only revolve around the US:

Into the wide blue yonder
Jun 5th 2008 | SINGAPORE
From The Economist print edition

Asia's main powers are building up their navies. Is this the start of an arms race?

IN THE 15th century China possessed a mighty navy of “treasure fleets”. They sailed as far as Africa and the Persian Gulf, spreading China's economic and political influence across several continents. Had this naval expansion continued, some scholars say, China could have dominated the world. But successive emperors turned the nation inwards on itself, seafaring was banned and the country's great shipyards were closed. In Asia as elsewhere, it is America that rules the waves—its naval might is still needed, for example, to help defend the Malacca Strait, route for much of the region's oil and other trade.

Today a resurgent, confident and globalising China is rebuilding its naval strength. Like India, its rising Asian rival, it already has an impressive army. But both countries are finding that rapid economic growth is providing the money to realise long-cherished dreams of building ocean-going “blue-water” navies that can project power far from their home shores.

In the past two years China's navy has acquired new destroyers, frigates and submarines, some home-built, some (including its most advanced kit) Russian. A recent study by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) concluded that China was also close to beginning the production of aircraft-carriers, which would give it the ability to project airpower over great distances. China has long wanted to create a force capable of thwarting the intervention of America's Pacific fleet in any war over Taiwan. But it is also increasingly keen to protect its supplies of fuel and raw materials from threats such as piracy and terrorism.

America has particular worries about a naval base China is building on Hainan island, from where its vessels will have easy access to South-East Asia's shipping lanes—most importantly the Malacca Strait. The Indians are afraid that China's reason for building ports in Myanmar, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, and conducting naval exercises with Pakistan, is to extend its dominance into the Indian Ocean. Thousands of Chinese-flagged merchant ships now cross the ocean each year, giving China plenty of justification for increasing its naval presence. India, in turn, is pushing into the South China Sea, and seeking port facilities in Vietnam.

India shares China's concern that, as trade volumes and energy consumption soar, its security is vulnerable to any disruption of sea traffic. The flagships of its new blue-water navy will be three aircraft-carriers—the same number as Britain. The first of two Indian-built carriers is now under construction, with a launch date of 2010. A third, bought second-hand from Russia, is suffering delays and disputes over its refitting.

Tim Huxley of the IISS says that with so much attention focused on China and India, the naval expansion of other Asian countries is often overlooked. Yet several, especially South Korea, are also building long-range naval capabilities. Besides new submarines and destroyers, the South Koreans, like the Japanese, are commissioning helicopter-carriers.

Is this an arms race? As Asia's defence ministers and military chiefs gathered in Singapore last weekend for their main annual summit, the Shangri-La Dialogue (organised by the IISS), the conclusion of most analysts seemed to be: not yet. A classic arms race, says Mr Huxley, consists of two main countries that have one dominating dispute. Asia is different. Instead, it has the makings of a pair of opposing alliances. A “quad” group (India, America, Australia and Japan) plus Singapore now conduct naval manoeuvres together. So do China and Pakistan. But China and India seem keen to avoid provoking each other. Indeed, they are seeking to build good relations between their navies.

Military chiefs at the summit insisted they were not seeking an arms race and gave various justifications for all their new warships. Rather implausibly, China and others insisted they were mainly to ward off pirates and terrorists. South Korea's defence minister, Lee Sang-hee, said North Korea's navy threatened its maritime supply lines. As if to prove him right, on May 30th the North test-fired three ship-to-ship missiles in the Yellow Sea.

Disaster relief is also commonly cited as a reason to have a bigger navy. Within days of Myanmar's cyclone, three existing blue-water navies—those of America, France and Britain—had ships off the country's coast, laden with supplies (see article). South Korea's and Japan's new helicopter carriers could also one day be useful for moving troops in United Nations peacekeeping operations.

So there are plenty of ways for Asian powers to use their navies co-operatively. Equally, plenty of disputes might more easily escalate into war if the countries concerned had the naval strength to wage it. The potentially oil-rich Spratly and Paracel Islands, for example, are claimed in whole or part by six countries. In 1988 more than 70 Vietnamese sailors died in a naval battle with China in the Spratlys. Dozens of Koreans died in battles over a disputed sea border in 1999 and 2002.

Even without any ill intent, accidents will happen at sea. France's defence minister, Hervé Morin, worries about all the new submarines that will soon be lurking in the region's shallow and crowded shipping lanes. If one went missing, or suffered a collision, there is a danger of this being misconstrued as hostile action. He argues that to prevent minor incidents escalating in this way, Asian countries need to invest a lot more time in discussions of regional security and do more to replace mutual suspicion with co-operation and confidence-building. If not, Asia's cautious naval build-up could indeed mutate into a classic, old-fashioned arms race.

 

[laserbeam]

Seems awfully fear mongering considering the US is expected to offer the USS Kitty Hawk for free to India since the Carrier is being decommisioned.

US/India are very much allies and India is viewed as a Key ally when the shit hits the fan and US/China relations go sour.

 

[grandjedi6]

BTW, what ever happened to that rumor that the US was going to give India one of it's older carrier battle groups?

Nothing yet. Though any plans may have been delayed since the Kitty Hawk had to replace its own replacement when a fire broke out in the USS Washington

 

[Timbuktu]

China is an evil, repressive, fascist dictatorship that we have no business trading with period. It's democratic India where the west should have been building it's outsourced factories in. I just hope it's a lesson we won't later live to regret.

From what I've read, it was mostly because India's ports and freight rail system are considerably inferior to China's, but that may change and India still tops the list when it comes to outsourcing and offshoring, especially for IT services.

 

[Tyrannical]

Here's this older topic on this.

Indian Navy will reportedly be offered the USS Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier for free

 

[Phoenix]

I wouldn't say India's ignored, just read this article in The Economist last week, which paints a slightly wider picture, talking about the China/India relationship and that things don't only revolve around the US:

Military chiefs at the summit insisted they were not seeking an arms race and gave various justifications for all their new warships. Rather implausibly, China and others insisted they were mainly to ward off pirates and terrorists. South Korea's defence minister, Lee Sang-hee, said North Korea's navy threatened its maritime supply lines. As if to prove him right, on May 30th the North test-fired three ship-to-ship missiles in the Yellow Sea.

That's so silly. You don't need entire battlegroups to fight off pirates and naval forces are largely ineffective against terrorists.

 

[Tyrannical]

That's so silly. You don't need entire battlegroups to fight off pirates and naval forces are largely ineffective against terrorists.

Pirates and terrorists is China speak for Taiwan.

 

[Sqrt_minus_one]

Scary!

1. China
2. India
3. USA

What on earth is this post supposed to mean ?

WRT GDP its wholly inaccurate as AFAIK China is still behind Germany in those stakes. Military might not not in the slightest. Maybe in a few years number of PhD holders then yes.

I mean this fear mongering about teh rise of China really has to stop all that is really changing is the world does not revolve and around the US anymore and long may this hold true.

 

[Furoba]

That's so silly. You don't need entire battlegroups to fight off pirates and naval forces are largely ineffective against terrorists.

Taiwanese pirates and terrorists? ;-)

 

[Zyzyxxz]

China is an evil, repressive, fascist dictatorship that we have no business trading with period. It's democratic India where the west should have been building it's outsourced factories in. I just hope it's a lesson we won't later live to regret.

hmm who knows, at least China has not invaded any countries recently on false/missing evidence. Stop making them out to be such an evil nation, at least provide some examples.

In general what makes India a better country to trade with? Democracy, Communism...what is really the difference in today's world.

I mean we have the Patriot Act, waterboarding, and the blackwater incidents that make us look less a democracy, while China may say its Communist but its growth is all due to its acceptance of allowing a free market society.

Who is to say India doesn't have any mal-intentions, maybe they want to take a stab at Britain for fucking around with them in the past. Just because they are a democracy doesn't mean jack shit. In fact we may be regretting trading with India because they are closer to Africa and may have more influence over the region. IMO within the next few decades Africa will be the hot spot of economic activity once things work out, if they ever do.

So take your redneck, ignorance elsewhere.