WesWorld

An Interview with Fleet Admiral Kashiram Paswan

JQNR: Admiral Paswan, thank you for joining us.

KP: A pleasure.

JQNR: You've been on the job for a few months now - has anything really struck home with you?

KP: It's been remarkable to see how we've come of age. We're no longer reliant on others for designs or construction. In fact, other nations are coming to us to get work done. Witness the construction of Sulu, or RSAN acquisition of our ASW launch design.

JQNR: It's been observed that India is one of the few Cleito Treaty members that has most of its slipways full at any given time. Is the growth going to continue, and will you need to invest in expanding India's construction ability?

KP: We're actually satisfied with the number of slipways we have on hand. It meets our needs fairly well.

JQNR: How about the growth?

KP: We'll be continuing to grow - but the rate of growth is going to slow.

JQNR: Why is that?

KP: Maintenance. From 1927 to 1929, we're looking at spending one sixth of our budget on refits and rebuildings [Note: ~21,000 t of ~132,000 t theoretically available]. We'll have a lull in the early thirties, but the schedule will pick up again in the mid part of the decade, and will probably never ease off again.

JQNR: Is this really so necessary? Common practice in other navies seems to be a refit every fifteen years, if at all. Some of these cruisers are less than ten years old.

KP: Correct - but look at the changes in technology since they were built. Aircraft will soon be a viable threat, fire control systems are improving, torpedoes are getting larger. We have to keep up - a small navy can't afford to ship obsolete weapons. So we're aiming to refit our warships at least once every ten years, and the non-combatants every twelve to fifteen years.

JQNR: Fair enough. You mentioned that this would be taking up about sixteen - seventeen percent of your resources. Surely the navy can get by with the remaining eighty-plus percent of its resources in construction?

KP: There won't be that much available. Fact of the matter is, while we have an adequate number of slipways, we have a woefully inadequate collection of drydock facilities. Five, to be exact, with a Type One underway in Male.

KP: We saw after the 1924 conflict that we lacked the drydock capacity we needed to return our damaged warships to service in a reasonable time. We had cruisers and destroyers - the very backbone of our navy - waiting months just to start repairs. It's utterly unacceptable.

JQNR: Is there a plan, then, to do something about this?

KP: Absolutely. The work at Male is the first step in a twelve year program that will add eight additional drydocks to our inventory. We'll go from three to five large drydocks, and from two to eight small drydocks. That will take resources - an average of eighteen percent of our budget [Note: 2 IP] a year.

JQNR: Where is this work to take place?

KP: We're going to ramp up at Sittwe to bring its repair facilities to the standard of Chennai and Mumbai, recognizing that it will never have the same kind of ship-building capacity the other cities do. Add a small dock at each of Male and Colombo. Finally, we'll eventually build a small port at Diego Garcia and put a drydock or two there.

JQNR: Isn't Diego Garcia out of the way?

KP: No, it's on the way - to South Africa. An repair facility in the middle of the Indian Ocean will be of considerable value, particularly during hostilities.

JQNR: The South Africans might feel the same way. Any consideration of a joint project?

KP: I can't comment on that.

JQNR: Very well. So...maintenance and infrastructure take a more prominent role. Where does this leave new construction?

KP: We're looking to start two large warships - battleships or aircraft carriers - over the next five years. An average of two cruisers, every other year, as well, plus a few destroyers - though we're pretty well off in that regard. We'll also need to add more auxiliaries such as tenders to support the dispersed light forces we have at several locations.

JQNR: Will it be battleships, carriers, or one of each?

KP: We're having that discussion. There are some very strong view points being expressed on the matter.

JQNR: The navy has 40,000 t of coastal defence armorclad allowed to it, yet there is only one small monitor in that category. Do you plan to build such vessels?

KP: We have to focus on the most versatile warships we can produce. CDS vessels don't fit that category, in large part because of their limited speed. We may end up rebuilding some older warships to fit into this category, but I think the odds of laying down such ships is highly unlikely.

JQNR: Thank you for speaking with us today, Admiral Paswan.

KP: You're welcome.

Folks:

When I posted this the other week, I was hoping there might be some comment on a few things mentioned within it.

The question I'm most curious to have your input on is the BB/CV question. In theory, India is working toward a squadron of three Akbar-type battleships and CVL Urumi in company, and a separate striking force of two Talwar-class carriers.

This requires construction of the third Akbar and both Talwars. However, I can only budget in two of these three ships before 1932. It's a given that one of the two will be Talwar. What about the other one? Should it be the modified third Akbar, or should it be a second Talwar?

Note that it's possible I won't be able to afford to build the last of the six major warships I need to make this grand plan a reality - so I have to be careful about what I go with here.

Uh, this post I missed somehow. :o/ Not enough time currently, simply not enough time.... I wonder what I missed other than that...

Anyway, it´s a very interesting interview. Thank you for sharing.

I could comment on the point regarding repair facilities but I won´t - it´s not what you asked for. :o)

Regarding the expansion of your navy I´d go with the third AKBAR. It´s some kind of prestige thing. First of all you got very good critics for the design when introducing it and second battleships are still the vessels to rely on in a conflict, they provide power at sea. The carrier is still far from being mature - both in equipment and procedure even though some WW-designs are already very, very modern.

So if you can´t affort all large vessels you need - focus on teh battleships.

Thanks, and feel free to comment on the other stuff too, of course.