Indian Naval News & Discussion - 12 Oct 2013

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 17 Apr 2015 11:50

They can also place two 76 mm cannons instead of the rbu. And put one a single rbu in the current gun position... Even talwars have one rbu.

ravip · Post by **ravip** » 17 Apr 2015 11:56

Singha wrote:vishnu som of ndtv wrote 127mm. actually it makes sense only for a gun cruiser meant to shell shore targets like accompanying a marine task force. a use case for USMC in colonial wars but not us. 76mm SRGM will do fine for us, but I wish they had two of them for CIWS work where the RBUs are now...at the edge of the deck.

127mm main gun is yet to be cleared by MoD, so no confirmation about gun. If clearance is delayed navy will go with 76mm.

Manu Pubby @manupubby
Stealth destroyer Visakhapatnam to have Brahmos, LRSAM and larger calibre MR 127. But main gun not decided yet, with DAC.

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 17 Apr 2015 16:50

Russian solid polymer fuel cells intended for use on subs
http://krylov-center.ru/eng/News/?ELEMENT_ID=390
http://uploads.ru/jxhIT.jpg

John · Post by **John** » 17 Apr 2015 16:58

One thing to note it looks like new configuration for Brahmos allow both cells in 2 Vertical launchers be opened for launch without any obstruction.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Apr 2015 17:45

One curious feature on the P-15Bs,that of a double-decker bridge.In the day and age of much automation,smart displays,etc.,the second lower bridge asks a Q. If you look at most major warship designs,the bridge is situated at the highest level poss,which gives it a commanding view of the ocean and forward area of the ship. The lower portions of the superstructure are usually heavily armoured to protect the command centre embedded deep in the citadel,with layers of protection in the event of a missile strike. Multi-function consoles like Barco's Vista 4500 allow fully networking and reduce manning.

China's sub deal with Pak,lighting an N-torch?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... dian-ocean

Xi’s Submarine Sale Raises Indian Ocean Nuclear Clash Risk

by hidden line after 'By'David Tweed
April 17, 2015

Pakistan Navy Submarine

An Agosta 90 B submarine sits at Pakistan's Navy Dockyard in Karachi. China is expected to conclude a sale of eight submarines during President Xi Jinping’s visit to Islamabad on April 20, more than doubling Pakistan’s fleet. Photographer: STR/AFP via Getty Images

Soon a brash naval captain may pose a bigger risk of triggering a nuclear crisis between India and Pakistan than a religious terrorist.

China is likely to conclude a sale of eight conventional submarines during President Xi Jinping’s visit to Islamabad on April 20, more than doubling Pakistan’s fleet. Analysts say it may be the first step in helping Pakistan gain the ability to fire nuclear weapons at sea, keeping pace with rival India.

The submarine sale will add to tensions in regional waters as Prime Minister Narendra Modi bulks up India’s navy to prevent China from gaining a foothold in the area. Xi’s visit, the first by a Chinese head of state to Pakistan since 2006, will also outline investments in gas pipelines, highways and rail links that will give China access to the Arabian Sea, in part through territory claimed by India.

While Pakistan’s efforts are still “embryonic,” its naval commanders want to follow Israel’s example of equipping conventional submarines with nuclear-tipped missiles, Iskander Rehman of the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based policy research group, said in a March 9 report. Nuclear weapons at sea pose a greater risk than stationary land-based arsenals because they are submerged and harder to detect.

“We are now entering a new era whereby naval interactions will occur under a perpetual nuclear shadow,” Rehman said by phone. “My main concern is less the risk of nuclear terrorism, but rather the dangers tied to naval friction within a newly nuclearized maritime domain.”

India’s Submarines

Pakistan has the fastest growing nuclear program in the world, according to the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations. Its arsenal, built with the help of Chinese technology, stands at between 100 and 120 warheads, compared with China’s 250 and India with between 90 and 100.

While India began sea trials for its first nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine in 2009, Rehman says the nation is still years from deploying a nuclear weapon at sea. In February India increased its defense budget by 11 percent to $40 billion and approved the building of six nuclear-powered submarines.

Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s government approved a proposal to buy eight Chinese submarines, Rohael Asghar, chairman of a parliamentary panel on defense, said earlier this month. It may be signed during Xi’s visit, he said. It will be the first time China has exported submarines.

Pakistan Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said she had no more details on the submarine sale. Xi will address a joint session of Pakistan’s parliament, the ministry said in a statement.

Closing the Gap

“Pakistan has been compelled to develop full spectrum nuclear weapons to maintain its deterrence,” she told reporters on Thursday in Islamabad. “We see very aggressive doctrines emanating from India, so we maintain our credible deterrence.”

China’s defense ministry didn’t immediately respond to faxed questions about the type of submarines to be sold and whether it’ll help Pakistan achieve a sea-borne nuclear deterrent.

The initial objective of Pakistan’s new submarines will be to counter India’s naval dominance in the Indian Ocean, according to Li Jie, a senior researcher from the Chinese Naval Research Institute in Beijing. The vessels will probably be China’s most advanced air-independent propulsion S20 model armed with homing torpedoes and anti-ship missiles, he said.

“The sale will accelerate the process of Pakistan building an underwater warfare platform,” Li said. “It will significantly close the gap in submarine capabilities between the two Indian Ocean rivals.”

‘Second-Strike Capability’

Pakistan’s navy at present operates five French diesel-electric submarines: three purchased in the 1990s and two dating from the late 1970s. Aside from India’s lone operational nuclear-powered submarine, it has 13 diesel-electric ones, among which about half are in service.

Pakistan signaled its intention to develop a maritime nuclear deterrent when it established the Naval Strategic Force Command Headquarters in 2012. The force would be the custodian of the “nation’s second-strike capability,” according to a statement on a Pakistan military website, referring to the strategy of responding to a nuclear attack with atomic weapons.

Nuclear Expansion

Lieutenant General Khalid Kidwai told a seminar in Washington D.C. last month that Pakistan plans to expand its nuclear arsenal with weapons deployed on ships or submarines within a “few years.” Kidwai is a former head of the Pakistan military’s Strategic Plans Division, which directs the nation’s nuclear weapons and missile programs.

Since conventionally powered diesel-electric submarines aren’t equipped with vertical launching tubes most commonly used for firing missiles, they would need to modified to fire horizontally from torpedo tubes, according to David Brewster, a specialist in Indo-Pacific security at the Australian National University in Canberra. China would probably help Pakistan with this “although that would be kept under wraps,” Brewster said.

China helped Pakistan in the 1980s to obtain nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them, and it may be motivated to help it obtain sea-borne nuclear weapons as a balance to India, he said. “The more resources and distraction that Pakistan can soak up, the better from China’s perspective.”

What about MDL and the other DPSU shipyards.No Stiff penalties for them for years of delays and cost overruns of thousands of crores?

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 951703.cms

Pipavav may face penalty up to Rs 125 cr from Defence Ministry over delay in naval vessels project
By Manu Pubby, ET Bureau | 17 Apr, 2015,
Read more at:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/art ... aign=cppst

NEW DELHI: Private shipyard Pipavav is facing a stiff penalty from the Ministry of Defence over a significant delay in the production of naval patrol vessels, a Rs 2,500 crore project that was signed in 2011. A top naval officer told ET that the Naval Offshore Patrol Vessel (NOPV) project is running almost 18 months behind schedule and that the ministry could take penal action as per the rules.

The NOPV project was the first ever Indian warship construction project that was handed over to the private sector and the first of five vessels under the plan was to be delivered by early this year. However, due to multiple reasons - one of them being a midterm change in the foreign design partner - the first vessel is now expected to arrive by June 2016.

Navy's Controller of Warship Production and Acquisition Vice Admiral AV Subhedar confirmed to ET that the delay has occurred and as per the new timeline, all five vessels are to be delivered within a two year period starting June next year. A senior Navy officer said that the delay is likely to incur a penalty from the Defence Ministry as per the rules. The penalty would however not exceed Rs 125 crore. Despite attempts, Pipavav did not respond to queries on the matter that were sent by ET. Reliance Infrastructure which has recently acquired the shipyard did not comment as it is yet to take over the management of the company. The defence ministry is also believed to have made queries on the new ownership pattern of the shipyard as it is presently undertaking a military project.

Sources said that the NOPV project - the first naval order to be won in a competitive bidding by a private yard - has run into trouble due to a delay by Pipavav in finalizing a design partner. While a contract was initially signed with a Russian firm, negotiations broke down over differences on pricing and was terminated.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Apr 2015 18:11

to my knowledge only russia has used nuclear warhead on a torpedo tube fired weapon - the skhval - meant to take out a fast inbound torpedo as a CIWS.
it will take a nifty warhead to fit inside a 21" TT and is well beyond TSP level.
the chinese have also not fielded any such weapon yet.

but china could potentially build a new class of big SSK with some 6-8 VL tubes using tech from the new 093G class.
the bigger VL missiles could carry a tactical nuke whether as a ASM or SLCM.

the Oscar class would have used n-tipped Granits to target CVNs...because if you are launching full salvos at a CVN things have already hit the fan, so going 'n' is natural.

John · Post by **John** » 17 Apr 2015 18:32

Philip wrote:One curious feature on the P-15Bs,that of a double-decker bridge.In the day

Not sure i follow you Philip the design is exactly same as Kolkata.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 17 Apr 2015 19:32

Our main concern is, Paki intention to arm itself with nukes mated with missile. The concern is more at sea as the platform cannot be detected or destroyed.

Our Navy is developing procedures for years by fielding surface launched Dhanush missile and practicing launches by naval personnel. WTF is PN doing to get that maturity?

Singha wrote:to my knowledge only russia has used nuclear warhead on a torpedo tube fired weapon - the skhval - meant to take out a fast inbound torpedo as a CIWS.
it will take a nifty warhead to fit inside a 21" TT and is well beyond TSP level.
the chinese have also not fielded any such weapon yet.

but china could potentially build a new class of big SSK with some 6-8 VL tubes using tech from the new 093G class.
the bigger VL missiles could carry a tactical nuke whether as a ASM or SLCM.

the Oscar class would have used n-tipped Granits to target CVNs...because if you are launching full salvos at a CVN things have already hit the fan, so going 'n' is natural.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 17 Apr 2015 19:37

Philip wrote:One curious feature on the P-15Bs,that of a double-decker bridge...

Cant say if this is an outdated feature. But following classes have double decker bridges:

1. Delhi class:
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Images/Delhi7.jpg
(Note the armoured 'window lids')

2. Rajput:
https://cdn-images.9cloud.us/287/ins_ra ... 1680x0.jpg

3. Deepak:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ti_A57.jpg

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Apr 2015 07:13

what is this lower bridge used for ? is it armoured battle bridge to be used when the ship is fighting and will close the window panels?

the rajput looks more a like americas cup racing yacht

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 18 Apr 2015 10:26

The NOPV project was the first ever Indian warship construction project that was handed over to the private sector and the first of five vessels under the plan was to be delivered by early this year. However, due to multiple reasons - one of them being a midterm change in the foreign design partner - the first vessel is now expected to arrive by June 2016.

This should be one area where the Private companies must be careful. All the stakeholders must first try to have a design which is of Indian origin. The Saryu class design must have been choosen. Also If there is a plan to allow private shipyards to build frigates, then the Shivalik class frigate design be chosen over anything foreign. Let the Mazagon dock build the P17A's while private shipyards build the previous design, which is also very formidable. Anyway since this is a start, this kind of a tried and tested method be chosen before having own design.

rkhanna · Post by **rkhanna** » 18 Apr 2015 10:42

Pipavav may face penalty up to Rs 125 cr from Defence Ministry over delay in naval vessels project
By Manu Pubby, ET Bureau | 17 Apr, 2015,
Read more at:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/art ... aign=cppst

Pipavav is one of the Most Corrupt entities i have come across in the Indian Infra space. Somebody needs to nudge CAG to do an Audit and find out where the initial upfront Payment from MOD was siphoned off too in 2011.

arun · Post by **arun** » 18 Apr 2015 13:37

pankajs wrote:Manu Pubby @manupubby · 32m 32 minutes ago >>

* End of May - the navy hopes to undock the under construction Vikrant aircraft carrier at Kochi.
* Dec 2018 - Navy hopeful to meet this date to induct the INS Vikrant - India's first indigenous aircraft carrier under construction in Kochi.
* Big: Navy says on record it is actively considering the American EMALS aircraft launch system for its next aircraft carrier.

* INS Vikramaditya at refit in Karwar, to be fitted with the Barak air defence system from the Viraat that is now set to retire.
* Slight correction: Vikramaditya to get Barak air defence systems but not from Virat. Another ship that is being decommissioned.

* Navy will submit it's report on selecting Indian shipyards for the P75 I by the end of this month. No decision yet: DG Naval Design.

PTI via Zee News says Barak missile system will be transferred from a Godavari class vessel to INS Vikramaditya. Same with the CIWS:

INS Vikramaditya to finally get air defence system

Last Updated: Thursday, April 16, 2015 - 15:43 .............................

The Navy plans to transfer an Israeli Barak missile system from a Godavari-class ship to the aircraft carrier that was bought from the Russians.

This will be a shot in the arm for the over Rs 15,000- crore aircraft carrier that has been without a defence system, since it joined the Indian Navy in November 16, 2013.

"We have a plan to install a system from one of our ships, which perhaps may be decommissioned at a subsequent stage. The system is operational and we have certain plans," Vice-Admiral AV Subhedar, Controller of Warship Production and Acquisition told reporters here. ....................

Sources said a CIWS, again from a Godavari-class ship, will also be installed on it during the ongoing refit. .................

Zee News

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Apr 2015 16:44

Yes,curious,when Western warships generally have only one bridge.Is this perhaps because we are following an incremental evolution of warship design from the Rajputs to Delhis? These warships have significant Russian DNA and have been designed with help from various Russian design bureaus.It represents a design philosophy and appears only on larger warships,DDGs not FFGs. The double bridge does not exist on the Shivalik or Talwar class frigates Worth finding out why.

John · Post by **John** » 18 Apr 2015 20:55

Soviet ships like Sovremenny, Udaloy and Krivak all had single bridge. SDB brought a lot of design features from Sovremenny when it was consulted for Delhi but fact that it had the lower bridge indicates it was more of requirement set by navy.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Apr 2015 18:28

It would be interesting to find out the IN's rationale behind the DD bridge concept.
Coming back to the armament,the USN in recent times favours locating some SAM systems at the edge of the hull on either beam,feeling that it would act as a naval equiv of ERA in the event of a missile strike,exploding outwards,leaving vital areas within the hull safe. Looking at the P-15A/B design,two Barak-1 missile modular 8/16 cell packages can be located on either side of the MBUs.2 similar second packages located on either beam aft of the 30 mm gatlings.

The main gun is essential for providing gunfire support in the event of amphib ops.During WW2,with the availability of massive main guns in large number on every capital surface ship,there was adequate gunfire support for amphib ops in both theatres.With the advent of missiles,the number and size of main guns dramatically declined.in fact in Lebanon,the WW2 battleship USS New Jersey was pulled out of mothballs and was used in extensive shore bombardment ops in that campaign with its huge 16" guns.
Modern guns now have the potential and availability of ER munitions,hugely extending the range of main guns.With the development of the rail gun,a new revolution in naval warfare is on the way.The ridiculous cost of simply firing steel projectiles costing just a few bucks,not expensive missiles costing millions, to ranges of over 100km as of now at such kinetic speeds that they are almost impossible to shoot down,is going to make a comeback for the main gun. Most main guns also have an anti-air capability too and are essential for destroying smaller craft in the littorals .The Iranians for instance have v.large numbers of Rev.Guard manned small craft fitted with missiles and can also be used in suicide/swarm attacks in the constrained Gulf waters. In the '60s the USN had a few ships upto cruiser class which were only missile armed,Tartar,Terrier and Talos SAMs,like the USS Long Beach a nuclear powered cruiser ,but quickly brought back the main gun in later designs. What is most interesting is that POWs in every campaign speak of the fear of naval bombardment. There are some good articles on the same,this is just one.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... 93/HRE.htm

The advantages
of naval gunfire are that it is self-deployable and does not
require host nation support or permission. Naval gunfire is not
weather-dependent and can operate effectively in fog, snow.
freezing rain, and thunderstorms. While anti-air defenses
continue to become more lethal, there is still no defense against
naval gunfire once it has been fired.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Apr 2015 19:36

A double hull with granite rock pieces or sand in between might work.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Apr 2015 20:20

Thats pretty much like carborundum armor on T-tanks

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 19 Apr 2015 21:29

Philip saar, most modern navies wont be ready to risk a capital ship for coastal bombardment if the adversary has even rudimentary coastal defences. if we want coastal bombardment option it should be on smaller corvette/frigate sized boats.

arun · Post by **arun** » 19 Apr 2015 22:19

X Posted from the Vikrant thread.

One more picture of the Vikrant from Sitanshu Kar’s Twitter feed:

arun · Post by **arun** » 19 Apr 2015 22:19

Panoramic view of Project 15 B Destroyer Vishakapatnam’s hull also from Sitanshu Kar’s Twitter feed:

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Apr 2015 09:21

the old british battleship HMS Rodney , one of the two which sank the damaged Bismark....what a beautiful racing yacht hull form!
http://40.media.tumblr.com/a048b12b964a ... 1_1280.jpg
note the tandem 3 turret arrangement - unusual

the other one King george V had a fatter look http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... kgv-01.jpg
note the lead turret had 4 guns, again very quirky

note both had radars - a british invention shared with the french and americans, which the germans also seized from france.

I wish we made a "raider" class cruiser using these racing hull form and LM2500 gas turbines....armed with 32 UVLS for mostly LACM in place of the helicopters (have a deck for landing helis but no integral helis), and two 127mm oto guns in the front tandem arrangement on same level. a pack of 32 barak8 infront of the bridge.

4 x 76mm along the side backed up by 32 astra srsam in peripheral vls arrangement along sides.

would put the fear of god in a F22P sailing along on a sunny day to be suddenly and viciously shelled from 100 km away

srin · Post by **srin** » 20 Apr 2015 09:44

I'm a little disappointed that the P15Bs have the same 16 VLSes for cruise missiles as P15As. It does indicate that these are for anti-ship warfare. That is a pretty restricted view.

To terrorize our adversaries using the Navy, we need to have good standoff land attack capability. Not good enough to sink their Navy, but to destroy their coastal infrastructure.
Similar to the Ohio class SSGNs and given that we won't have our own couterpart in any near-medium future, a warship with 100 cruise missiles - that's what I'd want. 100 Nirbhays and capable of attacking from 600-800 km range - then you are safe from their land-based warplanes and you don't need to operate in a CBG. Just a small task force would do - a couple of corvettes and frigates for AWS and anti-air.

If you can't fit 100 VLS tubes in a P15B hull - well, stretch it and call it a cruiser or have a rotary magazine underneath the deck. 16 missiles aren't good enough to scare anybody.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 20 Apr 2015 10:21

We need a lot of hulls in the water, than tubes at this point. IN has a largish ocean territory to cover and large hulls to plough through rough seas to distant locations, to show flag during peace time. All within budget. So there should always be a large number of boats out there, when the remaining are in the docks. We cannot have King Sejong III model, wherein a few ships carry 90% of the attack capability at given time, simply because we have a larger area to cover and three threats.

VLS can be added as MLUs, if real estate is available and more funds for a bigger mijjile loadout are available, from a bigger economy. P15 class has lots of real estate for additional VLS to be dropped into, if say, the Vikrant's VLS is found inadequate for fleet protection.

The 127mm will come in handy against non-state folks like in Yemen, if you want to keep a port safe for evacuation.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Apr 2015 10:33

problem with the nirbhay and brahmos types is they need nearly 3 deck levels of penetration for brahmos and 2 for nirbhay....not small weapons.

if you have a narrow speedy shape like P15 that creates imbalances esp as the VLS is raised one deck up. instead if we have a fatter, wider low slung Burke type hull and all VLS units flush on the low foredeck you can have a lot of fun with VLS. thats direction cheen is also going. fuel economy will take some hit thats all.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 20 Apr 2015 10:35

viewtopic.php?p=1830299#p1830299
viewtopic.php?p=1830331#p1830331
viewtopic.php?p=1830385#p1830385
viewtopic.php?p=1830420#p1830420
viewtopic.php?p=1830521#p1830521
viewtopic.php?p=1830545#p1830545
viewtopic.php?p=1830564#p1830564

I would request some views about alphabet soup agreements that USA wants to be signed by India. What effects will such agreements have on naval preparedness, and restrictions. ("approved" conditions, fundamental clauses, etc.)

Another aspect is how much more build up could have been done in last decade that seem to have been stuck due to policy paralysis.

There are better ways to deal with issues of deep sea refueling such as:
[*] Increase build up of strategic oil reserves quickly.
[*] Build - by Made in India - massive tankers and mini tankers to supply oil to service requirements step by step. This is very important.
[*] Build refineries in addition to strategic oil reserves, or have more reserves quantities purchased from, say, Russia to have fuel available across seas from sources.

In such steps, we can make fuel available even for exercises in, say, Pacific ocean. Will add to strategic oil reserves and serve make in India scheme too.

Simply signing alphabet soup deals can be done by any country, including Pakistan - the love child of barbaric invaders & barbaric colonials or post-colonial fourfathers and rest of supporters and donors. What do we care about such things after paying hard cash, and not needing anything to begin with - not all, not some, not one alphabet soup agreements required only by naval super power USA.

A lot of additional facilities can be made available to private enterprises or NGOs, in such a scenario, wherein private sector can build, say, Yoga-yaan (ships to teach Yoga, etc) or "Ayur-naav" (sell Ayurvedic products), and so on. Since ships are cheapest modes of transport so such efforts will save a lot of money long term.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 20 Apr 2015 10:53

A vdeo from 2011 showed certain Trimaran designs which will be with the navy within a decade. By 2020 these ships are supposed to be ready. At 0:06 one could see a stealth Destroyer/Cruiser design meant to carry large number of missiles. Could count a minimum of 24 missiles in a block*3/4=72/ 96 missiles. So possibility of 24 Brahmos + 24 Nirbhay + 24 Barak-8 + 24 AAD do exist in such a ship design something similar to the Zumwalt class of destroyers. May be the Navy is waiting for the first three of the Vizag class ships to be launched before starting work on these ships at MDL.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Apr 2015 11:10

Uddu for the v.interesting clip.The way to go experimenting with new hull dsigns,etc.

Tx 16 BMos missiles is a v.heavy load! Remember that it is the only (with a few new reported entrants,China) major supersonic anti-ship/land attack missile in service.There would be a lesser need for saturated missile attacks using 3-4 missiles for subsonic ones,perhaps 2 if it were Klub,,for attacking a capital ship.There have been some theoretical studies done for the same,with BMos' devastating kinetic speed being its USP. One would've also hoped that both Nirbhay and Klub variants (ASW in particular) could also be accommodated in VLS silos. An IN capital ship of around 12,000t that included
BMos-and BMos-M is also being developed,Nirbhay and Klub,apart from Barak-8/2,SRSAMs,plus a heavy DP gun 127mm+,and gatlings/MANPADs would be a terrific force escorting both carrier and other task forces,in support of amphib ops for instance.

Pop out radars,eqpt looks interesting.Remember that the Soviets used a pop-up SAN-4 SAM system for Nanuchka corvettes,used on our G/B class initially before Barak became available. I like the gun/missile combo for Kashtan CIWS systems and their follow on variants.Here are a few details rom Wik:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashtan_CIWS

The command module detects and tracks threats, distributes targeting data to the combat modules, and interrogates IFF of approaching threats. The command module has a 3-D target detection radar, and an all weather multi-band integrated control system. Depending on the number of installed combat modules, the system can engage multiple targets simultaneously. The combat modules automatically track using either radar, electro-optronic control system (such as FLIRs) or both, and then engages targets with missiles and guns. The combat modules are typically equipped with two GSh-30K (AO-18K) six-barrel 30 mm rotary cannons, fed by a link-less feeding mechanism, and two 9M311 launchers equipped with 4 ready-to-fire missiles each and fed by a reloading system storing 32 missiles in ready-to-launch containers.

The guns used in the Kashtan are the GSh-30K six-barrel 30 mm rotary cannon. Individually, each GSh-30K has a higher rate of fire compared to other guns used by other CIWS such as the GAU-8 on the Goalkeeper and the M61 Vulcan on the Phalanx. Along with a high rate of fire, the fairly heavy round (390 g or 14 oz) used by the Kashtan is comparable to the DPU rounds of the GAU-8 Avenger (425 g or 15.0 oz), although the muzzle velocity (and therefore both the kinetic energy and effective range) is slightly lower, partially offsetting the high caliber and rate of fire.

The missiles used in the Kashtan are the 9M311 missiles, which is also used on the 9K22 Tunguska. The 9M311 is a SACLOS guided missile, however, it is steered automatically by the command module. The warhead weighs 9 kilograms (20 lb) and is either laser or radio fused. The warhead is a continuous-rod warhead with a steel cube fragmentation layer. The detonation of the warhead will form a complete circle of fragmentation that is 5 meters in radius, and damage or destroy anything in that circle.

The combination of the missiles and guns, provides more comprehensive protection when compared to other CIWS utilising either missiles or guns only. The system's combined kill probability is 0.96 to 0.99

prabhug · Post by **prabhug** » 20 Apr 2015 11:37

Hi
Why is laser guidance systems not used in CIWS missiles for the navy ? Is there anything already i have missed.

arun · Post by **arun** » 20 Apr 2015 11:38

Question dealing with EMALS during interview of CNS Adm. Robin Dhowan by Rahul Singh for Hindustan Times discloses the successor carrier to Vikrant, ie: IAC-II, is a long way off as study phase is yet to be completed:

Will the navy deploy the electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS) offered by the US on the second indigenous aircraft carrier (IAC-II)?

The IAC-II is only in a phase of study where the approach paper is being evaluated to look at possible contours of the carrier – size, equipment and machinery. It’s in a preliminary phase and will later be taken up by the defence ministry. The setting up of a joint working group on sharing technology isn’t any signal that we will go for EMALS. This will follow a protracted decision-making process by the government on aspects related to what the form and fit of the carrier will be. It’s too early to say what technology we will go for but all options are being evaluated.

From here:

Priority is to ensure we are combat-ready: Navy chief

Ankit Desai · Post by **Ankit Desai** » 20 Apr 2015 17:49

INS Visakhapatnam.

-Ankit

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 20 Apr 2015 18:18

srin wrote:I'm a little disappointed that the P15Bs have the same 16 VLSes for cruise missiles as P15As. It does indicate that these are for anti-ship warfare. That is a pretty restricted view.

To terrorize our adversaries using the Navy, we need to have good standoff land attack capability. Not good enough to sink their Navy, but to destroy their coastal infrastructure.
Similar to the Ohio class SSGNs and given that we won't have our own couterpart in any near-medium future, a warship with 100 cruise missiles - that's what I'd want. 100 Nirbhays and capable of attacking from 600-800 km range - then you are safe from their land-based warplanes and you don't need to operate in a CBG. Just a small task force would do - a couple of corvettes and frigates for AWS and anti-air.

If you can't fit 100 VLS tubes in a P15B hull - well, stretch it and call it a cruiser or have a rotary magazine underneath the deck. 16 missiles aren't good enough to scare anybody.

I think this 16 are universal VLS which are capable of launching "simila" missiles, like the Mk 41 launcher of USN or Sylver launchr of France. Me thinks this can launch Nirbhay.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 20 Apr 2015 18:23

Ankit Desai wrote:INS Visakhapatnam.

-Ankit

Today I saw the launch of a ship for the first time ever, "Visakhatapatnam" class

srin · Post by **srin** » 20 Apr 2015 18:33

Kersi D wrote:
srin wrote:I'm a little disappointed that the P15Bs have the same 16 VLSes for cruise missiles as P15As. It does indicate that these are for anti-ship warfare. That is a pretty restricted view.

To terrorize our adversaries using the Navy, we need to have good standoff land attack capability. Not good enough to sink their Navy, but to destroy their coastal infrastructure.
Similar to the Ohio class SSGNs and given that we won't have our own couterpart in any near-medium future, a warship with 100 cruise missiles - that's what I'd want. 100 Nirbhays and capable of attacking from 600-800 km range - then you are safe from their land-based warplanes and you don't need to operate in a CBG. Just a small task force would do - a couple of corvettes and frigates for AWS and anti-air.

If you can't fit 100 VLS tubes in a P15B hull - well, stretch it and call it a cruiser or have a rotary magazine underneath the deck. 16 missiles aren't good enough to scare anybody.
I think this 16 are universal VLS which are capable of launching "simila" missiles, like the Mk 41 launcher of USN or Sylver launchr of France. Me thinks this can launch Nirbhay.

Kersi-sir, the type of missile is just one part of the grief. Yes, Brahmos may be replaced by Nirbhays tomorrow and that will allow them to attack ports and harbours without going to the range of coastal defence batteries and land-based fighters.

The bigger heartache is the loadout of just 16 cruise missiles. To saturate the defenses, you'd have to enhance the firepower significantly.

srin · Post by **srin** » 20 Apr 2015 18:42

Philip wrote:Uddu for the v.interesting clip.The way to go experimenting with new hull dsigns,etc.

Tx 16 BMos missiles is a v.heavy load! Remember that it is the only (with a few new reported entrants,China) major supersonic anti-ship/land attack missile in service.There would be a lesser need for saturated missile attacks using 3-4 missiles for subsonic ones,perhaps 2 if it were Klub,,for attacking a capital ship.There have been some theoretical studies done for the same,with BMos' devastating kinetic speed being its USP. One would've also hoped that both Nirbhay and Klub variants (ASW in particular) could also be accommodated in VLS silos.

None of it matters because it'd have to get very close to the coast to launch its salvo. And the closer it gets, the more the chances of detection by the maritime patrol aircrafts and consequently, the more the chances of interception by coastal batteries (think Bastion) and by land-based fighters.
The consequences of that are:
a) The land attack capability is at best used only as a sniper to take out very high value targets like air defense systems etc and only with significant risk (of detection and interception) to the ship.
b) The more probable land attack would be using carrier based fighters.

So, the role would be more of fleet air defense primarily and only secondary as a strike weapon. And if so, 76mm or 127mm main gun doesn't matter, except for point defense.

We definitely need a lot more firepower than this.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 20 Apr 2015 18:42

[/quote]
Kersi-sir, the type of missile is just one part of the grief. Yes, Brahmos may be replaced by Nirbhays tomorrow and that will allow them to attack ports and harbours without going to the range of coastal defence batteries and land-based fighters.

The bigger heartache is the loadout of just 16 cruise missiles. To saturate the defenses, you'd have to enhance the firepower significantly.[/quote]

AGREE

To start with please us drop this 'sir' business !!!!

John · Post by **John** » 20 Apr 2015 20:26

Kersi D wrote:
I think this 16 are universal VLS which are capable of launching "simila" missiles, like the Mk 41 launcher of USN or Sylver launchr of France. Me thinks this can launch Nirbhay.

L&T Universal VLS used for Brahmos is not to confused with Russian UVLS system which can fire Brahmos/Klub and is fitted on Teg class. However they are not similar to Mk 41, former is cold launch system and i wouldn't be surprised if L&T VLS can accommodate other canister launched missiles in future (Nirbhay or even AAD). Even there is some confusion whether Barak 8 launcher (which uses hot launch) can accommodate other missiles including Barak and C-Dome.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 20 Apr 2015 23:15

O/T The number of people taking a picture of Vishakapatnam is amazing!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Apr 2015 09:39

Note the little bulge at the bows ,indicating the location of the bow sonar.I think that this is a first for the P-15 class or am I mistaken-do the 15As have bow mounted sonars or hull mounted sonars?nations

The gunfire support is essential for any amphib ops in out island territories,if there is an attempt to invade them by an enemy,or retake them if captured.Plus,in the defence of the smaller island IOR nations, like the Mauritius or the Maldives ,where there was a previous coup attempt in the late '80s.One cannot rule out an ISI sponsored attempt to take over the Maldives supported by China.The IN has to be prepared for any eventuality.

From Bus Std./BR,worth posting in full.
[quotehttp://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=21889]

INS Visakhapatnam shows growing Indian ability to build warships economically

Ajai Shukla | New Delhi April 21, 2015

The Navy’s new destroyer, INS Visakhapatnam, with enhanced capability to operate in areas tainted by a nuclear, biological and chemical strike, at its launch at the Mazagon dock in Mumbai on Monday

On Monday, eight months after Prime Minister Narendra Modi commissioned the first Project 15A guided missile destroyer, INS Kolkata, the first of its successor class vessels - INS Visakhapatnam - was launched into the water at Mazagon Dock Ltd, Mumbai (MDL).

INS Visakhapatnam, the first of four stealthy destroyers coming up under Project 15B, began taking shape on January 23, 2013, when MDL started fashioning 2,800 tonnes of Indian-made warship steel into the warship's hull. With this partly-build structure now floating in water, INS Visakhapatnam will be built up by 2017 into a 7,334-tonne behemoth. After trials, it will be commissioned in 2018 as India's most heavily armed warship.

It will be joined in the fleet at two year intervals by three successors: INS Paradip, INS Marmagoa and a fourth vessel, yet unnamed.

The most remarkable feature of these destroyers is not its 32 world-beating Indo-Israeli anti-ship-missile defences called the Long Range Surface to Air Missile (LR-SAM), or Barak 8; nor its arsenal of 16 Brahmos supersonic cruise missiles that can sink ships or strike land targets 295 kilometres away; nor its heavyweight torpedoes that can destroy enemy submarines 100 kilometres away.

The most remarkable feature of these warships is that, tonne-for-tonne, they are not only one of the world's most heavily armed but also one of the cheapest.

Underlining the benefits of designing and building combat platforms in the country, the four Project 15B warships will cost the navy Rs 29,348 crore, an average of Rs 7,337 crore per destroyer. Tipping the scales at an estimated 7,334 tonnes, INS Visakhapatnam will cost the navy just about Rs 1 crore per tonne, or $159,750 in 2014 prices.

Three Project 15A destroyers were built even cheaper -at $92,210 per tonne - but the fall of the rupee and inflation in labour and materials cost have raised the price of their successors.

Only China's Guangzhou class destroyers were built cheaper, at $146,870 per tonne in 2014 prices. However, as combat platforms, Guangzhou-class destroyers are not in the same class as INS Visakhapatnam. Their anti-missile defence consists of 48 Russian-origin SA-N-12 Grizzly surface-to-air missiles, which have ranges of under 40 kilometres, depending upon the target. The LR-SAMs on the Visakhapatnam-class, in contrast, shoot down incoming anti-ship missiles - the most significant threat to surface warships - at ranges out to 70 kilometres, and have a far better hit probability.

Similarly, the Brahmos anti-ship/anti-surface missile, which is both supersonic and has a range of 295 kilometres, is regarded as superior to the Guangzhou-class' YJ-83 anti-ship missiles, which have ranges of about 200 kilometres.

The Daring-class destroyers, which is the spearhead of the Royal Navy's surface fleet, and which the United Kingdom boasts is the finest air defence destroyer in the world, costs an estimated 193,650 per tonne to build.

Few would dispute the technological pre-eminence of the US Navy's DDG-51 destroyers, of which USS Rafael Peralta is the newest. Boasting the Aegis Combat System for air defence, Harpoon anti-ship missiles and Tomahawk strategic land strike cruise missiles; these Arleigh Burke-class destroyers are the gold standard in multi-role capability. However, this capability comes at a prohibitive estimated $205,000 per tonne, despite the economy of scale that comes from building about 100 of these warships.

Even more expensive is Japan's Akizuki-class destroyer, which Mitsubishi is building for $232,370 per tonne; and Australia's Hobart-class destroyer, designed by Spanish shipbuilder Navantia and built in Australia, which will cost the Royal Australian Navy an estimated $333,300 per tonne, more than double the cost of INS Visakhapatnam.

The capabilities that the navy has announced for Project 15B indicates the design of these warships - rooted in the three destroyers of Project 15; and evolved into the three of Project 15A - has continually improved. Although these vessels use the same power plant - four Ukrainian M-36E Zorya gas turbines - INS Visakhapatnam, which is significantly heavier at 7,334 tonnes than the 5,800-tonne Delhi-class destroyers of Project 15, can work up the same speed (30 knots, or 56 kmph).

The Visakhapatnam's crew of 325 officers and sailors, include an air complement that operates the ship's two helicopters. The destroyer carries 1,000 tonnes of fuel, which allows it to patrol the oceans for 8,000 nautical miles (15,000 km; 9,200 miles) at 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph). For entering an area that has undergone a nuclear, chemical or biological (NBC) strike, the Visakhapatnam has a "total atmosphere control system", which cleans the air through a filter system.[/quote]

PS:This is the most accurate report,others saying that only 8BMos SSM carried.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Apr 2015 09:57

> designed by Spanish shipbuilder Navantia and built in Australia, which will cost the Royal Australian Navy an estimated $333,300 per tonne, more than double the cost of INS Visakhapatnam.

australia has a long trend of building overpriced vessels in australia instead of directly importing. they are spending $1b more due to australia build for just 3 ships...
http://www.news.com.au/national/navy-wa ... 6847274212

p.s. cheen seems to have shafted them with sub standard pipes too, pics above