Indian Naval Discussion

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Apr 2010 16:40

^^ Quite a fine looking ship

Kavu · Post by **Kavu** » 10 Apr 2010 16:45

Austin wrote:^^ Quite a fine looking ship

You are quite knowledgable in Navy matters, while I am not. I do know that Shivalik is a sem-stealth ship. I could see we have had considerable progress in reducing the Engine heat signature as well as on shaping of the entire ship, though we are known to buy the best electronic equipment in the business, the top end of the shivalik looks quite cluttered, could this have been avoided, will it in consideration to cost and time, make much of a difference? Is there a Shivalik Block II planned!

Anoop. A. · Post by **Anoop. A.** » 10 Apr 2010 18:32

INS Shivalik is an important chapter in Indian Naval Design and Development. Stealth/Semi stealth, all that matters is we have grabbed the know how to create a potent weapons platform and the way forward is to capitalize on this indigenous effort.

Congratulations to our Navy, for not only getting an up-to-date platform, but for considering and improving on the living conditions of its sailors. Hope they continue to emphasis this point on future battle ships as well.

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 10 Apr 2010 21:56

Kavu wrote: though we are known to buy the best electronic equipment in the business, the top end of the shivalik looks quite cluttered, could this have been avoided, will it in consideration to cost and time, make much of a difference? Is there a Shivalik Block II planned!

shivalik was a 10 year old design.And the top end will see difference with comissioning of P-15A.
http://i25.tinypic.com/29gg9k0.jpg
While P-17A address further more issues.Then P15B might become the mightiest and lethal.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 10 Apr 2010 23:37

Would some knowledgble gentlemen identify the radars, weapons etc for the benefit of the ignorant me ?

K

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 11 Apr 2010 00:46

this image by maz is still more or less valid. http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Imag ... ect17a.jpg

except the kasthan CIWS has been susbstituted by a BArak + AK-630 gun combo. clearly visible in http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/S ... 748232.jpg just ahead of the helo hangar.

barak's EL/M 2221 radar must be around somewhere but I couldn't locate it. surprisingly, the radar at the back looks like a 3D-CAR to me, never read that it will be a part of the P17.

Srivastav · Post by **Srivastav** » 11 Apr 2010 01:20

dada i think el/m2221 stgr is visible here http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/S ... 751105.jpg

a_kumar · Post by **a_kumar** » 11 Apr 2010 01:45

That is a beautiful ship!!! And an amazing view of it.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/S8BcuQrMy4I/AAAAAAAAKGs/hNRs4kTv7jQ/s1600/DSC_3223-749699.jpg

ManuJ · Post by **ManuJ** » 11 Apr 2010 02:40

Rahul M wrote:surprisingly, the radar at the back looks like a 3D-CAR to me, never read that it will be a part of the P17.

Or is it the RAN 40L?

John · Post by **John** » 11 Apr 2010 04:45

Looks beautiful was concerned about the spiraling cost but after seeing the pictures i think IN should procure more improved variants of P-17s, god knows when the P-17A tender will go through.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Apr 2010 06:11

ManuJ wrote:
Rahul M wrote:surprisingly, the radar at the back looks like a 3D-CAR to me, never read that it will be a part of the P17.
Or is it the RAN 40L?

A good and knowledgeable friend told me its an Israel Radar , although its designation is not known but will find out once it gets commissioned.

I am quite surprised they opted for Single Arm Launcher Shtil-1 SAM when VLS option was available , thats the only disappointing part on the other wise fine ship.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Apr 2010 06:30

Kavu wrote: the top end of the shivalik looks quite cluttered, could this have been avoided, will it in consideration to cost and time, make much of a difference? Is there a Shivalik Block II planned!

Building a complete Stealth Ship will not just mean designing a LO superstructure , but complimentary Weapons and Sensor suite to match the over all LO of the ship , this would mean investing substantial amount of money and the ability of our SY and Design Bureau to Design and Build such ship not to mention expensive to maintain.

I do not expect the IN to go for Stealth Ship but ships with LO capability where ever possible ( semi-stealth ) , the P-17A will definitely have better LO capability specially if we see a Western Design being chosen for it as most likely anticipated.

John · Post by **John** » 11 Apr 2010 07:02

Austin wrote: A good and knowledgeable friend told me its an Israel Radar , although its designation is not known but will find out once it gets commissioned.

The large variant of EL/M-2238 (smaller variant is fitted on P-16A)? thats what i originally speculated but we don't have any image of that to compare it with.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 11 Apr 2010 07:03

Or is it the RAN 40L?

I don't know, frankly, I think revathi would seem to be a tad light for the specs, so was a little surprised.

I am quite surprised they opted for Single Arm Launcher Shtil-1 SAM when VLS option was available , thats the only disappointing part on the other wise fine ship.

hasn't the PRC funded the VL-Shtil and are rumoured to have a veto on who gets it ?

Rahul M wrote:barak's EL/M 2221 radar must be around somewhere ~~but I couldn't locate it.~~

on top of the bridge and on the helo hangar. I shouldn't post late at night.

John · Post by **John** » 11 Apr 2010 07:11

Yes PRC china funded it but i believe the venture was similar to Brahmos where they given license and tech to build modified variant locally(HQ-16). As for Vl-shtil won't it be fitted on new batch of frigates? also it was to be fitted on Gorshkov

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Apr 2010 07:19

John wrote:Yes PRC china funded it but i believe the venture was similar to Brahmos where they given license and tech to build modified variant locally(HQ-16). As for Vl-shtil won't it be fitted on new batch of frigates? also it was to be fitted on Gorshkov

Yes it seems the new Teg class have VLS Shtil-1 , I was wondering of shtil-1 have ARH capabilty , since it was advertised few years back ( the seeker ) , it will be impossible to figure out if Shtil-1 indeed has ARH capability and if such capability exist will require no change in existing FC radar.

alok_c · Post by **alok_c** » 11 Apr 2010 08:29

Kudos to the designer and builders of the P17. However, like some other posters, I was wondering what will happen if we used the whole front raised deck for installing the VLS cells. Here is just a quick photoshop version of the P17 with 88 Brahmos-sized VLS cells - this is just for quick discussion.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 11 Apr 2010 10:01

Opinions and Suggestions please.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 11 Apr 2010 10:23

the port side CIWS package has only one Ak-630 and 16 barak VLS cells. the other half is on the starboard side(not visible in picture).

you can label the other 3 orekh radars if you want, all are visible in the image. the other pic http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/S ... 751105.jpg clearly shows the second EL/M-2221 at the back of the ship.

overall, very nicely done, but we expect that from you.

/hat tip : srivastav.

alok_c wrote:Kudos to the designer and builders of the P17. However, like some other posters, I was wondering what will happen if we used the whole front raised deck for installing the VLS cells. Here is just a quick photoshop version of the P17 with 88 Brahmos-sized VLS cells - this is just for quick discussion.

he he, you have erased the anti-sub rockets while doing that !

my gripe with this ship is on two counts,
> only 8 klub/brahmos, should have had at least 16, even the much smaller kora class has 16 SSMs.
> the single arm launcher. any VL cell based SAM would have been better. hopefully, by the first MLU.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 11 Apr 2010 10:50

Thank you sir-ji,
That pic you linked to is much better. Will work on that and post a link.

negi · Post by **negi** » 11 Apr 2010 12:28

Russians have traditionally shown preference for wooden rounds I wonder why do they still persist with that nasty looking RBU 6000 launcher , it is the first thing we should plan to canisterize . 8 Klub/Brahmos is a major turn off specially when reloading the VL tubes in midst of sea is a major PITA and relegates the frigate to escort duties only.

I hope we replace the vintage Shtil (boy reminds me of the twin S-125M launchers on the R class

) with Barak NG and add at least 32 cell Brahmos VLS during the next MLU for these babies.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 11 Apr 2010 12:33

This is a better picture with changes.

Click on the image for a larger picture.

Kavu · Post by **Kavu** » 11 Apr 2010 12:42

Austin wrote:
Kavu wrote: the top end of the shivalik looks quite cluttered, could this have been avoided, will it in consideration to cost and time, make much of a difference? Is there a Shivalik Block II planned!
Building a complete Stealth Ship will not just mean designing a LO superstructure , but complimentary Weapons and Sensor suite to match the over all LO of the ship , this would mean investing substantial amount of money and the ability of our SY and Design Bureau to Design and Build such ship not to mention expensive to maintain.

I do not expect the IN to go for Stealth Ship but ships with LO capability where ever possible ( semi-stealth ) , the P-17A will definitely have better LO capability specially if we see a Western Design being chosen for it as most likely anticipated.

From a layman point view, it looks really a stealth ship, all it has is some clutter on the mast and near it. My question was, is it possible to have a layout which is not cluttered, with the same equipment, or do we have to change the items up there. Does the cost justify the gains on more stealth characteristics. Why is that we didnt use MF-STAR for shivalik.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 11 Apr 2010 12:50

One of the reasons why the navy decided to accept the Shitil in the current launcher configuration is perhaps because Barak is present in VLS configuration for closer interception, and these can be hot launched immediately.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Apr 2010 12:54

there is a blast deflector wall in between the RBU launchers for when the RBUs fire sideways. I dont recall seeing it on older ships. due to closeness of Shtil and its non-VL launcher, another ugly looking deflector fwd of the brahmos array.

housing the RBU rockets in two stealth turrets port and stbd near the Baraks will
take care of 1st issue (might open room for another row of brahmos)
a VL-SAM will take care of 2nd issue.

the uncluttering of mast can happen if a truly multifunctional radar comes along integrating the search , tracking , missile guidance for both SR and LR sams and EW.
perhaps MF-star will do it since barak8 and barak1 are from same company.

the rear mast can continue to have a meaty 3D search radar.

for radio comms there has to be separate antennas but the antenna design and mass of wires strung around can hopefully be streamlined and made conformal ? we no longer pull out antennas for cellphones to be able to place calls...

it helps if all the eqpt comes from one vendor or all eqpt from our country so that
even multiple agencies can collaborate at design stage itself. its not possible for
mix-n-match indo-israel-european designs like our current ships.

for 15A and 17A, would be good to see a Elop thermal imager of highest spec mounted
on a rotating housing atop the main radar panels box and backup by another one
atop the 3D radar on rear mast. this will permit sighting the heat of approaching
low level stealthy ASMs out to around 40km in good conditions if radar is passive and
no KA31 is helping out. I think the dutch de zeven provincien ships have a Thales "Sirius" IRST.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Apr 2010 13:03

Gagan wrote:One of the reasons why the navy decided to accept the Shitil in the current launcher configuration is perhaps because Barak is present in VLS configuration for closer interception, and these can be hot launched immediately.

Well one is a medium range SAM and the other CIWS/Short Range one so the VLS thingie is nothing to do with each other.

The originall design may have to do with Talwar legacy and to keep it close to talwar class as much as possible and add new systems to minimise risk at design stage and avoid delays.

But considering they took infinite time to commission this lady , they could have opted for VLS shtil-1 unless the design got frozen or had no ability to accommodate VLS launcher.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 11 Apr 2010 13:33

Gagan wrote:Thank you sir-ji,
That pic you linked to is much better. Will work on that and post a link.

Gagan paa-ji, many thanx for taking the pain of labeling the pic with details; it helps this land-lubber to understand things that much better......this abdul was about to request for something similar when the pics were posted first...hmmm, should have asked for something else - kya pata woh bhi mil jaata

...

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 11 Apr 2010 13:37

Austin, could you kindly list IN's aggregate sea-lift capability for us, including civilian assets that might be used ?

rohit, could you help us identify IA's amphib units, if there are any that train for that role regularly, and what their wartime role might be ? in IA thread ?

TIA.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 11 Apr 2010 13:43

Rahul M wrote:Austin, could you kindly list IN's aggregate sea-lift capability for us, including civilian assets that might be used ?

rohit, could you help us identify IA's amphib units, if there are any that train for that role regularly, and what their wartime role might be ? in IA thread ?

TIA.

There is one Infantry Brigade tasked for amphib. role and one more was to come up in Trivandrum...I don't remember the numbers...let me check.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 11 Apr 2010 13:54

I wonder whether VlS can just be put in instead of the shtil during MLU without considerations of CG etc.

We have seen over the years that although while doing a visual analysis several spots come to mind where something "else" could have been put in, the ship designer's considerations are far more complicated with the whole weight , CG and space optimisation issues.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 11 Apr 2010 13:56

GD saar,
Check out the Delhi class DDGs. They also have those blast deflectors between the RBU-6000s

negi · Post by **negi** » 11 Apr 2010 13:58

^ Its designed and built in India so such changes are very much doable as part of MLU , for instance look at the R class some of them have undergone substantial modifications for Brahmos (first in inclined tubes and now VLS ) and even the Dhanush system .

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 11 Apr 2010 14:00

I missed the Torpedoes in that picture.
But where are they hain?

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 11 Apr 2010 14:05

yeah but the kashins carry 4 brahmos in the inclined config.

and who knows how many in the universal launch module near the helicopter hangar.

The point being , we don't really know how many VLS can be just put in there for a SAM + brahmos load.

it may or may not be a lot.

The torps are in the mid section I think. Doors move to let the launchers incline out

The giant blast deflectors in the P-15 may actually be indicative of an earlier desire to use the Sunburn rather than for the RBUs.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 11 Apr 2010 14:11

The boat stowage area door also would have dual tubes on both sides.
I think that door will have to roll upwards for the torpedo tubes to come out.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Apr 2010 14:14

24 SAMs are stored in a rotary housing below the single arm launcher. the VLS would
occupy the same area and in a similar balanced layout. the effect on CG would be minimal if 24 VL SAMs are replaced. losing the single arm launcher and the magazine
feeding mechanism would lose some weight (few 100 kg maybe). the blast funnels for
VL system would add some weight. not a big diff imo.

the shtil system per Altair webpage can handle 2-12 simultaneous engagements.
we mount 4 such radars (as does DDG51 for SM2). Tico class had 6. both of these are directional radars like P15/P17/Talwar. i.e. 1 target per quadrant only. no sure if
amir khan has some feature for same radar to guide out multiple missiles.

contrast to APAR with can do 4 per quadrant and EMPAR/Sampson with a theoritical 16 per quadrant. much better raw ability to neat back mass attacks.

if we run with Shtil-1 for P15/P17/Talwar MLU, should consider adding 4 more radars to
double the engagement capacity to 8. or improve the radar to guide out 2-3 missiles
per radar.

hopefully MFSTAR can match APAR and do 4 / quadrant.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 11 Apr 2010 14:17

Gagan wrote:Thank you sir-ji,
That pic you linked to is much better. Will work on that and post a link.

THANKS A LOT

K

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 11 Apr 2010 14:27

rohitvats wrote:
Gagan wrote:Thank you sir-ji,
That pic you linked to is much better. Will work on that and post a link.
this abdul was about to request for something similar when the pics were posted first...hmmm, should have asked for something else - kya pata woh bhi mil jaata ...

ACHTUNG ACHTUNG ACHTUNG

MODERATORS

WHO IS THIS ABDUL ? BANISH HIM !!!!

K

PS
Rohit why did u change yr name to abdul ? Wanna marry Sania Mirza !!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Apr 2010 14:28

old afm post.

The basic VL module contains 12 9M317ME missiles but, as with the unmodified Shtil and Shtil-1 systems, the upgrade is being offered in a series of optional configurations, which add greater numbers of MR-90 Orekh ('Front Dome') target-illumination radars and additional VL modules. All variants use target information from the ship's 3D surveillance radar.

Vertical-launch Shtil-1 configurations

Technical characteristic Option number
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Reaction time, [seconds] 5 - 10 5 - 10 5 - 10 5 - 10 5 - 10 5 - 10 5 - 10 5 - 10
Firing interval [seconds] 2 - 3 2 - 3 2 - 3 1 - 2 1 - 2 1 - 2 1 - 2 1 - 2
Number of target channels 2 4 4 6 8 8 10 12
Magazine capacity [rounds] 12 24 36 48 - 72 72 108 108 - 144 144
Number of VL modules 1 2 3 4 - 6 6 9 9 - 12 12

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 11 Apr 2010 14:29

Gagan wrote:Opinions and Suggestions please.

What is the difference between SA-N-7, SA-N-12 and SA-N-17 ? They use the same launchers.

K