Indian Naval News & Discussion - 12 Oct 2013

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Aug 2014 21:34

John wrote:Singha

Here is picture from Livefist what are you referring to? Apart from Barak 8 launchers i don't see anything else.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yRk7TTn6Raw/U ... C_0134.JPG

there are two barak1ish units between the funnel and the satcom white dome.
that area i had commented could instead take barak8 later.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 14 Aug 2014 21:41

Yes those are 16 cells for B-8 and along with 16 in front make it 32. It does seem to have enough area to take another 16 atleast.

John · Post by **John** » 14 Aug 2014 22:27

Bheeshma wrote:A 7500 tone ship with 32 SAM's is rather pathetic . Talwars are more heavily armed than IN's latest destroyers.

They aren't supposed to be AAW vessels they will carry out the same role as Talwar and cost only little bit more than Talwar Blk 2. Talwar is bit is heavily armed for its size and doesn't have fully integrated mast, Shivalik for example displaces over 6000 Tons.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 14 Aug 2014 23:31

Project-17A: Are there any orders placed? Orders have been placed for P-15B only.

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 15 Aug 2014 00:07

Bheeshma wrote:A 7500 tone ship with 32 SAM's is rather pathetic . Talwars are more heavily armed than IN's latest destroyers.

hmmm....

The Daring class @ 8000T carries 48 SAM's and 8 SSM's
The Type 52's @ 7500T carries 48 VLS cells - with a mix of SSM's and SAM's
The Kongo class @ 9000T carries a mix of 90 SAM's/SSM's
The Atago class @ 10000T has slightly more capacity than the Kongo's with 96 VLS cells
The Arleigh-Burke class @ 9800T-11000T carries a mix of 90-96 SAM's/SSM's

The Kolkatta class @7200T carries 64 SAM's and 16 SSM's in 96 VLS cells.

Seems in line with contemporary trends wrt weapons to tonnage ratio. What gives you the giggles?

Clearly the IN designed and built what is wanted, rather than picking off the shelf best-of-brochure specs. The mix is unusual, but being unusual is not a case for giggles I think.

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 15 Aug 2014 00:22

Bheeshma wrote:A 7500 tone ship with 32 SAM's is rather pathetic . Talwars are more heavily armed than IN's latest destroyers.

16 BrahMos vs 8 Klub.
Two medium helicopters vs one light helicopter.
More heavily armed indeed...

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 15 Aug 2014 05:40

Shalav,
If it actually carries 64 Barak-8's then I have no problems. There seems to be no indication of that.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 15 Aug 2014 05:52

Why do you need 64 Barak 8s on one ship?

Once Nirbhay comes online, I would like to see like 32 of them deployed on the Navy's Frontline Destroyers.
We'll probably need a 10,000 ton class ship for that, with significant land attack, anti-ship, and SAM capability

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 15 Aug 2014 06:17

When Vishnu Som asked the same question with an IN officer who was leading our pack over the low Barak-8 count, he said that those (western ships) are built for another purpose. This is for our needs.

srai · Post by **srai** » 15 Aug 2014 09:41

Mihir wrote:
Bheeshma wrote:A 7500 tone ship with 32 SAM's is rather pathetic . Talwars are more heavily armed than IN's latest destroyers.
16 BrahMos vs 8 Klub.
Two medium helicopters vs one light helicopter.
More heavily armed indeed...

32 Barak8 (70km) vs 24 Shtil (45km)

Looking at the top deck there is enough space to add more Barak 8 or Brahmos/Nirbhay VLS units. I think another 4 x 8-cell Barak8 or 1 x 8-cell Brahmos/Nirbhay VLS units could be added (if required) to the spaces in the front and aft areas. So unlike the Talwars, there is plenty of room for future growth on P-15As.

negi · Post by **negi** » 15 Aug 2014 09:49

We are not a blue water navy, yet nor does India have the itch to bring democracy in far off regions like Unkil. Long story short for a typical couple of months of deployment or akshun 32 medium range SAMs should do the trick our ships do not escort a 100k tonne carrier which is likely to be subjected to a saturation attack. As it is in Unkil land even cars have 4 cup holders in driver's section while rest of the duniya manages with 1 or 2.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 15 Aug 2014 10:00

Gagan wrote:Why do you need 64 Barak 8s on one ship?

Once Nirbhay comes online, I would like to see like 32 of them deployed on the Navy's Frontline Destroyers.
We'll probably need a 10,000 ton class ship for that, with significant land attack, anti-ship, and SAM capability

Why? We have only two real adversaries both of whom we already share long land borders with. A multi-role BrahMos would be quite adequate if the IN still wants a degree of land attack capability. It'll also have the option of ALCMs launched by MiG-29Ks.

Ranjani Brow · Post by **Ranjani Brow** » 15 Aug 2014 10:22

Shalav wrote:
Bheeshma wrote:A 7500 tone ship with 32 SAM's is rather pathetic . Talwars are more heavily armed than IN's latest destroyers.

The Daring class @ 8000T carries 48 SAM's and 8 SSM's
The Type 52's @ 7500T carries 48 VLS cells - with a mix of SSM's and SAM's
The Kongo class @ 9000T carries a mix of 90 SAM's/SSM's
The Atago class @ 10000T has slightly more capacity than the Kongo's with 96 VLS cells
The Arleigh-Burke class @ 9800T-11000T carries a mix of 90-96 SAM's/SSM's

The Kolkatta class @7200T carries 64 SAM's and 16 SSM's in 96 VLS cells.

AB, Kongo and Atago are different class of ships. They have Mk-41 VLS cells with SM-2 and SM-3 with Range 1500Km-2500Km for ABM. They can also carry quad-packed SM-6 for AAW and cruise missile defence.

Kolkata with 32 Barak-8, 16 Brahmos and 2 (10 ton) ASW Helicopters and maybe Barak-1 and Nirbhay in future is a formidable ship. If anything you should compare it with FREMM frigate (Italian version) or may be Horizon class.

Vishnu · Post by **Vishnu** » 15 Aug 2014 12:38

Wonder if the Navy is hedging its bets on the success of the Barak 8 as a system. No point in digging up holes in your weapons complex unless you are sure the system works exactly the way it should. Personally think 32 Barak 8 is woefully short for a ship as large as this ... The argument that we don't need so many missiles doesn't make sense to me. You don't build a state of the art AESA equipped 7500 ton destroyer and then cut down on the missiles it can carry. The compromise in the case of the main gun ... and now this ... seems inexplicable.

Vishnu · Post by **Vishnu** » 15 Aug 2014 12:41

Wonder if the Navy is hedging its bets on the success of the Barak 8 as a system. No point in digging up holes in your weapons complex unless you are sure the system works exactly the way it should. Personally think 32 Barak 8 is woefully short for a ship as large as this ... The argument that we don't need so many missiles doesn't make sense to me. You don't build a state of the art AESA equipped 7500 ton destroyer and then cut down on the missiles it can carry. The compromise in the case of the main gun ... and now this ... seems inexplicable.

Incidentally, the lower bridge is for flag staff. The upper bridge is for the CO and the regular crew !

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 15 Aug 2014 12:48

Vishnu wrote:Wonder if the Navy is hedging its bets on the success of the Barak 8 as a system. No point in digging up holes in your weapons complex unless you are sure the system works exactly the way it should. Personally think 32 Barak 8 is woefully short for a ship as large as this ... The argument that we don't need so many missiles doesn't make sense to me. You don't build a state of the art AESA equipped 7500 ton destroyer and then cut down on the missiles it can carry. The compromise in the case of the main gun ... and now this ... seems inexplicable.

The IN has a build local philosophy in works and they make compromises in capabilities but still try things in house. On the other hand IAF tries to keep the best capability with a local build not being a top priority. We seem to be unhappy with both.

The compromises on INS Kolkata may be because the IN wanted the Ship out and not refuse to take the product until all needed QRs are met. The Navy is ready to live with it and they have to operate it. IMO, the IN is ready to work within desi means. The future iterations will be better.

P.S. JMT without knowing the insides.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 15 Aug 2014 19:14

chackojoseph wrote:When Vishnu Som asked the same question with an IN officer who was leading our pack over the low Barak-8 count, he said that those (western ships) are built for another purpose. This is for our needs.

It is unfair to compare P-15A with Daring class as the latter is a dedicated AAW destroyer. However, the officer's view is not in sync when you consider other vessels in our own fleet:

Shivalik Class: 32xBarak-1 + 24×Shtil-1
Talwar Class Tranche-1: 24xShtil-1 + 40x9M311

These ships have similar levels of surface warfare capability. Since Barak-8 is going to serve as a CIWS as well, provision for more missiles was expected.

Navy has been facing issues regarding SAMs for quite some time now. Project 16A vessels also faced the same. Vikramaditya does not even have CIWS let alone SAM system. And the VLS cells on Kolkata are empty. Perhaps these procurement level issues have forced this situation.

srin · Post by **srin** » 15 Aug 2014 20:39

The requirement of 32 SAM vs 64 depends upon the context. If the objective is to be the Air Defence for the aircraft carrier groups, then 32 seems inadequate.

titash · Post by **titash** » 15 Aug 2014 20:52

srin wrote:The requirement of 32 SAM vs 64 depends upon the context. If the objective is to be the Air Defence for the aircraft carrier groups, then 32 seems inadequate.

Resources:
The USN currently has 22 + 62 = 84 AEGIS vessels available to escort 10-11 supercarriers. The active radar homing SM-6 is only now coming into service.
The IN is planning on a force of 14 (3x P-15A, 4x P-15B, 7x P-17A) AEGIS-like ships to escort 2 small carriers. The Barak-8 is designed with AESA + active radar homing.

Threat Perception:
The USN expects to fight a superpower in its own backyard employing saturation missile attack tactics.
The IN will focus on securing the IOR onlee...will engage any PLAN/PN naval armada that sails into the IOR and have the benefit of peninsular India based AWACS/fighter resources.

Doing the math, I would say not to worry...the escort forces available to each carrier group are roughly the same for the IN or the USN. I also think desi doods have planned adequately.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 15 Aug 2014 21:50

what conventions/methodology does IN follow when naming their ships ???

titash · Post by **titash** » 15 Aug 2014 22:50

Vishnu wrote: Incidentally, the lower bridge is for flag staff. The upper bridge is for the CO and the regular crew !

Thanks Vishnu - I wasn't sure why there were 2 rows of windows instead of 1 like every other ship. Looks like the 3x P-15A will be able to accommodate an admiral and his staff. That also explains the larger than usual orbit SATCOM dome.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Aug 2014 22:55

It would be v. interesting to compare cost for the P-28s with the Talwars.The reason being that even Russia is building Talwars for its navy,finding them more cost-effective than smaller frigates. This a peculiar problem,in that smaller vessels seem to sometimes have a greater cost/t than larger ships.However,at least another 4 P-28s should be built as the ASW challenge is going to only grow in scale and sophistication.The shallow water ASW corvettes to replace the Pauk/Abhay class should be accelerated .They could also be used for minewarfare if they are equipped with the requisite sonars.

The Kols are all coming without any worthwhile air defence SAM system,since the JV for Barak-8 is hugely delayed.
Singha,I see no reason why the BMos-A should be delayed,esp. by Russia.From all reports its on target.The last report even said that Russian would also be inducting it on future warships.Once BMos-M arrives,it would give even more punch to existing conventional subs,which could use their existing tubes to launch them.Looking at the media figs,the P-28s and Kols are more than twice their intended cost.One wonders whether that is without the essential armament ,SAMs,TASS,etc!

For a DDG the size of the Kol,the absence of a BPDMS is glaring.With multiple salvoes expected in wartime,the number of missiles expended to ward off hostile missile attacks will be heavy.The Talwars with both Shtil and Kashtan are better equipped.These large DDGs are supposed to also guard the carriers,which have precious little,esp. the Vik-A which has nothing,from the good CNS's statements.When the Kols can barely defend themselves from missile attacks as of now,with nothing,and a mere 32 SAMs later,they will be woefully underarmed to defend the carrier that they're escorting.Most large surface combatants these days feature a triple layer of defences against air and missile attack,with at least 2 SAM systems.The US has its Std. SAMs,plus RAM and Phalanx for BPDMS and The Russians combined gun/missile systems like Kashtan.Some ships also carry MANPADS too.

The NOPVs have great potential,but the layout precludes any augmentation of essential armament to covert them into effective ASW light frigates.Where would one locate ASW TTs,MBUs,and a BPDMS system? The most worthwhile feature is the large helo hangar which can accommodate a Sea King sized multi-role/ASW helo,but the IN has precious few to go around esp. for its major surface warships,let alone the NOPVs.

Now the Goa shipyard built Tarantula missile corvettes,which have the same hull as the Pauk/Abhay ASW corvettes.It was the Soviet way of standardising as many elements/systems possible.The Pauks carried the same dunking sonar as the KA-28s.If we could bui;ld these corvettes,why can't the shallow water ASW requirement be built in India to an Indian design,esp. when we are building much larger sophisticated vessels? The Khukri/Kora hull could be also looked at except that these vessels should have gas turbines for quick prosecution of enemy subs.A larger Pauk class with a helo deck and an MBU system,perhaps even the ASW kulb,are poss. weapon systems.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 16 Aug 2014 07:31

http://en.itar-tass.com/economy/745127

Russia to repair Indian anti-submarine aircraft

ZHUKOVSKY /Moscow region/, A Russian producer of anti-submarine planes said it will effect consecutive repairs of five Il-38SD aircraft which are in service with India, Director General of the Il company Yuri Yudin told ITAR-TASS on Friday."We're overhauling the second Indian aircraft, and the next plane is to arrive in about four months," Yudin said, adding that the overhaul would include a minor upgrade.He said India was no longer interested in these planes and that their further sales were unlikely.India purchased five Il-38s in 1975 - 1983; in the 2000s they were upgraded to the Sea Dragon version, featuring 14 hours of loiter time at a speed of 400 km/h. The maximum speed of these planes is 610 km/h, and the maximum range is 6,500 kilometers.In 2009, India signed a $2.1-billion contract to purchase eight US-made P-8I Poseidon anti-submarine aircraft. The first plane was supplied in 2013. India has an option to buy four more planes for $1 billion.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 16 Aug 2014 07:47

The cost of an IL-38 vs a P-8I would be interesting merely for cost comparison,as the P-8 in USN service has not exactly been a huge increase in capability over the slower P-3 Orion.The "low and slow" capability of turboprops is particularly useful when on patrol for ASW,as they are in a better position to detect,track,and prosecute enemy subs rather than the high-flying P-8.

The "Kol" commissioning should bring with it a good selection of close up pics.Would appreciate a "portfolio" for the td.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 Aug 2014 08:08

looking at livefist photo of P15A, if that is 8+8 brahmos cells on foredeck, and comparing to the barak8 array , that is 32 cells in the front.

it is unclear to me if the back array are 16 of barak8 or smaller barak1. to me they look smaller and same as the ones we see on Viraat deck.

the front array is considerably larger(2x) of the back so it cannot be said its 16+16 like someone above is claiming

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PyfWumkPZ2Q/U ... C_0137.JPG

the back cells have ample room to move during a MLU and take another 32 cell barak8 unit. thats the whole idea of building a big ship....

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 Aug 2014 08:13

i find it painful that we are still debating on the number of SAMs on P15A months after its induction and on the eve of its visit by Namo TODAY.

someone needs to activate sources and get us the real deal and end this debate once and for all. get it done boys. its dragged on far enough now.

maz · Post by **maz** » 16 Aug 2014 08:48

Mr Joseph and Vishnu, well done gentlemen! You need to also include Kavach decoy launchers and the Mareech ATDS (anti torpedo decoy system) which should be installed somewhere. The Ellora EW system includes a lot of Israeli assemblies. There is also at least one EO sensor (EON-51?) - on a platform atop the bridgehouse deck.

The second Kolkata class DDG (Y-12702) should have sortied for its maiden sea trials by now. Can Bombay based ppl confirm?

FYI, the maximum number of VL cells in a DDG are in the Korean KDX-3 - which is about the same size as the P-15A - with no less than 128 cells! Plus, there's a RAM launcher and 16 Harpoon equivalents.
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... tries-hhi-

So, I am sorry to say that the P-15A is rather underwhelming for its size. The 76mm main gun was a work around in place of the Ru origin 100mm gun -delivery of which was inordinately delayed and subsequently cancelled - or the preferred 127mm gun - a decision on which is yet to be announced. That said, the ship sure looks good in a menacing way. Good enough for pirates I suppose.

maz · Post by **maz** » 16 Aug 2014 09:10

chackojoseph wrote:When Vishnu Som asked the same question with an IN officer who was leading our pack over the low Barak-8 count, he said that those (western ships) are built for another purpose. This is for our needs.

Perhaps Vishnu and others ought to ask this IN officer what "other" purposes a large DDG is built for? I guess the officer was too embarassed to admit that the DDG is woefully underarmed for its size. That said, chapati makers and dosa makers are almost as complex as missile launchers and take up valuable space.

Maybe the IN officer was thinking of ABM missions for the other Aegis like DDG. Which begs the question - will the P-15B be configured for ABM missions? This rules out the RAWL02 radar.

Bhaskar_T · Post by **Bhaskar_T** » 16 Aug 2014 09:11

ABP News now - Vice Admiral Ashok Subedar says INS Kolkata is fitted with advanced, state of the art Surface-To-Air and Surface-To-Surface missiles. He mentioned that it is already equipped with Brahmos (ABP news adds later 16). ABP further adds that INS Kolkata is an expert vessel in hunting submarines and enemy ship will not be able to detect it on radar. No enemy ship/aircraft will dare to be within 250km range of this ship.

ABP news calling INS Kolkata is 'Samudra ka Singham'.

Wonder is this is the current reality or will be a likely reality in future.

maz · Post by **maz** » 16 Aug 2014 09:13

Reality = an adversary's perception. Therefore, if one can be made to believe that nothing can come near 500 km of this Lion? of the Seas without facing certain destruction, then so much the better it is for the IN

Do Lions swim?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 Aug 2014 09:35

I wonder given the woeful state of Noko AF and surface navy, why the KDX3 needs 128 SAMs on it.
seems like way overkill for the role.
I kind of doubt they sail with more than 64 actual missiles.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 Aug 2014 09:41

also the OTO 76mm SRGM seems like a superior AA weapon
85-120 rounds per minute vs 35 rpm in the 127mm

it will be far more useful as a AA weapon than a USMC style land pounder with hyper expensive vulcano shells.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Aug 2014 10:36

Check Israel latest sub in making Dolphin 2 class ...had many pics

http://intercepts.defensenews.com/2014/ ... rly-ready/

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 16 Aug 2014 10:54

The speech by NaMo at the INS Kolkata commissioning was very insightful in terms of his governments thinking on weapons acquisitions, focus on Indian mil-ind complex and he briefly touched on why we need our sophisticated weapons. There was no mention of arming to parry Pakis or the Chinese.

It will be worth listening in for all BRFites if one can find the video.

negi · Post by **negi** » 16 Aug 2014 11:58

More VLS cells can be added as a MLU later what matters is Pk of Barak 8 if it is better than Shtil-1 aboard the Shivaliks and Talwars in terms of guidance and probability of kill factor than slightly less numbers do not adversely affect Ship's air defense .

Besides all this the biggest positive is unlike the other services IN did not choose the import route it could have easily shoved in two MK41 units on this baby and we would have got a DDG armed to teeth however we have a ship which is built in India and even a key weapon like SAM integrated onboard is something which we are a part of .

I have given up on IA to get it's own gun however IN can do better I think this is a right time for IN to invest in a good naval gun in 85-120mm caliber category , once we get our own gun we will not have to depend on Russians or Europeans for this very basic but indispensable weapon.

A Nandy · Post by **A Nandy** » 16 Aug 2014 12:07

Here you go

Vishnu · Post by **Vishnu** » 16 Aug 2014 12:44

Singha wrote:i find it painful that we are still debating on the number of SAMs on P15A months after its induction and on the eve of its visit by Namo TODAY.

someone needs to activate sources and get us the real deal and end this debate once and for all. get it done boys. its dragged on far enough now.

Singha, I am confirming to you on the basis of having been on the ship 3 days ago that there are no more than 32 Barak-8 SAMs presently with no possibility of reload at sea. I have stood on the front missile deck, half a foot from the Barak array and have counted from 1 to 16 ! The covers of all the SAMs read "dummy cover." And officers have confirmed that its 32 and no more presently. Yes, there is still real estate available for more missiles but I don't know what lies under-deck.

32 Barak 8s is like giving a soldier a state of the art rifle and then throwing in a handful of bullets !

Cheers

Vishnu · Post by **Vishnu** » 16 Aug 2014 12:48

maz wrote:Mr Joseph and Vishnu, well done gentlemen! You need to also include Kavach decoy launchers and the Mareech ATDS (anti torpedo decoy system) which should be installed somewhere. The Ellora EW system includes a lot of Israeli assemblies. There is also at least one EO sensor (EON-51?) - on a platform atop the bridgehouse deck.

The second Kolkata class DDG (Y-12702) should have sortied for its maiden sea trials by now. Can Bombay based ppl confirm?

FYI, the maximum number of VL cells in a DDG are in the Korean KDX-3 - which is about the same size as the P-15A - with no less than 128 cells! Plus, there's a RAM launcher and 16 Harpoon equivalents.
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... tries-hhi-

So, I am sorry to say that the P-15A is rather underwhelming for its size. The 76mm main gun was a work around in place of the Ru origin 100mm gun -delivery of which was inordinately delayed and subsequently cancelled - or the preferred 127mm gun - a decision on which is yet to be announced. That said, the ship sure looks good in a menacing way. Good enough for pirates I suppose.

Maz ... I can confirm that Kochi has sortied out ... and thats great news. The CMD MDL told me that they plan to liquidate this project by the first half of next year ... so thats that !

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Aug 2014 13:07

vishnu, do you think IN is hedging its bets due to doubts about barak-8 ? which would mean the load can be expanded(with more barak-8's) OR changed (to some other missile) in a mid-life refit ?

FWIW, sat images of P15B also show same configuration. the rationale for only 32 SAM shots in a full fledged destroyer seems perplexing.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 16 Aug 2014 13:16

This low number could well be because the IN is not planning to fight a full scale swarm attacks. In which case 32 would be more then enough.