Project-15 Spec & Indian Naval Programme

[Austin]

As Per FORCE July 2004 Issue The specs of P-15A Banglore Class Guided Missile Destroyer(DDG) .

1 ) Displacement of 7000 tons , will possess enhanced stealth features and land attack capabilities .Russia's Severnoye Project Design Bureau(SPKB) has acted as consultant for the Naval Design Bureau.

2 ) Navy's Weapons and Electronics System Engineering Establishment credited to develop Bus bars and Complex interfaces to integrate weapons system of different system and origins indigenously , is the prime contractor for system integration and had developed an advanced EMCCA Combat Management System( CMS ) and an integrated platform management system in co-operation with Russias Meridian Research and Production Enterprise JSC, The entire communication system will be Indian Origin with equipment coming from BEL.

3 ) All Three P-15A will be powered by Ukrainian Zorya Production Association M36E gas turbine systems, producing more than 64,000 HP.The M36 gas turbine system compromises four DT-59 reversible gas turbine grouped in two pairs, driving two propellers through two RG-54 gearboxes, There will be 4 seperate Russia-made gas turbine electrical generators, two in each engine room,Fresh air for the turbine will be drawn through two large stacks, one after the bridge superstructure and one aft.

4 ) In Sensors main air search and targetting radar for area air defence will be foremast mounted MR-760 Fregat M2EM 3-D air search radar,Fire Control and Guidance ,Target illumination will be provided by 6 MR-90 Orekh radar, For ASW Bel built HUMSA (Hull Mounted Sonar Array ) which provides active search with medium frequency and low frequency active towed array sonar that will be procured from US based L-3 communication Ocean Systems.

5 ) One MR-212/201-1 radar at I band will be use for navigation and a seperate Kelvin Hughes Nucleus-2 6000A will be used for short range navigation and surface surveillance, Also fitted will be Ladoga-ME-11356 INS and stabilisation suite supplied by Russia.

6 ) The Electronic warfare suite ,comprising RAFAEL MBAT/RAN-1020 multi beam array transmitter coupled with BEL-built Ajanta MK2 ESM sensors, will work in conjuction with Russia PK-2 decoy laubcher system, The PK-2 will employ two ZIF-121 launchers mounted on either side of rear funnel stack atop the helicopter hanger, and the TERTSIYA FIRE CONTROL SYSTEM, The PK-2 is usually employed in the confusion and distraction modes using Chaff,Infra-red and Visual-optical decoy rounds.Confusion mode is used to confuse incoming anti-ship cruise missile while distraction mode is used when hostile ASCM are searching for and locking on the warship.Each launcher has 100 decoy rounds, Stern Mounted noise generating Torpedo decoys will be used as well.

7 ) For Area Air defence Russias Altair Naval Radio Electronics Scientific Research Institute has developed VERTICAL LAUNCHED (VLS) of its well proven ****il-1 system, The new suite for P-15A DDG will comprise four 12 misssile SUB-DECK CELLULAR LAUNCHERS, with two launchers each being mounted fore and aft of the vessel , The 9M38M1 Cashmere SAM, is armed with 70kg HE warhead, has max speed of Mach-3(830 m/s) and can manoeure up to 20g, The missile can handle airborne targets travelling at 420 to 830 m/s, The reaction time is 16-19 seconds and kill percentage is 81 to 96 precent for a two missile salvo, Engagement range against Aircraft are 3 to 32 Km with altitudes from 15 metres to 15 Km, Ranges against incoming ASCM are 3.5 km to 12 km with altitudes from 10 metres to 10km.

8 ) For CIWS each DDG will be equipped with 2 Kashtan-M combined gun/missile system, Eack Kashtan-M comprises eight 9M311-1ME SAMs with jettiisonable boosters and two 30mm AO-18KD six barrel gatling gun with a combined rate of fire of 10,000 rounds per minute. Each system will store 28 SAMS and 1,000 rounds of 30mm rounds in an under-deck room directly under the combat module. The 9M311-1ME SAM can engage sea skimming targets between an envelope of 1.5Km and 10Km, while gun can engage targets between 500 metres and 4 km, ,FC is provided by both radar as well as an optronic Tracker/illuminator.

9 ) P-15A offensive armament will comprise 16 VL Bhramos supersonic ASCMs ( arranged in 2 modules with 8 missiles each), Bhramos will be equipped with a digital flight control-cum GPS based navigation system , and will be able to receive targetting targetting cues from Ka-31 AEW helicopter, Russian GRANIT CSRI will supply Bhramos two-channel active/Passive mono-pulse radar seeker.

10 ) For ASW five 533 PTA-533 quintuple torpedo tube launcher will be fitted amidship, The launcher can fire SET-65E torpedo that has active/passive homing capabilityout to 15 Km with a speek of 40knots and armed 205 kg warhead, and type 53-65 passive wake homing torpedo with range of 19 km at 45 knots and carries 305 kg warhead.

11 ) secondary ASW armament suite comprise two 12 Barreled RBU-6000 rocket launchers mounter in front of bridge, The weapons will be controlled by Purga ASW FC system, the RBU-6000 can fire 212 mm 90R, RGB-60 or RE-91 depth charges rockets to engage subs at depth of 1000 metres and at maximum range of 6 km , the system can carry 192 rockets with 31 kg warhead.

12 ) The principal Artillery sytem on board will be the forward mounted GM A190E mutipurpose 10mm gun built by Russia which can fire rounds out to a range of 22 Km at rate of 80 rounds per minute, The autoloader mechanism below the gun turret carries a total of 80 rounds, The gun is fed from seperate port and starboard magazine and uses three different round , a high explosive shell with impact fuse, an anti-aircraft shell with electronic fuse and and inert practise round, Fire control is provided by 5P-10E Puma suite comprising a passive phased array and target tracking radar along with optronic trackers/illuminators, The system fitted above the bridge deck-features in flight course correction updates via data links, has maximum detection range of 60Km and operates autonomously and is capable of automatically locking on to 8 targets and tracking them.

13 ) Each P-15A DDG will carry 2 helicopters inside a hanger , The flight deck measuring 500 square metres will be equipped with L & T built "Harpoon" haul-down system and 2 Samahe traversing tracks, each leading to a hanger compartment, Depending on ops requirement either 2 Seaking Mk42B ASW helicopters ( equipped with Low-frequency active sonars now being sought) or one Mk42B and one Ka-31


Note: No mention has been made of the Secondary Survellence Radar on P-15A ( Speculative to be RAN-40L or the SMART-L derivative) also no mention of Aster-15/30 SAM has been made with the Navy favouring as per the article VLS launched ****IL-1.

Other Naval Programmes:

1 ) Kashin II DDG upgrade include upgrading five 4974 tonne P-61 Kashin II class DDG with 6 Bhramos ASCM replacing the existing 4 P-20M Mod2 Termit ASCM, The Bhramos launcher ( 4 each on port and starboard) will be inclined at 10 degree angle.

2 )30 years two line submarine building program under this 6 Type 75 Scorpene Self-Seeking Killer (SSK) will be acquired off the shelf from Armaris and another six will be bulit at MDL Mumbai between 2008-2013 , Also between 2013 and 2030 6 Amur 1750 SSK under project-78 will be built along with up to 5 SSN.

3 ) Ordering 3 large 5,700 tonne Landing Ship Tanks (LST ) from GRSE the first being planned to be delivered by 2005.

4 )6 P-28 anti-submarine warfare/antiship guided missile stealth corvettes initally and 6 more later(total 12 ), besides 6 P-17 4900 tonne FFG , 3 P-15A DDG ,12 P-75 subs and one 38,000 tons ADS.
besides the above the IN will acquire 12 GRP hulled Mine hunters.

6 ) So far the IN has acquired 12 Heron high endurance UAV now operated from Cochin and Car Nicobar, there is a requirement for 12 more ASW aircraft.

7 ) The navy has a requirement for 40 new generation heavy shipborne helicopters capable of undertaking ASW sweeps as well as medium-range anti-ships strikes and anti mine warfare which will replace the present 20 SeaKings Mk42B latest by 2007. Contenders are Eurocopters EC-725 Cougar Mk2+, NH-90 and Sikorsky SH-60B LAMPS MK-3 abd S-70B Seahawk, For Dunking sonars it is discussing with US based L-3 communications for HELRAS system, other contendar are DRDO's Mihir system which has so far sucessfully all aspect of user evaluation except the active track function.

8 ) New naval academy coming up in Kerla will be completed by 2006 would impart training to around 500 personnal, Phase I of the navy largest naval base in Karwar(Project SeaBird ) will be operational by 2005, Also work is underway to built a massive Dry Dock at Mumbai based Naval Dockyard which will be capable of accomadating Groshkov and the ADS.

[Muns]

16 VLS Brahmos on one ship, these destroyers are truly the next gen after Dehli class, talk about razing the infrastructure, power the moment war breaks out and along with Gorskov truly blocking the whole sea lanes and ports in the arabian sea should the need arise....

The navy is building up massively....eager to see designs of the P15A and any arto work out their for these new landing ship tanks? Given each Arjun at 58 tonnes how many can their carry to beach?

No news of Naval Dhruv......but consider that the P15A might be able to carry 3 Dhruvs instead of 2 ka-31?

Whatever said in a few years, the navy will be able to conduct its own and win its wars even on land with all in our vicinity....forget about the IAF and IA...the IN is starting to show some serious Jaws.....

[GDL]

Great Post Austin! Many thanks for the info. Interesting to see they have continued to go for the 9M38M (SA-N-7) on the P-15A (as with the P15 DELHI). I wonder if they ever considered the 9M317 (SA-N-12) as fitted on the TALWAR class. Was it a commonality issue?

Can the magazines that feed the 3S90 launcher for the SA-N-7 take the SA-N-12 as well, or do they require a different fit? Also, can the same MR-90 (Front Dome) FCR be used for both? If so, then the Indians have some flexibility in air defence considering the range difference between the two missiles.

[Indian1973]

the two missiles are said to be externally similar so some flexibility exists in what they eventually mount. if the Talwar has N-12 no reason for them to use the older N-7.

well the cat is out of bag. quite powerful all-round ships though lacking in a really long range SAM. the VLS should improve the salvo rate and redundancy. A RAN40L would permit very wide area surveillance.

.....one still awaits the P17B ..... they gotta have aster30 on that one or I will horsewhip 'em to an inch of their lives I swear :)

[GDL]

will possess enhanced stealth features and land attack capabilities .Russia's Severnoye Project Design Bureau (SPKB) has acted as consultant for the Naval Design Bureau.

I can't WAIT to see the design! Guessing it will resemble the P17 more than the original DELHI class.

[Indian1973]

Carlo wont be happy to see this :)

BTW does the Kashtan-M feature automatic reloads or someone
has to load the sa-13s manually (hard to imagine that in rough conditions)

[Austin]

Interesting to see they have continued to go for the 9M38M (SA-N-7) on the P-15A (as with the P15 DELHI). I wonder if they ever considered the 9M317 (SA-N-12) as fitted on the TALWAR class. Was it a commonality issue?

Can the magazines that feed the 3S90 launcher for the SA-N-7 take the SA-N-12 as well, or do they require a different fit? Also, can the same MR-90 (Front Dome) FCR be used for both? If so, then the Indians have some flexibility in air defence considering the range difference between the two missiles.

Hey there is some confusion here glen , The ****ill-1 is basicly the SA-N-17 Grizzly or Navalised version of BUK-M2 with a range of 45 Km the Talwar do carry the ****il-1 , the Delhi class carries the older SA-N-7 Gadfly, which has a max range of 35 Km , so both the Talwar and P-15A carries the modernised SAM , but it seems that For VLS system the range has been reduced some what by 35 Km max range all things being equal , May be down the line Delhi will get the upgraded sam , ie SA-N-17 Grizzly , The Single Arm launcher on Talwar fires the Grizzly with a Max range of 45 Km as far as Kashtan-M yes the missile is strored below deck and can be autoloaded after it has fired all it SAM.The Aster -15/30 will see it way in the next batch of P-17A as the contract has already been signed with MBDA as reported earlier .

[Indian1973]

I have seen on Talwar the kashtan-M missile tubes are normally kept
stored inside the housing onlee the guns are visible. So presumably the
28 number includes the 8 in tubes.

==> 48 large SAMs (24 in front, 24 in back)
==> 56 point-defence SAMs (on the sides)
==> 16 LACM/ASM combo
==> 1 ASW + 1 AEW helo / 2 ASW helo upto NH90/S70 size
==> 2000rds of 30mm ammo for 4 x 30mm guns.
==> big phased array 3D search radar in the back
==> six director radars for 6 attack salvo of Shtils max (there would be
limitations per quadrant)
==> VLS for the brahmos is the same seen on Talwar for klub
but one more unit.

heh 104 SAMs not bad for a ship without quadpacked ESSM!!

[Indian1973]

other than the 3 P17A ships the plan doesnt reveal anything beyond whats already in progress (3 P17, 3 P15A) if we ignore the small stealth corvettes.

perhaps a couple of 20,000 ASW helicopter carriers (with a few brahmos cells for secondary strike) role and a new class of AAW ship incorporating the aster30 + EMPAR weighing in around 9000t with 80-100 strike length VLS cells.
.....

[Victor]

Too bad that between P15 and P15A, there is going to be a lag of about 10 yrs. Even worse, the IN should have gone ahead and built 3 more P15s with some incremental upgrades in b/w the P15 and P15A time lag.

When is the first P15A hull supposed to be launched? Commissioned?

Also, in the din of the P15A stuff, don't forget about the other stuff in the report: Namely that 12 IAI Herons are already in service and the req for 40 new gen ASW/MR helos.

I have read that the IN is happy with the Herons and want more. Any confirmation of the same?

[GDL]

Hey there is some confusion here glen , The ****ill-1 is basicly the SA-N-17 Grizzly or Navalised version of BUK-M2 with a range of 45 Km the Talwar do carry the ****il-1 , the Delhi class carries the older SA-N-7 Gadfly, which has a max range of 35 Km , so both the Talwar and P-15A carries the modernised SAM , but it seems that For VLS system the range has been reduced some what by 35 Km max range all things being equal , May be down the line Delhi will get the upgraded sam , ie SA-N-17 Grizzly , The Single Arm launcher on Talwar fires the Grizzly with a Max range of 45 Km as far as Kashtan-M yes the missile is strored below deck and can be autoloaded after it has fired all it SAM.The Aster -15/30 will see it way in the next batch of P-17A as the contract has already been signed with MBDA as reported earlier .

I think the article is in error then. The 9M38M1 (as stated in the article) missile is the SA-11 GADFLY, and the navalised version is the SA-N-7. The SA-17 GRIZZLY uses the new 9M317 (or possibly the 9M38M2, it's unclear) missile with a small increase in range. The new Chinese Type 52B DDGs are fitted with it.

An article from here (http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Articles/Article13.html) states clearly that the TALWAR has 9M317. I thought it was odd at first, becasue I thought the TALWAR only had the old SA-N-7.

Again, I think the article is wrong.

Carlo wont be happy to see this

Who cares??

BTW does the Kashtan-M feature automatic reloads or someone
has to load the sa-13s manually (hard to imagine that in rough conditions)

The Khastan-M still uses the SA-N-11, or the navalised version of the SA-19 GRISOM.

[Indian1973]

ins betwa at commisioning ceremony today

http://www.anandabazar.com/archive/1040706/kolpic.htm

(tries to install bengali font, just reject it)

[bring_it_on]

nice

[Austin]

Too bad that between P15 and P15A, there is going to be a lag of about 10 yrs. Even worse, the IN should have gone ahead and built 3 more P15s with some incremental upgrades in b/w the P15 and P15A time lag.

When is the first P15A hull supposed to be launched? Commissioned?

Also, in the din of the P15A stuff, don't forget about the other stuff in the report: Namely that 12 IAI Herons are already in service and the req for 40 new gen ASW/MR helos.

I have read that the IN is happy with the Herons and want more. Any confirmation of the same?
__________________
Victor There was plans to built the P-15B after P-15 A but now it has apperently been cancelled as the Delhi cannot be stretched further also limits imposed on stealth and sensors as its a late 80 design , so after P-15A we could see the P-18 class of destroyers, P-15A will be launched next year and commisioned in 2007/2008 with the remaining two following with a years interval.Yep the navy is happy with Herons euipped with elta 2022A radar and IR sensors the inventory will gradually increase


I think the article is in error then. The 9M38M1 (as stated in the article) missile is the SA-11 GADFLY, and the navalised version is the SA-N-7. The SA-17 GRIZZLY uses the new 9M317 (or possibly the 9M38M2, it's unclear) missile with a small increase in range. The new Chinese Type 52B DDGs are fitted with it.

An article from here states clearly that the TALWAR has 9M317. I thought it was odd at first, becasue I thought the TALWAR only had the old SA-N-7.

Again, I think the article is wrong.

Glenn, AFAIK there is ****il and ****il-1 the ****il carries the SA-N-7(Gadfly ) and the ****il-1 as on Talwar carries the SA-N-17 Grizzly , The P-15A will definately carry the Grizzly , No point in Carrying the SA-N-7 as in delhi class as the SAM is itself 20 years old first entered in 82 with the Sovermny, Infact its very difficult the differenciate just by looks as they look very similar , As far as specs goes the Range has been increased from 35 to 45 Km , It carries better guidance , has the Same Mach-3 speed and has increased kill probabbility for a single missile , Infact the Landbased BUK-M2upon which the Grizzly is based has limited ATBM capability as advertised by the Russians and in dire situations can perform as AshM WITH A RANGE OF 25 kM IN Top Attack Mode , Each MR-90 Orekh FC radar for ****il-1 is capable of providing guidance on 2 targets , the ****il-1 is capable of Attacking 6 Targets with 12 missile , to increase the kill probability , The IN has decided to Standardise its Medium Range SAM based on the ****il system , considering 9 ships will be carrying the System ( 3 Delhi + 3 talwar + 3 banglore ) , Although On paper it doesent looks as Potent as The Aster , Only the end user knows the real potential of this SAM , and Since the IN has decided to Standerdise on this SAM , it has to be something .The Aster will come when it comes and most likely from all the Sources It will be installed on the Follow on P-17 class the P-17A , The only Strange thing i find is that the VL ****il-1 has been quoted a Range of 32 Km far less than its instrumented range of 45 Km.
The P-15A will be stealth to an extent that it will have angeled Surface and probably all the good features gathered from the P-17 class like machinery will be mounted on noise and vibration proof mounts to reduce acoustic and vibration signatures.Low IR signature and IR supression system , so it will have certain LO character and not stealth in the real sense only the DD-21 and Type-45 are truly stealthy in design and only future Naval Ships Designed from scratch and Stealth in mind will be truly stealthy , Also The Navy has been pretty impressed with the Hulls of P-17 class and all future ships of IN will be based on this hulls.

[Austin]

Since SA-N17 Grizzly is a derivative of Buk-M1-2 heres some info on it. The
Naval Variant Differs to the extent that it receives the Initall Target data from The Top-Plate radar , which then passes it to the Orekh Fire Control System , Rest things including missile performance being similar to the Buk-M1-2

Buk-M1-2 surface-to-air missile system
By Anatoly Sokolov, Asst. Professor, Military Academy of the General Staff,
Russian Armed Forces

The role of air attack means (AAM) has increased significantly in preparing
and conducting combat operations at ground theaters of operations (TO) and in coastal areas. AAM became a decisive factor in achieving military and
political goals. The main feature is an increasing role of unmanned AAM
capable of delivering standoff air strikes on troops and installations.
Among them are tactical and intermediate range ballistic missiles (TBM,
IRBM), antiradar missiles (ARM), guided bombs (GB).
Precision-guided munition (PGM) employment leads to sharp intensification of fighting in a duel situation between air assault and air defense means. The struggle became a priority one at the initial stage of war. The defender's success depends upon capabilities of fighting with high precision weapon. In 1998, the Buk-M1-2 SAM medium-range missile system was fielded with the Russian Army (the system leading developer - Instrumentation Scientific and Research Institute named after V.V. Tikhomirov, the leading manufacturer Ulyanovsk Mechanical Plant federal state unitary; the leading missile developer and manufacturer - Dolgoprudny Scientific and Production Enterprise JSC).
The new Buk-M1-2 SAM system is designed to combat effectively various air
targets in a wide range of altitudes and moving at various speeds at a
distance up to 45 km. It was created on the basis of the world wide known
Buk-M1 SAM system (NATO classification - SA-11 Gadfly) by adding the highly efficient 9M317 surface-to-air missile as well as by upgrading its
equipment and software.
Among the combat means of the SAM are the following: the 9S470M1-2 command post, 9S18M1-1 acquisition radar, six 9S310M1-2 self-propelled launchers with four 9M317 SAMs and three 9S39M1-2 loader-launchers and up to 72 9M317 surface-to-air missiles. All of them are mounted on the self-propelled armoured tracked chasses weighing 30-35 t and have a cruising range of 500 km. The maximum speed is 65 km/h (45 km/h on country roads).
The new-generation 9M317 surface-to-air missile was designed as a joint
weapon for the Russian Army and Navy air defences. It can hit ballistic
missiles, strategic and tactical aircraft, cruise and antiradiation
missiles, helicopters (including hovering ones), unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAV) in heavy electronic countermeasures environment. Also, it is effective
against radiocontrast surface targets.
Innovated technical solutions ensured adaptation of the missile to the type
of the target (ballistic, aerodynamic, rotary-wing, small-size, surface) and
enhanced its hit probability. Besides, the missile can destroy air targets
flying at extremely low altitudes. It is very reliable. The fully assembled
and armed surface-to-air missile is explosion-proof and requires no
maintenance and checks for 10 years of operation. The service life can be
extended after relevant special work on the missile.
The command post (CP) vehicle, self-propelled launcher and loader-launchers were modernised because of fielding the new surface-to-air missile. The target acquisition radar vehicle underwent no modernisation as the the a 120-degree sector antimissile mode of operation ensuring 55 degrees in azimuth and elevation had already been provided. Characteristics of the Buk-M1-2 surface-to-air missile system are given in Table 1.

Characteristics of Buk-M1-2 AD missile system

> Fielded in 1998
> Coverage area, km:
> Range 3 - 45
> Altitude 0.015 - 25
> Single-shot hit probability (aircraft) 0.7-0.9
> Multiple-target capability, tgt 6
> Missile weight, kg 715
> Deployment/displacement time, min. 5/5
>
New features and combat capabilities of the Buk-M1-2 SAM system were
completely proven by live firings at actual air targets including 8M14 and
9M31tactical ballistic missiles and MLRS rockets simulated by the 3M8 and
Smerch respectively.
A fundamentally novel feature of the new SAM system is its lethality against
radiocontrast surface targets (ships at a range of 25 km as well as tactical
ballistic missile launchers, aircraft at airfields at a distance of 12-15
km).
In 1996, the Buk-M1-2 SAM system was tested in the Black Sea Naval district
for coast defense purposes. Its radar proved capable to track a number of
waterborne targets. When firing at a target ship, represented by a
minesweeper, direct hits of two telemetric (warheadless) missiles resulted
in the ship bursting aflame and sinking. The Buk-M1-2 SAM system was used when firing at a target without turning on the radar (using the teleoptic sighting device and laser rangefinder). In difficult countermeasures environment in such mode, the stability of SAM system operation is enhanced as well as its survivability and concealment. As a whole the Black Sea tests of the Buk-M1-2 SAM system proved its high effectiveness when used in the coast defense system.
High combat capabilities of the Buk-M1-2 SAM system in repulsing air strikes of advanced enemy air attack assets including mass strikes were repeatedly proven in practice during combat preparation activities. For example, the Buk-M1-2 SAM system as part of an air defence grouping carried out a field firing at air targets simulating one of massed air strikes by the aircraft of the multinational forces in Iraq (1991). 11 air targets participated in the strike, 7 of them simulated ballistic missiles and MLRS rockets. When repulsing the strike all the targets were destroyed by the AD means and 5 of them (45%) were destroyed by the Buk-M1-2 SAM system. 6 SAM missiles were used. Especially effective the AD system was in destroying low altitude air targets. It killed all the targets that simulated low flying cruise missiles and helicopters. Totally it destroyed 15 targets simulating advanced enemy aircraft and missiles, including 5 ballistic. The system combat effectiveness amounted to 88 per cent with an average number of missiles used to destroy one target being equal to 1.2.
The above-mentioned practical activities revealed some other positive
features of the Buk-M1-2 SAM system. For example, under massive employment of various hostile aircraft and missiles one can expect that the launchers' unit pf fire will soon be all expended. When pressed for time for reloading, the missiles can be launched by the loader-launcher.
In the heavy air environment, in order to enhance hit probability of vital
and dangerous targets, the SAM system can engage them with two-to-three
surface-to-air missiles at a time. At that missiles fired by one launcher
can be guided some other.
An important feature of this SAM system is its ability to integrate its
separate combat elements into the earlier developed Kub (Kvadrat) SAM system in service with the armed forces of many countries worldwide. To enhance the system's fire power, it can be supplemented with the 9M310-M1-2 of the Buk-M1-2 SAM system. In this case the self-propelled reconnaissance and target acquisition vehicle of the Kub will control the launcher. In a number of key parameters the Buk-M1-2 SAM system surpasses the European-made SAMP/T SAM system now in development and US-made Improved Hawk SAM system. Especially remarkable is its superiority in mobility and deployment/displacement time. As to this parameter, it is three times superior when compared with the SAMP/T and 8 times when compared with the Improved Hawk.
Specialists believe that an important advantage of the Buk-M1-2 SAM system
nowadays is its short reaction time. Judging from experience of field
firings, it totals a lesser time than that necessary for NATO aircraft to
locate and destroy the Kub (Kvadrat) systems with their precision-guided
weapons in Yugoslavia.
High combat capabilities of the Buk-M1-2 SAM system provide many variants of employing the system. Depending on the situation, it can be used
independently or as a main element within the AD task forces. In the latter
case, it can be used together with the Tor-M1, Pantsyr-S1 and Tunguska-M AD systems and Igla man-portable AD system as a basis for mobile layered air defences for the troops and installations in the area of operations. Such an AD task force is capable of destroying various types of advanced enemy air attack assets (including ballistic ones) and repulsing massed strikes of
hostile aircraft.
In conclusion, it is should be mentioned that the Buk-M1-2 SAM system
capabilities for further upgrade have not been exhausted.
Thus, its target acquisition radar can be modernised to flexibly control
combat operations in order to provide secondary processing of radar data
(forming-up air targets trajectories) and enhancing the jamming resistance.
To enhance the stability of the Buk-M1-2 operation in the face of difficult
electronic ceontermeasures environment and high volume of fire, the system's command post can be linked with electronic intelligence (ELINT) stations. In addition, passive direction-finders can be introduced into the target acquisition radar, command post and self-propelled launchers, as well as Igla MANPADS launchers can be incorporated into the Buk-M1-2 SAM system to provide direct coverage of the larger SAM system.
So, the advanced Russian-made Buk-M1-2 SAM system boasts high combat and technical characteristics in repulsing strikes of advanced threat aircraft
and surface-to-air weapons in ordinary and heavy electronic countermeasures environment. The capabilities have been repeatedly proven by test and field firings and comparative analyses with its best foreign counterparts

[GDL]

The P-15A will definately carry the Grizzly , No point in Carrying the SA-N-7 as in delhi class

Austin, I would agree, and I would expect that especially since the TALWAR has it already. BUT, like I said, the article has to be wrong. The 9M38M1 is NOT the new ****l-1, but the original ****l. The new missile, or the SA-N-12 (land based SA-17) GRIZZLY uses the improved 9M317 missile.

From the article:

"The new suite for P-15A DDG will comprise four 12 misssile SUB-DECK CELLULAR LAUNCHERS, with two launchers each being mounted fore and aft of the vessel , The 9M38M1 Cashmere SAM, is armed with 70kg HE warhead, has max speed of Mach-3(830 m/s) and can manoeure up to 20g, The missile can handle airborne targets travelling at 420 to 830 m/s, The reaction time is 16-19 seconds and kill percentage is 81 to 96 precent for a two missile salvo, Engagement range against Aircraft are 3 to 32 Km with altitudes from 15 metres to 15 Km, Ranges against incoming ASCM are 3.5 km to 12 km with altitudes from 10 metres to 10km."

I think they have confused this SAM info with the original P15; the DELHI class. If they are going to use the GRIZZLY, then they should be stating the correct Russian industrial code for the missile.

Check here for more on Russian missile designations:
http://www.designation-systems.net/non-us/soviet.html#_Listings_SA

SOC from the AFM forum helped compile the tables on this site.

[Muns]

Anyone know how DRDO's Advanced Light Weight Torpedo (ALWT) compares with what seems to be the standard on India's Ships, the SET-65E?

from Defexpo 2004 harry pics

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_419.shtml

http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/torpedo_s.jpg

Cutaway of the Advanced Light Weight Torpedo (ALWT) developed by DRDO for both ship-borne and air-borne carriage. It can attack targets at a depth of 540 m, has a maximum speed of 33 knots and has a dynamic frontal sealing system for noise reduction and higher reliability.

[Sameer]

Any talk of what is happening to the Harriers of the Viraat?

Are they being upgraded, any plans to buy second hand ones from the UK?

[tuollaf43]

Spec's given for the P15A are weird.

What is this P15A intended to accomplish? What can it do that existing designs could not do at lesser costs. How does it contribute to key areas of AAW, SUW, ASW, Strike or Mine Warfare?

AAW:
Like the other ships of the IN its AAW suite is suitable only for ship self defense. It is clearly insufficient for protecting other ships in the vicinity. This design clearly does not address the achilles heel of the Indian Navy - credible Area AAW. AAW should have been the raison d'etre for a ship of this class, IN has plenty of other ships that could do the other missions.

SUW:
Powerfully armed for anti-ship warfare. But with the coming of the Vikramaditya future battles for naval supremacy involving the IN will not be an exchange of ship-to-ship missiles but long range stand off airstrikes by the IN CVBG. This aspect of the design could perhaps have been toned down a bit and resources diverted to AAW as IN already has plenty of assets suitable for this task (Uran, Klub, Yakhont, Sea Eagle throwers on surface, subsurface and the skies).

Strike:
For NGFS duties the single A190E is too small. This ship will probably be too precious to the IN to be risked in such a role; it will probably provide stand off cover to ships actually providing NGFS. This weapon is adequate for limited force missions (merchant marine interdiction etc) but the 130mm A192E would have been nicer if available.

The deep land attack capability of this ship is limited by the small number and short range of suitable ordanance carried by this ship. It seems quite unlikely that this class would make any profound difference to any land battles in the vicinity of the sea. OTOH this ship could be quite useful for coercive gunboat diplomacy type of missions when carriers are not available.

ASW: ASROC is needed, specially if this ship embarks only one ASW helo (assuming that the other is HEW for AAW and OTHT). I wonder if the PJ-10 VLS can be adapted to fire the 91RE2, the Russians were certainly hawking a 'universal vertical launcher' for the Yakhont.

MCM: No mention of even elementary organic mine avoidance capability. With the limited range of the LACM this ship carries this class will need to on occasion operate quite close to the shore.

Probably the only advantage over other comparable ships in the IN is
(1) better and more extensive command control facilities - I am assuming it is equipped to the standard a large ship of this size be conventionally equipped.
(2) Better endurance - which is always good
(3) Slightly better combat persistance

All in all it looks a pointless 'more of the same' design. A aster or 9M96E class of ship is what is required if this ship is meant to escort the carriers around.

[Indian1973]

the laucher on talwar class for klub is capable of firing brahmos too. if necessary 8 cells could be fitted with the asroc version of Klub still keeping 8 for brahmos AsuW.

india could presumably pay Altair bureau to come up with a
longer range version of the Grizzly, but ofcourse Aster30 + Sylver A50 is the best bet in future.

"Littorial warfare" in support of expeditionary ops is not
a big req for india. so deep strike 155mm guns, shallow
water capabilities and a huge array of LACMs isnt high on to-do list. These ships will have to deal with the threat of new PLAN ships & subs in the open ocean thats their biggest mission. latest ASW kit both on ship and the helos
is a must.

the only land strike these ships may undertake is a few nuke-tipped future models of brahmos with enhanced range.

[Indian1973]

tuollaf43 can you please clarify what kind of Mine avoidance measures are available and being mounted in new comparable ships ? is the sonar able to detect mines pinging in active mode (not good if subs are lurking..) ?

for mine hunting IN is planning on a fleet of new composite hulled vessels just like everyone else. the old pondicherry class are long in tooth. new eqpt is being sought and evaluated.

the stated 300km range on klub and brahmos are for MTCR compliance. I wouldnt be surprised if india comes up with longer range version of brahmos/klub in a few yrs - its very much on the to-do/ongoing work list ;)

[tuollaf43]

Upgrading a medium range sam to long range one is a non-trivial task. An upgraded shtil is a non-starter for two reasons: It will be very expensive and gestation period of modern sam's is very long.

If Littoral Power projection is not a requirment then why are three large LSTs being ordered?

There is almost no military sense in mouting nuclear tipped PJ-10 on Banglores: They are not as survivable as submarine launched weapons are, and two, equivalent if not better coverage is obtainable by land based ballistic missiles and strike aircraft.

[Victor]

The ship launched Brahmos' range: What range does the Oniks have? If Brahmos has the same dimensions and weight as Oniks, the stated range of the Brahmos is pretty moot. It might be more prudent to go with the Oniks' range.

[Indian1973]

> if Littoral Power projection is not a requirment then why are
> three large LSTs being ordered?

to impart some respectability to a very meager force. 3 large LSTs hardly presage the invasion of Normandie. there is nothing much to invade in the IOR. a few island territories have to be defended. A dieppe style hit-n-run raid on Gwader is at the stretch of possibility if a war erupts.


>There is almost no military sense in mouting nuclear tipped PJ-10 on >Banglores: They are not as survivable as submarine launched weapons >are,

could be a stopgap until such a sub based capability emerges. but again
I mentioned it only a very side-role not the meat of the task. wonder if
a few nuke-tipped ASMs would be nice to have against a escalation by PLAN....probably a yes there too.

[tuollaf43]

I am not aware of the 3S14E being PJ-10/Yakhont/Onik capable; could you please provide a citation? It is uncertain weather the VLS carried by the Banglore is the 3S14E or a different system. if it is a different system then is it indeed capable of accomodating both 91RE2 as well as PJ-10?

Mine avoidance measures include HF sonars on hull or VDS, detection/classification capable ROV, AUV and helos.

P-15A will not be employed for mine hunting which is a specialist task for specialist craft. Mine avoidance capability gives warships a measure of freedom of movement when the slower, vulnerable MCM vessels are not at hand or there is not sufficient time due to tactical exigencies to clear and mark safe lanes. Mine avoidance is more useful for avoiding potential minefields rather than actually traversing a hot zone (that could be done but at some risk).

PJ-10 may have a range a more than the advertised 290km, but not significantly so. Even with a 350km range they will have to sail within easy reach of shore based aviation to launch attacks at shore targets. Inland attacks naturally envisage operations closer to the shore with greater attendent risks.

No one today has the wherewithal to conduct an oppposed landing in the teeth of enemy opposition as happened in normady or the pacific - not even the USMC. Naval fire support is typically needed *after* the marines have disembarked (either by choosing an undefended/ligtly defended piece of terrain or wholly bypassed it (Air Assault)).

No meaningful action can be taken by India against pakistan with the current marine forces and sealift in hand - any action would be for morale and propaganda reasons then operational utility. But the next UNOSOM-II type evacuation may easily turn "hot" or during the next 'Cactus' the Hulule Airport might be covered by Anza teams.

Surface vessel mounted short range ballistic missiles afford no operational flexibility or force security as compared to road/rail mobile MRBM and dispersed strike aircraft. Say it takes ten years for a submarine based deterrance to materialise, how would having nuclear armed ship based PJ-10 enhance security or force survivability in the interim period?

Regarding tactical nuclear ASCM against the PLAN the Indian DND seems to argue against it.

[Indian1973]

> 3S14E

only a secondary citation I am afraid. under "weapons" section of link:
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Talwar.html
it can be intrepreted either way - that the system is capable of accepting
PJ-10 or it needs to be ripped out for new tubes.

the original article excerpt:
" P-15A offensive armament will comprise 16 VL Bhramos supersonic ASCMs ( arranged in 2 modules with 8 missiles each)"
..led me to think its just two instances of the 8-cell complex on Talwar.

> detection/classification capable ROV, AUV and helos.

india is looking around for such eqpt for ASW helos in general not

specifically for p15a. probably france might provide some gear along
with a NH90 or Cougar deal.

> mines

cant the HUMSA sonar detect floating and moored mines in active mode ?

> UUV(ROV)

a prototype UUV was recently put in testing by same lab which is working on new
light and heavy torpedoes
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2004/02/29/stories/2004022901430500.htm

these articles one year prior seems to refer to same proj
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/aug/21aatre.htm

http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/aug22/i6.asp

the fruits of this proj should find their way eventually to the IN ASW
forces.

[tuollaf43]

Your conjecture about the 3S14E being PJ-10 compatible is plausible.

Thales provides the FLAM MCM equipment for FLASH equipped ASW Helicopters.

HUMSA is a medium frequency sonar. High Frequency sonars are suitable for MCM.

DRDO's UUV investigations seem tentative in nature and useful results are in the far future.

[Austin]

Hi all , P-15A should be seen as an extension/enhancement of Delhi class DDG , Rather than entirely a new class of DDG , so the broader objective remains the same ie to provide a multirole, multimission DDG , with decent AAW, ASW and AShW capability , Now as compared to delhi it definately can be considered 2-3 times more powerful , Distinct features I can point are :

1 ) VLS ****il -1 ( range-45 km) as compared to single arm ****il (range -32 km)
2 ) Bhramos and or Klub missile the launcher is well capable of carrying both the missile sources : Military Technology , Klub as well as Bhramos do have a Land attack variant , though lacking in range but good enough in Indo-Pak situation .
3 ) Top Plate planner arrar radar for P-15A (range 300Km ) as compared to Half Plate on delhi (range 350 km)
4 ) RAN-40L or SMART-L Phased Array radar ( range 450 Km) on P-15A , same for P-17 class of ships as compared to the conventional rotating antenna RAWL/LW-08 on Delhi (range 300Km)
5 ) Kashtan-M on P-15A as compared Ak-630M and lately even Barak on Delhi class.
6 ) A-190E 100mm guns with a range of 22 km on P-15A as compared AK-100 100mm guns on delhi with a range of 15 km , not to mention a higher rate of fire for the former.

Also one can expect better ESM/ECM/EM equipment , Better Sonars , lesser reflecting surface so some kind of stealth built into it ,longer endurance , improved Command and Control centeres and host of other improvements derived out of experience of builtding P-17A class of frigates .

[Indian1973]

better noise and thermal signature management as on P17. superstructure will obviously need to more stealthy than the clutter of delhi class or the halfway house of talwars.

[GDL]

better noise and thermal signature management as on P17. superstructure will obviously need to more stealthy than the clutter of delhi class or the halfway house of talwars.

One would expect some RCS reduction work, which seems to the trend now with new Indian warship designs. Is the P15A design frozen yet? And will it become the C2 ship for the fleet task force groups?

[tuollaf43]

Austin,

I suspect that when more design details become available it will turn out that the P-15A is as close designwise to P-15 as the F/A-18E is to the F-18C: It would seems to be carrying a whole lot more in about the same displacement hull.

I would be grateful if you can provide the url at Military Technology where they claim that the Brahmos and Klub have compatible VLS.

Lobbing expensive LACM from vulnerable ships seems counter productive in the Indo-Pak senario: Airpower can easily, flexibly and untimately quite cheaply and safely deliver ordanance in the Pakistan specific theater. PJ-10 provide a useful option when airpower cannot be as easily applied, for example, when showing Rangoon the error of its ways.

Kashtan-M instead of Barak is an retrograde step and not an improvement.

Lessons learnt from the P-17 will be digested and applied to ships that are designed a few years after the P-17 are operational. P-15A will have benefited only very generally from the P-17 building experiance.

What the Indian Navy desperately needs from a large surface combatant is area AAW; not generic SUW, ASW or limited strike capability that other existing programs provide. Without a capable fleet air defense ships the Indian Navy will be in the incongruous position of aircraft carriers being relegated to support the limited range surface strike platforms.

GDL,
Looking at the other public warship programs it does seem likely that the P-15A will be fitted out for squadron command.

[Indian1973]

if they feel Kashtan-M is not adequate the guns could be kept
and barak cells added. the system is quite easy to retrofit physically.

but I think they have tested the kashtan missiles as Barak was also tested and found it satisfactory.

[xanadu]

Any of you have any idea where to get the force magazine. Is it out on bookstands or is it available only through subscription. I know I know u have the correspondent who everyone loves to hate there :P But just want to check it out.

[Blackcat]

Strike:
For NGFS duties the single A190E is too small. This ship will probably be too precious to the IN to be risked in such a role; it will probably provide stand off cover to ships actually providing NGFS. This weapon is adequate for limited force missions (merchant marine interdiction etc) but the 130mm A192E would have been nicer if available.
if thats the case theni think the Italian 76mm SRGM is not even worth mentioning ans thats gonna be the standard of the P-17 UNFORTUNATELY .... and so do the Brahmaputra class has these on them , surely the Indian ITALIAN connection is working 'wonders'



No politics, but I feel it very much to be the fact abt the damn Italian connection in the Indian political setup, else i can't see how dare the Italian's even now pushing their AJT M-346 ,unfortunately for the the Russian they got to see the results of what happens when the other partner is unfaithful, u loose ur design and that same thing competes with ur Yak-130
In the 80's for sure the Italian connection is what (again what i feel) choose the Italian 76mm gun for the Brahmaputra, else i don see in the context of of INdo-Pak engagement how a lighter one wud have been mmore effective, and when did this licence transfer happen ??
OF course there re the Italians doing rounds in every defence shows with their products --- i wonder how much worth their design of LST(?) is, don seem to offer anything .... and so do their lighter carrier which was beinng said that cud help in India's ADS, well i call it as BS

but this same damn Italian connection cud not help Indian Navy to acquire Italian mini subs which the Indian Navy was looking for in the 80's, how pity that pseudo's enjoy so much command and respect ...


and so do the IN's new damn LST, WTFH do that one have over the Magar clas, I don see anything new, or a drastic increase in capacity. It seems like it don even have the capacity of the Magar class of 15 tanks or maybe its the same, but I'd definetely wud have like the IN to upgrade their landing crafts to that of the Ivan clas if not that of the American ones, and i wonder when will these guys think ahead, and not getting contained in those 15 tanks , better go in for that 50 tanks and another doubledigit APCs and troops which is the case with the Russian ship ...


xanadu,

Any of you have any idea where to get the force magazine. Is it out on bookstands or is it available only through subscription. I know I know u have the correspondent who everyone loves to hate there :P But just want to check it out.
u can check out their subscription rate and other in their site ....

http://www.forceindia.net

hope u enjoy ... and the $hit abt these is that same pseudo politics that u all get to see in India now a days - the majority bashing

and u had to read the articles that that a$$ Swami wrote after Gujrat Police producd proof abt that Girls identity and her links to LeT, it was really $hit man, but then stuffs like these happen only in India unfortunately

here is the editors info, and that fellow is there too ....
http://www.forceindia.net/editor.asp

[Blackcat]

I suspect that when more design details become available it will turn out that the P-15A is as close designwise to P-15 as the F/A-18E is to the F-18C: It would seems to be carrying a whole lot more in about the same displacement hull.
u might have to change that though as the P-15A from the reports have LO features, and the displacement been bit increased other than that the overall size wud be the same ... is what i expect

I would be grateful if you can provide the url at Military Technology where they claim that the Brahmos and Klub have compatible VLS.
i don know its the same, but the INS Tabar have Brahmos, so it wud be more easier to chek what VLS it have rather than to search the whole thing .....

Lobbing expensive LACM from vulnerable ships seems counter productive in the Indo-Pak senario: Airpower can easily, flexibly and untimately quite cheaply and safely deliver ordanance in the Pakistan specific theater. PJ-10 provide a useful option when airpower cannot be as easily applied, for example, when showing Rangoon the error of its ways.
now y do i get that $hitty IAF's torpedo's smell which grounded the ADS for nearly 6 yrs in this quote of urs??... I do believ tat if it has to be LACM , then the range has to considerably increase with the minimum of 700Km if it is meant for Islamabad, for Karachi and Gwadar, 300 K is very much a good range ...

Kashtan-M instead of Barak is an retrograde step and not an improvement.
and ur though regarding that???.....

i don thin its anyway retrograde, indeed the Kashtan -M is good, and its only 'disadvantage ' is that its a 'point' defence weapon unlike the Barak which can choose its direction after firing, but then for that there comes 2 Kashtan mounts as a standard for that duty with 64 missiles where as the Barak comes with 32 missiles wityh a cost more than that of Kashtan (?) .......

and said that Kashtan also bring in with it additional Close in gun's which will only agumant the stopping power rather than degrade it, so in all way, its only as good as it can get and not the other way round ...

Lessons learnt from the P-17 will be digested and applied to ships that are designed a few years after the P-17 are operational. P-15A will have benefited only very generally from the P-17 building experiance.
whatever it is i want the Indian designers to make it a point to have all the designs to have an extra engine to be carried on board like the US ships (a valuable thing that IN learnt from MALABAREX)

What the Indian Navy desperately needs from a large surface combatant is area AAW; not generic SUW, ASW or limited strike capability that other existing programs provide. Without a capable fleet air defense ships the Indian Navy will be in the incongruous position of aircraft carriers being relegated to support the limited range surface strike platforms.
if thats the case then the designation sud change from multi-role to air-defnce then the P-15A can offer more as that 16 meant for Brahmos can further be used for A-D , but still I want to see a 64 cell VLS on the Indian ships in the front , and i just cant digest as to y it cannot be made possible, the area in front of Talwar, P-17 and definetely P-15A (from the looks of P-15) seem like its not utilised to its best and that there can be more VLS installed there....

[GDL]

Kashtan-M instead of Barak is an retrograde step and not an improvement.

So you are saying the Russian 9M311 missile (or SA-N-11) is inferior to the Barak SAM? If so, but what degree? And with the Khastan-M you are also getting a dual mode CIWS system, guns and missiles. Surely better than just a missile alone.

The 9M311
http://venus.ci.uw.edu.pl/~animal/military.pl/syst_p_lotnicze/mieszane/2s6-tunguska/tunguska6.jpg

[Austin]

I suspect that when more design details become available it will turn out that the P-15A is as close designwise to P-15 as the F/A-18E is to the F-18C: It would seems to be carrying a whole lot more in about the same displacement hull.

Tuollaf43 , P-15A is an enhansament of P-15 , and in no way a new class of destroyer , so design wise its the same expcept that it has more angeled smooth surfaces, and some stealth features ( Structurally and Acoustic characteristic) , Initally it was suppose to be lesser in displacement than the P-15, but with 7000+ displacement the P-15A is a pleasant suprise for me too.

I would be grateful if you can provide the url at Military Technology where they claim that the Brahmos and Klub have compatible VLS.

Lobbing expensive LACM from vulnerable ships seems counter productive in the Indo-Pak senario: Airpower can easily, flexibly and untimately quite cheaply and safely deliver ordanance in the Pakistan specific theater. PJ-10 provide a useful option when airpower cannot be as easily applied, for example, when showing Rangoon the error of its ways.

Mil technology dosent have a web site except for www.monch.com, which dosent have any online latest issue so no url , I have the military tech magazine with me , so i could provide the information , Klub VLS is suppose to be a universal launcher compatiable with a host of missile not limited to Klub and Bhramos , we could see more missile in the future .
Agreed that the Bhramos has a short range (290 km) for a hi-lo profile , for lo-lo its 120 km , but we dont know the range for Hi-Hi profile , it will have a land attack variant too , so it some what effective in context of Pakistan ,staying 100 km away , one can still fire 200 km deep inside pakistan specially against heavily rofile , and many startegic targets are within range for this missile and being fully supersonic and stealth it will be hard to detect and destroy , Personally i think it will be very effective against stationary target whose co-ordinate are known in advance , the Kahuata Reactor is one target that comes to mind , strategically important and heavily defended .

Kashtan-M instead of Barak is an retrograde step and not an improvement.
The Kashtan-M is a combined Gun/Missile system and is more capable than barak , in the sense that it is capable of hitting a supersonic crusie missile along with subsonic , in case of barak its limited to only subsonic missile like exocet or harpoon , though being VLS capable and modular in design it has its own advantage , the IN is happy with both and may prefer to use both the systems in the future , also not to mention that the kashtan-m has twin gun mount , capable of firing a 30 mm shell at the rate of 10000 rounds per minute out to a range of 4 km , so a more capable system although Barak is by no means a less capable ones.

Also if one looks at the P-15A DDG it has lots of new system onboard and is much more powerful and purposeful that its Delhi cousin , I would personally been happy to see aster on it , but the IN has decided to go with shiil-1 on Delhi and Enhanced Delhi class destroyer , which again is a very capable SAM , With he kind of resources IN has the P-15A seems to be a good compromise and a highly capable Destroyer in Indian context. One thing one could see though I am not sure , In future IN ships or may be even in P-15A is a Solid Fuel naval variant of prithivi tested recently , not the Dhanush (which is liquid fueled and just a test variant , to check if its capable of firing from a sailing ship and change in guidance system to be used over sea) , Recently a Solid Fuel Prithivi was tested with a 1 meter diameter and capable of carrying a 500 kg warhead to more than 500 Km , one could see such missile on future IN ships

[Austin]

Hi , Any one has any info on the follow on of Barak sam , The IAI official had stated that it will be more in the class of SM-2 and will have certain features of the future Arrow-3 missile , but then declined to give any information on range or other characteristcics

[matt]

The ship launched Brahmos' range: What range does the Oniks have? If Brahmos has the same dimensions and weight as Oniks, the stated range of the Brahmos is pretty moot. It might be more prudent to go with the Oniks' range.

It might have the same dimensions but what about the internal structure of it ? its not a given that if something has the same dimensions it would autmatically have the same range.. What engines were used? what speeds were they to cruise at? does Brahmos have more or less sensors ? how big are the respective onboard navigational sensors ?

What type of explosives are used in the respective washeads ?

[tuollaf43]

Blackcat,

Your feelings about the OTO 76mm Super Rapide are entirely misplaced and unwarranted. At last count it was was service in about three dozen countries and for a very good reason; it is an excellent weapon. But it is not suitable for all roles.

I think you missed my point; you havent seem to have understood what I am saying about the design commonality (or lack thereof) of the P-15A and the P-15.

PJ-10 has adequate range? What is the combat radius of the Mirage 3/5 ROSE with an exocet? What about FC-1?

Both Barak and Kashtan are point defense weapons. Barak merely does not have coverage problems that the Kashtan suffers from.

And where would you change the extra engine? At sea?

Regarding the proper utilisation of the fore section of the talwar I am afraid I am not qualified enough to comment on that. There may be some space available for growth in them. I do not know enough to second guess the Indian and Russian naval architects.

GDL,

I am not saying that 9M311 is inferior to the Barak; the Indian Navy is saying that - and unlike you and me they have experiance with both. Look at the trouble they went to get Barak included in the Vikramaditya rather than the Kortik.

Austin,

I think all that the P-15A shares with the P-15 is the machinery spaces and some common components. The hull is different. The superstructure is different. The internal compartment layout is completely different. Sensor and armament fit as well as their layout is different. We have VLS all over the place instead of the deck cannisters and the mechanical SAM launcher & magazine. I wonder what kind of differences does it take to become a new design rather than merely a modification: Again I refer to the F/A-18E and F-18C comparision. Or the T-72 and T-90. But then this is merely semantic quibbling.

Regarding Brahmos; high speed is most useful when you have a target that is mobile - example a ship. For a static target whose coordinates are fixed a slower but stealthier weapon might be more suitable - viz 3M-14E. Unlike the PJ-10 the 3M-14E can cover the 300km distance at a low altitude all the way through.

I doubt that four or six or even eight PJ-10 would make any difference to Kahuta. To neutralize Kahuta you definately need the weight of attack as well as the precision of airpower. PJ-10 lacks both the accuracy as well as the penetrative power to do anything but cosmetic damage to Kahuta - large, hard target penetrating LGBs is probably what is required.

I am afraid I dont share your enthusiasm about the Shtil-1 System. It is wholly inadequate for both anti-air and anti-missile duties. I dont think that the Shtil-1 is the first, second or even the third choice of the IN. It was procured probably because of Russian hard sell and arm twisting that has become public in the Gorshkov saga.

Barak-II being in the SM-2 class seems quite absurd. Have the IAI people contracted the Russian disease of exaggeration? And if it is indeed in the SM-2 class then why confuse matters by calling it a Barak at all?

[GDL]

GDM,

I am not saying that 9M311 is inferior to the Barak; the Indian Navy is saying that - and unlike you and me they have experiance with both. Look at the trouble they went to get Barak included in the Vikramaditya rather than the Kortik.

Its GDL, but please call me Glenn. If this is the case then why stick with it and why not insist on Barak for the P15A? I say again, a combined gun/missile system has got to be better than one of them alone. Is it the Barak's larger warhead that they want, is it the VLS capability they want (if so why not SA-N-9?), or is there something about the Barak that is just better?

[Muns]

Anyone got new info on Trishul, last heard passed all developmental trials again and DRDO and the Navy were hapy with it, and entering user trials soon. Even heard about a VLS system for trishul...anymore???

[tuollaf43]

Glenn,

I hope you are aware of the Russian tendency of arm twisting; they dont allow you to pick and choose - its either all or none approach. Shtil is probably one of those deals; it is tied to something the IN desperately needs.

Ever wonder why Russian ships have BOTH klinok and kortik present?- both are short range SAMs with ranges of 9km and 15km respectively - surely one of the two should suffice? Well the fact is that the Klinok doest tip over from its vertical trajectory into the direction of the incoming missile quickly enough and is also a bit slower in gaining required intercept energy. This means that it is not responsive enough to engage missile that are very close to the ship (the raison d'etre of the CIWS) . The Kortik on the other hand does not have adequate performance to effectively engage targets a bit further out (the further out you start engaging the more shoot-look-shoot cycles you will have). To have adequate coverage you need both installed - klinok covers the outer part of the envelope complemented by the shorter range Kortik. It takes two small missiles to cover the VSHORAD mission. For the designer concerned with space, weight and cost limitations this is not good news.

Barak may not be as good as the Kortik+Klinok combination but it does cover the whole engagement envelope a lot better than either of them individually. It may also have better availability, better PH and PK as well as better ECCM.

For close in defense senario comparing Kashtan-M to Barak doesnt make sense. They cover different areas of the envelope. A proper comparision is what is better in terms of cost, space, weight, complexity, crew requirements etc. [Kashtan-M + Klinok] vs [Barak + some CIWS] (say Goalkeeper or Phalanx).

I know I would take Barak plus Millenium over Kashtan+Khinzal any day.

Muns,

Haven't we heard all that before?

[Indian1973]

the main gun its probably better to have a smaller gun with proximity ammo for use as a anti-missile weapon. Thats where I think the Oto-breda scores well. the USN can support a invasion with their new LR guns but few others have that need. India has
never preferred the Russian main guns - its just hard sell that
gets them in over the Otos.

the new Barak is not called barak2, its called the SuperBarak and
india was supposed to be paying for (some of) its development.
2x the barak range and ability to take supersonic ASMs. not a
SM2 clone.

Muns, no vls...it will be in the usual box launcher as on land.
similar way to the germans using sea sparrow and RAM.

wrt choice of Shtil there was no other choice - SM2 was out of question so what else was there on market ? even now its either Aster15 or Shtil and Aster needs the expensive Arabel or EMPAR.

IN might choose to install ASter on just a few ships to act as
team leads for SAGs.

similarly Phalanx is out of question. Goalkeeper and Kashtans are
both closed loop systems...not much to differentiate them gunwise.

[GDL]

I hope you are aware of the Russian tendency of arm twisting; they dont allow you to pick and choose - its either all or none approach. Shtil is probably one of those deals; it is tied to something the IN desperately needs.

I am aware, and I can see what you mean. And if Barak can be paired off with a CIWS gun system, then I too would agree it would make the better combination. You mentioned Millenium? Do you refer to the Swiss 35mm GDM-008 'rotary' gatling gun (http://www.rheinmetall-detec.de/index.php?lang=3&fid=864)? Are the Indians looking at it?

[tuollaf43]

Indian1973,

A Barak with twice the existing range would hardly be in the SM-2 class.

Why does Aster.15 automatically imply EMPAR or Arabel? Surely these active radar homing missiles can be (relatively) easily made to work with other radars. Unless you mean that the french would in turn try to get their extra pound of flesh by linking Aster.15 sale to Arabel.

Glenn,

GDM-008 is the one, specifically the AHEAD munition. I am skeptical about the Indian Navy pursuing that gun, they are normally very conservative.

It is preferable not to have the gun and missiles on the same mount - downtime or snafu on one could traslate into no close in defense at all for such ships. Separate mounted systems afford two advantages - graceful degradation plus its easier to accomodate two smaller, less bulkier systems than a single large one. Note that separation of mounts does not preclude their close integration.

[Austin]

I think all that the P-15A shares with the P-15 is the machinery spaces and some common components. The hull is different. The superstructure is different. The internal compartment layout is completely different. Sensor and armament fit as well as their layout is different

Tuollaf43 , for you to know that the P-15A is entirely different it terms of hull and superstructure is entirely absurd , do you have access to IN P-15A design and drawings ??? Is it so, But if past experience is any thing to go by and if you compare the P-16 to P-16A or the Talwar to P-17A you dont find any radical changes in design , It just an enhancement over present wepons and sensors and learing what they had gathered and experienced while maintaining previous class of vessel , I dont expect P-15A to be radical different than P-15 except in Displacement , Sensors , Wepons system and some angled and smooth surface , more or less it should look like the delhi but for the changes mentioned above .




Regarding Brahmos; high speed is most useful when you have a target that is mobile - example a ship. For a static target whose coordinates are fixed a slower but stealthier weapon might be more suitable - viz 3M-14E. Unlike the PJ-10 the 3M-14E can cover the 300km distance at a low altitude all the way through.

I doubt that four or six or even eight PJ-10 would make any difference to Kahuta. To neutralize Kahuta you definately need the weight of attack as well as the precision of airpower. PJ-10 lacks both the accuracy as well as the penetrative power to do anything but cosmetic damage to Kahuta - large, hard target penetrating LGBs is probably what is required.

According to the Bhramos Project Director a supersonic cruise missile is 8 times more powerful than a subsonic crusie missile with the same warhead weight, sheer kinetic energy is what makes the difference , where does the question arise whether the target is static or movable , its more of a quetion of guidance , Bhramos is not only supersonic , but also has stealth features and is intelligent , also other RCS reduction measures like applying RAM are being undertaken ,its a generation ahead as compared to the SS-N-22( which has huge radar crossection and bulky ) , Ofcourse there is this subsonic , stealthy missile vs supersonic missile going on , but with good guidance , supersonic missile will be devestating , 3M-14E is a good missile no doubt , but Bhramos is class apart. also the Bhramos are not only accurative enough for stationary targets with known co-ordinates( Kahuta) but has the greatest chance of penetrating any air defence.


I am afraid I dont share your enthusiasm about the Shtil-1 System. It is wholly inadequate for both anti-air and anti-missile duties. I dont think that the Shtil-1 is the first, second or even the third choice of the IN. It was procured probably because of Russian hard sell and arm twisting that has become public in the Gorshkov saga.

On Kashtan-M , I will go with Glenn's argument a Missile/Gun Combo is much more effective than just a short range missile system , Barak main stong points are its Modular and VLS capability and can be plugged in, in little space , and in a way dosent require radical design in present structure , More ever its acurate , carrier a bigger warhead and for a VLS Point defence sam , having a mimimum intercepting range of 500meteres is an achievement , although in intercepting cruise missile its capability is limited to sub-sonic sea skimmers , no issues coz most of the curent missile in the world and in the region are subsonic ones , china being the only exception.

Anyone got new info on Trishul, last heard passed all developmental trials again and DRDO and the Navy were hapy with it, and entering user trials soon. Even heard about a VLS system for trishul...anymore???

Trishul is again on IN road map , afer sucessful trail in recent months ,I didnt see Barak guidance on Betwa pics , so i think the whole of P-16A ( Bhramaputra ) class of frigate is waiting for Trishul, This missile was nearly put into an eperimental status , but with Israel help the DRDO was able to solve the guidance issue problem with this missile , Trishul is one missile to look forward for , Its highly supersonic ( Mach -4.5 ) ,Has high manuverability ( can sustain 45 G and more ) , is made of maraganing steel can with stand high stress , operates in an Unjammable K-KA band ( 45 Ghz ) like Barak guidance ) , Has three beam guidance system, has low reaction time from detection to launch( if memory serves me right its 6 seconds ) has a range of 10 Km , its a potent point defence sam. All three services will get the SAM and The IN one will be capable of defeating a Supersonic Sea Skimmer along with a subsonic one.
Trishul User Trials by middle or end of this year , expect in IN ships end of this year or 1 half of next year, Expect VSL and active Phased array radar based FC and survellence system on future variant of Trishul , they are working towards it , But as of now the trishul on naval variant will be twin arm launcher , each arm capable of carrying 2 missile each , so total 4 missile on the twin arm launcher , for high accuracy and probabilty of kill , 2 missile can be fired at a single target

[Austin]

A Barak with twice the existing range would hardly be in the SM-2 class.

Why does Aster.15 automatically imply EMPAR or Arabel? Surely these active radar homing missiles can be (relatively) easily made to work with other radars. Unless you mean that the french would in turn try to get their extra pound of flesh by linking Aster.15 sale to Arabel.

Dude if you want to integrate a third partys missile , with yours or some one's else radar , you need to have the source code for the radar and the missile , the french will suerly not give you the source code for the missile , and hence you are limited to their Radar , ie Arabal or Empar , most likely the Empar.
As far as the Barak issue goes , I have the Statement of the IAI president in a magazine called Vayu , in which he clearly states that the Barak will be in the class of SM-2 and will have some capabilities being developed for Arrow-3


It is preferable not to have the gun and missiles on the same mount - downtime or snafu on one could traslate into no close in defense at all for such ships. Separate mounted systems afford two advantages - graceful degradation plus its easier to accomodate two smaller, less bulkier systems than a single large one. Note that separation of mounts does not preclude their close integration.

All military systems have redudancy and certain degree of reliability , so Downtime and other Hardware issue are taken care of in design stage , in every military system , I still believe that tke Kashtan-M concept of Gun/Missile system is the right approach.

[Indian1973]

for the curious, VAYU aerospace is the IAF internal magazine.

Austin will the trishul launcher have a reload magazine or just
limited to 4 missiles ? 4 sounds small.

[Austin]

Hi Indian1973,
Trishul will definately have reload , below deck , The launcher is similar to the one you see in Godavari,with the SA-N-4 stored below deck , except the launcher is twin arm in Trishul's case and each arm carries 2 missile , in a round shape cannister , so its (2+2) missile . This was from the pics I had seen few years back of a P-16A model , I am not sure if they have modified the launcher lately , Vayu has lately changed its name to "Vayu Aerospace2000 , Aerospace and Defence Review " , They have small news section dedicated to Army , Navy & Airforce , Lately I have seen dedicated articles on the Navy and the Army , I guess things are changing for them, Always carries some excellent quality pics with them.

[Blackcat]

Blackcat,

Your feelings about the OTO 76mm Super Rapide are entirely misplaced and unwarranted. At last count it was was service in about three dozen countries and for a very good reason; it is an excellent weapon. But it is not suitable for all roles.

I think you missed my point; you havent seem to have understood what I am saying about the design commonality (or lack thereof) of the P-15A and the P-15.

PJ-10 has adequate range? What is the combat radius of the Mirage 3/5 ROSE with an exocet? What about FC-1?

Both Barak and Kashtan are point defense weapons. Barak merely does not have coverage problems that the Kashtan suffers from.

And where would you change the extra engine? At sea?

Regarding the proper utilisation of the fore section of the talwar I am afraid I am not qualified enough to comment on that. There may be some space available for growth in them. I do not know enough to second guess the Indian and Russian naval architects.


nope that 76 mm came in coz u said the 100 mm Russian gun is inadequate for naval gun support, so i wonder, how a smaler caliber gun with 8 kms or range wud be superior which calls itself as Super rapid Gun Mount with 60rds/minute, where as even the A-190E has got 90rds/minute with far higher caliber and range .... so i cud not get to ur justification or ur though abt how the Gun of Banglore cud be inadequate, not that i'd prefer a higher caliber gun u mentioned, but just thought abt that , and the Italian ones came just coz of all thats happening .... just coz the Italian gun is used my many don warrent or justify that indeed Indian had to go in for that .... we use wats useful for us , and for us definetely, a higher caliber gun is what I'd prefer, as for landing etc etc a close NGFS is very much an added advantage, seeing to the reality that none of the landing craft has got a gun for fire support ...


well am not saying that PJ-10 is enough, but for karachi its morethan enough and i adhere by that, though i'd always prefer a longer range ..

abt the poit defence system that i said, when i mentioned it i said 'point' defence system implying to the fact of the Kashtan's inablity to launch it vertically giving it more degree of freedom to choosing it path. In its current launch it wud only drain up most of its fuel if thetarget is from behind its launch coverage angle .. and the reason y the two comes a s stanfard to cover this shortfall which also agument the point defences of the ship ...

well the extra engine came in the MAlabaex exercise that IN and USN conducted off the cost of Kochi, and IN personal was really happy abt the idea abt the USN carrying the extra engine, well if they are carrying an extra engine, obviously they wud be meant for changing it in their nearst 'friendly' SY so that they dont have to float it back to us :D

[Blackcat]

Indian,

[QUOTE]for the curious, VAYU aerospace is the IAF internal magazine.
QUOTE]
hey hows the subscripton of the same, is it just for the internals or others too can get hold of them?? ...

[Indian1973]

I think its only available by mail-order, looks like a private
rather than Govt effort. P Chopra has written book on indian af and pakistan af also (iirc):

'Vayu Aerospace Review'
[ ? publisher, ISSN ?]

First published in 1978. Issued bi-monthly since the late 1980s. Published by the well known Indian writer Pushpindar Singh Chopra. Contains topical articles on civil and military aviation, with a Southern Asian bias. Indian airpower, airlines, aviation industry etc.
Current
Further information: Vayu Aerospace Review, D-43 Sujan Singh Park, New Delhi 110003.

[GDL]

I am afraid I dont share your enthusiasm about the Shtil-1 System. It is wholly inadequate for both anti-air and anti-missile duties. I dont think that the Shtil-1 is the first, second or even the third choice of the IN. It was procured probably because of Russian hard sell and arm twisting that has become public in the Gorshkov saga.

Yet the Russians are building the Shtil-1 into a VLS bank. Have the Indians payed for this to be done, as a request? The Russians have never had Shtil installed on any of their vessels in VLS. It may not be the best system available, and perhaps the Indians were pressured into it, but have the Indians tried to improve on it it by having it vertiacly launched, which vastly improves the rate of fire? Just wondering.

[Blackcat]

I think its only available by mail-order, looks like a private
rather than Govt effort. P Chopra has written book on indian af and pakistan af also (iirc):

'Vayu Aerospace Review'
[ ? publisher, ISSN ?]

First published in 1978. Issued bi-monthly since the late 1980s. Published by the well known Indian writer Pushpindar Singh Chopra. Contains topical articles on civil and military aviation, with a Southern Asian bias. Indian airpower, airlines, aviation industry etc.
Current
Further information: Vayu Aerospace Review, D-43 Sujan Singh Park, New Delhi 110003.
tks for that info man, frankly i heard abt the vayu aerospace, when a few yrs ago i heard that it got some award for its report on LCA and its development.. thats when i heard abt Vayu Aerospace mag ... but is there not any site for them??..i cud not find one....
and whats the subscription rate etc etc ...

and yeah i wont agree to that South Asian bias untill i rwad it... :D

[tuollaf43]

Austin,

[1] I dont need to see detailed blueprints to figure out how close the P-15A will be to the P-15. A look at the specs that have emerged and a little common sense is all that is needed.

[2] Terminal effect of the high kinetic energy of a supersonic missile has nothing to do with its suitability to engage static or mobile target; the relevant parameter is time of flight.

[3] Brahmos is stealthy, but only when compared to previous generation weapons like the sunburn. Even the unoptimised Klub is much more discrete than the Brahmos across the spectrum.

[4] Brahmos and Klub are indeed a class apart. But for land attack mission against fixed targets Klub is undeniably superior (assuming similar CEP for both).

[5] Brahmos/Klub etc simply lacks the CEP to be effective against targets like Kahuta (I presume we are talking about the nuclear and atomic munitions facilities and not the the other military industrial targets in the vicinity). A man-in-the-loop weapon remains the best option for such targets. As of the moment a large hard target LGB remain the only viable option.

PS: I assume you do know the terminal velocity of a LGB dropped from medium altitude?

[6] What exactly do you mean when you say the Brahmos is "Intelligent"? What makes it intelligent? Are other weapons of comparable pedigree (say Harpoon) any less or more "intelligent"?

[7] There is no conceivable reason why the Barak cannot be complemented by a gun system. I see many disadvantages of clubbing the gun and PDMS on one mount and see no great advantages. Can you tell me any?

[8] Why do you need to know the source code for the missile or the targeting radar to integrate the two? Which one of the two (Arabel or Aster) has such poor interfaces that necessitates this? Why would anyone need more information than what is needed to implement the missile initialization and mid-course update through the data link. You are aware of the very decoupled nature ARH missiles and radar when compared to SARH ones?

[9] Regarding Barak being of SM-2 class: The range of even the earliest mark of SM-2 is about 75km. Barak has a range of 10km, twice that for being SuperBarak being 20km. Now thats hardly in the same class as SM-2 is it?

It means one of two things: Either Vayu is unreliable or that the IAI Honchos are given to gross exagerration, neither of which would surprise me. I assume that you are indeed accurately reporting the IAI President's statement to Vayu. Moral here is that glossies and PR statements need to be taken with a generous pinch of salt.

Regarding Arrow technology in the Barak Mark.2 I will be unimpressed until more information is available as to the specifics. I might remind you of the old story about a non-stick saucepan having technology developed for the Space Shuttle.

[10] Downtime is taken into consideration in the design of every military system. But this does not prevent every military system from suffering from downtimes, which in accordance with Murphy's Laws occur at the most inopportune moment. A sensible designer is one who takes all measures to promote reliability and on the other hand does acknowledge that downtime will inevitably occur and tries to minimise its effect. A decoupled Gun and PDMS mount is a superior solution in this regard to the integrated Gun-Missile system.

[11] You have said that you prefer an integrated Gun-Missile solution (say Kashtan) to a decouple solution (Say SeaWolf and Goalkeeper). You havent mentioned why you favor the former over the latter type. I am curious.

Blackcat,

My orginal comment meant that I would have preferred (very mildly I might add as I dont consider the main gun a major issue for the P-15A) a larger caliber; irrespective of the manufacturer of the weapon. I would have been equally pleased with either the OTO 127mm or the Russian A192M, both are excellent weapons.

BTW, The latest 76mm super rapide can shoot at 120 rounds per minute. It also has the advantages that it is well supported now and will be well supported in the future (spares,upgrades and uptodate ammunition), comes from a reliable manufacturer, has low weight and small ship impact. You cant go far wrong with the super rapide for a frigate.

Regarding Italian weapons procurement: My view is that the present regime is more likely to bend backwards rather than tilt towards Italian manufacturers. This also applies to an extent to Swedish and German armaments companies. Companies from these nations will have to be demonstrably head and shoulders above other competitors to be selected under the present dispensation.

Changing engines at sea: Swapping GT is doable but still a major dockside operation. You simply cannot swap a diesel engine without extensive time at the manufacturers. USN concerns with extended tours of duty at far off stations hardly reflect the situation in the IN.

If you know how to swap a major marine powerplant underway than contact me; I can make you a very rich man <grin>.

Glenn,

What you say about the Shtil VLS is very plausible. May I suggest another possibility - the VLS is may not be Shtil specific and can accomodate other weapon types. Perhaps the VLS is being filled with SA-N-7 rather than SA-N-12 for a reason. SA-N-7 is from existing stocks because the IN intends to replace it with a more capable weapon in the future similar to what is being suggested for the Talwars - Klubs replaced with PJ-10s.

<start pure speculation>9M96E1 anyone?</end pure speculation>

[GDL]

<start pure speculation>9M96E1 anyone?</end pure speculation>

http://www.military.cz/russia/sam/s300p/9M96_02.JPG

The 40-km range 9M96E in the fore ground and the 120km-range 9M96E2 behind it. Now if only............ http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0304/sprachlos/speechless-smiley-016.gif

Another shot
http://www.military.cz/russia/sam/s300p/9M96_04.JPG

http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0304/grinser/grinning-smiley-042.gif

[koxinga]

What is the IR signature of the Brahmos at supersonic speeds? Most of the current systems designed to handle supersonics ASHM are using IR based tracking and was designed to work against Russian ASHMs like the Moskit.


Anyway, this discussion harks back afew years to rec.military.naval and the issue of streakers (moskits) versus dancers (harpoons)

[tuollaf43]

Koxinga,

You asked the right question: The IR signature at supersonic speeds for sustained ranges. Despite what the PR types will have you believe the Brahmos will stand out like a sore thumb. Brahmos primarily relies on performance to bulldoze its way through defenses, unlike the klub which will try to slink in.

Regarding the discussion at s.m.n it was dancers versus racers for SUW, not for land attack. Land attack is a whole new ball game with different needs and constraints. I recollect that that discussion was a little biased towards western solutions - as is usual for the s.m.n crowd.

[koxinga]

Well, the laws of physics cannot be repeal. Anything that travels at supersonic speeds will cause the skin of the vehicle to heat up excluding the engine signature. 20 years ago, electronics might not have been advanced and sensitive enough to detect at long ranges, but now, this method is the most common technique employed to detect and intercept very fast ashms.

The only big advantage for missiles like the Yahkont/Brahmos/chinese SSM is that the margin for errors on the part of the defending vessel is now very thin due to the speed which the distance is closed.

I agree, in land attack it does not matter much, partly because IR sensors would have difficulty to discriminate over land as compared to a open ocean.

[GDL]

Well, the laws of physics cannot be repeal. Anything that travels at supersonic speeds will cause the skin of the vehicle to heat up excluding the engine signature. 20 years ago, electronics might not have been advanced and sensitive enough to detect at long ranges, but now, this method is the most common technique employed to detect and intercept very fast ashms.

Provided you know where to look. If the IRST sensor is mounted lower than the mast-mounted air/surface search radar it will present you with a smaller visual horizon, as opposed to the radar horizon, assuming a sea-skimmer missile is inbound. Unless you can cue the IRST first with a radar fix of the incoming missile, how would you know where to direct your optronic based tracking device? If a sea-skimmer at Mach 2 gets within the visual horizon of the vessel before it is tracked, you will have VERY little time to react indeed. The radar is still very important, in fact, critical in the equation. And most naval SAMs are still radar guided weapons.

[koxinga]

You are right in all points. Radars have a higher range that IR sensors. But I was thinking in the line of something like the Sirius system which is a constantly rotating IR sensor.
But most of the time, IR sensors are cued by radars and not the other way round and multi-guidance systems are increasingly a must have.

btw, a little selling here. CDF have put up my article on PLA-N radars and EW. Have a look. I will put up the corrections in the forum. (which already have one)

[Blackcat]

Blackcat,

My orginal comment meant that I would have preferred (very mildly I might add as I dont consider the main gun a major issue for the P-15A) a larger caliber; irrespective of the manufacturer of the weapon. I would have been equally pleased with either the OTO 127mm or the Russian A192M, both are excellent weapons.
k thats fine, but if at all that is intended for 12 x P-17 which is also meant for NGFS (?) then i really doubt its worth in that role with 76mm, 65 rds/min to 4.4n miles (8 kms) range ... am quoting it from the BR's P16's specs which mentions these specs ...

BTW, The latest 76mm super rapide can shoot at 120 rounds per minute. It also has the advantages that it is well supported now and will be well supported in the future (spares,upgrades and uptodate ammunition), comes from a reliable manufacturer, has low weight and small ship impact. You cant go far wrong with the super rapide for a frigate.
but it don seems to have found its place in BR's site, also whats the spec of the SRGM that INS Betwa has got, they have not changed any specs for that gun, if that’s the case, its still using that old gun with 65 rds/min?? ….. and can u give me any link to the guns manufactures site?

Regarding Italian weapons procurement: My view is that the present regime is more likely to bend backwards rather than tilt towards Italian manufacturers. This also applies to an extent to Swedish and German armaments companies. Companies from these nations will have to be demonstrably head and shoulders above other competitors to be selected under the present dispensation.
and that applys to only those who have a sense of shame and not to shameless pigs .... and my view stands the same.... regarding the "emonstrably head and shoulders above other competitors" that u mentioned, i really don think thats the case taking into view the kind of attitude the Gov have been persuing to engage the 'biggies' ... so that finally comes down to 'orthless political support' in the form of 'supports' .. and nothing more ... and the idiots in the higher ups in the Indian Gvt take that at face value.

Changing engines at sea: Swapping GT is doable but still a major dockside operation. You simply cannot swap a diesel engine without extensive time at the manufacturers. USN concerns with extended tours of duty at far off stations hardly reflect the situation in the IN.
yo i agree to that, the main intention cud be that in case of an engine problem, Unkil's ship can go to any of their 'allies' SY and do the changing w/o an added cost if it had to be flown or shipped to the place where it is being changed, in that case definetely its a very good one .... but that said ur again looking inwar and not expanding the thoughts, we can't just say that this is enough, we have to make provision for future needs and this definetely fits that future needs ......

If you know how to swap a major marine powerplant underway than contact me; I can make you a very rich man <grin>.
Sssshhhhhhhh ........ Actually ................... its a pretty BIG secret: D :D :D :D ......... :o

and I've changed my plan for a 'change of heart at the seas' :o .... look above ... :D

Regarding the proper utilisation of the fore section of the talwar I am afraid I am not qualified enough to comment on that. There may be some space available for growth in them. I do not know enough to second guess the Indian and Russian naval architects.
but i always felt like that looking to the underutilisation of the sapce on the deck, and i can't digest the fact that it can only accomodate just 8 cell VLS ..... thats simply out of my mind ... :mad: ..... take a look at this pic of INS Trishul, whenever I see this I feel like stuffing more VLS on to that vacant spaces on the deck ... :D

and am pretty sure from the looks of the launched hull of the P-17 that it too is gonna look this way and from the specs of P-15A, that too don’t look quite different from this ‘attitude’

[Blackcat]

I hope you are aware of the Russian tendency of arm twisting; they dont allow you to pick and choose - its either all or none approach. Shtil is probably one of those deals; it is tied to something the IN desperately needs.
and its ot fair to single out Russians on this one, as every one else does the same, but u think that Barak made it with all 'morals' well i don think so..... many india say very much abt how Isreali's helped us ans are helping us with Trishul, if Isreali's really were 'helping' us it should have been Trishul entering the Service for which the Indian Navy so long waited , and not Barak!

but i can bet if it had been with the Russians , it definetely wud have been the Trishul entering the service with the Indian Navy and not their Klinok ...

Ever wonder why Russian ships have BOTH klinok and kortik present?- both are short range SAMs with ranges of 9km and 15km respectively - surely one of the two should suffice? Well the fact is that the Klinok doest tip over from its vertical trajectory into the direction of the incoming missile quickly enough and is also a bit slower in gaining required intercept energy. This means that it is not responsive enough to engage missile that are very close to the ship (the raison d'etre of the CIWS) .
take a look at the pic , is this what u mentioned??? .... and if am not wrong, the Klinok, Barak, SM-(?) and Aster too have kind of one missile 3 sec firing time .... and can u tell more abt the required intercept energy that u talked abt?? ..... is that coz that it don seem to have the kind of booster that can be seen on the SM, Aster, 9M311 ??? …… but then neither the barak do have it and in that case it too must be sluggish in gaining the energy when fired

here is a launch from Kriov ... and other missiles - Aster, Kashmir (SA-N-11), ESSM ...

[Blackcat]

The Kortik on the other hand does not have adequate performance to effectively engage targets a bit further out (the further out you start engaging the more shoot-look-shoot cycles you will have). To have adequate coverage you need both installed - klinok covers the outer part of the envelope complemented by the shorter range Kortik. It takes two small missiles to cover the VSHORAD mission. For the designer concerned with space, weight and cost limitations this is not good news.
Kashtan system’s missile is in the class of Barak with a range of 10 kms , and I'd like to take that - mean the addition of two AD systems is to supplement and agument the AD cover of the ships as such and not coz of the need to supplement each other coz of deficiencies as mentioned by you ....

The Klinok is used for all that short range AD role, where as the Kashtan is binded together with its missile and guns which have a common fire control radar and its other tracking system which are common for both the gun and missile, so i feel like the Klionk wud be used for its intended AD role as the primay point defence and when that has been found to be penetrated or a chance of penetration the Kashtan get in and fires its missiles which also means that the gun too is 'watching the missile' .... with the next step or the final ditch being that Gun opening itself proving a metal screen to the incoming missile .... so primarily the Klinok is what will be used most of the time with the Kashtan as the next one in the 'close' AD circle when these two - Klinok and Kashtan - are there on the same ship.

And said that I consider the Kashtan more useful in saving deck space, as the the Klionk and Barak like wud have to dig itself on the deck where as the Kashtan unit can be placed on the superstructure of the ships there by freeing the deck space …….. but the likes of Klinok and Barak if place on height wud find reloading difficult (?) where as the Kashtan system has got its ‘backdoor’ for reloading the depleted ‘war room’ underneath its robotic arm. And so do am keeping fingers crossed that Gorshkov don have any ‘digging’ on the decks there by wasting more deck space … where as the already huge superstructure should be used effectively with placement of these Kashtan and utilizing max deck space for the aircrafts …

Barak may not be as good as the Kortik+Klinok combination but it does cover the whole engagement envelope a lot better than either of them individually. It may also have better availability, better PH and PK as well as better ECCM.
and ur trying to belittle the usefulness of the other two as individual systems by comparing it to one .....

For close in defense senario comparing Kashtan-M to Barak doesnt make sense. They cover different areas of the envelope. A proper comparision is what is better in terms of cost, space, weight, complexity, crew requirements etc. [Kashtan-M + Klinok] vs [Barak + some CIWS] (say Goalkeeper or Phalanx).
of course not, they pretty cover the same envelop, but Kashtan is definetelyt not covering the 'area' that Barak can cover coz of its VLS , where as Kashtan is more into 'point' point defence with its robotic bust being restricted in coverage angle

I know I would take Barak plus Millenium over Kashtan+Khinzal any day.
and thats based on??..... and there is no need to couple the Kashtan + Klinok, they both have their role and either it sud be like Kashtan + AK-630 or Klinok + AK-630 even though the Kashtan also have that gun mounts …and I wont mind taking Kashtan + AK-630 any day over ur choice …. And definitely ECCM and others definitely depend on what all u can get from the other ‘camp’, and in this Isreali’s have edge as “Faith can do what others can’t” COUNTS a lot as far as leaks from Russia is concerned and then these obviously flow into other ‘camps’ ….

[Himanshu]

BlackCat.. Looking from TOP and looking underneath.. is a BIG difference.. Talk to Kapil or Maz on BR about it.. :)

[tuollaf43]

Glenn, In modern practise instead of radars cuing IR systems, it is usually the other way around. A ship under threat maintains EMCON. Radars are powered up but do not radiate. Surveillance is performed by IR search devices (example Sirius). When a potential threat is detected, it cues the radar to radiate and provide high quality engagement tracks and fire control data.

While modern IROST systems are designed to operate completely automously - ie search, track, engagement and evaluate cycle can be completed with the help of only passive sensors in practice they are still used mainly for backup - for instance in heavy ECM environment that degrades radar performance significantly.

PS: Heat plumes from sea skimming supersonic missiles can be detected even while the missile is still over the optical horizon.

Blackcat,

P16's are about two decades old - IIRC they dont carry 76mm, but 57mm I think.

Check out http://www.milparade.com/security/51/050101.htm for a comparision of modern naval guns.

Regarding spare engines: The real solution to tackling engine problems is not tacking an additional spare along. Redundant power plants, shafts/machinery and propulsor system are the way to go. Systematic maintanence, a sufficiently large and well trained crew to effect decent DC underway is quite helpful.

Regarding more Klubs on the Talwars: There is more to adding VLS than sticking them into a empty space. For instance it is possible that there were top weight limitations against more launchers.

Kashtan system’s missile is in the class of Barak with a range of 10 kms , and I'd like to take that - mean the addition of two AD systems is to supplement and agument the AD cover of the ships as such and not coz of the need to supplement each other coz of deficiencies as mentioned by you ....

Thats the problem! Two dissimilar missiles are needed for one distinct well defined missions - PDMS.

The Klinok is used for all that short range AD role, where as the Kashtan is binded together with its missile and guns which have a common fire control radar and its other tracking system which are common for both the gun and missile,

What advantages, if any, acure from having a gun and missile on the same mount. Sure they can save a bit of money by sharing the sensors and the FCS but anything other than that?

so i feel like the Klionk wud be used for its intended AD role as the primay point defence and when that has been found to be penetrated or a chance of penetration the Kashtan get in and fires its missiles which also means that the gun too is 'watching the missile' .... with the next step or the final ditch being that Gun opening itself proving a metal screen to the incoming missile .... so primarily the Klinok is what will be used most of the time with the Kashtan as the next one in the 'close' AD circle when these two - Klinok and Kashtan - are there on the same ship.

Other missile systems (Barak, RAM, Sea Wolf etc) seem do the job of both Klinok AND Kortik. And a Goalkeeper, Phalanx, Millinieum or AK-630 can do the job of the AO-18KD. Which is simpler and cost effective?

And so do am keeping fingers crossed that Gorshkov don have any ‘digging’ on the decks there by wasting more deck space … where as the already huge superstructure should be used effectively with placement of these Kashtan and utilizing max deck space for the aircrafts …

AA mounts usually do not take up deck space because they are not mounted on the landing deck. I am not sure how deck penetration will compromise landing deck space??

Just curious, but if the Klinok/Kortik/AO-18KD combo is as great as you claim it is, then why is the IN so reticent about using it to protect its most precious ships - Viraat and the Vikramaditya? Surely neither cost not space is as much of a issue on these vessels.

Himanshu, I do agree with what you say. But Mazumdar and Chandani are hardly naval architects themselves.

[Victor]

ESM eqpt on ships can, in the passive mode, tell if another platform is looking at it. Through RWRs the ship knows if it's being searched and/or tracked. It will know what radar is doing the pinging and from that can get a good idea of what platform that radar belongs to and thereby would know what missiles/ordnance might be coming its way. Also, from the shifting and degradation of the incoming radar's emmisions, the target ship would also have a general idea of how far the other platform is and if it is going away or coming towards the ship and a general sense of the platforms velocity.

So, even before the ship has left EMCON, it has a good situational awareness about what to expect and from what possible direction(s).

Now, how that ship responds to that possible threat is dependent on the ship's capabilities, doctrine, etc.

[GDL]

Glenn, In modern practise instead of radars cuing IR systems, it is usually the other way around. A ship under threat maintains EMCON. Radars are powered up but do not radiate. Surveillance is performed by IR search devices (example Sirius). When a potential threat is detected, it cues the radar to radiate and provide high quality engagement tracks and fire control data.

Totally understand that to remain in EMCON is obvious in a high threat situation, and if the IRST device is mounted fairly high up on the deck (better on the mast) of the ship then it would become the main passive means of detecting any 'hot' inbound missile prior to it activating it's own seeker. Although if the difference in radar horizon and visual horizon is significant you might be taking a greater risk by letting the inbound missile slip that close before tracking it. However, if as you say, their heat signatures can be picked up beyond the visual horizon you have nothing to worry about. Problem is a great deal of the world's navies don't possess advanced IRST systems of the likes of SIRIUS yet. And have instead embarked on improving their radar systems, air/surface search and gun/missile FCR, to help deal with super-sonic sea-skimmers. To compensate for the sole use of the radar for detecting and tracking such missiles, advancements have been made to help control their emissions and reduce their probability of intercept.

[Indian1973]

I suspect spotting heat plumes at OTH range could be a tad difficult in the tropics where the sea level temp is around 35C compared to the cold northern oceans ?

[tuollaf43]

ESM eqpt on ships can, in the passive mode, tell if another platform is looking at it. Through RWRs the ship knows if it's being searched and/or tracked. It will know what radar is doing the pinging and from that can get a good idea of what platform that radar belongs to and thereby would know what missiles/ordnance might be coming its way. Also, from the shifting and degradation of the incoming radar's emmisions, the target ship would also have a general idea of how far the other platform is and if it is going away or coming towards the ship and a general sense of the platforms velocity.

Victor,

1. EMCON is for making sure that you are not tracked at all. There is no point in maintaining emcon at all once you realise that you are being tracked.
2. There is no guarantee that you can detect when you are being tracked.
3. It is near impossible to tell how far a ship is from the ESM. You need additional far off sensors for triangulation.

I suspect spotting heat plumes at OTH range could be a tad difficult in the tropics where the sea level temp is around 35C compared to the cold northern oceans ?

Perhaps. 35C is hotter than -5C. But how different is it from the temperature of the exhaust plume?

As my old professor used to say "Just because you are standing on top of the Empire State Building and I am standing on the pavement on fifth avenue doesnt mean that you are any closer to the moon".

Glenn,

It must be understood that Sirius, Sting EO etc are ideal for preventing an attack in the first place; but not the first choice when it comes to dealing with the attack if any should actually materialise. You will still need your improved search and fire control radars to deal with them - so it is not surprising that navies of the world are trying to improve them.

LPI is a double edged sword. The incoming missile can use it too. Modern AShM's use LPI to fool ESM and PRH SAMs as well as fake disinterest in the chosen target. For example even after a missile has selected a target it continues to sweep the areas around it giving the target ship the impression that the missile has not yet locked on, and leaving the defender in a dilemma weather to engage it or go after another more pressing threat.

There is another solution to the problem. Active sensors (Radars) are better than passive sensors (IROST, ESM) for a whole host of reasons (range, all weather,accuracy and dependability). But active sensors suffer from the major disadvantage that they tend to give up the exact position of the vessel tthey are meant to prtotect. So how does one have the benefit of the active sensors while still not revealing ones position? The solution, as you are aware, is being used on the P-15A.

[Indian1973]

you mean the KA31 radar picket ?

[GDL]

Glenn,

It must be understood that Sirius, Sting EO etc are ideal for preventing an attack in the first place; but not the first choice when it comes to dealing with the attack if any should actually materialise. You will still need your improved search and fire control radars to deal with them - so it is not surprising that navies of the world are trying to improve them.

Agree, but for those that have not installed ISRT or similar systems for whatever reason have little choice but to rely purely on radar. But obviously an off-board radar would be ideal as not to give away the parent ship's position. As stated, the Ka-31 AEW would suffice, but so would a VTOL UAV.

LPI is a double edged sword. The incoming missile can use it too. Modern AShM's use LPI to fool ESM and PRH SAMs as well as fake disinterest in the chosen target. For example even after a missile has selected a target it continues to sweep the areas around it giving the target ship the impression that the missile has not yet locked on, and leaving the defender in a dilemma weather to engage it or go after another more pressing threat.

One would hope by then that you have a good radar tracking the missile and a highly agile short-ranged missile, or two, on the way to intercept it aided by another FCR. Obviously if you have the nightmare of multiple inbounds inside your radar horizon and in range of your SAMs and CIWS, ideally you would need the capability to track and engage all of them regardless of their perceived threat to your own ship. This may involve the use of several ships in co-operation, or a co-operative engagement capability (CEC). Is the Indian Navy working their way toward this kind of anti-missile defence capability?

[Indian1973]

does anyone outside of USN have this co-op engagement thing today ?

I believe SM2 launched from other ships can be handled by the
Aegis ?

read a report the UK was buying such tech from US under some
agreement. would be there in Type45s.

[GDL]

does anyone outside of USN have this co-op engagement thing today ?

The Japanese are looking to eventually employ it. Their new TAKANAMI class DDs will, if required, act as arsenal ships with SM-2s fitted to their Mk.41 VLS cells.

[Austin]

Is the Indian Navy working their way toward this kind of anti-missile defence capability?
Indian Navy is among the first amongst the defence services in India , to accept and work towards net-centric warfare capability ,so this co-operative engagement also is part of net centric capability , One can expect such capability in future IN ships.

[tuollaf43]

Hi,

you mean the KA31 radar picket ?

Indian1973,
Indeed. Though in reality the Ka-31RLD is only part of the larger solution.

As stated, the Ka-31 AEW would suffice, but so would a VTOL UAV.

Glenn,

VTOL UAV based HEW would be nice for smaller displacement combatants but seems unlikely in the near future as there is no credible VTUAV program that can provide performance comparable to that og the medium weight naval helicopters. This generation of ships will either have to make do with EH.101 HEW, Ka-31RLD, or potentially EV-22 AEW or else make do markedly with less capable UTAV solutions.

There is a clear decrease in capability when one moves from E-3 to E-2, thence onto EV-22(?) to EH.101 HAS/Ka-31RLD to Seamos. 'You gets what you pays for'.

One would hope by then that you have a good radar tracking the missile and a highly agile short-ranged missile, or two, on the way to intercept it aided by another FCR. Obviously if you have the nightmare of multiple inbounds inside your radar horizon and in range of your SAMs and CIWS, ideally you would need the capability to track and engage all of them regardless of their perceived threat to your own ship.

Ah, we come back to the pet peeve of mine about the P-15A. With its short and medium range missiles it can do little other than defend itself; or if the ships master is feeling a little noble and suicidal, interpose his ship between the missile and the more valuable target he is escorting. As you are aware range and Pk drops sharply when you attempt to engage crossing targets. All these P-15A ships will just defend themselves and be mute spectators to the destruction of other undefended ships in the vicinity.

This may involve the use of several ships in co-operation, or a co-operative engagement capability (CEC). Is the Indian Navy working their way toward this kind of anti-missile defence capability?

Frankly I dont expect to see this kind of capability anytime in the foreseeable future. For one this capability is extremely expensive to acquire - we will at best see some watered down desi version. Second, it is not clear to me if better improvements could not be made by investing in other deficient areas rather than CEC. IOW, I think other capabilites have higher priority than CEC for the IN at the moment. Third, looking at the force structures, threat scenarios and possible mission profiles will CEC actually deliver as much benefit to the IN as it does to the USN? I am unconvinced on this point.

To be sure we will hear a lot of noise about CEC, net-centric warfare etc from the navy and the retired mandarins. But I fear that this hot air will be unaccompanied by concrete steps to acquire and integrate such technology. Remember the much ado about the "Information Warfare" Squadrons of the IN? Remember how misleading it turned out to be?

[Indian1973]

so can a Aster30/SM2 really track and shoot down a MirageIII skimming at 200ft off the sea at distance greater than 40km (which I am taking as the LOS horizon from the height of radar on the mast) ?

thats what I'd like to know. I assume ASter30/SM2 will take a high flying slow mover like a P3 at say 80km away, but this guy only needs to flip his radar for a few minutes get a fix, pass on to Mirages flying low and get away from the scene.

If they cant shoot at sea skimmers over the LOS horizon how different are they vs the real threat when compared to the Shtils 40km ? (I know the aster15/30 is more manouverable than shtil)
then it would seem the real fight is within the last 40km and if you can control that space you can protect a cluster of ships in a SAG ?

latest LRMP/AEW a/c should be able to id a ship from 250km away and pass on firing co-ordinates to low flyers. This is well beyond the range of any naval SAM.

So the workable strategy seems to be
* have a carrier and have its fighters ready to shoot down
these slow movin spies at 350-400km away from the center
* have a high quality radar able to control atleast 16 missiles in any quadrant like say EMPAR ;)
* have a good high-G missile out to 50km
* have a good short range point-defence missile for the leakers backed by a bunch of rotary cannon
* have good decoys, ESM and ECM.
* have a AEW helo flying at 20KFT for advance OTD warning on low flying a/c. Ships can position and get extra minutes....fighters can be directed...
I dont think either SM2 or Aster30 competes with having
some organic fighter cover at hand. There's got to be a
carrier around to beat back serious threats.

[GDL]

VTOL UAV based HEW would be nice for smaller displacement combatants but seems unlikely in the near future as there is no credible VTUAV program that can provide performance comparable to that og the medium weight naval helicopters.

I was thinking of something a little bigger than the current programs like Eagle Eye or Fire Scout. Something matching the endurance and payload of a normal helo. For exmaple:The unmanned helicopter from Victory systems (http://www.victory-systems-uav.com/uavp-vtoluav.html)

[tuollaf43]

Indian1973,

Modern SAMs are primarily meant for anti-missile duties. Anti-aircraft capability is secondary (but still well covered because anti-missile work requires higher performance) because all aircraft are assumed to be armed with standoff weapons.

ARH/IIR/PRH missiles unlike SACLOS or SARH ones are theoretically not limited by the radar horizon.

To adequately cover a 50km radius around a ship you need a SAM with a nominal quoted max range of over three to four times that.

Shtil can enagage missile targets to very short ranges - about a fourth of the nominally quoted max range. The 40km max range is for a non-manevouring target flying at a medium altitude straight at the ship. For a high speed, low rcs crossing target the range will be very low single digits. i.e. Shtil is inadequate for defending other ships in the formation.

Area air defense capability cannot substitute for organic airpower. On the other hand, Organic airpower in its turn cannot substitute for fleet area air defense capability.

I was thinking of something a little bigger than the current programs like Eagle Eye or Fire Scout. Something matching the endurance and payload of a normal helo. For exmaple:The unmanned helicopter from Victory systems

Glenn,

Thanks for that link. I was unaware of the Victory UTUAV. But I am afraid that it is much to small to carry and power a reasonable AEW radar to a reasonable Range x Height x Endurance. I suppose we'll get there. Eventually.

[Indian1973]

ah I see...thanks! sounds like everyone in the flock needs kashtan or barak as a minimum starting point.

[tuollaf43]

India1973,

... or atleast a Slava, Burke or Horizon in the vicinity.

[Karna]

Hi,



To be sure we will hear a lot of noise about CEC, net-centric warfare etc from the navy and the retired mandarins. But I fear that this hot air will be unaccompanied by concrete steps to acquire and integrate such technology. Remember the much ado about the "Information Warfare" Squadrons of the IN? Remember how misleading it turned out to be?

Hi, its hardly misleading. The term IW can have many ramifications to it and in a sense of the word- the In dorniers are IW capable. They are equipped with the most capable Elint gear in the Indian inventory, with the possible exception of three IAF a/c. Given the later vintage of the former, its quite presumable that the Dorniers are at the top of the pack. Also the IN dorniers are capable of finding out and sensing information- never mind whether they do so via their search radar's, FLIR or Elint gear. Information is information- especially to the IAF and IN who use it to make it their EOB.

The words may have conjured images of online hacking etc- but in a real sense they arent far off.

And secondly the IN is working towards NCW- talk to the chaps who are involved in it. I know you do- perhaps you missed the latest?

[Wolverine]

IN and IA's netcentric doctrines are no big secret (with whatever they have revealed ofcourse)
both have extensive plans for integrated battlefields. AF is well ahead of the other two ofcourse with Phalcon and Tejas along with MKIs, UAV etc.

the IA is also moving ahead with talks about individual soldiers getting integrated. tit bits like Arjun and T90S are forming the backbone over here

the IN's newer ships like P15As and P17s can be expected to be integrated with the existing EW networks.

[tuollaf43]

The term IW can have many ramifications to it and in a sense of the word- the In dorniers are IW capable.
karna,

Why call it Information Warfare (thereby insinuating delightful possibilities) when the role the Dorniers play has been covered for decades under the prosaic Electronic Support Measures nomenclature?

Information warfare is commonly understood to be a step beyond electronic warfare (i.e. you manipulate and use to your advantage the *content* and not just the medium of transmission itself).


The words may have conjured images of online hacking etc- but in a real sense they arent far off.
I would be very grateful if you could amplify on that. I am unaware of any capability analogous to "online hacking" that the Dorniers possess.


And secondly the IN is working towards NCW-
This kind of talk by the navy is akin to putting the carriage before the horse. Talk of NCW when there is inadequate and deficient sensor coverage is - well you tell me what that is.


the IA is also moving ahead with talks about individual soldiers getting integrated.
Talk like this is exactly what torpedoes any credibility they have on this issue.

Either they have a VERY loose defination of NCW (akin to IW on Dorniers) or they are simply <somethingveryuncomplimentary>.

... existing EW networks

What are those?

[Karna]

karna,

Why call it Information Warfare (thereby insinuating delightful possibilities) when the role the Dorniers play has been covered for decades under the prosaic Electronic Support Measures nomenclature?

Information warfare is commonly understood to be a step beyond electronic warfare (i.e. you manipulate and use to your advantage the *content* and not just the medium of transmission itself).

They called it IW because they felt it was suitable for the role. Or do I need to look through the nomenclature the US uses and changes every now and then? Its contingent upon the watchers to be cogniscant of what the Navy can and cannot do- instead of despairing that the Navy promised them something which they cant do. As you admit- whether ESM or not- the term IW can cover the Dorniers role in the IN and thats that.
If I sound harsh- thats not my intention- what I do refer to is that we tend to get overexcited perhaps and then make errors of judgement. If the IAF refers to the MKI as an air dominance fighter- does that automatically make it equal to the other "air dominance fighter"- the F22? I think not. Context is important.( The CAS on one occasion faced a journalist who sternly queried him on why the MKI was not better than the F22. ) In the local context, the Dorniers are certainly IW and far better than what the Chinese or the PA can field. And in the local arena the MKI is certainly an ADF.


I would be very grateful if you could amplify on that. I am unaware of any capability analogous to "online hacking" that the Dorniers possess.

I am afraid you read more into my words than I meant- my apologies. To repeat- what they meant was EW, rather ESM not "online hacking".


This kind of talk by the navy is akin to putting the carriage before the horse. Talk of NCW when there is inadequate and deficient sensor coverage is - well you tell me what that is.

I am afraid that you will see this in every service ROUND the world. The Navy has to begin work on something today so that its ready by when it wants it. This stuff wont appear magically a decade from now. DRDO and WEESE worked on the bus architecture- which everyone is going rah rah over *now* from the mid 90's. At that time- why'd the Navy and DRDO-NPOL-BEL bother with the above? Heck at that time- our fleet strength was going to shambles, we didnt have any proper acq plan charted out. etc.
Sensor coverage will be remedied, but nor can we ignore the impact of concepts like NCW and hope to buy them off the shelf when it suits us.

Talk like this is exactly what torpedoes any credibility they have on this issue.

Either they have a VERY loose defination of NCW (akin to IW on Dorniers) or they are simply <somethingveryuncomplimentary>.

Their credibility is theirs alone. To be frank- you and I can only parse what they say and hope to glean information. And as far as nomenclature is concerned they have every right to befuddle us and send us wailing in despair- the same that the Yanks have or the French have etc.

And no- the IA is working towards its own land warrior program. The money is there, Indian industry- BEL/ECIL/Pvt sector/DRDO has matured with a range of abilities and they realise the importance of infantry. Kargi sparked off a modernisation- this is merely the next phase.

And yes, the Army is working on its own BMS akin to the US IVIS / French Finders-to make its appearance on the Arjun/T90S and perhaps the CI Ajeyas- if they can afford it.

What are those?

He is referring to Kalams appeal to network the Samyukta, Tempest and Sangraha projects to drive interoperability between the services.

[tuollaf43]

Karna,

I am afraid I do not feel as charitable or understanding as you are towards the navy's choice of nomenclature for the Dorniers. ESM, ELINT, RINT, SIGINT, COMINT etc are not US specific but is common use in the English speaking world, very notably within the common wealth. Particularly they are in routine use within the Indian military establishment. A new 'news maker' name was used for a service which has traditionally been provided under the ELINT taxonomy for ages. Dorniers can only do ESM with no particular contribution to op security, maskirovka, psyops or sensor hard and soft kill which form the larger spectrum of IW, let alone the more exotic logic bombs, virus attacks, spoofing etc. So while technically ELINT is part of IW, the usage of IW by the navy was coquettish in nature - it was a hype that was meant to tiltillate without any serious intention of satisfying the built up expectation.

By the way the ARC aircraft have been through the CATCH upgrade. The Dorniers may or may not be the premier intel platforms in the nation.

Point taken about the pioneering work by DRDO and the Navy. But the problem is that resources remain finite. The question is not if CEC is useful or desirable. The question is what else the navy will have to give up get NCW, and if so will it be worth it? I am yet to see a persuasive argument why NCW is so essential to the IN. Is a classical Cebrowski high performance sensor, command and engagement grid affordable? And even if it is affordable is it necessary? What capability would it provide that would otherwise not be available? What are your views?

To be frank- you and I can only parse what they say and hope to glean information. And as far as nomenclature is concerned they have every right to befuddle us and send us wailing in despair- the same that the Yanks have or the French have etc.
I differ here with you and quite vehemently too I am afraid. I pay hard money for the services these Forces provide. They dont do me (or you) any favors by doling out whimsical misleading bits or the occasional hyperbole. As a paying customer I have a right to honest, straight dope on where they are going. The only acceptable limitation on information released is if it compromises the service provided (i.e. operational security related).

He is referring to Kalams appeal to network the Samyukta, Tempest and Sangraha projects to drive interoperability between the services.

Facinating, albiet perplexing. What drives the need for interoperatibility between Samyukta, Tempest and Sangraha? Or in other words what criteria would an airborne, shipborne and vehicle borne ESM and Jammer have to satisfy to be considered interoperable?

And I havent the faintest idea how this tactical EW gear is relevant to India's NFU doctrine or how it would help prevent the entry of "special" warheads into India that Kalam was alleged to have talked about.

[Karna]

>>>>Facinating, albiet perplexing. What drives the need for interoperatibility between Samyukta, Tempest and Sangraha? Or in other words what criteria would an airborne, shipborne and vehicle borne ESM and Jammer have to satisfy to be considered interoperable?

And I havent the faintest idea how this tactical EW gear is relevant to India's NFU doctrine or how it would help prevent the entry of "special" warheads into India that Kalam was alleged to have talked about.


Pressed for time- so let me be quick. Kalam was referring to the need for interoperability- in other words- -the Navy should be able to access the IAF's ESM ability as and when required, and the Army's EOB could glean info from trhe Navy and so on. A composite info n/w. His vision of "jointness" I guess.

The rest I can speculate at- but Id rather not.

[Indian1973]

what is the CATCH upg ? does it apply to the ARC 707s or the
newer IAI Astra's as well ? what do these platforms do for a living - ESM, COMINT or both ?

(if the info is not open source I dont want to know)

[tuollaf43]

Hi,

Karna,

I see - what he was asking for was interoperability of the command net data flows for 'joint' exploitation, nothing per se with those systems themselves.

Indian1973,

I believe the CATCH applies to both the 707 and 737, though I do not know the details.

Regarding open source, how likely do you think that I am a RAS bureaucrat working for ETS or CMO? :)

[JonS]

And said that I consider the Kashtan more useful in saving deck space, as the the Klionk and Barak like wud have to dig itself on the deck where as the Kashtan unit can be placed on the superstructure of the ships there by freeing the deck space …….. but the likes of Klinok and Barak if place on height wud find reloading difficult (?)
kashtan is not saving deck space in fact one of the major drawback with kashtan was that it requires extensive deck penetration for storage of 24 missiles below deck. In other barak can be strapped onto anyvessel.

ARH/IIR/PRH missiles unlike SACLOS or SARH ones are theoretically not limited by the radar horizon.
no aster or any other arh or IIR homing missile like mica still have limitations of horizon because they require mid course guidance from the vessel.

[Blackcat]

Blackcat,

P16's are about two decades old - IIRC they dont carry 76mm, but 57mm I think.

Check out http://www.milparade.com/security/51/050101.htm for a comparision of modern naval guns.

Regarding spare engines: The real solution to tackling engine problems is not tacking an additional spare along. Redundant power plants, shafts/machinery and propulsor system are the way to go. Systematic maintanence, a sufficiently large and well trained crew to effect decent DC underway is quite helpful.

Regarding more Klubs on the Talwars: There is more to adding VLS than sticking them into a empty space. For instance it is possible that there were top weight limitations against more launchers.
Well I meant the P-16A or the Brahmaputra class and I even mentioned the INS Betwa (P-16A) which was commissioned just recently with that same 76mm SRGM .. and in case ur mentioning the 57mm Russian gun on the Godavari class, that I think again that’s superior to what the 76mm Italian gun offers –

The Italian one give 76mm punch at the rate of 65rds/minute to 8 kms while the Russian 57mm (twin gun mount) gives it’s punch @ 120rds/minute out to 8 kms … and definitely I’d like to have that 57mm twin mount with 120rds/minute rather than the 76mm 65rds/minute Italian one …

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Brahmaputra.html (Italian gun)
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Godavari.html (Russian gun)

and tks for the link that u posted, it was a nice one indeed . But I cud not find the gun that u mentioned or is that A-192M (E) the same one u mentioned?.. but the gun seems to lack in range compared to the 127mm Italian and American ones but got 2 km advantage over the next best in terms of engaging targets at altitude with the range tipping at 18kms and so does the ammo load and the firing rate , but want to see that range increased to atleast 30Km from its current 24km which looks very short.

Kashtan system’s missile is in the class of Barak with a range of 10 kms , and I'd like to take that - mean the addition of two AD systems is to supplement and agument the AD cover of the ships as such and not coz of the need to supplement each other coz of deficiencies as mentioned by you ....

Thats the problem! Two dissimilar missiles are needed for one distinct well defined missions - PDMS.
Of course not, its not the problem! Thats what i mentioned, - that its not the problem of these two that they both make it to the PAD role, which u considers as the Problem of the Kashtan and Klinok.

As I said earlier, I feel the Kashtan is the final last ditch and will only become ‘active’ only when the Klinok is either when the Klinok has expended itself repulsing a very massive raid or penetrated coz of the massive concentration . I think ur completely ignoring the fact that unlike the USN, Russian navy don have carries and fleets for dedicated missions and so they have been stuffing everything possible to defend itself for a massive raid on their capital ships, only on which will u get to see the combo of Klinok and Kashtan (if am not wrong). Which is almost like what Indian navy too has followed with, each ship more of a multi-role one meant to take its task independently or at least fight its way out by engaging the enemy or by the fact of mutual destruction to get out of trouble from an opposing group. And this case – ie multi-role - is more than true unless the navy mentioned has not got huge number of ships like the USN.

So their best was is to carry 8 supersonic missiles (which in anyway will penetrate) and carry whetever amount of AD missiles possible in the available space to stand up to an opposing task force when found in such a situation. And for the same reason I am very much disappointed that IN did not go in for the longer-range missiles or increasing the number of missiles on the Bangalore class

What advantages, if any, acure from having a gun and missile on the same mount. Sure they can save a bit of money by sharing the sensors and the FCS but anything other than that?
and u don think what u mentioned as an advantage even if it as considered by you as small??? ….

The advantage that it gives u is that with that unit, u can still have the gun and missile slaved on to the target that u intend to engage and still fire the missile in the first round and conserve that precious gun ammo for that very final DITCH if the first round missiles takes out the target(s). And even if unfortunately the missile don gets its shot, the gun will be there ready to open up any moment coz of being slaved which means that when the missile crosses the 10-5kms range, w/o any time loss what so ever the gun will open up, which might not be the case when two independent units are ‘watching’ the same target (s) and for the gun to open up when ‘realizing’ that the missiles have indeed been outmaneuvered or outsmarted.

Other missile systems (Barak, RAM, Sea Wolf etc) seem do the job of both Klinok AND Kortik. And a Goalkeeper, Phalanx, Millinieum or AK-630 can do the job of the AO-18KD. Which is simpler and cost effective?
and I think ur basing that coz of Klinok and Kashtan being employed for the same role on the same ships. And ofcourse cost effective is something in which u cant beat the Russians until the Ruble rise against the Dollars, until then there wont be any competition against the Russian cost-effectiveness and Ruble wont rise against the dollar until Russia has set the home turf in order, and for that fund from the international market is needed and the lower Ruble helps the Russians at this moment of time. But the ruble is still comparatively healthy @ nearly 30 Rubles per dollar than the pitiful 48Ruppee per dollar. But the same devalued Ruppee don give advantage to India as it gives advantage to Russia, coz they don have to pay any OIL BILLS to the tune of nearly $20 BILLION and in almost all thing that they need are homegrown or at lest they can produce with some funds and not like India where we need to import. And that the ‘Gain’ that India got after ‘Godly Advise’ in the 90’s, and I doubt any dumbs will ever understand that India as a nation was indeed LOOSING out coz of that ‘Godly Advice’.

Just curious, but if the Klinok/Kortik/AO-18KD combo is as great as you claim it is, then why is the IN so reticent about using it to protect its most precious ships - Viraat and the Vikramaditya? Surely neither cost not space is as much of a issue on these vessels.
and I wonder if Barak was so grr8 , then y IN so long waited for the indigenous Trishul and finally had to give up to the Isreali’s to have the barak. And ofcourse the up gradation of Viraat had its Israeli part too?? … and if someone is hell bend on ‘diversifying’ purchases coz of ‘diversification’, then nothing can be done. The original term lost its value long ago , coz that diversification came in coz of the problem that defence services faced in the early 90’s coz of the Soviet break-up. The ‘godly-advise’ that morons in Indian got from the American Business House to devalue the Rupee made sure that defence services did not get their spares and those bought were simply too costly cos the Indian RUPEE HAD NO VALUE! Not to mention the other social –economic problems that this created, just for an example, the MNC’s payscale was higher and the Govt paid jobs in ‘security’ institutions seems like peanuts, and many ditched it, but tks to tis that the probable MOLES was cleaned up, else the there wud have been many more $astards selling the nation for dollars.

If u say that space is not an issue on Viraat , I’ll agree, but I wont agree to that case on the Gorshkov coz every space on its is precious and I hope that is not wasted ‘digging in’ for missiles but I’d let the Brahmos as an exception, but no AD missiles on the deck.

[Blackcat]

AA mounts usually do not take up deck space because they are not mounted on the landing deck. I am not sure how deck penetration will compromise landing deck space??
Yup I know pal, but from the figures of the Gorshkov, u’ll notice that it had Klinok launchers next to its Island structure and just in the back of the elevator, and at both edges of the rear which took much space which can also be seen on the current Russian carrier Kuznetsov. see the pic of Gorshkov,

In the first one u will very vell know what that red marked area has got, and I want that to just have the 30mm guns and rest be extended for parking, so that more can be parked on deck.
- the blue marked area is where the current Klinok launchers are positioned and the only area (?) that most probably will accommodate the Brahmos (if its there), or maybe in the front like the carrier Kuznetsov

In the second pic U’ll get to see the yellow marked one is the area where the Kashtan will be placed after upgradation – two in numbers, and I want that to be increased to 4 in numbers with 2 each facing either sides like marked in Blue and that will give 128 missiles for point defence and 12,000 rds for 30mm metal screen which is in addition to the other 30mm guns.

In the thied pic the Klinok launchers near to the superstructure can be seen

[Blackcat]

JonS,
kashtan is not saving deck space in fact one of the major drawback with kashtan was that it requires extensive deck penetration for storage of 24 missiles below deck. In other barak can be strapped onto anyvessel.
I guess Kashtans are mounted on the superstructure and not on the deck as such sparing the 'digging' on the decks as can be sen from where all it has been installed, now that said i don intend to say that Barak is not a compact system either and If am not wrong on Destroyer INS Delhi , Barak is installed not on the decks but on the structure where the guns were placed either removing it or near to it, well not sure though.

And I think u r view and doubt abt the ‘short-comings’ of the Klinok is based on this post that u made, namely the ‘flipping’ of the missile from its vertical launch and the intercept energy
Ever wonder why Russian ships have BOTH klinok and kortik present?- both are short range SAMs with ranges of 9km and 15km respectively - surely one of the two should suffice? Well the fact is that the Klinok doest tip over from its vertical trajectory into the direction of the incoming missile quickly enough and is also a bit slower in gaining required intercept energy. This means that it is not responsive enough to engage missile that are very close to the ship (the raison d'etre of the CIWS).
U might have seen this pic in the earlier post, and I hope that wud have rest ur doubt abt the inability of the Klinok to flip to the direction needed. Actually when I first saw this pic , my concern was, will the missile smash on to the structure if the target happened to be from the front coz of its very low height flipping. But the pic beneath that put to rest that doubt temporarily coz that launchers are at the very extremes of the deck. But still I want some one to clarify if the Klinok goes still higher when catapulted (cold start) before firing its motors and flipping or not.

And here is an article from military parade, abt the Klinok AD system from the Chief Designer of AD Klinok Missile System.
http://www.milparade.com/1997/22/108.htm

[tuollaf43]

Blackcat,

Regarding 76mm vs 57mm there are many more relevant issues than max ROF and Range. Points to be considered are sustained ROF, ready load, ammo selection ability, mount weight and contribution to top weight, accuracy, reliability, availability, throw weight, shell weight, ammo quality and variety, associated fire control etc. The Italian guns are universally regarded as excellent weapons and are the standard against which similar weapons are compared. I doubt three dozen and counting navies purchased the super rapide because all of them had an 'Italian' connection.
The Italian one give 76mm punch at the rate of 65rds/minute to 8 kms while the Russian 57mm (twin gun mount) gives it’s punch @ 120rds/minute out to 8 kms … and definitely I’d like to have that 57mm twin mount with 120rds/minute rather than the 76mm 65rds/minute Italian one …
Well that would depend on what you intend to do with that gun wouldnt it? The 57mm *might* be superior to 76mm as AAA, but definately inferior for shore bombardment. There is no *right* answer...

BTW, the low ROF of the 57mm guns despite being of lower caliber suggests that they are technically quite inferior to the 76mm.

Regarding CIWS: At the end of the day Sea Wolf, RAM, Barak each do the job that requires a combination of klinok/Kortik. A Russian ship that missed with the klinok will follow up with a kortik, a western one will follow up a SeaWolf with another SeaWolf. Which is simpler?
I think ur completely ignoring the fact that unlike the USN, Russian navy don have carries and fleets for dedicated missions and so they have been stuffing everything possible to defend itself for a massive raid on their capital ships, only on which will u get to see the combo of Klinok and Kashtan (if am not wrong).
Unfortunately you are wrong in this particular instance. See Udaloy-2 destroyer and the Neustrashimy frigate. The constrait on fitting the Kashtan on russian warships seems to be primarily cost related.
Which is almost like what Indian navy too has followed with, each ship more of a multi-role one meant to take its task independently or at least fight its way out by engaging the enemy or by the fact of mutual destruction to get out of trouble from an opposing group.
Could you repeat that please?
And this case – ie multi-role - is more than true unless the navy mentioned has not got huge number of ships like the USN.
Actually in general USN ships are better equipped for multirole missions than are IN ships.
The advantage that it gives u is that with that unit, u can still have the gun and missile slaved on to the target that u intend to engage and still fire the missile in the first round and conserve that precious gun ammo for that very final DITCH if the first round missiles takes out the target(s).
Why do you have such a large number of missiles and CIWS? To deal with saturation attacks. A gun missile complex sharing the FCS will engage half the number of targets an independent PDMS and AAA will engage.
which might not be the case when two independent units are ‘watching’ the same target (s) and for the gun to open up when ‘realizing’ that the missiles have indeed been outmaneuvered or outsmarted.
I am afraid that you are incorrect again. While guidance and engagement control is done by local mount specific sensors and control systems - engagement prioritization and tasking is done by the ship's central combat management system (Shikari, Tavitac, Aegis etc).
...Ruble wont rise against the dollar...
The costs I am talking about are more than the mere monetary.
and I wonder if Barak was so grr8 , then y IN so long waited for the indigenous Trishul …
That would be because DRDO kept promising a comparable system to the IN 'in the immediate future' but failed to deliver it, repeatedly. Are you suggesting that the IN should not give preference to local produce?
If u say that space is not an issue on Viraat , I’ll agree, but I wont agree to that case on the Gorshkov coz every space on its is precious
The Viraat has a 29000 ton displacement. The Gorshkov's displacement is around 45000 tons.
and I hope that is not wasted ‘digging in’ for missiles but I’d let the Brahmos as an exception, but no AD missiles on the deck.
Putting Brahmos on the Vikramaditya seems to be quite a funny thing to do as we are paying mumble-hundred million dollars to the russians to throw away the existing missiles. And your suggestion that the carrier have to self defense system is quite revolutionary, but I suspect it will find no takers.

regarding missiles on Gorshkov: much of the design data and drawing available are conjectural. It is premature to critique weapon placement at this stage.

Space spent of PDMS is well spent, even if at the cost of some parking space.

Gorshkov will not carry the Brahmos. One can safety take that to the bank.
I guess Kashtans are mounted on the superstructure and not on the deck as such sparing the 'digging' on the decks
At significant cost in top weight.
U might have seen this pic in the earlier post, and I hope that wud have rest ur doubt abt the inability of the Klinok to flip to the direction needed
Flipping over is only a part of the trick, does it have sufficient energy to after flipping over to intercept a supersonic maneuvering target? Or does it need it need to accelerate for precious seconds till it builds up the requiste energy? The picture tells us nothing of that.
no aster or any other arh or IIR homing missile like mica still have limitations of horizon because they require mid course guidance from the vessel.
JonS,

No reason why the missile could not be directed to the horizon whereafter the missile acquires the hidden target with its own seeker. Case I have in mind is a OTHT helo tracking you by keeping itself around the horizon and popping below it for safety from SARH SAMs. ARH/PRH/IIR SAMs could be quite useful in that case.

[JonS]

No reason why the missile could not be directed to the horizon whereafter the missile acquires the hidden target with its own seeker. Case I have in mind is a OTHT helo tracking you by keeping itself around the horizon and popping below it for safety from SARH SAMs. ARH/PRH/IIR SAMs could be quite useful in that case.
No aster cannot be guided by any other platform rather than vessel that fires it just like SM-2 or any other missile that uses mid course guidance. In order to pull off what ur saying the AEW most be able to track the inbound target and pass it the data to the vessel for mid course gudiance of the missiles sounds simple but its impossible pull off because AEW must have continous link with ships in order to do that and airborne platform itself must have ability connect with all the friendly vessels that are in vicnity this means u need lot of power and will require it to fly it in hi altitude this means that platform needs to be large aircraft like E-3. USN has working on mechanism like that for a quite while.
Regarding CIWS: At the end of the day Sea Wolf, RAM, Barak each do the job that requires a combination of klinok/Kortik. A Russian ship that missed with the klinok will follow up with a kortik, a western one will follow up a SeaWolf with another SeaWolf. Which is simpler?
Problem with missile system such as sea wolf, barak and ram is that they have min intercept range is typically around 1km+ this usually is not major concern when dealing with 1 or 2 subsonic target were u have the chance to fire to off multiple missiles but against supersonic target or saturation attacks this is of major drawback. So gun system which has no min range is great assest. Thats one of the reasons why orders for RAM havent exactly sky rocketed and why USN is spending $$ on metal storm based CIWS.

Why do you have such a large number of missiles and CIWS? To deal with saturation attacks. A gun missile complex sharing the FCS will engage half the number of targets an independent PDMS and AAA will engage.
Each kashtan system can intercept 2 targets at the same time they have both radar and can utilize command guidance via TV.

[tuollaf43]

No aster cannot be guided by any other platform rather than vessel that fires it
JonS,

For the senario I suggested there is no need for another platform to guide the missile at all. I made no mention of any AEW.
Problem with missile system such as sea wolf, barak and ram is that they have min intercept range is typically around 1km+ this usually is not major concern when dealing with 1 or 2 subsonic target were u have the chance to fire to off multiple missiles but against supersonic target or saturation attacks this is of major drawback. So gun system which has no min range is great assest.
I am completely mistified by this argument that Kashtan is necessarily better because it also has a gun system. Why cant a ship that has Barak, Seawolf or RAM also have a gun??? You know like the Saar V has Barak and Phalanx. Sachsen with RAM and RM 20mm. Or Amatola with Umkhonto and the LIW 35mm. etc
Each kashtan system can intercept 2 targets at the same time they have both radar and can utilize command guidance via TV.
How many can Seawolf+Goalkeeper engage in the same time?

[Indian1973]

I think the point is Aster/SM2 are limited presently and forseeable future
to guidance by their launch platform which has a certain radar horizon say 40km LOS.

If inbound low flying a.c or ASMs below this horizon cannot be detected
by 3rd parties like AEW helos or E2 and speed, direction and height not
passed on to the launch ship, the ship itself cannot see and hence launch the Aster. It will be able to launch soon as its own radar sees the incoming.

even if the initial attack cords are passed to the ship and thence downloaded to the Aster INS , the incoming can change its dance and further updates will be needed to make sure when the seeker is turned on the missile is at the best point.

[JonS]

JonS For the senario I suggested there is no need for another platform to guide the missile at all. I made no mention of any AEW.,
dont understand what u are saying u cannot just blindly fire ARH missile at a target 30 km by the time missile gets there and enters terminal phase and turns on the seeker the target wont be there u need some sort of midcourse guidance to update the location of the target.

I am completely mistified by this argument that Kashtan is necessarily better because it also has a gun system. Why cant a ship that has Barak, Seawolf or RAM also have a gun??? You know like the Saar V has Barak and Phalanx. Sachsen with RAM and RM 20mm. Or Amatola with Umkhonto and the LIW 35mm. etc
the argument was over advantage of SAM+AAA like kashtan as opposed to just a single SAM based CIWS system.

How many can Seawolf+Goalkeeper engage in the same time?
goalkeeper as with all gun systems can intercept only 1 target at a time and sea wolf is 2 based on t-23 configuration.

[tuollaf43]

dont understand what u are saying u cannot just blindly fire ARH missile at a target 30 km by the time missile gets there and enters terminal phase and turns on the seeker the target wont be there u need some sort of midcourse guidance to update the location of the target.

JonS,

How far will an OTHT helo who is hanging around the horizon run?
the argument was over advantage of SAM+AAA like kashtan as opposed to just a single SAM based CIWS system.
No. The argument was over integrated Gun/Missile systems versus separately mounted and controlled gun and missile systems.

The other argument was also about the efficacy of two separate SAM systems for the single PDMS mission rather than a single missile solution.

goalkeeper as with all gun systems can intercept only 1 target at a time and sea wolf is 2 based on t-23 configuration.
So there is a 50% improvement right there.

[Indian1973]

I have a PDF copy of a detailed article on P17 from Naval Forces 6/2003 magazine. If any of you want to read it, send a PM to me with email address.

Due to copyright it cannot be posted here.

[Indian1973]

excerpts from a latest DefenceNews article (note sometimes their news is a bit dated)

Italian Company To Design India’s Third Carrier
By VIVEK RAGHUVANSHI, NEW DELHI


The Indian Navy’s aircraft carrier project, the Air Defense Ship (ADS),
has
taken a leap forward with the Defence Ministry’s award of a $30 million
contract to Fincantieri’s Naval Vessel Business Unit to help
prepareconcept,
design and implementation plans.

The Genoa, Italy-based firm also will build and integrate the
propulsion
systems for the vessel, a Navy official said.

The Defence Ministry also considered bids by DCN International, Paris, and Izar Construcciones Navales, Madrid.
.......
Many other parts, including the hull and the landing deck, will be
built by
Mumbai-based Larsen & Toubru, the official said.

........
Fincantieri’s design and construction of the Italian Navy’s Cavour
carrier
tipped the scales in favor of the Italian shipyard, the official said.

The ADS is expected to be of similar shape and weight, displacing
40,000
metric tons and measuring 57 meters wide and 252 meters long. Its top
speed
will be 32 knots. It will carry 1,200 sailors and 18 combat aircraft,
including Sea Harrier jump jets and MiG-29K fighters, and 10 Advanced
Light
Helicopters.
......
The vessel will be powered by four General Electric LM 2500 gas
turbines
built by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Bangalore.

....
The Navy in January signed a long-delayed deal with Russia to purchase
16
MiG-29K aircraft, worth $750 million, for the Admiral Gorshkov.

[Indian1973]

from the Fincantieri website the Cavour is as long but less wide
so its weight is much less.

Length overall 244.0 m
Length between perpendiculars 215.6 m
Breadth moulded 39.0 m
Full load displacement 27,100 tonnes
Flight deck 232.6 x 34.5 m
Hangar 134.2 x 21.0 m
H.T. steel hull and superstructures
Stability and buoyancy according to Italian Navy std.
NBC protection
Shock protection of vital equipment
Low underwater radiated noise signature control
Aviation facilities for fixed-wing aircraft AV-8B Harrier and JSF and helicopters EH101, AB212, NH 90, SH3D
GE/FIAT LM2500 Gas Turbines (COGAG)
Maximum Continuous Power 4 x 22 MW
Fincantieri Feathering C.P. propellers 2
Max. Sustained speed (85% MCR) 28 knots
Range at 16 knots 7,000 n.m.


AUXILIARY SYSTEMS


6 Generating sets Wartsila CW 12V200 2200 kW each

2 shaft Generators 2200 kW each

Primary power 660V - 50 Hz through passive distribution ring

2 Rudders

HVAC in all living and operational spaces

6 reverse osmosis desalinators (70 t/day each)

2 couples active-fin stabilizers

Bow and stern thruster

Stern and side ramp

2 aircraft lifts (forward and stb. Aft)

4 landing crafts (LCVP)



CREW


Flag Officers and VIP's 5
Ship's Complement 451
Amphibious Command Task Force 140
Aircrew 203
Troops 325 + 91
Total 1,210 + 91


COMBAT SYSTEM
Sensors:


1 2DA/Su Surveillance radar

1 3D Multifunctional radar

1 2D Long range surveillance radar

1 Navigation radar

Navigation/Metereological sensors

1 Navigation/mine avoidance sonar

1 ESM system

Anti-torpedo towed array sonar

2 Radar/EO Fire Control System

2 IFF Systems

1 IR survellaillance System



C3:


Command Management System

Navigation & Metoc System

Integrated Int./Ext. Comm System

Integrated EW System



Weapons:


2 short range defence system

3 secondary caliber guns

4 (8-cells) SAM Vertical launchers

2 ECM transmitter units

2 rockets and flares launchers

2 Anti Torpedo decoy launchers

[Indian1973]

from dailytimes.com.pk - more confirmation that fincantieri is it.

Indian Navy to get another aircraft carrier

WASHINGTON: An Italian shipbuilding company has signed two agreements with the Cochin Shipyard in India for the construction of a new aircraft carrier for the Indian Navy.

According to state-owned Fincantieri SpA, it will assess the Indian ship’s design and will be responsible for its “propulsion system integration,” while also supplying the engineering and design for the ship’s ancillary propulsion systems and main plants.

Unlisted Fincantieri did not disclose the details of the deal. India’s planned 38,000-tonne Air Defence Ship will be one of the largest aircraft carriers in service with conventional propulsion based on 4 GE LM 2500 gas turbines. khalid hasan

[Blackcat]

tuollaf43,

Yeah i do agree to what u said abt the artillery, but that Italian one was there in case of India which also got itself exposed in the bofors, how much anyone may try to distort the fact in the courts and others, there definitely was one black hand ... but i'd like to pus that gun to rest now

Regarding CIWS: At the end of the day Sea Wolf, RAM, Barak each do the job that requires a combination of klinok/Kortik. A Russian ship that missed with the klinok will follow up with a kortik, a western one will follow up a SeaWolf with another SeaWolf. Which is simpler?
Well I think ur still basing that coz the Russian ships have Klinok and Kashtan. In the case of IN’s new ships u can take that as Kashtan only, but with the added firepower of the guns too that comes with it still in terms of overall missile load (medium and short combined), I consider it to be small. As for the order that u mentioned, yes for u I simplified that in case the Klinok missed or expended itself – both of which are least likely considering the western AShM – the Kashtan will follow up with the gun still reserving itself. But I’m really surprised at ur conviction in the problems that u mentioned which first was the flipping and intercept energy and now taking the example that I made to put the reason behind the use of both, which was basically – as far as I cud get – to have the maximum AD load at their disposal in the time of crisis, coz of no carrier cover. Now u consider that as a definite miss with “ Russian ships will follow with a Kashtan, where as the western one will follow with another Seawolf” … that’s very insane, I sud say.

Unfortunately you are wrong in this particular instance. See Udaloy-2 destroyer and the Neustrashimy frigate. The constrait on fitting the Kashtan on russian warships seems to be primarily cost related.
So are u telling that Kashtan is too costly for the Russians??… but actually Kashtan is a new system and the reason y it did not find its way on the earlier ships, but wud definitely get them if the Russian navy goes in for major upgrades for improving its defensive systems. There was no Kashtan on the Gorshkov but Kashtan is the standard for their newer Corvettes, which are going to be their mainstay coz they found (?) it to be more suitable for making the under deck more utilizing. Again ur just basing ur opinion of urs coz the same ships carries both missiles. It can be coz of what I mentioned, that they wanted to have the maximum number of missiles for the self defence of the ships coz of which they carry whatever they have at their disposal considering the very fact that unlike the USN, they don have any carrier to come in for rescue of their capitol ships from an air-raid or from a group. So what they did was stuffed whatever they cud by digging the decks (Klinok) and when that was filled, made use of the available spaces on the superstructure for furthering the AD missiles in the form of another system (Kashtan).

This in turn (combo) gives them a very good AD missile load and Air defence capability and can depend on their missile load and that becomes a necessity if carriers are not there not to provide security. Here are some of the missile loads where the Klinok, Kashtan and the combo as such has found it’s way on the ships.

448 (192 Klinok + 256 Kashtan) x PADM on the Kuznetsov (and probably the largest that any ship carry);
320 (128 Klinok + 192 Kashtan) x PADM on the Kirov class (excluding the long range 96);
192 (192 Klinok) x PADM on Gorshkov (when it was in service);
128 (64 Klinok + 64 Kashtan) x PADM on the Udaloy-II class;
64 (64 Klinok) x PADM on Udaloy (and hopefully during upgrade if the capacity has to be increased, it will be with the addition of Kashtan, is what I believe);
96 (32 Klinok + 64 Kashtan) x PADM on Neustrashimyy and
96 (32 Klinok + 64 Kashtan) x PADM on Kosar (a modified version of the above)

And so do I consider the presence of these two-missile systems on Russian – capitol – ships as to augment their missile load to have enough at their disposal in the time of crisis. And that’s coz of the above-mentioned need to protect itself.

There is the pic of the Neustrashimyy class below, from that it can be seen how much actually there is available space on the deck for ‘digging’ except for the very small one in the front, where Klinok has anchored itself. And the only other ‘vacant’ space can be seen occupied by the Kashtan, not it wud be very insane if some one asked the Klinok too cud have installed there. But the fact is that these two systems have different kinds of reloading with - one fed from the deck and the other underneath the deck, the only similarity maybe that, the feeding guys may often be on the same level of the deck feeing these two.

[Blackcat]

Could you repeat that please?
I meant the show of ‘teeth’ by the destroyers to get out of trouble when engaged or in case such a scenario arise … and in most cases if the other person get that if he too will get hurt in the process, if not fall, then probably its wud be ‘minding ones own business’ …

Actually in general USN ships are better equipped for multirole missions than are IN ships.
yes I don have any doubt abt that , and that’s y I said the all the newer ships that’s being built and those already inducted are underutilized, coz the ‘limiting’ have been the tonnage, w/o even considering (?) how much more that design cud accommodate VLS. See for instance, the AB class of the USN and the Delhi class of IN, AB is much smaller than the Delhi but displaces like 3,000 tonn more than delhi, coz they know to utilize the max out of the available space. I do agree that the AB don have the kind of hanger and helo capacity that Delhi enjoys (which I consider as an invaluable standard) but taking a look ate the P-17 and Talwar will tell that the island on which the VLS has been based cuz have accommodated more if the island has been expanded, if the limiting one has not been the tonnage. And I want the Indian naval designers to come out of that mentality. Say for instance, I thing there can be stuffed 64 VLS (for the Klub family) in the front part of the ship taking the space of the AD missile too. Which means that with that kind of space, the smaller VLS meant for the AD missiles can be placed in that enlarged Island by replacing 32 VLS meant for Klub missiles. This can be divided like - 32 missiles (32 cell) of the Klub family and 64 missiles (smaller cells than that of Klub) of the Sa-n-11. I’m taking the quantity of the AD missiles to be double that of the Klub considering the sizes, though I may be wrong on both counts. But that’s my personal opinion based on my observations.

Why do you have such a large number of missiles and CIWS? To deal with saturation attacks. A gun missile complex sharing the FCS will engage half the number of targets an independent PDMS and AAA will engage.
now thats is not a fair question and i have answered it above..... and in short sentence, just coz carying extra always will come at hand in the hour of need .

Now the Gun-missile complex is a single unit and the other one are two different units. As I earlier pointed out the gun is ‘watching’ the same target at the same time as the missile is engaging them with the same brain and body and in the other case its two different body and brain. Also as Jon said, the minimum range of the missiles has its limits, which ever it maybe. But a gun always give the final hope! And I say its just insane to think that any missile wud give a 100% satisfaction and by saying that Russian system will always fail in tune with the well know Russian misfortune and western system just coz western will always be right don do well. After all the final lap of the engagement in case of the missile comes to the seeker and the maneuverability of the AD missile than anything else.

The costs I am talking about are more than the mere monetary.
yup and Russian system will cost less coz of the devalued Ruble coz they trade in dollars where by always having an edge. Where as if they have been trading in Rubles, there amount will be far less which will not help with profits which are badly needed for revitalizing their industries and that’s what exactly what Russia have been doing ever since the Boris Yeltsin learnt the hard lesson of believing the west for granted. Now the Israeli Barak cost like $700 + million for 7 systems?? …. If am not wrong …. So that makes it nearly $100million per piece of 1/3 of what a non-nuclear western submarine cost now. I don know how much the Kashtan cost, but I’ll guess it is less than that.

That would be because DRDO kept promising a comparable system to the IN 'in the immediate future' but failed to deliver it, repeatedly. Are you suggesting that the IN should not give preference to local produce?
Yup there was fault with DRDO, and I’d say they did not choose the partner right or did not really get anything from the collaboration coz , if am not wrong the teething problem was acquisition of the target than anything else, and for that a good seeker is what’s needed. And I’ve heard many Indian’s yelling at Russia and drooling abt the Isreali cooperation that they provided for the Trishul and that a Trishul-II is in the making etc etc, really forgetting the fact that, it was the western media that was as always beating up the failures of the Trishul, and I’ve not seen any company from Russia sprinkling salt on the wounds as was without the knowledge of the Israeli’s. But Trishul was spared the beating after finally the Barak was signed. Well am a big supported of the indigenous industry and system, but not like the guys who have been doing that just for keeping Russia out, but they prefer the western systems over the same Indian system they choose earlier and that’s pity.

The Viraat has a 29000 ton displacement. The Gorshkov's displacement is around 45000 tons.
but Viraat has got a small island and that’s not the case with Gorshkov where its Island is large and also not to the extremes of the deck coz of which precious space has been lost. If I’d my way, I’d have cleaned up that Island and rebuilt another one to the extremes of the deck --- but that’s not anyway gonna happen, so I hope the available deck is properly utilized.

Putting Brahmos on the Vikramaditya seems to be quite a funny thing to do as we are paying mumble-hundred million dollars to the russians to throw away the existing missiles. And your suggestion that the carrier have to self defense system is quite revolutionary, but I suspect it will find no takers.

regarding missiles on Gorshkov: much of the design data and drawing available are conjectural. It is premature to critique weapon placement at this stage.

Space spent of PDMS is well spent, even if at the cost of some parking space.

Gorshkov will not carry the Brahmos. One can safety take that to the bank.
Frankly I’d have liked to see it named as INS Gorshkov, as that Gorshkov has now become almost a household name in India, and also that person as such also had his contribution to the Indian Navy which many wud be there to argue against. Vikramaditya is the media created name coz they got to know that it wont be named Vikrant, so they choose a name which had some similarity to that. The Indian Navy don have the Tradition of naming their ships on any persons name – God spare that some day I might not have to hear INS Manmohan, Sonia or any other, but INS Subhash, Patel or any other wud be fine – Tthe only exception being the one named after the South Indian Admiral of the Fleet (Zamorian’s) who fought against the British. I don know if any ship has been named after the only other Admiral of the Fleet in the Indian history who fought sea-battles against the British - Maratha Admiral.

Well tks , if u really considerd that self-defence to be revolutionary, but I don see y that cant be done as , from the models displayed and figures that u se above the 2-Kashtan’s can be seen on that upgrade model. But u can be sure abt the Kashtan as it has been shown where it will be placed on the ship.

At significant cost in top weight.
but don u think that the top weight will relieve the lower decks and that 18 sqm of space can be utilized for maybe a few more days at sea ??

Flipping over is only a part of the trick, does it have sufficient energy to after flipping over to intercept a supersonic maneuvering target? Or does it need it need to accelerate for precious seconds till it builds up the requiste energy? The picture tells us nothing of that.
well I don know whats the energy the various missiles have, maybe after comparing that it wud be fine to judge the ‘lack’ of intercept energy. BTW, I guess no western navies has got any supersonic anti-ship missiles.

Yes from the picture the thing that I got is that the full concentration is to wards that side, as the rear artillery is also ready for action.

[Blackcat]

And guys have u concluded as to what the missile the VLS may have?? And pls clear my doubts abt all those missile designation am getting confused

I have a doubt, if the 9m317 (sa-n-12) that may be the one used on the P-15A?? or the same Sa-n-11 will be used. But do u guys think that if the Sa-n-11 is used in the VLS mode, it will get a booster like what the SM-3 has got ??? …. And if adding that booster will increase its range from the current 45 kms. But that said I guess the author of that article too has got confused with the missile and its range.

[JonS]

The other argument was also about the efficacy of two separate SAM systems for the single PDMS mission rather than a single missile solution.
thats bit redundant question the solution is pretty obvious a single AAA/SAM system is cheaper and takes up less space, better coordination between missile and AAA.

So there is a 50% improvement right there.
assuming u have 2 guidance radars for sea wolf and both the targets come in two different hemispheres.

JonS,

How far will an OTHT helo who is hanging around the horizon run?
what do u mean u mean how high helo needs to fly inorder to look over the horizon?

There was no Kashtan on the Gorshkov but Kashtan is the standard for their newer Corvettes, which are going to be their mainstay coz they found (?) it to be more suitable for making the under deck more utilizing.
The reason why the russians are fitting kashtan into the newer corvettes as their primiary air defense system its because its cheaper and is supposed to temporary armament. Russia reportedly wants yakhont missiles VLS to be fitted onto were the kashtan is and tor is likely to be fitted amidship along with 2 ak-630.

[tuollaf43]

but don u think that the top weight will relieve the lower decks and that 18 sqm of space can be utilized for maybe a few more days at sea ??
Blackcat,

oh, OK then, point taken. I'm way out of my league arguing with an seasoned naval expert like you anyway.
thats bit redundant question the solution is pretty obvious a single AAA/SAM system is cheaper and takes up less space, better coordination between missile and AAA.
JonS,

You dont seem to gave got my last sentence. I repeat "The other argument was also about the efficacy of two separate SAM systems for the single PDMS mission rather than a single missile solution."

As you can see from my previous posts I am unconvinced that a combination gun/missile on a single mount is a ideal solution.

I am unable to fanthom why having a single AAA/SAM system allows for better coordination between missile and AAA?
assuming u have 2 guidance radars for sea wolf and both the targets come in two different hemispheres.
Obviously. To make sure you are comparing apples to apples you would have to compare similar missile systems. For example, I could argue engagement capability with VL Mica or RAM which is only limited by launch rate and mount swivel rate (for the latter), but that would hardly be fair would it? Select any SAM and AAA - see what works better seperate SAM and seperate AAA mounts or a gun/missile combo. My contention is that the first is a superior solution and latter is inherently less capable although cheaper as it shares sensors.
what do u mean u mean how high helo needs to fly inorder to look over the horizon?
No, I mean a shadowing helo cant run and hide behind the horizon (as in the case when SARH missiles are fired at it). A ARH/IIR missile can be guided to the horizon behind which the OTHT helo is taking cover. Since these weapons are capable of lock after launch and have a good seeker range, they will be in position to acquire the helo.

[GDL]

And guys have u concluded as to what the missile the VLS may have?? And pls clear my doubts abt all those missile designation am getting confused

I have a doubt, if the 9m317 (sa-n-12) that may be the one used on the P-15A?? or the same Sa-n-11 will be used. But do u guys think that if the Sa-n-11 is used in the VLS mode, it will get a booster like what the SM-3 has got ??? …. And if adding that booster will increase its range from the current 45 kms. But that said I guess the author of that article too has got confused with the missile and its range.

Blackcat,

From the article:

7 ) For Area Air defence Russias Altair Naval Radio Electronics Scientific Research Institute has developed VERTICAL LAUNCHED (VLS) of its well proven ****il-1 system, The new suite for P-15A DDG will comprise four 12 misssile SUB-DECK CELLULAR LAUNCHERS, with two launchers each being mounted fore and aft of the vessel , The 9M38M1 Cashmere SAM, is armed with 70kg HE warhead, has max speed of Mach-3(830 m/s) and can manoeure up to 20g, The missile can handle airborne targets travelling at 420 to 830 m/s, The reaction time is 16-19 seconds and kill percentage is 81 to 96 precent for a two missile salvo, Engagement range against Aircraft are 3 to 32 Km with altitudes from 15 metres to 15 Km, Ranges against incoming ASCM are 3.5 km to 12 km with altitudes from 10 metres to 10km.

8 ) For CIWS each DDG will be equipped with 2 Kashtan-M combined gun/missile system, Eack Kashtan-M comprises eight 9M311-1ME SAMs with jettiisonable boosters and two 30mm AO-18KD six barrel gatling gun with a combined rate of fire of 10,000 rounds per minute. Each system will store 28 SAMS and 1,000 rounds of 30mm rounds in an under-deck room directly under the combat module. The 9M311-1ME SAM can engage sea skimming targets between an envelope of 1.5Km and 10Km, while gun can engage targets between 500 metres and 4 km, ,FC is provided by both radar as well as an optronic Tracker/illuminator.

The Russian SA-N-11 Grison is the basic navalised 9M311 missile. The 9M311-1ME is I would assume a slightly improved version, possibly with better range. Perhaps based on the improved 57E6-E missile which is used by the Pantsir-S1. I am not 100% sure. I don't think this missile will be used in the VLS module.

The article states the use of 9M38M1 in the VLS, and this at first got me confused too. However, the guys here state that it will be the 9M317, and NOT the 9M38 used on the P15A. The 9M38 family is SA-N-7 Gadfly, or the navalised SA-11. While the 9M317 is the SA-N-12 Grizzly, or the navalised SA-17.

Another question. Will this VLS be a cold launch or hot launch type?

[Indian1973]

all RU systems have been cold launch so far. even the
gigantic 48t Topol-M system.

[JonS]

The Russian SA-N-11 Grison is the basic navalised 9M311 missile. The 9M311-1ME is I would assume a slightly improved version, possibly with better range. Perhaps based on the improved 57E6-E missile which is used by the Pantsir-S1. I am not 100% sure. I don't think this missile will be used in the VLS module.
9M311-1ME is the 10 km ranged variant of 9M311 missile its part of the upgraded kashtan-m1 system, the same missile is used in tunguska-m1. I believe the russian corvette under construction will be first vessel to be fitted with it. Anyway blackcat was probably referring to SA-11/17 not SA-N-11 when he was talking about vls.


The article states the use of 9M38M1 in the VLS, and this at first got me confused too. However, the guys here state that it will be the 9M317, and NOT the 9M38 used on the P15A. The 9M38 family is SA-N-7 Gadfly, or the navalised SA-11. While the 9M317 is the SA-N-12 Grizzly, or the navalised SA-17.
they probably got the missile designations confused.
I am unable to fanthom why having a single AAA/SAM system allows for better coordination between missile and AAA?
because CIWS systems operate autonomously when there is multiple inbound targets the missile system and AAA could be engaging the same target.

see what works better seperate SAM and seperate AAA mounts or a gun/missile combo
u cant compare a vessel equipped with single CIWS system like goalkeeper and a SAM system like RAM with a single kashtan for starters their total cost and deck space is equivalent to two kashtans and u can fit in two of those in their place. In that case the latter is far superior.

[Indian1973]

The third Russian-made stealth warship "INS Tabar" was inducted into the Indian Navy on Saturday, thereby completing the trilogy of missile-capable frigates for the force.

[Indian1973]

I wonder wtf this is about ? must be for the 3 new LSTs ordered.

CAE's marine division signs contracts worth $19 million

MONTREAL, Aug. 2 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ - (NYSE: CGT; TSX: CAE) - CAE has
signed new contracts to provide integrated bridge systems (IBSs) for the
United Arab Emirates' Baynunah-class corvettes, and a land-based test facility
for the German navy's F-124-class frigates.
CAE has also signed a contract amendment for the Indian navy's landing ship program and finalized the contract for the German navy's K130 corvette program.

[Austin]

I wonder wtf this is about ? must be for the 3 new LSTs ordered.
Hi dude , this is Indeed for the 3 new 5,700 tons Landing Ships tanks (LST) to be built by GRSE . On another note the new CNS has recently said in a press interview carried by "The Free Press Journal" Mumbai edition , that the IN is also buying new hovercraft for a amphibious force being raised , Some time back there was talk about the Russian Murena (http://www.almaz.info/12061e.htm) hovercraft being looked by the navy for the amphibious force , are any other westen hovercraft being looked into , recently the Indian coast guard commisioned 6
Griffon (http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Hovercraft.html) , are any other western or Russian craft being looked in to besides what has been mentioned above