This is the plan for future. Most of the new generation ships can be modified to carry Nirbhay missile also.
Kolkata-class and Visakhapatnam-class Destroyers: News & Discussions
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
What about the anti ship missile on 52D? Nothing so powerfull than 16 Brahmos ! for sure.
No warships in the world has more than 16 anti ship missiles to day (I'm quite sure of that).
And Brahmos is very powerfull. Even it the warhead don't detonate, the kinetic energy and the rest of fuel make a lot of dammage.
The Chinese love doing things which no one has attempted before .That's got them this far . That's also the reason why they'd miscalculate. Let's hope not at the world's cost but their own .
Last edited:
Brahmos is p-800 Oniks missile. It is not war proven but so are many other modern missiles. Fighting against boats of Iraqi army is not proof enough for anything. Brahmos is a deadly missile with sea skimming ability of 5m above sea level. However, at this sea skimming path, flight range is only 150-200km. That makes the missile heavier.
A longer range cruise missile would be a preferable alternative. 32 Nirbhay cruise missile and 16 Brahmos with some extra missiles for reload would be the best weapons configuration. Most of our enemy ships are not well guarded with air defence and hence less deadly cruise missiles like Nirbhay should be able to get the job done. Also, these cruise missiles can be used to target enemy ports and harbour to destroy logistics.
There is no reason to say 16 missiles are enough. I would like to see a ship with 20% of its weight made up only by missile system (including SAM, radar etc)
USN, the only 1st rank navy of the world only put 8 ASM on its cruisers and destroyers. I think they have a lot of good reasons for.
I want at least 32 brahmos on kolkata....
and it really needs more Air defence missiles like Barack ER to be feared and respected....something close to 64 would be good.
and it really needs more Air defence missiles like Barack ER to be feared and respected....something close to 64 would be good.
10 or 11 carriers. It's a lot. But not all at sea at the same moment. And a carrier is only effective 600 to 800km around it.
So any US destroyer may have to face a sea-sea combat. When you see they are able to put 90 +/- SAM, your really can imagine 8 more ASM missile is not an issue for them. But they decided to stay to 8.
USA has a SAM system which also can be used as anti ship missile. Read about RIM-174 ERAM.
RIM-174 Standard ERAM - Wikipedia
This is why USA does not need to have dedicated Antiship missile.
India needs dedicated anti-ship missile as its SAM is not convertible. Brahmos and Nirbhay are both needed. 16 Brahmos and 32 Nirbhay missile VLS would be best bet with another 16 and 32 reloads. nirbhay has much longer range at lower weight and hence is more apt to be placed in larger numbers
indeed. I don't know SM6 have a secondary anti ship role. Thanks for the news.
16 ASCMs are enough. That's already twice as many as comparable DDGs like Type-45 carry.
More SAMs are a possibility for a future upgrade (there is space). But it needs to be remembered that Kolk is not an AAW destroyer, Anti-Air Warfare is not it's principle focus.
The reason why AEGIS ships or new Chinese DDGs have more missiles is because they developed Universal VLS system and made a 'VLS Farm' type arrangement fore and aft of the ship. This means any and all types of missiles the ship carries (ASCM, LACM, LRSAM, SRSAM, ASROC etc.) can be put in any VLS cell. One size fits all - so they can configure the loadout as per mission needs (trade in SAMs for more ASCMs in a surface warfare requirement, or the reverse for AAW role).
But on our ships this is not possible. We have UVLM that can handle any type of Russian-origin ASCM (BrahMos, Klub or otherwise) but our SAM suites are of Israeli origin. We can't put our ASCMs in cells meant for our SAMs, and vice versa.
It's believed the next DDG project after Vizag-class is going to be the NGD (as of now unofficially called Project-18), and that destroyer will have emphasis on land-attack capability. So expect at least 32 dedicated strike length cells for Nirbhay LACMs. That's in addition to the usual 16 ASCM cells - which by the time the NGD makes its appearance are likely to have a Scramjet-based Hypersonic ASCM.
That's a total of 46 strike-length cells....and with a projected displacement of 13,000 tons the NGD-class is pretty much a cruiser.
Regarding the number of NGD/NGF given as 5-10....
This is not including the P-17A right? That is already under construction and 7 are being built so the minimum figure of 5 doesn't make sense anyway.
So this means IN wants 5-10 NG surface combatants....NOT INCLUDING P-15B and P-17A. We are aware of the existence of NGD project. But have not heard anything about NGF. I wonder how the numbers will be split. If we're going for 10 ships, I wonder if again they will be divided into 7 FFGs and 3 DDGs.
Although I'd like to have more DDGs now, it must be remembered that the NGD is projected to be a 13,000-ton ship, nearly same size as DDG-1000 Zumwalt. Even 3 of them would be a game changer.
@randomradio @vstol Jockey Anything on an NGF ?
Expected life and approximate quantity.
Yes, this will be post-2025.
This number doesn't make sense because if you take our intake of FFGs + DDGs in last two decades. They should be adding 20-25 new ships in next batch, not 5-10.
So, 2025+ = 8 NGD + 12 NGF (P17B) + 4-5 Talwar follow-on (4k ton) = 25
My guess, Projected numbers are based on plans outlined in the 90s and its a constraint now. (Just like 24 SSK number of plan-2030)
It is unwise to have same VLS for SAM and ASCM. Indian SAM is light-weight and sleek. It needs very little space. Brahmos on the other hand is heavy and bulky. It is better to have separate SAM and ASCM launchers to save space.
SAM is a major requirement as a ship can be more easily taken out from an incoming missile or plane than any other means. So, irrespective of whether it is anti-air ship, SAM must be a priority.
Regarding ASCM, the whole point of having a destroyer is to destroy enemy ships. If the number of ASCM is limited to 16, it defeats the purpose of destroyer. So, more ASCM are needed. However, not all of them needs to be Brahmos. Nirbhay cruise missile is also a good enough missile for most of the smaller ships and gun boats.
SAM is a major requirement as a ship can be more easily taken out from an incoming missile or plane than any other means. So, irrespective of whether it is anti-air ship, SAM must be a priority.
Regarding ASCM, the whole point of having a destroyer is to destroy enemy ships. If the number of ASCM is limited to 16, it defeats the purpose of destroyer. So, more ASCM are needed. However, not all of them needs to be Brahmos. Nirbhay cruise missile is also a good enough missile for most of the smaller ships and gun boats.
I want to share your optimism. But then it will have to apply to Kolkatas, Shivaliks and Kamortas too as all of them seem quite lightly armed for their size.
It's not unwise - that's the way both USN and PLAN work. That's a very smart way to accommodate ship's missile systems. The reason why IN can't do the same is not because we wouldn't want to but because we can't!
For India this can't work because our SAM cells are designed for accommodation of Israeli-origin missiles and our strike-length UVLM cells are designed to accommodate Russian-origin anti-ship/land-attack missiles.
Russians & Israelis have no obligation to design their missiles in such a way that they fit into the VLS cells designed by the other party. But US and China use locally-designed missile systems, hence they are able to make missiles that fit into a larger infrastructural domain that underlines commonality and near-infinite flexibility & adaptability.
How universal VLS like Mk.41 works is that a cell capable of storing 1 big missile can accommodate 2 or upto 4 smaller missiles. This is quad-packing. If dealing with a small SRSAM like Sea Sparrow ESSM, you can put 4 missiles in a single VLS cell.
And again, the reason why we have separate cells is not because we wanted it that way, but because we couldn't have it any other way.
No, the point of your destroyer is determined by your naval doctrine. If your destroyer's focus is AAW (protecting Carrier Battle Group from enemy air & missile attacks) you may not be bothered even if your destroyer has very limited (or none at all) long range anti-ship capability.
The Royal Navy's Type-45 DDG is an example. I think most of them don't even carry a single ASCM and even when they do, they are designed to accommodate only 8 Harpoons.
Nonsense. For a ship without universal VLS, 16 is very very good number.
Daring-class (UK)
Horizon-class (France)
Orizzonte-class (Italy)
Baden Wurttemburg-class (Germany)
Type-052C (China)
Alvaro De Bazan-class (Spain)
Fridtjof Nansen-class (Norway)
^^ All those have only 8 ASCMs. In surface warfare, the Kolk beats them all hands down, just with what it has now. Remember China only afforded the ability to have larger number of ASCMs only once they installed UVLS on their Type-052D. Before that, 8 ASCMs was standard fit for any PLAN main surface combatant including DDGs and FFGs.
In comparison IN had 16 ASCM package on DDGs designed in 90s like Delhi-class. Heck, we put 16 ASCMs on a farking Corvette (Kora-class)!
IN already has more than enough love of ASCMs. What we need now are more SAMs.
Across the Navy? Sure. We will have both BrahMos and at least 1 other type of smaller ASCM which might or might not be subsonic for the smaller ships.
But more than 1 type of ASCM on a single ship? That's probably not gonna happen - here or in any other country*
* Not including SAMs or otherwise re-purposed missiles used to attack ships.
1200km LACMs on gun boats and corvettes?
1200km LACMs on gun boats and corvettes?
Small ships are pretty nifty. The Russians have as many as 8 Kalibrs on their 1000T corvettes. And those Kalibrs are known to go up to 2500Km.