Shivalik-class & Nilgiri-class (Project 17 A/B) Frigates : Discussions

[Gautam]

Rails i think is ok - as long its a flush deck

Even that as shown would be great. But that's not what were are getting. We are getting rails from the fore superstructure to the tip of the front end. Why not just use a NATO like system ? Using safety lines for seamen on the deck and no rails.

1) Of course the redesign of the Mid Section - must admit a flush profile with integrated RHIB Bay would be better - Still we do see large Doors in this section - what would they be?

533 mm Torpedo tubes ?

From Wiki - we are seeing 32Cell barak 2 - 16 ahead and 16 mid section

Barak 8, you mean ? About the recently announced VL-Astra. I wonder which ship would be the first to get it.

 

[Abingdonboy]

On the whole VERY impressive stuff regarding P17A

+ block construction across multiple sites across India. Massively expedites construction as well as reducing the number of single points of failure. This is exactly who the QE class was built by BAE. Hopefully this is the way all future large IN vessels are constructed
+ multiple yards (GRSE and MDL) again much of the benefits above, need to see a lot more of this kind of foreword thinking. Would’ve been nice if instead of needles Talwar deal they’d just given GSL the contract for 3-4 additional P17As. 10-11 of these beasts would be an awesome capability


I’m only a bit disappointed by the fact that it seems as though the IN has designed the P17A to have only 1 hanger which is a huge hinderance for ASW ops which is a big part of this ship’s role. Traditionally all large vessels of the IN have had 2 hangers even this class’s predecessor- the P17!

Also given the emerging threat environment, 32 SAMS seems on the low side.

 

[randomradio]

Barak 8, you mean ? About the recently announced VL-Astra. I wonder which ship would be the first to get it.

My money's on the Kamorta class.

 

[Abingdonboy]

My money's on the Kamorta class.

Can they wait that long? Right now IN is running a competition to get foreign SRSAM/point defence missiles on that class. VL-Astra is at least 3-5 years away.

 

[Ashwin]

Rails i think is ok - as long its a flush deck
View attachment 10108
Daring Class

@Ashwin @ni8mare

If this design is final product - we can see a number of changes to the original P17

1) Of course the redesign of the Mid Section - must admit a flush profile with integrated RHIB Bay would be better - Still we do see large Doors in this section - what would they be?
2) From Wiki - we are seeing 32Cell barak 2 - 16 ahead and 16 mid section
3) Position of the AK630 has move towards the rear of the Hanger ( previously mid section as seen on P17)
4) Single Hanger Door - must to accommodate the AK630 . Does this mean we shall see only single helicopter that this class can carry?
5) Flush desk

• Removal of the RHIB bay (wtf!)
• Single hanger
• Less number of SAMs ? (32 X Barak 1 + 24 Shtil-1) to 32 Barak 8
• Forward VLS cells are not elevated
• 3D radar will be Indra LANZA Tata Power SED
• MFSTAR Gopuram

 

[Gautam]

My money's on the Kamorta class.

Didn't Livefist recently tweet about the MBDA sea captor and some South Korean AD contest for the Kamorta's AD ?

 

[GuardianRED]

Even that as shown would be great. But that's not what were are getting. We are getting rails from the fore superstructure to the tip of the front end. Why not just use a NATO like system ? Using safety lines for seamen on the deck and no rails.

533 mm Torpedo tubes ?

Barak 8, you mean ? About the recently announced VL-Astra. I wonder which ship would be the first to get it.

Sorry My bad Barak 8

Regarding Torpedo Tubes - possible.

Heck we still dont have any visual confirmation of this tubes on the Original P17

 

[GuardianRED]

• Removal of the RHIB bay (wtf!)
• Single hanger
• Less number of SAMs ? (32 X Barak 1 + 24 Shtil-1) to 32 Barak 8
• Forward VLS cells are not elevated
• 3D radar will be Indra LANZA Tata Power SED
• MFSTAR Gopuram

This will help

 

[Ashwin]

My money's on the Kamorta class.

IN showed a requirement for 15 systems. Four of them to be imported. Thus imported for Kamorta.

 

[Parthu]

Heck we still dont have any visual confirmation of this tubes on the Original P17

There aren't any.

 

[randomradio]

Can they wait that long? Right now IN is running a competition to get foreign SRSAM/point defence missiles on that class. VL-Astra is at least 3-5 years away.

Welcome back.

And yeah, I would like to correct myself. IN plans to import 4 systems, and that's gonna go on the Kamorta class. So the VL-Astra will likely end up on all the NGMVs and NGCs instead.

Didn't Livefist recently tweet about the MBDA sea captor and some South Korean AD contest for the Kamorta's AD ?

IN showed a requirement for 15 systems. Four of them to be imported. Thus imported for Kamorta.

^^^

Yep. Forgot about the imports.

 

[Austerlitz]

Biggest complaint is again 32 barak 8 cells.Needs to be double that.Again huge spaces left and deckspace wastage on RBU.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Biggest complaint is again 32 barak 8 cells.Needs to be double that.Again huge spaces left and deckspace wastage on RBU.

Indeed. It’s true that FREMMs have similar SAM numbers but given the emerging threat of swarm tech 32 is woefully inadequate. LRSAM might be gold plated tech but if you don’t have enough then it’s as pointless as sticking to the current arm-launchers on P17.

 

[Austerlitz]

Indeed. It’s true that FREMMs have similar SAM numbers but given the emerging threat of swarm tech 32 is woefully inadequate. LRSAM might be gold plated tech but if you don’t have Don’t have enough then it’s as pointless as sticking to the current arm-launchers on P17.

Sad thing is even after armament being reduced to 8 brahmos and 1 helo ,still sam contingent wasnt improved.
Admiral gorshkov class can manage 16-24 brahmos/oniks/kalibr plus 32 SAM at just 4500 tonnage and we cant get 16 missiles OR 48-64 SAMs for 6500 tonnes.Highly frustrating situation.

 

[randomradio]

Indeed. It’s true that FREMMs have similar SAM numbers but given the emerging threat of swarm tech 32 is woefully inadequate. LRSAM might be gold plated tech but if you don’t have Don’t have enough then it’s as pointless as sticking to the current arm-launchers on P17.

32 SAMs are more than enough. An opportunity to use more may not even come.

And DEW will come up over the next few years. Missiles won't be particularly useful against swarm drones.

 

[randomradio]

Sad thing is even after armament being reduced to 8 brahmos and 1 helo ,still sam contingent wasnt improved.
Admiral gorshkov class can manage 16-24 brahmos/oniks/kalibr plus 32 SAM at just 4500 tonnage and we cant get 16 missiles OR 48-64 SAMs for 6500 tonnes.Highly frustrating situation.

All thanks to that massive RBU-6000. It's time for it to go.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Sad thing is even after armament being reduced to 8 brahmos and 1 helo ,still sam contingent wasnt improved.
Admiral gorshkov class can manage 16-24 brahmos/oniks/kalibr plus 32 SAM at just 4500 tonnage and we cant get 16 missiles OR 48-64 SAMs for 6500 tonnes.Highly frustrating situation.

The more I think about it the more the single hanger makes no sense and if it is the case then the Navy has made an inexcusable mistake.

- predecessor class with near identical profile and less automation has 2 hangers
- for ASW helos are essential, having only 1 means that if the sole helo goes u/s that’s the entire ship out of the fight and also that 1 helo will be unable to maintain sufficient time on station to allow complete coverage
- in the certain near future VTOL UAS are going to become standard complement on naval vessels, the navy has already made their billion dollar state of the art future frigates outdated with the ability to only house a single helo or UAS.

My only thought to redeem them could be that whilst there’s a single door the hanger is designed for 2 aircraft and that there is a rail that can guide aircraft from the landing pad to either side of the hanger.

If this isn’t the case than the designers and navy officers in charge deserve to be shot. Even the IN’s ASW corvettes have 2 hangers ffs!


The comparison I can make is the T45s of the Royal Navy. At 8,700tons they are ever so larger than P17As and they too have reverted back to a single hanger but it is a single large hanger that can house 1 EH101 or 2 Wildcats (roughly ALH class). So it seems to me the P17As will be able to house 1 Sea king/NMRH OR 2 ALH/NUH, possibly 1 Sea King/NMRH and a UAS.

It certainly looks like the IN has thrown away the chance to be able to house 2 NMRH but maybe they figured this wasn’t ever going to be a operational requirement.

Seems like a step backwards but there’s surely some logic behind it.

 

[Abingdonboy]

32 SAMs are more than enough. An opportunity to use more may not even come.

And DEW will come up over the next few years. Missiles won't be particularly useful against swarm drones.

Given that the standard SOP is to fire 2 SAMs at each target in a real world engagement it seems like it would be pretty easy to overwhelm a P17A with even a modest amount of opposing hardware/electronic spoofing. Whist tbe MFSTAR can track up to 100 targets, the ship can only ever engage very few. This wouldn’t be such a problem for the navy if their destroyers didn’t have the exact same armaments and hence limitations. Outfitting the P15A/B almost identically made sense from a economic perspective but the navy has made the cardinal mistake of putting all their eggs in one basket. They desperately need to move on to bigger destroyers that are more focused on anti-air. The P18s should have a minimum of 64 SAMs but ideally 72++.

As for DEW, any indication P17As are even planned to get such weapons?

 

[randomradio]

Given that the standard SOP is to fire 2 SAMs at each target in a real world engagement it seems like it would be pretty easy to overwhelm a P17A with even a modest amount of opposing hardware/electronic spoofing. Whist tbe MFSTAR can track up to 100 targets, the ship can only ever engage very few. This wouldn’t be such a problem for the navy if their destroyers didn’t have the exact same armaments and hence limitations. Outfitting the P15A/B almost identically made sense from a economic perspective but the navy has made the cardinal mistake of putting all their eggs in one basket. They desperately need to move on to bigger destroyers that are more focused on anti-air. The P18s should have a minimum of 64 SAMs but ideally 72++.

As for DEW, any indication P17As are even planned to get such weapons?

The P-15 and P-17 are not dedicated AAW destroyers. The SAM complement is only for self protection. So 32 SAMs are more than adequate. Whether IN is looking for dedicated AAW destroyers, I do not know.

As for DEW, we are working towards those technologies. It will become public knowledge only once testing begins. But it won't be a stretch to suggest all the MF-STAR equipped ships can also get an Israeli laser. Like the Iron Beam for example.

 

[Parthu]

The more I think about it the more the single hanger makes no sense and if it is the case then the Navy has made an inexcusable mistake.

- predecessor class with near identical profile and less automation has 2 hangers
- for ASW helos are essential, having only 1 means that if the sole helo goes u/s that’s the entire ship out of the fight and also that 1 helo will be unable to maintain sufficient time on station to allow complete coverage
- in the certain near future VTOL UAS are going to become standard complement on naval vessels, the navy has already made their billion dollar state of the art future frigates outdated with the ability to only house a single helo or UAS.

My only thought to redeem them could be that whilst there’s a single door the hanger is designed for 2 aircraft and that there is a rail that can guide aircraft from the landing pad to either side of the hanger.

If this isn’t the case than the designers and navy officers in charge deserve to be shot. Even the IN’s ASW corvettes have 2 hangers ffs!


The comparison I can make is the T45s of the Royal Navy. At 8,700tons they are ever so larger than P17As and they too have reverted back to a single hanger but it is a single large hanger that can house 1 EH101 or 2 Wildcats (roughly ALH class). So it seems to me the P17As will be able to house 1 Sea king/NMRH OR 2 ALH/NUH, possibly 1 Sea King/NMRH and a UAS.

It certainly looks like the IN has thrown away the chance to be able to house 2 NMRH but maybe they figured this wasn’t ever going to be a operational requirement.

Seems like a step backwards but there’s surely some logic behind it.

There is the aspect that Shivalik did not have any ship-launched torpedo armament so the helos were it's only offensive ASW capability.

Nilgiri on the other hand does appear to have torpedo tubes, so a single large helo may have been considered enough for the frigate class going forward. Destroyers will continue to house 2 hangars.