Shivalik Class (Project 17 A/B) & Talwar Class Frigates

[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.

 

[randomradio]

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.

The extra helicopter was primarily to expand on the ASW mission. But now that we are going for more dedicated ASW capable ships in more numbers, and also 4 LHDs, which can double, 3 carriers etc, we do not have the need for an extra helicopter on our ships going forward. There's the SSN program as well.

 

[Gautam]

The SAM complement is only for self protection. So 32 SAMs are more than adequate.

What makes you say that ? IN ships, unlike USN ships, don't spend most of their time as a part of a CBG. They usually travel alone or in a small groups. As such it becomes easier to target them. I understand that an enemy has multiple means of attacking and an airborne attack is just one component of it. But still it would be relatively easier to overwhelm our ships traveling alone then when traveling in a group. 32 seems a bit too less. Also are we going to use Barak 8s for all targets irrespective of range ? That would be a waste. Better use Barak 1 for short range point defence.

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.

We are actually doing quite a bit on the DEW front. The focus seems to be on the High powered microwave weapons. Of course a lot needs to be done before we can have any of that in service.

 

[randomradio]

What makes you say that ? IN ships, unlike USN ships, don't spend most of their time as a part of a CBG. They usually travel alone or in a small groups. As such it becomes easier to target them. I understand that an enemy has multiple means of attacking and an airborne attack is just one component of it. But still it would be relatively easier to overwhelm our ships traveling alone then when traveling in a group. 32 seems a bit too less. Also are we going to use Barak 8s for all targets irrespective of range ? That would be a waste. Better use Barak 1 for short range point defence.

In a perfect world, in order to deplete Barak 8, you need to fire 16 AShMs. PLAN ships carry only 8 AShMs. So you need 2 PLAN ships in order to deplete all the SAMs of just one Kolkata class ship. And I'm willing to bet the IN goes around with the belief that they will have numerical superiority anyway, so, in a perfect world, the number of AShMs fired will be less than the number of SAMs IN will operate in any given scenario.

Apart from that, there's ECM, combat air patrols etc, which will further reduce the number of AShMs that are threatening our ships. And of course, there's the Brahmos advantage, where Chinese ships will most likely be taken out before they get within firing range of our ships.

And yeah, only a few ships are used in CBGs, most of our ships will be used for offence and defence missions. But those also happen in groups.

We are actually doing quite a bit on the DEW front. The focus seems to be on the High powered microwave weapons. Of course a lot needs to be done before we can have any of that in service.

There was a report out in Israel a few years ago where a 'foreign customer' was paying for the development of shipborne lasers integrated with the MF-STAR. The report lamented the fact that the laser was too big to be carried on smaller boats and ships, which is of little benefit to Israel. So... TIFWIW.

 

[Gautam]

In a perfect world, in order to deplete Barak 8, you need to fire 16 AShMs. PLAN ships carry only 8 AShMs. So you need 2 PLAN ships in order to deplete all the SAMs of just one Kolkata class ship. And I'm willing to bet the IN goes around with the belief that they will have numerical superiority anyway, so, in a perfect world, the number of AShMs fired will be less than the number of SAMs IN will operate in any given scenario.

Apart from that, there's ECM, combat air patrols etc, which will further reduce the number of AShMs that are threatening our ships. And of course, there's the Brahmos advantage, where Chinese ships will most likely be taken out before they get within firing range of our ships.

And yeah, only a few ships are used in CBGs, most of our ships will be used for offence and defence missions. But those also happen in groups.

Assuming the "fight" takes place in the Indian Ocean. The Chinese would have a lot more to worry about than just Baraks and Brahmos. The land based cruise missile batteries alone can overwhelm Chinese CBGs not to mention ballistic missiles. But lets leave that aside for the moment. What about fights beyond the IOR ? The IN can't be a blue water force if it can't project power continuously in far away waters.

In say the SCS, the advantages brought by having the coastal batteries and the Air force no longer exists. If anything the adversary has those advantages, though not as overwhelming given the dense presence of ADs/BMDs around that area. In those situations a larger AD package is a necessity.

What missile does the P-17A use for point defence ? We need to get rid of those RBUs, at least in their present form. A VLS version would be great. Also the AK630 need to be replaced with something like the Kashtan CIWS.

There was a report out in Israel a few years ago where a 'foreign customer' was paying for the development of shipborne lasers integrated with the MF-STAR. The report lamented the fact that the laser was too big to be carried on smaller boats and ships, which is of little benefit to Israel. So... TIFWIW.

Interesting. Could I have a link to the article, please ?
Do our boats today produce enough surplus power for a DEW to be used or do we need additional gen sets ? Also didn't the Israelis work with the Americans on the THEL ? That thing to me seemed ideally sized for shipboard AD roles.

 

[randomradio]

The IN can't be a blue water force if it can't project power continuously in far away waters.

Slaughtered.

Need a full-fledged CBG if we are to go around in someone else's ocean. In the IOR, we can have aircraft in the air, but outside, nope.

In say the SCS, the advantages brought by having the coastal batteries and the Air force no longer exists. If anything the adversary has those advantages, though not as overwhelming given the dense presence of ADs/BMDs around that area. In those situations a larger AD package is a necessity.

AD is pointless there. You need fighter jets.

What missile does the P-17A use for point defence ?

None that I know of. Barak 8 and AK-630 are probably it.

Interesting. Could I have a link to the article, please ?

It's only from my memory.

Do our boats today produce enough surplus power for a DEW to be used or do we need additional gen sets ? Also didn't the Israelis work with the Americans on the THEL ? That thing to me seemed ideally sized for shipboard AD roles.

The DEW will come with its own power source. Basically a battery or batteries recharged by the ship's engines.

THEL is sh!t. It's a chemical laser, and we also have something like that already. What we need is solid state lasers. Iron Beam is one of them. Its range was more than 10Km a few years ago. If it gets to 20-30Km, then we are in business.

An American equivalent is HELLADS. It's going on the AB class first.

 

[GuardianRED]

Assuming the "fight" takes place in the Indian Ocean. The Chinese would have a lot more to worry about than just Baraks and Brahmos. The land based cruise missile batteries alone can overwhelm Chinese CBGs not to mention ballistic missiles. But lets leave that aside for the moment. What about fights beyond the IOR ? The IN can't be a blue water force if it can't project power continuously in far away waters.

In say the SCS, the advantages brought by having the coastal batteries and the Air force no longer exists. If anything the adversary has those advantages, though not as overwhelming given the dense presence of ADs/BMDs around that area. In those situations a larger AD package is a necessity.

What missile does the P-17A use for point defence ? We need to get rid of those RBUs, at least in their present form. A VLS version would be great. Also the AK630 need to be replaced with something like the Kashtan CIWS.

Interesting. Could I have a link to the article, please ?
Do our boats today produce enough surplus power for a DEW to be used or do we need additional gen sets ? Also didn't the Israelis work with the Americans on the THEL ? That thing to me seemed ideally sized for shipboard AD roles.
View attachment 10125

With Regards to the Kashtan CIWS

There were issue with the same - something to do with its coverage and with operating in Indian Conditions. We see this in the change in CIWS for the Talwar class - where the Kashtan in the First Flight (3 Hulls) change to AK630 with no point defence missiles in the second flight (3 Hulls)

It is to be seen what we are getting in the final flight (4 Hulls)

 

[Gautam]

With Regards to the Kashtan CIWS

There were issue with the same - something to do with its coverage and with operating in Indian Conditions. We see this in the change in CIWS for the Talwar class - where the Kashtan in the First Flight (3 Hulls) change to AK630 with no point defence missiles in the second flight (3 Hulls)

It is to be seen what we are getting in the final flight (4 Hulls)

Interesting. What could cause a degradation of performance ? The Kashtan has the same gun as the AK-630, if I am not wrong, as such it can't be overheating in tropical climate. The missiles on the Kashtan should work just fine too.

We should at least try to develop our own Kashtan/Phalanx type CIWS. OFB already makes the GSh 630 cannon. All we need is a VSHORAD type missile, the rest including FCRs, C&C we have them handled. Just make an attempt !

 

[Nilgiri]

You got a ship dedicated to you @Nilgiri. Congrats.
The flush deck looks stunning. But we all know they are going to add rails on that thing and it won't be truly flush anymore.

Also the reason for the removal of the RHIB bay isn't something I can comprehend. It feels like a step in the wrong direction.

What is the secondary radar ? Wasn't it supposed to be BEL-Indra LANZA ? It looks like a Thales SMART-L in the CGI.

Nilgiri has heritage and pedigree in IN, updated Leander-class frigates were "Nilgiri class" too.

 

[Gautam]

Nilgiri has heritage and pedigree in IN, updated Leander-class frigates were "Nilgiri class" too.

Oh shucks !!(@randomradio see that I got the spelling right this time)
You got multiple ships to your name.
I want one too.
I hereby propose : the Gautam-class tug boat.

 

[Ashwin]

India’s Chief of Naval Staff, Admiral Sunil Lanba unveiled the 3D Air Surveillance Radar built by Navratna Defence PSU Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL), today at the on-going DefExpo India 2018, in Chennai.
3D C/D Band Air Surveillance Radar is a Multi-Function Active Phased Array Radar with Solid state Transceiver for Land and Naval applications. The Radar provides 3 dimensional target data along with Doppler data.
The Radar employs multi-beam in elevation, mono pulse in azimuth, Digital Pulse compression, Pulse Doppler and many Advanced and contemporary Technologies, with very elegant and modular architecture. These technologies enable detection of very low RCS targets from complex land and sea clutter and jamming environment.

BEL’s New 3D Air Surveillance Radar Unveiled At DefExpo 2018


Maybe, we could see this radar on P17A

 

[Gautam]

India Navy fully pays for frigates under construction at Russian shipyard

Posted On Wednesday, 25 September 2019, 11:28

India has fully paid for the Project 11356 missile frigates, which Russia’s Yantar Shipyard in the Kaliningrad Region is building for the Indian Navy, President of the United Shipbuilding Corporation Alexei Rakhmanov told reporters on Tuesday.

Russia’s Yantar Shipyard is building Project 11356 missile frigates for Indian Navy (Picture source: TASS)

The president of the United Shipbuilding Corporation said the Yantar Shipyard would carry out work to outfit the warships and expressed confidence that the shipbuilders would comply with the schedule of their construction.

"The responsibility is so high and the budget is so critical that we have no chances to disrupt work under these orders," Rakhmanov said, stressing that this was the issue of the shipyard’s reputation.

Russia and India signed contracts in November 2018 on the delivery of four Project 11356 frigates. Under the deal, two frigates will be built at Russia’s Yantar Shipyard on the Baltic coast (part of the United Shipbuilding Corporation) and the other two will be constructed at India’s Goa Shipyard Limited (GSL). Head of Russia’s United Shipbuilding Corporation Rakhmanov earlier reported that the first two Project 11356 frigates for India would be built in Russia within three years.

Project 11356 frigates are designed to deliver strikes against enemy surface ships and submarines in the coastal and oceanic zones and fight air targets both independently and as part of a naval group. The warships of this type are armed with A-190 100mm artillery guns, striking missile and air defence systems, including Kalibr and Shtil complexes and torpedo tubes. The frigates displace 3,620 tonnes, are 124.8 meters long, develop a speed of 30 knots and have an operating range of 4,850 miles. The frigates can carry a Ka-27 helicopter and its modification.

India Navy fully pays for frigates under construction at Russian shipyard

 

[Gautam]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1177831009951178752