Indian Navy Developments & Discussions

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

You design a system at max strength and stressed operating circumstances for emergency. The VLS system was made to do away with reload of weapon systems while firing in salvo. Thats why all navies prefer VLS and not deck mounted launcher.

In practice it may not be completely manned/filled with canister of missiles but in war when going back to dock becomes more infrequent those VLS become invaluable. US Navy even has a crane in older models to reload the cells at sea.

What are you trying to say? I know the advantage of VLS. I also know that VLS can be reloaded by changing the entire canister which is easy instead of loading individual missile on the ship.

What you are calling for is minimum deterrence and posturing. In a shooting war you will burn through missiles rapidly. During Libyan intervention, USN burned through 112 Tomahawks in a single strike.

That's why for more VLS you need the reciprocal control system unit both for the MF STAR unit and the FCR which will have its own control systems both to MFSTAR and for itself.

More systems = more juice/cooling = more space. In MLU all ships can be cut open for upgrades (here VLS) but not while rapid mission deployment.

I cant explain to you if you don't try to look and think properly. Writing such long explanatory articles here is not expedient and hence I have to be concise. I will try to tell things in point wise manner for ease:

• I don't seek minimum deterrence and posturing with large VLS. I am perfectly happy with just 32VLS for minimum deterrence
• The maximum loading is needed in war with intent of maximum offence, not minimum deterrence
• I am repeatedly saying that a 4000ton frigate will have space for much more than 64 VLS - 32 Barak-8 and 32 other cruise missiles. The space in maximum tight fit condition is likely to be 300+ VLS
• The peacetime VLS is low in number to reduce cost of manning and to not create panic in enemy who may overreact on seeing fully armed ship.
• No one is asking for ships to be cut open. VLS is loadable by cranes as you pointed out. The space is already there as the ships are much bigger and have empty space which can be filled

I will dedicate some space for cooling question itse;f:

• VLS has its own FCR system inbuilt which can interface with the radar (MFSTAR or any other)
• Let us say that there are 300 VLS
• 160 could be Barak-8 and rest 140 is Brahmos and Nirbhay
• The radar can have digital switch to disconnect 128 of Barak-8 and connect only 32 at any moment to save cooling cost.
• If threat is detected, 32 VLS should be enough as the radar capacity itself is 32 targets at a time. So, remaining 128 VLS have to be dormant
• Once some missiles are expended, immediately switch the launcher from the empty to the dormant filled one to maintain 32 missiles active which is the radar capacity. The switch is digital and is instantaneous
• In this manner, the ship is able to loiter for long, defend against many targets in war and still accomplish its mission

The strike of Tomahawk in 113 number was not air to air missile and does not require tracking and radar guidance So, the radar restraint does not come there. MF-STAR can't hit more than 32 targets which is the limit of the radar and hence the number of active Barak-8 VLS need not be more than the limit

What exactly is the problem you have here? Why do you insist that there can be no more than 32VLS on the ship, even if the other VLS only have to act as reloads and not active at any point of time?

 

[Chinmoy]

MF STAR can guide Barak 8 only. With an SRSAM you get only PDMS like RAM and ESSM. Nowadays AsHM have M3 + capability. Even USN navy has SM6 which can act like a supersonic M3.5 + missile.

By using MICA or equivalent missile, we lose out on terminal defense capability. Also for PDMS it's more like you sidearm. You dont send soldiers into battle only armed with pistol.

We would be having both in our boats.

It will also be deployed on other naval ships including the recently commissioned INS Kamrota.

https://www.business-standard.com/a...ile-developed-with-israel-115122900967_1.html

- The ship has been deployed without short-range Surface-to-Air missiles (SAM) and Active Towed Array Decoy System (ATDS) which are to be added later.

https://www.dnaindia.com/india/repo...know-about-india-s-indigenous-warship-2013021

And its a misconception that countries are moving towards speed only. Its a mix of stealth and speed. Countries like US are deploying systems like 158C LRASM which is more about stealth then speed. But lets not talk about that now.

The bottom line is, neither you send your soldier equipped with only sidearm nor you send them without a sidearm. So its a mix of both which matters.

 

[vampyrbladez]

• I don't seek minimum deterrence and posturing with large VLS. I am perfectly happy with just 32VLS for minimum deterrence
• The maximum loading is needed in war with intent of maximum offence, not minimum deterrence
• I am repeatedly saying that a 4000ton frigate will have space for much more than 64 VLS - 32 Barak-8 and 32 other cruise missiles. The space in maximum tight fit condition is likely to be 300+ VLS
• The peacetime VLS is low in number to reduce cost of manning and to not create panic in enemy who may overreact on seeing fully armed ship.
• No one is asking for ships to be cut open. VLS is loadable by cranes as you pointed out. The space is already there as the ships are much bigger and have empty space which can be filled

• VLS has its own FCR system inbuilt which can interface with the radar (MFSTAR or any other)
• Let us say that there are 300 VLS
• 160 could be Barak-8 and rest 140 is Brahmos and Nirbhay
• The radar can have digital switch to disconnect 128 of Barak-8 and connect only 32 at any moment to save cooling cost.
• If threat is detected, 32 VLS should be enough as the radar capacity itself is 32 targets at a time. So, remaining 128 VLS have to be dormant
• Once some missiles are expended, immediately switch the launcher from the empty to the dormant filled one to maintain 32 missiles active which is the radar capacity. The switch is digital and is instantaneous
• In this manner, the ship is able to loiter for long, defend against many targets in war and still accomplish its mission

The strike of Tomahawk in 113 number was not air to air missile and does not require tracking and radar guidance So, the radar restraint does not come there. MF-STAR can't hit more than 32 targets which is the limit of the radar and hence the number of active Barak-8 VLS need not be more than the limit

What exactly is the problem you have here? Why do you insist that there can be no more than 32VLS on the ship, even if the other VLS only have to act as reloads and not active at any point of time?

• The ratio of Brahmos : Barak 8 is 1:2 for destroyers. Thus there are 32 Barak 8 for 16 brahmos. It will take 2 Barak 8 for max pk against 1 brahmos so 32 is optimal loadout in circumstances.
• No ship will have so many VLS in even 8000 - 10000 ton category. A ship has multiple systems and needs to planned accordingly with corresponding power and cooling requirements in addition to space. The draft of the ship matters as well so 300 VLS for a 4000 ton vessel is an absurd argument. VLS extend below deck. Even Chinese 11000 ton Type 055 has 112 VLS.
• The very point of a heavily armed CBG is to induce panic in an enemy. If you have to lean on Chinese Navy, a ship bristling with missiles will induce mass panic and may deter their aggression. Worst case scenario you will come prepared for a skirmish.
• Here is where you go wrong again. The system is capped out at 32 unless you add more subsystems and supporting infrastructure. In salvo mode, worst case scenario if you need to fire all VLS at once then this diverting power to different segments or clusters of VLS will be time consuming and wasteful. The system is not a MUX. Its more of a XOR gate type scenario.
• VLS is simply a canister and has only diagnostic modules for missiles. FCR is X,ku band guidance beam guide TX that acts on data from MF STAR and is separate from the MF STAR's own S band beam guidance for volume search.

• Tomahawk guidance system relies on semi active guidance via it's own seeker and receives feed via datalink for mid course correction. When firing the Tomahawk missiles the radar(s) in the vicinity kept giving terminal guidance till target was reached.
• If you carry more of these missiles in your ship than the radar can handle you are effectively walking with dead weight. In warfare,you NEVER have an ideal deployment and if other assets are unavailable then god help you.

• That's why modern navies love VLS launched cruise missiles from submarines in the form of SSGN like Ohio Class and possible future Columbia Class SSGN. Submarines with stealth and unlimited range due to nuclear reactors are nightmare fuel for OPFOR.

https://news.usni.org/2017/11/02/na...rades-ssgn-construction-late-2030s#more-29201

Bonus: Indian planned submarine launched VLS

 

[vampyrbladez]

We would be having both in our boats.


https://www.business-standard.com/a...ile-developed-with-israel-115122900967_1.html



https://www.dnaindia.com/india/repo...know-about-india-s-indigenous-warship-2013021

And its a misconception that countries are moving towards speed only. Its a mix of stealth and speed. Countries like US are deploying systems like 158C LRASM which is more about stealth then speed. But lets not talk about that now.

The bottom line is, neither you send your soldier equipped with only sidearm nor you send them without a sidearm. So its a mix of both which matters.

I..I...can't help but feel jealous of that Qatari mothership concept. This was exactly what we were going for with our Kora and Khukri class of corvettes. A micro fleet reminding us of the good old days of 1971 burning of Karachi.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/p-khukri.htm

Still on topic, how will you put Barak 8 on a platform that can't guide it? MICA by MBDA is the obvious choice

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

The ratio of Brahmos : Barak 8 is 1:2 for destroyers.

Barak-8 = 32, Brahmos = 16, Nirbhay/KH35 = 16 is the loadout. This is 1:1.

No ship will have so many VLS in even 8000 - 10000 ton category. A ship has multiple systems and needs to planned accordingly with corresponding power and cooling requirements in addition to space. The draft of the ship matters as well so 300 VLS for a 4000 ton vessel is an absurd argument. VLS extend below deck. Even Chinese 11000 ton Type 055 has 112 VLS.

This is only during peacetime. In war, the reloads become a nuisance. Also, large payload delivery will be needed and hence number of VLS will be increased. There is no cooling requirement for a dormant VLS. Don't ever speak of coolind requirement again. There is space by adjusting the empty space. The main aim of ship is to have missiles. There is no point if these are limited. 32, 48 missiles serve no purpose. War is not a joke. We need large number of missiles in hundreds and thousands. VLS can also be made to sit on the deck if needed.

The system is not a MUX. Its more of a XOR gate type scenario.

How do you know that? Why can't it be MUX? Who stopped this? I need reason to say MUX is not allowed.

The very point of a heavily armed CBG is to induce panic in an enemy

That is exactly what we don't want to do against a poorly armed enemy like Pakistan that has nothing and no capability to get these either. Against capable enemy, we show strength whereas against these cheap enemies, we just hold on. There is no intent to simply deterring Pakistan. The issue is beyond just deterrence but existential itself

If you carry more of these missiles in your ship than the radar can handle you are effectively walking with dead weight.

With MUX switch, it can be used effectively once the other missiles are used. Since MUX is not prohibited by any reason, there will be MUX switch

That's why modern navies love VLS launched cruise missiles from submarines in the form of SSGN

How will submarine guide the cruise missile? Do they keep staying out of water? If no, why have different rules for ship based cruise missile and submarine based one?

 

[vampyrbladez]

Barak-8 = 32, Brahmos = 16, Nirbhay/KH35 = 16 is the loadout. This is 1:1.



This is only during peacetime. In war, the reloads become a nuisance. Also, large payload delivery will be needed and hence number of VLS will be increased. There is no cooling requirement for a dormant VLS. Don't ever speak of coolind requirement again. There is space by adjusting the empty space. The main aim of ship is to have missiles. There is no point if these are limited. 32, 48 missiles serve no purpose. War is not a joke. We need large number of missiles in hundreds and thousands. VLS can also be made to sit on the deck if needed.


How do you know that? Why can't it be MUX? Who stopped this? I need reason to say MUX is not allowed.


That is exactly what we don't want to do against a poorly armed enemy like Pakistan that has nothing and no capability to get these either. Against capable enemy, we show strength whereas against these cheap enemies, we just hold on. There is no intent to simply deterring Pakistan. The issue is beyond just deterrence but existential itself


With MUX switch, it can be used effectively once the other missiles are used. Since MUX is not prohibited by any reason, there will be MUX switch


How will submarine guide the cruise missile? Do they keep staying out of water? If no, why have different rules for ship based cruise missile and submarine based one?

• What are you smoking bro? There are 16 brahmos in P 15A/B and 8 in P 17A. 32 barak 8 in each ship. ratio is 1:2 and 1:4 in destroyers and frigates respectively. Nirbhay is years away from being inducted for IAF. IN induction is a long way down the road.
• Again you are circlejerking here. Every VLS cluster is connected to a subsystem and it is these subsystem that eats up power and cooling requirements. More vls = More sub systems/control units = More power/cooling requirements = More space required. For more missiles you need a comprehensive MLU and upgrade those subsystems as per requirement for support infrastructure for expansion.
• I believe in speaking softly but carrying a big stick. That's why USN has bases around the world for power projection.
• Because MUX depends on select lines which can get corrupted. Powering something on and off as per requirement leads to some delay in operation and this affects salvo fire mode. Its the difference in using a bolt action rifle and AK 47. XOR initiates failsafe redundancy in system design.

According to Farlow, safely firing a missile using the MK 41 VLS requires error-free communication between three primary components: The Launch Sequencer, Launch Control Unit (LCU), and the man-machine interface, the Weapon Control System (WCS). When a launch order is given, the WCS fires a signal to one of two parallel LCU’s in each eight-cell launcher module, which issues prelaunch and launch commands for the selected missile. During normal operation one LCU controls the Launch Sequencer — the critical communication link between the upstream fire control systems and the missile itself — allowing the module to fire armament in tandem from two individual cells. Either LCU can control all eight cells if the other suffers damage.

https://www.ddci.com/success/programs_vls/

• Because submarines can go undetected for long time and are perfect for travelling long distance with continuous standing deterrence with VLS loads. Ohio class has 154 missiles. It can 'pop up', fire as many as required and then submerge while the missiles are guided to their destination by other assets in the area.

• Ship based cruise missile can be guided to their destination by beam riding from main radar mast and by aircraft platforms like Kamov Ka 31.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

What are you smoking bro? There are 16 brahmos in P 15A/B and 8 in P 17A. 32 barak 8 in each ship. ratio is 1:2 and 1:4 in destroyers and frigates respectively. Nirbhay is years away from being inducted for IAF. IN induction is a long way down the road.

The frigates and destroyers also have klub missiles. Don't forget. Also, the 16, 32 are not maximum loadouts. There is no reason to not have 300 missiles for reloads while still operational on the sea

Again you are circlejerking here. Every VLS cluster is connected to a subsystem and it is these subsystem that eats up power and cooling requirements. More vls = More sub systems/control units = More power/cooling requirements = More space required. For more missiles you need a comprehensive MLU and upgrade those subsystems as per requirement for support infrastructure for expansion.

If VLS is kept as dormant reloads, then there will not be any needs to have power. Only space will be enough

Because MUX depends on select lines which can get corrupted. Powering something on and off as per requirement leads to some delay in operation and this affects salvo fire mode. Its the difference in using a bolt action rifle and AK 47. XOR initiates failsafe redundancy in system design.

Just read properly:
The MUX is kept in addition to XOR in reloads. The loadout selected is under XOR but the loadout which is DORMANT is in MUX.

It is better to have 160 VLS and use 32 at a time for salvo fire and hence fire 5 salvos instead of having only 32 total and firing 1 salvo. This is basic common sense.

 

[vampyrbladez]

The frigates and destroyers also have klub missiles. Don't forget. Also, the 16, 32 are not maximum loadouts. There is no reason to not have 300 missiles for reloads while still operational on the sea


If VLS is kept as dormant reloads, then there will not be any needs to have power. Only space will be enough



Just read properly:
The MUX is kept in addition to XOR in reloads. The loadout selected is under XOR but the loadout which is DORMANT is in MUX.

It is better to have 160 VLS and use 32 at a time for salvo fire and hence fire 5 salvos instead of having only 32 total and firing 1 salvo. This is basic common sense.

• P 15A/B and only P 17A have the MF STAR mast. All other platforms use Elta 2032 or Fregat - M PESA mast as navigation and air search radar. P 15A/B and P 17A DOES NOT have Klub missiles. P 15 or Delhi class has KH 35E and Talwar Class Batch 1 has Klub missile as armament. Why don't you have an oil tanker carry 5000 missiles beside the main CBG if you are talking such absurd notions.
• As noted in previously linked article VLS DOES HAVE Launch Control Unit (LCU) attached to it and newer VLS now have self diagnostic modules in canisters to check status of missile while at sea. If a misfire happens then this shit occurs. Thus power and cooling systems are definitely required.

• Refer again to highlighted part. XOR is the chosen configuration to allow redundancy for failsafes during launch.

According to Farlow, safely firing a missile using the MK 41 VLS requires error-free communication between three primary components: The Launch Sequencer, Launch Control Unit (LCU), and the man-machine interface, the Weapon Control System (WCS). When a launch order is given, the WCS fires a signal to one of two parallel LCU’s in each eight-cell launcher module, which issues prelaunch and launch commands for the selected missile. During normal operation one LCU controls the Launch Sequencer — the critical communication link between the upstream fire control systems and the missile itself — allowing the module to fire armament in tandem from two individual cells. Either LCU can control all eight cells if the other suffers damage.

https://www.ddci.com/success/programs_vls/

• If you are done ranting on stuff in a ridiculous manner you clearly have no idea about then read up this article on a land based solution to mission deployment and VLS no.s.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/ar...nse-site-in-romania-declared-operational.html

• Or an oversized monstrosity called an Arsenal Ship with upto 288 MK41 VLS.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/inde...ssile-defense-ship-based-on-lpd-17-class.html

 

[Chinmoy]

I..I...can't help but feel jealous of that Qatari mothership concept. This was exactly what we were going for with our Kora and Khukri class of corvettes. A micro fleet reminding us of the good old days of 1971 burning of Karachi.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/p-khukri.htm

Still on topic, how will you put Barak 8 on a platform that can't guide it? MICA by MBDA is the obvious choice

Seems that Qatari navy is floating all before your eyes as of now... .

You have obviously miss the point that both Project 28 and Project 17A (under construction) are equipped with BARAK 8. Now regarding how to guide them.................. This is the baby on board.

It will also be deployed on other naval ships including the recently commissioned INS Kamrota

https://www.business-standard.com/a...ile-developed-with-israel-115122900967_1.html

Bharat Electronics Ltd (BEL) is looking to ink a contract by end-2018 for seven more Long Range Surface-to-Air Missile (LRSAM) systems as part of the Navy’s P-17A stealth frigate programme.

https://www.thehindubusinessline.co...-more-navy-missile-systems/article9718636.ece

 

[vampyrbladez]

Seems that Qatari navy is floating all before your eyes as of now... .

You have obviously miss the point that both Project 28 and Project 17A (under construction) are equipped with BARAK 8. Now regarding how to guide them.................. This is the baby on board.

View attachment 27371



https://www.business-standard.com/a...ile-developed-with-israel-115122900967_1.html



https://www.thehindubusinessline.co...-more-navy-missile-systems/article9718636.ece

Barak 8 is designed to be guided by MF STAR. That's a major bottleneck. We can use a FCR but there seems to be no elegant solution. Perhaps the missiles will be stowed in VLS and guided by bigger platforms like P 17A and P 15A/B.

 

[Kranthi]

Seems that Qatari navy is floating all before your eyes as of now... .

You have obviously miss the point that both Project 28 and Project 17A (under construction) are equipped with BARAK 8. Now regarding how to guide them.................. This is the baby on board.

View attachment 27371



https://www.business-standard.com/a...ile-developed-with-israel-115122900967_1.html



https://www.thehindubusinessline.co...-more-navy-missile-systems/article9718636.ece

The report where it says P28 ships will be equipped with Barak-8 seems incorrect. While the 3D CAR radar fitted onboard the P28 ships is no toy, it is the same radar used for guiding Akash missiles, it is not compatible with Barak-8. While interfacing could be achieved by working in it, the radar is not capable of tracking supersonic targets and guiding SAMs to ranges close to 100 km, which is Barak-8's current operating envelop.

The Revathi radar is said to have about 200 km tracking range, but I don't think it can lock on high speed low RCS targets and guide missiles as far as Barak-8 can go. The radar was built for Akash, a 25km range missile. With its current form and capability, it is highly unlikely that it can guide Barak-8.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Kranthi]

The frigates and destroyers also have klub missiles. Don't forget. Also, the 16, 32 are not maximum loadouts. There is no reason to not have 300 missiles for reloads while still operational on the sea


If VLS is kept as dormant reloads, then there will not be any needs to have power. Only space will be enough



Just read properly:
The MUX is kept in addition to XOR in reloads. The loadout selected is under XOR but the loadout which is DORMANT is in MUX.

It is better to have 160 VLS and use 32 at a time for salvo fire and hence fire 5 salvos instead of having only 32 total and firing 1 salvo. This is basic common sense.

I will support your argument that there can be a viable way to have additional dormant VLS cells above the ship's hardware capability, which can be used by electronically activating dormant VLS cells once active ones are empty.

However, your argument that our current larger ships class can carry hundreds of missiles onboard is completely baseless. Yes all our ships are future proof and have a lot of empty space, and there are reports that the Kolkata class has space to fit 32 more Barak-8 and 8 more Brahmos/Nirbhay. We might be able to fit a few more if we do away with the RBU-6000 in future. We can also replace a couple of AK-630 with RIM-116 type SR-SAMs. But anything beyond that is quite unrealistic. May be more missiles can be stored onboard and the empty cells can be refilled at sea in a laborious and vulnerable effort, hoping the ship can get some free time in the middle of a fight, but definitely not in ready to fire condition and definitely not in 100s

Btw, see this beautiful article I found today where it says our new Astra based naval SR-SAM will be so light that 3 sailors can refill the cells while at sea with help of a small crane. I can't wait to see indigenous missiles onboard our ships..!!

http://idrw.org/sea-astra-is-new-short-range-surface-to-air-missiles-srsam-for-indian-navy/

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[vampyrbladez]

I will support your argument that there can be a viable way to have additional dormant VLS cells above the ship's hardware capability, which can be used by electronically activating dormant VLS cells once active ones are empty.

Again only possible in land based facility like Aegis Ashore not on ships due to constraints of space, power and cooling.

However, your argument that our current larger ship class can carry hundreds of missiles onboard is completely baseless. Yes all our ships are future proof and have a lot of empty space, and there are reports that the Kolkata class has space to fit 32 more Barak-8 and 8 more Brahmos/Nirbhay. We might be able to fit a few more if we do away with the RBU-6000 in future. We can also replace a couple of AK-630 with RIM-116 type SR-SAMs. But anything beyond that is quite unrealistic.

Only during a MLU will this actually be viable and that too a deep upgrade and not a plug and play system. You need to overhaul the entire support infrastructure and control system units to allow for such upgrades. RBU 6000 will stay on as Navy loves the 96 cell magazine. New rocket types are also being introduced with 8.5 km range comparable to CY 1.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...ended-range-of-8-5km/articleshow/65555007.cms

 

[Kranthi]

Again only possible in land based facility like Aegis Ashore not on ships due to constraints of space, power and cooling.

We have space. Besides the obvious size of the ships compared to their loadout, there are many reports that there is space. Power will be turned off to empty modules and supplied for cooling of newly activated additional cells.

Only during a MLU will this actually be viable and that too a deep upgrade and not a plug and play system. You need to overhaul the entire support infrastructure and control system units to allow for such upgrades. RBU 6000 will stay on as Navy loves the 96 cell magazine. New rocket types are also being introduced with 8.5 km range comparable to CY 1.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...ended-range-of-8-5km/articleshow/65555007.cms

Yes I read about that new rockets, good news . Was just telling we can make more space if we remove the RBUs.

And Yes, any of these upgrades can only be done during a major refit, including the dormant VLS thing we are advocating for. Not something that can be fitted overnight. The hull needs to be cut open, but I'm sure the Navy has the wiring in place to plug the new modules when empty spaces are filled up in future.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[vampyrbladez]

We have space. Besides the obvious size of the ships compared to their loadout, there are many reports that there is space. Power will be turned off to empty modules and supplied for cooling of newly activated additional cells.

In modern mission based deployment you can only rely on what you go to war with. On paper you may have 300 ships but if only 120 are available for conflict then those 180 can't contribute. So additional capacity needs to be gauged with availability. Even USN is learning this the hard way. Their tests of hybrid electric drives were discontinued due to same power management problems.

[The prototype system reportedly could barely handle the demands of the existing Aegis radar system and running the motors propelling the ship at the same time. “At that point you are a light switch flipping on away from winking out the whole ship,” an unnamed Navy official told Defense News' David Larterin March 2018.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...n-to-replace-its-cruisers-and-some-destroyers

Alternatively Navy is deliberately downplaying the true capacity of the ship and went with a FFBNW type of deal and info on public domain is misrepresented (speculation).

A more elegant solution to maintaining vast no. of VLS for deterrence is to coordinate with shore based battery for an Aegis Ashore like program.

 

[shiphone]

Revathi radar+VL-MICA..... MBDA's proposal...........lol

------------------
btw ....the so called Russian revolver VLS firing 1 missile per cluster at a time.

and the incorrectly quoted the VLS on 052C DDG without so called 'firing 1 missile per cluster at a time' limitation...but the missiles could only be fired one by one for all kinds of vls,not two or more at a time

 

[Bhurki]

Since we are on topic of comparing radars and armament loadouts.. Does anyone mind comparing a type 052d and a vishakhapatnam class one-on-one. Considering vish costs($1bn) almost twice as much as a 052d (rmb 3.5 bn), one would expect it to outmanuever the latter at least qualitatively..

 

[vampyrbladez]

Revathi radar+VL-MICA..... MBDA's proposal...........lol

View attachment 27458

------------------
btw ....the so called Russian revolver VLS firing 1 missile per cluster at a time.

View attachment 27460

and the incorrectly quoted the VLS on 052C DDG without so called 'firing 1 missile per cluster at a time' limitation...but the missiles could only be fired one by one for all kinds of vls,not two or more at a time

View attachment 27459

And this disproves me how? Salvo firing is pertinent in intensive naval operations. Wrong pic , correct analogy.

 

[vampyrbladez]

Since we are on topic of comparing radars and armament loadouts.. Does anyone mind comparing a type 052d and a vishakhapatnam class one-on-one. Considering vish costs($1bn) almost twice as much as a 052d (rmb 3.5 bn), one would expect it to outmanuever the latter at least qualitatively..

There is a separate thread somewhere. Hakka-noodles will derail this one so don't encourage the schezuan.

 

[Bhurki]

There is a separate thread somewhere. Hakka-noodles will derail this one so don't encourage the schezuan.

Mind linking the thread ?
Although a little debate wouldnt be too bad, or are we already too self conscious of the low armament loadout on our destroyers?
Derailing after debating about real projects that do exist wouldn't be too bad if we realize an actual fault, instead of just babbling about would be and could be concepts.