Kolkata Class Destroyers Update

[p2prada]

Only problem might be that: India is more or less at par in IR seekers, but desperately lacking in RF seekers & detectors technology.

I can't edit my posts because of infractions. To add to my previous reply, we are nowhere in IR seekers but are still seeking parity with RF seekers for small targets through the Astra program.

AAD and PAD use RF seekers.

 

[shiphone]

I can't edit my posts because of infractions. To add to my previous reply, we are nowhere in IR seekers but are still seeking parity with RF seekers for small targets through the Astra program.

AAD and PAD use RF seekers.

PDV might be the start.
It is said it has dual seeker design

"¦.............
S400 is a SAM system with limited ABM ability.so is SM-2 latest varient, PAC-2...etc.

THAAD and GBI are another samples. they are deployered ,and we don't call them SAM system usually...

So it's more reasonable to set two catalogs here,although PAC-3 could be used to destroy jets...
..............
You might be wrong with the STANDARD MISSILE's engage range aspects...there was a news report about SM-6 test few days ago.you may have a look at it.

 

[p2prada]

PDV might be the start.
It is said it has dual seeker design

Yeah. But I was talking about a mid course BMD.

THAAD and GBI are another samples. they are deployered ,and we don't call them SAM system usually...

It's just semantics. My intention is to get a mid course BMD for our ships. They are all called ABM, but they are strictly speaking missiles launched from the surface to shoot down airborne targets, hence SAMs.

Whether you call them SAMs or ABMs is just semantics.

You might be wrong with the STANDARD MISSILE's engage range aspects...there was a news report about SM-6 test few days ago.you may have a look at it.

SM-6 is a small missile in the same class as AAD or PAC-3. It achieves aircraft altitude easily, but has more range.

I am talking about missiles that are like your anti-sat KKV or the SM-3. If you achieve a height of 500 Km, you will have a range of 1500 Km in the same plane, it is regular college level physics. IRBMs achieve such ranges after having achieved that altitude. It's when they start falling in the ballistic trajectory that their range increases further. The difference being SAMs are far more maneuverable.

PDV is not as capable as SM-3. PDV only manages height of ~150 Km, so range is somewhere in the 300-500 Km class, just like 40N6 in S-400. THAAD is like PDV and 40N6.

PAD is like 48N6, achieves a height of 60-80 Km and range should be around 200-300 Km. Like Arrow-2.

So, we have AAD/HQ-9/PAC-3/SM-6 << PAD/Arrow-2/48N6 << PDV/THAAD/40N6 << SM-3 Block I (1500 Km) /Chinese KKV/proposed Indian equivalent with Agni-V first stage << SM-3 Block II (2500 Km).

 

[arnabmit]

Not at all.

SAMs target CMs, AShMs & Aircrafts.

SM-3 is meant to target ballistic missiles and low earth orbit satellites.

S-400 system contains both SAM & ABM missiles.

Don't think India would need ship based ABMs as seas/oceans touching India are not so expansive that even SLBMs launched cannot be countered with land based ABMs. US needs ship based ABMs in the Pacific for mid-course/boost phase interception of ICBMs.

Semantics. All ABM systems deployed today are SAMs. In that respect, we shouldn't call the S-400 a SAM either.

I am talking about getting the capability on our ships, not whether it is classified as a SAM or not.

 

[p2prada]

Not at all.

SAMs target CMs, AShMs & Aircrafts.

SM-3 is meant to target ballistic missiles and low earth orbit satellites.

S-400 system contains both SAM & ABM missiles.

It's all the same. SAM = Surface to Air Missile

All the above I mentioned are SAMs. Just that their uses are different.

It's like talking about tank guns and handguns. Both are called guns in the end. All semantics. Why are we still discussing this?

Don't think India would need ship based ABMs as seas/oceans touching India are not so expansive that even SLBMs launched cannot be countered with land based ABMs. US needs ship based ABMs in the Pacific for mid-course/boost phase interception of ICBMs.

We do need them since China owns SSBNs and ICBMs. And in a war, they will use them.

The biggest threat to the US is ballistic missiles and they come from any direction, not just the Pacific. The submarine nuclear threat to India can come from any direction and not just over the mainland.

 

[arnabmit]

Because if we forego nomenclature it becomes confusing in a discussion.

If we forego nomenclature and generalize, why not call everything from a .22 air rifle pellet to an ICBM as just "Projectiles"?

It's all the same. SAM = Surface to Air Missile

All the above I mentioned are SAMs. Just that their uses are different.

It's like talking about tank guns and handguns. Both are called guns in the end. All semantics. Why are we still discussing this?



We do need them since China owns SSBNs and ICBMs. And in a war, they will use them.

The biggest threat to the US is ballistic missiles and they come from any direction, not just the Pacific. The submarine nuclear threat to India can come from any direction and not just over the mainland.

 

[p2prada]

Because if we forego nomenclature it becomes confusing in a discussion.

If we forego nomenclature and generalize, why not call everything from a .22 air rifle pellet to an ICBM as just "Projectiles"?

I wasn't being specific in the post I made referring to it as a SAM. You can look back.

Basically I was saying we will need to manufacture projectiles from 5.56 mm to 125 mm by ourselves.

Then you came in and said "125 mm is a tank shell, not a projectile." To which I said, it is all semantics.

I hope it is now understood that we don't have to discuss this anymore.

 

[charlie]

In time, after our current generation of layered defenses are complete, the next threat will be submarine launched ballistic missiles fired from Chinese subs, and these are ICBMs. Our current and planned shield won't work against it.

It is natural that the Chinese will opt to use ICBMs if they realize we have an IRBM shield deployed. It becomes more important to take out the missile in the mid-course phase where the MIRVs haven't yet deployed. And the best place to do that would be the ocean, where debris and the warhead will not affect the impact zone.

I was trying to find Max range for you on the internet.

Standard SM-3 Block IB
Raytheon RIM-161 Standard SM-3
AEGIS BMD System | Info, SM-3, AN/SPY-1, EPAA, Budget/Costs, Specs

I showed you 3 website which says the max range of the missile is more then 500 KM but less then 600 KM, can you please show me few website that shows as per what you are saying

Max ceiling height for SM 3 missile is 160 KM, Geostationary satellite are placed around 200 KM altitude.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7HIvfhoFHM watch the video 54:46


Right now they have mid & terminal interception capability and in future they are going for early interception capability.

Please watch this documentary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsIiBiD13Cs

I hope you find some one who works in missile defence who can explain that there won't be a ABM for IRBM interception with a range of 2500 KM because it dose not make sense, may be for ICBM in future they might develop a missile with range with 2500 KM

 

[p2prada]

I was trying to find Max range for you on the internet.

Max ceiling height for SM 3 missile is 160 KM,

Incorrect. Max ceiling is 500-700 Km for Block I and 1500 Km for Block II.

Geostationary satellite are placed around 200 KM altitude.

Incorrect. Geostationary orbit is 36000 Km. Low earth orbit is 300 Km+ for satellites. Sun-synchronous orbit is 600-800 Km.

I hope you find some one who works in missile defence who can explain that there won't be a ABM for IRBM interception with a range of 2500 KM because it dose not make sense, may be for ICBM in future they might develop a missile with range with 2500 KM

Why would I do that when I already know it exists?

A quick look at wiki told me the Chinese KKV killed a satellite at 865 Km altitude, so the Chinese already have a ~2000 Km range missile in their kitty.

Anyway,

 

[arnabmit]

Yes, we don't have to discuss this anymore. Calling a "tank shell" as a "bullet" is wrong, even if you insist (in spite of your argument that it's just semantics, both are "projectiles" fired from a "gun". )

I wasn't being specific in the post I made referring to it as a SAM. You can look back.

Basically I was saying we will need to manufacture projectiles from 5.56 mm to 125 mm by ourselves.

Then you came in and said "125 mm is a tank shell, not a projectile." To which I said, it is all semantics.

I hope it is now understood that we don't have to discuss this anymore.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

There is a huge difference between ABM and SAMs, The main difference is the algorithm of interception of target ..

However, This topic has nothing to do with this thread ..

 

[Sea Eagle]

Kolkata của Ấn Độ có át vía được Type-052C Trung Quốc? | soha.vn

Comparison b/w Type 052C and DDG 63. Someone can translate it !!

 

[Srinivas_K]

Kolkata India's ace is Type-052Cs chickened China?

(Soha.vn) - INS Kolkata is the most powerful destroyers of the Indian Navy, but if it prevailed before the Chinese Type-052Cs?
Website Livefistdefence recently posted photos of sea trials destroyer Kolkata Project 15A. So after 11 years from the date of commencement of new ships Indian Navy owns the payroll upcoming war machine top area.
The presence of frigates Kolkata Indian Navy will become a major force in the ocean. However, the issue under consideration is compared with the destroyers of the same type of naval power in the region, especially in comparison with China's neighbors Kolkata have any advantage?

Outstanding electronic system
Kolkata class destroyers, missile control is very modern design with high stealth capability. This is a confidential program to bring Indian navy become a leading regional force. Besides, this is a great effort to catch up with India's pace rapid modernization of the Chinese Navy.

Kolkata destroyers of India (top) superior avionics compared with China's Type-052Cs (below)
Kolkata is considered the answer for Type-052Cs of China. However, the other with astonishing speed of Type-052Cs, the development of Kolkata is slow with many errors arise during the play, but that does not affect the combat strength of the ship.

The Most modern destroyers India after 11 years to be Transferred
Strength warship INS Kolkata combined with BrahMos missiles khi
Kolkata: fearsome war machine on the Indian Navy's Sea
Kolkata's outstanding features compared to competitors Type-052Cs is a powerful electronic system that heart is phased radar AESA active electronically EL / M 2248-MF-STAR 4 array radar antenna atop the tower, provides the ability to control a very large target.
This type of radar is rated best in the world at present, It provides high image quality, interface support for each weapon weather conditionsEND_SPAN and nhất difficult environments in the field of naval current and future.
The radar is capable of tracking airborne targets tự at sea and at the same time. It is capable of radiation and guided missiles for air and sea cả anti-ship missiles, gunboats. EL / M 2248-MF-STAR has a very high accuracy and Comparable performance to radar AN / SPY-1D Aegis destroyer in the United States.
Support for radar surveillance radar is the EL / M-STAR 2238. Both are 2 types of radar by Elta of Israel IAI manufacturing. Besides Kolkata is equipped with airborne radar surveillance LW-08 of the Thales group, France.
Anti-submarine capability, Kolkata destroyers equipped with the new generation of the hydro-acoustic cover HUMSA-NG hull-mounted array and an array entail. Electronic warfare systems Deseaver MK II by Elbit Systems manufactures and combat data systems multi-objective EMCCA Mk-4 in India.
Meanwhile destroyers, Type-052Cs electronic systems used by China-made quality are difficult to verify. In terms of avionics, Kolkata destroyers predominate than rivals Type-052Cs.

Horror called BrahMos
Another factor, combining to create superior power for Kolkata destroyer weapon system to its optimum. Kolkata destroyers equipped 4x8 vertical launch system (VLS) using two types of air defense missile Barak-1 12 km range and medium-range missile interceptors Barak-8 has a range of 70 km.
Anti-ship missile BrahMos supersonic (above) completely outperformed the YJ-62 (below) for all the indices.

Barak-8 missiles capable of independent operation is very high and almost not depend on the target system or navigation. This product is a joint venture between India and Israel, however, the development of this missile is happening quite slowly, much to influence the time taken to Kolkata destroyers operate.
On air defense capability, the Type-052Cs have an advantage over the anti-aircraft missile system range HHQ-9 (naval variant of the HQ-9) has a range of 150 km. However, this advantage of the Type-052Cs is not too large. The experience of the conflict in the recent past shows, winning unbeaten in air defense operations are often decided in the mid-range area.
The most fearsome weapons of destroyers Kolkata is 16 vertical launch tubes used anti-ship cruise missile BrahMos PJ-10. This is an anti-ship missiles have the fastest speed in the world today with a range of up to 300 km. BrahMos is a deadly threat to any warship does.
Meanwhile, Type-052Cs using anti-ship missile YJ-62 on the 300 km range, subsonic speed. YJ-62 is certainly not comparable to the BrahMos on all indicators.
About gunboats, destroyers originally intended Kolkata 130 mm equipped with Russian gunboats, however then transferred to 76 mm using the French gunboat rate shot up to 220 bricks / minute. Type-052Cs gunboats equipped with 100 mm has an advantage over the range Kolkata also has the advantage of speed shooting.

The launch of Kolkata destroyer warship did the race between the Sino-Indian water becomes warmer.
Anti-submarine, destroyer equipped Kolkata 4 533mm torpedo tubes and two anti-submarine rocket launchers RBU-6000. There is also the support of two anti-submarine helicopters Agusta Westland Sea King or HAL Dhruv.
Meanwhile 052Cs Type-3 clusters equipped with 2 torpedo tubes with the assistance of one anti-submarine helicopter Z-9C or Ka-28 Russian. ASW capability Kolkata destroyers prevail with the support of two RBU-6000 system, Type-052Cs without this kind.
On defense capabilities extremely close range, Kolkata destroyers equipped with 4 ultra-fast firing cannon AK-630 . Meanwhile, Type-2 052Cs only equipped ultra-range defense system near the Type-730 . Ability to extreme close-range defense of Kolkata is also supported by low-altitude air defense missile Barak-1, Type-052Cs also fireworks should only rely on more limited than Kolkata.
System dynamics of Kolkata and Type-052Cs is similar. Type-052Cs using propulsion systems and gas turbine-diesel mixture CODOG Kolkata class destroyers are equipped with propulsion system COGAG (combined gas turbine engines).
From the specs above shows destroyers Kolkata India's dominant than the Type-052Cs opponents of it, especially the Indian press every claim that using anti-ship missiles mounted to the free end leading passive radar can completely sinking destroyer Type-052Cs with 100% probability.

Kolkata của Ấn Độ có át vía được Type-052C Trung Quốc? | soha.vn

 

[Bheeshma]

Looks like some vietnamese article comparing Kolkota class and Type-52C. Chinese weapons are never about quality but quantity. So I am not sure if this comparision alone helps.Bluntly put even Shivaliks are superior to Type-054 of any version but quantity also matters.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Some Pictures of Sea Trails >>

She is faster than her predecessor for sure, Navy won`t release its true specs ..

 

[Srinivas_K]

Looks like some vietnamese article comparing Kolkota class and Type-52C. Chinese weapons are never about quality but quantity. So I am not sure if this comparision alone helps.Bluntly put even Shivaliks are superior to Type-054 of any version but quantity also matters.

India is not far behind in producing these warships, 7 are planned in the next decade and also last four are improved versions project 15 B.

India is likely to face PLAAN navy in Indian Ocean in which India have lot of Island chains which can act a missile bases and aircraft carriers.

India is planning to upgrade Andaman and Nicobar Island chains to missile base and also place marines there.

In Arabian Sea India has aggressive plans expand and strengthen its naval bases in Persian Gulf, Horn of Africa and in other friendly countries like Marutious and Seychelles.

 

[right wing]

india needs at least 6 destroyers within 2015...new ..in a decade insted of producing 3 ,any sane nation wud hav 6 destroyers..quality is all good and ok...but chinese swarming tactics can turn any battle in their favour...3 destroyers per decade is shameful!!!

 

[Sea Eagle]

Looks like some vietnamese article comparing Kolkota class and Type-52C. Chinese weapons are never about quality but quantity. So I am not sure if this comparision alone helps.Bluntly put even Shivaliks are superior to Type-054 of any version but quantity also matters.

Still living in a dream land. All new chinese DDG Type 052C/D and new Type 055 are superior to Kolkata class destroyers or any upcomimg Indian destroyers.
Type 054 are more of a ASW platforms than a Multi role FFGs.

 

[right wing]

Still living in a dream land. All new chinese DDG Type 052C/D and new Type 055 are superior to Kolkata class destroyers or any upcomimg Indian destroyers.
Type 054 are more of a ASW platforms than a Multi role FFGs.

well available info about either classes dont suggest so...and chinese aegis concept is not a proven one...

 

[Sea Eagle]

well available info about either classes dont suggest so...and chinese aegis concept is not a proven one...

Neither is MF-STAR and Barak-8