Kolkata Class Destroyers Update

[right wing]

hobarts r not yet here..and a budget can may lead to only 2 being inducted...and aegis gives superior aircover as of now...but sea engagement and subsurface engagement poorer..and again that point raised earlier...all these systems r us controlled...no nation east of suez can boast of a destroyer better than kolkata...japan,korea,aus all operate american missiles..and r effectively an extension of usa navy..no capacity of own wartime deployment..and guys while kolkata is in the sea...hobart is in the yard..
and p15b pics are neither authentic nor would it be expedient to comment on its vls,gun or armanent quantity just now..but broad guidelines of nirbhay barak er,n brahmos 2 r clear..
as for hobart gettin tomahawks..not possible..only uk gets it beside the usa..and that too a complex treaty regarding when to use..

 

[abingdonboy]

http://i.imgur.com/JNhXbgX.jpg

^^ Above two images, taken in Oct 2013, and May 2014 respectively of the first P-15B under construction- coming along nicely. Should easily be in a sea worthy condition in 2-3 years, 7-8,000+ destroyer in around 3-4 years isn't bad at all for any nation.

 

[shiphone]

Royal Australian Navy's four Adelaide-class frigates took an important MLU years ago-----a module of 8-cell MK41 VLS was added in front of Mark 13 launcher to contain 32 ESSMs...then this Oliver Hazard Perry class varient obtained the two layers ADS..

After the refit, the ships are capable of firing SM-2MR and RGM-84 Harpoon missiles from the Mark 13 launcher.[8] An 8-cell Mark 41 Vertical Launch System for Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile has also been installed forward of the Mark 13 launcher.

------------------------------

it would be very reasonable for the future Royal Australian Navy's Hobart class air-warfare destroyer mix the SM-2/6 and ESSM in the 48-cell MK41 VLS...32 SM2/6+ 32 ESSM is quite popular claim. and other combinations would be also possible...

 

[Sea Eagle]

hobarts r not yet here..and a budget can may lead to only 2 being inducted...and aegis gives superior aircover as of now...but sea engagement and subsurface engagement poorer..and again that point raised earlier...all these systems r us controlled...no nation east of suez can boast of a destroyer better than kolkata...japan,korea,aus all operate american missiles..and r effectively an extension of usa navy..no capacity of own wartime deployment..and guys while kolkata is in the sea...hobart is in the yard..
and p15b pics are neither authentic nor would it be expedient to comment on its vls,gun or armanent quantity just now..but broad guidelines of nirbhay barak er,n brahmos 2 r clear..
as for hobart gettin tomahawks..not possible..only uk gets it beside the usa..and that too a complex treaty regarding when to use..

Indian warships also carry imported/JV weapon systems and US DOES NOT CONTROL THE USE OF AEGIS WARSHIPS OPERATED BY OTHER NATIONS.

Mate, Australian Collin class submarines use the AN/BYG-1 CCS which is amongst the most well guarded secret of USN. So What makes you think they won't give them the Tomahawks.

 

[Bheeshma]

Collins was and is an unmitigated disaster. Less said the better about that fiasco.

 

[J20!]

You are day dreaming if you think Chinese ships are even remotely as capable as aegis class. They are more hype and very little substance.sticking some Russian hand me down s300s doesn't make them equivalent to Burkes.

Those "hand me down s300s" still have a range of 120kms against high altitude targets, giving type 052C's and D's the capability to engage cruise missile launching platforms at extended range, just as the long range SM2 and SM3 can on AEGIS platforms. And even though the class is not as capable as the AEGIS air defense platforms, the radar and HHQ 9 SAM system on the 052C's have a limited ABM capability just as the SM3 and its cousin the S300 does. Something that cannot be said about the yet unproven, mid-range (70km) Barack 8. And unlike the Kolkata's that have been languishing port side for the past decade, 052C's have been at sea, operating their sensor and weapons systems since 2005. MF star and Barak 8 are completely new sensor, guidance and weapons systems; whilst the phased array radars and HHQ 9 SAM systems on the Type 052C's have been tried tested and improved over the best part of a decade, with their next generation versions coming online with the newly commissioned Type 052D first in class and its 4 sister ships in sea trials and at JN shipyard in Shanghai, specifically, their next generation phased array radars and multipurpose VLS systems (only the third such system after the American Mk41 and Europe's Sylver VLS). Claiming that the Kolkata class, a completely untested and unproven design fresh out of the shipyard could surpass the current capabilities of a design like the 052C - which has years at sea and multiple long range missions, exercises, and design modifications based on at sea trials under its belt - would be the height of hubris, if not daydreaming.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

 

[Sea Eagle]

Royal Australian Navy's four Adelaide-class frigates took an important MLU years ago-----a module of 8-cell MK41 VLS was added in front of Mark 13 launcher to contain 32 ESSMs...then this Oliver Hazard Perry class varient obtained the two layers ADS..

------------------------------

it would be very reasonable for the future Royal Australian Navy's Hobart class air-warfare destroyer mix the SM-2/6 and ESSM in the 48-cell MK41 VLS...32 SM2/6+ 32 ESSM is quite popular claim. and other combinations would be also possible...

Adelaide class warships will be replaced by 2020 when all Hobarts would have entered service.
Till then Anzacs will be the most powerful warships of RAN. Especially with the CEAFAR which is yet to meet a competitor in the Indian Ocean.

 

[Bheeshma]

The S-300 or the rip off Ha-9 are still SAM's. They were designed ground up to engage air crafts not fast maneuvering low flying missiles. So no, they are not proven in any way. The Barak is designed ground up to engage low flying missiles and has even a minimum engagement rage of 500 m. The S-300 was never accepted by IAF or IN since they didn't think it was good enough. The barak is any day superior to it in engaging supersonic and sub sonic sea skimmers. The radar systems on the type-052's of any version are as un proven and most likely lower quality that the MF-STAR. Just because PLAN is forced to operate their so called AESA does not make them proven. By that logic HAn and Shang class are proven nuke subs despite the fact they have never dared to go out on deterrent patrol.

 

[J20!]

I don't know where you're getting your "information", but the HQ9 like any other long range air defence missile was designed to engage aircraft, ballistic missiles AND cruise missiles at extended ranges. It may be less maneuverable than the Barak 8, but it still has a similar minimum engagement range of 500m and a larger NEZ (no escape zone). In fact, the HQ9 was awarded Turkey's long range SAM tender, beating out competition from Raytheon's SM2 Patriot, EuroSAM's Aster 30 and Russia's S300 long range SAM systems before turkey bowed to NATO pressure and re started the completion. It might just win AGAIN. And I don't know what you're talking about regarding the S300. The only long range air defence system operated by the Indian Armed Forces is the S300. The SAM system defending high value cities like New Delhi is the S300. It is still one of the most formidable long range air defence systems on the market. And unlike Barak 8 it is a tried and tested Air Defense system, adopted by many international operators including the PLA and Indian Armed Forces. Dispute it all you want, but the weapons and sensor suites on the Type 052C still make it a superior Area Air Defence platform ( AAD ). The Type 052D can carry BOTH long range HHQ9's and quad packed medium range DK10 SAMs in some of its 64 multipurpose VLS cells as well as an 18 cell HHQ10 short range SAM launcher. Which translates to a 3 layered air defence system extending to 120-150km around the ship.



Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

 

[J20!]

I don't think you understand the concept of a "proven" system. A system that has been fully evaluated and tested in the environment it is meant to operate in. A system that has been tested in realistic war like stimulations and in long range deployments and exercises against maneuvering targets in intense electronic warfare environments. A system which has been redesigned based on at sea trials to rectify system defects and improve operational capability. A system that has been fully integrated with other sea based and airborne platforms that will operate in the same task forces. Kolkata hasn't even completed its shipyard trials yet you're claiming its a more proven platform than the Type 052C which has been at sea fore the past 9 years; or the Type 052D which was developed off operational experience with the 052C and is already in commission with the PLAN. Come on man.... Try to debate sensibly.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

 

[Eastman]

lets not count chickens before it hatch

 

[right wing]

for people who do not know the entire aegis system is a program,where every code,every missile launched is tracked and guided by usa sat systems...such is the level of dependance on the usa,in case of indian missiles,russia neither has the will nor the capability to monitor such closely...infact all software work for both brahmos and barak is predominantly indian...so when u buy us,ur actually a bonded slave..nothing more!!!
and that is why inspite of repeated offers,india doesnt buy planes,missiles and ships from them..except those which have a predominantly supportive role

 

[Bheeshma]

The turks selected the HQ-9 just because US would never offer any tech transfer to turkey. The patriots are outdated crap on the lines of Hq-9 and S-300 currently. You just proved my point that Hq-9's and Type-052's are no where comparable to Aegis class. The Type-52's are the best AAW destroyers china has .period it is nowehere near as good as Kongo, Atago, KDX-III or MF-Star equipped kolkotas.

The Barak-8 have not been tested by IN true but Israel and Indian scientists are working on it in Israel. So it is as tested as the chinese Hq-9's which have never seen any action.

 

[J20!]

The turks selected the HQ-9 just because US would never offer any tech transfer to turkey. The patriots are outdated crap on the lines of Hq-9 and S-300 currently. You just proved my point that Hq-9's and Type-052's are no where comparable to Aegis class. The Type-52's are the best AAW destroyers china has .period it is nowehere near as good as Kongo, Atago, KDX-III or MF-Star equipped kolkotas.

The Barak-8 have not been tested by IN true but Israel and Indian scientists are working on it in Israel. So it is as tested as the chinese Hq-9's which have never seen any action.

I don't dispute that the Chinese contractor's willingness to transfer technology to the Turks was a factor in HQ9's selection. As was its pricing strategy. But you're contradicting yourself. If Patriot is "outdated junk", why would Raytheon be unwilling to transfer that technology to a NATO ally? Is the newly developed Aster 30 "outdated junk" too? HQ9 performed as well or better than the other competing systems in the Turkish evaluations. That is a fact you can't dispute. I haven't claimed the Type 052C's AAW system is superior or equivalent to the AEGIS system. I'm saying its a better AAD platform than the Kolkata. I'm saying the Kolkata can in no way be compared to the AEGIS system. It's long range detection, engagement and electronic warfare capability has been proven over decades of operations and its integration into their ABM and AAW is indisputable. Kolkata by comparison to both AEGIS and its Chinese counterparts on the Type 052C/D is UNTESTED and UNPROVEN. Barak 8 is still not operational; its still being worked on by "scientists" in Israel, not the sailors that will operate it in wartime. The same goes for MF star. You can't dispute that. How long has the PLAN worked with the 052C's sensor and weapons suite? Has the IN even have any operational experience with MF Star? How long will the training alone take, not to mention integration with the rest of the IN? Try to be reasonable in your arguments


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

 

[Bheeshma]

Of course MF-STAR is only currently being tried out by Sailors. It has just entered service with IN. I am responding to people who are buying into nonsense about Type-052's being anything even remotely capable as AEGIS class. No one has claimed MF-STAR is better than AEGIS, infact I already pointed out the kongo , Atago, KDX-III are superior AAW vessels. I just don't think its proven that Kolkotas are in anyway lesser than Type-052's or to put it another way Type-052's are as proven as Han or shang class...debatable at best.

 

[J20!]

What are you saying dude? Whether you "think" it's been proven or not has no bearing on the reality that Type 052C and Type 052D are operationally available to the PLAN whilst MF star and Barak 8 aren't even operational yet. How can sailors work with a system that has yet to engage a target at sea? how is the IN working with an air defence system that hasn't been integrated with its main SAM yet? Even when they are operational, Barak 8 will still be a medium range SAM not capable of engaging aircraft or cruise missiles at long range, a key requirement for Area Air defence. Both AEGIS and its Chinese AAW counterpart are capable of carrying out such long range interceptions, the Kolkata class is not. You say the Barak 8 can engage low flying cruise missiles better than Type 052's, but the Type 052D carries both medium and long range air defense missiles.... You're counting chickens before they hatch. Wait for the Kolkata's AAW system to come online before claiming its better than a system that has greater range AAD capability AND has been operational for 9 years.
Even the royal navy's Daring class was commissioned for 2 or 3 years before the class' Sea Viper system became operational. Take a chill pill and be patient man.... Hyping a non operational system won't make it any better.

Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

 

[Bheeshma]

LOL who is hyping ? The Type-052 is being pimped out as AEGIS equivalent, though it clearly is not. Yes it is operational thats all that can be said at the moment.

 

[J20!]

Hahaha! Whatever man... Please quote where i said the Type 052's are equivalent to AEGIS ships? what i've been saying ( to a brick wall apparently) is that the Type 052's are significantly superior AAD platforms vis a vis the medium range SAM equipped Kolkata ( which have no medium range SAMs at all at the moment ). You're the one whose claiming The Kolkata class is a superior air defence platform solely based on it being an INDIAN vessel, despite it not even having a functional Air Defence System as of yet. It hasn't even fired a single Medium range missile before, yet it's somehow superior to a platform that has been operating 120km max range SAMs since 2005. Nationalism is blind... Let me know when you're ready to discuss defence issues with the grown ups.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

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.

quantity never won over quality.

 

[Bheeshma]

Not true abhi. You need sufficient amount of both. Ordering 3-4 instead of 6 is simply ridiculous.