Project P15B Visakhapatnam class destroyer

[Armand2REP]

Enemies can build many boats, even small ones like speed boats with people carrying ATGMS. Even these boats at distance of 7-10km can be highly problematic and have to be neutralised using some other means like helicopter based ATGM or even AshM missile.

There is a much cheaper and easier solution for that....

 

[Gessler]

There is a reason why IN destroyers have 32 VLS for air defence.

That reason is to cut down operational costs during peacetime

...then carry empty VLS cells. Cells which aren't meant to be carrying missiles can be sealed and no need for maintenance. One can open them up, get them functional, and load rounds once some escalation starts happening.

Unless they want to wait till war starts, and then moor the ship into dock (when it should be out there fighting) in order to begin an extensive rework process...cutting open the bow and installing new cells. It's a laughable proposition!

Let me tell you something here...the P-15A/B are NOT gonna be getting any more SAM cells than what they have now, in any future MLU.

Do they have space created internally for more VLS? Yes they do. But, they are not meant for SAMs. They are for LACMs - accommodation for which will be provided on the P-15A/B after the ship-launch version of Nirbhay reaches a certain level of maturity. This upgrade will happen in the MLU.

SAM VLS however, will remain 32 only.

Now you might ask me...why not have have empty VLS for the Nirbhay installed from the beginning like I said, if at all we had a plan for them? The reason is that when designs of the P-15B (let alone the older 15A) were being drawn up, we had no idea how the Nirbhay will turn out to be. How big it will be, how much it will weigh etc. It was too early in the project to finalize a binding spec sheet for that system - and unlike US & China, we don't have a Universal VLS standard that all missile manufacturers had to follow.

That's why, we left space for it, but didn't cut any hole.

 

[Armand2REP]

...then carry empty VLS cells. Cells which aren't meant to be carrying missiles can be sealed and no need for maintenance. One can open them up, get them functional, and load rounds once some escalation starts happening.

Whether you leave the VLS cells empty or not, you still have to buy enough missile stocks and keep them stocked when they expire or it makes zero sense to have more VLS cells. If you are buying the stocks you want to have them deployed for the reasons you bought them.

There is no point carrying an unloaded gun.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

No offence debating for arguments sake is meaningless , once can even argue that a canoe fitted with a ashm can destroy a destroyer .

Sorry I am out of the discussion , you guys can continue.

I am not debating for arguments sake. I a only saying that war requires maximum quantity. Hundreds and thousands of targets will be there which have to be struck. Look at WW2 as an example of the quantity needed. So, by stating about confidence in one's system which can make the number of missiles being carried to low numbers, you have undermined the very requirement of quantity.

There is a much cheaper and easier solution for that....

I am not just talking of boats but also many other obstacles. The enemy can also mass manufacture arms like WW2 era. We are not going to fight a war with populations involving 9 billion or more with measly 1000 vessels. How many ships were built in WW2? That should be a good example of the quantity needed.

In addition to enemy military vessels, merchant vessels also have to be sunk and that needs AsHm missiles too. In WW2, USA had about 7000 ships at the ending phase. Germany U boats sunk over 5000 ships. About 1000 Germany U boats were sunk. I don't see a reason why anyone would even think that war will be fought with measly 100s of vessels when the construction facilities have undergone massive automation that speeds up construction. compared to WW2 and population of world has increased 4 times.

Simply put, quantity is a must and there is no substitute for it. There is no loss in carrying 250-300 missiles and VLS during war time. It is always better to have and not need it than need and not have it. The vessels like P15B are big enough to hold ammunition stores upto a thousand tons. there is no reason to carry any less during war time when the needs of quantity will be drastically high

 

[asianobserve]

In peacetime deployments Arleigh Burke destroyers most of the time sail with its 90+ VLS cells not completely filled. But it's a different story in wartime assignments.

 

[Armand2REP]

I am not debating for arguments sake. I a only saying that war requires maximum quantity. Hundreds and thousands of targets will be there which have to be struck. Look at WW2 as an example of the quantity needed. So, by stating about confidence in one's system which can make the number of missiles being carried to low numbers, you have undermined the very requirement of quantity.

I am not just talking of boats but also many other obstacles. The enemy can also mass manufacture arms like WW2 era. We are not going to fight a war with populations involving 9 billion or more with measly 1000 vessels. How many ships were built in WW2? That should be a good example of the quantity needed.

In addition to enemy military vessels, merchant vessels also have to be sunk and that needs AsHm missiles too. In WW2, USA had about 7000 ships at the ending phase. Germany U boats sunk over 5000 ships. About 1000 Germany U boats were sunk. I don't see a reason why anyone would even think that war will be fought with measly 100s of vessels when the construction facilities have undergone massive automation that speeds up construction. compared to WW2 and population of world has increased 4 times.

Simply put, quantity is a must and there is no substitute for it. There is no loss in carrying 250-300 missiles and VLS during war time. It is always better to have and not need it than need and not have it. The vessels like P15B are big enough to hold ammunition stores upto a thousand tons. there is no reason to carry any less during war time when the needs of quantity will be drastically high

In what scenerio do you see an Indian destroyer facing that many ships on the water? Are the Somali pirates going to gather hundreds of their dhows and swarm an Indian warship? Is a fleet of Chinese fishing trawlers trying to land an army on Sri Lanka? If you get in that situation that is when you use rapid fire auto cannons and slaughter them. If you have bigger ships like merchant marine you should have submarines, MPA and warships having a field day. You could re-task the IAF to start dropping LGBs on them. It would be an absolute slaughter.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

In what scenerio do you see an Indian destroyer facing that many ships on the water?

In all out war of civilisation massive mobilisation is expected. Countries like Arab, Pakistan, Indonesia etc are all teamed up. Considering the vast population and resources of these countries, massive mobilisation must be expected.

Are the Somali pirates going to gather hundreds of their dhows and swarm an Indian warship? Is a fleet of Chinese fishing trawlers trying to land an army on Sri Lanka?

This is not all out war. Wars are not fought with some thugs

If you have bigger ships like merchant marine you should have submarines, MPA and warships having a field day. You could re-task the IAF to start dropping LGBs on them. It would be an absolute slaughter.

IAF can't drop LGBs on moving targets like ships accurately. Moreover, travelling deep into sea with IAF without any support from sea based ships will be difficult and dangerous. Su30 can go about 1500km (to and fro 3000km) with heavy payload but the evasion from enemy air defence in the ships of enemies and accuracy of targeting moving ships become difficult. Sea based assets is very important for such operations

 

[Armand2REP]

In all out war of civilisation massive mobilisation is expected. Countries like Arab, Pakistan, Indonesia etc are all teamed up. Considering the vast population and resources of these countries, massive mobilisation must be expected.

Are you expecting the rise of the Caliphate or something?

IAF can't drop LGBs on moving targets like ships accurately.

Why not? You got laser designators on targeting pods, in the periscopes of Scorpenes, on P-8I, on drones, certain vessels and any special forces that are tracking the ships.

Moreover, travelling deep into sea with IAF without any support from sea based ships will be difficult and dangerous. Su30 can go about 1500km (to and fro 3000km) with heavy payload but the evasion from enemy air defence in the ships of enemies and accuracy of targeting moving ships become difficult. Sea based assets is very important for such operations.

You have refueling tankers right? You talk like IAF can't do anything.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Are you expecting the rise of the Caliphate or something?

One always has to be prepared

You have refueling tankers right? You talk like IAF can't do anything.

Refueling tankers are big targets and easy to kill. So, these can work within safety limits only. Otherwise, their kill rate would be over 90% from enemy air defence

 

[Armand2REP]

One always has to be prepared

Having a healthy stock of LGBs should be good enough.

Refueling tankers are big targets and easy to kill. So, these can work within safety limits only. Otherwise, their kill rate would be over 90% from enemy air defence

They don't operate at the front, they are outside the zone of action to refuel for ingress and egress.

 

[Shashwat]

INS Imphal launched.

30 chars.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

In what scenerio do you see an Indian destroyer facing that many ships on the water? Are the Somali pirates going to gather hundreds of their dhows and swarm an Indian warship? Is a fleet of Chinese fishing trawlers trying to land an army on Sri Lanka? If you get in that situation that is when you use rapid fire auto cannons and slaughter them. If you have bigger ships like merchant marine you should have submarines, MPA and warships having a field day. You could re-task the IAF to start dropping LGBs on them. It would be an absolute slaughter.

The reason to add VLS is to counter chinese naval battlegroup.For pak this is sufficient.

 

[Armand2REP]

The reason to add VLS is to counter chinese naval battlegroup.For pak this is sufficient.

The whole PLAN strategy is saturation, as soon as they get within range they will launch everything they have. This limits the defenders reaction time and the number of intercepting missiles becomes less important. The point of Brahmos is that you can destroy the enemy before they can launch against you. Whatever they have left to launch can easily be mopped up by a smaller number of interceptors. One of the points of having a CAP over your fleet is that they can help to engage a saturation attack and make it more survivable before it reaches interception range. The missiles carried by MiG-29K is more valuable than extra Barak VLS.

 

[Kranthi]

In all out war of civilisation massive mobilisation is expected. Countries like Arab, Pakistan, Indonesia etc are all teamed up. Considering the vast population and resources of these countries, massive mobilisation must be expected.


This is not all out war. Wars are not fought with some thugs


IAF can't drop LGBs on moving targets like ships accurately. Moreover, travelling deep into sea with IAF without any support from sea based ships will be difficult and dangerous. Su30 can go about 1500km (to and fro 3000km) with heavy payload but the evasion from enemy air defence in the ships of enemies and accuracy of targeting moving ships become difficult. Sea based assets is very important for such operations

You are talking about a very hypothetical scenario and there is no limit to this case if it is to be taken seriously. How do you know if it is enough even if you have 200 missiles on the ship ? Thing is no one in and around India can pull such a feat under the nose of Indian Navy. Equipping such large number of boats with serious fire power that cannot be taken down by CIWS and needs SAMs to stop is a feat in itself and a total intelligence failure. No amount of missiles can stop such an attack as the enemy knows how many you can stop and will always come with more.

During wartime, if this scenario is close to our coast, we have enough patrol vessels with coast guard and Navy and air support to deal with swarm of trawlers. If it is on high seas, not many of these vessels can make it that far, and even if they do, no vessels are allowed anywhere close to our ships on patrol, much less a carrier battle group. And if they start coming closer with people carrying ATGMs (which is already an intelligence failure if it comes as as surprise for us), those boats will be shot like birds using naval guns, gun fire and rockets from MIG-29 and choppers. Any ATGMs fired can easily be dealt by the AK-130s. These are not any state of the art anti-ship missiles you are talking about.

The missile boat swarm concept has always been there and it will be definitely on the mind of Navy planners while designing a ship. Even we are now planning a new class of missile boats with Brahmos missles. So yes they know the threat of saturation attack and how to deal with it. Airborne early warning is critical to face these scenarios and eliminate the threats before they fire at us.

 

[tomthounaojam]

Nice to know they have named the new P-15b as INS Imphal.

 

[Prashant12]

Navy’s 4 under-construction destroyers to get lethal weapons, sensors package


NEW DELHI: The Cabinet Committee on Security has cleared a deadly weapons and sensors package for the four guided-missile destroyers under construction at Mazagon Docks in Mumbai, which will take the overall project cost of the four stealth warships to around Rs 35,800 crore.

Sources said the CCS last week cleared the over Rs 6,150 crore acquisition cost of a wide range of advanced weapon systems and sensors for the four 7,300-tonne destroyers being constructed under ‘Project-15B’. The first of the destroyers, INS Visakhapatnam, is likely to be commissioned in 2021-2022 after some delay. It will be followed by her sister warships, INS Mormugao and INS Imphal, while the fourth is yet to be named.

All four will be armed with precision-strike BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles as well as the next-generation Barak surface-to-air missile systems, among other weapons like 127 mm main guns and rocket launchers. While BrahMos has been developed jointly with Russia, the Barak-NG is a collaboration between Israeli Aerospace Industries-Rafael and the Indian Defence Research and Development Organisation.

“While the Rs 29,644-crore fixed cost component for construction of the destroyers was inked in 2011, the variable cost component, which includes the weapons and sensors, has now been cleared by the CCS,” a source said.

The stealth destroyers, which will be propelled by four gas turbines to achieve speeds of over 30 knots, will pack a formidable punch. With their weapons and sensors, like the vertically launched missile systems and MF-STARs (multi-function surveillance and threat alert radars), the warships will be capable of long-distance engagement of shore, sea-based and air targets.

The interception range of the supersonic Barak-NG missile systems, for instance, has been increased from the earlier 70 km to around 100 km to provide an all-weather ‘defence shield’ against incoming enemy fighters, drones, helicopters, missiles and other munitions. The strike range of the 290-km BrahMos is also now being extended, as earlier reported by TOI.

The destroyers, which span 163 metres in length and 17.4 metres at the beam, have been indigenously designed and constructed. The P-15B destroyers, each of which can carry two multi-role helicopters, incorporate cutting-edge design concepts for improved survivability, sea-keeping stealth and manoeuvrability.

Once these warships are commissioned, they will join the ranks of operational destroyers named INS Delhi, INS Mumbai, INS Mysore, INS Kolkata, INS Kochi and INS Chennai. The naval tradition is to name indigenously constructed destroyers, which are second only to aircraft carriers in size and combat power, after a state capital or big city.

The Navy has a force level of 125 warships as well as 15 diesel-electric and two nuclear submarines, along with around 235 aircraft, helicopters and drones, to guard India’s strategic interests from the Persian Gulf to Malacca Strait as well as deter Pakistan and counter China’s expanding footprint in the Indian Ocean Region. The force also has 48 warships under construction in India, including aircraft carrier INS Vikrant, four Scorpene submarines and the four destroyers, while it will also get two frigates from Russia.


https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...pons-sensors-package/articleshow/73259960.cms

 

[iantsai]

When will the first ship Visakhapatnam be in sea trial?

 

[BangaliBabu]

When will the first ship Visakhapatnam be in sea trial?

When Takla will get his hair back.....only a strand of hair on his polished dumdum, ONLY!!

 

[aditya g]

A lot of discussion on SAM capacity of Project-15A and B ships.

My 2 paise:

Admittedly, 32 SAMs does appear to be on the low side. However, we have to understand that these ships are equipped with an Aegis class air defence system, world class AShM and SAM.

Even if we take 2 SAMs per AShM, what is the likely hood that enemy will be able to lob 16 missiles to attack the ship? i.e. without having Brahmos coming their way.

My concern is that LRSAM is an expensive missile for a Cwiz role, and perhaps another set of smaller and cheaper missiles would have helped.

There is a reason why IN destroyers have 32 VLS for air defence.

That reason is to cut down operational costs during peacetime and importantly IN operational doctrine involves multiple vessels operating in a overlapping support role and not in a lone wolf mode.

Is it some wrestling match where 2 ships from opposing sides will have a shoot out ?

No , IN ships will operate in groups , the numbers will be determined by the mission requirements and threat levels.

And seriously how many AShMs can porkistan ships can possibly fire at a time ?
2 ? 4 ? 8 ? 10 ?
Even then a single destroyer can neutralize 10 such missiles by firing 2 LRSAMs per AShMs for a total of 20 LRSAMs while moving out of threat zone with 12 missiles left to take care of any leakers.

If one has confidence in the capability of his defence systems , he can carry the minimum requisite numbers of the same rather than carry huge no of missiles to cater for the lack of confidence in the defensive systems.

Also there are rumours of IN destroyers carrying 32 reloads under deck in addition to the ready to fire 32 LRSAMs. I cannot give evidence for the same , believe what you want to believe.

The requirement and calculation of minimum is highly subjective. Only in peacetime, the requirement us minimal. In wartime, Indian ships may also have to carry enough missiles to strike land targets and also defend against land based AshM when it has to also give cover to land operations.

If we have to go near land targets like Karachi, the number can be pretty high

Enemies can build many boats, even small ones like speed boats with people carrying ATGMS. Even these boats at distance of 7-10km can be highly problematic and have to be neutralised using some other means like helicopter based ATGM or even AshM missile.

So, the number of missiles including SAM, surface missiles, torpedoes, helicopter reloads etc will be enormous in case of major conflict. The requirement will be in 250+ easily per reload. It may go up much higher to 500+.


Even with high confidence, the number must be high in highly dangerous scenarios. Only peacetime operations can be considered less intense and hence less dangerous

 

[Bhurki]

A lot of discussion on SAM capacity of Project-15A and B ships.

My 2 paise:

Admittedly, 32 SAMs does appear to be on the low side. However, we have to understand that these ships are equipped with an Aegis class air defence system, world class AShM and SAM.

Even if we take 2 SAMs per AShM, what is the likely hood that enemy will be able to lob 16 missiles to attack the ship? i.e. without having Brahmos coming their way.

My concern is that LRSAM is an expensive missile for a Cwiz role, and perhaps another set of smaller and cheaper missiles would have helped.

It is not just cost of missiles but the cost of the ship itself which is worrying.
$5B/4 = $1.25B per ship.

Equivalent ships cost a lot less -
FFGX (USN) - $900M (32 VLS + 16 AShM
Sejong (RoK) - $1.1B (128 VLS + 16 AShM)

Not to forget each of those VLS can carry 4 ESSM