Project P15B Visakhapatnam class destroyer

[aditya g]

Just be thankful that Navy has a solid pipeline of construction.

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

 

[Sanghibilla]

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

just the barak 8 missile system including mfstar and all costs about 180-200 mln dollar for the p17a's and all that delays that leads to cost escalation doesnt help at all

 

[Bhurki]

Just be thankful that Navy has a solid pipeline of construction.

Whats the use of a solid pipeline if there's no money flowing through it. A grand total of Rs.127bn have been allocated for ships in Fy21.
Infact, Rs.123bn were allocated in Fy20 and navy overspent for a total of Rs.153bn. Such overspendings will not be allowed in the Fy21-25 period due to pandemic fiscal crunch.

 

[Bhurki]

just the barak 8 missile system including mfstar and all costs about 180-200 mln dollar for the p17a's

What stops them from mounting an Akash battery on the ships? Thats what Russians and Chinese do.(S300, Hq9 etc)

 

[Chinmoy]

What stops them from mounting an Akash battery on the ships? Thats what Russians and Chinese do.(S300, Hq9 etc)

Weight. It was discussed loooong back. Akash in its current form is not fit to be mounted on IN ships. But the VL-SRSAM is just another version of Akash. Its Akash -NG.

 

[Bhurki]

Weight. It was discussed loooong back. Akash in its current form is not fit to be mounted on IN ships. But the VL-SRSAM is just another version of Akash. Its Akash -NG.

Akash is the same size/weight of an SM2.

There's much larger missiles mounted to ship based VLS systems. 48N6, HQ9 are about 2 tons, SM6 is about 1.5 tons.The ships carrying are the same size as IN ships (052d etc)

 

[Chinmoy]

Akash is the same size/weight of an SM2.

There's much larger missiles mounted to ship based VLS systems. 48N6, HQ9 are about 2 tons, SM6 is about 1.5 tons.The ships carrying are the same size as IN ships (052d etc)

Compare the displacement and size of Kolkata or Vizag class destroyers with Chinese or Russian ones. You would get the answer on why Akash was not preferred on any of these ships.

 

[Sanghibilla]

missile isnt a problem even though barak 8 isnt cheap most of it is built in india but the mfstar and other components of the sytem comes from israel and thats where most of the money goes.
also akash cant replace barak8 in its current form its srsam vs mr/lrsam.Hopefully LR-MFR or its derivative will be able to replace the mfstar

 

[Bhurki]

Compare the displacement and size of Kolkata or Vizag class destroyers with Chinese or Russian ones. You would get the answer on why Akash was not preferred on any of these ships.

What are you on about...

Type 052d -7500 tons
Kolkata/Vizag class - 7400 tons

Infact, Russia's gorshkov class which weighs in at 5400 tons full load (2000 tons lighter than P15A/B) carries the same amount of missiles (16x Offensive + 32x Defensive)

Just use wiki before typing stuff..

 

[shiphone]

Type 052D‘s ’full‘ displacement : Less than 7000 tons.

 

[Bhurki]

Type 052D‘s ’full‘ displacement : Less than 7000 tons.

I'm taking my numbers from IHS Jane's. Thats as authoritative a source as you can get.

 

[shiphone]

I'm taking my numbers from IHS Jane's. Thats as authoritative a source as you can get.

Jane's ? an ' english media' can be authoritative about chinese stuff ? ...you r kidding...

again, Type 052C/D is the 6000 tons class platform of PLAN fleet planning...the latest length extended varient is a little over 7000 tons(full displacement)

 

[Bhurki]

Jane's ? an ' english media' can be authoritative about chinese stuff ? ...you r kidding...

Jane's has existed for more than 120 years, Its the original repository for defense everything, especially naval vessels.
They take their work seriously, and I trust them.

Also, there's no official mention of tonnage with respect to 052d in defined state (light, operational, full), there's only speculation.

Again, if you have time, all you need to do is go and check dimensions and displacement of similar vessels like Fremm, Daring, Ffgx, Kolkata etc and you'll probably correct yourselves if conscience allows.

 

[shiphone]

Jane's has existed for more than 120 years, Its the original repository for defense everything, especially naval vessels.
They take their work seriously, and I trust them. Also, there's no official mention of tonnage with respect to 052d in defined state (light, operational, full), there's only speculation.

LOL
dear, you can try to read those Jane's yearbook of 1950,60,70,80s if you can find.. and then you will know how it was terrible wrong about the information of so called 'eastern' nations in those years.. acrossing the iron curtain, they could only 'guess' on most of things.

btw, the PLAN don't use the 'full/light/operational displacement' as one of the Main Technical specifications of Combat vessels. the 'Normal displacement' is the right defined state and classified...on the open day and interview events, the 'full displacement' can normally be revealed to be public and this is the 'official' source of the above claims...

save your funny logic please...or try to learn a little Mandarin

 

[Chinmoy]

What are you on about...

Type 052d -7500 tons
Kolkata/Vizag class - 7400 tons

Infact, Russia's gorshkov class which weighs in at 5400 tons full load (2000 tons lighter than P15A/B) carries the same amount of missiles (16x Offensive + 32x Defensive)

Just use wiki before typing stuff..

Wiki.. Thanks for making it easy for me.

BTW did you checked for the difference between Barak 8 and Akash in Wiki? Difference between their weight and range?

Meanwhile I have made a small chart on weapon package of Kolkata. Replace the Barak 8 with Akash. One Akash missile weighs 720kg. Which means for each Akash on board, we could have 2 Barak 8 instead.
Capability wise, the maximum engagement range of Barak 8 at 100 km beats 40 km of Akash hands down. It means with half the weight of Akash, we are able to achieve double the capability with Barak.

Now lets not even compare Akash with capability of HQ-9.

INS Kolkata weapon package
	Weight (kg)	Numbers	Total weight (kg)
Barak 8	275​	32​	8800​
BRAHMOS	3000​	16​	48000​
76mm Oto Malera	7620​	1​	7620​
AK-630	9114​	4​	36456​
Mk-46 Torpedos	230​	4​	920​
RGB-60	113.5​	24​	2724​
Total			104520​

 

[Bhurki]

Wiki.. Thanks for making it easy for me.

BTW did you checked for the difference between Barak 8 and Akash in Wiki? Difference between their weight and range?

Meanwhile I have made a small chart on weapon package of Kolkata. Replace the Barak 8 with Akash. One Akash missile weighs 720kg. Which means for each Akash on board, we could have 2 Barak 8 instead.
Capability wise, the maximum engagement range of Barak 8 at 100 km beats 40 km of Akash hands down. It means with half the weight of Akash, we are able to achieve double the capability with Barak.

Now lets not even compare Akash with capability of HQ-9.

INS Kolkata weapon package
	Weight (kg)	Numbers	Total weight (kg)
Barak 8	275​	32​	8800​
BRAHMOS	3000​	16​	48000​
76mm Oto Malera	7620​	1​	7620​
AK-630	9114​	4​	36456​
Mk-46 Torpedos	230​	4​	920​
RGB-60	113.5​	24​	2724​
Total			104520​

Thats not how you weigh weapon systems..

There's PHS&T(package, handling storage and transportation)considerations, onboard systems to manage sensors and launch, power supply units, VLS handling units, blast protective lining etc.

Not to forget weapon specific sensors, like long range radar for LRSAM, short range IR rangefinders, ESM, ECCM.

An example-
A SM2 weighs 1560 lbs, does that mean 8 SM2 would weight 1560x8 = 12480 lbs?
No.
A Mk41 tactical length Vls system with 8 SM2 weighs 56,400 lbs...

// Original Akash weighs so much because of the absolute antiquated technology (ramjet for short range surface to air , really?!). Its loosely based on SA-6s 3M9 missile which was designed in the 60s. All newer SAM missiles since 80s are simple rocket motor based systems, which cuts down both complexity and size. A ramjets usability is only in endgame performace for longe range AAM(meteor). As such I expect Akash to move towards the same goal of providing a simple SM2/ESSM like missile which cheap and reliable, not to miss light weight and space constrained.

 

[aditya g]

Akash as a system is not fit for purpose in the naval context. To begin with you need to design the whole launcher complex, similar to Shtil-1, and there is no way you can put Rajendra radar on a naval ship. Even if you figure that out, there is limited utility for an air defence missile on a ship as the MUST-HAVE use case is to defeat AShMs.

Barak-8 and its supporting complex is gold standard for us - although we also have to pay its price in gold!

My hope is we come around to a cheap VL quick reaction and short range sam which can be fitted onto corvettes and smaller systems.

 

[aditya g]

A thought experiment which I always entertain is how we can squeeze out high capabilities using off the shelf and cheap/easy solutions. Unfortunately these thought experiments are mostly futile waste of time.

Below is a good example of such thinking on Egyptian Mistrals;

 

[Chinmoy]

Thats not how you weigh weapon systems..

There's PHS&T(package, handling storage and transportation)considerations, onboard systems to manage sensors and launch, power supply units, VLS handling units, blast protective lining etc.

Not to forget weapon specific sensors, like long range radar for LRSAM, short range IR rangefinders, ESM, ECCM.

An example-
A SM2 weighs 1560 lbs, does that mean 8 SM2 would weight 1560x8 = 12480 lbs?
No.
A Mk41 tactical length Vls system with 8 SM2 weighs 56,400 lbs...

// Original Akash weighs so much because of the absolute antiquated technology (ramjet for short range surface to air , really?!). Its loosely based on SA-6s 3M9 missile which was designed in the 60s. All newer SAM missiles since 80s are simple rocket motor based systems, which cuts down both complexity and size. A ramjets usability is only in endgame performace for longe range AAM(meteor). As such I expect Akash to move towards the same goal of providing a simple SM2/ESSM like missile which cheap and reliable, not to miss light weight and space constrained.

I was just referring to Wiki when you said so. I was not even considering the support system and launcher weight. I am just referring to the weapon load alone. Obviously a weapon comes with its own infra to take care of. For example, Akash is not a vertically launched missile and can't be launched from VLS. So putting it on a warship would have its own limitation in form of space.
Even if it could be launched from VLS, anyone on a ship would go for a light weight system which offers much more capability.
So point is, IN rejected Akash for some obvious reason.

 

[RoaringTigerHiddenDragon]

LOL
dear, you can try to read those Jane's yearbook of 1950,60,70,80s if you can find.. and then you will know how it was terrible wrong about the information of so called 'eastern' nations in those years.. acrossing the iron curtain, they could only 'guess' on most of things.

btw, the PLAN don't use the 'full/light/operational displacement' as one of the Main Technical specifications of Combat vessels. the 'Normal displacement' is the right defined state and classified...on the open day and interview events, the 'full displacement' can normally be revealed to be public and this is the 'official' source of the above claims...

save your funny logic please...or try to learn a little Mandarin

Sorry. Anything and everything coming out of CCP land cannot be believed. We have not seen any Chinese equipment in action in any war theaters or joint exercises in modern time. No warring countries actually have used Chinese equipment. Until we actually see or have test data on tactical efficiency of Chinese equipment, we have to consider them inferior, as superior weapons systems always have no issues being open about their data. PLAN has hardly anything to deter patrols in SCS by major naval powers. Quantity does have its own quality but with unproven weapons systems, PLAN is not going to be confident in taking on powers that have actual combat experience. And that makes a ton of difference.