Kolkata-class and Visakhapatnam-class Destroyers: News & Discussions

vstol Jockey

Professional
Dec 1, 2017
6,268
12,246
New Delhi
Correct. But considering that navy designers have overall done a good job with Kolkata class, I would expect them to load the ship with similar no of Anti ship missiles as destroyers from other countries or at least leave space for future up-gradation. In case they didn't leave space in Kolkata class, they would have definitely fixed that in Vishakhapatanam class. Since Vizag class did not go through any major structural changes, it can assumed with high probability that Navy designers have already taken care of that aspect. After all if we can see the issue, the professionals must have thought it through.
Plus it's not only the destroyers, our frigates are under armed too. So there is a pattern which indicates that more Nirbhay/Brahmos launchers will be added a later stage.
In the end, it's just a guess. @vstol Jockey What is your opinion on this?
This is the plan for future. Most of the new generation ships can be modified to carry Nirbhay missile also.
 

Bon Plan

Senior member
Dec 1, 2017
2,556
1,186
France
It's not 90+. It's 64 VLS ( ASM, LR SAM and quad packed MRSAM) for type 52D. The advantage is the flexibility to pack the 64 with different types of missiles, based on mission.
Kolkata class does not have that flexibility. It's 16 Brahmos and 32 Barak 8 LR SAMs.
What about the anti ship missile on 52D? Nothing so powerfull than 16 Brahmos ! for sure.
 

Bon Plan

Senior member
Dec 1, 2017
2,556
1,186
France
That's 32+32. What about the nos of Brahmos?Does it remain static at 16?
No warships in the world has more than 16 anti ship missiles to day (I'm quite sure of that).
And Brahmos is very powerfull. Even it the warhead don't detonate, the kinetic energy and the rest of fuel make a lot of dammage.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Angel Eyes

_Anonymous_

Senior Member
Dec 4, 2017
17,972
14,189
Mumbai
No warships in the world has more than 16 anti ship missiles to day (I'm quite sure of that).
And Brahmos is very powerfull. Even it the warhead don't detonate, the kinetic energy and the rest of fuel make a lot of dammage.
The Chinese love doing things which no one has attempted before .That's got them this far . That's also the reason why they'd miscalculate. Let's hope not at the world's cost but their own .
 
Last edited:
Dec 4, 2017
756
553
India
Brahmos is an anti ship missile. A heavy and deadly missile (but still not war proven. Is its seeker good?). It's far than enough, be sure.

The 90+ for the chinese figure are SAM, not anti ship ones.

Brahmos is p-800 Oniks missile. It is not war proven but so are many other modern missiles. Fighting against boats of Iraqi army is not proof enough for anything. Brahmos is a deadly missile with sea skimming ability of 5m above sea level. However, at this sea skimming path, flight range is only 150-200km. That makes the missile heavier.

A longer range cruise missile would be a preferable alternative. 32 Nirbhay cruise missile and 16 Brahmos with some extra missiles for reload would be the best weapons configuration. Most of our enemy ships are not well guarded with air defence and hence less deadly cruise missiles like Nirbhay should be able to get the job done. Also, these cruise missiles can be used to target enemy ports and harbour to destroy logistics.

No warships in the world has more than 16 anti ship missiles to day (I'm quite sure of that).
And Brahmos is very powerfull. Even it the warhead don't detonate, the kinetic energy and the rest of fuel make a lot of dammage.
There is no reason to say 16 missiles are enough. I would like to see a ship with 20% of its weight made up only by missile system (including SAM, radar etc)
 

Bon Plan

Senior member
Dec 1, 2017
2,556
1,186
France
Brahmos is p-800 Oniks missile. It is not war proven but so are many other modern missiles. Fighting against boats of Iraqi army is not proof enough for anything. Brahmos is a deadly missile with sea skimming ability of 5m above sea level. However, at this sea skimming path, flight range is only 150-200km. That makes the missile heavier.

A longer range cruise missile would be a preferable alternative. 32 Nirbhay cruise missile and 16 Brahmos with some extra missiles for reload would be the best weapons configuration. Most of our enemy ships are not well guarded with air defence and hence less deadly cruise missiles like Nirbhay should be able to get the job done. Also, these cruise missiles can be used to target enemy ports and harbour to destroy logistics.


There is no reason to say 16 missiles are enough. I would like to see a ship with 20% of its weight made up only by missile system (including SAM, radar etc)
USN, the only 1st rank navy of the world only put 8 ASM on its cruisers and destroyers. I think they have a lot of good reasons for.
 

Bon Plan

Senior member
Dec 1, 2017
2,556
1,186
France
Their anti-ship missions are directed from carriers.
10 or 11 carriers. It's a lot. But not all at sea at the same moment. And a carrier is only effective 600 to 800km around it.

So any US destroyer may have to face a sea-sea combat. When you see they are able to put 90 +/- SAM, your really can imagine 8 more ASM missile is not an issue for them. But they decided to stay to 8.
 
Dec 4, 2017
756
553
India
10 or 11 carriers. It's a lot. But not all at sea at the same moment. And a carrier is only effective 600 to 800km around it.

So any US destroyer may have to face a sea-sea combat. When you see they are able to put 90 +/- SAM, your really can imagine 8 more ASM missile is not an issue for them. But they decided to stay to 8.

USA has a SAM system which also can be used as anti ship missile. Read about RIM-174 ERAM.

RIM-174 Standard ERAM - Wikipedia

This is why USA does not need to have dedicated Antiship missile.

India needs dedicated anti-ship missile as its SAM is not convertible. Brahmos and Nirbhay are both needed. 16 Brahmos and 32 Nirbhay missile VLS would be best bet with another 16 and 32 reloads. nirbhay has much longer range at lower weight and hence is more apt to be placed in larger numbers
 
  • Like
Reactions: Angel Eyes

Bon Plan

Senior member
Dec 1, 2017
2,556
1,186
France
USA has a SAM system which also can be used as anti ship missile. Read about RIM-174 ERAM.

RIM-174 Standard ERAM - Wikipedia

This is why USA does not need to have dedicated Antiship missile.

India needs dedicated anti-ship missile as its SAM is not convertible. Brahmos and Nirbhay are both needed. 16 Brahmos and 32 Nirbhay missile VLS would be best bet with another 16 and 32 reloads. nirbhay has much longer range at lower weight and hence is more apt to be placed in larger numbers
indeed. I don't know SM6 have a secondary anti ship role. Thanks for the news.
 

Parthu

Gessler
Team StratFront
Dec 1, 2017
1,199
2,398
26
Vizag, India
I want at least 32 brahmos on kolkata....
and it really needs more Air defence missiles like Barack ER to be feared and respected....something close to 64 would be good.

16 ASCMs are enough. That's already twice as many as comparable DDGs like Type-45 carry.

More SAMs are a possibility for a future upgrade (there is space). But it needs to be remembered that Kolk is not an AAW destroyer, Anti-Air Warfare is not it's principle focus.

The reason why AEGIS ships or new Chinese DDGs have more missiles is because they developed Universal VLS system and made a 'VLS Farm' type arrangement fore and aft of the ship. This means any and all types of missiles the ship carries (ASCM, LACM, LRSAM, SRSAM, ASROC etc.) can be put in any VLS cell. One size fits all - so they can configure the loadout as per mission needs (trade in SAMs for more ASCMs in a surface warfare requirement, or the reverse for AAW role).

But on our ships this is not possible. We have UVLM that can handle any type of Russian-origin ASCM (BrahMos, Klub or otherwise) but our SAM suites are of Israeli origin. We can't put our ASCMs in cells meant for our SAMs, and vice versa.

It's believed the next DDG project after Vizag-class is going to be the NGD (as of now unofficially called Project-18), and that destroyer will have emphasis on land-attack capability. So expect at least 32 dedicated strike length cells for Nirbhay LACMs. That's in addition to the usual 16 ASCM cells - which by the time the NGD makes its appearance are likely to have a Scramjet-based Hypersonic ASCM.

That's a total of 46 strike-length cells....and with a projected displacement of 13,000 tons the NGD-class is pretty much a cruiser.
 

Parthu

Gessler
Team StratFront
Dec 1, 2017
1,199
2,398
26
Vizag, India

Regarding the number of NGD/NGF given as 5-10....

This is not including the P-17A right? That is already under construction and 7 are being built so the minimum figure of 5 doesn't make sense anyway.

So this means IN wants 5-10 NG surface combatants....NOT INCLUDING P-15B and P-17A. We are aware of the existence of NGD project. But have not heard anything about NGF. I wonder how the numbers will be split. If we're going for 10 ships, I wonder if again they will be divided into 7 FFGs and 3 DDGs.

Although I'd like to have more DDGs now, it must be remembered that the NGD is projected to be a 13,000-ton ship, nearly same size as DDG-1000 Zumwalt. Even 3 of them would be a game changer.

@randomradio @vstol Jockey Anything on an NGF ?
 
  • Informative
Reactions: _Anonymous_

Ashwin

Agent_47
Staff member
Administrator
Nov 30, 2017
5,620
9,279
Bangalore
What does the numbers indicate??
Expected life and approximate quantity.

Regarding the number of NGD/NGF given as 5-10....

This is not including the P-17A right? That is already under construction and 7 are being built so the minimum figure of 5 doesn't make sense anyway.

So this means IN wants 5-10 NG surface combatants....NOT INCLUDING P-15B and P-17A. We are aware of the existence of NGD project. But have not heard anything about NGF. I wonder how the numbers will be split. If we're going for 10 ships, I wonder if again they will be divided into 7 FFGs and 3 DDGs.

Although I'd like to have more DDGs now, it must be remembered that the NGD is projected to be a 13,000-ton ship, nearly same size as DDG-1000 Zumwalt. Even 3 of them would be a game changer.

@randomradio @vstol Jockey Anything on an NGF ?
Yes, this will be post-2025.

This number doesn't make sense because if you take our intake of FFGs + DDGs in last two decades. They should be adding 20-25 new ships in next batch, not 5-10.

Screenshot (37).png


So, 2025+ = 8 NGD + 12 NGF (P17B) + 4-5 Talwar follow-on (4k ton) = 25

My guess, Projected numbers are based on plans outlined in the 90s and its a constraint now. (Just like 24 SSK number of plan-2030)
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
15,981
11,626
India
Regarding the number of NGD/NGF given as 5-10....

This is not including the P-17A right? That is already under construction and 7 are being built so the minimum figure of 5 doesn't make sense anyway.

So this means IN wants 5-10 NG surface combatants....NOT INCLUDING P-15B and P-17A. We are aware of the existence of NGD project. But have not heard anything about NGF. I wonder how the numbers will be split. If we're going for 10 ships, I wonder if again they will be divided into 7 FFGs and 3 DDGs.

Although I'd like to have more DDGs now, it must be remembered that the NGD is projected to be a 13,000-ton ship, nearly same size as DDG-1000 Zumwalt. Even 3 of them would be a game changer.

@randomradio @vstol Jockey Anything on an NGF ?

As long as there's an NGD, there's gonna be an NGF.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Parthu
Dec 4, 2017
756
553
India
It is unwise to have same VLS for SAM and ASCM. Indian SAM is light-weight and sleek. It needs very little space. Brahmos on the other hand is heavy and bulky. It is better to have separate SAM and ASCM launchers to save space.

SAM is a major requirement as a ship can be more easily taken out from an incoming missile or plane than any other means. So, irrespective of whether it is anti-air ship, SAM must be a priority.

Regarding ASCM, the whole point of having a destroyer is to destroy enemy ships. If the number of ASCM is limited to 16, it defeats the purpose of destroyer. So, more ASCM are needed. However, not all of them needs to be Brahmos. Nirbhay cruise missile is also a good enough missile for most of the smaller ships and gun boats.
16 ASCMs are enough. That's already twice as many as comparable DDGs like Type-45 carry.

More SAMs are a possibility for a future upgrade (there is space). But it needs to be remembered that Kolk is not an AAW destroyer, Anti-Air Warfare is not it's principle focus.

The reason why AEGIS ships or new Chinese DDGs have more missiles is because they developed Universal VLS system and made a 'VLS Farm' type arrangement fore and aft of the ship. This means any and all types of missiles the ship carries (ASCM, LACM, LRSAM, SRSAM, ASROC etc.) can be put in any VLS cell. One size fits all - so they can configure the loadout as per mission needs (trade in SAMs for more ASCMs in a surface warfare requirement, or the reverse for AAW role).

But on our ships this is not possible. We have UVLM that can handle any type of Russian-origin ASCM (BrahMos, Klub or otherwise) but our SAM suites are of Israeli origin. We can't put our ASCMs in cells meant for our SAMs, and vice versa.

It's believed the next DDG project after Vizag-class is going to be the NGD (as of now unofficially called Project-18), and that destroyer will have emphasis on land-attack capability. So expect at least 32 dedicated strike length cells for Nirbhay LACMs. That's in addition to the usual 16 ASCM cells - which by the time the NGD makes its appearance are likely to have a Scramjet-based Hypersonic ASCM.

That's a total of 46 strike-length cells....and with a projected displacement of 13,000 tons the NGD-class is pretty much a cruiser.
 

Parthu

Gessler
Team StratFront
Dec 1, 2017
1,199
2,398
26
Vizag, India
It is unwise to have same VLS for SAM and ASCM.

It's not unwise - that's the way both USN and PLAN work. That's a very smart way to accommodate ship's missile systems. The reason why IN can't do the same is not because we wouldn't want to but because we can't!

For India this can't work because our SAM cells are designed for accommodation of Israeli-origin missiles and our strike-length UVLM cells are designed to accommodate Russian-origin anti-ship/land-attack missiles.

Russians & Israelis have no obligation to design their missiles in such a way that they fit into the VLS cells designed by the other party. But US and China use locally-designed missile systems, hence they are able to make missiles that fit into a larger infrastructural domain that underlines commonality and near-infinite flexibility & adaptability.

Indian SAM is light-weight and sleek. It needs very little space. Brahmos on the other hand is heavy and bulky. It is better to have separate SAM and ASCM launchers to save space.

How universal VLS like Mk.41 works is that a cell capable of storing 1 big missile can accommodate 2 or upto 4 smaller missiles. This is quad-packing. If dealing with a small SRSAM like Sea Sparrow ESSM, you can put 4 missiles in a single VLS cell.

And again, the reason why we have separate cells is not because we wanted it that way, but because we couldn't have it any other way.

Regarding ASCM, the whole point of having a destroyer is to destroy enemy ships.

No, the point of your destroyer is determined by your naval doctrine. If your destroyer's focus is AAW (protecting Carrier Battle Group from enemy air & missile attacks) you may not be bothered even if your destroyer has very limited (or none at all) long range anti-ship capability.

The Royal Navy's Type-45 DDG is an example. I think most of them don't even carry a single ASCM and even when they do, they are designed to accommodate only 8 Harpoons.

If the number of ASCM is limited to 16, it defeats the purpose of destroyer.

Nonsense. For a ship without universal VLS, 16 is very very good number.

Daring-class (UK)
Horizon-class (France)
Orizzonte-class (Italy)
Baden Wurttemburg-class (Germany)
Type-052C (China)
Alvaro De Bazan-class (Spain)
Fridtjof Nansen-class (Norway)

^^ All those have only 8 ASCMs. In surface warfare, the Kolk beats them all hands down, just with what it has now. Remember China only afforded the ability to have larger number of ASCMs only once they installed UVLS on their Type-052D. Before that, 8 ASCMs was standard fit for any PLAN main surface combatant including DDGs and FFGs.

In comparison IN had 16 ASCM package on DDGs designed in 90s like Delhi-class. Heck, we put 16 ASCMs on a farking Corvette (Kora-class)!

So, more ASCM are needed.

IN already has more than enough love of ASCMs. What we need now are more SAMs.

However, not all of them needs to be Brahmos.

Across the Navy? Sure. We will have both BrahMos and at least 1 other type of smaller ASCM which might or might not be subsonic for the smaller ships.

But more than 1 type of ASCM on a single ship? That's probably not gonna happen - here or in any other country*

* Not including SAMs or otherwise re-purposed missiles used to attack ships.

Nirbhay cruise missile is also a good enough missile for most of the smaller ships and gun boats.

1200km LACMs on gun boats and corvettes? :LOL: