Shivalik Class (Project 17/17A) & Talwar Class Frigates

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,314
8,561
India
Ship hulls get rusted over a period of time. The hulls of these ships were created six years back so what we are getting are hulls with reduced life. Pls do not teach me about ships. I am a Watch keeping certificate holder from Indian Navy and also the topper of Western command as a Midshipman and also adjudged best Junior officer of western command in 1991.

Both ships we bought were laid down in 2013. And we will get them in 2022 and 23. That's 9 and 10 years. No different from the amount of time the Shivalik class took.
 

Parthu

Gessler
Team StratFront
Dec 1, 2017
973
1,953
25
Vizag, India
How do you define outdated? These ships will pretty much have the same firepower technology as the upgraded Delhi class.

By that time (mid to late 2020s), Delhi class would be close to decommissioning.

The first IN Talwar was commissioned 2003. Save for the VLS Shtil, rest of the ship is basically the same. So by 2026-2027, we'd be commissioning frontline combatants that are at the same technological level as the ships we commissioned ~25 years ago by that time.

That is a damn shame.

That is equivalent to commissioning a Godavari or Brahmaputra-class frigate in 2018.
 

Milspec

सर्वदा शक्तिशाली; सर्वत्र विजय
Moderator
Dec 2, 2017
2,174
2,793
United States
By that time (mid to late 2020s), Delhi class would be close to decommissioning.

The first IN Talwar was commissioned 2003. Save for the VLS Shtil, rest of the ship is basically the same. So by 2026-2027, we'd be commissioning frontline combatants that are at the same technological level as the ships we commissioned ~25 years ago by that time.

That is a damn shame.

That is equivalent to commissioning a Godavari or Brahmaputra-class frigate in 2018.
We might be getting the 9M317ME on this Shtil VLS compared to the 9K37M1-2 we currently operate.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,314
8,561
India
By that time (mid to late 2020s), Delhi class would be close to decommissioning.

The first IN Talwar was commissioned 2003. Save for the VLS Shtil, rest of the ship is basically the same. So by 2026-2027, we'd be commissioning frontline combatants that are at the same technological level as the ships we commissioned ~25 years ago by that time.

That is a damn shame.

That is equivalent to commissioning a Godavari or Brahmaputra-class frigate in 2018.

No, the Delhi class will be decommissioned only in the early 2040s. The life of the ship is 40 years, and can be extended even further. Look at the Rajput class, still going strong after 40 years. So the ship will be operating the same kit as the new Talwars even in 2035.

The only tangible difference between the upgraded Delhi/Talwars and the Visakhapatnam/P-17A is the SAMs, pretty much every other weapons system is in the same class. And even when it comes to SAMs, the overall effectiveness is the same since both SAMs can stop subsonic and supersonic missiles.
 

Parthu

Gessler
Team StratFront
Dec 1, 2017
973
1,953
25
Vizag, India
No, the Delhi class will be decommissioned only in the early 2040s.

Which is even sadder.

The life of the ship is 40 years, and can be extended even further. Look at the Rajput class, still going strong after 40 years. So the ship will be operating the same kit as the new Talwars even in 2035.

We also operated a carrier originally commissioned in 1959 till 2016 (~60 years), that doesn't mean it is wise to do so (or even worth it), we just do it because we are desperate for options.

The only tangible difference between the upgraded Delhi/Talwars and the Visakhapatnam/P-17A is the SAMs, pretty much every other weapons system is in the same class.

A ship is more than its weapon systems. Even if you somehow mate Barak-8 with the Fregat-M2 surveillance radar & MR-90 Orekh fire control radar system, it'll be nowhere as effective as a Barak guided by MF-STAR. A modern Arleigh Burke or Type-45 has Harpoons same as the Oliver H. Perry of 70s. That doesn't mean they are equally effective or that it's okay to commission a OHP in 2018.

And even when it comes to SAMs, the overall effectiveness is the same since both SAMs can stop subsonic and supersonic missiles.

If that were true P-17A wouldn't move to Barak-8, they'd retain the same Shtil that P-17 had (except maybe in VLS setup).

'Overall effectiveness' of something fire controlled by this:



Is not the same as a missile that is a full generation newer and controlled by this:



I don't know how you think the Orekh illuminators paired with an upgraded Buk (base model from late 70s) is an acceptable solution for a brand new frontline warship to be commissioned in mid to late 2020s. Russians already stopped using these in 2018 (Admiral Gorshkov-class is the standard for Russian frigates now, with APAR multifunction radars), the only usage was on Grigorovich which were originally meant for the relative low-threat environment of Black Sea Fleet's area while the Gorshkov was to be frontline, having access to Atlantic.



Either way you look at it, Batch-3 Talwar in 2026-27 makes zero sense unless you want to train hundreds of new sailors to put on sub-standard combatants that can't really work together with IN's frontline combatants and/or carrier groups (all with MFSTAR+Barak-8) in a true network-centric environment with cooperative engagement. They'll be sailing out there kinda on their own like outcasts, at most sharing a datalink with other IN ships. Like how ships used to work in the Cold War.

I don't see us stepping into the future with these ships at all.

This deal is either us getting ripped off...OR...we're giving this deal to Russians because we want an avenue of payment to use as cover for something else we're getting from them.

@vstol Jockey Your thoughts?
 
Last edited:

chanakya

New member
Oct 24, 2018
3
0
Mumbai, india
With China's new fusion Aesa radar as on the new type 55 ddg... Even mfstar needs up gradation but let's look at the things that the Russian frigates offer

A good stealth profile which the navy is happy with
The new vls sthil Sam in 12 cell vls plus igla 1e srsams
8 cell Brahmos plus a 100 mm main gun
Twin ak 630 ciws
Twin torpedo launchers plus rbu 6000 anti sub rocket launchers
1 helo for anti sub/ recon purposes

This is a good small frigate and far more advanced than anything Pakistan can throw at us... In a two front war the SHIVALIKA can take on the eastern front with China and let the talwars handle pakistan

Also if we look at the cbg formation for iac Vikrant and Vikramaditya we will hopefully see

One aircraft carrier
One vishakhapatnam class ddg and one Kolkatta class ddg
One Shivalik class, one type 17a and two Talwar class frigates
One kamorta class corvette
One scorpene sub and two kilo class subs
Post 2025 we may add a Ssn to the cbg group
One replenishment ship

That makes for a strong and balanced cbg

We need 24 frigates and the new 11356 are better than the Godavari class they replace and also about a 150 million cheaper than the type 17a when you add the cost of armaments to the hull, baraks are far more expensive than sthil etc
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,314
8,561
India
A ship is more than its weapon systems. Even if you somehow mate Barak-8 with the Fregat-M2 surveillance radar & MR-90 Orekh fire control radar system, it'll be nowhere as effective as a Barak guided by MF-STAR. A modern Arleigh Burke or Type-45 has Harpoons same as the Oliver H. Perry of 70s. That doesn't mean they are equally effective or that it's okay to commission a OHP in 2018.

That isn't how it works. Naval ships are system of systems. Most targeting is expected to come from airborne sensors like the P-8I and Ka-31.

If that were true P-17A wouldn't move to Barak-8, they'd retain the same Shtil that P-17 had (except maybe in VLS setup).

Not really. AESA is always better. Plus IN will always choose indigenous systems wherever they can, especially when the ships are also indigenous. Different story that the Talwars were not designed to handle the MFSTAR and any redesign will cost a bomb. The Talwars were always meant to bring in high end capabilities while being cost effective.

'Overall effectiveness' of something fire controlled by this:



Is not the same as a missile that is a full generation newer and controlled by this:


The actual targeting is carried out by the missile's seeker. Both Barak and 9M317ME have their own active seekers.

The 9M317M in fact has similar advertised specs as the Barak 8 missile. 70Km range, 16Km altitude, dual pulse motor, 12 targets engaged etc. While the MFSTAR is impressive and everything, you basically get more or less the same capability with the Shtils at less than half the cost, the latter being more important.

I don't know how you think the Orekh illuminators paired with an upgraded Buk (base model from late 70s) is an acceptable solution for a brand new frontline warship to be commissioned in mid to late 2020s. Russians already stopped using these in 2018 (Admiral Gorshkov-class is the standard for Russian frigates now, with APAR multifunction radars), the only usage was on Grigorovich which were originally meant for the relative low-threat environment of Black Sea Fleet's area while the Gorshkov was to be frontline, having access to Atlantic.

All large navies operate with a mix of high end, mid end and low end ships. But the 7 new Talwar class are high end. The Rajput and older Delhi class in fact are inferior due to their significantly larger RCS and older tech base.

Either way you look at it, Batch-3 Talwar in 2026-27 makes zero sense unless you want to train hundreds of new sailors to put on sub-standard combatants that can't really work together with IN's frontline combatants and/or carrier groups (all with MFSTAR+Barak-8) in a true network-centric environment with cooperative engagement. They'll be sailing out there kinda on their own like outcasts, at most sharing a datalink with other IN ships. Like how ships used to work in the Cold War.

There is nothing substandard about the Talwars. The ASuW and ASW capabilities are no different from other advanced ships that we operate. And the Barak C&C has been made to integrate with any third party SAM system, including Russia's. Even the Ka-31 can be integrated with the Shtil-1s along with the Barak. Hell, even the P-8s are integrated with our Russian ships through Link II. This is no different from how we are integrating the S-400 with the Israeli MRSAMs through the IACCS, which in turn will be integrated with the Netra and Phalcon. All the IN ships, satellites and aircraft operate on a single indigenous network.

You are confusing the Indian armed forces with some third rate armed forces around us that can't do their own R&D.
 

Parthu

Gessler
Team StratFront
Dec 1, 2017
973
1,953
25
Vizag, India
That isn't how it works. Naval ships are system of systems. Most targeting is expected to come from airborne sensors like the P-8I and Ka-31.

That is exactly how it works. IN isn't stupid to spend big bucks on the NG radars and CMS for P-15A/B, P-17A, IAC-1, etc. if they thought tracking & targeting capabilities of surface ships was second fiddle/not important.

The actual targeting is carried out by the missile's seeker. Both Barak and 9M317ME have their own active seekers.

That's not targeting, that's only terminal guidance. Proper targeting needs to be performed either by ship or aircraft prior to launch or else the missile's seeker will never be in a position to find the target.

The 9M317M in fact has similar advertised specs as the Barak 8 missile. 70Km range, 16Km altitude, dual pulse motor, 12 targets engaged etc. While the MFSTAR is impressive and everything, you basically get more or less the same capability with the Shtils at less than half the cost, the latter being more important.

Those are Barak-8 specs you're writing.

In 9M317ME there is performance wise no worthwhile difference from earlier Buk family missiles that went on Shtil system. Range of 32km (compared to Barak-8 which is upto 90km, three times more than Buks), 15km altitude.

All large navies operate with a mix of high end, mid end and low end ships.

Professional navies operate a mix of ships designed for various roles. Not on basis of high end or low end in the same role.

But the 7 new Talwar class are high end.

You mean P-17A?

There is nothing substandard about the Talwars.

There is if you consider P-15A/B and P-17A as the standard (which is what they will be in 2020s).

And the Barak C&C has been made to integrate with any third party SAM system, including Russia's. Even the Ka-31 can be integrated with the Shtil-1s along with the Barak. Hell, even the P-8s are integrated with our Russian ships through Link II. This is no different from how we are integrating the S-400 with the Israeli MRSAMs through the IACCS, which in turn will be integrated with the Netra and Phalcon. All the IN ships, satellites and aircraft operate on a single indigenous network.

You are confusing the Indian armed forces with some third rate armed forces around us that can't do their own R&D.

You're looking at interfacing & networking and thinking that is the full plethora of cooperative engagement. Purpose of networking as it exists is merely to generate a common tactical picture in order to streamline command, monitoring & response. It doesn't mean a ELM-2084 is going to take over fire control of the S-400 if necessary or vice versa.

But that is what we're talking about what I say CEC. We're talking about using the inputs of one platform to paint a target and control the launching of ordnance from another platform which itself is totally oblivious to the whereabouts of the target (and vice versa). This might seem real simple because we've been looking at this with regard to future air combat techs for a long time but the truth is that in IN, the MFSTAR-equipped P-15A Kolkatas are currently the only platforms capable of doing this vital, path-breaking concept which will form the basis for how combat is conducted in future. P-17A and P-15B (along with Vikrant and our LHDs as well) will join the club.

Networked ADS/flotilla is about sending a picture from Ajay's phone to Vijay's phone. CEC is about using Ajay's phone to make Vijay's phone click a picture. You don't need anything more than a datalink to send the pictures. But you can't do CEC among ships when the various ships don't even have the same hardware, or the same combat management system, or the same sensors.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,314
8,561
India
That is exactly how it works. IN isn't stupid to spend big bucks on the NG radars and CMS for P-15A/B, P-17A, IAC-1, etc. if they thought tracking & targeting capabilities of surface ships was second fiddle/not important.

However the spending depends on how much money you actually have.

That's not targeting, that's only terminal guidance. Proper targeting needs to be performed either by ship or aircraft prior to launch or else the missile's seeker will never be in a position to find the target.

That's too general. The Talwars provide FC through PESA radars anyway. The end result is the same.

Those are Barak-8 specs you're writing.

Those are actually the same as the 9M317ME.

Russia Unveils New and Upgraded SAM Systems
Firing range rises to 70 km (43.5 statute miles) from the previous 45 to 50 km.

In 9M317ME there is performance wise no worthwhile difference from earlier Buk family missiles that went on Shtil system. Range of 32km (compared to Barak-8 which is upto 90km, three times more than Buks), 15km altitude.

Not true. Both have dual pulse motors. Yes, the Barak has more range, but it doesn't really make much of a difference when you consider the cost versus the utility.

Regardless of the Barak's superiority, the new Talwar's 9M317M is as effective against cruise missiles. It doesn't matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice. We wouldn't be going for the Talwar class if it was incapable of defending itself.

Professional navies operate a mix of ships designed for various roles. Not on basis of high end or low end in the same role.

We operate multirole destroyers and frigates. High and low end is simply referring to costs with respect to the capability they bring. Due to the Talwar's low RCS, it is much more defensible than the Delhi or Rajput class, even if most of these ships operate the same weapons.

You mean P-17A?

No. 3+4 Talwars. The ones with Brahmos. The first three have the older 9M317 with 45Km range though.

Hell, it doesn't really matter if you consider even the Klub is a very good missile. Meaning, all 10 Talwars are high end ships even though they operate PESA radars.

Plus the oldest Talwars will also undergo MLU by the mid 2020s.

There is if you consider P-15A/B and P-17A as the standard (which is what they will be in 2020s).

All these ships, including the new Talwars, operate the Brahmos, RBU-6000, torpedoes and a similarly capable SAM. With the exception of the main radar, what these ships can do is actually the same.

You're looking at interfacing & networking and thinking that is the full plethora of cooperative engagement. Purpose of networking as it exists is merely to generate a common tactical picture in order to streamline command, monitoring & response. It doesn't mean a ELM-2084 is going to take over fire control of the S-400 if necessary or vice versa.

But that is what we're talking about what I say CEC. We're talking about using the inputs of one platform to paint a target and control the launching of ordnance from another platform which itself is totally oblivious to the whereabouts of the target (and vice versa). This might seem real simple because we've been looking at this with regard to future air combat techs for a long time but the truth is that in IN, the MFSTAR-equipped P-15A Kolkatas are currently the only platforms capable of doing this vital, path-breaking concept which will form the basis for how combat is conducted in future. P-17A and P-15B (along with Vikrant and our LHDs as well) will join the club.

Networked ADS/flotilla is about sending a picture from Ajay's phone to Vijay's phone. CEC is about using Ajay's phone to make Vijay's phone click a picture. You don't need anything more than a datalink to send the pictures. But you can't do CEC among ships when the various ships don't even have the same hardware, or the same combat management system, or the same sensors.

Our CEC and networking is still WIP. Expect 2022.
Indian Navy, Sterlite Tech team up to build Rs 3,500 crore worth digital network - ET Telecom

CEC is about the integration of different hardware and sensors into a single network. Meaning, with CEC you should be able to use the Talwar's radar to attack a target using the Kolkata's missile or vice versa, or even better use a Mig-29K or Ka-31 instead. This will happen fleet-wide after 2022.

Once fleet-wide networking is complete, even the Talwars will be able to fire off Barak missiles from Kolkatas without the Kolkatas having knowledge of the target. The backbone of this capability is a secure datalink, not sensors.

Not to mention, for CEC to be particularly effective, we need long range missiles like the SM-2 (200Km range) and SM-6 (400Km range). CEC is very limited with just the Barak and 9M317ME.
 

Parthu

Gessler
Team StratFront
Dec 1, 2017
973
1,953
25
Vizag, India
That's too general. The Talwars provide FC through PESA radars anyway. The end result is the same.

What PESA radar? Fire Control for SAMs is done through the MR-90 Orekh which is a pulse doppler slotted array type.

Those are actually the same as the 9M317ME.

Russia Unveils New and Upgraded SAM Systems
Firing range rises to 70 km (43.5 statute miles) from the previous 45 to 50 km.

You sure they're not counting usage against surface targets? They've considered that in the past, where 32km SAM is up to ~50km against surface targets.

We operate multirole destroyers and frigates. High and low end is simply referring to costs with respect to the capability they bring. Due to the Talwar's low RCS, it is much more defensible than the Delhi or Rajput class, even if most of these ships operate the same weapons.

Any advantage in low observability brought by Talwar compared to Delhi is meh. Even P-15A and P-17 are meh. None of these ships are a problem to acquire with modern sensors at any useful range. If we came up with a ship with a hull like Zumwalt or Visby, then that is something.

Hell, it doesn't really matter if you consider even the Klub is a very good missile. Meaning, all 10 Talwars are high end ships

High end compared to what? Ships from 30 years ago? By mid-2020s, even PN will be sailing FFGs with AESA as their frontline warships. So the Talwars won't compare favourably even with the modified Type-054As (fitted with AESA) that PN is going to get.

even though they operate PESA radars.

Again, what PESA? The only phased array radar of any kind on Talwars is the 5P-10 Puma which does fire control for the 100mm gun, not for any missiles.

All these ships, including the new Talwars, operate the Brahmos, RBU-6000, torpedoes and a similarly capable SAM. With the exception of the main radar, what these ships can do is actually the same.

Compared with IN's frontline, these ships have a highly inferior sensor suite, a CMS that will be incompatible to function as a piece of the CEC puzzle in future, and another quip I have with this deal is that we continue to give business to Zorya-Mashproekt even after they screwed us in the P-15B project with their delivery delays on the turbines.


CEC on the P-15As is ready and working.

Once fleet-wide networking is complete, even the Talwars will be able to fire off Barak missiles from Kolkatas without the Kolkatas having knowledge of the target. The backbone of this capability is a secure datalink, not sensors.

You can go the most secure high bandwidth datalink, but you can't get a Talwar to fire Barak-8s off a Kolkata-class. For the same reason why you can't get ELM-2084 (or ground based ELM-2248) to substitute their Russian equivalents in IAF's S-400 batteries. I already painted the picture, it isn't just a question of sharing information, its about compatibility as well.

Vikrant can take control of all SAMs on any P-15A/B or P-17A in the vicinity. Talwars will remain outcast. The only thing we can say in its defence today is that IN probably never meant for them to operate as integral parts of future CBG or future integrated task forces. We will still have need for FFGs to work alone or in buddy pairs, and that's where Talwars will work. Or ofcourse, they can always work in the Vikramaditya CBG.

I'm not saying they won't ever be made or can be made part of Vikrant CBG, they still can, but the CBG's networked capabilities when operating with a whole pack of MFSTAR+Barak-8 equipped combatants will be ideal utilization of the abilities they afford.

Not to mention, for CEC to be particularly effective, we need long range missiles like the SM-2 (200Km range) and SM-6 (400Km range). CEC is very limited with just the Barak and 9M317ME.

Let the tech sink in first, we are still taking baby steps, but that is invariably the future.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: R!cK

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,314
8,561
India
What PESA radar? Fire Control for SAMs is done through the MR-90 Orekh which is a pulse doppler slotted array type.

Again, what PESA? The only phased array radar of any kind on Talwars is the 5P-10 Puma which does fire control for the 100mm gun, not for any missiles.

The Fregat-M2EM is PESA. So are the Orekhs.

Even the fire control for most of their land based Buk is PESA. It's the Chinese who are stuck with cassegrain antennas.

Look at the Fregat specs.


It speaks of "pencil beams", which is only possible with phased array radars, PESA and AESA. Since it speaks of wave travelling tubes, it's PESA. I mean, just looking at the radar can tell you it's a phased array.

The Russians switched to PESAs since the 80s and 90s for pretty much everything. It's only the old ships which still have older types of antennas, like cassegrain.

Even if the Orekh is not PESA, it's still fine since it's a single role radar.

You sure they're not counting usage against surface targets? They've considered that in the past, where 32km SAM is up to ~50km against surface targets.

You are talking about the effectiveness of the radar up to horizon. This is due to the limitations of physics due to radar horizon, it doesn't speak for the effectiveness of the radar itself. With more range, it's obvious even the FCR will get the necessary upgrades.

The reason why a dedicated FCR is used is because the main array is not always facing the target since it rotates. If it wasn't for that, we wouldn't need the Orekhs.

Any advantage in low observability brought by Talwar compared to Delhi is meh. Even P-15A and P-17 are meh. None of these ships are a problem to acquire with modern sensors at any useful range. If we came up with a ship with a hull like Zumwalt or Visby, then that is something.

Acquisition is easy, but early detection is not. The IOR is peppered with ships.

High end compared to what? Ships from 30 years ago? By mid-2020s, even PN will be sailing FFGs with AESA as their frontline warships. So the Talwars won't compare favourably even with the modified Type-054As (fitted with AESA) that PN is going to get.

Chinese Type 054 and 54A are pretty much the same as the Talwar. And they will stay that way for a very long time. The Pakistanis are basically getting a less capable Talwar class. The only way it can match the Talwar is if they manage to equip it with the HQ-16C and Brahmos.

Basically, the best Type 054A today is relatively inferior to the newest Talwar class in terms of weapons employed.

Compared with IN's frontline, these ships have a highly inferior sensor suite, a CMS that will be incompatible to function as a piece of the CEC puzzle in future, and another quip I have with this deal is that we continue to give business to Zorya-Mashproekt even after they screwed us in the P-15B project with their delivery delays on the turbines.

The Talwars are also frontline ships. Their sensor suite is no doubt inferior to the MFSTAR, but it's fine, it works exactly as we want it to.

The engine delay was fine. The Russian produced shaft lines were delayed, so when the shaft line delivery was expected to be delayed, the Ukranians modernised the engine even further, which will finish only this year. Plus, there's been a delay with the supply of the MFSTAR also. What's important to consider is sometimes these "delays" are not deliberate but done in order to modernise much more than planned. The same thing happened with Vikramaditya. Since it was delayed anyway, a lot of stuff that was supposed to be added during the first refit was instead done before delivery, which further delayed delivery.

If Scorpene was delayed a bit more, we would have taken 2 more years to add an AIP plug to it instead of doing the same during refits at a later date.

CEC on the P-15As is ready and working.

I know. But we still need to integrate aircraft with it. The P-15A do not exactly have CEC to the fullest extent. As I've pointed out, CEC is about integrating two or more independent systems together. Like the Ka-31 with the Kolkata class. The Barak was always designed to integrate with other SAMs anyway. In our case, it will be easily integrated with the Akash, SPYDER, QRSAM, BMD etc.

You can go the most secure high bandwidth datalink, but you can't get a Talwar to fire Barak-8s off a Kolkata-class. For the same reason why you can't get ELM-2084 (or ground based ELM-2248) to substitute their Russian equivalents in IAF's S-400 batteries. I already painted the picture, it isn't just a question of sharing information, its about compatibility as well.

The S-400s will be integrated with the LRTR. So both EL/M 2084 and the S-400's Gravestone can receive early warning from the LRTR through the IACCS. Whether the S-400 will be able to fire off Baraks or not, that will depend entirely on how well we integrate the Barak missiles with the IACCS, which we can easily do. Whether we can use the Barak to fire S-400 missiles, that depends on how well we are able to integrate the S-400 missiles with the IACCS. The Israelis and Russians only have to modify the missiles to our specs, so that the missiles can speak to both the Gravestone and the EL/M 2084 and their respective CPs using a common datalink.

Vikrant can take control of all SAMs on any P-15A/B or P-17A in the vicinity. Talwars will remain outcast.

By the time the Vikrant is fully kitted out, they say 2023, it will be able to do that with the Talwar also.
 

Parthu

Gessler
Team StratFront
Dec 1, 2017
973
1,953
25
Vizag, India
The Fregat-M2EM is PESA. So are the Orekhs.

Even the fire control for most of their land based Buk is PESA. It's the Chinese who are stuck with cassegrain antennas.

Look at the Fregat specs.


It speaks of "pencil beams", which is only possible with phased array radars, PESA and AESA. Since it speaks of wave travelling tubes, it's PESA. I mean, just looking at the radar can tell you it's a phased array.

The Russians switched to PESAs since the 80s and 90s for pretty much everything. It's only the old ships which still have older types of antennas, like cassegrain.

Even if the Orekh is not PESA, it's still fine since it's a single role radar.

Ah, I'd seen this brochure before but forgot about it, thanks for the refresher. Either way, Fregat doesn't fire control anything though, its a surveillance radar.

You are talking about the effectiveness of the radar up to horizon. This is due to the limitations of physics due to radar horizon, it doesn't speak for the effectiveness of the radar itself. With more range, it's obvious even the FCR will get the necessary upgrades.

No I just meant what they mean when they speak about 70km "firing range" of 9M317M round itself. In an anti-surface role, the same missile with the same radar can potentially hit targets much farther. SAMs being put to Anti-surface role isn't new (USN does it with SM-2 sometimes) and I do know as a fact that Russians used to mention ranges of older Shtil missiles as 32km, while including 50km as the range against targets such as ships.

Chinese Type 054 and 54A are pretty much the same as the Talwar. And they will stay that way for a very long time. The Pakistanis are basically getting a less capable Talwar class. The only way it can match the Talwar is if they manage to equip it with the HQ-16C and Brahmos.

Basically, the best Type 054A today is relatively inferior to the newest Talwar class in terms of weapons employed.

PN, afaik, won't be getting the 054A as we see it today in PLAN service. It will be an export variant based off the 054A hull, likely with APAR.



The S-400s will be integrated with the LRTR. So both EL/M 2084 and the S-400's Gravestone can receive early warning from the LRTR through the IACCS. Whether the S-400 will be able to fire off Baraks or not, that will depend entirely on how well we integrate the Barak missiles with the IACCS, which we can easily do. Whether we can use the Barak to fire S-400 missiles, that depends on how well we are able to integrate the S-400 missiles with the IACCS. The Israelis and Russians only have to modify the missiles to our specs, so that the missiles can speak to both the Gravestone and the EL/M 2084 and their respective CPs using a common datalink.

By the time the Vikrant is fully kitted out, they say 2023, it will be able to do that with the Talwar also.

:p
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,314
8,561
India
Ah, I'd seen this brochure before but forgot about it, thanks for the refresher. Either way, Fregat doesn't fire control anything though, its a surveillance radar.

The Fregat rotates, so it cannot provide continuous track necessary for fire control. You need 4 radars to do this, like on the MFSTAR.

No I just meant what they mean when they speak about 70km "firing range" of 9M317M round itself. In an anti-surface role, the same missile with the same radar can potentially hit targets much farther. SAMs being put to Anti-surface role isn't new (USN does it with SM-2 sometimes) and I do know as a fact that Russians used to mention ranges of older Shtil missiles as 32km, while including 50km as the range against targets such as ships.

If the Barak and 9M317M are fired on a trajectory closer to the surface, they won't give more than 20Km. The longest range possible is only for a high altitude trajectory. Which means, against terrain hugging cruise missiles, neither missile will be able to achieve maximum advertised range. In a ballistic trajectory, they can achieve more range.

PN, afaik, won't be getting the 054A as we see it today in PLAN service. It will be an export variant based off the 054A hull, likely with APAR.


I highly doubt it. The Chinese do not give their best to the Pakistanis. The one with the APAR is a Type 054B anyway.