EXCLUSIVE FIRST VIDEO & IMAGES: Here She Is! D63 Kolkata Destroyer With Indian Navy

[Abingdonboy]

They say there's gonna be 64 Barak-8s in all, 32 ready to launch in the cells and another 32 stored internally for
reloads.

How long will it take the VLS units to be reloaded in that case?

 

[Gessler]

How long will it take the VLS units to be reloaded in that case?

Don't know for sure. Maybe 15-20 minutes if everything is in place and done on a war footing (literally).

 

[Penguin]

Take for e.g.


I see no area of differing in that. The Singaporean ships are also derivatives of the La Fayette. Hence my statement "few frigates have the true signature reduction measures out of the many supposedly using shaping or flat surfaces for RCS reduction.".

Type 45, Murasame Class, Takanami Class, Akizuki Class, Chungmugong Yi Sunshin Class / DDH-II Class (destroyers), FREMM, Horizon, F125 Baden-Württemberg class, F124 Sachsen class, Zeven Provincien/LCF, F100 Alvaro de Bazan, Nansen class, Ivar Huitfeldt Class, Type 23 (frigates)
To name a few.

 

[Penguin]

Reloading is to be done with support of Fleet replenishment vessels which are supposed to get dedicated cranes for
lifting out the spent canisters and loading the new ones. This was stated by a defence analyst here : Blogger: TRISHUL - Post a Comment
scroll down

You can also post your queries there.

EDIT : Ticonderoga and the Burkes have the reload capability too, I presume? Upto Sea State 5.

While at sea ? ...... in seastate 0 only, I presume!

No seriously, if the ships has its reload canisters on board already (as was stated), it is not going to reload (i.e. load canisters into silos) with help of a fleet replnisher. Instead, if you were going to get a fleet replenisher to do that, then you would simply keep the canisters on board the replenisher.

Besides the poster on that blog doesn't make sense. First he states:

Prasun K. Sengupta said...
To BHASWAR: To be fair to Dr Chander, he was quite honest in his presentation on July 7, but due to the paucity of time, could not elaborate or contextualise all his points. But it does deserve an objective critique & I’m already on it. But it will be an exhaustive one from me. The P-15A DDG does have only 32 VLS cells for the Barak-2 LR-SAM—twin eight-cell mounts fore & another identical set aft. BUT, there are another 32 cannister-encased missiles as RELOADS kept internally.
July 11, 2014 at 7:02 AM

then

Prasun K. Sengupta said...
To GESSLER: 7) Yes, 64 Barak-2 LR-SAMs on-board. Cannister-encased vertically-launched missiles held internally in storage can easily be brought to ready-to-fire position once the empty cannisters are removed while at-sea. For this, the heavy fleet replenishment vessels (which also serve as refuelling tankers) have purpose-built on-board cranes to assist such reloadings. On board aircraft carriers like INS Vikramaditya & IAC-1, such cranes are available as well.

To BHASWAR: P-15A & P-15B DDGs have only Barak-2 LR-SAMs on board. There are no Barak-1s at all.

July 12, 2014 at 12:16 AM

He seem to suggest that first a the fleet replenisher removes spent canisters while at sea. Then either a) new canisters are in the combat ship and moved internally into firing position in the VLUs (which suggest some form of internal reloading) or b) new canisters are in the ship and are taken on deck, then hooked up to the crane of another ship and then lowered into the VLUs.

These being missiles of 4,5m in canisters which by necessity will be slightly longer....

Last february us was reported that the LR-SAM test will take place at the integrated test range (ITR) off Odisha’s coast. The test is expected to be conducted at ceiling range against an aerial target. The trial schedule in India may include at least three tests in the November 2014-March 2015 period. The LR-SAM, designated Barak 8 by IAI, when inducted, will be housed in four vertical launch units (VLUs), each housing eight missiles, on each of the three Project-15A destroyers.

Livefist: Second LR-SAM Test Before November, IAF & Army Interested

 

[TOPGUN]

Looks really nice , good for IN

 

[Gessler]

While at sea ? ...... in seastate 0 only, I presume!

No seriously, if the ships has its reload canisters on board already (as was stated), it is not going to reload (i.e. load canisters into silos) with help of a fleet replnisher. Instead, if you were going to get a fleet replenisher to do that, then you would simply keep the canisters on board the replenisher.

Besides the poster on that blog doesn't make sense. First he states:

then


He seem to suggest that first a the fleet replenisher removes spent canisters while at sea. Then either a) new canisters are in the combat ship and moved internally into firing position in the VLUs (which suggest some form of internal reloading) or b) new canisters are in the ship and are taken on deck, then hooked up to the crane of another ship and then lowered into the VLUs.

I did already ask for further clarifications from Sengupta, I will also add the points you raised now, meanwhile any official word from IN toward actual commissioning into the fleet could throw some light on the number of missiles meant to be carried.

About the reloads, I did hear missile reloading can be done till Sea state 3 from an ex-IN officer. He wasn't talking about the VLS though.

 

[SQ8]

Type 45, Murasame Class, Takanami Class, Akizuki Class, Chungmugong Yi Sunshin Class / DDH-II Class (destroyers), FREMM, Horizon, F125 Baden-Württemberg class, F124 Sachsen class, Zeven Provincien/LCF, F100 Alvaro de Bazan, Nansen class, Ivar Huitfeldt Class, Type 23 (frigates)
To name a few.

How many of those can you compare with the level of signature reduction on the FREMM or the aforementioned Dutch and Singaporean systems? And I only referred to operational systems.

You cannot compare the signature reduction measures on the Type 23 with say the Horizon or the Nansen class.

Many of those that you mentioned are essentially similar platform with nation specific differences.

 

[Penguin]

Some images of reloads of Mk-41 VLS cells happening on US ships -.

None of these are taking place WHILE AT SEA
It is fairly simple to transfer items, including missile canisters, from a supply ship/replenisher to a combat ship using RAS rigs.
But the, how to handle the canister on board, if you can't manhandle it?

Originally, the Mk41 came with a 3-cell strike down crane to give Mk41 equipped ships their own ability to handle canisters

This worked: example at sea.

So on a Tico or DDG-51 Flight I and II you didn't have 64 + 32 cells VLUs, but only 61 + 29 cells available for missile canisters. Note that these would be the longest 'strike length' variant of the Mk41, not the 'tactical' or 'self defence' length. I don't think that crane is available for anything but the strike variant.

This crane is no longer produced or employed, as the crane never worked as well as hoped.
The fold-down crane for at-sea reloading of missile cells was contained under deck in a space equivalent to just 3 missile cells, and elevated outwards during reload operations. The requirement was for the replenishment of 10 VLS cells per hour, even in Sea State 5, with the missile canisters being transferred via RAS (UNREP for the Americans) rigs.
Reloading of missile canisters at sea, however, proved always difficult at best, and the ingenious crane, albeit fascinating, was never capable to deal with the larger and heavier canisters, such as the MK14 containing the Tomahawk. The failure of the VLS replenishment at sea is summarized as follows:

The original development of the MK 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS) for cruisers and destroyers in the late 1970’s included a requirement to replenish ten VLS canisters per hour, day or night in Sea State 5 conditions. The system actually installed consisted of the STREAM rig to transfer the VLS canister to the missile ship sliding padeye; then deck handling the canister to a position where a crane could tilt up the canister over an empty cell and then strike the canister down. The crane was a commercial Swedish folding crane. Three canister cells were combined to make stowage for the crane. An elevator raised or lowered the crane. The at sea VLS Unrep technical evaluation discussed in Miller (1992) identified that the crane did not have the capacity to lift Tomahawk VLS canisters; SM-2 VLS transfer rate was three per hour and the pendulum action of the crane limited Unrep to Sea State 3 conditions. The cranes are now in layup.


Eventually, the ambitions of at sea reloading of MK41 cells were abandoned, and the DDG51 of the Flight IIA were never fitted with the crane, instead getting 32 and 64 cells silos.

Read the rest of the story here
UK Armed Forces Commentary: Vertical Launching Systems and the Type 26

 

[Dillinger]

@Penguin I dunno why but I get this feeling that the raised platform underneath the VLS cells on the fore deck, the lack of an universal (for the lack of a better term) VLS module and a flush deck limits the capacity of the Kolkata class destroyers with regard to munitions and SAMs, do you concur? Could the same ship accommodate a 64 cell universal VLS module akin to the Mk. 41 if certain changes were made?

 

[Penguin]

, only the 8s will feature.

The Universal VLS cell system is something we need to get on with ourselves, saves real estate, packs in more punch. Sigh, someone at the NDB should take note of how others are operating.

@Penguin Any idea as to why the vessel seems under armed for its displacement? Apparently no Barak-1s will be going on board this ship at all, period, only the 8s will feature.

Those 48 long range missiles, why is that underarmed? Consider the original P15 had 2 single rail launchers, each with 24 missiles ... (Barak 1 was added only much later). Consider that the russian Kashins had 2x 22 SAM. Consider that the Chinese 052C has 8x6=48 and the 051D has 6x8=48. 052D has 64 cells, but likely will use at least 8 for AShM and probably another 8 for LAM, leaving ... 48! So unless they start duo- or quadpacking, that's identical to P15A (I'm ignoring the FL3000N "RAM" launcher plus 1 30mm gatling, for which Kolkata gets 4 AK630 as CIWS)

 

[Dillinger]

Those 48 long range missiles, why is that underarmed? Consider the original P15 had 2 single rail launchers, each with 24 missiles ... (Barak 1 was added only much later). Consider that the russian Kashins had 2x 22 SAM. Consider that the Chinese 052C has 8x6=48 and the 051D has 6x8=48. 052D has 64 cells, but likely will use at least 8 for AShM and probably another 8 for LAM, leaving ... 48! So unless they start duo- or quadpacking, that's identical to P15A (I'm ignoring the FL3000N "RAM" launcher plus 1 30mm gatling, for which Kolkata gets 4 AK630 as CIWS)

Sir, the Kolkata only carries 32 LR-SAMs, not 48, the foremost 16 VLS cells are all marked out for AShMs and LAMs while only the 16 smaller VLS cells (two modules of 8 cells each) behind the cells for AShMs and the similar arrangement of 16 cells at the aft of the ship are available for the SAMs, in short 32 LR-SAMs is all it will be carrying.

 

[Penguin]

How many of those can you compare with the level of signature reduction on the FREMM or the aforementioned Dutch and Singaporean systems? And I only referred to operational systems.

Nearly all.

Many of those that you mentioned are essentially similar platform with nation specific differences.

Yeah, similar specs because to serve similar roles and sometimes share some systems! But not 'one design'. How do similar roles and specs disqualify these different designs (because they are different!) ?

Eg. EUROFRIGATE PROGRAM : it split up between UK/France and Germany, Spain, Netherlands and 'all other non US' because of diferent requierements. Then in the final tally, all went their seperate ways, although e.g. NL and Germany built two different ships around a common APAR/SMART-L suite, while Spain goes AEGIS. So, you end up with
1. Type 45 v Horizon
2. Type 123/124/125 (Germany) v LCF (Netherlands) v F-100 (Spain)
3. Nansen class (Norway), smaller relative of Spanish F-100
and eventally
4. Ivar Huitfeldt Class, with APAR/SMART-S
FREMM is sortof Horizon cross-bred with Lafayette, because Horizon is too expensive.

Murasame Class >developed> Takanami Class >developed>, Akizuki Class,

Chungmugong Yi Sunshin Class / DDH-II Class (destroyers),

You cannot compare the signature reduction measures on the Type 23 with say the Horizon or the Nansen class.

Why not? So long as you keep tecnology development in mind. Signature reduction has been going on for a long time. Note e.g. US Prairie-Masker system to reduce cavitation noise of surface ship like Spruane, Kid, Ticonderoga etc. It is not a new thing, though there are new developments.

Don't know for sure. Maybe 15-20 minutes if everything is in place and done on a war footing (literally).

The at sea VLS Unrep technical evaluation discussed in Miller (1992) identified that the crane did not have the capacity to lift Tomahawk VLS canisters; SM-2 VLS transfer rate was three per hour and the pendulum action of the crane limited Unrep to Sea State 3 conditions.

i.e. 20 minutes per canister under optimal conditions.

Sir, the Kolkata only carries 32 LR-SAMs, not 48, the foremost 16 VLS cells are all marked out for AShMs and LAMs while only the 16 smaller VLS cells (two modules of 8 cells each) behind the cells for AShMs and the similar arrangement of 16 cells at the aft of the ship are available for the SAMs, in short 32 LR-SAMs is all it will be carrying.

Yep, noticed that.

 

[Dillinger]

Nearly all.

Yeah, similar specs because to serve similar roles and sometimes share some systems! But not 'one design'. How do similar roles and specs disqualify these different designs (because they are different!) ?

Eg. EUROFRIGATE PROGRAM : it split up between UK/France and Germany, Spain, Netherlands and 'all other non US' because of diferent requierements. Then in the final tally, all went their seperate ways, although e.g. NL and Germany built two different ships around a common APAR/SMART-L suite, while Spain goes AEGIS. So, you end up with
1. Type 45 v Horizon
2. Type 123/124/125 (Germany) v LCF (Netherlands) v F-100 (Spain)
3. Nansen class (Norway), smaller relative of Spanish F-100
and eventally
4. Ivar Huitfeldt Class, with APAR/SMART-S
FREMM is sortof Horizon cross-bred with Lafayette, because Horizon is too expensive.

Murasame Class >developed> Takanami Class >developed>, Akizuki Class,

Chungmugong Yi Sunshin Class / DDH-II Class (destroyers),


Why not? So long as you keep tecnology development in mind. Signature reduction has been going on for a long time. Note e.g. US Prairie-Masker system to reduce cavitation noise of surface ship like Spruane, Kid, Ticonderoga etc. It is not a new thing, though there are new developments.



i.e. 20 minutes per canister under optimal conditions.


Yep, noticed that.

A relatively less modern volume search radar and a relatively limited number of SAMs seems to limit the actual potency of this vessel in my mind. At least, with the 15B we'll see the RAN-40L volume search radar added to the mix (if the current issues with Finmeccanica are solved).

At the moment I see the same potency being realized in terms of air defence as say the De Zeven Provincien class or the Iver Huitfeldt class frigates, and that's IF we let the absence of a system which has parity with the SMART-L sensor on the Kolkata slide.

 

[Penguin]

@Penguin I dunno why but I get this feeling that the raised platform underneath the VLS cells on the fore deck, the lack of an universal (for the lack of a better term) VLS module and a flush deck limits the capacity of the Kolkata class destroyers with regard to munitions and SAMs, do you concur? Could the same ship accommodate a 64 cell universal VLS module akin to the Mk. 41 if certain changes were made?

The raised platform gives depth (esp for the RUSSIAN universal launcher, which is used tu house the very long Brahmos missile canister) and hence imho does not limit the capability. I don't see how adopting e.g. the russian launcher also for SAMs would increase the capability, Or what a flush deck has to do with it.

I can't tell what's inside the ship, but from the outside it looks like it would be well possible to double the VLUs for Barak 8.

How would a 64 cell Mk41 farm be an improvement? While it has been said that Barak-8 will be made compatible with the Lockheed Martin Mk 41, that launcher doesn't fire Brahmos.

A relatively less modern volume search radar and a relatively limited number of SAMs seems to limit the actual potency of this vessel in my mind. At least, with the 15B we'll see the RAN-40L volume search radar added to the mix (if the current issues with Finmeccanica are solved).

At the moment I see the same potency being realized in terms of air defence as say the De Zeven Provincien class or the Iver Huitfeldt class frigates, and that's IF we let the absence of a system which has parity with the SMART-L sensor on the Kolkata slide.

When I mentioned those classes, wee were talking about signature reduction, not AAW capability.

The Thales LW08 is a long range volume search radar that provides target indication to weapon control systems as well as early warning and naval surveillance. This D/L-band 2D-early warning radar performs long range (260 km on 2 m² RCS target = 140km) air surveillance on board medium and heavy-tonnage ships. The radar has a high performance in an electronic countermeasures polluted environment. LW-08 can handle target speeds up to Mach 5 (which must be the first blind speed), and up to 64 tracks. The Indian Navy has selected the Thales LW08 radar based on the excellent experience gained with this system on board of the Brahmaputra class frigates and the Delhi class destroyers. LW08 systems also be installed on the Godavari class frigates.

Mind you, the Russian Fregat-MA ("Top Plate") radar on Talwars and Shivalik stem in basic/first version from 1977. It is far less suited for long range surveillance and detection. (Range against a 7m2 target at 5000m is 130km, whereas Rawl-2/LW-08 detects a 1m2 target at 75-100 nm (139-185km) and LW-08 a 2m2 target at 145nm (269km). See The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapon Systems by Norman Friedman.
The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapon Systems - Norman Friedman - Google Boeken

Top of the line in the Fregat series is M2EM

 

[Penguin]

At the moment I see the same potency being realized in terms of air defence as say the De Zeven Provincien class or the Iver Huitfeldt class frigates, and that's IF we let the absence of a system which has parity with the SMART-L sensor on the Kolkata slide.

Thales SMART-S Mk2, the company's latest 3D multibeam radar, operates in S-band and is optimised for medium-to-long-range surveillance and target designation in littoral environments. SMART-S Mk2 is designed to match the full performance of surface to air missiles (SAM), such as the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM). SMART-S Mk2 is extremely suitable as the main air and surface surveillance radar in a one radar concept for light frigates, corvettes and ships such as Landing Platform Docks (LPD). With its 2 main modes, slow rotating (13,5 rpm) long range mode (250km) and faster rotating (27 rpm) medium range (150km) mode, special helicopter mode, surface fire channels, easy installation, high reliability and easy maintainability it was adopted for e.g. the Danish Absalon class. Claimed detection ranges: stealthy missile 25km, small missile 50km, stealthy figher 100km, maritime patrol aircraft 200km (See USNI's The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapon Systems by Norman Friedman)