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

[Penguin]

infer

JACKPOT!

Barak

Quote:
The Rafael-made vertical launchers are each 2.55 m × 37.6 cm × 30 cm and weigh 110 kg with the efflux conducted from the bottom through two channels to the top of the launcher. The launchers may be distributed individually or clustered around the ship either above or below decks in a similar manner to Seasparrow (qv); each has two missile selection units. The manufacturers state that an above-deck Vertical Launch Unit (VLU) with eight missiles and weighing 1.7 tonnes will occupy a space of 1.8 m2 while a similar below-deck installation will occupy a volume of 4 m3.
(source: Jane's Naval Weapon Systems 2001)


VLS systems - request for information. - Defense Technology & Military Forum

This explains why an abnormal a mount of empty space is left out! So not 48 Barak 8 but possibly 64 Barak 8!

http:// www . defencetalk . com/forums/navy-maritime/vls-systems-request-information-6409/

A 2,55m long VLU for a 4,5 m long missile.... !?!?!

You have gotten from Defence Talk a portion of a thread that discusses the VLU for Barak 1.

You can mount this ON deck, in which case the deck footprint is 1,8 square meters
(that is 37,5cmx30cm per each of 8 missile canisters plus another 0,9 m2 for the silo: see pic below how its welded)

Or

You can mount this BELOW deck, in which case the below deck volume required is 4 meters cubed.

(you can infer from this that the only 2.44m of the total of 2,55m launcher length/height/depth actually penetrates into the hull)

The whole 8 round launcher in both cases weight 1.7 ton.

 

[Penguin]

So the official from L&T was lying? Really Penguin you are the only sensible think tank on PDF. He was working on the damn ship!

I not attributing any qualities to any particular person. Particularly if they are not expressing themselves in an official capacity in an official medium or communication. What people say other people said, or blog statements are less credible - at least to me - than officials making formal press statements or writing in professional journals, or military publications or policy documents. Which are verifiable.

Regarding INS Vikramaditya carrying 48 Barak 8 VLS is funny as it will carry a maximum of 16 Barak 8 LRSAM, Also spoke to officials from MDL who said that the INS Vikrant will carry 4 X AK 630 and 16 X Barak 8 as of now. Interestingly , it will carry the Elta 2258 STAR or the Indian AESA under development.

Haven't seen ANY official statement to the effect what defensive weapons Vikramaditya will carry in future (it doesn't carry any t present). If available please point to URL.

I asked Prasun the same question as to the spacing issue and this is what he replied :

To SPECTRIBUTION: Just look at the external space surrounding the VLS cells & compare that with how much volume is consumed internally by each VLS cell. That should give you the answer you seek. There’s an internal electro-hydraulic mechanism for uploading the LR-SAM’s missile-encasing cannisters.

Looking at the vehicle based land version, which also has to be reloaded, it may be possible to load additional canisters in a basis launch frame. From either end (bottom end > rack horizontally > slide in from loading vehicle; top end > rack vertically > lower in with crane) Lets consider the possibility that it works the same for a shipbased installation. Would not you agree that UPloading suggests additional canisters would be located BELOW and lifted up into the VLU/Rack, not NEXT to it. So, for me, it still doesn't compute. As for horizontal movement from magazine into launcher, well, that's a step back if true (see Mk41 versus MK22 guided missile launch system example). As for the land system, it is much more effective from a logistics point of view to simply remove a rack with up to 8 empty canisters and place a full one....

And the issue of the FRVs carrying the 32 rounds

To GESSLER: Of course it is indeed possible to install such on-board cranes without reducing the complement of VLS missile-cells. FRVs that are primarily meant for transporting fuel cannot carry any explosive materials on-board due to obvious reasons. For reloading the LR-SAMs on P-15A DDGs, all that’s reqd is to take out the used cannisters with a crane. Only after this is done can the loaded cannisters be inserted into the VLS cells internall;y, not externally.

CY-5 is the vertically launched version of CY-4 with folding control surfaces to fit into VLS. The range is reported to be 30 km with Chinese and western light weight torpedo as payload, and presumably, the range would be decreased when larger and heavier Russian torpedo is used as payload. CY-5 is reportedly deployed onboard Type 052D destroyer.

Yes, I saw that. There are some reports of that. The VLU on 052D may also take that. Its VLUs will likely mix 3-4 types of missile, in quantities suited to the mission. But keep in mind the VL Asroc (RUM 139) first became operational in 1993 with the USN, with more than 450 having been produced by 2007 (about 450/14=32 per year, which I presume served mainly Spruances). In today's environment, with subs firing AShM with ranges of 70-300km, the helicopter is more usefull imho, and I doubt 052D would sacrifice AAW for ASW if they can avoid it.

 

[spectribution]

I not attributing any qualities to any particular person. Particularly if they are not expressing themselves in an official capacity in an official medium or communication. What people say other people said, or blog statements are less credible - at least to me - than officials making formal press statements or writing in professional journals, or military publications or policy documents. Which are verifiable.


Haven't seen ANY official statement to the effect what defensive weapons Vikramaditya will carry in future (it doesn't carry any t present). If available please point to URL.



Looking at the vehicle based land version, which also has to be reloaded, it may be possible to load additional canisters in a basis launch frame. From either end (bottom end > rack horizontally > slide in from loading vehicle; top end > rack vertically > lower in with crane) Lets consider the possibility that it works the same for a shipbased installation. Would not you agree that UPloading suggests additional canisters would be located BELOW and lifted up into the VLU/Rack, not NEXT to it. So, for me, it still doesn't compute. As for horizontal movement from magazine into launcher, well, that's a step back if true (see Mk41 versus MK22 guided missile launch system example). As for the land system, it is much more effective from a logistics point of view to simply remove a rack with up to 8 empty canisters and place a full one....






Yes, I saw that. There are some reports of that. The VLU on 052D may also take that. Its VLUs will likely mix 2-3 types of missile, in quantities suited to the mission. But keep in mind the VL Asroc (RUM 139) first became operational in 1993 with the USN, with more than 450 having been produced by 2007 (about 450/14=32 per year, which I presume served mainly Spruances). In today's environment, with subs firing AShM with ranges of 70-300km, the helicopter is more usefull imho, and I doubt 052D would sacrifice AAW for ASW if they can avoid it.

Odds are stacked for the reload option bro. 2 guys giving same answer is unusual.

 

[Penguin]

Odds are stacked for the reload option bro. 2 guys giving same answer is unusual.

Not at all, quite the contrary. Happens all the time, see e.g. this forum.

Which 2 guys (names)?
What objectively qualifies them as experts on the topic? (how can they know)
Are they speaking in an official capacity?
Does what they say makes sense?
Can what they say be verified against relianble independent sources?

 

[Dillinger]

Happens all the time, see e.g. this forum.

Which 2 guys (names)?
What objectively qualifies them as experts on the topic? (how can they know)
Are they speaking in an official capacity?
Does what they say makes sense?
Can what they say be verified against relianble independent sources?

If there is enough space lying around for a below deck magazine for spare rounds AND (as per the two concerned guys) even a "reloading mechanism" then there is more than enough space for additional VLU (in place of said magazine and mechanism, which is convoluted and counter intuitive to say the least).

Any rational person needs to ask themselves, what would the space be better used for, some sort of a storage for extra rounds which will have to somehow be loaded into the VLU after said VLU expends its load OR more VLUs which will provide the same number of extra rounds in a ready to fire configuration and would remove the need for any "reloading mechanism". I mean seriously what would you rather pick, 32 read to fire SAMs with another 32 in storage OR 64/48 SAMs in their respective VLU cells?

 

[Penguin]

Not to mention the required removal of spent canisters by crane from an replenishment shp, while at sea. As prerequisite prior to reloading ...

Hey look, two guys saying the same thing! How unusual....

 

[Dillinger]

Not to mention the required removal of spent canisters by crane from an replenishment shp, while at sea. As prerequisite prior to reloading ...

Hey look, two guys saying the same thing! How unusual....

See one of them is an ex-serviceman from the IA, and therefore does have a good handle on geopolitics and matters concerning land forces equipment, with an ear out for general defence news since he operates as a "defence analyst".

Irregardless, they are really not getting the technicalities and logistics/procedures involved with what they are talking about.

Have you ever come across a below deck reloading system for VLU cells, I guess we should be calling the USN and offering to help them out.

 

[Penguin]

See one of them is an ex-serviceman from the IA, and therefore does have a good handle on geopolitics and matters concerning land forces equipment, with an ear out for general defence news since he operates as a "defence analyst".

Irregardless, they are really not getting the technicalities and logistics/procedures involved with what they are talking about.

Have you ever come across a below deck reloading system for VLU cells, I guess we should be calling the USN and offering to help them out.

The russians employ ROTARY vlu's e.g. Fort-M on Slava class cruisers (and the pair of Chinese 051C) and for Klinok on Kirov class cruisers, Udaloy class destroyers and some Grisha corvettes. But even that is not a VLU with reloading mechanism.

A VLU-magazine-autoloader hybrid imho mates the worst of both launcher worlds.

Slava:

 

[spectribution]

The russians employ ROTARY vlu's e.g. Fort-M on Slava class cruisers (and the pair of Chinese 051C) and for Klinok on Kirov class cruisers, Udaloy class destroyers and some Grisha corvettes. But even that is not a VLU with reloading mechanism.

A VLU-magazine-autoloader hybrid imho mates the worst of both launcher worlds.

Slava:

As per all sources online, most come up with the 64 number. The pictures show 32 vls. Even that official I spoke to mentioned atleast 48 Barak 8s. Question is where did the VLS unit disappear. A probable answer may be that the VLS unit is stored on the ship. I asked Ajai Shukla and P K Sengupta about this. Even if you discount Sengupta , Ajai Shukla cannot be dealt with the same bias. He is a columnist on Business Standard and his blog is fairly reliable.

 

[spectribution]

By Ajai Shukla
Business Standard, 2nd May 14

Indian warship building is coming of age and the Indo-Pacific region knows it. Last week, when an Indian Navy frigate, INS Shivalik, visited China’s Qingdao naval base, China’s navy chief, Admiral Wu Shengli, asked the captain for a tour of the Combat Information Centre, the operation heart of the warship. The Shivalik’s young skipper, Captain Puruvir Das, turned down Wu’s request.

The Chinese admiral would be even more interested in touring INS Kolkata, 7,200 tonnes of bristling steel, which could join the navy as early as next month as the most powerful and high-tech warship in its 140-vessel fleet. Tonne for tonne, the Kolkata will be amongst the most potent battleships in the hotly contested waters of the Indo-Pacific.

Significantly more versatile than the destroyers and frigates that preceded it, the Kolkata’s all-round capability --- against enemy submarines, surface warships, anti-ship missiles and fighter aircraft --- will permit it to operate without a bevy of supporting vessels, and also to function as the flagship of a naval task force.

Manned by 325 crewpersons, the Kolkata has an operating range of 15,000 kilometres, extending across the Indian Ocean to the Atlantic and the Pacific. Its four Ukrainian gas turbine engines propel the vessel at 60 kilometres per hour. Two helicopters on board further extend its reach.

The first of three destroyers being built at Mazagon Dock Ltd, Mumbai (MDL) under Project 15A, INS Kolkata has been long in the making. Construction began in 2003 and the vessel was launched in 2006. Thereafter, it has spent eight years in the water while the cutting edge weapons the navy wanted were stuck in the development pipeline.

Amongst these, according to a 2010 CAG report is the Long-Range Surface-to-Air Missile (LR-SAM) that the navy insisted should replace the venerable Russian Kashmir missile system. The LR-SAM shoots down incoming anti-ship missiles (ASMs) at ranges out to 70 kilometres, protecting the ship far more effectively than the Kashmir. But it has only been operationalised now after India’s Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) and Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), working in partnership, overcame persistent technological challenges. Even so, the Kolkata is being delivered only with missile launchers fitted, while the 64 missiles that form the ship’s complement will be added later.

With technological hurdles crossed, further delay was caused by a tragic accident on March 7, when a naval officer died while testing the Kolkata’s fire fighting system. Now, with investigations into that accident almost concluded, the decks are clear for INS Kolkata to join the fleet.

The two remaining destroyers of Project 15A will follow in short order. By October the second of the class, INS Kochi, is slated to be delivered. INS Chennai will follow her in mid-2015.

Project 15A will eventually cost the navy Rs 11,662 crore. At Rs 3,900 crore per destroyer, that is barely one-third what the UK’s Royal Navy has paid for its new Type-45 Daring-class destroyers --- Rs 11,000 crore per vessel.

Yet many regard the Kolkata as more versatile and capable than the Daring. Alongside the world-beating LR-SAM, the Kolkata’s 16 Brahmos supersonic cruise missiles allow pinpoint strikes on enemy ships and land targets as far away as 295 kilometres.

Besides anti-air, anti-ship and anti-surface capabilities, Project 15A destroyers are also potent anti-submarine platforms. New generation HUMSA hull-mounted sonar, supplemented with the Nagan active towed array sonar --- both developed by the DRDO and built by Bharat Electronics Ltd (BEL) in India --- are adept at picking up enemy submarines, especially in Indian waters with their distinctive temperature gradient. The destroyer can then engage them with heavy torpedos at ranges out to 100 kilometres, or with an Indigenous Rocket Launcher (IRL) built by Larsen & Toubro. <---- possibly shkval torpedo

The Kolkata’s predecessor, the Project-15 Delhi-class destroyer, was considered a beautiful warship, its clean lines a purist’s delight. The Kolkata’s deck has similar lines, but the aesthetics are interrupted by steel plating extending up the sides --- characteristic of a stealth warship. These armour plates, tilted 6-8 degrees to deflect radar waves rather than reflect them straight back to the enemy, make it difficult to detect this warship at a distance.

Interestingly, the Kolkata-class is almost 2,000 tonnes heavier than its predecessor --- the Project 15 Delhi-class destroyers --- because of its heavier armour plating. Despite that, it moves as fast as the Delhi-class, propelled by the same Ukrainian turbines. This, say MDL engineers, indicates how much they have improved its propulsion system.

In the wake of Project 15A, MDL has already begun the follow-on Project 15B. This involves constructing four more destroyers for Rs 29,325 crore. These are being built from indigenous warship steel, developed by SAIL and supplied by Essar. The first Project 15B destroyer is required to be delivered in July 2018, with the three subsequent ships following at two-year intervals, i.e. July 2020, 2022, and 2024.

 

[Penguin]

Above from Broadsword: INS Kolkata, navy’s most powerful warship, to be delivered next month

Note that while the article speaks of total of 64 missiles, its says (only) that LR-SAM is amongst the weapons. It does not specify how many are carried. That leaves open the possibility of a SRSAM included in that count, which we know is being tendered. So, it may still well be that for LR-SAM there are 4 launchers with each 8 rounds, and the remainder was/is to be filled by SR-SAM. I.e. not watertight.

As for heavyweight (533mm) torpedoes having the capability to engage targets out to 100km bij themselves....

• While Shkval travels 100km/h underwater, it has a range of only around 11–15 km (6.8–9.3 mi) in the latest version. Older versions only 7 km (4.3 mi).

Russia / USSR Post-World War II Torpedoes​

• Russian surface ship torpedoes:

• 533 mm (21") 53-56, 53-56V and 53-56VA: 13km
• 533 mm (21") SET-53 and SET-53M: 14km
• 533 mm (21") SET-65 "Yenot-2": 16km
• 533 mm (21") 53-61 "Alligator" and 53-61M: 22km
• 533 mm (21") TEST-71, TEST-71MKE and TEST-3: 25km
• 533 mm (21") UGST: up to 40km

Russia / USSR Post-World War II Torpedoes and
SSK Kilo Class (Type 877EKM) - Naval Technology
​

• The only (russian) heavyweight torpedoes with a 100km range are the 65-73 and the peroxide powered 65-76 (as in: Kursk explosion), if at the sacrifice of running speed (30kt rather than the usual 50kt, which for a wake homer limits targeting options). See:

Russia / USSR Post-World War II Torpedoes and
Weapon and
The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapon Systems - Norman Friedman - Google Boeken and
The Naval Institute Guide to the Soviet Navy - Norman Polmar - Google Boeken​

• L&T do make the twin fixed heavyweight torpedo tubes on the Kolkata, and those are 533mm (21"), not 650mm (25.6"). See:

L&T has been issued industrial licenses for a wide range of products, after Government of Indias decision to open up Defence production to the private sector.
​

I suspect 100km is the effective ASW range with a torpedo armed helicopter, or something. Both that 100km torpedo and the number of 64 for SAM missiles may in fact be deliberate misinformation...

The IRL is a licenced version of the Russian RBu-6000

[url]http://www.larsentoubro.com/lntcorporate/uploads/product/irl_2.jpg[/URL]

 

[Gessler]

@Penguin @Dillinger Are you guys 100% sure that Barak-8 and Barak-1 are to be complimenting each other?

Because from what I've heard, Barak-8 itself can handle both long and short-range sea-skimming targets by itself, removing
the need for a separate missile system with separate fire control and other equipment. I would
think P-15 Delhi, after the planned SLEP, would get rid of the Barak-1 VLS (if Barak-8 goes in
some other place and not there), and use the new CIWS (for which RFPs are out) in that place,
along with the other slots already housing AK-630M on that ship.

 

[spectribution]

Vertical Launch System (VLS) - an arrangement for launching guided missile weapons vertically from a prepackaged canister. This maximizes both weapon storage space and availability as well as minimizing complexity - the launch system is open to the sky, meaning that the weapons need not be moved or aligned prior to launch, relying instead on their onboard guidance to align them once they have left the launch system. Typically, these systems are used aboard naval vessels, where space is tightly constrained and complex systems (such as moving launchers or reloading rails) are difficult to maintain.
The U.S. Navy's current VLS system is the Mark 41 VLS. It consists of several components, including the launch tubes (called 'cells') which come in blocks of eight (2x4); a remote control console, and a status indicator panel, both of which are mounted elsewhere inside the ship. In addition, there are control computers for the system. Additional eight-cell modules can be added to the base system to produce installations with greater magazine size; at least one must be a 'system module' which contains the control systems for the cells. In addition, a special module can be installed of which four cells have been removed in favor of a built-in crane, allowing the ship to lift and load its own replacement canisters into the cells from alongside without requiring a ship or dock with a crane of its own. The crane cannot, however, handle all types of canister - the Standard SM-2 Block IV and the Tomahawk TLAM canisters are too heavy to be reloaded at sea using the built-in crane and must be reloaded in port.

There are two types of Mk. 41, differentiated by the length (or depth, depending on how you look at it) of the launching tubes. The VLS Strike can take the longest available canisters, allowing for longer (and hence longer range and greater payload) weapons. The VLS Tactical is shorter.

Various different types of missiles can and are mixed into the loadout of a ship's VLS, including strike and SSD (ship self defense) loads. At present, the U.S. Mk. 41 can be loaded with any of the following types of canister:

• Sea Sparrow - Ship Self Defense, SAM. Single missile per canister. Used against aircraft and cruise missiles. Short range, radar-guided.
• Standard SM-2 Block II - Ship Self Defense, SAM. Single missile per canister. Used against aircraft and cruise missiles. Medium range, radar-guided.
• VL-ASROC - Ship Self Defense, ASW. Vertical Launch variant of the ASROC (Anti-Submarine ROCket). Single weapon per canister.
• Tomahawk TLAM - Strike, SLCM. Conventional land-attack cruise missile. Single weapon per canister.
• Standard SM-2 Block IV/IVa (SM-2 ER Extended Range) - Ship Self Defense, SAM/ABM. Single missile per canister. Used against aircraft, cruise missiles and theater ballistic missiles. Long range, radar-guided.

There are additional canisters in development or early deployment, including those carrying navalised versions of the Army ATACMS missile as well as single and dual-missile canisters for the Navy's Land-attack Standard Missile. There is an Evolved Sea Sparrow (ESSM) canister quad missile canister which, in addition to being loadable in Mk. 41 VLS systems, may be usable in angled rail launchers as 'single-shot' self-defense weapons for smaller ships which do not have VLS.

VLS systems differ from the classic 'missile tube' aboard an SSBN or SSGN in that rather than each missile tube containing a full set of control systems and being essentially an independent system, along with having separate ejection charges for underwater launch, the VLS is deliberately designed as a modular system with reloadable cells for use in a variety of installed spaces.

Other nations have their own versions of VLS, of course! Russian yards have been installing VLS systems to launch SAMs and cruise missiles for at least as long, if not longer, than the U.S. Both nations will happily sell VLS systems to allies and nonaligned customers, and they can be found on ships of all nations. They're not only limited to surface vessels; the U.S. SSN 688 Los Angeles flight II and later boats have VLS tubes in the bow to allow them to launch Tomahawk cruise missile salvos without having to use the torpedo tubes.

VLS - Everything2.com

 

[spectribution]

Above from Broadsword: INS Kolkata, navy’s most powerful warship, to be delivered next month

Note that while the article speaks of total of 64 missiles, its says (only) that LR-SAM is amongst the weapons. It does not specify how many are carried. That leaves open the possibility of a SRSAM included in that count, which we know is being tendered. So, it may still well be that for LR-SAM there are 4 launchers with each 8 rounds, and the remainder was/is to be filled by SR-SAM. I.e. not watertight.

As for heavyweight (533mm) torpedoes having the capability to engage targets out to 100km bij themselves....

• While Shkval travels 100km/h underwater, it has a range of only around 11–15 km (6.8–9.3 mi) in the latest version. Older versions only 7 km (4.3 mi).

Russia / USSR Post-World War II Torpedoes​

• Russian surface ship torpedoes:

• 533 mm (21") 53-56, 53-56V and 53-56VA: 13km
• 533 mm (21") SET-53 and SET-53M: 14km
• 533 mm (21") SET-65 "Yenot-2": 16km
• 533 mm (21") 53-61 "Alligator" and 53-61M: 22km
• 533 mm (21") TEST-71, TEST-71MKE and TEST-3: 25km
• 533 mm (21") UGST: up to 40km

Russia / USSR Post-World War II Torpedoes and
SSK Kilo Class (Type 877EKM) - Naval Technology
​

• The only (russian) heavyweight torpedoes with a 100km range are the 65-73 and the peroxide powered 65-76 (as in: Kursk explosion), if at the sacrifice of running speed (30kt rather than the usual 50kt, which for a wake homer limits targeting options). See:

Russia / USSR Post-World War II Torpedoes and
Weapon and
The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapon Systems - Norman Friedman - Google Boeken and
The Naval Institute Guide to the Soviet Navy - Norman Polmar - Google Boeken​

• L&T do make the twin fixed heavyweight torpedo tubes on the Kolkata, and those are 533mm (21"), not 650mm (25.6"). See:

L&T has been issued industrial licenses for a wide range of products, after Government of Indias decision to open up Defence production to the private sector.
​

I suspect 100km is the effective ASW range with a torpedo armed helicopter, or something. Both that 100km torpedo and the number of 64 for SAM missiles may in fact be deliberate misinformation...

The IRL is a licenced version of the Russian RBu-6000

http://www.larsentoubro.com/lntcorporate/uploads/product/irl_2.jpg

32 VLS yes but total barak 8 missiles carried is 64. 100 KM maybe helicopter. Everything else other than nagin matches up.

 

[Dillinger]

Vertical Launch System (VLS) - an arrangement for launching guided missile weapons vertically from a prepackaged canister. This maximizes both weapon storage space and availability as well as minimizing complexity - the launch system is open to the sky, meaning that the weapons need not be moved or aligned prior to launch, relying instead on their onboard guidance to align them once they have left the launch system. Typically, these systems are used aboard naval vessels, where space is tightly constrained and complex systems (such as moving launchers or reloading rails) are difficult to maintain.
The U.S. Navy's current VLS system is the Mark 41 VLS. It consists of several components, including the launch tubes (called 'cells') which come in blocks of eight (2x4); a remote control console, and a status indicator panel, both of which are mounted elsewhere inside the ship. In addition, there are control computers for the system. Additional eight-cell modules can be added to the base system to produce installations with greater magazine size; at least one must be a 'system module' which contains the control systems for the cells. In addition, a special module can be installed of which four cells have been removed in favor of a built-in crane, allowing the ship to lift and load its own replacement canisters into the cells from alongside without requiring a ship or dock with a crane of its own. The crane cannot, however, handle all types of canister - the Standard SM-2 Block IV and the Tomahawk TLAM canisters are too heavy to be reloaded at sea using the built-in crane and must be reloaded in port.

There are two types of Mk. 41, differentiated by the length (or depth, depending on how you look at it) of the launching tubes. The VLS Strike can take the longest available canisters, allowing for longer (and hence longer range and greater payload) weapons. The VLS Tactical is shorter.

Various different types of missiles can and are mixed into the loadout of a ship's VLS, including strike and SSD (ship self defense) loads. At present, the U.S. Mk. 41 can be loaded with any of the following types of canister:

• Sea Sparrow - Ship Self Defense, SAM. Single missile per canister. Used against aircraft and cruise missiles. Short range, radar-guided.
• Standard SM-2 Block II - Ship Self Defense, SAM. Single missile per canister. Used against aircraft and cruise missiles. Medium range, radar-guided.
• VL-ASROC - Ship Self Defense, ASW. Vertical Launch variant of the ASROC (Anti-Submarine ROCket). Single weapon per canister.
• Tomahawk TLAM - Strike, SLCM. Conventional land-attack cruise missile. Single weapon per canister.
• Standard SM-2 Block IV/IVa (SM-2 ER Extended Range) - Ship Self Defense, SAM/ABM. Single missile per canister. Used against aircraft, cruise missiles and theater ballistic missiles. Long range, radar-guided.

There are additional canisters in development or early deployment, including those carrying navalised versions of the Army ATACMS missile as well as single and dual-missile canisters for the Navy's Land-attack Standard Missile. There is an Evolved Sea Sparrow (ESSM) canister quad missile canister which, in addition to being loadable in Mk. 41 VLS systems, may be usable in angled rail launchers as 'single-shot' self-defense weapons for smaller ships which do not have VLS.

VLS systems differ from the classic 'missile tube' aboard an SSBN or SSGN in that rather than each missile tube containing a full set of control systems and being essentially an independent system, along with having separate ejection charges for underwater launch, the VLS is deliberately designed as a modular system with reloadable cells for use in a variety of installed spaces.

Other nations have their own versions of VLS, of course! Russian yards have been installing VLS systems to launch SAMs and cruise missiles for at least as long, if not longer, than the U.S. Both nations will happily sell VLS systems to allies and nonaligned customers, and they can be found on ships of all nations. They're not only limited to surface vessels; the U.S. SSN 688 Los Angeles flight II and later boats have VLS tubes in the bow to allow them to launch Tomahawk cruise missile salvos without having to use the torpedo tubes.

VLS - Everything2.com

THIS, THE PART IN RED IS EXACTLY WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, AGAIN @Penguin IN FACT PROVIDED ILLUSTRATIONS OF SAID CRANE SYSTEM IN THIS THREAD ITSELF.

IT IS THE VERY ABSENCE OF SUCH A SYSTEM WHICH IS BEING QUESTIONED BY US, THAT IF THERE ARE SPARE ROUNDS STORED BELOW DECK THEN WHERE IS THE LIFTING APPARATUS TO BRING THEM ABOVE DECK, LIFT THE CANISTER AND THEN SLIDE IT DOWN THE OPEN HATCH OF THE VLU CELL.

NOW IT SHOULD BE CLEAR TO YOU AS TO WHY SUCH AN ARRANGEMENT ABOARD THE KOLKATA MAKES NO SENSE. UNLESS YOU EXPECT THE CREW MEMBERS TO MANUALLY LIFT THE ROUNDS AND SOMEHOW MUSCLE THEM INTO THE VLU CELL.

HERE:-

EXCLUSIVE FIRST VIDEO & IMAGES: Here She Is! D63 Kolkata Destroyer With Indian Navy | Page 5

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.

AND HERE:-

EXCLUSIVE FIRST VIDEO & IMAGES: Here She Is! D63 Kolkata Destroyer With Indian Navy | Page 11

3) POINT NUMBER "3)" RAISES PARTICULAR ISSUES-

a) How will the spare rounds be brought above deck from the below deck magazine?

b) If said rounds are brought up to the main deck, where is the lifting apparatus required to raise said round, and then lower it into the open hatch, believe you me this cannot be done manually at all! @Penguin provided the relevant literature and illustrations for how a ship may effect a VLU reload by itself at sea if it is carrying spare rounds, refer to it and then notice that no such apparatus is present aboard the Kolkata.

CAN YOU OBSERVE THE EXISTENCE OF SAID CRANE/LIFTING APPARATUS ONBOARD THE KOLKATA, SITUATED ALONG WITH THE BARAK-8 VLU TO ENABLE SAID RELOAD? NOT TO MENTION THAT SUCH A SYSTEM WAS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN DESIRABLE/SUITABLE EVEN BY THE USN.

THE DATA YOU'VE PRESENTED IN YOUR ABOVE POST REINFORCES EXACTLY WHAT ME AND @Penguin HAVE BEEN STATING. FURTHERMORE, DO NOT CONFUSE A ROTARY LAUNCHER WITH WHAT PRASUN SENGUPTA IS TALKING ABOUT (AN INTERNALLY RELOADABLE VLU), A ROTARY LAUNCHER IS NOTHING OF THAT SORT, NOT EVEN A CLOSE ANALOGUE TO WHAT PSG IS TALKING ABOUT.

@Penguin @Dillinger Are you guys 100% sure that Barak-8 and Barak-1 are to be complimenting each other?

Because from what I've heard, Barak-8 itself can handle both long and short-range sea-skimming targets by itself, removing
the need for a separate missile system with separate fire control and other equipment. I would
think P-15 Delhi, after the planned SLEP, would get rid of the Barak-1 VLS (if Barak-8 goes in
some other place and not there), and use the new CIWS (for which RFPs are out) in that place,
along with the other slots already housing AK-630M on that ship.

They should, the Barak 8 is a higher capability SAM and therefore it might not be prudent to expend them against an inbound which has gotten particularly close. Remember each Barak 8 takes up more space than a SR-SAM/Barak 1, it costs more too, and can be carried in limited numbers, therefore it might be more prudent to have a layered CIWS system (with a QR SR-SAM) so as to ensure that the Barak 8s are utilized optimally for longer range intercepts irregardless of their ability to operate within the envelope of a SR-SAM too. Case in point, the Aster-30 can do just that wrt the Aster-15, yet the British found it prudent to carry a certain number of Aster-15 nonetheless.

Have been terrifically busy brother, even on PDF since Hype was back online I spent most of my time catching up (as sparse as it was even then), will provide a more detailed reply when I get free.