The Great Asian Showdown: India’s Kolkata Class v/s China’s Type-52D Destroyer

[kaykay]

It goes to Kolkate 15B for sure, I saw their announcement.

Actually P-15B is called Banglore class( follow on Kolkata class). First ship of 15B is gonna be launch by next month.

 

[Penguin]

Not now, but in the first refit. I believe the sole reason for Barak 1 not able to make space in Kolkata was banning of IAI. But now its not at all problem.

The same thing was done on Delhi class, so why go backward in evolutionary ladder in our new ship?

I agree. Everything on that ship screams "come on with those 2x2 8-cell Barak 1 and Elta directors'". Still, they may never come.... not in the last place because Barak 8 can kill close in as well (down to 500m)

 

[Superboy]

IMO 052D is American design more clean and Kolkata is Russian design more cluttered.

Kolkata's radar is no doubt the most expensive part of the ship, probably costs billions of US dollars. Very good AESA.

 

[Storm Force]

Love the kolkatta looks great job India

 

[jhungary]

The 76 mm is also much better for anti aircraft / anti missile fire and they are actually quite effective against cruise missiles. Can't do that with a large gun.

well, you can still do with high angle 5 inch, actually how ecfective between 3 inch and 5 inch in AA role is still up for debate, and it have been since at lease WW2, but that post was about Coastal support, Hence my answer

 

[jhungary]

I did answer the question. Obviously you haven't been to the small manufacturing villages outside Guangzhou and Dongguan and seen the crappy factories there and the conditions of how people and workers live there. You think that everything is just like Foxtron factories or that everything is like Shanghai or Shenzhen. As far as I see it is more like there are 2 chinas, one highly advanced and another still quite undeveloped.

No, I don't hate china, but I don't like or agree about many things about china; you guys think like if no accepting or liking something has to mean hating.

No only I've been to china dozens of times for the last 12 years, many times spending 2 or 3 months at a time, but I also had my own little factory for 3 years in a village 1 hour from downtown Guangzhou (and it was a very crappy village). You don't want to believe it? I don't care.

The poorest area of China that I've been to: An Hui rural areas, went to see a bronze factory there, very very poor area there, but there are areas like that in many places all over china.



Yes, you are right, my meaning was more like thinking because of the fast rate of fire in a small caliber gun.

the debate has long been going on, while 3 inch have a faster firing rate, but 5 inch fire projectile faster and further, so, well, its kind of hard to determine which is better

 

[Carlosa]

Actually P-15B is called Banglore class( follow on Kolkata class). First ship of 15B is gonna be launch by next month.

Oh ok, I didn't know that.

Kolkata's radar is no doubt the most expensive part of the ship, probably costs billions of US dollars. Very good AESA.

The Kolkata radar is $68 million.

LOL, Even 730 depends on data from an external search radar. What you refer to is closed system, without man in the loop. That doesn't mean AK630 performs worse, though.


Why would you do that for a brand new ship....


Mk 99 = Missile Fire Control System

The radar system associated with the Mk 99 MFCS is the missile illuminator AN/SPG-62.

AN/SPG-62 RADAR.: I/JBand fire control radar.

The SPY-1 radar system detects and tracks targets and then points the SPG-62 toward the target, which in turn provides illumination for the terminal guidance of SM-2 missiles.

In order to track a target, you need a very narrow beam of RF energy. The narrower the beam, the more accurately you can tell if you have one target or multiple targets (this is called radar resolution). This narrow beam radar is normally a second radar that works with a primary search or track radar. The AN/SPG-62 illuminating radar works as a second radar with the AN/SPY-1 series radar.

E.g. on Ticonderoga class cruisers:

SM-2 is a SEMI-ACTIVE RADAR HOMING missile, which means it homes in on the reflection of radar energy from a target. The AN/SPG-62 is the radar that 'paints' the target with radar energy, causing the target to reflect radar energy that the missila can home in on.

Nice explanation, thank you. Can you talk a bit on how the system works to guide the SM3 and SM6 missiles?

 

[SvenSvensonov]

Nice explanation, thank you. Can you talk a bit on how the system works to guide the SM3 and SM6 missiles?

There's not a whole lot of public info on the capabilities of SM-3 (SM-3 also comes in different varieties) or SM-6, so I'll refrain from adding too much, but both have capabilities that are not seen on the more common SM-2. Both can be vectored towards an enemy system via "alternative methods". Illuminators are not a necessity and in some cases can't be used, such as over-the-horizon engagements or engagements over obstacles (such as mountains).

What does this mean? Well, "alternative methods" don't have to be a ship-based system, they can be from satellites, as seen here:

"In a first-of-its-kind test, a Raytheon Standard Missile-3 Block IA fired from the USS Lake Erie destroyed a medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) target using a remote cue from a satellite sensor system."

This capability is provided by a Navy system call "Space Tracking and Surveillance System". This capability allows for sensors far from the SM-3 and its launch platform to track and vector missiles towards targets before the ship-based sensors are even in range.

Raytheon: Navy Uses Raytheon SM-3 and Space Sensor to Destroy Missile Target

Or patrolling aircraft can vector the missile:

Cooperative Engagement Capability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The E-2D (and other systems) is providing the USN with this long-range targeting capability to extend missile coverage beyond the sensor range of USN ships.

Or the missile can vector itself using it's own systems. Both retain active homing that limits the necessity of illuminators and allows for target acquisition and engagement when illuminators aren't present, such as engaging a missile behind a mountain:

Non-Standard: Navy SM-6 Kills Cruise Missiles Deep Inland

You wouldn’t expect the Navy to test its weapons in the desert. But that’s just what happened Thursday at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, an Army facility 500 miles from the sea, where a Standard Missile-6 successfully intercepted a mock cruise missile flying low and slow over land. Hitting that target is one sign of how far Navy missile defense programs have cast their net beyond their traditional domain.

The Navy’s Standard Missile is, as the bland name says, the Navy’s standard missile to defend the fleet against incoming strikes by enemy aircraft and anti-ship missiles. (Attacking enemy ships and ground targets is done by other missiles altogether). In recent years, though, the Raytheon-made missile has branched out. The standard Standard, the SM-2, is a straightforward fleet-defense weapon, with some capability to intercept targets over the land and even hit enemy ships. But the military is developing a long-range, high-altitude SM-3 variant to intercept ballistic missiles as they coast through space.

Then there’s the SM-6, first issued to the fleet last fall. “It’s the latest evolution of the Standard Missile family,” said Navy Cdr. Sidney Hodgson, the deputy program manager for the Standard series. (SM-4 and SM-5 never saw service). “It doesn’t replace the SM-2,” which will stay in service alongside the SM-6, he emphasized, but “it gives you increased firepower, it gives you extended range.”

To save costs, the Standard Missile Six is an unholy hybrid of the long-range rocket motor from the SM-3, the agile aerodynamic body of the SM-2, and the nose of an AMRAAM air-to-air missile, normally carried by fighter planes. It’s the borrowed AMRAAM components in particular that let the SM-6 pick out tricky targets like a cruise missile maneuvering at low altitude and low speed over land. Even in the desert, the land is never as smooth and flat as the sea, so a low-flying target can hide itself amidst the “ground clutter” of natural features — hills, rocks, buildings — that also show up on radar.

“What we were attempting to show was, [given] something that was subsonic, very low, could we discriminate and engage it?” said Raytheon’s senior program director for SM-6, Mike Campisi. “It was wonderful to see.”

The earlier SM-2 can intercept low-flying targets over land “in some scenarios,” Campisi told me, but that missile relies on the ship to continually “illuminate” the target with its radar. SM-6 has its own built-in targeting radar, more range, and much more capability to intercept a maneuvering target. It will also be able home in on a target too distant for the ship that launched it to detect, using data relayed from other ships or aircraft over the Navy’s future NIFC-CA battle network.

So, I asked Campisi, is there anything else in the US arsenal today that can intercept incoming cruise missiles as far away as the SM-6? His answer: “No.”

That’s a big deal because cruise missiles have been a major headache since the Cold War. Salvoes of Soviet cruise missiles threatened to overwhelm the defenses of US Navy carrier battlegroups, and that’s a threat the Chinese have resurrected. The biggest threat to the US Pacific Fleet isn’t the PLA Navy, it’s the 2nd Artillery Force’s immense inventory of land-based missiles.

The Chinese DF-21 “carrier killer” ballistic missile has attracted a lot of publicity, but that’s still a nascent technology, while anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs) are long-established and battle-tested. Iran has shore-based ASCM batteries as well. Even the Lebanese militia Hezbollah managed to cripple an Israeli corvette in 2006 with what was probably an Iranian copy of the Chinese C-802 ASCM. The proliferation of anti-ship missiles is so severe that the Marine Corps must come up with new tactics and technologies to get from ship to shore, while the Navy is working with the Air Force on a new warfighting concept known as “Air-Sea Battle.”

So anything that kills cruise missiles at long range is a welcome addition to the US arsenal. But Campisi and Hodgson told me not to typecast the SM-6. It’s capable of killing both helicopters and fixed-wing planes, Hodgson said, both manned aircraft and drones, as well as missiles. Previous tests included at-sea launches against both low-altitude, subsonic targets and high-altitude, supersonic ones. All have been successful, Campisi said: “We’re 14 for 14 right now.”

Roughly a hundred SM-6 missiles have already been issued to the fleet — what’s called Early Operational Capability — for use with the “Baseline 7″ version of the Aegis fire control system. The current series of tests are proving the missile’s compatibility with the latest Aegis upgrade, Baseline 9C, which can engage enemy aircraft and ballistic missiles at the same time. Overall, the latest tests are meant “to really stretch the envelope [against] a wide range of threat sets,” Campisi said. “We’ve always tried to make this a multi-purpose weapon.”

Such flexibility is tactically and logistically important, because Navy ships can’t afford to fill their limited number of Vertical Launch System (VLS) cells with special-purpose missiles for narrow missions that may or may not come up. In fact, the limited capacity to carry missiles is a major, if mundane, motivation for the Navy’s increasing investment both in electromagnetic rail guns, which fire 23-pound metal slugs, and in lasers, whose ammunition weighs nothing at all. But lasers can’t fire at targets beyond the horizon, and even rail guns will likely max out at 100 or so miles. That leaves longer-ranged engagements to missiles like the SM-6.

From Non-Standard: Navy SM-6 Kills Cruise Missiles Deep Inland « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary

There are other means too, but i wont go too far into anything that isn't public.

 

[Carlosa]

There's not a whole lot of public info on the capabilities of SM-3 or SM-6, so I'll refrain from adding too much, but both have capabilities that are not seen on the more common SM-2. Both can be vectored towards an enemy system via "alternative methods". Illuminators are not a necessity.

What does this mean? Well, "alternative methods" don't have to be a ship-based system, they can be from satellites, as seen here:

"In a first-of-its-kind test, a Raytheon Standard Missile-3 Block IA fired from the USS Lake Erie destroyed a medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) target using a remote cue from a satellite sensor system."

This capability is provided by a Navy system call "Space Tracking and Surveillance System". This capability allows for sensors far from the SM-3 and its launch platform to track and vector targets before the ship-based sensors are even in range.

Raytheon: Navy Uses Raytheon SM-3 and Space Sensor to Destroy Missile Target

Or patrolling aircraft can vector the missile:

Cooperative Engagement Capability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The E-2D (and other systems) is providing the USN with this long-range targeting capability to extend missile coverage beyond the sensor range of USN ships.

Or the missile can vector itself using it's own systems.

There are other means too, but i wont go too far into anything that isn't public.

Thank you man. Good info.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

P17

P17A

P15A

??

P15B


Just apply the changes from the P17 to P17A, to P15A and P15B, then I think you'll have a better image.

Basically the deck up will be a lot more cleaner.

First Project 15B Bangalore-Class Stealth Guided Missile Destroyer Ready For Launch Next Month

Honestly, P17A and P15B are the ships to look out for.

P15B's hull will be launched next month.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

Next Kolkata will have land attack Nirbhay blocks

Along with Brahmos family anti ship missiles

 

[Carlosa]

Next Kolkata will have land attack Nirbhay blocks

Along with Brahmos family anti ship missiles

Once Kolkata gets the Brahmos II, that's the most powerful anti ship capability of any ship anywhere and that will be soon.

 

[500]

Bro, whats your comment on RAN-40Lwhich going to be onboard on IAC-1 and P-15B as secondary radar with MF-STAR as primary.

RAN-40L is great long range detection radar. on pair with SMART-L, much better than LW-08 on P-15A.

But as i said about SMART-L, its only a detection radar, cant make accurate tracking, terminal guidance and illumination.

 

[SQ8]

Folks, you can have been to CHINA or ANTARCTICA for all we care. STICK TO THE TOPIC.

 

[Carlosa]

RAN-40L is great long range detection radar. on pair with SMART-L, much better than LW-08 on P-15A.

But as i said about SMART-L, its only a detection radar, cant make accurate tracking, terminal guidance and illumination.

But isn't SMART-L what Thales use in most of the european air defense frigates? I think you are confusing with Smart S maybe?

@Penguin can clarify?