Vietnam ordered stealth destroyers P28 of India

[Gen Padmanabhan]

How would you know? It doesn't exist as yet.

A model of the Brahmos-M / Brahmos-NG was showcased on 20 February 2013, at the 15th anniversary celebrations of BrahMos Corporations.

A decision was taken only in 2014 to build the mini-BrahMos.
https://in.rbth.com/blogs/2015/07/03/the_brahmos_is_just_beginning_44045
http://carnegieendowment.org/2015/07/03/brahmos-is-just-beginning/id0b

In 2015, Sputnik news states that "after Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) handed over the first BrahMos-A missile integrated Su-30MKI aircraft to the Indian Air Force, Indian and Russian designers concentrated on creating the supersonic mini-BrahMos (BrahMos-M) missiles" The article still speaks in future tense of the Brahmos-M, suggesting there is not an operational missile yet, let alone a functional prototype
Read more: http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150227/1018859989.html#ixzz488vhzXXX

The need for Brahmos-M has arisen because not even the big-*** Su-30 can carry more than 1 Brahmos-A, and Brahmos-A cannot be fired from 553mm torpedo tubes (i.e. requires installation of a VLS for adoption in submarines)
http://www.therussophile.org/brahmos-first-made-in-india-project-continues-successfully.html/

First test flight is expected to take place in 2017–18.
https://www.ibcworldnews.com/2015/03/13/brahmos-mini-is-now-officially-brahmos-ng-next-generation/

So it will easily be 2020 before there is an operational Indian missile of this type.....

By contrast, kh-31 has been operational since 1982 and in service since 1988. In antiship and anti-radiation versions. Hundreds have been produced.

Known Operators

• Russia
• Algeria
• Syria
• India
• China
• Indonesia
• Peru
• Venezuela
• Vietnam
• Malaysia

Possible/Potential operators

• North Korea
• Iran

The US Navy has bought Kh-31 derived MA-31 target drones

How is a Sigma 9814 not intented to survive a war with China?

Vietship 2014 the new SIGMA 9814 class was to be fitted with:
8x MBDA Exocet MM40 Block 3
12x MBDA MICA VL surface-to-air missiles (in VLS)
1x Oto Melara 76mm main gun
2x Oto Melara MARLIN-WS 30mm gun mounts

These armaments and various sensors are just there for show? The ship is not survivable, has no damage control?

Agree, 8-round launcher is standard.


Which ships, specifically, and what are their relevant dimensions? I.e. smaller in what way?



The MF-Star on the Saar 5 INS Lahav does not appear to have the same size and shape antennas as the Indian Kolkata ships. Plus, the four antennas are split over 2 masts.

Compara antenna's to RBU and 76mm main gun and then project to Kamorta P28. Where Saar 5 has a Phalanx, it can also mount a 76mm instead

http://defense-update.com/20070727_mf_star.html

Yes indeed, even if there is space for 2*8 Barak 8 on P28, this is useless without MF-STAR, that missile integrated with MF-STAR.

The only possibility is if there any add on mast with smaller MFSTAR in Israel that can go in P28.

There is no space for MF-STAR behind

 

[Gen Padmanabhan]

How would you know? It doesn't exist as yet.

A model of the Brahmos-M / Brahmos-NG was showcased on 20 February 2013, at the 15th anniversary celebrations of BrahMos Corporations.

A decision was taken only in 2014 to build the mini-BrahMos.
https://in.rbth.com/blogs/2015/07/03/the_brahmos_is_just_beginning_44045
http://carnegieendowment.org/2015/07/03/brahmos-is-just-beginning/id0b

In 2015, Sputnik news states that "after Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) handed over the first BrahMos-A missile integrated Su-30MKI aircraft to the Indian Air Force, Indian and Russian designers concentrated on creating the supersonic mini-BrahMos (BrahMos-M) missiles" The article still speaks in future tense of the Brahmos-M, suggesting there is not an operational missile yet, let alone a functional prototype
Read more: http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150227/1018859989.html#ixzz488vhzXXX

The need for Brahmos-M has arisen because not even the big-*** Su-30 can carry more than 1 Brahmos-A, and Brahmos-A cannot be fired from 553mm torpedo tubes (i.e. requires installation of a VLS for adoption in submarines)
http://www.therussophile.org/brahmos-first-made-in-india-project-continues-successfully.html/

First test flight is expected to take place in 2017–18.
https://www.ibcworldnews.com/2015/03/13/brahmos-mini-is-now-officially-brahmos-ng-next-generation/

So it will easily be 2020 before there is an operational Indian missile of this type.....

By contrast, kh-31 has been operational since 1982 and in service since 1988. In antiship and anti-radiation versions. Hundreds have been produced.

Known Operators

• Russia
• Algeria
• Syria
• India
• China
• Indonesia
• Peru
• Venezuela
• Vietnam
• Malaysia

Possible/Potential operators

• North Korea
• Iran

The US Navy has bought Kh-31 derived MA-31 target drones

How is a Sigma 9814 not intented to survive a war with China?

Vietship 2014 the new SIGMA 9814 class was to be fitted with:
8x MBDA Exocet MM40 Block 3
12x MBDA MICA VL surface-to-air missiles (in VLS)
1x Oto Melara 76mm main gun
2x Oto Melara MARLIN-WS 30mm gun mounts

These armaments and various sensors are just there for show? The ship is not survivable, has no damage control?

Agree, 8-round launcher is standard.


Which ships, specifically, and what are their relevant dimensions? I.e. smaller in what way?



The MF-Star on the Saar 5 INS Lahav does not appear to have the same size and shape antennas as the Indian Kolkata ships. Plus, the four antennas are split over 2 masts.

Compara antenna's to RBU and 76mm main gun and then project to Kamorta P28. Where Saar 5 has a Phalanx, it can also mount a 76mm instead

http://defense-update.com/20070727_mf_star.html

But if someone ask me to take a hard decision, I prefer to dump BrahMos with its VLS, and instead install Barak 8 VLS there.

And I prefer 2 launchers of Kh-35. In Indian Navy, even the first frigate that going to be equipped with both BrahMos and Barak 8 will be P-17A.

 

[Carlosa]

How would you know? It doesn't exist as yet.

A model of the Brahmos-M / Brahmos-NG was showcased on 20 February 2013, at the 15th anniversary celebrations of BrahMos Corporations.

A decision was taken only in 2014 to build the mini-BrahMos.
https://in.rbth.com/blogs/2015/07/03/the_brahmos_is_just_beginning_44045
http://carnegieendowment.org/2015/07/03/brahmos-is-just-beginning/id0b

In 2015, Sputnik news states that "after Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) handed over the first BrahMos-A missile integrated Su-30MKI aircraft to the Indian Air Force, Indian and Russian designers concentrated on creating the supersonic mini-BrahMos (BrahMos-M) missiles" The article still speaks in future tense of the Brahmos-M, suggesting there is not an operational missile yet, let alone a functional prototype
Read more: http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150227/1018859989.html#ixzz488vhzXXX

The need for Brahmos-M has arisen because not even the big-*** Su-30 can carry more than 1 Brahmos-A, and Brahmos-A cannot be fired from 553mm torpedo tubes (i.e. requires installation of a VLS for adoption in submarines)
http://www.therussophile.org/brahmos-first-made-in-india-project-continues-successfully.html/

First test flight is expected to take place in 2017–18.
https://www.ibcworldnews.com/2015/03/13/brahmos-mini-is-now-officially-brahmos-ng-next-generation/

So it will easily be 2020 before there is an operational Indian missile of this type.....

By contrast, kh-31 has been operational since 1982 and in service since 1988. In antiship and anti-radiation versions. Hundreds have been produced.

Known Operators

• Russia
• Algeria
• Syria
• India
• China
• Indonesia
• Peru
• Venezuela
• Vietnam
• Malaysia

Possible/Potential operators

• North Korea
• Iran

The US Navy has bought Kh-31 derived MA-31 target drones

I would assume that Brahmos M would have at least the same technology as the standard Brahmos, that's already way better than KH-31 which is a bit old, it does not have the variety of guidance systems that Brahmos has, it has no terminal maneuverability as Brahmos has, it has a small warhead of less than 100 kilos and less range. I think that's enough reasons right there.

How would you know? It doesn't exist as yet.

A model of the Brahmos-M / Brahmos-NG was showcased on 20 February 2013, at the 15th anniversary celebrations of BrahMos Corporations.

A decision was taken only in 2014 to build the mini-BrahMos.
https://in.rbth.com/blogs/2015/07/03/the_brahmos_is_just_beginning_44045
http://carnegieendowment.org/2015/07/03/brahmos-is-just-beginning/id0b

In 2015, Sputnik news states that "after Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) handed over the first BrahMos-A missile integrated Su-30MKI aircraft to the Indian Air Force, Indian and Russian designers concentrated on creating the supersonic mini-BrahMos (BrahMos-M) missiles" The article still speaks in future tense of the Brahmos-M, suggesting there is not an operational missile yet, let alone a functional prototype
Read more: http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150227/1018859989.html#ixzz488vhzXXX

The need for Brahmos-M has arisen because not even the big-*** Su-30 can carry more than 1 Brahmos-A, and Brahmos-A cannot be fired from 553mm torpedo tubes (i.e. requires installation of a VLS for adoption in submarines)
http://www.therussophile.org/brahmos-first-made-in-india-project-continues-successfully.html/

First test flight is expected to take place in 2017–18.
https://www.ibcworldnews.com/2015/03/13/brahmos-mini-is-now-officially-brahmos-ng-next-generation/

So it will easily be 2020 before there is an operational Indian missile of this type.....

By contrast, kh-31 has been operational since 1982 and in service since 1988. In antiship and anti-radiation versions. Hundreds have been produced.

Known Operators

• Russia
• Algeria
• Syria
• India
• China
• Indonesia
• Peru
• Venezuela
• Vietnam
• Malaysia

Possible/Potential operators

• North Korea
• Iran

The US Navy has bought Kh-31 derived MA-31 target drones

How is a Sigma 9814 not intented to survive a war with China?

Vietship 2014 the new SIGMA 9814 class was to be fitted with:
8x MBDA Exocet MM40 Block 3
12x MBDA MICA VL surface-to-air missiles (in VLS)
1x Oto Melara 76mm main gun
2x Oto Melara MARLIN-WS 30mm gun mounts

These armaments and various sensors are just there for show? The ship is not survivable, has no damage control?

l

You really think that a lightly armed ship like the Sigma can survive against a chinese fleet with type 52 C & D destroyers? Not even think about the upcoming type 55 cruiser which is a monster and the overwhelming superior numbers that the chinese have? The chinese can concentrate massive missile firepower in any spot of the south china sea from a large variety of platforms, surface ships, subs and bombers. They can saturate the defenses of any ship including AEGIS destroyers and you think that the little Sigma can survive? Sorry but that's virtually impossible.

The US navy considers that they'll have to operate at least 1000 miles away from the chinese coast and you would expect that a Vietnamese task force composed of Sigmas and Gepard light frigates can survive? Impossible man. They'll have to stay in port or they go to the bottom of the ocean in no time. Only the Kilo subs can fight and give casualties to the chinese ships, surface ships can't hide from the chinese satellites, AWACS, etc and once they are detected, they'll be gone in no time. I don't like it, but that's the reality.

Which ships, specifically, and what are their relevant dimensions? I.e. smaller in what way?
l

I already told you before, the Gepard version that has a UKSK VLS for Klub missiles in that same spot, that's a 2200 ton ship, way smaller than the P28. 102 x 14 meters.

Yes indeed, even if there is space for 2*8 Barak 8 on P28, this is useless without MF-STAR, that missile integrated with MF-STAR.

The only possibility is if there any add on mast with smaller MFSTAR in Israel that can go in P28.

There is no space for MF-STAR behind

Lets not forget that the article mentions all those weapon systems: Brahmos, Barak 8 and M/F Star, so obviously it is a modified version of the P28 and it has been modified to be able to carry all those systems.

 

[Penguin]

I would assume that Brahmos M would have at least the same technology as the standard Brahmos, that's already way better than KH-31 which is a bit old, it does not have the variety of guidance systems that Brahmos has, it has no terminal maneuverability as Brahmos has, it has a small warhead of less than 100 kilos and less range. I think that's enough reasons right there.

Brahmos-A has INS (interial navigation system), which is not guidance per se but rather a way to fly to a set point.
It also has GPS/GLONASS/Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System/GAGAN satellite 'guidance' using G3OM. Again, this is more navigation than guidance (i.e flying a set route to a set point, with accuracy checks along the way)
It also has a active radar terminal guidance, for the final stage of flight (target detection and homing)

Kh-31A antiship missile: inertial guidance with active radar homing]
Kh-31P antiradiation missile: inertial guidance with passive radar.

So, really the only thing it would not have would be the satnav 'guidance'. Then again, it has a range of 103-110km as compared to up to 300km for Brahmos-NG, so you can wonder if it really needs satnav.

You really think that a lightly armed ship like the Sigma can survive against a chinese fleet with type 52 C & D destroyers? Not even think about the upcoming type 55 cruiser which is a monster and the overwhelming superior numbers that the chinese have? The chinese can concentrate massive missile firepower in any spot of the south china sea from a large variety of platforms, surface ships, subs and bombers. They can saturate the defenses of any ship including AEGIS destroyers and you think that the little Sigma can survive? Sorry but that's virtually impossible.

None of these ships, including a modified P28 (as you indicate with the underlined statement) would survive against said fleet for long. Besides, that's not what they are designed for. They are primarily ASW ships with selfdefence anti-air weapons and an antiship missile. You wouldn't used them against a superior fleet. If you think that's what they are for, you don't get it.

The US navy considers that they'll have to operate at least 1000 miles away from the chinese coast and you would expect that a Vietnamese task force composed of Sigmas and Gepard light frigates can survive? Impossible man. They'll have to stay in port or they go to the bottom of the ocean in no time. Only the Kilo subs can fight and give casualties to the chinese ships, surface ships can't hide from the chinese satellites, AWACS, etc and once they are detected, they'll be gone in no time. I don't like it, but that's the reality.

So, you're defintely backing a way from the notion that a modified P28 can and the Sigma and Gepard can't survive against the Chinese?

I already told you before, the Gepard version that has a UKSK VLS for Klub missiles in that same spot, that's a 2200 ton ship, way smaller than the P28. 102 x 14 meters.

Ship displacement isn't all that relevant here, since we are discussing a volume issue here, that is primarily determined by the depth of the hull (i.e. number of decks) rather than the footprint of the VLS on deck (l x w)

The 2150 ton Viet Sigma 9814 would have been 99.91 m x 14.02 m x 3.75 m
The 2365 ton Indonesian Sigma 10514 is 105.11 x 14.02 m x 3.75 m
The >= 2000 ton Morocaan Sigma's are of similar lengths (97.91m or 105.11m x 13.02m x 3.75m)
Only the <= 2000 ton Indonesian Sigma 9113 has a draught of less than 3.75m (namely 3.6m)

Gepard
Length: 102.14 m (335.1 ft) (93.5 m waterline)
Beam: 13.09 m (42.9 ft)
Draught: 5.3 m (17 ft)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gepard-class_frigate

P28 is not all that dissimilar to Gepard at 109.1 x 13.7
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamorta-class_corvette

Some say 109 x 12.8m but this may simply be waterline versus 'overall'
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kamorta-class-asw-corvettes/

Other says: Displacing around 2500 tons and with a length of around 110 meters, this vessel is a corvette in name only - it is actually closer to a small frigate. According to one account, the P-28 would displace 1,800 tons light, with dimensions of 94 m length, 13m beam, and 3.5 m draft.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/p-28-design.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/p-28-specs.htm

Crux of the matter is that I've as yet not found an actual indication of draught for the P28. It is safe, however, to assume 3.5m would be an absolute minimum.

Edit: correction, I've found a quote by the Royal Institute of Naval Engineers that says 109.1m x 14.17m x 3.7m. RINA puts the P28 at 2500 tons, which I assume is standard displacement]
http://content.yudu.com/A1s2p2/WTMAY11/resources/34.htm

For comparison
The Turkish 2300 ton Ada class is 99.56 m x 14.40 m x 3.89 m
The Italian 2506 ton (2986 ton full load) LUPO is 113.2 m x 11.3 m x 3.7 m
The Turkish Yavuz (MEKO200) of 3030 ton full load is 110.50 m x 13.25 m x 3.94 m
The Turkish Barbados (MEKO200) of 3100 ton (3350 tons full load) is 116.7 m or 118.0 m x 14.8 metres x 4.25 m
The Dutch 2800 ton (3320 tons full load) M-frigate is 122 m x 14.4 m x 6.2 m

Imho, draft of Gepard at wiki seemed a bit deep.

After googling "project 11661K" I find a more consistent draught for Dagestan of 3.7m ( http://russianships.info/eng/warships/project_11661.htm )

Project 20380 is displaces:

• Standard: 1,800 tons
• Full: 2,200 tons

Length: 104.5 m
Beam: 11.6 m
Draught: 3.7 m

In sum, I think all these ships are very comparable in terms of the space and most importantly depth they have available for a very long VLS such as needed for Brahmos. But as I said before, it is not a simple swap out with the RBUs and drop-in a VLS crosswise. I'm fairly convinced it would need to go lengthwise (as on the Russian ships) and I think that without lengthening the area forward of the bridge of P28 it is going to be very tight, if not impossible.

In the above pics the 20381 and the 11661 have a 100mm gun
For comparison of gun sizes see Shivalik versus Talwar

 

[Carlosa]

None of these ships, including a modified P28 (as you indicate with the underlined statement) would survive against said fleet for long. Besides, that's not what they are designed for. They are primarily ASW ships with selfdefence anti-air weapons and an antiship missile. You wouldn't used them against a superior fleet. If you think that's what they are for, you don't get it.


So, you're defintely backing a way from the notion that a modified P28 can and the Sigma and Gepard can't survive against the Chinese?

The reason why such a P28 would be more capable to survive is because it has Barak 8 and M/f STAR and since the main threat will be anti ship missiles, including supersonic missiles, it can have a chance in a limited engagement. The second threat would be subs and in that regard the P28 also has a better chance since it has not only a better ASW package, but it has also been designed with a more silent noise signature.

My original statement was that such a P28 has a better chance to survive and because of what I had just mentioned, it is the case, but to be clear, I don't think any Vietnamese surface group can actually make it in a full conflict with China, only subs can fight and have a decent chance to fight and survive.

So, my point is, it would be better for VN to have the type of ships that have a better chance and in that case the P28 has a better chance than a Gepard or Sigma, so better to spend the money in such ships. VN is not going to have the resources for big destroyers any time soon if ever, so the most feasible ship for VN is an inexpensive "pocket destroyer" and that's how I see such modified P28.

In sum, I think all these ships are very comparable in terms of the space and most importantly depth they have available for a very long VLS such as needed for Brahmos. But as I said before, it is not a simple swap out with the RBUs and drop-in a VLS crosswise. I'm fairly convinced it would need to go lengthwise (as on the Russian ships) and I think that without lengthening the area forward of the bridge of P28 it is going to be very tight, if not impossible.

I also told you before that, yes, the VLS would it have to be lengthwise. A Brahmos 8 cell VLS is 4 x 2 meters plus the empty space needed around the VLS, so the question is if the current area of the P28 deck has enough space or not. Without the exact measurements we can't say for sure, I think it probably has, but can't say for sure.

One of the pictures that you just posted that shows a close up side view of that area of the P28 gives me the feeling that there is enough space for the Brahmos VLS, but again, we need the measurements.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

You can also use older Rajput class as a point of reference, as it also been modified to hold VLS Brahmos.


P28 will need to be lengthened for sure.

 

[Penguin]

The reason why such a P28 would be more capable to survive is because it has Barak 8 and M/f STAR and since the main threat will be anti ship missiles, including supersonic missiles, it can have a chance in a limited engagement. The second threat would be subs and in that regard the P28 also has a better chance since it has not only a better ASW package, but it has also been designed with a more silent noise signature.

16 Barak is not a whole lot of missiles. It is in fact about the minimum number of SAMs a larger (1500 ton or more) surface combattant ship would not normally carry. Even if Barak has longer range, relative to Barak-1 for example, it doesn't mean shorter range missiles such as MICA VL wouldn't be ineffective for self-defence. If that were so, then this would disqualify CAMM/Sea Ceptor as well as ESSM as viable weapon systems. Besides, effective self-defence relies on several layers of active and passive sensor systems plus a combination of several hard- and soft-kill defensive systems.

There is nothing that prevents similar radar concepts to MF-Star to be installed on e.g. a Damen Sigma ship. So, it is not a quality of the ship but rather something that is a function of customer specified requirements. If you work with IIRH or active radar homing missiles (unlike ESSM) then there is no need for the radar system to illuminate the target. You simply need a good 3D set (e.g. Thales Smart-S Mk2, with similar range to MF-Star, or EL/M-2258 Alpha, which utilizes solid-state Transmit/Receive (T/R) modules derived from Elta’s larger EL/M-2248 MF-Star radars, and I use plural there because a smaller version of the MF-Star is in production for the Israeli Navy, for the modernization of the Saar V corvettes of the Israel Navy. ALPHA weighs only 1.2 tons, and its mast mounted segment weighs only 700 kg with the remaining 500 kg stored below deck.)

Sigma with Thales I-Mast

My original statement was that such a P28 has a better chance to survive and because of what I had just mentioned, it is the case, but to be clear, I don't think any Vietnamese surface group can actually make it in a full conflict with China, only subs can fight and have a decent chance to fight and survive.

You contradicted that (better chance) statement by your other (no ship stands a chance, not even US Arleigh Burkes) statement. If the latter is true, it simply is a waste of money and effort to invest in any significant surface combattant. If your purpose is to engage the Chinese fleet. But again, IMHO, Vietnamese main surface combattants aren't intended for engaging a Chinese (surface) fleet. There are other means of making sure that such a fleet cannot approach too closely without severe risk of losses (e.g. a combination of anti missile equipped land based aviation, submarines, facs, coastal batteries). Within the 'bastion' created by those assets, surface ships are useful esp. for ASW and keeping ports and sea lanes open.

So, my point is, it would be better for VN to have the type of ships that have a better chance and in that case the P28 has a better chance than a Gepard or Sigma, so better to spend the money in such ships. VN is not going to have the resources for big destroyers any time soon if ever, so the most feasible ship for VN is an inexpensive "pocket destroyer" and that's how I see such modified P28.

Frankly, I don't see how a 2300 ton fld Project 20385 with 4x43S97 SAM system 3K96 «Redut» vertical launchers (16x 56km active radar homing 9M96 or 9M96D missiles or 64x IR homing 15km 9M100 missiles, or a mix)) and 3S14 UKSK 3K14 («Kalibr-NK» guided missile complex (3M14 missiles)) is any less of a threat / capability than a Brahmos and Barak-8 equipped P28. Or a worse ASW platform. And I would think these Russian systems can also be fitted to Gepard, if the customer so desired. Sigma can accommodate the Sylver A-50 VLS (2.6 m x 2.3 m x 5.0 meter. 8 ton), which can in turn accommodate 30+km Aster-15 or 100+km Aster 30, both active radar homing. Or even ESSM (in either Mk41 or in Mk48 vls, coupled to e.g. I-mast with Apar, or integrated mast with Ceafar/CeaMount) Again, it's all a matter of customer requirement for such a modular design.

I also told you before that, yes, the VLS would it have to be lengthwise. A Brahmos 8 cell VLS is 4 x 2 meters plus the empty space needed around the VLS, so the question is if the current area of the P28 deck has enough space or not. Without the exact measurements we can't say for sure, I think it probably has, but can't say for sure.

And as I told you before, you started posting as if it were no problem doing a straight swap with the RBUs, which is how this whole discussion started.

One of the pictures that you just posted that shows a close up side view of that area of the P28 gives me the feeling that there is enough space for the Brahmos VLS, but again, we need the measurements.

Still, relatively big surgery.

The second threat would be subs and in that regard the P28 also has a better chance since it has not only a better ASW package, but it has also been designed with a more silent noise signature.

How exactly is the ASW package better than e.g. a Sigma's?
And how/why exactly is a Sigma less silent? Or less Stealthy?

[/QUOTE]

 

[Carlosa]

16 Barak is not a whole lot of missiles. It is in fact about the minimum number of SAMs a larger (1500 ton or more) surface combattant ship would not normally carry. Even if Barak has longer range, relative to Barak-1 for example, it doesn't mean shorter range missiles such as MICA VL wouldn't be ineffective for self-defence. If that were so, then this would disqualify CAMM/Sea Ceptor as well as ESSM as viable weapon systems. Besides, effective self-defence relies on several layers of active and passive sensor systems plus a combination of several hard- and soft-kill defensive systems.

There is nothing that prevents similar radar concepts to MF-Star to be installed on e.g. a Damen Sigma ship. So, it is not a quality of the ship but rather something that is a function of customer specified requirements. If you work with IIRH or active radar homing missiles (unlike ESSM) then there is no need for the radar system to illuminate the target. You simply need a good 3D set (e.g. Thales Smart-S Mk2, with similar range to MF-Star, or EL/M-2258 Alpha, which utilizes solid-state Transmit/Receive (T/R) modules derived from Elta’s larger EL/M-2248 MF-Star radars, and I use plural there because a smaller version of the MF-Star is in production for the Israeli Navy, for the modernization of the Saar V corvettes of the Israel Navy. ALPHA weighs only 1.2 tons, and its mast mounted segment weighs only 700 kg with the remaining 500 kg stored below deck.)

[/QUOTE]

Sure, I'm sure that the Sigma can be further customized like adding M/F Star, etc, but we were talking about the Sigma 9814 that VN was planning to get vs the customized P28, so that's not the same.

Furthermore, the standard Sigma can't compare to a customized P28 with Brahmos VLS and Barak 8 VLS and mica can't compare with Barak 8, neither Exocet compares very well with Brahmos, that's why I called such a customized P28 a pocket destroyer and regarding the ASW capability, the P28 has all the propulsion, generators, etc mounted on a noise suppressing raft to reduce noise, that's why the ship is more silent which is very important for ASW.

You contradicted that (better chance) statement by your other (no ship stands a chance, not even US Arleigh Burkes) statement. If the latter is true, it simply is a waste of money and effort to invest in any significant surface combattant. If your purpose is to engage the Chinese fleet. But again, IMHO, Vietnamese main surface combattants aren't intended for engaging a Chinese (surface) fleet. There are other means of making sure that such a fleet cannot approach too closely without severe risk of losses (e.g. a combination of anti missile equipped land based aviation, submarines, facs, coastal batteries). Within the 'bastion' created by those assets, surface ships are useful esp. for ASW and keeping ports and sea lanes open.

[/QUOTE]

Saying that no ship stands a chance is correct and illustrates the point that the Vietnamese surface navy has no chance no matter what ships it deploys, even if it were to have AEGIS destroyers. Only American carrier battle groups can fight against all the resources that China can deploy and is not just because of the carriers, but also because of the AWACS, satellites and the whole C4ISR chain that US has. And even like that, they can't really operate too close to China as it would get way too dangerous, but all those resources that the US navy has, Vietnam has no chance of having, so for VN is just ships and that's why I said that no matter what ships, it can't make it. Only subs can fight and survive.

Frankly, I don't see how a 2300 ton fld Project 20385 with 4x43S97 SAM system 3K96 «Redut» vertical launchers (16x 56km active radar homing 9M96 or 9M96D missiles or 64x IR homing 15km 9M100 missiles, or a mix)) and 3S14 UKSK 3K14 («Kalibr-NK» guided missile complex (3M14 missiles)) is any less of a threat / capability than a Brahmos and Barak-8 equipped P28. Or a worse ASW platform. And I would think these Russian systems can also be fitted to Gepard, if the customer so desired. Sigma can accommodate the Sylver A-50 VLS (2.6 m x 2.3 m x 5.0 meter. 8 ton), which can in turn accommodate 30+km Aster-15 or 100+km Aster 30, both active radar homing. Or even ESSM (in either Mk41 or in Mk48 vls, coupled to e.g. I-mast with Apar, or integrated mast with Ceafar/CeaMount) Again, it's all a matter of customer requirement for such a modular design.

[/QUOTE]

The Russian Redut air defense system is no match for Barak 8.

A Gepard type ship only has space for one VLS system, but the customized P28 has 2 and that makes a significant difference, the Gepard is not big enough to compare to the customized P28. Of course a customized Gepard that gets stretched is a different story, but that's not what VN is getting.

Lets not forget that my original point was that VN should get the customized P28 rather than wasting money on the Gepards or Sigmas, but that was meant specifically to the Gepard and Sigma versions that VN is getting.

I also want to emphasize the point that the customized P28 is more worth it or has better chance to survive in a LIMITED ENGAGEMENT only. I feel the same applies to the Molniya class that VN has which would be used for hit and run attacks against targets of opportunity. That's as far as those ships can go, assuming that they can operate undetected which is a big if.

And as I told you before, you started posting as if it were no problem doing a straight swap with the RBUs, which is how this whole discussion started.

[/QUOTE]

Yes and maybe it requires a bit of a surgery such as a little bit of stretching, but we need the measurements in order to confirm it.

Again, the Brahmos 8 cell VLS is 4 x 2 meters, that fits for sure, but it also requires a fair amount of empty space around it, how much empty space, I don't know, that's the key question. The 9.5 meter vertical clearance should be ok based on the example of other ships that are smaller.

 

[Penguin]

Sure, I'm sure that the Sigma can be further customized like adding M/F Star, etc, but we were talking about the Sigma 9814 that VN was planning to get vs the customized P28, so that's not the same.

Furthermore, the standard Sigma can't compare to a customized P28 with Brahmos VLS and Barak 8 VLS and mica can't compare with Barak 8, neither Exocet compares very well with Brahmos, that's why I called such a customized P28 a pocket destroyer and regarding the ASW capability, the P28 has all the propulsion, generators, etc mounted on a noise suppressing raft to reduce noise, that's why the ship is more silent which is very important for ASW.

Saying that no ship stands a chance is correct and illustrates the point that the Vietnamese surface navy has no chance no matter what ships it deploys, even if it were to have AEGIS destroyers. Only American carrier battle groups can fight against all the resources that China can deploy and is not just because of the carriers, but also because of the AWACS, satellites and the whole C4ISR chain that US has. And even like that, they can't really operate too close to China as it would get way too dangerous, but all those resources that the US navy has, Vietnam has no chance of having, so for VN is just ships and that's why I said that no matter what ships, it can't make it. Only subs can fight and survive.

The Russian Redut air defense system is no match for Barak 8.

A Gepard type ship only has space for one VLS system, but the customized P28 has 2 and that makes a significant difference, the Gepard is not big enough to compare to the customized P28. Of course a customized Gepard that gets stretched is a different story, but that's not what VN is getting.

Lets not forget that my original point was that VN should get the customized P28 rather than wasting money on the Gepards or Sigmas, but that was meant specifically to the Gepard and Sigma versions that VN is getting.

I also want to emphasize the point that the customized P28 is more worth it or has better chance to survive in a LIMITED ENGAGEMENT only. I feel the same applies to the Molniya class that VN has which would be used for hit and run attacks against targets of opportunity. That's as far as those ships can go, assuming that they can operate undetected which is a big if.

Yes and maybe it requires a bit of a surgery such as a little bit of stretching, but we need the measurements in order to confirm it.

Again, the Brahmos 8 cell VLS is 4 x 2 meters, that fits for sure, but it also requires a fair amount of empty space around it, how much empty space, I don't know, that's the key question. The 9.5 meter vertical clearance should be ok based on the example of other ships that are smaller.

There is no standard sigma

Do not talk of a customized P28 as i fit already exists, because it doesn’t (and hence I can perfectly well compare to a Sigma with a different fit). The point is still that neither Gepard nor Sigma were intended tob e used as main anti surface platform.

Damen / Royal Schelde has been building frigates for the Dutch navy for years and years. Do you honestly thinks their Sigma design does not incorporate noise reduction measures, including raft mounting and flexible mounting?

How is Redut, which uses missiles from S-400, and in landbased version is S-350 and marketed as S-300 replacement no match for Barak-8?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vityaz_missile_system

You apparently not notice that e.g. 20350 variants have been put forward with additional VLS at the flight deck, aft end of the superstructure. I don’t see why you couldn’t drop the Palma/Palash on the Gepard and use those spaces in a similar fashion.

Like you said: against a Chinese combat group, there is no such thing as limited engagement

If FACs like Molnyia suck, how come the Chinese came up with Type 022 as part of their naval modernization?

With a draught of 3.75m, there will be at least 5.75m. above the waterling. Imho that means 3 full decks (-1 level, main deck and +1 level) irrespective of ship lengt hand beam, and assuming no differences in underwater hull form (notably flare).

 

[Gen Padmanabhan]

Frankly, I don't see how a 2300 ton fld Project 20385 with 4x43S97 SAM system 3K96 «Redut» vertical launchers (16x 56km active radar homing 9M96 or 9M96D missiles or 64x IR homing 15km 9M100 missiles, or a mix)) and 3S14 UKSK 3K14 («Kalibr-NK» guided missile complex (3M14 missiles)) is any less of a threat / capability than a Brahmos and Barak-8 equipped P28. Or a worse ASW platform. And I would think these Russian systems can also be fitted to Gepard, if the customer so desired. Sigma can accommodate the Sylver A-50 VLS (2.6 m x 2.3 m x 5.0 meter. 8 ton), which can in turn accommodate 30+km Aster-15 or 100+km Aster 30, both active radar homing. Or even ESSM (in either Mk41 or in Mk48 vls, coupled to e.g. I-mast with Apar, or integrated mast with Ceafar/CeaMount) Again, it's all a matter of customer requirement for such a modular design.

[/QUOTE]

If someone provide the solution between

Subsonic, supersonic & hyper-sonic. I obviously choose hyper sonic AShM, why you think so many countries funding in hyper sonic flight regime? The answer is simple,

and by no chance Kalibr comparable to BrahMos is threat perspective. Thats why Indian Navy since last decade demanding hypersonic AShM and only demanding Nirbhay as strategic strikes including nuclear.

The BrahMos - M you talking about is not about some a single version. Like BrahMos, it going to be each version for Armed Forces. And indeed this going to be in one of the BrahMos M version

And this is also untrue that anyother missile is as capable as Barak-8, I any day choose a missile that is equipped with dual seeker mechanism, can work as point defense as well as LR-SAM. There is any other missile marketed like this?

16 Barak is not a whole lot of missiles. It is in fact about the minimum number of SAMs a larger (1500 ton or more) surface combattant ship would not normally carry. Even if Barak has longer range, relative to Barak-1 for example, it doesn't mean shorter range missiles such as MICA VL wouldn't be ineffective for self-defence. If that were so, then this would disqualify CAMM/Sea Ceptor as well as ESSM as viable weapon systems. Besides, effective self-defence relies on several layers of active and passive sensor systems plus a combination of several hard- and soft-kill defensive systems.

There is nothing that prevents similar radar concepts to MF-Star to be installed on e.g. a Damen Sigma ship. So, it is not a quality of the ship but rather something that is a function of customer specified requirements. If you work with IIRH or active radar homing missiles (unlike ESSM) then there is no need for the radar system to illuminate the target. You simply need a good 3D set (e.g. Thales Smart-S Mk2, with similar range to MF-Star, or EL/M-2258 Alpha, which utilizes solid-state Transmit/Receive (T/R) modules derived from Elta’s larger EL/M-2248 MF-Star radars, and I use plural there because a smaller version of the MF-Star is in production for the Israeli Navy, for the modernization of the Saar V corvettes of the Israel Navy. ALPHA weighs only 1.2 tons, and its mast mounted segment weighs only 700 kg with the remaining 500 kg stored below deck.)

Sigma with Thales I-Mast

You contradicted that (better chance) statement by your other (no ship stands a chance, not even US Arleigh Burkes) statement. If the latter is true, it simply is a waste of money and effort to invest in any significant surface combattant. If your purpose is to engage the Chinese fleet. But again, IMHO, Vietnamese main surface combattants aren't intended for engaging a Chinese (surface) fleet. There are other means of making sure that such a fleet cannot approach too closely without severe risk of losses (e.g. a combination of anti missile equipped land based aviation, submarines, facs, coastal batteries). Within the 'bastion' created by those assets, surface ships are useful esp. for ASW and keeping ports and sea lanes open.


Frankly, I don't see how a 2300 ton fld Project 20385 with 4x43S97 SAM system 3K96 «Redut» vertical launchers (16x 56km active radar homing 9M96 or 9M96D missiles or 64x IR homing 15km 9M100 missiles, or a mix)) and 3S14 UKSK 3K14 («Kalibr-NK» guided missile complex (3M14 missiles)) is any less of a threat / capability than a Brahmos and Barak-8 equipped P28. Or a worse ASW platform. And I would think these Russian systems can also be fitted to Gepard, if the customer so desired. Sigma can accommodate the Sylver A-50 VLS (2.6 m x 2.3 m x 5.0 meter. 8 ton), which can in turn accommodate 30+km Aster-15 or 100+km Aster 30, both active radar homing. Or even ESSM (in either Mk41 or in Mk48 vls, coupled to e.g. I-mast with Apar, or integrated mast with Ceafar/CeaMount) Again, it's all a matter of customer requirement for such a modular design.


And as I told you before, you started posting as if it were no problem doing a straight swap with the RBUs, which is how this whole discussion started.



Still, relatively big surgery.


How exactly is the ASW package better than e.g. a Sigma's?
And how/why exactly is a Sigma less silent? Or less Stealthy?

[/QUOTE]

Also, as the coalition of willing already formed between India, US & Japan. Most of ASEAN nations now tend to do weapon procurements from US, Japan , South Korea or getting western equipments via India.

Further, atleast Vietnam and Singapore join the coalition of willing in very near future.

This means Vietnam also going to have access to Japanese, American and Indian ISR assets and space based assets including to Fishhook SOSUS system.
@Carlosa

 

[Penguin]

I obviously choose hyper sonic AShM, why you think so many countries funding in hyper sonic flight regime? The answer is simple

Note that the USA has purposely chosen a subsonic successor to Harpoon, placing more emphasis on stealth, guidance, autonomy of the new AShM.

and by no chance Kalibr comparable to BrahMos is threat perspective. Thats why Indian Navy since last decade demanding hypersonic AShM and only demanding Nirbhay as strategic strikes including nuclear.

Sure, underestimate Russian weapons technology, which India has needed for so long, also for Brahmos (remember Onyx?). Certainly no coincidence that Russia's new 3M22 Zircon hypersonic missile is visually identical to Brahmos II.
http://epicentrum.my.id/defense-sci...testing-for-russian-navy-kirov-class-cruiser/
https://thaimilitaryandasianregion....-to-go-into-serial-production-in-2018-source/

India needs the 1000-1500km Nirbhay, Russia already has the 2500km 3M-14/3M-14T. Not to mention the 3000km Kh55 and Kh-101/102

The BrahMos - M you talking about is not about some a single version. Like BrahMos, it going to be each version for Armed Forces. And indeed this going to be in one of the BrahMos M version

I don't know why you would assume I even hinted that Brahmos-M/NG would be a single version.

And this is also untrue that anyother missile is as capable as Barak-8, I any day choose a missile that is equipped with dual seeker mechanism, can work as point defense as well as LR-SAM. There is any other missile marketed like this?

As you well know, with the Redut / S-350 the Russians have employed two missiles, for different flight envelopes
CAMM and CAMM-ER have an engagement envelop of <1km out to 25+ and 45+km, respectively, while IHS Jane's has reported that trials have a shown a capability of the basic CAMM of up to 60 km already (which is better than ESSM and approaching the range of the basic Barak-8). I'm also pretty sure that the minimum engagement range for Rim-162 ESSM is less than the 1600 yards of the Rim-7 Sea Sparrow preceeding it.

Both CAMM and Barak-8 have active radar homing terminal guidance (no dual seeker).

RAM has a dual seeker (IRH + RFH)

Also, as the coalition of willing already formed between India, US & Japan. Most of ASEAN nations now tend to do weapon procurements from US, Japan , South Korea or getting western equipments via India.

Further, atleast Vietnam and Singapore join the coalition of willing in very near future.

This means Vietnam also going to have access to Japanese, American and Indian ISR assets and space based assets including to Fishhook SOSUS system.

I don't see what the exact point of this bit is.

 

[Carlosa]

There is no standard sigma

Do not talk of a customized P28 as i fit already exists, because it doesn’t (and hence I can perfectly well compare to a Sigma with a different fit). The point is still that neither Gepard nor Sigma were intended tob e used as main anti surface platform.

Damen / Royal Schelde has been building frigates for the Dutch navy for years and years. Do you honestly thinks their Sigma design does not incorporate noise reduction measures, including raft mounting and flexible mounting?

How is Redut, which uses missiles from S-400, and in landbased version is S-350 and marketed as S-300 replacement no match for Barak-8?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vityaz_missile_system

You apparently not notice that e.g. 20350 variants have been put forward with additional VLS at the flight deck, aft end of the superstructure. I don’t see why you couldn’t drop the Palma/Palash on the Gepard and use those spaces in a similar fashion.

Like you said: against a Chinese combat group, there is no such thing as limited engagement

If FACs like Molnyia suck, how come the Chinese came up with Type 022 as part of their naval modernization?

With a draught of 3.75m, there will be at least 5.75m. above the waterling. Imho that means 3 full decks (-1 level, main deck and +1 level) irrespective of ship lengt hand beam, and assuming no differences in underwater hull form (notably flare).

Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for the Sigma platform (Love the compact Sigma also), that by the way can expand into a lot of sizes and be customized a lot (Aster for example), but here we are talking about the Vietnamese 9814 Sigma. My original statements are based in regards to the Vietnamese Sigma and Vietnamese Gepard. You are taking things out of context.

What are you talking about with Project 20350? How the capabilities of a 4500 ton frigate have anything to do with what I said that the Gepard can only house one VLS? The Gepard is a 2200 ton ship. The 20350 is double the size.

The Palma/Palash on the Gepard (rear end) are in very particularly limited, very tight spots, is very questionable that can put a VLS there, all the VLS systems in Russian ships are in areas where they are taking a lot of space.

Yes, I know there is no customized P28 except the proposed version for Philippines but we are talking about what the article mentions, assuming that the article is true, which we don't know yet, then there is a project for a customized P28 for Vietnam that seems pretty good.

Everything that I've read about the Sigma of those sizes such as the ones for Indonesia, Algeria, etc does not include anything about special noise reduction measures such as done in P28. If that were to be the case, then it would be mentioned as a feature, but never heard of it. This has nothing to do with the capabilities of Damen, of course Damen is capable of doing it, they also make advance destroyers, but again, we are talking about the Vietnamese Sigma 9814 for Vietnam. You are taking my points out of context if you compare to other Sigma version or about Damen capabilities.

I don't think there is anything that compares to Barak 8 (including Aster). Just because something is part of the S-300 / 400 does not make it mighty just because of that. What makes the S-300 / 400 a very special system is the long range missiles, the ones with 250 and 400 km range, those are the ones that are very special, the short range missiles are nothing special, that's why a S-300 / 400 battery always operates protected by a Pantzir battery. If it were to include Barak 8 as a short / medium range missile (500 m to 90 km range, yes I said 500 m, do you know any other system like that?) it would not need a Pantzir system.

There are possibilities of limited engagements in a conflict such as attacking isolated chinese ships, chinese ships that are far from their main battle groups, attacking chinese shipping, etc. Those are what I called targets of opportunity, you can't denied such possibilities. Vietnamese surface forces can be effective against those targets, of course that will not win the war by itself.

When did I say that Molniya ships suck? I said that they are good for hit and run attacks against targets of opportunity. Bringing up the Type 022 ships is putting things out of context (again) since the Type 022 is a littoral ship (smaller than Molniya) designed to operate in the Taiwan strait, that can hardly compare to operating in the Spratys which are 500 km away from the Vietnamese coast plus the fact that the south china sea waters are very rough, Type 022 can't operate there.

 

[Gen Padmanabhan]

Note that the USA has purposely chosen a subsonic successor to Harpoon, placing more emphasis on stealth, guidance, autonomy of the new AShM.

The simple reason is USSR have to saturate the American CBG air defenses, while reverse was not true.

Sure, underestimate Russian weapons technology, which India has needed for so long, also for Brahmos (remember Onyx?). Certainly no coincidence that Russia's new 3M22 Zircon hypersonic missile is visually identical to Brahmos II.

Nobody underestimating Onyx, all the propulsion system of BrahMos coming from Russia. And BrahMos II is not identical, Zircon and BrahMos 2 are same.

Those are both part of unknown project named Project Sangarika which was cover for tech transfer for SLBM.

India needs the 1000-1500km Nirbhay, Russia already has the 2500km 3M-14/3M-14T. Not to mention the 3000km Kh55 and Kh-101/102

Those going to be land attack, and not AShM.

I don't know why you would assume I even hinted that Brahmos-M/NG would be a single version.

Sorry I misunderstood another thing.

As you well know, with the Redut / S-350 the Russians have employed two missiles, for different flight envelopes
CAMM and CAMM-ER have an engagement envelop of <1km out to 25+ and 45+km, respectively, while IHS Jane's has reported that trials have a shown a capability of the basic CAMM of up to 60 km already (which is better than ESSM and approaching the range of the basic Barak-8). I'm also pretty sure that the minimum engagement range for Rim-162 ESSM is less than the 1600 yards of the Rim-7 Sea Sparrow preceeding it.

Both CAMM and Barak-8 have active radar homing terminal guidance (no dual seeker).

RAM has a dual seeker (IRH + RFH)

And your source of information for that? Obviously for terminal guidance it use active radar homing.

The vertical launch cell modules for the Barak-2 MR-SAM are now being developed by Mumbai-based Larsen & Toubro Ltd, with an eight-cell module weighing 1,700kg. The Barak-2 will make use of a novel nose-mounted dual guidance system: an active phased-array radar for guidance over the final 30km terminal phase of its flight; and a miniaturised, gimbal-mounted imaging infra-red seeker using an indium antimonide staring focal plane array operating in the 3 to 5 micron wavelength band. During the initial fly-out phase of flight, the Barak-2’s seeker window will remain covered with a two-piece clamshell protection shroud. Metal bladders installed in the shroud will be inflated to eject the protective shroud before the combined seekers initiate target acquisition.

http://trishul-trident.blogspot.in/2011/04/hardened-air-cover-with-mr-sams-lr-sams.html

Further, CAMM and Barak 8 are light years away from each other in threat perception, CAMM use active RF homing while Barak 8 use active Radar homing (during terminal phase).

CAMM, the Common Anti-air Modular Missile, is the next generation air defence missile designed for land, sea and air environments.

Incorporating advanced technologies to provide complete protection against all known and projected air targets. CAMM is currently in full scale production for the UK MOD to deliver the Sea Ceptor ship based air defence system that will equip the Royal Navy Type 23 frigates. The same CAMM missile will form the core of the land based air defence version for the Royal Artillery.

Utilising an advanced active RF seeker, CAMM’s modular design offers true all weather capability.

http://www.mbda-systems.com/camm-solution/camm-er/

 

[Carlosa]

16 Barak is not a whole lot of missiles. It is in fact about the minimum number of SAMs a larger (1500 ton or more) surface combattant ship would not normally carry. Even if Barak has longer range, relative to Barak-1 for example, it doesn't mean shorter range missiles such as MICA VL wouldn't be ineffective for self-defence. If that were so, then this would disqualify CAMM/Sea Ceptor as well as ESSM as viable weapon systems. Besides, effective self-defence relies on several layers of active and passive sensor systems plus a combination of several hard- and soft-kill defensive systems.

[/QUOTE]

You forgot that the article specifically mentioned 32 Barak 8 missiles (not 16 as you mentioned). That already give you some clues about how extensive the customization of the P28 for VN is since the standard P28 will carry only 16 Barak 8.

I would not be surprised at all if it is also stretched (if needed) in order to house a Brahmos VLS where the RBU-6000s are located now.

 

[Viet]

can brahmos antiship missile be fired when the ship is in motion, or at full speed?