Vietnam ordered stealth destroyers P28 of India

[Carlosa]

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

Of course it can. That's normal for missile ships.

The design problem with the PBS-500 was actually that it could not fire missiles on the move (now fixed).

 

[Viet]

Of course it can. That's normal for missile ships.

The design problem with the PBS-500 was actually that it could not fire missiles on the move (now fixed).

I asked because most images posted here and there show ships not moving when firing missiles

 

[Penguin]

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.

They are just as useless against a chinese fleet as a p28 - even a modified one - would be. Which doesn't mean they are useless per se. THere is a cost-effectiveness question here.

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.

Typo, I referred to a variant of 20380 (Steregushy, 2200 ton fld) not 22350 (Gorshkov, 4500 ton fld). The variant is 20385, and has additional vls for Redut.

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.

See pic above. The 15km range 9M100 missile can be quad packed and is relatively short so, given the number of cells, I expect the 40km 9M96 to be used also (e.g. a 8+14 or 16+12). If so, you'ld need 4.75 minimum depth (1.5-2 decks). Less if it is only 9M100 (2.5m, about 1 deck). There is room taken up below Palma/Palash on Gepard that can be used.

http://pvo.guns.ru/expo/imds2007.htm

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.

I agree. Still, since warship cost in predominantly a factor of systems on board, rather than the actual ship, why not a bigger unit so as to make sure there is ample space and electrical power to support the weapons in question with the best possible radar fit and a more than adequate number of missiles (esp. SAMs) while retaining e.g. RBUs.

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.

Go to http://products.damen.com/en/ranges/sigma-frigate-and-corvette/sigma-frigate-9813 , which is the 9813 for Morocco, the closest ship to the 9814 intended for Vietnam. At the bottom of the page you find the product sheet (pdf)
http://products.damen.com/~/media/P...IGMA_class_Frigate_9813_YN406407_Marokko.ashx
UNder General Information you find:
Standards: Naval / Commercial, naval intact / damaged stability, noise reduced, moderate shock
Same with all other Sigma family members

By comparison, with 6000 ton LCF (Zeven Provincien class) it says:
Vulnerability: Full NBC citadel, Shock & blast protection, Extensive Damage Control, redundancy and separation, Blast and fragment protection, Signature reduction: RCS, URN, IR, Magnetic, Electric

By comparison, with the Holland class OPV it says:
Standards: Naval / Commercial, naval stability

RELIABLE PERFORMANCE
The first SIGMA corvette built exceeded all performance predictions. Notable were the very low noise and vibration characteristics up to maximum speed. The second corvette confirmed the performance of the first one.
Source: http://navalengineers.net/Proceedings/ETS2008/Papers/GellingStandardizedVessels-DamensPhilosophyfinal.pdf (page 8)

I don't think there is anything that compares to Barak 8 (including Aster).

CAMM - while clearly a different system - gives it a run for its money

Just because something is part of the S-300 / 400 does not make it mighty just because of that.

The missiles of Redut are part of S-350 (which is a S-300 replacement) and also used in S-400. While I do not claim Redut to be a magic bullet (which is what some here would have you believe about Barak-8), you cannot dismiss these missiles as ineffective off hand.

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.

I suggest you read up on S-350 and S-400. S-400 only employs the long range 9M96 missile i.e. it has no organic point defence missile. S-350 (Naval version: Redut) on the other hand has both the long range 9M96 and point defence 9M100 and would not need Pantsir for battery protection at all.

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.

Interesting, since the original P28 was to get 2x8 Barak-1, not 2x 2x8. Remember, the Godavari's got just 3x8 and Viraat just 2x8. Only P15 and Rajput classes of destroyer were refitted with 2x 2x8, as were new major ships like p17 and p15A. Good luck shoehorning in 2x16 on P28.

 

[MKC]

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.

Now, it will be better if you will tell how many Kamorta can be bought in one Sigma?
As I know recently GRSE offered Kamortas with 8 AShMs in less than 180 million dollar.
You know any Sigma can't match Kamorta with same weapon systems.

 

[Carlosa]

They are just as useless against a chinese fleet as a p28 - even a modified one - would be. Which doesn't mean they are useless per se. THere is a cost-effectiveness question here..

I understand, my point is to spend the money on what is most cost effective. The second batch of Gepards which Vietnam will get in a few months are $350 million each, The Sigma 9814 for Vietnam was going to be $375 million each, so for about the same money, may as well get the ship that has more firepower which means a better chance to survive in a LIMITED ENGAGEMENT.

Need to strike a balance between the type of ships that are needed to fight a war and the type of ships that are needed during peacetime, but need to be cost effective.

Nobody is saying to not have surface ships just because they can't survive a war, otherwise you expose yourself to what happened to Philippines where lost Scaraborough Shoal because they only had 1 ship that could only stay on station for so long, so they had to concede. But gain, if you are going to spend $350-375 million, may as well get the best ship that money can buy. That's my point.

Typo, I referred to a variant of 20380 (Steregushy, 2200 ton fld) not 22350 (Gorshkov, 4500 ton fld). The variant is 20385, and has additional vls for Redut.

See pic above. The 15km range 9M100 missile can be quad packed and is relatively short so, given the number of cells, I expect the 40km 9M96 to be used also (e.g. a 8+14 or 16+12). If so, you'ld need 4.75 minimum depth (1.5-2 decks). Less if it is only 9M100 (2.5m, about 1 deck). There is room taken up below Palma/Palash on Gepard that can be used..

That variant of the 20380 is nice, I have not seen that one, I wish they were to have build it. I think its a nice concept.

 

[Penguin]

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

Ah, so. Right. Actually, under the 2009 initiated jkoint DARPA and US Navy LRASM program two missiles where foreseen: the subsonic LRASM-A and the supersonic LRASM-B. The latter was dropped for cost reasons, with DARPA focusing on the lower risk and more pressing LRASM-A concept.
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-navys-smart-new-stealth-anti-ship-missile-can-plan-1666079462

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

Yes, Zircon and Brahmos 2 are same, just as Brahmos It is based on the Russian P-800 Oniks cruise missile and other similar sea-skimming Russian cruise missile technology. Brahmos propulsion is based on the Russian missile, and missile guidance has been developed by BrahMos Aerospace, which is a joint Russian - Indian venture. So it is not the case that the elements that make Brahmos different from Oniks are purely Indian inputs, although DRDOs experience with inertial navigation systems, mission software, mobile launchers etc came in handy.

Those going to be land attack, and not AShM.

I know what they are. You brought the Nirbhay up.

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

http://www.mbda-systems.com/camm-solution-maritime-superiority/camm-sea/ > CAMM Range 25+km
http://www.mbda-systems.com/maritime-superiority/sea-ceptor/ > Sea Ceptor range 25+km
http://www.mbda-systems.com/camm-solution/camm-er/ > CAMM-ER range 45+km

CAMM 60km potential
janes uk-orders-next-generation-air-defence-system-from-mbda
http://m.kaskus.co.id/thread/54b8e7...bda/?ref=postlist-431&med=recommended_for_you

This 2011 article may actually be confusing Barak-8 and Stunner. The Stunner uses radar and electro-optical sensors for guidance. The sensors are mounted on the unique dolphin shaped nose tip of the missile. The EO sensor acquires the target information during day and the IR sensor locates target in low light conditions.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/stunner-terminal-missile-defence-interceptor-israel/

This is the only source I've seen thusfar, claiming dual mode terminal guidance for Barak-8.
http://trishul-trident.blogspot.in/2011/04/hardened-air-cover-with-mr-sams-lr-sams.html

I don't see how this picture illustrated anything re. dual mode guidance.

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).

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

Sorry but CAMM(M) aka Sea Ceptor is active radar homing.

MBDA also states VL MICA is available with two state-of-the-art seekers (IR or RF). We know for a fact, that there are MICA-EM (which uses almost the same active radar seeker as Aster) and MICA-IR. It is therefore safe to say that MBDA uses RF to indicate active radar.

 

[Carlosa]

CAMM - while clearly a different system - gives it a run for its money

The missiles of Redut are part of S-350 (which is a S-300 replacement) and also used in S-400. While I do not claim Redut to be a magic bullet (which is what some here would have you believe about Barak-8), you cannot dismiss these missiles as ineffective off hand..

CAMM is nice, but CAMM has a range greater than 25 km, that is still a far cry from Barak 8 to 90km.

I never said anything about any other missile been ineffective, I only said that Barak 8 is better and I keep that position.

I'm very sure that there is no better option for a Vietnamese ship than Barak 8 since Vietnam is certainly not going to get AEGIS ships with Standard missiles anytime soon (sorry @Viet).

 

[Penguin]

Now, it will be better if you will tell how many Kamorta can be bought in one Sigma?
As I know recently GRSE offered Kamortas with 8 AShMs in less than 180 million dollar.
You know any Sigma can't match Kamorta with same weapon systems.

On 6 February 2008, Morocco signed a USD$1.2 billion contract with Schelde Naval Shipbuilding for two Light frigate SIGMA 9813 and one Light frigate SIGMA 10145. A subsequent contract was signed on 1 April 2008 with Thales Nederland for the supply and installation of the command and control and sensor package for the ships.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigma-class_corvette

Indonesia signed a purchase of one Sigma 10514 frigate on June 2012 worth USD 220 mio (€168 mio). The value of €345 mio likely a purchase of two frigates (photo : Defense Studies)
http://defense-studies.blogspot.nl/2013/06/dutch-firm-gets-green-light-for.html

I'm not sure on what you mean by "can't match with same weapon systems'. I also fail to see why I have to prove anything about these ships. I started out discussing whether it would be possible to put Brahmos and Barak-8 on P28. Kamorta is a nice ship but not a miracle of sorts. It's just a ship, like many others. I'll square off with it in a Dutch M-frigate any day.

 

[Carlosa]

Interesting, since the original P28 was to get 2x8 Barak-1, not 2x 2x8. Remember, the Godavari's got just 3x8 and Viraat just 2x8. Only P15 and Rajput classes of destroyer were refitted with 2x 2x8, as were new major ships like p17 and p15A. Good luck shoehorning in 2x16 on P28.

What can I say man? I'm not the one that wrote the article. The article says 32 Barak 8 so I guess that's what it is. If such P28 gets built like the Israelis build ships, there is no issues about installing tons of weapons, that's how Israel does in the Saar 5 and the upcoming Saar 6 (Barak 8 and C Dome VLS systems everywhere).

I also fail to see why I have to prove anything about these ships. I started out discussing whether it would be possible to put Brahmos and Barak-8 on P28. Kamorta is a nice ship but not a miracle of sorts. It's just a ship, like many others. I'll square off with it in a Dutch M-frigate any day.

The problem is that you keep going out of context. The original issue here was about the P28 customized for Vietnam vs the Vietnamese Sigma & Gepard versions. Nothing else. The comparison is mainly about firepower, but also about a cost effective ship. India can do it cheaper and with better firepower. You keep comparing with other ships that are not part of the original context.

 

[Penguin]

I understand, my point is to spend the money on what is most cost effective. The second batch of Gepards which Vietnam will get in a few months are $350 million each, The Sigma 9814 for Vietnam was going to be $375 million each, so for about the same money, may as well get the ship that has more firepower which means a better chance to survive in a LIMITED ENGAGEMENT.

Need to strike a balance between the type of ships that are needed to fight a war and the type of ships that are needed during peacetime, but need to be cost effective.

Nobody is saying to not have surface ships just because they can't survive a war, otherwise you expose yourself to what happened to Philippines where lost Scaraborough Shoal because they only had 1 ship that could only stay on station for so long, so they had to concede. But gain, if you are going to spend $350-375 million, may as well get the best ship that money can buy. That's my point.



That variant of the 20380 is nice, I have not seen that one, I wish they were to have build it. I think its a nice concept.

The phillippines navy operated ww2 eraships. It is not a good comparison.
The Sigma deal with Vietnam would have involved local construction iirc. Much like is the case in Indonesia with PAL.
http://www.damen.com/news/2014/03/damen_song_cam_shipyard_opened_in_vietnam
http://www.damen.com/companies/damen-song-cam-shipyard
The first two ships will be built in Vlissingen (Netherlands), and the last two (options) will be built in Vietnam, under Dutch supervision.
http://navyrecognition.com/index.ph...4-corvettes-for-vietnamese-navy-revealed.html

As for price

Vietnam is close to ordering four Sigma-class corvettes from Netherlands based Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding (DSNS). Late September Vietnamese prime minister Nguyen Tan Dung confirmed the news during a visit to the shipyard. According to a DSNS director the contract was "just a matter of financing details". He likely meant arranging export credit insurances from the Dutch government, a necessary condition to obtain credit facilities from commercial banks. The deal is possibly worth around 600 million euro, the value of Indonesia's similar deal a couple of years ago. Two of the four warships are possibly built at a Vietnamese yard.
Damen has in recent years expanded its activities in Vietnam, including a joint venture with the Vinachin shipyard.

http://www.stopwapenhandel.org/node/1228
600/4=150 million euro = about 195 million dollar at that time.

 

[Carlosa]

The phillippines navy operated ww2 eraships. It is not a good comparison.
The Sigma deal with Vietnam would have involved local construction iirc. Much like is the case in Indonesia with PAL.
http://www.damen.com/news/2014/03/damen_song_cam_shipyard_opened_in_vietnam
http://www.damen.com/companies/damen-song-cam-shipyard
The first two ships will be built in Vlissingen (Netherlands), and the last two (options) will be built in Vietnam, under Dutch supervision.
http://navyrecognition.com/index.ph...4-corvettes-for-vietnamese-navy-revealed.html

As for price

http://www.stopwapenhandel.org/node/1228
600/4=150 million euro = about 195 million dollar at that time.

Not the proper context again, the point was that PH only had 1 ship and that ship can't stay on station for ever, so they had to concede. What does it matter that it was an old refurbished US ship? The point is that it was only one ship. The point was also that is necessary to have warships for peacetime duties.

 

[Penguin]

What can I say man? I'm not the one that wrote the article. The article says 32 Barak 8 so I guess that's what it is. If such P28 gets built like the Israelis build ships, there is no issues about installing tons of weapons, that's how Israel does in the Saar 5 and the upcoming Saar 6 (Barak 8 and C Dome VLS systems everywhere).

I don't see how Saar 5 and 6 are relevant here, since they are not Indian designs. You're going out of context so to speak.

The problem is that you keep going out of context. The original issue here was about the P28 customized for Vietnam vs the Vietnamese Sigma & Gepard versions. Nothing else. The comparison is mainly about firepower, but also about a cost effective ship. India can do it cheaper and with better firepower. You keep comparing with other ships that are not part of the original context.

There is no problem. I posed questionmarks with the assumptions about how easy is would be to swap out various weapons systems. I'm not at all interested in comparing ship merits. I think that your assumption is that sluggin it out with Chinese ships i the main purpoase of the Viet surface combattants. I beg to differ. This has nothing to do with context.

Note the plague in the back, with depth = 8.5m. I much doubt this refers to draught for this size ship...

Not the proper context again, the point was that PH only had 1 ship and that ship can't stay on station for ever, so they had to concede. What does it matter that it was an old refurbished US ship? The point is that it was only one ship. The point was also that is necessary to have warships for peacetime duties.

It means they are a shoestring navy, with no budget, which has a very hard time to get any new(er) ships at all. Oldness matters if one is to be a credible deterrent.

 

[Carlosa]

As for price

http://www.stopwapenhandel.org/node/1228
600/4=150 million euro = about 195 million dollar at that time.

Wrong, the Sigma deal, as it was announced, was for 2 ships, not 4. Both the quantity and the Euro amount are mentioned in dozens of articles and it was debated a lot by the Vietnamese members in PDF and myself because those 2 Sigma ships were a bit expensive considering the dollar amount at that time.

Don't know where that article got that figure of 4 ships, but you can look at the contract announcement from Damen.

I don't see how Saar 5 and 6 are relevant here, since they are not Indian designs. You're going out of context so to speak.

Not at all, you force me to go out of context in order to respond to your out of context replies man. I'm the one that keeps putting the emphasis on the original context.

 

[Penguin]

CAMM is nice, but CAMM has a range greater than 25 km, that is still a far cry from Barak 8 to 90km.

I never said anything about any other missile been ineffective, I only said that Barak 8 is better and I keep that position.

I'm very sure that there is no better option for a Vietnamese ship than Barak 8 since Vietnam is certainly not going to get AEGIS ships with Standard missiles anytime soon (sorry @Viet).

Sure, ignore the Janes report trials showing on 60km capability of CAMM. Barak-8 is not a miracle weapon system. Good defence comes in layers, of which missiles are only one.

Barak-8 90km? You're not confused with 70?
http://indianexpress.com/article/in...-barak-8-long-range-missile-from-ins-kolkata/
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/naval-barak-8-surface-air-missiles/

In time, there will be the 60+ km Umkhonto-R. Meanwhile see Sea Ceptor ER, ITIS-T SLM etc. Perfectly good alternatives. Range isn't everything, it is just one factor in the equation.

Meanwhile, I hope you are smart enough to understand that I at no point suggested Barak-8 is a poor missile.

 

[Carlosa]

It means they are a shoestring navy, with no budget, which has a very hard time to get any new(er) ships at all. Oldness matters if one is to be a credible deterrent.

Yes, it is a shoestring navy, but still, my point was about needing to have ships during peacetime since situations can arise where you need them, but still without expecting hostilities. Old warships can do the job very well in such circumstances.

Sure, ignore the Janes report trials showing on 60km capability of CAMM. Barak-8 is not a miracle weapon system. Good defence comes in layers, of which missiles are only one.

Barak-8 90km? You're not confused with 70?
http://indianexpress.com/article/in...-barak-8-long-range-missile-from-ins-kolkata/
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/naval-barak-8-surface-air-missiles/

In time, there will be the 60+ km Umkhonto-R. Meanwhile see Sea Ceptor ER, ITIS-T SLM etc. Perfectly good alternatives. Range isn't everything, it is just one factor in the equation.

Meanwhile, I hope you are smart enough to understand that I at no point suggested Barak-8 is a poor missile.

You are not up to date on Barak 8 man, India already announced the range was extended to 90-100 km as a result of trials where it was tested up to 90 km.

The Indian members here can tell you plenty about that.

The Janes report says might, a possibility, not a established fact from actual tests, that's called speculation. India already tested Barak 8 to 90 km.