Vietnam ordered stealth destroyers P28 of India

[vsdave2302]

Why. Existing systems have been able to intercept supersonic missiles for quite some time, e.g. Goalkeeper and ESSM. People keep forgetting the Russians have employed supersonic missiles for a far longer period than the existence of Brahmos. And, besides, supersonic low level penetrating aircraft are just as dangerous (if a larger target). The only issue with supersonic missiles is the decreased response time, as defender you want to detect them as far out as possible and engage them as far out as possible. That's where the challenges are and that's why you get e.g. an 11km SeaRam replacing a 3km Phalanx on a one for one basis, or ESSMs on board the Arleigh Burke.

See whatever you tell but US think tank thinks otherwise. What do they think about Brahmos?

Read my thread "How to defend Brahmos=American analysis" on PDF itself.

 

[Penguin]

The latest info that I used to read said 32 Batak 8 on the P28. Barak 8 is a very skinny missile, I don't think its a problem. If anything, the 4.5 m length is usually more of an issue but in that location should be ok.

To fit the Brahmos, the deck area where the RBU-6000s sit will have to be raised a bit, that's all. Don't forget that there is a version of the Russian frigate Gepard 3.9 (2200 ton light frigate / corvette) also have 8 Klub missiles in the same spot and that's an smaller ship. It also uses the same UKSK VLS. The P28 is definitely taller than the Gepard.

Just by looking at the pic of the Barak 8 VLS, I would estimate a rough size of 2 x 1.4 meters, so I think 2 of those on each side of the hangar is feasible, we are just talking 4 x 1.4 m total on each side.

Barak-8 still is fatter than Barak-1, both in terms of missile body diameter and span.
For deck area, consider Barak-8 span is 94 cm so four missiles side by side is already almost 3.76m, and you have to make an allowance for space taken up by canister and space between canisters and edge. Likewise, a double row will be 2x0.94m=1.88 plus canister plus spacing plus venting slot in between the two rows of missiles. So, deck area needed is at least 4+m by 2.5+m. Minimum 10 square meters, possibly up to 13.

Barak-1 span is 0.685m. So, times 4 equals 2.74m but there is very little space between the missile canisters (unlike Barak-8) so just add an edge allowance > about 3.4m (5x 0.685m. By about 2m (3x0.685m). 7 square meters

Gepard 3.9: Note how that vls is mounted lengthwise on the centerline, not crosswise as it would be in P28.

Likewise on the Russian Steregushiy (project 20380)

How much more could you raise the position forward of the bridge? I don't see how P28 is taller than Gepard 3.9 (bridge deck, weapons deck, main deck, hull deck, underwater deck)

 

[Viet]

Ok I remember one quote of our scientist about Brahmos. He said that Brahmos has a potential to stop the war. It is such a potent missile that if you have that in your arsenal than enemy would noe like to mess with you. If Vietnam is in a condition to inflict some collateral damage to china, they would not prefer to mess with you. for that , you need to be reasonably strong.

sounds good.

we need means to defend ourselves as we have no interest to surrender ourselves without a fight.

 

[MKC]

Use of composites doesn't necessarily solve topweight issues, which deal with where the centre of gravity of the ship is and how high up there is significent weight. See Sa'ar 5: it never sailed with the 2x32 Barak AND 2x4 Harpoon AND 2x4 Gabriel for which it was designed (and with good reason).

I didn't know this thing about Sa'ar 5 but Kamorta is three times bigger than Sa'ar 5.

Shivalik class has a complement of 257 (including 35 officers). This will be reduced to about 150 total in P17A. If you project that reduction ration onto the p28 complement of 193, you get 113. I don't know what you mean by 'such ships': what ships are you comparing to?

Comparing Shivalik & P28
6200 vs 3400/3500 tonnes
Complement of 257 vs 193
So, complement of 257 can be justified for Shivalik but 193 for P28 is too high
Complement for Talwars(4050 tonnes) 220, for FREMM 145(France)(6000 tonnes) or 199(Italy)(6900 tonnes), for Global Combat Ship 118, for Horizon class(7050 tonnes) 180.
Comparing P28
For Floréal-class(2,950 tonnes) 88, for Govind class(2500 tonnes) 65+15 Special Forces, for Khareef class 100, Also LCS.
Capability of P17A from P17 will increase significantly as displacement from 6200 to 6670, comparing P28/P28A with P17/P17A is not a good idea but for P28A if automation is done complement can be reduced to 100+10 crew for helicopter.

Magazine capacity varies, typically 72 or 96 rounds per RBU-6000 launcher. The launchers itself weighs 3.1 tons. The classic RGB-60 projectile weighs 110kg and the more modern homing 90R projectile weighs 112.5kg.

So, at set of two launchers, each with their own reloading mechanism and magazine weighs between 2x(3100+(72*110))=22040kg and 2x(3100+(96*112.5))=27800kg.

The 8-round UKSK-Kh launcher weighs 14 or 15 tons, depending on subtype. Each Brahmos missile weighs 3 tons. So, a set of 8 in a VLS would weigh 28-29 tons.

The arrangement of RBU and Brahmos systems on P17/Shivalik isn't all that different from that on project 1135.6/Talwar. With a beam of 16.9m and draught of 4.5m, P17 is about 1.7m wider and has 0.3m greater draught relative to 1135.6. For Delhi/P15 and Kolkata/P15A this is 17.4 m and 6.5 m. Kamorta/P28 has a beam of 13.7 m.

Is it possible to use inclined launchers on P28?

As late as may 2015, Janes reported on P28 that:
http://www.janes.com/article/51550/grse-launches-fourth-p28-corvette-for-indian-navy

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kamorta-class-asw-corvettes

I too think that Barak 8 is a distant possibility but can be 16xBarak 1/Maitri.
About Barak 8, we may be wrong as there was some reports about Barak 8 on Kamorta class.

I think designers of Kamorta-class didn't think about export potentials otherwise they would have made provision for 8 SSMs too, as putting 8 more SSM on such a big ship may not be problem, it's current govt which is thinking about export potential as it has cancelled import of minesweepers & import of first two submarine for P75I also cancelled.

How much more could you raise the position forward of the bridge?

I think there is already height available for 8 BrahMos, may not need raise.
Drought of Kamorta & Talwar may not be much different as their weight is not much different.
Also, you mentioned BrahMos is ahead of RBUs on Talwar class so compare that space with P28, there is easily space available for BrahMos if RBU are removed.

 

[vsdave2302]

sounds good.

we need means to defend ourselves as we have no interest to surrender ourselves without a fight.

Yes, when your enemy is pretty sure of collateral damage, he will certainly be discouraged from any adventurism.

 

[Carlosa]

Barak-8 still is fatter than Barak-1, both in terms of missile body diameter and span.

Gepard 3.9: Note how that vls is mounted lengthwise on the centerline, not crosswise as it would be in P28.

Likewise on the Russian Steregushiy (project 20380)

How much more could you raise the position forward of the bridge?

The way the Gepard have the UKSK VLS mounted lengthwise on the centerline is what I was advocating. What would be the problem to have that in the P28?
I have problems uploading pics, but you can see a better pic of that Gepard here: http://defense-studies.blogspot.com/2010/11/gepard-built-for-vietnam-navy-departed.html

Can you guys open this link(a bigger pic here)? http://imgur.com/ZPnTiyy

[/IMG]

Yes, I know the Barak 8 is fatter than Barak 1, but at 22.5 cm diameter is not a big deal. Like I said before, the Barak 8 VLS is not bigger than 2 x 1.4 m (I can see that clearly from the pictures), so how is it going to be a problem to fit it on the sides of the hanger, particularly if the ship has been redesigned for that as it would be in the version for Vietnam? Anyway, The Indian P28 WILL BE UPGRADED WITH BARAK 8 ON THE SIDES OF THE HANGAR, that has been decided already., so this should not be debatable.

 

[Penguin]

See whatever you tell but US think tank thinks otherwise. What do they think about Brahmos?

Read my thread "How to defend Brahmos=American analysis" on PDF itself.

Interesting but ignoring e.g the 1970 P-700 Granit (Kirov and Kuznetsov cruisers) with a speed of Mach 1.6 (low altitude) - 2.5+ (high altitude) and the 1960s P-500 (Mach 2.5) on Echo II and Juliett submarines and Kiev and Slava class cruisers. So how could NATO have been suprised by a Mach 2-3 Oniks / Brahmos?

There is nothing in this post ( https://defence.pk/threads/how-to-defend-brahmos-american-analysis.354356/ ) that contradicts what I said here earlier.

 

[vsdave2302]

Interesting but ignoring e.g the 1970 P-700 Granit (Kirov and Kuznetsov cruisers) with a speed of Mach 1.6 (low altitude) - 2.5+ (high altitude) and the 1960s P-500 (Mach 2.5) on Echo II and Juliett submarines and Kiev and Slava class cruisers. So how could NATO have been suprosed by a Mach 2-3 Oniks / Brahmos?

There is nothing in this post ( https://defence.pk/threads/how-to-defend-brahmos-american-analysis.354356/ ) that contradicts what I said here earlier.

Brahmos hit wrship very low, It travels at mach 3 and it has steath features with terminal maneuvers or steep dive mode. Youcan choose trajectory before launch. Its accuracy is unmatched (Many videos are available) Parheps that is why it is considered unmatched and better than the best.

 

[Penguin]

The way the Gepard have the UKSK VLS mounted lengthwise on the centerline is what I was advocating. What would be the problem to have that in the P28?

Then you would need to lengthen the ship forward of the bridge. Which is different from the suggested swap out with the 2 RBU-6000 in the current hull. And even then, the question remains whether it would fit (i.e. how v-shaped the hull is at that point). It is certainly not a given.

Yes, I know the Barak 8 is fatter than Barak 1, but at 22.5 cm diameter is not a big deal. Like I said before, the Barak 8 VLS is not bigger than 2 x 1.4 m (I can see that clearly from the pictures), so how is it going to be a problem to fit it on the sides of the hanger, particularly if the ship has been redesigned for that as it would be in the version for Vietnam? Anyway, The Indian P28 WILL BE UPGRADED WITH BARAK 8 ON THE SIDES OF THE HANGAR, that has been decided already., so this should not be debatable.

It is not missile body diameter that you should work with but rather width overall. Is there an official quote for the launcher size? For comparison, the deck area for Sylver launchers is 2.6 x 2.3. Deck area for a Mk41 8-cell module is 3.17m x 2.08m.
http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.nl/2013/10/vertical-launching-systems-and-type-26.html

This is a truckmounted launcher for barak-8. This is simpler than the ship launcher. A Tata LPTA 1623 truck is 2.55m wide. Ashok Leyland FAT / Super Stallion 8x8 truck is 2.5m. Most trucks are about 2.5m wide

https://defence.pk/threads/made-in-...d-support-systems.172935/page-21#post-6764485

Brahmos hit wrship very low, It travels at mach 3 and it has steath features with terminal maneuvers or steep dive mode. Youcan choose trajectory before launch. Its accuracy is unmatched (Many videos are available) Parheps that is why it is considered unmatched and better than the best.

Sure, and its predecessors all flew in a straight line at a relatively hig altitude? It is obviously considered unmatched and better than the best by those that have a commercial interest in it. If not, please provide source reference, which shows specialist personnel from one or more navy's stating this.

 

[Carlosa]

It is not missile body diameter that you should work with but rather width overall. Is there an official quote for the launcher size? For comparison, the deck area for Sylver launchers is 2.6 x 2.3. Deck area for a Mk41 8-cell module is 3.17m x 2.08m.
http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.nl/2013/10/vertical-launching-systems-and-type-26.html

This is a truckmounted launcher for barak-8. This is simpler than the ship launcher. A Tata LPTA 1623 truck is 2.55m wide. Ashok Leyland FAT / Super Stallion 8x8 truck is 2.5m. Most trucks are about 2.5m wide

https://defence.pk/threads/made-in-...d-support-systems.172935/page-21#post-6764485

Yes, I know is not the missile size itself, that's why I was using the size of the VLS itself, one of the pics makes it very easy to measure the VLS size since we know the size of the missile, so it was just a matter of comparing the space of the missile (22.5cm) versus the VLS, that's how I come up with 2 x 1.4m max. I'm very sure about that, the picture speaks for itself.

Then you would need to lengthen the ship forward of the bridge. Which is different from the suggested swap out with the 2 RBU-6000 in the current hull. And even then, the question remains whether it would fit (i.e. how v-shaped the hull is at that point). It is certainly not a given..

I don't think we need to lengthen the ship in that spot, but I can't say for sure since I don't know the size of that area, but if it does, it would be a very minor difference, but I think it fits as it is right now.

 

[Penguin]

I didn't know this thing about Sa'ar 5 but Kamorta is three times bigger than Sa'ar 5.

Stability has nothing to do with ship size per se, but with weight distribution.

Comparing Shivalik & P28
6200 vs 3400/3500 tonnes
Complement of 257 vs 193
So, complement of 257 can be justified for Shivalik but 193 for P28 is too high

I just went with the earlier quote made by someone else in the thread, which is what wiki states, which is in turn sourced from JANES.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamorta-class_corvette
http://www.janes.com/article/57037/indian-navy-commissions-second-kamorta-class-asw-corvette
Naval Technology says 123 (incl. 17 officers)
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kamorta-class-asw-corvettes/
Global security still runs with a crew of 85 , but based on P28 being 1800 tons ;-)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/p-28-specs.htm
Our Dutch M-frigate of 3,320 tons full load, which dates from early 1990, has a crew of 154

Is it possible to use inclined launchers on P28?

Not very likely, unless a much smaller missile than e.g. Brahmos.

I think there is already height available for 8 BrahMos, may not need raise.Drought of Kamorta & Talwar may not be much different as their weight is not much different.
Also, you mentioned BrahMos is ahead of RBUs on Talwar class so compare that space with P28, there is easily space available for BrahMos if RBU are removed.

Maybe near the centerline, which would require lengthwise mounting of the VLS, which would require lengthening the raised section between bridge and main gun. That is NOT swapping out RBUs for a VLS.

Yes, I know is not the missile size itself, that's why I was using the size of the VLS itself, one of the pics makes it very easy to measure the VLS size since we know the size of the missile, so it was just a matter of comparing the space of the missile (22.5cm) versus the VLS, that's how I come up with 2 x 1.4m max. I'm very sure about that, the picture speaks for itself.

So, what about the truck launcher? Same m issile, same canister, different launcher, about truck width.

I don't think we need to lengthen the ship in that spot, but I can't say for sure since I don't know the size of that area, but if it does, it would be a very minor difference, but I think it fits as it is right now.

Note that the Russian and Vietnamese ships have a 100mm gun, not a compact 76mm. That may distort a comparison.

 

[Carlosa]

So, what about the truck launcher? Same m issile, same canister, different launcher, about truck width.


Note that the Russian and Vietnamese ships have a 100mm gun, not a compact 76mm. That may distort a comparison.

I see other things at the lower side of the truck launcher that takes space and that's only part of the truck launcher, that makes it less than 2.5 m for sure, but again, I use your other pic of the VLS at the trade show and I measured the difference and I come up with almost 2 m. That pic is at the right angle to measure, so its easy.

Vietnamese ships use 76 mm guns. We can keep debating for ever, but we will not know for sure unless we have the measurements of that area of the ship, so lets agree that s possible, but can't confirm, shall we?

 

[Omega007]

Good news for India, it's an impressive order.

As of now,it's all mere speculations,nothing has been confirmed yet.

AFAIK
It is confirmed
7400 tonnes vs 7400/7450 tonnes
4x8-cell VLS for 32 Barak 8 vs 3×16-cell VLS for 48 Barak 8
2×8-cell UVLM for 16 BrahMos vs 4x8-cell UVLM for 32 BrahMos
76 mm gun Oto Melara SRGM vs 127 mm gun Oto Melara SRGM
325(P15A) vs 300(P15B) crews.
8,000 nautical miles (15,000 km) vs 4,000 nautical miles (7,400 km) range(Not sure about it), why should IN decrease this much range.
Remaining major improvements will be in stealth features & sensors.

Are you sure about the P 15B armament assortment??

 

[Omega007]

Not very likely, unless a much smaller missile than e.g. Brahmos

Perhaps the Brahmos NG,previously known as Brahmos M,could be a suitable candidate.Here,this one down below :

 

[arbit]

how to deter the Chinese?

that is the one million dollar question.

our army needs something that reminds them of paying an unsustainable cost.

You asked a question and answered it yourself.

Throughout history, war hasn't always been fought between opponents with equal strengths. If the stronger party was always was so sure of its win, there will only be stories of submission; not of wars.

If you can't defeat them outright, don't fret. Raise the cost to such a level that war waging becomes a cost too great to bear.. both in military hardware and in morale.
Moreover, In any war with Viets, chinese will be found out. They know it too. So don't get bullied. Just grin and build your muscle.

We will help you in your endeavours. Barak, brahmas, P series are nothing to be scoffed at. Though you will be short in numbers, the capability will be huge.