Indian Navy Developments & Discussions

[Ayan Barat]

Can it be done by modifying something we already have with minimum effort ?

The RIM-116 is made by strapping a Stinger seeker on a Sidewinder missile. So for the seeker we definitely have VSHORAD one but we don't have any Sidewinder analogue. The closest would be Astra but it's too heavy and more of an ESSM analogue.

And what else will be needed besides the projectile?
Also looking at the pictures of USN and PLAN CIWS, ours look like ancient

I'll be posting a detailed article on this topic soon.

So as long as it has an ammo feed, gun is always live.

No to mention the fact that some older generation miniguns can be fired by just rotating the barrel cluster by hand.

 

[Ayan Barat]

Perhaps the first clear view of Thakur with his arms chopped off...I know it may sound bit sadistic, but looks good.

 

[Fatalis]

Perhaps the first clear view of Thakur with his arms chopped off...I know it may sound bit sadistic, but looks good.
View attachment 19167

They could have gone for SRGM instead of the A-190M gun as the former is planned to be used on Triput class.

 

[vampyrbladez]

More pictures of INS Tushil

 

[vampyrbladez]

INS Surat

Before Sea Trials :

After Sea Trials :

Older 76mm SRGM cupola to be replaced before or post commissioning.

Credit: VivekSi85847001 (Twitter)

 

[Ayan Barat]

They could have gone for SRGM instead of the A-190M gun as the former is planned to be used on Triput class.

Maybe the Italians were not okay with sending TDP to Russian shipyard because even for "for but not with" type set-up where the guns would have been fitted here in India, the Russian shipyards would have needed quite a bit of technical insight. As for Triput Class, they're being made completely here so not a big deal.

We have already replaced the 100mm on Trishul with SRGM because I'm pretty sure we don't make 100mm gucci ammo and it's all imported. So just a matter of time before all of the 100mm gets replaced

 

[125mm_Smoothbore]

 

[mist_consecutive]

Pretty cool that we commissioned 3 big ships in a single month (with last Kalvari-class submarine to be comissioned next month in Jan).

INS Surat - Vishakhapatnam class Destroyer
INS Tushil - Improved Talwar-class Frigate
INS Nilgiri - Nilgiri class Frigate

INS Vagsheer - Kalvari-class Submarine (next Month)

This alone is enough to sink entire Pakistani Navy and blockade insignificant countries like Bangladesh.

 

[NerVik]

Pretty cool that we commissioned 3 big ships in a single month (with last Kalvari-class submarine to be comissioned next month in Jan).

INS Surat - Vishakhapatnam class Destroyer
INS Tushil - Improved Talwar-class Frigate
INS Nilgiri - Nilgiri class Frigate

INS Vagsheer - Kalvari-class Submarine (next Month)

This alone is enough to sink entire Pakistani Navy and blockade insignificant countries like Bangladesh.

It's a refreshing change of news from the usual delays and accidents. But.
What I really want is to focus in PLAN, we went past PN a long time ago. We need to upgrade the arms on our capital ships they are too underarmed, and missing key defensive weapons like a RIM analogue. We are missing a BMD system and equally important we need to speed up indigenization. We are still using the likes of Barak 8, MFSTAR, Indra radars, and Ukrainian engines. Also I am not seeing much progress or even any efforts to combat drone warfare, where do we stand on that?

 

[shade2]

Pretty cool that we commissioned 3 big ships in a single month (with last Kalvari-class submarine to be comissioned next month in Jan).

INS Surat - Vishakhapatnam class Destroyer
INS Tushil - Improved Talwar-class Frigate
INS Nilgiri - Nilgiri class Frigate

INS Vagsheer - Kalvari-class Submarine (next Month)

This alone is enough to sink entire Pakistani Navy and blockade insignificant countries like Bangladesh.

Speaking of them, how does the Navy's current inventory stack up against their soon to be 15 Black AIP Submarines of Ola?

afaik we have

• Most warships with sonars and heavyweight torpedo launchers and the Navy-pasand RBU-6000 for what it's worth, most with helipad
• That carries Romeo/SeaKing/Kamov for ASW submarine detection and all can carry torpedos themselves
• P-8I Poseidon that drops sonobuoys, can carry 5 torpedos and has an assortment of other ASW stuff
• Our submarines themselves, the vintage German and Roosi ones and the latest Kalvaris

And we will get in the future

• 16 ASW-SWC Corvettes
• 8 Predator SeaGuardian drones, if Amrika Saar graciously delivers them to us
• C-295 based ASW planes, these can carry torpedos also.

TLDR is our current stack good enough or do we badly need those German U-boots for which the Navy has the hots for?
In general does various surface and aerial ASW platforms make up for lack of literal submarines?

 

[rohitb3]

Still no full clear pic of Nilgiri? Is it some secret high tech warship with no public pictures ?

 

[Blood+]

Can it be done by modifying something we already have with minimum effort ?

Yes, my modifying the NGCCM aka ASRAAM, but we will need a license for inhouse production.

Also looking at the pictures of USN and PLAN CIWS, ours look like ancient

Yeah but our ships have significantly more of those on board than their USN/ PLAN counterparts. Take for example, the latest PLAN DDGs like Type 055 and 052D. Now, each of those comes with one very impressive eleven barreled monster of a Gatling gun but they have got only one, facing the front, thus leaving the rear section without any cover (I know, I know, they have got their HQ-10s for that).

This set up is also quite deficient in handling a multi directional saturation attack, especially if the incoming threats happen to be of supersonic nature.

Meanwhile, each IN vessel comes with at least 2 or even 4 such guns. Plus, some of them have got the Barak-1 for close quarter defense.

 

[shiphone]

lol, you'd better have a study why 2 AK630 were placed on each side a ship and normally salvo required for a combat operation....

AK630 is an old and outdated gun....the dispersion of projectile is so horrible that actually it was designed to resist against the airplanes and old generation Anti ship missile ... 'more guns(at least 2 on each side)' is the MUST not the advantage.

 

[AbRaj]

Yes, my modifying the NGCCM aka ASRAAM, but we will need a license for inhouse production.

For a imported AAM its just not worth it to invest so much time and resources.

Yeah but our ships have significantly more of those on board than their USN/ PLAN counterparts. Take for example, the latest PLAN DDGs like Type 055 and 052D. Now, each of those comes with one very impressive eleven barreled monster of a Gatling gun but they have got only one, facing the front, thus leaving the rear section without any cover (I know, I know, they have got their HQ-10s for that).

This set up is also quite deficient in handling a multi directional saturation attack, especially if the incoming threats happen to be of supersonic nature.

Meanwhile, each IN vessel comes with at least 2 or even 4 such guns. Plus, some of them have got the Barak-1 for close quarter defense.

I see. But IMO majority of the incoming projectiles will be approaching from sides due to large surface area exposed, compared to front and back. Few good CIWS with good targeting system and high rate of fire can do the job quite efficiently compared to multiple independent inefficient systems

 

[shade2]

Yes, my modifying the NGCCM aka ASRAAM, but we will need a license for inhouse production.

Yeah but our ships have significantly more of those on board than their USN/ PLAN counterparts. Take for example, the latest PLAN DDGs like Type 055 and 052D. Now, each of those comes with one very impressive eleven barreled monster of a Gatling gun but they have got only one, facing the front, thus leaving the rear section without any cover (I know, I know, they have got their HQ-10s for that).

This set up is also quite deficient in handling a multi directional saturation attack, especially if the incoming threats happen to be of supersonic nature.

Meanwhile, each IN vessel comes with at least 2 or even 4 such guns. Plus, some of them have got the Barak-1 for close quarter defense.

I think that's because they have over 9000 VLS cells and the one type of missile that can be quadpacked in a single cell, that's ESSM for burgers, CAMM/Crotale for Euros, HQ-ChingChong-555 whatever for these Chinkus and ofc the Russis also have one of this same quadpack capable missile.

We by comparison have max 32 expensive Jewish missiles on the Vishakhapatnam/Kolkata and now on Nilgiri class

Navy should quadpack VL-SRSAM but idk.

They should also improve AK-630 by making it "independent" rather than directed by central FCS, like Phalanx and Goalkeeper only reason IN uses it is domestic production, same with that Otomelara 76/64 gun

lol, you'd better have a study why 2 AK630 were placed on each side a ship and normally salvo required for a combat operation....

AK630 is an old and outdated gun....the dispersion of projectile is so horrible that actually it was designed to resist against the airplanes and old generation Anti ship missile ... 'more guns(at least 2 on each side)' is the MUST not the advantage.

Zhong here gives us the rationale behind his country cloning the Goalkeeper and GAU-8 instead of the AK-630 or whatever else Kashtan/Kortik/Pantsir wagera from Roosi
It looks like Chings have bought into the "seperate Missile and independent Gun ciws" doctrine of the actual Numba Wan country in the world, rather than the current Roosi model of "Da, add 2x gatling guns here, and 8x missile over there"

 

[Blood+]

For a imported AAM its just not worth it to invest so much time and resources.

That shouldn't be too big of an issue considering the IAF's plan to make the ASRAAM its standard issue CCM across its entire fleet!!

I see. But IMO majority of the incoming projectiles will be approaching from sides due to large surface area exposed, compared to front and back. Few good CIWS with good targeting system and high rate of fire can do the job quite efficiently compared to multiple independent inefficient systems

You misunderstand. By 'front' and 'rear', I meant the front and rear hemispheres, not threats coming square from the front or rear!! Here, I'll try to explain it with a simple diagram.

Type 055 -

Notice how this particular set up is leaving a massive gap in its coverage across the rear 60 degree arc??

Now imagine a scenario where a Type 055 DDG has been set upon by a swarm of anti-ship cruise missiles and loitering munitions, coming from all the random vectors, something like this -

Let's assume the arrows to be those incoming threats. Now tell me, what's stopping those from hitting one of the rear radar panels or the rear magazine??

Sure, they have got the HQ-22 launcher but what if they send 50 or 100 or 200 of such drones?? How many of those it can stop before its magazine runs dry?? Certainly not all of them (and that's the understatement of the century right there).

Now, compare this to the CIWS arrangement of P 15A/B DDGs.

Not only they are covering the entire flanks of the ships, their arcs of fire overlap with each other.

Which one do you think will have a better shot at surviving such an attack??

 

[Blood+]

First and foremost, please try to post in a more coherent manner!! I feel like I'm getting a stroke reading your comment!! Anyway, moving on -

I think that's because they have over 9000 VLS cells and the one type of missile that can be quadpacked in a single cell, that's ESSM for burgers, CAMM/Crotale for Euros, HQ-ChingChong-555 whatever for these Chinkus and ofc the Russis also have one of this same quadpack capable missile.

If we can get them to expend their 100s of Ks of USD worth SAMs on Shahed type suicide drones worth no more than 15 grands at the most, then I say we've won half the battle already. Heck, one could also use swarms of rocket/ small turbojet powered glide bomb with EO seekers for that, if we are feeling crafty.

We by comparison have max 32 expensive Jewish missiles on the Vishakhapatnam/Kolkata and now on Nilgiri class

The Barak 8s should not be any costlier than HHQ-9A/Bs, which are the primary air defense missiles of PLAN air defense DDGs.

Navy should quadpack VL-SRSAM but idk.

Yes, they abso-bloody-lutely should. Unfortunately, they are completely clueless, as are the ship builders and the missile developers. We just suck balls at design optimization, PERIOD.

Heck, if we had two brain cells to rub together, then we'd have found a way to quad-pack even the Barak-8s by now, but unfortunately, as the successive trenches of the IN ships have shown so far, that we lack in that particular segment as well.

They should also improve AK-630 by making it "independent" rather than directed by central FCS, like Phalanx and Goalkeeper only reason IN uses it is domestic production, same with that Otomelara 76/64 gun

Correct.

Zhong here gives us the rationale behind his country cloning the Goalkeeper and GAU-8 instead of the AK-630 or whatever else Kashtan/Kortik/Pantsir wagera from Roosi
It looks like Chings have bought into the "seperate Missile and independent Gun ciws" doctrine of the actual Numba Wan country in the world, rather than the current Roosi model of "Da, add 2x gatling guns here, and 8x missile over there"

All good against anti-ship missiles as their cost and size puts a limit on how many you can realistically throw at any one particular target; not so much against a large swarm of cheap loitering munitions/ long range glide powered glide bombs. Against those, a gun based CIWS with a large magazine size will trash a missile based CIWS every damn time.

 

[Ayan Barat]

I'll be posting a detailed article on this topic soon.

So it's time for what no-one was waiting for

Can someone tell me how good (or bad) our CIWS [CIW System, not just the guns] are across our different vessels?

Okay, let's start with this

single BEL Lynx U2 lays every gun on each ship...and even then the localized tracking performance of the AK630 doesn't compare to a Phalanx

So as usual, Corvus's accurate in his assesment...the biggest issue seems to be the tracking part of the CIWS. There are multiple smaller issues like mounting radar and gun on same TE (Traverse - Elevation) mechanism eliminates thing like out-of-sync gun & radar turret, the stacking tolerances of both turret and backlash error of four actuation mechanism as both your gun and radar are now mechanically boresighted. You also have the added benefit of redundancy. Not to mention the fact that AO-18s generally have a reputation of high dispersion compared to other systems like Phalanx or Goalkeeper.
But just to keep things fair, I'll ignore all those and dive into radars only.

Before I start just a basic 101 of radar; the smaller the wavelength the more accurate a radar would get and the larger it gets the longer it'd be able to see. That's the reason why almost all targetting radars for CIWS are in Ka-X range (0.75-3.8cm), a non exhaustive list...
• MR-123 or Bass Tilt (the standard Russian radar for AK-630) = X
• Lynx U2 (what we use for AK-630) = X or Ku
[Side note; isn't Lynx U2 a copy of Thales TMX/EO?]
• EL/M-2221 (also used for AK-630, Barak-1) = X and Ka
• Goalkeeper = X and K
• Mk-15 Phalanx = Ku
• Type 730 = Ku

1. Veer Class

• Radar is accurate (X-Ku) but a single radar is used to cover almost 300° (not 360°) of sector; i.e, both starboard and port
• Isn't there an obvious blind zone towards the stern as the mast comes in LoS of the radar?

2. Khukri Class
• Pretty much the exact same arrangement of Veer is used on Khukri Class; one with Lynx and other with Bass Tilt.

3. Kora Class

• One uses Bass Tilt and rest all uses Lynx U2, again one single radar controlling everything. And again the mast preventing direct rearwards LoS.

For these three specific ships, I don't know how they're going to deal with a missile having good evasive maneuvers or waypoint navigation capabilities. An AShM is launched from 300km, coming straight towards the bow the missile starts maneuvering 7-8km (outside the range of 30x165mm ammo) away from it and comes back in from the stern side.
BrahMos has been doing S-maneuvers at Mach 2+ since last two decades, just to get an idea how easy it's to perform these kind of maneuvers.

From here things start to improve a bit
4. Kamorta Class

• You've two separate radars to cover almost 360° so simultaneous attack from both flanks can be countered. Also there isn't that usual blind zone in stern.
• But here's too there's something that I've questions about. See the raised section of superstructure (Orange) just in front of AK-630 guns. Isn't that going to limit the arc of fire of the gun, especially if an AShM comes head-on from bow?

5. Talwar Class...now this is a proper circus


• Three different flights and all is bit different. And then you've some that have gone through refit. But more or less it's either Kashtan or AK-630 with mix of radars.
• The ones with Kashtan are funny, because they're the epitome of CIWS but we don't have ammo for them.
• As for others, you've a typical set-up of 2x AK-630 but guided by a single Lynx U2 or 5P-10E radar in front. Again weird as the mast block LoS of rear. Frigates but still has the same problem as Veer class corvettes.
• Four rounds things may look like MR-123 (the radar used for AK-630) but sadly those are MR-90, the illumination radar needed for Shtil-1 SAMs. They look almost identical.

6. Shivalik Class

• Should perhaps be the best CIWS set-up. 16x Barak-1 and one AK-630 on each side with two EL/M-2221.
• But here too the mounting position of the guns seem suboptimal as the arc of firing gets blocked in front by superstructure

7. Brahmaputra Class
• One active, one already seen multiple incidents and one completely out of service. No point discussing these but generally you'd have two Lynx U2 directing four AK-630s. Quite good for this old ships.

8. Rajput Class
Even the latest of this is more than 35 years old and decommissioning already started so leaving it.

9. Delhi Class

• As usual, the forward arc of fire gets blocked by mast for radar.
• Pretty similar to Shivaliks but on paper this should perhaps be the best integrated CIWS we ever had apart from obviously Kashtans. 16x Barak-1 and one AK-630 on each side guided by their own fire control radar, all mounted pretty close to each other. Nice

And from here things take an interesting turn as we move up

10. Kolkata - Vishakapatnam Class

• Obviously sub optimal placement; instead of two cluster of two one could easily go with one each on bow-starboard-stern-port, same amount of guns but improved overlapping arcs of fire. Here too, the guns are mounted in such a way the the superstructure interferes not just in front but also in rear. In case of mounting near the hangars (like say Kamorta) only the frontal arc was obscured but here the rear too gets interfered.
• But perhaps most important, there isn't any fire director now. Everything is controlled by the MF-STAR which is perfectly fine except for the band; it's S-band. MF-STAR is used by Koreans and Israelis too but only we use it for CIWS.
No doubt, it can definitely be used for this role but as you move from Ku to S your precision decreases. 2.5 to 3.8cm now becomes 7.5 to 15cm, definitely a difference that you can feel with next gen low RCS missiles like LRASM.

11. Vikrant
Again exactly the same case as P-15s, S-band radar being used for fire control.


As always, everything's just my brainrot shitposting so proceed with caution. Feel free to correct wherever needed. Infact I'm hoping that I'm proven wrong.

 

[Blood+]

So it's time for what no-one was waiting for

Okay, let's start with this

So as usual, Corvus's accurate in his assesment...the biggest issue seems to be the tracking part of the CIWS. There are multiple smaller issues like mounting radar and gun on same TE (Traverse - Elevation) mechanism eliminates thing like out-of-sync gun & radar turret, the stacking tolerances of both turret and backlash error of four actuation mechanism as both your gun and radar are now mechanically boresighted. You also have the added benefit of redundancy. Not to mention the fact that AO-18s generally have a reputation of high dispersion compared to other systems like Phalanx or Goalkeeper.
But just to keep things fair, I'll ignore all those and dive into radars only.

Before I start just a basic 101 of radar; the smaller the wavelength the more accurate a radar would get and the larger it gets the longer it'd be able to see. That's the reason why almost all targetting radars for CIWS are in Ka-X range (0.75-3.8cm), a non exhaustive list...
• MR-123 or Bass Tilt (the standard Russian radar for AK-630) = X
• Lynx U2 (what we use for AK-630) = X or Ku
[Side note; isn't Lynx U2 a copy of Thales TMX/EO?]
• EL/M-2221 (also used for AK-630, Barak-1) = X and Ka
• Goalkeeper = X and K
• Mk-15 Phalanx = Ku
• Type 730 = Ku

1. Veer Class
View attachment 19458
• Radar is accurate (X-Ku) but a single radar is used to cover almost 300° (not 360°) of sector; i.e, both starboard and port
• Isn't there an obvious blind zone towards the stern as the mast comes in LoS of the radar?

2. Khukri Class
• Pretty much the exact same arrangement of Veer is used on Khukri Class; one with Lynx and other with Bass Tilt.

3. Kora Class
View attachment 19459
• One uses Bass Tilt and rest all uses Lynx U2, again one single radar controlling everything. And again the mast preventing direct rearwards LoS.

For these three specific ships, I don't know how they're going to deal with a missile having good evasive maneuvers or waypoint navigation capabilities. An AShM is launched from 300km, coming straight towards the bow the missile starts maneuvering 7-8km (outside the range of 30x165mm ammo) away from it and comes back in from the stern side.
BrahMos has been doing S-maneuvers at Mach 2+ since last two decades, just to get an idea how easy it's to perform these kind of maneuvers.

From here things start to improve a bit
4. Kamorta Class
View attachment 19461
• You've two separate radars to cover almost 360° so simultaneous attack from both flanks can be countered. Also there isn't that usual blind zone in stern.
• But here's too there's something that I've questions about. See the raised section of superstructure (Orange) just in front of AK-630 guns. Isn't that going to limit the arc of fire of the gun, especially if an AShM comes head-on from bow?

5. Talwar Class...now this is a proper circus
View attachment 19491
View attachment 19492
• Three different flights and all is bit different. And then you've some that have gone through refit. But more or less it's either Kashtan or AK-630 with mix of radars.
• The ones with Kashtan are funny, because they're the epitome of CIWS but we don't have ammo for them.
• As for others, you've a typical set-up of 2x AK-630 but guided by a single Lynx U2 or 5P-10E radar in front. Again weird as the mast block LoS of rear. Frigates but still has the same problem as Veer class corvettes.
• Four rounds things may look like MR-123 (the radar used for AK-630) but sadly those are MR-90, the illumination radar needed for Shtil-1 SAMs. They look almost identical.

6. Shivalik Class
View attachment 19490
• Should perhaps be the best CIWS set-up. 16x Barak-1 and one AK-630 on each side with two EL/M-2221.
• But here too the mounting position of the guns seem suboptimal as the arc of firing gets blocked in front by superstructure

7. Brahmaputra Class
• One active, one already seen multiple incidents and one completely out of service. No point discussing these but generally you'd have two Lynx U2 directing four AK-630s. Quite good for this old ships.

8. Rajput Class
Even the latest of this is more than 35 years old and decommissioning already started so leaving it.

9. Delhi Class
View attachment 19472
• As usual, the forward arc of fire gets blocked by mast for radar.
• Pretty similar to Shivaliks but on paper this should perhaps be the best integrated CIWS we ever had apart from obviously Kashtans. 16x Barak-1 and one AK-630 on each side guided by their own fire control radar, all mounted pretty close to each other. Nice

And from here things take an interesting turn as we move up

10. Kolkata - Vishakapatnam Class
View attachment 19474
• Obviously sub optimal placement; instead of two cluster of two one could easily go with one each on bow-starboard-stern-port, same amount of guns but improved overlapping arcs of fire. Here too, the guns are mounted in such a way the the superstructure interferes not just in front but also in rear. In case of mounting near the hangars (like say Kamorta) only the frontal arc was obscured but here the rear too gets interfered.
• But perhaps most important, there isn't any fire director now. Everything is controlled by the MF-STAR which is perfectly fine except for the band; it's S-band. MF-STAR is used by Koreans and Israelis too but only we use it for CIWS.
No doubt, it can definitely be used for this role but as you move from Ku to S your precision decreases. 2.5 to 3.8cm now becomes 7.5 to 15cm, definitely a difference that you can feel with next gen low RCS missiles like LRASM.

11. Vikrant
Again exactly the same case as P-15s, S-band radar being used for fire control.


As always, everything's just my brainrot shitposting so proceed with caution. Feel free to correct wherever needed. Infact I'm hoping that I'm proven wrong.

Maximizing flank protection at the cost of frontal protection. Anyway, I think they should see if they can integrate a navalised version of Atulya FCR with the AK-630 mounts.

 

[Ayan Barat]

Maximizing flank protection at the cost of frontal protection.

Having four CIWS and still having blind zones