I've had a chance to look at the stats on the D63 Kolkata Destroyer from India and from a look at the numbers its the most balanced on the planet without a doubt.
It might even be the most powerful.
Why do I say that? For one reason. The powerful anti-ship Brahmos missile. Think about it. We lavish nothing but praise on the Burke class but while they kick ass in the anti-air mission and can do savage attacks against land targets, it is basically a sitting duck when it comes to naval warfare on the high seas.
Other Western Destroyers suffer from the same bias. When it hit me I was shocked. For our smaller allies to build ships that are biased in the same direction as the US Navy in hindsight seems quite foolish. Consider the S. Korean Sejong the Great class destroyer. A Burke clone. The British Type 45 destroyer. A Burke clone.
This points to one undeniable issue for Western navies.
They've become aviation dependent.
Advances in the range of anti-ship missiles, the rapid development of anti-air missiles by threat forces and the lack of progress in fielding long range missiles of our own is causing a blind spot that could have consequences in the future.
The standard anti-ship missile for the West is the Harpoon missile. Its range? 67 nautical miles.
Sidenote: I also need to point out that many have questioned the electronics fit of these ships. That is wrong. Who are the suppliers? IAI, Thales, Elbit and Bel. They're all first rate and many of those systems will be found on allied warships.
http://youtu.be/VBye_Of2tt4
ReplyDeleteThe ATD-X roll out news clip.
One thing that this ship is lacking is serious modern close defense system. Battery of four AK-630 maybe look impressive but it's highly outdated weapon system without independent targeting. They are slaved to the main targeting array and if that is hit or jammed you are in deep shit. Most of modern CIWS systems can go in to autonomous mode using own targeting systems and still operate even if main array is destroyed but not on this ship. This is a serious flaw.
ReplyDeleteAlso they can put them with good side firing arc but very poor forward and backward defense zone.
Don't get me wrong, this ship is one of the most powerful on the seas right now. But close defense it's his Achilles' heel.
The main CIWS would be the the BARAK 1 missile providing all-round coverage for the ship..
DeleteStill a missile, India should invest more in classic autonomous CIWS systems that can operate independent outside central guidance ship system. Because still one hit can put offline ALL defense of that ship and that will probably came back in the future and kick India navy in the ass.
DeleteWhat makes you think that the CIWS that Kolkata has isn't autonomous ? If you can imagine such a scenario, I'm sure the Indian navy too would've thought about it !
DeleteYou may want to read up on the AK-630. While It can also be slaved to the main radar, each CIWS is equipped with its own fire control director radar. It does not come as a single unit as in the Phalanx which leads to some confusion.
DeleteHere is a picture of what it looks like. You should be able to find more on images of ships which use them or videos of the cwis firing.
http://i57.fastpic.ru/big/2013/1029/8e/f0e9737a4887fb3351042de8b63e7f8e.jpg
Another note on the Harpoon many ships I see carrying them have only 8 rounds in 2 4-round canisters. This destroyer carries 16 Brahmos.
ReplyDeleteI remember reading about the Battle of Midway where Admiral Spruance was worried about running into a Japanese battleship at night (where he would be out-gunned) even though the U.S. had gained the upper hand in carriers.
Didn't the tomahawk have an anti-ship version ?
ReplyDeleteIt used to, but they're no longer in service. In any case, a Tomahawk would by unlikely to penetrate the anti-missile defenses carried by modern warships.
DeleteThe T45 and the Burke are designed very differently, basically the Burke is a large multipurpose destroyer while the T45 is a specialised anti-air platform. The Burke is also primarily an AA platform but it's also fitted out with sonar, anti-ship and land attack kit, so it's got all bases covered and it is perfect for working alone. The downside however is that it's anti-sub kit isn't that good, their sonar sets are fairly shiny but the ship is just not optimised for hunting subs. It's record against conventional subs in exercises is awful and since they are soon to be the only anti-sub assets available to a fleet I think that they may be the weakest link in a battle group.
ReplyDeleteThe T45 is quite different, it's entirely optimised for air defense, it's got radar as good as or better than that of the Burke and vertical launched missiles similar to that of the Burke. It's downside is that it can't do much else, I think they've fitted harpoon pods now but they don't have any strike or anti-sub equipment. The lack of strike capabilities will be rectified when they fit the A70 pods but anti-sub capabilities left to the T23 frigates which are supposedly pretty good at that and can also provide close in defense.
It comes down to what you want to do I think, if you want to have warships patrolling independently then the Burke is the best ship for the job, if you're wanting a convoy escort then the T45 and the T23 (T68?) working together probably have a slight edge over the Burke.
NATO et al do lag behind Russia on missile development right now, got no idea what America is planning but the European SCALP/MdCN should narrow that gap a bit.
Anyway, the Kolkata is an excellent ship,
I don't agree that NATO is lag behind Russia in missile development right now, it's too big department. In some cases especially the EU company's leave Russia pretty long behind. In others Russia is clearly leading, mainly in heavy supersonic ship killers.
DeleteFor AShM, the west currently has LRASM and NSM in development/deployment. Both should be more than equal to the task in their various roles. They aren't as fast as the russian/indian AShM but have significantly smaller signatures and significantly better seekers and electronics.
DeleteSo you just assume just because the west builds it , they've got to have better signature and electronics. Just go to youtube and watch some videos to see how accurate BRAHMOS is and yeah its got a very very small signature..
Delete- In some cases especially the EU company's leave Russia pretty long behind. - Which cases might those be ?
ReplyDeleteRussia's lead is really in super-sonic AShM and ballistic missiles. For pretty much every other category they lag behind their western counterparts. A lot of it makes sense really, western forces historically have an aircraft carrier pedigree and so haven't historically needed high speed anti-ship missiles as in the western doctrine, Air Power is generally tasked with ship killing.
DeleteAnd because of the air warfare centric doctrine of the western powers, AA missiles have been a keystone: control the skies, control the war.
CN/CVN development from the USSR perspective has always lagged way behind the west, so they've relied more heavily on AShM for ship killing in their doctrines.
A lot of blabbing but no examples . Give me an example of so called category ?
Delete~For AShM, the west currently has LRASM and NSM in development/deployment. Both should be more than equal to the task in their various roles. They aren't as fast as the russian/indian AShM but have significantly smaller signatures and significantly better seekers and electronics.~
Better seekers ? Got proof for that ?
there is no proof!
Deletebut there is experience/history. look at the Falklands war. there is something to be said for speed over stealth. why do i say that? because electronics are advancing so far that a stealth missile might be detected long before it gets to terminal phase....but speed? ask the Brits. they detected the Exocet missiles but CIWS reacted in time to hit them but their speed carried the "dead rocket bodies" into the ships.
aluminum ships.
they burned, and everyone learned. a hit doesn't equal a kill and a gatling gun based system will hit the target but not hard enough to "totally kill it" and prevent the remains from doing damage.
Mach 3 or 4 sounds pretty good to me. and the Brahmos does that.
Indeed. Besides that subsonic missiles are easy to shoot down. It's no secret that the old Kinzhal's ate subsonic missiles for breakfast long before they reached half way of their terminal phase. There was a reason why RuN was against excepting Kh-35 into service. (a missile that was meant at first solely for export market) I can't imagine what RAM, modernized Kinzhal's, 9M100 and navalized morfei.
DeleteIn the modern world, supersonic missiles are spotted well before terminal phase, they show up on any IRST better than anything else allowing plenty of time for intercept and missiles like Brahmos also have fairly large radar signatures. By contrast, both LRASM and NSM have barely any IR nor radar signature until very very close. Both LRASM and NSM should have shorter reaction times than Brahmos or its predecessor.
DeleteRobert, as far as seekers, one only needs to look through published data. Russia lags far behind the west in pretty much all areas of electronics as does india actually.
you're mixing apples and oranges. this ain't aerial combat. we're talking about naval warfare...specifically surface warfare. a destroyer can only see to the horizon. about 25 miles and then the curve of the earth negates its 'view'. with a launch at 100 or more miles the missile if air launched will fly at altitude until it reaches terminal phase. that can be whatever the programmer wants but will be over the horizon. that means that all of your 'irst', ciws, aegis etc... will be attempting to track a missile doing mach 3, skimming the waves. if its switched on to automatic then it will have about 40 seconds to react. if for some reason you have to pass along the orders then you're screwed.
Deleteand like i said earlier. even if you hit it, with current systems you will break up the missile but whats left over could fuck up most ships meaning that follow on strikes will be even more successful.
we haven't even gotten to the dreaded all quadrant attack or mixed in ballistic anti-ship missiles into the mix.
~Robert, as far as seekers, one only needs to look through published data. Russia lags far behind the west in pretty much all areas of electronics as does india actually.~
DeleteYet, somehow Pak-Fa is on track to have worlds first operational GaN-based AESA radar. As far as AShM based seekers. I have hard time believing that LRASM will have a seeker with a range of already old Onyx (and not Yakhont as it's a downgraded export version with a downgraded seeker). Onyx's seeker has a range of 80 km vs 50 km of the Yakhonts. Proof me wrong though. I've so far yet to find any info on LRASM seeker range.
Robert, the worlds first operational GaN AESA radar has already been released by SAAB, but nice try...
DeleteP-800 uses an Active/Passive radar seeker which is a technology that is generally falling out of favor as a primary seeker due to its easiness to spoof and the effectiveness of stealth techniques against it. All advanced seekers are moving towards a primarily imagining based seeker complex which is impervious to most know methods of spoofing and stealth.
Solomon, yes we are talking about naval combat, but if we aren't considering air assets of the naval combatants then we can pretty much right off anything beyond the horizon as neither side can currently do jack all without third party track and target beyond the horizon. None of the Russian or Chinese missiles have autonomous operations nor targeting and require a precision targeting solution to be at all effective which cannot be generated over the horizon without third party assets. The US is in a similar position at least until 2017 when LRASM will go operational since it has both autonomous navigation and targeting as part of its core features, which will allow it to be used over the horizon without third party support, something nothing else out there can do.
The reality is those that both sides will generally have air/sat assets giving both intel and targeting solutions. In that case, the SS missiles are very easy to spot well out from their target, esp full time SS missiles like P-800/BrahMos which light up the sky with their heat.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteDelivery expected in 2016 ...isn't quite operational my friend. By your definition Russian already have a operational GaN based Radar then.
Delete~P-800 uses an Active/Passive radar seeker which is a technology that is generally falling out of favor as a primary seeker due to its easiness to spoof and the effectiveness of stealth techniques against it. All advanced seekers are moving towards a primarily imagining based seeker complex which is impervious to most know methods of spoofing and stealth. ~
You realizes radar's have protection against spoofing and countermeasures towards them being jammed. (Not to say they can't be jammed or thrown of track. It's an eternal war.)
Also Imagining based seeker don't have the range of radars and are more easier to counter. Let alone when sooner or later every ship will have lasers to blind the seekers. That and IR/IIR seekers don't particularity work well with supersonic AShMs since the aerothermal effects degrade the seeker's capabilities. IR/IIR seeker is nice to have as secondary guidance or for cheap low range AShM's. .
Autonomous operations ? Maybe you should read up on Russian missiles actually. There is one nifty thing that LRASM does have that current Russian AShM don't. And that's the detection of radar emission and making correction to go out or stay out of the radar envelope.
This is however not something new either. The Soviet Kh-80 Meteorit had this too. The Granit's successor the 3M15 Bolide would have had it and the planed upgraded of the P-1000 Vulkan, the Vulkan-LK would have also had it. Now that electronics shrunk, etc and will be able to fit in missile of size of Onyx and smaller. Plan is to incorporate said feature on the currently in development hyper-sonic AShM named Zircon-S and also in planned upgraded Club complex.
Also, mate out in the ocean both subsonic and supersonic AShM will have massive enough IR signature coming from over the horizon that both will be spotted and reacted to accordingly long before they'll get to their terminal phase. So neither exactly are going to sneak up on a their targets.
ats: "In the modern world, supersonic missiles are spotted well before terminal phase, they show up on any IRST better than anything else allowing plenty of time for intercept and missiles like Brahmos also have fairly large radar signatures"
DeleteYou have noo idea what you are talking about. Do you ?
Like solomon said you'll has less time to react. Brahmos travels at 1km/second. There will be less than 25 seconds to react once the ship detects it, if it detects it at all. At the terminal phase, it performs complex maneuvers to fool CIWS. And even if hit, the debris would cause damage.
Do you have any proof to claim that BRAHMOS has a large radar signature ? Or just assumed since its not western, it is "supposed" have a large signature. I can quote the Indian scientists and Brahmos corp. saying it has a very very low radar signature but I know you wont take it for face value but believe everything Lockheed Martin and Raytheon say in their press releases.
Platform wise it might have all round capabilities but you have to see at what content its been used for.us destroyers don't go solo. It will be a part of a very big battle group. But if the same is used by Korea or India it will be a stiing duck. Every weapons system is designed according to the need and usage tactics in mind.if you use a best system with a wrong tactics you loose. Many still laugh at Russian tanks and site Iraq war. Western tanks have all round capabilities because of the small size of their fleet.where as russind assigned different task to different take but achive same results. So if you employ Russian tanks with wester tactics you will meet god, similarly if you use Russian tactics with Western system you'll go bankrupt
ReplyDeleteYou do realize that the Indian Navy is a very large and increasingly modern navy right? They can easily put together a couple of pretty good battle groups. I understand the point you are trying to make, but any country capable of building advanced warships is not going to be sending them to fight one at a time.
DeleteThe Kolkata class is an excellent design.
ReplyDeleteThe main advantages of the design are
1) It has a Highly capable AESA radar.
2)16 Brahmos with good seekers, mach 3 speed, capable of cooperating with other missiles in a salvo (or other salvos) by establishing a network, 500 Km ranage (HI-HI profile only) and finally capable of performing ridiculously complex terminal maneuvers.
3) 32 highly accurate and highly capable Barak 8, with enough space to add 32 more. (The ship was originally designed for 64 but equipped with 32 due to the missile being unproven at the time of fitting out)
4) Lots of room and spare power to eventually upgrade to some of the more exotic options like laser defense which might become more common by the time the ship reaches its mid life point.
5) Decent Sonar and ASW capability.
6) 76mm Oto Melera SR main gun doubles up as long range CWIS and is fairly capable at that role.
7) 4 AK 630 as opposed to the 1 phalanx on the latest flight of Burkes.
The Main Disadvantages are
1) 76 mm main gun is really underpowered especially if you want a shore bombardment. The Indian Navy lost its shore bombardment capability with the retirement of its upgraded WWII vintage cruisers in the 70's and 80's and hasn't regained that capability. This might be partially fixed in the future since the Indian Navy has just completed purchasing several 127mm Oto Melera guns along with manufacturing rights.
2) There will only be 3 of them. plus 4 more if you count the advanced version (Project 15B) under construction now and due to come online 7-10 years from now. The main problem with the Indian Navy is the protracted development and build times. They produce some highly capable, best in class designs and end up spend close to 10 years building only 3 or 4. The process is rinsed and repeated leading to a large number of classes, but with each class having very few individual ships and with major capability differences between each class.
Logistics must be a b***h to keep the vast number of ships with vastly different capabilities supplied and armed. But i have to admit, in a strange twisted way that having so many different weapon types in the navy might be an advantage. Your opponent will never be able to figure out what you are going to attack him with.
3) This class of ship as with most Indian Navy ships is built to support 2 helicopters, however they are battling a massive shortage of ASW and Multirole helicopters. Most ships are lucky if they are able to get 1 helicopter attached. This problem is known and there are development and purchase efforts underway, however it will take 3-5 years and probably much longer due to protracted bureaucratic acquisition process before we can see more ships sailing with a full compliment of helos.