Wrong choice of AShM for delhi class destroyers?

[ravi_n_naik]

It seems that the SS-N-25 Switchblade AShMs which are installed in the Delhi class destroyers was a wrong choice by the Indian navy.

Initially the delhi class destroyers were to be fitted with the far more potent SS-N-22 Sunburn missiles. This is clearly illustrated by the fact the first Delhi class destroyer has blast deflectors required for the Sunburn missile.
The reason was perhaps high cost of the SS-N-22 and also that only 8 can be fitted against 16 SS-N-25.

following stats show the capabilities of both missiles
(range / warhead / speed)
SS-N-22 (250 km / 320 kg / Mach 3.0+)

SS-N-25 (130 km / 145 kg / Mach 0.9)



from above stats it is clear that 8 SS-N-22s are definately more powerful than 16 SS-N-25s. Also because of the high speed of the SS-N-22 it is almost invulnerable to SAMs. It also has a very high hit probability and given the fact that it has a 320kg warheade one strike is enough to destroy the target. Incedently the Sovrenemy class destroyers supplied to China by Russia has SS-N-22s. The air launched version of this missile the "Moskit"
can be carried by Su-30/33 fighters.

thus the higher cost is clearly justified. Since the Delhis are one of the most powerful ships of the Indian Navy they should have been equipped with the SS-N-22.

 

[tatra]

The Sunburns couldn't be delivered on schedule by the Russians so the Indians had to switch to an alternative missile that was available or delay the Delhi building program. Since the latter was not an acceptable option, they chose the former option. By the way, don't be surprised to see those 16 Uran's give way to 2x4 or 2x6 Brahmos eventually on Delhi class ships e.g. during midlife upgrade.

 

[Aussie Digger]

from above stats it is clear that 8 SS-N-22s are definately more powerful than 16 SS-N-25s. Also because of the high speed of the SS-N-22 it is almost invulnerable to SAMs.

In actual fact Ravi, modern Naval Surface to Air missiles are designed almost specifically for anti-ship missile defence and possess the capability to successfully intercept ANY ASM. They only possess anti-aircraft capabilities as a secondary capability... Such weapons include the Evolved Sea Sparrow (ESSM) SAM (Speed: Mach 3.5, range: 30Nm (55Klms), RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile SAM, (MAch 2+, 2 klm range), Mistral SAM (Mach 2+, 5klm range), Aster 15 (Speed Mach 3+, Range: 15klm's) plus others...

ASM's are difficult to intercept, but certainly not impossible. The smaller, lighter and in most cases faster SAM's are for more agile than any ASM which as to be "big" to accomodate such range. hey might be fast, but speed alone is not enough to be successful in combt, otherwise the MiG-25, would have been the greatest fighter ever built. In fact it was very far away from this designation...

 

[ajay_ijn]

but speed alone is not enough to be successful in combt, otherwise the MiG-25, would have been the greatest fighter ever built. In fact it was very far away from this designation...

Speed may not be everything but Speed is the important thing.
SR-71 Blackbird faster than Mig-25 had one big advantage other than low RCS.
It high speed allowed it to escape before Soviet SAM's were fired.
Speed Gives the Surprise for the defences.
Example:The Main advantage of an ICBM would be its high speed.

modern Naval Surface to Air missiles are designed almost specifically for anti-ship missile defence and possess the capability to successfully intercept ANY ASM.ASM's are difficult to intercept, but certainly not impossible

Yes,its a 50-50 Chance depending on ASM,Situation.
Any ASM???That Might be exaggerating
ASM's are War proven,Sank an Israeli Destroyer and damaged US frigate.
We can't underestimate the potential of ASM.

Such weapons include the Evolved Sea Sparrow (ESSM) SAM (Speed: Mach 3.5, range: 30Nm (55Klms), RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile SAM, (MAch 2+, 2 klm range), Mistral SAM (Mach 2+, 5klm range), Aster 15 (Speed Mach 3+, Range: 15klm's

Thats the western SAM's what about the Russian Kashtan,Shitl,S-300 etc.

 

[ravi_n_naik]

while what you(Aussie Digger) say is true any modern naval SAM must have exceptional hit probability. further none of the navies in the indian subcontinent have SAMs to intercept the sunburn.

although most AShMs can be intercepted as you say, i think the sunburn is a much difficult opponent for SAMs than the Uran.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Ajay, so your argument is based on the fact that in their 40 odd year history, ASM's have managed to sink 1 ship and damaged 1 other? They also sank a ship or 2 in the falklands IIRC, however hundreds if not thoursands have been fired during conflicts and have caused no effect whatsoever. It's not exactly a convincing argument in my book.

SAM's on the other hand have shot down far more than 1 or 2 aircraft. So on this simplistic basis SAM's are obviously more effective? You are also not allowing for the fact that Naval SAM designers are WELL aware of the capabilities of all ASM's (the primary threat these days afterall) and design these weapon systems specifically... I don't underestimate SAM's, but I think a lot of people OVERESTIMATE their capabilities as well...

 

[Pendekar]

Speed may not be everything but Speed is the important thing.
SR-71 Blackbird faster than Mig-25 had one big advantage other than low RCS.
It high speed allowed it to escape before Soviet SAM's were fired.
Speed Gives the Surprise for the defences.
Example:The Main advantage of an ICBM would be its high speed.

A new generation russian high altitude SAM would neutralise SR-71 high speed, high altitude advantages. that's why many SR-71 were scrapped.

 

[Pendekar]

S-300 was design to be ATBM weapons with secondary AA capability

 

[ajay_ijn]

Ajay, so your argument is based on the fact that in their 40 odd year history, ASM's have managed to sink 1 ship and damaged 1 other? They also sank a ship or 2 in the falklands IIRC, however hundreds if not thoursands have been fired during conflicts and have caused no effect whatsoever. It's not exactly a convincing argument in my book.

When u said Modern SAM's could intercept any ASM,Then i just reminded that ASM cannot be just underestimated.

So on this simplistic basis SAM's are obviously more effective?

May be you are thinking that Modern SAM's are installed on every ship.
The US Frigate which was hit was having very less AAW Capability,So it was easily hit by Exocet.
But if the same Missiles is launched on a US Cruiser or Destroyer,It would have been easily intercepted.
The real Thing why USN Feels the threat is not for the CVBG's or even Assault Carriers but Ships with low AAW capability.
Army Ships,Underway replenishment Ships,Frigates etc.
Low cost of Cruise Missiles which means any third world country can afford it large numbers.
Supersonic,Sea-Skimming ,ECCM and ability to make evasive maneuvers will increase the threat.
Can u tell me what exactly are these evasive Maneuvers performed by Modern ASM's.
Yakhont Seems to have a new capability,AI.

The missile's designers assume, that the enemy would detect the launch of the missile at the distance of 300 km and take measures to destroy it. However, being resistant to jamming, having the flight velocity of 750 m/s and making complex maneuvers during flight, the Yakhont ASCM shall anyway reach the target. It is not the high speed or jamming protection that makes Yakhont an advanced weapon system. It's major advantage, not too much advertised by NPO Mashinostroyeniya representatives, is the guidance system which has accumulated all the NPO experience in developing electronic systems of AI (Artificial Intelligence) enabling to fight against single warships (one missile - one ship) or even against a group of warships (a flock against a group).
It is salvo launching that shows all unsurpassed tactical capabilities of the Russian weapon. The missiles allocate and range targets by their importance and choose the attack implementation plan. The independent control system keeps in memory not only of the ECM (Electronic Countermeasures) and ECCM (Electronic Counter-Countermeasures) data, but also the methods of evading the fire of the enemy's air defense systems such as the US' Phalanx CIWS (Close-In Weapon System). Having destroyed the main target in a carrier group, the missiles left attack other ships of the carrier group, eliminating the possibility of using two missiles on one target

Do u think ASM's Capbility depends on platform like the Same Missile Launched from Fighter or Bombers more Effective than it is Launched from Ship.

P-15 Bangalore Class DDG were to have Aster-30 PAAMS.
Does Aster-30 need huge Space to be installed.

 

[ravi_n_naik]

Ajay,Although it does not depend on the launch platform, the missiles could have been procured in some significant volumes. As I had sugessted earlier the sunburn could be used as a deterent weapon against pakistan or China.

also although the equipping the delhi with bramhos is a future possibilty , still the sunburn is invulnerable to any present SAMs in the inventory of any of the navies in the Indian sub-continent. ------ravi

 

[ajay_ijn]

also although the equipping the delhi with bramhos is a future possibilty , still the sunburn is invulnerable to any present SAMs in the inventory of any of the navies in the Indian sub-continent. ------ravi

How can u be so sure.
PLAN and IN have Kashtan,Barak CIWS which are some capable systems.
We cannot rule out completely that Subcontinent SAM's are invulnerable against Sunburn.
Another question would,Is there Complete defence against Switch Blade Missile in The Delhi Class Destroyer??
Both IN and PLAN lack 100% Missile Defence to defend from Modern Cruise Missiles even against SwitchBlade.

BR says Delhi will be retrofitted with longer Range Missile.But no strong evidence for that.

The Delhi Class will be retrofitted with the GLONASS-steered, land-attack 3M24E1 Uranium AShM at a later date. The 3M24E1 AShM - export variant of the 3M24M1 - has more fuel, which extends range to 250 km.

The Land Attack Variant of Switch Blade does exist,But not sure if Indian Navy wants to purchase.
http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/aeronews/conv/article_August_2000_30_100.htm

Zvezda is looking to further develop Uran with the improved 3M24M1 missile (3M24E1 for export). This version is advertised as incorporating a GPS receiver, and having more fuel to extend maximum range to 250km

Another Question
Does Ship-Launched Brahmos Have the Land Attack Capability??
How much effective would be its Land-Attack Capability.

Till Now India does not have Land-Attack Missile.
India did not purchase Land Attack Variant of Klub.

 

[tatra]

AFAIK at present a ship launched Brahmos would have limited land attack capability and could be succesfull against e.g. large petro-chemical storage tanks

 

[armage]

Ajay,Although it does not depend on the launch platform, the missiles could have been procured in some significant volumes. As I had sugessted earlier the sunburn could be used as a deterent weapon against pakistan or China.

Pakistan yes, but China?
They have the HQ-9 now, and it's based on the S-300 plus the Type 730 CWIS, I don't think that they'll detered be the Sunburn...

 

[ajay_ijn]

AFAIK at present a ship launched Brahmos would have limited land attack capability and could be succesfull against e.g. large petro-chemical storage tanks

Something like SS-N-1 Starbright during Karachi attack.
So Brahmos would be not capable for nuclear detterance.

India does needs some Sub-Land-Attack Missiles for its Changed doctrine.
3M14E Klub Land attack Missile would be best option.
Even Exocet MM-40 Block-3 would be good.

One doubt i always had,Does the doctrine give importance to air-defence.
IN is not showing any Special Interest in Long Range SAM's like aster-30.]

The only news I heard is,Israel offering Joint development of Barak-II with India.

IN in the future would badly need Long-Range Air-Defence Capability for protecting its Vital Carriers.

 

[tatra]

So Brahmos would be not capable for nuclear detterance.

Perhaps not today, but it has potential in that role too, particularly if mid-course guidance update abd GLONASS/GPS based navigations becomes available in the near term. With a nuke warhead, you don't need high precision.

 

[corsair7772]

Something like SS-N-1 Starbright during Karachi attack.
So Brahmos would be not capable for nuclear detterance.

India does needs some Sub-Land-Attack Missiles for its Changed doctrine.
3M14E Klub Land attack Missile would be best option.
Even Exocet MM-40 Block-3 would be good.

One doubt i always had,Does the doctrine give importance to air-defence.
IN is not showing any Special Interest in Long Range SAM's like aster-30.]

The only news I heard is,Israel offering Joint development of Barak-II with India.

IN in the future would badly need Long-Range Air-Defence Capability for protecting its Vital Carriers.

Id recommend an improved S-A-N-6 (navalised SA-10) or even better a navalised SA-15 or Sa-12b, the former of which is a highly accurate short range SAM and the latter has ABM capability. Perhaps the IN should get both the SA-15 and Sa-12b navalised and fitted on the Delhi class destroyers and turn them into potent air defense platforms or it could just simplify technical issues by getting the SA-N-6 and if FAS is correct india already has experience with the land based SA-10, but id recommend the SA15(which alrdy has a naval version) and SA-12b(which does not) combo. No match for it and this is a carrier whose thinkin about wreckin a target as well defended as karachi were talkin about. Itll need these two sams. Heres a rundown on all of em.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/s-300pmu.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/sa-15.htm
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/s-300v.htm

 

[ajay_ijn]

Id recommend an improved S-A-N-6 (navalised SA-10) or even better a navalised SA-15 or Sa-12b, the former of which is a highly accurate short range SAM and the latter has ABM capability. Perhaps the IN should get both the SA-15 and Sa-12b navalised and fitted on the Delhi class destroyers and turn them into potent air defense platforms or it could just simplify technical issues by getting the SA-N-6 and if FAS is correct india already has experience with the land based SA-10, but id recommend the SA15(which alrdy has a naval version) and SA-12b(which does not) combo. No match for it and this is a carrier whose thinkin about wreckin a target as well defended as karachi were talkin about. Itll need these two sams. Heres a rundown on all of em.

The problem would be even the Indian Land Based forces are not interested S-300 though it is one of the Best in the world.
The reason for running after Arrow or Patriot is still unclear.

Another problem would be ,can these big Air-defence Systems fit into the ship.
S-300 is present only on Large Russian Cruisers.
The question would can a 6500 ton Ship accomadate the Large Air-defence System besides other weapons like 16 SSM,2 CIWS,6 torpedo tubes.
Indian Navy will want its big Ships to multirole role like every Ship must have SSM's.

If u look at the ships having Long Range Air-Defence Systems,Most of them have 9000 ton displacement.
Anyone knows the Weight and Size of Type 052C.

I see most of the western origin Ships having Same Vertical Launchers for many Missiles like Mk41 VLS Tomhawk,SM-2,VLA.
Will that Save the Space in the Ship.
I haven't seen that kind of tradition in Russian Systems.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The US Oliver Perry (Hazard) Class FFG Frigates carry SM-1/2 long range SAM's and only weigh in at about 4000 tons.

The Australian Adelaide Class FFG's are now undergoing an upgrade program to equip them with (among other things including ESSM, Harpoon Block II etc) the latest SM-2 Block IV SAM's, (after our SM-1 SAM system is becoming obsolete and difficult to support) to cover the long range air defence requirement for our navy until our AWD's arrive. The first upgraded ship (HMAS Sydney) is undergoing sea trials at present and is expected to be handed over to the RAN in May.

A bigger ship does obviously allow you to cram in more weapon systems, but 4000 ton class frigates or destroyers can "easily" accomodate long range SAM's and extensive weapons fits. The RAN FFG's for instance are equipped (or will be soon) a 76mm "Super Rapido" gun, a Phalanx CIWS, an 8 cell Mk 41 VLS for Evolved Sea Sparrow SAM (32 missiles), SM-2 Block IV long range SAM's, Harpoon Block II ASM's, Mk-46 torpedo's (soon to be MU-90 torpedo's), 6, 0.50 cal HMG's (for the close in anti-surface role and secondary air defence) plus a SH-60 Seahawk naval Helicopter. This equipment fit stacks up very well against most other Frigates in the world and even quite a few destroyers and yet is mounted on a "relatively" small hull... Cheers.

 

[tatra]

Agree, Digger!

Another example: Dutch Jacob van Heemskrck ("L") class
(recently sold and to be transferred to Chili in July 2005)

Ship Specifications
Crew: 197 + 20 Flag
Displacement: 3750 tons full load
Dimensions: 130.2 x 14.4 x 4.23 meters (427 x 47 x 14 feet)
Propulsion: 2 RM1C cruise gas turbines; 2 Shafts; 20 knots cruising speed; as well as 2 TM3B boost gas turbines, 30 knots
Range: 4700 mi at 16 kts (7,400 kilometers)
Draught: 4.3 metres

Armament
Missiles:
SSM: 8 McDonnell Douglas Harpoon (2 quad) launchers
SAM: 40 GDC Pomona Standard SM-1MR Mk 13 Mod 1 launcher; 1 Raytheon Sea Sparrow Mk 29 octuple launcher (24 missles, manual reload)
Guns:
Signaal SGE-30 Goalkeeper with General Electric 30 mm, 2 Oerlikon 20 mm
Torpedos:
4 - 324 mm US Mk 32 (2 twin) tubes Honeywell Mk 46 Mod 5
Decoys: 2 Loral Hycor SRBOC 6-barrelled Mk 36

Electronics
Sonar: Westinghouse SQS 505; SQS 509 (Bow Mounted)
Air Search Radar: Signaal LW 08
Surface Search Radar: Signaal ZW 06
Fire Control Radars: Signaal STIR, Signaal WM 25

Aviation: None

 

[Pendekar]

most of the former western navy ships sold to the third world countries navy was usually being striped of most of it's advance weapons and sensors. this is due to the financial and political consideration.