The Indian Navy commissions the first of its follow-on Talwar-class (modified Krivak-II) stealth frigates Teg today (April 27) at Yantar shipyard in St Petersburg. The Commissioning CO is Capt Rakesh Kumar Dahiya. Shano Varuna.
Photos / Indian Navy
Indian Navy Commissions Stealth Frigate ‘Teg’ Today
The Indian Navy commissions the first of its follow-on Talwar-class (modified Krivak-II) stealth frigates Teg today (April 27) at Yantar shipyard in St Petersburg. The Commissioning CO is Capt Rakesh Kumar Dahiya. Shano Varuna.
Hi Shiv,
If you get a chance, ask an MoD officer the schedule of the inductions of Tarkash and Trikand too. Also, INS Sahyadri's induction should follow soon too, right
I call BS on this one… This is not stealth…. To see real stealth see Zumwalt class destroyer… Admittedly a destroyer, but should give an idea of real stealth…
shiv sir mod giving any new order for
talwar class frigates..please reply
Very Nice pictures Shiv…. keep it on… 🙂
Why does the IN still persist with the obsolete RBU anti-sub rockets? The launcher takes up so much space with little in the way of tactical usefulness in a real world scenario. What good is having all of 8 VLS silos doing? The space taken up by the RBU launcher could accommodate at least 2 more VLS modules (16 more cells), instantly you turn a relatively inexpensive frigate into a potent anti-ship / land attack platform. Same can be said with the obsolete single SAM launcher. The rest of the world has long since moved to a full VLS system as single SR-SAM's are useless against modern saturation and high speed threats, yet we still put them on our NEW ships…why not integrate the Barak -LR system so hyped everywhere?
are the first three Talwar-class stealth frigates different from the last three? anyone knows?
@Shiv
its modified Krivak III and Krival II
please correct if i am wrong
thanks
Joydeep Ghosh
its modified Krivak – III and is Brahmos equipped rather than the Klub in the first batch
[email protected]
It may be your opinion that the RBU system is "obsolete" but that is obviously not the navy's view since they place it on as many ships as they can. Perhaps you could explain to the rest of us why you think it is obsolete.
@ Anon 11.46 – very easy
– First, the system is a relic of the 1960's, and is basically unchanged in principle from the Hedgehog type systems used during WWII by the Brits and Americans against the U-Boats. The world has moved on since then…
– The rockets are unguided, which means they need to be saturation fired into the general target vicinity to have any hope of effectiveness. Even then, the smallish warheads make them useless. There is a guided variant in use, however even this is useless for reasons below.
– A modern SSN or even the more advanced SSK's we are likely to encounter in any future war can dive easily to depths of over 200M and can exceed 20KN easily, putting them safely out of reach of the depth charges.
– ALL modern anti-ship torpedo systems have autonomous operating ranges in excess of 30NM. The MAX effective range of the RBU-6000 system is 5000m, even with the guided rockets. So please work out for yourself who will win in this fight…
– The most egregious fault however is the criminal waste of precious deck space. On a small vessel like the Talwar class this becomes a magnified problem. I ask you, would you rather have a useless 12 tube rocket launcher with 5km range or an additional 16 BrahMos or Klub missiles with 300km range? Think of the force multiplication that can be effected with this simple change. Or you can use the space for a more effective SAM system like the Barak-LR. The potential is endless if you get rid of this one piece of outdated junk
@ Rohan,
Do you have any pictures of RPK-8?
RPK-8 is an enhancement on RBU-6000 and is guided. Was wondering If what navy is using here is RBU-6000 or RPK-8.
RBU-6000 is/was user by soviets/russians extensively.
RPK-8 is the designation of the rocket itself while the RBU-6000 is the whole system. It looks exactly the same, no external difference. Yes the RPK-8 is guided, no idea if the IN has it in inventory but is basically a plug and play upgrade so not very difficult. However it is still limited by range, 5000M is max effective range.
good points rohan…i also second the view for having a non-VLS based SAM launcher..it completely screws the 'stealth' factor of the ship…also no IN ship has long-range SAMs…so most of our ships will not able to take out attacking aircraft with stand-off or potent air-launched anti-ship missiles (exocet, harpoon etc…and lets not even talk about stand-off stuff here)…
The IN is unique here…compare with Standard 1,2,3 SAMs on US and other western ships..or the Aster series..even China has naval versions of their land based SAMs (essentially copies of the russkie S-300s) on their ships….
so apart from the pathetic anti-submarine rocket laucher…IN has a huge gaping hole in our long range Air-Defence….forget long range..we dont even have medium range AD capabilities on our ships..just short-near range….sigh…
-vishal
RBU-6000 is a multipurpose system, that can be used against submarines, enemy torpedoes, surface (marine and ground) targets, frogmen etc.
It's being used for a long time doesn't mean it's a relic ipso facto. Guns are being used in the navies for centuries, but it doesn't mean they are obsolete.
Indian Navy chose not to put vertical launched surface-to-air missiles like "Shtil-1" on the 11356 frigates. I don't know why, maybe to keep costs down, but the main limiting factor here is the guidance capabilities of the ship and not the rate of fire. The ship has four "Orekh" guidance radars, so –realistically speaking– it can engage 1 or 2 distant targets simultaneously. In any case, no more then 4 targets. Also, rail launcher have some advantages against sea skimming missiles: lock-on before launch, optimal launch direction.
In any case, "Shtil" being the middle range air defense system, its capabilities seem adequate for the ship of this calss. For multiple targets engagement, like in the case of sea skimming missiles, there are a close range anti-missile systems on board.
I heard that Russian has asked 100 million more for next 2 follow on ships of this Class.Is this true ?
centurion,
you wrote 'In any case, "Shtil" being the middle range air defense system, its capabilities seem adequate for the ship of this calss.'
really?…shtil can really protect the ship?….IN seems to have standardized on the shtil SAM…but its range is only about 30-40Kms…so you tell me what would happen if these ships came up against an aircraft with Harpoon, Exocet etc. ASMs?….most modern ASM have a range of 150Kms+….
or would the attacking pilot fire his ASM when he is only 40 Kms from the ship?…would have to be a very stupid pilot in that case.
With such a range differential between the Shtil and the ASMs..the attacking pilot can always remain outside the engagement envelope of the Shtil…
i rest my case.
-vishal
2Anonymus@8:06PM
"really?…shtil can really protect the ship?….IN seems to have standardized on the shtil SAM…but its range is only about 30-40Kms…so you tell me what would happen if these ships came up against an aircraft with Harpoon, Exocet etc. ASMs?….most modern ASM have a range of 150Kms+….
…"
No SAM system in the world can protect against a platform launching stand-off sea skimming missile, no matter what its range is. Just because this missiles can be launched beneath the radio horizon. Should S-300F (for example) be installed on the project 11356, it still won't protect against low flying aircraft with stand-off missiles. Long range naval SAM systems exist mainly to deny access to electronic warfare and reconnaissance aviation, sometimes for missile defense. But enemy combat aviation will always prefer to launch its anti-ship missiles from beneath the radio horizon (in order to prevent early detection). That means maximum effective range for SAM system will be around 40-50 km, no more.
For the best of my knowledge, Teg will have Barak-1 missile system, Shtil, AK-630 and A-190E for air defense against sea skimming missiles. Very nice air defense suite by all means. Previous ships (Talwar, Trishul and Tabar) had Kashtan CIWS instead of Barak-1+AK-630 combo.
centurion,
you wrote "No SAM system in the world can protect against a platform launching stand-off sea skimming missile, no matter what its range is. "
Again you are misinformed.
Modern long-range SAMs are specifically designed to have a broad engagement altitude from very-low level to high-altitude. For the S300FM, this missile can hit targets as low as 10 meters above sea level. See the appropriate section:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_%28missile%29
pasted below from URL:
"The S-300FM Fort-M (Russian ?-300??, DoD designation SA-N-20) is another naval version of the system, installed only on the Kirov class cruiser RFS Pyotr Velikiy, and introduced the new 48N6 missile. It was introduced in 1990 and increased missile speed to approximately Mach 6 for a maximum target engagement speed of up to Mach 8.5, increased the warhead size to 150 kg (330 lb) and increased the maximum engagement range yet again to 5–150 km (3–93 mi) as well as opening the altitude envelope to 10m-27 km (33–88500 ft). The export version is called the Rif-M. Two Rif-M systems were purchased by China in 2002 and installed on the Type 051C air-defence guided missile destroyers."
Similar for all other naval long range SAMS like the US SM-1,2 etc…they are specifically designed to take-out sea-skimming aircraft and ASMs. Otherwise what's the point in having these SAMs? Modern navies are not stupid you know.
If you want some historical perspective on this, see the (for the obsolete Sea Dart missile) 'Falklands War' section in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Dart_%28missile%29
"On 30 May 1982, during the last Exocet air attacks against the British fleet, the most successful engagements with Sea Dart occurred and HMS Exeter (D89) was credited with two A-4s (out of four attackers) downed, despite them flying only 10–15 metres (33–49 ft) above the sea (theoretically below Sea Dart's minimum engagement altitude of 30 metres (98 ft)). "
Remember, sea dart is an obsolete missile, but still it was key in saving Royal Navy ships since it (for the 1980s) had a decent enough range (for that time and technology) and could engage engage sea-skimming targets.
Modern Naval SAMs are much much better than Sea Dart tech.
Pls. get your facts right.
-vishal
Vishal, you missed the point I was trying to make. Anti-ship missiles like Harpoon etc in most cases will be launched from under the radio horizon, from distances greater then 40-50 km. It means ship radars can't detect the aircraft before it launches the stand-off missile, and –accordingly– SAM systems can't engage it. The only way to prevent this kind of attack is to have friendly combat aviation present.
By the way, max effective range of S-300 family against very low flying targets is about 30 km more or less.
If you are talking about project 1144 air defense, you should know that the S-300F is just a small portion of its capabilities, and it isn't intended for self defense. This being said, it's obvious that systems like S-300F and SM-1/2 are able to intercept sea skimming missiles. But only at close ranges (up to 30-40 km at best), and not from 100+ km like you seem to think.
Centurion,
thxs for correcting me – actually after I posted I started to suspect what you just wrote…but good you corrected me. But I guess this limitation of not being able to engage low flying targets beyond the radio horizon is more of a limitation of the radar than the missile right?
Also, if you could point me to some resource on the net which indicates effective different ranges (for different altitudes) for these SAMs that would be great.
btw, isn't there still a case for long-range SAMs to the extent that I presume a slow turboprop like the P-3 orion with harpoons would probably not fly at sea-skimming level (unlike a fast jet)..and hence would probably be at a decent enough altitude to able to be detected from a 50km + distance…and hence be effectively engaged?
-vishal