RN Type-23 vs Talwar(Krivak III)

Every ship should have a Goalkeeper! :diablo:

I didn’t say Kashtan had anything to do with Talwar class, just that what I posted was about Kashtan-M and that there is such a thing and that it is available in 2 versions.

yeah i know we had discussion on kashtan-M a while back its somewere in missiles & munitions forum.

Good to hear more SAMs are capable of that. Notice that all missiles mentioned (Sea Wolf, Barak, ESSM) were designed specifically to deal with anti-ship missiles, and not so much with aircraft, and that these are missiles that are good enough as to not require a CIWS backing them up.

There is still limitations with those SAMs why else do u think some navies would still utlize gun based CIWS or RAM even while operating those SAMs. The limitation being that SAMs typically have lo probability of kill in minimum range and ofcourse have min range thresholds, Barak i believe has the smallest at around 500 meters, aster15/30 is around 1.7 & 3 km and data for ESSM and Sea wolf is unavailable but its far guess it probably around 1.5 km. So why does minimum range matter? not only does it determine how many targets a system a can intercept against saturation attacks it aso very important against supersonic targets. For example a supersonic SSM 800 m/s for ex. can easily close in 2 – 3 km of the t-23s b4 even b4 sea wolf has chance to intercept it (even while assuming sea wolf has 0 sec reaction time which is improbable).

So thats why need some kinda of gun based CIWS that can intercept targets in minimum range. Some vessels that lack CIWS do use artillery systems for point defense purpose as well but in the case of Duke FFG 114 mm it cant suffice that role.

yeah but what it does it have to do with talwar, kashtan-m only recently around 2003 was offered for sale/export talwar was designed in 1996 so obviously it wasnt fitted with it not even the P-17 will carry kashtan-Ms the first vessel to carry it will be russian corvettes under construction or 956-EM or maybe gorshkov.

actually most SAM systems are capable of doing that, i believe barak/ESSM was even tested in trials to intercept that.

I didn’t say Kashtan had anything to do with Talwar class, just that what I posted was about Kashtan-M and that there is such a thing and that it is available in 2 versions.

Good to hear more SAMs are capable of that. Notice that all missiles mentioned (Sea Wolf, Barak, ESSM) were designed specifically to deal with anti-ship missiles, and not so much with aircraft, and that these are missiles that are good enough as to not require a CIWS backing them up.

My undertanding is that Kashtan-M is a modernized version of Kashtan and that Kashtan-M is available in 2 versions: the ‘regular’ one with the normal complete set of trackers, incl. radar, on top and a ‘cheap’ one with an ELOP tracker, different from the original E/O components, on top. But I may be wrong.

yeah but what it does it have to do with talwar, kashtan-m only recently around 2003 was offered for sale/export talwar was designed in 1996 so obviously it wasnt fitted with it not even the P-17 will carry kashtan-Ms the first vessel to carry it will be russian corvettes under construction or 956-EM or maybe gorshkov.

During the Falklands War, Sea Wolf could in some instances actually engage the bombs dropped by the Argentinian rather than the aircraft.

actually most SAM systems are capable of doing that, i believe barak/ESSM was even tested in trials to intercept that.

The point that most new ship designs involve some degree of attention to stealth is very valid. I always have to laugh when the LaFayette is made out as THE stealth ship. I would point out Sea Shadow is probably much stealthier. And indeed, Sweden’s Visby and Norway’s Skjold should not be ruled out either. However, in this thread we are comparing Type 23 and Talwar (mod Krivak III). Of those two, well, Talwar is a revamped soviet-era design. While it incorporates some stealth features it certainly isn’t a stealth ship. Nor is Type 23. But it was conceived with stealth features from the beginning (rather than a redesign of a non-stealth ship, which inherently limits the degree of stealth that can be incorporated). The Type 23 is NOT a further developed Type 22 Batch-3 which, by the way, is the only Batch of Type 22’s that has the Goalkeeper CIWS in addition to RL Sea Wolf. During the Falklands War, Sea Wolf could in some instances actually engage the bombs dropped by the Argentinian rather than the aircraft.

So , JS, you are sayng that as example, the parabolic structures over the hangar of the Type 23 are capable to show a very “strange” return echo on the radars, given a very difficult track to recoinnesse and lock, insthad to reduce the track to a lower level, but neverthless recoinnissable as a ship?

Even so, and excuse me if i am concentrated on the radar reduction tecnology, most for all because this influence the ship design much more than other sthealt exigences, the design of the type 23 shows cleary that this ships were designed to be “convenctional” and then their design was modiphied to accomodate some sthealt features. If not, why in hell on these ships, both the 114mm gun and the Harpoon missiles are not positioned in sthealt structures? It’s really funny that you biase the gun of the Lafayette, atleast they had designed a gun with a sthealt turret.
Whetever can be the features to joke the radara recognition of the eventually attackers, the fact is that ALL the modern ships, included the Type 45 AAW, are designed according to the principles that can be called “LAfayette-alike”, not to seem the MT. Everest or the Australia coast inshtad to be a ship!
So, the Type 23 can be called at the best a trial to modiphic what it was only a Type 22 improved, and nothing else.
More, if i well undestrund, the type 23 is so outstanding to not need even of Ciws or i am wrong?
Is it true that both the Type 22 and hte type 23 have only Sea Wolf as Ciws system?

And when the Sea wolf was engaged in taht famous day vs the 4 A-4 Skyhawks, the Sea Wolf Systems engaged simoultaneously only a target for each launcher or two?

Similarly anyone who claims naval stealth to be solely a function of RCS needs to expand their frame of reference!. Just because it looks ‘stealthy’ doesn’t make it so!.

I’ll try and explain this in terms that wont get me in trouble. The Lafayette designers painstakingly reduced radar reflectivity of their vessel and did an admirable job of it. Their mistake though was to leave the radar profile of the hull unaltered. To a radar seeker the Lafayette profile, despite issuing a weaker return, looks undeniably like a ship – low bit on the bows, high bit, lowish bit amidships, high bit over the hangar and low again over the pad. If you can disturb or adjust this pattern though you can confuse a seeker as to your true aspect and, within a few ship lengths, your position.

So on one hand we have a medium RCS design with additional tweaks and, possibly, the quietest ‘stealthiest’ propulsion fit of any current escort OR a slightly-compromised lo-RCS design that chugs along merrily on its diesels?. I know which vessel I think is overall the more ‘stealthy’ though I may need to ‘sort myself out’ because of it!. :rolleyes:

Jonesy,
I would beg to differ with you on this point. I agree that stealth is not only dependent on RCS and its reduction. Submarines try to maintain Acoustic silence to a great extent and there are several factors contributing to stealth.

The Accoustic profile of the Type-23 may be lesser than Lafayette, but it is not that small. Both are probably comparable. But the RCS reduction is far smaller in Type-23. You have the Big Hapoon launchers on the front. All the Domes on the side even present a big RCS on the sides.

You specifically said that during an ARH missile attack you would prefer to be on type-23. I did not understand what you meant by that.

Type-23 may be a good solid frigate unlike the Type-22 but i dont feel it is as good as a lafayette in any way. Any way it does’nt matter any good fighter with a good radar can detect a frigate at around atleast 100km and launch its
missiles at around 70Km. With all the big emmiters i dont think any ship is 100% stealthy.

Any body who trys to claim that T23 is more stealthy than a La Fayatte realy needs to sort themselves out.

Similarly anyone who claims naval stealth to be solely a function of RCS needs to expand their frame of reference!. Just because it looks ‘stealthy’ doesn’t make it so!.

I’ll try and explain this in terms that wont get me in trouble. The Lafayette designers painstakingly reduced radar reflectivity of their vessel and did an admirable job of it. Their mistake though was to leave the radar profile of the hull unaltered. To a radar seeker the Lafayette profile, despite issuing a weaker return, looks undeniably like a ship – low bit on the bows, high bit, lowish bit amidships, high bit over the hangar and low again over the pad. If you can disturb or adjust this pattern though you can confuse a seeker as to your true aspect and, within a few ship lengths, your position.

So on one hand we have a medium RCS design with additional tweaks and, possibly, the quietest ‘stealthiest’ propulsion fit of any current escort OR a slightly-compromised lo-RCS design that chugs along merrily on its diesels?. I know which vessel I think is overall the more ‘stealthy’ though I may need to ‘sort myself out’ because of it!. :rolleyes:

Type 23 is not pre stealth, she is early stealth, a concept that has evolved. It was not born in the La fayette. Any body who trys to claim that T23 is more stealthy than a La Fayatte realy needs to sort themselves out. The stealthY features of the Type 23 are well documented, but she was an early effort. The current epitomy of stealthy warships has to be the Visby.

So i want to ask this, after all: do you are ayng that the RCS of a Lafayette is greater than a Duke frigate? If nobody then fire at you , what’s the rate of the two vessels?

And let me add, if there are many systems to reduce RCS out to build a sort of Lafayette, why all the recent vessels, included the A.Burke ships, are cleary built with principles Lafayette-alike insthead to have a more roomly ,cleary pre-sthealt design like the Type 23?

Also to chip in on the combined EO/RF trackers on the CIWS mount I have never heard of a system that can engage two targets one with EO and one with RF systems. Sea Wolfs tracker, like most CLOS systems, has optronic fire modes but this is for use as an adjunct to the radar. Its RF or EO but definitely not both together.

The only thing that I know does something like this is the BMP-3 ICV variant ‘Khrizentema’ with long range ATGW: the missile can ride either a radar or a laser beam to the target and the vehicle has both a radar and a laser designator. By aiming each independently the vehicle can engage 2 MBTs at the same time. Of course, the key point in this context is that laser and radar are mounted seperately, not integrated into one mount. Technically, it would be feasible to guide Sea Wolf or Barak missiles (both CLOS guidance) to 2 targets simultaneously, 1 by using radar tracker and the other by EO tracker. But I think that’s not what JonS meant.

what are u talking about the image u posted is kashtan which is what the one in talwar looks like, kashtan-M is looks lot different from it the link u post has that image. Anyway IN only recently evaluated Kashtan-M for gorshkov in early 2004.

My undertanding is that Kashtan-M is a modernized version of Kashtan and that Kashtan-M is available in 2 versions: the ‘regular’ one with the normal complete set of trackers, incl. radar, on top and a ‘cheap’ one with an ELOP tracker, different from the original E/O components, on top. But I may be wrong.

I’m saying that in the context of a GP escort who’s AAW capability is designed purely for ownship defence its largely irrelevant whether that capability is a ‘heavyweight’ medium range PDMS like Shtil, SM-1 or ESSM or a lighter system like Sea Wolf, Klinok or Crotale/VT-1.

there is still lot of difference in that aspect because of no missiles shtil can intercept more incoming missiles due to larger range and speed. Also most countries dont have large stockpiles of AShM so the greatest threat is still from ACs carrying dumb munitions or short range guided missiles (maverrick) so in which case, point defense system like shtil is far better than sea wolf which proved incapable of detering the argentinian airforce from resorting to that strategy.

Certainly Jon, but, the problem is that the EDIR mount is actually up there!. The MN cant really turn around to an opponent in time of hostility and ask them not to notice their stealthy frigates because the SAM mount thats reflecting away merrily isn’t really meant to be there!!!.

Lafayette are merely patrol FFGs as i keep mentioning france will most likely sell them off to fund its FFM project so its not fair comparison. Why dont u compare them to lafayette clones such as sawari or delta class ffgs?

Wanshan,

Yes it is whole spectrum stealth that needs to be considered. This is one of the reasons I brought up CODLAG propulsion on the 23 (bit of a cheat on my part because it was incorporated as much to prevent ownship degradation of the performance of the original 2031 towed array as for stealthing!).

Jon,

no SAM system can shoot beyond the horizon so that limitation applies to every single SAM system out there including SM-2,Aster and so on. But there is other factors such as EW/ECM that could delay the attacking aircrafts from clearly spoting the vessel and launching ashm unless they use some kinda of anti radiation missile.

I think you may be missing the point of what I’m saying here. I am NOT saying Shtil is a bad missile. I’m also not saying that Sea Wolf, in reference to the topic here, is necessarily a better system. I’m saying that in the context of a GP escort who’s AAW capability is designed purely for ownship defence its largely irrelevant whether that capability is a ‘heavyweight’ medium range PDMS like Shtil, SM-1 or ESSM or a lighter system like Sea Wolf, Klinok or Crotale/VT-1. The main tasking for such a PDMS is the engagement of antiship missiles not the aircraft firing them.

u do realise that croatle was temporary stop gap measure till sylver cells can be fitted in.

Certainly Jon, but, the problem is that the EDIR mount is actually up there!. The MN cant really turn around to an opponent in time of hostility and ask them not to notice their stealthy frigates because the SAM mount thats reflecting away merrily isn’t really meant to be there!!!.

Also to chip in on the combined EO/RF trackers on the CIWS mount I have never heard of a system that can engage two targets one with EO and one with RF systems. Sea Wolfs tracker, like most CLOS systems, has optronic fire modes but this is for use as an adjunct to the radar. Its RF or EO but definitely not both together.

When is that going to be? It’s been 9 years since the first of class was commissioned. AFAIK all La Fayettes have been fitted with Crotale. Naval Technology states “The frigates may be upgraded with the vertical launch system (VLS) and Aster 15 missile from Eurosam and associated Thales Arabel fire control radar.” Doesn’t sound very definitive to me. I’ll believe it when I see it.

yeap its currently serving merely as patrol vessels so france is no rush to fit them with aster 15 but they can be fitted with aster if needed to and have provisions for it. Due to budget cuts most navies are forced to resort to that tactic (*cough anzac ffgs).

In the vertical plane only, maybe. But I’ve never heard or seen anything that would indicate Kashtan has this capability. So I’m sticking with 1 target for 1 fighting unit at any 1 time.

i will try to find some info on that later on busy right know

Sorry, the producers beg to differ! See this

what are u talking about the image u posted is kashtan which is what the one in talwar looks like, kashtan-M is looks lot different from it the link u post has that image. Anyway IN only recently evaluated Kashtan-M for gorshkov in early 2004.

I’ve nothing to add, but I enjoy the comments made by Mr Jonesy and Wanshanshan. I always thought the Talwar was a sure fire, but now I’ve new respect for the Duke!

it can intercept 2 targets at the same time provided as u mentioned they are within a certain azimuth 45 degrees maybe?

In the vertical plane only, maybe. But I’ve never heard or seen anything that would indicate Kashtan has this capability. So I’m sticking with 1 target for 1 fighting unit at any 1 time.

u do realise that croatle was temporary stop gap measure till sylver cells can be fitted in.

When is that going to be? It’s been 9 years since the first of class was commissioned. AFAIK all La Fayettes have been fitted with Crotale. Naval Technology states “The frigates may be upgraded with the vertical launch system (VLS) and Aster 15 missile from Eurosam and associated Thales Arabel fire control radar.” Doesn’t sound very definitive to me. I’ll believe it when I see it.

Its kashtan not kashtan-m btw.

Sorry, the producers beg to differ! See this

Yes, but that doesn’t mean each fighting module can use its 2 FC systems simultaneously on 2 different targets does it? Most radar tracker-illiminator radars these days also have IR/Optical equipment on the same mount. But use of a single mount means you can’t point radar one way and IR/optical components another so effectively you have one integrated sensor.

it can intercept 2 targets at the same time provided as u mentioned they are within a certain azimuth 45 degrees maybe?

Detection range perhaps but a search set getting an intermittent hit is a long way from a weapons track. If the attacker is sea skimming and is still, for some unfathomable reason, inbound on the ship he’s got another few kms to play with before he crosses the missile illuminator horizon!. Powerful as Shtil doubtless is its not shooting through the horizon!.

no SAM system can shoot beyond the horizon so that limitation applies to every single SAM system out there including SM-2,Aster and so on. But there is other factors such as EW/ECM that could delay the attacking aircrafts from clearly spoting the vessel and launching ashm unless they use some kinda of anti radiation missile.

Plus they then, after working so hard to manage the signature, went and bolted a Crotale Navale on the roof and blew the whole thing!.

u do realise that croatle was temporary stop gap measure till sylver cells can be fitted in.

Kashtan-M is a very good CIWS with Gun/Missile combo.

Its kashtan not kashtan-m btw.

Uhm, just a quicky question in between… when we’re talking about stealth are we in addition to RCS reduction also including reduction of electronic, thermal and noise signatures? I mean, it won’t help much to reduce RCS when you are emitting or when you’re giving of heat like crazy, will it?

@Jonesy: I see what you mean w.r.t. channels … for all practical intents and purposes their number is limited operationally.