Frames are not the same as Shtil VLS’. This almost confirms now it’s not Shtil, though I am guessing, by the use of Orekhs or Orekh like illuminators, have produced a compatible equivalent. Posted by planeman at the SDF.

Except, the pic you showed is of a launcher for Club/Brahmos (single lid, Shtil VL has smaller double lids.). IF those frames are what’s installed, then given the presence of Orekh for guidance, you’re looking at a relatively small SARH missile, which weighs against the active radar guided SD10 but leaves open the possibility of a modified 9M330 missile (Klinok/Tor/SA-N-9). Quite frankly, it would be great improvement IMHO if that missile could work with Orekhs also, rather than the bulky and cumbersome MR-360 Podkat/Cross Sword.

Well I bit more background info, I am in Spain near a Naval Base called Rota(Down in the south near Gibraltar) There is a lot of Navy and military airplanes around(Things like C-5s, F-16s and Helicopters). I saw 2 airplanes that looked a lot like A-4s.

Then I thought, does the Spanish Airforce use them?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/rota.htm

There is no inherent reason why any VLS should have 8 cells of multiples of 8 cells. While Mk41 and Sylver follow that pattern, as does Barak these days, there has been talk of putting 4 cell VL Mk41 derivative launchers (for quad packed ESSM) on board Taiwanese Perry frigates. Barak was originally advertised as flexible enough to have pairs of cells installed spread around a ship (or installed in vehicle). Sea Wolf (and I expect VL Mica, as this uses the same launch container) has been installed in 16 and 32 cell blocks. By contrast, russian VLs have followed the 8 round rotary drum pattern. These launcher have influenced the Chinese, but on 052C we see round 6 cell fixed VLu. Imagery shows that VL Shtil will likely come with 12 cell VLU ‘blocks’. Indian P15A is planned with 2×2 such blocks plus 2×8 VL Brahmos. These roughly have to fit the footprint now taken up in P15 by front and rear SRL Shtil. Similar installations are planned for second batch P17 frigates. I don’t see why similar fit could not go onto batch 2 Talwars.

As for relative sizes of Talwar and Type 054….

TALWAR class
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/d-talwar.htm
Displacement 3850 tons full load
Length 124.5 m , Beam 15.2 m , Draft 4.2 m
Speed 30 , Range 4600 miles @ 20 knots 1600 miles @ 30 knots
Endurance 30 days Crew 180 (18 officers)

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Talwar.html
Displacement: 3620 tons – standard.
…………..4035 tons – full load.

http://indiannavy.nic.in/frigates_talwar.htm
Displacement (Tonnes)
Full load 3,850
Dimension Length OA 126.5 M
Beam 14.8 M
Speed (knots) 27
Complement 313 (40 Officers including 13 aircrew)

TYPE 054/054A

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/maanshan-specs.htm
Displacement 3,000 tons (est.)

http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/surface/type054jiangkai.asp
Equipped with a mixture of Russian- and Chinese-made systems, the 3,400t frigate design incorporates strong stealth features similar to the French La Fayette class.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma’anshan_class_frigate
Length: ~125 m estimated
Width: 15 to 16 m estimated
Displacement: 3,000 to 3,900 tonnes estimated

LAFAYETTE class

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/lafayette/specs.html
overall length 125 metres
beam (waterline) 15.5 metres
Draught 5.85 metres
standard displacement 3,500 tons

So, Talwar is at least 3,620 and at most 4,035 tons for 125x15x4 hull.
Compared to 3,000 to 3,900 tons est. for 125x15x? for Type 054.
I’ld say they are very comparable sized ships.

Some nice pictures of PLAN’s South sea fleet

1. A bird’s eye view of 052C DDG 171 accompanied by a 053 frigate.
2. 052B DDG 168 firing the SA-N-12 missile

That last pic should silence those who claim the Shtil launchers on board these ships have very limited arc of movement in the horizontal plane.

Thanks for the blown-up pic. Even enlarged it looks rather strange. The shape does not really look like the outline of a bird(s).

—–JT—–

It’s a new, ultra secret mini-UAV :diablo:

Sterna sandvicensis a.k.a. Sandwich Tern

Family: Sternidae
Order: Charadriiformes

http://www.birdguides.com/html/vidlib/species/Sterna_sandvicensis.htm

Rajputs are quite old, Barak and Brahmos is perhaps all that the 2-3 newer ships will get.

I realize what perhaps only the three newest have enough life left in them to warrent refit. What I don’t understand is that one gets a RAWL radar, the other Barak and a new ELTA radar, and yet another gets Brahmos DLU. None get a complete refit. Why not take the best 1 (o 2 or 3 ships) and do a complete refit? Piecemeal installatoins don’t add up.

The “stealth” mounting for the Bofors 57mm on the Visby doesn’t look anything like the arrangement on this Schelde/Thales concept. However, the mouting on the American DDX is entirely different, at least externally. In fact, the 57mm gun housings on the Zumwalt will look very much like scaled down version of the 155mm AGS. Of course, they aren’t identicle in appearance to this Schelde concept, as they are free standing.

Of course, none of this changes the fact that the Schelde “Combatant 12717” has a tumblehome bow, and all of the enlarged Visby proposals are conventional in this regard. Any resemblance to the Visby is very slight.

No you’re right, no resemblance at all, particularly not if you consider the side view and look at the general hull shape and lay out. Or the outline of the forward gun. Also not in terms of the integrated topside. Hadn’t noticed the different bows at all. And the overall size difference either. Also didn’t considered the larger Visby plus design. How silly of me….