There have been dozens of these “we MAY buy foreign systems” announcements. Most of them turned out to be empty nonsense. Don’t worry, 22350 is getting domestic turbines, and the gun has already been stated as the A-192 130mm weapon.
Russia navy doesn’t need any of this to happen to its gun mounts:
THAT never happened to 127mm oto. (ANd I’m sure Russia has had its share of problems e.g. with twin 57mm guns.
Standard Frigate (Kortenaer/Elli) on Steroids
– 4×4 Harpoon, latest version.
– 76mm Oto front and rear (as on the Elli’s) – 120mm RPM version, with Strales/Davide
– 21-cell RAM port and starboard (where Phalanxes are on Elli but higher up to hangar roof level, akin to F122 Bremen)
– 1x 8 Cell Mk41 Self Defence with 32 ESSM immediately forward of the bridge (in place of the Mk29
– 4 MLG 27 remote controlled revolver cannon (2 near bridge, 2 underneath RAM launchers)
Replacement of Stir 2.4 with Mirador elop weapons control sensor.
Redesigned mainmast (maybe Thales I-mast variation):
WM25 dome replaced with SMART-S MK2 surveillance radar, similar to modification on ex-Heemskerck class L frigates
3x Stir 1.8 fitted to that mainmast (1 front, 1 left-rear, 1 right-rear)
SEASTAR and GATEKEEPER sensors
SEASTAR is a non-rotating active phased array radar for naval surface surveillance. The system automatically detects and tracks asymmetric threats and very small objects such as swimmers, periscopes in all weather conditions. It can also be used for helicopter guidance. GATEKEEPER is a 360° panoramic electro-optical surveillance and alerter system based on IR/TV technology, designed to counter emerging asymmetric threats down to small boats and swimmers
Improved CMS
maybe newer GTus for the power plant (2x LM2500+G4 with 2x LM500, or 2 RR MT-30 with RR4500 )
Aims:
Better situational awareness and firepower in littoral warfare scenario’s.
Improved air self defence (Improved detection/tracking, longer range ESSM, extra missile layer, longer ranged gun-CIWS with Strales/Davide)
Improved manouvrablility, accelleration and top speed, better fuel efficiency and thus range (or equal but at higher speed)
The indian navy has been remarquably coy about this whole incident. I can only guess that there was a major screw up in damage control and they’d rather not face tough questions. For example:
– We know from video footage that the collision was at fairly high speed but only at a glancing angle (seems like 30 degrees, bow on midships). How did that damage the boilers?
– The collision damage does not seem critical. The fire started only several hours later when everyone had been evacuated and the ship was sailed/towed back to a berth with only 7 meters depth, so the initial flooding can’t have been too bad. There was also time to unload the magazines.
– How come once the fire started it couldn’t be controlled by the ship’s DC equipment let alone all the help around it?
Pic taken at least 20min after the collision. Everything seems under control, no fire, no huge list, at least one engine room still working.
Text accompanying that link:
2 pics of INS Vindhyagiri taken after a collision with MV Nordlake.
The families on board were evacuated and tugs were being positioned to get the ship back to South Break Water.A sad day for a beautiful ship.
Families on board … !?!? Could this explain the apparently inadequate responses discussed above? What where those doing on board in the first place? What was the ship doing, having families on board?
Sign In
