Or perhaps replace both with one Kashtan-M or Pantsir-M per side.

You should be able to park 2×8 in place of a single AK630, see Rajput and Delhi conversions

Absolutely right. This is a very pertinent point thats come out of the Russian strike. There are several services tinkering around with escort hulls sporting a tiny number of strike length cells for a ‘token’ LACM capability. I bought into the concept as well….I liked the idea from a ‘punitive’ or ‘coercive’ angle. The Russians have now demonstrated the utter futility of the concept though. Not to detract from a light combatant being able to hit a land target at extreme range….thats obviously a new and novel dimension to small unit combat operations…..but…..in terms of strategic effect what have those strikes achieved to justify the dispatch of the flotilla and its subsequent theatre exit as it goes back to reload its tubes.

I think we have to take away the valuable lesson here, and cap doffed to the Russians for providing it, that, if you want to significantly impact a land campaign with naval-LACM fire you have to dedicate a lot more more hull volume than that provided for 8 or 16 ‘silver bullet’ shots.

Force multiplier: containerized launchers
[ATTACH=CONFIG]241132[/ATTACH]
Also available on truck and flatbed railcar….

Vietnam is considering a purchase of 3rd pair of Gepard class frigates.

Will it have 3R-14 UKSK VLS? Like the Russian 11661K (Dagestan) that played such an interesting role recently in the Caspian Sea?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]241130[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]241131[/ATTACH]

There are none on that ship.

Yes, i find that very curious too.

It is interesting because most site say it has 2 pairs of 533mm tubes, like Talwar. But it hasn’t.

Has anybody succeeded in locating torpedo launch tubes on the P17 ‘Shivalik class’?

Really just 25nm ? I thought it was 60nm range of RGM84A

Nah, just in the initial study….

In 1965 the U.S. Navy began studies for a missile in the 45 km (25 nm) range class for use against surfaced submarines. The name Harpoon was assigned to the project (i.e. a harpoon to kill “whales”, a naval slang term for submarines). After the sinking of the Isreali destroyer Eilat in 1967 by Soviet-built anti-ship missiles, the U.S. Navy saw the need to develop a dedicated anti-shipping missile, and therefore Harpoon’s primary mission became surface ship attack. The development project was formally begun in 1968, and the missile designator ZAGM-84A was allocated in 1970 after the Navy had issued a formal RFP (Request For Proposals). In June 1971, McDonnell Douglas was awarded the prime contract for Harpoon, and the first test missile flew in October 1972. By that time it had already been decided to develop air-launched, ship-launched and submarine-launched Harpoon variants, designated AGM-84A, RGM-84A and UGM-84A, respectively. Because the range requirement was increased to 90 km (50 nm), turbojet propulsion was selected by McDonnell Douglas. Production of the Harpoon began in 1975, and the first version to enter service was the shipborne RGM-84A in 1977, followed by the AGM-84A on P-3 aircraft in 1979. The UGM-84A became operational on attack submarines in 1981. There are also unarmed training versions of the AGM/RGM/UGM-84A, designated ATM-84A, RTM-84A and UTM-84A.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-84.html

Deliberate capability degradation of P-8I meant for India and why it matters-a classic case of ‘Strings Attached’

3 things not considered in the article:
– Isn’t the P-8I a step up from the capabilities of the Tu-142 and Il-38?
– Isn’t is a good thing to not get (and pay) for options you don’t use?
– must systems sold by Russia are export versions to begin with.