p 17 & type 052c comparison

[shubhamkumar]

p17

Name: Shivalik class
Builders: Mazagon Dock Limited
Operators:
Indian Navy Ensign
Indian Navy
Preceded by: Talwar class frigate
Succeeded by: Project 17A class frigate
Cost: INR2,600 crore (US$470.6 million)[1]
Planned: 3[2]
Completed: 3
Active: 3
General characteristics
Type: Guided-missile frigate
Displacement: Full: 6,200 tonnes [3][4][5]
Length: 142.5 m (468 ft)[6]
Beam: 16.9 m (55 ft)
Draught: 4.5 m (15 ft)
Propulsion: 2 x Pielstick 16 PA6 STC Diesel engines & 2 x GE LM2500+ boost turbines in CODOG configuration.
Speed: 32 knots (59 km/h)[7]
22 knots (41 km/h) (Diesel Engines)
Complement: 257 (35 officers)
Sensors and
processing systems: 1 x MR-760 Fregat M2EM 3-D radar
4 x MR-90 Orekh radar
1 x ELTA EL/M 2238 STAR
2 x ELTA EL/M 2221 STGR
1 x BEL APARNA
HUMSA (Hull Mounted Sonar Array)
ATAS/Thales Sintra towed array systems
Electronic warfare
and decoys: BEL Ajanta electronic warfare suite
Armament:

[8]

Guns:

1× 3.0 inch Otobreda, naval gun

Anti-ship missiles:

8× VLS launched Klub, anti-ship cruise missiles
or
8× VLS launched BrahMos, anti-ship cruise missiles

Anti-submarine warfare:

2× 2 DTA-53-956 torpedo launchers
2× RBU-6000 (RPK-8)rocket launchers

Anti-air missiles:

Shtil-1 missile system, with 24 short to medium range (30km) missiles

Close In Weapon Systems (CIWS):

Barak SAM-launcher CIWS
2× AK-630CIWS
Aircraft carried: 2x HAL Dhruv or Sea King Mk.42B helicopters.

type 052c
Builders: Jiangnan Shipyard
Operators: People's Liberation Army Navy
Preceded by: Type 052B
Succeeded by: Type 052D
Building: 3
Completed: 3
Active: 2
General characteristics
Displacement: 7,000 tons[1]
Length: 154 m
Beam: 17 m
Draught: 6 m
Propulsion: CODOG
57,000 shp
Speed: 30 knots
Complement: 280
Sensors and
processing systems: Type 348 Radar
Anti stealth radar with Yagi antenna
MR 331 fire control radar
Type 344 Radar
LR66/TR47C radar
Type 364 Radar
Armament: 48 HHQ-9 long-range surface-to-air missiles
8 C-805 anti-ship / land attack cruise missiles or
8 HN-2 land attack cruise missiles [2]or
8 YJ-62 anti-ship / land attack cruise missiles
1× Type 210 100 mm dual purpose gun
2 30mm Type 730 close-in weapons systems
6 torpedo tubes
4 x 18-tube decoy rocket launcher
Aircraft carried: 1 helicopter: Kamov Ka-27 or Harbin Z-9C ASW/SAR
Aviation facilities: Stern hangar
Helicopter landing platform



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...C_destroyer.jpg/300px-Type_052C_destroyer.jpg

 

[akellen]

It's not the same level competitors. P17 VS 054A should be more reasonable.

 

[Oldman1]

Frigate and destroyer is not a good comparison.

 

[shubhamkumar]

It's not the same level competitors. P17 VS 054A should be more reasonable.

do u have any strong stuff to counter the p 17 and otherwise 054A will not survive infront of the
P17

 

[akellen]

do u have any strong stuff to counter the p 17 and otherwise 054A will not survive infront of the
P17

P17 & 054A have similar Radar systems.
Propulsion system, P17 is better due to 2 LM2500.
Anti-submarine, P17 has 2 helicopters and 054A has only one. But 054A is able to lanuch Anti-submarine missile.
Air-defence system, 054A is better because the 32 units VLS.

Generally speaking, those two were designed and built for similar purpose. In addition, cost is a very important factor for morden weapons. Most subsystem in P17 were import but 054A wasn't. So you can find that there were over 2 dozens 054A joined in PLAN, how many P17 were built now?

 

[帅的一匹]

Not only cost , more importantly is how fast each navy could replenish those battleship in war time? Domestic vs imported

do u have any strong stuff to counter the p 17 and otherwise 054A will not survive infront of the
P17

Btw,where is p15 supposed to put in service many years ago?

 

[sweetgrape]

do u have any strong stuff to counter the p 17 and otherwise 054A will not survive infront of the
P17

054A is frigate, 052C is destroyer, P17 is frigate, 054A have 32 VLS units, 052C have 8 VLS units can launch 48 missiles, and 052C have AESA. Why do you like compare destryoer with frigate? What do you want to prove, you are superior to china?
Although the displacement of 054A is smaller than P17, Whether P17 are better than 054A, it is hard to said, and I know almost 18 054A have been launched, not count that under the contstruction, and I know that the first P17 spent you almost 10 years, Even now your shipbuilding ability suck, all the world know that. First leave more money for your industry, it will work in war time!

 

[Gessler]

This is not a fair comparison at all.

Here is an old chart of mine comparing Project-17 Shivalik v/s Type-054A Jiangkai-II

Project-17 Shivalik v/s Type-054A Jiangkai-II -

Displacement
P17 - 6200 tons
054 - 4053 tons

Aircraft carried
P17 - 2 x choppers
054 - 1 x chopper

Armament
P17 - 8 x BrahMos/Klub ASCMs (300km), 1 x Otobreda 76mm gun, 4 x DTA-53-956 torpedo
launchers, 2 x RBU- 6000 multiple rocket launchers (72 rockets), 24 x Shtil-1 SAMs (30km)
1 x Barak-1 SAM launchers (CIWS), 2 x AK-630 30mm CIWS guns
054 - 8 x C-802/803 ASCM/LACMs (>200km), 1 x 76mm gun, 6 x YU-7 torpedos, 6 x Type-87 anti-
sub MRLs (36 rockets), 32 x HQ-16 SAMs (30km), 2 x 30mm CIWS guns

Speed
P17 - 32 knots
054 - 30 knots (est.)

Dimensions
P17 - Length: 142.5m, Beam: 16.9m, Draught: 4.5m
054 - Length: 134m, Beam: 16m, Draught: (unknown)

Radar
P17 - MR-760 Fregat M2EM 3-D radar
054 - Type-382 3-D radar

Country of origin
P17 - Democratic Republic of India
054 - People's Republic of China

052C Luyang-II is not in P-17's class so I don't think it is rightful to compare them, I would compare it
only with the Project-15A Kolkata. Let's wait until it comes.

 

[peep]

A frigate(P17) is being compared with a frigate (054) ... what's the issue here ?

 

[Gessler]

A frigate(P17) is being compared with a frigate (054) ... what's the issue here ?

no the thread started with p-17 v/s the type-052c which is a destroyer, not a frigate.

054 is the frigate that i compared against, (with p-17), although i think 054a compares more favourably to
the russian krivak-3/4 (talwar-class) frigates that are in the same 4,000-ton category, while shivalik is 6,000+ tons

 

[Martian2]

Chinese Type 054A is indigenous. Indian P-17/Shivalik is 95% foreign.

China's Type 054A is an indigenous Chinese frigate. The Indian P-17/Shivalik only has an indigenous Indian sonar and EW. Every other system on the Indian P-17/Shivalik was purchased from a foreign country (see citation below).

What is the point of comparing an indigenous Chinese frigate to a mish-mash of foreign weapon, radar, and propulsion systems on the P-17/Shivalik?

Type 054A Jiangkai II Frigate. This is an indigenous Chinese frigate.

P-17/Shivalik frigate. Only the sonar and EW are Indian on this ship. All other important systems were purchased from a foreign country (see citation below). This does not look like an indigenous Indian frigate to me.

----------

Indian Navy afflicted with common defence diseases: Hopelessly low indigenisation and criminal cost overruns - Economic Times

"Indian Navy afflicted with common defence diseases: Hopelessly low indigenisation and criminal cost overruns
ET Bureau Aug 31, 2012, 06.02AM IST

C Uday Bhaskar

Visiting Fellow, National Maritime Foundation

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, while addressing Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) scientists in Delhi on July 31, drew timely attention to a perennial shortcoming of the Indian defence R&D and production sector: the low level of truly indigenous content in major platforms and the huge time and cost overruns.

While commending the DRDO for its contribution and the success achieved in high-visibility items such as the Agni V missile, Singh, in his characteristically low-key manner, noted with commendable candour, "The reality is that the share of indigenous content in defence procurement continues to be low. We need to take a hard look at the pipeline of our projects and focus our time and material resources on selected areas where we have demonstrated capacity to deliver projects within reasonable time and cost."

Established in 1958, the DRDO is over 50 years old and acquired its institutional credibility and relevance under the stewardship of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi when India was placed under a severe US-led technology denial regime after the peaceful nuclear test of May 1974.

Predictably, the national strategic military capability received the highest priority and the country's current missile and nuclear weapon profile was enabled due to the perseverance shown by the techno-scientific leadership of those decades that included Raja Ramanna, V S Arunachalam and Abdul Kalam who headedthe DRDO during a challenging period.

However, there are many areas where the DRDO has not been able to deliver as envisaged and the big-ticket items that are still stuck as it were include the main battle tank for the army and the light combat aircraft for the air force. Despite its progress in other sectors, India's truly indigenous defence production is woefully inadequate and the country has the dubious distinction of having a one-million-plus army but is unable to produce its own artillery gun - and the Bofors syndrome has afflicted the entire defence procurement and production edifice.

There is a perception, albeit misplaced, that it is only in the case of naval ship design and production that India has been able to make commendable strides, and that the Indian Navy is ahead of its larger peers - the army and the air force - as far as indigenisation is concerned. The commissioning of the stealth frigate, the INS Sahayadri, on July 21 in Mumbai is illustrative of this dominant perception.

The 6,300-tonne Sahayadri is the second in a series of three guided-missile frigates with stealth characteristics built at Mumbai's defence public sector Mazagon Docks and epitomises the observation made by the Prime Minister. Estimated to cost Rs 10,000 crore, the three frigates will undoubtedly add muscle to the Indian Navy, and defence minster A K Antony exhorted the shipbuilding fraternity to rise to the challenge and asserted, "The country's warship-building programme must meet the Navy's force-level requirements. Over the years, there has been a gradual shift from being a buyer's navy to a builder's navy."

Antony added that Indian shipbuilding must benchmark itself against the best international practices and urged the private sector to join in this endeavour. This, alas, is where the plot thickens, in a not-so-flattering manner.

The stealth frigate project is one of many ambitious procurement programmes that the Indian Navy has embarked upon and is portrayed as an example of India gradually making the transition from a 'buyer to a builder.' However the reality is more modest. A warship is indexed by the credibility and potency of its ordnance punch, precision guidance, surveillance and propulsion capabilities. A closer examination of the equipment fitted on the INS Sahayadri reveals that barring the electronic warfare kit and the sonar, every other significant inventory item - be it guns, missiles, radars or the engines - are all imported, with Russia, Israel and France being the major suppliers.

As the Prime Minister correctly observed, the indigenous content of major Indian military platforms is woefully low. And as for benchmarking them against the best international practices, the contrast is even more dismal.

The Sahayadri took over nine years from the laying of the keel to the commissioning - March 2003 to July 2012 - and this has become the norm for building a major naval ship in India. The first ship in the guided-missile destroyer class, the 6,800-tonne INS Delhi, took almost 10 years from keel to commissioning - and this is indicative of the timelines that prevail in Indian shipyards.

The track record for comparable ships in other countries is: China four years and Japan three years. Time overruns invariably translate into cost overruns and the fact that Indianyards take more than double the time to deliver a ship to the Navy does not augur well for the future.

By current reckoning, the country will allocate upwards of Rs 1,00,000 crore for naval shipbuilding over the next 10 years in domestic yards and clearly, the current indigenisation-cum-cost and time indicators need drastic and determined improvement.

This can happen only if the reality is accepted that there is an 'emperor's new clothes' syndrome at play as far as the country's defence production sector is concerned. The Tatra vehicle scandal is the tip of a murky iceberg of make-believe and this virus is widespread in other domains.

An objective techno-commercial and politico-strategic audit of the country's naval ship and submarine building is called for. Placing the sequestered Rama Rao committee report that reviewed the DRDO in the public domain will be a very useful starting point."

 

[Abdi-Karim Elmi]

No need for such comparison. Type 052C and D will distroy The indian frigate.

 

[peep]

^ typical rant out of frustration

 

[Gessler]

No need for such comparison. Type 052C and D will distroy The indian frigate.

Nope. PLAN frigates/destroyers carry C-802 type of ASCMs that have a max range between 180 and 200km and their speed doesn't exceed 0.8 Mach at cruise stage, making them easier to be intercepted by SAMs.

IN's BrahMos and Klub have a range of upto 300km and BrahMos can reach upto 2.8 Mach at cruise stage and rapidly drops altitude as it closes in, making it more difficult for SAMs to intercept them. IN vessels will have the cue to launch the first strike, the crucial one.

This is no place to dump your nocturnal emissions.

 

[Gessler]

@ Martian2

Do you think ships will enquire about each other's country of origin before attacking? If they don't, then your post is BS and useless. As long as it doesn't deliver better performance and is considered a better ship as a whole, %age of foreign components is irrelevent, coz they keep changing and evolving.

As a matter of fact, 054A is inferior to P-17. I don't agree with the part that its EW system and sonar are the only Indian stuff, who builds the hull? Who designs and shapes it, cuts it, moulds it, and who puts together all the stuff into a warship? Indians.

I don't agree with Type-054A being "indigenous" either. A lot of that ship is imported from foreign countries, copied, and produced under a chinese name. (The engine/propulsion of the Type-054A is designed by France). Even the most modern 100mm main gun of Type-052D is a plain copy of French systems. "95% chinese" my foot. Most of the radar systems, EW suites, and bridge systems are nothing but license-built versions of foreign equipment. Why do Chinese copy? Coz they can't design their own. Why do Indians buy? Bcoz of more or less the same reason. End of discussion.