P-18/Next Generation Destroyer class (NGD)

Bhurki

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2018
Messages
1,301
Likes
1,749
@Haldilal
The maximum cell size on UVLS is 9m x 0.85m x 0.85m.
The likes of DF -11(AZT) ballistic missile (PLARF has 1200+ of these) which can fit into the UVLS has a range of 700 km with a conventional warhead of 500 kg.

If PLA takes inspiration from the US (AGM-183A, LRHW), it could put a lighter 'gliding' warhead on top of this and achieve a 1000 mile attack capability relatively easily.
PLA already has the at-sea targeting capability to do that developed for the likes of carrier killers DF-21/26.

Such a weapon will be a step lower than the full-on carrier killers due to its smaller size warhead (probably kinetic only), but could provide assymmetric sensor takedown capability by targeting AEGIS ships etc.

The sub systems required are all present, its just a question of whether PLAN has married them to each other or not.
 

swapcv

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2014
Messages
133
Likes
662
Country flag
Ya'll Nibbiars Clearly how a dreadnought changed the battleship. The large Cruiser we are seeing now getting into service will probably have ABM and may be also have the Ballastic missiles.
Current cruiser classes tbh, are still not even in "Large Cruiser" territory be it in dimensions or even displacement. In WW2, there were already Gunned Cruisers that were 30% larger and 3-5000tons heavier in displacement, honorable mentions being the Italian cruisers after the Trento class, US Heavy Cruisers after the New Orleans class including the autoloader equipped Des Moines class, Japanese Cruisers built after the Aoba class and last but not the least the Deutschland class "Panzerschiff" and their more traditional successors, the Hipper class cruiser. Largest "Cruiser" ever commissioned during the same period was the Alaska class, a 808ftx91ftx32ft behemoth that was for most intents and purposes a Battlecruiser and currently only rivalled by the Kirov class CG(N). Going by "cruiser" standards we can start calling something a "large cruiser" if it exceeds 18000tons in standard displacement and 600ft in length if you go by the Dimension/Displacement metric.
 

Marliii

Better to die on your feet than live on your knees
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2020
Messages
4,182
Likes
22,881
Country flag
Current cruiser classes tbh, are still not even in "Large Cruiser" territory be it in dimensions or even displacement. In WW2, there were already Gunned Cruisers that were 30% larger and 3-5000tons heavier in displacement, honorable mentions being the Italian cruisers after the Trento class, US Heavy Cruisers after the New Orleans class including the autoloader equipped Des Moines class, Japanese Cruisers built after the Aoba class and last but not the least the Deutschland class "Panzerschiff" and their more traditional successors, the Hipper class cruiser. Largest "Cruiser" ever commissioned during the same period was the Alaska class, a 808ftx91ftx32ft behemoth that was for most intents and purposes a Battlecruiser and currently only rivalled by the Kirov class CG(N). Going by "cruiser" standards we can start calling something a "large cruiser" if it exceeds 18000tons in standard displacement and 600ft in length if you go by the Dimension/Displacement metric.
Ww2 era cruisers have armor so the displacement can vary and cruisers were prohibited to 10,000 tonnes according to washington treaty
 

swapcv

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2014
Messages
133
Likes
662
Country flag
Ww2 era cruisers have armor so the displacement can vary and cruisers were prohibited to 10,000 tonnes according to washington treaty
Washington Treaty was superceeded by the London treaty and nope, even though nominally Cruiser tonnage was limited to 10000tons, by the mid 1930's almost 4-5 years before hostilities broke out most powers were already building or designing Cruisers well beyond that treaty limit. The Japanese were the first to break the limits, followed by the Italians and the Germans. US followed suit when the First and Second Vinson Acts. were passed with examples like Baltimore class, Oregon city class, and finally Des Moines class. Even some light cruiser designs by the US rivalled their heavy cruiser peers tonnage wise.
 

Haldilal

लड़ते लड़ते जीना है, लड़ते लड़ते मरना है
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
21,884
Likes
75,324
Country flag
Current cruiser classes tbh, are still not even in "Large Cruiser" territory be it in dimensions or even displacement. In WW2, there were already Gunned Cruisers that were 30% larger and 3-5000tons heavier in displacement, honorable mentions being the Italian cruisers after the Trento class, US Heavy Cruisers after the New Orleans class including the autoloader equipped Des Moines class, Japanese Cruisers built after the Aoba class and last but not the least the Deutschland class "Panzerschiff" and their more traditional successors, the Hipper class cruiser. Largest "Cruiser" ever commissioned during the same period was the Alaska class, a 808ftx91ftx32ft behemoth that was for most intents and purposes a Battlecruiser and currently only rivalled by the Kirov class CG(N). Going by "cruiser" standards we can start calling something a "large cruiser" if it exceeds 18000tons in standard displacement and 600ft in length if you go by the Dimension/Displacement metric.
Ya'll Nibbiars capabilities wise even the Corvette posses greater fire power than the WW 2 era Cruisers.
 

swapcv

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2014
Messages
133
Likes
662
Country flag
Ya'll Nibbiars capabilities wise even the Corvette posses greater fire power than the WW 2 era Cruisers.
True, but then except for a few classes, and by size and displacement, they don't even exceed the displacement of some WW2 Tin cans either.
 

Haldilal

लड़ते लड़ते जीना है, लड़ते लड़ते मरना है
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
21,884
Likes
75,324
Country flag
True, but then except for a few classes, and by size and displacement, they don't even exceed the displacement of some WW2 Tin cans either.
Ya'll Nibbiars I said dreadnought not battleship. The Initail dreadnought were of 13,000 tons to 25,000 tons displacements.
 

swapcv

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2014
Messages
133
Likes
662
Country flag
Ya'll Nibbiars I said dreadnought not battleship. The Initail dreadnought were of 13,000 tons to 25,000 tons displacements.
I mean even some pre-Dreadnoughts displaced less than some "cough" "cough" Cruisers in the guise of a Destroyer like the KDX-III and Type 055 if you are going that far back. But so far as Cruisers go, their classification has remained more or less same since WW2 atleast with minor tweaks with CA and CL merging into a single CG line to signify their ability to fire guided missiles. Going to disregard some latest DDG classes which are now beginning to encroach into the Cruiser role because aside from their erroneous classification for political purpose, they are for all intents and purposes approaching CG capabilities.
 

Haldilal

लड़ते लड़ते जीना है, लड़ते लड़ते मरना है
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
21,884
Likes
75,324
Country flag
I mean even some pre-Dreadnoughts displaced less than some "cough" "cough" Cruisers in the guise of a Destroyer like the KDX-III and Type 055 if you are going that far back. But so far as Cruisers go, their classification has remained more or less same since WW2 atleast with minor tweaks with CA and CL merging into a single CG line to signify their ability to fire guided missiles. Going to disregard some latest DDG classes which are now beginning to encroach into the Cruiser role because aside from their erroneous classification for political purpose, they are for all intents and purposes approaching CG capabilities.
Ya'll Nibbiars this can be said as the Super Destroyers.
 

Gessler

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
2,225
Likes
10,527
Country flag
Bhai ye kya laga rakha hai.

What does it matter what its called, what matters is what capabilities it delivers.

First of all, we have no confirmed information regarding how big it will be (only source mentioning displacement is IDRW which is sh!t-tier as far as defence sources go).

Second of all, even if it is 13,000 tons, if the Indian Navy says its a Destroyer, then a destroyer it is. Doesn't matter how much it displaces.

It was the IN that called 4900-ton Rajput as Destroyer.
It was the IN that called 7400-ton Kolkata as Destroyer.
If IN calls 13,000-ton P18 as Destroyer, then so be it. It's a destroyer.

There is really no 'global standard' set by some authority that the world's ships align to, each Navy defines whats a frigate, whats a destroyer by itself, using its own measures.

US calls its 15,600-ton Zumwalt as destroyer, China calls its 13,000-ton Type 055 as destroyer. Why shouldn't India?
 

Haldilal

लड़ते लड़ते जीना है, लड़ते लड़ते मरना है
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
21,884
Likes
75,324
Country flag
Bhai ye kya laga rakha hai.

What does it matter what its called, what matters is what capabilities it delivers.

First of all, we have no confirmed information regarding how big it will be (only source mentioning displacement is IDRW which is sh!t-tier as far as defence sources go).

Second of all, even if it is 13,000 tons, if the Indian Navy says its a Destroyer, then a destroyer it is. Doesn't matter how much it displaces.

It was the IN that called 4900-ton Rajput as Destroyer.
It was the IN that called 7400-ton Kolkata as Destroyer.
If IN calls 13,000-ton P18 as Destroyer, then so be it. It's a destroyer.

There is really no 'global standard' set by some authority that the world's ships align to, each Navy defines whats a frigate, whats a destroyer by itself, using its own measures.

US calls its 15,600-ton Zumwalt as destroyer, China calls its 13,000-ton Type 055 as destroyer. Why shouldn't India?
Ya'll Nibbiars The PLAN calls its Type 55 calls as a Destroyers but American classify its as a Cruiser. A Kamorta is classified as a corvettes but many countries corvettes are sampler than them. Just see the Type 54 class they are only a little bit larger but are classifieds as frigates and the older ships were are also classified as the same. Let the name decides. But I can call them th super Destroyers and many calls the same as they have much greater capabilities than the current ones.
 

swapcv

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2014
Messages
133
Likes
662
Country flag
Bhai ye kya laga rakha hai.

What does it matter what its called, what matters is what capabilities it delivers.

First of all, we have no confirmed information regarding how big it will be (only source mentioning displacement is IDRW which is sh!t-tier as far as defence sources go).

Second of all, even if it is 13,000 tons, if the Indian Navy says its a Destroyer, then a destroyer it is. Doesn't matter how much it displaces.

It was the IN that called 4900-ton Rajput as Destroyer.
It was the IN that called 7400-ton Kolkata as Destroyer.
If IN calls 13,000-ton P18 as Destroyer, then so be it. It's a destroyer.

There is really no 'global standard' set by some authority that the world's ships align to, each Navy defines whats a frigate, whats a destroyer by itself, using its own measures.

US calls its 15,600-ton Zumwalt as destroyer, China calls its 13,000-ton Type 055 as destroyer. Why shouldn't India?
Baat yeh hae, ki most classifications nowadays is done as pure obfuscation to hide it's true role or it's true capabilities. While this may seem moot in this day and age, since the definition has'nt changed so will not the classification regardless of what the operating nation might call it. Imagine calling the Hyuga class and Izumo class as Helicopter Destroyers, would you even believe that? Same logic applies to the distinction between a DDG or a CG. And technically most large destroyers including the Zumwalt are designed with capabilities and command functions approaching or matching that of a Cruiser, so what it's called is just another obfuscation.
 

Gessler

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
2,225
Likes
10,527
Country flag
Baat yeh hae, ki most classifications nowadays is done as pure obfuscation to hide it's true role or it's true capabilities. While this may seem moot in this day and age, since the definition has'nt changed so will not the classification regardless of what the operating nation might call it. Imagine calling the Hyuga class and Izumo class as Helicopter Destroyers, would you even believe that? Same logic applies to the distinction between a DDG or a CG. And technically most large destroyers including the Zumwalt are designed with capabilities and command functions approaching or matching that of a Cruiser, so what it's called is just another obfuscation.
Then let's obfuscate :hat:
 

Bhurki

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2018
Messages
1,301
Likes
1,749
Classifications of the old times are largely irrelevant now. Reason being every quantum of capability was tied with the tonnage of a ship class.

Nowadays, classification is directly a function of capability in a certain domain and ability to lead in that mission domain to certain degree.

1) A frigate is the smallest ship that you want to send on independent missions out of littoral waters. But, although it can do its mission independently, it'll still require assistance from larger class of ships to handle any extra mission weights (like an ASW frigate having to also conduct an A2/AD in a contested area).

2) A destroyer is a truly independent class of ship that can conduct multiple missions simultaneously without any aid from its fleet.

3) A cruiser is basically the flag ship of a fleet. The extra capabilities required for a ship to be a cruiser over a destroyer are its C2 (command and control) capabilities.
This is what makes a Zumwalt a destroyer and Tico a cruiser (which has a dedicated admin space for Fleet Air Defense Commander). Although Zumwalt might still be able to house an ADC, he'll be operating through its newer CEC based command system as a node rather than having dedicated equipment to direct the mission.

Its logical that as capabilities increase, the tonnage of ships increases, but the stratification is more blurred at present than in the past.
 

Sir pe tapla

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2021
Messages
458
Likes
2,198
Country flag
Classifications of the old times are largely irrelevant now. Reason being every quantum of capability was tied with the tonnage of a ship class.

Nowadays, classification is directly a function of capability in a certain domain and ability to lead in that mission domain to certain degree.

1) A frigate is the smallest ship that you want to send on independent missions out of littoral waters. But, although it can do its mission independently, it'll still require assistance from larger class of ships to handle any extra mission weights (like an ASW frigate having to also conduct an A2/AD in a contested area).

2) A destroyer is a truly independent class of ship that can conduct multiple missions simultaneously without any aid from its fleet.

3) A cruiser is basically the flag ship of a fleet. The extra capabilities required for a ship to be a cruiser over a destroyer are its C2 (command and control) capabilities.
This is what makes a Zumwalt a destroyer and Tico a cruiser (which has a dedicated admin space for Fleet Air Defense Commander). Although Zumwalt might still be able to house an ADC, he'll be operating through its newer CEC based command system as a node rather than having dedicated equipment to direct the mission.

Its logical that as capabilities increase, the tonnage of ships increases, but the stratification is more blurred at present than in the past.
What about corvettes? I thought it was the smallest one out of littoral waters.
 

Latest Replies

Articles

Top