P-18/Next Generation Destroyer class (NGD)

johnj

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2021
Messages
57
Likes
126
Country flag
A Wiki style possible P-18 configuration,

Hull Form : Enlarged P-15B with more flush deck profile.
Dimensions : 170-180m LOA, 18-20m Beam, 6.5-7m draft
Displacement : 12000t (Light Ship), 13000t (Std.), 13500t (Dead)
Propulsion :
Option I : 4xLM2500+G4 in COGAG arrangement,
Option II : 2xMT30+2xLM2500+G4 in COGAG,
Option III : 2xLM2500+G4 or 2xMT30+2xDiesel Gen in CODLAG,
Option IV : 2xMT30+2xTurbine Gen for IEP.

Speed : 30+kts
Range/Endurance : 8000nm @16kts, 45-60 days at sea without replenishment.
Crew : 200-250 with additional Flagship facilities and HADR accomodations.
Decoys and EW Systems :
Kavach or NULKA Decoy launchers,
ELBIT Deseaver MK or AN/SLQ-32(V)7 SEWIP EWS or BEL Ajanta EWS

Sensors, Processing Systems :
DRDO LR-MFR
BEL Revathi CAR
BEL HUMSA-NG Bow Sonar + Possible VDS or TACTAS eg : Thales 2087

Armament :
2xOTO Melara 76mm SRGM or 1 BAE Mk.45 127mm+1 OTO Melara 76mm Sovraponte
(Contingent on Fincantieri buying out OTO Melara's Gun business)
4x8 UVLM for Brahmos/Brahmos Mk.II, Nirbhay LACM, DRDO SMART
8x8 VLS for Barak 8/8-ER SAM,
2-4 AK-630 CIWS or 2 SEARAM + 2 Phalanx or 2 SEARAM + 2 Typhoon WS
2x 533mm Torpedo Tubes with adapters for 324mm torpedos (Varunastra, TAL Shyena or ALWT)
Multiple crew served stations for 7.62mm MG or 12.7mm MG,
Directed Energy Weapons (FFBNW)

Aviation and Miscellaneous facilities :
2 Enclosed Hangars capable of handling MH-60R, HAL Dhruv and HAL LUH
Large Chinook or IMRH capable flightdeck
2 Multi-mission bays capable of hosting RHIB's, Containerized loads and additional payloads.
what about full electric propulsion, irst-tv- optical sensor, qrsam/srsam,reduced crew/automation, dual [x/s] band sensor, l band sensor, rail gun ?
 

Gandaberunda

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Apr 6, 2019
Messages
1,567
Likes
7,067
Country flag
how good is their defence and offence capability compared to other blue water war ship. Having a long endurance and sea level means it can travel long distance, oceans, seas etc but not blue water capability for warship which comes under offence/defence cat. Adding long range ssm can do.
It doesn't work like that. Ships are built based on what doctrine the navy comes up with. Indian navy wants to become regional power dominating Indian Ocean and provide security. We don't have any doctrine to deploy ships on combat beyond Indian Ocean or threaten other Navy ships beyond our territory. USA built zumwat class destroyers because us navy doctrine wanted destroyer to attack shore based land targets than Arial targets... We can't build ships out of our doctrine just to look like blue water navy and lack startergical depth.
 

swapcv

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2014
Messages
86
Likes
381
Country flag
what about full electric propulsion, irst-tv- optical sensor, qrsam/srsam,reduced crew/automation, dual [x/s] band sensor, l band sensor, rail gun ?
IEP = Integrated Electric Propulsion btw, IRST/Electro-Optic Sensors will come integrated with either the gun mount itself or as a seperate package and since there is no definitive desi version I've not included it yet. As for Dual Band Radar, LR-MFR is going to be a DBR. And as for QRSAM, SRSAM, Since there is no definitive RAM Style mount or our Navy's intention of Quadpacking it in the UVLM I've omitted it as well. No rail gun for the same reason, I see a Directed Energy Weapon coming to our ships quicker than a Railgun which requires very high electricity generating capabilities.
 

johnj

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2021
Messages
57
Likes
126
Country flag
It doesn't work like that. Ships are built based on what doctrine the navy comes up with. Indian navy wants to become regional power dominating Indian Ocean and provide security. We don't have any doctrine to deploy ships on combat beyond Indian Ocean or threaten other Navy ships beyond our territory. USA built zumwat class destroyers because us navy doctrine wanted destroyer to attack shore based land targets than Arial targets... We can't build ships out of our doctrine just to look like blue water navy and lack startergical depth.
first of all, not talking about IN or any navy doctrine, but about corvette ship and its blue water capability.
now back to the topic, p-18, similar to zumwatt class, but less stealth and capability. usan wanted cgx and ddx but no money, so just 3 ddg zum class, no ammo for rail gun, AD capability limited etc and building upgrated old design. IN wanted 3 cbg, and 4 lhd, plus landing craft etc, means navy very happy to have zumwalt type. IN having the responsibility to safe guard island as well.
 

johnj

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2021
Messages
57
Likes
126
Country flag
IEP = Integrated Electric Propulsion btw, IRST/Electro-Optic Sensors will come integrated with either the gun mount itself or as a seperate package and since there is no definitive desi version I've not included it yet. As for Dual Band Radar, LR-MFR is going to be a DBR. And as for QRSAM, SRSAM, Since there is no definitive RAM Style mount or our Navy's intention of Quadpacking it in the UVLM I've omitted it as well. No rail gun for the same reason, I see a Directed Energy Weapon coming to our ships quicker than a Railgun which requires very high electricity generating capabilities.
navy shown interested in iep in future boats. gun mainly use rf sensor[our boats as of now, need more info. IN used/using barak1, and drdo developed srsam. anyways nex gen ddg need qrsrsam if it using barak lr[150km].
DEW replace ciws.
 

swapcv

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2014
Messages
86
Likes
381
Country flag
navy shown interested in iep in future boats. gun mainly use rf sensor[our boats as of now, need more info. IN used/using barak1, and drdo developed srsam. anyways nex gen ddg need qrsrsam if it using barak lr[150km].
DEW replace ciws.
DEW cannot replace CIWS, one cannot rely on them simply because they don't exist right now and will take time to become as mature and dependable as current CIWS systems. Also going by lessons learned from Falklands War, Iran-Iraq war and the Gulf War wrt to high speed AShM's and other low flying high speed enemy aircraft, it is always good to have more than one system on a QRA style standby to deal with them and having only one principal system cannot always be a good idea. In fact it is due to these experiences, that warships began to be equipped for defence in depth style systems where in a single threat will have to run the gauntlet of being countered by multiple systems. In this context, one prefers a SAM with very long range (SM-2/SM-6/HHQ-9B/Barak 8/8ER/Aster 15/30) followed by perhaps a short range SAM (ESSM/RAM/Barak 1/CAMM/CAMM-ER) thereafter which it will have to run the gauntlet of CIWS such as SEARAM, Phalanx, Goalkeeper, Kashtan, Pantsir etc. VL-SRSAM unless it can be quadpacked into the UVLM of DDG's will not make the grade and since it is a short range missile, it is suitable for vessels smaller than a frigate.
 

THESIS THORON

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2021
Messages
1,417
Likes
6,560
Country flag
A Wiki style possible P-18 configuration,

Hull Form : Enlarged P-15B with more flush deck profile.
Dimensions : 170-180m LOA, 18-20m Beam, 6.5-7m draft
Displacement : 12000t (Light Ship), 13000t (Std.), 13500t (Dead)
Propulsion :
Option I : 4xLM2500+G4 in COGAG arrangement,
Option II : 2xMT30+2xLM2500+G4 in COGAG,
Option III : 2xLM2500+G4 or 2xMT30+2xDiesel Gen in CODLAG,
Option IV : 2xMT30+2xTurbine Gen for IEP.

Speed : 30+kts
Range/Endurance : 8000nm @16kts, 45-60 days at sea without replenishment.
Crew : 200-250 with additional Flagship facilities and HADR accomodations.
Decoys and EW Systems :
Kavach or NULKA Decoy launchers,
ELBIT Deseaver MK or AN/SLQ-32(V)7 SEWIP EWS or BEL Ajanta EWS

Sensors, Processing Systems :
DRDO LR-MFR
BEL Revathi CAR
BEL HUMSA-NG Bow Sonar + Possible VDS or TACTAS eg : Thales 2087

Armament :
2xOTO Melara 76mm SRGM or 1 BAE Mk.45 127mm+1 OTO Melara 76mm Sovraponte
(Contingent on Fincantieri buying out OTO Melara's Gun business)
4x8 UVLM for Brahmos/Brahmos Mk.II, Nirbhay LACM, DRDO SMART
8x8 VLS for Barak 8/8-ER SAM,
2-4 AK-630 CIWS or 2 SEARAM + 2 Phalanx or 2 SEARAM + 2 Typhoon WS
2x 533mm Torpedo Tubes with adapters for 324mm torpedos (Varunastra, TAL Shyena or ALWT)
Multiple crew served stations for 7.62mm MG or 12.7mm MG,
Directed Energy Weapons (FFBNW)

Aviation and Miscellaneous facilities :
2 Enclosed Hangars capable of handling MH-60R, HAL Dhruv and HAL LUH
Large Chinook or IMRH capable flightdeck
2 Multi-mission bays capable of hosting RHIB's, Containerized loads and additional payloads.

imo replace ottomelara with atags
 

swapcv

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2014
Messages
86
Likes
381
Country flag
imo replace ottomelara with atags
Navalizing it is more pain than worth it, also ATAGS is too large calibre now and even with an Autoloader will give say what 12-15 maybe with enhancements 20 rounds/min in sustained firing? 127mm gun mounts achieve almost double that and the 76mm is almost ten times that of a 152mm gun. RoF is very crucial when dealing with small, fast moving targets as well. You need shells downrange, and more the better.
 

johnj

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2021
Messages
57
Likes
126
Country flag
DEW cannot replace CIWS, one cannot rely on them simply because they don't exist right now and will take time to become as mature and dependable as current CIWS systems. Also going by lessons learned from Falklands War, Iran-Iraq war and the Gulf War wrt to high speed AShM's and other low flying high speed enemy aircraft, it is always good to have more than one system on a QRA style standby to deal with them and having only one principal system cannot always be a good idea. In fact it is due to these experiences, that warships began to be equipped for defence in depth style systems where in a single threat will have to run the gauntlet of being countered by multiple systems. In this context, one prefers a SAM with very long range (SM-2/SM-6/HHQ-9B/Barak 8/8ER/Aster 15/30) followed by perhaps a short range SAM (ESSM/RAM/Barak 1/CAMM/CAMM-ER) thereafter which it will have to run the gauntlet of CIWS such as SEARAM, Phalanx, Goalkeeper, Kashtan, Pantsir etc. VL-SRSAM unless it can be quadpacked into the UVLM of DDG's will not make the grade and since it is a short range missile, it is suitable for vessels smaller than a frigate.
first of all, dew is meant to replace ciws and its under testing for a long time. considering high speed and low flying ashm, both usn and israel navy replace gun ciws with missiles- ram,sea drome. both are ciws. essm is medium range, camm-er medium range. aster 15 srsam. camm - qrsrsam like barak1 replacement. sm2 series from long to exo with near hypersonic.each sam have its own advantage and disadvantages. quad packing. packing depend on vls, not missile. if a missile designed upon a common vls, then packing is good and right now, only usa, eu, china having such one, india dont. brahmos use its own vls. barak1 its own. baral8/er its own etc, so no quad packing for now. issue is with brahmos, huge and 3ton. and smart. just image 128 uvlas, a boat of 150000t plus. and not going to work because torpedo decoy, depth charge etc cant fit. also drdo having zero plan for such. back to sam. barak8 vs er. barak8 - qr/sr/mr sam[unique] and barak8er lr sam, means if p18 choose barak8, then it need qrsrsam like camm, or like you said, high speed AShM's and other low flying high speed plus low speed/high speed thermal low flying sea skimming stealth missile can easily target p18. quad packing means. putting four missile in one cell and navy dont need such capability right now and until drdo develop and certify 1500km hypersonic anti air/space missile, 1500km naval ssm both cruise and non, or replacing brahmos with 1t/1.5tkg missile and no to ship based smart. or keeping common vls for air defence missile and another for surface/sea attack missile, and you see drdo dont have any such plans. drdo also dont have plans for barak8/er replacement. quad packed missiles- essm medium sam similar to barak8, sea captor qrsrsam, cammer er mrsam, except medium range sam, srsam having single packed vls. your theory is not correct for p18, becz why quad pack. usn vls too big and carry four folding wing sea sparrow[essm], and sylver big enough for 4 camm and sylver having different versions, none of them applicable to IN and DRDO. I still need suggestions on iep of p18 and rf sensor, plus eots. quad pack only possible if barak8er vls capable of carrying 4 qr/sr sam. and building a suitable canisters
 

swapcv

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2014
Messages
86
Likes
381
Country flag
first of all, dew is meant to replace ciws and its under testing for a long time. considering high speed and low flying ashm, both usn and israel navy replace gun ciws with missiles- ram,sea drome. both are ciws. essm is medium range, camm-er medium range. aster 15 srsam. camm - qrsrsam like barak1 replacement. sm2 series from long to exo with near hypersonic.each sam have its own advantage and disadvantages. quad packing. packing depend on vls, not missile. if a missile designed upon a common vls, then packing is good and right now, only usa, eu, china having such one, india dont. brahmos use its own vls. barak1 its own. baral8/er its own etc, so no quad packing for now. issue is with brahmos, huge and 3ton. and smart. just image 128 uvlas, a boat of 150000t plus. and not going to work because torpedo decoy, depth charge etc cant fit. also drdo having zero plan for such. back to sam. barak8 vs er. barak8 - qr/sr/mr sam[unique] and barak8er lr sam, means if p18 choose barak8, then it need qrsrsam like camm, or like you said, high speed AShM's and other low flying high speed plus low speed/high speed thermal low flying sea skimming stealth missile can easily target p18. quad packing means. putting four missile in one cell and navy dont need such capability right now and until drdo develop and certify 1500km hypersonic anti air/space missile, 1500km naval ssm both cruise and non, or replacing brahmos with 1t/1.5tkg missile and no to ship based smart. or keeping common vls for air defence missile and another for surface/sea attack missile, and you see drdo dont have any such plans. drdo also dont have plans for barak8/er replacement. quad packed missiles- essm medium sam similar to barak8, sea captor qrsrsam, cammer er mrsam, except medium range sam, srsam having single packed vls. your theory is not correct for p18, becz why quad pack. usn vls too big and carry four folding wing sea sparrow[essm], and sylver big enough for 4 camm and sylver having different versions, none of them applicable to IN and DRDO. I still need suggestions on iep of p18 and rf sensor, plus eots. quad pack only possible if barak8er vls capable of carrying 4 qr/sr sam. and building a suitable canisters
TLDR bhai, you're going in circles. And we don't need to play Joneses with the USN or PLAN. And I've made it acutely clear that on warships, space is at a premium and since QRSAM isn't meant for Navy, they won't make it onboard. VL-SRSAM on the other hand will only be considered if if can be quadpacked into existing UVLM modules or else the Navy isn't gonna put a third VLS module just to host it. And, no sorry, DEW will never be able to fully replace existing CIWS because current warships and even future ones to an extent just don't have the required power generating capabilities to host either that or a railgun. DEW unlike Phalanx isn't simply plug and play type systems. You need to spare decent amount of power for it and so far current DEW's have been short range, low power systems only. To really replace a CIWS, it also has to demonstrate reliability on the same level as a current system, so it has a long way to go.
 
Last edited:

johnj

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2021
Messages
57
Likes
126
Country flag
TLDR bhai, you're going in circles. And we don't need to play Joneses with the USN or PLAN. And I've made it acutely clear that on warships, space is at a premium and since QRSAM isn't meant for Navy, they won't make it onboard. VL-SRSAM on the other hand will only be considered if if can be quadpacked into existing UVLM modules or else the Navy isn't gonna put a third VLS module just to host it. And, no sorry, DEW will never be able to fully replace existing CIWS because current warships and even future ones to an extent just don't have the required power generating capabilities to host either that or a railgun. DEW unlike Phalanx isn't simply plug and play type systems. You need to spare decent amount of power for it and so far current DEW's have been short range, low power systems only. To really replace a CIWS, it also has to demonstrate reliability on the same level as a current system, so it has a long way to go.
tldr- my bad, google plus writing. in simple, there is no quad pack and no barak8er, only barak8 for p18. quad pack in uvls is most stupid thing, no country do such thing. you confused with qrsrsam camm vs mrsam essm. both are different and cant compare quad packing. IN asked for qrsrsam not vl srsam. barak8 better than barak8er unless there is no qrsrsam. DEW you are right, need more time even for usa, israel. ddg1000, ford class have enough power for dew. barak8 is qr-sr-mr sam, but barak8er mr-lr sam.
considering your theory p18 comes with barak8 70-100km and barak8er 150km and no quad packing.
 

Okabe Rintarou

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
1,104
Likes
4,686
Country flag
tldr- my bad, google plus writing. in simple, there is no quad pack and no barak8er, only barak8 for p18. quad pack in uvls is most stupid thing, no country do such thing. you confused with qrsrsam camm vs mrsam essm. both are different and cant compare quad packing. IN asked for qrsrsam not vl srsam. barak8 better than barak8er unless there is no qrsrsam. DEW you are right, need more time even for usa, israel. ddg1000, ford class have enough power for dew. barak8 is qr-sr-mr sam, but barak8er mr-lr sam.
considering your theory p18 comes with barak8 70-100km and barak8er 150km and no quad packing.
1.) ESSM, CAMM and VL-SRSAM are all point defence SAMs. Similar to Sea Wolf or Barak-1. (Don't say SeaRAM, that is a CIWS).
2.) ESSM is quad-packed, its not "stupid".
3.) QRSAM requires multiple trainable launchers for which a ship doesn't have enough space. VL-SRSAM was built specifically for Naval requirement and is a successor of earlier projects like Maitri and Trishul. Navy opted for Barak-1 after Trishul's failure. Now you'll see all ships of classes Kamorta, P-15A and P-15B being equipped by multiple 8-Cell launchers of VL-SRSAM.
 

johnj

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2021
Messages
57
Likes
126
Country flag
1.) ESSM, CAMM and VL-SRSAM are all point defence SAMs. Similar to Sea Wolf or Barak-1. (Don't say SeaRAM, that is a CIWS).
2.) ESSM is quad-packed, its not "stupid".
3.) QRSAM requires multiple trainable launchers for which a ship doesn't have enough space. VL-SRSAM was built specifically for Naval requirement and is a successor of earlier projects like Maitri and Trishul. Navy opted for Barak-1 after Trishul's failure. Now you'll see all ships of classes Kamorta, P-15A and P-15B being equipped by multiple 8-Cell launchers of VL-SRSAM.
!. wrong. essm is a medium range sam with range 50km bigger and faster than barak8 and like astra. usn use ram for point defence and essm for aera defence and similar to barak8. sea sparrow is point defence. essm is quad packed in large vls, its a bigger missile and usn use sm2 series amd tomahwak so no problem and IN dont till date and uvls too big and take large space.
2. yes not stupid, but Im talking about your theory, becz funny thing is if vlsam quad pack fit in uvls then bara8 can do the same, and just compare barak vls and brahmos uvls. and stupidity is navy need qr sam capability and navy having no provlem with non quad pack srsam or space restriction.
3. camm is qrsam and use vls. barak1 brought to counter harpoon and not related to any drdo pgrm. IN asked for qrsam [uk offered camm] and not vlsrsam. unfortunately navy need to happy with vl srsam. Nope, navy only going to equip non barak8 boats with vl sam and if goes for lrsam with out qr capability.
Im following defence articles for 22 years, from 1999. You need to uderstand there is no quadpack for IN [barak8/camm/vl sam] and navy need qrsam thats why barak1, barak8 etc both are quick reaction and barak1 for countering harpoon class and barak8 for brahmos class sea skimming
4. sea skimming extremely difficult to detect and only can less than 20km[25]. thats why navy need qrsam, and pak having mach4 plus terminal sea skimming.
 

johnj

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2021
Messages
57
Likes
126
Country flag
1.) ESSM, CAMM and VL-SRSAM are all point defence SAMs. Similar to Sea Wolf or Barak-1. (Don't say SeaRAM, that is a CIWS).
2.) ESSM is quad-packed, its not "stupid".
3.) QRSAM requires multiple trainable launchers for which a ship doesn't have enough space. VL-SRSAM was built specifically for Naval requirement and is a successor of earlier projects like Maitri and Trishul. Navy opted for Barak-1 after Trishul's failure. Now you'll see all ships of classes Kamorta, P-15A and P-15B being equipped by multiple 8-Cell launchers of VL-SRSAM.
so basically you know anything about Indian Navy or naval missiles. better focus on new tech and topic,
 

Okabe Rintarou

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
1,104
Likes
4,686
Country flag
BTW, does anybody know the size of DRDO LR-MFR? And if its GaN or GaAs based? If its the former, it would be comparable to the AMDR (SPY-6). Hoping that its alteast 6 meter diameter. Even the Americans want that size on their destroyers, but they are making do with a 4 meter one (lesser RMAs) in their Flight III Arleigh Burkes. But their future destroyers will likely have a 6-meter diameter SPY-6 variant. A larger radar would allow us to have P-18 destroyers placed in Bay of Bengal for BMD roles as well. Would be great if we standardize on P-18 class like the Americans standardized on their Arleigh Burke class.
 

johnj

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2021
Messages
57
Likes
126
Country flag
BTW, does anybody know the size of DRDO LR-MFR? And if its GaN or GaAs based? If its the former, it would be comparable to the AMDR (SPY-6). Hoping that its alteast 6 meter diameter. Even the Americans want that size on their destroyers, but they are making do with a 4 meter one (lesser RMAs) in their Flight III Arleigh Burkes. But their future destroyers will likely have a 6-meter diameter SPY-6 variant. A larger radar would allow us to have P-18 destroyers placed in Bay of Bengal for BMD roles as well. Would be great if we standardize on P-18 class like the Americans standardized on their Arleigh Burke class.
standardizing like usn is not a good idea, still building semi stealth boats, IN never goes for, max 10.
IN dont need BDM capability like USN, so 500km is enough and current 250km and future depends on xr sam.
drdo need more time for GaN.
 

Okabe Rintarou

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
1,104
Likes
4,686
Country flag
standardizing like usn is not a good idea, still building semi stealth boats, IN never goes for, max 10.
IN dont need BDM capability like USN, so 500km is enough and current 250km and future depends on xr sam.
drdo need more time for GaN.
Standardizing like USN is not a good idea why? IN's budget will be much higher next decade. Its better to standardize now because most weapons and sensors on P-18 are going to be up to date and will be indigenous. We'll need to build a lot of boats in the 2030s and 2040s. We built 10 P-15 over 25 years. Will likely build many more P-18. Unless we need a drastic shift to railguns or tumblehome or DEW, makes sense to standardize. IN's DND now has the experience to design future-proof ships.
IN doesn't need BMD? Then what are AD-1 and AD-2 for? DRDO has compared them to Aster-30 Block1NT and SM-3 respectively. BMD for IN makes sense given the Pakis and Chinese are brandishing ballistic missiles as carrier killers (though they are doubtful). Also makes sense to guard us against Chinese SLBMs. as well as any other threat that might rear its head within next three-four decades.
Yeah, maybe DRDO does need more time for GaN.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top