P-18/Next Generation Destroyer class (NGD)

Lonewolf

Psychopathic Neighbour
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Messages
6,694
Likes
25,283
Country flag
Seriously, IN scorpene class lacks advanced torpedo and aip like pn ones. kamorta lacks qrsam, atas, reduced fundes, reduced nos. of p8i, lhd and funds for ssn unknown. ABM capability is least important.
In my logic p18 need 16 qrsam 32 barak6 16 barak 8er, 48 uvls plus atas, torpedo, decoy depth charge etc- now stands 112 vls considering plan cbg or normal battle group. 48 uvls for 16 brahmos er, 8 for brahmos 2, 16 naval lrcm 8 for smart or another 8lrcm. No DRDO BMD becz no idea about mf star or lr rf sensor replacement, little info about lr mfr.
in simple first give me some info about rf sensors and small interceptor for mid course.
Bottom line- once available, navy consider upgrade if funds available like scorpene class aip. for your info. pak or china use cruse or non ballistic missile with sub/super/hyper sonic speed and i didnt see any one saying DRDO developing phase1 into naval systems.[3000km BMD looks great]
Blindly following USN boats is not good by the way why IN need mid course interceptors [no offence] from your point, plz dont write USN do it so IN also do the same - OBJECTIVE ? '' Case in point, American underestimation of their adversaries capabilities in conflicts from recent past.'' you are right and this is the main point Im saying. and usa having a lots of aegis boats.
Are dumb ??

No seriously ?? Genuine doubt , are you dumb ??

Why you consider anti ballastic missile (abm ) as agni 4 😑😑😑😑😑

Every read about sm3 missile or aster block 2 (not 30 1nt ) , both are below 2 ton missile (lower weight than brahmos ) also vlsrsam is specifically developed for vls on ships , with TVC at end .

Now vlsrsam have a diameter of 178-180mm , but essm have a diameter of 250 mm more than 225mm of barak8 , so a booster less variant of Barak 8 can be quadpacked in a vls of mk41 size .

So my opinion is a bit different from yours , it will have quadpacked vlsrsam , and if required quad packed Barak 8 , single packed Barak 8er , xrsam naval version (sm6 equivalent ) .

Lrlacm will be packed in it too , so can be any other russian system in use .

Then comes brahmos and hypersonic missile as well as smart like weapons .

So for all these either the navy will ask for a bit bigger vls for all these roles .

Also SMART in current form will never go into ships , it's more than 7 ton , that's not possible , either they will make changes to reduce it to 4-5 tons with cut in range or it will hinder the design .

So my 2 cent are one uvls will be of smaller variant in class of mk41 and sylver ,in which a subsonic ashm may be added , derived from nasm sr .

And all these bigger one will be in a different uvls arrangements , plus you may need to add a bm in future
 

Bhurki

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2018
Messages
1,301
Likes
1,749
A cell with max dimensions 90 x 90x 900 cm (85 x 85 max missile) will be adequate to fit every missile in inventory and quad pack anti air missiles. One can have shorter lengths at 7m and 5m for short range quad pack systems.

This is the same as Chinese UVLS. But a system with the same dimensions but also an added fire well to allow hot launch without taking away space from the cell would be much better (and heavy).

Comparison to US grade SM-3/6 is erroneous since US has a much higher level of miniaturization, whether it be kinetic interceptor in SM3 or AESA on SM6, allowing them to dispense much higher energy to the warhead with the same rocket motors.
Example - ESSM (280kg) vs Akash(500 kg) for 50km
SM6(1.5t) vs 48N6(2.3t) for 200km
 

Maharaj samudragupt

Kritant Parashu
Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2020
Messages
7,650
Likes
21,906
Country flag
A cell with max dimensions 90 x 90x 900 cm (85 x 85 max missile) will be adequate to fit every missile in inventory and quad pack anti air missiles. One can have shorter lengths at 7m and 5m for short range quad pack systems.

This is the same as Chinese UVLS. But a system with the same dimensions but also an added fire well to allow hot launch without taking away space from the cell would be much better (and heavy).

Comparison to US grade SM-3/6 is erroneous since US has a much higher level of miniaturization, whether it be kinetic interceptor in SM3 or AESA on SM6, allowing them to dispense much higher energy to the warhead with the same rocket motors.
Example - ESSM vs Akash ( 50km)
SM6 vs 48N6 ( 200km)
Sirji offtopic but can you share yor profile pic as it has a cat in it.
 

Okabe Rintarou

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
1,537
Likes
7,364
Country flag
A cell with max dimensions 90 x 90x 900 cm (85 x 85 max missile) will be adequate to fit every missile in inventory and quad pack anti air missiles. One can have shorter lengths at 7m and 5m for short range quad pack systems.

This is the same as Chinese UVLS. But a system with the same dimensions but also an added fire well to allow hot launch without taking away space from the cell would be much better (and heavy).

Comparison to US grade SM-3/6 is erroneous since US has a much higher level of miniaturization, whether it be kinetic interceptor in SM3 or AESA on SM6, allowing them to dispense much higher energy to the warhead with the same rocket motors.
Example - ESSM (280kg) vs Akash(500 kg) for 50km
SM6(1.5t) vs 48N6(2.3t) for 200km
That comparison is being made by DRDO itself though. They made the comparison to SM-3 Block1A. What exactly enables this miniaturization? Better IIR sensor alone is enough or they need something else as well?
 

Bhurki

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2018
Messages
1,301
Likes
1,749
That comparison is being made by DRDO itself though. They made the comparison to SM-3 Block1A. What exactly enables this miniaturization? Better IIR sensor alone is enough or they need something else as well?
Miniaturized Divert control system is hard to produce. Even US MDA took some $10B and 20 years to perfect it from the size of GBI based unit to SM3 based unit. Sensors are easy to optimize given enough data synchronicity with land based sensors. The latter also helped produce an even smaller unit for THAAD, albeit with much lower resolution for independent target lock.

Hence you have 3 systems -
1) THAAD interceptor(only primary target lock) + AN/TPY-2(extremely powerful target recognition)

2) SM-3( independent target recognition at range + enhanced DCS range) + AEGIS sea sensors( aided occasionally by Sea based heavy X band)

3) SM-3 + AN/TPY-2 for land based Aegis Abm (Japan)

Basically, if you want to make a cheap interceptor, then you need to invest in extremely capable land based sensors that can
1) Detect target
2) Reduce AOU
3) Lock target
This would need the likes of GreenPine, TPY-2 etc.

SM-3 on the other hand requires its host's sensor for detecting the target and directing it to general intercept route. Rest of the process is enabled by the missile warhead itself.

THAAD, otoh, requires TPY-2 to do literally everything other than smashing into the target.
 
Last edited:

THESIS THORON

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2021
Messages
6,066
Likes
29,659
Country flag
That comparison is being made by DRDO itself though. They made the comparison to SM-3 Block1A. What exactly enables this miniaturization? Better IIR sensor alone is enough or they need something else as well?
i think they have compared it with sm-3 blk2a

i might be wrong though
 

Lonewolf

Psychopathic Neighbour
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Messages
6,694
Likes
25,283
Country flag
I think US interceptor are light because they use best of tech from multiple program , like drdo started doing , they use best seeker and it's variant on cheaper missile ,which reduce cost for development ,also they are fucking rich .

Essm have a range 100km+ , similar to Barak 8 , but a bit better .
Anf if essm can be quad packed ,Barak 8can be too
 

Lonewolf

Psychopathic Neighbour
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Messages
6,694
Likes
25,283
Country flag
A cell with max dimensions 90 x 90x 900 cm (85 x 85 max missile) will be adequate to fit every missile in inventory and quad pack anti air missiles. One can have shorter lengths at 7m and 5m for short range quad pack systems.

This is the same as Chinese UVLS. But a system with the same dimensions but also an added fire well to allow hot launch without taking away space from the cell would be much better (and heavy).

Comparison to US grade SM-3/6 is erroneous since US has a much higher level of miniaturization, whether it be kinetic interceptor in SM3 or AESA on SM6, allowing them to dispense much higher energy to the warhead with the same rocket motors.
Example - ESSM (280kg) vs Akash(500 kg) for 50km
SM6(1.5t) vs 48N6(2.3t) for 200km
May I say something here ...

Why go with 90×90 , it will be more heavy , and later with onset of ship launched BM , you may need to have a little bit bigger system .

So I would rather suggest a 6.5*6.5 one for standard use for all SAM and ABM and nirbhay and any future subsonic or lighter supersonic missile .

And a bit bigger one at 9.5*9.5 for zircon class missile , brahmos , brahmos mk2 , hstdv derivative , any smart derivative ,and inshallah if boys played well ,then ship launched ballastic missile
 

THESIS THORON

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2021
Messages
6,066
Likes
29,659
Country flag
May I say something here ...

Why go with 90×90 , it will be more heavy , and later with onset of ship launched BM , you may need to have a little bit bigger system .

So I would rather suggest a 6.5*6.5 one for standard use for all SAM and ABM and nirbhay and any future subsonic or lighter supersonic missile .

And a bit bigger one at 9.5*9.5 for zircon class missile , brahmos , brahmos mk2 , hstdv derivative , any smart derivative ,and inshallah if boys played well ,then ship launched ballastic missile
when will p18 program start
and are there any prelim designs ??
 

Lonewolf

Psychopathic Neighbour
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Messages
6,694
Likes
25,283
Country flag
when will p18 program start
and are there any prelim designs ??
When will it start ?

Let's nget back to p15a class , last ship construction ended 2014 , p15b construction started in 2013 , so quite a good schedule ,but then ruskies and ukro fuckups caused a delay , Visakhapatnam was launched in 2015 , mere 2 years ,just 2years guys .

So it's all on navy now ,they want something similar to what ruskies did to p 15b or indigenize most components and import engine from West .

Imo they themselves are frustrated ,p15b is 3-4 years late , compared to 2017 deadline to October 2021 possibility .
 

Bhurki

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2018
Messages
1,301
Likes
1,749
May I say something here ...

Why go with 90×90 , it will be more heavy , and later with onset of ship launched BM , you may need to have a little bit bigger system .

So I would rather suggest a 6.5*6.5 one for standard use for all SAM and ABM and nirbhay and any future subsonic or lighter supersonic missile .

And a bit bigger one at 9.5*9.5 for zircon class missile , brahmos , brahmos mk2 , hstdv derivative , any smart derivative ,and inshallah if boys played well ,then ship launched ballastic missile
Having the same system for everything allows you to swap entire payloads to mission needs. As oppossed to Russian doctrine, where each ship is mandated to have some offensive weapons, surface ships in an actual carrier battle group may not even require to carry anti-ship weapons and the space can used to provide extra SAM units. If the same ships are conducting ASW mission, its majority loadout can then be swapped for the same.

Having different sized VLS permanently locks your loadout regardless of the specific mission needs.
 

THESIS THORON

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2021
Messages
6,066
Likes
29,659
Country flag
Having the same system for everything allows you to swap entire payloads to mission needs. As oppossed to Russian doctrine, where each ship is mandated to have some offensive weapons, surface ships in an actual carrier battle group may not even require to carry anti-ship weapons and the space can used to provide extra SAM units. If the same ships are conducting ASW mission, its entire loadout can then be swapped for the same.

Having different sized VLS permanently locks your loadout regardless of the specific missiin needs.
but every ship will have some amt of offensive capability also even if their loadout is defensive :hmm::hmm:
 

Lonewolf

Psychopathic Neighbour
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Messages
6,694
Likes
25,283
Country flag
Having the same system for everything allows you to swap entire payloads to mission needs. As oppossed to Russian doctrine, where each ship is mandated to have some offensive weapons, surface ships in an actual carrier battle group may not even require to carry anti-ship weapons and the space can used to provide extra SAM units. If the same ships are conducting ASW mission, its majority loadout can then be swapped for the same.

Having different sized VLS permanently locks your loadout regardless of the specific mission needs.
Bigger one can accomodate smaller missile too , and you won't be needing 100 ashm , except in case you wanna destroy a navy alone
 

swapcv

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2014
Messages
133
Likes
662
Country flag
The specifications of VLS for the P-18 and its derivative classes will depend eventually on what the power that be, i.e- Indian Navy wants out of it? Does it want a escort ship with broad AAW with limited BMD capability or does it want a ship with a more balanced loadout equipped with SAM's, AShM's, LACM and ASROC's? If the need is there, then two different VLS types might also have to be considered. Having such a difference in VLS cell types isn't the be all end all as most fear, Russians have been managing it pretty admirably and so have we.
 

Bhurki

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2018
Messages
1,301
Likes
1,749
Bigger one can accomodate smaller missile too , and you won't be needing 100 ashm , except in case you wanna destroy a navy alone
If bigger means larger cross section, then you can't integrate smaller modules into a large VLS without long time modifications. The fire pit needs to be common.
 

Gessler

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
2,225
Likes
10,527
Country flag
An interesting tid-bit regarding the NGD that I've missed so far...from the Mazagon Dock Ltd. (MDL) investors' conference call transcript:

The current requirement seems to be for 5 x ships of the NGD class. In conceptual stage as of June 2021.

Program estimated worth Rs. 50,000 crores ($6.7 billion).

MDL 3.JPG


The MDL CMD calls the Next Gen Destroyers as a "long term" program part of Navy's MCPP (Maritime Capability Perspective Plan). He estimates that an RFP for the NGD could emerge by 2024-2026, and a firm contract by around 2027-2028.

So well after last P-15B is delivered.

MDL 4.JPG


Full transcript here:


++++

There is some confusion though, because in a media interaction during the same session, he says the requirement for NGD is for 6 x vessels, not 5. One of the two statements is an error, don't know which:

Watch at 1:40

 

Latest Replies

Articles

Top