P-18/Next Generation Destroyer class (NGD)

Blank

New Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2021
Messages
906
Likes
6,384
Country flag

Haldilal

लड़ते लड़ते जीना है, लड़ते लड़ते मरना है
New Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
30,041
Likes
115,410
Country flag

Gessler

New Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
2,312
Likes
11,249
Country flag
What we need for Project 18/NGD

Hull
1. Enlarged length P-15B hull, going from 163m to approx 180m.
2. Enlarged beam & draught as per need.
3. Small well deck for operation of RHIBs/USVs from aft. (either/or Superstructure 2.)

Propulsion
1. Moving away from Ukrainian/Russian suppliers for gas turbines, shafts & other propulsion components and COGAG concept in general.
2. Adoption of CODOG or CODAG propulsion with US GE LM2500 turbines & French Pielstick or German MAN diesels.
3. Adoption of IEP to eliminate conventional transmission gearboxes.

Superstructure
1. Stealthy, angled superstructure with minimal surface discontinuities.
2. Enclosed, modular hangars on sides for RHIBs/USVs. (either/or Hull 3.)
3. Twin helo hangars capable of operating above 10T helos or multiple VTOL UAVs per hangar.
4. Flush decks on fore, aft & amidships.

Sensors
1. Indigenous AESA-MFR and AESA-ASR systems replacing Israeli MFSTAR and BEL RAWL-02. Drawing from Arudhra MPR, IAF HPR, IN LRMFR projects to develop next-gen AESA-MFR with GaN MMICs. Development of navalized BEL RAWL-03 AESA-ASR.
2. Indigenous AESA-FCRs for close-in weapon systems, possible adoption of Indo-French PHAROS radar.
3. Adoption of next-gen opto-electronic systems from likes of Tonbo Imaging.
4. All radars & optronic sensors integrated within a single, pyramid-esque integrated mast.
5. Next-gen sonar suite consisting of bow, towed & possible hull-mounted distributed arrays from NPOL.

Weapons
1. Adoption of true Universal VLS like US Mk.41 for all missiles except AShMs.
2. Emphasis on AAW and Land-attack capability with common VLS for up to 80-96 cells for any combination of Barak 8ER, XRSAM, AD-1, AD-2, quad-packed VL-SRSAM, Nirbhay LACM & SMART ASuBM.
3. Next-gen anti-ship capability with adoption of air breathing Scramjet-based AShM such as the planned BrahMos 2K with speeds of Mach 7 or above, housed in at least 16 Nos. dedicated VLS cells.
4. Possible adoption of navalized version of ATAGS 155mm gun, with guided & unguided projectiles.
5. Removal of RBU-6000/IRL-2 anti-sub rocket launchers.
6. Fully enclosed 53cm torpedo tubes.
7. Possible incorporation of next-gen CIWS solutions down the line, including DEWs and HPMs.
 
Last edited:

Gessler

New Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
2,312
Likes
11,249
Country flag
Adding some pics to better visualize the concepts, along with small explanations.

What we need for Project 18/NGD

Hull
1. Enlarged length P-15B hull, going from 163m to approx 180m.
2. Enlarged beam & draught as per need.
Unless we are going for a totally new hull concept (like Zumwalt's Tumblehome hull), which I doubt we are (and we shouldn't either, there's no need), it makes perfect sense to enlarge & expand the existing DDG hulls by ~15m or so.

This is how even the Type 055 hull was developed, by extending & expanding the Type 052D hull (which itself was expanded 052C hull).



3. Small well deck for operation of RHIBs/USVs from aft. (either/or Superstructure 2.)
2. Enclosed, modular hangars on sides for RHIBs/USVs. (either/or Hull 3.)
Ideally, I say we need both.

There can be several tactical advantages to having an entry/exit point for manned RHIBs, unmanned USVs or UUVs from the aft of the ship without having to open up the side RHIB bays (like on Shivalik) which increase the already sizeable radar signature of the broadside. Not to mention far easier for enemy vessels to visually notice their deployment (especially important for UUVs).



Side bays on the other hand, besides being able to deploy much larger craft, with the right kind of modular design, can afford unmatched flexibility in adding/removing mission capabilities as per need. Like carrying additional watercraft, new large UUVs, cargo containers, Special Forces teams, additional drone GCS workstations, etc etc.





The ship in the graphics is the British Type 26 GCS, also being sold to Australia & Canada. Initially, they wanted a bay in the stern but later on went with the modular bay amidships instead. The GCS, being a smaller ship, had to make that tradeoff but the much larger Project 18 is likely to have a lot more freedom in that regard.

Propulsion
1. Moving away from Ukrainian/Russian suppliers for gas turbines, shafts & other propulsion components and COGAG concept in general.
2. Adoption of CODOG or CODAG propulsion with US GE LM2500 turbines & French Pielstick or German MAN diesels.
Depending on what the performance needs are, COGAG might actually be preferable for a ship this size. However, the Soviet bloc kit still needs to go.

Both Russian & Ukrainian suppliers have proved thoroughly unreliable with regard to timelines, prices AND consistency in quality. Even ships like Visakhapatnam class (which are technologically superior to anything in Russian Navy surface fleet) had to put up with these legacy systems primarily because of the lineage of the Project-15 type going back all the way to the Delhi-class that was designed with extensive Soviet help - and which itself drew a lot of lessons from Rajput-class aka Kashin.

The Project-18 is going to be arguably the first destroyer class in over 40 years that can be said to be an all-up brand new design that need not necessarily stick with the legacy systems of Project-15/15A/15B. We can just take the aspects that are good & which work (like the hull) and junk the stuff that doesn't.

So, if going with COGAG, then 4 x LM2500s or MT30s (great for destroyers).
If going with the more economical & efficient CODAG, then 2 x LM2500/MT30 and 2 x European diesels (just like Shivalik and P-17A).

3. Adoption of IEP to eliminate conventional transmission gearboxes.
This is the future. Cleaner, more efficient, and most importantly for a naval vessel - quieter. If we have the option of eliminating mechanical components with lot of metal-on-metal contact like clutches & gearboxes, we should take it.



Superstructure
1. Stealthy, angled superstructure with minimal surface discontinuities.
Nothing fancy wrt stealth...whatever signature-reduction is to be achieved is to be achieved through shaping. The JMSDF's new Mogami-class frigate is case in point. Clean angled surfaces, no unnecessary clutter.



3. Twin helo hangars capable of operating above 10T helos or multiple VTOL UAVs per hangar.
IN is indeed looking into VTOL RPAS so very likely they'll take accommodation of types like MQ-8B FireScout (or indigenous equivalents) into account for the new hangars.

4. Flush decks on fore, aft & amidships.
Progress already achieved with the P-17A, but where the 17A gains over the previous Shivalik (flush fore deck) it loses over the Shivalik in the amidships department. Dunno why they backtracked on that part.

1. Indigenous AESA-MFR and AESA-ASR systems replacing Israeli MFSTAR and BEL RAWL-02. Drawing from Arudhra MPR, IAF HPR, IN LRMFR projects to develop next-gen AESA-MFR with GaN MMICs.
At one point of time I really doubted if LRDE could develop a radar on par with Israel's best. Today I no longer have that doubt. And companies like Data Patterns or Astra Microwave can easily take care of the production order. If the IAF's HPR is anything like AEGIS Ashore (which I think it is), a navalized variant could be just what we need.



Development of navalized BEL RAWL-03 AESA-ASR.
Integrate this bad boy into a mast, you're done.



2. Indigenous AESA-FCRs for close-in weapon systems, possible adoption of Indo-French PHAROS radar.
Didn't hear any updates on this...any such radar will do really, might as well give the development order to a company like Data Patterns, they've recently been designing & developing their own APAR radars.



Oh and this also needs to go into the mast btw.

3. Adoption of next-gen opto-electronic systems from likes of Tonbo Imaging.
Tonbo is hitting it out of the park with regard to EO/IR equipment. Their kit already sit on Kolkata-class and they've shown remarkable flexibility of developing various mounts as well. Should have no problem integrating these into a mast.



4. All radars & optronic sensors integrated within a single, pyramid-esque integrated mast.
Again the Japanese Mogami-class sets a beautiful example.



5. Next-gen sonar suite consisting of bow, towed & possible hull-mounted distributed arrays from NPOL.
One area where I think any help from likes of Thales should be welcomed with open arms.

1. Adoption of true Universal VLS like US Mk.41 for all missiles except AShMs.
2. Emphasis on AAW and Land-attack capability with common VLS for up to 80-96 cells for any combination of Barak 8ER, XRSAM, AD-1, AD-2, quad-packed VL-SRSAM, Nirbhay LACM & SMART ASuBM.
This is of utmost importance. But so far there is no official chatter from IN sources regarding any plan for such a system and that is concerning. But theoretically it should be possible. Nirbhay is Tomahawk-sized, Barak & VLSRSAM are small enough, AD-1 is reportedly similar both in capability set and dimensions to Aster-30 Block-2, while AD-2 is similar to SM-3...a VLS cell of reasonable size can certainly be developed that can accommodate all of these types.



XRSAM and SMART - can't comment on those though.

3. Next-gen anti-ship capability with adoption of air breathing Scramjet-based AShM such as the planned BrahMos 2K with speeds of Mach 7 or above, housed in at least 16 Nos. dedicated VLS cells.
Even a smaller number of these (say, 8 nos.) can be a devastating silver bullet against any surface target (or land if within range). Can't wait to see some progress on both HSTDV & BrahMos-2.



4. Possible adoption of navalized version of ATAGS 155mm gun, with guided & unguided projectiles.
Navalized variants are the logical evolution of any land-based artillery gun. Dunno why DRDO doesn't realize this potential and we have to import stuff from OTOMelara or BAE.

We already got the gun part figured out, navalizing it may actually be performed adequately by a company like L&T (if not one of the two companies already making it - Tata Power SED & Bharat Forge).

5. Removal of RBU-6000/IRL-2 anti-sub rocket launchers.
FFS remove these abominations. Even the newer Russian ships like Gorshkov-class frigate don't use this crap. Dunno what era IN anti-submarine doctrines are in.

6. Fully enclosed 53cm torpedo tubes.
A large superstructure should ensure there's nothing but a small 'pop-out' hatch for the torpedoes on the sides.



7. Possible incorporation of next-gen CIWS solutions down the line, including DEWs and HPMs.
IN is indeed talking about Directed-energy based weapons with regard to the NGD and that's encouraging. DRDO has also been making meaningful progress with several models of Gas Dynamic Lasers so its a matter of time before a more workable solution is available for both land & ship-based usage similar to US Navy's HELIOS.


 
Last edited:

Lonewolf

Psychopathic Neighbour
New Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Messages
7,365
Likes
27,771
Country flag
Adding some pics to better visualize the concepts, along with small explanations.



Unless we are going for a totally new hull concept (like Zumwalt's Tumblehome hull), which I doubt we are (and we shouldn't either, there's no need), it makes perfect sense to enlarge & expand the existing DDG hulls by ~15m or so.

This is how even the Type 055 hull was developed, by extending & expanding the Type 052D hull (which itself was expanded 052C hull).






Ideally, I say we need both.

There can be several tactical advantages to having an entry/exit point for manned RHIBs, unmanned USVs or UUVs from the aft of the ship without having to open up the side RHIB bays (like on Shivalik) which increase the already sizeable radar signature of the broadside. Not to mention far easier for enemy vessels to visually notice their deployment (especially important for UUVs).



Side bays on the other hand, besides being able to deploy much larger craft, with the right kind of modular design, can afford unmatched flexibility in adding/removing mission capabilities as per need. Like carrying additional watercraft, new large UUVs, cargo containers, Special Forces teams, additional drone GCS workstations, etc etc.





The ship in the graphics is the British Type 26 GCS, also being sold to Australia & Canada. Initially, they wanted a bay in the stern but later on went with the modular bay amidships instead. The GCS, being a smaller ship, had to make that tradeoff but the much larger Project 18 is likely to have a lot more freedom in that regard.



Depending on what the performance needs are, COGAG might actually be preferable for a ship this size. However, the Soviet bloc kit still needs to go.

Both Russian & Ukrainian suppliers have proved thoroughly unreliable with regard to timelines, prices AND consistency in quality. Even ships like Visakhapatnam class (which are technologically superior to anything in Russian Navy surface fleet) had to put up with these legacy systems primarily because of the lineage of the Project-15 type going back all the way to the Delhi-class that was designed with extensive Soviet help - and which itself drew a lot of lessons from Rajput-class aka Kashin.

The Project-18 is going to be arguably the first destroyer class in over 40 years that can be said to be an all-up brand new design that need not necessarily stick with the legacy systems of Project-15/15A/15B. We can just take the aspects that are good & which work (like the hull) and junk the stuff that doesn't.

So, if going with COGAG, then 4 x LM2500s or MT30s (great for destroyers).
If going with the more economical & efficient CODAG, then 2 x LM2500/MT30 and 2 x European diesels (just like Shivalik and P-17A).



This is the future. Cleaner, more efficient, and most importantly for a naval vessel - quieter. If we have the option of eliminating mechanical components with lot of metal-on-metal contact like clutches & gearboxes, we should take it.





Nothing fancy wrt stealth...whatever signature-reduction is to be achieved is to be achieved through shaping. The JMSDF's new Mogami-class frigate is case in point. Clean angled surfaces, no unnecessary clutter.





IN is indeed looking into VTOL RPAS so very likely they'll take accommodation of types like MQ-8B FireScout (or indigenous equivalents) into account for the new hangars.



Progress already achieved with the P-17A, but where the 17A gains over the previous Shivalik (flush fore deck) it loses over the Shivalik in the amidships department. Dunno why they backtracked on that part.



At one point of time I really doubted if LRDE could develop a radar on par with Israel's best. Today I no longer have that doubt. And companies like Data Patterns or Astra Microwave can easily take care of the production order. If the IAF's HPR is anything like AEGIS Ashore (which I think it is), a navalized variant could be just what we need.





Integrate this bad boy into a mast, you're done.





Didn't hear any updates on this...any such radar will do really, might as well give the development order to a company like Data Patterns, they've recently been designing & developing their own APAR radars.



Oh and this also needs to go into the mast btw.



Tonbo is hitting it out of the park with regard to EO/IR equipment. Their kit already sit on Kolkata-class and they've shown remarkable flexibility of developing various mounts as well. Should have no problem integrating these into a mast.





Again the Japanese Mogami-class sets a beautiful example.





One area where I think any help from likes of Thales should be welcomed with open arms.



This is of utmost importance. But so far there is no official chatter from IN sources regarding any plan for such a system and that is concerning. But theoretically it should be possible. Nirbhay is Tomahawk-sized, Barak & VLSRSAM are small enough, AD-1 is reportedly similar both in capability set and dimensions to Aster-30 Block-2, while AD-2 is similar to SM-3...a VLS cell of reasonable size can certainly be developed that can accommodate all of these types.



XRSAM and SMART - can't comment on those though.



Even a smaller number of these (say, 8 nos.) can be a devastating silver bullet against any surface target (or land if within range). Can't wait to see some progress on both HSTDV & BrahMos-2.





Navalized variants are the logical evolution of any land-based artillery gun. Dunno why DRDO doesn't realize this potential and we have to import stuff from OTOMelara or BAE.

We already got the gun part figured out, navalizing it may actually be performed adequately by a company like L&T (if not one of the two companies already making it - Tata Power SED & Bharat Forge).



FFS remove these abominations. Even the newer Russian ships like Gorshkov-class frigate don't use this crap. Dunno what era IN anti-submarine doctrines are in.



A large superstructure should ensure there's nothing but a small 'pop-out' hatch for the torpedoes on the sides.





IN is indeed talking about Directed-energy based weapons with regard to the NGD and that's encouraging. DRDO has also been making meaningful progress with several models of Gas Dynamic Lasers so its a matter of time before a more workable solution is available for both land & ship-based usage similar to US Navy's HELIOS.


What i am looking at is a inspiration from maya class destroyer , also 96 cell is not enough if it can't pack a hypersonic missile in it , mk 41 is no silver bullet ,it comes in different variant (3) , for different class , so we should go for 16 short range cannisters quad packed ,at place where there isn't enough place for depth , mid body , then 48 for xrsam , ad 1, aad , barak 8 er or akash ng er , lfrj based sleek ashm , rest 32 for ad 2 , smart if a lighter version is developed , brahmos , indigenous ashm er , hypersonic missile and all , if after than space us left then good for mlu .

Zircon is as heavy as brahmos , we can surely put it in brahmos vls
 

Gessler

New Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
2,312
Likes
11,249
Country flag
What i am looking at is a inspiration from maya class destroyer , also 96 cell is not enough if it can't pack a hypersonic missile in it ,
We can never realistically have a common VLS for all missiles. Especially when Scramjets or HGVs are in the mix. Even Zumwalt class is installing a new type of VLS for their planned Hypersonic armament, the Mk.57 cells cannot fit them.

That's why I said 96 UVLS + 16 dedicated Hypersonic cells.


mk 41 is no silver bullet ,it comes in different variant (3) , for different class ,
The different variants are of different lengths (height). The point of UVLS is that the hatch sizes (width or breadth) should all be the same so that the same amount of deck space is utilized for carrying any combination of supported missiles.

Ideally all cells are supposed to have enough below-deck space to support full strike-length cells if necessary.

so we should go for 16 short range cannisters quad packed ,at place where there isn't enough place for depth , mid body ,
Yes such arrangements could save space internally as well. But an ideal design (which is brand new so there's freedom to design as we want) should support strike-length for any cell.

Even if a portion of the ship receives battle damage or any failure that renders those cells unusable, you should be able to carry out the roles of those cells by re-arranging your mission load, affected by an at-sea replenishment ship.
 

gslv markIII

New Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2016
Messages
1,856
Likes
17,594
Country flag
@Gessler

length of 180 m is the limit for what our destroyer/ frigate building yards can take.

Main Works is the heart and soul of GRSE’s operations. The centrepiece of Main Works is an Integrated Shipbuilding Facility located in Kolkata, India. The facility which occupies approximately 48 acres of land consists of the following.

  • One (1) Dry Dock measuring 180 X 29 X 10 M of 10,000 DWT launching capacity
  • One (1) Inclined Berth measuring 180 X 23 M of 4,500 DWT launching capacity

Slipways

SlipwaysLength (metres)Breadth (metres)Maximum Size of vessel Length x Width (metres)DWT MaximumCranage (Goliath / Level luffing)
SY1189.526182(L) x 24(W)32000T300/40 & 15 MT
SY2189.526182(L) x 24(W)32000T300/40 & 15 MT
NY237.2529200(L) x 27(W)40000T60 & 15 MT
 

Gessler

New Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
2,312
Likes
11,249
Country flag
@Karthi @FalconSlayers @Indx TechStyle


Anyone have dimensions and weight for SMART ,



well why are we going for a 650 km class mammoth , when a 400 km class can do the job , would be easier for guidance too , even 250 km can do the job
Note that the releases (if I recall correctly) say 50-650km. That would imply its range is highly modifiable by adjusting the kind of ballistic trajectory it takes (decided prior to launch).

Either way, the SMART is a modern-day equivalent of this project:

 

Lonewolf

Psychopathic Neighbour
New Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Messages
7,365
Likes
27,771
Country flag
We can never realistically have a common VLS for all missiles. Especially when Scramjets or HGVs are in the mix. Even Zumwalt class is installing a new type of VLS for their planned Hypersonic armament, the Mk.57 cells cannot fit them.

That's why I said 96 UVLS + 16 dedicated Hypersonic cells.




The different variants are of different lengths (height). The point of UVLS is that the hatch sizes (width or breadth) should all be the same so that the same amount of deck space is utilized for carrying any combination of supported missiles.

Ideally all cells are supposed to have enough below-deck space to support full strike-length cells if necessary.



Yes such arrangements could save space internally as well. But an ideal design (which is brand new so there's freedom to design as we want) should support strike-length for any cell.

Even if a portion of the ship receives battle damage or any failure that renders those cells unusable, you should be able to carry out the roles of those cells by re-arranging your mission load, affected by an at-sea replenishment ship.
That's a choice , but what i am saying is if zurcon can fit in brahmos uvls , why can't we use a common vls for our indigenous hypersonic missile , and use it for other bmd missile too
 

Lonewolf

Psychopathic Neighbour
New Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Messages
7,365
Likes
27,771
Country flag
Note that the releases (if I recall correctly) say 50-650km. That would imply its range is highly modifiable by adjusting the kind of ballistic trajectory it takes (decided prior to launch).

Either way, the SMART is a modern-day equivalent of this project:

Well we have a indigenous aesa mfr ready .


Ship 20
 

Gessler

New Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
2,312
Likes
11,249
Country flag
That's a choice , but what i am saying is if zurcon can fit in brahmos uvls , why can't we use a common vls for our indigenous hypersonic missile , and use it for other bmd missile too
As per the info available, the AD-2 is similar in capability to SM-3. If we infer that it would consequentially also be of similar dimensions - then it should fit comfortably in any cell that can fit the Nirbhay (which is Tomahawk-sized, as Tomahawk & SM3 can share the same cells on Mk.41 ).

And far as I can tell, AD-2 is likely to be the biggest BMD-capable missile we would look to fire from ships. The only thing bigger would be the PDV...and I don't see us ever putting that on a ship. Just my opinion though...considering we don't know anything about what IN actually has got planned.
 

Gessler

New Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
2,312
Likes
11,249
Country flag
Well we have a indigenous aesa mfr ready .


Ship 20
Yep:

"Drawing from Arudhra MPR, IAF HPR, IN LRMFR projects to develop next-gen AESA-MFR with GaN MMICs. "

LRMFR is the dual-panel radar going on Ship 20 aka TDV aka INS Anvesh.
 

Lonewolf

Psychopathic Neighbour
New Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Messages
7,365
Likes
27,771
Country flag
Yep:

"Drawing from Arudhra MPR, IAF HPR, IN LRMFR projects to develop next-gen AESA-MFR with GaN MMICs. "

LRMFR is the dual-panel radar going on Ship 20 aka TDV aka INS Anvesh.
What's difference in both , are you certain , it's not gan , one of respectable member @porky_kicker gave a hint that it is gan based . Ut just require fine tuning and integration with our missile
 

Lonewolf

Psychopathic Neighbour
New Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Messages
7,365
Likes
27,771
Country flag
As per the info available, the AD-2 is similar in capability to SM-3. If we infer that it would consequentially also be of similar dimensions - then it should fit comfortably in any cell that can fit the Nirbhay (which is Tomahawk-sized, as Tomahawk & SM3 can share the same cells on Mk.41 ).

And far as I can tell, AD-2 is likely to be the biggest BMD-capable missile we would look to fire from ships. The only thing bigger would be the PDV...and I don't see us ever putting that on a ship. Just my opinion though...considering we don't know anything about what IN actually has got planned.
That's nicer then , we could have dedicated vls for hypersonic missile .
 

Gessler

New Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
2,312
Likes
11,249
Country flag
What's difference in both , are you certain , it's not gan , one of respectable member @porky_kicker gave a hint that it is gan based . Ut just require fine tuning and integration with our missile
I never said it wasn't GaN - I don't know if it is. If PK is saying it, I believe in it.

I was saying the radars we put on NGD must be GaN regardless.

And I'd also like to know just how much LRMFR and IAF's HPR have in common.
 

Haldilal

लड़ते लड़ते जीना है, लड़ते लड़ते मरना है
New Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
30,041
Likes
115,410
Country flag
I will stick this thread but title will be changed NGD since "Project-18" is yet to be from any official portal.
Regards
Ya'll Nibbiars it name should be Project 18 MoD gives name to the project not programmes. So NGD is dubious. And it's is sactioned but was going slowly now the funding will be made.
 

Lonewolf

Psychopathic Neighbour
New Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Messages
7,365
Likes
27,771
Country flag
I never said it wasn't GaN - I don't know if it is. If PK is saying it, I believe in it.

I was saying the radars we put on NGD must be GaN regardless.

And I'd also like to know just how much LRMFR and IAF's HPR have in common.
Iaf hpr is in active development , as per recent update , well development agency is same , trm module should be quite same , drdo has a habit of reusing and commonality in it's system , looking at the class and the advantage gan provide our gaAs , most probably over 600 km
 

Articles

Top