Project 18 Class Destroyers

[haldilal]

Ya'll Nibbiars

 

[125mm_Smoothbore]

View: https://x.com/battle_machines/status/1812706700203360725

Regarding the NGD

 

[Bleh]

...lekin hume Rancho mil gya!

 

[Fatalis]

...lekin hume Rancho mil gya!
View attachment 6503

Just a placeholder pic. Right now even IN doesn't know what it wants in that destroyer. Confused either to go with 2 or 4 RBU-6000 launchers.

 

[SKC]

Class overview
General characteristics
Name:	Project 18 class
Builders:	Mazgaon Dock Yard
Operators:	Indian Navy
Preceded by:	Visakhpatanam Class Destroyers
Cost:	50,000 crores.
Planned:	6
Type:	Stealth Guided Missile Destroyers.
Displacement:	13,000 Standard tonnes 13,000 long tons; 14,000 short tons.
Speed:	In excess of 30 knots 56 km/h.
Crew:	400 70 officers and 330 sailors.
Sensors and processing systems:	BEL HUMSA-NG bow sonar

 

[SKC]

Expectations laid down by fellow members:

@Gessler :

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.​

 

[SKC]

@Gessler - if possible, add your posts from DFI to here.

 

[SKC]

Do we need NGD?

Article by @haldilal on Why India Needs NGD/Project 18 Class Destroyers?

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

Just a placeholder pic. Right now even IN doesn't know what it wants in that destroyer. Confused either to go with 2 or 4 RBU-6000 launchers.

4X RBU launchers? WT(actual)F?

Expectations laid down by fellow members:

@Gessler :

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.

Propulsion is IEP powered by MT-30 from UK. Not LM2500
Sensors should include a dual-band FCR, for both S and X bands. X band has better sea clutter discrimination, important given USVs and sea-skimmers. Integrated mast likely to be based on UNICORN from Japan. Do we need separate FCRs for CIWS? Or can main FCR handle it if its dual band?
Weapons: Missed LDHCM and Project Kusha missiles and MPDMS based CIWS (similar to RIM-116)

EDIT: And comms., although not related to this ship only, but we need to develop our Tightbeam comm. tech and this ship needs to have it. ISRO sent an experimental payload up on GSAT-29 to test rudimentary tightbeam system back in 2019, no idea what happened to it after that.

 

[Bleh]

Do we need NGD?

Article by @haldilal on Why India Needs NGD/Project 18 Class Destroyers?

I like it @haldilal bille. Here's my do paise...

Our Corvettes are 3300-5000t but only 4+X.
Our ruskie Frigates are 3800t but only 10.
Our later frigates are 6200-6650t but only 10.
Our Destroyers are 7400t but only 7.
Our NGD are to be 10000t class & number 8.
Hopefully some 15000t class cruiser later.

We cannot match their numbers, even if they can only commit 1/2 of their power in the IOR. We need quality. Br@hmos over YJ-83.
I suspect their ships are like Russian tanks, overloaded with ammo & prone to Moskva Class submarine conversion on a good hit. NGD will be that... while our oversized Frigates & Corvettes do the workhorse job & Missile-Boat/Cutters do the swarm defence.

 

[Pundit Pikachu]

Expectations laid down by fellow members:

@Gessler :

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

Some of my expectations

1. Mission Bay on the stern similar to Turkish TF2000, or zumwalt class, would allow us to discreetly deploy and retrieve UUV's and USV's

2. Instead of American LM2500, we should go for MT30 engine as it's designed from the ground up to operate as part of an Integrated Electric/Full Electric Propulsion (IEP/IFEP) setup
It's a great engine that even the Americans were once considering for their DDGX program

Rolls-Royce expands role in India-UK Electric Propulsion Capability Partnership

www.ajaishukla.com

3. I doubt a P15B like mast would be able to hold the rumoured indigenous LRMFR which would be quite heavy due to it's size
Thus the new super structure should be a mix of type 55 and Italian DDX where the main radar would be a part of the bridgework/superstructure
Should be vaguely similar to this



4. An Integrated mast (similar to Japanese Unicorn Nora-50),
If I am not wrong we were once working on an indigenous mast like that,

View: https://x.com/idrwalerts/status/1582287008353128448

5. We still have enough time and can start working on an Indigenous ASR instead of screwdrivering Saab (RAWL-03) or Indra (Lanza) Radars.

6. If we can make Lynx U2 we can also make an indigenous CIWS FCR, no need to screwdriver french Radars. (Infact even the pvt sector has enough capabilities now to achieve this)
Not to mention is a separate FCR for CIWS even desirable, main naval guns would be guided by the main radar and next gen Gatling gun CIWS would have an integrated Radar of their own anyways



7. Multi purpose modular launcher CIWS which can launch anti Torpedo decoys, anti missile decoys (e.g NULKA) chaffs and flares, 70 mm rockets (against USVs), VSHORAD (against Aerial Threats)
Basically a better HQ-10
m.youtube.com/watch?v=w5JzM5Xu7MM

8. A next gen combat management system with more automation and, better sensor and weapons integration and scalable open architecture.

Not to mention a combined Combat Information Centre (CIC) housing the combat management system (CMS)
Also a more ergonomic, modern and more interactive multi screen Combat Management consoles similar to the Koreans or Americans would be great too.



Honestly speaking Combat Management System is one area where we need to seriously focus on because of advancements in AI and Unmanned platforms, because better the combat management system, better the situational awareness and better the reaction time.


9. We do need a true UVLS but not like American Mk 41 but more like Chinese concentric canister launch (CCL) system
With following capabilities
A height of 8.8 m and diameter of 0.75m (to be able to fire , AAD and AD-1 and quad pack Missiles)

Capable of both hot launch and Cold launch (because other than brahmos nearly all of our Naval missiles are hot launched)

We would also need Another UVLS but it would be a Smaller Hot launch VLS which can quad pack Missiles and is smaller in height, (so that it could be used on smaller ships which don't need big missiles like AAD, AD-1 etc) something similar to Mk 41 ExLS but more Lightweight and smaller in height (6 m would be perfect) than Mk 41.

10. Given it would be a fully fledged missile cruiser anything less than 96 VLS would be criminal, I am wishing for 112 VLS cells.

11. A missile like HSTDV or -2 would necessitate a totally brand new missile specific VLS because their diameter would be no joke and no UVLS would be able to accommodate them

12. IMO A 127mm gun would much better than a 155mm one, because those 155mm shells would use up the ship's volume like crazy,

13. Fully Agree We need to get Rid of RBU 6000, that thing eats up so much space without providing any tangible benifits
Instead we need our very own VLASROC
( VLASROC-SR with a range of no more than 60 km and VLSROC-MR based Prahaar with a range of 150 km, if we go any bigger the missile won't fit in our VLS tubes)

14. We don't really need 533mm Torpedos on our ships, literally nobody is using them from large surface vessels anymore, everybody is moving towards light Torpedos we are the only one insisting on launching heavyweight Torpedos from our surface ships.
Instead we should have 324 mm triple tube Torpedo launchers in a enclosed pop-out' hatch like on FREMM frigates

15. We really need to retire those Ak 630 CIWS, and replace them with something more modern which has its own independent FCR and EO sensors, along with the ability to independently process data on site via local computer in gun mount, this allowing for a faster reaction time
Basically something akin to Chinese Type 730

View: https://x.com/GODOFPARADOXES/status/1677203852381044736

16. Next gen RCWS (Remote controlled weapon station) with a 30mm single barrel gun (maybe a m230 or who knows even a GSh-30-1)

 

[SKC]

From @Fatalis :

NGD, which was previously planned as a 5-6 ship class will now feature 8 ships, the project is estimated to cost “over 80,000cr” INR (9.65 Billion USD). The project will be executed in two phases with each phase featuring 4 ships. MDL placed an order for a floating dry dock worth 500cr INR (60 Million USD) in June 2023, the floating dry dock will be able to accommodate the Next Generation Destroyer.​

 

[Blood+]

I like it @haldilal bille. Here's my do paise...
View attachment 6573
Our Corvettes are 3300-5000t but only 4+X.
Our ruskie Frigates are 3800t but only 10.
Our later frigates are 6200-6650t but only 10.
Our Destroyers are 7400t but only 7.
Our NGD are to be 10000t class & number 8.
Hopefully some 15000t class cruiser later.

We cannot match their numbers, even if they can only commit 1/2 of their power in the IOR. We need quality. Br@hmos over YJ-83.
I suspect their ships are like Russian tanks, overloaded with ammo & prone to Moskva Class submarine conversion on a good hit. NGD will be that... while our oversized Frigates & Corvettes do the workhorse job & Missile-Boat/Cutters do the swarm defence.

And/ or saturate AN islands with LRASM type anti-ship missiles, along with decoys based on the STAR target drones. Heck, you could even throw in a bunch of ground launched SAAW with EO/ MMW seekers if you want it to be extra spicy.

 

[125mm_Smoothbore]

Expectations laid down by fellow members:

@Gessler :

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.​

I think the propulsion would be MT-30 combined electric propulsion to power bigger systems

And rbu aint going anywhere hehe

 

[Pundit Pikachu]

I think the propulsion would be MT-30 combined electric propulsion to power bigger systems

And rbu aint going anywhere hehe

Honestly that thing is the biggest curse on Indian Navy ships, I will never understand it's use case.

Like, exactly what is it that Indian Navy knows that other navies around the world don't that we are pretty much the only one to use it, heck even the Russians who developed this system have stopped using it.

I have heard all sorts of arguments from shore bombardment to anti submarine defence to anti Torpedo defence and literally all of them are bogus.
Like Exactly what shore are you going to bombard from a distance of 6 km, our ships would be a piece of scrap before getting that close to any enemy shore.
It's use as anti submarine defence is even more idiotic, if a submarine is even 15 km near your ship, you are as good as dead.
It's use as anti submarine defence made sense in the 1960s when torpedos were not that capable and the submarines had to sneak up that close to you.
And the last brain dead argument is that it's useful as anti Torpedo defence.
Is Indian Navy the only Navy in the world that has to fear torpedos and if we are not then how come no one else has this God forsaken abomination on their ship.
If you are able to detect an incoming Torpedo there are more efficient ways to deal with it than basically bombing the water near you.


Sometimes I feel like Indian Navy never recovered from its 1971 trauma of losing INS Khukri due to a submarine

 

[SlayingHell]

Honestly that thing is the biggest curse on Indian Navy ships, I will never understand it's use case.

Like, exactly what is it that Indian Navy knows that other navies around the world don't that we are pretty much the only one to use it, heck even the Russians who developed this system have stopped using it.

I have heard all sorts of arguments from shore bombardment to anti submarine defence to anti Torpedo defence and literally all of them are bogus.
Like Exactly what shore are you going to bombard from a distance of 6 km, our ships would be a piece of scrap before getting that close to any enemy shore.
It's use as anti submarine defence is even more idiotic, if a submarine is even 15 km near your ship, you are as good as dead.
It's use as anti submarine defence made sense in the 1960s when torpedos were not that capable and the submarines had to sneak up that close to you.
And the last brain dead argument is that it's useful as anti Torpedo defence.
Is Indian Navy the only Navy in the world that has to fear torpedos and if we are not then how come no one else has this God forsaken abomination on their ship.
If you are able to detect an incoming Torpedo there are more efficient ways to deal with it than basically bombing the water near you.


Sometimes I feel like Indian Navy never recovered from its 1971 trauma of losing INS Khukri due to a submarine

After losing a ship because of a submarine, one would introduce measures such as improving existing
1. TAS
2. Towed Acoustic Countermeasures
3. Expendable Acoustic Countermeasures
4. HMS
5. In Terms of Hull Design, they would use Raft Mounted Machinery with quieter propulsion.
6. Finally there is Anechoic Tiles like that are implemented in Type-26 to further lower Acoustic Signature.
Sometimes IN also acts like Indian Army or IAF in some scenarios. Atleast put a Stealthy Version of it in a Stealth Cupola akin to Rolling Airframe Missile Launcher but for ASROCs.

 

[Pundit Pikachu]

Honestly that thing is the biggest curse on Indian Navy ships, I will never understand it's use case.

Like, exactly what is it that Indian Navy knows that other navies around the world don't that we are pretty much the only one to use it, heck even the Russians who developed this system have stopped using it.

I have heard all sorts of arguments from shore bombardment to anti submarine defence to anti Torpedo defence and literally all of them are bogus.
Like Exactly what shore are you going to bombard from a distance of 6 km, our ships would be a piece of scrap before getting that close to any enemy shore.
It's use as anti submarine defence is even more idiotic, if a submarine is even 15 km near your ship, you are as good as dead.
It's use as anti submarine defence made sense in the 1960s when torpedos were not that capable and the submarines had to sneak up that close to you.
And the last brain dead argument is that it's useful as anti Torpedo defence.
Is Indian Navy the only Navy in the world that has to fear torpedos and if we are not then how come no one else has this God forsaken abomination on their ship.
If you are able to detect an incoming Torpedo there are more efficient ways to deal with it than basically bombing the water near you.


Sometimes I feel like Indian Navy never recovered from its 1971 trauma of losing INS Khukri due to a submarine

For reference, this is how big an Indian Navy RBU-6000 system is



You can at the very least fit 3 additional in this much space.
This thing literally weighs around 8000 kg empty, add another 4000 kg of rockets that each system carries and you have a combined weight of 12000 kg
2 such RBU's eat up the potential for fielding upto 6 additional Missiles.

Is it really worth it having them on our ships

 

[Blood+]

For reference, this is how big an Indian Navy RBU-6000 system is

View attachment 6911

You can at the very least fit 3 additional in this much space.
This thing literally weighs around 8000 kg empty, add another 4000 kg of rockets that each system carries and you have a combined weight of 12000 kg
2 such RBU's eat up the potential for fielding upto 6 additional Missiles.

Is it really worth it having them on our ships

Or 24 Barak 8s

 

[Bleh]

I was told RBU-6000 is not for anti-submarine, but anti-torpedo ops. IN had found that the depth charged RBU rockets are good as a hard-kill system against incoming torpedoes.

The Extended Range Anti-Submarine Rocket (ER-ASR) instead of RBU-60 have 8km range. If a sub comes within that range somehow, it'll still be engaged by a homing-torpedo, not unguided depth-charges.

 

[125mm_Smoothbore]

I was told RBU-6000 is not for anti-submarine, but anti-torpedo ops. IN had found that the depth charged RBU rockets are good as a hard-kill system against incoming torpedoes.

The Extended Range Anti-Submarine Rocket (ER-ASR) instead of RBU-60 have 8km range. If a sub comes within that range somehow, it'll still be engaged by a homing-torpedo, not unguided depth-charges.

btw active range of humsa ng sonar is 40km (as per official brochure by BEL)

other than that rbu have found its place as a close quater defence (not shore bombardment) torpedo and usv(unmanned surface vehicle),unmanned submersible , detonating mines etc too there is a reason chinks have maintained asw rockets (vls launched) and japanese still has asroc on their ships