Project 18 Class Destroyers

[SKC]

Speculations from 2022 (no concrete sources):


View: https://x.com/TheLegateIN/status/1481256853744992256

 

[SKC]

View: https://x.com/Parthu_Potluri/status/1449311414376488968

 

[Blademaster]

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

It’s considered to be last line of defense against drone ships

 

[Gessler]

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

My Twitter thread is probably the best summary I could make:


View: https://x.com/Parthu_Potluri/status/1440601460845146112?t=9DNQFFa4SY5IcglSoCdY2w&s=19

This is almost 3 years old thread though.

 

[Blood+]

My Twitter thread is probably the best summary I could make:


View: https://x.com/Parthu_Potluri/status/1440601460845146112?t=9DNQFFa4SY5IcglSoCdY2w&s=19

This is almost 3 years old thread though.

Quite a commendable take. But why do you say that Barak 8s cannot be quad-packed inside a cell when the Barak's diameter is smaller than that of ESSM while cells have larger diameter than that of a Mk 41 VLS cell??!!

 

[SlayingHell]

Quite a commendable take. But why do you say that Barak 8s cannot be quad-packed inside a cell when the Barak's diameter is smaller than that of ESSM while cells have larger diameter than that of a Mk 41 VLS cell??!!

Barak-8 is hot launch. is cold launch. 3 solutions
1. Either make Missiles of one type -only cold launch or only hot launch
2. Make VLS able to launch either type of Missiles like Chinese
3. Make seperate VLS for Hot and Cold ones (Present Configuration)

 

[Gessler]

Quite a commendable take. But why do you say that Barak 8s cannot be quad-packed inside a cell when the Barak's diameter is smaller than that of ESSM while cells have larger diameter than that of a Mk 41 VLS cell??!!

Because the BrahMos cells are cylinders, not rectangular boxes like Mk41. So comparing the dimension of the square lids alone doesn't help.

I don't remember the exact math I did back then but I'm pretty confident we can't quad pack anything in the UVLM.

But like I said in the thread, we're developing a new universal VLS which I reckon should be capable of quad packing atleast the VLSRSAM.

 

[Blood+]

Barak-8 is hot launch. is cold launch. 3 solutions
1. Either make Missiles of one type -only cold launch or only hot launch
2. Make VLS able to launch either type of Missiles like Chinese
3. Make seperate VLS for Hot and Cold ones (Present Configuration)

I know, but it was in context of VLS dimensions. I didn't realize that cells weren't rectangular.

 

[Nutcracker]

It’s considered to be last line of defense against drone ships

*Underwater drones.
For surface drones programmable Airburst shells would be a better option.

 

[Blademaster]

Because the BrahMos cells are cylinders, not rectangular boxes like Mk41. So comparing the dimension of the square lids alone doesn't help.

I don't remember the exact math I did back then but I'm pretty confident we can't quad pack anything in the UVLM.

But like I said in the thread, we're developing a new universal VLS which I reckon should be capable of quad packing atleast the VLSRSAM.

If the cylinder's diameter is less or the same size of the rectangle's smaller side, it can be fitted into it.

 

[Pundit Pikachu]

It’s considered to be last line of defense against drone ships

The threat of Naval drones emerged just 2 years before, are you suggesting that Indian Navy already knew about this threat a decade back, because otherwise it would make no sense as to why this abomination is on literally every Indian Navy ship.

But like I said in the thread, we're developing a new universal VLS which I reckon should be capable of quad packing atleast the VLSRSAM.

If we are developing a UVLS, I am 90% sure it's going to be a CCL (Concentric Canister Launcher) VLS because is cold launched and all other Missiles than I Navy operates or is planning to operate is hot launched, eg, VLSRSAM, Barak 8, AAD, AD-1, LRLACM.

For surface drones programmable Airburst shells would be a better option

A CIWS like this Multi purpose modular launcher from Naval Group can be loaded with 70mm rocket pods and make those USV's go boom.

View: https://youtu.be/w5JzM5Xu7MM?si=VSXPCT2jCjgmt3u3

As for UUV's.
There are no UUV's just Slow & Cheap Torpedos and can thus can be dealt as such.
No need to blow them out of proportion

 

[Blademaster]

The threat of Naval drones emerged just 2 years before, are you suggesting that Indian Navy already knew about this threat a decade back, because otherwise it would make no sense as to why this abomination is on literally every Indian Navy ship.

I am saying that it is not gonna go away now since there will be newfound purpose for this. Remember it was not just drones but also the possibility of suicide boats and sea skimming skiffs that could go under radar coverage in addition to torpedoes.

 

[Bleh]

The threat of Naval drones emerged just 2 years before, are you suggesting that Indian Navy already knew about this threat a decade back, because otherwise it would make no sense as to why this abomination is on literally every Indian Navy ship.

As for UUV's.
There are no UUV's just Slow & Cheap Torpedos and can thus can be dealt as such.
No need to blow them out of proportion

Torpedoes & mines ... it's a cheap way to deal with both, especially with us like on Minesweeper vessels. Decoys are hardly foolproof. A proximity depth-charge hurled are it will stop a underwater threat.

You may not like how they look but IN likes what they do, they keep testing them in exercises. Others not doing it didn't mean it's not viable. We like cheap shit.

 

[Blood+]

If the cylinder's diameter is less or the same size of the rectangle's smaller side, it can be fitted into it.

I meant to say square, not rectangular.

 

[Blademaster]

I meant to say square, not rectangular.

Then even it would fit into it if the diameter is smaller than the sides of the square.

 

[Bleh]

Then even it would fit into it if the diameter is smaller than the sides of the square.

Point is, a round-silo has less space than square one. Following is Shaurya sub-based launcher & it'd hold 4 if it were square.
Personally I dislike the over-worship of UVLS.
Unless they're small enough to quad/triple pack, smaller missiles like SAMs should have their own VLS. AShBM need their own large silos like above & may hold some smaller missiles also.

 

[Blood+]

Point is, a round-silo has less space than square one. Following is Shaurya sub-based launcher & it'd hold 4 if it were square.View attachment 7132
Personally I dislike the over-worship of UVLS.
Unless they're small enough to quad/triple pack, smaller missiles like SAMs should have their own VLS. AShBM need their own large silos like above & may hold some smaller missiles also.View attachment 7133

The thing is, Barak 8s (not the ER version) ARE small enough to be quad-packed as they are even slimmer than the ESSM.

 

[Blood+]

Then even it would fit into it if the diameter is smaller than the sides of the square.

Which one has more room inside - the square or the circle??

 

[SlayingHell]

For Project-18 which gonna be escorts for Present or Future Carriers, there must a Hypersonic Interceptor Missile. The threat to us isn't gonna come in form of BMs or SubSonicCruise Missiles or SuperSonic Cruise Missiles but its DF-ZF like HGVs. Ideally we should have a LRSAM like SM-6 that is omni role even able to shoot down HGVs while within the same size VLS a quad packed MRSAM likely Barak-8 with slimmer booster is to take on Medium range. As for Point defense and short ranges, I prefer a enlarged rolling airframe missile launcher installed on four sides of ship, essentially it would be if ESSM size missile is installed on a RAM launcher.

 

[Blood+]

For Project-18 which gonna be escorts for Present or Future Carriers, there must a Hypersonic Interceptor Missile. The threat to us isn't gonna come in form of BMs or SubSonicCruise Missiles or SuperSonic Cruise Missiles but its DF-ZF like HGVs. Ideally we should have a LRSAM like SM-6 that is omni role even able to shoot down HGVs while within the same size VLS a quad packed MRSAM likely Barak-8 with slimmer booster is to take on Medium range. As for Point defense and short ranges, I prefer a enlarged rolling airframe missile launcher installed on four sides of ship, essentially it would be if ESSM size missile is installed on a RAM launcher.

Nah, ESSMs would be too large and unwieldy for a RAM type setup, a much better option would be to go for a smaller and more importantly, slimmer missile like Igla-S or just get the rolling air frame system itself. As for handling threats at short to short-medium range (500m - 30/40 km), quad-packed VLSRSAM should be used. Barak 8s can handle it as well but that'd be an overkill and wasting its potential really.