Project 18 Class Destroyers

[NerVik]

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

A noob question, when you quad pack a smaller missile in a larger vls, what happens to all the left over space (length wise)? I assume quadpacked smaller missiles are also shorter in length than the single packed large missiles. So when we quad pack smaller missiles, does the empty (length wise) space in the vls go waste? If so, that seems rather counter productive and it would be more beneficial to make vls specifically for the smaller missiles and separate vls for bigger missile.

Also, I do understand having universal vls allows us to integrate many types of missiles but there are only so many categories of missiles we can put on a ship, cruise missiles, some ballistic missiles and ad missiles. If we can make a uvls for ad missiles (smaller in size than uvls for ballistic or cruise missiles) - basically making not one uvls but uvls based on type of missile (ad, cruise/ballistic) won't we have a better management of space?

 

[SlayingHell]

A noob question, when you quad pack a smaller missile in a larger vls, what happens to all the left over space (length wise)? I assume quadpacked smaller missiles are also shorter in length than the single packed large missiles. So when we quad pack smaller missiles, does the empty (length wise) space in the vls go waste? If so, that seems rather counter productive and it would be more beneficial to make vls specifically for the smaller missiles and separate vls for bigger missile.

Also, I do understand having universal vls allows us to integrate many types of missiles but there are only so many categories of missiles we can put on a ship, cruise missiles, some ballistic missiles and ad missiles. If we can make a uvls for ad missiles (smaller in size than uvls for ballistic or cruise missiles) - basically making not one uvls but uvls based on type of missile (ad, cruise/ballistic) won't we have a better management of space?

Why would you make two kind of VLS?. There is space constraint in Width aspect i.e Surface but not Length Aspect in a ship. As for your problem or rather itch of inefficient usage of space along the length of VLS, isn't it better to design whatever Quad Packed SAM with a Booster+Missile itself combo so that it utilizes entire Vertical Length of VLS? It would leave more impulse for maneuvering for Missile while the longer Booster throws the Missile to longer range before detaching. Even much, the booster can be designed to output more thrust for shorter time increasing the speed quickly to top speeds.

Yeah one fit for all isn't gonna work when we gonna deal with future aerial interceptor missiles or Hypersonic Missiles. Best we have two sizes with Size-A at 24 inches width for LRSAM and QuadPacked Missile. Size-b at 36 inches for Hypersonic Missiles or Interceptors.

 

[NerVik]

Why would you make two kind of VLS?. There is space constraint in Width aspect i.e Surface but not Length Aspect in a ship. As for your problem or rather itch of inefficient usage of space along the length of VLS, isn't it better to design whatever Quad Packed SAM with a Booster+Missile itself combo so that it utilizes entire Vertical Length of VLS? It would leave more impulse for maneuvering for Missile while the longer Booster throws the Missile to longer range before detaching. Even much, the booster can be designed to output more thrust for shorter time increasing the speed quickly to top speeds.

Yeah one fit for all isn't gonna work when we gonna deal with future aerial interceptor missiles or Hypersonic Missiles. Best we have two sizes with Size-A at 24 inches width for LRSAM and QuadPacked Missile. Size-b at 36 inches for Hypersonic Missiles or Interceptors.

Not an itch, more a curiosity. And adding a booster for the sake of utilizing the entire length of the vls seems another fallacy, is there a need to add the booster? Does the navy's requirements call for adding a booster just to use that space? Again, not trying to argue for my point, trying to understand the reason for a uvls and not uvls for category of missiles.

 

[125mm_Smoothbore]

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.


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.



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

Uuv and usv can be taken out by rbu-6000 for both

 

[Blood+]

A noob question, when you quad pack a smaller missile in a larger vls, what happens to all the left over space (length wise)? I assume quadpacked smaller missiles are also shorter in length than the single packed large missiles. So when we quad pack smaller missiles, does the empty (length wise) space in the vls go waste? If so, that seems rather counter productive and it would be more beneficial to make vls specifically for the smaller missiles and separate vls for bigger missile.

Also, I do understand having universal vls allows us to integrate many types of missiles but there are only so many categories of missiles we can put on a ship, cruise missiles, some ballistic missiles and ad missiles. If we can make a uvls for ad missiles (smaller in size than uvls for ballistic or cruise missiles) - basically making not one uvls but uvls based on type of missile (ad, cruise/ballistic) won't we have a better management of space?

There are cells of different lengths. To take the ubiquitous Mk41 VLS system as an example, it comes with three different cell variants - self defense (5.3m length), tactical (6.8m length) and strike (7.7m length). A similar arrangement can be implemented in our UVLS as well.

 

[Bleh]

@Ayan Barat can you harvest this?


View: https://x.com/amcaji/status/1839604504079081522

A fanart...

INS Bengaluru D67 by planetrix15 on DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com

 

[Ayan Barat]

@Ayan Barat can you harvest this?


View: https://x.com/amcaji/status/1839604504079081522

A fanart...

INS Bengaluru D67 by planetrix15 on DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com

View attachment 22915

Yup I can but to be honest with you, at this early stage it's futile to waste effort on P-18 given how little of resources we have.

Most of the work would be speculative based on the technical proficiency of the person designing the CAD instead of the reality. Like the person who designed that DeviantArt ship used some weird futurist's main gun [also, guns are typically placed ahead of VLS so that they fire without interfering with the launch of missiles], but if I had done it, I would most likely have used a 76mm Strales or, in rare cases, a 127mm Mk-45...but end of day we both would have used our knowledge to speculate instead of facts.

Also there are two more issues that complicate everything; first, we don't know whether it's some random placeholder that they're using in that video or the actual design and second, there's nothing predictable about a design.
Take the example of NGMV, went from...

...to...

Or out of nowhere we're seeing the corvette version of MF-STAR on our ships, when all had kind of a precognition that all big radars are going to be MF-STAR and smaller ones Indian AESAs.


Creating carnage on why low VLS numbers/why not MLU Brahmaputra into Type-055/should our submariners say Hola or Hallo...is kind of a safe bet to do currently. We can speculate P-18 when we've something significant