Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Next-Generation Destroyer: News & Discussions

Discussion in 'Indian Navy' started by ni8mare, Dec 5, 2016.

  1. ni8mare

    ni8mare FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 26, 2014
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    92
    Country Flag:
    India
    The Indian Navy is in a "high degree of operational and combat readiness" to ensure safety and security from any challenges originating from the seas, Western Naval Command chief Vice Admiral Girish Luthra said on Friday.

    Interacting with media personnel aboard the aircraft carier INS Vikramaditya ahead of Navy Day 2016, he said that the maritime environment in the Indian Ocean Region is both challenging and complex.

    Besides developments in the region necessitating high degree of operational and combat readiness, it had led to a very high tempo of operations, including deployments, surveillance and patrolling, he said.

    In this context, Luthra referred to the conduct of major exercise "Paschim Leher" in which a large number of ships, submarines and aircraft participated to test and improve Indian Navy's operational readiness, including mobilisation and synchronisation.

    Describing the current security scenario as "dynamic", he said ships, submarines and aircraft of the command "continue to be deployed and tasked in widely dispersed and diverse locations" at sea to beef up maritime defence and security.

    He assured that the Indian Navy is "alert, watchful and fully ready to safeguard the country's maritime interests and address any threats that may emerge".

    In addition to strengthening physical security, Luthra said impetus is also being given to cyber security.

    Following the immensely successful induction of Delhi-Class and Kolkata-Class destroyers into the Navy, he said now it was working towards the "next-generation destroyers" to give an edge to the three-dimensional blue-water force.

    "We are conceptualising and planning the next-gen destroyers which would be of new designs and more potent. We shall take up the proposal with the centre in due course," he said.

    The planned project would encompass additional features compared to the earlier Projects 15, 15A and 15B.

    Giving hints, he said the next-gen destroyers would be far advanced in terms of capability with more stealth features and an even more deadlier weapons package.


    The Indian Navy celebrates Navy Day on December 4 every year to mark the date of its ships attacking Karachi during the 1971 India-Pakistan war.

    --IANS

    qn/vdhttp://www.business-standard.com/ar...ess-western-command-chief-116120201265_1.html
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2016
    Abingdonboy and Ankit Kumar 001 like this.
  2. Ankit Kumar 001

    Ankit Kumar 001 Captain Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2016
    Messages:
    1,573
    Likes Received:
    3,050
    Country Flag:
    India
    2 Classes of Destroyers.
    1 With ABM capability and another only relatively smaller , with focus on Anti Ship and Land Attack Warfare to replace the Rajputs. 8 And 8 both.

    Before that 2 extra P15B are to be ordered.
     
    ni8mare likes this.
  3. Abingdonboy

    Abingdonboy Captain Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2016
    Messages:
    1,518
    Likes Received:
    8,899
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    Think the numbers quoted (16) are far too conservative considering the time scale and the implications this has on the budgetary allocation for the IN as well as the scope of India's interests.

    IN is aiming for 200 ships by 2027 but they may will require/request 300 by 2032.

    As for 2 variants for P-18 DDG, couldn't it make more sense to have the P-18 solely for ABM/AAW and the P-17A (and follow on) frigates focused on AShM, ASW and land attack? Naturally the next class of frigates beyond the P-17As could/would have to be 10-20% larger than P-17A.
     
    ni8mare and R!CK like this.
  4. Gessler

    Gessler Mod Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    8,995
    Likes Received:
    6,990
    Country Flag:
    India
    Use this thread to post all relevant discussions about the Indian Navy's future destroyer-class after the Project-15B Visakhapatnam. Unofficially designated as 'Project-18'. Let's keep tabs on the developments on this project from this very early conceptual stage.

    I'll start off with a post I made previously...

    "
    Here's what I think P-18 would/should have -

    Sensors :-

    • Integrated mast (like Thales i-Mast) housing as many active/passive sensors and ECM mounts as possible within a single large superstructure. This will eliminate the need for multiple masts, cluttered top decks etc. (provided the mast integrates both the relatively short-wavelength Fire-Control Radar (FCR) and the long-wavelength Volume Search Radar (VSR), inside of just providing a centralized array for FCR, SATCOM+other sensors not including VSR). Something like this would be perfect IMO, sensory redundancy in case of damage might take a hit, but still this has it's advantages wrt stealth, easy of maintenance etc. -

    [​IMG]

    We'll have to see how well an improved MF-STAR and a Western VSR (let's say SMART-L for sake of argument) can be housed within the same mast. Shouldn't be impossible, but I see a likely hurdle here. The mast will be one big S.O.B either way (if it has to integrate a full-fledged VSR in a distributed fashion). I see the possibility of a pyramid-isqe superstructure.

    • The new PHAROS FCR (for SRGM, CIWS & Point-Defense Guidance) could be developed as a JV between BEL & Thales. This will sit well with a new CIWS system.

    • The HUMSA family will just have to give way to a new sonar system, which should be distributed aperture as a rule, with a main bow array and smaller side arrays. A towed-array sonar should also be mandatory.

    Weapons :-

    • Surface Warfare: Ability to incorporate BrahMos-I Block-I (current ASCM), a possible VLS-based BrahMos-NG, plus the BrahMos-II/3K22 Zircon hypersonic ASCM in the surface-warfare VLS section. Minimum 16 missiles should be there, anything higher is welcome, as long as it doesn't eat into the space for additional SAMs. A larger caliber main gun can be looked at - I seriously suggest developing a Navalized version of ATAGS in 155mm/64-caliber configuration. ATAGS can be a good platform for developing an Advanced Gun System-India.

    • Land Attack: As per Prasun Sengupta, the future destroyer might have as many as 32 dedicated cells for Nirbhay LACM. Having an extensive land-attack capability on surface warships signals a significant change in IN war-fighting policy. This will free up all ~16 ASCMs for a complete surface-dominance role. Provided the base UVLM design is common, this indicates a total of 48 strike-length cells. In an age where even frigate-class vessels like Type-26 will be having 24 such cells, atleast twice that number will be necessary for a full-blown DDG.

    With guided ammunition, even the SRGM can be used in a limited land-attack role (arced trajectory, bombardment of coastal installations should be possible from a distance of ~80-100km out at sea) if actually required to do so.

    • ASW: Why hasn't IN explored the possibility of an ASROC yet? The only limitation I see is that we have few VLS cells on IN warships as it is (no VLS Farm-type installation as on Arleigh Burke etc.), but those RBU-6000s are an absolute eyesore. They ruin frontal signature-reduction efforts to an extent (IN didn't think it mattered for the present classes of ships, and that's fine. But for a post-2020 warship? NOPE.), and besides, I even began doubting their effectiveness against modern submarines. We should atleast explore a streamlined container for these launchers (if at all they're indispensable), or choose to internally incorporate them, with the rockets firing out to sea - like torpedo tubes.

    • Speaking of Torpedos, I haven't much to say. NSTL should continuously pursue working on upgrades/refinements for the Varunastra (Mk.2, Mk.2A etc.) instead of completing a design and sitting on it for a decade.

    Other significant part of ASW is conducted by the choppers, which I've covered below.

    • Air/Missile Defense: It seems BMD might be a possibility, but I'm not 100% sure about it just yet. Let me tell you why - having an effective ship-based ABM is possible only if and when the projected AD-1/AD-2 interceptors are ready. None of the existing technology demonstration platforms (that's what they are) like PAD, AAD or PDV are ergonomic enough to be considered for ship-based vertical launch. Save for AAD, the remaining two are the size of friggin' ballistic missiles for god's sake. We'll have to design a special VLM just to accommodate them, and just 6 such cells will take up impossible amounts of deck area (picture Arihant's silos, on a ship). I just don't see this happening.

    I believe the AD-1/AD-2 will be approximately the size of the US Standard Missile series. Only these can be effectively put on a ship.

    All this is ofcourse, provided we are looking at an indigenous missile platform for the BMD role. If we go for, say, a ship-based Arrow system from Israel - that presents a whole new set of possibilities. Either way, I don't think the BMD component will be ready before 2030. We might get the ships first, incorporate BMD later.

    • The Barak-8 & 8ER will be there. I'm looking at no less than 48 ready-to-launch in VLS units. We might decide to go ahead with the P-15A tradition and store another 24-48 on board as reloads, which can be effected by a Fleet Replenishment Vessel (FRV) out at sea. Accessible if travelling as part of a flotilla/Carrier Battle Group. But I think we should look at eliminating this limitation - some modular cranes (can't occupy more space than the approx area of 4 x VLS cells if we go for a big one) that can be brought up when needed and remain integrated into the decks when not - can be pretty handy. Consider both vertically-deployed designs and something that lies perpendicular to the deck when not in use and is propped up when needed.

    [​IMG]

    I'm not adamant about combined gun-missile systems, but at least a new gun-only CIWS should be looked at. There's nothing wrong with the AK-630M as far as the gun is concerned, but it's supporting guidance/target-acquisition & tracking systems and electronics are due an upgrade. I suppose OFB/DRDO might consider themselves too good to be bothered with this development, so I'm wondering if Mahindra Defence can't tie up with a European maker for licensed-building of a new-generation system. They already built stuff like the Mareech ATDS, so I reckon they know their shyt when it comes to making ship-based systems/mounts etc. At least as much as they need to know.

    • Either way, a Point-Defense Missile System (PDMS) has to be considered. It's not that I don't believe Barak-8 itself can't handle close-in, low-flying threats...it's just that Barak-8s will be too valuable to waste on both high & low-end missile/aircraft threats. I suggest we look at the SeaRAM system. I don't see Maitri PDMS getting anywhere, even if it did, I'm not sure I support PDMS in VLS units. Vertical launch is fine for engaging longer-ranged threats, but when close-range quick-reaction is a priority, a slanted launcher saves time on missile-orientation after launch. Every second counts. Only problem is that a minimum of two launchers might be required, one each for port & starboard.

    [​IMG]

    I know you don't want to go into the whole KALI-10000 business (I don't blame you, I don't wanna go there either) but still, ship-based DEWs are a thing and are already being extensively tested - and will be more so 10 years down the line. I agree right now the power of most such systems is not enough to destroy anything bigger than a hand-launched UAV or something in that region...but improvements will be here before we know it. IN has gotta stay among the cutting edge of naval technologies, and that includes exploring the possibility of prototype-testing with a navalized Gas-Dynamic & Chemical-Oxygen Iodine Lasers (GDL/COIL) that DRDO/LASTEC are already developing...it won't be anywhere near combat-certified, but will yield results that can be used further down the road for true solid-state systems.

    [​IMG]

    Vehicles/Aviation :-

    • The two-chopper formula should be maintained. Redundancy+increased efficiency when needed - a killer. A 12-ton NMRH will be needed though (not the Sea Hawk) - I believe Airbus H225M is likely (in line with ICG's decision). An array of helicopter-based systems will have to be simultaneously procured. That includes new dunking sonars, light torpedoes, and helicopter-launched cruise missiles...Kongsberg HSM comes to mind.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    • In addition, it should all be flexible enough to allow us to substitute one of the choppers for one or more unmanned VTOL platforms (depends on how many can be safely packed in the hangar). There was a proposal from Israel to jointly develop an unmanned version of Chetak called NRUAV. But the proposal went kaput, no interest was shown. But in a post-2020 scenario, unmanned air systems need to be available to deploy from surface ships - the range of uses are endless. I'm confident that purchase of the MQ-8 FireScout is possible (but it may or may not be armed).

    • Another thing to consider are small Unmanned Surface Vehicles. Extremely useful for reconnaissance and a range of other purposes. Modern warship designs (T26 included) are created to be able to deploy USVs, just like RHIBs.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Yet another thing are Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs). Not any tech-demos, but full-fledged AUVs with integrated sonar arrays, optical sensors etc. that can dive down thousands of meters, able to map the surface, the sea floor and anything in between. AUVs that can be launched through the torpedo tubes are an excellent concept IMO (like L&T's Adamya), but given the size restriction, I'm not sure about their endurance & amount of stuff they can carry.

    [​IMG]

    Anyone is free to add whatever they think will be necessary for a post-2020 IN main surface combatant! "
     
    ni8mare, R!CK, Pundrick and 1 other person like this.
  5. Gessler

    Gessler Mod Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    8,995
    Likes Received:
    6,990
    Country Flag:
    India
    @PARIKRAMA @vstol jockey

    Please share anything you know about the future DDG class (as long as it's not restricted info).
     
  6. Pundrick

    Pundrick 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2016
    Messages:
    318
    Likes Received:
    647
    Country Flag:
    India
    The new design team should keep Zumwalt class in their mind, increase automation, try to reduce manufacturing & delivery timeline to less than 7-8 years and also most importantly keep the price below $ 1.5 billion per piece at current rate. The total crew should be reduced to less than 200, the anti-ship armament should have two variety of missiles one with sub 500 km and another with 700+ km range with 16 each, 48-64 SAM with 120+ km range missiles i.e improved B-8, should have the capacity to handle two ASW helicopters. And the total tonnage should not exceed more than 9000 tonnes.

    Some additional thing I am expecting on this beast is indigenous ASW helicopter and domestic guns replacing the main 127 mm gun.
     
    Aqwoyk, R!CK and Gessler like this.
  7. Gessler

    Gessler Mod Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    8,995
    Likes Received:
    6,990
    Country Flag:
    India
    Zumwalt is unique. It is a Tumblehome wave-piercing hull design, somewhat different from conventional hulls like the Kolkata or Arleigh Burke. While it'll be a different branch of development and possibly have applications toward both
    radar and acoustic stealth, it'll be an almost total deviation from the P-15A/B hulls.

    [​IMG]

    I personally believe that a further refined, larger P-15B-based hull with some improvements will be good enough - especially if we keep timelines in mind. But the superstructure can be considerably different (not just because of signature-reduction concepts but also because of the all new stuff that will be incorporated, like Nirbhay LACMs and an AESA VSR).

    Agreed. But I'm good with anything under $2 billion per ship.

    Indigenous heli? Dhruv ASW is definitely not happening anymore...so I suppose you mean Naval IMRH. It could be on the horizon by the 2030 period when these ships will start showing their faces...but for sake of quickly having a reliable ASW capability as soon as commissioning is done, I'd say sticking to the 12-ton NMRH (Airbus H225M) couldn't hurt.
     
    Abingdonboy, GuardianRED and R!CK like this.
  8. Abingdonboy

    Abingdonboy Captain Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2016
    Messages:
    1,518
    Likes Received:
    8,899
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    If there is merti in the design then the IN will surely look at it but there is no point in incorporating its features just because it is American, it is facing quite serious issues itself and won't be operational for a long long time.

    Why is this continually parroted? Just because this is what the West does, does not mean this is what the IN has to follow. The West places a huge ammount of importance on automation so they can keep their manpower costs low becuase the relative wages in the West are vastly more than in India the IN does not face such compulsions and in fact its doctrine is almost the exact opposite.

    The IN tries to have as large a crew (within reason) as possibel so as to have the maximum number of well trained hands onboard to deal with wartime operations.

    Entirely doable.

    BARAK-8ER will have a range in excess of 160-170km

    Naval IMRH won't be ready before 2032-5

    Of course the IN is looking to move well beyond the P-15 hull (which is an almost 4 decades old design), not an incremental deisgn otherwise they would simply be going for a P-15C class.
     
    R!CK, Pundrick and Gessler like this.
  9. Freyja

    Freyja REGISTERED

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    60
    Country Flag:
    Norway
    That's great and all except it doesn't exist.

    "This missile has been in development since 2001" - it's almost 2017 and what's there to show for 16 years in between? JSM, NSM, VL-NSM and SL-NSM but no HSM.

    Also HSM would be about the same size as Exocet, so unless you're planning to be flying Puma or Sea King in the near future, you might be wanting a bigger helicopter because S-70B wont be able to carry it. it's too big.

    [​IMG]
     
    R!CK, Abingdonboy and Gessler like this.
  10. Ankit Kumar 001

    Ankit Kumar 001 Captain Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2016
    Messages:
    1,573
    Likes Received:
    3,050
    Country Flag:
    India
    As of today 2 additional P15B are sure. When the 3rd hull is launched and work on 4 ongoing, we should get official confirmation for this.

    After this things are wide open.

    Some years back there was a proposal to buy the incomplete Salva cruiser lying in 61 Komunards. Its still lying there , few millions and it should be ours. Its 94% complete. We can negotiate the blue prints too.
     
    Abingdonboy likes this.
  11. HariPrasad

    HariPrasad 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2016
    Messages:
    389
    Likes Received:
    356
    Country Flag:
    India
    new destroyer must have 200 KM range Ex sam, Hypersonic brahmos and agies class type defense system along with all electronic systems and sensor. It must have decoys against submarine attack and ship attack.
     
  12. Agent_47

    Agent_47 Admin - Blog Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Messages:
    1,262
    Likes Received:
    1,679
    Country Flag:
    India
    My next gen wishlist:
    • Propulsion : Integrated electric propulsion which is now used on Type 45 and Zumwalt class destroyers.
    • I-Mast with GaN AESA radar.
    • UVLS : I never understood the reason for IN not going for universal VLS design. Now even Russians and chinese are doing it. It will give you unparallel flexibility. You can choose Missiles based on the mission profile
    • Point defence : Maitri SR SAM or DRDO SRSAM in quardpack per cell configuration. (We will not be going for SeaRAM because we already have these two projects for the role. Unless of course KALI is ready @Gessler )
    • Missiles: 48 * MR/LR SAMS (Barak 8 + next gen LR SAM) + 8*4 Maitri/DRDO SRSAM + 16-32 Mix of Brahmos 2/1/nirbhay/Sub sonic AShm = 72-88 UVL cells and 96-112 missiles. (This will require 8000+ tonnage like Sejong the Great-class destroyers )
    • ASW : DRDO ALTAS + HUMSA NG + Varunastra torpidos
    • Aviation : Capabilities to handle two 12-13 ton helicopters + Fire Scout / BlackJack like UAVs
    • Increased automation.

    last 15B is scheduled to deliver by 2024.

    No more russian junk especially on surface fleet.
     
    R!CK, Abingdonboy and HariPrasad like this.
  13. Gessler

    Gessler Mod Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    8,995
    Likes Received:
    6,990
    Country Flag:
    India
    We do have the Airbus H225M (EC725 Caracal) in sights as the Coast Guard already ordered them. But speaking of the missile, it's sad to hear there is little to no progress on the HSM - it would have filled a very niche role alongside the likes of Sea Venom.
     
    R!CK and Abingdonboy like this.
  14. Agent_47

    Agent_47 Admin - Blog Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Messages:
    1,262
    Likes Received:
    1,679
    Country Flag:
    India
    Selected not ordered.
     
    R!CK and Gessler like this.
  15. Gessler

    Gessler Mod Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    8,995
    Likes Received:
    6,990
    Country Flag:
    India
    Point taken.

    I was under the impression that the P-15B hull is already good & flexible enough to be used for any <10,000-ton destroyer design. Further refinement is possible.

    [​IMG]

    Look at the Type-055 DDG, the tech & superstructure has evolved but the hull itself is not that different from the Type-052D (except that it's up-scaled).

    [​IMG]

    I'm all in for a completely new hull model designed from the ground up. My only worry is that it might upset the timelines somewhat...shouldn't go for a new design unless absolutely necessary (IMO it won't be).
     
    R!CK, Abingdonboy and Pundrick like this.

Share This Page