5 seems about right.
3 each of P-15 and P-15A, 4 of P-15B and 5 of NGD brings us to 15 destroyers, that's the IN's sanctioned strength.
Project 18, Next Generation Destroyer (NGD) : News and Updates
- Thread starter Vishwamitra
- Start date
-
- Tags
- project 18
5 seems about right.
3 each of P-15 and P-15A, 4 of P-15B and 5 of NGD brings us to 15 destroyers, that's the IN's sanctioned strength.
It's merely an estimate.
The Delhi class will easily go into the 2040s. And you can bet on an NGD-B to replace them.
Our sanctioned frigate strength is 24. The Talwars and P-17s give us 20 ships. The Brahmaputras are 3. So we are at 23 already, and none of these ships are expected to leave service before 2040. At best the Brahmaputras can be upgraded and gifted/ sold to some other navy in the future, which can free up space for 4 NGFs.
So the only way for us to build more frigates as of now is to increase the sanctioned strength.
The oldest P15 (INS Delhi) would be 45-50 years old by then.
The longest we pushed a destroyer so far was INS Rajput (1980-2021) - 41 years. And that's largely because of extreme delays in both P-15A & P-15B deliveries. At least the Rajput received some deep upgrades like BrahMos, P15 is receiving very modest ones if any.
When new frigates were available (thanks to Talwar inductions), you'd see we were retiring the Godavari-class pretty much when they should be retired. INS Ganga 1985-2018 - 34 years. INS Godavari at 32 years.
I think the Delhi-class retirements will coincide with NGD commissioning. First NGD commissioned in say 2035, INS Delhi would retire at 38 years old. Just about perfect.
Maintaining old hulls is a pain in the behind, especially when they don't give you a force-multiplier effect (like a CEC-capable vessel would, such as AEGIS-equipped Ticonderoga).
Much will depend on what exactly the NGD & NGF will look like & what their mission will be.
When you look at P-17A & P-15B, the capability gap is virtually non-existent and the mission overlap is significant - above 90%. The 17A is essentially the same as 15B, all that the 15B gives you is 8 additional SSM, with about ~600 tons more displacement. The 17A in fact has a greater range at cruising speeds. The line between DDG and FFG in the Indian Navy has never been more blurred.
If anything, over a period of time, taking serviceability & mission tasking availability into account, the FFG might just be a far more capable asset than the DDG - thanks to the GE turbines as opposed to the Ukrainian ones.
But will the same equation continue into NGD & NGF? Will NGF be to NGD what 17A is to 15B?
Or will there be significant divergence of mission profiles (which in turn will result in divergence of design & capabilities)?
Will we move toward a more Westernized approach with the DDG performing mostly AAW & Land-attack while the FFG takes care of ASuW & ASW? This would make sense when you consider the fact that the Kamorta-class has no direct successor (i.e. dedicated ocean-going ASW corvette) planned. Both 17/17A & 15A/15B leaning towards a combination of ASuW & AAW resulted in the requirement of a dedicated ASW vessel that could keep up with them on in the blue waters (P28).
But both the NGC & NGMV programs appear to be thoroughly multi-role corvettes geared toward independent taskings and/or littoral missions.
This COULD mean that the NGF indeed is an Indian analogue of the Type 26, taking on the duty of ASW screening for IN task forces/carrier groups. While the NGD could take on a role that combines a bit of Type 45 with a bit of Hobart/Arleigh Burke.
But there are no definitive answers yet and this is all speculation.
Last edited:
The MLU will give it an additional 20 years. The new information grid is supposed to bring in considerable changes to CEC.
There are significant firepower differences between the two new classes. One would be the 8 additional Brahmos missiles. The other is the use of smaller, less capable torpedoes on the frigates. So the P-15Bs retain superior ASW and ASuW over the P-17A. Both are more or less equally capable in AAW though. But the difference is not much.
It's not about life of the hull, but about technology insertion. What capabilities the ship delivers as opposed to the cost of keeping it running.
At the bare minimum (without requiring any deep changes to underlying combat management systems or sensor network), the Delhis need to receive a 8-cell BrahMos VLS and a 32-cell 9M317ME VLS (vertically-launched Shtil system as on Batch-3 & 4 Talwars). The age of data-links & off-board targeting is here and short-range ASCMs are passe, whether you are Eastern or Western bloc, you're gonna be going for longer-ranged surface weapons like BrahMos, Zircon or LRASM. By the 2030s, even more so.
A much more comprehensive upgrade (which I wouldn't mind even if we keep into 2040s) would be if we junk the current underlying system altogether, place a Tata/WESEE combat management system, MF-STAR or equivalent main sensor & a Barak-8/8ER air defence package. Along with the BrahMos VLS of course. Basically make it an equivalent of the Kolkata/Vizag in terms of offensive & defensive armament.
And by the way, isn't the P-15 SLEP already supposed to be underway? I think I recall seeing pictures of a Delhi being taken apart at the Naval Dockyard in Mumbai (not MDL) a while back. What happened to it?
Don't seem to recall us making any major changes. The first hull is already 25 years old - when else are we gonna do it?
Any details?
Way I see it, in the Sensors-and-Shooters game, data-links can enable the Delhi to function as a Shooter just fine - so long as some other ship (ostensibly equipped with MF-STAR or equivalent radar) is functioning as the Sensor which is directing the action. But this still introduces a level of handicapped nature. And at some point, the cost-benefit equation has to kick in - especially when we have large Private-sector yards like L&T sitting idle when they could be delivering large Surface Combatants concurrently with DPSU yards.
Unless we plan on getting into some kind of Coalition Defence strategy with US (read, Military Alliance), I don't see how the world's third-largest economy by that time (~2040s) can be so lax about Surface Warfare capabilities.
True - but that's the 10% I was talking about.
The mission overlap is humongous. The differences are in having more of the same things, or of having a slightly different version of the same thing.
That said, the overlap is obviously fixed at least as far as the currently under-construction vessels are concerned (15B and 17A) - what I'm wondering about, are the yet-to-start programs, the NGD and NGF.
Apparently it will get Brahmos and Shtil-1. And we could see as many as 48 SAMs, since there are two of the older rail launchers. Brahmos may not come in a VLS form. I don't think they are going to complicate the design with MF-STAR and Barak, but most of the other electronics should be modern, either the same as Vizag or comparable systems. The MLU is ongoing, no clue when they plan to finish it though.
Nothing much. Just that work's going on.
The ranges involved when it comes to air defence using medium range SAMs is low enough for the Delhi's PESA radar to be very relevant.
I think our surface warfare capability will be quite sufficient. With 15 destroyers and 24 frigates, we will have 39 major surface combatants in the IOR. Plus 2 carriers. So that's going to be largely competitive with some 100 major surface combatants the Chinese will possess by then, some 50 frigates, 30 small destroyers and 20 large destroyers. If necessary, we can increase the sanctioned strength of frigates instead, but I don't think we need new ships until the 2030s.
I get the feeling most of the navy's funding between 2025-30 will be used up on SSKs, SSNs and amphibious capabilities and helicopters, apart from force multipliers. Only NGC is pending for now.
I suppose the IN used the sanctioned strength of frigates to get more destroyers. Out of all the P-15s, P-17s and Talwars, only the Talwars qualify to be true frigates after all.
We know the NGD will be large destroyers. But the NGF is an enigma, at least it's going to be a new design.
Great posts above. 2 cents:
- Navy's acquisition program is in doldrums in nearly every single area, mercifully surface warfare is not one of them. Between the Next Generation projects there are 42 ships in early stages from FACs to DDGs.
- There is significant overlap between Projects 17A and 15B. IMHO the former is a frigate in name alone - not sure this is meant to underplay our strength (opposite to what PN does, where a frigate is called a destroyer, and a corvette is called a frigate). It could also be excessive scope creep as well. Talwar class is just about right sized as far as a frigate is concerned.
- Unlike AuzNavy, RN and NATO navies, we cannot prioritize one mission set for our destroyers given the nature of threats and the expected mission. ASW, ASuW, Air defence, land attack ... i don't see how we could skip anything at all. However one could look to bring differentiation in other areas otherwise all corvettes, frigates and destroyers will end up at 10,000 tons. For example, corvettes and frigates could be designed with diesels and be generally smaller, while destroyers could be more exotic propulsion and have longer legs. DDGs could have 2 choppers vs 1 in frigates.
- Navy's acquisition program is in doldrums in nearly every single area, mercifully surface warfare is not one of them. Between the Next Generation projects there are 42 ships in early stages from FACs to DDGs.
- There is significant overlap between Projects 17A and 15B. IMHO the former is a frigate in name alone - not sure this is meant to underplay our strength (opposite to what PN does, where a frigate is called a destroyer, and a corvette is called a frigate). It could also be excessive scope creep as well. Talwar class is just about right sized as far as a frigate is concerned.
- Unlike AuzNavy, RN and NATO navies, we cannot prioritize one mission set for our destroyers given the nature of threats and the expected mission. ASW, ASuW, Air defence, land attack ... i don't see how we could skip anything at all. However one could look to bring differentiation in other areas otherwise all corvettes, frigates and destroyers will end up at 10,000 tons. For example, corvettes and frigates could be designed with diesels and be generally smaller, while destroyers could be more exotic propulsion and have longer legs. DDGs could have 2 choppers vs 1 in frigates.
I think efficiency wise frigates = ASW
while destroyers = AA and antiship.
Obviously you want multirole, but eh you know.
while destroyers = AA and antiship.
Obviously you want multirole, but eh you know.
Talwar Class Frigates have often taken long voyages over a single deployment to European and African nations.
IN has used frigates as stand alone platforms capable to do all possible tasks. And it will not change.
In future the destroyers we are looking at will be for fleet air defence and anti ship roles as primary functions , but they will retain ASW capabilities.
Our Frigates will be designed keeping in mind that these ships should be able to operate alone far off for long durations. Thereby multirole and the best propulsion we can buy from the market. ( Remember P17A has more modern power plant than the P15B )
Finally after the frigates we are looking at NGC. By their definition, they will too be capable of AShW, ASW and self air defence. They will likely be in 3500 class with Diesel propulsion.
We have pretty much reached the ceiling when it comes to frigates. The next replacement cycle is in the 2040s. The current one didn't happen because instead of 5 NGFs we bought 4 Talwars.
10 Talwars, 10 P-17/As and 3 P-16As will give us 23 out of the 24 frigates sanctioned. There's potential for only 1 ship, which may be left unused without a follow-on order.
The NGF should begin sometime in the middle of the next decade.
Or they will just repeat the order of P-17 line. This is definitely not an exclusive list as amphibious and minesweepers are missing.
One thing we can say is that this is for upto 2022-23 right. The last P15B will be launched soon, therefore NGD is mentioned. But GRSE will launch the last P17A by late 2024.
Maybe, i don't know, i am just trying find some kind of explaining.
But by 2025 there will definitely be a new NGF program, irrespective of follow on P17A are placed or not.
Won't take that long. Will have a new frigate program by 2025. Just like NGD is mentioned in the above list , it only means activities will start, not the actual construction. The actual construction will start much later. Similar way we will have a NGF by 2025 in works. Construction may be later.
No mention of P 75(I) subs too. Does that mean they aren't coming? News just in VLS isn't part of the IN SQRs in revised RFI for P 75(I) .
The whole thing's turning into a joke.
The whole thing's turning into a joke.
Yep, it's just 1 ship.
NGD is the first priority. We are missing 5 ships. Construction's expected to begin in 2027 or so. NGF's not expected until the 2030s. The design experience and technology on NGD can go into the NGF by then.
This is the year of the IAC-2 and MRCBF.
15 to 19 are basically the same thing.
IAC-2, NGC and NGD seem to be design contracts. NGMV and FSS are production contracts.
I wonder what's the difference between the HALE and MALE UAVs. The HALE probably refers to US SeaGuardians. So the MALE? Perhaps a design contract for a new UAV? Interesting requirement. The only thing I can think of is Triton and SeaGuardians, but we would have heard about that. I won't be surprised if either 3 or 4 is fake, meant to be something else but not for public consumption, like the SSN contract.
It's gonna be a pretty expensive year for the navy. So good news on that front.
15 to 19 are basically the same thing.
IAC-2, NGC and NGD seem to be design contracts. NGMV and FSS are production contracts.
I wonder what's the difference between the HALE and MALE UAVs. The HALE probably refers to US SeaGuardians. So the MALE? Perhaps a design contract for a new UAV? Interesting requirement. The only thing I can think of is Triton and SeaGuardians, but we would have heard about that. I won't be surprised if either 3 or 4 is fake, meant to be something else but not for public consumption, like the SSN contract.
It's gonna be a pretty expensive year for the navy. So good news on that front.
We are calling our frigates as destroyers. Destroyers we using have similar weapon inventory & tonnage that of upcoming US Navy Constellation class frigates.
It is a very 'interesting' list - but I am not sure how to read it correctly. It would be a miracle if all these systems could be contracted for in 10 years, let alone 1. But then why are crucial programs such as MCM missing?
It best confirms existence of some programs. I was happy to see National Hospital Ship, NGFIC and NGSV. Not to forget XLUUV.
MRSAM seems to figure a lot and at least to me that was a surprise.