Opinion Despite Vast Coastline and IOR Duties, India's 13 Destroyers Critically Lag Behind China's 50 and Japan's 42, Urgent Call for Accelerated Project-18

Destroyers, known for their speed, agility, and powerful armaments, are crucial warships for protecting naval fleets and projecting maritime power. However, a current assessment of global naval strengths reveals a significant challenge for India.

As of late March 2025, India operates 13 destroyers, placing it numerically far behind the United States (81), China (50), and Japan (42), and tying it with South Korea (13).

The Indian Navy's destroyer force comprises four classes: the modern Visakhapatnam and Kolkata classes, the slightly older Delhi class, and the ageing Rajput class (originally Soviet-built).

While equipped with potent systems like the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile and Barak-8 surface-to-air missiles, the sheer quantity of these vessels raises concerns.

The comparison with Japan's 42 destroyers is particularly stark, highlighting a potential capability gap that requires urgent attention from Indian defence planners.

Leading Global Destroyer Fleets​

Several nations maintain significantly larger and technologically advanced destroyer fleets:

• United States: With 81 destroyers, primarily the versatile Arleigh Burke-class equipped with the advanced Aegis Combat System and 96 Vertical Launch System (VLS) cells, the U.S. Navy holds the top position globally, reflecting its extensive global commitments and industrial capacity.
• China: The People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has rapidly grown its fleet to 50 destroyers. This includes the capable Type 052D and the large Type 055 vessels (classified by China as destroyers, though comparable to cruisers), featuring 64 and 112 VLS cells respectively. This expansion supports China's increasing maritime ambitions.
• Japan: The Japan Maritime Self-Defence Force (JMSDF) operates a sophisticated fleet of 42 destroyers. Key assets include Aegis-equipped vessels like the Maya and Atago classes (96 VLS cells), alongside other advanced destroyers focused on anti-submarine warfare and missile defence, primarily addressing regional security concerns.
• South Korea: Matching India with 13 destroyers, the Republic of Korea Navy includes the formidable Sejong the Great-class, which boasts Aegis systems and a high capacity of 128 VLS cells, making them among the most heavily armed destroyers globally.

The India-Japan Disparity and Regional Responsibilities​

The difference between India's 13 destroyers and Japan's 42 is noteworthy, especially considering India's significantly longer coastline (approximately 7,516 km compared to Japan's 2,900 km) and its extensive strategic duties across the vital Indian Ocean Region (IOR). Japan's larger fleet stems from its long-standing focus on maritime defence capabilities, often developed in collaboration with the U.S., and potentially more streamlined procurement processes. Furthermore, many Japanese destroyers feature a higher number of VLS cells (often 96) compared to India's current frontline ships (32 VLS), indicating greater missile-carrying capacity.

India's current destroyers, though increasingly indigenous in design and construction (Visakhapatnam, Kolkata, Delhi classes), are divided between the Western and Eastern Naval Commands. This deployment aims to address potential challenges from both Pakistan and China. The induction of the four Visakhapatnam-class ships (completed with INS Surat in early 2025) and the three Kolkata-class ships represents significant modernisation. However, the limited overall numbers and the presence of older vessels like the Rajput class (commissioned in the 1980s) underscore the numerical constraints on the fleet.

Project-18: A Glimmer of Hope Needing Scale​

The Indian Navy's planned Project-18 Next Generation Destroyers (NGD), conceptualised by the Warship Design Bureau, represents a significant technological step forward.

These planned vessels are expected to be large warships of around 13,000 tons, featuring advanced capabilities like integrated electric propulsion, a high VLS count (potentially 120-144 cells), and indigenous weapon systems.

However, current indications suggest an initial plan for only about six Project-18 destroyers. Construction is tentatively expected to begin around the end of this decade, with deliveries stretching from the mid-2030s onwards.

Building only six NGDs would bring India's total destroyer count (assuming retirement of the Rajput class) to around 19 – still considerably fewer than Japan's current fleet and far behind China's growing numbers. This limited scale risks failing to adequately address India's strategic requirements.

The Case for Expansion and Acceleration​

Given the naval build-up by China and the existing disparity with Japan, defence analysts argue that Project-18 needs to be significantly scaled up, potentially to 18-24 ships. Such numbers would better align the fleet size with India's goal of being a primary security provider in the IOR.

To ensure these future destroyers are world-class, incorporating planned advancements like hypersonic missiles (BrahMos-II), potential anti-ballistic missile capabilities (linked to systems like Project Kusha), and sophisticated AESA radars is considered crucial.

Furthermore, the decade-long gap between the last Visakhapatnam-class destroyer (INS Surat) and the first potential NGD delivery raises concerns. Accelerating the Project-18 timeline, perhaps by involving multiple shipyards like Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Ltd (MDL) and Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers (GRSE) in parallel construction, could help mitigate this gap.

India has demonstrated its capacity for complex warship construction with projects like the Visakhapatnam-class. While budget constraints (India's defence spending is around 1.9% of GDP) and procurement timelines are persistent challenges, a strategic commitment to an expanded fleet of 18-24 NGDs is seen by many as essential. Such an effort would create a more balanced naval force and significantly bolster India's capacity to safeguard its extensive maritime interests.

 

PM Modi Inaugurates Solar Defence's Loitering Munition Test Range in Nagpur, Maharashtra

DRDO Commences TARA Precision-Guided Bomb's Captive Trials on IAF Jaguar, Enhancing Deep-Strike Potential Beyond Enemy Air Defence Reach

[R. Singh]

We should collaborate with USA to make latest gen large (18000 ton+) destroyers to make at least 15 warships armed with Aegis combat system and also seek tech of Tomahawk (2500 Km) missiles ! Indian Navy must have 12 each Destroyers for eastern and western flanks and 20 (18000+ton) Destroyers for IOR and Indo Pacific !

 

[DS]

Interesting column.

We need two CBD groups for our existing strength. That alone requires 18 -24 destroyers .

The government of India should continue the Project 15B Destroyers in MDL till a force level of 24 is achieved .

The gap of production, timewise is far too much till Project 18 arrives .

 

[Somnath Sinhababu]

Japan has 42 destroyers... really... I did not know that... India should catch up and for god's sake get out from red tapism and see the reality... what we doing in the last 10 years... nothing... I thought after 2014 many basic changes would happen but nothing changed... no difference and even worse in some cases... can you tell me which big or massive defence projects have been cleared by our so-called nationalist Vishwaguru PM... whatever the Indian Navy is getting now, be it submarines or destroyers, all these deals were signed during the MMS government... no news regarding P75I, Project 18 class destroyers, 3rd carrier... nothing... the current government is just the best at talking... and the public is still voting for them... no game-changing decision has been taken by them in the last 11 years...

 

[Singh]

The stark reality is that there have been zero orders for capital warships since the past 11 years: no destroyers, no aircraft carriers, no submarines. Shipbuilding for capital warships has come to a grinding halt, with this being a lost decade. A number of destroyers and submarines will need to be decommissioned in the next 5-10 years, and even if orders are placed now, it will be well into the 2030s before the Navy gets back to its current numbers.

 

[abhinav srivastava]

We are short on Submarines, mine sweepers, destroyers and may be some other platforms as well. We take our defense preparedness lightly. Big wars may break out less frequently, but once they do defending the country will become a challenge.
If we have lesser budget then import less and develop and produce more in India, it will be cost effective.

 

[ASHOK CARROL]

India needs to standardize two classes of destroyers, of 7600-9000 tons, and Type 18 of 14000 tons, and build 30 destroyers of type 7600 and 18-24 of Type 18. The breakout must start by 2030, when Mazagon must be the sole shipyard for building the destroyers and GRSE for frigates, which also need to be built, over 60 in batches of 8-12. Targeting a global fleet strength of 350-450 by 2055, with bases all over, investments in shipbuilding will provide the teeth to the navy of over 100 frontline destroyers and frigates for global operations and reach, when the nation's sea lines of communications are stretched in all five oceans and continents, with exports of over 3-5 trillion and imports of a similar amount for a GDP of 33-55 trillion.

 

[Ronit Roy]

The biggest part of capital expenditure is given to the army, followed by the air force and then the navy.

First, there is a need to increase the defence budget with the growing economy. Instead of distributing freebies, give it to the tri-services for capital expenditure.

Second, the navy immediately needs P18-type destroyers. It will be great if this project gets CCS approval soon.

 

[Mango_Indian]

The IN firmly believes in under-arming its warships. You just need to check any IN warship with a similar tonnage warship of any other Navy. We have 3,000 ton warships of the Israeli Navy (Sa'ar class) with more firepower than our 6,000 ton IN warships.

 

[Anant]

Pretty poor analysis, all said and done. All fleets have aging destroyers. Heck, I'd happily put something like a Talwar-class frigate over one of Japan's aging Asagiri-class destroyers or obsolete Abukuma-class frigates (called by Japan as destroyer escorts, and therefore counted in that 42 number).

A direct comparison with Japan is both pointless and incorrect. Japan has a very small ground force, while the Indian Army takes the lion's share of the budget. The JMSDF got almost 6% of the overall Japanese defence budget this year for capital acquisitions alone. In contrast, the overall share of the Indian Navy of the defence budget is just shy of 20%. Japan can afford to spend far more (proportionately speaking) on their Navy and Air Force than we can. Moreover, Japan's main roles in the Indo-Pacific is more of a guard against China, and they are not exactly expected to go gallivanting across the Pacific doing anything and everything. That is the US' job to do. Hence, Japan doesn't need stuff like corvettes.

If you actually add up destroyers, frigates, and corvettes, the numbers become far closer: Japan has 48 such ships (36 destroyers plus 12 frigates, which includes 14 obsolete ships at the point of retirement). India has between 37 and 45 such ships (13 destroyers, 14 frigates, and 10 corvettes, plus a further 8 coastal corvettes of the Abhay- and Veer-classes if you want to count them). In terms of obsolete ships, India has 5 such ships. Then, if you look at the pipeline of such ships, Japan has 8 such ships under construction and a further 10 planned (all frigates). India has 15 to 31 ships under construction (9 frigates, 6 corvettes, and a further 16 coastal corvettes) plus another 21 to 26 ships planned (6 to 10 destroyers, 7 to 8 frigates, and 8 corvettes).

Granted, a top of the line Japanese destroyer is considerably better than a Visakhapatnam-class frigate, but given the funds that the JMSDF and the Indian Navy get, both forces do the best they can.

Now, if you really want a better comparison, look at South Korea, which has to maintain a sizeable ground force against North Korea.

Coming to the next point, who is the bright spark who advocates to increase P-18 procurement to 18-24 ships? Just where do you think the money is going to come from? Moreover, the size and capabilities of the P-18s will mean we can only afford a limited number of them (say, 8 to 10). You don't want to send a large cruiser where a small frigate would suffice. The US tried that, realised it was a stupid idea, tried to fix it with their LCSs, and are now building frigates again.

You want a better idea? Here it is:

1. Get 8-10 P-18 NGDs.

2. Up-arm the existing ships heavily, be it in terms of SAMs, SSMs, or point defence systems. The P-15A and P-15Bs need to carry atleasts 64-80 VL-SAMs, plus 24 SSMs (use 8 NASM-MRs in inclined launchers). The P-17 and P-17As need to carry 64-80 SAMs plus 16 SSMs (which includes 8 NASM-MRs). The larger corvettes need to get 16-32 VL-SAMs.

3. Build a new class of OPVs which have SSMs fitted-for-but-not-with (FFBNW) and 32 SAMs.

4. Use the Nilgiri-class design, and design a class of mid-sized destroyers. This would be similar to P-17B. Get 80 VL-SAMs plus 16-20 SSMs, and get a dozen of these.

 

[Anant]

The biggest part of capital expenditure is given to the army, followed by the air force and then the navy.

First, there is a need to increase the defence budget with the growing economy. Instead of distributing freebies, give it to the tri-services for capital expenditure.

Second, the navy immediately needs P18-type destroyers. It will be great if this project gets CCS approval soon.

Well, I'd be happy if DAC approval came in this year. That would allow CCS approval by 2027, with construction to begin by 2028-29, and hopefully the first ship in service by 2035 or so.

 

[Anant]

Japan has 42 destroyers... really... I did not know that... India should catch up and for god's sake get out from red tapism and see the reality... what we doing in the last 10 years... nothing... I thought after 2014 many basic changes would happen but nothing changed... no difference and even worse in some cases... can you tell me which big or massive defence projects have been cleared by our so-called nationalist Vishwaguru PM... whatever the Indian Navy is getting now, be it submarines or destroyers, all these deals were signed during the MMS government... no news regarding P75I, Project 18 class destroyers, 3rd carrier... nothing... the current government is just the best at talking... and the public is still voting for them... no game-changing decision has been taken by them in the last 11 years...

Well, to be clear, you can divide those 42 Japanese ships into three groups:

1. Proper guided-missile destroyers: They have 8 of these ships, and all of them are extremely capable and excellent ships. They also have an additional 6 Mogami-class friagtes which are excellent ships (but aren't part of this 42 number).

2. General-purpose destroyers: They have 20 such ships, all of which are some fairly capable and ships.

3. Old destroyers: They have 14 ships here. These comprise the 8 Asagiri-class destroyers and 6 Abukuma-class destroyer escorts (well, technically, frigates). These are all old ships that are at the end of their lives, and aren't suitable for anything except second-line roles).

A similar comparison for India would give you 7 proper guided-missile destroyers (plus 5 frigates), 3 general-purpose destroyers (plus 9 frigates and 8 corvettes) and 3 old destroyers (plus 2 corvettes and 8 coastal corvettes).

 

[Devasahayam]

Well, to be clear, you can divide those 42 Japanese ships into three groups:

1. Proper guided-missile destroyers: They have 8 of these ships, and all of them are extremely capable and excellent ships. They also have an additional 6 Mogami-class friagtes which are excellent ships (but aren't part of this 42 number).

2. General-purpose destroyers: They have 20 such ships, all of which are some fairly capable and ships.

3. Old destroyers: They have 14 ships here. These comprise the 8 Asagiri-class destroyers and 6 Abukuma-class destroyer escorts (well, technically, frigates). These are all old ships that are at the end of their lives, and aren't suitable for anything except second-line roles).

A similar comparison for India would give you 7 proper guided-missile destroyers (plus 5 frigates), 3 general-purpose destroyers (plus 9 frigates and 8 corvettes) and 3 old destroyers (plus 2 corvettes and 8 coastal corvettes).

Which comes to 45 (difference between a frigate and a destroyer is minimal).

 

[Shrujanam Syama]

The actual difference between destroyers and frigates is minimal. Even corvettes serve a major role in the Indian navy as it is mainly aimed at the IOR region, which has less distance to travel.

 

[BHARAT KA BETA]

The biggest part of capital expenditure is given to the army, followed by the air force and then the navy.

First, there is a need to increase the defence budget with the growing economy. Instead of distributing freebies, give it to the tri-services for capital expenditure.

Second, the navy immediately needs P18-type destroyers. It will be great if this project gets CCS approval soon.

Absolutely, this freebies culture should be stopped. A defence budget of at least 130+ billion USD is the need of the time, and most importantly, the majority of the budget should be used in R&D of cutting-edge technologies and equipment acquiring (mainly indigenous weapons) rather than using the majority of the budget in payments/pensions etc. That is why I support the government's decision on the 'Agniveer Scheme'. In future warfare, we need skilful and quality soldiers rather than huge numbers of normal soldiers (even considering the fact that quantity is also a quality).

 

[Anant]

Which comes to 45 (difference between a frigate and a destroyer is minimal).

Well, if I really had to count them, I'd count these numbers under those three categories, which would give us 14 vs 12, 20 vs 20, and 14 vs 13 respectively.

However, the major difference here would be the relative capability of the ships in the respective categories. For instance, there is a case to be made that the two Maya-class destroyers alone are more capable than all four Visakhapatnam-class destroyers. Similarly, our eight ships in the third category include a single coastal ASW corvette that is already well beyond the point of retirement, a further five small corvettes that are essentially single-use missile boats in form of the five Veer-class corvettes, and two Improved Veer-class corvettes). With the exception of the two latter ships, an Asagiri-class destroyer would be far better off.

 

[ramdas]

Miserable conditions for the IN, with 13 destroyers they cannot fight a two-front war. The same is the case with IAF. How can they choke China if they send equal destroyers to counter the 13 numbers? All 13 would not be deployed, some would be reserved towards Pakistan. All in all, a nightmare for the IN.

 

[The_rED_dEVIL]

The stark reality is that there have been zero orders for capital warships since the past 11 years: no destroyers, no aircraft carriers, no submarines. Shipbuilding for capital warships has come to a grinding halt, with this being a lost decade. A number of destroyers and submarines will need to be decommissioned in the next 5-10 years, and even if orders are placed now, it will be well into the 2030s before the Navy gets back to its current numbers.

The saga of P-15A/B-class destroyers, P-17/A, Talwar-class frigates, Kamorta corvettes was more of a modernisation than expansion. Unfortunately, after 2027 there will be barely any induction of capital warships unlike recently where we consistently inducted 2-3 warships a year. Also, these warships are barely equipped as compared to similar tonnage warships. (For example, Kolkata, Visakhapatnam-class can have at least 72-80 VLS layout; Shivalik, Nilgiri frigates can be upgraded to 48 VLS layout; Kamorta "must" have 24 VLSRSAM launchers.)

Let's hope the next generation series of warships that are now being planned/designed (P-18, P-17B, NGC) has enough firepower and are inducted fast between 2030 and 2040 in high numbers (double digits).

 

[Kira]

@Anant
A very good analysis, besides another point that needs consideration is that Japan, as well as all other countries mentioned above, have a bigger economy and much larger and efficient shipbuilding programs in contrast to limited Indian capacity paired with typical PSU lethargy.

The limited number of VLS cells on even modern IN capital ships is indeed a valid point, but that mostly has to do with a lack of any anti-ship/anti-air missiles beyond the Brahmos and Barak-1.

I do believe with the advent of newer cruise missiles and LRSAM etc., and IN designers finally realising that they also need to increase VLS cells with increasing tonnage, IN can finally get those cruiser-class destroyers deployed by USN, JSDF Navy, and PLAN.

Although, I do think that India's limited shipbuilding capacity and PSU inefficiencies will still result in large construction periods and low numbers.