The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
In an unfortunate incident today at Naval Dockyard Mumbai, 3 naval personnel lost their lives in an explosion in an internal compartment onboard INS Ranvir. Responding immediately, the ship's crew brought the situation under control. There is no major material damage.
Sad news it said it was not due to weapons or ammunition.
Rakesh wrote:John, another upgrade. Nice to see the older/legacy ships getting regular upgrades.
Interesting how even missile boats are being fitted with 2238 which is better radar than what even PN has on its new state of art Chinese FFGs. Wonder where that leaves 3D CAR radar I was expecting that to start popping in more vessels.
Looks like no Brahmos wonder if it is because of Tarantula class cannot handle Brahmos in inclined launchers (which contradicts the 2x4 models we have seen earlier on but are no longer being displayed).
Karan M wrote:
IMHO they are overlapping systems which will complement each other. At $240 Mn overall, 180 Mn$ for Mahindra, its a very cost effective deal. Cost for 16 ships.
Mareech is a torpedo defence system with integrated towed sonar, decoy capability integrated plus expendable decoys. Note soft kill throughout.
This Ultra system, appears to be an integrated towed sonar with advanced torpedo detection capability, plus torpedo defence via the expendable hard kill units launched from the deck. IADS is the detection part. NTDS is the torpedo defeat /decoy system. Its sonar is also meant for torpedo detection and countermeasures. Same as Mareech. Its very similar to the Mareech, except its hard kill plus soft kill both relying on expendable decoys.
Mareech relies on soft kill throughout, using a mix of expendable decoys and a countermeasure system integrated with the towed array itself.
Mareech has been ordered for 11 ships. Once the above system is developed (hard kill), it will be added to the ships with Mareech. So, yes, both systems will complement each other.
Hats off to the Navy for constantly inducting the most niche, advanced tech for their platforms while mainstreaming local tech as well and getting it to the sane level or even beyond.
Once all of these systems are integrated into our major surface combatants, will that mean we can finally get rid of the RBU-6000's from those ships and use that space for more VLS cells (and declutter the deck in the process)? It has no real ASW utility against modern submarines anymore. The only justification I have found for keeping the ancient RBU-6000 around is that it can be used as a hard-kill measure against torpedoes. But this Ultra system and DRDO's follow on systems will be far more effective against torpedoes than the RBU-6000.
Karan M wrote:
IMHO they are overlapping systems which will complement each other. At $240 Mn overall, 180 Mn$ for Mahindra, its a very cost effective deal. Cost for 16 ships.
Mareech is a torpedo defence system with integrated towed sonar, decoy capability integrated plus expendable decoys. Note soft kill throughout.
This Ultra system, appears to be an integrated towed sonar with advanced torpedo detection capability, plus decoy capability via the towed array, plus torpedo defence via the expendable hard kill units launched from the deck. IADS is the detection part. NTDS is the torpedo defeat /decoy system. Its sonar is also meant for torpedo detection and countermeasures. Same as Mareech. Its very similar to the Mareech, except its hard kill plus soft kill both relying on expendable decoys.
Mareech relies on soft kill throughout, using a mix of expendable decoys and a countermeasure system integrated with the towed array itself.
Mareech has been ordered for 11 ships. Once the above system is developed (hard kill), it will be added to the ships with Mareech. So, yes, both systems will complement each other.
Hats off to the Navy for constantly inducting the most niche, advanced tech for their platforms while mainstreaming local tech as well and getting it to the sane level or even beyond.
Once all of these systems are integrated into our major surface combatants, will that mean we can finally get rid of the RBU-6000's from those ships and use that space for more VLS cells (and declutter the deck in the process)? It has no real ASW utility against modern submarines anymore. The only justification I have found for keeping the ancient RBU-6000 around is that it can be used as a hard-kill measure against torpedoes. But this Ultra system and DRDO's follow on systems will be far more effective against torpedoes than the RBU-6000.
Not sure what you mean by it has no real ASW capability against modern subs. When a SSK is idle or running on batteries it hardly produces any noise and would be very hard for torpedoes or sonar to detect them. In this scenario you can saturate the area you received the last ping with rbu mortar rounds, that said if we can fit smaller version of SMART in the ships we can reduce the # of vessels that need RBU-6000 or develop a universal rocket launcher that can fire both decoys and ASW rockets.
Would it be possible to produce a reengineered version of RBU 6000 takes up less footprint or can be mounted elsewhere to procure more real estate for those missile silos ?
^ The rockets are being updated the new rockets developed by ARDE is being built by Mahindra Defense I believe, it is part of IADS order. So may be next iteration can develop a more compact launcher (no reloads) using the same rockets.
John wrote:
Not sure what you mean by it has no real ASW capability against modern subs. When a SSK is idle or running on batteries it hardly produces any noise and would be very hard for torpedoes or sonar to detect them. In this scenario you can saturate the area you received the last ping with rbu mortar rounds, that said if we can fit smaller version of SMART in the ships we can reduce the # of vessels that need RBU-6000 or develop a universal rocket launcher that can fire both decoys and ASW rockets.
The SSK would engage the surface combatant with torpedoes long before it got into range of the RBU-6000. Also while a quiet SSK would be hard to detect for passive sonar if the Frigate/Destroyer captain suspects an SSK is that close to his ship he would use Active Sonar to locate it, not to mention deploy any ASW helicopters aboard to do the same. The probability of hitting a quiet SSK running on batteries with short-range unguided rocket assisted depth charges is quite low. The submarine captain would have to have seriously messed up to put his sub in that position.
SMART is a totally different ballgame of course since the projectile there is a torpedo with its own guidance system.
nachiket wrote:
The SSK would engage the surface combatant with torpedoes long before it got into range of the RBU-6000. Also while a quiet SSK would be hard to detect for passive sonar if the Frigate/Destroyer captain suspects an SSK is that close to his ship he would use Active Sonar to locate it, not to mention deploy any ASW helicopters aboard to do the same. The probability of hitting a quiet SSK running on batteries with short-range unguided rocket assisted depth charges is quite low. The submarine captain would have to have seriously messed up to put his sub in that position.
SMART is a totally different ballgame of course since the projectile there is a torpedo with its own guidance system.
A submarine isn’t going to fire off volley torpedoes on any enemy ship and dash out of there, any submarine captain would try to minimize engagement to only high value targets which he can engage and escape or isolated targets. The minute the torpedo is detected he becomes vulnerable to ASuW platforms and other ships it is not one to one engagement. Unlike nuclear submarine a diesel submarine cannot out run anything.
Yea the probability of unguided charges hitting anything is low if they are properly integrated with a Defensive suite (which is what Mahindra deal does) you can increase the probability to some extent. The Russian did develop a guided variant 90R however I don’t believe we license producing them.
In a shocking and unfortunate incident, three Indian Navy personnel were killed and 11 others were injured following an explosion on board guided-missile destroyer ship INS Ranvir in the Mumbai harbour on Tuesday. The explosion took place in the “internal compartment” of the vessel at the Naval Dockyard.* However, the situation is now under control.
...
The rank and the names of personnel who died in the incident is not yet known. “The immediate cause is not yet known. A probe has already been ordered,” an official of the Mumbai-headquartered Western Naval Command said. INS Ranvir was commissioned on October 28, 1986.
The RBUs have a magazine below them and carry up to 100 reloads.
I am not sure how effective they are, but the theory is that they can be used to prosecute contacts at short notice (~15 seconds), they do not have a minimum engagement distance (unlike torpedoes) and even suspected contacts can be fired upon cheaply and effectively.
In an unfortunate incident today at Naval Dockyard Mumbai, 3 naval personnel lost their lives in an explosion in an internal compartment onboard INS Ranvir. Responding immediately, the ship's crew brought the situation under control. There is no major material damage.
Very sad to hear about the loss of lives. May God give strength to the families of the departed sailors. Irreplaceable loss for them. Om Shanti.
Heard that DRDO is working on a super-cavitating Shkval type torpedo. This class of weapons have an amazing speed but suffer from range issues. But it might be great as an anti-torpedo system, where a limited range is not a big handicap.
Not sure if the guidance problems on these have been resolved.
In an unfortunate incident today at Naval Dockyard Mumbai, 3 naval personnel lost their lives in an explosion in an internal compartment onboard INS Ranvir. Responding immediately, the ship's crew brought the situation under control. There is no major material damage.
One of the vessel's boilers exploded.
https://twitter.com/mananbhattnavy/stat ... 07843?s=20 ---> INS Ranvir has two Auxiliary Boilers, one of them exploded. MCPO's cabin is just above the boiler room. Three MCPOs have lost their lives in the line of duty. 17 men are injured, out of which 4 men are critical and 13 are stable.
John wrote:
A submarine isn’t going to fire off volley torpedoes on any enemy ship and dash out of there, any submarine captain would try to minimize engagement to only high value targets which he can engage and escape or isolated targets. The minute the torpedo is detected he becomes vulnerable to ASuW platforms and other ships it is not one to one engagement. Unlike nuclear submarine a diesel submarine cannot out run anything.
Yea the probability of unguided charges hitting anything is low if they are properly integrated with a Defensive suite (which is what Mahindra deal does) you can increase the probability to some extent. The Russian did develop a guided variant 90R however I don’t believe we license producing them.
The submarine captain would also try and avoid getting too close to enemy surface ships where he can be engaged by close range weapons unless the submarine was cornered by multiple aerial and surface assets in a coordinated search operation at which point there might be sonobuoys in the water and helicopters with dipping sonar along with multiple surface ships pinging away with their active sonar. The submarine has a lot more to worry about that just RBU's in that situation. The RBU's are not useless but we have to bear in mind that keeping the RBU's for somewhat limited use cases comes with the tradeoff of reducing available space for VLS cells with the result that our biggest baddest destroyers are currently making do with 32 SAMs apiece. If the RBU's anti-torpedo role is taken over by these new systems plus something like the SMART can get deployed on ships it is a fair question to ask if the RBU's can be done away with it and the real estate put to better use.
A SSK that cant outrun anything is even more unlikely to come into RBU range. Unless we are saying that in order to prosecute a target well, it will come into RBU range, acquire a target well - release the torpedo - which has now far greater likelihood of hitting a target and then try run away.
But now that ship may get hit, so ship may not be able to hunt the submarine in peace. In chaos of being hit - the submarine has greater chance of escaping + trade off of having hit is already good enough (so its a sacrificial launch)
Interesting how even missile boats are being fitted with 2238 which is better radar than what even PN has on its new state of art Chinese FFGs. Wonder where that leaves 3D CAR radar I was expecting that to start popping in more vessels.
Looks like no Brahmos wonder if it is because of Tarantula class cannot handle Brahmos in inclined launchers (which contradicts the 2x4 models we have seen earlier on but are no longer being displayed).
DRDO has a whole bunch of radars on offer to the IN. Latter has shown little interest so far, preferring to continue with imports. Chalta hain/inertia in different groups. In some areas racing ahead, in others blase.
John wrote:
Not sure what you mean by it has no real ASW capability against modern subs. When a SSK is idle or running on batteries it hardly produces any noise and would be very hard for torpedoes or sonar to detect them. In this scenario you can saturate the area you received the last ping with rbu mortar rounds, that said if we can fit smaller version of SMART in the ships we can reduce the # of vessels that need RBU-6000 or develop a universal rocket launcher that can fire both decoys and ASW rockets.
The SSK would engage the surface combatant with torpedoes long before it got into range of the RBU-6000. Also while a quiet SSK would be hard to detect for passive sonar if the Frigate/Destroyer captain suspects an SSK is that close to his ship he would use Active Sonar to locate it, not to mention deploy any ASW helicopters aboard to do the same. The probability of hitting a quiet SSK running on batteries with short-range unguided rocket assisted depth charges is quite low. The submarine captain would have to have seriously messed up to put his sub in that position.
SMART is a totally different ballgame of course since the projectile there is a torpedo with its own guidance system.
The other aspect is to use surface radar modes and IR to detect /ID periscopes beyond relying on the sonar itself.
The biggest issue we have with DRDO type setup is that no project/product improved version occurs without GQSR/ASQR and MoD project sanctions. Arm companies have the flexibility to bring out version after version, even if they don't sell it.
This means when the services have a "sudden" need to induct a kit, stuff like Israeli radars will invariably come out as a better solution and available.
DRDO solutions can only work in a planned induction process.
The only way out of this is companies ( i have no hope on DPSU) take DRDO product and bring out variants by themselves, instead of waiting for DRDO project approvals.
I was just wondering what is the smallest displacement of boats that we need to have 3-4 Brahmos Anti-Ship missiles with very basic protection. This would be similar to type-22 chineese boat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_22_missile_boat
nachiket wrote:
.. if the Frigate/Destroyer captain suspects an SSK is that close to his ship he would use Active Sonar to locate it, not to mention deploy any ASW helicopters aboard to do the same...
nachiket wrote:....SMART is a totally different ballgame of course since the projectile there is a torpedo with its own guidance system.
Agree, though the initial sensor might be more likely something like a UAV (leased Sea Gurdians say hi), SOSUS or even a P8i ; and making sure that there are no Friendlies/Neutrals in the area ; the torpedo has no external guidance after all. [Plus reported minimum distance of ~50 km for SMART]
rajsunder wrote:I was just wondering what is the smallest displacement of boats that we need to have 3-4 Brahmos Anti-Ship missiles with very basic protection. This would be similar to type-22 chineese boat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_22_missile_boat
Osa class missile boats were essentially succeeded by corvettes. While you can go smaller, in addition to the missile itself, you may need a sensor (fire control radar) and likely some sustenance/weathering of the high seas. And once you go there, you may want to toss in some rudimentary Anti air.
The Russian missiles boats of the Caspian sea flotilla that fired cruise missiles against ISIS would be the smallest sized ships capable of shooting Brahmos.
Those were from 2 seperate classes. One was under 500 tons. The other was about 900 tons.
Pratyush wrote:The Russian missiles boats of the Caspian sea flotilla that fired cruise missiles against ISIS would be the smallest sized ships ..Those were from 2 seperate classes. One was under 500 tons. The other was about 900 tons.
An example closer home : The 245 ton Osa class missile boats used in 1971 were replaced by Tarantul class corvettes, which are still in Indian service are known as Veer class corvettes. 455-477 tons. They each Fire 4 Termit missiles, which weigh about 2600 kg each or a bit less than the Brahmos. If you really wanted to, and desired to rework it; it would align to the above
Pratyush wrote:The Russian missiles boats of the Caspian sea flotilla that fired cruise missiles against ISIS would be the smallest sized ships ..Those were from 2 seperate classes. One was under 500 tons. The other was about 900 tons.
An example closer home : The 245 ton Osa class missile boats used in 1971 were replaced by Tarantul class corvettes, which are still in Indian service are known as Veer class corvettes. 455-477 tons. They each Fire 4 Termit missiles, which weigh about 2600 kg each or a bit less than the Brahmos. If you really wanted to, and desired to rework it; it would align to the above
I guess you also need to look at the requirements of such small tonnage boats. If we want to build such boats to carry cruise missiles for Anti ship, we are building the NGMVs of 2,800 nm range which carry both Anti ship and Anti air missiles (32 × VL-SRSAM and 8 × VLS launched BrahMos, anti-ship). I may be wrong but I think Indian navy is looking for boats of that small tonnage for ASW like the ASW-SWC that we are currently building.
https://twitter.com/DfIlite/status/1484 ... 47458?s=20 ---> Inclined launcher for Brahmos missile. First picture from today's test. This could be added to ships, which don't have space to put universal vertical launchers.
Pratyush wrote:The Russian missiles boats of the Caspian sea flotilla that fired cruise missiles against ISIS would be the smallest sized ships capable of shooting Brahmos.
Those were from 2 seperate classes. One was under 500 tons. The other was about 900 tons.
China has about 80+ Type-22 boats that each carry 8 antiship missiles. They are stealthy and fast, we need similar ones carrying 8 Brahmos(May be NG, since its going to be lighter).
The chineese ones are about 220 tons displacement(YJ-83 is about 850 KG weight), even considering the fact that Brahmos NG would weight about 1.5 Tons. Brahmos Missile boats should not have a bigger displacement more than 500-550 tons.
India needs at least 50 of them. These boats can be hidden in holding pens on Andaman and Lakshadweep. These with jet propulsion and moving at around 40-50 knots would be very difficult to handle.
I am not quite convinced that we need such long ranged weapon for boats that are essentially for knife fighting.
The mental image I am getting is a phalanx equipped infantry man going against a knife equipped insurgent. In a one on one fight.
Having said that, I have in the past been dreaming up small boats with 8 to 16 universal VLS tubes. Capable of firing Brahmos, Prahar, Nirbhay, and any SAM in inventory. Taking shooting solutions from other assets for engagement.
But primarily equipped with new type of universal light AShM. Range should be from 50 kms to upto 350 to 400 kms. All up weight of under 500 kg. Capable of being carried by Tejas and shot from torpedo tubes of submarines as well.
Pratyush wrote:The Russian missiles boats of the Caspian sea flotilla that fired cruise missiles against ISIS would be the smallest sized ships capable of shooting Brahmos.
Those were from 2 seperate classes. One was under 500 tons. The other was about 900 tons.
That will be the Buyan and Kakarot class missile corvette. They have universal VLS launcher which I believe can fire Klub or Oniks. Russia uses her missile vessels as a way to skirt missile treaties and operate them in Caspain.
The big problem with missile corvette is cost of AshM most basic ship with 8 Brahmos (incl spares) will cost us over 100 mill. So we are not saving much by throwing them in small ships (which is what we found out arming 16 uran in Veer) and couple that with all their limitations (limited range, no missile defense capability etc). Need to find a cheaper missile if we want swarm of missile boats but then again it raises a question who exactly can we use it again unlike China which has 3 adversaries right next to it.
NGMV is supposed to be the answer a cheap vessel which we can be mass build. Originally I believe the plan was to use P28 design for an AshW variant but as the cost escalated with that design I believe navy has moved on to newer platform to fill that need.
Last edited by John on 22 Jan 2022 20:26, edited 1 time in total.
John wrote:Need to find a cheaper missile if we want swarm of missile boats but then again it raises a question who exactly can we use it again unlike China which has 3 adversaries right next to it.
Exactly. Those missile boats make perfect sense to terrorize Taiwan - you don't need the range, you need to mount some missiles and surround the island with a few dozen in times of war.
We don't have the requirement. It is a solution looking for a problem
John wrote:The big problem with missile corvette is cost of AshM most basic ship with 8 Brahmos (incl spares) will cost us over 100 mill. So we are not saving much by throwing them in small ships (which is what we found out arming 16 uran in Veer) and couple that with all their limitations (limited range, no missile defense capability etc). Need to find a cheaper missile if we want swarm of missile boats but then again it raises a question who exactly can we use it again unlike China which has 3 adversaries right next to it.
There is also a consideration about putting too much offensive capability on ships that have practically zero credible defense capability. Any time you up the offensive power of a naval vessel you also invite your opponent to dedicate more resources towards denying you that offensive advantage. If a ship is inherently not able to strike that balance then that capability may not survive very long in intense combat, and even if/when it does, it will require additional resources which will then be tied up to protect this capability. There is a room for cheap vessels, with decent qualitative/quantitative offensive magazines. That space seems to be a prime candidate for unmanned or minimally optionally crewed surface vessels. A crewed missile boat like the Type-22 is not very difficult to develop tactical, and operational countermeasures against in conflict. Given the lack of defenses, their movements will be very predictable given a need for other defensive vessels to protect them. If not, then plenty of aviation capability using something like a Brimstone can neutralize such a threat since these things can't push back platforms outside the ranges of these weapons. In fact, it isn't a coincidence that the USAF and USN both maintain glide direct attack munitions with anti-ship capability. There are a lot of PLAN targets that can be taken out with those leaving the longer ranged missiles for targets that are better defended.
John wrote:The big problem with missile corvette is cost of AshM most basic ship with 8 Brahmos (incl spares) will cost us over 100 mill. So we are not saving much by throwing them in small ships (which is what we found out arming 16 uran in Veer) and couple that with all their limitations (limited range, no missile defense capability etc). Need to find a cheaper missile if we want swarm of missile boats but then again it raises a question who exactly can we use it again unlike China which has 3 adversaries right next to it.
There is also a consideration about putting too much offensive capability on ships that have practically zero credible defense capability. Any time you up the offensive power of a naval vessel you also invite your opponent to dedicate more resources towards denying you that offensive advantage. If a ship is inherently not able to strike that balance then that capability may not survive very long in intense combat, and even if/when it does, it will require additional resources which will then be tied up to protect this capability. There is a room for cheap vessels, with decent qualitative/quantitative offensive magazines. That space seems to be a prime candidate for unmanned or minimally optionally crewed surface vessels. A crewed missile boat like the Type-22 is not very difficult to develop tactical, and operational countermeasures against in conflict. Given the lack of defenses, their movements will be very predictable given a need for other defensive vessels to protect them. If not, then plenty of aviation capability using something like a Brimstone can neutralize such a threat since these things can't push back platforms outside the ranges of these weapons. In fact, it isn't a coincidence that the USAF and USN both maintain glide direct attack munitions with anti-ship capability. There are a lot of PLAN targets that can be taken out with those leaving the longer ranged missiles for targets that are better defended.
Just checked chineese GDP on a PPP basis, it is $23.444 Trillion as per world bank website. With that GDP chineese will keep building AC's like there is no tomorrow. I will not be surprised if they end up having 15+ 100K ton displacement AC's by the 2050-60 timeline.
If we can have these small 500-600ton displacement missile boats(make it more stealthy or semi/fully submersible if that helps) in both our island chains with their own storage pens, they can make life difficult for the chineese captains of the AC's in both bay of bengal and arabian sea.
These boats would not be the main defense against chineese, but would be a part of the defense team along with vehicle mounted anti-ship supersonic and hypersonic missiles(stationed on islands and mainland India), submarines and land based ballistic missiles.
we need more options for defense and these missile boats would surely make the cut.
rajsunder wrote:we need more options for defense and these missile boats would surely make the cut.
You aren't going to kill carriers with these if they can't defend themselves or if they burden other defensive vessels to cover for them. If all you are looking at is a small very cheap missile carrier then what's stopping them from just building longer ranged land based or air launched missiles? While there may be plenty of reasons why you would build such small vessels, I doubt that they will be a credible defense against a proper air wing equipped aircraft carrier like what you are stating they may end up being used against. That air wing would have plenty of capability to sanitize large amounts of area from defenseless or poorly defended vessels that lack range, endurance, or credible ISR capability. When you have unmanned highly autonomous vessels become reality, these type of concepts become more viable (even then they are going to be task specific).
A cheap boat without ASCM defenses is just an expensive target. An enemy may ignore that if it doesn't have the ability to harm it significantly, but if you put a lot of offensive capability on it (like the PLAN does with its Type22) then they become targets that get tasked to the air-wing fairly early on in a large scale conflict. The submarine is the best bet to sink ships in a large conflict give how hard it is to defend against the threat. That and airpower that can deliver volume fires with flexibility. This assumes a threat that includes a carrier air wing as you've pointed out. Take away airpower from the other side then this may become more viable. But then it is quite unlikely that any non carrier force is going to sail into the IOR with a surface group given the capability the IN has even presently thus making this not that big of a priority against a non carrier equipped PLAN formation that may decide to go on some adventure.
rajsunder wrote:we need more options for defense and these missile boats would surely make the cut.
You aren't going to kill carriers with these if they can't defend themselves or if they burden other defensive vessels to cover for them. If all you are looking at is a small very cheap missile carrier then what's stopping them from just building longer ranged land based or air launched missiles? While there may be plenty of reasons why you would build such small vessels, I doubt that they will be a credible defense against a proper air wing equipped aircraft carrier like what you are stating they may end up being used against. That air wing would have plenty of capability to sanitize large amounts of area from defenseless or poorly defended vessels that lack range, endurance, or credible ISR capability. When you have unmanned highly autonomous vessels become reality, these type of concepts become more viable (even then they are going to be task specific).
A cheap boat without ASCM defenses is just an expensive target. An enemy may ignore that if it doesn't have the ability to harm it significantly, but if you put a lot of offensive capability on it (like the PLAN does with its Type22) then they become targets that get tasked to the air-wing fairly early on in a large scale conflict. The submarine is the best bet to sink ships in a large conflict give how hard it is to defend against the threat. That and airpower that can deliver volume fires with flexibility. This assumes a threat that includes a carrier air wing as you've pointed out. Take away airpower from the other side then this may become more viable. But then it is quite unlikely that any non carrier force is going to sail into the IOR with a surface group given the capability the IN has even presently thus making this not that big of a priority against a non carrier equipped PLAN formation that may decide to go on some adventure.
How about a boat with similar capability(capable of carrying 8 brahmos) and with the ability to submerge just under the surface, like the narcos subs(a metal boat with all the millitary stuff)?
But can fire the missiles when needed. That will be cheap and potent.
brar_w wrote:
You aren't going to kill carriers with these if they can't defend themselves or if they burden other defensive vessels to cover for them. If all you are looking at is a small very cheap missile carrier then what's stopping them from just building longer ranged land based or air launched missiles? While there may be plenty of reasons why you would build such small vessels, I doubt that they will be a credible defense against a proper air wing equipped aircraft carrier like what you are stating they may end up being used against. That air wing would have plenty of capability to sanitize large amounts of area from defenseless or poorly defended vessels that lack range, endurance, or credible ISR capability. When you have unmanned highly autonomous vessels become reality, these type of concepts become more viable (even then they are going to be task specific).
A cheap boat without ASCM defenses is just an expensive target. An enemy may ignore that if it doesn't have the ability to harm it significantly, but if you put a lot of offensive capability on it (like the PLAN does with its Type22) then they become targets that get tasked to the air-wing fairly early on in a large scale conflict. The submarine is the best bet to sink ships in a large conflict give how hard it is to defend against the threat. That and airpower that can deliver volume fires with flexibility. This assumes a threat that includes a carrier air wing as you've pointed out. Take away airpower from the other side then this may become more viable. But then it is quite unlikely that any non carrier force is going to sail into the IOR with a surface group given the capability the IN has even presently thus making this not that big of a priority against a non carrier equipped PLAN formation that may decide to go on some adventure.
How about a boat with similar capability(capable of carrying 6 brahmos) and with the ability to submerge just under the surface, like the narcos subs(a metal boat with all the millitary stuff)?
But can fire the missiles when needed. That will be cheap and potent.
Ah a small ship that can submerge when needed or a sub that can behave like a surface combatant most of the time.
rajsunder wrote:
How about a boat with similar capability(capable of carrying 8 brahmos) and with the ability to submerge just under the surface, like the narcos subs(a metal boat with all the millitary stuff)?
But can fire the missiles when needed. That will be cheap and potent.
Perhaps we need to have "design your own naval combatant" thread so you can develop that CONOPS further. UUV's, and USVs are what will likely allow this to be exploited. But for this we need to give a decade or two for autonomy to catch up.
A small ship that can submerge with Brahmos load will end up requiring a bigger design and you need to optimize it for underwater travel (what is point of being able to submerge if it can only travel few km). So in that case you need to have batteries and more optimized design. But you need something to detect while under water so let’s add a sonar and periscope. How do you protect yourself from enemy submarines? so let’s add some torpedo tubes and also you can use it to fire those missiles.
Viola you end up with a diesel submarine
Jokes aside as I said earlier just throwing Brahmos on any vessel will cost 100 mill add in guidance radar and air search radar cost start adding up fast. Best bet for that IMO is swarm unmanned boats armed with cheap laser guided missiles that’s topic for another thread.
Anyway there is NGMV really interested in what design Cochin is building with allocated cost of 1500 crores each I am not sure they can keep it under budget.
John wrote:A small ship that can submerge with Brahmos load will end up requiring a bigger design and you need to optimize it for underwater travel (what is point of being able to submerge if it can only travel few km). So in that case you need to have batteries and more optimized design. But you need something to detect while under water so let’s add a submarine. How do you protect yourself from submarines so let’s add some torpedo tubes and also you can use it to fire those missiles.
Viola you end up with a diesel submarine
Jokes aside there is NGMV really interested in what design Cochin is building with allocated cost of 1500 crores each I am not sure they can keep it under budget.
The goal is to keep the boat as stealthy as possible. May be submerge it to 2/3rd's its height and give a very small profile, that will make it hard to track and destroy.
The only defensive weapon would be a CIWS (type-22 has the AK-630). And the only way to escape from torpedos would be to use its speed and maneuverability.
Small missile FACs are essentially a A2/AD type platform. They worked for us in an unexpected offensive role '71 due to relative proximity of the enemy. Even so the boats had to be towed to the target area. Aside from a small complement of such boats, we do not really have a need for such class of ship.
We can also procure Brahmos and SMART based mobile missile batteries to complement missile corvettes in this role.
IMHO the larger Project-25/25A Khukri and Kora classes are a better fit - longer legs and longer staying power.