Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

[Philip]

The news about the Alexandrit MCMs is a huge sigh of relief,as this is a vital gap in our fleet,especially with the heightened activity of PLAN subs and the PN's sub fleet,the most capable and dangerous arm of their navy. Mining the approaches of our ports and naval bases is the simplest form of assymetric warfare that can be used to counter our navalcsuperiority in the IOR.

These MCMs are relatively cheaper than their rivals and the fibreglass hull was completed in just one and-a-half days,a world record. Originally French mine-hunting sonars were to be installed,sanctions delaying completion of the first vessels.Perhaps our MCMs may field French sonars. Our earlier MCMs were Sov. Natya and Yevgenya class vessels.

[Rakesh]

https://twitter.com/SandeepUnnithan/sta ... 04064?s=20 ---> 2021 is going to be a busy year for three of the biggest Indian Navy projects - RFPs for six Rs 60k crore P-75I subs, AON for Rs 60k crore IAC-2 and CCS approval for Rs 90k crore P-76 SSNs. And this is where the subs vs carrier debate kicks in. I report in @indiatoday

The navy runs into a budget boulder
https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/up-f ... 2020-12-11
11 Dec 2020

[ManuJ]

Future ships of the Indian Navy- Naval Technology
https://www.naval-technology.com/featur ... dian-navy/

*Facepalm*

The Indian Ministry of Defence will acquire five new fleet support vessels for the Indian Navy. A $2.3bn contract was signed between Hindustan Shipyard Limited (HSL) and the TAIS consortium between five Turkish shipbuilders for the collaboration to design and build the vessels.

I will believe it's moving forward when (if) it gets CCS approval.

[Kakkaji]

First Project 17A stealth frigate to be launched on Monday

KOLKATA: Defence PSU GRSE-built first Project 17A stealth frigate, an addition to the naval power of the venerable Indian Navy, will be launched on Monday, an official said here.

After touching water, the first of the three state- of-the-art naval ships being built by the GRSE under Project 17A, will undergo extensive trials and fittings of ultra- modern gadgets before it is delivered to the Navy.

P17A ships are guided missile frigates, each of which is 149 metres long, with displacement of approximately 6,670 tonnes and a speed of 28 knots, another official said.

These stealth frigates are being built deploying the latest integrated construction methodology with enhanced pre- outfitting to augment quality and reduce build periods considerably, he said.

The Rs 19,294-crore contract for construction of the three stealth frigates under Project 17A is the largest-ever order for the company, the official said.

The first ship is expected to be delivered in 2023 and the two others in 2024 and 2025, respectively.

[fanne]

Would someone kindly post that on PMOIndia feed asking why they are making such a decision ?

perhaps because we are trying to find someone (hint chote damad of the new pubah) will take money from us and be our friends and fukc the toilet?

Is that so hard to understand? Or per the very great learned folks at BR - only Indians can be bribed for few silver and are capable of selling their mother?

[Manish_P]

History has also taught us that bribing one damad of the pubah against the other usually results in both of them getting together to loot the kafir in order to get the spoils ...

[Rakesh]

First Project 17A stealth frigate to be launched on Monday

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/133 ... 43682?s=20 ---> P-17A frigate HIMGIRI launch at @OfficialGRSE today.

[chola]

^^^ Glorious photos of the Himgiri!

Am I the only one feeling the speed and deliberate planning of the P17A project? Compared to P15B, this project is humming along at lightning speed with things being well orchestrated on or ahead of time!

[shaun]

Within time frame of 24-25 we will be having 9 brand new frigates , 4 brand new destroyer

[Rakesh]

There is a new big boy coming in the 2030s. Project 18 Class destroyers. 13,000 tons. She is going to be a beast.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_18-class

She will give the Delhi, Kolkata and even the upcoming Visakhapatnam Class of destroyers a run for their money.

[chola]

There is a new big boy coming in the 2030s. Project 18 Class destroyers. 13,000 tons. She is going to be a beast.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_18-class

She will give the Delhi, Kolkata and even the upcoming Visakhapatnam Class of destroyers a run for their money.

Way, way, way beyond even Visakhapatnam as a cruiser-sized behemoth.

I searched and posted about this for the past two years but I got shot down as spreading fan fiction.

I hope you have better sources on this than I. (I've read the wiki page many times.)

[kit]

There is a new big boy coming in the 2030s. Project 18 Class destroyers. 13,000 tons. She is going to be a beast.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_18-class

She will give the Delhi, Kolkata and even the upcoming Visakhapatnam Class of destroyers a run for their money.

at 13,000 t (13,000 long tons; 14,000 short tons) its bigger than the 055

[V_Raman]

an example exists with south korea - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sejong_th ... _destroyer - beast of a ship

[Rakesh]

As per wiki, it is 13K tons. Let us wait for the official figures to come.

wiki's references are these two links;

https://defenceupdate.in/project-18indi ... destroyer/

https://www.reddit.com/r/GlobalPowers/c ... destroyer/

[John]

It is pure fantasy let me make wiki page of 30k ton super cruiser I would take those with grain of salt. Most likely destroyer follow up of P-15b IMO will be based on p-17a. A stretched version IMO so we can finally get rid of Ukrainian turbines. Will be about same length as P-15b but could carry more weapons amid ship (easily 16 Brahmos and 64 Barak-8 or XRSAM) about 9k tons.

[m_saini]

it's funny how they've used r/GlobalPowers as a reference. Especially since their own mods describe the sub as

/r/GlobalPowers is a realistic and diplomacy-focused spin on the nation-state text roleplaying genre. We offer a unique environment that aims to simulate a plausible future, complete with a weekly United Nations, economic forecasts, and a great group of players and mods who are dedicated to the community.

[chola]

an example exists with south korea - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sejong_th ... _destroyer - beast of a ship

The power of this thing is beyond comprehension TBH but it is nowhere near 13K tons. How do they pack in 128 VLS for SAM/ASW/Land Attack plus 16 AShMs? The P15B has 32 Barak 8 VLS onlee plus the 16 Brahmos.

[John]

an example exists with south korea - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sejong_th ... _destroyer - beast of a ship

The power of this thing is beyond comprehension TBH but it is nowhere near 13K tons. How do they pack in 128 VLS for SAM/ASW/Land Attack plus 16 AShMs? The P15B has 32 Barak 8 VLS onlee plus the 16 Brahmos.

Simple. Brahmos launchers are about twice the size of mk 41 vls, let's assume in space used for 2x16 Barak 8 launchers we can plug in 2x16 mk 41 cells and another 16 in place of Rbu-6000. We easily get to 80 mk 41 cell and keep in mind mixing various launchers we introduce lot of inefficiency in terms of space usage and redundant systems.

[andy B]

The power of this thing is beyond comprehension TBH but it is nowhere near 13K tons. How do they pack in 128 VLS for SAM/ASW/Land Attack plus 16 AShMs? The P15B has 32 Barak 8 VLS onlee plus the 16 Brahmos.

Simple. Brahmos launchers are about twice the size of mk 41 vls, let's assume in space used for 2x16 Barak 8 launchers we can plug in 2x16 mk 41 cells and another 16 in place of Rbu-6000. We easily get to 80 mk 41 cell and keep in mind mixing various launchers we introduce lot of inefficiency in terms of space usage and redundant systems.

John would it also be fair to say that the IN cap ships lack the beam compared to any burke class derivatives. IN ships seem longer probably provide better sea keeping but a wide beam provides more space for cells. The inclusion of the rbu6000 continues to be a mystery to me after all these years. I am sure the people in the know have a good reason for it but its always annoyiny to know that this system takes up multi deck installation space.

[V_Raman]

Brahmos VLS size should be compared to the size of 48-cell K-VLS on sejong and Mk41 VLS to barak 8 VLS sizes.

P15B
Length: 163 m (535 ft)
Beam: 17.4 m (57 ft)
Draft: 6.5 m (21 ft)

Sejong
Length: 166 m (544 ft 7 in)
Beam: 21.4 m (70 ft 3 in)
Draft: 6.25 m (20 ft 6 in)

As andy is asking - main difference seems to be the beam dimension that enables packing so much missile capacity. Another main difference seems to be ASW role for Sejong has torpedos sharing K-VLS - while RBU6000 takes up considerable space in P15B. A VLS torpedo!!! I thought only India has tested SMART !!!

[John]

Simple. Brahmos launchers are about twice the size of mk 41 vls, let's assume in space used for 2x16 Barak 8 launchers we can plug in 2x16 mk 41 cells and another 16 in place of Rbu-6000. We easily get to 80 mk 41 cell and keep in mind mixing various launchers we introduce lot of inefficiency in terms of space usage and redundant systems.

John would it also be fair to say that the IN cap ships lack the beam compared to any burke class derivatives. IN ships seem longer probably provide better sea keeping but a wide beam provides more space for cells. The inclusion of the rbu6000 continues to be a mystery to me after all these years. I am sure the people in the know have a good reason for it but its always annoyiny to know that this system takes up multi deck installation space.

Hence as I said you will have payload of around 80 which is still less significantly less than Sejong. Increasing the beam should allow a similar payload.

Brahmos is significantly bigger and because it is canisterzed rather hot launch (mk 41) you are talking about something that weights close to 4 tons (incl canister) and is 9 meters long.

[chola]

As andy is asking - main difference seems to be the beam dimension that enables packing so much missile capacity. Another main difference seems to be ASW role for Sejong has torpedos sharing K-VLS - while RBU6000 takes up considerable space in P15B. A VLS torpedo!!! I thought only India has tested SMART !!!

Yes, ASROC. Basically a missiled antisub torpedo so that the DDG can enter the fight from a safe distance with intel cued from smaller, more appropriate craft.

Do we really want a capital ship like a P15B chasing after a sub with depth charges (which is what the RBU-6000 really is)?

The ASROC is a better solution for large surface ships IMO.

[Philip]

I have studied for some time the various concepts of heavily packed surface combatants, from arsenal ships to pocket cruisers of the type the IN hopes to have. Looking at the IN's hopeful,the mix is of 24 BMos- H and the rest mainly SAMs.One can conclude therefore that we are either in a rat race withthe Chins or the vessel is really intended to be an escort for CV-3! The IN I'm sure don't intend it to be a "lone raider" sailing the seven seas like the Emden under Kapt. Karl Muller which shelled Madras a century ago, or the Graf Spee which was cornered and scuttled by its CO Capt.Langsdorff off Montevideo in the Battle of the River Plate.

Looking at the size of such vessels,I have drawn the conclusion that a flat topped vessel of around 15K to 20K ,ski jump plus flush deck missile silos,with a mix of STOVL aircraft,helos and UCAVs would be far more effective than the pocket cruiser. Greater reach through its aircraft,more firepower for maritime strike and land attack through its air wing. Another point about the PC to mention is the huge crew of 500+ members,in an era of miniaturisation,the digital world and increasing automation in warships and subs.

Looking at the designs too,the US Zumwalt for instance,the stealth shaping with the large integrated superstructure with conformal radars,sensors et al, tumblehome bows,resembles
a sub's sail ,plus flush deck missile silos adds to the illusion. One would wish it could submerge at will for even stealthier character like Bond's car! In fact a sub is more survivable as only UW weaponry from any source can sink it unlike surface combatants which can be attacked by air,sea,land ( coastal missile batteries) and UW.

If one is right , that the PC is intended to be primarily an escort for CV-3,let's take a look at the economics.A 65K t CV-3 will cost upwards of $10B,with its air complement and weaponry another $5B. Then add to that 2 pocket cruisers, each at $1.5 B, 2 8000t FFGs at around $1 B each, a large fleet tanker,another $1.5 B, and last but not least an UW escort too,an SSN adding at least another $1.5 to $ 2 B. This all adds up for the CBG a total over $20 B,closer to $25 B! Now let's see what $20 B can get us in the UW dept. first.
At $2 B for a new 8000t SSN,or alternatively a 12,000 modified Akula-2 SSGN lease for 10 years at $ 1.5B,we could get around 6 SSNs/ SSGNZS for $10 + B. Add to that at a cost of $500+ M a pop for a conv. AIP boat,at least 18 boats! Who do you think will come off better? The CBG or the 24 strong underwater wolf pack? No prizes for the answer.

Now lets take a look at the RMA in maritime warfare taking place around the world. In Russia, small stealth corvettes of just around 1250t are being armed with hypersonic missiles in the near future,from 2021. Russia's Tsirkon hyper- missile is being fielded by capital ships like Sov. era Kirov battle-cruisers, numerous sub classes, plus corvettes of only 1000t to 1250t ,the latter in large number. These small vessels are cheap, easy to operate,have small crews while
being built in large number , are being preferred to the heavy Lider class of super DDGs, similar to our desi PC. Each corvette can carry a min.of 8 hypersonic Tsirkon SSMs,Kalibirs with ranges of 2500km,being extended upto 4000km. The cost of a dozen such corvettes carrying almost 100 hypersonic missiles or 4000km ( in the future) Kalibir missiles would be equiv. to 2 PCs.

Thus ,the IN must proceed with caution on the pocket CG concept as more lethal weapons are being developed like rail guns, high- powered lasers and hypersonic missiles ,weapons,which with increased miniturisation and automation are bringing down sizes of warships. If one really wants an arsenal ship at low cost,simply load up an MV.A good container vessel with a few hundred missiles to boot!

[Vips]

^^^ Glorious photos of the Himgiri!

Am I the only one feeling the speed and deliberate planning of the P17A project? Compared to P15B, this project is humming along at lightning speed with things being well orchestrated on or ahead of time!

Two facts:
-The Project 17A class frigates are being built using a modular technique in which different parts of the ship are built separately and welded together. Modular construction allows for both increased pace of construction of multiple ships and also ease of incorporating upgrades.

-The PSU's now know that if they do not deliver per schedule it is game over for them as L&T is hungry for work and will snap any contract with an empty shipyard ready to buzz 24X7X365.

[John]

^ If you simply the design by removing RBU-6000 and fit in universal VLS that is similar to Mk 41 you can easily fit 48-64 VLS cells by the bow and another 16 by the hanger.

[V_Raman]

What is so special about RBU-6000 or is it the lack of ASROC equivalent that is making us stick to RBU-6000?

It looks like LM has a VLS style rocket as well - https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/ ... 042219.pdf

This Mk41 launcher is used everywhere by so many navies!!

[John]

What is so special about RBU-6000 or is it the lack of ASROC equivalent that is making us stick to RBU-6000?

Against an idle submarine running on batteries it is really the only option that can deal with them as they will too quiet to be detected by sonar. ASUW Strategy would be to saturate the area of last contact with Rbu-6000, also RBU-6000 does offer last ditch hard kill option against inbound torpedoes.

[sudeepj]

Is it viable to have a scaled up Trophy or Afghanit like system as a last ditch defense system against subsonic anti ship missiles?

Managing to blow up the missile 5-10 meters away from the hull instead of the damn thing blowing up inside the hull promises to increase survivability several times over. These systems are fairly cheap at a few million dollars to add yet another layer of defense to a billion dollar ffg/ddg. Against supersonic missiles, such a system may not help a lot as the debris moving at supersonic speeds will still do a huge amount of damage.

[V_Raman]

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-submarine_mortar

Due to the poor sonar conditions of the Baltic Sea mortars, rocket and missile launchers still retain a place next to torpedoes.

It might be that we have such conditions in our littoral waters and thats why IN keeps using RBU6000...

[hnair]

Until recently, the IN insisted on twin helos for all major surface combatants as a robust picket defense against submarines. Until recently that is, when advances in underwater sensors and paucity of helicopters might have made the navy go for single helos (paradoxically khan is shoving in two heavy helos from Flight IIA onwards of AB class!).

This seem to be due to a “never-again” resolution caused by INS Khukri incident.

Sticking with RBUs seem to be one such decision stemming from INS khukri and plus it does have utility as a hard kill. There does not seem to be many alternatives. As for stealth, as per multiple anecdotes from oiropean sailors, the venerable khan’s AB class, which is festooned with wires and oddities like an Indian telephone pole, has remarkably less radar footprint and compares really well to the stylish TFTA European hulls with chiseled cheekbones and pouty funnels. So we don’t know if the RBU’s returns can be “managed” by such RF magic.

(FWIW Khan navy too has such a fixation with what looks like relics of past, but theirs is for gun based fire-support and shore bombardment, based on some ancient congressional mandate etc)

[brar_w]

^^ It isn't just about a fixation on relics of the past. Signature management is extremely complicated. How do you manage signature when you are tasking these vessels, with their 12 or 14 foot radar arrays, with air and ballistic missile defense (the next destroyer/cruiser class will likely have an 18 or 20 foot array)? or when you have 90+ VLS all launching missiles with large IR signatures on launch. So it is complicated. For destroyers or cruisers tasked with these missions, they require active seeker and radar defeat measures as bi-static defense like concepts with the next generation of radars are still nascent and will probably require half a generation of technology to mature to become feasible (and thus not really an option for existing hulls). So on its ABs, the go to seeker or radar defeat is going to be the onboard jammers, and helicopter based EW and jamming. SEWIP block 2 and 3 and AOEW are two of the most important surface ship sub-system programs in the USN and for good reason. This is also why they are looking at a 2 rotary winged complement on everything from destroyers, right down to corvette class vessels. One of those things is going to be tasked with the seeker and radar defeat mission. For ships that can afford to (based on their tasking) practice EMCON and other deception tactics, they do buy-in RCS suppression like they did on the DDG-1000 class (which has no BMD tasking). It would be interesting to see what balance they strike on the next large-surface-combatant given that unlike the Zumwalt, it will have a BMD tasking so won't be able to go silent at will unless those passive modes for the SPY-6 deliver (it's a capability being funded now).

Is it viable to have a scaled up Trophy or Afghanit like system as a last ditch defense system against subsonic anti ship missiles?

No one has demonstrated something like that against a relevant threat type so until then one would have to assume that given current technological limitations it is probably not going to be great against a broad enough threat for it be a viable enhancement.

This on the other hand is something that is a near-medium term cruise missile defeat option and the "launchers" are already operational.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGV5fYluOu4

[hnair]

brar_w do read up again what I wrote before you go off on a post peppered with American acronyms that matter not in this thread!

My post was about institutional fixations about designs based on past operational experiences (which might have other more viable technical solutions) and fleetingly touched on stealth degeneration caused by the lumpy RBU might not be that much of an issue because that had been bought up by posters in the past as a concern.

Consider taking it to the American thread

[John]

The RBU-6000 don't add much to radar cross section and the launcher can be tilted upwards and rounds stowed inside if you want to reduce cross section. But I would be more worried about damage control a direct hit on rbu when rockets are loaded could trigger an explosion unlike main gun rounds or brahmos which are stored safely in the hull, the rpk rockets are exposed on deck.

[Prem Kumar]

Now that we have a really awesome weapon called SMART, I think there is a case to be made for an RBU-6000 replacement that can be canisterized and vertically launched. Short-to-medium range hard kill rockets against torpedoes and subs. Akin to CIWS for missiles.

We have the necessary tech for this.

1) Will reduce RCS
2) As a poster mentioned above, will reduce the likelihood of an ammo cook-off
3) Can store more rockets under the deck
4) Like RPK-8, it can have active-guided variant rather than a simple depth charge
5) Longer range than RBU-6000's 4 Km (just like we have SRSAM, MRSAM etc, we can have LR-SMART, MR-SMART & SR-SMART)

The main challenge would be that, a VLS would need the rockets to have fins/thrust-vector to maneuver towards the direction of the target, once it leaves the canister

[Vidur]

Until recently, the IN insisted on twin helos for all major surface combatants as a robust picket defense against submarines. Until recently that is, when advances in underwater sensors and paucity of helicopters might have made the navy go for single helos (paradoxically khan is shoving in two heavy helos from Flight IIA onwards of AB class!).

This seem to be due to a “never-again” resolution caused by INS Khukri incident.

Sticking with RBUs seem to be one such decision stemming from INS khukri and plus it does have utility as a hard kill. There does not seem to be many alternatives. As for stealth, as per multiple anecdotes from oiropean sailors, the venerable khan’s AB class, which is festooned with wires and oddities like an Indian telephone pole, has remarkably less radar footprint and compares really well to the stylish TFTA European hulls with chiseled cheekbones and pouty funnels. So we don’t know if the RBU’s returns can be “managed” by such RF magic.

(FWIW Khan navy too has such a fixation with what looks like relics of past, but theirs is for gun based fire-support and shore bombardment, based on some ancient congressional mandate etc)

I was told by naval friends that multiple helicopters increase chances of successful ASW exponentially. That is why IN caters for 2 heptrs in all Indian built surface combatants. Its another matter that with hardly 6 serviceable Sea Kings and similar numbers of KA 28 these days a flotilla is lucky to have 0.5 heptrs per combatant. Going forward if we assume that we have 24 heptrs and 34 odd destroyers, frigates and ASW corvettes
of which 20 have capacity for 2 heptrs, how would you distribute them and use them most effectively

I am also told that apart from ASW the Sea Kings are used for many other duties- support during amphib ops, ASh roles, communication duties etc. They are very versatile.

Ps - I do not envisage more MH 60 inductions for atleast the next 10 yrs, hence its prudent to plan for ops with 24 heptrs. Destroyers and Frigates will peak at 33 by 2030. Plus we have 4 Kamortas.

[Vidur]

General comment :

I have recommended in past that all Indian Armed Forces order the critical fighting components of their equipment in the same contract as far as possible. Otherwise there are chances that either the system or the system plus inimical powers will ensure that many expensive systems becomes white elephants with no teeth. Its very easy to jeopardise a small contact for torpedoes as opposed to a contract for building submarines in your own shipyard. Example

1. Scarpenes- no torpedoes
2. Destroyers and frigates, Asw corvettes- no heptrs
3. Attack Heptr Rudra - no anti tank missiles

The last is particularly interesting because the heptr is ideal for the conditions in Ladakh but does not pose much of a threat to Chinese tanks so it created a difficult op problem that was partially addressed by other tactics

Armed Forces have a degree of naivety in assuming that our system will work as envisaged despite experience. Its better not to have full system because that becomes news and creates pressure to resolve the problem rather than having a system without weapons because that doesn't become nres and is not accorded the priority by govt

[Rakesh]

Intent, statements and action very rarely align in Indian Defence. The Naval budget is not enough even to pay for contracts signed before the MH-60 Romeo contract. How it will cater for the above requirements is a deep mystery. The situation is the same for the Air Force and Army.

Read the above from Vidur-ji and then read below. Enjoy

“Our operations shall revolve around two active Carrier Battle Groups, necessitating a force level of three Carriers”
http://www.spsnavalforces.com/story/?id ... e-Carriers

[Rakesh]

Kolkata shipbuilder to launch high-tech stealth warship next week
https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2020/ ... -week.html
11 December 2020

[John]

Is it viable to have a scaled up Trophy or Afghanit like system as a last ditch defense system against subsonic anti ship missiles?

Not really possible because trophy is meant to stop rpg and atgm which weigh no more than 30 kg in a small area. Where as with a ship is much bigger & venerable (at parts) target and Ashm weight over 700 kg you need a much bigger projectile to knock it out. Not to mention even if you engage the target 10 meters away the size and speed of missile will still ensure the debris from the missile still do tremendous damage to the ship.

So you need big projectile or a weapon system with high rate of fire which can safely engage the target more than few hundred meters away so proximity warhead or debris don't do damage to the ship. Given then You end up with what we have right now.

I do believe we should invest in new CIWS gun system than can replace the aging Ak-630. And start investing more in R&D for point defense lasers which will be game changer for missile defense.

[hnair]

Vidur-saar, 2 heavy naval helos (and a low footprint rotary UAV for quick launch/SAR) for every major surface combatant would be my dream-chair admiral plan too. A group of three to four such vessels can effectively replace an old school ASW helicopter carrier and generate an excellent ASW grid, while adding a lot of complexity to an enemy that would need to target all of them. Plus if one vessel gets out of action, other vessels can pickup slack etc etc etc. lots of good ideas on paper.

But the CG pic of INS Himagiri above shows just one hangar which means Navy has changed its thinking from past, Maybe based on helo availability or some new ASW philosophy (which might include relying more on long range air borne assets like P8 and MALE UAVs while giving a shooter role for the ship based helos in these areas)

John, regarding lasers, wonder what is the degradation caused by bad sea states and heavy tropical rains for lasers in maintaining a certain lasing time interval (needed for catastrophic failure of target to happen)? Also sequential targeting of saturation attacks in that situation will also be interesting. Whereas anti-missile missiles can be popped out in numbers against multiple targets and once off the tubes, the sea states won’t matter if it has active homing.