Could BD deploy air defence destroyer in rivers?

[surya kiran]

It is also important to look at it from an offensive perspective. A capitol ship deployed in a constrained area is an easy target. An enemy can easily predict where the target is going to be based on size of the ship, depth of river and time of the year. This gives any enemy an easy estimation of where the air defence is going to be. Which in turn makes it an easy target. Also a capitol ship floating in a river is susceptible to attack by special forces of an enemy. Which means you need complete control of both banks of the river before this ship can be deployed.

 

[Hellfire]

@Nilgiri

You can always "overload" and take it under the bridge and "lighten" up after reaching the desired point.

Also, what is the depth, the draught of the boat has to be seen!

 

[Nilgiri]

@Nilgiri

You can always "overload" and take it under the bridge and "lighten" up after reaching the desired point.

Also, what is the depth, the draught of the boat has to be seen!

I just got a funny visual of them getting a whole bunch of riverbank people to get onto the boat so it goes under and then asking to sod off after the transit.

Dont ask about the draft, this is a perfect very deep river everywhere situation.

 

[Hellfire]

I just got a funny visual of them getting a whole bunch of riverbank people to get onto the boat so it goes under and then asking to sod off after the transit.

Dont ask about the draft, this is a perfect very deep river everywhere situation.

Oh just checked up, averages out at 295 m. So that is not at all an issue. Ballast tanks can be loaded.

@UKBengali I think you are onto something here. Could you put up the figures for what load of ballast has to be placed to enable safe passage under the Padma Bridge? It shall be interesting to see a theoretical employment

I just got a funny visual of them getting a whole bunch of riverbank people to get onto the boat so it goes under and then asking to sod off after the transit.

Can be done:

 

[Penguin]

Maybe, but that will be a cost benefit analysis done at a high level.

You also have to take into account (on top of all this) the factor of concentrating defenses in one platform....compared to hedging it across many platforms.

This was the basis of game theory that RAND used in their nuclear war modelling against the USSR...ultimately they went for a relatively scattered model (for deployment and proposed ABM) because they figured they could not afford losing a concentrated unitary target.

I personally would hedge and keep an air defense destroyer optimised to what it was designed/optimised for by the OEM.....a land based SAM system is kind of needed anyway I feel given the extra advantage in radar when you have more than 1 of them working in tandem for signal processing (thats what I was bringing up in the other thread about the drawback of standalone radar in the BD finmeccanica radarset thread).

Maybe @Penguin @Vergennes @Taygibay and @PARIKRAMA have something to say and add about what you are proposing.

Drawbacks:

• It would be all eggs in 1 basket
• No one egg would suffice to cover the country, which has an area of 147,610 square kilometres (56,990 sq mi) and extends 820 kilometres (510 mi) north to south and 600 kilometres (370 mi) east to west.
  
• There would be ground clutter, masking inbound targets from detection. Even if roughly 80% of the landmass is made up of fertile alluvial lowland, with altitudes up to 105 metres (344 ft) above sea level occur only in the northern part of the plain, and most elevations are less than 10 metres (33 ft) above sea level and elevations decrease in the coastal south, where the terrain is generally at sea level.

http://www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/Radar Coverage.en.html

 

[UKBengali]

Relax, treat it as a humour subforum.

That is what I plan to do from now on....and go with the flow in the hypothetical dream worlds.

OK, Indians will be Indians as usual.

Just because something has never be done before it does not mean it would not work
in BD unique geography.

You know that some of the best scientists/ engineers were laughed out loud when they proposed certain ideas?

 

[Nilgiri]

Drawbacks:

• It would be all eggs in 1 basket
• No one egg would suffice to cover the country, which has an area of 147,610 square kilometres (56,990 sq mi) and extends 820 kilometres (510 mi) north to south and 600 kilometres (370 mi) east to west.
  
• There would be ground clutter, masking inbound targets from detection. Even if roughly 80% of the landmass is made up of fertile alluvial lowland, with altitudes up to 105 metres (344 ft) above sea level occur only in the northern part of the plain, and most elevations are less than 10 metres (33 ft) above sea level and elevations decrease in the coastal south, where the terrain is generally at sea level.

http://www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/Radar Coverage.en.html

Thanks thats pretty much exactly what I was saying earlier regarding clutter and eggs in one basket.

I looked up Nathanson's data for clutter way back from the good ole days just to make sure (I kinda had them sitting on my table for something else I was working on).

Kudos.

 

[UKBengali]

Drawbacks:

• It would be all eggs in 1 basket
• No one egg would suffice to cover the country, which has an area of 147,610 square kilometres (56,990 sq mi) and extends 820 kilometres (510 mi) north to south and 600 kilometres (370 mi) east to west.
  
• There would be ground clutter, masking inbound targets from detection. Even if roughly 80% of the landmass is made up of fertile alluvial lowland, with altitudes up to 105 metres (344 ft) above sea level occur only in the northern part of the plain, and most elevations are less than 10 metres (33 ft) above sea level and elevations decrease in the coastal south, where the terrain is generally at sea level.

http://www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/Radar Coverage.en.html

Thanks for that.

I am only proposing the destroyer as just part of an integrated air defence system, that also comprises
land based SAMS and also fighter aircraft.

Could we not link up the destroyer into an integrated sensor system that also includes data from ground based radar and also AWACS aircraft? In this sense , we use the very long range SAMs on the moving ship to take out air targets.

I get your point that the destroyer could not cover all of BD major targets from middle of BD, but if it could cover say 2/3rds of targets then that would be good.

 

[Michael Corleone]

I have been to some rivers but can't recall if they were huge to accommodate rivers. But all the talks about India conquering Bangladesh in hours or minutes is bullshit. Don't you see China is there to hit you from the back?

Plus we have good detterence against India and Burma now. THis is just daydreaming.

 

[Penguin]

Thanks thats pretty much exactly what I was saying earlier regarding clutter and eggs in one basket.

I looked up Nathanson's data for clutter way back from the good ole days just to make sure (I kinda had them sitting on my table for something else I was working on).

Kudos.

That's because I agree with that ;-)

Thanks for that.

I am only proposing the destroyer as just part of an integrated air defence system, that also comprises
land based SAMS and also fighter aircraft.

Could we not link up the destroyer into an integrated sensor system that also includes data from ground based radar and also AWACS aircraft? In this sense , we use the very long range SAMs on the moving ship to take out air targets.

I get your point that the destroyer could not cover all of BD major targets from middle of BD, but if it could cover say 2/3rds of targets then that would be good.

Sure you could. In the Netherlands, we had a Nuclear Security summit in a coastal town and placed NASAMS air defence missiles on shore, 2 Holland class OPVs (Thales I-Mast, no SAMS) with 1 LCF air defence frigate (SMART-L, APAR, ESSM, SM2) off shore to cover sea approaches. These in turn backed with AH-64, F-16 and AWACS.

 

[bluesky]

BD military planners have certainly thought out the prospect of using mobile platform for the air defense. Not only the river boats, but also the land based mobile trucks are supposed to carry anti-aircraft missiles.

 

[UKBengali]

That's because I agree with that ;-)


Sure you could. In the Netherlands, we had a Nuclear Security summit in a coastal town and placed NASAMS air defence missiles on shore, 2 Holland class OPVs (Thales I-Mast, no SAMS) with 1 LCF air defence frigate (SMART-L, APAR, ESSM, SM2) off shore to cover sea approaches. These in turn backed with AH-64, F-16 and AWACS.

Again thanks again.

In your opinion, do you think that an idea like this for BD may be at least worth investigating further?

 

[gambit]

@gambit : Your thoughts would be most appreciated.

It is not a good idea. From an air force perspective, it is a terrible idea. Or put it another way, it is a great idea -- for the attacker.

I understand the Brahmaputra is wide enough for a small ship like a destroyer or even cruiser to maneuver, but a river is a natural constraint on a ship designed for open waters.

From 12-15 thousands ft altitude, I do not need radar to hunt you -- the ship. I just need my RWR listening and patrol the river passively. The moment my RWR detect your scanning radar, I can drop altitude and let the horizon limit works to my advantage. Because this is a river, I will have a better than average guess of where you will be. Simply put, you will NEVER enter land while I can approach your from any direction in the air. I will know where you are. This is a river, I do not need constant activities from you. Nature does not generate radar signals. So if my RWR suddenly go active, I know I have been contacted by another human.

 

[UKBengali]

It is not a good idea. From an air force perspective, it is a terrible idea. Or put it another way, it is a great idea -- for the attacker.

I understand the Brahmaputra is wide enough for a small ship like a destroyer or even cruiser to maneuver, but a river is a natural constraint on a ship designed for open waters.

From 12-15 thousands ft altitude, I do not need radar to hunt you -- the ship. I just need my RWR listening and patrol the river passively. The moment my RWR detect your scanning radar, I can drop altitude and let the horizon limit works to my advantage. Because this is a river, I will have a better than average guess of where you will be. Simply put, you will NEVER enter land while I can approach your from any direction in the air. I will know where you are. This is a river, I do not need constant activities from you. Nature does not generate radar signals. So if my RWR suddenly go active, I know I have been contacted by another human.

Thank you for the reply.

In that case, can the destroyer just turn off it's radar and rely on information from ground radar and AWACs
aircraft to provide search and targeting information for it's SAMs?

 

[damiendehorn]

I was wondering if this idea could possibly work?

Indians have been bragging that in war that they could take out all BD defence assets in hours if not minutes.

So, why not deploy an air-defence destroyer or two in one of the country's major rivers like the Brahmuputra
in times of war? Not only will this protect the ship from enemy submarines but it will also be a very hard to hit a moving platform that could also provide air-defence to most of BD in times of war.

PS - I am talking about having this up and running by 2030 when BD military modernisation is complete.

Just buy long range land based SAM systems.