There is no enough space on F22 for 16 SSMs. However, putting so much AsM assets on platform is also wrong. This is suitable for Russian/Chinese Saturation doctrine, where two or four missiles are fired on each target in ripple fire to overwhelm the defenses. Our Navy follows the wester Precision doctrine, where one missile one target is the norm, or there is coordinated attack between various assets towards a unitary target to overwhelm its medium and terminal defenses.
In hind sight, I would recommend that Navy consider installing indigenous anti-ship cum land attack missiles on its platforms, giving us more flexibility at sea for regional interdiction, defence and dominance.
Dear Sir,
It is always a pleasure to read your posts and learn from them. I am just wondering if following the western doctrine is going to be effective for us. I understand we have a 100 year colonial legacy and our boys, specially those that end up in top posts, are still trained in Sandhurst and the US.
However, I would argue that our doctrine must be unique to us and our condition. If we look at the JF17, it is a weapon system outside contemporary Western doctrine. And that is precisely what makes it so much better, while the LCA is closer to western doctrine yet is a tiny white elephant.
If we follow this western doctrine of precision over "quantity has a quality all its own", the latter being the Soviet doctrine, we shortsell our future.
This is because with this doctrine we will forever end up with a small fleet with high tech equipment, which means this will be largely imported.
And guess where it will be imported from?
The West. The same place those undercover atheist Sandhurst grads with sudden Swiss balances got their doctrine from.
The second issue I have is that ideology is getting in the way of clear thinking. A bunch of PN ships with a barely average air defense, surface attack and anti sub weaponry will not be able to block An IN blockade.
This seems to be the white elephant in the room. We don't have a fleet of container ships and tankers and no commercial vessel would take this risk. Even if we did have those, they would be easy pickings for the IN.
Our best bet always was to think asymmetrically and find ways to make the INs life miserable and impose a penalty and a counter blockade.
In contemporary times this can best be done in a number of ways, one which we discussed before (and you broadly agreed with this idea) is to use UUVs. Launched from our ports, the UUVs would be cheap one way kamikazi subs that will go to designated Indian ports and cause mahem.
It wouldn't matter if the enemy sank a few.
Another idea would be to invest in strike aircraft armed with AShMs. Ones with greater legs than the jf17s.
And there are so many more options.
Yet a lot of these options may not fit the doctrine we have yet they may be effective ideas.
Look how you yourself showed interest in the idea we discussed of a small submarine.
I wanted one which would be indigenous and be able to launch the UUVs discussed above. You wanted a more sophisticated SWAT from Italy.
The PN agreed with you, everything went forward and then of course the funds were not there.
Had we gone with what I was proposing today every single Indian West coast port would be under threat from teaming UUVs that cost a dime a dozen.
Just a thought.