'Shadinota' Class corvette news and discussion.

[Nilgiri]

China's Sovremennyy-class has been given modern sensors and control systems.

According to? Chinese standards and performance are unproven and insulated. (This goes for most non western/allied nations).

However, while it is carrying more, it's structure cannot be altered to such an extent, at least not practically, that it can match the efficiency and capabilities of a modern 054A.

Again these efficiencies and capabilities have not been proven like they have with US/NATO. There is no real way to say this Chinese power level registers X on American power level. There is a reason why US maintained a decisive and significant qualitative edge over the USSR tech in the 80s (highest water mark of the cold war tech wise) in every field. China at best is a smaller less powerful legacy version of USSR today....till you prove your tech (even with client state in a smaller scale would give some indication) like say US did in gulf war 1 decisively against large formations of Soviet equipment (which shocked Chinese war planners)...it remains an exercise on paper...and paper does not win a war. On paper the French should have crushed Germany quite easily in fall gelb.

@jhungary @AUSTERLITZ

It can use it in any role it wishes, but it still cannot act as effectively as a Burke or Atago can. The Kidd class is old. It cannot engage in a way that a 054 with a 052 or 055 can. It is at most a glorified missile launcher.

Refer to above. You will very much have to prove the capability than write and extrapolate about it. That can only be proven in a conflict....China wisely stays away from it.

Defensive navy? What in your view is defensive about it? The Submarines that carry VLS land attack missiles? The second largest fleet of modern replenishment ships? The largest modern destroyer outside of the American Zumwalt? The carriers? The LHDs? The LPDs? (BTW, the LHDs are confirmed via photo, it will be assembled within a reasonable time, his year or early next)

Again these are technologies, specifically their networking integration with C4I that remain to be calibrated in effective power level versus the NATO system. You will need to demonstrate somewhere on the relevant scale at least. Till then how is anyone to judge effectively?

China already has the second largest fleet of LPDs, in less than 5 years, the second largest LHD fleet as well. We will pass Japan for second largest modern destroyers fleet this year and then the difference will get bigger as time goes by.

So tell me how many troops these LPD's can deploy at maximum rate over say the Indian Ocean even in your best case scenario? From that you can ascertain what is the largest kind of country you can project their power on reasonably to make some difference in some conflict....it wont be anywhere close to India's size.

What, in your mind, limits our ability to project power far from our shores? If we are limited, then who today can do so? Not named the USN.

Thats why I said the USN is the only true blue water navy. What limits China big time is its hemmed in maritime geography. You have no clear broad access to open ocean....and your opponents have significant advantages because of that...allowing them to maintain good deterrence at much less raw tonnage. It will take a huge amount of time to overcome that if ever you can... probably 1 - 2 full technological revolutions...it simply cannot be reasonably done in todays military tech environment.

It isn't that, it is the complete lack of understanding on roles that is astounding me. The 056 corvette, or any corvette is not a front line ship, it's main job is to be numerous in number and sufficient in capability. That is the key when discussing this class of ships.

The current discussion is centering on how powerful it is, which is completely beside the point. This is like Hyundai making an Equus, yes it's a good car, but it's still a Hyundai. Let's not kid ourselves. That's not your role, don't even try.

Look buddy, China has to prove in the first place what its actual tech level/realised power level is for its assets (given the significant sensitivity to sensors, networking and C4I in modern warfare). This is similar to the USD nominal superiority to PPP argument your fellow Chinese members love to use for macroeconomics. Simply saying this modernised destroyer == US/Japanese one, but outclasses a Taiwanese or some other one is like over-relying on PPP for argument from the Chinese perspective there. Chinese members have to be consistent on this philosophy to gain credibility....rather than changing tack to suit an underlying narrative. So far China has not engaged even with much smaller countries since the 1979 border war with Vietnam where it accomplished zero objectives....so how are we supposed to calibrate to the extent of modelling war scenarios heavily reliant on things China has not proven on the ground?

The topic at hand should be how many ships can Bangladesh get in what time frame. Can it accomplish the mission it is set to.

Problem is it diverted to BD being a blue water navy simply proposing long term acquisition of 6 frigates.

 

[Genesis]

According to? Chinese standards and performance are unproven and insulated. (This goes for most non western/allied nations).

I would say you are right, but you have to put it into perspective. Things are relative. In WW1 France and Germany had Machine Guns and Heavy Artillery. Do they work? In the sense that these killing machines work yes, however a doctrine was not developed to fit these weapons.

Same thing here, Chinese weapon systems have not been tested no, it means Chinese officers have only a theoretical understanding of how to deploy these ships and how to use the weapons to their full potential.

The weapons themselves still work. China is catching up, so it's not like China has to come up with the requirements. China is simply copying their standards, and applying to ours.

Hence the sales of our ships around the globe. Even Russia bought our turbines.

Again these efficiencies and capabilities have not been proven like they have with US/NATO. There is no real way to say this Chinese power level registers X on American power level. There is a reason why US maintained a decisive and significant qualitative edge over the USSR tech in the 80s (highest water mark of the cold war tech wise) in every field. China at best is a smaller less powerful legacy version of USSR today....till you prove your tech (even with client state in a smaller scale would give some indication) like say US did in gulf war 1 decisively against large formations of Soviet equipment (which shocked Chinese war planners)...it remains an exercise on paper...and paper does not win a war. On paper the French should have crushed Germany quite easily in fall gelb.

@jhungary @AUSTERLITZ

Actually you are just not paying attention, our small arms are continuously proven in African and the ME. Our SAMs, tanks and submarines have gone against major military powers in arms bids and won. Our drones have proven once and for all, that it works as advertised in Iraq and else where. Our trainer jets, APC, and much much more has already been proven to work.

If you said China has no idea how to conduct a naval war like America and Japan did in WW2. Fair and accurate. However, a weapon system, especially one based on American doctrine, doesn't perform to standard is frankly not informed.

So tell me how many troops these LPD's can deploy at maximum rate over say the Indian Ocean even in your best case scenario? From that you can ascertain what is the largest kind of country you can project their power on reasonably to make some difference in some conflict....it wont be anywhere close to India's size.

Did you ever think conquering India was a possibility for even the US? The point is on an island to island basis, for example Mauritius, we can move 700 troops with equipment per LPD. India cannot move one. that means in terms of power projection outside of anything that isn't connected to India by land, it's pretty much a non starter.

Thats why I said the USN is the only true blue water navy. What limits China big time is its hemmed in maritime geography. You have no clear broad access to open ocean....and your opponents have significant advantages because of that...allowing them to maintain good deterrence at much less raw tonnage. It will take a huge amount of time to overcome that if ever you can... probably 1 - 2 full technological revolutions...it simply cannot be reasonably done in todays military tech environment.

China will never face the US in battle, each carrier carries thousands of people, one ship sinks and it's the biggest catastrophe in the modern world. For both nations. No one is stupid enough to do so.

You have to look at things as they are. China has choke points, but if no one is going to act on them, then it doesn't matter.

Take Mauritius again, you think IN can block China, well, if you need to block PLAN, you must be with range to engage us, and there is no way you would come into the China seas. So if I were to give you these parameters, you can't figure out where IN fleet would most likely be?

So where does that leave us, it's once again about who can engage who at what distance and who has more ships to spare.

That means we have the decisive advantage. In terms of your islands there, they have the same problem as China's SCS islands, good in peace, but it's not moving so, we don't even have to guess on that one.

Look buddy, China has to prove in the first place what its actual tech level/realised power level is for its assets (given the significant sensitivity to sensors, networking and C4I in modern warfare). This is similar to the USD nominal superiority to PPP argument your fellow Chinese members love to use for macroeconomics. Simply saying this modernised destroyer == US/Japanese one, but outclasses a Taiwanese or some other one is like over-relying on PPP for argument from the Chinese perspective there. Chinese members have to be consistent on this philosophy to gain credibility....rather than changing tack to suit an underlying narrative. So far China has not engaged even with much smaller countries since the 1979 border war with Vietnam where it accomplished zero objectives....so how are we supposed to calibrate to the extent of modelling war scenarios heavily reliant on things China has not proven on the ground?

There are many things that we don't know, that is for sure. Experience is the most important thing in anything we do. It is to a point, there is a difference between hiring illiterate guy to a recent university grad. That's what India and China is right now. We may not have all the answers, but we have enough answers that we will put it together with time. India took 12 years to make 4 corvettes, and one of them is till not done.

However, you have to admit, no one, not even the US has any experience in terms of modern naval combat. The British was the naval power in WW1, but in Jutland, it suffered a bad setback against a state that has never engaged in a meaningful modern naval battle.

You mentioned 1979, that's your bias showing. There's two possibilities here, either you think nothing has changed since 1979, between Vietnam and China. Or you think things have changed and you chose to ignore them.

 

[Bilal9]

Yes ,heavier and longer ships will no doubt have greater part of its bottom(hull) under water.Kamorta was built in GRSE and floated out in kolkata which is a river port in bad condition due to silt buildup,so i dispute your assertion.Globalsecurity gave me that number,but since i can't find any other source on its draft i can't cobfirm.

I believe (just a guess, since I have seen the draft figure deleted from most Internet references) that the draft figure exceeded desired figures (loaded), hence incriminatory because, the reason those destroyer-sized ASW corvette Kamorta class vessels was put into commission was to help the Kora and Khukri class corvettes to hunt subs in shallow waters. If draft exceeds say 4 meters, that becomes quite difficult. It is quite hard to find actual draft figure for this class on the Internet. All cleaned up.

I find the assertion that it is blue-water capable to be quite odd, since the designed mission was to operate in shallow waters with the Kora and Khukri classes. Some analysts have mixed up mission intent of Arnala/Kora/Khukri class corvettes (1400 tons) with Pauk/Tarantul/Abhay/Veer class guided missile boats (~500 tons), which is in error, the latter are one size too small.

I don't have a whole lot of mission/design information about the 16 new littoral boats or diagrams. The 700 ton ASW littoral boats being built (16 total) as of this writing in India are going to replace the latter Pauk/Tarantul/ Abhay/Veer classes and are roughly analogous to our Durjoy class. The ASW variant of the Durjoy class (actually called Durgam class) were fabricated in Bangladesh Naval yards from scratch (two launched within six months and commissioned within a year). Four more are planned.

BTW - to answer your comment above, GRSE has specially dredged channels in the Hooghly river to get deep draft ships out to the ocean from their yards. This is standard across all ports where shipbuilding takes place. Also - GRSE will typically 'launch' using empty hull only, without superstructure and weapons fit. Weight (and draft) will be substantially less for that situation.

Please consider those factors on draft during launches.

I am going to humbly request all to please keep all discussions relevant and on-topic.

 

[Michael Corleone]

Like i am trying to say there are different definitions of what a "blue-water" Navy is. Let us look at the one I am using:

Todd & Lindberg classification:

View attachment 478365

Using the above scale, BD can realistically get to Rank 3 with around 15-20 years - hardly difficult as Spain already makes it there.


Lol @ trying to compare IN with PLAAN. China is far more technologically advanced and wealthier than India is.
You Indians need to get out of your China fantasies for your own good.

All that matters to me is that BN will become serious headache for the IN in the Bay of Bengal and will have the capability to venture further outside when required.

If you’re going to use break down definitions then we, heck most navy with decent amounts of frigates deployed into another sea is a blue water navy.,.

For me the term only applies to raw power projection at a moments notice

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

I believe (just a guess, since I have seen the draft figure deleted from most Internet references) that the draft figure exceeded desired figures (loaded), hence incriminatory because, the reason those destroyer-sized ASW corvette Kamorta class vessels was put into commission was to help the Kora and Khukri class corvettes to hunt subs in shallow waters. If draft exceeds say 4 meters, that becomes quite difficult. It is quite hard to find actual draft figure for this class on the Internet. All cleaned up.

I find the assertion that it is blue-water capable to be quite odd, since the designed mission was to operate in shallow waters with the Kora and Khukri classes. Some analysts have mixed up mission intent of Arnala/Kora/Khukri class corvettes (1400 tons) with Pauk/Tarantul/Abhay/Veer class guided missile boats (~500 tons), which is in error, the latter are one size too small.

I don't have a whole lot of mission/design information about the 16 new littoral boats or diagrams. The 700 ton ASW littoral boats being built (16 total) as of this writing in India are going to replace the latter Pauk/Tarantul/ Abhay/Veer classes and are roughly analogous to our Durjoy class. The ASW variant of the Durjoy class (actually called Durgam class) were fabricated in Bangladesh Naval yards from scratch (two launched within six months and commissioned within a year). Four more are planned.

BTW - GRSE has specially dredged channels in the Hooghly river to get deep draft ships out to the ocean from their yards. This is standard across all ports where shipbuilding takes place. Also - GRSE will typically 'launch' using empty hull only, without superstructure and weapons fit. Weight (and draft) will be substantially less for that situation.

Please consider those factors on draft during launches.

I am going to humbly request all to please keep all discussions relevant and on-topic.

There is one fundamental problem in your analysis.Both kora and kukhri class are guide missile corvettes,they are not ASW platforms.They don't have sonar,torpedo tubes ,rbu,helicopters or any real ASW equipment.They missile platforms.Kukhri/Veer class are already slated to be replaced by next gen missile vessel project ships.So going by your analysis IN has no real ASW corvettes capable of shallow water ops,which i find difficult to believe since PN submarines in shallow arabian sea is a primary target of the kamorta class.

 

[Bilal9]

There is one fundamental problem in your analysis.Both kora and kukhri class are guide missile corvettes,they are not ASW platforms.They don't have sonar,torpedo tubes ,rbu,helicopters or any real ASW equipment.They missile platforms.Kukhri/Veer class are already slated to be replaced by next gen missile vessel project ships.So going by your analysis IN has no real ASW corvettes capable of shallow water ops,which i find difficult to believe since PN submarines in shallow arabian sea is a primary target of the kamorta class.

I already mentioned in one of my prior posts that Kamorta class was created (with one of its sole purposes) to accompany kora and khukri classes to shallow sea areas, given that the latter classes do not have 'any real ASW equipment'. We already established this.

What I posited was that the Kamorta class, with its 3500 ton weight and given that it's deep draft situation (5+ meters and possibly approaching 6m), is simply unable to do shallow sea patrols with those kora and khukri classes because there are shallow rock formations at less than 8/9 meter depths and sand bars all over the place near the Rann of Kutch and Diu areas.

It is incapable of doing its job it was designed for which is chase subs in shallow seas around Ormara to Karachi to the Rann of Kutch.

In Bangladesh' coastal or littoral area - draft situation is even shallower and far worse.

I do not know why you (or IN) is touting the Kamorta class as a 'Blue water' platform. That is not its intended mission.

In any case - this discussion of other Indian classes is slightly off topic and I brought it up to illustrate the point that India at current times does not possess smaller ASM armed littoral sub-hunter vessels. I intended to ask either you or other Indian posters details about platforms that are 'follow-ons' to kora and khukri classes in the 1300~1400 tons weight range for littoral action which HAVE the ASW capability. To my knowledge the answer is non-existent.

Also- just by design alone (especially low profile superstructure and sophistication of sensors), Indian smaller littoral vessels (so far) have not evolved as much compared to Chinese ones -which is my opinion (case in point is the 056 Jiangdao class or our BN variant -C13B or even smaller BN vessels like the 650 ton Durjoy/Durgom classes which have ASW capability). You can bring in counterpoints if you want.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

I already mentioned in one of my prior posts that Kamorta class was created (with one of its sole purposes) to accompany kora and khukri classes to shallow sea areas, given that the latter classes do not have 'any real ASW equipment'. We already established this.

What I posited was that the Kamorta class, with its 3500 ton weight and given that it's deep draft situation (5+ meters and possibly approaching 6m), is simply unable to do shallow sea patrols with those kora and khukri classes because there are shallow rock formations at less than 8/9 meter depths and sand bars all over the place near the Rann of Kutch and Diu areas.

It is incapable of doing its job it was designed for which is chase subs in shallow seas around Ormara to Karachi to the Rann of Kutch.

In Bangladesh' coastal or littoral area - draft situation is even shallower and far worse.

I do not know why you (or IN) is touting the Kamorta class as a 'Blue water' platform. That is not its intended mission.

In any case - this discussion of other Indian classes is slightly off topic and I brought it up to illustrate the point that India at current times does not possess smaller ASM armed littoral sub-hunter vessels. I intended to ask either you or other Indian posters details about platforms that are 'follow-ons' to kora and khukri classes in the 1300~1400 tons weight range for littoral action which HAVE the ASW capability. To my knowledge the answer is non-existent.

Also- just by design alone (especially low profile superstructure and sophistication of sensors), Indian smaller littoral vessels (so far) have not evolved as much compared to Chinese ones -which is my opinion (case in point is the 056 Jiangdao class or our BN variant -C13B or even smaller BN vessels like the 650 ton Durjoy/Durgom classes which have ASW capability). You can bring in counterpoints if you want.

Totally false assumptions.Kamorta class is not meant to accompany any other corvettes.Kora and khukri class are missile vessels for anti ship duty.Their job is to provide coastal defense against enemy shipping from friendly areas ,their job is not to patrol anything in enemy territory unless its a sneak attack like on karachi in 1971.

Kamorta class is a blue water vessel because it has the endurance for it.It can accompany a CBG as a ASW platform on high seas with an enclosed hangar and under its air cover,or where enemy air power is absent act as standalone sub hunter.The ACTAS sonar is there precisely for shallow water operations in arabian sea.What you are suggesting is IN has no shallow water ASW platform and thus defenceless against PN submarines which is laughable .Because kamorta follow on is equal size,kora and kukri follow ons will not have ASW capability.Now whether they are designed to operate in bangladesh coastal area i don't know,and we either way don't care about because 1. we don't see bangladesh as a military enemy,2.BN is in no way a threat to us.3.Nor does it have any modern submarines ,only 2 old soviet romeo class derivative which is a 1950s design and doesn't even have an albacore shape,but rather cigar shape like ww2 u-boats.

 

[Bilal9]

Totally false assumptions.Kamorta class is not meant to accompany any other corvettes.Kora and khukri class are missile vessels for anti ship duty.Their job is to provide coastal defense against enemy shipping from friendly areas ,their job is not to patrol anything in enemy territory unless its a sneak attack like on karachi in 1971.

Kamorta class is a blue water vessel because it has the endurance for it.It can accompany a CBG as a ASW platform on high seas with an enclosed hangar and under its air cover,or where enemy air power is absent act as standalone sub hunter.The ACTAS sonar is there precisely for shallow water operations in arabian sea.What you are suggesting is IN has no shallow water ASW platform and thus defenceless against PN submarines which is laughable .Because kamorta follow on is equal size,kora and kukri follow ons will not have ASW capability.Now whether they are designed to operate in bangladesh coastal area i don't know,and we either way don't care about because 1. we don't see bangladesh as a military enemy,2.BN is in no way a threat to us.3.Nor does it have any modern submarines ,only 2 old soviet romeo class derivative which is a 1950s design and doesn't even have an albacore shape,but rather cigar shape like ww2 u-boats.

We are going around in circles arguing since you don't have anything to back up your logic.

You don't get the basic premise that ASW patrols in shallower continental shelf littoral areas are only possible with vessels smaller than 1500 tons and drafts below 3.5 meters. I am not going to discuss submarines which is off topic in this thread. Please don't derail the topic.

Bangladesh has ASW capability in 650 ton and 1300~1400 ton vessel classes and PN does as well, due to Durgam and Azmat classes. India doesn't.

Unless you can show me proof - let's not continue this conversation anymore.

Brother @Genesis would you agree with my assumption?

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

We are going around in circles arguing since you don't have anything to back up your logic.

You don't get the basic premise that ASW patrols in shallower continental shelf littoral areas are only possible with vessels smaller than 1500 tons and drafts below 3.5 meters. I am not going to discuss submarines which is off topic in this thread. Please don't derail the topic.

Bangladesh has ASW capability in 650 ton and 1300~1400 ton vessel classes and PN does as well, due to Durgam and Azmat classes. India doesn't.

Unless you can show me proof - let's not continue this conversation anymore.

Brother @Genesis would you agree with my assumption?

From where did you get this idea that - 'ASW patrols in shallower continental shelf littoral areas are only possible with vessels smaller than 1500 tons and drafts below 3.5 meters'.There is no evidence of this.Show evidence.This is a totally false assertion,by this assumption not only indian, but european and us navy has no shallow water capability against submarines.Whats more laughable is if this is to be taken as fact,then the japanese navy which specializes in shallow water ASW warfare in SCS and first island chain area would have no capability as well as even its smallest ships with adequate ASW capability are 4k tonnes.Yet they are the frontline defense of SEa of japan and SCS against chinese and russian submarines,and had fulfilled this role throughout cold war era.

 

[Bilal9]

From where did you get this idea that - 'ASW patrols in shallower continental shelf littoral areas are only possible with vessels smaller than 1500 tons and drafts below 3.5 meters'.There is no evidence of this.Show evidence.This is a totally false assertion,by this assumption not only indian, but european and us navy has no shallow water capability against submarines.Whats more laughable is if this is to be taken as fact,then the japanese navy which specializes in shallow water ASW warfare in SCS and first island chain area would have no capability as well as even its smallest ships with adequate ASW capability are 4k tonnes.Yet they are the frontline defense of SEa of japan and SCS against chinese and russian submarines,and had fulfilled this role throughout cold war era.

Well Google is your friend.

Why don't you find out what the avg. depth is in SCS and ECS. Those are not really littoral areas like Bangladesh' Ganges coastal delta.

By littoral I am talking about continental shelf areas.

Do some research (actual proof) then disprove me.

We still don't know what the actual draft of Kamorta class is.

3.5 m figure you gave is laughable.

Even the Independence class which is a trimaran and has three hulls has a draft of 4.3m which is designed for littoral areas.

And you never responded on what smaller vessel India fields for ASW work in shallower seas.

I am sorry but all you do is deflect questions and derail into other subjects.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Well Google is your friend.

Why don't you find out what the avg. depth is in SCS and ECS. Those are not really littoral areas like Bangladesh' Ganges coastal delta.

By littoral I am talking about continental shelf areas.

Do some research (actual proof) then disprove me.

We still don't know what the actual draft of Kamorta class is.

3.5 m figure you gave is laughable.

Even the Independence class which is a trimaran and has three hulls has a draft of 4.3m which is designed for littoral areas.

And you never responded on what smaller vessel India fields for ASW work in shallower seas.

I am sorry but all you do is deflect questions and derail into other subjects.

No it is you that deflects questions with this claim -'ASW patrols in shallower continental shelf littoral areas are only possible with vessels smaller than 1500 tons and drafts below 3.5 meters'.Prove the above.
Because that statement means none of the major navies have any shallow water capability,which shows the statement is a joke in itself.We don't have any shallower area vessel at the works,because we don't need them.Our current vessels are fully capable of operating in shallow waters.As for Bangladesh littoral area,we don't care -its not our area of concern,we don't consider Bangladesh to be a military adversary and it poses no threat to us.Our Main adversary in ASW is PN in shallow warm waters of arabian sea and PLAN subs on the blue waters of the IOR.It is to meet these 2 threats that kamorta class is geared for.

 

[Bilal9]

Wow - just wow.

Your fogginess about understanding naval matters are rather breathtaking.

Brother @Genesis had already mentioned some counterpoints about how you are off-base but let's dissect your analysis.

Because that statement means none of the major navies have any shallow water capability,which shows the statement is a joke in itself.

Very few of the navies (even the US Navy) had realized the littoral waters warfare issue a decade ago. Some navies (and the IN as well) are still clueless. Only the US (and China as well) has rolled into a littoral warfare strategy which mainly centers around SCS scenario, but that does not preclude conflicts in other littoral areas.

The US Navy has built the Independence and Freedom classes specifically for littoral warfare but is also trying to come up with counterpoints to the Hubei class type 022 vessels which are smaller catamaran form factor littoral guided missile vessels.

Fielded in numbers - these semi-stealth smaller vessels, such as the types 022, 056 (C13B) and the BN Durgom class ASW platforms in swarms provide far more effective punch than a few behemoth Kamorta vessels with around 5m draft which cannot patrol littoral areas. Ships with 3500 ton displacement are inappropriate for littoral warfare period.

The real joke here is how many navies and naval experts play down the importance of conflicts in littoral areas. Again, for the third time - almost all future naval conflicts will be played out in the continental shelf or littoral areas. I am afraid you don't get it.

We don't have any shallower area vessel at the works,because we don't need them

Really? Okay.

Our current vessels are fully capable of operating in shallow waters.

No. Your Kora and Khukri classes may have had (and their successors may as well), but they don't have ASW capability and the new ones won't have it either.

As for Bangladesh littoral area,we don't care -its not our area of concern,we don't consider Bangladesh to be a military adversary and it poses no threat to us.

How is this relevant?? Every country has littoral areas, including Myanmar, where Chinese naval replenishment bases will be present, or already are. If the Hasina govt. changes then your leverage goes, and Bangladesh will see Chinese naval bases as well. You are betting against pretty bad odds.

So let me give you some points to consider,

• Foreign littoral waters have become an unsafe place to operate on the sea surface. Although the bulk of adverse naval action has been in coastal waters since 1950, their significance has increased with the rise of China, the continuing threat from midget subs such as those operated by PN, and the recent ventures of other countries.

• In shallow seas, early warning and constant alertness are harder to achieve. Depth of fire is less effective for lack of sea room. The clutter of inlets, differing coastlines and islands, coastal shipping, fishing boats, and oil rigs are all factors that complicate both offensive and defensive tactics. Larger less armed Kamorta classes will be sitting ducks and will be in close range of SHORAD platforms as well as platforms like 700 ton guided missile LPC's.

• A single-purpose ship specialized for littoral areas (700 ton ASW vessel) is far preferable to a supposed 'blue water' multipurpose behemoth ship (such as Kamorta class) in situations that require a vessel to sail in these dangerous areas. The advantage of the single-purpose ship can be clearly illustrated by using lost combat capabilities as the basis of comparison. Assume a multipurpose ship has four combat capabilities. These might be surface-missile warfare, anti-submarine warfare, mine clearance, and the employment of helicopters or unmanned aerial vehicles. Since there is a high probability that one modern anti-ship cruise missile will put either ship out of action, the advantage in missile combat is 4:1 in favor of the single-purpose ship; when the multipurpose ship is put out of action in a missile battle, the Fleet also loses all its other capabilities. This is a tactical 'measure of combat' advantage.

• Ships expose themselves to loss when they must fight to defeat an enemy. If you have three times as many ships as I do, then for parity in fractional losses each of my ships must have three times the offensive power, three times the defensive power, and three times the staying power of your ships. Operationally speaking, if you put one of my ships out of action, I simultaneously lose its offensive power, its defensive power, and also its staying power value, since my crippled ship is no longer a threat to draw your fire. Thus, the number of ships in your battle force is the single most important combat property you can have.

• A more numerous and distributed force has more tactical choices—for example, to conduct a swift-swarm attack, approach by stealth, or conduct a coordinated assault from several directions simultaneously. As the attackers, a fleet of small, lethal ships choose the time and place to hunt and strike. The burden of achieving an ever-alert defense thus becomes the enemy’s problem.

• An unstable situation results when the staying power of a combat formation is small. India fields little to zero smaller littoral guided missile vessels with ASW support today and their littoral formation’s staying power is the product of the number of ships in it and the amount of missile hits needed to put one ship out of action. The Indian Navy has a lot of larger ships in its blue-water fleet, however the littoral fleet is again, rather small. There is only a small capacity in each vessel to take missile hits and continue to fight. The consequence is a brittle, unstable situation. There is no analog of the 056 class in Indian service at present.

• Most naval officers would agree that a numerically small force of big warships with little staying power is undesirable and is also unstable as a fighting formation. For missile warfare, a more numerous force that is well trained for littoral combat will reduce brittleness for any Navy when fighting in dangerous waters.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Wow - just wow.

Your fogginess about understanding naval matters are rather breathtaking.

Brother @Genesis had already mentioned some counterpoints about how you are off-base but let's dissect your analysis.



Very few of the navies (even the US Navy) had realized the littoral waters warfare issue a decade ago. Some navies (and the IN as well) are still clueless. Only the US (and China as well) has rolled into a littoral warfare strategy which mainly centers around SCS scenario, but that does not preclude conflicts in other littoral areas.

The US Navy has built the Independence and Freedom classes specifically for littoral warfare but is also trying to come up with counterpoints to the Hubei class type 022 vessels which are smaller catamaran form factor littoral guided missile vessels.

Fielded in numbers - these semi-stealth smaller vessels, such as the types 022, 056 (C13B) and the BN Durgom class ASW platforms in swarms provide far more effective punch than a few behemoth Kamorta vessels with around 5m draft which cannot patrol littoral areas. Ships with 3500 ton displacement are inappropriate for littoral warfare period.

The real joke here is how many navies and naval experts play down the importance of conflicts in littoral areas. Again, for the third time - almost all future naval conflicts will be played out in the continental shelf or littoral areas. I am afraid you don't get it.



Really? Okay.



No. Your Kora and Khukri classes may have had (and their successors may as well), but they don't have ASW capability and the new ones won't have it either.



How is this relevant?? Every country has littoral areas, including Myanmar, where Chinese naval replenishment bases will be present, or already are. If the Hasina govt. changes then your leverage goes, and Bangladesh will see Chinese naval bases as well. You are betting against pretty bad odds.

So let me give you some points to consider,

• Foreign littoral waters have become an unsafe place to operate on the sea surface. Although the bulk of adverse naval action has been in coastal waters since 1950, their significance has increased with the rise of China, the continuing threat from midget subs such as those operated by PN, and the recent ventures of other countries.

• In shallow seas, early warning and constant alertness are harder to achieve. Depth of fire is less effective for lack of sea room. The clutter of inlets, differing coastlines and islands, coastal shipping, fishing boats, and oil rigs are all factors that complicate both offensive and defensive tactics. Larger less armed Kamorta classes will be sitting ducks and will be in close range of SHORAD platforms as well as platforms like 700 ton guided missile LPC's.

• A single-purpose ship specialized for littoral areas (700 ton ASW vessel) is far preferable to a supposed 'blue water' multipurpose behemoth ship (such as Kamorta class) in situations that require a vessel to sail in these dangerous areas. The advantage of the single-purpose ship can be clearly illustrated by using lost combat capabilities as the basis of comparison. Assume a multipurpose ship has four combat capabilities. These might be surface-missile warfare, anti-submarine warfare, mine clearance, and the employment of helicopters or unmanned aerial vehicles. Since there is a high probability that one modern anti-ship cruise missile will put either ship out of action, the advantage in missile combat is 4:1 in favor of the single-purpose ship; when the multipurpose ship is put out of action in a missile battle, the Fleet also loses all its other capabilities. This is a tactical 'measure of combat' advantage.

• Ships expose themselves to loss when they must fight to defeat an enemy. If you have three times as many ships as I do, then for parity in fractional losses each of my ships must have three times the offensive power, three times the defensive power, and three times the staying power of your ships. Operationally speaking, if you put one of my ships out of action, I simultaneously lose its offensive power, its defensive power, and also its staying power value, since my crippled ship is no longer a threat to draw your fire. Thus, the number of ships in your battle force is the single most important combat property you can have.

• A more numerous and distributed force has more tactical choices—for example, to conduct a swift-swarm attack, approach by stealth, or conduct a coordinated assault from several directions simultaneously. As the attackers, a fleet of small, lethal ships choose the time and place to hunt and strike. The burden of achieving an ever-alert defense thus becomes the enemy’s problem.

• An unstable situation results when the staying power of a combat formation is small. Given India does not field little to no smaller littoral guided missile vessels with ASW support today their littoral formation’s staying power is the product of the number of ships in it and the amount of missile hits needed to put one ship out of action. The Indian Navy has a lot of larger ships in its blue-water fleet, however the littoral fleet is rather small. There is only a small capacity in each vessel to take missile hits and continue to fight. The consequence is a brittle, unstable situation. There is no analog of the 056 class in Indian service at present.

• Most naval officers would agree that a numerically small force of big warships with little staying power is undesirable and is also unstable as a fighting formation. For missile warfare, a more numerous force that is well trained for littoral combat will reduce brittleness for any Navy when fighting in dangerous waters.

Show me a scientific article or research paper which states this - that you have boldly claimed.
''Ships with 3500 ton displacement are inappropriate for littoral warfare period.''
You have based your entire argument on this ridiculous statement,which if taken as true along with your'e second statement ''almost all future naval conflicts will be played out in the continental shelf or littoral areas. I am afraid you don't get it'',means that all the big naval planners of the world don't get it but somehow you do.Without even any research or professional experience to speak of.Who is the joker here?As for USN it has now cancelled LCS programme as a failure,will build no more and has replaced it with 4000 tonne frigate programme.But ofc u know better than usn,because oh wait mighty bangladeshi navy has a few small junk ships nobody gives a damn about.

 

[Bilal9]

Show me a scientific article or research paper which states this - that you have boldly claimed.
''Ships with 3500 ton displacement are inappropriate for littoral warfare period.''
You have based your entire argument on this ridiculous statement,which if taken as true along with your'e second statement ''almost all future naval conflicts will be played out in the continental shelf or littoral areas. I am afraid you don't get it'',means that all the big naval planners of the world don't get it but somehow you do.Without even any research or professional experience to speak of.Who is the joker here?As for USN it has now cancelled LCS programme as a failure,will build no more and has replaced it with 4000 tonne frigate programme.But ofc u know better than usn,because oh wait mighty bangladeshi navy has a few small junk ships nobody gives a damn about.

You have shot your credibility right in the foot with a statement like 'oh wait mighty Bangladeshi navy has a few small junk ships nobody gives a damn about'.

How are YOU a 'add water - get instant expert' and I am not? Some demeaning attitude!

Tell us how you became a think tank analyst with this type of attitude and immaturity. In hindsight it now seems correct that @Genesis gave up talking to you and I have wasted my time as well writing long posts.

You have earned a place in my ignore list. Good day.

 

[UKBengali]

You have shot your credibility right in the foot with a statement like 'oh wait mighty Bangladeshi navy has a few small junk ships nobody gives a damn about'.

How are YOU a 'add water - get instant expert' and I am not? Some demeaning attitude!

Tell us how you became a think tank analyst with this type of attitude and immaturity. In hindsight it now seems correct that @Genesis gave up talking to you and I have wasted my time as well writing long posts.

You have earned a place in my ignore list. Good day.

Thank you for realising at last the guy is a moron.

He actually thinks that the Indian Navy would have any chance when China starts sending it's CBVG's into the Indian Ocean next decade.