Teer,

The Brahmos can do a pretty high speed at altitude & from at least two industry events, they do state a high speed at low alt as well with an attendant drop in range. Will see if I have any notes viz what speed etc.

The system differs from a conventional ballistic missile in that it has waypoint based guidance, which with proper route planning is expected to make it a real pain for any conventional AD system to handle (at least what Indias opponents have).

Appreciate what you have written but I think you’d accept that Land Attack Brahmos is not going to be flying NOE profiles at high mach numbers. Terrain masking from proper ingress route selection is a valid method of screening an inbound, but, proper deployment of GBAD is always to counter any obvious ingress routes. Obviously that is dependent on the tactical environment at the time though.

Fully appreciate reticence to discuss ISTAR. No apologies necessary. You understand the importance of asking the question and the issues left open by the lack of information available on the subject though!.

The aim will be to open a brief window which air power can exploit, not to use the Brahmos itself as the hammer that hits every problem which is a nail.

So buy or develop a MALD equivalent and ramp up SEAD commensurate with the threat. The weakness of S-300 is in ready rounds and reload time. Thats where you hurt it – by feeding it cheap things to kill then murder it when its pants are down.

I appreciate what you say about Brahmos conferring some capacity for SEAD where none exists presently, but, it is a limited solution at best. Double-digit area SAM batteries are significant targets in and of themselves and, if you plan to push slow-mover air into their envelope, you want them thoroughly, and verifiably, attrited beforehand. Not a percentages volley of missiles that may or may not degrade the target!. Its a personal opinion only, of course, but I think that SEAD is one of those things where ‘close enough’ isnt ‘good enough’. If you know the opfor is putting out S-300 batteries you want a full effort to neutralise that capability at the rush.

Lastly I also appreciate what you are saying about this being the top-end of a system-of-systems designed to provide multi-layered indirect fire-support/strike capability for the IN. The proposed system you describe sounds uniformly excellent and entirely in keeping with what the IA should be looking for.

It does, however, validate Matt’s earlier commentry (if he’ll forgive me putting words in his mouth!) that the Brahmos was a very specific and ‘niche’ weapon in the grand scheme of things though!.

If the Chinese move a specific set of missiles into theater which cannot be taken out by airpower, the Brahmos will be the tool of choice…….Furthermore, its entirely because of the PLAs anti air system that the Brahmos is a preferred system.

Illustrative when taken in conjunction. Problem with this is the size of the Brahmos round surely?. If you are seeking to use its performance as advantage this, overland, is an aeroballistc weapon right?. I’ve not seen any claims that this thing is skipping over power lines at mach 2.daft?. The targets you are ‘indicating’, if well protected in anti-air terms, would surely be capable of handling a big ‘dumb’ target like a BrahMos on an aeroballistic trajectory?.

India has put several ISTAR assets in place to employ the Brahmos and other weapons, its not my position to speak of them.

Perhaps, then, you could indicate a source that could?.

A salvo of Brahmos is preferable to sending a flight of heavily loaded Jaguars to what would amount to a one way trip.

Preferable I understand but the ADGE that would be assuredly fatal to the Jags would be a tough prospect for penetration with a salvo of missiles unless you can oversaturate. I can imagine better ways to negate S-300’s etc than giving them salvo’s of expensive missiles to plink away at.

The intent will be to use Brahmos to open up holes in the AD zone and then exploit for further effect, as well as use Brahmos for deep (ie greater than the 30-40 km tactical battle area) strikes that cannot be immediately handled with airpower.

Fleeting targets I can understand, but, a short-interval target that needs a hugely expensive missile with a warhead thats suitable only actually for a very small target set???.

Useful ship indeed, but, doctrinally a very large shift for Russian Naval Infantry. Traditionally these are heavily mechanised forces and tend to deploy in brigade strength never that far from home.

Battalion sized expeditionary units, using vertical envelopment techniques from the sea, as these vessels support is a significant role change for the Russians. It also signifies a notable shift in Russian military capability, at face value, similar to the UK 98SDR. A move to extra-regional rapid deployment capability from regional-only focus means quite a significant shift in force structures especially for the Navy as, currently, they are not set up for sustained expeditionary deployments. Interesting development to keep a track of anyway!.

The comment on the Astute is more to do with the processing capability of the sonar rather than its sensitivity.

Very simplistically in any body of water, of sufficient depth, there are different layers deliniated by water temperature as anyone who’s read a Tom Clancy novel is likely well aware. In oceanic waters there is a condition known as the deep sound channel. This can carry acoustic signals over oceanic distances – whales use this to communicate with each other over vast distance – so, if you trail a sensitive array in the channel and have the processing power to isolate discrete signals amongst the background you can make a detection.

Getting a good value for range on that kind of contact is very hard. Triangulation is a swine when you have one leg thats 3000nm long!. You really do have to motor to get a worthwhile baseline!. So you aren’t tracking anything, but, it makes a great soundbyte saying that the sub can detect the QE2 on the other side of the Atlantic!.

Lemon.

I know where you are coming from – but a touch harsh perhaps?.

They’re littoral combattants that will, probably, never be expected to deal with SS4 again in their careers – much less try to undertake aviation ops or effective gunnery in those conditions.

I wouldn’t want to crew one in combat or on any kind of extended voyage, but, for pootling up and down the gulf coastline looking ‘fierce’ they’ll trump a Combattante or TNC45 any day of the week!

I think the comment, Black Cat, was more to do with the carrier in real life and not the vessel of ‘internet comparison’.

Many, myself included, would be fascinated to see the defect list generated after she completes initial contractor sea trials. After that is resolved the defect list generated by operational sea trials would also be interesting to flick through.This is no special victimisation of the Indian Navy rather just an anticipation of a certain level of pain owing to the complexities of the hull refit/modification.

Two concepts that may stand a little reiteration here gents. The hull formerly-known-as-C3 (dont get me started on that one!) is being termed an OPV and people seem to have that mentality for it. Its not an OPV as OPV stands for Offshore Patrol Vessel. Former-C3 is an Oceanic Capable Patrol Vessel the two are quite different in scope and, by necessity, size.

To cope with oceanic transit 90m’s is the absolute bare minimum hull length required for adequate pitch response in higher sea states and 100-110m far more suitable. It could therefore not be a cheap little vessel, as some here attempt to put forward, and still do the job required of it.

The gun issue here is tied into the same thing. Role suitability. There seems to be a misconception here that the gun only has value when its firing and therefore the most efficient all-round mount is king. I’m sorry but thats a nonsense. The point of a patrol vessel like this is to provide military presence in a defined geographical area….implicit in that is the threat of force…simple coercive power. A ‘tripwire’ if you wish to see it that way.

The OCPV carries far greater coercive presence on its patrol station if it has the power to lob 46lb HE shells 20km’s inland if so ordered. It also acts as discouragement for pirates/terrorists to think they can have a crack at one of the ‘big boys’ ships – plenty of ‘Sea Tigers’ boats put out with 20-23mm cannon aboard that would give them a fair crack at an RN boat sporting only a 30mm REMSIG – no reason others couldn’t do the same. Overkill, when you could be the sole forward deployed unit, is a good thing!.

Son-of-C3 needs to be circa 110m, 3000tons plus, 25knts sustained on diesels, equipped with a 3D surf/air set and armed commensurate with its tasking. That is just to do its job.

In my opinion C2 is still, most efficiently, batch 2 of the same hull just uparmed and with enhanced aviation facilities replacing the flexible mission deck of the austere hull. That way we can pour the funds into building something really special as C1 – which is where the money needs spending now.

the german navy itself quoted that during the transit of a u212 sub (u32) from germany to rota (spain) the sub was operating submerged two weeks without snorkling. this happend back in 2006 and i would assume that they also used their computers during the transit 😉

and afaik the german u212 got a towed array sonar. first they planned to use a clip-on solution but later this was changed to a “normal” retractable tas.

From the German coast to Rota is only a 2 week transit if you ARE submerged on AIP!. Also its cold water damn near all the way. HVAC is a major load on an SSK battery and in the warmer climates performance is significantly reduced on the strength of it.

Lastly what where the conditions of the transit….was the boat on a deliberate endurance run or was it tactical on the voyage?. Changing depth frequently, tactical manoeuvering, pumping tanks, driving the periscope etc all takes battery charge – if they weren’t running exercise serials its hardly representative.

AIP shouldnt be considered as anything more than a fairly modest strength battery-charger. It would wrong to think that it confers anything like SSN mobility even for just a period of 60-odd hours..

Yep the 212/214 has a TAS or, at least, the ability to accept one. The CSU90 suite aboard is gradiated out to 48k yards or about 24nm, IIRC, so that puts it at about the 1st CZ in sensor footprint. Good for an SSK.