Thats cool. The Iskander is TBM, much faster and of course carries a much bigger warhead, but the Brahmos LtL launcher not only carries one more missile, but those can be reloaded much faster than a BM.

How many missiles is the Indian SS coastal launcher sopposed to have?

If there is no threat at all, then they really dont need anything. The P-3s are expensive to operate, are old and need replacement. Something like a UAV for Maritime Patrol like the Mariner or Global Hawk have really high endurance, therefore they could always be flying around and such, and a Global Hawk can probably search more water in a given time than any other platform in the World. Transports and such are all reasonable. A few new C-130Js could be purchased or the older ones upgraded, no need to purchase any different airframe considering they already operate the C-130 series, so no matter how expensive the new C-130J is, it will be very easy to integrate it.

As for Attack Helicopters? What for?

Thats true, because they had a rather easy time taking out the radars, today good mobile radars that are always on the move will be very hard to take out.

Yes, but I am just talking about the launchers. A single MSAM TELAR would have 3 times more missiles and would be easier to service. Therefore a single MSAM battery would require 3 times less launchers for the same number of missiles as a BUK-M2 battery.

BTW when it comes to BUK-M2 and such, wouldnt it be just a lot easier if the teh whole radar system was just in one seperate vehicle?

I was never in Banja Luka during the war, I was in the suburbs of Sarajevo held by Serbs during the whole war so I was never aware of RS’ or Yugoslavian AF activities at that time, except I’ve seen quite a few G-4s and Mig-21s flying CAS missions nearby on Muslim bunkers, buildings and such dropping bomb bombs and rockets.

However, I am pretty aware of a G-4 that was shot down by an F-16 + AIM-120 I think like in 1995, not sure but it was when NATO established the no fly zone.

Why would you get the L-159 when the G-4 is already there and it’s pretty similar, little less capable but it’s already there.

Compare that to NSM and, apart from a CVN, there is no target that those weapons can tackle that NSM cannot and in one missile type. That one missile being swingrole on the pylon for antiship and precision land-attack.

Thats a very good point Jonesy, against a Navy with capable Air Defenses and AIR COVER like the Russian, French, British or US Navies and now Indian and Chinese, the NSM would not be a good choice because you will want to stay as far back as possible and a weapon like Alfa would be a good option. Against everything else, the NSM is the best weapon. The Uran, Exocet and Kh-35 being right after it.

BTW, is there a planned submarine launched NSM?

Yes, thats why they dont need such longer ranged weapons, the Soviets just could not rely completely on subs and torpedos to sink Carrier groups, so therefore they built long range AShMs. That is why West has not had a reason to build heavy and long ranged AshMs, cuz they relied on subs and such.

If the Soviets back then would’ve had large carrier groups and very good ASW capabilities, I’d bet West would’ve built large and long ranged AshMs too to counter these because no longer it would’ve been able to rely on subs+torpedos.