Bangladesh Navy

[Stuttgart001]

Hmmmm, I can't dispute that, but since we have so far followed the conventional categorization and objectives, do you think the Navy has any plans to initiate proper research on this matter? This is going to require massive innovation and effort, even China hasn't done that.

No one would do such thing.
Armament is designed and development to combat. What its name and how to categorize doesn't matter.
Soviet Union called its carrier as airborne cruiser, and Japan called its carrier as airborne frigate.
Does these names have anything with the nature of these warship ?
Absolutely not.
It is a kind of warship which uses fighers onboard to conduct combat tasks comprising anti-ship, anti-submarine, anti-aircraft.

 

[Species]

No one would do such thing.
Armament is designed and development to combat. What its name and how to categorize doesn't matter.
Soviet Union called its carrier as airborne cruiser, and Japan called its carrier as airborne frigate.
Does these names have anything with the nature of these warship ?
Absolutely not.
It is a kind of warship which uses fighers onboard to conduct combat tasks comprising anti-ship, anti-submarine, anti-aircraft.

True but what we are following is a westernized tradition, who have the legacy of their colonial past and may have different motives and objectives than us easterners. In other words, we are influenced by the domination over knowledge production.

 

[Stuttgart001]

True but what we are following is a westernized tradition, who have the legacy of their colonial past and may have different motives and objectives than us easterners. In other words, we are influenced by the domination over knowledge production.

I don't think it is related with tradition.
It's related to millitary technology and types of warfare. You know the universe has its own law which may be found by Westerners not invented by them.
The destoryer nowdays is totally different from that in WWII in terms of displacement , usage , weapons and role .
Aircraft carrier did not exist untill 1920s.
China developed DF-21D ,which is the first ASBM in the world .

So it doesn't matter how to catogrize you armament . What matters is it meets your requirement.

 

[monitor]

LHD's with helis are also capable of amphibious assaults.

Observe stern gate mating of USS WASP, an LHD with a landing craft carrying trucks and Humvees off of the coast of Thailand.

Does Bangladesh need a scenario like this (amphibious assault) in its military strategy?

Some newer, smaller LHD's (termed LPD's or landing platform/dock) in the USN like the USS San Antonio carries AAV-7s (Assault Amphibious Vehicles) in its well deck, doing away with the need for landing craft altogether.

AAV's

The Chinese equivalent of the USS San Antonio, The PLAN Type 071 would cost a third of it.
While retaining most of the capability. The Malaysians are considering this purchase.

The equivalent Indonesian LPD is the Makassar class, for this ToT was obtained by PT PAL from Korea. The Filipinos received a similar LPD built from PT PAL in Indonesia

We may not need large LPD/LPD as we don't have any overseas operation and only island can well defended by navy. But for disaster management we could get Masandar class from Indonesia it's better cheap only 35/50 million dollar. Beside disaster management we could use it as command ship too.

 

[Ideas_R_Bulletproof]

Hmmmm, I can't dispute that, but since we have so far followed the conventional categorization and objectives, do you think the Navy has any plans to initiate proper research on this matter? This is going to require massive innovation and effort, even China hasn't done that.

OMG!!
how have you missed the patterns that we've followed recently??
we have broken through categories several times already....

we bought two OPVs from the UK and converted them into corvettes....
and then bought four corvettes and converted them into OPVs.....
that was a demonstration that we know how "they" have created categories....

and then came the Durjoy-class.... what is the Durjoy-class?.... a corvette?... a missile boat?.... what?..... we called it an LPC, which none understood.... because we're talking in a language that is not made in the West....

We may not need large LPD/LPD as we don't have any overseas operation and only island can well defended by navy. But for disaster management we could get Masandar class from Indonesia it's better cheap only 35/50 million dollar. Beside disaster management we could use it as command ship too.

we can't depend on the Indian Navy the next time another disaster happens somewhere around the world.... thats not really a glorious thing for us.... right?

You know the universe has its own law which may be found by Westerners not invented by them.

now you're talking!
think about it.... who would need a carrier more?
1. who control the Suez Canal and have all the sea lanes within fighter range
2. who would have to use the Cape of Good Hope passage to reach the India Ocean

thinking patterns design purpose...
geography (among others) designs methods....
method designs platforms....

 

[Anubis]

HMS Ocean is up for sale.

HMS Ocean is up for sale.

 

[Ideas_R_Bulletproof]

HMS Ocean is up for sale.
HMS Ocean is up for sale.

its a junk!.... we'll let Brazil have it.....
Brazil needs it more than we do.... we'll get something different...

 

[Stuttgart001]

OMG!!
now you're talking!
think about it.... who would need a carrier more?
1. who control the Suez Canal and have all the sea lanes within fighter range
2. who would have to use the Cape of Good Hope passage to reach the India Ocean

thinking patterns design purpose...
geography (among others) designs methods....
method designs platforms....

Sorry, I didn't get your point.
IMO, the common purpose of weapon is used to destroy enemy .
As for carrier, a lot of nations owning carriers have not any overseas bases.
Carrier is just a armament, which is manipulated by human .
Do not need to symbolize it with hegemony.

 

[Michael Corleone]

and then came the Durjoy-class.... what is the Durjoy-class?.... a corvette?... a missile boat?.... what?..... we called it an LPC, which none understood.... because we're talking in a language that is not made in the West....

because we are talking in bangali bhasha... "boro tohol nouqa" in other words.
nowadays i should say our navy is trolling everyone and even bns bangabandhu is a "tohol nouqa" because as per indian admirals... bangladesh navy is a "nodi tohol bahini" XD

 

[Ideas_R_Bulletproof]

because we are talking in bangali bhasha... "boro tohol nouqa" in other words.
nowadays i should say our navy is trolling everyone and even bns bangabandhu is a "tohol nouqa" because as per indian admirals... bangladesh navy is a "nodi tohol bahini" XD

they can only guess....
in the coming days, more "tohol nouka" will come, which will be mind-boggling for them....

Sorry, I didn't get your point.
IMO, the common purpose of weapon is used to destroy enemy .
As for carrier, a lot of nations owning carriers have not any overseas bases.
Carrier is just a armament, which is manipulated by human .
Do not need to symbolize it with hegemony.

so, a patrol boat can serve the same purpose as that of a carrier, right?.... to destroy the enemy... right?

 

[Bilal9]

We may not need large LPD/LPD as we don't have any overseas operation and only island can well defended by navy. But for disaster management we could get Masandar class from Indonesia it's better cheap only 35/50 million dollar. Beside disaster management we could use it as command ship too.

Command Ship role will need extensive sensor and electronics fits. However, we may need to moderate our planning with the following factors if the command ship exceeds, say 10,000 tons:

• Overly bulky command ships can be hard to maneuver and will be sitting ducks for cruise missiles like BrahMos.
• There are doubts over the logic of acquiring expensive naval behemoths and if it makes sense economically
  • High cost (especially with inexperienced builders locally with large naval/defense builds),
  • delays on construction (scope creep),
  • expensive maintenance schedules, and
  • superfluous capability add-ons

all make the construction of large warships a costly activity unless (and this is big) construction ToT is received from a friendly nation like China and training in littoral naval conflict operations where I believe the next conflict (or skirmish) for the Bangladesh Navy will be fought.​

• For every new class of ships introduced (including command ships) - there are valid concerns if value can be delivered for the money spent, particularly when our navy is vulnerable to budget constraints and hardly in a position to afford expensive errors in building expensive combat platforms.
• A case must be made for actual transition from a planned naval doctrine to naval builds. In other words 'cut one's coat according to one's cloth' (to plan one's aims and activities in line with one's resources and circumstances).

 

[Arthur]

Command Ship role will need extensive sensor and electronics fits. However, we may need to moderate our planning with the following factors if the command ship exceeds, say 10,000 tons:

• Overly bulky command ships can be hard to maneuver and will be sitting ducks for cruise missiles like BrahMos.
• There are doubts over the logic of acquiring expensive naval behemoths and if it makes sense economically
  • High cost (especially with inexperienced builders locally with large naval/defense builds),
  • delays on construction (scope creep),
  • expensive maintenance schedules, and
  • superfluous capability add-ons

all make the construction of large warships a costly activity unless (and this is big) construction ToT is received from a friendly nation like China and training in littoral naval conflict operations where I believe the next conflict (or skirmish) for the Bangladesh Navy will be fought.​

• For every new class of ships introduced (including command ships) - there are valid concerns if value can be delivered for the money spent, particularly when our navy is vulnerable to budget constraints and hardly in a position to afford expensive errors in building expensive combat platforms.
• A case must be made for actual transition from a planned naval doctrine to naval builds. In other words 'cut one's coat according to one's cloth' (to plan one's aims and activities in line with one's resources and circumstances).

For reasons I think first two heavy frigates will be a cap for navy build up in 2021-2030 time period. The things we are discussing are the long term goals anyway & that means Goal 2050. 150 ships by 2050 looks to be a more achievable & affordable target.

 

[Stuttgart001]

so, a patrol boat can serve the same purpose as that of a carrier, right?.... to destroy the enemy... right?

They are different with power.
Everyone wants his armament as powerful as he can afford.

And I still didn't get your point .
You can call your petrol boat as carrier ,as soon as it meet your requirement.

 

[Ideas_R_Bulletproof]

They are different with power.
Everyone wants his armament as powerful as he can afford.

And I still didn't get your point .
You can call your petrol boat as carrier ,as soon as it meet your requirement.

thats exactly the point....
I have mentioned above that -
thinking patterns design purpose...
geography (among others) designs methods....
method designs platforms....

why does it seem too complex?....

think geography -
Britain and the US would have to have different platforms if they want to control the Indian Ocean ... Americans had to lease a British island (Diego Garcia) in the Indian Ocean to keep their presence here.... on the other hand, those who already are part of the Indian Ocean, they just don't need to acquire island bases... or carriers per se...

now platform -
and to reach Asian land from Diego Garcia, you'll require aircraft with extraordinary range.... does Bangladesh need that?.... no.... so, no need for Bangladesh to acquire long-range bombers, even though they look like great show of strength...

now purpose -
the US needs to bomb Asia.... does Bangladesh need to do that?.... no.... simple...

 

[Stuttgart001]

thats exactly the point....
I have mentioned above that -
thinking patterns design purpose...
geography (among others) designs methods....
method designs platforms....

why does it seem too complex?....

think geography -
Britain and the US would have to have different platforms if they want to control the Indian Ocean ... Americans had to lease a British island (Diego Garcia) in the Indian Ocean to keep their presence here.... on the other hand, those who already are part of the Indian Ocean, they just don't need to acquire island bases... or carriers per se...

now platform -
and to reach Asian land from Diego Garcia, you'll require aircraft with extraordinary range.... does Bangladesh need that?.... no.... so, no need for Bangladesh to acquire long-range bombers, even though they look like great show of strength...

now purpose -
the US needs to bomb Asia.... does Bangladesh need to do that?.... no.... simple...

Buddy, you make things complicated. You could just say Bangladesh don't need carriers .
As for the reason you prorpose, there are many nations disagreed with you .
There are more than 10 nations owning carriers ,most of which are not strong enough to colonize others today .
It is hard to say the leaders and highranking officials of these nations are less professional at navy strategy than you.

If you don't understand, you should check out South Korea ，which is a small and rich nation among big guys all of which is much stronger .
According to your theory , aircraft carrier was totally of no use for SOK .
Unfortunately, they do have it .