Bangladesh Navy

[Avicenna]

Don't know why people are neglecting the Kilo. This one may be old but still ugly and better than our Ming class without a doubt. The sub has various weapon launching capability including Club variants. If Myanmar integrate any one of them (which they obviously will as there's strong possibility of buying newer Kilo or Amur/Lada) this will be serious headache as Type-39/S-20-26, Chang Bogo or any other affordable conventional submarine can't offer such variety of weapons like Russian with various ranges. And this one is specially still hard to find even with modern sensors.



The production of this one closed long ago. Why would they build an obsolete sub again? Besides our shipyards don't have that type of capability yet.



Nagapasa/Chang Bogo is a Type-209 variant not Type-214.

You are supposed to overestimate your enemies not underestimate them!

Myanmar getting a Kilo is a problem.

No one should think otherwise.

 

[Arthur]

You are supposed to overestimate your enemies not underestimate them!

Myanmar getting a Kilo is a problem.

No one should think otherwise.

Members are just making fun of some bamar trolls. Nothing serious.

As I mentioned earlier our naval establishment was expecting this turn of event & getting prepared accordingly. Heavy investment going to ASW capacity.

Rumor is Navy might buy 2 AW 101 ASW for second batch of ASW heli.

 

[Avicenna]

Members are just making fun of some bamar trolls. Nothing serious.

As I mentioned earlier our naval establishment was expecting this turn of event & getting prepared accordingly. Heavy investment going to ASW capacity.

Rumor is Navy might buy 2 AW 101 ASW for second batch of ASW heli.

InshAllah the buy for new submarines happens sooner rather than later.

 

[Arthur]

Don't know why people are neglecting the Kilo. This one may be old but still ugly and better than our Ming class without a doubt. The sub has various weapon launching capability including Club variants. If Myanmar integrate any one of them (which they obviously will as there's strong possibility of buying newer Kilo or Amur/Lada) this will be serious headache as Type-39/S-20-26, Chang Bogo or any other affordable conventional submarine can't offer such variety of weapons like Russian with various ranges. And this one is specially still hard to find even with modern sensors.

Problem with First generation Kilo is not it's capacity to deploy weapons rather it's acoustic signature.

Remember Type 35G underwent significant MLU to reduce it's acoustic signature. According to a former US Navy ASW officer, BN Type 35G has better acoustic signature than old Kilo class. This was discussed in this forum last year, dig up the thread.

I don't think dhotis will go to this extent for a donation. They have nothing to gain from that. And trust me bamars will not be abale to buy brand new for a long time to come.

The production of this one closed long ago. Why would they build an obsolete sub again? Besides our shipyards don't have that type of capability yet.

I too is skeptical about this. Though Chinese will localise many parts, Spare manufacturing & support system, which will come in handy if we buy Chinese submarines in future.

 

[The Ronin]

Problem with First generation Kilo is not it's capacity to deploy weapons rather it's acoustic signature.

Remember Type 35G underwent significant MLU to reduce it's acoustic signature. According to a former US Navy ASW officer, BN Type 35G has better acoustic signature than old Kilo class. This was discussed in this forum last year, dig up the thread.

I don't think dhotis will go to this extent for a donation. They have nothing to gain from that. And trust me bamars will not be abale to buy brand new for a long time to come.

Hae i am aware of that, probably i am the one who posted it here. But as i said before this purchase increases the chance of more Kilo/Amur purchase and according to same chart improved kilo is lot quieter than Yuan.

 

[Arthur]

Hae i am aware of that, probably i am the one who posted it here. But as i said before this purchase increases the chance of more Kilo/Amur purchase and according to same chart improved kilo is lot quieter than Yuan.

Improved Kilo is good game. But it's expensive than baseline Kilos.

Don't Know about Early Yuan's, but latest variants of Yuan Class (Type 39B?) is a good platform. PN going after them says a lot about it.

If BN goes for price-maintenance expense cost metrics, I would say Chang Bogo & Yuan is good options. Russian subs are not an option anymore.

 

[Bilal9]

Indonesia buy Korean subs particularly because there is extensive TOT given. The second contract for another 3 Korean sub for instant require Korean to help Indonesia to make the third sub at Indonesia ship yard fully, not only just some part like the first and second sub. In term of capabilities I think still moderate since it cannot launch anti ship missile, only torpedos.

Well most smaller subs are basically patrol subs with torpedo launch facility only. However there are smaller anti-ship missiles these days which can be launched from torpedo tubes. But those missiles can't make much of a dent because of size unless the ship is say under 500 tonnes in displacement (small patrol boat).

 

[Bilal9]

Improved Kilo is good game. But it's expensive than baseline Kilos.

Don't Know about Early Yuan's, but latest variants of Yuan Class (Type 39B?) is a good platform. PN going after them says a lot about it.

If BN goes for price-maintenance expense cost metrics, I would say Chang Bogo & Yuan is good options. Russian subs are not an option anymore.

Yup my thoughts are along the same lines.

What would be cool is if we could get our hands on a couple of Gotland class subs (or the successor being built now which is Blekinge class). Blekinges will be offered for export but are understandably expensive being made in Sweden ( about a Billion dollars for two copies, not counting bribes for the receiving third world officials). Two Blekinges are being completed and will be delivered around 2022.

What sets Gotland subs apart is how quiet they are (they use super quiet AIP equipped stirling engines and not noisy diesel propulsors for charging the batteries). We all know how they snuck up on the carrier USS Ronald Reagan.

Last time the predecessors to the Gotland class (Vastergotland) were offered for sale, Singaporeans snapped them up for a song. If we could get the Gotland class around 2022 onwards that would be great but we have to start negotiating soon. There are three Gotlands extant and all of them got a midlife refit just this year (same equipment as the newer Blekinges).

My logic on getting expensive subs is that we should ideally have at least two cheaper patrol subs (probably more, like the 35G's) and two state-of-the-art subs (like the Gotlands) which are in the hunter-killer category. The displacement sizes should range from 1200 to 1800 tons max because of the continental shelf pelagic patrol areas around our coasts. Four should be ideal and would suffice for coastal patrol schedules and occasional peek-a-boo exercises with the ASW helis.

 

[Nike]

Indonesia buy Korean subs particularly because there is extensive TOT given. The second contract for another 3 Korean sub for instant require Korean to help Indonesia to make the third sub at Indonesia ship yard fully, not only just some part like the first and second sub. In term of capabilities I think still moderate since it cannot launch anti ship missile, only torpedos.

Indonesian Nagapasa can launch AShM, there is proficient for targeting system on board, it just we dont bought the missile at all nor we need it in current time.

 

[Indos]

Indonesian Nagapasa can launch AShM, there is proficient for targeting system on board, it just we dont bought the missile at all nor we need it in current time.

I know it that Indonesia buy an improve version of changbogo, and some chang bogo sub can also launch harpoon missile, but whether Indonesian version can launch a missile is still a mystery. Can you give me some link to prove your claim?

 

[The Ronin]

Improved Kilo is good game. But it's expensive than baseline Kilos.

Don't Know about Early Yuan's, but latest variants of Yuan Class (Type 39B?) is a good platform. PN going after them says a lot about it.

If BN goes for price-maintenance expense cost metrics, I would say Chang Bogo & Yuan is good options. Russian subs are not an option anymore.

Well Vietnam spent $350 million per sub so this might not be problem if MN decides to purchase at least one or two submarine don't think it will be too hard for them. Besides Russia can sell them on credit. Any idea how close new Yuan based S20/26 is to improved Kilo?

Anyway still not counting out the Amur 950 as it has more fire-power and only cheap sub with VLS than A-26 or KSS III.

Yup my thoughts are along the same lines.

What would be cool is if we could get our hands on a couple of Gotland class subs (or the successor being built now which is Blekinge class). Blekinges will be offered for export but are understandably expensive being made in Sweden ( about a Billion dollars for two copies, not counting bribes for the receiving third world officials). Two Blekinges are being completed and will be delivered around 2022.

What sets Gotland subs apart is how quiet they are (they use super quiet AIP equipped stirling engines and not noisy diesel propulsors for charging the batteries). We all know how they snuck up on the carrier USS Ronald Reagan.

Last time the predecessors to the Gotland class (Vastergotland) were offered for sale, Singaporeans snapped them up for a song. If we could get the Gotland class around 2022 onwards that would be great but we have to start negotiating soon. There are three Gotlands extant and all of them got a midlife refit just this year (same equipment as the newer Blekinges).

My logic on getting expensive subs is that we should ideally have at least two cheaper patrol subs (probably more, like the 35G's) and two state-of-the-art subs (like the Gotlands) which are in the hunter-killer category. The displacement sizes should range from 1200 to 1800 tons max because of the continental shelf pelagic patrol areas around our coasts. Four should be ideal and would suffice for coastal patrol schedules and occasional peek-a-boo exercises with the ASW helis.

Knew you would bring up the A-26. You made me wait too long. If i am not wrong production of Gotland class is closed and Sweden is spending $462 on per A-26 (Not sure which variant). So first of all BN will operate six-eight subs by 2030. And after buying Type-35G and awarding submarine base contract to Chinese it's pretty obvious that BN will seek something new from Chinese or Russian. Besides our submariners are getting trained in UK, S.Korea, China and Turkey. Also A-26 will feature a lot of new tech and a contender of for India's six future SSK. Besides there's a chance that it will have U.S component like Tomahawk. So the current scenario, infrastructures and cost doesn't really favor any Swedish sub.


IMHO BN should choose three sub from Chinese/Russian and another three from S.Korean or German hopefully with ToT. Also i hope BN will get something like Amur 950 or KSS-III sub. Finger crossed for your A-26 too.

Well most smaller subs are basically patrol subs with torpedo launch facility only. However there are smaller anti-ship missiles these days which can be launched from torpedo tubes. But those missiles can't make much of a dent because of size unless the ship is say under 500 tonnes in displacement (small patrol boat).

Can you explain elaborately? Which "smaller" sub-launched missile are you talking about? A C-704 with 130 kg warhead is capable of damaging a 4000 tons ship. Why do you think an sub-launched anti-ship missile carrying 140-65+ kg warhead won't be able to make much of a dent on ship larger than 500 tons in displacement? Here's two videos showing what "smaller" UGM-84 can do to a 8000 tons ship.

 

[Nike]

I know it that Indonesia buy an improve version of changbogo, and some chang bogo sub can also launch harpoon missile, but whether Indonesian version can launch a missile is still a mystery. Can you give me some link to prove your claim?

https://nasional.kompas.com/read/20...hebatankapalselambarukrinagapasa403miliktnial

 

[Bilal9]

Can you explain elaborately? Which "smaller" sub-launched missile are you talking about? A C-704 with 130 kg warhead is capable of damaging a 4000 tons ship. Why do you think an sub-launched anti-ship missile carrying 140-65+ kg warhead won't be able to make much of a dent on ship larger than 500 tons in displacement? Here's two videos showing what "smaller" UGM-84 can do to a 8000 tons ship.

Hitting a decrepit sitting duck decommissioned target in the middle of the ocean with no defense is one thing, but a fully capable naval platform with three layers of active defense (two ranges of missiles and the final one being CIWS) is another.

That is what I meant when I said 'making a dent'. Meaning the chances of a confirmed kill and kill rate. With enough damage to DISABLE a platform.

500 ton or 650 ton patrol boat platforms will not have all three layers of defenses. So with a Harpoon they are pretty much toast. But most navies won't waste a Harpoon-type (C-802) missile (at $1.5 million a pop) on a small threat like say the Durjoy class unless absolutely necessary.

Trying a harpoon against a 5000~7000 ton fully defended frigate however will see much harder chances of penetrating all three missile defense layers. Ship-borne defenses (both active and passive) have evolved quite a bit in the last four decades since Harpoons were developed (even the recent versions). For that task the sub-launched version of the Tomahawk (Maritime Strike Tomahawk (MST)) will have far better chances of disabling/sinking ships because of more evasive defence-foiling techniques and a much larger warhead (and these larger classes of missiles are usually launched from dedicated VLS tubes on much larger hunter killer subs, not Torpedo tubes used on pelagic patrol subs like Kilos or Mings).

At the end of the day you need enough C4 and TNT to cause real damage, and breach multiple steel layers in a well-built large naval platform.

 

[The Ronin]

Hitting a decrepit sitting duck decommissioned target in the middle of the ocean with no defense is one thing, but a fully capable naval platform with three layers of active defense (two ranges of missiles and the final one being CIWS) is another.

That is what I meant when I said 'making a dent'. Meaning the chances of a confirmed kill and kill rate. With enough damage to DISABLE a platform.

500 ton or 650 ton patrol boat platforms will not have all three layers of defenses. So with a Harpoon they are pretty much toast. But most navies won't waste a Harpoon-type (C-802) missile (at $1.5 million a pop) on a small threat like say the Durjoy class unless absolutely necessary.

Trying a harpoon against a 5000~7000 ton fully defended frigate however will see much harder chances of penetrating all three missile defense layers. Ship-borne defenses (both active and passive) have evolved quite a bit in the last four decades since Harpoons were developed (even the recent versions). For that task the sub-launched version of the Tomahawk (Maritime Strike Tomahawk (MST)) will have far better chances of disabling/sinking ships because of more evasive defence-foiling techniques and a much larger warhead (and these larger classes of missiles are usually launched from dedicated VLS tubes on much larger hunter killer subs, not Torpedo tubes used on pelagic patrol subs like Kilos or Mings).

At the end of the day you need enough C4 and TNT to cause real damage, and breach multiple steel layers in a well-built large naval platform.

Although ship-borne defenses evolved quite a bit it's still not proven against any single or multiple supersonic or sea skimming cruise missile. The last incident was in Fakland war where Exocet missile successfully hit British warship. And if people need C4 and TNT to cause real damage (WTF???!!!!) they wouldn't develop and deploy all these AShMs or Torpedos.

 

[Michael Corleone]

Remember Type 35G underwent significant MLU to reduce it's acoustic signature. According to a former US Navy ASW officer, BN Type 35G has better acoustic signature than old Kilo class. This was discussed in this forum last year, dig up the thread

Could you kindly paste the reference link please