Could BD deploy air defence destroyer in rivers?

[Pandora]

Bangladeshi government is an indian puppet so why would they attack Bangladesh. Why would they want to steal something that your government is ready to handover on a gold platter. MODI has made it very clear in his Independence day speech regarding who he consider his enemies.

I was wondering if this idea could possibly work?

Indians have been bragging that in war that they could take out all BD defence assets in hours if not minutes.

So, why not deploy an air-defence destroyer or two in one of the country's major rivers like the Brahmuputra
in times of war? Not only will this protect the ship from enemy submarines but it will also be a very hard to hit a moving platform that could also provide air-defence to most of BD in times of war.

PS - I am talking about having this up and running by 2030 when BD military modernisation is complete.

Why not get just an air defence system rather than a destroyer? You cant operate a 3000ton destroyer in a river as destroyers cant operate in shallow waters.

 

[Nilgiri]

Why not get just an air defence system rather than a destroyer? You cant operate a 3000ton destroyer in a river as destroyers cant operate in shallow waters.

Go with the BD logic....dont be such a downer! Lets imagine their rivers to be as deep as needed for arguments sake (we gotta give BD its best chance here!)

 

[alaungphaya]

Why not just buy a bunch of S-400's for air defence? You can keep your nuclear cruiser fleet safe in a supportive Islamic country like say Saudi Arabia. Then once the Indian attack has been repulsed by your 200 J-20's, you guys can lead a pan-Islamic invasion of India with your grand fleet in the lead. If India tries to launch their nukes as a last ditch effort then you can use your space lasers to knock out all of India's silos (not now ofcourse, I mean when Armed Forces Goal 2030 has been realised).

 

[Nilgiri]

Why not just buy a bunch of S-400's for air defence? You can keep your nuclear cruiser fleet safe in a supportive Islamic country like say Saudi Arabia. Then once the Indian attack has been repulsed by your 200 J-20's, you guys can lead a pan-Islamic invasion of India with your grand fleet in the lead. If India tries to launch their nukes as a last ditch effort then you can use your space lasers to knock out all of India's silos (not now ofcourse, I mean when Armed Forces Goal 2030 has been realised).

You sir just won the internet

 

[alaungphaya]

You sir just won the internet

 

[UKBengali]

Why not just buy a bunch of S-400's for air defence? You can keep your nuclear cruiser fleet safe in a supportive Islamic country like say Saudi Arabia. Then once the Indian attack has been repulsed by your 200 J-20's, you guys can lead a pan-Islamic invasion of India with your grand fleet in the lead. If India tries to launch their nukes as a last ditch effort then you can use your space lasers to knock out all of India's silos (not now ofcourse, I mean when Armed Forces Goal 2030 has been realised).

OK. Enough with the jokes..

but do you have an actual technical reply?

I really want to know if this may work technically.

 

[Nilgiri]

OK. Enough with the jokes..

but do you have an actual technical reply?

I really want to know if this may work technically.

Didnt you read smuhs and genesis reply?

 

[alaungphaya]

OK. Enough with the jokes..

but do you have an actual technical reply?

I really want to know if this may work technically.

My technical reply is it's nonsensical to place capital ships designed for open seas warfare in a river. What for? If you want to engage aerial threats then get some dedicated SAM's which would be much cheaper than the ones attached to a destroyer. If you want to protect your ships then get them to a safe port far away instead of risking running aground in a river. Not to mention ofcourse, as already pointed out, the fire control systems on your non-existant destroyer need to be reconfigured to operate in a river.

The whole scenario is so nonsensical I could only reply in jest.

 

[UKBengali]

You know what else is moving platform? Air defense batteries. HQ-9 and other variants. In fact, it's speed far exceeds that of a destroyer, not to mention the far larger field it will have and the ability to camouflage which no destroyer will have in a river.

Have you also considered, an opponent can just leave the rivers alone and go for other places, then what are you going to do? You also have to consider depth, a river just may not have the depth to operate a ship of that size.

You can also have a few battalions of HQ-9 for the price of one destroyer.

The point of a destroyer is to offer protection on the seas, in land, it loses it's usefulness, as a land battery is far more efficient.

Even during WW2, they didn't park ships in lakes, they stripped the ships of their guns and used the guns only on land.

The cons just heavily outweigh the pros. If there are any pros.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Yes I have considered depth as the Brahmaputra
,which looks like the ideal river, is on average 38 m deep.

Camouflage is a good point you make. Yes, SAM systems could be hidden in forests, whereas a destroyer cannot.

WW2 may not be be the best analogy as the ships did not have guns with such long-range guns as the modern long-range SAMs.

My technical reply is it's nonsensical to place capital ships designed for open seas warfare in a river. What for? If you want to engage aerial threats then get some dedicated SAM's which would be much cheaper than the ones attached to a destroyer. If you want to protect your ships then get them to a safe port far away instead of risking running aground in a river. Not to mention ofcourse, as already pointed out, the fire control systems on your non-existant destroyer need to be reconfigured to operate in a river.

The whole scenario is so nonsensical I could only reply in jest.

Ok fair enough.

Let us wait and see if some people who
have more technical knowledge may want to
have a say.

Yes, the idea may turn out to be complete nonsense as technically it could be unfeasible.

Bangladeshi government is an indian puppet so why would they attack Bangladesh. Why would they want to steal something that your government is ready to handover on a gold platter. MODI has made it very clear in his Independence day speech regarding who he consider his enemies.



Why not get just an air defence system rather than a destroyer? You cant operate a 3000ton destroyer in a river as destroyers cant operate in shallow waters.

I think you can in a river like Brahmaputra as it has an average depth of 38 m.

Let us leave out puppets etc and just focus on the technicalities

 

[Pandora]

Thanks for your thoughts.

Yes I have considered depth as the Brahmaputra
,which looks like the ideal river, is on average 38 m deep.

Camouflage is a good point you make. Yes, SAM systems could be hidden in forests, whereas a destroyer cannot.

WW2 may not be be the best analogy as the ships did not have guns with such long-range guns as the modern long-range SAMs.



Ok fair enough.

Let us wait and see if some people who
have more technical knowledge may want to
have a say.

Yes, the idea may turn out tow be complete nonsense as technically it could be unfeasible.



I think you can in a river like Brahmaputra as it has an average depth of 38 m.

Let us leave out puppets etc and just focus on the technicalities

You are talking about maximum depth. Unlike Oceans rivers are not uniform and might have depth of few meters at most places.

 

[UKBengali]

You are talking about maximum depth. Unlike Oceans rivers are not uniform and might have depth of few meters at most places.

Nope this is average of Brahmaputra river.
Maximum depth is more than 100 metres.

Just google this river - it is more than 10 miles
wide in places!

 

[Nilgiri]

Nope this is average of Brahmaputra river.
Maximum depth is more than 100 metres.

Just google this river - it is more than 10 miles
wide in places!

But whats the minimum depth....thats more important than either of these.

Sending a warship that far upstream is not wise strategically BTW. I was thinking more along the mouth of the whole river system.

 

[UKBengali]

But whats the minimum depth....thats more important than either of these.

Sending a warship that far upstream is not wise strategically BTW. I was thinking more along the mouth of the whole river system.

In any part of BD where it operates it should be more than the around 10m draft required of a destroyer, even in dry season.

 

[Nilgiri]

In any part of BD where it operates it should be more than the around 10m draft required of a destroyer, even in dry season.

Ok assuming so, what significance does sailing it that far upstream pose compared to keeping it at the mouth of the river (delta area). You would cover the same area roughly anyway....so why make it an easier target by sailing it into a river?

 

[UKBengali]

Ok assuming so, what significance does sailing it that far upstream pose compared to keeping it at the mouth of the river (delta area). You would cover the same area roughly anyway....so why make it an easier target by sailing it into a river?

The one big advantage is that it's radar and SAM systems could theoretically engage targets over nearly all of BD from middle of BD.

Of course the ship would be vulnerable to missile/plane attacks, but it would also have protection from other SAMs and fighter aircraft,
as well as it's own strong defences.

I know the idea may sound crazy but the benefit may just outweigh the cost due to BD's unique geography, assuming no real technical bar.