Indian Navy news and discussion

[Naresh]

[quote name='qubit' date='01 August 2010 - 11:59 PM' timestamp='1280686905' post='107716']

Naresh,



A partial reply. If you mean GEARLESS in the sense that the cargo container ships would not have the necessary command and control systems to launch the missiles, this can be rectified pretty easily with modifications. With regards to issues (2) and (3) you've raised, this would largely depend upon the doctrine of the Nation deploying the weapon. With regards to your query (3), the nature of the warhead would also be important to take into account. If it is a nuclear warhead, then I guess most Nations wouldn't like their premier assets to roam the seas indefinitely and virtually undefended (from say, a heliborne commando raid, or a raid from commandos launched from a submarine).



BTW, thanks for your replies and questions. It makes one think hard and deep into this entire affair of container missiles, which could help enable separating the wheat from the chaff in this issue which has aroused much speculation and sensationalism.



I'll send you complete replies to your queries when I find time. Meanwhile, please do keep the queries and comments coming.[/quote]



1. Container Ships being GEARLESS : I believe all Container Ships in the “Long Distance” Trades are GEARLESS in the sense that they have no Cranes etc. to Load or Discharge their Cargo. Yes indeed FEEDER Vessels which are used to Tranship Containers are usually Geared but with the “Proliferation” of Container Handling Ports I feel that that these FEEDER Vessels will operate on short voyages only where they continuously visit ports thereby being under strict “strategic” control.



Again a Missile being Launched from a Vessel will have to have some sort of Very Heavy Plating to withstand the Exhaust from the Missiles. Would request your input on this point.



2. I had presumed that they Container(s) containing the Cruise or Other Missile would be “landed” so as to be Launched. However if these Missiles are supposed to Launched from the Container or other Dry Cargo vessel then the vessel by itself would have to keep away from prying eyes i.e. not visit any “Port” at all as if so then everybody and his brother will become aware of this “Missile” Carrying container ship.



3. I am impressed by your statement “If it is a nuclear warhead, then I guess most Nations wouldn't like their premier assets to roam the seas indefinitely and virtually undefended (from say, a heliborne commando raid, or a raid from commandos launched from a submarine).” This would also be true in case of ANY MISSILE CARRYING Merchant Ship.



Thank you for this dialogue and I hope you will appraise me of any new ideas or developments as I am sure that the Idea of Container Vessels “roaming” around with Missiles on Board is very simplistic and totally practical so far as the “Carrying Ship” continues to roam the seas without entering any port.



A Negative Point : This is so simplistic, economic, practical (Basis Roaming) that it boggles the mind and is as “Dangerous” as the “Suit Case” Dirty Nuclear Device.



[color="#FF0000"]NOTE [/color]: I just realized the "Sagacity" of your statement [size="5"][color="#FF0000"]"or a raid from commandos launched from a submarine"[/color][/size]



Holy Van Kamoli : You have just given an impetus to my thinking that the 26-11-2008 Raid at Mumbai had the 12 Terrorists being initially brought to Indian Waters by a Pakistani Agosta Submarine and the Terrorists were "launched" from the Submarine just before morning twilight.



Regretfully this idea does not meet the thinking of India's Strategic Thinkers!



Cheers