Alternate solution for Pakistan Navy to counter Large Navies ?

[Capt.Popeye]

Aeronaut's a very senior member, so I'm not going to question his thinking much. He may have his own ideas and conlclusions that come from his analysis.
It was the other members who I was jabbing at. Blindly saying that we should launch BMs at moving targets at sea was a bit too much for my funny-bone.

Lobbing BMs at any moving target is still a far-flown idea. Only I did not want to spoil that party.

BTW; @nuclearpak has dampened that 'optimistic' sentiment somewhat on that thread; but he will be unlikely to succeed in dousing it.

Practically speaking; a truncated shrunken Navy can only work towards "Coastal Repellance". As many shore batteries as possible to be set up and use of Gun/Missile Boats.

 

[Jango]

BTW; @nuclearpak has dampened that 'optimistic' sentiment somewhat on that thread; but he will be unlikely to succeed in dousing it.

I think people misunderstood my post there...

 

[Capt.Popeye]

I think people misunderstood my post there...

Yes I could see that
But what was interesting was the extent of "extrapolation" that took place after that.
Including a "Map of Areas of Operational Capability"!
I've passed that to NHQ in N.Delhi....

 

[Kompromat]

Gwadar port is operated by China & China won't do that when India can block the Strait Of Malacca

Geography fail!

That suggestion is there on the Hatf-IV firing thread today. @Aeronaut believes in it and has even a "plan" on how to do it; accompanied by a map. Do take a look at it.

Priceless, yes. For everything else, there is Mastercard.

Okay, you must be feeling lighter after this rant....go drink some milk.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Geography fail!




Okay, you must be feeling lighter after this rant....go drink some milk.

No Aeronut, I am just drinking my usual lager. You want some?
Nothing like sharing a few pitchers of brew between friends.

 

[JohnSeb]

Geography fail!

care to explain?

 

[RazorMC]

Lobbing BMs at any moving target is still a far-flown idea. Only I did not want to spoil that party.

BTW; @nuclearpak has dampened that 'optimistic' sentiment somewhat on that thread; but he will be unlikely to succeed in dousing it.

Practically speaking; a truncated shrunken Navy can only work towards "Coastal Repellance". As many shore batteries as possible to be set up and use of Gun/Missile Boats.

Call me a pessimist, but launching BMs at moving sea-targets is out. @nuclearpak mentioned that the latest Hatf lauch shows we can track missiles over sea, which itself is a step forward in our capabilities. But I still wouldn't count on launcing BMs.

Since our naval strategy seems mostly defensive to me, I'd say we should rely on subs and air-borne anti-ship missiles (this needs strategic inductions though).

 

[Jango]

@nuclearpak mentioned that the latest Hatf lauch shows we can track missiles over sea, which itself is a step forward in our capabilities.

We've been doing it since years...
@AhaseebA.

 

[RazorMC]

care to explain?

Blocking the Strait is not like blocking Hormuz but the consequences will be almost as severe.
And... China has work arounds for that blockade anyways.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Call me a pessimist, but launching BMs at moving sea-targets is out. @nuclearpak mentioned that the latest Hatf lauch shows we can track missiles over sea, which itself is a step forward in our capabilities. But I still wouldn't count on launcing BMs.

Since our naval strategy seems mostly defensive to me, I'd say we should rely on subs and air-borne anti-ship missiles (this needs strategic inductions though).

My response: I think it is more practicable and cost effective to beef-up the shore based aspects. As I opined earlier, shore batteries. In combination with FACs for hit and run.
Subs are essentially better used as offensive weapons and with much higher cost of operations than above to have a favorable cost-benefit ratio.
About Air; on the face of it sounds good, but that will mean diverting air-assets from the borders-plus the cost factor.

 

[RazorMC]

My response: I think it is more practicable and cost effective to beef-up the shore based aspects. As I opined earlier, shore batteries. In combination with FACs for hit and run.
Subs are essentially better used as offensive weapons and with much higher cost of operations than above to have a favorable cost-benefit ratio.
About Air; on the face of it sounds good, but that will mean diverting air-assets from the borders-plus the cost factor.

Cost effective is one thing, but keeping enemy navies thinking before entering Pakistani zone is something a sub does best.
Maybe not the agosta class, but something under 200 tonnes.

I heard Iran's small-ish subs are keeping even the USN bothered in the Persian Gulf. They may be mere pin pricks for the USN but there seem to be lots of them.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Cost effective is one thing, but keeping enemy navies thinking before entering Pakistani zone is something a sub does best.
Maybe not the agosta class, but something under 200 tonnes.

I heard Iran's small-ish subs are keeping even the USN bothered in the Persian Gulf. They may be mere pin pricks for the USN but there seem to be lots of them.

But how lethal are they? What is the firepower built into their weapons? More or less than a C-802?

 

[RazorMC]

But how lethal are they? What is the firepower built into their weapons? More or less than a C-802?

The C-802 on a frigate can be a useful deterrent against other naives (plus highly cost-effective esp with JF-17s), not so much against the IN. Their effect will be minimized incase of an IAF attack on ground, aerial and naval vessels.

To me, subs have a higher survivability in this scenario. Those mini-subs probably have 4-8 torpedoes with similar number of crew, but being able to lauch something will be better than nothing.

PS: I'm assuming only moderate IAF involvement against PN here.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

The C-802 on a frigate can be a useful deterrent against other naives (plus highly cost-effective esp with JF-17s), not so much against the IN. Their effect will be minimized incase of an IAF attack on ground, aerial and naval vessels.

To me, subs have a higher survivability in this scenario. Those mini-subs probably have 4-8 torpedoes with similar number of crew, but being able to lauch something will be better than nothing.

PS: I'm assuming only moderate IAF involvement against PN here.

Pardon me for disagreeing. The mini-subs have probably the least survivability; even more so if even one is detected. Low power depth charges of WW2 vintage or 'hedge-hogs' will knock them out. If you are thinking in terms of 'swarms of them' all round random depth charging will do the trick.
C-802s and equivalent from shore or ship launchers are likely to work better. FACs may even work better than Frigates.

About IAF involvement; it will be very moderate in case of defensive action by IN fleet(s) simply because the IN already has a (substantial) Air component: 20 MiG-29s and counting (final tally 40+) We're not even counting in 8 Tu-142s and 5 Il-38s with Kh-31 and Brahmos or 8 P-8Is (with more to come) equipped with Harpoons. Let us say that the remaining Sea Harriers just flew away.
Little call for the IAF to get called in; though they have dedicated 2 Jaguar IM sqdns and 1 Su-30MKI sqdn to IN needs.

 

[Anony]

I believe by the time this thread finishes, Pakistani members here will convince themselves that they can defeat Indian navy by the current coast guard navy they got and second they will attack India with nuclear weapons and pakistan will still be on the face of the earth. Good luck

Yes they will convince the world with their awkward logic.Go through the link below to know why?

http://www.defence.pk/forums/members-club/244848-pakistan-china-india-relation-special-front.html