How should PN counter the IN Carrier Battle Group

[Sine Nomine]

Yep, until the delusions and grandeur on this thread exists. The fate of Ghazi must be a good reminder inshallah

We all know,how that sub got destroyed.

 

[Chhatrapati]

We all know,how that sub got destroyed.

Ah, you remember. It was a trap, the sub probably went over a mine or torpedoed. We anticipated you target our AC. We clearly shared the wrong intelligence that the AC was in Vizag port after the AC was gone. You came right into the trap.

 

[Rashid Mahmood]

Ah, you remember. It was a trap, the sub probably went over a mine or torpedoed. We anticipated you target our AC. We clearly shared the wrong intelligence that the AC was in Vizag port after the AC was gone. You came right into the trap.

If you cannot discuss the topic, then DONT SHIT here. Leave and stop destroying this thread..!!!

 

[Sine Nomine]

Ah, you remember. It was a trap, the sub probably went over a mine or torpedoed. We anticipated you target our AC. We clearly shared the wrong intelligence that the AC was in Vizag port after the AC was gone. You came right into the trap.

It did went over it's own layed mine.

 

[The Accountant]

It did went over it's own layed mine.

No it was an internal explosion ...

 

[Sine Nomine]

No it was an internal explosion ...

There are few theories and this is one of them.

 

[Chhatrapati]

It did went over it's own layed mine.

That sounds stupid. Is there any such evidence to support the claim? It came in to attack the IN Aircraft carrier. But the intelligence 'leaked' to you was actually a trap. You fell right into it. i.e There was no AC in the port, once you realized it, it was too late.

If you cannot discuss the topic, then DONT SHIT here. Leave and stop destroying this thread..!!!

I tried to explain in a reasonable way to a reputed member and what I got in return was you 'lot typical mentality'. You want to make a feel good thread attacking our CBG, well good luck.
The first and foremost thing is finding a CBG in the great IOR, and reading the comments in thread like "Nuke it, Send JF-17, Use CM's on it" sure sound shit. This is not some reasonable explanation and what I replied (that you quoted) was a reminder on what happened when you tried that heroism of doing something similar, which now stands as a coffin somewhere off coast of Viskhakapattanam port.
If you can't take opposing opinions, fine, ask mods to ban Indians and continue with the feel good articles on 101 ways to beat IN.

That is beside the point that I failed to see any discussion on P-8i Poseidon.

 

[Sine Nomine]

That sounds stupid. Is there any such evidence to support the claim? It came in to attack the IN Aircraft carrier. But the intelligence 'leaked' to you was actually a trap. You fell right into it. i.e There was no AC in the port, once you realized it, it was too late.

It was ten days late,by the time it was around port target already was out.

 

[HRK]

Yep, in all seriousness, why not?

Critical Thought .... Nasr in its most simplified form is just a Guided Artillery Rocket with Nuclear payload and limited Range, so its role is same as any MLRS i.e. to destroy or deny limited area to the enemy only thing different in NASR is its nuclear payload, therefore it is a TACTICAL weapon but with STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

In Naval role it does not have any utility, as generally Naval targets does not require nuclear retaliation such us enemy merchant ships or cargo vessels, Frigates and destroyers; for any other target of high value to the enemy such as CBGs and Naval Installations like harbours can be targeted by other means such as SLCM, SLBM and Torpedo and if a country is advance enough in nuclear technology can armed all these options with nuclear payload.

So in short history suggest naval strategist till to date have not seen any role for MLRS type system be it conventional or Nuclear in Naval warfare.
===============================================
@Rashid Mahmood shaib what do you think where Indian Navy will deploy its CBG If it would try to enforce the blockade of Pakistan

 

[CriticalThought]

Critical Thought .... Nasr in its most simplified form is just a Guided Artillery Rocket with Nuclear payload and limited Range, so its role is same as any MLRS i.e. to destroy or deny limited area to the enemy only thing different in NASR is its nuclear payload, therefore it is a TACTICAL weapon but with STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

In Naval role it does not have any utility, as generally Naval targets does not require nuclear retaliation such us enemy merchant ships or cargo vessels, Frigates and destroyers; for any other target of high value to the enemy such as CBGs and Naval Installations like harbours can be targeted by other means such as SLCM, SLBM and Torpedo and if a country is advance enough in nuclear technology can armed all these options with nuclear payload.

So in short history suggest naval strategist till to date have not seen any role for MLRS type system be it conventional or Nuclear in Naval warfare.
===============================================
@Rashid Mahmood shaib what do you think were Indian Navy will deploy its CBG If it would try to enforce the blockade of Pakistan

I think you need to read all of my comments before you try to lecture.

 

[Surya 1]

It depends where the CBG is stationed during the war, what sort of mission is expected from it, does it even play a part in IN offensive Ops against PN and Pakistan's coast or does it stay out of reach of PN and PAF, is it ear marked to come inside PN waters for supporting amphibious operations or does it get stationed south of Karachi or south of Pasni/Gawadar to divert PN and PAF by creating an airfield in the Arabian Sea.

In any case, if PN needs to take it out, then the only potent weapon that can harass this CBG are the submarines. Any attack from the air and from the surface will get detected earlier than the submarine and can be countered by IN air, surface and submerged assets.

Members suggesting JF-17 armed with long range missiles, the IN CBG can put more fighters in air (up to 10-12 Mig-29's easily and maybe more), so sending in 4-6 JF-17's may not be the best idea, plus the IN Carrier could float out of range of PAF.

PN subs are the best. maybe send across 2 or 3 out of 5.

India's P8I shall be scanning see rkundrthe clock for any enemy submarine with depth charges and torpedo onboard.

 

[The Accountant]

There are few theories and this is one of them.

This theory has more weightage as subsequently found that the metal was curved outside ...

 

[guest9999]

I appreciate you thoughts for the PN, but
Please stick to the thread question.

We have to fight a war with the "junk" we have, so stick with it.

The answer to the thread question was in the post itself. Yes, it seems like a wish-list, but it is not really. The main crux of my argument is this:

If it is suicidal for PN to fight IN CBG with the current inventory of vessels, then perhaps PN can actually use that to its advantage. PN should use its vessels, once they have exhausted their payload, as bombs to take down the IN CBG. If those vessels are useless pieces of junk and are sitting ducks, they why not just rig them with explosives or even nukes and send them towards IN fleet?

Also, they can adopt similar strategy to PLAN, relying on fisherman militia to surround points of interest. Instead, PN can take civilian vessels like fisher boats and pack them with explosives. Military engineers can improvise and equip ANZA launchers on these boats to give them some firepower. If PN sends out 40-50 of these boats to swarm IN ship, following will happen:

1. Boat swarm surrounds IN ship
2. IN ship engages the swarm
3. Some boats can be equipped with improvised weapons like ANZA, Stinger Missiles, Machine Guns, etc.
4. IN will waste ammunition and AShM to destroy boat swarm
5. Some boats from swarm will make it past IN defenses, reach ship, detonate
6. Even if IN ship survives, you still exhausted their expensive weapons with a very cheap solution

The Russians suffer from a debilitated navy. Hence, the Russians came up with a brilliant strategy. Use nuclear-armed torpedo/UUV. Some people are under the assumption, that the Russians are packing them with nukes and will use them against civilians & cities. However, I don't really think that is the case. I believe the Russians will use them against incoming CBG. That is the reason why they are packing these drones with 100-200 megaton warheads. In case the CBG detects the drone and fires torpedoes at it, the drone's payload will detonate, and the resulting explosion from 100-200 megaton warhead will be so massive that it will still reach the CBG fleet from a distance!

Lastly, I should say this. I stress that vessels like OPV, Swift, and gunboats are "junk". Pakistani people should ask themselves why these boats are being purchased at a time when IN is investing in aircraft carriers, destroyers, etc. Is catching drug smugglers more important and worth millions of dollars, compared to purchasing vessels that can actually fight IN? I think this strange misguided set of priorities is a bigger threat to the PN and Pakistan, then IN right now.

 

[guest9999]

Another approach to getting around the lack of firepower in the surface fleet, is to not rely upon them anymore. If the question is defense against IN CBG and more importantly, a naval blockade, then a defensive approach can be contained within Pakistan's territorial waters and EEZ.

Why not separate the launchers from ships? Instead of relying on ships to deliver AShM, cruise missiles, torpedoes, PN can instead, install launchers on land on the coasts. PN suffers from a lack of delivery vehicles like surface ships, but there is plenty of coast line available to build launchers for AShM, Babur LACM. This will enable PN to fire hundreds or thousands of missiles, saturate IN defenses like Barak SAMs, CIWS, etc. PN can even install launchers for Babur SLCM on the seabed, coral reefs, shallow waters of the coast, etc. These will be easy to hide and don't require purchasing ships.

Why waste money acquiring ships to deliver weapons, when PN can make launchers and install them anywhere, on land, containers, trucks, coast, etc.

Before ridiculing my posts, I will kindly request what strategy some other members have for attacking CBG and coming out alive. Don't tell me submarines armed with torpedoes. CBG is escorted by a circle of destroyers & frigates, probably one or two attack submarines, P-8 sub-hunting aircraft, etc. The enemy knows PN relies heaving on submarine fleet, which by the way is small in quantity. They are waiting for the subs to come near the aircraft carrier. They have invested heavily in sub-hunting technology, P-8 are the biggest proof.

You probably will say JF-17 armed with CM-400AKG, AShM, etc. Fine, but what about IN & IAF numerical superiority in aircraft? You probably will also Type-054A/P, but as I mentioned, in naval war, attrition is important factor. Four aren't going to last long. IN will overwhelm their defenses with Brahmos and will have very good defense in Barak SAM to stop incoming AShM. The more you think about it, my idea starts to make a lot of sense. PN has to fight asymmetrically.

 

[Signalian]

India's P8I shall be scanning see rkundrthe clock for any enemy submarine with depth charges and torpedo onboard.

PAF aircrafts and surface naval assets will get detected way before than PN submarines. I never implied PN subs are invulnerable to detection, getting detected as late as possible is better than being detected 100's of km's away as it gives less reaction time to change plan's, communicate and coordinate to counter PN subs.

PN subs should be able to get as close as possible to damage IN carrier or harass it to change direction and scoot away.

Yep, in all seriousness, why not?

You could go on submerged tactics and think about midget subs and SSG (N) doing damage to IN carrier instead of Nasr.

Does Nasr follow GPS guidance for target location? if yes, then Carrier is a moving object, not stationary.

Why not separate the launchers from ships? Instead of relying on ships to deliver AShM, cruise missiles, torpedoes, PN can instead, install launchers on land on the coasts.

Sitting ducks for enemy CM's and other types of missiles.

why can't subs be used to do this job instead, can the launcher be installed in sub? subs have more chances of survival and can fire from a safe distance. You are thinking through a defensive mindset and im thinking through an offensive.

I wouldn't be surprised if it is already in Pakistani inventory.

I would be very surprised if a squadron of the aircraft displayed in your avatar showed up armed with AGM-84 to assist PN fight the IN CBG menace.

No wife swapping for a week and they'll sink it themselves in exchange.

You could have talked about amphibious tanks floating or MBT's snorkeling but then again, why not put ISI to task and get better results through sabotaging IN facilities and harbors.

We have to fight a war with the "junk" we have, so stick with it.

Could you throw some light on deception techniques and tactics used in modern Naval warfare, which could play a part in tackling IN CBG?