Pak Navy shows interest in Umkhonto (Surface-to-air Missile System)

[Maj.Osmani]

Fact is Pakistan seriously facing trouble regarding Missile defence systems ,such searches, repeatedly buying and showing interest in foreign systems ,clearly endorsed that Pak domestic Missile systems is not supporting the defence need of Forces.Our Air defence program is stall .Scientists & engineers totally busy in surface to surface systems or making nukes tiny miny .Air defence Missile program is the next serious challenge.Navy need serious help from Pakistan ordinance and missile labs.

Dear We don't have enough time to spend billions in R & D and produce home made air defense systems (probably it will cost more as compare to foreign systems if we count time / duration) India is on fast pace to purchase large number of systems to counter it we have to get off the shelves. And for surface to surface missiles i would like to say we have to develop and put all our efforts to develop because no nation in this world can sale or purchase nuclear capable missiles (regardless no dong tech).
We have the capability but we don't have enough time and resources.
Back in 2000 we have done lot of paper work on this but eventually opted to have foreign systems but for sure research is on fast pace.

 

[IceCold]

The setup of the PAF and PN at the moment parallels that of Norway. Using land-based air-defense aircraft like the F-16:

To provide air cover to assets operating close to shore, in Norway's case the Nansen class frigates:

Given these ships are designed with coastal defense in mind, and they'll be supported by land-based air cover while operating, they can get away with not using long-range SAMs like SM-2. The Nansens are outfitted with ESSM as their air-defense missile:

This is a direct parallel to Pakistan who uses its frigates for close-to-shore defense and attack against enemy shipping:

Has air cover provided by the PAF:

And who, according to the OP is looking for a class of missile similar to the ESSM for medium-range air-defense to augment land-based air dominance and interceptor aircraft:

As far as I see it, this is a valid configuration that's within Pakistan's capabilities and doctrine. It's not an expeditionary force, so a long-range fleet-defense missile like navalized S-300 is impractical, expensive and not in line with Pakistan's operational tactics and doctrine:

It makes for a good wish list piece, but isn't realistic without a doctrine to support it. Just having the system makes no difference if you can't use and support it effectively.

I'm not convinced the PAF can't support the PN at sea, because, like Norway, they are setup to do so. At this point the PN needs its own medium-range air-defense weapons like HHQ-16 (a Buk derivative) or Umkhonto.

That'll help ensure they can provide each other with cover as at the moment the PAF can cover the PN, but the PN would be hard-pressed to return the favor.



I've been a member of this forum far less then the year my account's been active, but there's always been a constant that I've noticed: people equate defense officials visiting with procurement of that nation's equipment. Sometimes people just stop by to say hello.

But I do echo your sentiment. A bit more urgency would help Pakistan become a more credible force and keep a respectable pace with India.

The threat assessment for Norway and Pakistan are quite different, Pakistan faces an enemy much larger in its size and one which holds a blue water capability. PAF will be too stretched out countering the IAF to provide any decent air cover to PN surface fleet. Besides JF-17 lacks the range required to successfully provide an effective air cover. The range is a major handicap. IN can very well stay out of the range of Pakistani costal missile defense batteries as well as the range of JF-17 and still will be able to place blockade near karachi. There is no alternative to a decent surface fleet with its own air defence which includes its own air force.
My 2 cents

 

[313baberali]

Dear We don't have enough time to spend billions in R & D and produce home made air defense systems (probably it will cost more as compare to foreign systems if we count time / duration) India is on fast pace to purchase large number of systems to counter it we have to get off the shelves. And for surface to surface missiles i would like to say we have to develop and put all our efforts to develop because no nation in this world can sale or purchase nuclear capable missiles (regardless no dong tech).
We have the capability but we don't have enough time and resources.
Back in 2000 we have done lot of paper work on this but eventually opted to have foreign systems but for sure research is on fast pace.

http://m.voanews.com/a/pakistan-reacts-strongly-latest-indian-missile-tests/3337590.html
I just wanna quote Sartaj aziz here .Pakistan will acquire latest technology.

India Recent interceptor test is indigenous made ,not a part of fast moving purchases of foreign system.Russians working with them,and right now South africa form we are going to think abbout umkhonto,that country begin talks with russia and india for bharamous missiles.Pak all efforts are already on surface to surface systems.Time to move some percentage to Defence systems.

 

[Maj.Osmani]

http://m.voanews.com/a/pakistan-reacts-strongly-latest-indian-missile-tests/3337590.html
I just wanna quote Sartaj aziz here .Pakistan will acquire latest technology.

India Recent interceptor test is indigenous made ,not a part of fast moving purchases of foreign system.Russians working with them,and right now South africa form we are going to think abbout umkhonto,that country begin talks with russia and india for bharamous missiles.Pak all efforts are already on surface to surface systems.Time to move some percentage to Defence systems.

Good move even prove my point, still not enough budget + efforts allocated to develop such systems. Its better to do R & D and develop your own defense equipments.

 

[HAIDER]

China is slow in developing smaller VLS surface to air missile for ship. There's a reason why PN is looking for other sources.

But reality speaking, this missile system spec is not very impressive, the most can matched Barak II system. As a ship air protection system is adequate but not good enough for fleet defence.

You mean its " standalone command and control " for single ship .?

 

[Darth Vader]

The setup of the PAF and PN at the moment parallels that of Norway. Using land-based air-defense aircraft like the F-16:

To provide air cover to assets operating close to shore, in Norway's case the Nansen class frigates:

Given these ships are designed with coastal defense in mind, and they'll be supported by land-based air cover while operating, they can get away with not using long-range SAMs like SM-2. The Nansens are outfitted with ESSM as their air-defense missile:

This is a direct parallel to Pakistan who uses its frigates for close-to-shore defense and attack against enemy shipping:

Has air cover provided by the PAF:

And who, according to the OP is looking for a class of missile similar to the ESSM for medium-range air-defense to augment land-based air dominance and interceptor aircraft:

As far as I see it, this is a valid configuration that's within Pakistan's capabilities and doctrine. It's not an expeditionary force, so a long-range fleet-defense missile like navalized S-300 is impractical, expensive and not in line with Pakistan's operational tactics and doctrine:

It makes for a good wish list piece, but isn't realistic without a doctrine to support it. Just having the system makes no difference if you can't use and support it effectively.

I'm not convinced the PAF can't support the PN at sea, because, like Norway, they are setup to do so. At this point the PN needs its own medium-range air-defense weapons like HHQ-16 (a Buk derivative) or Umkhonto.

That'll help ensure they can provide each other with cover as at the moment the PAF can cover the PN, but the PN would be hard-pressed to return the favor.



I've been a member of this forum far less then the year my account's been active, but there's always been a constant that I've noticed: people equate defense officials visiting with procurement of that nation's equipment. Sometimes people just stop by to say hello.

But I do echo your sentiment. A bit more urgency would help Pakistan become a more credible force and keep a respectable pace with India.

Buddy you are not convinced might wanna check history
Every country follows different doctrine according to the situation
As For Norway and Pakistan many different things come into play e.g
Is Pakistan vs India
India will try to block the harbours and the can do that by stationing there far beyond ground system reach and by deplying A.C which will also provide Air covert to there assest and india also ships with long range sams
As For Pakistan navy the best option is use of its sub fleet to tackle And try to stop indian blockade
At Norway Vs Russia
1st it comes under nato and russia will be to achieve few things first to calture norwegian oil rigs invade norway by its border
Or bypassing through finland but this is hard and will take time because its not a plain land
By using paratroopers

East and most valid option is Sea in that scenario Norway will use close to shore defence assets

 

[Danish saleem]

Not really. He only looks older because of the white hair.



I think even that's an understatement! PN has zero surface to air capability when it comes to defending itself from an air attack.

and u know what Tariq class frigates only have AAA to defend Missile attacks, from Air.
yes F-22P Frigates have SAMs to counter Air strike.

 

[Penguin]

China is slow in developing smaller VLS surface to air missile for ship. There's a reason why PN is looking for other sources.

But reality speaking, this missile system spec is not very impressive, the most can matched Barak II system. As a ship air protection system is adequate but not good enough for fleet defence.

Umkhonto wasn't designed for fleet defence. But Umkhonto-ER-IR will give 30km coverage, which is comparable to HQ16. Umkhonto-RF will give 60km. That is about the same as, maybe even a little more than ESSM. The nice thing about Umkhonto is that all variants are fire-and-forget and need no radar illuminators or missiles directors. Just a 3D radar. That's mighty handy when facing an attack by multiple AShM from multiple directions.

 

[Beast]

Umlhonto wasn't designed for fleet defence. But Umkhonto-ER-IR will give 30km coverage, which is comparable to HQ16. Umkhonto-RF will give 60km. That is about the same as, maybe even a little more than ESSM. The nice thing about Umkhonto is that all variants are fire-and-forget and need no radar illuminators or missiles directors. Just a 3D radar. That's mighty handy when facing an attack by multiple AShM from multiple directions.

HQ-16 is equipped to US ESSM.

 

[Penguin]

Whats the plan for the PLAN use for fleet defense in their carrier group?

Type 052D and/or Type 055 with HHQ9 (200km)

 

[IceCold]

"

Sounds a lot like Norway's threat profile. A nation with a blue water capability and a military far larger in size?.

Care to elaborate on the highlighted part? I am not familiar with Norway's threat profile? Is it Russians?

 

[Penguin]

HQ-16 is equipped to US ESSM.

I have no idea what you are saying.

There is missile range in the absolute (how far can the missile fly) and effective missile range, which varies depending on type of target. E.g.:

"The HQ-16 has a maximum range against aircraft of 40 km. It can engage cruise missiles at a range of 3.5 to 18 km."
http://www.military-today.com/missiles/hq16.htm

"The HQ16A (LY-80) missile can intercept an aerial flying target from an 15 m to 18 km of altitude, while its maximum interception range for combat aircraft is 40km, and between 3.5 km and 12 km for cruise missiles flying at an altitude of 50 meters at a speed of 300 meters/second."
http://www.armyrecognition.com/chin...data_sheet_specifications_pictures_video.html

Various other range (gu)estimates

"As well as being able to engage aerial targets at high altitude, the mid-range HQ-16 is also able to intercept very low-flying targets at a distance of up to about 40 kilometers, filling the gap between the HQ-7 short-range SAM and the HQ-9 long-range SAM systems. The naval variant of the missile system, which had been fitted on Type 054A frigates, can intercept sea-skimming missiles that fly less than 10 meters above the sea surface."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/hq-16.htm

"Not much else is known about this new system, but there are reports stating that it can intercept very low-flying targets at maximum distance of 40km.
....
Chinese news websites report that the HQ-16’s performance data is roughly: Effective range of 1.5-30 km"
http://missilethreat.com/defense-systems/hongqi-16-hq-16/

"HQ-16 (Hongqi-16) - People's Republic of China project based on the naval 9K37M1-2 system 'Shtil' (SA-N-12)"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system
9K37M1-2 > three missiles used > 9М38, 9М38M1, 9М38M2/9M317
Best correlate with the above: 9М38 > range 3,5–25 (30) km, altitude 25–18000 (20000) m

Top to bottom: 9М38. 9M38M1 9M317

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system#/media/File:9M38M1_9M317.svg

http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17...e-president-talks-nonsense-about-buk-missile/

HQ16

BY COMPARISON

ESSM
Operational range 27nm+ (50km+)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-162_ESSM
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-162.html
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/evolved-sea-sparrow-missile-essm/
http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Defense/RIM-162-ESSM.html

"Range >50 kilometres"
http://www.navy.gov.au/weapon/evolved-sea-sparrow

The only 'deviant' data point I found is this (note it doesn't speak to maximum range):

NATO countries operating the maritime Evolved SeaSparrow Missile (ESSM) have expressed an interest in an extended range variant to compete with earlier derivations of the in-service SM-2 Standard Missiles, according to Raytheon officials.

Speaking to Shephard at the Navy League Sea Air Space exposition, ESSM programme director Edward Roesly said a number of SeaSparrow operating nations had approached Raytheon with such a request. However, he warned that the US was 'not supportive' of this initiative at the present time as it would lead to competition with its SM-2 missile system.

The in-service Block I ESSM is designed for ship protection against anti-ship missiles; aircraft; helicopters; and surface targets out to approximately 40km, Roesly said. The SM-2, also manufactured by Raytheon, boasts ranges between 130km (Block II) and 170km (Block IIIB), not to mention its Block IV extended range version which can engage targets up to 240km away. Raytheon was unable to comment on what would be substantial range increases for an extended ESSM variant to match SM-2 capabilities.

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/defence-notes/sea-air-space-2011-raytheon-outlines-gro/

Care to elaborate on the highlighted part? I am not familiar with Norway's threat profile? Is it Russians?

Yep + Northern fleet

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

The setup of the PAF and PN at the moment parallels that of Norway. Using land-based air-defense aircraft like the F-16:

To provide air cover to assets operating close to shore, in Norway's case the Nansen class frigates:

Given these ships are designed with coastal defense in mind, and they'll be supported by land-based air cover while operating, they can get away with not using long-range SAMs like SM-2. The Nansens are outfitted with ESSM as their air-defense missile:

This is a direct parallel to Pakistan who uses its frigates for close-to-shore defense and attack against enemy shipping:

Has air cover provided by the PAF:

And who, according to the OP is looking for a class of missile similar to the ESSM for medium-range air-defense to augment land-based air dominance and interceptor aircraft:

As far as I see it, this is a valid configuration that's within Pakistan's capabilities and doctrine. It's not an expeditionary force, so a long-range fleet-defense missile like navalized S-300 is impractical, expensive and not in line with Pakistan's operational tactics and doctrine:

It makes for a good wish list piece, but isn't realistic without a doctrine to support it. Just having the system makes no difference if you can't use and support it effectively.

I'm not convinced the PAF can't support the PN at sea, because, like Norway, they are setup to do so. At this point the PN needs its own medium-range air-defense weapons like HHQ-16 (a Buk derivative) or Umkhonto.

That'll help ensure they can provide each other with cover as at the moment the PAF can cover the PN, but the PN would be hard-pressed to return the favor.



I've been a member of this forum far less then the year my account's been active, but there's always been a constant that I've noticed: people equate defense officials visiting with procurement of that nation's equipment. Sometimes people just stop by to say hello.

But I do echo your sentiment. A bit more urgency would help Pakistan become a more credible force and keep a respectable pace with India.

The one obvious flaw in ur arguement. Comparing the forces and operating strategies of Norway and Pakistan is fine.

But Norway's opponent is not India. That's the question mark. If Norway has a threat as bigger as India, I would be wondering its response.

 

[Penguin]

and u know what Tariq class frigates only have AAA to defend Missile attacks, from Air.
yes F-22P Frigates have SAMs to counter Air strike.

Not all Tariq class are equipped with a SAM system, just 3 of the 6 were refitted with the 18 km range Chinese LY-60. The other 3 got Harpoon missiles. All got CIWS
This is a semi-active radar homing (SARH) missile, like Aspide and Sea Sparrow
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LY-60_/_FD-60_/_PL10

All Zulfiquar class ships are fitted with the 15km Chinese HQ-7 / FM-90N. This is a command to line of sight missile (CLOS), like Barak 1 and Sea Wolf.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HQ-7#HQ-7A_.28FM-90.29

 

[IceCold]

Yes. Specifically the Northern and Baltic fleets:

The Northern Fleet:

11th Squadron, Zaozersk

• • TYPHOON-class SSBN Dmitriy Donskoy (ТК-208) (Nerpichya)
  • Two other Typhoon class submarines are assigned to this squadron but are not active.
• 7th Division, Vidyaevo
  • Commander
    • RADM Aleksandr Ildashov
  • SIERRA I-class SSN Kostroma
  • SIERRA II-class SSN Nizhniy Novgorod
  • SIERRA II-class SSN Pskov (K-336)
  • VICTOR-III-class SSN Daniil Moskovskiy (K-414)
• other submarines

• 12th Squadron, Gadzhiyevo
  • • Commander
      • RADM Sergey Farkov
  • 31st Submarine Division (Yagelnaya Bay, Sayda Inlet)
    • Commander
      • Captain 1st Rank Aleksandr Moiseyev
    • Delta class submarine IV-class SSBN Verkhoturye (K-51)
    • Delta IV-class SSBN Ekaterinburg (K-84)
    • Delta IV-class SSBN Tula (K-114)
    • Delta IV-class SSBN Bryansk (K-117)
    • Delta IV-class SSBN Kareliya (K-18)
    • Delta IV-class SSBN Novomoskovsk (K-407)
    • Borei class SSBN K-535 Yuriy Dolgorukiy
  • 24th Submarine Division (Yagelnaya Bay, Sayda Inlet)
    • Commanders
      • Jul 1985-Oct 1987 VADM Vladimir Mikhaylovich Monastyrshin
      • Oct 1987-Dec 1989 VADM Nikolay Ivanovich Mazin
      • Dec 1989-Jun 1992 RADM Boris Sergeyevich Bogdanov
      • Sep 1992-Jun 1996 RADM Sergey Anatolyevich Bliznyuk
      • Jun 1996-Sep 1998 RADM Aleksandr Nikolayevich Bukin
      • Sep 1998-Aug 2000 RADM Aleksey Vitalyevich Burilichev
      • Aug 2000-xxx 200x RADM Vladimir Ivanovich Korolev
      • xxx 200x-present RADM Anatoliy Minakov
    • Akula class submarine I-class SSN Pantera (K-317)
    • AKULA I-class SSN Volk (K-461)
    • AKULA I-class SSN Leopard (K-328)
    • AKULA I-class SSN Tigr (K-154)
    • AKULA II-class SSN Vepr (K-157)
    • AKULA II-class SSN Gepard (K-335)

• 43rd Missile Ship Division
  • • Commanders
      • RADM Veregin
      • RADM Avakyants
      • RADM Kasatonov
      • Present - RADM Aleksandr Turilin
  • KUZNETSOV-class CV Admiral Flota Sovetskogo Soyuza Kuznetsov (063)
  • KIROV-class CGN Pyotr Velikiy (099)
  • SLAVA-class CG Marshal Ustinov (055)
  • SOVREMENNYY-class DDG Gremyashchiy
  • SOVREMENNYY-class DDG Admiral Ushakov
• 2nd Anti-Submarine Ship Division
  • UDALOY-I Class DD Vice Admiral Kulakov - post-overhaul trials
  • UDALOY-I Class DD Severomorsk
  • UDALOY-I Class DD Admiral Levchenko
  • UDALOY-I Class DD Admiral Kharlamov
  • UDALOY-II Class DD Admiral Chabanenko

• • 4th Submarine Flotilla (Polyarnyy)
    • Commander
      • Captain 1st Rank Aleksandr Gorbunov
    • Kilo class submarine-class SS Novosibirsk (B-401)
    • KILO-class SS Vologda" (B-402)
    • KILO-class SS Yaroslavl (B-808)
    • KILO-class SS Kaluga (B-800)
    • KILO-class SS Vladikavkaz (B-459)
    • KILO-class SS Magnitogorsk (B-471)
    • KILO-class SS Lipetsk (B-177)

• Aviation Forces
  • 924th Independent Maritime Reconnaissance Aviation Regiment - HQ at Olenegorsk/Olenya - Tu-22M3;
  • 279th Shipborne Fighter Aviation Regiment - HQ at Severomorsk-3 - Su-25UTG, Su-33;
  • 73rd Independent Air Squadron - HQ at Kipelovo (Fedotovo) - Tu-142MK, Tu-142MR;
  • 403rd Independent Mixed Aviation Regiment - HQ at Severomorsk-1 - An-12, An-26, Il-38, Tu-134;
  • 830th Independent Shipborne Anti-Submarine Helicopter Regiment - HQ at Severomorsk-1 - Ka-27;

• Naval Infantry and Coastal Defence

The Baltic Fleet:

12th Surface ship Division

• 128th Surface ship Brigade
  • Pylkiy (Krivak-class frigate) (702) (Navy Commander issued an order to write off the ship in 2012)
  • Nastoychivyy (610) (Sovremenny-class destroyer) (1992)
  • Bespokoynyy (620) (Sovremenny-class destroyer)
  • Neustrashimyy (Neustrashimyy-class frigate)
  • Yaroslav Mudryy (Neustrashimyy-class frigate)
  • Steregushchiy (530) (Steregushchy-class corvette)
  • Soobrazitelnyy (531) (Steregushchy-class corvette)
  • Boikiy (532) (Steregushchy-class corvette)
  • Stoikiy (545) (Steregushchy-class corvette)
• 71st Order of the Red Star Landing Ship Brigade (Baltiysk)
  • Korolev (130) (Ropucha class LST)
  • Minsk (122) (Ropucha class LST)
  • Kaliningrad (102) (Ropucha class LST)
  • Aleksandr Shabalin (110) (Ropucha class LST)
  • Evgeniy Kocheshkov (770) (Zubr-class LCAC)
  • Mordoviya (782) (Zubr-class LCAC)

Leningrad Naval Base

• 123rd Submarine Brigade
  • 1 Lada-class submarine
    • B-585 Sankt Peterburg
  • 2 Kilo-class submarines
• 105th Naval Region Protection Brigade
  • 144th Tactical Group (Kronshtadt) ex 109th ASW ships div
    • 308 MPK 99 Zelenodolsk (Parchim-class corvette)
    • 304 MPK 192 Urengoy (Parchim-class corvette)
    • 311 MPK 205 Kazanets (Parchim-class corvette)
  • 145th Tactical Group (Kronshtadt) ex-22nd Red Banner Minesweeper Battalion
    • BT 115 (561) (Sonya-class minesweeper)
    • PDKA 89 PDKA 910 RChT 702 (353) RChT 61 (324) RT 57 (316) RT 248 (348)

Baltyysk Naval Base

• 64th Maritime Region Protection Brigade
  • 146th Tactical Group (former 264th Anti-submarine Warfare Battalion, Project 1331)
    • 218 MPK-224 Aleksin (Parchim-class corvette)
    • 232 MPK-229 Kalmykiya (Parchim-class corvette)
    • 233 MPK-227 (Parchim-class corvette)
    • 245 MPK-105 (Parchim-class corvette)
  • 147th, 148th Tactical Groups (former 323rd Minesweeper Division)
    • 4 Sonya-class minesweepers
• 36th Red Banner Order of Nakhimov Missile Ship Brigade
  • 1st Guards Missile Boat Battalion
  • 106th Small Missile Ship Battalion - attached from 1 June 1994. (Project 1234)
    • Liven' (551) (Nanuchka-class corvette)
    • Geyzer (555) (Nanuchka-class corvette)
    • Zyb' (560) (Nanuchka-class corvette)
    • Passat (570) (Nanuchka-class corvette)

Ships whose unit allocation is not precisely known

• 2 Ondatra-class landing ships
• 1 Serna-class landing ship
• 7 Tarantul-class corvettes
• 4 Pauk-class corvette
• 1 Natya-class minesweeper - not listed by warfare.be
• 6 Lida-class minesweepers

Naval Aviation (2007):

• HQ: Kaliningrad
• 689th Independent Fighter Aviation Regiment – Kaliningrad Chkalovsk – operating Su-27;
• 4th Independent Naval Assault Aviation Regiment – Chernyakhovsk Air Base – operating Su-24M/MR;
• 125th Independent Helicopter Squadron – HQ at Chkalovsk – operating Mi-8, Mi-24 (this was the former 288th Independent Helicopter Regt of the 11th Guards Army and used to be at Nivenskoye);
• 396th Independent Shipborne Anti-Submarine Helicopter Squadron – Donskoye Air Base – Ka-27/PS, Ka-29;
• 398th Independent Air Transport Squadron – HQ at Khrabrovo – An-2, An-12, An-24, An-26, Be-12, Mi-8.

Damn, that's a lot of firepower.



Norway's opponent isn't India. That's correct. But they've a threat equal in size and strength facing off against them.

It's Russia - these are photos that have been taken by Norwegian military photogs of Russian military systems in and around Norwegian water:.

Thats a pretty long list. I have another question for you if i am not taking too much of your time. Does Norway not come under NATO? If the answer is yes than shouldnt we be looking at the combine military capability of Norway and uncle SAM against Russian Northern and Baltic fleet?