What's new

Pakistan Naval Aviation - Updated

Its an AShM, helicopter launches are useful because Airborne radars can see a lot further than surface ones.
I know what an Anti-ship missile is :)

This type of missiles need kinetic energy at launch, there is a reason why they are being fired from either high-altitude fixed-wing aircraft or by Vertical Launching Systems. It is not impossible, but it is hard to integrate missiles of that size into helicopters. Still, packaging should be done with a certain degree of angle, so not every helicopter would be able I guess. Also, helicopters usually don't carry radars. If you are thinking about carrying a Merlin Mk2-esque helicopter in a frigate, you would make the ship crippled against submarine attacks and it's supply management reduces dramatically. If you have a patrol mission in your head, why bother where there are better fixed-wing alternatives?

I mean, it is not unheard of. Chilean Navy for example, is flying their helicopters with Exocet for a long time. But it is unusual. Let the helicopter does what it is good at, which is ASW.
 
.
I know what an Anti-ship missile is :)

This type of missiles need kinetic energy at launch, there is a reason why they are being fired from either high-altitude fixed-wing aircraft or by Vertical Launching Systems. It is not impossible, but it is hard to integrate missiles of that size into helicopters. Still, packaging should be done with a certain degree of angle, so not every helicopter would be able I guess. Also, helicopters usually don't carry radars. If you are thinking about carrying a Merlin Mk2-esque helicopter in a frigate, you would make the ship crippled against submarine attacks and it's supply management reduces dramatically. If you have a patrol mission in your head, why bother where there are better fixed-wing alternatives?

I mean, it is not unheard of. Chilean Navy for example, is flying their helicopters with Exocet for a long time. But it is unusual. Let the helicopter does what it is good at, which is ASW.


So, a turbojet wouldn't need kinetic energy at launch, a ramjet would hence why you see surface based variants of the BrahMos use boosters to get them to a high speed first. Sure, but a navalised variant of them can, like, we are not talking about just any helicopter, we are specifically talking about navalised models. We are purely talking hypothetically. Its good you mention the Merlin MK2, it has both surface search capabilities and ASW, so actually, a merlin-esqe helo would be great for the PN, the ability to take out surface combatants from a longer range while maintaining a potent ASW cap would be great. The PN already operates helicopter launched exocets from our seakings anyway, its beneficial to be able to strike first and at a longer distance regardless of the launch platform, however, we do know that an airborne platform would be able to do that better
 
.
^^
Merlin is used by Royal Navy to serve as an Early Warning Radar for their aircraft carrier groups, they are not utilized by traditional combat ships. And btw RN operates them because of their inability to launch large fixed-wing aircraft by their ACs, if they had the chance of operating anything closely resembling P-8 they would trash these helicopters in a heartbeat in favor of more capable, easier to maintain fixed-wing aircraft.

That being said, unlike RN, Pakistani Navy is littoral. There is simply no doctrine for a Merlin in PN when the combat mission you described above can be handled by a patrol aircraft taking off from the Pakistani heartland. They are simply more effective, as they offer better range and more carriage capacity.

Also, the idea of helicopters being better at detection compared to ships are plain wrong. Ships can generate more power, hence more electricity can be spend on radars. As such, naval radars offer better range. Same thing also applies for Electronic Warfare systems (or any other electronics suite really); the phenomena can be seen in Turkish Koral and Ares-2N, even though the exact specifications are secret, Aselsan claims Ares-2N, the naval adaptation of Koral, offers a much better Electronic Warfare capability. Again, in a hypothetical scenario a Wunderwaffe helicopter able to offer much better electronics suite compared to ships can be produced, but to what ends? The scale simply doesn't favor such an application.

If you want area denial for Indian warships, just buy couple of C-802s (or Atmaca, if you are into it) and station them on shore, you would have a much better chance of hitting the enemy ship. Helicopters are basically sitting ducks against serious Surface to Air systems. Your adversaries ships' are capable, these helicopters would be a liability.

Last minute addition:
Our navy loves their Penguins. Our doctrine utilizes them against smaller, surprise targets in the Aegean. In fact, we have a local missile similar to Penguins in design phase, called Temren. IDK what good they might bring for open seas, but it is a concept worth noting.
 
. .
It doesn't make sense if PN doesn't use ATRs as a multirole platform.Its a waste of money by PN if these ATRs are just able to carry two anti submarine or anti ship missile or torpedos.Do we have the luxury to waste hard saved money?I don't think so.
@Bilal Khan (Quwa) Your point of view needed.
 
.
It doesn't make sense if PN doesn't use ATRs as a multirole platform.Its a waste of money by PN if these ATRs are just able to carry two anti submarine or anti ship missile or torpedos.Do we have the luxury to waste hard saved money?I don't think so.
@Bilal Khan (Quwa) Your point of view needed.


I dont understand why they are a waste? They are airborne sensor platforms which should in theory have the ability to communicate with our other naval assets, providing them vital targeting and situational awareness information, can think of them like the AEWAC's of the sea kind of, however with its own defensive capability to some extent i.e via its ability to deploy torpedos
 
.
It doesn't make sense if PN doesn't use ATRs as a multirole platform.Its a waste of money by PN if these ATRs are just able to carry two anti submarine or anti ship missile or torpedos.Do we have the luxury to waste hard saved money?I don't think so.
@Bilal Khan (Quwa) Your point of view needed.

This is a massive oversimplification and does show a certain ignorance of warfare in a networked age. To a large extent it does not matter if the platform can carry anything If it is linked to other platforms and acts as eyes and ears then it can relay data to a AZMAT ship of Khalid/Hangor class sub which can then act as the firing platform.
 
.
This is a massive oversimplification and does show a certain ignorance of warfare in a networked age. To a large extent it does not matter if the platform can carry anything If it is linked to other platforms and acts as eyes and ears then it can relay data to a AZMAT ship of Khalid/Hangor class sub which can then act as the firing platform.


Exactly my point bro, why don't we get a platform that can detect & destroy all by itself.Why it has to relay target data.I know it can do all that you've mentioned but my question still stands that why can't we get an autonomous platform that is sufficient for atleast 4 targets.
In my humble opinion.What do you think?
 
.
Exactly my point bro, why don't we get a platform that can detect & destroy all by itself.Why it has to relay target data.I know it can do all that you've mentioned but my question still stands that why can't we get an autonomous platform that is sufficient for atleast 4 targets.
In my humble opinion.What do you think?


Because there are limitations? The usual way for longer range targeting is making use of radars right? Well, surface radars can only see so far due to the earths horizon, or other obstacles in the way. They are also limited by size and power, however, an airborne radar is able to overcome the first few issues by well, being airborne. You will ALWAYS need an external sensor platform for super long range targeting.

erieye-coverage.jpg


good visual.
 
.
Exactly my point bro, why don't we get a platform that can detect & destroy all by itself.Why it has to relay target data.I know it can do all that you've mentioned but my question still stands that why can't we get an autonomous platform that is sufficient for atleast 4 targets.
In my humble opinion.What do you think?

You make a good point and PN has 7 of these with P-3C which are still very capable birds. They are looking at repalcing these with a biz jet solution which probably will have Missile carrying abaility.

I would not be surprised if PN is looking at having around 6 each of ATR and new Biz jet type. That give you ability to keep 4 in the air most of the time during war
 
.
You make a good point and PN has 7 of these with P-3C which are still very capable birds. They are looking at repalcing these with a biz jet solution which probably will have Missile carrying abaility.

I would not be surprised if PN is looking at having around 6 each of ATR and new Biz jet type. That give you ability to keep 4 in the air most of the time during war


He does not make a good point at all. By not having sensor platforms you are effectively blinding the ships as they simply are not capable of seeing as far as an airborne radar.
 
. . .
The 3rd ATR for conversion to Sea Eagle should arrive at Mönchengladbach during the last week of June. I have no info yet if this is a new ATR for Pakistan, or if they will convert nr 76 or 77.

so we had 2 delivered 78 and 79, we have options for 2 more and we also had a cargo version

so technically we could get 4 x ATR + 1 for special missions paratroopers

I think we should certainly get 2 more it would be a very good addition to the 2 we have

I cant remember when the first 2 were delivered but if it was the ATR which photographed the Indian submarine last year after Operation Swift Retort then it shows these are indeed capable aircraft, if these were not operational last year that photo must have come from the Naval P3C Orions
 
.
He does not make a good point at all. By not having sensor platforms you are effectively blinding the ships as they simply are not capable of seeing as far as an airborne radar.
Bro, i didn't say that we don't need sensors.I am just saying that PN needs multirole aircrafts(that atr is) but with at least double the capacity to carry both anti submarine & anti ship missile.These ATRs can carry just 2 light weight torpedos.Now tell me, am i saying something illogical or out of question domain?I think p3Cs are better then the ATRs in this regard.

And please, i am just putting my opinion so you can enlighten me if i am wrong.
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom