What's new

Pakistan Navy P-3C Orion Thread

please can you enlighten where i said that KJ-200 is better then Hawkeye :what:



Growler, you are like a brother to me.
i would appreciate if you can go throuh entire post befor starting your favourite "chinese systems are crap" deal! :tup:
:cheers:

i hope you will take this in positive sense!

comming to the point, all i was trying to convey was that we havent heared any thing regarding Haweye of late, it may perhaps be a case of delaying tactic US are real good at and have successfull made fool of us many times in the past by this method or the deal is dead once and for all!
this means that PN will be left with no other real option but to look forward to KJ-200!

regards!

The deal costs about 800 million dollars and the delay is from pak side due to flood thingi.. :) not america.
I am not anti-chinese.. I am against deals that are not the best for Pak such as F-22P and god for bids the new Sub deal.
SAAB-2000 Erieye system offers better solution then KJ-200..
 
The deal costs about 800 million dollars and the delay is from pak side due to flood thingi.. :) not america.
I am not anti-chinese.. I am against deals that are not the best for Pak such as F-22P and god for bids the new Sub deal.
SAAB-2000 Erieye system offers better solution then KJ-200..

Have you served in the PN and on the F-22Ps ??

What do you know about the latest Chinese subs ?? What are their specifications and technologies used in it ?? What capabilities do they give ??

Have you checked out KJ-200 ?? Do you know the specifications of the ZDK-03 that is being procured by PAF.

Do enlighten us on the method you used to come up to the conclusion that Chinese stuff is crap and bad for us.

Strange thing is, whole world is talking about Chinese military upgrade and especially the navy, its frigates & submarines, while we are here talking something else about the Chinese equipment.
 
The deal costs about 800 million dollars and the delay is from pak side due to flood thingi.. :) not america.
.
i hope it me who got it wrong and the deal do finalize!

I am not anti-chinese.. I am against deals that are not the best for Pak such as F-22P and god for bids the new Sub deal.
yaar, this is what i call being anti-chinese, its not that you hate them but you dont trust there technology!
now see, there is a new class of submaine that has been developed by them to tackel some of the worlds finest naval warmachines that are being produced around them, the world do not know anyting about its specs and still you are so vocal saying that they will be a failuer,:what:

the F-22p, we have discussed to death, i dont see a single point that makes it a good for nothing system,
anyways!

SAAB-2000 Erieye system offers better solution then KJ-200.
it may offer better technology but not better solution for sure!
the KJ-200 being commin from all weather tested supply chain, provision of insight of technolog, room formodifications, cheaper and all! it surely is a better solution for funds starved military forces!

regards!
 
Have you served in the PN and on the F-22Ps ??

What do you know about the latest Chinese subs ?? What are their specifications and technologies used in it ?? What capabilities do they give ??

Have you checked out KJ-200 ?? Do you know the specifications of the ZDK-03 that is being procured by PAF.

Do enlighten us on the method you used to come up to the conclusion that Chinese stuff is crap and bad for us.

Strange thing is, whole world is talking about Chinese military upgrade and especially the navy, its frigates & submarines, while we are here talking something else about the Chinese equipment.

O really? I never expected such a low class reply from you sir, for a long time you are trying to throw mud at me. I mean seriously if this was the criteria then no one here including you has the right to talk on naval subjects since no one from this forum has served in F-22P or in DOD.

Even a 13 year old kid could tell F-22P is not a quality system. For god sake its merely a upgraded type-053h3 and even a 30 year upgraded OHP out performs this F-22P in all fields.
 
O really? I never expected such a low class reply from you sir, for a long time you are trying to throw mud at me. I mean seriously if this was the criteria then no one here including you has the right to talk on naval subjects since no one from this forum has served in F-22P or in DOD.

Even a 13 year old kid could tell F-22P is not a quality system. For god sake its merely a upgraded type-053h3 and even a 30 year upgraded OHP out performs this F-22P in all fields.

Though the F-22p may not be very advanced it is still a good platform for multirole. As far as the OHP out preforming it i highly doubt that. Since it has no MK-13 launcher or associated systems (Separate Target Illumination Radar) and i have yet to see a picture confirm it has its Phalanx 20mm CIWS intact. Besides the ceremony video where i could not see it.


There is a reason Turkey put all OHPs through a complete combat management system upgrade. We do not put anything through a upgrade unless it is something that is lacking or outdated. Even if the OHP see a refit of their original weapons they still lack the situational awareness and detect/response times modern frigates do. OHP isn't anything groundbreaking or modern.
 
Though the F-22p may not be very advanced it is still a good platform for multirole. As far as the OHP out preforming it i highly doubt that. Since it has no MK-13 launcher or associated systems (Separate Target Illumination Radar) and i have yet to see a picture confirm it has its Phalanx 20mm CIWS intact. Besides the ceremony video where i could not see it.


There is a reason Turkey put all OHPs through a complete combat management system upgrade. We do not put anything through a upgrade unless it is something that is lacking or outdated. Even if the OHP see a refit of their original weapons they still lack the situational awareness and detect/response times modern frigates do. OHP isn't anything groundbreaking or modern.

Dude, read my post again. I specifically said "upgraded" not PN or USN OHP which are not upgraded yet. And as we speak PN FFG is currently undergoing refurbishment which may include reinstatement of MK13.
 
Remember this, Growler

Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced

submarine_468x323.jpg

This was merely a result of carelessness by USN and nothing more. The more fear is created among the people the more funds will be allocated for better and more sophisticated weapons. Remember how big fuss was created from Cope-India 2004 exercise? F-15s were slaughtered deliberately for the USAF own benefit.
 
Hi,

P3C is not an obsolete plane and neither the equipment it has is obsolete.

You see in planes like these, you ought to have a very capable, trained and pro-active crew. Pakistan navy have experienced this plane for a long time now---they indeed are a seasoned group of operators---this plane can do as good a job as is needed. A good operator and a commander who listens can make all the difference.

So, basically there is no concern on this front---P3c's will be doing their jobs for a long time.

The old russian planes---I believe the il 38's fitted for naval maritime roles and anti sub operations---with the right kind of crew were still potent lately.

Mastan Khan;
Thanks for bringing some balance of sanity in to the discussion. The P-3Cs are still aircraft well suited to their role and with a good crew will do what is required of them. Likewise for the IL-38s after their upgrades. Undoubtedly these aircraft respectively are getting long in the tooth, but are no pushovers.
Similarly the TU-142s have some limitations against modern subs but are unmatched for surface surveillance, with their extraordinary endurance.
The P-8Is are to meet a slightly different requirement.
 
This was merely a result of carelessness by USN and nothing more. The more fear is created among the people the more funds will be allocated for better and more sophisticated weapons. Remember how big fuss was created from Cope-India 2004 exercise? F-15s were slaughtered deliberately for the USAF own benefit.

And the one where the U.S. leased a Gotland class AIP sub for testing which resulted in it sinking a Nimitz class carrier in a exercise was also carelessness ? There is currently very little countermeasures against AIP subs.

More funds ? you can't get more expensive then a 5,000 man super carrier running on nuclear reactors. Plus even if you figure out how to counter AIP subs you still have to figure out how to counter those modified DF-21s china has.
 
yaar, this is what i call being anti-chinese, its not that you hate them but you dont trust there technology!
yaar i am not being anti chinese its you who is being sensitive about China.
now see, there is a new class of submaine that has been developed by them to tackel some of the worlds finest naval warmachines that are being produced around them, the world do not know anyting about its specs and still you are so vocal saying that they will be a failuer,:what:
What new class? Just tell me if this "new" class sub is technically par with Type-214 or even the Marlin and that its a wise decision to go for Chinese AIP sub.

it may offer better technology but not better solution for sure!
the KJ-200 being commin from all weather tested supply chain, provision of insight of technolog, room formodifications, cheaper and all! it surely is a better solution for funds starved military forces!
Dude, Saab-2000 has as much pakistani input as in ZDK-03. And if what you are saying is what PN or PAF should go by then saab-2000 and P-3 deal would have never taken place. ;)

regards!
 
Dude, read my post again. I specifically said "upgraded" not PN or USN OHP which are not upgraded yet. And as we speak PN FFG is currently undergoing refurbishment which may include reinstatement of MK13.

Refurbishment doesn't mean modernization though. Say they refit the OHP to its original armaments. Even then it would still need a upgrade of its systems. F22P on the other hand is quite modern to begin with.
 
And the one where the U.S. leased a Gotland class AIP sub for testing which resulted in it sinking a Nimitz class carrier in a exercise was also carelessness ? There is currently very little countermeasures against AIP subs.

More funds ? you can't get more expensive then a 5,000 man super carrier running on nuclear reactors. Plus even if you figure out how to counter AIP subs you still have to figure out how to counter those modified DF-21s china has.


Their is a difference between the technology the west possess and that of Chinese Russian or even the Indian. You can not simply expect every AIP sub to be stealthy as gotland just because its a AIP.
SM-3 will most probably take care of the DF-21 threat. never the less a new type of weapon in your enemy's hand is always a threat.
 
Their is a difference between the technology the west possess and that of Chinese Russian or even the Indian. You can not simply expect every AIP sub to be stealthy as gotland just because its a AIP.
SM-3 will most probably take care of the DF-21 threat. never the less a new type of weapon in your enemy's hand is always a threat.

Of course not. But you can't write off the Chinese sub popping up within torpedo and missile range and not being detected as carelessness. Then say the Gotland class one is because it is advanced when the U.S. leased it for the specific test to begin with.

Also no the SM-3 does not have the capability to intercept advanced ballistic missiles like the DF-21. You don't have to take my word for it though. You can read it from the U.S. Naval institutes website.



U. S. Naval Institute
March 31, 2009



With tensions already rising due to the Chinese navy becoming more aggressive in asserting its territorial claims in the South China Sea, the U.S. Navy seems to have yet another reason to be deeply concerned.

After years of conjecture, details have begun to emerge of a "kill weapon" developed by the Chinese to target and destroy U.S. aircraft carriers.

First posted on a Chinese blog viewed as credible by military analysts and then translated by the naval affairs blog Information Dissemination, a recent report provides a description of an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) that can strike carriers and other U.S. vessels at a range of 2000km.

The range of the modified Dong Feng 21 missile is significant in that it covers the areas that are likely hot zones for future confrontations between U.S. and Chinese surface forces.

The size of the missile enables it to carry a warhead big enough to inflict significant damage on a large vessel, providing the Chinese the capability of destroying a U.S. supercarrier in one strike.

Because the missile employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased. It is estimated that the missile can travel at mach 10 and reach its maximum range of 2000km in less than 12 minutes.

Supporting the missile is a network of satellites, radar and unmanned aerial vehicles that can locate U.S. ships and then guide the weapon, enabling it to hit moving targets.



While the ASBM has been a topic of discussion within national defense circles for quite some time, the fact that information is now coming from Chinese sources indicates that the weapon system is operational. The Chinese rarely mention weapons projects unless they are well beyond the test stages.

If operational as is believed, the system marks the first time a ballistic missile has been successfully developed to attack vessels at sea. Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack.

Along with the Chinese naval build-up, U.S. Navy officials appear to view the development of the anti-ship ballistic missile as a tangible threat.

After spending the last decade placing an emphasis on building a fleet that could operate in shallow waters near coastlines, the U.S. Navy seems to have quickly changed its strategy over the past several months to focus on improving the capabilities of its deep sea fleet and developing anti-ballistic defenses.

As analyst Raymond Pritchett notes in a post on the U.S. Naval Institute blog:

"The Navy's reaction is telling, because it essentially equals a radical change in direction based on information that has created a panic inside the bubble. For a major military service to panic due to a new weapon system, clearly a mission kill weapon system, either suggests the threat is legitimate or the leadership of the Navy is legitimately unqualified. There really aren't many gray spaces in evaluating the reaction by the Navy…the data tends to support the legitimacy of the threat."

In recent years, China has been expanding its navy to presumably better exert itself in disputed maritime regions. A recent show of strength in early March led to a confrontation with an unarmed U.S. ship in international waters.


Report: Chinese Develop Special "Kill Weapon" to Destroy U.S. Aircraft Carriers | U.S. Naval Institute
 
Refurbishment doesn't mean modernization though. Say they refit the OHP to its original armaments. Even then it would still need a upgrade of its systems. F22P on the other hand is quite modern to begin with.

Neither does it mean a new paint job.

Like i said. An upgraded FFG is far superior to F-22P, I have already proved this with sources and i dont feel like repeating over again.
 
Of course not. But you can't write off the Chinese sub popping up within torpedo and missile range and not being detected as carelessness. Then say the Gotland class one is because it is advanced when the U.S. leased it for the specific test to begin with.

Also no the SM-3 does not have the capability to intercept advanced ballistic missiles like the DF-21. You don't have to take my word for it though. You can read it from the U.S. Naval institutes website.






Report: Chinese Develop Special "Kill Weapon" to Destroy U.S. Aircraft Carriers | U.S. Naval Institute

Nope. Your source does not says anything about SM3 other then that ASBM can target ships.
 

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom