What's new

Pakistan navy post 2020 - Future Plans

I have never been of any standard, nor any standard of acceptance. People like you ensure that I dont come back here. Good luck to you and your ability to fault Pakistan in everything.
Please ignore members like him. I greatly appreciate your contributions. There are also many silent readers out there who benefit from your posts, so don't be dis-hearted by a few detractors.
 
.
IMG_5030.JPG


IMG_5031.JPG


Chinese Tight pack launcher doubling ssm on ships

F22p launcher spacing can go to 12 or may be 16 ssm
 
. .
View attachment 593597

View attachment 593598

Chinese Tight pack launcher doubling ssm on ships

F22p launcher spacing can go to 12 or may be 16 ssm
There is no enough space on F22 for 16 SSMs. However, putting so much AsM assets on platform is also wrong. This is suitable for Russian/Chinese Saturation doctrine, where two or four missiles are fired on each target in ripple fire to overwhelm the defenses. Our Navy follows the wester Precision doctrine, where one missile one target is the norm, or there is coordinated attack between various assets towards a unitary target to overwhelm its medium and terminal defenses.

In hind sight, I would recommend that Navy consider installing indigenous anti-ship cum land attack missiles on its platforms, giving us more flexibility at sea for regional interdiction, defence and dominance.
 
.
There is no enough space on F22 for 16 SSMs. However, putting so much AsM assets on platform is also wrong. This is suitable for Russian/Chinese Saturation doctrine, where two or four missiles are fired on each target in ripple fire to overwhelm the defenses. Our Navy follows the wester Precision doctrine, where one missile one target is the norm, or there is coordinated attack between various assets towards a unitary target to overwhelm its medium and terminal defenses.

In hind sight, I would recommend that Navy consider installing indigenous anti-ship cum land attack missiles on its platforms, giving us more flexibility at sea for regional interdiction, defence and dominance.

Usn/America review of type 041/39 sub stated 6 torpedo tubes are not enough to launch saturated attack as two tubes will have torpedos as standby against counter attack by enemy sub/ship and only 4 tubes can be used to launch attack which is not enough to attack today’s ship defenses

Any way I am not navy background but I was surprised as 039/041 has six while agosta 90 has only 4
 
.
Usn/America review of type 041/39 sub stated 6 torpedo tubes are not enough to launch saturated attack as two tubes will have torpedos as standby against counter attack by enemy sub/ship and only 4 tubes can be used to launch attack which is not enough to attack today’s ship defenses

Any way I am not navy background but I was surprised as 039/041 has six while agosta 90 has only 4

Most other modern Subs also have 6 torpedo tubes. Agosta 90B are not structurally new platforms, Its 80's design I guess.
 
.
However, putting so much AsM assets on platform is also wrong. This is suitable for Russian/Chinese Saturation doctrine, where two or four missiles are fired on each target in ripple fire to overwhelm the defenses. Our Navy follows the wester Precision doctrine, where one missile one target is the norm, or there is coordinated attack between various assets towards a unitary target to overwhelm its medium and terminal defenses.
Isn't it quite normal to warships needing strong anti-ship capability, but without strong air support and VLS for AShMs?

And what are so-called Russian/Chinese Saturation doctrine and west Precision doctrine? Do you think PN can do what USN does? Does PN also have aircraft carrier strike groups?

USA
191001-N-FC670-004.jpeg

EFOSYXTRIZERXOF4ONUTFKGKKE.jpeg


Russia
article_5d0b46ac711b08_69603338.jpg

mnq5lx521g121.jpg


China
img-63e5738d4c7db28a11a1b5ef83f4ea32.jpg

img-c6c84952419391a30653790cd0f4c457.jpg
 
.
Isn't it quite normal to warships needing strong anti-ship capability, but without strong air support and VLS for AShMs?

And what are so-called Russian/Chinese Saturation doctrine and west Precision doctrine? Do you think PN can do what USN does? Does PN also have aircraft carrier strike groups?

USA
View attachment 594977
View attachment 594978

Russia
View attachment 594979
View attachment 594980

China
View attachment 594981
View attachment 594982
I think the point was in the context of small ships (less than 2,000 ton displacement, shorter than 90 m in length). So, such ships -- e.g., fast attack crafts, corvettes, etc -- should have a specialized role, not be overloaded with too many subsystems.
 
.
I think the point was in the context of small ships (less than 2,000 ton displacement, shorter than 90 m in length). So, such ships -- e.g., fast attack crafts, corvettes, etc -- should have a specialized role, not be overloaded with too many subsystems.
Everything is just based on the challenges you face.
USN has aircraft carrier strike groups, and what dos PN have?
 
.
Isn't it quite normal to warships needing strong anti-ship capability, but without strong air support and VLS for AShMs?

And what are so-called Russian/Chinese Saturation doctrine and west Precision doctrine? Do you think PN can do what USN does? Does PN also have aircraft carrier strike groups?

USA
View attachment 594977
View attachment 594978

Russia
View attachment 594979
View attachment 594980

China
View attachment 594981
View attachment 594982
In my opinion Pakistan has wrong policy. In my opinion Pakistan should have Frigates and Destroyers which have those VLS which can carry and fire long range cruise missiles to hit targets on land as well as ships

@Bilal Khan (Quwa)
 
.
Everything is just based on the challenges you face.
USN has aircraft carrier strike groups, and what dos PN have?
There is a different approach with different navies amd different ships I suppose. For a navy like USN which operates multiple CBG and 67 Arleigh Burk destroyers (with 10 more 10 more ordered) and 22 Ticonderoga class cruisers means that some of the smaller ships like LCS dont need as robust of air defense. That being said, even they were critizised for being too lightly armed. That is why they are being actively equipped with better warfighting modules. For example the Saudis bought 12 Freedom class lcs which will have standard warfighting setup instead of the modular and interchangeable layout of the USN ships. It will have a 16 cells vls for either 16 SM-2 or 64 ESSM, or morell likely 8 and 32 layout. Even the standard LCS has 21 cell RAM mk 2 which is a 22km range weapon which is better than anything PN currently fields.

For a navy like PN and country like Pakistan who cannot afford to put out such robust ships as arleigh buk or Ticonderoga or Type 052D or Type 055, it needs more multirole ships like the Freedom class the Saudis will acquire. Some thing that is a jack of all trades, even if it is not a master of anything. Especially in an area where PN and Pakistan as a whole is lacking, amd that is air defense. The ships need to operate amd survive in groups and independently. As such they should have am adequate Antiship capacity and a good antisub capability. But they need to have a viable antiair function. To that end, the ability to defend themselves is vital at this point. Medium to long range weapons, preferably quad packable. The ideal system for PN would be CAMM-ER which can be quad packed and likely has a range of at least 70-80km if not 100km. Even its officially stated range of 45km+ is far better than anything currently available when considering theHQ-16b has 70km range but is single packed. With that being said the standard CAMM has a listed range of 25km+ but according to Janes has beens successfully tested out to 60km. If that is the case, i should think the ER version can reach at least 60km if not much further as stated. Pakistan could field them on MILGEM (64 missiles) if they can make a deal with Italy (Pakistan was said to be one of the countries interested in it). If that works well, then PN could theoretically in a few years years refitnTpye 054A with new radar (perhaps an integrated mast like CAFRAD) ANDexchange the weapons for HARBAH amd CAMM-ER.
 
.
Even its officially stated range of 45km+ is far better than anything currently available when considering theHQ-16b has 70km range but is single packed. With that being said the standard CAMM has a listed range of 25km+ but according to Janes has beens successfully tested out to 60km. If that is the case, i should think the ER version can reach at least 60km if not much further as stated.
The range is not everything.
 
.
The range is not everything.

Range matters, the further out the target is intercepted and neutralized, the better.

After range, it's the velocity of the interceptors (missiles) that matter....higher the velocity, more the chances it can intercept faster targets.

Supersonic interceptors intercept supersonic missiles, and in some cases, can also intercept hypersonic missiles.

Hypersonic missiles can intercept hypersonic missiles, for example, the Buk-M3 is stated to have a Mach 8.8 speed (well within the hypersonic range).
 
.
The range is not everything.
You are right, range is not everything. But when fighting off a missile with the speed and dimension/mass of Brahmos, speed range and kinetic force are 90%. The other issue is number of interceptors. See if a missile has a range of engagement at say 70km the ship can the engage the target at a further distance and put more missiles between the attacking missile and itself... ie it has more chances to take it out. Add to that that if that longer range missile is quad packed you have 4x the weapons at your disposal to bring it Brahmos down. Lets say all you have is 8 FM-90/HQ-7A missiles. You have 8 shots to bring down brahmos at a range of 12km for supersonic weapons. If you cant bring it down or you run out of missiles because 2-3 brahmos were likely launched at you, you are left to rely on you CIWS. At a short gun range the debris from the missile is likely to significantly damage the ship given the speed it is going even if you can destroy the missile at all. So yeah, if given the option i would take the range and more importantly the numbers of something like CAMM-ER over even HQ-16B even if CAMM-er ends up with 45km range, the number of weapons that can be brought to bear is of the utmost importance. That is why 12 ASTER 15s were replaced by 48 Sea Ceptor (CAMM) on the Daring class destroyers.
 
.
You are right, range is not everything. But when fighting off a missile with the speed and dimension/mass of Brahmos, speed range and kinetic force are 90%. The other issue is number of interceptors. See if a missile has a range of engagement at say 70km the ship can the engage the target at a further distance and put more missiles between the attacking missile and itself... ie it has more chances to take it out. Add to that that if that longer range missile is quad packed you have 4x the weapons at your disposal to bring it Brahmos down. Lets say all you have is 8 FM-90/HQ-7A missiles. You have 8 shots to bring down brahmos at a range of 12km for supersonic weapons. If you cant bring it down or you run out of missiles because 2-3 brahmos were likely launched at you, you are left to rely on you CIWS. At a short gun range the debris from the missile is likely to significantly damage the ship given the speed it is going even if you can destroy the missile at all. So yeah, if given the option i would take the range and more importantly the numbers of something like CAMM-ER over even HQ-16B even if CAMM-er ends up with 45km range, the number of weapons that can be brought to bear is of the utmost importance. That is why 12 ASTER 15s were replaced by 48 Sea Ceptor (CAMM) on the Daring class destroyers.
Take S-400 and HQ-9 for example. Many people think that the range of S-400 is much longer than HQ-9.

But according to the same Russian standard, the range of latest HQ-9 is basically the same as that of S-400.

And China never thinks that the range of latest HQ-9 should be claimed to be 400km.
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom