Pakistan - The only Nuclear Armed State without a Sea-Based deterrent

[Basel]

sub launch cruise missile nuclear submarine relatively simple, easy and cost effective than building a complex SLBM nuclear sub, PN is going in right direction first SSGN and than SSBN

But they are stop gap measure if you are facing enemy like India, which in all out nuclear war will have to be bombed with large nukes to take out cities and CM can't do that.

than why you need a BM subs ? ? as i say a sub with CM will do the job ..



they can consider Pakistan anything they want, thing is they are not attacking us anytime soon ...

Kindly Google upcoming ABM & Air Defence capability of India with huge advance conventional force along with nuclear capability, Pakistan will need credible 2nd Strike capability and SSBN with 4500km rang MIRV BM will have chance to launch BM avoiding IN & IAF search & destroy force at sea while they are developing long range ABM.

 

[Peaceful Civilian]

We are working on naval version of babur for submarine lauch platform, Also we are getting 8 new submarines, but Right now priority should be medium range SAMS with fast attack boats. We are lacking in SAM which is very important part of defense.

 

[Bilal Khan 777]

View attachment 360838
The Gods of M.A.D.ness
World survey of nuclear missile submarines
The dynamics of at-sea nuclear deterrence have completely changed since the end of the Cold War. In those 25 years the total number of active ballistic missile submarines has more than halved. In 1991 the US Navy operated 33 ballistic missile submarines; today it operates just 14. Russian meanwhile has gone from 62 down to just 12, or 13 if you count the last TYPHOON Class which is still used for trials. The United Kingdom and France maintain the absolute minimum at-sea deterrent with just four submarines apiece.
The US and UK are starting down the road to build their next generation of ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), more commonly known as ‘boomers’ or ‘bombers’ to the Brits. The US Navy’s Ohio Replacement Program (SSBN[X]) is estimated to end up costing $97bn for 12 boats, while Britain’s Successor program is costed at $44Bn for 4 boats. The waters these boats will slip into will be very different from those that their forbearers did.
Meanwhile China has continued to grow its capability, and three countries have entered the arena; Israel, India and North Korea. Additionally, Russia is developing KANYON which is a whole new class of at-sea deterrent based on a nuclear powered torpedo.
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) countries:

US: 7,100 nuclear warheads carried by ground based ICBMs, aircraft and SSBNs.

Russia: Estimated 7,700 nuclear warheads carried by ground based ICBMs, aircraft and SSBNs. Currently developing a unique torpedo based at-sea deterrent (KANYON).

UK: Stockpile reduced to 225 warheads, carried exclusively by SSBNs. Current plans are to reduce the stockpile further to just 180 warheads by the mid-2020s.

France: Stockpile reduced to less than 300 warheads, deployed via both the air force and SSBNs. Land based systems withdrawn. SLBMs de-targeted and alert statuses reduced.

China: Estimated stockpile of 260 warheads, but increasing. Deployed by Land based ICBMs, aircraft and SSBNs.


Defacto nuclear states (Non-NPT countries):

India: Estimated arsenal of 90-110 nuclear warheads, mostly deployed on land based ballistic missiles.

Israel:. An undeclared nuclear state, Israel keeps its nuclear capabilities behind a veil of ambiguity. There is no serious doubt -that it has the weapons and even its allies count it as a nuclear state. It is estimated to have a stockpile of 80-100 warheads, some of which may be deployed on submarines.

North Korea: The DPRK (Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea) is currently viewed as a nuclear capable state rather than a nuclear weapons state, and has a small but developing capability with an estimated 6-8 warheads. A program to build nuclear armed submarines is underway based largely on vintage Russian technology.

(Dis)honorary mentions:

Pakistan: has an estimated 100-120 warheads but there are no solid reports of any submarine based deployment system.

View attachment 360841
http://www.hisutton.com/Nuclear Missile Submarines.html

Not for long.

 

[Khafee]

Its pretty straight forward, Pakistan needs a Nuclear Submaine with SLBM's

Have patience and make do with SLCM's for now.

 

[Hassan Guy]

Have patience and make do with SLCM's for now.

Nah, that's worthless we need SLBM's

 

[Ultima Thule]

But they are stop gap measure if you are facing enemy like India, which in all out nuclear war will have to be bombed with large nukes to take out cities and CM can't do that.

Sir look at nuclear submarine development history of superpowers, they first build SSGN which is relatively simple cost effective mastering all the technology necessary for building SSBN, and than we should build complex SSBN

Nah, that's worthless we need SLBM's

Bro there are no shortcut for building SSBN, JUST look at nuclear submarine development history of superpowers, they first build SSGN which is relatively simple and cost effective mastering all the technology necessary for building SSBN, and than SSBN we must follow the same path for matering all the technology necessary for bulidng SSBN

 

[wiseone2]

Nuclear triad is essential to portray a strong nuclear deterrent. Otherwise a loophole will always remain there.
Pakistan should first induct Submarine Launched Ballistic and Cruise Missiles instead of Nuclear Powered Subs. Our current AIP subs are enough capable to hold grounds for sufficient time against enemy.

Experts can help me in technical aspects. Can Sonar detect a nuclear powered submarine easily as compared to a diesel electric submarine??

it makes no difference for sonar whether a submarine is nuclear powered or diesel powered

 

[Centurion2016]

Trying to match every threat that arises from India will lead to financial ruin .

You have land based nuclear deterrent why on earth you want to spend billion on a nuclear submarine.

India is a regional power with vast sea interests and can afford to. Maintain A sea based nuclear detterant.

Can pakistan . Do the same with just ten percent of the funds

Surly it's far wiser to cut your cloth accordingly so your air force or army or economic plans fo not crumble looking for ivory towers in the sky.

You have tactical nukes in army and bsllistic missles in land . Buying g a sea dettetant is a status symbol rather than practical need

 

[Penguin]

Well in that case---they will have to launch a volley and high tail out of Dodge.

Yep, and "dive, dive, dive"!

Then again, consider that e.g. the 8km 200 knots (370 km/h) nuclear-tipped Shkval supercavitating torpedo was specifically intended for killing nuclear powered submarines. Maybe closeness to a nuclear detonation is less of problem than we presume here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval

 

[wiseone2]

Trying to match every threat that arises from India will lead to financial ruin .

You have land based nuclear deterrent why on earth you want to spend billion on a nuclear submarine.

India is a regional power with vast sea interests and can afford to. Maintain A sea based nuclear detterant.

Can pakistan . Do the same with just ten percent of the funds

Surly it's far wiser to cut your cloth accordingly so your air force or army or economic plans fo not crumble looking for ivory towers in the sky.

You have tactical nukes in army and bsllistic missles in land . Buying g a sea dettetant is a status symbol rather than practical need

Given the tiny size of its arsenal India needs SLBMs to deter China
It helps China does not have the ASW capabilities to hunt Indian navy SSBNs

 

[Deadpool]

We have 'heavens' waiting for us---for you---it is eternal hell---. Does that satisfy you now---.

Fantasies

You can't even realize how much advantage this concept gives us. If we fight Jews or Christians, or Christians fight Jews, this advantage at both ends will nullify each other.

When you have a nation in front of you that thinks that they will win if they live, and they will win if they die, you can't win.. These kind of nations do not leave the opponent in a condition to survive, even if they are wiped off. That's why, fighting Taliban or ISIS is so difficult as unfortunately they also have such beliefs that they use in wars.

For us, the most painful death will give us more higher level in after life.

You must think we don't know Pakistanis.
We have fought Pakistanis before. We know them very well. We know the difference between what you say and what you do. You don't realize how much advantage this knowledge gives us.

We have seen them choose to "surrender to live" than "die to win".

 

[Hassan Guy]

Trying to match every threat that arises from India will lead to financial ruin .

Pakistan has a very cost effective nuclear program.

Buying g a sea dettetant is a status symbol rather than practical need

Rubbish.

Sea based deterrent is an assured 2nd strike capability. Land is not assured.

 

[EpiiC]

Its pretty straight forward, Pakistan needs a Nuclear Submaine with SLBM's

The missiles better have 2nd and 3rd stages boosters and be capable of 8000KM range!!

 

[Hassan Guy]

The missiles better have 2nd and 3rd stages boosters and be capable of 8000KM range!!

Yeah why not, but MIRV will be more important.

 

[EpiiC]

Yeah why not.

US subs have 24 trident missiles in each submarine those are the bests subs and missiles in the world sea based.... Paks nuclear sub will have 10-12 missiles?

What do you mean by faux outrage?


Yeah, north korea has SLBM's, and israel is presumed to have a sea based strike capability

NK and Israel have both ICBMS and SLBMs Making their nuclear program better and more advanced than us.