What's new

Pakistan's P-3C vs. India's P-8I :: India, Pakistan and the Naval Balance

.
In my humble opinion it is ridiculous to compare an aircraft based essentially on the 60’s technology to a 21st century design.

Let us be clear; P-3C is an excellent aircraft and performs all the tasks required of it to perfection. Despite the airframe design being more than 50 years old, it is bristling with state of the art avionics. However there has to be a reason why the US decided to replace it with P-8 Poseidon. The answer is clear from the following article.

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/...ice-from-the-p-3c-orion-to-the-p-8a-poseidon/

For us the most important question should be, does Pakistan need P-8 and how its induction in the Indian Navy affects the Naval Balance?

Firstly, Pakistani coast is far smaller than Indian coast line. PN could do with the Poseidon as well but the “Cost vs Benefit” makes P-8 too onerous. Secondly, there is no naval balance; it is only “Imbalance” between Pakistan & India in the naval terms. Given that India has 14 frigates, improved capability of detecting submarines from the air won’t make much of a difference against PN submarines.

In my view acquisition of P-8 by IN is primarily meant for detecting & countering the Chinese nuclear submarines, especially for the protection of her aircraft carriers. Indian Navy always had more than sufficient naval assets to deal with PN even without the Poseidon.

The P-8I are for hunting submarines in the coastal areas. my understanding is that it is not great for hunting submarines in the open ocean
 
. . .
More like the bigger submarines like SSBNs which can dive deeper are safer in oceans while smaller ones , in coastal waters.

Each has its advantage.

There are no dives beyond 400-600 meters, even those considered crush or test depths for most submarines. Its not the depth, but the bathymetric sound propagation. In coastal waters, the bathy characteristics do not support SONAR operation or makes it very difficult, giving the advantage to the sub. In deeper waters, the tide turns in favor of surface and air platform due to propagation of sound.
 
.
There are no dives beyond 400-600 meters, even those considered crush or test depths for most submarines. Its not the depth, but the bathymetric sound propagation. In coastal waters, the bathy characteristics do not support SONAR operation or makes it very difficult, giving the advantage to the sub. In deeper waters, the tide turns in favor of surface and air platform due to propagation of sound.
But in shallower water, other sensors can come into play e.g. (magnetic) steel can be detected more easily. This is the reason why German navy's U212A is made of softer non-magnetic steel, for Baltic opererations.
 
.
But in shallower water, other sensors can come into play e.g. (magnetic) steel can be detected more easily. This is the reason why German navy's U212A is made of softer non-magnetic steel, for Baltic opererations.

MAD is never used for targeting, only area detection. All naval platforms go through deguassing. HDW also uses HLES steel for pressure hull like everyone else.
 
.
MAD is never used for targeting, only area detection. All naval platforms go through deguassing. HDW also uses HLES steel for pressure hull like everyone else.
U212A: ship and internal fixtures are constructed of nonmagnetic materials, significantly reducing the chances of it being detected by magnetometers or setting off magnetic naval mines.
U214: A 209 based export variant incorporating 212A feature but lacking some of the classified technologies, the most important of which is probably the non-magnetic steel hull, which makes the Type 212 submarine difficult to detect using a magnetic anomaly detector. This is also why 214 can dive deeper than 212A.

MAD needs the submarine to be relatively close to the surface for aerial detection, which can assist in targeting sonar based search (e.g. where to drop sono-buoys, or where to vector sonar equipped surface ASW units)
 
.
A P-8A Poseidon flying alongside a Lockheed P-3 Orion,

P_8_and_P_3_over_Pax_River.jpg
 
. . . . . .
Also, P3 has more on station time and range than the jet powered P8.


BTW, any Pakistani members here, I've noticed quite a few P3C flights passing over my house daily, in the morning and night time. One just buzzed as i type this. I live about 5 mins from the coast, in DHA Karachi.



Pakistan needs defense items for minimal deterrence. We have no threats from the western side or north. So it is geared to offer India a fight. P3Cs are more than enough for that role. Same thing with F-16s and JF-17s. We need capability that we can damage India enough that they think twice before any stupid move. 2001 and 2008 are a proof of that. Despite India having numerical superiority which it always had, no war or active confrontation took place. Now imagine if the same scenario was India vs China, India vs Bangladesh or India vs Srilanka.
We need better Air superiority, naval arm and deep strike plus 5th generation plane to deny India the advantage they have. With the induction of Rafale the scales will tip heavily in favor of India. We need fighters and multirole planes for coastal defense.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom