PN mini-submarine fleet

[Armchair]

The full sized subs of PN are designed to fight the IN fleet in the high seas. They cost hundreds of millions of dollars each but are well worth the money.

What PN needs are 2 more classes of submarines.

Firstly, a small submarine, say 200-500 tons, designed for simplicity and low costs, with the purpose of attacking nearby Indian ports and naval bases (say uptil Mumbai). Following features could perhaps be helpful for such a role:

1. A simple diesel-electric, using lithium ion batteries (these have become very cheap because of smartphones and electric cars, and easily source-able from China)

2. 2 non-reloadable torpedo tubes, simple, doesn't need a torpedo room or personnel to man such rooms.

3. 4 floating mines that can be used to mine Indian ports.

4. One piggy-back UUV, that acts as a suicide submarine - launched from a distance, it goes into the vicinity of a port, launches two torpedoes at anything that gives a sonar return, or sits and waits until something shows up. drops two mines at choice places, and potentially returns to Pakistani waters (or self-destructs).

5. minimal personnel - 4-6 persons to operate such a small submarine.

This is a simple submarine that won't be able to compete in the high seas or stalk and stake out Indian fleets. Its a simple offensive weapon that will force India to spend considerable time, money and energy on defensive measures, thus tying them down and diverting their resources from offensive purchases.

The second type of submarine should be a simple submersible for marines to use to penetrate Indian terrain.

 

[Bilal Khan 777]

The full sized subs of PN are designed to fight the IN fleet in the high seas. They cost hundreds of millions of dollars each but are well worth the money.

What PN needs are 2 more classes of submarines.

Firstly, a small submarine, say 200-500 tons, designed for simplicity and low costs, with the purpose of attacking nearby Indian ports and naval bases (say uptil Mumbai). Following features could perhaps be helpful for such a role:

1. A simple diesel-electric, using lithium ion batteries (these have become very cheap because of smartphones and electric cars, and easily source-able from China)

2. 2 non-reloadable torpedo tubes, simple, doesn't need a torpedo room or personnel to man such rooms.

3. 4 floating mines that can be used to mine Indian ports.

4. One piggy-back UUV, that acts as a suicide submarine - launched from a distance, it goes into the vicinity of a port, launches two torpedoes at anything that gives a sonar return, or sits and waits until something shows up. drops two mines at choice places, and potentially returns to Pakistani waters (or self-destructs).

5. minimal personnel - 4-6 persons to operate such a small submarine.

This is a simple submarine that won't be able to compete in the high seas or stalk and stake out Indian fleets. Its a simple offensive weapon that will force India to spend considerable time, money and energy on defensive measures, thus tying them down and diverting their resources from offensive purchases.

The second type of submarine should be a simple submersible for marines to use to penetrate Indian terrain.

This is a highly controversial and highly secretive subject. However, many countries are looking to acquire mini-subs in Asia Pacific and Middle East region.

There are many concepts on the market, such as Korea, Chile, and Turkey, but none have any history of building a small submarine. There are only a few successful boat builders in the world that have the experience, and are still currently building small submarines. As previously mentioned, STM is talking about a concept that is far from being an engineering design and too risky as a development project.

The optimal shallow water attack submarine (SWATS) for Pakistan Navy is estimated to be 400-500 Tons. This is the right compromise between cost and mission. A boat of this capacity is able to do most of the tasks of a larger conventional sub, and still be a carrier for special forces operations, infiltration and exfiltration.

It should have 3-4 torpedo tubes, preferably pressurized.
It should have CCD AIP with a capacity of 40-60 hours with full hotel load and without batteries.
It should have a minimum of two 4-6 men SDVs
It should be fully automated, so a crew of 8-12 people can operate it.
It should be able to navigate 2500NM to 3500 NM, to give some utility and undertake swatch and harbor defence.
It should defend against other SWATS, midgets, and SDVs.
It should have complete sensor payload, bow sonar, intercept sonar, ESM, ELINT, periscopes, and datalink
Preferably, it should not have lead acid batteries, but Li Ion.
It should have at least two engines, and skewed propeller design to defeat LOFAR.
It should be configurable, and transportable.
It should be able to navigate 10-30 meter waters, with obstacle avoidance.
It should be able to integrate with surveillance and weaponized UUVs, for launch or recovery.

Such a sub, when employed in asymmetric warfare, would put a fail to many defensive doctrines of much large navies.

Just my two cents.

Few capable mini subs are inevitable for Pak which my have capability to fire torpedo as well as can be effectively used to insert PN marines/frogmen in enemy territory for sabotage of naval assets.
It's better to go for further research work jv with China or Turkey for developing such mini subs ingenuously.

Neither China or Turkey have the capability in this area.

 

[Sine Nomine]

This is a highly controversial and highly secretive subject. However, many countries are looking to acquire mini-subs in Asia Pacific and Middle East region.

There are many concepts on the market, such as Korea, Chile, and Turkey, but none have any history of building a small submarine. There are only a few successful boat builders in the world that have the experience, and are still currently building small submarines. As previously mentioned, STM is talking about a concept that is far from being an engineering design and too risky as a development project.

The optimal shallow water attack submarine (SWATS) for Pakistan Navy is estimated to be 400-500 Tons.

1-Sang-O II / K-300 [North Korea]
2-Fateh Class [Iran]
3- HDS-500 Midget Submarine

The HDS-500 design features a distinct streamlines sail and 'X' form tail mounted behind an integrated pumpjet. Less obvious innovations include a mini wet-dry hangar in the tail.


a) Flexible Payoad Module (FPM)
b) Integrated sail
c) Intercept sonar
d) Hatches for Payload Modules
e) 533mm (21") torpedo tube (x2)
f) Conformal sonar array
g) 324mm (12.75") torpedo tubes (x4)


Specification
Length: 37 meters
Beam: 4.5 meter
Displacement: 510 tons surfaced
Speed: Maximum 20 kt submerged, 7 kt cruising
Operating depth: 250 meters
Endurance : 21 days, 2,000 nautical miles
Armament: 2 x 533mm (21") heavyweight torpedoes and 4 x 324mm (12.75") lightweight torpedoes.
Crew: 10 plus 4 combat swimmers
http://www.hisutton.com/News - Korea building new HDS-400 midget submarine.html

Such a sub, when employed in asymmetric warfare, would put a fail to many defensive doctrines of much large navies.

It should have at least two engines, and skewed propeller design to defeat LOFAR.
It should be configurable, and transportable.
It should be able to navigate 10-30 meter waters, with obstacle avoidance.

Why not pump-jet propulsors,they would allow them to operate in shallow waters.

 

[Armchair]

This is a highly controversial and highly secretive subject. However, many countries are looking to acquire mini-subs in Asia Pacific and Middle East region.

There are many concepts on the market, such as Korea, Chile, and Turkey, but none have any history of building a small submarine. There are only a few successful boat builders in the world that have the experience, and are still currently building small submarines. As previously mentioned, STM is talking about a concept that is far from being an engineering design and too risky as a development project.

The optimal shallow water attack submarine (SWATS) for Pakistan Navy is estimated to be 400-500 Tons. This is the right compromise between cost and mission. A boat of this capacity is able to do most of the tasks of a larger conventional sub, and still be a carrier for special forces operations, infiltration and exfiltration.

It should have 3-4 torpedo tubes, preferably pressurized.
It should have CCD AIP with a capacity of 40-60 hours with full hotel load and without batteries.
It should have a minimum of two 4-6 men SDVs
It should be fully automated, so a crew of 8-12 people can operate it.
It should be able to navigate 2500NM to 3500 NM, to give some utility and undertake swatch and harbor defence.
It should defend against other SWATS, midgets, and SDVs.
It should have complete sensor payload, bow sonar, intercept sonar, ESM, ELINT, periscopes, and datalink
Preferably, it should not have lead acid batteries, but Li Ion.
It should have at least two engines, and skewed propeller design to defeat LOFAR.
It should be configurable, and transportable.
It should be able to navigate 10-30 meter waters, with obstacle avoidance.
It should be able to integrate with surveillance and weaponized UUVs, for launch or recovery.

Such a sub, when employed in asymmetric warfare, would put a fail to many defensive doctrines of much large navies.

Just my two cents.



Neither China or Turkey have the capability in this area.

You're back! I'm honored to get a correspondence!

 

[PAR 5]

Shallow Water Attack (SWAT) Submarines are the best choice for both defense and offense purposes for Pakistan Navy. I have an eye on this thread and in due course of time will share some interesting information on the said matter (if allowed). Stay Tuned

 

[Bilal Khan 777]

1-Sang-O II / K-300 [North Korea]
2-Fateh Class [Iran]
3- HDS-500 Midget Submarine

The HDS-500 design features a distinct streamlines sail and 'X' form tail mounted behind an integrated pumpjet. Less obvious innovations include a mini wet-dry hangar in the tail.


a) Flexible Payoad Module (FPM)
b) Integrated sail
c) Intercept sonar
d) Hatches for Payload Modules
e) 533mm (21") torpedo tube (x2)
f) Conformal sonar array
g) 324mm (12.75") torpedo tubes (x4)


Specification
Length: 37 meters
Beam: 4.5 meter
Displacement: 510 tons surfaced
Speed: Maximum 20 kt submerged, 7 kt cruising
Operating depth: 250 meters
Endurance : 21 days, 2,000 nautical miles
Armament: 2 x 533mm (21") heavyweight torpedoes and 4 x 324mm (12.75") lightweight torpedoes.
Crew: 10 plus 4 combat swimmers
http://www.hisutton.com/News - Korea building new HDS-400 midget submarine.html


Why not pump-jet propulsors,they would allow them to operate in shallow waters.

While thy Hyundai submarine is theoretically available to PN, it has an issue. its theoretical. Let me look at the platform specs and I will come back with some technical evaluation, but I highly doubt that Koreans with no prior experience of a compact submarine can build this one. A compact submarine is more difficult than a conventional boat, as it needs all the same equipment as a larger sub thrown in a limited area.

North Koreans and Iranians both are unlicensed copies/designs of a Italian boat builder.

 

[ARMalik]

Many years ago in the late 80's and early 90's when I was still a little kid, I remember going with my father to PNS I***L. There I use to see midget/mini submarines being built. Even then PN use to have these subs, so I hope there are plenty of them in the PN. Those were the good old days with my father which I will never forget.

 

[Cool_Soldier]

Sorry for being OFF topic.
Today there is news in Jang daily newspaper that Pakistan and China has an agreement for procuring two War ships and one video clip is attached.

News is not clear about type of ships and further details.
Is it Type 54A (As one was agreed last year and two were under considerations)?

 

[syed_yusuf]

Sorry for being OFF topic.
Today there is news in Jang daily newspaper that Pakistan and China has an agreement for procuring two War ships and one video clip is attached.

News is not clear about type of ships and further details.
Is it Type 54A (As one was agreed last year and two were under considerations)?

is this on top of 1 ship ordered earlier?

 

[Bilal Khan 777]

Many years ago in the late 80's and early 90's when I was still a little kid, I remember going with my father to PNS I***L. There I use to see midget/mini submarines being built. Even then PN use to have these subs, so I hope there are plenty of them in the PN. Those were the good old days with my father which I will never forget.

Yes, those subs are still there. Now over 25 years old and needing replacement with something bigger, and more capable.

 

[Armchair]

Why not take the design of the same Italian builder or the unlicensed plans from North Korea, and then modernize and customize it. I'm out of my depth here given the participants here but:

1. For a small sub that is designed to attack Mumbai and come back, does it need an AIP? Specially if it is carrying UUVs that will actually be doing the attack? At best one could think of a simple oxygen tank based Stirling system.

2. A small submarine designed to attack ports near Pakistan has a distinctive set of requirements. How far do those requirements class for a submarine designed for frogmen? They do fundamentally seem to be different requirements. Would it not be better to keep them as separate projects?
When exactly in history did frogmen play a decisive role? If we imagine the attack plan of action, here is how it goes - a small submarine leaves port from somewhere near Karachi, heads towards Dwarka or Mumbai, launches armed UUV, mines vicinity, launches supporting attack, either retrieves UUV and returns or returns without UUV.
If you add frogmen to this mix, the submarine has to get a lot closer to the enemy port. They also have to wait for the frogmen to return, a slow and tortuous process. They then have to retrieve the frogmen, opening a hatch and thus creating even more clamour. At a time when every second is of essence.
Basically adding frogmen to the mix complicates to kingdom come the whole assault, severely increases the risk factor and adds a whole lot of complication to the hull and submarine requirement (including housing frogmen, their equipment and underwater launch).
Why not just Keep it Simple and build a simple, basic assault small sub. Would be a serious threat for Dwarka and Mumbai and would tie up significant enemy resources in defense.

I think it sounds great, imagining an Ocean's 11, going right in, stalking an Indian port, planting plastic explosives... but... is it really relevant? Even if that is, you could simply make a small submarine that is designed for that role - i.e. take old design built in the 80s and brush it up, make it a bit larger if you need, and you're done.

But why mix the two requirements and compromise a mission that has a significant impact on the battle-space?

I remember reading in a RAND report that a strategy that forces the enemy to change its dispositions is the most valuable strategy. A small submarine designed to attack Indian ports would do that. Its a critically important and low-cost solution. Why compromise that for Ocean's 11?

 

[Bilal Khan 777]

Why not take the design of the same Italian builder or the unlicensed plans from North Korea, and then modernize and customize it. I'm out of my depth here given the participants here but:

1. For a small sub that is designed to attack Mumbai and come back, does it need an AIP? Specially if it is carrying UUVs that will actually be doing the attack? At best one could think of a simple oxygen tank based Stirling system.

2. A small submarine designed to attack ports near Pakistan has a distinctive set of requirements. How far do those requirements class for a submarine designed for frogmen? They do fundamentally seem to be different requirements. Would it not be better to keep them as separate projects?
When exactly in history did frogmen play a decisive role? If we imagine the attack plan of action, here is how it goes - a small submarine leaves port from somewhere near Karachi, heads towards Dwarka or Mumbai, launches armed UUV, mines vicinity, launches supporting attack, either retrieves UUV and returns or returns without UUV.
If you add frogmen to this mix, the submarine has to get a lot closer to the enemy port. They also have to wait for the frogmen to return, a slow and tortuous process. They then have to retrieve the frogmen, opening a hatch and thus creating even more clamour. At a time when every second is of essence.
Basically adding frogmen to the mix complicates to kingdom come the whole assault, severely increases the risk factor and adds a whole lot of complication to the hull and submarine requirement (including housing frogmen, their equipment and underwater launch).
Why not just Keep it Simple and build a simple, basic assault small sub. Would be a serious threat for Dwarka and Mumbai and would tie up significant enemy resources in defense.

I think it sounds great, imagining an Ocean's 11, going right in, stalking an Indian port, planting plastic explosives... but... is it really relevant? Even if that is, you could simply make a small submarine that is designed for that role - i.e. take old design built in the 80s and brush it up, make it a bit larger if you need, and you're done.

But why mix the two requirements and compromise a mission that has a significant impact on the battle-space?

I remember reading in a RAND report that a strategy that forces the enemy to change its dispositions is the most valuable strategy. A small submarine designed to attack Indian ports would do that. Its a critically important and low-cost solution. Why compromise that for Ocean's 11?

There are many existing and evolving OPS and PLANS for SWATS. By discussing your scenarios further we can jeopardize them. Lets just say that the future employment of SWATS in PN will be quite a surprise for the potential adversaries.

 

[syed_yusuf]

There are many existing and evolving OPS and PLANS for SWATS. By discussing your scenarios further we can jeopardize them. Lets just say that the future employment of SWATS in PN will be quite a surprise for the potential adversaries.

What is SWAT?

 

[Armchair]

What is SWAT?

Shallow Water Attack Submarine.

I've learned an immense amount from reading through @bilalkhan777 's posts. He doesn't give any secrets away but you end up educated on defence policy and decision making, at a level you cannot get at your average university. I've learned more from reading his and other's like his posts than years of reading and study.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

This is a highly controversial and highly secretive subject. However, many countries are looking to acquire mini-subs in Asia Pacific and Middle East region.

There are many concepts on the market, such as Korea, Chile, and Turkey, but none have any history of building a small submarine. There are only a few successful boat builders in the world that have the experience, and are still currently building small submarines. As previously mentioned, STM is talking about a concept that is far from being an engineering design and too risky as a development project.

The optimal shallow water attack submarine (SWATS) for Pakistan Navy is estimated to be 400-500 Tons. This is the right compromise between cost and mission. A boat of this capacity is able to do most of the tasks of a larger conventional sub, and still be a carrier for special forces operations, infiltration and exfiltration.

It should have 3-4 torpedo tubes, preferably pressurized.
It should have CCD AIP with a capacity of 40-60 hours with full hotel load and without batteries.
It should have a minimum of two 4-6 men SDVs
It should be fully automated, so a crew of 8-12 people can operate it.
It should be able to navigate 2500NM to 3500 NM, to give some utility and undertake swatch and harbor defence.
It should defend against other SWATS, midgets, and SDVs.
It should have complete sensor payload, bow sonar, intercept sonar, ESM, ELINT, periscopes, and datalink
Preferably, it should not have lead acid batteries, but Li Ion.
It should have at least two engines, and skewed propeller design to defeat LOFAR.
It should be configurable, and transportable.
It should be able to navigate 10-30 meter waters, with obstacle avoidance.
It should be able to integrate with surveillance and weaponized UUVs, for launch or recovery.

Such a sub, when employed in asymmetric warfare, would put a fail to many defensive doctrines of much large navies.

Just my two cents.



Neither China or Turkey have the capability in this area.

FYI there are a few new options from China's CSIC:

CSIC MS200

• displacement: 200 tons | length: 30 m
• crew: 6 + 8 SOF
• range: 120 nm (submerged) | 1,500 nm (surfaced)
• 2 torpedo tubes
• endurance 15 days

CSIC 600-ton AIP submarine

• displacement: 600 tons | length: 50 m
• crew 15
• range: 400 nm (submerged w/AIP) | 2,000 nm (surfaced)
• 4 torpedo tubes
• endurance: 20 days

http://www.navyrecognition.com/inde...s-three-new-submarine-designs-for-export.html