Sea control against Pakistan

[Imran Khan]

see dear folks i will be more then happy if PN defend borders .

as per arms race

pakistan navy is some 348364kms behind indian navy now forget to catch in next 140 years even ,

 

[MilSpec]

Obviously Pakistans five AIP subs with Harpoon Block-IIs would be fast asleep when that happens. So will be the jets carrying CM-400AKG, C-602A Coastal Defense Cruise Missile Systems and the ASBM we are building.

Why even go there, Nasr on a ferry boat will deliver tactical nuke, and the END....as every engagement scenario ends.

 

[JonAsad]

is there any scenario where u wont use nukes.

Yup that scenario is called Peace -

 

[MilSpec]

Wow why I didnt think of this third world solution-

Well when you navy's surface ships can barely stack up against our coast guards, not many options come to mind....

never know when the next Excess defense article aid ships will arrive from US, till the Nasr and a boat is the way to go!!!

 

[ranjeet]

View attachment 103046

NASR on boat....

now wait for a joke about mumbai 26/11 incident !!!

 

[ni8mare]

View attachment 103046

NASR on boat....

Well when you navy's surface ships can barely stack up against our coast guards, not many options come to mind....

never know when the next Excess defense article aid ships will arrive from US, till the Nasr and a boat is the way to go!!!

i didnt kw you are that funny

 

[Basel]

Pakistan must develop a long rang AShM variant of Babur CM like US have of Tomahawk, a ASCM with 700+ km range will be big boost for defense even if initial version is only land based coastal batteries. Pakistan also must get big bro (ground launched) of CM-400-AKG which have range of upto 500 km with supersonic speed, this will add sea denial capabilities of PN as they will be able to inflict damage upto 500+ km from shore based missile batteries while putting them on ships and subs will create huge problems for IN even having huge fleet.

 

[MilSpec]

Pakistan must develop a long rang AShM variant of Babur CM like US have of Tomahawk, a ASCM with 700+ km range will be big boost for defense even if initial version is only land based coastal batteries. Pakistan also must get big bro (ground launched) of CM-400-AKG which have range of upto 500 km with supersonic speed, this will add sea denial capabilities of PN as they will be able to inflict damage upto 500+ km from shore based missile batteries while putting them on ships and subs will create huge problems for IN even having huge fleet.

MTCR big bro...

 

[Arsalan]

Our policy never have been sea control or air dominance rather it have been that of sea denial and air denial to the invading military. That changes the dynamics, the hard ware required and the efficiency of your units all together and puts PN in a workable position. This always have been the case and will be in foreseeable future. It is not ONLY the finance but also about requirement. Indian military have always been significantly larger and well equipped compared to ours but we still exist. If they have a big navy they have that much bigger shore line to look after. If India is going to operate two CBG for an 7500 Km sea shore (that two divided into eastern and western parts due to geographical positioning) what you expect we also go like for like and induct two CBG for our 1200 off kilometer sea shore
All we require are a a few more subs (6 to 8 in total will be enough i assume) and a very few surface ships (mostly frigates and missile crafts/coverts) and that will do the job nicely. By few, i mean very few, only three four new vessels may be!
Currently we have been hearing about a deal of 6 AIP equipped subs, four additional frigates, two to four covertts and a few missile boats. Nothing of this have been finalized but eventually it will be and that will be enough to deny sea control to INVADING forces, this is what our main task will be

 

[Basel]

MTCR big bro...

and you think it work when it comes to Pakistan and China relations?? there are ways to work around it bro. How US have sold Tomahawks to UK is just one case of many in which countries have worked out ways to dodge MTCR.

 

[Contrarian]

Our policy never have been sea control or air dominance rather it have been that of sea denial and air denial to the invading military. That changes the dynamics, the hard ware required and the efficiency of your units all together and puts PN in a workable position. This always have been the case and will be in foreseeable future. It is not ONLY the finance but also about requirement. Indian military have always been significantly larger and well equipped compared to ours but we still exist. If they have a big navy they have that much bigger shore line to look after. If India is going to operate two CBG for an 7500 Km sea shore (that two divided into eastern and western parts due to geographical positioning) what you expect we also go like for like and induct two CBG for our 1200 off kilometer sea shore
All we require are a a few more subs (6 to 8 in total will be enough i assume) and a very few surface ships (mostly frigates and missile crafts/coverts) and that will do the job nicely. By few, i mean very few, only three four new vessels may be!
Currently we have been hearing about a deal of 6 AIP equipped subs, four additional frigates, two to four covertts and a few missile boats. Nothing of this have been finalized but eventually it will be and that will be enough to deny sea control to INVADING forces, this is what our main task will be

1. Size of the coastline has nothing to do with the size of the Navy. It has to do with the size of the economy.
2. Having a larger coastline does not mean that IN has to patrol the coastline. The CG is being massively expanded so that IN has to focus just on the offensive. That means the majority of the IN will be parked in the Arabian Sea in case of a conflict with Pakistan - that means both the fleets of IN.
3. CBGs are utterly irrelevant to the size of the coastline. They are singularly offensive platforms. The next part should be obvious to you.
4. Broadsword: India’s navy: strong on aircraft carriers, short of submarines. A two-part analysis of naval strategy
Do go through this. Sea Denial and Sea Control are explained in the Indian context. Pakistans strategy and assets are textbook.

 

[IceCold]

Putting false bravado aside, PN at its current state will be the first one to be wiped off against IN. No attention has ever been given to this very important arm of the three forces and while all energy is being diverted towards nuclear and tactical nuclear weapons, it will be a good idea to spend some cash on PN and induct some new assets, assets like submarines which we have been hearing since ages about, first it was the german U boat, than came in french now there is some mystical Chinese sub. More heavy frigates like the Chinese type 54, Pakistan is in dire need of those. F-22 cant hold on its own and rest of our frigates are good for a junkyard including the US perry class.

 

[ares]

and you think it work when it comes to Pakistan and China relations?? there are ways to work around it bro. How US have sold Tomahawks to UK is just one case of many in which countries have worked out ways to dodge MTCR.

Do you know what MTCR is?...UK and US are both members of MTCR and hence can transfer missiles tech amongst themselves..however these 34 countries(MTCR) can not transfer Missiles above 300 km and 500 Kg payload to Non MTCR nations.

 

[Arsalan]

1. Size of the coastline has nothing to do with the size of the Navy. It has to do with the size of the economy.
2. Having a larger coastline does not mean that IN has to patrol the coastline. The CG is being massively expanded so that IN has to focus just on the offensive. That means the majority of the IN will be parked in the Arabian Sea in case of a conflict with Pakistan - that means both the fleets of IN.
3. CBGs are utterly irrelevant to the size of the coastline. They are singularly offensive platforms. The next part should be obvious to you.
4. Broadsword: India’s navy: strong on aircraft carriers, short of submarines. A two-part analysis of naval strategy
Do go through this. Sea Denial and Sea Control are explained in the Indian context. Pakistans strategy and assets are textbook.

i agree with some of your points and disagree with the others. Just wish we can agree to disagree.

Size of navy do depends on size of economy but it is not like it have NOTHING TO DO with size of coast line. The larger area you want to defense or have claim for the larger the force required to keep that in control and support your claim of that being yours.
CG will defend India but it is the navy that will always have to fight the main battle. And let me assure you when you do playing with big boys you are bound to be bruised in the game. China have started developing many enemies as they have grown and are laying claims to different parts of sea, India already have a handful of them without even huge claims. As Indian Navy starts growing into a true Blue Water navy people around you will start getting suspicious and angry at something you will do. This is natural thing, just need a history lesson to see if it is right or not.
CBGs are singularly offensive platforms, true, however, again the size and number do depends on who many sectors you need to launch an offensive!

As i said, everyone is free to have his/her point of view and things will improve when we agree to disagree!

 

[Basel]

Do you know what MTCR is?...UK and US are both members of MTCR and hence can transfer missiles tech amongst themselves..however these 34 countries(MTCR) can not transfer Missiles above 300 km and 500 Kg payload to Non MTCR nations.

Please read below quote, it will tell you what MTCR is, because you post shows that you don't know about it.

The Missile Technology Control Regime is an informal and voluntary association of countries which share the goals of non-proliferation of unmanned delivery systems capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction, and which seek to coordinate national export licensing efforts aimed at preventing their proliferation. The MTCR was originally established in 1987 by Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States. Since that time, the number of MTCR partners has increased to a total of thirty-four countries, all of which have equal standing within the Regime.

The MTCR was initiated partly in response to the increasing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), i.e., nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. The risk of proliferation of WMD is well recognized as a threat to international peace and security, including by the UN Security Council in its Summit Meeting Declaration of January 31, 1992. While concern has traditionally focussed on state proliferators, after the tragic events of 11 September 2001, it became evident that more also has to be done to decrease the risk of WMD delivery systems falling into the hands of terrorist groups and individuals. One way to counter this threat is to maintain vigilance over the transfer of missile equipment, material, and related technologies usable for systems capable of delivering WMD.

The MTCR rests on adherence to common export policy guidelines (the MTCR Guidelines) applied to an integral common list of controlled items (the MTCR Equipment, Software and Technology Annex). All MTCR decisions are taken by consensus, and MTCR partners regularly exchange information about relevant national export licensing issues.

National export licensing measures on these technologies make the task of countries seeking to achieve capability to acquire and produce unmanned means of WMD delivery much more difficult. As a result, many countries, including all MTCR partners, have chosen voluntarily to introduce export licensing measures on rocket and other unmanned air vehicle delivery systems or related equipment, material and technology.

The current Chairman of the Regime is Ambassador Carlo Trezza of Italy.

The Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page provides additional information about the MTCR.

The Missile Technology Control Regime