Pakistani Senator calls for the development of an indigenous Nuclear Attack Submarine.

Discussion in 'Pakistan Navy' started by Horus, Jan 11, 2017.

  1. Zarvan

    Zarvan ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    37,225
    Ratings:
    +82 / 35,763 / -13
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Pakistan already has completed work on nuclear plants for submarines and with some quite Chinese help we can do it. Also I am hoping the Submarines which we are getting from China also have at least 6 VLS tubes in them.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 3
  2. Dalit

    Dalit SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    3,302
    Ratings:
    +1 / 4,039 / -16
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Netherlands
    We said the same thing before becoming a nuclear power. We can do it. Only a matter of political will. I think Pakistan wil get nuke subs eventually with help from China.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 4
  3. schoolboy

    schoolboy FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2016
    Messages:
    168
    Ratings:
    +0 / 102 / -0
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    United States
    This seems like a decision made from emotion rather than reason. Not only is the platform hugely expensive, the process of enriching fuel for the small reactors that fit into submarines is simply ridiculously expensive and power-intensive.
    Submarines are not as resilient as people believe and need to surface frequently to be restocked and refueled. Only >70/75% enriched reactors provide the hollywood-style submerged deterrence and only the western countries and Russia have that kind of technology.

    Training of crews, building an environment and having the expertise to improvise, fix problems and respond to emergencies is also time consuming and slow. Building up nuclear safety protocols for submarines is hard - the USSR severely compromised this aspect and have had a tragic series of accidents. And end of the day the platform has to be worth it and justify the thousands of crores that will likely be sunk into it.

    IMO this is almost as bad as the Indian navy's fascination for aircraft carriers.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  4. Cookie Monster

    Cookie Monster FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2016
    Messages:
    319
    Ratings:
    +0 / 281 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United States
    Nuclear submarines cost substantially more to build and operate.

    Nuclear submarine Pros:
    1) can be submerged for a longer time compared to conventional submarines
    2) doesn't need to be refueled for a long time
    3) long range(longer than conventional submarines)

    Nuclear submarine Cons:
    1) higher cost to build/operate/maintain than conventional submarines
    2) much bigger thermal signature compromising stealth capabilities

    US only operates nuclear submarines but that makes sense bcuz US has enemies that are considerably far away.

    Also in terms of cold war it made sense bcuz in case of a nuclear strike on US soil, a retaliatory second strike could be conducted from nuclear submarines hiding deep and in far away remote locations, which the enemy would have no way of stopping.

    But in case of India and Pakistan being next to each other do we really need a submarine that can be hiding by the Arctic or elsewhere? The extremely long range isn't really required.

    By going with diesel electric(AIP equipped, with Vertical launch tubes to fire SLBMs) not only would Pak Navy gain more of a stealth factor but also lower cost per submarine and therefore more numerous submarines.

    If Pak goes for nuclear submarine it would have to be some number in excess of one(so that one or more can be repaired, upgraded, etc. while still having others as a deterrent). Let's assume that Pak aims for two nuclear submarines, wouldn't it be better to instead have 3 or 4 conventional ones for the same cost?

    Granted they would have a substantially lower range but they would have sufficient range to get the job done and that's all that's needed.

    The money that frees up by going with conventional submarines instead of nuclear ones can either go to more conventional ones or to buy Frigates or other Naval systems. It could also be diverted to the development of ICBM so that MIRV capability can be achieved.

    MIRV capability would make it highly probable for those SLBMs to destroy their targets.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 6
  5. Khafee

    Khafee MILITARY PROFESSIONAL

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2015
    Messages:
    2,642
    Ratings:
    +9 / 7,342 / -0
    Country:
    United Arab Emirates
    Location:
    Pakistan
    PN has been interested in boomers for quite sometime, but it has to be a top tier product for PN to induct it.

    They have been working on a miniature reactor, for quite some time. Within the next 12 ~ 18 months (or earlier) it will be ready for installation.

    Hull: There are a couple of options:

    1) To build one themselves from scratch.

    2) Import pre-built sections, and assemble both foreign and domestic tech as per their requirement.

    3) Have the hull built in China and have an indigenous Pakistani reactor installed.

    4) Lease a sub from China, and gain capability ASAP.


    Now lets explore each option in detail:

    Option 1
    This would be a time consuming process, with a very steep learning curve. Best to avoid it.
    Before people start screaming we built the Agousta90B, please keep in mind. that assembly and manufacturing, are two different things.

    Option 2
    This advantage of this option would be that it will allow a very high degree of customization. But the drawback is the time required, and the "know how" could prove to be an impediment.

    Option 3

    This would be the shortest route to gaining a semi indigenous capability. At the same time the Pakistani reactor would also give Chinese designers something to improve upon, further cementing ties.

    Option 4
    PN has operated subs for more than four decades. But operating a nuclear sub is slightly different. Given the level of cooperation between PLAAF and PLA, and how PAF pilots have not only flown PLAAF aircrafts but changed their strategies and op-doctrine, it would be naive to think that this level of cooperation does not exist between the PN & PLAN. It would be safe to assume that PN personnel have spent time on PLAN nuclear subs, and are not only aware of op and tac issues, but fully understand them and have contributed +ve'ly to them.

    This would be a game changer and would give PN an overnight capability, while PN exercises Option 2 or 3.

    @Rashid Mahmood @The Eagle @war&peace @Horus Your comments please.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 17
    • Positive Rating Positive Rating x 5
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2017
  6. Rashid Mahmood

    Rashid Mahmood MILITARY PROFESSIONAL

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2013
    Messages:
    2,503
    Ratings:
    +27 / 6,652 / -2
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 13
  7. war&peace

    war&peace SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2015
    Messages:
    7,515
    Ratings:
    +10 / 11,647 / -11
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United States
    Sir @Khafee

    I would say Option 4 + (Option 2 or Option 3).

    Opt 4 to immediately secure a nuclear sub while opt 2 or opt 3...I would rather suggest to get the pre-built hull from either France, Turkey or even Germany, the hulls that can withstand pressures at upto 700 m of depth, while the VLS system should be co-developed with China for 32 bins or cells system at least.


    Basically I expressed myself here
    Pakistani Senator calls for the development of an indigenous Nuclear Submarine.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 4
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2017
  8. Khafee

    Khafee MILITARY PROFESSIONAL

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2015
    Messages:
    2,642
    Ratings:
    +9 / 7,342 / -0
    Country:
    United Arab Emirates
    Location:
    Pakistan
    The degree of customization, the speed of production, the technical know how, the op doctrine / challenges, are all in favor of China.

    It's like when building a house, you know a very good civil engineer who guides you step by step.

    It's for PN to decide how they want to move forward, but Option 4 and then 3, make the most sense to me.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 4
  9. Darth Vader

    Darth Vader SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Messages:
    2,613
    Ratings:
    +3 / 2,692 / -2
    Country:
    Norway
    Location:
    Norway
    Zaki It would have been true if Pakistan was major ship building country

    Few problem with Pakistan keep this project a secret
    NAVY will need major funding upgrade bcz nuclear sub will need round billion$+
    pakistan doesn't have that many ship building yards
    Pakistan Will need help from other countries or they will need to spend extra because it will be first Pakistan will be going for this kind of project increasing risk factor
    SLBM is sort off reinventing the wheel because submarine without slbm wont give that much benefit to Pakistan why because main threat is from india which right next door
    Many posters say pakistan need a sub , Pakistan needs a sub if pakistan is really going for Nuclear armed submarine than they need atleast 3 of these submarine , just having one submarine wont help that much , why because a single sub will be enemies first priority
    , atleast 3 subs
    1 will always will be on patrol while 1 will reserved if 1 sub breaks down or any other thing happen

    So it will be 5 + 7 billion Project which will take few decades to complete
     
  10. The SC

    The SC SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Messages:
    6,571
    Ratings:
    +12 / 5,219 / -0
    Country:
    Canada
    Location:
    Canada
    China too is next door to India, what justifies India's nuclear submarines?
     
  11. SUPARCO

    SUPARCO SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    3,794
    Ratings:
    +1 / 3,818 / -13
    The Defence Minister Khawaja Asif confirmed in a 2016 interview on Express News (with Javed Chaudry on Kal Tak) that Pakistan was building her own nuclear submarine as well as acquiring others from China.

    Not sure why some people (especially Pakistanis) still doubt whether or not Pakistan is building such a weapon one day.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2017
  12. Valar Dohaeris

    Valar Dohaeris FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2016
    Messages:
    777
    Ratings:
    +1 / 1,256 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Pakistan has all the expertise. The only problem is budget. Which makes the pace slower but that things come the way eventually.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  13. Bouncer

    Bouncer FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 31, 2014
    Messages:
    800
    Ratings:
    +2 / 700 / -1
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Buddy we already have a huge supply chain network. Its called China :pakistan::china:
    Of course any such project will require deep Chinese involvement ;)
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  14. Shotgunner51

    Shotgunner51 INT'L MOD

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2015
    Messages:
    4,959
    Ratings:
    +46 / 16,192 / -2
    Country:
    China
    Location:
    China

    Good analysis!

    With deep integration in defense industries (supply chain) between Pakistan and China, yes I believe Pakistan can build SSN within reasonable time period, same with SSBN. Financials also not an obstacle when security situation deems necessary. You have also mentioned, PN and PLAN share good degree of interoperability.

    So it's not technical-industrial, not financial, not operation, but more of a political question: whether Pakistan wants to (or need to) possess capability of global thermonuclear strike, with a combination of SSBN + SLBM + Thermonuclear warheads. In the current scenario, Pakistan enjoys firepower supremacy over opponents (see below NTI data, Pakistan 2.1 megatons, India 1 megaton, Israel 1.6-12 megatons), challenges are capability to survive opponent's first strike, and effective delivery of firepower. PN's solutions are sound, AIP-enhanced conventional subs and hi-precision SLCM, respectively. Now none of the opponents possess firepower to destroy Pakistan, so unless the scenario is escalated to thermonuclear MAD, PN can maintain this design, gradually increase fissile stockpile (to say UK's level), increase range and precision of delivery systems, a path wouldn't inflict much burden on national economy.

    Just my opinion, critics welcome my friend.

    http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/india-nuclear-disarmament/
    http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/pakistan-nuclear-disarmament/
    http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/israel-nuclear-disarmament/
    http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/united-kingdom-nuclear-disarmament/
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 5
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2017
  15. sparten

    sparten SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2006
    Messages:
    723
    Ratings:
    +2 / 249 / -0
    The biggest advantage of boomers is that they are dedicated and reliable. With nuclear armed attack subs, you always have the tension between the Strategic Forces (who want it hidden somewhere out of the way) and the Conventional ones (who want it for for immediate missions, one where the risk of detection is increased).

    Setting up a nuclear deterrent on attack subs would be a major penny wise, pound foolish endeavour. If you want a Naval deterrent, then you need the real deal.