# Pakistan Navy: The Phoenix Rises



## SQ8

*Pakistan Navy : The Phoenix Rises*

By: "Oscar" from team Pakistan Defence
October-09-2016







Traditionally, the Pakistan Navy has been the stepchild within the branches of the Pakistani military. This has to do with the lack of understanding by the major decision influences within Pakistan’s military procurement programs; in this case, the Pakistan army, which tends to hoard the military budget(_willingly or by virtue of size_), followed by the Pakistan air force. Ironically, the Pakistan air force officers due to their greater exposure and generally better education in terms of military objectives in training (_due to better quality syllabi and a much more selective plethora of candidates that become officers_) are much more aware of Pakistan and its military deficiencies, but tend to be selfish when it comes to budgetary requests _(as all individual branches within the world military forces are_).

Another reason for the stepchild treatment has to do with the generally expensive nature and high-value of what are the Navy’s primary bread-and-butter in oceangoing vessels both surface and subsurface. A single destroyer can run in cost to hundreds of millions of dollars, whereas the same amount can purchase 10 or 15 fighter jets or 60 tanks.

Finally, there was the issue of economic and diplomatic sanctions that Pakistan had to face after the Pressler Amendment, which all but cut off the traditional sources for Pakistan’s procurement plans. It would be unfair to single out the Navy at the receiving end of budgetary isolation as one of the most expensive procurement programs undertaken by Pakistan during the 90s involved the Pakistan Navy and the Agosta 90 B submarine. For its time, the platform was an adequately sophisticated diesel electric submarine that could be procured and with the traditional kickbacks and corruption ladled deals that are the hallmark of the Pakistani defense procurement, the program cost more than its share of budget allocation.

*Pre-2001: the years of neglect*

Prior to 2001, Pakistan Navy’s fleet was made up of generally obsolescent vessels such as the type – 21 frigate, nearly mothballed during destroyers, 2 training Leander FFs, along with a mix of Chinese missile boats, minesweepers and various FACs. Its aviation assets will be considered and somewhat better shape with less advanced, but somewhat effective versions of the Breguet Atlantique serving in an anti submarine role. Additionally, there were versions of the Sea King helicopter that usually operated from land with the outdated Alouette picking up a ship based antisubmarine warfare role. While the Pakistan Navy had operated Westland Lynx helicopters which were bought in lieu of the type XXI frigates; lack of spares and general support had them mothballed around this time. There were also 2 P-3C Orion Aircraft that while being relatively good Anti-Submarine aircraft were grounded due to the inability of the PN to complete a overhaul. 

The supposed pride of the Pakistan Navy lay in the submarine arm, which consisted of three Agosta class vessels of which two were the 70 type and one was the modernized 90 type. There were additional 4 Daphne class submarines with these were mostly relegated to training roles and insignificant coastal forays.

That is not to say that some progress had not been made in terms of keeping up efforts in modernization for its assets. Various training systems based on computer simulations had been set up for its submarine fleet and overall command and control. There were efforts to coordinate the procurement of unmanned aerial vehicles to be operated from its surface assets as alternatives to the more expensive option of using helicopter assets for tasks such as observation, reconnaissance and radio relay. In addition, efforts were underway at the time to look at Chinese offerings for surface, subsurface and aviation assets.

*Post 2001 procurement: *

One of the first priorities for the Pakistan Navy after the lifting of embargoes was to try and get its backlog of spares cleared up for the American equipment it operates. This included the P – 3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft, such the Phlanax close in weapons system mounted on its key surface vessels, and ancillary spares for the harpoon missile system.

The initial attempts to procure these systems were met with hesitation from the US government, which wanted to ensure that any weapon systems sold to Pakistan would have some usefulness within the support for the war on terror as it was important to convince the US Congress of the same. In light of this, many of the upgrades were financed under US aid based upon the usefulness in providing maritime intelligence against possible terrorist usage of Pakistan’s territorial waters.

The P-3 C Orion maritime patrol aircraft underwent a series of upgrades which brought them to the same standard as those operated by the United States Navy. This includes capability to coordinate data and threat picture with the entire C4I2 system of the Pakistan Navy (and with recent developments, the Pakistan integrated air defense system). The combination of surface search radar, active and passive sonobouys , along with synthetic aperture radar allows the P-3 C Orion operated by Pakistan Navy to be able to enhance Pakistan’s maritime security and considerably threaten and delay any blockade attempts by the aggressor both surface and subsurface.

Certain ancillary systems were also purchased for usage on the existing Westland SH3 seaking helicopters with these were generally purchased off-the-shelf. In light of the additional expected responsibility allocated the Pakistan Navy in curtailing terrorist movements, expectations were to purchase patrol craft that would allow the Pakistan Navy to conduct halt and search operations on vessels within the Arabian Sea. For this purpose, a certain amount of the military. It provided had to be spent on fast intercept craft along with a multitude of small arms and equipment for naval commandos.

The greatest focus for the Pakistan Navy was to increase its surface presence and replace what were essentially floating helpless targets in its oldest ships. To ameliorate the situation, the Pakistan Navy went on a search for various frigate class ships within the 2500 to 4500 ton displacement range. Among the candidates evaluated were the Oliver Hazard Perry class(USA-refurbished and available as EDA), Type 22(UK- Refurbished), MEKO( Germany – New) Class, Type 53H3(China- New) and FREMM(France – New). The French and German designs were overruled due to cost. Since the PN would not be able to afford the eventual complement of 8 it wants. The OHP from the US brought with it the advantage of being a tried and trusted platform that Pakistan could convince the US to provide it under aid and for free using the EDA program; so that all Pakistan would pay for would be refurbishment and delivery costs. 

Around 2005, the Pakistan Navy decided to jump in on the option of the excess defence articles from the US, which included the option of upcoming decommissioned OHP frigates and the P-3 Orion patrol aircraft. The original plan was to acquire 4 OHP frigates, along with six Sikorsky SH-60F anti-submarine warfare helicopters. However, only one OHP was approved and procured without its helicopter complement due to a lack of funds and deteriorating relations.

The other boost for the surface fleet came from the purchase of modified *Jiangwei II *frigates, along with a complement of Z-9EC helicopters which are essentially Chinese variants of the Euro copter (now Airbus) AS-565 Panther. This platform comes with a very respectable anti-submarine warfare suite and is able to coordinate data and attacks with the F-22 P frigates. Together they provided a much-needed boost to Pakistan’s ASW& ASuW capabilities as previously the only shipborne element that could work effectively for longer periods in such operations were the lynx helicopters which now sit mothballed. 

Pakistan’s complement of Westland Sea King helicopters generally operates from short bases and was unable to provide a similar level of detached coverage that now extends beyond Pakistan’s territorial sea space. The sea Kings did however undergo an upgrade in the mid-2000 with equipment purchased both from European sources, along with an unnamed country providing electronic support measures.

To offset its inability to purchase larger and *more* expensive capital ships, the Pakistan Navy has relied on various fast attack missile craft as an asymmetric offset. This included earlier designs adapted from China, which were retired in the early 2000’s. The replacement is generally a simple design with an aft mounted missile launcher housing C-801 system (_it is suggested that the system was only a trial and was replaced with C-802_). Two of these craft were built in the late 90s and after trials at sea,2 more improved versions were built at karachi shipyards.

However, the actual focus of the missile craft program was to create a semi-low-observable design that could sit between a corvette and a smaller patrol boat. The first of these craft is the Azmat Class which has a theoretical top speed of 45 knots but is limited by its weak engine. The craft is however pretty effective in its role of littoral harassment and carries C-802 missiles which are capable of receiving both targeting and guidance from off board sensors. 

A further 8 craft are planned which will likely be either scaled up versions of the Azmat or craft that would qualify as Corvettes. The true achievement has been the development of the net-centric C4I system within the PN that allows aircraft such as the P-3 to coordinate and direct attacks on targets from weapon launch platforms such as the Azmat and the Zulfiqar along with land based SSMs.

As the Agosta-90B acquisitions were completed, the Pakistan Navy began to consider an additional sub purchase to replace the earlier Agosta 70 class of submarines which would eventually be nearing retirement by 2018. In light of this, the first option was to either go for more Agosta 90B systems or the Scorpene class from the French DCN. This brought with it familiarity with systems along with a known relationship with the supplier. The French were initially positive to this deal until India rolled out its various defence modernization programs which included unsaid clauses on not selling similar equipment to Pakistan as a positive consideration for its own programs.

Facing both a less than eager French who hiked up the prices for new Submarines; the Pakistan Navy was still keen on procuring a western class and turned to Germany. Negotiations took place on a tailored version of the Type 214 submarine but the efforts of Indian lobbyists within the European Union Parliament all but ended any hopes of procuring this platform. 

Thankfully, the Pakistan Navy had been toying with the idea of using a Chinese Platform prior to 2001, and had been negotiating on a modified Yuan class submarine with further noise suppression to increase its underwater stealth. The contract was to include construction at Karachi Shipyard Engineering Works to allow not just for transfer of technology but also meet delivery timelines. 

The Yuan class of submarines is a carry on from China’s original adaptation known as the Song class and includes ideas taken from China’s Russian origin Kilo class subs. Its sonar is comparable if not better to the TSM 2233 Mk 2 sonar made by the French company Thales. Unconfirmed rumours suggest that the latest Yuan class employs multiple arrays to further increase its coverage and detection accuracy. In addition, the submarine is capable of employing the C-802 missile from its torpedo tubes.

Worth mentioning is the Pakistani Navy's research into the usage of UAV's and UUVs and the subsequent acquisition of the former from both western and local sources. The variety of platforms used is based upon an ongoing attempt to continually evaluate systems and implement them within the greater role of providing more sensors for surveillance operations along with taking the burden of more expensive to operate manned systems.

Where these systems fit are into creating a very expansive and capable C4I network.

*More with Less:* *Pakistan Navy’s Net-centric C4I grid:*

To complete its coastal defense grid and try to stave off a repeat of the blockade scenario Pakistan faced in 71, the PN has developed a plethora of sensor and weapons systems along the coast line which feed into its primary net. This includes shore based radars, ship board sensors, P-3C and Sea King surveillance radars along with taking a feed from the PAF’s ZDK-03 system. Developing a composite picture of both air, sea and submarine targets that feeds into its regional combat HQ and to NHQ in Islamabad. Quite simply, the system has changed how the PN fights its battles and allows it to coordinate attacks against any threat using the various weapons it has at its disposal. In addition, its sensors plug into the PAF’s own Air Defence grid allowing PN ships to act as SAM batteries under the Air Force’s command. 

To assist with the off board weapons employment and shore defence, the Pakistan Navy recently completed its deployment and integration of a shore based anti-ship missile defense grid dubbed as Barq. Barq is assumed to employ a locally modified version of the C-602 to bypass the MTCR (_missile technology control regime, restricts exports of missiles with ranges greater than 300km_) restrictions as it has done with various Chinese weapons. 

To demonstrate, current Pakistan surveillance of its southern coast by air paints a picture similar to the following: 






The various concentric circles indicate air surveillance sensors that include ground based radars, AEW systems such as the ZDK-03 Karokaram eagle shown, and ship-borne systems along with fighter radars. *As a disclaimer, this is not an exact measurement as ranges and effectiveness of sensors is taken with a conservative outlook.*

The same sensor net also provides Sea target surveillance, as the yellow circles and semi-circles show which includes the F-22P sensors, Z-9, P-3, ZDK-03, Coastal Radar and fighter radar. The large yellow circle represents a conservative estimate of the range that the ZDK-03 allows for surveillance of naval assets, and the bold semi-circle represents the range of the P-3 Orion sensors. Just as with the air defense net, all these sensors link to provide a single picture of Pakistan’s coastal and sea territory safety.






Lastly, the red circles indicate the effectiveness of weapons available to the PN from sea and shore based systems (not actual positions or ranges but estimates). This does not include the usage of AGM-84 Harpoon systems on the P-3.






This combined defense system offers a good mix of ship, shore and air based defenses of Pakistan’s coast and the various layers help back up each other in case of a concentrated enemy attack. Without a doubt, this is most important development in the naval defense of Pakistan and is generally not taken for what it is actually worth; as it has allowed the PN to transform from a fairly weak arm into a well coordinate and effective fighting force. 

*Nuclear Ambitions & the Second Strike capability:*

As Pakistan’s nuclear program rolled along during the late 1980’s, ideas were considered on how Pakistan would ensure the safety of its strike capability against a concentrated attack and still be able to hit back in case of a surprise attack. Options included creating hardened silos, mobile weapons and dispersal sites for dedicated aircraft. 

Silos were not considered as effective since they were fixed targets that could eventually fall to multiple hits and required great expense. Since Pakistan’s primary land based warheads were already focused to be based on Mobile platforms that continuously roam the country, there was a requirement to create a sea based deterrent force. 

However, since Pakistan did not have a sufficiently large submarine to carry a Ballistic missile; and at the time did not possess a cruise weapons system; it was decided to try and use the helicopter decks of its Capital ships as launching platforms. Several attempts towards this were carried out during the late 90’s all the way to the nuclear tests; but the complexity of the system along with reliability issues led to this option never being exercised. 

One option considered was to reverse engineer and/or modify the French SM-39 exocet missiles to carry a warhead; however, the small size of the missile required a miniaturized warhead which Pakistan would take ten years to develop; along with the limited range ended the idea before any fruitful research was even carried out.

Pakistan’s luck changed thanks to a US strike on terrorists in Afghanistan during the mid-90’ and several intact US BGM-109B tomahawk missiles landed on Pakistani territory which it promptly carted off to its research facilities along with providing an example to China to reverse engineer. With a locally designed guidance and flight system using a Chinese provided engine, the Babur missile 

Since it was decided by the early 2000’s that Babur could serve as a viable nuclear delivery system, various ideas were gamed on how to use the system from its pre-existing submarines. However, it was decided that a new class of Submarine was needed to deploy the system.

Information on this system gets fairly sketchy and speculative. The purchase of 8 new submarines from China prompted speculation on the usage of the Qing class due to its Sail Size which could accommodate both the Babur and a Submarine launched Ballistic missile. However, the confirmation that the new submarine was the S-20 ended all these speculation. 

What is known by sources close to the PN is that Pakistan’s nuclear delivery ambitions go beyond the 8 subs purchased and include the design and development of two different platforms. This includes a platform capable of launching ballistic missiles. Both these platforms are confirmed to be nuclear powered as per the interviews of Pakistani officials. 

These programs are currently well in progress and a correlation of known knowledge and sources suggest that one platform is to serve as a launch platform for both a derivative of the Babur and a Submarine Ballistic Missile. The other platform is an attack submarine designed to escort this platform but primarily hunt an adversary’s second strike ballistic submarine. 

If these reports are accurate, the Pakistan Navy will not only be able to provide a second strike capability which could launch weapons against targets from the Bay of Bengal, it could also potentially deploy a submarine for long term duration hunts that last more than half a year along with keeping an eye on adversary movement.

From its days in the 90’s as a step-child branch of the Pakistani military, the current modernization plans along with the pace of force integration with other branches, the Pakistan Navy is slowly bur surely turning into a force to be truly reckoned with.

@Horus @The Deterrent @Manticore @Irfan Baloch @Penguin @niaz @araz @Tempest II @Slav Defence @PARIKRAMA @MilSpec @Bilal Khan (Quwa) @Bilal Khan 777 @Dazzler @Side-Winder

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
16 | Like Like:
97


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

Spot on.

The Pakistan Navy is being tuned for anti-access and area-denial (A2/AD) duties so as to safeguard Pakistan's coastlines and defend our valuable economic assets in the vicinity (e.g. port cities, shipyards, etc). It isn't ideal considering that the Navy wanted to expand to a more traditional role - i.e. patrolling and guarding the sea-lines-of-communication (SLOC) in war time.

However, the requisite surface combatants to achieve that in proper terms (especially in light of the enhanced anti-air warfare or AAW profile) would not come cheap by any measure. Furthermore, Pakistan only has eight or nine ships within its own merchant navy, so it is not as if there is a pressing need to guard our SLOC in times of war, not unless the Gulf Arab states want to send their own trading ships past a certain Indian blockade. In effect, the SLOC aspect is a non-factor in war, and strategically speaking, Pakistan could offset the impacts of an Indian naval blockade by further tuning its economy to focus on the Central Asian and Russian markets.

The eight Chinese submarines - which are probably AIP-equipped S20s - are absolutely nothing to scoff at. For one thing, we should be aware that the Chinese have been working on several distinct programs, including fuel-cell AIP technology at Dalian. With Pakistan being among the launch clients of China's modern submarine designs, I imagine a concession was made to enable Pakistan to access China's AIP technology. Alternatively, Western AIP may also be a possibility, though unlikely (not impossible considering our F-22P use German propulsion).

In any case, few navies in the world - much less the Arabian Sea - can field 11 AIP submarines. Combined with the FAC force (Azmat and MRTP-33) as well as the coastal AShM network, the Navy should be able to guard the coastline fairly well. The JF-17 squadron (hopefully *squadrons* in the near future) posted along the coast offer close proximity air coverage for those assets as well.

Long-term, I do wonder if we will see a more traditional naval development track. Granted, Pakistan's tiny merchant navy does not really warrant it at this time, but with CPEC, this may change in the coming decades. Moreover, if Pakistani foreign policymakers one day succeed in securing markets in Africa, and that too with Pakistani trading ships playing a key role, then a SLOC-centric Navy will become a necessity. But this is abstract thought.

Near-term, the SLOC element will probably focus on the procurement of corvettes or light frigates (i.e. 2,000 to 3,000-ton) - such as the Turkish MILGEM - as a means to develop an efficient surface combatant arm to (1) engage in peace time SLOC policing and security duties and (2) double down the A2/AD element in war-time. The advances in AAW technology (via compact active-guided SAM) would enable even small surface ships to have credible medium-range AAW coverage, which could be helpful for Pakistan's submarine fleet against enemy MPA assets. All eyes are on the proposed STM corvette program with Turkey.

Reactions: Like Like:
33


----------



## Zarvan

Pakistan Navy needs to now think of becoming offensive one. We need to go for a global role. We need Frigates which have VLS system for long range cruise missiles. We need Sub's for this role also. Navy also needs to have its separate avaiation which is equipped with jets like J-16. Lastly we also need to massively increase number of marines and equip them with weapons and turn them into strike force not a defensive one. Yes budget is big issue but we need to start the process

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## war&peace

Zarvan said:


> Pakistan Navy needs to now think of becoming offensive one. We need to go for a global role. We need Frigates which have VLS system for long range cruise missiles. We need Sub's for this role also. Navy also needs to have its separate avaiation which is equipped with jets like J-16. Lastly we also need to massively increase number of marines and equip them with weapons and turn them into strike force not a defensive one. Yes budget is big issue but we need to start the process


With CPEC becoming operational Pakistan will have the cash and influence to get best systems for its navy and it will be pivotal for Pakistan to strengthen its maritime forces beyond usual roles to safeguard its economic interests and that is where defence acquisitions and budget make the most sense...you have an economy to defend and the best defence is the offence.

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Zarvan

war&peace said:


> With CPEC becoming operational Pakistan will have the cash and influence to get best systems for its navy and it will be pivotal for Pakistan to strengthen its maritime forces beyond usual roles to safeguard its economic interests and that is where defence acquisitions and budget make the most sense...you have an economy to defend and the best defence is the offence.


I agree CPEC is great opportunity for us to expand our Navy. We need to get Frigates from Turkey and also South Korea with VLS like MK 41 system which can do multi functions I mean from firing Air Defence Missiles to Long Range cruise missiles. They would not only give us more platforms for nuclear but also massive conventional power. In future if needed we can also participate missiles around the globe

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## war&peace

Zarvan said:


> I agree CPEC is great opportunity for us to expand our Navy. We need to get Frigates from Turkey and also South Korea with VLS like MK 41 system which can do multi functions I mean from firing Air Defence Missiles to Long Range cruise missiles. They would not only give us more platforms for nuclear but also massive conventional power. In future if needed we can also participate missiles around the globe


I would recommend that we adopt a hybrid approach i.e. direct acquisition from the market to address our immediate needs but mainly concentrate on indigenous developments with total in-house development, JV and ToT based acquisitions for near and distant future. But the most ideal situation will be when we are able to design our own systems from the scratch totally indigenously to suit our needs.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## GreenFalcon

Oscar said:


> Traditionally, the Pakistan Navy has been the stepchild within the branches of the Pakistani military. This has to do with the lack of understanding by the major decision influences within Pakistan’s military procurement programs; in this case, the Pakistan army, which tends to hoard the military budget(_willingly or by virtue of size_), followed by the Pakistan air force. Ironically, the Pakistan air force officers due to their greater exposure and generally better education in terms of military objectives in training (_due to better quality syllabi and a much more selective plethora of candidates that become officers_) are much more aware of Pakistan and its military deficiencies, but tend to be selfish when it comes to budgetary requests _(as all individual branches within the world military forces are_).
> 
> Another reason for the stepchild treatment has to do with the generally expensive nature and high-value of what are the Navy’s primary bread-and-butter in oceangoing vessels both surface and subsurface. A single destroyer can run in cost to hundreds of millions of dollars, whereas the same amount can purchase 10 or 15 fighter jets or 60 tanks.
> 
> Finally, there was the issue of economic and diplomatic sanctions that Pakistan had to face after the Pressler Amendment, which all but cut off the traditional sources for Pakistan’s procurement plans. It would be unfair to single out the Navy at the receiving end of budgetary isolation as one of the most expensive procurement programs undertaken by Pakistan during the 90s involved the Pakistan Navy and the Agosta 90 B submarine. For its time, the platform was an adequately sophisticated diesel electric submarine that could be procured and with the traditional kickbacks and corruption ladled deals that are the hallmark of the Pakistani defense procurement, the program cost more than its share of budget allocation.
> 
> *Pre-2001: the years of neglect*
> Prior to 2001, Pakistan Navy’s fleet was made up of generally obsolescent vessels such as the type – 21 frigate, nearly mothballed during destroyers, 2 training Leander FFs, along with a mix of Chinese missile boats, minesweepers and various FACs. Its aviation assets will be considered and somewhat better shape with less advanced, but somewhat effective versions of the Breguet Atlantique serving in an anti submarine role. Additionally, there were versions of the Sea King helicopter that usually operated from land with the outdated Alouette picking up a ship based antisubmarine warfare role. While the Pakistan Navy had operated Westland Lynx helicopters which were bought in lieu of the type XXI frigates; lack of spares and general support had them mothballed around this time. There were also 2 P-3C Orion Aircraft that while being relatively good Anti-Submarine aircraft were grounded due to the inability of the PN to complete a overhaul.
> 
> The supposed pride of the Pakistan Navy lay in the submarine arm, which consisted of three Agosta class vessels of which two were the 70 type and one was the modernized 90 type. There were additional 4 Daphne class submarines with these were mostly relegated to training roles and insignificant coastal forays.
> 
> That is not to say that some progress had not been made in terms of keeping up efforts in modernization for its assets. Various training systems based on computer simulations had been set up for its submarine fleet and overall command and control. There were efforts to coordinate the procurement of unmanned aerial vehicles to be operated from its surface assets as alternatives to the more expensive option of using helicopter assets for tasks such as observation, reconnaissance and radio relay. In addition, efforts were underway at the time to look at Chinese offerings for surface, subsurface and aviation assets.
> 
> *Post 2001 procurement: *
> 
> One of the first priorities for the Pakistan Navy after the lifting of embargoes was to try and get its backlog of spares cleared up for the American equipment it operates. This included the P – 3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft, such the Phlanax close in weapons system mounted on its key surface vessels, and ancillary spares for the harpoon missile system.
> 
> The initial attempts to procure these systems were met with hesitation from the US government, which wanted to ensure that any weapon systems sold to Pakistan would have some usefulness within the support for the war on terror as it was important to convince the US Congress of the same. In light of this, many of the upgrades were financed under US aid based upon the usefulness in providing maritime intelligence against possible terrorist usage of Pakistan’s territorial waters.
> 
> The P-3 C Orion maritime patrol aircraft underwent a series of upgrades which brought them to the same standard as those operated by the United States Navy. This includes capability to coordinate data and threat picture with the entire C4I2 system of the Pakistan Navy (and with recent developments, the Pakistan integrated air defense system). The combination of surface search radar, active and passive sonobouys , along with synthetic aperture radar allows the P-3 C Orion operated by Pakistan Navy to be able to enhance Pakistan’s maritime security and considerably threaten and delay any blockade attempts by the aggressor both surface and subsurface.
> 
> Certain ancillary systems were also purchased for usage on the existing Westland SH3 seaking helicopters with these were generally purchased off-the-shelf.
> 
> In light of the additional expected responsibility allocated the Pakistan Navy in curtailing terrorist movements, expectations were to purchase patrol craft that would allow the Pakistan Navy to conduct halt and search operations on vessels within the Arabian Sea. For this purpose, a certain amount of the military. It provided had to be spent on fast intercept craft along with a multitude of small arms and equipment for naval commandos.
> 
> The greatest focus for the Pakistan Navy was to increase its surface presence and replace what were essentially floating helpless targets in its oldest ships. To ameliorate the situation, the Pakistan Navy went on a search for various frigate class ships within the 2500 to 4500 ton displacement range. Among the candidates evaluated were the Oliver Hazard Perry class(USA-refurbished and available as EDA), Type 22(UK- Refurbished), MEKO( Germany – New) Class, Type 53H3(China- New) and FREMM(France – New). The French and German designs were overruled due to cost. Since the PN would not be able to afford the eventual complement of 8 it wants. The OHP from the US brought with it the advantage of being a tried and trusted platform that Pakistan could convince the US to provide it under aid and for free using the EDA program; so that all Pakistan would pay for would be refurbishment and delivery costs.
> 
> Around 2005, the Pakistan Navy decided to jump in on the option of the excess defence articles from the US, which included the option of upcoming decommissioned OHP frigates and the P-3 Orion patrol aircraft. The original plan was to acquire 4 OHP frigates, along with six Sikorsky SH-60F anti-submarine warfare helicopters. However, only one OHP was approved and procured without its helicopter complement due to a lack of funds and deteriorating relations.
> 
> The other boost for the surface fleet came from the purchase of modified *Jiangwei II *frigates, along with a complement of Z-9EC helicopters which are essentially Chinese variants of the Euro copter (now Airbus) AS-565 Panther. This platform comes with a very respectable anti-submarine warfare suite and is able to coordinate data and attacks with the F-22 P frigates. Together they provided a much-needed boost to Pakistan’s ASW& ASuW capabilities as previously the only shipborne element that could work effectively for longer periods in such operations were the lynx helicopters which now sit mothballed.
> 
> Pakistan’s complement of Westland Sea King helicopters generally operates from short bases and was unable to provide a similar level of detached coverage that now extends beyond Pakistan’s territorial sea space. The sea Kings did however undergo an upgrade in the mid-2000 with equipment purchased both from European sources, along with an unnamed country providing electronic support measures.
> 
> To offset its inability to purchase larger and *more* expensive capital ships, the Pakistan Navy has relied on various fast attack missile craft as an asymmetric offset. This included earlier designs adapted from China, which were retired in the early 2000’s. The replacement is generally a simple design with an aft mounted missile launcher housing C-801 system (_it is suggested that the system was only a trial and was replaced with C-802_). Two of these craft were built in the late 90s and after trials at sea,2 more improved versions were built at karachi shipyards.
> 
> However, the actual focus of the missile craft program was to create a semi-low-observable design that could sit between a corvette and a smaller patrol boat. The first of these craft is the Azmat Class which has a theoretical top speed of 45 knots but is limited by its weak engine. The craft is however pretty effective in its role of littoral harassment and carries C-802 missiles which are capable of receiving both targeting and guidance from off board sensors.
> 
> A further 8 craft are planned which will likely be either scaled up versions of the Azmat or craft that would qualify as Corvettes. The true achievement has been the development of the net-centric C4I system within the PN that allows aircraft such as the P-3 to coordinate and direct attacks on targets from weapon launch platforms such as the Azmat and the Zulfiqar along with land based SSMs.
> 
> As the Agosta-90B acquisitions were completed, the Pakistan Navy began to consider an additional sub purchase to replace the earlier Agosta 70 class of submarines which would eventually be nearing retirement by 2018. In light of this, the first option was to either go for more Agosta 90B systems or the Scorpene class from the French DCN. This brought with it familiarity with systems along with a known relationship with the supplier. The French were initially positive to this deal until India rolled out its various defence modernization programs which included unsaid clauses on not selling similar equipment to Pakistan as a positive consideration for its own programs.
> 
> Facing both a less than eager French who hiked up the prices for new Submarines; the Pakistan Navy was still keen on procuring a western class and turned to Germany. Negotiations took place on a tailored version of the Type 214 submarine but the efforts of Indian lobbyists within the European Union Parliament all but ended any hopes of procuring this platform.
> 
> Thankfully, the Pakistan Navy had been toying with the idea of using a Chinese Platform prior to 2001, and had been negotiating on a modified Yuan class submarine with further noise suppression to increase its underwater stealth. The contract was to include construction at Karachi Shipyard Engineering Works to allow not just for transfer of technology but also meet delivery timelines.
> 
> The Yuan class of submarines is a carry on from China’s original adaptation known as the Song class and includes ideas taken from China’s Russian origin Kilo class subs. Its sonar is comparable if not better to the TSM 2233 Mk 2 sonar made by the French company Thales. Unconfirmed rumours suggest that the latest Yuan class employs multiple arrays to further increase its coverage and detection accuracy. In addition, the submarine is capable of employing the C-802 missile from its torpedo tubes.
> 
> 
> 
> *More with Less:* *Pakistan Navy’s Net-centric C4I grid:*
> 
> To complete its coastal defense grid and try to stave off a repeat of the blockade scenario Pakistan faced in 71, the PN has developed a plethora of sensor and weapons systems along the coast line which feed into its primary net. This includes shore based radars, ship board sensors, P-3C and Sea King surveillance radars along with taking a feed from the PAF’s ZDK-03 system. Developing a composite picture of both air, sea and submarine targets that feeds into its regional combat HQ and to NHQ in Islamabad. Quite simply, the system has changed how the PN fights its battles and allows it to coordinate attacks against any threat using the various weapons it has at its disposal. In addition, its sensors plug into the PAF’s own Air Defence grid allowing PN ships to act as SAM batteries under the Air Force’s command.
> 
> To assist with the off board weapons employment and shore defence, the Pakistan Navy recently completed its deployment and integration of a shore based anti-ship missile defense grid dubbed as Barq. Barq is assumed to employ a locally modified version of the C-602 to bypass the MTCR (_missile technology control regime, restricts exports of missiles with ranges greater than 300km_) restrictions as it has done with various Chinese weapons.
> 
> To demonstrate, current Pakistan surveillance of its southern coast by air paints a picture similar to the following:
> View attachment 341936
> 
> 
> The various concentric circles indicate air surveillance sensors that include ground based radars, AEW systems such as the ZDK-03 Karokaram eagle shown, and ship-borne systems along with fighter radars. *As a disclaimer, this is not an exact measurement as ranges and effectiveness of sensors is taken with a conservative outlook.*
> 
> The same sensor net also provides Sea target surveillance, as the yellow circles and semi-circles show which includes the F-22P sensors, Z-9, P-3, ZDK-03, Coastal Radar and fighter radar. The large yellow circle represents a conservative estimate of the range that the ZDK-03 allows for surveillance of naval assets, and the bold semi-circle represents the range of the P-3 Orion sensors. Just as with the air defense net, all these sensors link to provide a single picture of Pakistan’s coastal and sea territory safety.
> View attachment 341935
> 
> 
> Lastly, the red circles indicate the effectiveness of weapons available to the PN from sea and shore based systems (not actual positions or ranges but estimates). This does not include the usage of AGM-84 Harpoon systems on the P-3.
> View attachment 341934
> 
> 
> This combined defense system offers a good mix of ship, shore and air based defenses of Pakistan’s coast and the various layers help back up each other in case of a concentrated enemy attack. Without a doubt, this is most important development in the naval defense of Pakistan and is generally not taken for what it is actually worth; as it has allowed the PN to transform from a fairly weak arm into a well coordinate and effective fighting force.
> 
> *Nuclear Ambitions & the Second Strike capability:*
> 
> As Pakistan’s nuclear program rolled along during the late 1980’s, ideas were considered on how Pakistan would ensure the safety of its strike capability against a concentrated attack and still be able to hit back in case of a surprise attack. Options included creating hardened silos, mobile weapons and dispersal sites for dedicated aircraft.
> 
> Silos were not considered as effective since they were fixed targets that could eventually fall to multiple hits and required great expense. Since Pakistan’s primary land based warheads were already focused to be based on Mobile platforms that continuously roam the country, there was a requirement to create a sea based deterrent force.
> 
> However, since Pakistan did not have a sufficiently large submarine to carry a Ballistic missile; and at the time did not possess a cruise weapons system; it was decided to try and use the helicopter decks of its Capital ships as launching platforms. Several attempts towards this were carried out during the late 90’s all the way to the nuclear tests; but the complexity of the system along with reliability issues led to this option never being exercised.
> 
> One option considered was to reverse engineer and/or modify the French SM-39 exocet missiles to carry a warhead; however, the small size of the missile required a miniaturized warhead which Pakistan would take ten years to develop; along with the limited range ended the idea before any fruitful research was even carried out.
> 
> Pakistan’s luck changed thanks to a US strike on terrorists in Afghanistan during the mid-90’ and several intact US BGM-109B tomahawk missiles landed on Pakistani territory which it promptly carted off to its research facilities along with providing an example to China to reverse engineer. With a locally designed guidance and flight system using a Chinese provided engine, the Babur missile
> 
> Since it was decided by the early 2000’s that Babur could serve as a viable nuclear delivery system, various ideas were gamed on how to use the system from its pre-existing submarines. However, it was decided that a new class of Submarine was needed to deploy the system.
> 
> Information on this system gets fairly sketchy and speculative. The purchase of 8 new submarines from China prompted speculation on the usage of the Qing class due to its Sail Size which could accommodate both the Babur and a Submarine launched Ballistic missile. However, the confirmation that the new submarine was the S-20 ended all these speculation.
> 
> What is known by sources close to the PN is that Pakistan’s nuclear delivery ambitions go beyond the 8 subs purchased and include the design and development of two different platforms. This includes a platform capable of launching ballistic missiles. Both these platforms are confirmed to be nuclear powered as per the interviews of Pakistani officials.
> 
> These programs are currently well in progress and a correlation of known knowledge and sources suggest that one platform is to serve as a launch platform for both a derivative of the Babur and a Submarine Ballistic Missile. The other platform is an attack submarine designed to escort this platform but primarily hunt an adversary’s second strike ballistic submarine.
> 
> If these reports are accurate, the Pakistan Navy will not only be able to provide a second strike capability which could launch weapons against targets from the Bay of Bengal, it could also potentially deploy a submarine for long term duration hunts that last more than half a year along with keeping an eye on adversary movement.
> 
> From its days in the 90’s as a step-child branch of the Pakistani military, the current modernization plans along with the pace of force integration with other branches, the Pakistan Navy is slowly bur surely turning into a force to be truly reckoned with.
> 
> @Horus @The Deterrent @Manticore @Irfan Baloch @Penguin @niaz @araz @Tempest II @Slav Defence @PARIKRAMA @MilSpec @Bilal Khan (Quwa) @Bilal Khan 777 @Dazzler @Side-Winder


Great thread... can you also please shed some light on PN's Unmanned aerial systems; like which ones are we using and how important they are. Thanks

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Nicely written document congrats on the wonderful articulate write up.

We do have potential avenues to grow surface fleet


F22P from China 

Corvettes from Turkey 

Corvettes from Indonesia
Sooner or later we will have to fill gap , lets see which ships will become a reality considering the need for these items

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## T-123456

Oscar said:


> *These programs are currently well in progress* and a correlation of known knowledge and sources suggest that one platform is to serve as a launch platform for both a derivative of the Babur and a Submarine Ballistic Missile. The other platform is an attack submarine designed to escort this platform but primarily hunt an adversary’s second strike ballistic submarine.
> 
> If these reports are accurate, the Pakistan Navy will not only be able to provide a second strike capability which could launch weapons against targets from the Bay of Bengal, it could also potentially deploy a submarine for long term duration hunts that last more than half a year along with keeping an eye on adversary movement.


Well,i hope this is true.
@Bilal Khan (Quwa) ?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zarvan

war&peace said:


> I would recommend that we adopt a hybrid approach i.e. direct acquisition from the market to address our immediate needs but mainly concentrate on indigenous developments with total in-house development, JV and ToT based acquisitions for near and distant future. But the most ideal situation will be when we are able to design our own systems from the scratch totally indigenously to suit our needs.


We need Frigates like these

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUz

So Pakistan is building/searching for nuclear powered submarines capable of launching ballistic missiles? What?

I think this article is bit of a stretch and "Pakistani officials" giving interviews are just deflecting the sorry state of our naval power.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hell hound

all of your points are great and i see you are using Command Modern Air/Naval Operations for simulation here.then you surely know the importance of AAW role warships for defence of our fleet.as a magzine of eight hq 7 sam missles is not enough to thwart any saturation attack of bhramos.our f 22 and 21s will be sitting ducks for indian navy or in some senarios even their naval air arm can be enough to wipe most of our surface fleet out(p 8 and mig 29).as it simply impossible to provide our ships with 24 hour air cover in war time.
pls shed some light on this matter too in your article so all other readers can know what we have achieved in last 15 years and what still remains to be achieved.
@Oscar

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SQ8

AUz said:


> So Pakistan is building/searching for nuclear powered submarines capable of launching ballistic missiles? What?
> 
> I think this article is bit of a stretch and "Pakistani officials" giving interviews are just deflecting the sorry state of our naval power.


Nobody is forcing it down your throat. However, this was written after either verifiable facts or tidbits from both publications and solid sources.

Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## war&peace

AUz said:


> So Pakistan is building/searching for nuclear powered submarines capable of launching ballistic missiles? What?
> 
> I think this article is bit of a stretch and "Pakistani officials" giving interviews are just deflecting the sorry state of our naval power.


Nobody is asking you to come out of your depression. He is a senior poster and known for the quality of his posts

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## mansoor raja

We need atleast 8 destroyers, 12 frigates, 8 Subs 1 helicopter carriers, one Aircraft carrier even the small one will do. And massive Airpower, S400-300 just to prevent blockade by our enemies. Enemy has grown more capable three different fleet. Western fleet should be our focus.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## WaLeEdK2

As Gwadar continues to progress the navy's wants and needs cannot be or rather will not be ignored. It's too important to shove off to the side and leave it till later. As the troops in the tribal areas start cleaning up the last little bits of resistance and peace is finally resorted the focus will be on the Navy. 
@Oscar in all of this where do Pakistan navy's special forces (SSGN) have a role to play. I seldom hear of their role in any analysis.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Thorough Pro

It would be nice to know where are these platforms being built? All of our naval construction facilities are open and can be seen in satellite imagery and there are no such platforms under construction anywhere in Pakistan.




Oscar said:


> Nobody is forcing it down your throat. However, this was written after either verifiable facts or tidbits from both publications and solid sources.


----------



## The Accountant

Oscar said:


> Traditionally, the Pakistan Navy has been the stepchild within the branches of the Pakistani military. This has to do with the lack of understanding by the major decision influences within Pakistan’s military procurement programs; in this case, the Pakistan army, which tends to hoard the military budget(_willingly or by virtue of size_), followed by the Pakistan air force. Ironically, the Pakistan air force officers due to their greater exposure and generally better education in terms of military objectives in training (_due to better quality syllabi and a much more selective plethora of candidates that become officers_) are much more aware of Pakistan and its military deficiencies, but tend to be selfish when it comes to budgetary requests _(as all individual branches within the world military forces are_).
> 
> Another reason for the stepchild treatment has to do with the generally expensive nature and high-value of what are the Navy’s primary bread-and-butter in oceangoing vessels both surface and subsurface. A single destroyer can run in cost to hundreds of millions of dollars, whereas the same amount can purchase 10 or 15 fighter jets or 60 tanks.
> 
> Finally, there was the issue of economic and diplomatic sanctions that Pakistan had to face after the Pressler Amendment, which all but cut off the traditional sources for Pakistan’s procurement plans. It would be unfair to single out the Navy at the receiving end of budgetary isolation as one of the most expensive procurement programs undertaken by Pakistan during the 90s involved the Pakistan Navy and the Agosta 90 B submarine. For its time, the platform was an adequately sophisticated diesel electric submarine that could be procured and with the traditional kickbacks and corruption ladled deals that are the hallmark of the Pakistani defense procurement, the program cost more than its share of budget allocation.
> 
> *Pre-2001: the years of neglect*
> Prior to 2001, Pakistan Navy’s fleet was made up of generally obsolescent vessels such as the type – 21 frigate, nearly mothballed during destroyers, 2 training Leander FFs, along with a mix of Chinese missile boats, minesweepers and various FACs. Its aviation assets will be considered and somewhat better shape with less advanced, but somewhat effective versions of the Breguet Atlantique serving in an anti submarine role. Additionally, there were versions of the Sea King helicopter that usually operated from land with the outdated Alouette picking up a ship based antisubmarine warfare role. While the Pakistan Navy had operated Westland Lynx helicopters which were bought in lieu of the type XXI frigates; lack of spares and general support had them mothballed around this time. There were also 2 P-3C Orion Aircraft that while being relatively good Anti-Submarine aircraft were grounded due to the inability of the PN to complete a overhaul.
> 
> The supposed pride of the Pakistan Navy lay in the submarine arm, which consisted of three Agosta class vessels of which two were the 70 type and one was the modernized 90 type. There were additional 4 Daphne class submarines with these were mostly relegated to training roles and insignificant coastal forays.
> 
> That is not to say that some progress had not been made in terms of keeping up efforts in modernization for its assets. Various training systems based on computer simulations had been set up for its submarine fleet and overall command and control. There were efforts to coordinate the procurement of unmanned aerial vehicles to be operated from its surface assets as alternatives to the more expensive option of using helicopter assets for tasks such as observation, reconnaissance and radio relay. In addition, efforts were underway at the time to look at Chinese offerings for surface, subsurface and aviation assets.
> 
> *Post 2001 procurement: *
> 
> One of the first priorities for the Pakistan Navy after the lifting of embargoes was to try and get its backlog of spares cleared up for the American equipment it operates. This included the P – 3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft, such the Phlanax close in weapons system mounted on its key surface vessels, and ancillary spares for the harpoon missile system.
> 
> The initial attempts to procure these systems were met with hesitation from the US government, which wanted to ensure that any weapon systems sold to Pakistan would have some usefulness within the support for the war on terror as it was important to convince the US Congress of the same. In light of this, many of the upgrades were financed under US aid based upon the usefulness in providing maritime intelligence against possible terrorist usage of Pakistan’s territorial waters.
> 
> The P-3 C Orion maritime patrol aircraft underwent a series of upgrades which brought them to the same standard as those operated by the United States Navy. This includes capability to coordinate data and threat picture with the entire C4I2 system of the Pakistan Navy (and with recent developments, the Pakistan integrated air defense system). The combination of surface search radar, active and passive sonobouys , along with synthetic aperture radar allows the P-3 C Orion operated by Pakistan Navy to be able to enhance Pakistan’s maritime security and considerably threaten and delay any blockade attempts by the aggressor both surface and subsurface.
> 
> Certain ancillary systems were also purchased for usage on the existing Westland SH3 seaking helicopters with these were generally purchased off-the-shelf.
> 
> In light of the additional expected responsibility allocated the Pakistan Navy in curtailing terrorist movements, expectations were to purchase patrol craft that would allow the Pakistan Navy to conduct halt and search operations on vessels within the Arabian Sea. For this purpose, a certain amount of the military. It provided had to be spent on fast intercept craft along with a multitude of small arms and equipment for naval commandos.
> 
> The greatest focus for the Pakistan Navy was to increase its surface presence and replace what were essentially floating helpless targets in its oldest ships. To ameliorate the situation, the Pakistan Navy went on a search for various frigate class ships within the 2500 to 4500 ton displacement range. Among the candidates evaluated were the Oliver Hazard Perry class(USA-refurbished and available as EDA), Type 22(UK- Refurbished), MEKO( Germany – New) Class, Type 53H3(China- New) and FREMM(France – New). The French and German designs were overruled due to cost. Since the PN would not be able to afford the eventual complement of 8 it wants. The OHP from the US brought with it the advantage of being a tried and trusted platform that Pakistan could convince the US to provide it under aid and for free using the EDA program; so that all Pakistan would pay for would be refurbishment and delivery costs.
> 
> Around 2005, the Pakistan Navy decided to jump in on the option of the excess defence articles from the US, which included the option of upcoming decommissioned OHP frigates and the P-3 Orion patrol aircraft. The original plan was to acquire 4 OHP frigates, along with six Sikorsky SH-60F anti-submarine warfare helicopters. However, only one OHP was approved and procured without its helicopter complement due to a lack of funds and deteriorating relations.
> 
> The other boost for the surface fleet came from the purchase of modified *Jiangwei II *frigates, along with a complement of Z-9EC helicopters which are essentially Chinese variants of the Euro copter (now Airbus) AS-565 Panther. This platform comes with a very respectable anti-submarine warfare suite and is able to coordinate data and attacks with the F-22 P frigates. Together they provided a much-needed boost to Pakistan’s ASW& ASuW capabilities as previously the only shipborne element that could work effectively for longer periods in such operations were the lynx helicopters which now sit mothballed.
> 
> Pakistan’s complement of Westland Sea King helicopters generally operates from short bases and was unable to provide a similar level of detached coverage that now extends beyond Pakistan’s territorial sea space. The sea Kings did however undergo an upgrade in the mid-2000 with equipment purchased both from European sources, along with an unnamed country providing electronic support measures.
> 
> To offset its inability to purchase larger and *more* expensive capital ships, the Pakistan Navy has relied on various fast attack missile craft as an asymmetric offset. This included earlier designs adapted from China, which were retired in the early 2000’s. The replacement is generally a simple design with an aft mounted missile launcher housing C-801 system (_it is suggested that the system was only a trial and was replaced with C-802_). Two of these craft were built in the late 90s and after trials at sea,2 more improved versions were built at karachi shipyards.
> 
> However, the actual focus of the missile craft program was to create a semi-low-observable design that could sit between a corvette and a smaller patrol boat. The first of these craft is the Azmat Class which has a theoretical top speed of 45 knots but is limited by its weak engine. The craft is however pretty effective in its role of littoral harassment and carries C-802 missiles which are capable of receiving both targeting and guidance from off board sensors.
> 
> A further 8 craft are planned which will likely be either scaled up versions of the Azmat or craft that would qualify as Corvettes. The true achievement has been the development of the net-centric C4I system within the PN that allows aircraft such as the P-3 to coordinate and direct attacks on targets from weapon launch platforms such as the Azmat and the Zulfiqar along with land based SSMs.
> 
> As the Agosta-90B acquisitions were completed, the Pakistan Navy began to consider an additional sub purchase to replace the earlier Agosta 70 class of submarines which would eventually be nearing retirement by 2018. In light of this, the first option was to either go for more Agosta 90B systems or the Scorpene class from the French DCN. This brought with it familiarity with systems along with a known relationship with the supplier. The French were initially positive to this deal until India rolled out its various defence modernization programs which included unsaid clauses on not selling similar equipment to Pakistan as a positive consideration for its own programs.
> 
> Facing both a less than eager French who hiked up the prices for new Submarines; the Pakistan Navy was still keen on procuring a western class and turned to Germany. Negotiations took place on a tailored version of the Type 214 submarine but the efforts of Indian lobbyists within the European Union Parliament all but ended any hopes of procuring this platform.
> 
> Thankfully, the Pakistan Navy had been toying with the idea of using a Chinese Platform prior to 2001, and had been negotiating on a modified Yuan class submarine with further noise suppression to increase its underwater stealth. The contract was to include construction at Karachi Shipyard Engineering Works to allow not just for transfer of technology but also meet delivery timelines.
> 
> The Yuan class of submarines is a carry on from China’s original adaptation known as the Song class and includes ideas taken from China’s Russian origin Kilo class subs. Its sonar is comparable if not better to the TSM 2233 Mk 2 sonar made by the French company Thales. Unconfirmed rumours suggest that the latest Yuan class employs multiple arrays to further increase its coverage and detection accuracy. In addition, the submarine is capable of employing the C-802 missile from its torpedo tubes.
> 
> Worth mentioning is the Pakistani Navy's research into the usage of UAV's and UUVs and the subsequent acquisition of the former from both western and local sources. The variety of platforms used is based upon an ongoing attempt to continually evaluate systems and implement them within the greater role of providing more sensors for surveillance operations along with taking the burden of more expensive to operate manned systems.
> 
> Where these systems fit are into creating a very expansive and capable C4I network.
> 
> *More with Less:* *Pakistan Navy’s Net-centric C4I grid:*
> 
> To complete its coastal defense grid and try to stave off a repeat of the blockade scenario Pakistan faced in 71, the PN has developed a plethora of sensor and weapons systems along the coast line which feed into its primary net. This includes shore based radars, ship board sensors, P-3C and Sea King surveillance radars along with taking a feed from the PAF’s ZDK-03 system. Developing a composite picture of both air, sea and submarine targets that feeds into its regional combat HQ and to NHQ in Islamabad. Quite simply, the system has changed how the PN fights its battles and allows it to coordinate attacks against any threat using the various weapons it has at its disposal. In addition, its sensors plug into the PAF’s own Air Defence grid allowing PN ships to act as SAM batteries under the Air Force’s command.
> 
> To assist with the off board weapons employment and shore defence, the Pakistan Navy recently completed its deployment and integration of a shore based anti-ship missile defense grid dubbed as Barq. Barq is assumed to employ a locally modified version of the C-602 to bypass the MTCR (_missile technology control regime, restricts exports of missiles with ranges greater than 300km_) restrictions as it has done with various Chinese weapons.
> 
> To demonstrate, current Pakistan surveillance of its southern coast by air paints a picture similar to the following:
> View attachment 341936
> 
> 
> The various concentric circles indicate air surveillance sensors that include ground based radars, AEW systems such as the ZDK-03 Karokaram eagle shown, and ship-borne systems along with fighter radars. *As a disclaimer, this is not an exact measurement as ranges and effectiveness of sensors is taken with a conservative outlook.*
> 
> The same sensor net also provides Sea target surveillance, as the yellow circles and semi-circles show which includes the F-22P sensors, Z-9, P-3, ZDK-03, Coastal Radar and fighter radar. The large yellow circle represents a conservative estimate of the range that the ZDK-03 allows for surveillance of naval assets, and the bold semi-circle represents the range of the P-3 Orion sensors. Just as with the air defense net, all these sensors link to provide a single picture of Pakistan’s coastal and sea territory safety.
> View attachment 341935
> 
> 
> Lastly, the red circles indicate the effectiveness of weapons available to the PN from sea and shore based systems (not actual positions or ranges but estimates). This does not include the usage of AGM-84 Harpoon systems on the P-3.
> View attachment 341934
> 
> 
> This combined defense system offers a good mix of ship, shore and air based defenses of Pakistan’s coast and the various layers help back up each other in case of a concentrated enemy attack. Without a doubt, this is most important development in the naval defense of Pakistan and is generally not taken for what it is actually worth; as it has allowed the PN to transform from a fairly weak arm into a well coordinate and effective fighting force.
> 
> *Nuclear Ambitions & the Second Strike capability:*
> 
> As Pakistan’s nuclear program rolled along during the late 1980’s, ideas were considered on how Pakistan would ensure the safety of its strike capability against a concentrated attack and still be able to hit back in case of a surprise attack. Options included creating hardened silos, mobile weapons and dispersal sites for dedicated aircraft.
> 
> Silos were not considered as effective since they were fixed targets that could eventually fall to multiple hits and required great expense. Since Pakistan’s primary land based warheads were already focused to be based on Mobile platforms that continuously roam the country, there was a requirement to create a sea based deterrent force.
> 
> However, since Pakistan did not have a sufficiently large submarine to carry a Ballistic missile; and at the time did not possess a cruise weapons system; it was decided to try and use the helicopter decks of its Capital ships as launching platforms. Several attempts towards this were carried out during the late 90’s all the way to the nuclear tests; but the complexity of the system along with reliability issues led to this option never being exercised.
> 
> One option considered was to reverse engineer and/or modify the French SM-39 exocet missiles to carry a warhead; however, the small size of the missile required a miniaturized warhead which Pakistan would take ten years to develop; along with the limited range ended the idea before any fruitful research was even carried out.
> 
> Pakistan’s luck changed thanks to a US strike on terrorists in Afghanistan during the mid-90’ and several intact US BGM-109B tomahawk missiles landed on Pakistani territory which it promptly carted off to its research facilities along with providing an example to China to reverse engineer. With a locally designed guidance and flight system using a Chinese provided engine, the Babur missile
> 
> Since it was decided by the early 2000’s that Babur could serve as a viable nuclear delivery system, various ideas were gamed on how to use the system from its pre-existing submarines. However, it was decided that a new class of Submarine was needed to deploy the system.
> 
> Information on this system gets fairly sketchy and speculative. The purchase of 8 new submarines from China prompted speculation on the usage of the Qing class due to its Sail Size which could accommodate both the Babur and a Submarine launched Ballistic missile. However, the confirmation that the new submarine was the S-20 ended all these speculation.
> 
> What is known by sources close to the PN is that Pakistan’s nuclear delivery ambitions go beyond the 8 subs purchased and include the design and development of two different platforms. This includes a platform capable of launching ballistic missiles. Both these platforms are confirmed to be nuclear powered as per the interviews of Pakistani officials.
> 
> These programs are currently well in progress and a correlation of known knowledge and sources suggest that one platform is to serve as a launch platform for both a derivative of the Babur and a Submarine Ballistic Missile. The other platform is an attack submarine designed to escort this platform but primarily hunt an adversary’s second strike ballistic submarine.
> 
> If these reports are accurate, the Pakistan Navy will not only be able to provide a second strike capability which could launch weapons against targets from the Bay of Bengal, it could also potentially deploy a submarine for long term duration hunts that last more than half a year along with keeping an eye on adversary movement.
> 
> From its days in the 90’s as a step-child branch of the Pakistani military, the current modernization plans along with the pace of force integration with other branches, the Pakistan Navy is slowly bur surely turning into a force to be truly reckoned with.
> 
> @Horus @The Deterrent @Manticore @Irfan Baloch @Penguin @niaz @araz @Tempest II @Slav Defence @PARIKRAMA @MilSpec @Bilal Khan (Quwa) @Bilal Khan 777 @Dazzler @Side-Winder


Sir you made myy day ... Was searching for this info quiet a long time ... Hats off to our armed forces ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CHACHA"G"

@Oscar , Very nice and great read sir
I will only say we need more surface fleet with 6 more Subs , (3+8+6=17) , We need heavy frigates with destroyers , we already have very good medium seize frigates (F22) and there are news that Pakistan is going for Miglan class coverts again nice seize .
And also we need to have more Airpower for PN , its like we need to have PNAW upgraded too.
All above will take Money and Time , But if there is a will then there is a way , We already taking good setups towards achieving that target. We just have to come out of that thing call """"""""""""Defensive Force""""""""" or """""""""""""Defensive Doctrine""""""""""
Thank you all

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Army research

With cpec China needs a strong naval presence in the middle east for its oil imports and one of the best way to do that is rather than maintaining a Chinese fleet with Alot of expenses it can offer financing offers and latest designs to Pakistan and even help on future indigenous designs so in case of a war say scs or arunchal pradesh if the Indians are used or even other global powers are used to block cpec so China cannot import then Pakistan navy will be a deterrent

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The Accountant

Zarvan said:


> I agree CPEC is great opportunity for us to expand our Navy. We need to get Frigates from Turkey and also South Korea with VLS like MK 41 system which can do multi functions I mean from firing Air Defence Missiles to Long Range cruise missiles. They would not only give us more platforms for nuclear but also massive conventional power. In future if needed we can also participate missiles around the globe


After CPEC blockade of Pakistan will be equivallent to blockade of China ... So what option will China be exercising to secure its interests ? Will they establish a chinese naval base at Gawadar ? What do yyou guys propose as defence analysts ?


----------



## fatman17

good report but the actual reality is not as rosy as depicted.

the Type-21 FFGs purchased 2nd hand from the UK are a liability now as they are costing a pretty penny to maintain and operate. they were going to be replaced by 6 Perry class FFGs donated by the US as EDA but only 1 has been transferred with an 80mill$ upgrade and for all intent and purposes it is not more than a training ship.

The 4 F-22 Sword class FFGs purchased new from China are a good addition to the surface fleet but these ships are beset by safety issues which are being overcome locally by the navy. having said that further purchases of the type are not forthcoming due to the reluctance of the navy planners citing these safety issues. a newer more advanced version of the FFG designated F-23 in some circles is on the cards but as of now there is no further news on this front.

The Submarine squadrons remains the cutting edge of the navy but here too the navy is operating with less than the required allocation of boats (11) and is dependent on the 3 Agosta90B boats equipped with AIP and 2 80s era Agosta 70 boats which went through a major overhaul to extend their service life but these were supposed to be withdrawn from service starting 2012 after the failed induction of the German subs and the subsequent delay in the procurement of 6-8 Chinese S-20 submarines with AIP. as of today, work has not started on the building of these submarines either in Chinese shipbuilding yards or locally. recently it was disclosed that this type would be inducted in the navy starting 2022-23, 6 years from now.

The navy has strengthened its numbers in the area of costal / maritime defense and surveillance by ordering up to 6-8 Azmat class Chinese built FACs and is in the process of upgrading the MSA by purchasing 4 600T OPVs and 2 1500T corvettes(?) to stem the illegal trafficking of drugs, immigrants and gun running. here too the US has blocked the purchase of 8 GR3, hence forcing the navy to turn to its trusted supplier the Chinese.

The Naval Air Arm has not seen any major purchases except for the purchase of 3 2nd hand ATR72 transports which will be upgraded as MSA / transport aircraft to replace the ageing F-27 Fokker's in service.

The 6 Seaking ASWs hellos continue to soldier on with the navy having been upgraded recently. replacement of this type must be on the cards and a possible purchase of Leonardo's Type AW139 ASW/SAR seems to be a strong possibility having recently secured an order of 6-8 AW139s for the Army and Air force.

The 6 Z9ec light ASW helos purchased from china have been a good addition to the naval air arm. further inductions are dependent on the purchase of FFGs.

The surviving 6 P3C PUP aircraft continue to operate with the navy for some time to come. attrition replacement of the 2 aircraft lost in the militant attack at Drigh road NAS were rebuffed by the US.

Overall the navy is certainly in much better state of preparedness as compared to 1971 but the procurement of the planned surface vessels and submarines must be speeded up if the navy has to effectively defend its much larger EEZ and its bases along the Makran coast.

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Army research

The Accountant said:


> After CPEC blockade of Pakistan will be equivallent to blockade of China ... So what option will China be exercising to secure its interests ? Will they establish a chinese naval base at Gawadar ? What do yyou guys propose as defence analysts ?


Sir refer to my post above


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

T-123456 said:


> Well,i hope this is true.
> @Bilal Khan (Quwa) ?


@Oscar is/was from the Pakistani defence industry proper. He's dependable, but I'd rather say, "I hope these programs *come to fruition*" (considering how a bad gov't in the recent past has resulted in some defence stillbirths).

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Zarvan

The Accountant said:


> After CPEC blockade of Pakistan will be equivallent to blockade of China ... So what option will China be exercising to secure its interests ? Will they establish a chinese naval base at Gawadar ? What do yyou guys propose as defence analysts ?


China will definately have some Naval presence in Gawader in future may be few destroyers and nuclear submarines but still we need to increase our Navy massively. Even today India has issues tender for 8 more corvettes. We need much bigger Pakistan Navy than what we have. At least 3 times bigger than current size


----------



## Zarvan

AUz said:


> I know him and have been a witness of the quality of his content for much, much longer than your sorry little arse. So take your 'depression' jib and shove it up yours.
> 
> 
> 
> Why so defensive Oscar?  Did I allude to you shoving some bullsh!t fantasies down our throat like @Zarvan does about 7000km ICBMs ready to be tested since many years  (Just playin Zaro!  )
> 
> On a serious note: I just find it hard to believe that we are building a nuclear ballistic missile submarine of our own. Might get one on lease from China may be? I don't know..
> 
> Is there a time-framework within which we can expect Pakistani nuclear submarine to be deployed? Did your contacts hinted towards any such thing?


We are working ICBM and they are more than one. I am 200 % certain about it as for Navy sooner or little later we would go for large Frigates and Destroyers equipped with VLS to fire long range cruise and ballistic missiles along with Air Defence. You can't fight Indian Navy which in next 10 years will have around 100 Major Ships from corvettes to Destroyers with only 12 Frigate Navy of Pakistan


----------



## The Accountant

Zarvan said:


> China will definately have some Naval presence in Gawader in future may be few destroyers and nuclear submarines but still we need to increase our Navy massively. Even today India has issues tender for 8 more corvettes. We need much bigger Pakistan Navy than what we have. At least 3 times bigger than current size


India is currently inducting 4 new airal platforms ... Su30 rafael tejas and fgfa whereas upgrading migs and su30 simultaneously ... Similar is with naval assets ... Isnt it going to cost them hell lot of moneyy only in operational expenses ?


----------



## muhammadali233

mansoor raja said:


> We need atleast 8 destroyers, 12 frigates, 8 Subs 1 helicopter carriers, one Aircraft carrier even the small one will do. And massive Airpower, S400-300 just to prevent blockade by our enemies. Enemy has grown more capable three different fleet. Western fleet should be our focus.


would you like that with pepsi or coke?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## nomi007

we need a long rang air defence system to prevent our costal area

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

Thorough Pro said:


> It would be nice to know where are these platforms being built? All of our naval construction facilities are open and can be seen in satellite imagery and there are no such platforms under construction anywhere in Pakistan.



The reactor is the first step; that is all I would like to add.



AUz said:


> Why so defensive Oscar?
> On a serious note: I just find it hard to believe that we are building a nuclear ballistic missile submarine of our own. Might get one on lease from China may be? I don't know..
> 
> Is there a time-framework within which we can expect Pakistani nuclear submarine to be deployed? Did your contacts hinted towards any such thing?


I don't express anything until I am dead sure, and this I intend for our fb page so double checked or triple checked info.

All nuclear subs require that their power plant be developed first.

Budget and usual "nagihanu aafatien" being avoided, most of these thingd should see completion.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## AUz

Oscar said:


> The reactor is the first step; that is all I would like to add.
> 
> 
> I don't express anything until I am dead sure, and this I intend for our fb page so double checked or triple checked info.
> 
> All nuclear subs require that their power plant be developed first.
> 
> Budget and usual "nagihanu aafatien" being avoided, most of these thingd should see completion.



Well in that case, best of luck to the nation. Hopefully, we'll see Pakistan's own nuclear submarine by 2030 or so.

Military should be on this project like they are on CPEC, so "nagihani aafatein" can be avoid. Budgetary issues should arise in the first place (if planning is right), and even if they do God forbid, Saudis can come in handy if we make them the right sell.

Anyways, Godspeed to our country's defence capabilities!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Blue Marlin

Oscar said:


> The reactor is the first step; that is all I would like to add.
> 
> 
> I don't express anything until I am dead sure, and this I intend for our fb page so double checked or triple checked info.
> 
> All nuclear subs require that their power plant be developed first.
> 
> Budget and usual "nagihanu aafatien" being avoided, most of these thingd should see completion.


i thought mushy said in 2012 that pakistan was developing a nuclear sub. from 2012 to 2016 from the 4 years and consultations from uncle lee would result in some product.
and as for your write up. i thought the t214 deal was scrapped because the germans refused to integrate an slcm which was due to pressure from the US of A which was the deal breaker

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ghazi768

mansoor raja said:


> We need atleast 8 destroyers, 12 frigates, 8 Subs 1 helicopter carriers, one Aircraft carrier even the small one will do. And massive Airpower, S400-300 just to prevent blockade by our enemies. Enemy has grown more capable three different fleet. Western fleet should be our focus.


if wishers were horses, beggars would ride..


----------



## CHI RULES

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> Spot on.
> 
> The Pakistan Navy is being tuned for anti-access and area-denial (A2/AD) duties so as to safeguard Pakistan's coastlines and defend our valuable economic assets in the vicinity (e.g. port cities, shipyards, etc). It isn't ideal considering that the Navy wanted to expand to a more traditional role - i.e. patrolling and guarding the sea-lines-of-communication (SLOC) in war time.
> 
> However, the requisite surface combatants to achieve that in proper terms (especially in light of the enhanced anti-air warfare or AAW profile) would not come cheap by any measure. Furthermore, Pakistan only has eight or nine ships within its own merchant navy, so it is not as if there is a pressing need to guard our SLOC in times of war, not unless the Gulf Arab states want to send their own trading ships past a certain Indian blockade. In effect, the SLOC aspect is a non-factor in war, and strategically speaking, Pakistan could offset the impacts of an Indian naval blockade by further tuning its economy to focus on the Central Asian and Russian markets.
> 
> The eight Chinese submarines - which are probably AIP-equipped S20s - are absolutely nothing to scoff at. For one thing, we should be aware that the Chinese have been working on several distinct programs, including fuel-cell AIP technology at Dalian. With Pakistan being among the launch clients of China's modern submarine designs, I imagine a concession was made to enable Pakistan to access China's AIP technology. Alternatively, Western AIP may also be a possibility, though unlikely (not impossible considering our F-22P use German propulsion).
> 
> In any case, few navies in the world - much less the Arabian Sea - can field 11 AIP submarines. Combined with the FAC force (Azmat and MRTP-33) as well as the coastal AShM network, the Navy should be able to guard the coastline fairly well. The JF-17 squadron (hopefully *squadrons* in the near future) posted along the coast offer close proximity air coverage for those assets as well.
> 
> Long-term, I do wonder if we will see a more traditional naval development track. Granted, Pakistan's tiny merchant navy does not really warrant it at this time, but with CPEC, this may change in the coming decades. Moreover, if Pakistani foreign policymakers one day succeed in securing markets in Africa, and that too with Pakistani trading ships playing a key role, then a SLOC-centric Navy will become a necessity. But this is abstract thought.
> 
> Near-term, the SLOC element will probably focus on the procurement of corvettes or light frigates (i.e. 2,000 to 3,000-ton) - such as the Turkish MILGEM - as a means to develop an efficient surface combatant arm to (1) engage in peace time SLOC policing and security duties and (2) double down the A2/AD element in war-time. The advances in AAW technology (via compact active-guided SAM) would enable even small surface ships to have credible medium-range AAW coverage, which could be helpful for Pakistan's submarine fleet against enemy MPA assets. All eyes are on the proposed STM corvette program with Turkey.



Sir, good overviews given by Mr Oscar and by u however one thing which pointed out by you for future is SAM systems to be VLS based, however our talks are more or less futuristic rather then covering present scenario. India already has VLS based SAMs, Ship based Cruise Missiles with considerable long ranges and in near future getting sub based caliber missiles fro Russia. They have Mig29Ks with IRST and latest BVRs and WVRs.
We should honestly check our present scenario, keeping our limitations in check we still could have done better what is present. 

Reality Check.

Medium ranges SAMs: Only LY 60 with obsolete sensors and questionable anti cruise missile capabilities.
F22Ps having only short range canistrised SAMS with only 18KM range at max.
The sole OHP without any reported SAM.

The current SAM capabilities of Navt are not satisfactory.


----------



## niaz

Notwithstanding the above the main ‘Offensive” element of Pakistan Navy remains the 3 Augusta 90 submarines. Therefore until such time that the 8 Chinese submarines join, PN will remain largely Brown water navy.

,

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Penguin

Zarvan said:


> We need Frigates like these



That multimission frigate (top) is 1500tn i.e. a corvette.



mansoor raja said:


> We need atleast 8 destroyers, 12 frigates, 8 Subs 1 helicopter carriers, one Aircraft carrier even the small one will do. And massive Airpower, S400-300 just to prevent blockade by our enemies. Enemy has grown more capable three different fleet. Western fleet should be our focus.


Well, if Pakistan had unlimited funding and resources, that wouldn't be a problem. However, that is not the reality.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Zarvan

Oscar said:


> *Pakistan Navy : The Phoenix Rises*
> 
> By: "Oscar" from team Pakistan Defence
> October-09-2016
> 
> View attachment 341998
> 
> 
> Traditionally, the Pakistan Navy has been the stepchild within the branches of the Pakistani military. This has to do with the lack of understanding by the major decision influences within Pakistan’s military procurement programs; in this case, the Pakistan army, which tends to hoard the military budget(_willingly or by virtue of size_), followed by the Pakistan air force. Ironically, the Pakistan air force officers due to their greater exposure and generally better education in terms of military objectives in training (_due to better quality syllabi and a much more selective plethora of candidates that become officers_) are much more aware of Pakistan and its military deficiencies, but tend to be selfish when it comes to budgetary requests _(as all individual branches within the world military forces are_).
> 
> Another reason for the stepchild treatment has to do with the generally expensive nature and high-value of what are the Navy’s primary bread-and-butter in oceangoing vessels both surface and subsurface. A single destroyer can run in cost to hundreds of millions of dollars, whereas the same amount can purchase 10 or 15 fighter jets or 60 tanks.
> 
> Finally, there was the issue of economic and diplomatic sanctions that Pakistan had to face after the Pressler Amendment, which all but cut off the traditional sources for Pakistan’s procurement plans. It would be unfair to single out the Navy at the receiving end of budgetary isolation as one of the most expensive procurement programs undertaken by Pakistan during the 90s involved the Pakistan Navy and the Agosta 90 B submarine. For its time, the platform was an adequately sophisticated diesel electric submarine that could be procured and with the traditional kickbacks and corruption ladled deals that are the hallmark of the Pakistani defense procurement, the program cost more than its share of budget allocation.
> 
> *Pre-2001: the years of neglect*
> 
> Prior to 2001, Pakistan Navy’s fleet was made up of generally obsolescent vessels such as the type – 21 frigate, nearly mothballed during destroyers, 2 training Leander FFs, along with a mix of Chinese missile boats, minesweepers and various FACs. Its aviation assets will be considered and somewhat better shape with less advanced, but somewhat effective versions of the Breguet Atlantique serving in an anti submarine role. Additionally, there were versions of the Sea King helicopter that usually operated from land with the outdated Alouette picking up a ship based antisubmarine warfare role. While the Pakistan Navy had operated Westland Lynx helicopters which were bought in lieu of the type XXI frigates; lack of spares and general support had them mothballed around this time. There were also 2 P-3C Orion Aircraft that while being relatively good Anti-Submarine aircraft were grounded due to the inability of the PN to complete a overhaul.
> 
> The supposed pride of the Pakistan Navy lay in the submarine arm, which consisted of three Agosta class vessels of which two were the 70 type and one was the modernized 90 type. There were additional 4 Daphne class submarines with these were mostly relegated to training roles and insignificant coastal forays.
> 
> That is not to say that some progress had not been made in terms of keeping up efforts in modernization for its assets. Various training systems based on computer simulations had been set up for its submarine fleet and overall command and control. There were efforts to coordinate the procurement of unmanned aerial vehicles to be operated from its surface assets as alternatives to the more expensive option of using helicopter assets for tasks such as observation, reconnaissance and radio relay. In addition, efforts were underway at the time to look at Chinese offerings for surface, subsurface and aviation assets.
> 
> *Post 2001 procurement: *
> 
> One of the first priorities for the Pakistan Navy after the lifting of embargoes was to try and get its backlog of spares cleared up for the American equipment it operates. This included the P – 3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft, such the Phlanax close in weapons system mounted on its key surface vessels, and ancillary spares for the harpoon missile system.
> 
> The initial attempts to procure these systems were met with hesitation from the US government, which wanted to ensure that any weapon systems sold to Pakistan would have some usefulness within the support for the war on terror as it was important to convince the US Congress of the same. In light of this, many of the upgrades were financed under US aid based upon the usefulness in providing maritime intelligence against possible terrorist usage of Pakistan’s territorial waters.
> 
> The P-3 C Orion maritime patrol aircraft underwent a series of upgrades which brought them to the same standard as those operated by the United States Navy. This includes capability to coordinate data and threat picture with the entire C4I2 system of the Pakistan Navy (and with recent developments, the Pakistan integrated air defense system). The combination of surface search radar, active and passive sonobouys , along with synthetic aperture radar allows the P-3 C Orion operated by Pakistan Navy to be able to enhance Pakistan’s maritime security and considerably threaten and delay any blockade attempts by the aggressor both surface and subsurface.
> 
> Certain ancillary systems were also purchased for usage on the existing Westland SH3 seaking helicopters with these were generally purchased off-the-shelf. In light of the additional expected responsibility allocated the Pakistan Navy in curtailing terrorist movements, expectations were to purchase patrol craft that would allow the Pakistan Navy to conduct halt and search operations on vessels within the Arabian Sea. For this purpose, a certain amount of the military. It provided had to be spent on fast intercept craft along with a multitude of small arms and equipment for naval commandos.
> 
> The greatest focus for the Pakistan Navy was to increase its surface presence and replace what were essentially floating helpless targets in its oldest ships. To ameliorate the situation, the Pakistan Navy went on a search for various frigate class ships within the 2500 to 4500 ton displacement range. Among the candidates evaluated were the Oliver Hazard Perry class(USA-refurbished and available as EDA), Type 22(UK- Refurbished), MEKO( Germany – New) Class, Type 53H3(China- New) and FREMM(France – New). The French and German designs were overruled due to cost. Since the PN would not be able to afford the eventual complement of 8 it wants. The OHP from the US brought with it the advantage of being a tried and trusted platform that Pakistan could convince the US to provide it under aid and for free using the EDA program; so that all Pakistan would pay for would be refurbishment and delivery costs.
> 
> Around 2005, the Pakistan Navy decided to jump in on the option of the excess defence articles from the US, which included the option of upcoming decommissioned OHP frigates and the P-3 Orion patrol aircraft. The original plan was to acquire 4 OHP frigates, along with six Sikorsky SH-60F anti-submarine warfare helicopters. However, only one OHP was approved and procured without its helicopter complement due to a lack of funds and deteriorating relations.
> 
> The other boost for the surface fleet came from the purchase of modified *Jiangwei II *frigates, along with a complement of Z-9EC helicopters which are essentially Chinese variants of the Euro copter (now Airbus) AS-565 Panther. This platform comes with a very respectable anti-submarine warfare suite and is able to coordinate data and attacks with the F-22 P frigates. Together they provided a much-needed boost to Pakistan’s ASW& ASuW capabilities as previously the only shipborne element that could work effectively for longer periods in such operations were the lynx helicopters which now sit mothballed.
> 
> Pakistan’s complement of Westland Sea King helicopters generally operates from short bases and was unable to provide a similar level of detached coverage that now extends beyond Pakistan’s territorial sea space. The sea Kings did however undergo an upgrade in the mid-2000 with equipment purchased both from European sources, along with an unnamed country providing electronic support measures.
> 
> To offset its inability to purchase larger and *more* expensive capital ships, the Pakistan Navy has relied on various fast attack missile craft as an asymmetric offset. This included earlier designs adapted from China, which were retired in the early 2000’s. The replacement is generally a simple design with an aft mounted missile launcher housing C-801 system (_it is suggested that the system was only a trial and was replaced with C-802_). Two of these craft were built in the late 90s and after trials at sea,2 more improved versions were built at karachi shipyards.
> 
> However, the actual focus of the missile craft program was to create a semi-low-observable design that could sit between a corvette and a smaller patrol boat. The first of these craft is the Azmat Class which has a theoretical top speed of 45 knots but is limited by its weak engine. The craft is however pretty effective in its role of littoral harassment and carries C-802 missiles which are capable of receiving both targeting and guidance from off board sensors.
> 
> A further 8 craft are planned which will likely be either scaled up versions of the Azmat or craft that would qualify as Corvettes. The true achievement has been the development of the net-centric C4I system within the PN that allows aircraft such as the P-3 to coordinate and direct attacks on targets from weapon launch platforms such as the Azmat and the Zulfiqar along with land based SSMs.
> 
> As the Agosta-90B acquisitions were completed, the Pakistan Navy began to consider an additional sub purchase to replace the earlier Agosta 70 class of submarines which would eventually be nearing retirement by 2018. In light of this, the first option was to either go for more Agosta 90B systems or the Scorpene class from the French DCN. This brought with it familiarity with systems along with a known relationship with the supplier. The French were initially positive to this deal until India rolled out its various defence modernization programs which included unsaid clauses on not selling similar equipment to Pakistan as a positive consideration for its own programs.
> 
> Facing both a less than eager French who hiked up the prices for new Submarines; the Pakistan Navy was still keen on procuring a western class and turned to Germany. Negotiations took place on a tailored version of the Type 214 submarine but the efforts of Indian lobbyists within the European Union Parliament all but ended any hopes of procuring this platform.
> 
> Thankfully, the Pakistan Navy had been toying with the idea of using a Chinese Platform prior to 2001, and had been negotiating on a modified Yuan class submarine with further noise suppression to increase its underwater stealth. The contract was to include construction at Karachi Shipyard Engineering Works to allow not just for transfer of technology but also meet delivery timelines.
> 
> The Yuan class of submarines is a carry on from China’s original adaptation known as the Song class and includes ideas taken from China’s Russian origin Kilo class subs. Its sonar is comparable if not better to the TSM 2233 Mk 2 sonar made by the French company Thales. Unconfirmed rumours suggest that the latest Yuan class employs multiple arrays to further increase its coverage and detection accuracy. In addition, the submarine is capable of employing the C-802 missile from its torpedo tubes.
> 
> Worth mentioning is the Pakistani Navy's research into the usage of UAV's and UUVs and the subsequent acquisition of the former from both western and local sources. The variety of platforms used is based upon an ongoing attempt to continually evaluate systems and implement them within the greater role of providing more sensors for surveillance operations along with taking the burden of more expensive to operate manned systems.
> 
> Where these systems fit are into creating a very expansive and capable C4I network.
> 
> *More with Less:* *Pakistan Navy’s Net-centric C4I grid:*
> 
> To complete its coastal defense grid and try to stave off a repeat of the blockade scenario Pakistan faced in 71, the PN has developed a plethora of sensor and weapons systems along the coast line which feed into its primary net. This includes shore based radars, ship board sensors, P-3C and Sea King surveillance radars along with taking a feed from the PAF’s ZDK-03 system. Developing a composite picture of both air, sea and submarine targets that feeds into its regional combat HQ and to NHQ in Islamabad. Quite simply, the system has changed how the PN fights its battles and allows it to coordinate attacks against any threat using the various weapons it has at its disposal. In addition, its sensors plug into the PAF’s own Air Defence grid allowing PN ships to act as SAM batteries under the Air Force’s command.
> 
> To assist with the off board weapons employment and shore defence, the Pakistan Navy recently completed its deployment and integration of a shore based anti-ship missile defense grid dubbed as Barq. Barq is assumed to employ a locally modified version of the C-602 to bypass the MTCR (_missile technology control regime, restricts exports of missiles with ranges greater than 300km_) restrictions as it has done with various Chinese weapons.
> 
> To demonstrate, current Pakistan surveillance of its southern coast by air paints a picture similar to the following:
> 
> View attachment 341936
> 
> 
> The various concentric circles indicate air surveillance sensors that include ground based radars, AEW systems such as the ZDK-03 Karokaram eagle shown, and ship-borne systems along with fighter radars. *As a disclaimer, this is not an exact measurement as ranges and effectiveness of sensors is taken with a conservative outlook.*
> 
> The same sensor net also provides Sea target surveillance, as the yellow circles and semi-circles show which includes the F-22P sensors, Z-9, P-3, ZDK-03, Coastal Radar and fighter radar. The large yellow circle represents a conservative estimate of the range that the ZDK-03 allows for surveillance of naval assets, and the bold semi-circle represents the range of the P-3 Orion sensors. Just as with the air defense net, all these sensors link to provide a single picture of Pakistan’s coastal and sea territory safety.
> 
> View attachment 341935
> 
> 
> Lastly, the red circles indicate the effectiveness of weapons available to the PN from sea and shore based systems (not actual positions or ranges but estimates). This does not include the usage of AGM-84 Harpoon systems on the P-3.
> 
> View attachment 341934
> 
> 
> This combined defense system offers a good mix of ship, shore and air based defenses of Pakistan’s coast and the various layers help back up each other in case of a concentrated enemy attack. Without a doubt, this is most important development in the naval defense of Pakistan and is generally not taken for what it is actually worth; as it has allowed the PN to transform from a fairly weak arm into a well coordinate and effective fighting force.
> 
> *Nuclear Ambitions & the Second Strike capability:*
> 
> As Pakistan’s nuclear program rolled along during the late 1980’s, ideas were considered on how Pakistan would ensure the safety of its strike capability against a concentrated attack and still be able to hit back in case of a surprise attack. Options included creating hardened silos, mobile weapons and dispersal sites for dedicated aircraft.
> 
> Silos were not considered as effective since they were fixed targets that could eventually fall to multiple hits and required great expense. Since Pakistan’s primary land based warheads were already focused to be based on Mobile platforms that continuously roam the country, there was a requirement to create a sea based deterrent force.
> 
> However, since Pakistan did not have a sufficiently large submarine to carry a Ballistic missile; and at the time did not possess a cruise weapons system; it was decided to try and use the helicopter decks of its Capital ships as launching platforms. Several attempts towards this were carried out during the late 90’s all the way to the nuclear tests; but the complexity of the system along with reliability issues led to this option never being exercised.
> 
> One option considered was to reverse engineer and/or modify the French SM-39 exocet missiles to carry a warhead; however, the small size of the missile required a miniaturized warhead which Pakistan would take ten years to develop; along with the limited range ended the idea before any fruitful research was even carried out.
> 
> Pakistan’s luck changed thanks to a US strike on terrorists in Afghanistan during the mid-90’ and several intact US BGM-109B tomahawk missiles landed on Pakistani territory which it promptly carted off to its research facilities along with providing an example to China to reverse engineer. With a locally designed guidance and flight system using a Chinese provided engine, the Babur missile
> 
> Since it was decided by the early 2000’s that Babur could serve as a viable nuclear delivery system, various ideas were gamed on how to use the system from its pre-existing submarines. However, it was decided that a new class of Submarine was needed to deploy the system.
> 
> Information on this system gets fairly sketchy and speculative. The purchase of 8 new submarines from China prompted speculation on the usage of the Qing class due to its Sail Size which could accommodate both the Babur and a Submarine launched Ballistic missile. However, the confirmation that the new submarine was the S-20 ended all these speculation.
> 
> What is known by sources close to the PN is that Pakistan’s nuclear delivery ambitions go beyond the 8 subs purchased and include the design and development of two different platforms. This includes a platform capable of launching ballistic missiles. Both these platforms are confirmed to be nuclear powered as per the interviews of Pakistani officials.
> 
> These programs are currently well in progress and a correlation of known knowledge and sources suggest that one platform is to serve as a launch platform for both a derivative of the Babur and a Submarine Ballistic Missile. The other platform is an attack submarine designed to escort this platform but primarily hunt an adversary’s second strike ballistic submarine.
> 
> If these reports are accurate, the Pakistan Navy will not only be able to provide a second strike capability which could launch weapons against targets from the Bay of Bengal, it could also potentially deploy a submarine for long term duration hunts that last more than half a year along with keeping an eye on adversary movement.
> 
> From its days in the 90’s as a step-child branch of the Pakistani military, the current modernization plans along with the pace of force integration with other branches, the Pakistan Navy is slowly bur surely turning into a force to be truly reckoned with.
> 
> @Horus @The Deterrent @Manticore @Irfan Baloch @Penguin @niaz @araz @Tempest II @Slav Defence @PARIKRAMA @MilSpec @Bilal Khan (Quwa) @Bilal Khan 777 @Dazzler @Side-Winder


So I was right all along when I told that Pakistan is working on building nuclear submarines and for that we have completed work on mini nuclear plants. @AUz Mr I was right on the spot. Now I predict that sooner or later we would work and go for Frigates and Corvettes equipped with VLS like MK 41 to fire long range cruise missiles and I think all those Ships with VLS will be at least 24.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## volatile

Oscar said:


> Information on this system gets fairly sketchy and speculative. The purchase of 8 new submarines from China prompted speculation on the usage of the Qing class due to its Sail Size which could accommodate both the Babur and a Submarine launched Ballistic missile. However, the confirmation that the new submarine was the S-20 ended all these speculation.
> 
> What is known by sources close to the PN is that Pakistan’s nuclear delivery ambitions go beyond the 8 subs purchased and include the design and development of two different platforms. This includes a platform capable of launching ballistic missiles. Both these platforms are confirmed to be nuclear powered as per the interviews of Pakistani officials.
> 
> These programs are currently well in progress and a correlation of known knowledge and sources suggest that one platform is to serve as a launch platform for both a derivative of the Babur and a Submarine Ballistic Missile. The other platform is an attack submarine designed to escort this platform but primarily hunt an adversary’s second strike ballistic submarine.


Very well written just my thoughts (already information is very scarc) PN inspiration comes from Israeli model which is based on German/French designs 

The _Dolphin _boats are equipped with six 533mm standard torpedo tubes and four 650mm jumbo tubes and can carry 16 weapons. The smaller tubes can fire torpedoes and Harpoon anti-ship missiles as well as other conventional weaponry, *but its larger tubes are what makes the Dolphin class so special.*
*From them, frogmen, remotely operated vehicles and especially large cruise missiles capable of carrying nuclear payloads can be deployed.*
*Originally, Israel wanted to buy Tomahawk cruise missiles from the U.S. to outfit its pocket submarine fleet, but the request was denied by the Clinton Administration. Instead the Israelis developed their own long-range submarine launched cruise missile particularly suited to the Dolphin class’s larger diameter (the Tomahawk is not.)*

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/israels-newest-and-most-advanced-submarine-is-their-las-1752459324


----------



## Zarvan

Chinese New High Performance Frigate

Chinese Shipbuilding & Offshore International Co. (CSOC) has unveiled New High Performance Frigate has length of 135 meters, breadth of 15.3 meters and displacement of 3700t with top speed of 28 kts.



High Performance Frigate will fitted with 32 VLS cells at the stern, a H/PJ-26 76.2mm naval gun, two H/PJ-13 30mm Gatling Close-In Weapons System (CIWS), FL-3000N missile Close-In Weapons System (CIWS) on top of the helicopter hangar and 8x anti-ship missiles.




















http://chinesemilitaryreview.blogspot.com/2013/03/chinese-new-high-performance-frigate.html?m=0

Pakistan needs this but only thing to make sure these VLS mentioned are also capable of firing long range cruise Missiles. I mean our Naval version of Babar

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bilal Khan 777

Oscar said:


> *Pakistan Navy : The Phoenix Rises*
> 
> By: "Oscar" from team Pakistan Defence
> October-09-2016
> 
> View attachment 341998
> 
> 
> Traditionally, the Pakistan Navy has been the stepchild within the branches of the Pakistani military. This has to do with the lack of understanding by the major decision influences within Pakistan’s military procurement programs; in this case, the Pakistan army, which tends to hoard the military budget(_willingly or by virtue of size_), followed by the Pakistan air force. Ironically, the Pakistan air force officers due to their greater exposure and generally better education in terms of military objectives in training (_due to better quality syllabi and a much more selective plethora of candidates that become officers_) are much more aware of Pakistan and its military deficiencies, but tend to be selfish when it comes to budgetary requests _(as all individual branches within the world military forces are_).
> 
> Another reason for the stepchild treatment has to do with the generally expensive nature and high-value of what are the Navy’s primary bread-and-butter in oceangoing vessels both surface and subsurface. A single destroyer can run in cost to hundreds of millions of dollars, whereas the same amount can purchase 10 or 15 fighter jets or 60 tanks.
> 
> Finally, there was the issue of economic and diplomatic sanctions that Pakistan had to face after the Pressler Amendment, which all but cut off the traditional sources for Pakistan’s procurement plans. It would be unfair to single out the Navy at the receiving end of budgetary isolation as one of the most expensive procurement programs undertaken by Pakistan during the 90s involved the Pakistan Navy and the Agosta 90 B submarine. For its time, the platform was an adequately sophisticated diesel electric submarine that could be procured and with the traditional kickbacks and corruption ladled deals that are the hallmark of the Pakistani defense procurement, the program cost more than its share of budget allocation.
> 
> *Pre-2001: the years of neglect*
> 
> Prior to 2001, Pakistan Navy’s fleet was made up of generally obsolescent vessels such as the type – 21 frigate, nearly mothballed during destroyers, 2 training Leander FFs, along with a mix of Chinese missile boats, minesweepers and various FACs. Its aviation assets will be considered and somewhat better shape with less advanced, but somewhat effective versions of the Breguet Atlantique serving in an anti submarine role. Additionally, there were versions of the Sea King helicopter that usually operated from land with the outdated Alouette picking up a ship based antisubmarine warfare role. While the Pakistan Navy had operated Westland Lynx helicopters which were bought in lieu of the type XXI frigates; lack of spares and general support had them mothballed around this time. There were also 2 P-3C Orion Aircraft that while being relatively good Anti-Submarine aircraft were grounded due to the inability of the PN to complete a overhaul.
> 
> The supposed pride of the Pakistan Navy lay in the submarine arm, which consisted of three Agosta class vessels of which two were the 70 type and one was the modernized 90 type. There were additional 4 Daphne class submarines with these were mostly relegated to training roles and insignificant coastal forays.
> 
> That is not to say that some progress had not been made in terms of keeping up efforts in modernization for its assets. Various training systems based on computer simulations had been set up for its submarine fleet and overall command and control. There were efforts to coordinate the procurement of unmanned aerial vehicles to be operated from its surface assets as alternatives to the more expensive option of using helicopter assets for tasks such as observation, reconnaissance and radio relay. In addition, efforts were underway at the time to look at Chinese offerings for surface, subsurface and aviation assets.
> 
> *Post 2001 procurement: *
> 
> One of the first priorities for the Pakistan Navy after the lifting of embargoes was to try and get its backlog of spares cleared up for the American equipment it operates. This included the P – 3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft, such the Phlanax close in weapons system mounted on its key surface vessels, and ancillary spares for the harpoon missile system.
> 
> The initial attempts to procure these systems were met with hesitation from the US government, which wanted to ensure that any weapon systems sold to Pakistan would have some usefulness within the support for the war on terror as it was important to convince the US Congress of the same. In light of this, many of the upgrades were financed under US aid based upon the usefulness in providing maritime intelligence against possible terrorist usage of Pakistan’s territorial waters.
> 
> The P-3 C Orion maritime patrol aircraft underwent a series of upgrades which brought them to the same standard as those operated by the United States Navy. This includes capability to coordinate data and threat picture with the entire C4I2 system of the Pakistan Navy (and with recent developments, the Pakistan integrated air defense system). The combination of surface search radar, active and passive sonobouys , along with synthetic aperture radar allows the P-3 C Orion operated by Pakistan Navy to be able to enhance Pakistan’s maritime security and considerably threaten and delay any blockade attempts by the aggressor both surface and subsurface.
> 
> Certain ancillary systems were also purchased for usage on the existing Westland SH3 seaking helicopters with these were generally purchased off-the-shelf. In light of the additional expected responsibility allocated the Pakistan Navy in curtailing terrorist movements, expectations were to purchase patrol craft that would allow the Pakistan Navy to conduct halt and search operations on vessels within the Arabian Sea. For this purpose, a certain amount of the military. It provided had to be spent on fast intercept craft along with a multitude of small arms and equipment for naval commandos.
> 
> The greatest focus for the Pakistan Navy was to increase its surface presence and replace what were essentially floating helpless targets in its oldest ships. To ameliorate the situation, the Pakistan Navy went on a search for various frigate class ships within the 2500 to 4500 ton displacement range. Among the candidates evaluated were the Oliver Hazard Perry class(USA-refurbished and available as EDA), Type 22(UK- Refurbished), MEKO( Germany – New) Class, Type 53H3(China- New) and FREMM(France – New). The French and German designs were overruled due to cost. Since the PN would not be able to afford the eventual complement of 8 it wants. The OHP from the US brought with it the advantage of being a tried and trusted platform that Pakistan could convince the US to provide it under aid and for free using the EDA program; so that all Pakistan would pay for would be refurbishment and delivery costs.
> 
> Around 2005, the Pakistan Navy decided to jump in on the option of the excess defence articles from the US, which included the option of upcoming decommissioned OHP frigates and the P-3 Orion patrol aircraft. The original plan was to acquire 4 OHP frigates, along with six Sikorsky SH-60F anti-submarine warfare helicopters. However, only one OHP was approved and procured without its helicopter complement due to a lack of funds and deteriorating relations.
> 
> The other boost for the surface fleet came from the purchase of modified *Jiangwei II *frigates, along with a complement of Z-9EC helicopters which are essentially Chinese variants of the Euro copter (now Airbus) AS-565 Panther. This platform comes with a very respectable anti-submarine warfare suite and is able to coordinate data and attacks with the F-22 P frigates. Together they provided a much-needed boost to Pakistan’s ASW& ASuW capabilities as previously the only shipborne element that could work effectively for longer periods in such operations were the lynx helicopters which now sit mothballed.
> 
> Pakistan’s complement of Westland Sea King helicopters generally operates from short bases and was unable to provide a similar level of detached coverage that now extends beyond Pakistan’s territorial sea space. The sea Kings did however undergo an upgrade in the mid-2000 with equipment purchased both from European sources, along with an unnamed country providing electronic support measures.
> 
> To offset its inability to purchase larger and *more* expensive capital ships, the Pakistan Navy has relied on various fast attack missile craft as an asymmetric offset. This included earlier designs adapted from China, which were retired in the early 2000’s. The replacement is generally a simple design with an aft mounted missile launcher housing C-801 system (_it is suggested that the system was only a trial and was replaced with C-802_). Two of these craft were built in the late 90s and after trials at sea,2 more improved versions were built at karachi shipyards.
> 
> However, the actual focus of the missile craft program was to create a semi-low-observable design that could sit between a corvette and a smaller patrol boat. The first of these craft is the Azmat Class which has a theoretical top speed of 45 knots but is limited by its weak engine. The craft is however pretty effective in its role of littoral harassment and carries C-802 missiles which are capable of receiving both targeting and guidance from off board sensors.
> 
> A further 8 craft are planned which will likely be either scaled up versions of the Azmat or craft that would qualify as Corvettes. The true achievement has been the development of the net-centric C4I system within the PN that allows aircraft such as the P-3 to coordinate and direct attacks on targets from weapon launch platforms such as the Azmat and the Zulfiqar along with land based SSMs.
> 
> As the Agosta-90B acquisitions were completed, the Pakistan Navy began to consider an additional sub purchase to replace the earlier Agosta 70 class of submarines which would eventually be nearing retirement by 2018. In light of this, the first option was to either go for more Agosta 90B systems or the Scorpene class from the French DCN. This brought with it familiarity with systems along with a known relationship with the supplier. The French were initially positive to this deal until India rolled out its various defence modernization programs which included unsaid clauses on not selling similar equipment to Pakistan as a positive consideration for its own programs.
> 
> Facing both a less than eager French who hiked up the prices for new Submarines; the Pakistan Navy was still keen on procuring a western class and turned to Germany. Negotiations took place on a tailored version of the Type 214 submarine but the efforts of Indian lobbyists within the European Union Parliament all but ended any hopes of procuring this platform.
> 
> Thankfully, the Pakistan Navy had been toying with the idea of using a Chinese Platform prior to 2001, and had been negotiating on a modified Yuan class submarine with further noise suppression to increase its underwater stealth. The contract was to include construction at Karachi Shipyard Engineering Works to allow not just for transfer of technology but also meet delivery timelines.
> 
> The Yuan class of submarines is a carry on from China’s original adaptation known as the Song class and includes ideas taken from China’s Russian origin Kilo class subs. Its sonar is comparable if not better to the TSM 2233 Mk 2 sonar made by the French company Thales. Unconfirmed rumours suggest that the latest Yuan class employs multiple arrays to further increase its coverage and detection accuracy. In addition, the submarine is capable of employing the C-802 missile from its torpedo tubes.
> 
> Worth mentioning is the Pakistani Navy's research into the usage of UAV's and UUVs and the subsequent acquisition of the former from both western and local sources. The variety of platforms used is based upon an ongoing attempt to continually evaluate systems and implement them within the greater role of providing more sensors for surveillance operations along with taking the burden of more expensive to operate manned systems.
> 
> Where these systems fit are into creating a very expansive and capable C4I network.
> 
> *More with Less:* *Pakistan Navy’s Net-centric C4I grid:*
> 
> To complete its coastal defense grid and try to stave off a repeat of the blockade scenario Pakistan faced in 71, the PN has developed a plethora of sensor and weapons systems along the coast line which feed into its primary net. This includes shore based radars, ship board sensors, P-3C and Sea King surveillance radars along with taking a feed from the PAF’s ZDK-03 system. Developing a composite picture of both air, sea and submarine targets that feeds into its regional combat HQ and to NHQ in Islamabad. Quite simply, the system has changed how the PN fights its battles and allows it to coordinate attacks against any threat using the various weapons it has at its disposal. In addition, its sensors plug into the PAF’s own Air Defence grid allowing PN ships to act as SAM batteries under the Air Force’s command.
> 
> To assist with the off board weapons employment and shore defence, the Pakistan Navy recently completed its deployment and integration of a shore based anti-ship missile defense grid dubbed as Barq. Barq is assumed to employ a locally modified version of the C-602 to bypass the MTCR (_missile technology control regime, restricts exports of missiles with ranges greater than 300km_) restrictions as it has done with various Chinese weapons.
> 
> To demonstrate, current Pakistan surveillance of its southern coast by air paints a picture similar to the following:
> 
> View attachment 341936
> 
> 
> The various concentric circles indicate air surveillance sensors that include ground based radars, AEW systems such as the ZDK-03 Karokaram eagle shown, and ship-borne systems along with fighter radars. *As a disclaimer, this is not an exact measurement as ranges and effectiveness of sensors is taken with a conservative outlook.*
> 
> The same sensor net also provides Sea target surveillance, as the yellow circles and semi-circles show which includes the F-22P sensors, Z-9, P-3, ZDK-03, Coastal Radar and fighter radar. The large yellow circle represents a conservative estimate of the range that the ZDK-03 allows for surveillance of naval assets, and the bold semi-circle represents the range of the P-3 Orion sensors. Just as with the air defense net, all these sensors link to provide a single picture of Pakistan’s coastal and sea territory safety.
> 
> View attachment 341935
> 
> 
> Lastly, the red circles indicate the effectiveness of weapons available to the PN from sea and shore based systems (not actual positions or ranges but estimates). This does not include the usage of AGM-84 Harpoon systems on the P-3.
> 
> View attachment 341934
> 
> 
> This combined defense system offers a good mix of ship, shore and air based defenses of Pakistan’s coast and the various layers help back up each other in case of a concentrated enemy attack. Without a doubt, this is most important development in the naval defense of Pakistan and is generally not taken for what it is actually worth; as it has allowed the PN to transform from a fairly weak arm into a well coordinate and effective fighting force.
> 
> *Nuclear Ambitions & the Second Strike capability:*
> 
> As Pakistan’s nuclear program rolled along during the late 1980’s, ideas were considered on how Pakistan would ensure the safety of its strike capability against a concentrated attack and still be able to hit back in case of a surprise attack. Options included creating hardened silos, mobile weapons and dispersal sites for dedicated aircraft.
> 
> Silos were not considered as effective since they were fixed targets that could eventually fall to multiple hits and required great expense. Since Pakistan’s primary land based warheads were already focused to be based on Mobile platforms that continuously roam the country, there was a requirement to create a sea based deterrent force.
> 
> However, since Pakistan did not have a sufficiently large submarine to carry a Ballistic missile; and at the time did not possess a cruise weapons system; it was decided to try and use the helicopter decks of its Capital ships as launching platforms. Several attempts towards this were carried out during the late 90’s all the way to the nuclear tests; but the complexity of the system along with reliability issues led to this option never being exercised.
> 
> One option considered was to reverse engineer and/or modify the French SM-39 exocet missiles to carry a warhead; however, the small size of the missile required a miniaturized warhead which Pakistan would take ten years to develop; along with the limited range ended the idea before any fruitful research was even carried out.
> 
> Pakistan’s luck changed thanks to a US strike on terrorists in Afghanistan during the mid-90’ and several intact US BGM-109B tomahawk missiles landed on Pakistani territory which it promptly carted off to its research facilities along with providing an example to China to reverse engineer. With a locally designed guidance and flight system using a Chinese provided engine, the Babur missile
> 
> Since it was decided by the early 2000’s that Babur could serve as a viable nuclear delivery system, various ideas were gamed on how to use the system from its pre-existing submarines. However, it was decided that a new class of Submarine was needed to deploy the system.
> 
> Information on this system gets fairly sketchy and speculative. The purchase of 8 new submarines from China prompted speculation on the usage of the Qing class due to its Sail Size which could accommodate both the Babur and a Submarine launched Ballistic missile. However, the confirmation that the new submarine was the S-20 ended all these speculation.
> 
> What is known by sources close to the PN is that Pakistan’s nuclear delivery ambitions go beyond the 8 subs purchased and include the design and development of two different platforms. This includes a platform capable of launching ballistic missiles. Both these platforms are confirmed to be nuclear powered as per the interviews of Pakistani officials.
> 
> These programs are currently well in progress and a correlation of known knowledge and sources suggest that one platform is to serve as a launch platform for both a derivative of the Babur and a Submarine Ballistic Missile. The other platform is an attack submarine designed to escort this platform but primarily hunt an adversary’s second strike ballistic submarine.
> 
> If these reports are accurate, the Pakistan Navy will not only be able to provide a second strike capability which could launch weapons against targets from the Bay of Bengal, it could also potentially deploy a submarine for long term duration hunts that last more than half a year along with keeping an eye on adversary movement.
> 
> From its days in the 90’s as a step-child branch of the Pakistani military, the current modernization plans along with the pace of force integration with other branches, the Pakistan Navy is slowly bur surely turning into a force to be truly reckoned with.
> 
> @Horus @The Deterrent @Manticore @Irfan Baloch @Penguin @niaz @araz @Tempest II @Slav Defence @PARIKRAMA @MilSpec @Bilal Khan (Quwa) @Bilal Khan 777 @Dazzler @Side-Winder



Since I am not a Navy man, i will make only one observation. The induction of 08 submarines from China do not take away the suspicion that something else may also be in the offing, to complete the nuclear triad.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## YeBeWarned

Oscar said:


> What is known by sources close to the PN is that Pakistan’s nuclear delivery ambitions go beyond the 8 subs purchased and include the design and development of two different platforms. This includes a platform capable of launching ballistic missiles. Both these platforms are confirmed to be nuclear powered as per the interviews of Pakistani officials.
> 
> These programs are currently well in progress and a correlation of known knowledge and sources suggest that one platform is to serve as a launch platform for both a derivative of the Babur and a Submarine Ballistic Missile. The other platform is an attack submarine designed to escort this platform but primarily hunt an adversary’s second strike ballistic submarine.



@Oscar very nice and wonderfully written Article , i just want to get my head straight on this particular part , is it now confirmed that PN is working on two Different Platforms for Submarines in Home ? and both will be powered by Nuclear Reactors , and you mentioned Submarines will be able to Launch Ballistic Missile , how credible this Part is ?
cause there has been rumors about Pakistan been working on a ingenious Sub Program but it was always mentioned that it will be carrying Babur CM as Dr Mubarak mentioned in his interview that we already got Essentials for Naval Versions of it .. can you confirm it ?

Oh and one more thing,we have heard that PN is increasing the Size of marines by 25K , and adding some Landing Crafts , any idea what's going on that front ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## fatman17

Pakistan's nuclear triad will only be completed after the induction of the Chinese built S20 boats starting 2022-23. the land and air based components are in place and are tried and tested.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## YeBeWarned

Penguin said:


> That multimission frigate (top) is 1500tn i.e. a corvette.



By looking at Pakistan and India Coast and future Naval Conflicts what you think that will be best for PN ? a light weight corvette with Shoot and scout theory , or by going for some medium weight Frigates with less Stealthy body?


----------



## Super Falcon

We need to improve navy in many field 

Pak Marines
Should have dedicated ships long range air defence systems tanks APC C 130 and few AH 1W Cobras like weapons as their role is very very crucial in war AIR LAND SEA

than navy should have bigger ships better weapons for SSGN

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## fatman17

Oscar said:


> *Pakistan Navy : The Phoenix Rises*
> 
> By: "Oscar" from team Pakistan Defence
> October-09-2016
> 
> View attachment 341998
> 
> 
> Traditionally, the Pakistan Navy has been the stepchild within the branches of the Pakistani military. This has to do with the lack of understanding by the major decision influences within Pakistan’s military procurement programs; in this case, the Pakistan army, which tends to hoard the military budget(_willingly or by virtue of size_), followed by the Pakistan air force. Ironically, the Pakistan air force officers due to their greater exposure and generally better education in terms of military objectives in training (_due to better quality syllabi and a much more selective plethora of candidates that become officers_) are much more aware of Pakistan and its military deficiencies, but tend to be selfish when it comes to budgetary requests _(as all individual branches within the world military forces are_).
> 
> Another reason for the stepchild treatment has to do with the generally expensive nature and high-value of what are the Navy’s primary bread-and-butter in oceangoing vessels both surface and subsurface. A single destroyer can run in cost to hundreds of millions of dollars, whereas the same amount can purchase 10 or 15 fighter jets or 60 tanks.
> 
> Finally, there was the issue of economic and diplomatic sanctions that Pakistan had to face after the Pressler Amendment, which all but cut off the traditional sources for Pakistan’s procurement plans. It would be unfair to single out the Navy at the receiving end of budgetary isolation as one of the most expensive procurement programs undertaken by Pakistan during the 90s involved the Pakistan Navy and the Agosta 90 B submarine. For its time, the platform was an adequately sophisticated diesel electric submarine that could be procured and with the traditional kickbacks and corruption ladled deals that are the hallmark of the Pakistani defense procurement, the program cost more than its share of budget allocation.
> 
> *Pre-2001: the years of neglect*
> 
> Prior to 2001, Pakistan Navy’s fleet was made up of generally obsolescent vessels such as the type – 21 frigate, nearly mothballed during destroyers, 2 training Leander FFs, along with a mix of Chinese missile boats, minesweepers and various FACs. Its aviation assets will be considered and somewhat better shape with less advanced, but somewhat effective versions of the Breguet Atlantique serving in an anti submarine role. Additionally, there were versions of the Sea King helicopter that usually operated from land with the outdated Alouette picking up a ship based antisubmarine warfare role. While the Pakistan Navy had operated Westland Lynx helicopters which were bought in lieu of the type XXI frigates; lack of spares and general support had them mothballed around this time. There were also 2 P-3C Orion Aircraft that while being relatively good Anti-Submarine aircraft were grounded due to the inability of the PN to complete a overhaul.
> 
> The supposed pride of the Pakistan Navy lay in the submarine arm, which consisted of three Agosta class vessels of which two were the 70 type and one was the modernized 90 type. There were additional 4 Daphne class submarines with these were mostly relegated to training roles and insignificant coastal forays.
> 
> That is not to say that some progress had not been made in terms of keeping up efforts in modernization for its assets. Various training systems based on computer simulations had been set up for its submarine fleet and overall command and control. There were efforts to coordinate the procurement of unmanned aerial vehicles to be operated from its surface assets as alternatives to the more expensive option of using helicopter assets for tasks such as observation, reconnaissance and radio relay. In addition, efforts were underway at the time to look at Chinese offerings for surface, subsurface and aviation assets.
> 
> *Post 2001 procurement: *
> 
> One of the first priorities for the Pakistan Navy after the lifting of embargoes was to try and get its backlog of spares cleared up for the American equipment it operates. This included the P – 3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft, such the Phlanax close in weapons system mounted on its key surface vessels, and ancillary spares for the harpoon missile system.
> 
> The initial attempts to procure these systems were met with hesitation from the US government, which wanted to ensure that any weapon systems sold to Pakistan would have some usefulness within the support for the war on terror as it was important to convince the US Congress of the same. In light of this, many of the upgrades were financed under US aid based upon the usefulness in providing maritime intelligence against possible terrorist usage of Pakistan’s territorial waters.
> 
> The P-3 C Orion maritime patrol aircraft underwent a series of upgrades which brought them to the same standard as those operated by the United States Navy. This includes capability to coordinate data and threat picture with the entire C4I2 system of the Pakistan Navy (and with recent developments, the Pakistan integrated air defense system). The combination of surface search radar, active and passive sonobouys , along with synthetic aperture radar allows the P-3 C Orion operated by Pakistan Navy to be able to enhance Pakistan’s maritime security and considerably threaten and delay any blockade attempts by the aggressor both surface and subsurface.
> 
> Certain ancillary systems were also purchased for usage on the existing Westland SH3 seaking helicopters with these were generally purchased off-the-shelf. In light of the additional expected responsibility allocated the Pakistan Navy in curtailing terrorist movements, expectations were to purchase patrol craft that would allow the Pakistan Navy to conduct halt and search operations on vessels within the Arabian Sea. For this purpose, a certain amount of the military. It provided had to be spent on fast intercept craft along with a multitude of small arms and equipment for naval commandos.
> 
> The greatest focus for the Pakistan Navy was to increase its surface presence and replace what were essentially floating helpless targets in its oldest ships. To ameliorate the situation, the Pakistan Navy went on a search for various frigate class ships within the 2500 to 4500 ton displacement range. Among the candidates evaluated were the Oliver Hazard Perry class(USA-refurbished and available as EDA), Type 22(UK- Refurbished), MEKO( Germany – New) Class, Type 53H3(China- New) and FREMM(France – New). The French and German designs were overruled due to cost. Since the PN would not be able to afford the eventual complement of 8 it wants. The OHP from the US brought with it the advantage of being a tried and trusted platform that Pakistan could convince the US to provide it under aid and for free using the EDA program; so that all Pakistan would pay for would be refurbishment and delivery costs.
> 
> Around 2005, the Pakistan Navy decided to jump in on the option of the excess defence articles from the US, which included the option of upcoming decommissioned OHP frigates and the P-3 Orion patrol aircraft. The original plan was to acquire 4 OHP frigates, along with six Sikorsky SH-60F anti-submarine warfare helicopters. However, only one OHP was approved and procured without its helicopter complement due to a lack of funds and deteriorating relations.
> 
> The other boost for the surface fleet came from the purchase of modified *Jiangwei II *frigates, along with a complement of Z-9EC helicopters which are essentially Chinese variants of the Euro copter (now Airbus) AS-565 Panther. This platform comes with a very respectable anti-submarine warfare suite and is able to coordinate data and attacks with the F-22 P frigates. Together they provided a much-needed boost to Pakistan’s ASW& ASuW capabilities as previously the only shipborne element that could work effectively for longer periods in such operations were the lynx helicopters which now sit mothballed.
> 
> Pakistan’s complement of Westland Sea King helicopters generally operates from short bases and was unable to provide a similar level of detached coverage that now extends beyond Pakistan’s territorial sea space. The sea Kings did however undergo an upgrade in the mid-2000 with equipment purchased both from European sources, along with an unnamed country providing electronic support measures.
> 
> To offset its inability to purchase larger and *more* expensive capital ships, the Pakistan Navy has relied on various fast attack missile craft as an asymmetric offset. This included earlier designs adapted from China, which were retired in the early 2000’s. The replacement is generally a simple design with an aft mounted missile launcher housing C-801 system (_it is suggested that the system was only a trial and was replaced with C-802_). Two of these craft were built in the late 90s and after trials at sea,2 more improved versions were built at karachi shipyards.
> 
> However, the actual focus of the missile craft program was to create a semi-low-observable design that could sit between a corvette and a smaller patrol boat. The first of these craft is the Azmat Class which has a theoretical top speed of 45 knots but is limited by its weak engine. The craft is however pretty effective in its role of littoral harassment and carries C-802 missiles which are capable of receiving both targeting and guidance from off board sensors.
> 
> A further 8 craft are planned which will likely be either scaled up versions of the Azmat or craft that would qualify as Corvettes. The true achievement has been the development of the net-centric C4I system within the PN that allows aircraft such as the P-3 to coordinate and direct attacks on targets from weapon launch platforms such as the Azmat and the Zulfiqar along with land based SSMs.
> 
> As the Agosta-90B acquisitions were completed, the Pakistan Navy began to consider an additional sub purchase to replace the earlier Agosta 70 class of submarines which would eventually be nearing retirement by 2018. In light of this, the first option was to either go for more Agosta 90B systems or the Scorpene class from the French DCN. This brought with it familiarity with systems along with a known relationship with the supplier. The French were initially positive to this deal until India rolled out its various defence modernization programs which included unsaid clauses on not selling similar equipment to Pakistan as a positive consideration for its own programs.
> 
> Facing both a less than eager French who hiked up the prices for new Submarines; the Pakistan Navy was still keen on procuring a western class and turned to Germany. Negotiations took place on a tailored version of the Type 214 submarine but the efforts of Indian lobbyists within the European Union Parliament all but ended any hopes of procuring this platform.
> 
> Thankfully, the Pakistan Navy had been toying with the idea of using a Chinese Platform prior to 2001, and had been negotiating on a modified Yuan class submarine with further noise suppression to increase its underwater stealth. The contract was to include construction at Karachi Shipyard Engineering Works to allow not just for transfer of technology but also meet delivery timelines.
> 
> The Yuan class of submarines is a carry on from China’s original adaptation known as the Song class and includes ideas taken from China’s Russian origin Kilo class subs. Its sonar is comparable if not better to the TSM 2233 Mk 2 sonar made by the French company Thales. Unconfirmed rumours suggest that the latest Yuan class employs multiple arrays to further increase its coverage and detection accuracy. In addition, the submarine is capable of employing the C-802 missile from its torpedo tubes.
> 
> Worth mentioning is the Pakistani Navy's research into the usage of UAV's and UUVs and the subsequent acquisition of the former from both western and local sources. The variety of platforms used is based upon an ongoing attempt to continually evaluate systems and implement them within the greater role of providing more sensors for surveillance operations along with taking the burden of more expensive to operate manned systems.
> 
> Where these systems fit are into creating a very expansive and capable C4I network.
> 
> *More with Less:* *Pakistan Navy’s Net-centric C4I grid:*
> 
> To complete its coastal defense grid and try to stave off a repeat of the blockade scenario Pakistan faced in 71, the PN has developed a plethora of sensor and weapons systems along the coast line which feed into its primary net. This includes shore based radars, ship board sensors, P-3C and Sea King surveillance radars along with taking a feed from the PAF’s ZDK-03 system. Developing a composite picture of both air, sea and submarine targets that feeds into its regional combat HQ and to NHQ in Islamabad. Quite simply, the system has changed how the PN fights its battles and allows it to coordinate attacks against any threat using the various weapons it has at its disposal. In addition, its sensors plug into the PAF’s own Air Defence grid allowing PN ships to act as SAM batteries under the Air Force’s command.
> 
> To assist with the off board weapons employment and shore defence, the Pakistan Navy recently completed its deployment and integration of a shore based anti-ship missile defense grid dubbed as Barq. Barq is assumed to employ a locally modified version of the C-602 to bypass the MTCR (_missile technology control regime, restricts exports of missiles with ranges greater than 300km_) restrictions as it has done with various Chinese weapons.
> 
> To demonstrate, current Pakistan surveillance of its southern coast by air paints a picture similar to the following:
> 
> View attachment 341936
> 
> 
> The various concentric circles indicate air surveillance sensors that include ground based radars, AEW systems such as the ZDK-03 Karokaram eagle shown, and ship-borne systems along with fighter radars. *As a disclaimer, this is not an exact measurement as ranges and effectiveness of sensors is taken with a conservative outlook.*
> 
> The same sensor net also provides Sea target surveillance, as the yellow circles and semi-circles show which includes the F-22P sensors, Z-9, P-3, ZDK-03, Coastal Radar and fighter radar. The large yellow circle represents a conservative estimate of the range that the ZDK-03 allows for surveillance of naval assets, and the bold semi-circle represents the range of the P-3 Orion sensors. Just as with the air defense net, all these sensors link to provide a single picture of Pakistan’s coastal and sea territory safety.
> 
> View attachment 341935
> 
> 
> Lastly, the red circles indicate the effectiveness of weapons available to the PN from sea and shore based systems (not actual positions or ranges but estimates). This does not include the usage of AGM-84 Harpoon systems on the P-3.
> 
> View attachment 341934
> 
> 
> This combined defense system offers a good mix of ship, shore and air based defenses of Pakistan’s coast and the various layers help back up each other in case of a concentrated enemy attack. Without a doubt, this is most important development in the naval defense of Pakistan and is generally not taken for what it is actually worth; as it has allowed the PN to transform from a fairly weak arm into a well coordinate and effective fighting force.
> 
> *Nuclear Ambitions & the Second Strike capability:*
> 
> As Pakistan’s nuclear program rolled along during the late 1980’s, ideas were considered on how Pakistan would ensure the safety of its strike capability against a concentrated attack and still be able to hit back in case of a surprise attack. Options included creating hardened silos, mobile weapons and dispersal sites for dedicated aircraft.
> 
> Silos were not considered as effective since they were fixed targets that could eventually fall to multiple hits and required great expense. Since Pakistan’s primary land based warheads were already focused to be based on Mobile platforms that continuously roam the country, there was a requirement to create a sea based deterrent force.
> 
> However, since Pakistan did not have a sufficiently large submarine to carry a Ballistic missile; and at the time did not possess a cruise weapons system; it was decided to try and use the helicopter decks of its Capital ships as launching platforms. Several attempts towards this were carried out during the late 90’s all the way to the nuclear tests; but the complexity of the system along with reliability issues led to this option never being exercised.
> 
> One option considered was to reverse engineer and/or modify the French SM-39 exocet missiles to carry a warhead; however, the small size of the missile required a miniaturized warhead which Pakistan would take ten years to develop; along with the limited range ended the idea before any fruitful research was even carried out.
> 
> Pakistan’s luck changed thanks to a US strike on terrorists in Afghanistan during the mid-90’ and several intact US BGM-109B tomahawk missiles landed on Pakistani territory which it promptly carted off to its research facilities along with providing an example to China to reverse engineer. With a locally designed guidance and flight system using a Chinese provided engine, the Babur missile
> 
> Since it was decided by the early 2000’s that Babur could serve as a viable nuclear delivery system, various ideas were gamed on how to use the system from its pre-existing submarines. However, it was decided that a new class of Submarine was needed to deploy the system.
> 
> Information on this system gets fairly sketchy and speculative. The purchase of 8 new submarines from China prompted speculation on the usage of the Qing class due to its Sail Size which could accommodate both the Babur and a Submarine launched Ballistic missile. However, the confirmation that the new submarine was the S-20 ended all these speculation.
> 
> What is known by sources close to the PN is that Pakistan’s nuclear delivery ambitions go beyond the 8 subs purchased and include the design and development of two different platforms. This includes a platform capable of launching ballistic missiles. Both these platforms are confirmed to be nuclear powered as per the interviews of Pakistani officials.
> 
> These programs are currently well in progress and a correlation of known knowledge and sources suggest that one platform is to serve as a launch platform for both a derivative of the Babur and a Submarine Ballistic Missile. The other platform is an attack submarine designed to escort this platform but primarily hunt an adversary’s second strike ballistic submarine.
> 
> If these reports are accurate, the Pakistan Navy will not only be able to provide a second strike capability which could launch weapons against targets from the Bay of Bengal, it could also potentially deploy a submarine for long term duration hunts that last more than half a year along with keeping an eye on adversary movement.
> 
> From its days in the 90’s as a step-child branch of the Pakistani military, the current modernization plans along with the pace of force integration with other branches, the Pakistan Navy is slowly bur surely turning into a force to be truly reckoned with.
> 
> @Horus @The Deterrent @Manticore @Irfan Baloch @Penguin @niaz @araz @Tempest II @Slav Defence @PARIKRAMA @MilSpec @Bilal Khan (Quwa) @Bilal Khan 777 @Dazzler @Side-Winder



nice job. hats off.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Flash_Ninja

I think the Navy's resources would be better spent researching missile and submarine technology.

A small nation like Israel could punch way above its weight due to the sheer differences in military technology.


----------



## araz

A really nicely written article. There are as always a few hinderances which @fatman17 pointed out in his original response. It did seem that finance was not the only hinderance to PN surface acquisition. It seems to me we were at the cusp of change in surface platform usage and use of smaller crafts with shoot and scoot capabilityare now more in favour as compared to larger cumbersome and difficult to hide frigates and destroyers.
One of the recent developments has been the construction of 600 and 1500 ton crafts for the MSA. Is this in indication Of things to come?
The other thing to think of is whether the source of surface platforms is being shifted towards non chinese providers? This seems to have been brought about by safety concerns and possibly associated missile deals which the Chinese are not in a position to provide for the moment.
Either case we are looking at long awaited development of a neglected arm.
A

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ConcealCarry

I know about the work on miniature reactor for the subs since 2008 from someone who was directly involved in the project and it was 80-85% complete then. My question was about sub construction. This is however possible that instead of building new platform, Pakistan fits the nuclear reactors in the existing subs or the new Chinese subs without ever declaring it publically. 





Oscar said:


> The reactor is the first step; that is all I would like to add.
> 
> 
> I don't express anything until I am dead sure, and this I intend for our fb page so double checked or triple checked info.
> 
> All nuclear subs require that their power plant be developed first.
> 
> Budget and usual "nagihanu aafatien" being avoided, most of these thingd should see completion.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hassan Guy

11 AIP Attack Submarines
1 Nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarine
12 Frigates
8 Corvettes 
4 Destroyers
Can we still get that 1 Aircraft Carrier?


----------



## ConcealCarry

I can vouch for the reactor part, I know it was 80-85% complete in 2008. I guess if @Oscar is revealing it now publically, then that must be 100% tested and ready.



AUz said:


> Well in that case, best of luck to the nation. Hopefully, we'll see Pakistan's own nuclear submarine by 2030 or so.
> 
> Military should be on this project like they are on CPEC, so "nagihani aafatein" can be avoid. Budgetary issues should arise in the first place (if planning is right), and even if they do God forbid, Saudis can come in handy if we make them the right sell.
> 
> Anyways, Godspeed to our country's defence capabilities!


----------



## Bilal Khan 777

fatman17 said:


> Pakistan's nuclear triad will only be completed after the induction of the Chinese built S20 boats starting 2022-23. the land and air based components are in place and are tried and tested.


s-20 are not nuclear, rather AIP subs. I believe there is something more than meet the eye / surface.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Mutakalim

Hassan Guy said:


> Can we still get that 1 Aircraft Carrier?


Why would we want to induct an aircraft carrier? Think before compiling your wish lists.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hassan Guy

SaG E Jillani88 said:


> Why would we want to induct an aircraft carrier?


who knows, it could come in handy when least expected


----------



## ConcealCarry

Like the 40 foot trailer you have in your garage for who knows when it might come in handy, right?



Hassan Guy said:


> who knows, it could come in handy when least expected

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Hassan Guy

ConcealCarry said:


> Like the 40 foot trailer you have in your garage for who knows when it might come in handy, right?


terrible response but sure why not?


----------



## Mutakalim

Hassan Guy said:


> who knows, it could come in handy


Defense procurement doesn't depend on speculations. Aircraft carriers are used to project power. ACs doesn't fit our naval doctrine nor does our pocket.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hassan Guy

SaG E Jillani88 said:


> Defense procurement doesn't depend on speculations. Aircraft carriers are used to project power. ACs doesn't fit our naval doctrine nor does our pocket.


well then let's project some power, btw AC's have other roles then just "power projection"


----------



## ConcealCarry

Exactly, now you know how your response sounded.



Hassan Guy said:


> terrible response but sure why not?


----------



## Hassan Guy

ConcealCarry said:


> Exactly, now you know how your response sounded.


sounded?


----------



## sady

Zarvan said:


> I agree CPEC is great opportunity for us to expand our Navy. We need to get Frigates from Turkey and also South Korea with VLS like MK 41 system which can do multi functions I mean from firing Air Defence Missiles to Long Range cruise missiles. They would not only give us more platforms for nuclear but also massive conventional power. In future if needed we can also participate missiles around the globe


I agree. To gain enough conventional punch in other words to decrease the reliance on tactical weapons.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LadyFinger

It is just me and my thoughts about this organization that Pakistan Navy lost its credibility in my eyes after the Augusta submarine scandal and all that we got to hear after that. I hope while working on upgrading their technology, they will also work on their repo.

It was a shock and a strange moment when people you trust are found out to be the ones who looted your assets.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## sady

ConcealCarry said:


> I can vouch for the reactor part, I know it was 80-85% complete in 2008. I guess if @Oscar is revealing it now publically, then that must be 100% tested and ready.


I think it is smart not to divulge sensitive details. This intel is still enemy worthy. We all have a person who knows sensitive stuff but it is better to keep it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bilal Khan 777

LadyFinger said:


> It is just me and my thoughts about this organization that Pakistan Navy lost its credibility in my eyes after the Augusta submarine scandal and all that we got to hear after that. I hope while working on upgrading their technology, they will also work on their repo.
> 
> It was a shock and a strange moment when people you trust are found out to be the ones who looted your assets.



The scandal was on MCMVs, not Agosta, and its all done and over, and everyone moved on. So should you.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LadyFinger

Your word it is. People heard a lot otherwise. Ordering me? You have retired now.


Bilal Khan 777 said:


> The scandal was on MCMVs, not Agosta, and its all done and over, and everyone moved on. So should you.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ConcealCarry

I have been sitting on this and other sensitive info for years without ever divulging anything. Pak developing nuclear reactors for subs is not a secret anymore, it was officially divulged a few years ago on our media.



sady said:


> I think it is smart not to divulge sensitive details. This intel is still enemy worthy. We all have a person who knows sensitive stuff but it is better to keep it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## sady

ConcealCarry said:


> I have been sitting on this and other sensitive info for years without ever divulging anything. Pak developing nuclear reactors for subs is not a secret anymore, it was officially divulged a few years ago on our media.


 media reports are not worth the toilet paper. Second hand info is. It confirms it. Just to let you know and not in patronising way many fish pdf for info.



ConcealCarry said:


> I have been sitting on this and other sensitive info for years without ever divulging anything. Pak developing nuclear reactors for subs is not a secret anymore, it was officially divulged a few years ago on our media.


Btw a lot of cut work had been done by 2015....tc ☺


----------



## Zarvan

Some of my friends suggest me that subs are our answer to Indian Navy surface ships and after listening to this answer, I really want to bang my head on the wall. Seriously guys is this your answer, or you just forgot that India also have subs and and they are buying and producing more. Nobody has stopped India from producing subs neither it's prohibited on them. India will not only keep producing Destroyers and Frigates and Corvettes but also both AIP and Nuclear Submarines. So if some one out there wants to suggest me that 14 to 16 submarines are the answer to Indian Navy which in near future would have around 100 big ships than I would really love to meet that person personally.

We don't stand a chance with only 12 Frigates and 14 Submarines. We need much bigger Navy. I mean much much bigger. Finally people will like to call it radio behavior but which ever Frigate we go for in future, that should have VLS which can fire long range cruise missiles. Answering every threat with nuclear boogy is stupidity and eventually of no use. We need to build conventional power. Yes I know the budget story but we have to take drastic steps. @Oscar @Horus

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MilSpec

@Oscar Brilliant article. You should be writing more.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

what is with this fascination for aircraft carriers

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

WaLeEdK2 said:


> As Gwadar continues to progress the navy's wants and needs cannot be or rather will not be ignored. It's too important to shove off to the side and leave it till later. As the troops in the tribal areas start cleaning up the last little bits of resistance and peace is finally resorted the focus will be on the Navy.
> @Oscar in all of this where do Pakistan navy's special forces (SSGN) have a role to play. I seldom hear of their role in any analysis.


The SSGN and their role has been well covered within various books, as such not much has changed beyond CT expansion.



Hell hound said:


> all of your points are great and i see you are using Command Modern Air/Naval Operations for simulation here.then you surely know the importance of AAW role warships for defence of our fleet.as a magzine of eight hq 7 sam missles is not enough to thwart any saturation attack of bhramos.our f 22 and 21s will be sitting ducks for indian navy or in some senarios even their naval air arm can be enough to wipe most of our surface fleet out(p 8 and mig 29).as it simply impossible to provide our ships with 24 hour air cover in war time.
> pls shed some light on this matter too in your article so all other readers can know what we have achieved in last 15 years and what still remains to be achieved.
> @Oscar


That depends on how one places the scenario. The saturation attack does make a difference but that can be relieved by working on a combination of surface and subsurface warfare.


Blue Marlin said:


> i thought mushy said in 2012 that pakistan was developing a nuclear sub. from 2012 to 2016 from the 4 years and consultations from uncle lee would result in some product.
> and as for your write up. i thought the t214 deal was scrapped because the germans refused to integrate an slcm which was due to pressure from the US of A which was the deal breaker


Nope. It was not just that.


Bilal Khan 777 said:


> Since I am not a Navy man, i will make only one observation. The induction of 08 submarines from China do not take away the suspicion that something else may also be in the offing, to complete the nuclear triad.





araz said:


> A really nicely written article. There are as always a few hinderances which @fatman17 pointed out in his original response. It did seem that finance was not the only hinderance to PN surface acquisition. It seems to me we were at the cusp of change in surface platform usage and use of smaller crafts with shoot and scoot capabilityare now more in favour as compared to larger cumbersome and difficult to hide frigates and destroyers.
> One of the recent developments has been the construction of 600 and 1500 ton crafts for the MSA. Is this in indication Of things to come?
> The other thing to think of is whether the source of surface platforms is being shifted towards non chinese providers? This seems to have been brought about by safety concerns and possibly associated missile deals which the Chinese are not in a position to provide for the moment.
> Either case we are looking at long awaited development of a neglected arm.
> A


It seems as if the Navy wants its Merchant branch to be more active in the roles of policing the waters and make its focus the defence of the seas. The F-22P's in their initial condition were very non-user friendly; having people take the OHP as the preferred assignment.



ConcealCarry said:


> I know about the work on miniature reactor for the subs since 2008 from someone who was directly involved in the project and it was 80-85% complete then. My question was about sub construction. This is however possible that instead of building new platform, Pakistan fits the nuclear reactors in the existing subs or the new Chinese subs without ever declaring it publically.


Nothing is going on the existing subs or the S-20s.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Blue Marlin

Oscar said:


> Nope. It was not just that.
> 
> 
> .


well what killed the deal as all the details were done and was cancelled last minute.
i dont get it?


----------



## SQ8

Blue Marlin said:


> well what killed the deal as all the details were done and was cancelled last minute.
> i dont get it?


EU parliament members and lobbying within the German Parliament.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hell hound

Oscar said:


> The SSGN and their role has been well covered within various books, as such not much has changed beyond CT expansion.
> 
> 
> That depends on how one places the scenario. The saturation attack does make a difference but that can be relieved by working on a combination of surface and subsurface warfare.
> 
> Nope. It was not just that.
> 
> 
> It seems as if the Navy wants its Merchant branch to be more active in the roles of policing the waters and make its focus the defence of the seas. The F-22P's in their initial condition were very non-user friendly; having people take the OHP as the preferred assignment.
> 
> 
> Nothing is going on the existing subs or the S-20s.


and about command Modern air/naval operations if you have made any full indo pak war scenario can you pls share it with me thanks.i am looking for one


----------



## Hassan Guy

Dr. Stranglove said:


> what is with this fascination for aircraft carriers


All the great nations have Aircraft Carriers


----------



## Imran Khan

Hassan Guy said:


> All the great nations have Aircraft Carriers


do we have a nation first lets alone great ?



Bilal Khan 777 said:


> The scandal was on MCMVs, not Agosta, and its all done and over, and everyone moved on. So should you.


sir ji kickbacks and karachi blast in agosta scandel is well known 

https://defence.pk/threads/agosta-90b-submarines-sarkozy-took-pak-kickback.62407/

http://pakistan-posts.blogspot.com/2012/06/corruption-in-agosta-90-deal-zardari.html


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...scandal-returns-to-haunt-sarkozy-1720010.html

http://pakmr.blogspot.com/2011/12/former-french-minister-arrested-in.html


----------



## Moon

Hassan Guy said:


> All the great nations have Aircraft Carriers


Since when did having an aircraft carrier become a criteria for a "great nation"?
Our Maritime needs do not involve power projection across a large area. Hence we don't need an aircraft carrier. 
Why do people even ask this question?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hassan Guy

Mr.Meap said:


> Since when did having an aircraft carrier become a criteria for a "great nation"?
> Our Maritime needs do not involve power projection across a large area. Hence we don't need an aircraft carrier.
> Why do people even ask this question?


You never know when shit goes down bruh


----------



## Bilal Khan 777

Imran Khan said:


> do we have a nation first lets alone great ?
> 
> 
> sir ji kickbacks and karachi blast in agosta scandel is well known
> 
> https://defence.pk/threads/agosta-90b-submarines-sarkozy-took-pak-kickback.62407/
> 
> http://pakistan-posts.blogspot.com/2012/06/corruption-in-agosta-90-deal-zardari.html
> 
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...scandal-returns-to-haunt-sarkozy-1720010.html
> 
> http://pakmr.blogspot.com/2011/12/former-french-minister-arrested-in.html



Well i know Mansoor personally. How does that change my opinion for you?



Oscar said:


> The SSGN and their role has been well covered within various books, as such not much has changed beyond CT expansion.
> 
> 
> That depends on how one places the scenario. The saturation attack does make a difference but that can be relieved by working on a combination of surface and subsurface warfare.
> 
> Nope. It was not just that.
> 
> 
> It seems as if the Navy wants its Merchant branch to be more active in the roles of policing the waters and make its focus the defence of the seas. The F-22P's in their initial condition were very non-user friendly; having people take the OHP as the preferred assignment.
> 
> 
> Nothing is going on the existing subs or the S-20s.



Your comment on F22P cannot be further from the truth, and i dismiss it as mere speculation.


----------



## Blue Marlin

Oscar said:


> EU parliament members and lobbying within the German Parliament.


why?


----------



## SQ8

Bilal Khan 777 said:


> Your comment on F22P cannot be further from the truth, and i dismiss it as mere speculation.


I only convey what is verified. We can agree to disagree on the account of hearing from different quarters.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AUz

@Rashid Mahmood is a navy man on the forum. What do you make of this sir?


----------



## shah1398

Oscar said:


> *Pakistan Navy : The Phoenix Rises*
> 
> By: "Oscar" from team Pakistan Defence
> October-09-2016
> 
> View attachment 341998
> 
> 
> Traditionally, the Pakistan Navy has been the stepchild within the branches of the Pakistani military. This has to do with the lack of understanding by the major decision influences within Pakistan’s military procurement programs; in this case, the Pakistan army, which tends to hoard the military budget(_willingly or by virtue of size_), followed by the Pakistan air force. Ironically, the Pakistan air force officers due to their greater exposure and generally better education in terms of military objectives in training (_due to better quality syllabi and a much more selective plethora of candidates that become officers_) are much more aware of Pakistan and its military deficiencies, but tend to be selfish when it comes to budgetary requests _(as all individual branches within the world military forces are_).
> 
> Another reason for the stepchild treatment has to do with the generally expensive nature and high-value of what are the Navy’s primary bread-and-butter in oceangoing vessels both surface and subsurface. A single destroyer can run in cost to hundreds of millions of dollars, whereas the same amount can purchase 10 or 15 fighter jets or 60 tanks.
> 
> Finally, there was the issue of economic and diplomatic sanctions that Pakistan had to face after the Pressler Amendment, which all but cut off the traditional sources for Pakistan’s procurement plans. It would be unfair to single out the Navy at the receiving end of budgetary isolation as one of the most expensive procurement programs undertaken by Pakistan during the 90s involved the Pakistan Navy and the Agosta 90 B submarine. For its time, the platform was an adequately sophisticated diesel electric submarine that could be procured and with the traditional kickbacks and corruption ladled deals that are the hallmark of the Pakistani defense procurement, the program cost more than its share of budget allocation.
> 
> *Pre-2001: the years of neglect*
> 
> Prior to 2001, Pakistan Navy’s fleet was made up of generally obsolescent vessels such as the type – 21 frigate, nearly mothballed during destroyers, 2 training Leander FFs, along with a mix of Chinese missile boats, minesweepers and various FACs. Its aviation assets will be considered and somewhat better shape with less advanced, but somewhat effective versions of the Breguet Atlantique serving in an anti submarine role. Additionally, there were versions of the Sea King helicopter that usually operated from land with the outdated Alouette picking up a ship based antisubmarine warfare role. While the Pakistan Navy had operated Westland Lynx helicopters which were bought in lieu of the type XXI frigates; lack of spares and general support had them mothballed around this time. There were also 2 P-3C Orion Aircraft that while being relatively good Anti-Submarine aircraft were grounded due to the inability of the PN to complete a overhaul.
> 
> The supposed pride of the Pakistan Navy lay in the submarine arm, which consisted of three Agosta class vessels of which two were the 70 type and one was the modernized 90 type. There were additional 4 Daphne class submarines with these were mostly relegated to training roles and insignificant coastal forays.
> 
> That is not to say that some progress had not been made in terms of keeping up efforts in modernization for its assets. Various training systems based on computer simulations had been set up for its submarine fleet and overall command and control. There were efforts to coordinate the procurement of unmanned aerial vehicles to be operated from its surface assets as alternatives to the more expensive option of using helicopter assets for tasks such as observation, reconnaissance and radio relay. In addition, efforts were underway at the time to look at Chinese offerings for surface, subsurface and aviation assets.
> 
> *Post 2001 procurement: *
> 
> One of the first priorities for the Pakistan Navy after the lifting of embargoes was to try and get its backlog of spares cleared up for the American equipment it operates. This included the P – 3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft, such the Phlanax close in weapons system mounted on its key surface vessels, and ancillary spares for the harpoon missile system.
> 
> The initial attempts to procure these systems were met with hesitation from the US government, which wanted to ensure that any weapon systems sold to Pakistan would have some usefulness within the support for the war on terror as it was important to convince the US Congress of the same. In light of this, many of the upgrades were financed under US aid based upon the usefulness in providing maritime intelligence against possible terrorist usage of Pakistan’s territorial waters.
> 
> The P-3 C Orion maritime patrol aircraft underwent a series of upgrades which brought them to the same standard as those operated by the United States Navy. This includes capability to coordinate data and threat picture with the entire C4I2 system of the Pakistan Navy (and with recent developments, the Pakistan integrated air defense system). The combination of surface search radar, active and passive sonobouys , along with synthetic aperture radar allows the P-3 C Orion operated by Pakistan Navy to be able to enhance Pakistan’s maritime security and considerably threaten and delay any blockade attempts by the aggressor both surface and subsurface.
> 
> Certain ancillary systems were also purchased for usage on the existing Westland SH3 seaking helicopters with these were generally purchased off-the-shelf. In light of the additional expected responsibility allocated the Pakistan Navy in curtailing terrorist movements, expectations were to purchase patrol craft that would allow the Pakistan Navy to conduct halt and search operations on vessels within the Arabian Sea. For this purpose, a certain amount of the military. It provided had to be spent on fast intercept craft along with a multitude of small arms and equipment for naval commandos.
> 
> The greatest focus for the Pakistan Navy was to increase its surface presence and replace what were essentially floating helpless targets in its oldest ships. To ameliorate the situation, the Pakistan Navy went on a search for various frigate class ships within the 2500 to 4500 ton displacement range. Among the candidates evaluated were the Oliver Hazard Perry class(USA-refurbished and available as EDA), Type 22(UK- Refurbished), MEKO( Germany – New) Class, Type 53H3(China- New) and FREMM(France – New). The French and German designs were overruled due to cost. Since the PN would not be able to afford the eventual complement of 8 it wants. The OHP from the US brought with it the advantage of being a tried and trusted platform that Pakistan could convince the US to provide it under aid and for free using the EDA program; so that all Pakistan would pay for would be refurbishment and delivery costs.
> 
> Around 2005, the Pakistan Navy decided to jump in on the option of the excess defence articles from the US, which included the option of upcoming decommissioned OHP frigates and the P-3 Orion patrol aircraft. The original plan was to acquire 4 OHP frigates, along with six Sikorsky SH-60F anti-submarine warfare helicopters. However, only one OHP was approved and procured without its helicopter complement due to a lack of funds and deteriorating relations.
> 
> The other boost for the surface fleet came from the purchase of modified *Jiangwei II *frigates, along with a complement of Z-9EC helicopters which are essentially Chinese variants of the Euro copter (now Airbus) AS-565 Panther. This platform comes with a very respectable anti-submarine warfare suite and is able to coordinate data and attacks with the F-22 P frigates. Together they provided a much-needed boost to Pakistan’s ASW& ASuW capabilities as previously the only shipborne element that could work effectively for longer periods in such operations were the lynx helicopters which now sit mothballed.
> 
> Pakistan’s complement of Westland Sea King helicopters generally operates from short bases and was unable to provide a similar level of detached coverage that now extends beyond Pakistan’s territorial sea space. The sea Kings did however undergo an upgrade in the mid-2000 with equipment purchased both from European sources, along with an unnamed country providing electronic support measures.
> 
> To offset its inability to purchase larger and *more* expensive capital ships, the Pakistan Navy has relied on various fast attack missile craft as an asymmetric offset. This included earlier designs adapted from China, which were retired in the early 2000’s. The replacement is generally a simple design with an aft mounted missile launcher housing C-801 system (_it is suggested that the system was only a trial and was replaced with C-802_). Two of these craft were built in the late 90s and after trials at sea,2 more improved versions were built at karachi shipyards.
> 
> However, the actual focus of the missile craft program was to create a semi-low-observable design that could sit between a corvette and a smaller patrol boat. The first of these craft is the Azmat Class which has a theoretical top speed of 45 knots but is limited by its weak engine. The craft is however pretty effective in its role of littoral harassment and carries C-802 missiles which are capable of receiving both targeting and guidance from off board sensors.
> 
> A further 8 craft are planned which will likely be either scaled up versions of the Azmat or craft that would qualify as Corvettes. The true achievement has been the development of the net-centric C4I system within the PN that allows aircraft such as the P-3 to coordinate and direct attacks on targets from weapon launch platforms such as the Azmat and the Zulfiqar along with land based SSMs.
> 
> As the Agosta-90B acquisitions were completed, the Pakistan Navy began to consider an additional sub purchase to replace the earlier Agosta 70 class of submarines which would eventually be nearing retirement by 2018. In light of this, the first option was to either go for more Agosta 90B systems or the Scorpene class from the French DCN. This brought with it familiarity with systems along with a known relationship with the supplier. The French were initially positive to this deal until India rolled out its various defence modernization programs which included unsaid clauses on not selling similar equipment to Pakistan as a positive consideration for its own programs.
> 
> Facing both a less than eager French who hiked up the prices for new Submarines; the Pakistan Navy was still keen on procuring a western class and turned to Germany. Negotiations took place on a tailored version of the Type 214 submarine but the efforts of Indian lobbyists within the European Union Parliament all but ended any hopes of procuring this platform.
> 
> Thankfully, the Pakistan Navy had been toying with the idea of using a Chinese Platform prior to 2001, and had been negotiating on a modified Yuan class submarine with further noise suppression to increase its underwater stealth. The contract was to include construction at Karachi Shipyard Engineering Works to allow not just for transfer of technology but also meet delivery timelines.
> 
> The Yuan class of submarines is a carry on from China’s original adaptation known as the Song class and includes ideas taken from China’s Russian origin Kilo class subs. Its sonar is comparable if not better to the TSM 2233 Mk 2 sonar made by the French company Thales. Unconfirmed rumours suggest that the latest Yuan class employs multiple arrays to further increase its coverage and detection accuracy. In addition, the submarine is capable of employing the C-802 missile from its torpedo tubes.
> 
> Worth mentioning is the Pakistani Navy's research into the usage of UAV's and UUVs and the subsequent acquisition of the former from both western and local sources. The variety of platforms used is based upon an ongoing attempt to continually evaluate systems and implement them within the greater role of providing more sensors for surveillance operations along with taking the burden of more expensive to operate manned systems.
> 
> Where these systems fit are into creating a very expansive and capable C4I network.
> 
> *More with Less:* *Pakistan Navy’s Net-centric C4I grid:*
> 
> To complete its coastal defense grid and try to stave off a repeat of the blockade scenario Pakistan faced in 71, the PN has developed a plethora of sensor and weapons systems along the coast line which feed into its primary net. This includes shore based radars, ship board sensors, P-3C and Sea King surveillance radars along with taking a feed from the PAF’s ZDK-03 system. Developing a composite picture of both air, sea and submarine targets that feeds into its regional combat HQ and to NHQ in Islamabad. Quite simply, the system has changed how the PN fights its battles and allows it to coordinate attacks against any threat using the various weapons it has at its disposal. In addition, its sensors plug into the PAF’s own Air Defence grid allowing PN ships to act as SAM batteries under the Air Force’s command.
> 
> To assist with the off board weapons employment and shore defence, the Pakistan Navy recently completed its deployment and integration of a shore based anti-ship missile defense grid dubbed as Barq. Barq is assumed to employ a locally modified version of the C-602 to bypass the MTCR (_missile technology control regime, restricts exports of missiles with ranges greater than 300km_) restrictions as it has done with various Chinese weapons.
> 
> To demonstrate, current Pakistan surveillance of its southern coast by air paints a picture similar to the following:
> 
> View attachment 341936
> 
> 
> The various concentric circles indicate air surveillance sensors that include ground based radars, AEW systems such as the ZDK-03 Karokaram eagle shown, and ship-borne systems along with fighter radars. *As a disclaimer, this is not an exact measurement as ranges and effectiveness of sensors is taken with a conservative outlook.*
> 
> The same sensor net also provides Sea target surveillance, as the yellow circles and semi-circles show which includes the F-22P sensors, Z-9, P-3, ZDK-03, Coastal Radar and fighter radar. The large yellow circle represents a conservative estimate of the range that the ZDK-03 allows for surveillance of naval assets, and the bold semi-circle represents the range of the P-3 Orion sensors. Just as with the air defense net, all these sensors link to provide a single picture of Pakistan’s coastal and sea territory safety.
> 
> View attachment 341935
> 
> 
> Lastly, the red circles indicate the effectiveness of weapons available to the PN from sea and shore based systems (not actual positions or ranges but estimates). This does not include the usage of AGM-84 Harpoon systems on the P-3.
> 
> View attachment 341934
> 
> 
> This combined defense system offers a good mix of ship, shore and air based defenses of Pakistan’s coast and the various layers help back up each other in case of a concentrated enemy attack. Without a doubt, this is most important development in the naval defense of Pakistan and is generally not taken for what it is actually worth; as it has allowed the PN to transform from a fairly weak arm into a well coordinate and effective fighting force.
> 
> *Nuclear Ambitions & the Second Strike capability:*
> 
> As Pakistan’s nuclear program rolled along during the late 1980’s, ideas were considered on how Pakistan would ensure the safety of its strike capability against a concentrated attack and still be able to hit back in case of a surprise attack. Options included creating hardened silos, mobile weapons and dispersal sites for dedicated aircraft.
> 
> Silos were not considered as effective since they were fixed targets that could eventually fall to multiple hits and required great expense. Since Pakistan’s primary land based warheads were already focused to be based on Mobile platforms that continuously roam the country, there was a requirement to create a sea based deterrent force.
> 
> However, since Pakistan did not have a sufficiently large submarine to carry a Ballistic missile; and at the time did not possess a cruise weapons system; it was decided to try and use the helicopter decks of its Capital ships as launching platforms. Several attempts towards this were carried out during the late 90’s all the way to the nuclear tests; but the complexity of the system along with reliability issues led to this option never being exercised.
> 
> One option considered was to reverse engineer and/or modify the French SM-39 exocet missiles to carry a warhead; however, the small size of the missile required a miniaturized warhead which Pakistan would take ten years to develop; along with the limited range ended the idea before any fruitful research was even carried out.
> 
> Pakistan’s luck changed thanks to a US strike on terrorists in Afghanistan during the mid-90’ and several intact US BGM-109B tomahawk missiles landed on Pakistani territory which it promptly carted off to its research facilities along with providing an example to China to reverse engineer. With a locally designed guidance and flight system using a Chinese provided engine, the Babur missile
> 
> Since it was decided by the early 2000’s that Babur could serve as a viable nuclear delivery system, various ideas were gamed on how to use the system from its pre-existing submarines. However, it was decided that a new class of Submarine was needed to deploy the system.
> 
> Information on this system gets fairly sketchy and speculative. The purchase of 8 new submarines from China prompted speculation on the usage of the Qing class due to its Sail Size which could accommodate both the Babur and a Submarine launched Ballistic missile. However, the confirmation that the new submarine was the S-20 ended all these speculation.
> 
> What is known by sources close to the PN is that Pakistan’s nuclear delivery ambitions go beyond the 8 subs purchased and include the design and development of two different platforms. This includes a platform capable of launching ballistic missiles. Both these platforms are confirmed to be nuclear powered as per the interviews of Pakistani officials.
> 
> These programs are currently well in progress and a correlation of known knowledge and sources suggest that one platform is to serve as a launch platform for both a derivative of the Babur and a Submarine Ballistic Missile. The other platform is an attack submarine designed to escort this platform but primarily hunt an adversary’s second strike ballistic submarine.
> 
> If these reports are accurate, the Pakistan Navy will not only be able to provide a second strike capability which could launch weapons against targets from the Bay of Bengal, it could also potentially deploy a submarine for long term duration hunts that last more than half a year along with keeping an eye on adversary movement.
> 
> From its days in the 90’s as a step-child branch of the Pakistani military, the current modernization plans along with the pace of force integration with other branches, the Pakistan Navy is slowly bur surely turning into a force to be truly reckoned with.
> 
> @Horus @The Deterrent @Manticore @Irfan Baloch @Penguin @niaz @araz @Tempest II @Slav Defence @PARIKRAMA @MilSpec @Bilal Khan (Quwa) @Bilal Khan 777 @Dazzler @Side-Winder



Thank U Sir for giving so much deep insight into PN as I am sure most of us didnt have any clue of such detailed arrangements out there. As I havent gone through all the posts so allow me to add one another aspect here too and that is impact of CPEC. Our adversaries know that as soon as Chinese ships start to dock on Gawader then automatically quite major portion of Pakistani territorial waters become as important to China as they are to Pakistan. I wud not be surprised by any future off and on docking of Chinese Subs and other systems at Gawader or Karachi for the same reasons. So in any case any adversary will think 1001 times to go for any naval blockade of Pakistani waters. Now we are seeing interest from quite many major powers not only in the region but in the world in CPEC. Sooner or later they will have to join CPEC one way or the other. In that case Gawader becomes the Switzerland of ports (on positive side ofcourse) whom everyone wants to protect as they have got their money at stake there. That is the main reason that adversaries of Pakistan do not want this project to go on full throttle as they wud be left with no choice but to come on negotiation table with Pakistan. In short CPEC is not less than a coastal and territorial water defense system for Pakistan and that is one main reason that Pakistan Armed Forces are taking deep interest in this very project.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## ConcealCarry

Are you an indian?




sady said:


> media reports are not worth the toilet paper. Second hand info is. It confirms it. Just to let you know and not in patronising way many fish pdf for info.
> 
> 
> Btw a lot of cut work had been done by 2015....tc ☺





Hassan Guy said:


> All the great nations have Aircraft Carriers


----------



## sady

ConcealCarry said:


> Are you an indian?


Me? No way. Why?


----------



## Irfan Baloch

Oscar said:


> *Pakistan Navy : The Phoenix Rises*
> 
> By: "Oscar" from team Pakistan Defence
> October-09-2016
> 
> View attachment 341998
> 
> 
> Traditionally, the Pakistan Navy has been the stepchild within the branches of the Pakistani military. This has to do with the lack of understanding by the major decision influences within Pakistan’s military procurement programs; in this case, the Pakistan army, which tends to hoard the military budget(_willingly or by virtue of size_), followed by the Pakistan air force. Ironically, the Pakistan air force officers due to their greater exposure and generally better education in terms of military objectives in training (_due to better quality syllabi and a much more selective plethora of candidates that become officers_) are much more aware of Pakistan and its military deficiencies, but tend to be selfish when it comes to budgetary requests _(as all individual branches within the world military forces are_).
> 
> Another reason for the stepchild treatment has to do with the generally expensive nature and high-value of what are the Navy’s primary bread-and-butter in oceangoing vessels both surface and subsurface. A single destroyer can run in cost to hundreds of millions of dollars, whereas the same amount can purchase 10 or 15 fighter jets or 60 tanks.
> 
> Finally, there was the issue of economic and diplomatic sanctions that Pakistan had to face after the Pressler Amendment, which all but cut off the traditional sources for Pakistan’s procurement plans. It would be unfair to single out the Navy at the receiving end of budgetary isolation as one of the most expensive procurement programs undertaken by Pakistan during the 90s involved the Pakistan Navy and the Agosta 90 B submarine. For its time, the platform was an adequately sophisticated diesel electric submarine that could be procured and with the traditional kickbacks and corruption ladled deals that are the hallmark of the Pakistani defense procurement, the program cost more than its share of budget allocation.
> 
> *Pre-2001: the years of neglect*
> 
> Prior to 2001, Pakistan Navy’s fleet was made up of generally obsolescent vessels such as the type – 21 frigate, nearly mothballed during destroyers, 2 training Leander FFs, along with a mix of Chinese missile boats, minesweepers and various FACs. Its aviation assets will be considered and somewhat better shape with less advanced, but somewhat effective versions of the Breguet Atlantique serving in an anti submarine role. Additionally, there were versions of the Sea King helicopter that usually operated from land with the outdated Alouette picking up a ship based antisubmarine warfare role. While the Pakistan Navy had operated Westland Lynx helicopters which were bought in lieu of the type XXI frigates; lack of spares and general support had them mothballed around this time. There were also 2 P-3C Orion Aircraft that while being relatively good Anti-Submarine aircraft were grounded due to the inability of the PN to complete a overhaul.
> 
> The supposed pride of the Pakistan Navy lay in the submarine arm, which consisted of three Agosta class vessels of which two were the 70 type and one was the modernized 90 type. There were additional 4 Daphne class submarines with these were mostly relegated to training roles and insignificant coastal forays.
> 
> That is not to say that some progress had not been made in terms of keeping up efforts in modernization for its assets. Various training systems based on computer simulations had been set up for its submarine fleet and overall command and control. There were efforts to coordinate the procurement of unmanned aerial vehicles to be operated from its surface assets as alternatives to the more expensive option of using helicopter assets for tasks such as observation, reconnaissance and radio relay. In addition, efforts were underway at the time to look at Chinese offerings for surface, subsurface and aviation assets.
> 
> *Post 2001 procurement: *
> 
> One of the first priorities for the Pakistan Navy after the lifting of embargoes was to try and get its backlog of spares cleared up for the American equipment it operates. This included the P – 3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft, such the Phlanax close in weapons system mounted on its key surface vessels, and ancillary spares for the harpoon missile system.
> 
> The initial attempts to procure these systems were met with hesitation from the US government, which wanted to ensure that any weapon systems sold to Pakistan would have some usefulness within the support for the war on terror as it was important to convince the US Congress of the same. In light of this, many of the upgrades were financed under US aid based upon the usefulness in providing maritime intelligence against possible terrorist usage of Pakistan’s territorial waters.
> 
> The P-3 C Orion maritime patrol aircraft underwent a series of upgrades which brought them to the same standard as those operated by the United States Navy. This includes capability to coordinate data and threat picture with the entire C4I2 system of the Pakistan Navy (and with recent developments, the Pakistan integrated air defense system). The combination of surface search radar, active and passive sonobouys , along with synthetic aperture radar allows the P-3 C Orion operated by Pakistan Navy to be able to enhance Pakistan’s maritime security and considerably threaten and delay any blockade attempts by the aggressor both surface and subsurface.
> 
> Certain ancillary systems were also purchased for usage on the existing Westland SH3 seaking helicopters with these were generally purchased off-the-shelf. In light of the additional expected responsibility allocated the Pakistan Navy in curtailing terrorist movements, expectations were to purchase patrol craft that would allow the Pakistan Navy to conduct halt and search operations on vessels within the Arabian Sea. For this purpose, a certain amount of the military. It provided had to be spent on fast intercept craft along with a multitude of small arms and equipment for naval commandos.
> 
> The greatest focus for the Pakistan Navy was to increase its surface presence and replace what were essentially floating helpless targets in its oldest ships. To ameliorate the situation, the Pakistan Navy went on a search for various frigate class ships within the 2500 to 4500 ton displacement range. Among the candidates evaluated were the Oliver Hazard Perry class(USA-refurbished and available as EDA), Type 22(UK- Refurbished), MEKO( Germany – New) Class, Type 53H3(China- New) and FREMM(France – New). The French and German designs were overruled due to cost. Since the PN would not be able to afford the eventual complement of 8 it wants. The OHP from the US brought with it the advantage of being a tried and trusted platform that Pakistan could convince the US to provide it under aid and for free using the EDA program; so that all Pakistan would pay for would be refurbishment and delivery costs.
> 
> Around 2005, the Pakistan Navy decided to jump in on the option of the excess defence articles from the US, which included the option of upcoming decommissioned OHP frigates and the P-3 Orion patrol aircraft. The original plan was to acquire 4 OHP frigates, along with six Sikorsky SH-60F anti-submarine warfare helicopters. However, only one OHP was approved and procured without its helicopter complement due to a lack of funds and deteriorating relations.
> 
> The other boost for the surface fleet came from the purchase of modified *Jiangwei II *frigates, along with a complement of Z-9EC helicopters which are essentially Chinese variants of the Euro copter (now Airbus) AS-565 Panther. This platform comes with a very respectable anti-submarine warfare suite and is able to coordinate data and attacks with the F-22 P frigates. Together they provided a much-needed boost to Pakistan’s ASW& ASuW capabilities as previously the only shipborne element that could work effectively for longer periods in such operations were the lynx helicopters which now sit mothballed.
> 
> Pakistan’s complement of Westland Sea King helicopters generally operates from short bases and was unable to provide a similar level of detached coverage that now extends beyond Pakistan’s territorial sea space. The sea Kings did however undergo an upgrade in the mid-2000 with equipment purchased both from European sources, along with an unnamed country providing electronic support measures.
> 
> To offset its inability to purchase larger and *more* expensive capital ships, the Pakistan Navy has relied on various fast attack missile craft as an asymmetric offset. This included earlier designs adapted from China, which were retired in the early 2000’s. The replacement is generally a simple design with an aft mounted missile launcher housing C-801 system (_it is suggested that the system was only a trial and was replaced with C-802_). Two of these craft were built in the late 90s and after trials at sea,2 more improved versions were built at karachi shipyards.
> 
> However, the actual focus of the missile craft program was to create a semi-low-observable design that could sit between a corvette and a smaller patrol boat. The first of these craft is the Azmat Class which has a theoretical top speed of 45 knots but is limited by its weak engine. The craft is however pretty effective in its role of littoral harassment and carries C-802 missiles which are capable of receiving both targeting and guidance from off board sensors.
> 
> A further 8 craft are planned which will likely be either scaled up versions of the Azmat or craft that would qualify as Corvettes. The true achievement has been the development of the net-centric C4I system within the PN that allows aircraft such as the P-3 to coordinate and direct attacks on targets from weapon launch platforms such as the Azmat and the Zulfiqar along with land based SSMs.
> 
> As the Agosta-90B acquisitions were completed, the Pakistan Navy began to consider an additional sub purchase to replace the earlier Agosta 70 class of submarines which would eventually be nearing retirement by 2018. In light of this, the first option was to either go for more Agosta 90B systems or the Scorpene class from the French DCN. This brought with it familiarity with systems along with a known relationship with the supplier. The French were initially positive to this deal until India rolled out its various defence modernization programs which included unsaid clauses on not selling similar equipment to Pakistan as a positive consideration for its own programs.
> 
> Facing both a less than eager French who hiked up the prices for new Submarines; the Pakistan Navy was still keen on procuring a western class and turned to Germany. Negotiations took place on a tailored version of the Type 214 submarine but the efforts of Indian lobbyists within the European Union Parliament all but ended any hopes of procuring this platform.
> 
> Thankfully, the Pakistan Navy had been toying with the idea of using a Chinese Platform prior to 2001, and had been negotiating on a modified Yuan class submarine with further noise suppression to increase its underwater stealth. The contract was to include construction at Karachi Shipyard Engineering Works to allow not just for transfer of technology but also meet delivery timelines.
> 
> The Yuan class of submarines is a carry on from China’s original adaptation known as the Song class and includes ideas taken from China’s Russian origin Kilo class subs. Its sonar is comparable if not better to the TSM 2233 Mk 2 sonar made by the French company Thales. Unconfirmed rumours suggest that the latest Yuan class employs multiple arrays to further increase its coverage and detection accuracy. In addition, the submarine is capable of employing the C-802 missile from its torpedo tubes.
> 
> Worth mentioning is the Pakistani Navy's research into the usage of UAV's and UUVs and the subsequent acquisition of the former from both western and local sources. The variety of platforms used is based upon an ongoing attempt to continually evaluate systems and implement them within the greater role of providing more sensors for surveillance operations along with taking the burden of more expensive to operate manned systems.
> 
> Where these systems fit are into creating a very expansive and capable C4I network.
> 
> *More with Less:* *Pakistan Navy’s Net-centric C4I grid:*
> 
> To complete its coastal defense grid and try to stave off a repeat of the blockade scenario Pakistan faced in 71, the PN has developed a plethora of sensor and weapons systems along the coast line which feed into its primary net. This includes shore based radars, ship board sensors, P-3C and Sea King surveillance radars along with taking a feed from the PAF’s ZDK-03 system. Developing a composite picture of both air, sea and submarine targets that feeds into its regional combat HQ and to NHQ in Islamabad. Quite simply, the system has changed how the PN fights its battles and allows it to coordinate attacks against any threat using the various weapons it has at its disposal. In addition, its sensors plug into the PAF’s own Air Defence grid allowing PN ships to act as SAM batteries under the Air Force’s command.
> 
> To assist with the off board weapons employment and shore defence, the Pakistan Navy recently completed its deployment and integration of a shore based anti-ship missile defense grid dubbed as Barq. Barq is assumed to employ a locally modified version of the C-602 to bypass the MTCR (_missile technology control regime, restricts exports of missiles with ranges greater than 300km_) restrictions as it has done with various Chinese weapons.
> 
> To demonstrate, current Pakistan surveillance of its southern coast by air paints a picture similar to the following:
> 
> View attachment 341936
> 
> 
> The various concentric circles indicate air surveillance sensors that include ground based radars, AEW systems such as the ZDK-03 Karokaram eagle shown, and ship-borne systems along with fighter radars. *As a disclaimer, this is not an exact measurement as ranges and effectiveness of sensors is taken with a conservative outlook.*
> 
> The same sensor net also provides Sea target surveillance, as the yellow circles and semi-circles show which includes the F-22P sensors, Z-9, P-3, ZDK-03, Coastal Radar and fighter radar. The large yellow circle represents a conservative estimate of the range that the ZDK-03 allows for surveillance of naval assets, and the bold semi-circle represents the range of the P-3 Orion sensors. Just as with the air defense net, all these sensors link to provide a single picture of Pakistan’s coastal and sea territory safety.
> 
> View attachment 341935
> 
> 
> Lastly, the red circles indicate the effectiveness of weapons available to the PN from sea and shore based systems (not actual positions or ranges but estimates). This does not include the usage of AGM-84 Harpoon systems on the P-3.
> 
> View attachment 341934
> 
> 
> This combined defense system offers a good mix of ship, shore and air based defenses of Pakistan’s coast and the various layers help back up each other in case of a concentrated enemy attack. Without a doubt, this is most important development in the naval defense of Pakistan and is generally not taken for what it is actually worth; as it has allowed the PN to transform from a fairly weak arm into a well coordinate and effective fighting force.
> 
> *Nuclear Ambitions & the Second Strike capability:*
> 
> As Pakistan’s nuclear program rolled along during the late 1980’s, ideas were considered on how Pakistan would ensure the safety of its strike capability against a concentrated attack and still be able to hit back in case of a surprise attack. Options included creating hardened silos, mobile weapons and dispersal sites for dedicated aircraft.
> 
> Silos were not considered as effective since they were fixed targets that could eventually fall to multiple hits and required great expense. Since Pakistan’s primary land based warheads were already focused to be based on Mobile platforms that continuously roam the country, there was a requirement to create a sea based deterrent force.
> 
> However, since Pakistan did not have a sufficiently large submarine to carry a Ballistic missile; and at the time did not possess a cruise weapons system; it was decided to try and use the helicopter decks of its Capital ships as launching platforms. Several attempts towards this were carried out during the late 90’s all the way to the nuclear tests; but the complexity of the system along with reliability issues led to this option never being exercised.
> 
> One option considered was to reverse engineer and/or modify the French SM-39 exocet missiles to carry a warhead; however, the small size of the missile required a miniaturized warhead which Pakistan would take ten years to develop; along with the limited range ended the idea before any fruitful research was even carried out.
> 
> Pakistan’s luck changed thanks to a US strike on terrorists in Afghanistan during the mid-90’ and several intact US BGM-109B tomahawk missiles landed on Pakistani territory which it promptly carted off to its research facilities along with providing an example to China to reverse engineer. With a locally designed guidance and flight system using a Chinese provided engine, the Babur missile
> 
> Since it was decided by the early 2000’s that Babur could serve as a viable nuclear delivery system, various ideas were gamed on how to use the system from its pre-existing submarines. However, it was decided that a new class of Submarine was needed to deploy the system.
> 
> Information on this system gets fairly sketchy and speculative. The purchase of 8 new submarines from China prompted speculation on the usage of the Qing class due to its Sail Size which could accommodate both the Babur and a Submarine launched Ballistic missile. However, the confirmation that the new submarine was the S-20 ended all these speculation.
> 
> What is known by sources close to the PN is that Pakistan’s nuclear delivery ambitions go beyond the 8 subs purchased and include the design and development of two different platforms. This includes a platform capable of launching ballistic missiles. Both these platforms are confirmed to be nuclear powered as per the interviews of Pakistani officials.
> 
> These programs are currently well in progress and a correlation of known knowledge and sources suggest that one platform is to serve as a launch platform for both a derivative of the Babur and a Submarine Ballistic Missile. The other platform is an attack submarine designed to escort this platform but primarily hunt an adversary’s second strike ballistic submarine.
> 
> If these reports are accurate, the Pakistan Navy will not only be able to provide a second strike capability which could launch weapons against targets from the Bay of Bengal, it could also potentially deploy a submarine for long term duration hunts that last more than half a year along with keeping an eye on adversary movement.
> 
> From its days in the 90’s as a step-child branch of the Pakistani military, the current modernization plans along with the pace of force integration with other branches, the Pakistan Navy is slowly bur surely turning into a force to be truly reckoned with.
> 
> @Horus @The Deterrent @Manticore @Irfan Baloch @Penguin @niaz @araz @Tempest II @Slav Defence @PARIKRAMA @MilSpec @Bilal Khan (Quwa) @Bilal Khan 777 @Dazzler @Side-Winder


thanks for sharing such a marvellous piece 
the loss of surveillance planes was a major blow to PN's abilities. past that point moving on we have to think smart and invest in combination of ships , subs and surveillance crafts to counter Indian armada. I really want an independent air wing of Pakistan Navy consisting of fighter aircraft rather than the deputed squadron from PAF.

I think I learnt about a Submarine launched naval version of Babur cruise missile test. that will give us a tremendous tactical advantage and a deterrent against Indian naval blockade.if it is nuclear tipped then our Subs can diminish Indian appetite for Naval aggression against us

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## ConcealCarry

because of your statement "all great nations have A/c"


----------



## Penguin

Starlord said:


> By looking at Pakistan and India Coast and future Naval Conflicts what you think that will be best for PN ? a light weight corvette with Shoot and scout theory , or by going for some medium weight Frigates with less Stealthy body?


The small Dutch navy has for years worked with the Doorman class M-frigate, which displaces 2,800 tons standard and 3,320 tons full load. It is a well rounded, very effective ship, with a big heli, 2x2 fixed 324mm tubes for ASW torps, 2x4 AShM, 16 Sea Sparrow VL or 32 VL ESSM, 1 Oto 76mm Rapido naval gun, 1 Goalkeeper 30mm gatling CIWS, 2x 20mm cannon (and it could easily house an extra 30mm Goalkeeper forward of the bridge, if needed). PNs F22P are about the same size, but less modern, esp. where SAM is concerned. 

I don't see a need for a bigger ship, unless perhaps a dedicated AAW frigate with at least an SM2 VL or equivalent missile added to the armament and associated longer range radars. But one could well develop an AAW version of the M-frigate by deleting the heli/hangar and parking a big VLS farm there for longer range missiles (which is how we got the AAW L-frigates, based on the GP S-frigates, which were the (slightly larger) M-frigate precursor)

A core of 3-4 AAW ships plus 6-8 GP frigates, backed up by 6-8 smaller ships (e.g. Sigma 9113, modern-day Minerva class, Commandanti class > around 1500-2000 ton > helideck and at least rearm/refuel capability, 2x2 ASW tubes, 4x2 AShM, 16 SAM (= 4 cells Mk41 or 8 Mk48), 76mm, Goalkeeper, 2x light cannon) and 3 AORs (2 Goalkeeper, 2x Light cannon, pedestal mounted MANPADS, up to 3 helicopters) . 6-8 submarines. Some multi role inshore vessels for patrol and minewarfare (hunting, sweeping mainly). Maybe some landing ship logistic, which combined marine transport with small vessel support roles.

HNLMS Van Speijk M-Frigate










S-frigate (Greek export version. 3,600 t standard and 3,900 t full load)





L-frigate (3,000 tons standard,3,750 tons full load)

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Pathan khan

Inshallah we will see a great boost and increase in Pakistan Navy surface and sub surface fleet in near future. As we all know Pakistan navy and Government is focusing on TOT agreements nowadays , which is a good gesture toward self reliance and indigenous production.
with the completion of Ship lift and transfer system of KSEW in near future we will see some more projects. As Ship lift system will increase KSEW capability of ship building and repair from current 5 to 18. With increase of 15 more docks PN will get some more ships.

Here i must appreciate the great work of Karachi Shipyard , which is playing a major role in PN modernization.
Secondly , in current Government the only Minister i really respect and appreciate his comitment and hard work is "Minister of defense production ,Rana Tanvir. who is working very well and with great zeal.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Zarvan

Penguin said:


> The small Dutch navy has for years worked with the Doorman class M-frigate, which displaces 2,800 tons standard and 3,320 tons full load. It is a well rounded, very effective ship, with a big heli, 2x2 fixed 324mm tubes for ASW torps, 2x4 AShM, 16 Sea Sparrow VL or 32 VL ESSM, 1 Oto 76mm Rapido naval gun, 1 Goalkeeper 30mm gatling CIWS, 2x 20mm cannon (and it could easily house an extra 30mm Goalkeeper forward of the bridge, if needed). PNs F22P are about the same size, but less modern, esp. where SAM is concerned.
> 
> I don't see a need for a bigger ship, unless perhaps a dedicated AAW frigate with at least an SM2 VL or equivalent missile added to the armament and associated longer range radars. But one could well develop an AAW version of the M-frigate by deleting the heli/hangar and parking a big VLS farm there for longer range missiles (which is how we got the AAW L-frigates, based on the GP S-frigates, which were the (slightly larger) M-frigate precursor)
> 
> A core of 3-4 AAW ships plus 6-8 GP frigates, backed up by 6-8 smaller ships (e.g. Sigma 9113, modern-day Minerva class, Commandanti class > around 1500-2000 ton > helideck and at least rearm/refuel capability, 2x2 ASW tubes, 4x2 AShM, 16 SAM (= 4 cells Mk41 or 8 Mk48), 76mm, Goalkeeper, 2x light cannon) and 3 AORs (2 Goalkeeper, 2x Light cannon, pedestal mounted MANPADS, up to 3 helicopters) . 6-8 submarines. Some multi role inshore vessels for patrol and minewarfare (hunting, sweeping mainly). Maybe some landing ship logistic, which combined marine transport with small vessel support roles.
> 
> HNLMS Van Speijk M-Frigate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S-frigate (Greek export version. 3,600 t standard and 3,900 t full load)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L-frigate (3,000 tons standard,3,750 tons full load)



We need Frigates and Corvettes which can carry VLS which can fire long range cruise missiles not just Air Defence systems. Indian Navy is massively growing and we don't stand a chance with only 12 Frigates and that too don't have VLS system. We need much bigger Navy and far more number of surface ships at least 24 to 30 major surface ships equipped with VLS to which are capable of firing cruise missiles so we can take war inside India through sea and bombard Indian cities like Mumbai and Goa and Chennai and other Indian cities in south. Using nuclear thread for everything is useless. We need conventional power. Is their any corvette in the world with VLS capable enough to fire cruise missiles ??? @Penguin


----------



## wmalik

Any idea when Pakistan will receive first batch of 8 subs ordered from China!!


----------



## ConcealCarry

We need an adequate navy not a much bigger navy. We are a peaceful country with no hegemonic designs and delusions for power projection.

Our navy should be small enough to manage / maintain easily and strong enough to deter any misadventure by Indians. We can't match their strength in numbers because we don't need that and we can't afford that. While surface fleet has its importance and role in any naval conflict, a modern and well armed sub-surface fleet works as a force multiplier and provides lethal offensive capability in conventional warfare and strategic 2nd strike capability to deter any adventurism. 




Zarvan said:


> Some of my friends suggest me that subs are our answer to Indian Navy surface ships and after listening to this answer, I really want to bang my head on the wall. Seriously guys is this your answer, or you just forgot that India also have subs and and they are buying and producing more. Nobody has stopped India from producing subs neither it's prohibited on them. India will not only keep producing Destroyers and Frigates and Corvettes but also both AIP and Nuclear Submarines. So if some one out there wants to suggest me that 14 to 16 submarines are the answer to Indian Navy which in near future would have around 100 big ships than I would really love to meet that person personally.
> 
> We don't stand a chance with only 12 Frigates and 14 Submarines. We need much bigger Navy. I mean much much bigger. Finally people will like to call it radio behavior but which ever Frigate we go for in future, that should have VLS which can fire long range cruise missiles. Answering every threat with nuclear boogy is stupidity and eventually of no use. We need to build conventional power. Yes I know the budget story but we have to take drastic steps. @Oscar @Horus


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

Hassan Guy said:


> All the great nations have Aircraft Carriers


aircraft carriers are for power projection our enemy is right on our doorstep why would we need one and our navy can get air cover from from our costal air bases


----------



## Zarvan

ConcealCarry said:


> We need an adequate navy not a much bigger navy. We are a peaceful country with no hegemonic designs and delusions for power projection.
> 
> Our navy should be small enough to manage / maintain easily and strong enough to deter any misadventure by Indians. We can't match their strength in numbers because we don't need that and we can't afford that. While surface fleet has its importance and role in any naval conflict, a modern and well armed sub-surface fleet works as a force multiplier and provides lethal offensive capability in conventional warfare and strategic 2nd strike capability to deter any adventurism.


Peaceful country my foot. This peaceful country thing only make sures that you end up dead. Specially in case of Pakistan not only because of your location but also because you are a Muslim country and a nuclear power. We need much bigger Navy and need to go for global role for that too happen at least 24 to 30 major Ships are required equipped with VLS to fire cruise missiles. Also need bigger Marine Force

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUz

Zarvan said:


> Peaceful country my foot. This peaceful country thing only make sures that you end up dead. Specially in case of Pakistan not only because of your location but also because you are a Muslim country and a nuclear power. We need much bigger Navy and need to go for global role for that too happen at least 24 to 30 major Ships are required equipped with VLS to fire cruise missiles. Also need bigger Marine Force



Sure, all we need is $80 billion defense budget and we'll have the global military capability you are dreaming about. We need to increase our tax revenue by 6x if we want to establish a massive military capability beyond our immediate borders. 

We need to develop vast indigenous industrial and defence production base, increase our tax revenues by six folds, and expand our economy by 7% on average for a decade before we could lay the foundations of a global military presence.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Fenrir

Immortan.Joe said:


> Also *non-Nuclear powered submarines* (due to their limited range of operations,hence predictability) and SLCMs (due to their low speed due to which they can even be intercepted by WWII class weapons) are *very easy to kill*.



Bullsh*t is the only way to describe this. Pure bullsh*t.

Non-nuclear submarine, i.e. DE, AIP or electric drive are quiet, small, maneuverable, but deadly and packed with advanced sensors that give them more then enough capability to asset threats - in any domain - and take the appropriate actions.

Take our Ula class - with the highest availability rate in Europe, a range of greater then 10,000nmi and a max speed underwater of +25nmi. The boats are also known as Type 210:












It's a fight between Sweden's Gotland and Norway's Ula for the quietest submarine on the continent. They have long legs, can cruise at speeds any nuke boat can, are fully capable of operating in vast ocean waters, despite being classified as an SSC, and if you think they or similar designs like Type 209/212, Gotland, Kilo or any other conventional submarine design is an "easy kill" then you are poorly mistaken.

Fortunately military leaders don't have the same bravado and take the threat very seriously.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Zarvan

AUz said:


> Sure, all we need is $80 billion defense budget and we'll have the global military capability you are dreaming about. We need to increase our tax revenue by 6x if we want to establish a massive military capability beyond our immediate borders.
> 
> We need to develop vast indigenous industrial and defence production base, increase our tax revenues by six folds, and expand our economy by 7% on average for a decade before we could lay the foundations of a global military presence.


Sir I know about the budget thing but we have to start the process and as economy improves speed up the process. When I was writing about these I knew about the budget


----------



## amardeep mishra

Oscar said:


> What is known by sources close to the PN is that Pakistan’s nuclear delivery ambitions go beyond the 8 subs purchased and include the design and development of two different platforms. This includes a platform capable of launching ballistic missiles. Both these platforms are confirmed to be nuclear powered as per the interviews of Pakistani officials.
> 
> These programs are currently well in progress and a correlation of known knowledge and sources suggest that one platform is to serve as a launch platform for both a derivative of the Babur and a Submarine Ballistic Missile. The other platform is an attack submarine designed to escort this platform but primarily hunt an adversary’s second strike ballistic submarine.
> 
> If these reports are accurate, the Pakistan Navy will not only be able to provide a second strike capability which could launch weapons against targets from the Bay of Bengal, it could also potentially deploy a submarine for long term duration hunts that last more than half a year along with keeping an eye on adversary movement.
> 
> From its days in the 90’s as a step-child branch of the Pakistani military, the current modernization plans along with the pace of force integration with other branches, the Pakistan Navy is slowly bur surely turning into a force to be truly reckoned with.



Hi dear @Oscar
Except the para I have quoted above,rest everything seems fine however if we note carefully,there are a lot of "ifs" and "buts" or in short speculations,there is nothing definite in what you have mentioned above. I happen to know a couple of things pertaining to nuclear plants as I have couple of my batch mates in BARC reactor divison--(kindly note BARC has various type of reactor projects going on from PHWR,LWR to fast breeder reactors and now recently AHWRs as well). Designing your own reactor is one thing and miniaturizing it and making it sea worthy is QUITE ANOTHER! Lets be brutally honest,and instead of living in fancies and drooling over some un-substantiated reports,lets for now focus on facts at hand--pakistan hasnt really designed her own nuclear power plant for generating "energy". Pakistan has couple of plutonium and experimental neutron reactors whose origin is pretty much unknown given the scarcity of published literature.
First step in design of a nuclear submarine is mastering the power plant--there is no short cut--you have to master the design. The reactor needs to be validated in simulations which paves the way for the construction of a land based prototype.The data gathered over years of running the land based replica of your submarine reactor gives enough confidence in design and only then is reactor finally engineered into the submarine hull-- this whole process takes at least a decade or more!Pakistan has no land based prototype running that might indicate the possibility of a nuclear submarine reactor being seriously pursued by PN.
I will briefly highlight some of the challenges associated with design of sea going reactors--these are in indian context as discussed in various open seminars and lectures--kindly note it is equally true in the context of pakistan!
1)First to design a sea going reactor(light water moderated as against heavy water moderated)--one would need to establish reactor physics and required metallurgy in the country.Light water reactors traditionally occupy lesser space and are relatively straight forward in design. The down-side though is ,they require slightly higher degree of enrichment vis-a-vis PHWRs that consume natural uranium. In case of submarine reactors though,the enrichment level is way more high than a land based LWR designed for commercial purposes. Higher the enrichment--longer will the endurance of the sub.

2)In case of land based LWRs the power is generally gradually increased to full capacity however in subs the requirement is such that reactor might have to be reved upto full power setting in a very short span of time--for instance during initial accelerations or running away from enemies. This might seem easy at first glance but requires extensive modifications in the design to enable fast building up of power

3)Submarine reactor should be able to withstand shocks and lateral forces that might result from an explosion etc.It is speculated that the reactor core of Oscar-2 class russian SSGN could withstand a g force of 50!

4)To construct the reactor,country must have established FORGING capabilities to forge reactor pressure vessel,pressurizers,turbines,allied control systems etc etc.

Submarine is just the platform and that is useless without itz primary armament.Pakistan would have to design her own SLBMs and master the cold launch philosophy.Again,pakistan doesnt have a SLBM program going on right now. It takes decades to design and field a reliable SLBM--it is not as easy as lets say land based missiles. Your designers would run into same kind of problems, Indian designers ran into almost 10 years back and those were related to a lot of issues ranging from lowering the weight by using composites,complexities in cold launch to storing liquid fuel for RCS(REACTION CONTROL SYSTEM).
And lastly the r&d cost of a nuclear submarine exceeds $3bn--kindly Note it doesn't include the cost of establishing a production line or whole lot of nuclear engineering and support faculties at the harbour. After spending billions of dollars into nuclear submarine program India has only one yard capable of supporting nuclear submarine or has the requisite nuclear engineering set up.How do you think Pakistan would deal with this particular issue?I don't think there is any yard in Pakistan that has technical know how to support or construct a nuclear submarine.
On a serious note, does Pakistan have a under water pontoon from which to launch the experimental SLBM ?

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## CriticalThought

amardeep mishra said:


> Hi dear @Oscar
> Except the para I have quoted above,rest everything seems fine however if we note carefully,there are a lot of "ifs" and "buts" or in short speculations,there is nothing definite in what you have mentioned above. I happen to know a couple of things pertaining to nuclear plants as I have couple of my batch mates in BARC reactor divison--(kindly note BARC has various type of reactor projects going on from PHWR,LWR to fast breeder reactors and now recently AHWRs as well). Designing your own reactor is one thing and miniaturizing it and making it sea worthy is QUITE ANOTHER! Lets be brutally honest,and instead of living in fancies and drooling over some un-substantiated reports,lets for now focus on facts at hand--pakistan hasnt really designed her own nuclear power plant for generating "energy". Pakistan has couple of plutonium and experimental neutron reactors whose origin is pretty much unknown given the scarcity of published literature.
> First step in design of a nuclear submarine is mastering the power plant--there is no short cut--you have to master the design. The reactor needs to be validated in simulations which paves the way for the construction of a land based prototype.The data gathered over years of running the land based replica of your submarine reactor gives enough confidence in design and only then is reactor finally engineered into the submarine hull-- this whole process takes at least a decade or more!Pakistan has no land based prototype running that might indicate the possibility of a nuclear submarine reactor being seriously pursued by PN.
> I will briefly highlight some of the challenges associated with design of sea going reactors--these are in indian context as discussed in various open seminars and lectures--kindly note it is equally true in the context of pakistan!
> 1)First to design a sea going reactor(light water moderated as against heavy water moderated)--one would need to establish reactor physics and required metallurgy in the country.Light water reactors traditionally occupy lesser space and are relatively straight forward in design. The down-side though is ,they require slightly higher degree of enrichment vis-a-vis PHWRs that consume natural uranium. In case of submarine reactors though,the enrichment level is way more high than a land based LWR designed for commercial purposes. Higher the enrichment--longer will the endurance of the sub.
> 
> 2)In case of land based LWRs the power is generally gradually increased to full capacity however in subs the requirement is such that reactor might have to be reved upto full power setting in a very short span of time--for instance during initial accelerations or running away from enemies. This might seem easy at first glance but requires extensive modifications in the design to enable fast building up of power
> 
> 3)Submarine reactor should be able to withstand shocks and lateral forces that might result from an explosion etc.It is speculated that the reactor core of Oscar-2 class russian SSGN could withstand a g force of 50!
> 
> 4)To construct the reactor,country must have established FORGING capabilities to forge reactor pressure vessel,pressurizers,turbines,allied control systems etc etc.
> 
> Submarine is just the platform and that is useless without itz primary armament.Pakistan would have to design her own SLBMs and master the cold launch philosophy.Again,pakistan doesnt have a SLBM program going on right now. It takes decades to design and field a reliable SLBM--it is not as easy as lets say land based missiles. Your designers would run into same problems Indian designers ran into almost 10 years back and those were related to a lot of issues ranging from lowering the weight by using composites,complexities in cold launch to storing liquid fuel for RCS(REACTION CONTROL SYSTEM).



You have a lot of detailed knowledge, but your basic premise is that either Pakistan can't do it, or you haven't seen physical evidence of the achievement. I guess the best answer would be 'wait and see'.



Technogaianist said:


> Bullsh*t is the only way to describe this. Pure bullsh*t.
> 
> Non-nuclear submarine, i.e. DE, AIP or electric drive are quiet, small, maneuverable, but deadly and packed with advanced sensors that give them more then enough capability to asset threats - in any domain - and take the appropriate actions.
> 
> Take our Ula class - with the highest availability rate in Europe, a range of greater then 10,000nmi and a max speed underwater of +25nmi. The boats are also known as Type 210:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a fight between Sweden's Gotland and Norway's Ula for the quietest submarine on the continent. They have long legs, can cruise at speeds any nuke boat can, are fully capable of operating in vast ocean waters, despite being classified as an SSC, and if you think they or similar designs like Type 209/212, Gotland, Kilo or any other conventional submarine design is an "easy kill" then you are poorly mistaken.
> 
> Fortunately military leaders don't have the same bravado and take the threat very seriously.



Are you guys willing to sell these subs to Pakistan? If not, then we are limited to whatever technology is accessible to us.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hakikat ve Hikmet

CriticalThought said:


> You have a lot of detailed knowledge, but your basic premise is that either Pakistan can't do it, or you haven't seen physical evidence of the achievement. I guess the best answer would be 'wait and see'.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you guys willing to sell these subs to Pakistan? If not, then we are limited to whatever technology is accessible to us.


"If a monkey can survive in these trails, so will an Imperial Japanese Army soldier" - Japanese solution for the supply chain, stretching all the way down to Burma, during WW2

"Expert help" from "brotherly nations" never hurts...

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## amardeep mishra

CriticalThought said:


> guess the best answer would be 'wait and see'.



Hi dear @CriticalThought
No that's not my concern, my primary concern is the shady ways with which most of Pakistani r&d takes place. Anyways I'll believe when I either see a launch or a very credible scientific literature from Pakistani side.till then it'd be far more fruitful to wait instead of speculations. What that article written by oscar does is--speculates!Oscar's article, without a doubt seems good and detailed except the last paragraph wherein he speculates the possibility of nuclear subs.it appears more of Pakistani reaction to Indian SSBN and SSN plans without the technical know how, of course!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CriticalThought

HAKIKAT said:


> "If a monkey can survive in these trails, so will an Imperial Japanese Army soldier" - Japanese solution for the supply chain, stretching all the way down to Burma, during WW2
> 
> "Expert help" from "brotherly nations" never hurts...



Thanks brother. I think Pakistan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia would form a very good coalition with far reaching consequences from south asia all the way to the middle east.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Spy Master

amardeep mishra said:


> Hi dear @Oscar
> Except the para I have quoted above,rest everything seems fine however if we note carefully,there are a lot of "ifs" and "buts" or in short speculations,there is nothing definite in what you have mentioned above. I happen to know a couple of things pertaining to nuclear plants as I have couple of my batch mates in BARC reactor divison--(kindly note BARC has various type of reactor projects going on from PHWR,LWR to fast breeder reactors and now recently AHWRs as well). Designing your own reactor is one thing and miniaturizing it and making it sea worthy is QUITE ANOTHER! Lets be brutally honest,and instead of living in fancies and drooling over some un-substantiated reports,lets for now focus on facts at hand--pakistan hasnt really designed her own nuclear power plant for generating "energy". Pakistan has couple of plutonium and experimental neutron reactors whose origin is pretty much unknown given the scarcity of published literature.
> First step in design of a nuclear submarine is mastering the power plant--there is no short cut--you have to master the design. The reactor needs to be validated in simulations which paves the way for the construction of a land based prototype.The data gathered over years of running the land based replica of your submarine reactor gives enough confidence in design and only then is reactor finally engineered into the submarine hull-- this whole process takes at least a decade or more!Pakistan has no land based prototype running that might indicate the possibility of a nuclear submarine reactor being seriously pursued by PN.
> I will briefly highlight some of the challenges associated with design of sea going reactors--these are in indian context as discussed in various open seminars and lectures--kindly note it is equally true in the context of pakistan!
> 1)First to design a sea going reactor(light water moderated as against heavy water moderated)--one would need to establish reactor physics and required metallurgy in the country.Light water reactors traditionally occupy lesser space and are relatively straight forward in design. The down-side though is ,they require slightly higher degree of enrichment vis-a-vis PHWRs that consume natural uranium. In case of submarine reactors though,the enrichment level is way more high than a land based LWR designed for commercial purposes. Higher the enrichment--longer will the endurance of the sub.
> 
> 2)In case of land based LWRs the power is generally gradually increased to full capacity however in subs the requirement is such that reactor might have to be reved upto full power setting in a very short span of time--for instance during initial accelerations or running away from enemies. This might seem easy at first glance but requires extensive modifications in the design to enable fast building up of power
> 
> 3)Submarine reactor should be able to withstand shocks and lateral forces that might result from an explosion etc.It is speculated that the reactor core of Oscar-2 class russian SSGN could withstand a g force of 50!
> 
> 4)To construct the reactor,country must have established FORGING capabilities to forge reactor pressure vessel,pressurizers,turbines,allied control systems etc etc.
> 
> Submarine is just the platform and that is useless without itz primary armament.Pakistan would have to design her own SLBMs and master the cold launch philosophy.Again,pakistan doesnt have a SLBM program going on right now. It takes decades to design and field a reliable SLBM--it is not as easy as lets say land based missiles. Your designers would run into same kind of problems, Indian designers ran into almost 10 years back and those were related to a lot of issues ranging from lowering the weight by using composites,complexities in cold launch to storing liquid fuel for RCS(REACTION CONTROL SYSTEM).
> And lastly the r&d cost of a nuclear submarine exceeds $3bn--kindly Note it doesn't include the cost of establishing a production line or whole lot of nuclear engineering and support faculties at the harbour. After spending billions of dollars into nuclear submarine program India has only one yard capable of supporting nuclear submarine or has the requisite nuclear engineering set up.How do you think Pakistan would deal with this particular issue?I don't think there is any yard in Pakistan that has technical know how to support or construct a nuclear submarine.
> On a serious note, does Pakistan have a under water pontoon from which to launch the experimental SLBM ?


I am sorry to say but as always from your rigorous mathematics fantasies to this your reply revolves around the delusion that Pakistan CANNOT do it...! You would be a good addition to this forum if you just focus on the problem in hand rather than deciding what Pakistan can or cannot do...! Leave that to us, we know what we can do...!

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## amardeep mishra

Spy Master said:


> I am sorry to say but as always from your rigorous mathematics fantasies to this your reply revolves around the delusion that Pakistan CANNOT do it...! You would be a good addition to this forum if you just focus on the problem in hand rather than deciding what Pakistan can or cannot do...! Leave that to us, we know what we can do...!



My dear kindly prove me wrong based on solid scientific literature instead of verbose remarks that hold no water.believe me I'll be more than happy to accept it! Now, back to the topic, furnish the literature in support of your claim

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CriticalThought

amardeep mishra said:


> Hi dear @CriticalThought
> No that's not my concern, my primary concern is the shady ways with which most of Pakistani r&d takes place. Anyways I'll believe when I either see a launch or a very credible scientific literature from Pakistani side.till then it'd be far more fruitful to wait instead of speculations. What that article written by oscar does is--speculates!Oscar's article, without a doubt seems good and detailed except the last paragraph wherein he speculates the possibility of nuclear subs.it appears more of Pakistani reaction to Indian SSBN and SSN plans without the technical know how, of course!



Well, they have to be shady because the whole world is out to put an end to our nuclear program. But you can't deny the existence of our nukes (as an example). Look at the kind of manufacturing technology that is needed: centrifuges, storage facilities, machining of plutonium/uranium for the warhead, the list goes on and on. No one can say we just got it from China for free, or that AQ Khan simply stole all of that.

Let's not forget, no one wants to keep helping out an incompetent person forever. In the end, one has to show proof of one's ability to gain respect in the eyes of his benefactors.

It is OK to be cynical, but saying our R&D takes place in shady ways goes much beyond that.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## GreenFalcon

Pakistan Navy's ScanEagle UAV...





ScanEagle: developed by InSitu and deployed by both Boeing and InSitu. All versions of the ScanEagle cost less than $100,000 each.














ScanEagle: developed by InSitu and deployed by Boeing and InSitu





ScanEagle payload: photograph taken at the Boeing stand at Dubai 2007 Air Show.
http://www.barnardmicrosystems.com/UAV/uav_list/scaneagle.html

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Irfan Baloch

Technogaianist said:


> Bullsh*t is the only way to describe this. Pure bullsh*t.
> 
> Non-nuclear submarine, i.e. DE, AIP or electric drive are quiet, small, maneuverable, but deadly and packed with advanced sensors that give them more then enough capability to asset threats - in any domain - and take the appropriate actions.
> 
> Take our Ula class - with the highest availability rate in Europe, a range of greater then 10,000nmi and a max speed underwater of +25nmi. The boats are also known as Type 210:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a fight between Sweden's Gotland and Norway's Ula for the quietest submarine on the continent. They have long legs, can cruise at speeds any nuke boat can, are fully capable of operating in vast ocean waters, despite being classified as an SSC, and if you think they or similar designs like Type 209/212, Gotland, Kilo or any other conventional submarine design is an "easy kill" then you are poorly mistaken.
> 
> Fortunately military leaders don't have the same bravado and take the threat very seriously.


thanks for explaining and contradicting much better way

the diesel subs for example are far more quieter thus stealthier than nuclear subs (this is something NATO complains about new breed of Russian and Chinese Subs)

i cant add any more than you did already thanks \again for your contribution

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Inception-06

fatman17 said:


> good report but the actual reality is not as rosy as depicted.
> 
> the Type-21 FFGs purchased 2nd hand from the UK are a liability now as they are costing a pretty penny to maintain and operate. they were going to be replaced by 6 Perry class FFGs donated by the US as EDA but only 1 has been transferred with an 80mill$ upgrade and for all intent and purposes it is not more than a training ship.
> 
> The 4 F-22 Sword class FFGs purchased new from China are a good addition to the surface fleet but these ships are beset by safety issues which are being overcome locally by the navy. having said that further purchases of the type are not forthcoming due to the reluctance of the navy planners citing these safety issues. a newer more advanced version of the FFG designated F-23 in some circles is on the cards but as of now there is no further news on this front.
> 
> The Submarine squadrons remains the cutting edge of the navy but here too the navy is operating with less than the required allocation of boats (11) and is dependent on the 3 Agosta90B boats equipped with AIP and 2 80s era Agosta 70 boats which went through a major overhaul to extend their service life but these were supposed to be withdrawn from service starting 2012 after the failed induction of the German subs and the subsequent delay in the procurement of 6-8 Chinese S-20 submarines with AIP. as of today, work has not started on the building of these submarines either in Chinese shipbuilding yards or locally. recently it was disclosed that this type would be inducted in the navy starting 2022-23, 6 years from now.
> 
> The navy has strengthened its numbers in the area of costal / maritime defense and surveillance by ordering up to 6-8 Azmat class Chinese built FACs and is in the process of upgrading the MSA by purchasing 4 600T OPVs and 2 1500T corvettes(?) to stem the illegal trafficking of drugs, immigrants and gun running. here too the US has blocked the purchase of 8 GR3, hence forcing the navy to turn to its trusted supplier the Chinese.
> 
> The Naval Air Arm has not seen any major purchases except for the purchase of 3 2nd hand ATR72 transports which will be upgraded as MSA / transport aircraft to replace the ageing F-27 Fokker's in service.
> 
> The 6 Seaking ASWs hellos continue to soldier on with the navy having been upgraded recently. replacement of this type must be on the cards and a possible purchase of Leonardo's Type AW139 ASW/SAR seems to be a strong possibility having recently secured an order of 6-8 AW139s for the Army and Air force.
> 
> The 6 Z9ec light ASW helos purchased from china have been a good addition to the naval air arm. further inductions are dependent on the purchase of FFGs.
> 
> The surviving 6 P3C PUP aircraft continue to operate with the navy for some time to come. attrition replacement of the 2 aircraft lost in the militant attack at Drigh road NAS were rebuffed by the US.
> 
> Overall the navy is certainly in much better state of preparedness as compared to 1971 but the procurement of the planned surface vessels and submarines must be speeded up if the navy has to effectively defend its much larger EEZ and its bases along the Makran coast.




You can also add the two Turkish missel boats MRTP-33- Karrar (ship number 03 and 04), Pakistan made three Jalalat (ship number 1028, 1029 and 1030 )class 1 and two Jalalat class 2 boats (named PNS JURRAT 1023 and PNS QUWWAT 1028 ). 2+ 3+ 2= 7 + 4 Azmat = 11


----------



## nomi007

naval gap b/w indo-pak is vast 
we need to add more frigates
still PN have no visible plan in this regard

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fenrir

CriticalThought said:


> Are you guys willing to sell these subs to Pakistan?



The Ula Class design is sound, in fact an updated variant based on the existing Ula hull will replace the class, but these boats are approaching 30 years of age and have already undergone mid-life extensions, so there's not much more mileage that can be milked from them. They will be replaced by 2020.

The age of the hulls makes them unattractive, but they've also got a great deal of German and American knowhow in them - as the hulls are German (socalled Type 210) and the fire control systems are American - so that also makes them unattractive from a Pakistani point of view were a diversification away from American equipment is currently preferred when it's an option.






They are more likely to be scrapped then sold. However their predecessor the Kobben Class (Type 207) was transferred to both Poland and Denmark following their service with the Royal Norwegian navy, so it's not an outside possibility, it's just unlikely given the limited defense relations between Pakistan and Norway.






The Ula's are old, and have been regularly upgraded, but don't mistake that as them being neutered. They're still among the best conventional submarines in Europe today.

I just don't see them being an option for Pakistan give our two nations limited defense relations and the age of the boats.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Hassan Guy

Lets role some of these out already


----------



## Bratva

fatman17 said:


> good report but the actual reality is not as rosy as depicted.
> 
> the Type-21 FFGs purchased 2nd hand from the UK are a liability now as they are costing a pretty penny to maintain and operate. they were going to be replaced by 6 Perry class FFGs donated by the US as EDA but only 1 has been transferred with an 80mill$ upgrade and for all intent and purposes it is not more than a training ship.
> 
> The 4 F-22 Sword class FFGs purchased new from China are a good addition to the surface fleet but these ships are beset by safety issues which are being overcome locally by the navy. having said that further purchases of the type are not forthcoming due to the reluctance of the navy planners citing these safety issues. a newer more advanced version of the FFG designated F-23 in some circles is on the cards but as of now there is no further news on this front.
> 
> The Submarine squadrons remains the cutting edge of the navy but here too the navy is operating with less than the required allocation of boats (11) and is dependent on the 3 Agosta90B boats equipped with AIP and 2 80s era Agosta 70 boats which went through a major overhaul to extend their service life but these were supposed to be withdrawn from service starting 2012 after the failed induction of the German subs and the subsequent delay in the procurement of 6-8 Chinese S-20 submarines with AIP. as of today, work has not started on the building of these submarines either in Chinese shipbuilding yards or locally. recently it was disclosed that this type would be inducted in the navy starting 2022-23, 6 years from now.
> 
> The navy has strengthened its numbers in the area of costal / maritime defense and surveillance by ordering up to 6-8 Azmat class Chinese built FACs and is in the process of upgrading the MSA by purchasing 4 600T OPVs and 2 1500T corvettes(?) to stem the illegal trafficking of drugs, immigrants and gun running. here too the US has blocked the purchase of 8 GR3, hence forcing the navy to turn to its trusted supplier the Chinese.
> 
> The Naval Air Arm has not seen any major purchases except for the purchase of 3 2nd hand ATR72 transports which will be upgraded as MSA / transport aircraft to replace the ageing F-27 Fokker's in service.
> 
> The 6 Seaking ASWs hellos continue to soldier on with the navy having been upgraded recently. replacement of this type must be on the cards and a possible purchase of Leonardo's Type AW139 ASW/SAR seems to be a strong possibility having recently secured an order of 6-8 AW139s for the Army and Air force.
> 
> The 6 Z9ec light ASW helos purchased from china have been a good addition to the naval air arm. further inductions are dependent on the purchase of FFGs.
> 
> The surviving 6 P3C PUP aircraft continue to operate with the navy for some time to come. attrition replacement of the 2 aircraft lost in the militant attack at Drigh road NAS were rebuffed by the US.
> 
> Overall the navy is certainly in much better state of preparedness as compared to 1971 but the procurement of the planned surface vessels and submarines must be speeded up if the navy has to effectively defend its much larger EEZ and its bases along the Makran coast.




What kind of safety issues F-22P facing ?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## IHK_PK

Bratva said:


> What kind of safety issues F-22P facing ?



Yes, I was about to ask the same question?


----------



## ConcealCarry

That same aircraft carrier would become a problem for the enemy to protect from our aerial and sub surface attacks. Imagine the blow to their moral and ego when we hit that elephant.




Dr. Stranglove said:


> aircraft carriers are for power projection our enemy is right on our doorstep why would we need one and our navy can get air cover from from our costal air bases





What do you mean by "peaceful country my foot"?
are you suggesting that we are waging war at any country, or engaged in supporting terrorism in any neighbouring country?
We have good relations with all the neighbours except india off course, and we resolve our issues, if any peacefully when did we threaten any neighbouring country.

Peaceful does not mean coward or not willing to fight if push comes to shove. We just showed that to the Indians in no non-sense terms to blow the air out of their delusional balloons. What we need is an adequate surface fleet with a strong offensive sub surface capability doubling as second strike capability. The most important thing is we need a very strong air force specially now to counter Rafael threat. The only thing keeping india from aggression was F-16 factor, with Rafael induction in IAF that would be neutralized to a great extent unless we can double our F-16 numbers or induct a better platform in significant (2-3 squadrons) numbers. 




Zarvan said:


> Peaceful country my foot. This peaceful country thing only make sures that you end up dead. Specially in case of Pakistan not only because of your location but also because you are a Muslim country and a nuclear power. We need much bigger Navy and need to go for global role for that too happen at least 24 to 30 major Ships are required equipped with VLS to fire cruise missiles. Also need bigger Marine Force








Why do you have to poke your nose in every Pakistani discussion thread with your "I know it all" attitude with definite declarations about what programs Pakistan does not have? Regardless of what you know and what your friends know, you know nothing about our top secret programs. Stop behaving like jackass here. 




amardeep mishra said:


> Hi dear @Oscar
> Except the para I have quoted above,rest everything seems fine however if we note carefully,there are a lot of "ifs" and "buts" or in short speculations,there is nothing definite in what you have mentioned above. I happen to know a couple of things pertaining to nuclear plants as I have couple of my batch mates in BARC reactor divison--(kindly note BARC has various type of reactor projects going on from PHWR,LWR to fast breeder reactors and now recently AHWRs as well). Designing your own reactor is one thing and miniaturizing it and making it sea worthy is QUITE ANOTHER! Lets be brutally honest,and instead of living in fancies and drooling over some un-substantiated reports,lets for now focus on facts at hand--pakistan hasnt really designed her own nuclear power plant for generating "energy". Pakistan has couple of plutonium and experimental neutron reactors whose origin is pretty much unknown given the scarcity of published literature.
> First step in design of a nuclear submarine is mastering the power plant--there is no short cut--you have to master the design. The reactor needs to be validated in simulations which paves the way for the construction of a land based prototype.The data gathered over years of running the land based replica of your submarine reactor gives enough confidence in design and only then is reactor finally engineered into the submarine hull-- this whole process takes at least a decade or more!Pakistan has no land based prototype running that might indicate the possibility of a nuclear submarine reactor being seriously pursued by PN.
> I will briefly highlight some of the challenges associated with design of sea going reactors--these are in indian context as discussed in various open seminars and lectures--kindly note it is equally true in the context of pakistan!
> 1)First to design a sea going reactor(light water moderated as against heavy water moderated)--one would need to establish reactor physics and required metallurgy in the country.Light water reactors traditionally occupy lesser space and are relatively straight forward in design. The down-side though is ,they require slightly higher degree of enrichment vis-a-vis PHWRs that consume natural uranium. In case of submarine reactors though,the enrichment level is way more high than a land based LWR designed for commercial purposes. Higher the enrichment--longer will the endurance of the sub.
> 
> 2)In case of land based LWRs the power is generally gradually increased to full capacity however in subs the requirement is such that reactor might have to be reved upto full power setting in a very short span of time--for instance during initial accelerations or running away from enemies. This might seem easy at first glance but requires extensive modifications in the design to enable fast building up of power
> 
> 3)Submarine reactor should be able to withstand shocks and lateral forces that might result from an explosion etc.It is speculated that the reactor core of Oscar-2 class russian SSGN could withstand a g force of 50!
> 
> 4)To construct the reactor,country must have established FORGING capabilities to forge reactor pressure vessel,pressurizers,turbines,allied control systems etc etc.
> 
> Submarine is just the platform and that is useless without itz primary armament.Pakistan would have to design her own SLBMs and master the cold launch philosophy.Again,pakistan doesnt have a SLBM program going on right now. It takes decades to design and field a reliable SLBM--it is not as easy as lets say land based missiles. Your designers would run into same kind of problems, Indian designers ran into almost 10 years back and those were related to a lot of issues ranging from lowering the weight by using composites,complexities in cold launch to storing liquid fuel for RCS(REACTION CONTROL SYSTEM).
> And lastly the r&d cost of a nuclear submarine exceeds $3bn--kindly Note it doesn't include the cost of establishing a production line or whole lot of nuclear engineering and support faculties at the harbour. After spending billions of dollars into nuclear submarine program India has only one yard capable of supporting nuclear submarine or has the requisite nuclear engineering set up.How do you think Pakistan would deal with this particular issue?I don't think there is any yard in Pakistan that has technical know how to support or construct a nuclear submarine.
> On a serious note, does Pakistan have a under water pontoon from which to launch the experimental SLBM ?


----------



## Zarvan

ConcealCarry said:


> That same aircraft carrier would become a problem for the enemy to protect from our aerial and sub surface attacks. Imagine the blow to their moral and ego when we hit that elephant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by "peaceful country my foot"?
> are you suggesting that we are waging war at any country, or engaged in supporting terrorism in any neighbouring country?
> We have good relations with all the neighbours except india off course, and we resolve our issues, if any peacefully when did we threaten any neighbouring country.
> 
> Peaceful does not mean coward or not willing to fight if push comes to shove. We just showed that to the Indians in no non-sense terms to blow the air out of their delusional balloons. What we need is an adequate surface fleet with a strong offensive sub surface capability doubling as second strike capability. The most important thing is we need a very strong air force specially now to counter Rafael threat. The only thing keeping india from aggression was F-16 factor, with Rafael induction in IAF that would be neutralized to a great extent unless we can double our F-16 numbers or induct a better platform in significant (2-3 squadrons) numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you have to poke your nose in every Pakistani discussion thread with your "I know it all" attitude with definite declarations about what programs Pakistan does not have? Regardless of what you know and what your friends know, you know nothing about our top secret programs. Stop behaving like jackass here.



Well I poke my nose because I am Pakistani and concerned about defence of my country and Muslims. Secondly if you are trying to sell me that 12 Frigates and 14 Submarines would be enough to defend against Indian Navy with 100 major ships and 25 to 30 Submarines also P8 Jets and Attack Fighter Air Crafts than I am not going to buy this because this is impossible. Yes we should start war first if we think it's in our best interest. I consider this insult to Pakistan and its soldiers that if they think that war should be started they are asked to remain peaceful. Than finish the Army for that. Remaining peaceful no matter how good it sounds is not always wise you have to strike first many times before your enemy strikes. So what I want is Navy to be far better equipped and much bigger Navy if we want to defend our selves against massively growing Indian Navy.


----------



## ConcealCarry

LOL .... that "poke" section was directed at the indian.

And take a healthy dose of cool aid and a second time reading helps in comprehending the message better.






Zarvan said:


> Well I poke my nose because I am Pakistani and concerned about defence of my country and Muslims. Secondly if you are trying to sell me that 12 Frigates and 14 Submarines would be enough to defend against Indian Navy with 100 major ships and 25 to 30 Submarines also P8 Jets and Attack Fighter Air Crafts than I am not going to buy this because this is impossible. Yes we should start war first if we think it's in our best interest. I consider this insult to Pakistan and its soldiers that if they think that war should be started they are asked to remain peaceful. Than finish the Army for that. Remaining peaceful no matter how good it sounds is not always wise you have to strike first many times before your enemy strikes. So what I want is Navy to be far better equipped and much bigger Navy if we want to defend our selves against massively growing Indian Navy.


----------



## The SC

Zarvan said:


> We are working ICBM and they are more than one. I am 200 % certain about it as for Navy sooner or little later we would go for large Frigates and Destroyers equipped with VLS to fire long range cruise and ballistic missiles along with Air Defence. You can't fight Indian Navy which in next 10 years will have around 100 Major Ships from corvettes to Destroyers with only 12 Frigate Navy of Pakistan


Best response is more Submarines, maybe between 20 and 30 or more still..from coastal midgets of 600 tons to nuclear powered ones.. this will be a nightmare for Pakistan enemies, even if they have 300 war ships, they will get paranoid and will think a lot before taking any action..



Oscar said:


> The reactor is the first step; that is all I would like to add.
> 
> 
> I don't express anything until I am dead sure, and this I intend for our fb page so double checked or triple checked info.
> 
> All nuclear subs require that their power plant be developed first.
> 
> Budget and usual "nagihanu aafatien" being avoided, most of these thingd should see completion.


Pakistan was already working on the nuclear propulsion system in Musharaf's days.. don't know if they might implement it in 2 new subs (Yuan 39A/B) when they will be built in Pakistan..
Don't know why people are taking about S-20.. the Submarines Pakistan is getting are 500 million $ each, 4 billion$ for 8, that is in par with the cost of German Type 214 and with ToT on top of it..

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ankit Kumar 002

A very good write up. 

Just my 2 cents on helicopter operations. Now that PN has 12 Z9C, a sub 5 ton multirole , why not order more and replace the SA319B fully ? Both come under the " Naval Light Weight Utility " category, and having a common platform has its own benefits. 

Also the true replacement in terms of capability of SeaKing can only be an equivalent one. Like AW101 or EC725 or NHI NH90. A squadron (6-8) of them is no so costly.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan

The SC said:


> Best response is more Submarines, maybe between 20 and 30 or more still..from coastal midgets of 600 tons to nuclear powered ones.. this will be a nightmare for Pakistan enemies, even if they have 300 war ships, they will get paranoid and will think a lot before taking any action..
> 
> 
> Pakistan was already working on the nuclear propulsion system in Musharaf's days.. don't know if they might implement it in 2 new subs (Yuan 39A/B) when they will be built in Pakistan..
> Don't know why people are taking about S-20.. the Submarines Pakistan is getting are 500 million $ each, 4 billion$ for 8, that is in par with the cost of German Type 214 and with ToT on top of it..


Bro problem is they also have submarines and are going for lot more not to mention they are going for corvettes which have major Anti Submarine Capability along with P8 and other Anti Submarine Jets and helicopters. So we need combination of VLS equipped Destroyers and Frigates for long range cruise missile strikes and also Submarines both nuclear and AIP and Fighter and Anti Submarine Jets and helicopters

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Cornered Tiger

Ankit Kumar 002 said:


> Just my 2 cents on helicopter operations. Now that PN has 12 Z9C, a sub 5 ton multirole , why not order more and replace the SA319B fully ? Both come under the " Naval Light Weight Utility " category, and having a common platform has its own benefits


Z9-EC is Ant-Submarine Helicopter while SA-319B is Naval Utility Helicopter. You are right about replacing SA-319B but with a better suited replacement rather then a Specialized Anti-Submarine Warfare chopper..


----------



## Ankit Kumar 002

Cornered Tiger said:


> Z9-EC is Ant-Submarine Helicopter while SA-319B is Naval Utility Helicopter. You are right about replacing SA-319B but with a better suited replacement rather then a Specialized Anti-Submarine Warfare chopper..



The Z9C, as far as I understand is the derivation of the Dauphin series of French helicopters from China. And the Chinese did also produce an SAR variant of it.


----------



## SQ8

The SC said:


> Best response is more Submarines, maybe between 20 and 30 or more still..from coastal midgets of 600 tons to nuclear powered ones.. this will be a nightmare for Pakistan enemies, even if they have 300 war ships, they will get paranoid and will think a lot before taking any action..
> 
> 
> Pakistan was already working on the nuclear propulsion system in Musharaf's days.. don't know if they might implement it in 2 new subs (Yuan 39A/B) when they will be built in Pakistan..
> Don't know why people are taking about S-20.. the Submarines Pakistan is getting are 500 million $ each, 4 billion$ for 8, that is in par with the cost of German Type 214 and with ToT on top of it..




The S-20 is the moniker that stuck, although everyone except the PN calls them that; to the PN they are modified Yuan. 

And the reactor is not meant for them, not the 8 coming anyway.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Fenrir

Cornered Tiger said:


> You are right about replacing SA-319B but with a better suited replacement rather then a Specialized Anti-Submarine Warfare chopper..



European options make for great, but expensive airframes. Quality = cost. But it's hard to find better airframes on the market today.

We recently started replacing our Sea Kings as well, partially with the AW101:











Partially with the NH90:










Both are multi-mission platforms, and so long as Pakistan can front the cost, options available to it as European nations don't have reservations selling Pakistan helicopters of these types.

I served on both Sea Kings and the NH90, absolutely loved the NH90 and would recommend it at every chance I get.

*If you're wondering what I did, this was it;










Maritime SAR.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## amardeep mishra

ConcealCarry said:


> Why do you have to poke your nose in every Pakistani discussion thread with your "I know it all" attitude with definite declarations about what programs Pakistan does not have? Regardless of what you know and what your friends know, you know nothing about our top secret programs. Stop behaving like jackass here.



Hi dear @ConcealCarry 
Again,instead of using a language that aptly describe your academic qualifications why don't you try to back your claim with something substantial or something that involves published literature?
Oh I'm waiting!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

amardeep mishra said:


> Hi dear @Oscar
> Except the para I have quoted above,rest everything seems fine however if we note carefully,there are a lot of "ifs" and "buts" or in short speculations,there is nothing definite in what you have mentioned above. I happen to know a couple of things pertaining to nuclear plants as I have couple of my batch mates in BARC reactor divison--(kindly note BARC has various type of reactor projects going on from PHWR,LWR to fast breeder reactors and now recently AHWRs as well). Designing your own reactor is one thing and miniaturizing it and making it sea worthy is QUITE ANOTHER! Lets be brutally honest,and instead of living in fancies and drooling over some un-substantiated reports,lets for now focus on facts at hand--pakistan hasnt really designed her own nuclear power plant for generating "energy". Pakistan has couple of plutonium and experimental neutron reactors whose origin is pretty much unknown given the scarcity of published literature.
> First step in design of a nuclear submarine is mastering the power plant--there is no short cut--you have to master the design. The reactor needs to be validated in simulations which paves the way for the construction of a land based prototype.The data gathered over years of running the land based replica of your submarine reactor gives enough confidence in design and only then is reactor finally engineered into the submarine hull-- this whole process takes at least a decade or more!*Pakistan has no land based prototype running that might indicate the possibility of a nuclear submarine reactor being seriously pursued by PN.*
> I will briefly highlight some of the challenges associated with design of sea going reactors--these are in indian context as discussed in various open seminars and lectures--kindly note it is equally true in the context of pakistan!
> 1)First to design a sea going reactor(light water moderated as against heavy water moderated)--one would need to establish reactor physics and required metallurgy in the country.Light water reactors traditionally occupy lesser space and are relatively straight forward in design. The down-side though is ,they require slightly higher degree of enrichment vis-a-vis PHWRs that consume natural uranium. In case of submarine reactors though,the enrichment level is way more high than a land based LWR designed for commercial purposes. Higher the enrichment--longer will the endurance of the sub.
> 
> 2)In case of land based LWRs the power is generally gradually increased to full capacity however in subs the requirement is such that reactor might have to be reved upto full power setting in a very short span of time--for instance during initial accelerations or running away from enemies. This might seem easy at first glance but requires extensive modifications in the design to enable fast building up of power
> 
> 3)Submarine reactor should be able to withstand shocks and lateral forces that might result from an explosion etc.It is speculated that the reactor core of Oscar-2 class russian SSGN could withstand a g force of 50!
> 
> 4)To construct the reactor,country must have established FORGING capabilities to forge reactor pressure vessel,pressurizers,turbines,allied control systems etc etc.
> 
> Submarine is just the platform and that is useless without itz primary armament.Pakistan would have to design her own SLBMs and master the cold launch philosophy.Again,pakistan doesnt have a SLBM program going on right now. It takes decades to design and field a reliable SLBM--it is not as easy as lets say land based missiles. Your designers would run into same kind of problems, Indian designers ran into almost 10 years back and those were related to a lot of issues ranging from lowering the weight by using composites,complexities in cold launch to storing liquid fuel for RCS(REACTION CONTROL SYSTEM).
> And lastly the r&d cost of a nuclear submarine exceeds $3bn--kindly Note it doesn't include the cost of establishing a production line or whole lot of nuclear engineering and support faculties at the harbour. After spending billions of dollars into nuclear submarine program India has only one yard capable of supporting nuclear submarine or has the requisite nuclear engineering set up.How do you think Pakistan would deal with this particular issue?I don't think there is any yard in Pakistan that has technical know how to support or construct a nuclear submarine.
> On a serious note, does Pakistan have a under water pontoon from which to launch the experimental SLBM ?



Nobody is shoving anything down your throat. You dont HAVE to agree and I can agree to not accept your narrative.
That is all I have to say on this matter.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Cornered Tiger

Ankit Kumar 002 said:


> The Z9C, as far as I understand is the derivation of the Dauphin series of French helicopters from China. And the Chinese did also produce an SAR variant of it.



You are right in Z9-C sense, but not definitely with Z9-EC which is Specially built for Anti-Submarine warfare..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The SC

Zarvan said:


> Bro problem is they also have submarines and are going for lot more not to mention they are going for corvettes which have major Anti Submarine Capability along with P8 and other Anti Submarine Jets and helicopters. So we need combination of VLS equipped Destroyers and Frigates for long range cruise missile strikes and also Submarines both nuclear and AIP and Fighter and Anti Submarine Jets and helicopters


I do agree with you, still how many submarines will they be able to commit to one front? That is where Pakistan wins, it has most of its subs for defense and a few for offense..


----------



## Cornered Tiger

Technogaianist said:


> European options make for great, but expensive airframes. Quality = cost.
> 
> We recently started replaced our Sea Kings as well, partially with the AW101:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially with the NH90:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both are multi-mission platforms, and so long as Pakistan can front the cost, options available to it as European nations don't have reservations selling Pakistan helicopters of these types.
> 
> I served on both Sea Kings and the NH90, absolutely loved the NH90 and would recommend it at every chance I get.
> 
> *If you're wondering what I did, this was it;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maritime SAR.


Who does not want to get hands on European one, but such a nasty price tag is issue... We have lot many things to replace, not only choppers, that is the main issue, we have to divide the available resources among priorities...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The SC

Oscar said:


> The S-20 is the moniker that stuck, although everyone except the PN calls them that; to the PN they are modified Yuan.
> 
> And the reactor is not meant for them, not the 8 coming anyway.


Hope Pakistan will get 2 Nuclear submarines, one 6000 tons Hunter Killer and nuclear cruise carrying and one bigger ballistic missiles carrying, both with the new Chinese silent propellers.

Was thinking about the Yuan-32 test bed of 6 thousand tons...


----------



## Ankit Kumar 002

Cornered Tiger said:


> You are right in Z9-C sense, but not definitely with Z9-EC which is Specially built for Anti-Submarine warfare..



Well the French are offering us the same Panther MBe version which they say meets our criteria for SAR , Transport, ASuW and ASW operations. 

As I see that the " Z9C" of PLAN is the licence built variant of Panther , I see little to no problems while using the Z9C for all operations , and Z9EC is derived from the same. 

The PLAN use the same Z9C with ASW capability in SAR and other operations too. 

Personally I don't see any problems in adopting the Z9EC into ASW, Transport and SAR roles all. 

However I stand to be corrected in case EC version is purely ASW version like our Ka28s.



The SC said:


> Hope Pakistan will get 2 Nuclear submarines, one 600 tons Hunter Killer and nuclear cruse carrying and one bigger ballistic missiles carrying,both with the new Chinese silent propellers..



6000 Tons. 

Chinese are working on pump jet propulsion too , why not that?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fenrir

The SC said:


> Hope Pakistan will get 2 Nuclear submarines, one 600 tons Hunter Killer and nuclear cruse carrying and one bigger ballistic missiles carrying,both with the new Chinese silent propellers..



600 ton nuclear submarine? I think you missed a zero.

The world's smallest nuclear submarine is the American NR-1 at 400 tons. It's unarmed:





An early Skate class, based on Nautilus, weighed in at almost 2500 tons:





Something in the class of Skipjack or Sturgeon would be about 3000-4000 tons:










While an LA equivalent (might be stretching the capabilities of a first submarine, honestly) would weight in at around 6000 tons, so I think you probably missed a zero:

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## The SC

The SC said:


> Hope Pakistan will get 2 Nuclear submarines, one 600 tons Hunter Killer and nuclear cruse carrying and one bigger ballistic missiles carrying,both with the new Chinese silent propellers..





Technogaianist said:


> 600 ton nuclear submarine? I think you missed a zero.
> 
> The world's smallest nuclear submarine is the American NR-1 at 400 tons. It's unarmed:




Yes I meant 6000 tons..thanks 600 tons can't carry cruise missiles anyways, I was not thinking about a midget nuclear powered sub, more about something in line with the American Nautilus
I have seen that one unmanned!


----------



## Cornered Tiger

Ankit Kumar 002 said:


> Well the French are offering us the same Panther MBe version which they say meets our criteria for SAR , Transport, ASuW and ASW operations.
> 
> As I see that the " Z9C" of PLAN is the licence built variant of Panther , I see little to no problems while using the Z9C for all operations , and Z9EC is derived from the same.
> 
> The PLAN use the same Z9C with ASW capability in SAR and other operations too.
> 
> Personally I don't see any problems in adopting the Z9EC into ASW, Transport and SAR roles all.
> 
> However I stand to be corrected in case EC version is purely ASW version like our Ka28s.
> 
> 6000 Tons.
> 
> Chinese are working on pump jet propulsion too , why not that?


In order to give multi-role capabilities to Z9-EC we have to give more power, more payload capacity, etc to the platform which will lead to many modifications in airframe as well, OR we can compromise on Anti-Sub capability. The best solution is to replace them with same kinda role chopper, It could be a different variant of the very same discussed above. so we have no need to do something to Z9-EC fleet. They are good...


----------



## Zarvan

The SC said:


> I do agree with you, still how many submarines will they be able to commit to one front? That is where Pakistan wins, it has most of its subs for defense and a few for offense..


They don't have enemy on the other side. China will have to bring their entire Navy to keep India busy no other country would or can do it. Depending only on China is not good we need much bigger Navy


----------



## The SC

Zarvan said:


> They don't have enemy on the other side. China will have to bring their entire Navy to keep India busy no other country would or can do it. Depending only on China is not good we need much bigger Navy


Not depending on China.. I didn't refer to that.. India can not bring all its subs up, its navy will be naked all over the place and neither can it bring all its vessels.. if they hear of one or two Pakistani subs roaming around in the Indian ocean, they will dedicate too much assets to at least keep track of them and their navy's biggest vessels will be paralyzed till they know -if ever- where these subs are or their whereabouts, which is unlikely to happen with the very silent and stealthy AIP subs..


----------



## Zarvan

The SC said:


> Not depending on China.. I didn't refer to that.. India can not bring all its subs up, its navy will be naked all over the place and neither can it bring all its vessels.. if they hear of one or two Pakistani subs roaming around in the Indian ocean, they will dedicate too much assets to at least keep track of them and their navy;s biggest vessels will be paralyzed till they know -if ever= where these subs are or their whereabouts, which is unlikely to happen with the very silent and stealthy AIP subs..



With 100 major Ships they easily can bring 70 % of them they have friends like Vietnam and others so using fleet of that area won't be an issue for India


----------



## Thəorətic Muslim

Zarvan said:


> With 100 major Ships they easily can bring 70 % of them they have friends like Vietnam and others so using fleet of that area won't be an issue for India



Maybe instead of trying to match India, Pakistan & India, I don't know, .... make peace?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan

Thəorətic Muslim said:


> Maybe instead of trying to match India, Pakistan & India, I don't know, .... make peace?


There is no such thing as peace the gap between two wars is taken as peace by some innocent human beings


----------



## Thəorətic Muslim

Zarvan said:


> There is no such thing as peace the gap between two wars is taken as peace by some innocent human beings



Attempts for military parity & misendeavours bankrupted the mighty Soviet Union.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## wiseone2

Oscar said:


> *Pakistan Navy : The Phoenix Rises*
> 
> By: "Oscar" from team Pakistan Defence
> October-09-2016
> 
> View attachment 341998
> 
> 
> Traditionally, the Pakistan Navy has been the stepchild within the branches of the Pakistani military. This has to do with the lack of understanding by the major decision influences within Pakistan’s military procurement programs; in this case, the Pakistan army, which tends to hoard the military budget(_willingly or by virtue of size_), followed by the Pakistan air force. Ironically, the Pakistan air force officers due to their greater exposure and generally better education in terms of military objectives in training (_due to better quality syllabi and a much more selective plethora of candidates that become officers_) are much more aware of Pakistan and its military deficiencies, but tend to be selfish when it comes to budgetary requests _(as all individual branches within the world military forces are_).
> 
> Another reason for the stepchild treatment has to do with the generally expensive nature and high-value of what are the Navy’s primary bread-and-butter in oceangoing vessels both surface and subsurface. A single destroyer can run in cost to hundreds of millions of dollars, whereas the same amount can purchase 10 or 15 fighter jets or 60 tanks.
> 
> Finally, there was the issue of economic and diplomatic sanctions that Pakistan had to face after the Pressler Amendment, which all but cut off the traditional sources for Pakistan’s procurement plans. It would be unfair to single out the Navy at the receiving end of budgetary isolation as one of the most expensive procurement programs undertaken by Pakistan during the 90s involved the Pakistan Navy and the Agosta 90 B submarine. For its time, the platform was an adequately sophisticated diesel electric submarine that could be procured and with the traditional kickbacks and corruption ladled deals that are the hallmark of the Pakistani defense procurement, the program cost more than its share of budget allocation.
> 
> *Pre-2001: the years of neglect*
> 
> Prior to 2001, Pakistan Navy’s fleet was made up of generally obsolescent vessels such as the type – 21 frigate, nearly mothballed during destroyers, 2 training Leander FFs, along with a mix of Chinese missile boats, minesweepers and various FACs. Its aviation assets will be considered and somewhat better shape with less advanced, but somewhat effective versions of the Breguet Atlantique serving in an anti submarine role. Additionally, there were versions of the Sea King helicopter that usually operated from land with the outdated Alouette picking up a ship based antisubmarine warfare role. While the Pakistan Navy had operated Westland Lynx helicopters which were bought in lieu of the type XXI frigates; lack of spares and general support had them mothballed around this time. There were also 2 P-3C Orion Aircraft that while being relatively good Anti-Submarine aircraft were grounded due to the inability of the PN to complete a overhaul.
> 
> The supposed pride of the Pakistan Navy lay in the submarine arm, which consisted of three Agosta class vessels of which two were the 70 type and one was the modernized 90 type. There were additional 4 Daphne class submarines with these were mostly relegated to training roles and insignificant coastal forays.
> 
> That is not to say that some progress had not been made in terms of keeping up efforts in modernization for its assets. Various training systems based on computer simulations had been set up for its submarine fleet and overall command and control. There were efforts to coordinate the procurement of unmanned aerial vehicles to be operated from its surface assets as alternatives to the more expensive option of using helicopter assets for tasks such as observation, reconnaissance and radio relay. In addition, efforts were underway at the time to look at Chinese offerings for surface, subsurface and aviation assets.
> 
> *Post 2001 procurement: *
> 
> One of the first priorities for the Pakistan Navy after the lifting of embargoes was to try and get its backlog of spares cleared up for the American equipment it operates. This included the P – 3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft, such the Phlanax close in weapons system mounted on its key surface vessels, and ancillary spares for the harpoon missile system.
> 
> The initial attempts to procure these systems were met with hesitation from the US government, which wanted to ensure that any weapon systems sold to Pakistan would have some usefulness within the support for the war on terror as it was important to convince the US Congress of the same. In light of this, many of the upgrades were financed under US aid based upon the usefulness in providing maritime intelligence against possible terrorist usage of Pakistan’s territorial waters.
> 
> The P-3 C Orion maritime patrol aircraft underwent a series of upgrades which brought them to the same standard as those operated by the United States Navy. This includes capability to coordinate data and threat picture with the entire C4I2 system of the Pakistan Navy (and with recent developments, the Pakistan integrated air defense system). The combination of surface search radar, active and passive sonobouys , along with synthetic aperture radar allows the P-3 C Orion operated by Pakistan Navy to be able to enhance Pakistan’s maritime security and considerably threaten and delay any blockade attempts by the aggressor both surface and subsurface.
> 
> Certain ancillary systems were also purchased for usage on the existing Westland SH3 seaking helicopters with these were generally purchased off-the-shelf. In light of the additional expected responsibility allocated the Pakistan Navy in curtailing terrorist movements, expectations were to purchase patrol craft that would allow the Pakistan Navy to conduct halt and search operations on vessels within the Arabian Sea. For this purpose, a certain amount of the military. It provided had to be spent on fast intercept craft along with a multitude of small arms and equipment for naval commandos.
> 
> The greatest focus for the Pakistan Navy was to increase its surface presence and replace what were essentially floating helpless targets in its oldest ships. To ameliorate the situation, the Pakistan Navy went on a search for various frigate class ships within the 2500 to 4500 ton displacement range. Among the candidates evaluated were the Oliver Hazard Perry class(USA-refurbished and available as EDA), Type 22(UK- Refurbished), MEKO( Germany – New) Class, Type 53H3(China- New) and FREMM(France – New). The French and German designs were overruled due to cost. Since the PN would not be able to afford the eventual complement of 8 it wants. The OHP from the US brought with it the advantage of being a tried and trusted platform that Pakistan could convince the US to provide it under aid and for free using the EDA program; so that all Pakistan would pay for would be refurbishment and delivery costs.
> 
> Around 2005, the Pakistan Navy decided to jump in on the option of the excess defence articles from the US, which included the option of upcoming decommissioned OHP frigates and the P-3 Orion patrol aircraft. The original plan was to acquire 4 OHP frigates, along with six Sikorsky SH-60F anti-submarine warfare helicopters. However, only one OHP was approved and procured without its helicopter complement due to a lack of funds and deteriorating relations.
> 
> The other boost for the surface fleet came from the purchase of modified *Jiangwei II *frigates, along with a complement of Z-9EC helicopters which are essentially Chinese variants of the Euro copter (now Airbus) AS-565 Panther. This platform comes with a very respectable anti-submarine warfare suite and is able to coordinate data and attacks with the F-22 P frigates. Together they provided a much-needed boost to Pakistan’s ASW& ASuW capabilities as previously the only shipborne element that could work effectively for longer periods in such operations were the lynx helicopters which now sit mothballed.
> 
> Pakistan’s complement of Westland Sea King helicopters generally operates from short bases and was unable to provide a similar level of detached coverage that now extends beyond Pakistan’s territorial sea space. The sea Kings did however undergo an upgrade in the mid-2000 with equipment purchased both from European sources, along with an unnamed country providing electronic support measures.
> 
> To offset its inability to purchase larger and *more* expensive capital ships, the Pakistan Navy has relied on various fast attack missile craft as an asymmetric offset. This included earlier designs adapted from China, which were retired in the early 2000’s. The replacement is generally a simple design with an aft mounted missile launcher housing C-801 system (_it is suggested that the system was only a trial and was replaced with C-802_). Two of these craft were built in the late 90s and after trials at sea,2 more improved versions were built at karachi shipyards.
> 
> However, the actual focus of the missile craft program was to create a semi-low-observable design that could sit between a corvette and a smaller patrol boat. The first of these craft is the Azmat Class which has a theoretical top speed of 45 knots but is limited by its weak engine. The craft is however pretty effective in its role of littoral harassment and carries C-802 missiles which are capable of receiving both targeting and guidance from off board sensors.
> 
> A further 8 craft are planned which will likely be either scaled up versions of the Azmat or craft that would qualify as Corvettes. The true achievement has been the development of the net-centric C4I system within the PN that allows aircraft such as the P-3 to coordinate and direct attacks on targets from weapon launch platforms such as the Azmat and the Zulfiqar along with land based SSMs.
> 
> As the Agosta-90B acquisitions were completed, the Pakistan Navy began to consider an additional sub purchase to replace the earlier Agosta 70 class of submarines which would eventually be nearing retirement by 2018. In light of this, the first option was to either go for more Agosta 90B systems or the Scorpene class from the French DCN. This brought with it familiarity with systems along with a known relationship with the supplier. The French were initially positive to this deal until India rolled out its various defence modernization programs which included unsaid clauses on not selling similar equipment to Pakistan as a positive consideration for its own programs.
> 
> Facing both a less than eager French who hiked up the prices for new Submarines; the Pakistan Navy was still keen on procuring a western class and turned to Germany. Negotiations took place on a tailored version of the Type 214 submarine but the efforts of Indian lobbyists within the European Union Parliament all but ended any hopes of procuring this platform.
> 
> Thankfully, the Pakistan Navy had been toying with the idea of using a Chinese Platform prior to 2001, and had been negotiating on a modified Yuan class submarine with further noise suppression to increase its underwater stealth. The contract was to include construction at Karachi Shipyard Engineering Works to allow not just for transfer of technology but also meet delivery timelines.
> 
> The Yuan class of submarines is a carry on from China’s original adaptation known as the Song class and includes ideas taken from China’s Russian origin Kilo class subs. Its sonar is comparable if not better to the TSM 2233 Mk 2 sonar made by the French company Thales. Unconfirmed rumours suggest that the latest Yuan class employs multiple arrays to further increase its coverage and detection accuracy. In addition, the submarine is capable of employing the C-802 missile from its torpedo tubes.
> 
> Worth mentioning is the Pakistani Navy's research into the usage of UAV's and UUVs and the subsequent acquisition of the former from both western and local sources. The variety of platforms used is based upon an ongoing attempt to continually evaluate systems and implement them within the greater role of providing more sensors for surveillance operations along with taking the burden of more expensive to operate manned systems.
> 
> Where these systems fit are into creating a very expansive and capable C4I network.
> 
> *More with Less:* *Pakistan Navy’s Net-centric C4I grid:*
> 
> To complete its coastal defense grid and try to stave off a repeat of the blockade scenario Pakistan faced in 71, the PN has developed a plethora of sensor and weapons systems along the coast line which feed into its primary net. This includes shore based radars, ship board sensors, P-3C and Sea King surveillance radars along with taking a feed from the PAF’s ZDK-03 system. Developing a composite picture of both air, sea and submarine targets that feeds into its regional combat HQ and to NHQ in Islamabad. Quite simply, the system has changed how the PN fights its battles and allows it to coordinate attacks against any threat using the various weapons it has at its disposal. In addition, its sensors plug into the PAF’s own Air Defence grid allowing PN ships to act as SAM batteries under the Air Force’s command.
> 
> To assist with the off board weapons employment and shore defence, the Pakistan Navy recently completed its deployment and integration of a shore based anti-ship missile defense grid dubbed as Barq. Barq is assumed to employ a locally modified version of the C-602 to bypass the MTCR (_missile technology control regime, restricts exports of missiles with ranges greater than 300km_) restrictions as it has done with various Chinese weapons.
> 
> To demonstrate, current Pakistan surveillance of its southern coast by air paints a picture similar to the following:
> 
> View attachment 341936
> 
> 
> The various concentric circles indicate air surveillance sensors that include ground based radars, AEW systems such as the ZDK-03 Karokaram eagle shown, and ship-borne systems along with fighter radars. *As a disclaimer, this is not an exact measurement as ranges and effectiveness of sensors is taken with a conservative outlook.*
> 
> The same sensor net also provides Sea target surveillance, as the yellow circles and semi-circles show which includes the F-22P sensors, Z-9, P-3, ZDK-03, Coastal Radar and fighter radar. The large yellow circle represents a conservative estimate of the range that the ZDK-03 allows for surveillance of naval assets, and the bold semi-circle represents the range of the P-3 Orion sensors. Just as with the air defense net, all these sensors link to provide a single picture of Pakistan’s coastal and sea territory safety.
> 
> View attachment 341935
> 
> 
> Lastly, the red circles indicate the effectiveness of weapons available to the PN from sea and shore based systems (not actual positions or ranges but estimates). This does not include the usage of AGM-84 Harpoon systems on the P-3.
> 
> View attachment 341934
> 
> 
> This combined defense system offers a good mix of ship, shore and air based defenses of Pakistan’s coast and the various layers help back up each other in case of a concentrated enemy attack. Without a doubt, this is most important development in the naval defense of Pakistan and is generally not taken for what it is actually worth; as it has allowed the PN to transform from a fairly weak arm into a well coordinate and effective fighting force.
> 
> *Nuclear Ambitions & the Second Strike capability:*
> 
> As Pakistan’s nuclear program rolled along during the late 1980’s, ideas were considered on how Pakistan would ensure the safety of its strike capability against a concentrated attack and still be able to hit back in case of a surprise attack. Options included creating hardened silos, mobile weapons and dispersal sites for dedicated aircraft.
> 
> Silos were not considered as effective since they were fixed targets that could eventually fall to multiple hits and required great expense. Since Pakistan’s primary land based warheads were already focused to be based on Mobile platforms that continuously roam the country, there was a requirement to create a sea based deterrent force.
> 
> However, since Pakistan did not have a sufficiently large submarine to carry a Ballistic missile; and at the time did not possess a cruise weapons system; it was decided to try and use the helicopter decks of its Capital ships as launching platforms. Several attempts towards this were carried out during the late 90’s all the way to the nuclear tests; but the complexity of the system along with reliability issues led to this option never being exercised.
> 
> One option considered was to reverse engineer and/or modify the French SM-39 exocet missiles to carry a warhead; however, the small size of the missile required a miniaturized warhead which Pakistan would take ten years to develop; along with the limited range ended the idea before any fruitful research was even carried out.
> 
> Pakistan’s luck changed thanks to a US strike on terrorists in Afghanistan during the mid-90’ and several intact US BGM-109B tomahawk missiles landed on Pakistani territory which it promptly carted off to its research facilities along with providing an example to China to reverse engineer. With a locally designed guidance and flight system using a Chinese provided engine, the Babur missile
> 
> Since it was decided by the early 2000’s that Babur could serve as a viable nuclear delivery system, various ideas were gamed on how to use the system from its pre-existing submarines. However, it was decided that a new class of Submarine was needed to deploy the system.
> 
> Information on this system gets fairly sketchy and speculative. The purchase of 8 new submarines from China prompted speculation on the usage of the Qing class due to its Sail Size which could accommodate both the Babur and a Submarine launched Ballistic missile. However, the confirmation that the new submarine was the S-20 ended all these speculation.
> 
> What is known by sources close to the PN is that Pakistan’s nuclear delivery ambitions go beyond the 8 subs purchased and include the design and development of two different platforms. This includes a platform capable of launching ballistic missiles. Both these platforms are confirmed to be nuclear powered as per the interviews of Pakistani officials.
> 
> These programs are currently well in progress and a correlation of known knowledge and sources suggest that one platform is to serve as a launch platform for both a derivative of the Babur and a Submarine Ballistic Missile. The other platform is an attack submarine designed to escort this platform but primarily hunt an adversary’s second strike ballistic submarine.
> 
> If these reports are accurate, the Pakistan Navy will not only be able to provide a second strike capability which could launch weapons against targets from the Bay of Bengal, it could also potentially deploy a submarine for long term duration hunts that last more than half a year along with keeping an eye on adversary movement.
> 
> From its days in the 90’s as a step-child branch of the Pakistani military, the current modernization plans along with the pace of force integration with other branches, the Pakistan Navy is slowly bur surely turning into a force to be truly reckoned with.
> 
> @Horus @The Deterrent @Manticore @Irfan Baloch @Penguin @niaz @araz @Tempest II @Slav Defence @PARIKRAMA @MilSpec @Bilal Khan (Quwa) @Bilal Khan 777 @Dazzler @Side-Winder



Do you disagree with the priorities of Pakistani state ? I would invest it in the army and air force rather than the navy. It is more bang for the buck investing in the pakistani air force.

the cost of operating submarines is quite steep. For every missile submarine and escort submarine you need four submarines sitting in the docks for maintenance and repair

what is the ability of the pakistani navy to withstand attacks from land based Su-30 MKI and Rafale aircraft ?


----------



## Zarvan

Thəorətic Muslim said:


> Attempts for military parity & misendeavours bankrupted the mighty Soviet Union.


Military superiority will keep you safe otherwise you become Palestine and your enemy loves to test his weapons on you.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## wiseone2

Zarvan said:


> Military superiority will keep you safe otherwise you become Palestine and your enemy loves to test his weapons on you.


some people never learn the lessons of history

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bilal Khan 777

amardeep mishra said:


> Hi dear @Oscar
> Except the para I have quoted above,rest everything seems fine however if we note carefully,there are a lot of "ifs" and "buts" or in short speculations,there is nothing definite in what you have mentioned above. I happen to know a couple of things pertaining to nuclear plants as I have couple of my batch mates in BARC reactor divison--(kindly note BARC has various type of reactor projects going on from PHWR,LWR to fast breeder reactors and now recently AHWRs as well). Designing your own reactor is one thing and miniaturizing it and making it sea worthy is QUITE ANOTHER! Lets be brutally honest,and instead of living in fancies and drooling over some un-substantiated reports,lets for now focus on facts at hand--pakistan hasnt really designed her own nuclear power plant for generating "energy". Pakistan has couple of plutonium and experimental neutron reactors whose origin is pretty much unknown given the scarcity of published literature.
> First step in design of a nuclear submarine is mastering the power plant--there is no short cut--you have to master the design. The reactor needs to be validated in simulations which paves the way for the construction of a land based prototype.The data gathered over years of running the land based replica of your submarine reactor gives enough confidence in design and only then is reactor finally engineered into the submarine hull-- this whole process takes at least a decade or more!Pakistan has no land based prototype running that might indicate the possibility of a nuclear submarine reactor being seriously pursued by PN.
> I will briefly highlight some of the challenges associated with design of sea going reactors--these are in indian context as discussed in various open seminars and lectures--kindly note it is equally true in the context of pakistan!
> 1)First to design a sea going reactor(light water moderated as against heavy water moderated)--one would need to establish reactor physics and required metallurgy in the country.Light water reactors traditionally occupy lesser space and are relatively straight forward in design. The down-side though is ,they require slightly higher degree of enrichment vis-a-vis PHWRs that consume natural uranium. In case of submarine reactors though,the enrichment level is way more high than a land based LWR designed for commercial purposes. Higher the enrichment--longer will the endurance of the sub.
> 
> 2)In case of land based LWRs the power is generally gradually increased to full capacity however in subs the requirement is such that reactor might have to be reved upto full power setting in a very short span of time--for instance during initial accelerations or running away from enemies. This might seem easy at first glance but requires extensive modifications in the design to enable fast building up of power
> 
> 3)Submarine reactor should be able to withstand shocks and lateral forces that might result from an explosion etc.It is speculated that the reactor core of Oscar-2 class russian SSGN could withstand a g force of 50!
> 
> 4)To construct the reactor,country must have established FORGING capabilities to forge reactor pressure vessel,pressurizers,turbines,allied control systems etc etc.
> 
> Submarine is just the platform and that is useless without itz primary armament.Pakistan would have to design her own SLBMs and master the cold launch philosophy.Again,pakistan doesnt have a SLBM program going on right now. It takes decades to design and field a reliable SLBM--it is not as easy as lets say land based missiles. Your designers would run into same kind of problems, Indian designers ran into almost 10 years back and those were related to a lot of issues ranging from lowering the weight by using composites,complexities in cold launch to storing liquid fuel for RCS(REACTION CONTROL SYSTEM).
> And lastly the r&d cost of a nuclear submarine exceeds $3bn--kindly Note it doesn't include the cost of establishing a production line or whole lot of nuclear engineering and support faculties at the harbour. After spending billions of dollars into nuclear submarine program India has only one yard capable of supporting nuclear submarine or has the requisite nuclear engineering set up.How do you think Pakistan would deal with this particular issue?I don't think there is any yard in Pakistan that has technical know how to support or construct a nuclear submarine.
> On a serious note, does Pakistan have a under water pontoon from which to launch the experimental SLBM ?



Don't you feel that those capabilities have been kept silent for a specific reason for the decades that it has been in development?



CriticalThought said:


> Well, they have to be shady because the whole world is out to put an end to our nuclear program. But you can't deny the existence of our nukes (as an example). Look at the kind of manufacturing technology that is needed: centrifuges, storage facilities, machining of plutonium/uranium for the warhead, the list goes on and on. No one can say we just got it from China for free, or that AQ Khan simply stole all of that.
> 
> Let's not forget, no one wants to keep helping out an incompetent person forever. In the end, one has to show proof of one's ability to gain respect in the eyes of his benefactors.
> 
> It is OK to be cynical, but saying our R&D takes place in shady ways goes much beyond that.



AQ khan only brought the network from Europe. Rest everyone was built in Pakistan.


----------



## amardeep mishra

Bilal Khan 777 said:


> Don't you feel that those capabilities have been kept silent for a specific reason for the decades that it has been in development?



My dear @Bilal Khan 777 
How can you keep a full blown reactor concealed for decades?Dont you think if there was a naval reactor operational then the world would have known about it?You see what i dont like is un-necessary drooling over un-substantiated rumours. I would be fine if there were hard facts,scientific literature,tests launches etc--but since there is no such thing ,i would rather wait than indulging in speculations.



Oscar said:


> Nobody is shoving anything down your throat. You dont HAVE to agree and I can agree to not accept your narrative.
> That is all I have to say on this matter.


@Oscar 
My dear,Oscar,How about you prove me wrong based on hard facts instead of speculations?Or speculations is what is taught as a part of broader curriculum in pakistani technical education?I thought you're a person of reason and since you have experience,you would KNOW the technical complexities involved--but,I am afraid,sometimes the way you talk about R&D projects make me wonder.Anyways,back to the topic,How about we discuss something concrete instead of speculations based on statements of random analysts or officers! 
I remember listening to a lecture delivered by none other Gen Khalid Kidwai and I was amazed by the sheer ambiguity and opaqueness with which he was talking about "second strike" capability. In contrast to the lecture delivered by Head of our SFC,he was very ambiguous. But keeping everything aside,when we get down to analysing feasibility of a project,we do consider the established capacity of a particular country to undertake a task of a particular nature. Now what you have ignored(in your last paragraph--as I am only talking about the last para alone and not your entire article) is the established R&D capabilities and industrial maturity of your country to undertake a nuclear submarine project.You have also not provided the basis of your thinking apart from the statements from some random officials and analysts. Kindly do explain how and why do you think pakistan can design a sea going LWR especially when it has practically no experience of designing nuclear power plants.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Bilal Khan 777

amardeep mishra said:


> My dear @Bilal Khan 777
> How can you keep a full blown reactor concealed for decades?Dont you think if there was a naval reactor operational then the world would have known about it?You see what i dont like is un-necessary drooling over un-substantiated rumours. I would be fine if there were hard facts,scientific literature,tests launches etc--but since there is no such thing ,i would rather wait than indulging in speculations.
> 
> 
> @Oscar
> My dear,Oscar,How about you prove me wrong based on hard facts instead of speculations?Or speculations is what is taught as a part of broader curriculum in pakistani technical education?I thought you're a person of reason and since you have experience,you would KNOW the technical complexities involved--but,I am afraid,sometimes the way you talk about R&D projects make me wonder.Anyways,back to the topic,How about we discuss something concrete instead of speculations based on statements of random analysts or officers!
> I remember listening to a lecture delivered by none other Gen Khalid Kidwai and I was amazed by the sheer ambiguity and opaqueness with which he was talking about "second strike" capability. In contrast to the lecture delivered by Head of our SFC,he was very ambiguous. But keeping everything aside,when we get down to analysing feasibility of a project,we do consider the established capacity of a particular country to undertake a task of a particular nature. Now what you have ignored(in your last paragraph--as I am only talking about the last para alone and not your entire article) is the established R&D capabilities and industrial maturity of your country to undertake a nuclear submarine project.You have also not provided the basis of your thinking apart from the statements from some random officials and analysts. Kindly do explain how and why do you think pakistan can design a sea going LWR especially when it has practically no experience of designing nuclear power plants.



A miniaturized propulsion reactor is not a secret in our circles. It is only a secret to you perhaps. I don't know who you are, but being ex-military this capability has always been known to us.

You want to pay close attention to Oscar's statements. You may learn a few things.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## fatman17

Bilal Khan 777 said:


> s-20 are not nuclear, rather AIP subs. I believe there is something more than meet the eye / surface.



lets wait and see


----------



## wiseone2

Bilal Khan 777 said:


> A miniaturized propulsion reactor is not a secret in our circles. It is only a secret to you perhaps. I don't know who you are, but being ex-military this capability has always been known to us.
> 
> You want to pay close attention to Oscar's statements. You may learn a few things.



building a reliable miniature nuclear reactor is a challenge
soviets had a lot of accidents


----------



## Ankit Kumar 002

Zarvan said:


> Military superiority will keep you safe otherwise you become Palestine and your enemy loves to test his weapons on you.



Defence and transparent governance goes hand in hand. Ignore anyone , and the nation is lost.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ConcealCarry

Does that mean we are planning to get more?




Oscar said:


> The S-20 is the moniker that stuck, although everyone except the PN calls them that; to the PN they are modified Yuan.
> 
> *And the reactor is not meant for them, not the 8 coming anyway*.


----------



## amardeep mishra

Bilal Khan 777 said:


> A miniaturized propulsion reactor is not a secret in our circles. It is only a secret to you perhaps. I don't know who you are, but being ex-military this capability has always been known to us.


@Bilal Khan 777
So you're trying to say that pakistan has been operating a naval reactor for quite some time now without America or india knowing about it?Oh,so you think itz like a car that you can hide inside a garage?Anyways,if there was really such a thing,then how come it was never reported in reputed international think tanks from carnegie melon to American intelligence agencies CIA etc.I hope you understand we are talking about a naval reactor and not some small vehicle etc.
I am just a bit sceptical about pakistan designing a miniaturized naval reactor especially when pakistan hasnt designed a power reactor by herself. It took india almost 2 full decades from drawing board to integrating the rector to hull especially when india have had far more rich experience of operating and designing nuclear power plants. We are talking about design of reactors like fast breeder,AHWR,CHTR and LWR and yet it took so much time and efforts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bilal Khan 777

amardeep mishra said:


> @Bilal Khan 777
> So you're trying to say that pakistan has been operating a naval reactor for quite some time now without America or india knowing about it?Oh,so you think itz like a car that you can hide inside a garage?Anyways,if there was really such a thing,then how come it was never reported in reputed international think tanks from carnegie melon to American intelligence agencies CIA etc.I hope you understand we are talking about a naval reactor and not some small vehicle etc.



It is a success of our operations that nobody ever knew about it. People still don't know a lot about our infrastructure and plans, and many of you just speculate and look for releases. Do you speak for state of India or US or CIA? If they knew they won't be telling you. Keep asking the think tanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## ConcealCarry

You are waiting for what? for me to disclose classified info? yeah keep waiting




amardeep mishra said:


> Hi dear @ConcealCarry
> Again,instead of using a language that aptly describe your academic qualifications why don't you try to back your claim with something substantial or something that involves published literature?
> Oh I'm waiting!



Thank you for your advice, we'll keep that in mind.



wiseone2 said:


> building a reliable miniature nuclear reactor is a challenge
> soviets had a lot of accidents

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amardeep mishra

ConcealCarry said:


> You are waiting for what? for me to disclose classified info? yeah keep waiting



No,I am waiting for you to back your claim with something substantial and not rumour. How difficult could it possibly be?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amardeep mishra

Bilal Khan 777 said:


> Do you speak for state of India or US or CIA? If they knew they won't be telling you. Keep asking the think tanks.


So how do you think pakistan "hides" a naval reactor?Lets shed some light on this,Oh wait,I hope I didnt ask anything confidential?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Blue Marlin

amardeep mishra said:


> So how do you think pakistan "hides" a naval reactor?Lets shed some light on this,Oh wait,I hope I didnt ask anything confidential?


no nothing confidential just evidence to show they have said reactor.
can you show close up ics of indian reactor? and the russain "consultants" too please

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## wiseone2

ConcealCarry said:


> True, never forget you were once our slaves



what slaves ??
Ruling Delhi for 500 years does not make you masters of whole of India

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ConcealCarry

Like America knew about our nuclear capability or test preps in 1998? and what about india? what does india sell?




amardeep mishra said:


> @Bilal Khan 777
> So you're trying to say that pakistan has been operating a naval reactor for quite some time now without America or india knowing about it?Oh,so you think itz like a car that you can hide inside a garage?Anyways,if there was really such a thing,then how come it was never reported in reputed international think tanks from carnegie melon to American intelligence agencies CIA etc.I hope you understand we are talking about a naval reactor and not some small vehicle etc.
> I am just a bit sceptical about pakistan designing a miniaturized naval reactor especially when pakistan hasnt designed a power reactor by herself. It took india almost 2 full decades from drawing board to integrating the rector to hull especially when india have had far more rich experience of operating and designing nuclear power plants. We are talking about design of reactors like fast breeder,AHWR,CHTR and LWR and yet it took so much time and efforts.



and how do you test launch a nuclear reactor?






amardeep mishra said:


> My dear @Bilal Khan 777
> How can you keep a full blown reactor concealed for decades?Dont you think if there was a naval reactor operational then the world would have known about it?You see what i dont like is un-necessary drooling over un-substantiated rumours. I would be fine if there were hard facts,scientific literature,tests launches etc--but since there is no such thing ,i would rather wait than indulging in speculations.
> 
> 
> @Oscar
> My dear,Oscar,How about you prove me wrong based on hard facts instead of speculations?Or speculations is what is taught as a part of broader curriculum in pakistani technical education?I thought you're a person of reason and since you have experience,you would KNOW the technical complexities involved--but,I am afraid,sometimes the way you talk about R&D projects make me wonder.Anyways,back to the topic,How about we discuss something concrete instead of speculations based on statements of random analysts or officers!
> I remember listening to a lecture delivered by none other Gen Khalid Kidwai and I was amazed by the sheer ambiguity and opaqueness with which he was talking about "second strike" capability. In contrast to the lecture delivered by Head of our SFC,he was very ambiguous. But keeping everything aside,when we get down to analysing feasibility of a project,we do consider the established capacity of a particular country to undertake a task of a particular nature. Now what you have ignored(in your last paragraph--as I am only talking about the last para alone and not your entire article) is the established R&D capabilities and industrial maturity of your country to undertake a nuclear submarine project.You have also not provided the basis of your thinking apart from the statements from some random officials and analysts. Kindly do explain how and why do you think pakistan can design a sea going LWR especially when it has practically no experience of designing nuclear power plants.



we use a simple umbrella




amardeep mishra said:


> So how do you think pakistan "hides" a naval reactor?Lets shed some light on this,Oh wait,I hope I didnt ask anything confidential?


----------



## amardeep mishra

Blue Marlin said:


> can you show close up ics of indian reactor? and the russain "consultants" too please



Hi dear @Blue Marlin 
I thought you'd have done your homework,but no problem,I will point it out for you.





Thats the reactor of arihant. India is much more transparent vis-a-vis pakistan in her research efforts.BARC did acknowledge taking russian consultancy in making the reactor sea worthy. Now I am sure you wouldnt possibly know what it means.But just for the sake of it,reactor is completely indian,all the IPRs belong to BARC and the russian help was primarily to make it sea worthy--especially in certain aspects of metallurgy and reactor capable of operating in rough seas. The help was also sought to enable the indian design to rev upto full power in very short span of time--this is drastically different from land based reactors that BARC has designed till now--this help was very significant.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## amardeep mishra

ConcealCarry said:


> the only thing substantial and non-classified to support my claim is my dick


@Oscar 
I just hope you're paying attention to this gentleman!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Nice machines , 10-20 of these would do Navy good







But the surface fleet has to increase , it is* naive* to say that we should not build a strong NAVY

4-5 Surface ships from China or/and Turkey should help bring balance to our Surface fleet

I think we returned 4-5 ships back in 90's so we need to fill that gap back in order to balance the incoming Aircraft carrier threat from Enemy India

Had we not returned the 4-5 Ships (due to lease ending) we would have had a decent surface fleet for minimum deterrence


During 90's we had a loss of 4-5 Ships* (We returned ships)*

The the whole OHP frigate deal getting 1 out of 5 ships was again a loss
and I do we believe we did turn down offer to take 1-2 Destroyer ship god knows why
So collectively we lost possible 8-9 Ships which otherwise would have been part of Pakistan Navies

So we need to make room for 8-9 Surface ships divided between Turkey and China , may be see how the Indonesian ships are doing


Order of
4 - F22P (Enhanced) from China
6 - Turkish Corvettes
1 - Try out 1 Indonesian ship

Should help balance out the ships we lost between 90 and recently due to missing out on OHP frigates


----------



## Blue Marlin

amardeep mishra said:


> Hi dear @Blue Marlin
> I thought you'd have done your homework,but no problem,I will point it out for you.
> View attachment 342582
> 
> Thats the reactor of arihant. India is much more transparent vis-a-vis pakistan in her research efforts.BARC did acknowledge taking russian consultancy in making the reactor sea worthy. Now I am sure you wouldnt possibly know what it means.But just for the sake of it,reactor is completely indian,all the IPRs belong to BARC and the russian help was primarily to make it sea worthy--especially in certain aspects of metallurgy and reactor capable of operating in rough seas. The help was also sought to enable the indian design to rev upto full power in very short span of time--this is drastically different from land based reactors that BARC has designed till now--this help was very significant.


you did a bit more than getting russain consultants. you got a nice russain nuclear sub too.
anyway. what your asking is out right weird. we NEVER show pics of our sensitive kit same applies to france, the united states, russia and certainly and obivously china. and india here is the golden boy. mr i have done it and heres a pic too.
i have a really good idea. since you live closer to pakistan then i do why dont you just go there and ask. 
i get you being sceptical, but one thing i have learnt is never under estimate the enemy. thats why i dont disregard whats being said but i dont let it consume my thinking
mushy saying they got to work in 2012, this would suggest they have a good design, but it does not take 4 years to develop a reactor. before a testbed is built a cad model would be built first [obivously]

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## amardeep mishra

Blue Marlin said:


> anyway. what your asking is out right weird. we NEVER show pics of our sensitive kit same applies to france, the united states, russia and certainly and obivously china.



You did not get my point.it's alright ,maybe try reading my comment once again. There are a plethora of Russian,American and French naval reactors you can find out.in fact I've got a huge book on Soviet/Russian naval reactors right on my desk here.You see, the technical parameters of most modern Russian and American reactors are ofourse closely guarded secret but am I asking technical specifications of their(Pakistani) reactor?-NO! I'm merely asking for a either a pic,statement from their nuclear engineering division, their navy or govt about the same.my point is simple-"how would you hide a land based prototype of naval reactor"?--maybe you can answer this question?



ConcealCarry said:


> I don't give an Indian's arse for what you think about my education or how it reflects research in my country

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The Accountant

Bu


The SC said:


> I do agree with you, still how many submarines will they be able to commit to one front? That is where Pakistan wins, it has most of its subs for defense and a few for offense..


But in case india will have just one front ... Asuming something else is stupidity ...


----------



## Modagudu

Zarvan said:


> With 100 major Ships they easily can bring 70 % of them they have friends like Vietnam and others so using fleet of that area won't be an issue for India


Submarines are dead fish once they are detected.


----------



## ghazi768

My knowledge of naval warfare and submarine warfare is limited. But in interest of general readership here writing what I have heard or read in general.

Nuclear strategic subs have some pros and cons as well. They can remain submerged for very long times conditional to stores of foods and other necessities they can carry and the length of duty the crew is deemed to carry on while still having sound psychological, emotional and physical health. Which unfortunately is not considered to be too long duration because of the environment they have to operate in. This results in maintaining complex logistics operations and if you are planning to operate in many oceans a set of bases. During cold war both US and soviets needed to maintain a set of far off bases to allow their nuclear subs to operate the world over. If we plan to operate a deterrent force out of Indian ocean lets say in Pacific and Atlantic, is it possible? do we have the economic/financial and military might to even secure one base in each to operate from?

Also because of being nuclear, they do generate low frequency sound radiation which is more detectable at distance using passive sonar arrays and also tend to be quite unique allowing categorisation as well. They also tend to generate thermal radiation and cannot avoid this as being nuclear, which also makes it impossible for them to remain stationary unless they are under the Arctic ice cap (which is by the way how most of soviet strategic subs operated but than required large sets of hunter-killer escorts to keep US hunter-killers away). Even if they remain stationary they still generate low frequency acoustic radiation.

Diesel-electrics when stationary from what I have heard from an expert submariner is like 'pin drop silence'. In such states you can only hunt them with active sonars which being high-medium frequency have 5-10 nm range at best. And also means that unless you are right on top of that sub, that sub will detect you far more away and be able to take evasive actions to avoid detection. DEs main weakness from second world war onward was need to recharge batteries, this needed them to at-least snorkel periodically which increased chances of detection. Better battery technology and AIPs have changed this (but all AIPs are not created equal and do tend to increase LF acoustic radiation).

Now if you do not give a damn about power symbols and or going around the world in 80 days and have a large and very deep ocean just besides you. What will you do? plan on operating in Pacific or Atlantic or Arctic?

What I "suspect" we'll have get is 4 + 4 resulting in 7 + 4 and increased in future more especially HK. With VLF infrastructure ready and resulting 'talking' within different participants and with Command, 3+1 is a hell of a tag team.


----------



## Blue Marlin

amardeep mishra said:


> You did not get my point.it's alright ,maybe try reading my comment once again. There are a plethora of Russian,American and French naval reactors you can find out.in fact I've got a huge book on Soviet/Russian naval reactors right on my desk here.You see, the technical parameters of most modern Russian and American reactors are ofourse closely guarded secret but am I asking technical specifications of their(Pakistani) reactor?-NO! I'm merely asking for a either a pic,statement from their nuclear engineering division, their navy or govt about the same.my point is simple-"how would you hide a land based prototype of naval reactor"?--maybe you can answer this question?
> 
> 
> Oh it sure does.You don't have to tell me what classified means. Unlike a lot of Pakistanis living in west and making tall claims I happen to live in India and have worked on some of the programs. Thankfully things are way more transparent on this side of the border and that's why I can explain what is going on.



old soviet reactors specs are available. but what i should have said is current designs, my mistake and i accept it. no book is gonna give you that much information on current/future designs. the french are a tad bit open on the aspect of power. they give a good number. where as some countries give example to how big a city it can power. like our astute reactors can power a city the size of southampton.

i know the pakistan president said at the time [2012] there developing a nuclear reactor. thats all there is.
pakistan is not as open as india and asking for such information is outrageous.

its like me asking the mod to find out where are they testing the new reactors or where they store surplus trident missiles? they will say no and keep you under the radar.

oh and as for your doubts on my true nationality. yeah i dont care, and if i recall its not the first time to brought this up. mod looked into this a long time ago and if they think im a false flagger i would have been banned long ago. if you look at my previous post i have mocked pakistan/pakistanis.
so yeah you should go to pakistan. heck make a holiday of it

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Super Falcon

What type of Phoenix of Pn weapons using or given


----------



## amardeep mishra

Blue Marlin said:


> i know the pakistan president said at the time [2012] there developing a nuclear reactor. thats all there is.
> pakistan is not as open as india and asking for such information is outrageous.


hi dear @Blue Marlin 
There are a lot of things that "that particular pakistani president" said when he was in power for instance- 
On the launch of PAKSAT-1 he proudly claimed pakistan has surpassed india in space and it will take "30 months" for indians to achieve anything similar. So i will take his claims with a pinch of salt. A more credible report would be from their nuclear energy comission,their navy or intelligence reports etc. Btw,you still havent answered my question-"how will you hide a nuclear reactor"?Please answer this question.



ghazi768 said:


> With VLF infrastructure ready and resulting 'talking' within different participants and with Command, 3+1 is a hell of a tag team.


Hi dear @ghazi768 
Pardon me for raising this issue,but does PN have dedicated VLF antennae infrastructure that lets submarines talk to ground stations?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## The Accountant

amardeep mishra said:


> So how do you think pakistan "hides" a naval reactor?Lets shed some light on this,Oh wait,I hope I didnt ask anything confidential?


In the similar way we hide nuclear weapons... After 1998 detonations indians had the same attitude ... So wakeup ... You are not the only one with brain .. Just one question .. Lets assume there is a naval reactor .. Should its picture be made public considering sensitivity of project ?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## mrrehan

Very satisfying detailed article. Thanks for your effort sir. 
But honestly speaking in view of the financial difficulties the we can't have much needed hardware for our forces. Pakistan is full of resources but the loyalty of the political elite is a stopper. I believe first we got to win the war against financial corruption. Hats off for the those making all the efforts to find the best for country. PAKISTAN ZINDAABAD


----------



## The Accountant

Hi


ghazi768 said:


> My knowledge of naval warfare and submarine warfare is limited. But in interest of general readership here writing what I have heard or read in general.
> 
> Nuclear strategic subs have some pros and cons as well. They can remain submerged for very long times conditional to stores of foods and other necessities they can carry and the length of duty the crew is deemed to carry on while still having sound psychological, emotional and physical health. Which unfortunately is not considered to be too long duration because of the environment they have to operate in. This results in maintaining complex logistics operations and if you are planning to operate in many oceans a set of bases. During cold war both US and soviets needed to maintain a set of far off bases to allow their nuclear subs to operate the world over. If we plan to operate a deterrent force out of Indian ocean lets say in Pacific and Atlantic, is it possible? do we have the economic/financial and military might to even secure one base in each to operate from?
> 
> Also because of being nuclear, they do generate low frequency sound radiation which is more detectable at distance using passive sonar arrays and also tend to be quite unique allowing categorisation as well. They also tend to generate thermal radiation and cannot avoid this as being nuclear, which also makes it impossible for them to remain stationary unless they are under the Arctic ice cap (which is by the way how most of soviet strategic subs operated but than required large sets of hunter-killer escorts to keep US hunter-killers away). Even if they remain stationary they still generate low frequency acoustic radiation.
> 
> Diesel-electrics when stationary from what I have heard from an expert submariner is like 'pin drop silence'. In such states you can only hunt them with active sonars which being high-medium frequency have 5-10 nm range at best. And also means that unless you are right on top of that sub, that sub will detect you far more away and be able to take evasive actions to avoid detection. DEs main weakness from second world war onward was need to recharge batteries, this needed them to at-least snorkel periodically which increased chances of detection. Better battery technology and AIPs have changed this (but all AIPs are not created equal and do tend to increase LF acoustic radiation).
> 
> Now if you do not give a damn about power symbols and or going around the world in 80 days and have a large and very deep ocean just besides you. What will you do? plan on operating in Pacific or Atlantic or Arctic?
> 
> What I "suspect" we'll have get is 4 + 4 resulting in 7 + 4 and increased in future more especially HK. With VLF infrastructure ready and resulting 'talking' within different participants and with Command, 3+1 is a hell of a tag team.


Hi ghazi bhayya ... Nuclear submarine is required to form a true and reliable nuclear triad ... India is investing heavily in SAMs to counter ****'s missles ... Pakistan's cruise missiles may evade long range and medium range SAMs but defeating a point defence SAMs is not an easu task for cruise missle .. On the contrary mirv capable ballistic missiles are almost impossible to stop reliablyy ... Thats the main reason Pakistan wants nuclear submarine ... Only one of such submarine can serve the purpose ... It will be a great deterrent just like nasar...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Spy Master

amardeep mishra said:


> hi dear @Blue Marlin
> There are a lot of things that "that particular pakistani president" said when he was in power for instance-
> On the launch of PAKSAT-1 he proudly claimed pakistan has surpassed india in space and it will take "30 months" for indians to achieve anything similar. So i will take his claims with a pinch of salt. A more credible report would be from their nuclear energy comission,their navy or intelligence reports etc. Btw,you still havent answered my question-"how will you hide a nuclear reactor"?Please answer this question.
> 
> 
> Hi dear @ghazi768
> Pardon me for raising this issue,but does PN have dedicated VLF antennae infrastructure that lets submarines talk to ground stations?


As @Oscar said, no one is forcing you to believe anything. If you think Pakistan is not able build reactor then go ahead and keep believing it, we dont have any problem with that but don't ruin thread out of your hatred for Pakistan and believing that India is somehow "VERY" ahead of Pakistan. Still after all the claims of yours, If you have any +ve thing to contribute in this thread then you are Welcome,,,!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SQ8

amardeep mishra said:


> My dear @Bilal Khan 777
> How can you keep a full blown reactor concealed for decades?Dont you think if there was a naval reactor operational then the world would have known about it?You see what i dont like is un-necessary drooling over un-substantiated rumours. I would be fine if there were hard facts,scientific literature,tests launches etc--but since there is no such thing ,i would rather wait than indulging in speculations.
> 
> 
> @Oscar
> My dear,Oscar,How about you prove me wrong based on hard facts instead of speculations?Or speculations is what is taught as a part of broader curriculum in pakistani technical education?I thought you're a person of reason and since you have experience,you would KNOW the technical complexities involved--but,I am afraid,sometimes the way you talk about R&D projects make me wonder.Anyways,back to the topic,How about we discuss something concrete instead of speculations based on statements of random analysts or officers!
> I remember listening to a lecture delivered by none other Gen Khalid Kidwai and I was amazed by the sheer ambiguity and opaqueness with which he was talking about "second strike" capability. In contrast to the lecture delivered by Head of our SFC,he was very ambiguous. But keeping everything aside,when we get down to analysing feasibility of a project,we do consider the established capacity of a particular country to undertake a task of a particular nature. Now what you have ignored(in your last paragraph--as I am only talking about the last para alone and not your entire article) is the established R&D capabilities and industrial maturity of your country to undertake a nuclear submarine project.You have also not provided the basis of your thinking apart from the statements from some random officials and analysts. Kindly do explain how and why do you think pakistan can design a sea going LWR especially when it has practically no experience of designing nuclear power plants.


Your problem is you thinking I am trying to prove you wrong. My notion is to NOT convince you of what I know to be true. You have in your own post outlined how it could have been achieved.
I have no reason or wish to convince you, But if you are attempting to convince me that it is not possible then I will disagree. This is not a case of. "If Pakistan build the JF-17 it can do a 5th generation fighter" , this is a case of "it exists and I have it on very very good authority".
I can bet this claim on my reputation, can you do the same if this becomes public 10 years from now?

We actually appreciate this skepticism because it helps our wish to keep India and Indians continuously underestimating us.
No hard feelings.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## IceCold

wiseone2 said:


> some people never learn the lessons of history


You mean Indian history?



Thəorətic Muslim said:


> Maybe instead of trying to match India, Pakistan & India, I don't know, .... make peace?


Easy said than done. Dont be utterly naive. At least look at your own DP before making such a statement. Pakistan is not matching India we are just making sure no body attacks us and get away with that. Had we be not doing this the world would have seen Indian jets bombing the shit out of Pakistan day in and day out and not doing squat about it just like in Palestine, Kashmir, Syria.


----------



## wiseone2

The Accountant said:


> In the similar way we hide nuclear weapons... After 1998 detonations indians had the same attitude ... So wakeup ... You are not the only one with brain .. Just one question .. Lets assume there is a naval reactor .. Should its picture be made public considering sensitivity of project ?



the science behind nuclear bomb was published

the science behind miniature nuclear reactors is little more restricted

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amardeep mishra

The Accountant said:


> Lets assume there is a naval reactor .. Should its picture be made public considering sensitivity of project ?


The problem with nuclear reactors though is,if "there exists" one,the whole world will know about it! It is a freaking power plant-although a smaller one! It is not as easy as lets say hiding your nukes



Oscar said:


> "it exists and I have it on very very good authority".


@Oscar 
Again,"if it exists" the whole world will know about it as it is a NUCLEAR POWER PLANT and not a warhead that you can hide in trucks or something else! The sheer size required(I am talking about the building and required infrastructure etc) to construct the naval prototype will reveal if pakistan does indeed have a naval reactor. And to be honest,no one under estimates pakistan. We very well know "how" pakistan acquires itz strategic weapons--but at the end of the day-what matters is,no matter how illegally pakistan would have eventually realized her nuclear ambitions--it can still wreak havoc!
But here we are not talking about nukes,we are talking about a "nuclear plant" that cant remain hidden for long.Btw,how do you think you will hide a complete nuclear power plant?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Thəorətic Muslim

IceCold said:


> Easy said than done. Dont be utterly naive. At least look at your own DP before making such a statement. Pakistan is not matching India we are just making sure no body attacks us and get away with that. Had we be not doing this the world would have seen Indian jets bombing the shit out of Pakistan day in and day out and not doing squat about it just like in Palestine, Kashmir, Syria.



My post was for the guy who's more interested in having X amount of something.

But, still, eh, lets not detract this thread.


----------



## The Accountant

amardeep mishra said:


> The problem with nuclear reactors though is,if "there exists" one,the whole world will know about it! It is a freaking power plant-although a smaller one! It is not as easy as lets say hiding your nukes
> 
> 
> @Oscar
> Again,"if it exists" the whole world will know about it as it is a NUCLEAR POWER PLANT and not a warhead that you can hide in trucks or something else! The sheer size required(I am talking about the building and required infrastructure etc) to construct the naval prototype will reveal if pakistan does indeed have a naval reactor. And to be honest,no one under estimates pakistan. We very well know "how" pakistan acquires itz strategic weapons--but at the end of the day-what matters is,no matter how illegally pakistan would have eventually realized her nuclear ambitions--it can still wreak havoc!
> But here we are not talking about nukes,we are talking about a "nuclear plant" that cant remain hidden for long.Btw,how do you think you will hide a complete nuclear power plant?


Agreed itt will be known to all inteligence agencies but would it be in public knowledge ? It would be in knowledge of some insiders like Oscar bhai and tthats what he is stating ...


----------



## amardeep mishra

Spy Master said:


> we dont have any problem with that but don't ruin thread out of your hatred for Pakistan and believing that India is somehow "VERY" ahead of Pakistan. Still after all the claims of yours, If you have any +ve thing to contribute in this thread then you are Welcome,,,!


Hi dear @Spy Master 
I dont have "hatred" for any particular country.I dont understand as to why do you think that way?Did I ever use foul language against pakistan or for that matter even against those pakistanis abusing me?Like that gentleman above?-No,right? 
I am a fierce supporter of research and I can indeed "prove" each and every statement i make regarding indian R&D efforts unlike a lot of pakistanis who have a very bad habit of not only buying consipracy theory but also not paying any serious attention to true research and development potential of their own country. Lastly you dont have to believe india is ahead of pakistan--but please,do pay attention to the R&D activities taking place in your "sworn enemy" country.Do pay attention to number of R&D projects going on,private sector research,number of patents filed and funding etc etc. I am sure you'd get the drift as to "who" is ahead of "whom"

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The Accountant

wiseone2 said:


> the science behind nuclear bomb was published
> 
> the science behind miniature nuclear reactors is little more restricted


Dont we have nasar ? As per your argument even nasar is way above paks capabilities ... Pakistan's industrial base is pathetic but in nuclear and missile ttech we have done wonders ... Quoting samar mubarakmand ... Pakistani nuclear scintists are now so mature in the field that they design and validate new nuclear weapon designs in months ...


----------



## wiseone2

The Accountant said:


> Dont we have nasar ? As per your argument even nasar is way above paks capabilities ... Pakistan's industrial base is pathetic but in nuclear and missile ttech we have done wonders ... Quoting samar mubarakmand ... Pakistani nuclear scintists are now so mature in the field that they design and validate new nuclear weapon designs in months ...


Nasr is short range ballistic missile
It is legal to export them


----------



## sohailbutt1987

Does Pakistan uses MIRV warheads on its long range BM?


----------



## The Accountant

wiseone2 said:


> Nasr is short range ballistic missile
> It is legal to export them


Stupid answere ... You dont even know difference in missile and warhead and commenting on nuclear tech ... Thays great ... Speciality of nasar is not its missile its the warhead ... Go do some research first ...


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Technogaianist said:


> European options make for great, but expensive airframes. Quality = cost. But it's hard to find better airframes on the market today.
> 
> We recently started replacing our Sea Kings as well, partially with the AW101:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially with the NH90:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both are multi-mission platforms, and so long as Pakistan can front the cost, options available to it as European nations don't have reservations selling Pakistan helicopters of these types.
> 
> I served on both Sea Kings and the NH90, absolutely loved the NH90 and would recommend it at every chance I get.
> 
> *If you're wondering what I did, this was it;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maritime SAR.



Makes sense for Pak Navy to go for AWs considering that (11x) AWs are already in use while both the Army and Airforce have also ordered AW-139s....














http://www.janes.com/article/60600/pakistan-signs-up-for-more-aw139-helos

http://www.leonardocompany.com/en/-/aw139-pakistan



https://defence.pk/threads/pakistan...mber-of-agustawestland-aw139-choppers.432061/

http://airheadsfly.com/2016/05/24/pakistan-orders-aw139-for-sar/

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Rafi

I can agree to Oscar's assertions 100% actually I broke this info a couple of years ago. Plans are reasonably advanced for development of both SSN & SSBN. Considerable "monetary" and "technical" assistance has been offered by some "friends" some expected, others not so much.

There is also going to be some big investment in the surface fleet. But the sub surface force with 11 AIP subs with a number of cruise missile carrying nuclear submarines will provide a massive obstacle for hostile enemies.

The SSBNs will provide a first, second, and third strike capability, insuring a strategic, full spectrum deterrent capability.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Blue Marlin

amardeep mishra said:


> There are a lot of things that "that particular pakistani president" said when he was in power for instance-
> On the launch of PAKSAT-1 he proudly claimed pakistan has surpassed india in space and it will take "30 months" for indians to achieve anything similar. So i will take his claims with a pinch of salt. A more credible report would be from their nuclear energy comission,their navy or intelligence reports etc. Btw,you still havent answered my question-"how will you hide a nuclear reactor"?Please answer this question.


----------



## The Accountant

sohailbutt1987 said:


> Does Pakistan uses MIRV warheads on its long range BM?


Its under development


----------



## Blue Marlin

amardeep mishra said:


> There are a lot of things that "that particular pakistani president" said when he was in power for instance-
> On the launch of PAKSAT-1 he proudly claimed pakistan has surpassed india in space and it will take "30 months" for indians to achieve anything similar. So i will take his claims with a pinch of salt. A more credible report would be from their nuclear energy comission,their navy or intelligence reports etc. Btw,you still havent answered my question-"how will you hide a nuclear reactor"?Please answer this question.


hi there
i cant comment on the pakistan rocket. but i would assume he said that near towards the end of his tenure when zadari became pm.

the pic you showed of the indian reactor clearly showed the reactor in a warehouse. so one would use a bit of common sense and sagest the same would apply for pakistan too.
heck same thing applies for russia, china, france and the uk too. you'l never find sensitive equipment let alone reactors open to satalite view. you do know that sub reactors are tiny as compared to their commercial counterpart.

next time dont ask me to show evidance of something sensitive, as you know its impossible to show.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## danger007

amardeep mishra said:


> My dear @Bilal Khan 777
> How can you keep a full blown reactor concealed for decades?Dont you think if there was a naval reactor operational then the world would have known about it?You see what i dont like is un-necessary drooling over un-substantiated rumours. I would be fine if there were hard facts,scientific literature,tests launches etc--but since there is no such thing ,i would rather wait than indulging in speculations.
> 
> 
> @Oscar
> My dear,Oscar,How about you prove me wrong based on hard facts instead of speculations?Or speculations is what is taught as a part of broader curriculum in pakistani technical education?I thought you're a person of reason and since you have experience,you would KNOW the technical complexities involved--but,I am afraid,sometimes the way you talk about R&D projects make me wonder.Anyways,back to the topic,How about we discuss something concrete instead of speculations based on statements of random analysts or officers!
> I remember listening to a lecture delivered by none other Gen Khalid Kidwai and I was amazed by the sheer ambiguity and opaqueness with which he was talking about "second strike" capability. In contrast to the lecture delivered by Head of our SFC,he was very ambiguous. But keeping everything aside,when we get down to analysing feasibility of a project,we do consider the established capacity of a particular country to undertake a task of a particular nature. Now what you have ignored(in your last paragraph--as I am only talking about the last para alone and not your entire article) is the established R&D capabilities and industrial maturity of your country to undertake a nuclear submarine project.You have also not provided the basis of your thinking apart from the statements from some random officials and analysts. Kindly do explain how and why do you think pakistan can design a sea going LWR especially when it has practically no experience of designing nuclear power plants.





Why you are taking stress to argue, when they don't have anything to answer.. then you should leave it.. make your point clear. Don't expect answers and don't stress anyone.. it's up to them .

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The SC

The Accountant said:


> Bu
> 
> But in case india will have just one front ... Asuming something else is stupidity ...


It still has to keep assets at home, no country can take all of its armed assets somewhere else ..assuming else is lack of knowledge of military matters... That is what I meant buy one front.. I was not referring to a second front, that will make India still much weaker if it happens, every country needs to keep a substantial part of its forces to defend itself in any eventuality..



wiseone2 said:


> the science behind nuclear bomb was published
> 
> the science behind miniature nuclear reactors is little more restricted


There is a lot of literature and even technical details about submarine propulsion in the public domain:
















According to Khan, since 2001 the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) has been working on KPC-3, a project “to design and manufacture a miniaturized nuclear power plant for a submarine.” In the long term, that may help Pakistan do less with more.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Fenrir

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Makes sense for Pak Navy to go for AWs considering that (11x) AWs are already in use while both the Army and Airforce have also ordered AW-139s....



The AW101 would if it wasn't so damn expensive. At 20 million USD per aircraft it's half as costly as the NH90 which runs for around 45 million USD, but the AW101 is still 130% more costly then the average for the class.































If Pakistan can afford them, they are well worth the cost. And these would be new airframes, not second hand Sea Kings or S-70s, they'd be fresh off the production line.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## wiseone2

The Accountant said:


> Stupid answere ... You dont even know difference in missile and warhead and commenting on nuclear tech ... Thays great ... Speciality of nasar is not its missile its the warhead ... Go do some research first ...



it is another short range missile


----------



## monitor

Technogaianist said:


> The AW101 would if it wasn't so damn expensive. At 20 million USD per aircraft it's half as costly as the NH90 which runs for around 45 million USD, but the AW101 is still 130% more costly then the average for the class.
> 
> View attachment 342762
> 
> 
> View attachment 342760
> 
> 
> View attachment 342765
> 
> 
> View attachment 342767
> 
> 
> View attachment 342768
> 
> 
> View attachment 342769
> 
> 
> If Pakistan can afford them, they are well worth the cost. And these would be new airframes, not second hand Sea Kings or S-70s, they'd be fresh off the production line.



I think 20 million per aircraft for AW101 would not be too expensive considering long time service they can offer comparing older platform.


----------



## The SC

wiseone2 said:


> building a reliable miniature nuclear reactor is a challenge
> soviets had a lot of accidents


And India capitalized on that!


----------



## wiseone2

The SC said:


> And India capitalized on that!


why re-invent the wheel ??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Basel

where AW-139 stands when compared to helicopters mentioned in thread? Pakistan is already acquiring those so if they fits the category and role then logical option should be to increase the order for ease of maintenance and training.

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Se...an-acquiring-AW139-helicopters/7361464186946/


----------



## The SC

wiseone2 said:


> why re-invent the wheel ??


So yours is like Brahmos a JV with Russia!?


----------



## ghazi768

amardeep mishra said:


> Pardon me for raising this issue,but does PN have dedicated VLF antennae infrastructure that lets submarines talk to ground stations?


No idea.
I am no expert on this technology but my impression was that it was one way traffic.



The Accountant said:


> Hi
> 
> Hi ghazi bhayya ... Nuclear submarine is required to form a true and reliable nuclear triad ... India is investing heavily in SAMs to counter ****'s missles ... Pakistan's cruise missiles may evade long range and medium range SAMs but defeating a point defence SAMs is not an easu task for cruise missle .. On the contrary mirv capable ballistic missiles are almost impossible to stop reliablyy ... Thats the main reason Pakistan wants nuclear submarine ... Only one of such submarine can serve the purpose ... It will be a great deterrent just like nasar...


where did I say cruise missile?


----------



## The SC

Technogaianist said:


> The AW101 would if it wasn't so damn expensive. At 20 million USD per aircraft it's half as costly as the NH90 which runs for around 45 million USD, but the AW101 is still 130% more costly then the average for the class.
> 
> View attachment 342762
> 
> 
> View attachment 342760
> 
> 
> View attachment 342765
> 
> 
> View attachment 342767
> 
> 
> View attachment 342768
> 
> 
> View attachment 342769
> 
> 
> If Pakistan can afford them, they are well worth the cost. And these would be new airframes, not second hand Sea Kings or S-70s, they'd be fresh off the production line.


It depends how many of them Pakistan needs at the moment..if just 10, it might be affordable and the numbers can be increased in batches in the future.. 200 million$ at a time..


----------



## Fenrir

The SC said:


> It depends how many of them Pakistan needs at the moment..if just 10, it might be affordable and the numbers can be increased in batches in the future.. 200 million$ at a time..



Even 10 is iffy as being affordable. Norway bought 16 for 1.15 Billion Euros. Like any prospective Pakistani contract, this includes maintenance support, training and an option additional 6 airframes. Regardless, that's costly anyway you look at it.

Unlike, say, the F-16, spares don't yet exist and there is no second hand market that could yield airframes of lower cost. Adding to this, the airframe suffers from another problem the F-16 didn't - economy of scales. There simply aren't enough AW101s being produced to lower the cost either.

As a result airframes, like this Norwegian AW101 during a test flight, are very costly.






Buying bulk batches, future orders or other financial tricks that are seen with the F-35 and long-run production items:

https://defence.pk/threads/norway-plans-to-buy-12-f-35-jets-in-2019-2020.455160/

Don't yield fruit because the scale simply isn't high enough, especially when competition is coming from very high quality alternatives:











I understand your reasoning, but the scale just isn't there to support it. Norway's case isn't dissimilar from other nations like Portugal or Denmark, it's costly for everyone regardless of the number being bought,

That said, it's still cheap enough that purchasing the type would be a strong move that could support the Pakistan Military for decades, especially as these would be new airframes packed with the best tech around today.



Basel said:


> where AW-139 stands when compared to helicopters mentioned in thread? Pakistan is already acquiring those so if they fits the category and role then logical option should be to increase the order for ease of maintenance and training.
> 
> http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Se...an-acquiring-AW139-helicopters/7361464186946/




the AW139 is physically smaller and has a lower payload capacity then either the NH90 or AW101. Less cargo, less troops, smaller sensors, less armament, but also less cost.

The NH90 and AW101 have replaced our Lynx and Sea Kings and will phase out the Bell 214 in military service, but we're also a user of the AW139 as an air ambulance and it's a great platform, just less suited for military duties.






The AW139 is a very good option for a military on a budget, but it's not quite in the same class as either the NH90 or AW101. It's just less suited for ASW or AShW and more geared towards SAR or transporation if used in the military domain:






Both the NH90 and AW101 are potent naval strike platforms, as well as transport and SAR airframes:






Since Pakistan is opting for the AW139 for use in non-military roles, or as a support platform, it's a valued asset and I whole heartedly support its acquisition.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

wiseone2 said:


> Nasr is short range ballistic missile
> It is legal to export them



Its actually a quasi ballistic missile..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The SC

Technogaianist said:


> Even 10 is iffy as being affordable. Norway bought 16 for 1.15 Billion Euros. Like any prospective Pakistani contract, this includes maintenance support, training and an option additional 6 airframes. Regardless, that's costly anyway you look at it.
> 
> Unlike, say, the F-16, spares don't yet exist and there is no second hand market that could yield airframes of lower cost. Adding to this, the airframe suffers from another problem the F-16 didn't - economy of scales. There simply aren't enough AW101s being produced to lower the cost either.
> 
> As a result airframes, like this Norwegian AW101 during a test flight, are very costly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buying bulk batches, future orders or other financial tricks that are seen with the F-35 and long-run production items:
> 
> https://defence.pk/threads/norway-plans-to-buy-12-f-35-jets-in-2019-2020.455160/
> 
> Don't yield fruit because the scale simply isn't high enough, especially when competition is coming from very high quality alternatives:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


The alternatives come at almost double the price!

NH90





KA-52K





Italian EH101





CYCLONE naval helicopter

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amardeep mishra

Blue Marlin said:


> the pic you showed of the indian reactor clearly showed the reactor in a warehouse.


Hi dear @Blue Marlin 
Lets assume you're not familiar with indian R&D in reactors or our installations.Just for your information that is NOT a warehouse--the building in which this naval reactor is operational is part of a bigger nuclear power plant situated in a city called "kalpakkam". This building is huge--there is no way one wouldnt have known the presence of a "new" 85MW reactor operational in this building.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

amardeep mishra said:


> The problem with nuclear reactors though is,if "there exists" one,the whole world will know about it! It is a freaking power plant-although a smaller one! It is not as easy as lets say hiding your nukes
> 
> 
> @Oscar
> Again,"if it exists" the whole world will know about it as it is a NUCLEAR POWER PLANT and not a warhead that you can hide in trucks or something else! The sheer size required(I am talking about the building and required infrastructure etc) to construct the naval prototype will reveal if pakistan does indeed have a naval reactor. And to be honest,no one under estimates pakistan. We very well know "how" pakistan acquires itz strategic weapons--but at the end of the day-what matters is,no matter how illegally pakistan would have eventually realized her nuclear ambitions--it can still wreak havoc!
> But here we are not talking about nukes,we are talking about a "nuclear plant" that cant remain hidden for long.Btw,how do you think you will hide a complete nuclear power plant?


You are preaching something that I cannot agree with because I know different. I'll say it exists, and I know it does; and that is that and have no wish to dispute your protests that it doesn't just as I have no wish to WASTE my time with your circular arguments.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## amardeep mishra

Blue Marlin said:


> next time dont ask me to show evidance of something sensitive, as you know its impossible to show.


Hi I never knew you had problems comprehending my english.Its alright! Btw,Did I ever ask for any "sensitive technical parameters" of a pakistani reactor that exists in the fantasies of our pakistani members?-No,right?How come asking for a credible report or statements from their nuclear energy commission,their navy or intelligence agencies is tantamount to asking "sensitive information"? 
I think you are repeatedly missing my point and that is--listen to it very very carefully--If there existed a reactor inside a building-people will eventually get to know about it!



Oscar said:


> I'll say it exists, and I know it does; and that is that and have no wish to dispute your protests that it doesn't just as I have no wish to WASTE my time with your circular arguments.


Hi dear @Oscar 
yeah ofcourse it exists in your "speculated arguments" and also in the fantasies of a lot of members here.You can of course choose to NOT waste your time on something you can never prove--itz your wish.But a more fruitful approach will be to "analyze feasibility of a project" based on "established industrial and research facilities of any particular country(both india and pakistan included)"

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

amardeep mishra said:


> Hi I never knew you had problems comprehending my english.Its alright! Btw,Did I ever ask for any "sensitive technical parameters" of a pakistani reactor that exists in the fantasies of our pakistani members?-No,right?How come asking for a credible report or statements from their nuclear energy commission,their navy or intelligence agencies is tantamount to asking "sensitive information"?
> I think you are repeatedly missing my point and that is--listen to it very very carefully--If there existed a reactor inside a building-people will eventually get to know about it!
> 
> 
> Hi dear @Oscar
> yeah ofcourse it exists in your "speculated arguments" and also in the fantasies of a lot of members here.You can of course choose to NOT waste your time on something you can never prove--itz your wish.But a more fruitful approach will be to "analyze feasibility of a project" based on "established industrial and research facilities of any particular country(both india and pakistan included)"


Ill stick with my wish as I have literally nothing to prove to you.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amardeep mishra

Oscar said:


> Ill stick with my wish as I have literally nothing to prove to you.


@Oscar 
Cool then!As usual,nothing gets proved however lets see if this reactor gets revealed in next 10 years! We're all waiting!


----------



## SQ8

Bilal Khan 777 said:


> It is a success of our operations that nobody ever knew about it. People still don't know a lot about our infrastructure and plans, and many of you just speculate and look for releases. Do you speak for state of India or US or CIA? If they knew they won't be telling you. Keep asking the think tanks.


It has to do with the nature of their defence industry where even the attachment of one rivet is announced with garlands & sweets along with a 30 minute segment on their news networks where the said rivet is proclaimed to contain elements heretofore unknown to man.

When it comes to Pakistan, we can park a Jumbo jet in front of them and they'll walk around it saying " I dont see anything, this aircraft shaped metal is fake and from China". 

In that case regarding their wish to be converted and convinced that would make many a preacher bang their head, I adopt the policy of "sanu ki" .

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Hakikat ve Hikmet

Oscar said:


> Your problem is you thinking I am trying to prove you wrong. My notion is to NOT convince you of what I know to be true. You have in your own post outlined how it could have been achieved.
> I have no reason or wish to convince you, But if you are attempting to convince me that it is not possible then I will disagree. This is not a case of. "If Pakistan build the JF-17 it can do a 5th generation fighter" , this is a case of "it exists and I have it on very very good authority".
> I can bet this claim on my reputation, can you do the same if this becomes public 10 years from now?
> 
> We actually appreciate this skepticism because it helps our wish to keep India and Indians continuously underestimating us.
> No hard feelings.



_"Only the paranoid survive", Andy Grove- one of the founding fathers of Intel and Holocaust survivor_

IMHO, you're doing OK so far. Even after having the third largest army and being the biggest importer of weapons, if it all boils down to outsourcing to _Hanuman _(previously Mujib, Mukti Bahini; currently TTP, BLA etc.) Pak has already succeeded...

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## SQ8

ghazi768 said:


> My knowledge of naval warfare and submarine warfare is limited. But in interest of general readership here writing what I have heard or read in general.
> 
> Nuclear strategic subs have some pros and cons as well. They can remain submerged for very long times conditional to stores of foods and other necessities they can carry and the length of duty the crew is deemed to carry on while still having sound psychological, emotional and physical health. Which unfortunately is not considered to be too long duration because of the environment they have to operate in. This results in maintaining complex logistics operations and if you are planning to operate in many oceans a set of bases. During cold war both US and soviets needed to maintain a set of far off bases to allow their nuclear subs to operate the world over. If we plan to operate a deterrent force out of Indian ocean lets say in Pacific and Atlantic, is it possible? do we have the economic/financial and military might to even secure one base in each to operate from?
> 
> Also because of being nuclear, they do generate low frequency sound radiation which is more detectable at distance using passive sonar arrays and also tend to be quite unique allowing categorisation as well. They also tend to generate thermal radiation and cannot avoid this as being nuclear, which also makes it impossible for them to remain stationary unless they are under the Arctic ice cap (which is by the way how most of soviet strategic subs operated but than required large sets of hunter-killer escorts to keep US hunter-killers away). Even if they remain stationary they still generate low frequency acoustic radiation.
> 
> Diesel-electrics when stationary from what I have heard from an expert submariner is like 'pin drop silence'. In such states you can only hunt them with active sonars which being high-medium frequency have 5-10 nm range at best. And also means that unless you are right on top of that sub, that sub will detect you far more away and be able to take evasive actions to avoid detection. DEs main weakness from second world war onward was need to recharge batteries, this needed them to at-least snorkel periodically which increased chances of detection. Better battery technology and AIPs have changed this (but all AIPs are not created equal and do tend to increase LF acoustic radiation).
> 
> Now if you do not give a damn about power symbols and or going around the world in 80 days and have a large and very deep ocean just besides you. What will you do? plan on operating in Pacific or Atlantic or Arctic?
> 
> What I "suspect" we'll have get is 4 + 4 resulting in 7 + 4 and increased in future more especially HK. With VLF infrastructure ready and resulting 'talking' within different participants and with Command, 3+1 is a hell of a tag team.



The issue with the nuclear submarine program has to do a lot with platform and power generation requirements as coming up with a Golf class retrofit for a conventional sub with a scaled AIP was found to be infeasible.(_why is beyond me_). The reactor was well advanced in its design phases some 5 years ago and construction on the facilities has been underway before that. 

There will be a test ship that could very well be a Yuan or a different class to essentially trial the powerplant.

Reactions: Like Like:
 4


----------



## Zarvan

amardeep mishra said:


> @Oscar
> Cool then!As usual,nothing gets proved however lets see if this reactor gets revealed in next 10 years! We're all waiting!


Reactor will be revealed really soon work is done and so @Oscar knew about this when I was talking about reactor here on forum few months ago. You chose to remain quite. By the way I think our nuclear submarine would be similar to this future project of China also called Type 98

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

@Oscar It's worth noting that the Chinese have been floating a technology demonstrator in the Qing-class. The hull was designed with VLS for SLBMs and SLCMs, but the Qing is markedly smaller and lighter than the PLAN's existing SSN and SSBN designs. Granted, the Qing demonstrator is conventionally powered, but if it is ever put into production, it is likely the PLAN would power it with a reactor. All I am saying is that if Pakistan manages to succeed in producing a miniaturized nuclear reactor that has sufficient energy output and an acceptable amount of acoustic vulnerability, there are hulls out there that can take it. Just speaking theoretically.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## IceCold

Oscar said:


> The issue with the nuclear submarine program has to do a lot with platform and power generation requirements as coming up with a Golf class retrofit for a conventional sub with a scaled AIP was found to be infeasible.(_why is beyond me_). The reactor was well advanced in its design phases some 5 years ago and construction on the facilities has been underway before that.
> 
> There will be a test ship that could very well be a Yuan or a different class to essentially trial the powerplant.


I have a question if you could answer. We know that nuclear subs cant be bought but they sure can be leased. So if a nuclear sub is a part of our deterrent, why havent we leased a sub from China? Leasing could give two benefits 1) we will have a platform rather quicker with second strike capability and 2) we will get a platform to work with and from there we can move on on our own.
Your thoughts?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hell hound

IceCold said:


> I have a question if you could answer. We know that nuclear subs cant be bought but they sure can be leased. So if a nuclear sub is a part of our deterrent, why havent we leased a sub from China? Leasing could give two benefits 1) we will have a platform rather quicker with second strike capability and 2) we will get a platform to work with and from there we can move on on our own.
> Your thoughts?


because china has not enough nuclear subs to fulfil its own needs yet.


----------



## IceCold

Hell hound said:


> because china has not enough nuclear subs to fulfil its own needs yet.


That might be the case but there are always exceptions. What i wanted to know is that whether or not Pakistan even tried to acquire one?


----------



## Blue Marlin

amardeep mishra said:


> Hi dear @Blue Marlin
> Lets assume you're not familiar with indian R&D in reactors or our installations.Just for your information that is NOT a warehouse--the building in which this naval reactor is operational is part of a bigger nuclear power plant situated in a city called "kalpakkam". This building is huge--there is no way one wouldnt have known the presence of a "new" 85MW reactor operational in this building.


so my point still stands subs reactors are tiny as compared to comercail one your pic proves that. and the fact that theres no exposed current/future designed reactors of any navy/ country


----------



## Hell hound

IceCold said:


> That might be the case but there are always exceptions. What i wanted to know is that whether or not Pakistan even tried to acquire one?


they have tried or are still trying to get their hands on one according to indian defence experts read this old article and judge yourself.
http://www.asian-defence.net/2014/02/pakistans-nuclear-submarine-development.html


----------



## The Accountant

@Oscar sir just a wierd question ... I am not sure whether you can answere or not ... Is there any submarine capable of underwater to air missiles to hunt down planes ... Specially anti.submarine warfare type ...


----------



## Blue Marlin

amardeep mishra said:


> Hi I never knew you had problems comprehending my english.Its alright! Btw,Did I ever ask for any "sensitive technical parameters" of a pakistani reactor that exists in the fantasies of our pakistani members?-No,right?How come asking for a credible report or statements from their nuclear energy commission,their navy or intelligence agencies is tantamount to asking "sensitive information"?
> I think you are repeatedly missing my point and that is--listen to it very very carefully--If there existed a reactor inside a building-people will eventually get to know about it!
> 
> 
> Hi dear @Oscar
> yeah ofcourse it exists in your "speculated arguments" and also in the fantasies of a lot of members here.You can of course choose to NOT waste your time on something you can never prove--itz your wish.But a more fruitful approach will be to "analyze feasibility of a project" based on "established industrial and research facilities of any particular country(both india and pakistan included)"


how on earth do expect white boy to find pic on a pakistani reactor. do you think the indians will give me pic of their reactor? i gave to you what you ask for. mate someone coded you wrong as its like an infinite loop with you.
you asked for statements, now do a bit of finger work and search for yourself and as a starter look for reports in 2012.
there are there.


----------



## Manidabest

Pakistan Navy needs to have offensive strategy now ...it needs i think 3 tf2000, 8 more f22p frigates, tf100, if possible then 3 t214 german submarines and for air power we should either get russian su35 or mirage 2000 from uae to fill the gap for next 10yrs as we have been working with mirages ...


----------



## Hell hound

The Accountant said:


> @Oscar sir just a wierd question ... I am not sure whether you can answere or not ... Is there any submarine capable of underwater to air missiles to hunt down planes ... Specially anti.submarine warfare type ...


not right now but few systems are in making i think but their status is still unclear. read this wiki page you will get the basic info about the system

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDAS_(missile)


----------



## The Accountant

Hell hound said:


> not right now but few systems are in making i think but their status is still unclear. read this wiki page you will get the basic info about the system
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDAS_(missile)


I suggest we should evaluate this tech and try to acquire ... It will be a completely game changer against anti.submarine warfare ... If equipped with passivbe sensors it will not compromise submarine location and will force anti.submarine planes from pakistani water ...


----------



## Hell hound

The Accountant said:


> I suggest we should evaluate this tech and try to acquire ... It will be a completely game changer against anti.submarine warfare ... If equipped with passivbe sensors it will not compromise submarine location and will force anti.submarine planes from pakistani water ...


this missile is last ditch type system as after the launch every enemy asset will know the position of the sub and it is good as dead and let me remind you bro a sub is more valuable than anything that is hunting it even a p 8 poseidon. so unless sub is cornered such missiles should never be used.


----------



## CriticalThought

I would like to invite everyone to think about Pakistan's strategy in light of the recent altercation between a US Navy ship and the Houthi rebels. For me, the lesson learnt (and the reason I am posting this here), is that security requirements must be viewed in the full context of enemy capability... but more on that later. First, let me copy appropriate bits of the news (sorry I am not allowed to post links)

*Start News* -------->
After being targeted by two missile launches off the coast of Yemen, the USS Mason, a guided missile destroyer, fired two missiles in defense.

The USS Mason fired missiles defending itself and the USS Ponce, an amphibious dock ship, after it detected inbound cruise missiles presumably fired from Houthi militants on shore in Yemen.

This follows an October 1 incident where a former US Navy ship, the United Arab Emirates' HSV Swift, sustained severe damages from a guided missile fired from Yemen. In the case of the HSV Swift, the Houthis claimed responsibility.

The Mason launched two Standard Missile-2s (SM-2s) and a Enhanced Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) to intercept the two inbound missiles, also deploying a Nulka-class anti-ship decoy, at around 7 pm local time, sources told USNI News.

While the Mason did fire defensive missiles and the incoming missiles didn't hit their target, it's not clear if the SM-2s did their job, or if the incoming missile, likely a 1990s vintage Chinese-made cruise missile supplied to Houthi militants by Iran, simply sputtered out and hit the water of its own accord.

The Pentagon confirmed to Business Insider that they were investigating the incident at sea, but would not confirm the firing of the SM-2 missiles.

Instead, the Pentagon only said that "defensive countermeasures" had been taken.

SM-2s, in service with the US Navy for more than 20 years, cost nearly $1 million each.

<--------- *End News*

There is a lot to be learnt here. First, the Houthis, basically a rag tag group as compared to the US, had the temerity to fire a missile at the world's superpower. Secondly, there are questions around the old technology being able to actually work. The choice of words in the article: 'it's not clear if the SM-2s did their job, or if the incoming missile, likely a 1990s vintage Chinese-made cruise missile supplied to Houthi militants by Iran, simply sputtered out and hit the water of its own accord.' is very interesting. And this leads to the third insight: a million dollar missile developed over 20 years couldn't do the job it was supposed to do.

Bringing the conversation back to Pakistan:

1. Would a solid land based naval defence suffice?

2. How much augmentation does the land based system need from ships and submarine assets?

3. All this talk about VLS etc. to attack land targets is fine, but what about defending the ship itself? If 1 ship came under attack by 5 Indian ships at the same time, it would be a sitting duck! I would like more discussion on technologies that can be used to protect the ship itself.

4. Given the realities of naval warfare as reflected by the article above, do small navies stand any chance against larger opponents? What are some naval force multipliers that Pakistan could gain which India couldn't?

To provide some answers, I'll throw this fundamental challenge: If we are going to invest literally billions of dollars in naval assets, it must be mandated that these assets should have stealth technology. Yes, it sounds far fetched, but a nation that can develop nukes against all odds, and now we are hearing about a miniaturized nuclear reactor as well, such a nation can definitely master stealth.

Perspectives, opinions, comments plz.


----------



## The Accountant

Hell hound said:


> this missile is last ditch type system as after the launch every enemy asset will know the position of the sub and it is good as dead and let me remind you bro a sub is more valuable than anything that is hunting it even a p 8 poseidon. so unless sub is cornered such missiles should never be used.


Agreed but there could be alot of potential scenarios ... One is sub is cornered and no option but to retaliate .. Second option is that cruise missile capsule is designed to be stealthy and reveal itself after travelling several mikes away from submarine ...


----------



## Hell hound

CriticalThought said:


> 1. Would a solid land based naval defence suffice?


no it won't we do need surface assets too.


CriticalThought said:


> 2. How much augmentation does the land based system need from ships and submarine assets?


subs can't do much but ships can guide the missiles launched by the ground based launchers but it depends where the ship is? how far can it see(hight of the mast)?does it have net centric capabilities?
best thing to guide the missiles are air based systems like zdk 03 and p 3 as they can see much further than ships and get in position relatively faster.


CriticalThought said:


> 3. All this talk about VLS etc. to attack land targets is fine, but what about defending the ship itself? If 1 ship came under attack by 5 Indian ships at the same time, it would be a sitting duck! I would like more discussion on technologies that can be used to protect the ship itself.


it is good as dead. 8 hq 7 short range missile magazine of f22p are worthless if saturation attack happen as ciws can only do so much.we need more sams on the ships not the land attack cruise missiles as posted by some members here that job can be done through land based systems too but land base systems can't protect a ship from the attack thats the job it has to do itself (in most cases).


CriticalThought said:


> 4. Given the realities of naval warfare as reflected by the article above, do small navies stand any chance against larger opponents? What are some naval force multipliers that Pakistan could gain which India couldn't?


yes use small but many missile boats, coastal launchers and guiding aircraft combo with great fighter cover all woven with each other through data links and you are set for a good *defence* (not offence).



The Accountant said:


> Agreed but there could be alot of potential scenarios ... One is sub is cornered and no option but to retaliate .. Second option is that cruise missile capsule is designed to be stealthy and reveal itself after travelling several mikes away from submarine ...


bro we are talking about a sub here where even a running crew member can potentially give away its position.and you want to stealthily launch a surface to air missile from it.


----------



## CriticalThought

For @amardeep mishra please have a look at the attached picture. This is an excerpt from the book 'The China Threat: How the People's Republic Targets America' published in 2002. It shows the realities of nuclear programmes and especially _nuclear research_ done by third world countries, Pakistan and India included.


----------



## The Accountant

Hell hound said:


> no it won't we do need surface assets too.
> 
> subs can't do much but ships can guide the missiles launched by the ground based launchers but it depends where the ship is? how far can it see(hight of the mast)?does it have net centric capabilities?
> best thing to guide the missiles are air based systems like zdk 03 and p 3 as they can see much further than ships and get in position relatively faster.
> 
> it is good as dead. 8 hq 7 short range missile magazine of f22p are worthless if saturation attack happen as ciws can only do so much.we need more sams on the ships not the land attack cruise missiles as posted by some members here that job can be done through land based systems too but land base systems can't protect a ship from the attack thats the job it has to do itself (in most cases).
> 
> yes use small but many missile boats, coastal launchers and guiding aircraft combo with great fighter cover all woven with each other through data links and you are set for a good *defence* (not offence).
> 
> 
> bro we are talking about a sub here where even a running crew member can potentially give away its position.and you want to stealthily launch a surface to air missile from it.


Ok lets consider it for the sake of argument ... Against P8 it would be sucidal but against strike platform which cannot see under water it would be a total surprise ...


----------



## Hell hound

The Accountant said:


> Ok lets consider it for the sake of argument ... Against P8 it would be sucidal but against strike platform which cannot see under water it would be a total surprise ...


what other type of air target are we talking about here execpt p8 and asw helis pls elaborate.so we can discuss it better


----------



## amardeep mishra

CriticalThought said:


> For @amardeep mishra please have a look at the attached picture. This is an excerpt from the book 'The China Threat: How the People's Republic Targets America' published in 2002. It shows the realities of nuclear programmes and especially _nuclear research_ done by third world countries, Pakistan and India included.



Hi @CriticalThought
This piece of article that you have attached above seems pretty old--at least 15 years old or more.in case you don't know let me re iterate,BARC happens to be on ban list of America.I.e US companies can't trade with BARC. BARC is strictly cut off. Various special alloys and sensors are strictly off limit. It was because of this ban that India has progressed tremendously in the field if civilian energy reactors.Indian industry can design and produce huge pressure vessels,pressurizers, turbines etc etc. BARC have end to end reactor design and fabrication facilities. In fact if you delve deeper you can find plethora of research papers coming out of BARC in the field of thorium,fast breeder,AHWR,CHTR reactors.
In fact a commercial fast breeder reactor rated at 500MW is operational at kalpakkam hardly 70kms from IIT-madras.research work on 3rd generation advanced heavy water reactor consuming thorium is in advanced stages of design.in fact AHWR-300 is what India has offered to a lot of countries in the lines similar to Chinese 330MW LWR.








Zarvan said:


> Reactor will be revealed really soon


@Zarvan
Let's see how "soon" Pakistan can design this reactor especially when the country has literally no experience in designing any kind of nuclear power plant let alone a miniaturized one!.but till then we'll be better off waiting than wasting our time in speculations. What boggles my mind is how come Pakistanis without paying any serious attention to the research culture, industrial capabilities of their country start speculating.Anyways as I said, I'd rather wait till Pakistan actually designs her own nuclear power plant.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The Accountant

Hell hound said:


> what other type of air target are we talking about here execpt p8 and asw helis pls elaborate.so we can discuss it better


It could be against MIG and MKI ... Some sort of passive sensor that can track radar of MKI without coming on the top ... And then delivering an active or passive radar homing missile


----------



## ghazi768

Oscar said:


> The issue with the nuclear submarine program has to do a lot with platform and power generation requirements as coming up with a Golf class retrofit for a conventional sub with a scaled AIP was found to be infeasible.(_why is beyond me_). The reactor was well advanced in its design phases some 5 years ago and construction on the facilities has been underway before that.
> 
> There will be a test ship that could very well be a Yuan or a different class to essentially trial the powerplant.



I am not questioning the existence/non-existence of R&D in nuclear propulsion, it is best for me not to comment on it at all. I was just mentioning the operational issues and pros and cons of it.

I do not know about the Golf class but I think a testbed with AIP and 6000 ton displacement was launched in China and is tested/being tested. 6000-7000 tons is not out of reach for Diesel-electrics, if I remember correctly the first SSBN Soviets launched was a 5000-6000 tons with 3 SLBMs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PDF

http://thediplomat.com/2015/03/does-pakistan-have-a-sea-based-second-strike-capability/
https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/pak...ise-missiles-nuclear-submarine-us-think-tank/
http://www.asian-defence.net/2014/02/pakistans-nuclear-submarine-development.html
http://quwa.org/2016/05/11/part-1-will-pakistan-now-seek-nuclear-submarines/
http://quwa.org/2016/05/12/part-2-will-pakistan-now-seek-nuclear-submarines/


----------



## SQ8

ghazi768 said:


> I am not questioning the existence/non-existence of R&D in nuclear propulsion, it is best for me not to comment on it at all. I was just mentioning the operational issues and pros and cons of it.
> 
> I do not know about the Golf class but I think a testbed with AIP and 6000 ton displacement was launched in China and is tested/being tested. 6000-7000 tons is not out of reach for Diesel-electrics, if I remember correctly the first SSBN Soviets launched was a 5000-6000 tons with 3 SLBMs.



Like I mentioned, the logic of why the reactor is being pursued is beyond me. The nuclear aspect has its advantages in loitering time but beyond that a large AIP SSB could perform the same function. Especially since it does not look like that we intend to have a standing patrol and it will usually be a deployment during tense times.



IceCold said:


> I have a question if you could answer. We know that nuclear subs cant be bought but they sure can be leased. So if a nuclear sub is a part of our deterrent, why havent we leased a sub from China? Leasing could give two benefits 1) we will have a platform rather quicker with second strike capability and 2) we will get a platform to work with and from there we can move on on our own.
> Your thoughts?



I cant comment on whether this was considered or not. The program is VERY VERY secretive and sketchy in terms of what platforms or direction it takes. What is verifiable with a high degree of correlation is that there are MORE platforms than the 8 S-20s the PN is considering.



The Accountant said:


> @Oscar sir just a wierd question ... I am not sure whether you can answere or not ... Is there any submarine capable of underwater to air missiles to hunt down planes ... Specially anti.submarine warfare type ...


Resident expert and human-penguin can answer this better @Penguin 



Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> @Oscar It's worth noting that the Chinese have been floating a technology demonstrator in the Qing-class. The hull was designed with VLS for SLBMs and SLCMs, but the Qing is markedly smaller and lighter than the PLAN's existing SSN and SSBN designs. Granted, the Qing demonstrator is conventionally powered, but if it is ever put into production, it is likely the PLAN would power it with a reactor. All I am saying is that if Pakistan manages to succeed in producing a miniaturized nuclear reactor that has sufficient energy output and an acceptable amount of acoustic vulnerability, there are hulls out there that can take it. Just speaking theoretically.



I cant comment on what platform, just that there are two more platforms to be developed. The timeline could well extend out to 2020's before we hear anything concrete as the strike mission has evolved beyond nuclear equipped cruise missiles.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Bratva

Oscar said:


> Like I mentioned, the logic of why the reactor is being pursued is beyond me. The nuclear aspect has its advantages in loitering time but beyond that a large AIP SSB could perform the same function. Especially since it does not look like that we intend to have a standing patrol and it will usually be a deployment during tense times.



Are you following North korea Sub launched Ballistic missile program ? Their recent tests from conventional Sub were successful and it seems they achieved this capability within 5 year of R&D. 

If North korea can do this, then there must be some strong reason Pakistan is holding back Sub launch cruise and Ballistic missile capability

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

Bratva said:


> Are you following North korea Sub launched Ballistic missile program ? Their recent tests from conventional Sub were successful and it seems they achieved this capability within 5 year of R&D.
> 
> If North korea can do this, then there must be some strong reason Pakistan is holding back Sub launch cruise and Ballistic missile capability



NK is a mix of capability and bluster. Back in the 90's their ballistic missile program was pretty advanced for a country that is considered a quagmire for the modern world.
Their scientests were freelancing around the world along with Ex-Soviet republic ones and some assisted us while some assisted the Indians. I repeat a story on how Indian and Pakistani representatives sat in the same drawing room of a "dealer" who makes these contacts looking at each other. Both guessing what the other was here for

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## thrilainmanila

Oscar said:


> NK is a mix of capability and bluster. Back in the 90's their ballistic missile program was pretty advanced for a country that is considered a quagmire for the modern world.
> Their scientests were freelancing around the world along with Ex-Soviet republic ones and some assisted us while some assisted the Indians. I repeat a story on how Indian and Pakistani representatives sat in the same drawing room of a "dealer" who makes these contacts looking at each other. Both guessing what the other was here for


why go to NK why not go directly to the main supplier. NK buys its designs and technology from China.


----------



## Bratva

Oscar said:


> The issue with the nuclear submarine program has to do a lot with platform and power generation requirements as coming up with a Golf class retrofit for a conventional sub with a scaled AIP was found to be infeasible.(_why is beyond me_). The reactor was well advanced in its design phases some 5 years ago and construction on the facilities has been underway before that.
> 
> There will be a test ship that could very well be a Yuan or a different class to essentially trial the powerplant.



As per @Arsalan past posts the work on rector design is been on hold for several years due to financial constraints


----------



## YeBeWarned

Oscar said:


> I repeat a story on how Indian and Pakistani representatives sat in the same drawing room of a "dealer" who makes these contacts looking at each other. Both guessing what the other was here for



That must be an Awkward moment for both


----------



## Penguin

Oscar said:


> The Accountant said: ↑
> @Oscar sir just a wierd question ... I am not sure whether you can answere or not ... Is there any submarine capable of underwater to air missiles to hunt down planes ... Specially anti.submarine warfare type ...
> 
> Source: https://defence.pk/threads/pakistan-navy-the-phoenix-rises.454569/page-16#ixzz4MuhAaNLk
> Resident expert and human-penguin can answer this better @Penguin


The IDAS variant is a navalized version of the IRIS-T air-to-air missile missile, is also being developed for the new Type 212 submarine of the German Navy. IDAS is supposed to engage air threats, small or medium surface vessels or near land targets..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRIS-T#IDAS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDAS_(missile)










http://www.navyrecognition.com/inde...ns-idas-common-submarine-missile-project.html

http://www.diehl.com/en/diehl-defence/products/guided-missiles/idas.html











Four fit in a container which is inserted in the sub's launch tube.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Thorough Pro

The Accountant said:


> @Oscar sir just a wierd question ... I am not sure whether you can answere or not ... Is there any submarine capable of underwater to air missiles to hunt down planes ... Specially anti.submarine warfare type ...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The Accountant

Thorough Pro said:


>


Does indian scrpenes are equipped with those ?


----------



## Arsalan

amardeep mishra said:


> "how would you hide a land based prototype of naval reactor"?--maybe you can answer this question?


You DONT!
You do not HIDE a land based prototype of a naval reactor but you use misinform people about its purpose and quietly and silently keep working on it. Do you really think you know about the exact number of reactors operational in Pakistan at various locations? Labs and defense industry? EVERYTHING included? 

I will drop a hint, theoretically speaking, it usually goes hand in hand with a full large scale nuclear reactor at some power facility!! OR a a lab//research institute!! 

Just saying how it is done, not how we are DOING. Do keep the difference in mind before jumping into an other argument for the sake of it. 



Bratva said:


> As per @Arsalan past posts the work on rector design is been on hold for several years due to financial constraints


And Arsalan will say the same again. 
However i am not sure if it is the_ financial constraints _that held us back. What was the real reason is a matter of speculation (one may even argue that the "lack of need" was a reason. What we were actually looking for can be acquired in form of conventional subs as @Oscar pointed out as well) but what i know is that the program was put in cold storage for a decade or so. There were these talks of reviving it not too long ago. However that was on a slow burner, a VERY VERY slow burner (mainly just in talks and meetings)

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## SQ8

Arsalan said:


> You DONT!
> You do not HIDE a land based prototype of a naval reactor but you use misinform people about its purpose and quietly and silently keep working on it. Do you really think you know about the exact number of reactors operational in Pakistan at various locations? Labs and defense industry? EVERYTHING included?
> 
> I will drop a hint, theoretically speaking, it usually goes hand in hand with a full large scale nuclear reactor at some power facility!! OR a a lab//research institute!!
> 
> Just saying how it is done, not how we are DOING. Do keep the difference in mind before jumping into an other argument for the sake of it.
> 
> 
> And Arsalan will say the same again.
> However i am not sure if it is the_ financial constraints _that held us back. What was the real reason is a matter of speculation (one may even argue that the "lack of need" was a reason. What we were actually looking for can be acquired in form of conventional subs as @Oscar pointed out as well) but what i know is that the program was put in cold storage for a decade or so. There were these talks of reviving it not too long ago. However that was on a slow burner, a VERY VERY slow burner (mainly just in talks and meetings)


The idea actually came up due to the perception that the eastern bit of our neighbor was "safe" from our arsenal.

Technically the shaheen 3 remedies that, but even with the highly mobile launch systems that we have; there is always a probability that they could be targeted during a surprise strike with assistance from our "allies".

So the need to have a force at sea came up. 
Based on our finances, the conops and requirements have evolved. So while a SSBN would have been thought out in 2003 with the economy roaring on, even our basic arsenal was being a burden under zardari.
Now that things are looking up again, the project comes back into the screws being worked on again.

The economy plays a big factor since we are not keen on a Soviet Union like burn out as technically our deterrent is enough.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

Oscar said:


> The idea actually came up due to the perception that the eastern bit of our neighbor was "safe" from our arsenal.
> 
> Technically the shaheen 3 remedies that, but even with the highly mobile launch systems that we have; there is always a probability that they could be targeted during a surprise strike with assistance from our "allies".
> 
> So the need to have a force at sea came up.
> Based on our finances, the conops and requirements have evolved. So while a SSBN would have been thought out in 2003 with the economy roaring on, even our basic arsenal was being a burden under zardari.
> Now that things are looking up again, the project comes back into the screws being worked on again.
> 
> The economy plays a big factor since we are not keen on a Soviet Union like burn out as technically our deterrent is enough.


Other conceptual factors could take root too. For example, we have managed to roll out miniature nuclear warheads and - from what some reports say - boosters, enabling us to weaponize LACMs. Nuclear-tipped LACMs can be deployed from conventional AIP submarines, and may even be a bigger risk since the pool of prospective launch platforms - i.e. 8 modified Yuan SSPs - is much larger than fewer SSBNs. The MAD impact may not be there, but targeted strikes against incredibly valuable military industrial complexes (e.g. factories, shipyards, etc) or vital infrastructure is still a real risk in that scenario.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## wiseone2

Oscar said:


> The idea actually came up due to the perception that the eastern bit of our neighbor was "safe" from our arsenal.
> 
> Technically the shaheen 3 remedies that, but even with the highly mobile launch systems that we have; there is always a probability that they could be targeted during a surprise strike with assistance from our "allies".
> 
> So the need to have a force at sea came up.
> Based on our finances, the conops and requirements have evolved. So while a SSBN would have been thought out in 2003 with the economy roaring on, even our basic arsenal was being a burden under zardari.
> Now that things are looking up again, the project comes back into the screws being worked on again.
> 
> The economy plays a big factor since we are not keen on a Soviet Union like burn out as technically our deterrent is enough.



The chances of anyone locating & destroying all of Pakistani nukes on land is zero


----------



## SQ8

wiseone2 said:


> The chances of anyone locating & destroying all of Pakistani nukes on land is zero


That they may be, but losing even 40-50 nukes before they are launched or used is a loss.
Losing the launch platforms is worse.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## wiseone2

Oscar said:


> That they may be, but losing even 40-50 nukes before they are launched or used is a loss.
> Losing the launch platforms is worse.



my take is USA or India or anyone else cannot destroy Pakistani nukes without nuking Pakistan
pre-emptive nuclear strike is impossible to justify under any circumstance

given that the acquisition of SSBN/SLBM is a prestige game of matching up with India


----------



## Khafee

wiseone2 said:


> my take is USA or India or anyone else cannot destroy Pakistani nukes without nuking Pakistan
> pre-emptive nuclear strike is impossible to justify under any circumstance
> 
> *given that the acquisition of SSBN/SLBM is a prestige game of matching up with India*



@Indus Falcon Would you like to comment on the above statement in red?


----------



## YeBeWarned

Oscar said:


> That they may be, *but losing even 40-50 nukes before* they are launched or used is a loss.
> Losing the launch platforms is worse.



will that me even possible ? i mean any Ballistic or CM entering Pakistan Orbital Space will get some Attention from the Radar , and will be detected .. so without wasting any time can't we just move in our Nukes into some underground safe bunkers ?


----------



## wiseone2

Khafee said:


> @Indus Falcon Would you like to comment on the above statement in red?


Please comment on the lines in black too


----------



## SQ8

Starlord said:


> will that me even possible ? i mean any Ballistic or CM entering Pakistan Orbital Space will get some Attention from the Radar , and will be detected .. so without wasting any time can't we just move in our Nukes into some underground safe bunkers ?


How far do you think you can go in 5 minutes?

Lets assume we launched at New Dehli, from a location 640km away. The location of the launcher is pretty plausible even though the Shaheen II is probably not aimed there, we will assume that it is being used. 

lets say the missile launched at 5:15 PST. then going through boost and orbital phase.






By 5:17, the missile has already crossed the border and following the elliptical path that ballistic missiles do.
by 5:20 it is all over. What could ANYBODY In New Dehli do within 5 minutes to save themselves? 
Even if they all got into Bugatti Veyrons. 
The same goes for any nuke picked up on our side.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## wiseone2

Oscar said:


> How far do you think you can go in 5 minutes?
> 
> Lets assume we launched at New Dehli, from a location 640km away. The location of the launcher is pretty plausible even though the Shaheen II is probably not aimed there, we will assume that it is being used.
> 
> lets say the missile launched at 5:15 PST. then going through boost and orbital phase.
> View attachment 343303
> 
> 
> By 5:17, the missile has already crossed the border and following the elliptical path that ballistic missiles do.
> by 5:20 it is all over. What could ANYBODY In New Dehli do within 5 minutes to save themselves?
> Even if they all got into Bugatti Veyrons.
> The same goes for any nuke picked up on our side.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 343302



unless we have lasers to shoot down the missiles there is not much to do for given the short reaction time


----------



## Penguin

Thorough Pro said:


>


The idea of MANPADS from subs is quite old.

UK Blowpipe Manpads : Basically 4 Blowpipe missles wrapped around an optical guidance system, with the whole package designed to retract into the conning tower aka the sail of a sub. Tested in 1972 on HMS Aeneas (P427) and implemented on Israeli Gal class (UK built modified German designed HDW Type 206). Of course, this required the sub to be surfaced....





http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?107647-Submarine-anti-air&p=1722786#post1722786

Much later (early 2000) came the Triple-M hostable mast system, which would allow the submarine to remain submerged (at periscope depth). The mast system could accommodate different payloads, including Mauser RMK-30 'Mureana' recoilless 30mm autocannon, an RPV/UAV, or - possibly also - MANPADS. THe RMK-30 was intended to engage both air and surface targets.








http://gabler-luebeck.de/en/product/gabler-triple-m










http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?107647-Submarine-anti-air&p=1723159#post1723159

See also https://defence.pk/threads/boeing-showcases-new-sub-hunting-torpedo.432881/#post-8375144



The Accountant said:


> Does indian scrpenes are equipped with those ?


No. At least not likely. The A3SM project was first unveiled during Euronaval 2012. In 2005, India chose the Scorpène design. The first Indian Scorpene was laid down 1 April 2009. The other 2 respectively October 2011 and December 2012. The first Scorpène submarine, INS _Kalvari_, undocked for the purpose of sea trials in April 2015 and will be delivered in September 2016.





http://www.navyrecognition.com/inde...elf-defence-against-threats-from-the-sky.html

Torpedo tubes launched SlSAMs would seem to give the submarine the best chances of remaining undetected untill launch, while still beling able to target active homing missiles based on e.g. noise (which would then lock on after launch)

*New Missile Launcher Tested in Indiana*
Release Date: 11/5/2007
A joint effort between scientists and engineers from NSWC Crane, NSWC Dahlgren, NSWC Indian Head, Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) and Virginia Tech resulted in the first successful test launch of a test article from a water piercing missile launcher (WPML) in September.
The WPML is an underwater missile launcher that creates its own path to the water's surface. Researchers anticipate this design will save the Navy money and reduce complexity for future submarines.
How the WPML works is the missile is housed within a concentric canister launcher. This inner cylinder guides the weapon while in the launcher. The missile exhaust moves up between the inner and outer cylinders and pierces the water creating a path for the missile to egress.
If WPML continues to work, the Navy won't have to make missiles specifically designed for submarines, but use existing missiles designed for aircraft or helicopters. Yagla added that anti-aircraft warfare missiles like Sidewinders "would allow the submarines to spend more time in shallow water supporting special operations missions ashore."http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=32950

almost any type missile can be launched in an ascending cone of air to the surface
https://newwars.wordpress.com/2010/05/01/the-hybrid-missile-submarine/

An artist's concept of the Water Piercing Missile Launcher. The technology could provide submarines at periscope depth with a "stand and fight" defensive missile capability against surface threats.
https://newwars.wordpress.com/2010/04/18/navy-tests-advanced-sub-missile-launcher/

Although the results indicate the optimal launch depth, in terms of maximizing the launch depth while minimizing missile restraint time, is 14 m given an 8 m/s submarine speed it may be possible to launch a missile from a moving submarine at a speed of 5 m/s at a maximum depth of 20 m.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0029801810000739

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Penguin




----------



## Arsalan

Oscar said:


> The idea actually came up due to the perception that the eastern bit of our neighbor was "safe" from our arsenal.
> 
> Technically the shaheen 3 remedies that, but even with the highly mobile launch systems that we have; there is always a probability that they could be targeted during a surprise strike with assistance from our "allies".
> 
> So the need to have a force at sea came up.
> Based on our finances
> 
> , the conops and requirements have evolved. So while a SSBN would have been thought out in 2003 with the economy roaring on, even our basic arsenal was being a burden under zardari.
> Now that things are looking up again, the project comes back into the screws being worked on again.
> 
> The economy plays a big factor since we are not keen on a Soviet Union like burn out as technically our deterrent is enough.


Exactly. That is what our people need to understand. Things are prioritized by sane people and then the funds are allocated accordingly. 
I remember the time when the project was in full swing and there was lot of secrecy being maintained about it but then it was all wrapped up (within the Musharraf era). In Zardari times, you are right, well EVERYTHING was on hold. Now the interest is back on. The last i checked it was in that "interest" category mostly with not much actually happening. I am not sure if that have changed in the last year or so. (talking about December last year). Even, if it have i will still confidently say that 2017 timeline for a nuclear submarine is absolutely senseless. Yes, the best we can hope for is that we make our intentions known and announce some associated project for the nuclear submarine program. It is true that the nuclear propulsion was being worked on back in those good days but if we manage to pick it off from where it was left it will still need YEARS to be transformed into a working sub.



Oscar said:


> How far do you think you can go in 5 minutes?


Well once those nuclear tipped missile is launched, it is all over! The 5hit will hit the fan and it will be all over. Not talking about impact or detonation but the launch itself will be enough to trigger a nuclear apocalypse.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## YeBeWarned

Oscar said:


> How far do you think you can go in 5 minutes?
> 
> Lets assume we launched at New Dehli, from a location 640km away. The location of the launcher is pretty plausible even though the Shaheen II is probably not aimed there, we will assume that it is being used.
> 
> lets say the missile launched at 5:15 PST. then going through boost and orbital phase.
> View attachment 343303
> 
> 
> By 5:17, the missile has already crossed the border and following the elliptical path that ballistic missiles do.
> by 5:20 it is all over. What could ANYBODY In New Dehli do within 5 minutes to save themselves?
> Even if they all got into Bugatti Veyrons.
> The same goes for any nuke picked up on our side.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 343302



It seems there will be a no way out from the Destruction one the Missile is Launch , unless its intercepted by ABD's .. 

One more question, Is there any system that can track the Location from where the Missile is been Launched ? for counter Strikes ( only in case of Missile Silo Systems ) ..


----------



## ghauri05

can anyone tell me..what is the ideal requirement of PN to be a force to be reckoned against india..n how short r we in numbers from this requirement ??


----------



## SQ8

Starlord said:


> It seems there will be a no way out from the Destruction one the Missile is Launch , unless its intercepted by ABD's ..
> 
> One more question, Is there any system that can track the Location from where the Missile is been Launched ? for counter Strikes ( only in case of Missile Silo Systems ) ..


Launches can be located via both airborne and ground based surveillance assets using a combination of IR and Radar. However, as such a lot of it is based on intelligence.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Indus Falcon

Khafee said:


> @Indus Falcon Would you like to comment on the above statement in red?


Matters of National Interest & Security, are not "prestige issues" unlike what clueless fanboys would have you believing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## arkhan1

Pakistan Navy is rock solid.


----------



## wiseone2

ghauri05 said:


> can anyone tell me..what is the ideal requirement of PN to be a force to be reckoned against india..n how short r we in numbers from this requirement ??



It depends upon what you want the pakistani navy to achieve. India has bigger fish to fry when it comes to its navy


----------



## ghauri05

wiseone2 said:


> It depends upon what you want the pakistani navy to achieve. India has bigger fish to fry when it comes to its navy


A credible naval force which can control trade in its EEZ zone and deny IN's hegemony


----------



## wiseone2

ghauri05 said:


> A credible naval force which can control trade in its EEZ zone and deny IN's hegemony



your best bet is submarine fleet coupled with naval combat aircraft


----------



## Hassan Guy

wiseone2 said:


> your best bet is submarine fleet coupled with naval combat aircraft


Why else did they order 8 next-gen AIP subs?


----------



## wiseone2

Hassan Guy said:


> Why else did they order 8 next-gen AIP subs?


no other choice


----------



## Hassan Guy

wiseone2 said:


> no other choice


*correction, It was the best choice


----------



## wiseone2

Hassan Guy said:


> *correction, It was the best choice


german submarines are superior to chinese submarines


----------



## Hassan Guy

wiseone2 said:


> german submarines are superior to chinese submarines


Pakistani Subs are equipped with German Torpedoes


----------



## wiseone2

Hassan Guy said:


> Pakistani Subs are equipped with German Torpedoes


which models ??


----------



## Hassan Guy

wiseone2 said:


> which models ??


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DM2A4

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Abingdonboy

amardeep mishra said:


> The problem with nuclear reactors though is,if "there exists" one,the whole world will know about it! It is a freaking power plant-although a smaller one! It is not as easy as lets say hiding your nukes
> 
> 
> @Oscar
> Again,"if it exists" the whole world will know about it as it is a NUCLEAR POWER PLANT and not a warhead that you can hide in trucks or something else! The sheer size required(I am talking about the building and required infrastructure etc) to construct the naval prototype will reveal if pakistan does indeed have a naval reactor. And to be honest,no one under estimates pakistan. We very well know "how" pakistan acquires itz strategic weapons--but at the end of the day-what matters is,no matter how illegally pakistan would have eventually realized her nuclear ambitions--it can still wreak havoc!
> But here we are not talking about nukes,we are talking about a "nuclear plant" that cant remain hidden for long.Btw,how do you think you will hide a complete nuclear power plant?


You are bang on the money @amardeep mishra, anyone seriously suggesting that Pakistan has a working land based miniture naval reactor is either outright lying or out of their minds.

The world watches these developments very, VERY closely. It is not as easy to to conceal such efforts as many here are wrongly assuming, there is a very strict control on the very specific equipment needed to operationlise such a facility, not to mention the fact that such an almighty R&D effort WOULD have very distinct signatures.

If Israel is able to track the developments of Iran/Iraq/Syria's nuclear/chemical production programs then you had better believe the US and India are able to also.The argument that AQ Khan was able to acheive something "similar" in the 70s/80s in regards to Pakistan's nuclear weapons is an entirely false equivalence (nuclear bombs =/= nuclear reactors) and anyway I think we can all fairly assume non-proliferation efforts have come a LONG way in the past 30 years and it is not only governments that watch these things closely but independant monitoring groups.

If I was a Pakistani it would take a lot more than simply "take my word for it" these things are happening to be convinced but some are SO desperate to induldge their fantasies. It is frankly an insult to our intelligence that someone, no matter how senior they may be on PDF, are expecting us to buy this nonsense.

@PARIKRAMA @Levina @nair @SpArK @R!CK @randomradio @Vergennes @anant_s @Ankit Kumar 002 @Levina @ayesha.a @punit @MilSpec @hellfire @dadeechi @Water Car Engineer @acetophenol @sathya

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Hakikat ve Hikmet

Abingdonboy said:


> You are bang on the money @amardeep mishra, anyone seriously suggesting that Pakistan has a working land based miniture naval reactor is either outright lying or out of their minds.
> 
> The world watches these developments very, VERY closely. It is not as easy to to conceal such efforts as many here are wrongly assuming, there is a very strict control on the very specific equipment needed to operationlise such a facility, not to mention the fact that such an almighty R&D effort WOULD have very distinct signatures.
> 
> If Israel is able to track the developments of Iran/Iraq/Syria's nuclear/chemical production programs then you had better believe the US and India are able to also.The argument that AQ Khan was able to acheive something "similar" in the 70s/80s in regards to Pakistan's nuclear weapons is an entirely false equivalence (nuclear bombs =/= nuclear reactors) and anyway I think we can all fairly assume non-proliferation efforts have come a LONG way in the past 30 years and it is not only governments that watch these things closely but independant monitoring groups.
> 
> If I was a Pakistani it would take a lot more than simply "take my word for it" these things are happening to be convinced but some are SO desperate to induldge their fantasies. It is frankly an insult to our intelligence that someone, no matter how senior they may be on PDF, are expecting us to buy this nonsense.
> 
> @PARIKRAMA @Levina @nair @SpArK @R!CK @randomradio @Vergennes @anant_s @Ankit Kumar 002 @Levina @ayesha.a @punit @MilSpec @hellfire @dadeechi @Water Car Engineer @acetophenol @sathya



This is from the most novice in the forum. Doesn't "game theory" dictate that you go to the next rung to keep the "strategic balance"? Isn't China's game plan is to exhaust India's energy and time as much as possible in this corner of the world? If I were a Pakistani I'd have definitely believed that something is being cooked for these "Santa Claus" surprise gifts have been serving Pak well since operation Basstacks....

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Abingdonboy

HAKIKAT said:


> This is from the most novice in the forum. Doesn't "game theory" dictate that you go to the next rung to keep the "strategic balance"? Isn't China's game plan is to exhaust India's energy and time as much as possible in this corner of the world? If I were a Pakistani I'd have definitely believed that something is being cooked for these "Santa Claus" surprise gifts have been serving Pak well since operation Basstacks....


Just more conjecture and a rehashing of the same tired notion of "strategic balance". There is no such balance and the gap is only growing year by year. Pakistan's compulsion to be India's equal does not make it so. 

This is a very specific subject, unless Pakistan has somehow developed the ability to grow nuclear scientists or specialist machinary out of the ground or build test facilities outside the gaze of omnipresent spy sats then the facts do not change.


----------



## The SC

* Pakistan Navy's Project S-26/Type 032 Qing-Class & Project S-30/Type 032 Qing-Class Submarines *

China’s R & D programme to develop the double-hulled Project S-26/Type 032 Qing-class and Project S-30/Type 032 Qing-class SSK submarines—all to be powered by China-developed Stirling Engine air-independent propulsion systems—was begun in January 2005.






The first and only S-26 was launched at Wuchang Shipyard in Wuhan in September 2010, and it completed its harbour-trials by September 2012. Its sea-trials commenced on October 16, 2012 in the Bohai Sea. The S-26 has a length of 92.6 metres, width of 10 metres, hydroplane width of 13 metres and a height of 17.2 metres. It has a draught of 6.85 metres when surfaced with a displacement of 3,797 tons. It operates at a submerged depth of 160 metres, but can dive as deep as 200 metres. Maximum surfaced speed is 10 Knots and maximum submerged speed is 14 Knots. It can operate with a crew of 88 for 30 days without resupply, or 200 crewmen for three days.






The S-30 will have a submerged displacement of 6,628 tons, and will be armed with four vertically-launched Babur long-range land-attack cruise missiles and two submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM), most likely the upgraded JL-1 SLBM. Construction of the first S-30 is presently underway at Wuhan. Deliveries, however, will not commence until 2020 at best. 



The S-26 and S-30 submarines are being developed by China solely for the Pakistan Navy, and they will not enter service with the PLA Navy. The Pakistan Navy will procure four S-26s and four S-30s. China will also supply Pakistan with a submarine rebuild centre (SRC) that will be located at Ormara, and a VLF communications facility that will be located at Turbat. Deliveries of the S-26 submarines will begin by 2017.

http://trishul-trident.blogspot.ca/2015/04/pakistan-navys-project-s-26type-032.html


----------



## Hakikat ve Hikmet

Abingdonboy said:


> Just more conjecture and a rehashing of the same tired notion of "strategic balance". There is no such balance and the gap is only growing year by year. Pakistan's compulsion to be India's equal does not make it so.
> 
> This is a very specific subject, unless Pakistan has somehow developed the ability to grow nuclear scientists or specialist machinary out of the ground or build test facilities outside the gaze of omnipresent spy sats then the facts do not change.


Then why doesn't India attack Pak??


----------



## amardeep mishra

Arsalan said:


> You DONT!
> You do not HIDE a land based prototype of a naval reactor but you use misinform people about its purpose and quietly and silently keep working on it. Do you really think you know about the exact number of reactors operational in Pakistan at various locations? Labs and defense industry? EVERYTHING included?
> 
> I will drop a hint, theoretically speaking, it usually goes hand in hand with a full large scale nuclear reactor at some power facility!! OR a a lab//research institute!!
> 
> Just saying how it is done, not how we are DOING. Do keep the difference in mind before jumping into an other argument for the sake of it.



Hi dear @Arsalan
Thanks for taking time to reply the comment. I would like to point out couple of things here and those are-
if there was indeed a nuclear reactor under design and development in pakistan as you'd like me believe--the whole world would have known by now.Normally reactors like these are erected in the compounds adjoining exisiting nuclear power plants. These kind of naval prototypes also require huge building along with specific infrastructure that can be easily picked up by satellites--to your surprise,india gets live feed of what happens on the other side of the border every after 15mins--thanks to various low earth satellites.In fact ISRO have plans to inject a observation/spy sat operating in optical band in Geo stationary orbit that will render sub 50m resolution--kindly note geo sat spy sats have normally lower resolution because of the distance they are from earth! This will enable india to have constant watch over her adversaries 24x7!Now existence of any naval reactor would most likely mean "expansion" of any existing nuclear plant in pakistan. And I am sure every reactor core is accounted for! 
Since pakistan doesnt have established forging facilities to forge reactor pressure vessel,pressurizers etc--she'd have to outsource all of these to either china or some place else. Any such transactions are keenly watched over by intelligence agencies.
Let me tell you that I have got my batch mates working on both civillian nuclear reactor as well as naval reactors designed by IGCAR/BARC. Our naval prototype became operational sometimes towards the mid 2000s at IGCAR facility kalpakkam--hardly 70kms from where I am right now-IIT madras!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Abingdonboy

HAKIKAT said:


> Then why doesn't India attack Pak??


Why would India want to do that?India is a status quo seeking nation. India has never started a war with Pakistan, it simply isn't interested in expanding its territory, it has its hands full focusing on developing itself.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hakikat ve Hikmet

amardeep mishra said:


> Hi dear @Arsalan
> Thanks for taking time to reply the comment. I would like to point out couple of things here and those are-
> if there was indeed a nuclear reactor under design and development in pakistan as you'd like me believe--the whole world would have known by now.Normally reactors like these are erected in the compounds adjoining exisiting nuclear power plants. These kind of naval prototypes also require huge building along with specific infrastructure that can be easily picked up by satellites--to your surprise,india gets live feed of what happens on the other side of the border every after 15mins--thanks to various low earth satellites.In fact ISRO have plans to inject a observation/spy sat operating in optical band in Geo stationary orbit that will render sub 50m resolution--kindly note geo sat spy sats have normally lower resolution because of the distance they are from earth! This will enable india to have constant watch over her adversaries 24x7!Now existence of any naval reactor would most likely mean "expansion" of any existing nuclear plant in pakistan. And I am sure every reactor core is accounted for!
> Since pakistan doesnt have established forging facilities to forge reactor pressure vessel,pressurizers etc--she'd have to outsource all of these to either china or some place else. Any such transactions are keenly watched over by intelligence agencies.
> Let me tell you that I have got my batch mates working on both civillian nuclear reactor as well as naval reactors designed by IGCAR/BARC. Our naval prototype became operational sometimes towards the mid 2000s at IGCAR facility kalpakkam--hardly 70kms from where I am right now-IIT madras!



Which agency has the guts to ask China about her activities???


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Abingdonboy said:


> You are bang on the money @amardeep mishra, anyone seriously suggesting that Pakistan has a working land based miniture naval reactor is either outright lying or out of their minds.
> 
> The world watches these developments very, VERY closely. It is not as easy to to conceal such efforts as many here are wrongly assuming, there is a very strict control on the very specific equipment needed to operationlise such a facility, not to mention the fact that such an almighty R&D effort WOULD have very distinct signatures.
> 
> If Israel is able to track the developments of Iran/Iraq/Syria's nuclear/chemical production programs then you had better believe the US and India are able to also.*The argument that AQ Khan was able to acheive something "similar" in the 70s/80s in regards to Pakistan's nuclear weapons is an entirely false equivalence (nuclear bombs =/= nuclear reactors)* and anyway I think we can all fairly assume non-proliferation efforts have come a LONG way in the past 30 years and it is not only governments that watch these things closely but independant monitoring groups.
> 
> If I was a Pakistani it would take a lot more than simply "take my word for it" these things are happening to be convinced but some are SO desperate to induldge their fantasies. It is frankly an insult to our intelligence that someone, no matter how senior they may be on PDF, are expecting us to buy this nonsense.
> 
> @PARIKRAMA @Levina @nair @SpArK @R!CK @randomradio @Vergennes @anant_s @Ankit Kumar 002 @Levina @ayesha.a @punit @MilSpec @hellfire @dadeechi @Water Car Engineer @acetophenol @sathya



I chuckled on this one.. 

Pak built the atomic bomb by early 80s... and nobody knew... even the americans became suspicous in the 90s... about a fukin nuclear bomb.. and not the reactors at Chashma etc...

And here we are talking about a miniature reactor which has been in the works since the early 2000s... and confirmed even by the president of the time..

But anyways... sure we cant develop anything man.. Be happy .. dont rattle your cage too much... 

P.S: There are alot of thing members with inside info on this forum know.. yet we dont disclose it... many times we did only after the news pops up incidently...

For example..

@Oscar The guy himself is from the defence industry.. Has been involved directly..

@Bilal Khan 777 Former PAF war vet and also involved...

But hey you are free to believe what you want.. we arent forcing you to trust us now are we?

I knew about the new rifles,production and induction of panters n MLRS ... kept quiet (even today regarding alot of stuff for obvious reasons)... i even knew when the first panters arrived for testing at Arty School,Nowshehra ...back in 2008...
People here do that often.

Apart from the episode when somebody leaked pics of still non acknowledged SAMs on this forum a long time ago. ask Oscar.. 


Some indians posted pics and news from "Defence News" of what they believed were NASR launchers and their "pads" and whatnot:







..
https://defence.pk/threads/pakistan-sets-up-tactical-nuclear-missiles-base.428515/


*in reality... well .. Not even close...*

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## amardeep mishra

HAKIKAT said:


> Which agency has the guts to ask China about her activities???


Hi my dear @HAKIKAT 
Would you mind telling me your particular background in research?if at all you know anything about naval reactors?Thanks in advance!It will save a lot of our time,believe me!


----------



## v9s

Abingdonboy said:


> You are bang on the money @amardeep mishra, anyone seriously suggesting that Pakistan has a working land based miniture naval reactor is either outright lying or out of their minds.
> 
> The world watches these developments very, VERY closely. It is not as easy to to conceal such efforts as many here are wrongly assuming, there is a very strict control on the very specific equipment needed to operationlise such a facility, not to mention the fact that such an almighty R&D effort WOULD have very distinct signatures.
> 
> If Israel is able to track the developments of Iran/Iraq/Syria's nuclear/chemical production programs then you had better believe the US and India are able to also.The argument that AQ Khan was able to acheive something "similar" in the 70s/80s in regards to Pakistan's nuclear weapons is an entirely false equivalence (nuclear bombs =/= nuclear reactors) and anyway I think we can all fairly assume non-proliferation efforts have come a LONG way in the past 30 years and it is not only governments that watch these things closely but independant monitoring groups.
> 
> If I was a Pakistani it would take a lot more than simply "take my word for it" these things are happening to be convinced but some are SO desperate to induldge their fantasies. It is frankly an insult to our intelligence that someone, no matter how senior they may be on PDF, are expecting us to buy this nonsense.



First of all, Pakistan was not able to keep its nuclear weapon development a secret in the 70s - the relevant people around the world knew what Pakistan was doing.

Secondly, you and Amar-deep seem to think you're important enough that because you haven't heard or read about Pakistan's nuclear reactor miniaturization, it doesn't exist. If there is any, the relevant people know about it - and they aren't losing sleep over the fact that a bunch of Indians doubt its existence.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

v9s said:


> First of all, Pakistan was not able to keep its nuclear weapon development a secret in the 70s - the relevant people around the world knew what Pakistan was doing.
> 
> Secondly, you and Amar-deep seem to think you're important enough that because you haven't heard or read about Pakistan's nuclear reactor miniaturization, it doesn't exist. If there is any, the relevant people know about it - and they aren't losing sleep over the fact that a bunch of Indians doubt its existence.



Miniature warheads for Nasr ... well everybody knew about that didnt they?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## v9s

amardeep mishra said:


> if there was indeed a nuclear reactor under design and development in pakistan as you'd like me believe--



Oh please. No one gives a sh!t about what you believe. The only reason people indulge you are because: they're naive and think you provide positive contribution to their knowledge, Indian cheerleaders like Abingdoy, very patient individuals like Arsalan, or posters who just want you to shut up because you're an annoying broken record.



DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Miniature warheads for Nasr ... well everybody knew about that didnt they?



These dumbasses are so pompous. Unfortunately the internet has a way of stroking one's ego enough to make them think that whatever bullshit they're spewing is the final word.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## amardeep mishra

v9s said:


> Oh please. No one gives a sh!t about what you believe. The only reason people indulge you are because: they're naive and think you provide positive contribution to their knowledge, Indian cheerleaders like Abingdoy, very patient individuals like Arsalan, or posters who just want you to shut up because you're an annoying broken record.


Hi dear @v9s 
How about you use a language or tone that doesnt reflect your superior technical education? How about you prove me wrong based on very strong credible scientific literature?Believe me,I wouldnt really use the kind of words you use to address some one you barely know! 
Or is it too difficult?


----------



## Hakikat ve Hikmet

v9s said:


> Oh please. No one gives a sh!t about what you believe. The only reason people indulge you are because: they're naive and think you provide positive contribution to their knowledge, Indian cheerleaders like Abingdoy, very patient individuals like Arsalan, or posters who just want you to shut up because you're an annoying broken record.
> 
> 
> 
> These dumbasses are so pompous. Unfortunately the internet has a way of stroking one's ego enough to make them think that whatever bullshit they're spewing is the final word.



Thanks for the inklings. Nuclear reactors or not, facing them even in the internet is enough of an adversity...


----------



## 21 Dec 2012

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Pak built the atomic bomb by early 80s... and nobody knew... even the americans became suspicous in the 90s... about a fukin nuclear bomb.. and not the reactors at Chashma etc...


Don't want to be part of the rest of the mess but the first sanctions on Pakistan were placed all the way back in 1979 under the much lesser known 'Symington Amendment'. These were then waived off due to Soviet invasion. To suggest that the US did not know about about Pakistani nuclear weapons or reactors till the 90's is quite a flight of fantasy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

21 Dec 2012 said:


> Don't want to be part of the rest of the mess but the first sanctions on Pakistan were placed all the way back in 1979 under the much lesser known 'Symington Amendment'. These were then waived off due to Soviet invasion. To suggest that the US did not know about about Pakistani nuclear weapons or reactors till the 90's is quite a flight of fantasy.



And by 83 we cold tested the nukes?... While they were all guessing if we had an active nuclear program during Zias era?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Falcon26

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> I chuckled on this one..
> 
> Pak built the atomic bomb by early 80s... and nobody knew... even the americans became suspicous in the 90s... about a fukin nuclear bomb.. and not the reactors at Chashma etc...
> 
> And here we are talking about a miniature reactor which has been in the works since the early 2000s... and confirmed even by the president of the time..
> 
> But anyways... sure we cant develop anything man.. Be happy .. dont rattle your cage too much...
> 
> P.S: There are alot of thing members with inside info on this forum know.. yet we dont disclose it... many times we did only after the news pops up incidently...
> 
> For example..
> 
> @Oscar The guy himself is from the defence industry.. Has been involved directly..
> 
> @Bilal Khan 777 Former PAF war vet and also involved...
> 
> But hey you are free to believe what you want.. we arent forcing you to trust us now are we?
> 
> I knew about the new rifles,production and induction of panters n MLRS ... kept quiet (even today regarding alot of stuff for obvious reasons)... i even knew when the first panters arrived for testing at Arty School,Nowshehra ...back in 2008...
> People here do that often.
> 
> Apart from the episode when somebody leaked pics of still non acknowledged SAMs on this forum a long time ago. ask Oscar..
> 
> 
> Some indians posted pics and news from "Defence News" of what they believed were NASR launchers and their "pads" and whatnot:
> 
> 
> View attachment 344892
> 
> ..
> https://defence.pk/threads/pakistan-sets-up-tactical-nuclear-missiles-base.428515/
> 
> 
> *in reality... well .. Not even close...*



Pakistan could pursue a dual track nuclear program of Uranium enrichment & plutonium clandestinely procuring critical components without rising any suspicions from the many Western spy agencies till the last minute when Pakistan was on the verge of readying its first nuclear bomb in the early 1980s. And yet, according to these Indians, Pakistan can't be expected to hide the development of a miniature nuclear reactor small enough to fit into a submarine? Gotta love the logic of these Indians.

Reminds me of the constant denials from the Indians that Pakistan did not have the requisite knowhow to miniaturize nuclear bombs enough to fit inside missiles. Today to Indians the tactical nuclear bombs of Pakistan in the form of NASR are the biggest headaches afflicting Indian military strategists to the point their cold start doctrine has been stopped right on its tracks.

Give them enough time. Reality will hit them hard in the face.....as it always does!

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Hakikat ve Hikmet

Falcon26 said:


> Pakistan could pursue a dual track nuclear program of Uranium enrichment & plutonium clandestinely procuring critical components without rising any suspicions from the many Western spy agencies till the last minute when Pakistan was on the verge of readying its first nuclear bomb in the early 1980s. And yet, according to these Indians, Pakistan can't be expected to hide the development of a miniature nuclear reactor small enough to fit into a submarine? Gotta love the logic of these Indians.
> 
> Reminds me of the constant denials from the Indians that Pakistan did not have the requisite knowhow to miniaturize nuclear bombs enough to fit inside missiles. Today to Indians the tactical nuclear bombs of Pakistan in the form of NASR are the biggest headaches afflicting Indian military strategists to the point their cold start doctrine has been stopped right on its tracks.
> 
> Give them enough time. Reality will hit them hard in the face.....as it always does!



Thank you very much for explaining the reality. I have to admit some Indian bloggers have this demonic power to instill doubts in the minds of the readers to the point that obvious truths tend to become oblivious....

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Arsalan

amardeep mishra said:


> Hi dear @Arsalan
> Thanks for taking time to reply the comment. I would like to point out couple of things here and those are-
> if there was indeed a nuclear reactor under design and development in pakistan as you'd like me believe--the whole world would have known by now.Normally reactors like these are erected in the compounds adjoining exisiting nuclear power plants. These kind of naval prototypes also require huge building along with specific infrastructure that can be easily picked up by satellites--to your surprise,india gets live feed of what happens on the other side of the border every after 15mins--thanks to various low earth satellites.In fact ISRO have plans to inject a observation/spy sat operating in optical band in Geo stationary orbit that will render sub 50m resolution--kindly note geo sat spy sats have normally lower resolution because of the distance they are from earth! This will enable india to have constant watch over her adversaries 24x7!Now existence of any naval reactor would most likely mean "expansion" of any existing nuclear plant in pakistan. And I am sure every reactor core is accounted for!
> Since pakistan doesnt have established forging facilities to forge reactor pressure vessel,pressurizers etc--she'd have to outsource all of these to either china or some place else. Any such transactions are keenly watched over by intelligence agencies.
> Let me tell you that I have got my batch mates working on both civillian nuclear reactor as well as naval reactors designed by IGCAR/BARC. Our naval prototype became operational sometimes towards the mid 2000s at IGCAR facility kalpakkam--hardly 70kms from where I am right now-IIT madras!


Sir, does the whole world knows where we are getting the material for DU rounds? Where are the small scale nuclear plants in operation? 

I am sorry but i cannot go into details but trust me when i say that it is not all as simple as you think.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 21 Dec 2012

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> And by 83 we cold tested the nukes?... While they were all guessing if we had an active nuclear program during Zias era?


I see that I am not going to be getting through here with you which is fine 
For the readers if there are indeed any of this line of thought, it is obviously a matter to ponder why the Carter admin put unilateral sanctions in *1979* if they were indeed clueless about Pakistani nuclear program till 90's. Or why a Pressler amendment was needed after the end of the Symington waiver to continue mil-aid. And why immediately after the Soviet being kicked out the sanctions were back again. 
This not counting the fact that the Israelis and Indians had planned strikes on this supposedly invisible nuclear reactor in 1982 which was thwarted in part by the Reagan administration.​


----------



## ghauri05

wiseone2 said:


> your best bet is submarine fleet coupled with naval combat aircraft


we are doing fine on submarine part..but lacking in dedicated naval combat aircraft..we need a heavy fighter for that..many threads here suggest that PAF is looking for some heavy fighters but the decision making is really lethargic.

Withe the CEPEC i think we need ore surface ships too..frigates n coverts ..and atleast 2 destroyers to be powerful navy in asia.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## wiseone2

Falcon26 said:


> Pakistan could pursue a dual track nuclear program of Uranium enrichment & plutonium clandestinely procuring critical components without rising any suspicions from the many Western spy agencies till the last minute when Pakistan was on the verge of readying its first nuclear bomb in the early 1980s. And yet, according to these Indians, Pakistan can't be expected to hide the development of a miniature nuclear reactor small enough to fit into a submarine? Gotta love the logic of these Indians.
> 
> Reminds me of the constant denials from the Indians that Pakistan did not have the requisite knowhow to miniaturize nuclear bombs enough to fit inside missiles. Today to Indians the tactical nuclear bombs of Pakistan in the form of NASR are the biggest headaches afflicting Indian military strategists to the point their cold start doctrine has been stopped right on its tracks.
> 
> Give them enough time. Reality will hit them hard in the face.....as it always does!



building a miniature operational nuclear reactor is lot harder than building a Hiroshima sized nuclear weapon
Pakistan has no experience building submarines. India Arihant class submarine is 3x larger than any diesel submarine Pakistan operates



ghauri05 said:


> we are doing fine on submarine part..but lacking in dedicated naval combat aircraft..we need a heavy fighter for that..many threads here suggest that PAF is looking for some heavy fighters but the decision making is really lethargic.
> 
> Withe the CEPEC i think we need ore surface ships too..frigates n coverts ..and atleast 2 destroyers to be powerful navy in asia.



there are very few choices for heavy fighter - Su-35, F/A-18, Rafale


----------



## ghauri05

wiseone2 said:


> building a miniature operational nuclear reactor is lot harder than building a Hiroshima sized nuclear weapon
> Pakistan has no experience building submarines. India Arihant class submarine is 3x larger than any diesel submarine Pakistan operates
> 
> 
> 
> there are very few choices for heavy fighter - Su-35, F/A-18, Rafale


Yeah ..that's the problem..Pak is still looking for them..it has become realy long and we still don't know which plane are we gonna get?

As for submarine nuclear power reactor..yes Pak is building one..you will hear about our nuclear sub around 2019-2020. when it is fully operational.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Falcon26

wiseone2 said:


> building a miniature operational nuclear reactor is lot harder than building a Hiroshima sized nuclear weapon
> Pakistan has no experience building submarines. India Arihant class submarine is 3x larger than any diesel submarine Pakistan operates
> 
> 
> 
> there are very few choices for heavy fighter - Su-35, F/A-18, Rafale



The important thing to note is that reality isn't governed by your perceptions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Areesh

wiseone2 said:


> building a miniature operational nuclear reactor is lot harder than building a Hiroshima sized nuclear weapon
> *Pakistan has no experience building submarines*. India Arihant class submarine is 3x larger than any diesel submarine Pakistan operates
> 
> 
> 
> there are very few choices for heavy fighter - Su-35, F/A-18, Rafale



Then what is this??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNS_Saad

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNS_Hamza


----------



## wiseone2

Areesh said:


> Then what is this??
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNS_Saad
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNS_Hamza



building a Agosta 90 submarine under license does not count


----------



## Areesh

wiseone2 said:


> building a Agosta 90 submarine under license does not count



Then what counts??

You and other Indian troll rants??

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## wiseone2

Falcon26 said:


> The important thing to note is that reality isn't governed by your perceptions.


unless a nuclear weapon that cannot be detonated a nuclear submarine has to operate few months every year



Areesh said:


> Then what counts??
> 
> You and other Indian troll rants??



i would not know ... you do not wakeup one day and start to build these things


----------



## Areesh

wiseone2 said:


> i would not know ... you do not wakeup one day and start to build these things



Nobody here is saying that Pakistan woke up one day and started building a nuclear sub.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## wiseone2

Areesh said:


> Nobody here is saying that Pakistan woke up one day and started building a nuclear sub.


you woke up after IN inducted Arihant


----------



## Areesh

wiseone2 said:


> you woke up after IN inducted Arihant



Not really.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

21 Dec 2012 said:


> I see that I am not going to be getting through here with you which is fine
> For the readers if there are indeed any of this line of thought, it is obviously a matter to ponder why the Carter admin put unilateral sanctions in *1979* if they were indeed clueless about Pakistani nuclear program till 90's. Or why a Pressler amendment was needed after the end of the Symington waiver to continue mil-aid. And why immediately after the Soviet being kicked out the sanctions were back again.
> This not counting the fact that the Israelis and Indians had planned strikes on this supposedly invisible nuclear reactor in 1982 which was thwarted in part by the Reagan administration.​




Sire according to declassified papers americans even in the 90s thought we were pursuing nuclear weapons... yet we had already conducted cold tests back in 83...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/pakistan/nuke-statements.htm

*In* *1990 they banned assistance to stop us from developing weapons that we had already developed in 83*.

All this while we were openly building reactors and nuclear sites for "peaceful" purposes... buying uranium from Niger through Libya and components from europe.


US intel (considering ISI-CIA cooperation in the cold war) still sucked as far as our nuclear program was/is concerned.

Nobody believed we had plutonium based warheads either..? We did didnt we?

Nobody believed we could miniaturise nuclear warheads to tactical level and alot of other things.. we did..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## wiseone2

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Sire according to declassified papers americans even in the 90s thought we were pursuing nuclear weapons... yet we had already conducted cold tests back in 83...



By 1983 CIA was aware of Pakistani nuclear program. India was aware by 1985-1986


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

wiseone2 said:


> you woke up after IN inducted Arihant



The difference between you and us is.. that even if you make a bolt for an imported arty gun you boast as if you have discovered the holy grail.... while when we even build a new sniper rifle and even market it... we dont boast about it either can you find it on any of our official websites.. its only incidental that its believed by a third source...

Here is just one of the new LSR (in production--- pics again leaked).. and you wont even find any mention on any POF site:








This is your under development or failed rifle and you can find a billion articles,pics and opinions on it..








wiseone2 said:


> By 1983 CIA was aware of Pakistani nuclear program. India was aware by 1985-1986



And by 83.. we had already built the bomb..

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## wiseone2

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> The difference between you and us is.. that even if you make a bolt for an imported arty gun you boast as if you have discovered the holy grail.... while when we even build a new sniper rifle and even market it... we dont boast about it either can you find it on any of our official websites.. its only incidental that its believed by a third source...
> 
> Here is just one of the new LSR (in production--- pics again leaked).. and you wont even find any mention on any POF site:
> 
> View attachment 345081
> 
> 
> 
> This is your under development or failed rifle and you can find a billion articles,pics and opinions on it..
> 
> View attachment 345083
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And by 83.. we had already built the bomb..


I said by 1983. I would not know when the CIA actually knew


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

wiseone2 said:


> I said by 1983. I would not know when the CIA actually knew



They didnt till the 90s... testified by declassified US papers..

In 1990 they banned assistance to Pak.. in order to prevent Pak from developing nuclear weapons.. ironically we tested them in 83..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## wiseone2

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> They didnt till the 90s... testified by declassified US papers..
> 
> In 1990 they banned assistance to Pak.. in order to prevent Pak from developing nuclear weapons.. ironically we tested them in 83..


during the cold war CIA looked the other way


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

wiseone2 said:


> during the cold war CIA looked the other way



Declassified papers say otherwise.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## wiseone2

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Declassified papers say otherwise.


why would they declassify everything ?? it seems pretty relevant/hot to this day


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

wiseone2 said:


> why would they declassify everything ?? it seems pretty relevant/hot to this day


And you know more than the CIA?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Indus Falcon

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> And by 83.. we had already built the bomb..



Actually PAF had perfected "Bomb Toss" by '83, if memory serves me right.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## amardeep mishra

Arsalan said:


> Sir, does the whole world knows where we are getting the material for DU rounds? Where are the small scale nuclear plants in operation?
> 
> I am sorry but i cannot go into details but trust me when i say that it is not all as simple as you think.


Hi my dear @Arsalan
I agree when you say things are not really as simple as they seem--maybe because it is how pakistan works--in terms of research culture both india and pakistan are poles apart! I would like to add my own bit. First off,I am not too sure about procurement of depleted uranium for DU rounds hence I would strictly refrain from commenting. But since I happen to know couple of things regarding a nuclear plant especially naval plants based on my own studies,visits and interaction with friends who are control engineers at some of our own indigenous plants,i can surely help put things in perspective.
My main points were two fold and I will list them under two headings in a more structured manner,so that other readers can clearly understand my point-
1) Construction of reactor core
Normally naval prototypes are constructed at an already existing site. This means "expansion of the nuclear plants" in terms of "big buildings". Of course one cant see the huge pressure vessel as it is housed inside a building as you saw in the case of our own naval prototype reactor.But construction of a huge separate building at an existing nuclear facility in pakistan is enough to raise a A LOT of suspicion.Things will eventually creep out. I mean it is not like hiding a miniaturized warhead that can be stashed away in under ground places or something like that. Reactor building is a static thing.

2)Procurement of very specific items for reactor
I am sure,you would agree,pakistan doesnt have forging capabilities in any practical sense.Hence fundamental building blocks of the reactor i.e pressure vessel,pressurizer(as it is essentially a pressurized water reactor and not liquid metal,molten salt reactor),turbines etc have to be imported from possibly china or some place else. Kindly note these pressure vessel,pressurizer etc have to be made such that they can withstand the salinity of sea. The reactor itself should be designed in such a way it should be able to withstand various lateral forces .These transactions are also monitored by various intelligence agencies.

So in the light of #1 and #2 ,pakistan cant really hide the development of naval reactor.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Arsalan

wiseone2 said:


> you woke up after IN inducted Arihant


No, this is not right and what ever little is happening have been under study and consideration for MORE than a decade now. No matter how much you love to think that the earth revolves around India it is not the case. In fact, the rest few weeks/months have badly exposed the obsession of Indian media, military and public with Pakistan. I am not sure if this is a particularly right time to stick with the that stance that it is Pakistan who have made this a matter of prestige. We all know well who had their egos blown out of proportion first, only to then was dealt a blow. We all have seen the ridiculous attempts at face saving and all to no avail.  So bahi jan, perhaps you should come up some new excuse in your one liners 



amardeep mishra said:


> Hi my dear @Arsalan
> I agree when you say things are not really as simple as they seem--maybe because it is how pakistan works--in terms of research culture both india and pakistan are poles apart! I would like to add my own bit. First off,I am not too sure about procurement of depleted uranium for DU rounds hence I would strictly refrain from commenting. But since I happen to know couple of things regarding a nuclear plant especially naval plants based on my own studies,visits and interaction with friends who are control engineers at some of our own indigenous plants,i can surely help put things in perspective.
> My main points were two fold and I will list them under two headings in a more structured manner,so that other readers can clearly understand my point-
> 1) Construction of reactor core
> Normally naval prototypes are constructed at an already existing site. This means "expansion of the nuclear plants" in terms of "big buildings". Of course one cant see the huge pressure vessel as it is housed inside a building as you saw in the case of our own naval prototype reactor.But construction of a huge separate building at an existing nuclear facility in pakistan is enough to raise a A LOT of suspicion.Things will eventually creep out. I mean it is not like hiding a miniaturized warhead that can be stashed away in under ground places or something like that. Reactor building is a static thing.
> 
> 2)Procurement of very specific items for reactor
> I am sure,you would agree,pakistan doesnt have forging capabilities in any practical sense.Hence fundamental building blocks of the reactor i.e pressure vessel,pressurizer(as it is essentially a pressurized water reactor and not liquid metal,molten salt reactor),turbines etc have to be imported from possibly china or some place else. Kindly note these pressure vessel,pressurizer etc have to be made such that they can withstand the salinity of sea. The reactor itself should be designed in such a way it should be able to withstand various lateral forces .These transactions are also monitored by various intelligence agencies.
> 
> So in the light of #1 and #2 ,pakistan cant really hide the development of naval reactor.



Again, i am sorry that i wont be able to shed too much light on this matter but here in the punch line, as you said, "in terms of research culture both India and Pakistan are poles apart!" and trust me when i say that you have NO IDEA about how Pakistan is handling this matter. There are sites/installation that people have no clue about.

So all i can say on this matter is that IF Pakistan was actually working on a naval nuclear propulsion system you wont have known about that anyway because you are looking in the wrong place and thinking about the whole thing the wrong way. 

Anyway, i cannot force you to believe anything that you do not want to and i cannot possibly add any more details to what i have said.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## amardeep mishra

Arsalan said:


> So all i can say on this matter is that *IF Pakistan was actually working on a naval nuclear propulsion system* you wont have known about that anyway because you are looking in the wrong place and thinking about the whole thing the wrong way.


Hi @Arsalan
yes,I agree,perhaps I wouldnt have known if they were really working on such a thing.But intelligence agencies would have known by now. Anyways,dont you think pakistan with practically no experience of designing "power reactors" would take considerably longer time to put up reactor system in place than it took for india?--kindly note it took almost 2 decades just to perfect the naval reactor design and integrate it with hull especially when india have had decent experience with PHWRs and has designed fast breeder,AHWR and even CHTR reactors. Kindly note,I am not even touching upon various other aspects since I am sure it will meet the same response.
In my opinion,in the absence of any concrete evidence,It is best for us to wait instead of speculating.


----------



## Arsalan

amardeep mishra said:


> Hi @Arsalan
> yes,I agree,perhaps I wouldnt have known if they were really working on such a thing.But intelligence agencies would have known by now. Anyways,dont you think pakistan with practically no experience of designing "power reactors" would take considerably longer time to put up reactor system in place than it took for india?--kindly note it took almost 2 decades just to perfect the naval reactor design and integrate it with hull especially when india have had decent experience with PHWRs and has designed fast breeder,AHWR and even CHTR reactors. Kindly note,I am not even touching upon various other aspects since I am sure it will meet the same response.
> In my opinion,in the absence of any concrete evidence,It is best for us to wait instead of speculating.


Nops, Even the intelligent agencies do not know it all. I gave you an example already and that too is not known. That is why i said that it is not as simple as you think it is and there are many things that are closely and successfully guarder secrets. 



> Anyways,dont you think pakistan with practically no experience of designing "power reactors" would take considerably longer time to put up reactor system in place than it took for india?--kindly note it took almost 2 decades just to perfect the naval reactor design and integrate it with hull especially when india have had decent experience with PHWRs and has designed fast breeder,AHWR and even CHTR reactors.


It surely would have but then again what makes you assume the starting date of any such project?

Anyway, as i said, i wont be able to share any details and cannot force you to change what you believe in by default.  All i say is that the assumptions are grossly mistaken and "IF" there was any such project up and running you wont be knowing about that anyway so just relax

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## CriticalThought

amardeep mishra said:


> Hi @Arsalan
> yes,I agree,perhaps I wouldnt have known if they were really working on such a thing.But intelligence agencies would have known by now. Anyways,dont you think pakistan with practically no experience of designing "power reactors" would take considerably longer time to put up reactor system in place than it took for india?--kindly note it took almost 2 decades just to perfect the naval reactor design and integrate it with hull especially when india have had decent experience with PHWRs and has designed fast breeder,AHWR and even CHTR reactors. Kindly note,I am not even touching upon various other aspects since I am sure it will meet the same response.
> In my opinion,in the absence of any concrete evidence,It is best for us to wait instead of speculating.



Well, if we want to use history as an indicator of capabilities, India took 30 years to deliver the Tejas. That tells you how we do it very differently in Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rahim Malik

Our navy has some tremendous valor- its time to be offensive this time!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The Eagle

amardeep mishra said:


> But intelligence agencies would have known by now.



There are certain things in such matter to be kept in view as follows:-

1. Intelligence agencies fails sometimes that on one hand due to own incompetence and other hand the best to describe the same is "Counter Intelligence" fed by the A party.

2. Sometimes Agencies feed and paint the wrong information to the public and world, to dig-out a reason for pressure and invasion i.e. what happened in Iraq, the fake WMD's and Blair's confession as well but the country was bombed.

3. Sometimes Intelligence Agencies have the right information but such threats are not shared in public domain until & unless, strictly, for the discussions and counter measures behind the closed doors with specific relevant people only and with other Intelligence Agencies under the agreements between 2 allies.

4. Sometimes agencies leaks the data of rival by deliberate attempt to achieve the targets that have been set by the agency for own goals and schemes against the enemy.

5. Sometimes, there is no such kind of power, a threatening hammer in hand of A party against the rival but still A party propagates the same with every mean and source available (Media, social etc) to keep other under pressure but the same does not survive long or depends upon the capabilities for the B party to deal with. 

6. Sometimes even agencies are well aware with the threat from rival but play low and portrays as knowing nothing, for the better results and for an impact at the right time.

So, think how it is working if you are aware with such things but seeking such information which is not available at the public domain, is not the right place nor a wise decision and for the same either you have to ask your higher sources at your home or wait till the same made public by either parties or anyone. 

However, IMO, whatever the intelligence is gathered or worked upon, there are strict rules of game that all parties follows strictly otherwise. conclusion would be one versus all the rest of the parties for blowing covers of game in front of the people. 

Just saying.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## YeBeWarned

The Eagle said:


> There are certain things in such matter to be kept in view as follows:-
> 
> 1. Intelligence agencies fails sometimes that on one hand due to own incompetence and other hand the best to describe the same is "Counter Intelligence" fed by the A party.
> 
> 2. Sometimes Agencies feed and paint the wrong information to the public and world, to dig-out a reason for pressure and invasion i.e. what happened in Iraq, the fake WMD's and Blair's confession as well but the country was bombed.
> 
> 3. Sometimes Intelligence Agencies have the right information but such threats are not shared in public domain until & unless, strictly, for the discussions and counter measures behind the closed doors with specific relevant people only and with other Intelligence Agencies under the agreements between 2 allies.
> 
> 4. Sometimes agencies leaks the data of rival by deliberate attempt to achieve the targets that have been set by the agency for own goals and schemes against the enemy.
> 
> 5. Sometimes, there is no such kind of power, a threatening hammer in hand of A party against the rival but still A party propagates the same with every mean and source available (Media, social etc) to keep other under pressure but the same does not survive long or depends upon the capabilities for the B party to deal with.
> 
> 6. Sometimes even agencies are well aware with the threat from rival but play low and portrays as knowing nothing, for the better results and for an impact at the right time.
> 
> So, think how it is working if you are aware with such things but seeking such information which is not available at the public domain, is not the right place nor a wise decision and for the same either you have to ask your higher sources at your home or wait till the same made public by either parties or anyone.
> 
> However, IMO, whatever the intelligence is gathered or worked upon, there are strict rules of game that all parties follows strictly otherwise. conclusion would be one versus all the rest of the parties for blowing covers of game in front of the people.
> 
> Just saying.



CIA was sleeping and the Soviets Moved in Afghanistan .. 
CIA missed 4 planes been hijacked and 2 been crashed at WTC, and one at Pentagon ..
CIA Missed ISIS taking Territory and even capturing the second Largest City in Iraq ..

whatever you said in post is completely hit the nail but above are some examples how Intelligence Agencies , specially the best ones failed ..when a country wants to keep a secret , it can and sometimes the rival Agency keeps a Blind a eye for some unknown Interest  
who knows that CIA might know about our Sub developments but keep a Shhh on the Matter like they did with our nukes

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## wiseone2

Starlord said:


> CIA was sleeping and the Soviets Moved in Afghanistan ..
> CIA missed 4 planes been hijacked and 2 been crashed at WTC, and one at Pentagon ..
> CIA Missed ISIS taking Territory and even capturing the second Largest City in Iraq ..
> 
> whatever you said in post is completely hit the nail but above are some examples how Intelligence Agencies , specially the best ones failed ..when a country wants to keep a secret , it can and sometimes the rival Agency keeps a Blind a eye for some unknown Interest
> who knows that CIA might know about our Sub developments but keep a Shhh on the Matter like they did with our nukes



CIA was aware of Soviet troop movements leading to invasion of Afghanistan

CIA missed 9/11. It was not like Bin laden was not on their radar

What is the big deal about ISIS ??


----------



## amardeep mishra

CriticalThought said:


> Well, if we want to use history as an indicator of capabilities, India took 30 years to deliver the Tejas. That tells you how we do it very differently in Pakistan.


Hi my dear @CriticalThought
Before I commence my answer,Would you mind telling me your particular experience or knowledge of aerospace research?It will not only save a lot of our time but also help put things into perspective. A lot has been written in our media by journalists and 'analysts' alike without knowing in details of our program. Now since I am someone pursuing my research in aerospace engineering and have seen/involved in some of these projects,allow me to shed some light.
I wonder since when did launching GSQR by IAF become actual date of the program?LCA program was officially launched in 1993 and NOT in 1984 as is OFTEN quoted in both print and electronic media. By official launch I mean full scale funding and involvement of all the research parties.India has ALWAYS been much more transparent in her R&D efforts and has openly acknowledged any help taken or accomplishment achieved. Back in 80s,when the idea of such a plane was first ever mooted by IAF,india did not even have basic Labs required for conducting some fundamental work. India lacked even supersonic wind tunnel! India also was completely clue less in composites--which has now become one of two very strong areas in india. Throughout 80s and 90s,all india did was first establish required research infrastructure for the LCA project. This process of building up of research infrastructure in the country started well before the actual starting date of the project. Of course,it took a lot of time for them because their goal was very ambitious in the sense,they wanted to design everything in house--right from engine,radars to the platform itself! In fact DRDO/HAL did achieve varying degrees of successes in these three. But considering everything,the first flight took place in 2001 or in just 8 years after official launching of the program. People normally confuse first flight or the prototype with full fledged aircraft but in reality first flight checks very modest and conservative flight envelope.
Project Management wasnt really something great as the prime user of the platform i.e IAF wasnt involved in the R&D from the beginning. At the end of the day,india succeeded in designing her own platform and along the way established a whole eco-system of public/private companies and academic institutions like my owns that can support the project. India has also gathered decent experience with designing and development of gas turbine engine using which various other GTs can be designed.Two of the gem technologies that india mastered along the LCA was RSS+FBW and composites. India can in future implement these two in any fighter program based on of course the vehicle dynamics.
pakistan on the other hand had china for all the design related work--itz like saying PAKFA is our own design--but we very well know the basic platform has been designed by russia in latter case and china in the former case.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CriticalThought

@amardeep mishra thanks for elaborating what I m trying to say. Whereas India tries to do everything from scratch, in Pakistan we seek to expedite things any way we can

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Penguin

Starlord said:


> CIA was sleeping and the Soviets Moved in Afghanistan ..
> CIA missed 4 planes been hijacked and 2 been crashed at WTC, and one at Pentagon ..
> CIA Missed ISIS taking Territory and even capturing the second Largest City in Iraq ..
> 
> whatever you said in post is completely hit the nail but above are some examples how Intelligence Agencies , specially the best ones failed ..when a country wants to keep a secret , it can and sometimes the rival Agency keeps a Blind a eye for some unknown Interest
> who knows that CIA might know about our Sub developments but keep a Shhh on the Matter like they did with our nukes


And yet thecia gets blamed for everything .... lol

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## YeBeWarned

Penguin said:


> And yet thecia gets blamed for everything .... lol



one can blame it on anyone  
like our neighbors tends to blame everything on Pakistan and ISI  





Enjoy how our Neighbors are blaming Pakistan Army to Train and help ISIS  and the Leaders of ISIS Are already getting their bags pack to come to Islamabad for a Honeymoon Holiday

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Green Arrow

I once had conversation with Ex Nuclear Scientist Sultan Bashir ud Din Mehmood and as per him ''the Idea of nuclear Submarine first came up around 1996-97''. Even My Brother in Law who is also nuclear engineer has once mentioned that the work on Nuclear sub is already under way and nearly on completion now.


----------



## Army research

Green Arrow said:


> I once had conversation with Ex Nuclear Scientist Sultan Bashir ud Din Mehmood and as per him ''the Idea of nuclear Submarine first came up around 1996-97''. Even My Brother in Law who is also nuclear engineer has once mentioned that the work on Nuclear sub is already under way and nearly on completion now.


Please don't share exact name


----------



## randomradio

wiseone2 said:


> By 1983 CIA was aware of Pakistani nuclear program. India was aware by 1985-1986



Incorrect. Morarji Desai informed Pakistan of its weapons program back in 1978.


----------



## niaz

Being a book worm & a nerd, I spend lot of time surfing & reading any article that catches my fancy. There are lot more articles written about Indian military in the international press than there are about Pakistan and quite a few by the dreamers and not worth much. It up to the reader to rationalize and decide as to what is achievable.

Since I have no wish to be part of the brigade who is always trying to prove Pakistan & Pakistani products are better and feeling good about it. Many of my compatriots must be wondering why sometimes my posts appear to favour India over Pakistan. It is not because I am any less patriotic; it is just that I am too much of a realist.

In my humble opinion, greatest mistake one can make is to “Underestimate” the enemy’s strength. Forgetting about what we would like to achieve or to have; most important thing is to realistically assess what your adversary possesses; guess his intentions and then devise plans to make best use of your assets to thwart your enemy’s objectives.

Here are the links to two articles, one published in the international press and second a 100 page document detailing Indian Naval long term Strategy. Reading the naval strategy article will take some time but it gives an insight in to the thinking of Indian Naval General Staff. 

It is clear that India Naval ambitions go for beyond being Pakistan-centric. In my considered opinion; if Pakistan Navy can succeed in make any attempt to block Pakistan’s sea lanes very expensive in terms of men & material, PN would have done their job.

https://www.indiannavy.nic.in/sites...ritime_Security_Strategy_Document_25Jan16.pdf

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-showcase-india-s-61-billion-warning-to-china

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------

