Pakistan Should Invest in land-based Large Ship-Killer Missiles

[XYON]

We already have the in-house technology available in shape of the solid and liquid fuel Shaheen and Ghauri missiles, all needed is a little bit of imagination and higher CEP testing to convert these ballistic missiles into a more point-defense weapons. Strategically install a few around the 600km odd shore line of Pakistan with small kiloton warheads and blow the incoming large ships such as any Aircraft Carriers or enemy fleet into kingdom-come!! In this way we could literally dominate the sea frontier for upto almost 1000 kms from the coast line. A move such as this will most certainly enhance our Naval ability and force the enemy to re-think its strategy of a naval blockade of Karachi in case of an all out war.

Comments and Suggestions?

 

[Obambam]

We already have the in-house technology available in shape of the solid and liquid fuel Shaheen and Ghauri missiles, all needed is a little bit of imagination and higher CEP testing to convert these ballistic missiles into a more point-defense weapons. Strategically install a few around the 600km odd shore line of Pakistan with small kiloton warheads and blow the incoming large ships such as any Aircraft Carriers or enemy fleet into kingdom-come!! In this way we could literally dominate the sea frontier for upto almost 1000 kms from the coast line. A move such as this will most certainly enhance our Naval ability and force the enemy to re-think its strategy of a naval blockade of Karachi in case of an all out war.

Comments and Suggestions?

It sounded an aweful lot like China's DF-21D. I am sure Pakistan can benefit from their expertise in this area.

 

[BelligerentPacifist]

That in my view is what we should be doing, and pronto. We are having financial difficulties acquiring naval assets, and this sort of asymmetrical capability is exactly what we need against a very large IN.

We'll need sensors, sensors and more sensors - sats, UAVs and other OTH detection and missile-trajectory-correction assets. If you remember we bought the C602 but it can't (hopefully I'm wrong here) be used out to its max 250km range, precisely because it is difficult to tell if we're not shooting at a civilian tanker or cruise ship.

We need to get a milsat up there asap. Our UAVs are suffering from its absence even if they have now have the ability to outfly the 300km radio limit, just like your hypothetical AShBM.

The other issue is, will China wish to part with the whole package of technologies? If they are willing then the Shaheen-I or even its smaller siblings could be put to good use against a threat that we currently have not enough answer again.

Still we will continue to need ships since war isn't always defensive. The missiles could help clear the blockade at Karachi but not help create our blockades around Bombay or Calcutta.

 

[Safriz]

My be a navy man/woman can confirm..But as far a si have observed Pakistan's Naval Defense had been very strong,as that was the only field in which PN had been investing..PN has swarms of small missile boats which can overwhelm warships by number..

An Aircraft carrier will be difficult to destroy as it has very thick Plating..Double hull,buoyancy chambers and partitions.
You can punch a hole and swamp one part of the ship,butt the refraining hull will have enough buoyancy to keep her afloat....The remedy may be in multiple strikes,or just disabling the ship...May be a propeller chasing torpedo which can identify and specifically hit the ship's propulsion system...

Use of nuclear warheads will breach international conventions as hitting an aircraft carrier with Nuke is equivalent to nuclear strike on a small town,as a typical carrier may have 5000 people working on board,and you don't want to nuke them.

Modern Conventional explosives will be enough to punch holes in the ship,if the missiles can be numerous and many missiles hit the target with room for error.

 

[SAUD-404]

Find videos of Dr.summand mubarak where he said on some tv programe that our BM's are fired from land to target our xPN ship in the arabian sea.because our (BMs) exceed our country boundries.I think that will be helpful for this tread.

 

[XYON]

My be a navy man/woman can confirm..But as far a si have observed Pakistan's Naval Defense had been very strong,as that was the only field in which PN had been investing..PN has swarms of small missile boats which can overwhelm warships by number..

An Aircraft carrier will be difficult to destroy as it has very thick Plating..Double hull,buoyancy chambers and partitions.
You can punch a hole and swamp one part of the ship,butt the refraining hull will have enough buoyancy to keep her afloat....The remedy may be in multiple strikes,or just disabling the ship...May be a propeller chasing torpedo which can identify and specifically hit the ship's propulsion system...

Use of nuclear warheads will breach international conventions as hitting an aircraft carrier with Nuke is equivalent to nuclear strike on a small town,as a typical carrier may have 5000 people working on board,and you don't want to nuke them.

Modern Conventional explosives will be enough to punch holes in the ship,if the missiles can be numerous and many missiles hit the target with room for error.

Killing 5000 souls on an Aircraft Carrier by a conventional weapon or by a nuke? Whats the difference as both are going to be an act of war and kill many people anyway!! But having such Ship-Killer capability at our shores will greatly enhance the stand-of ability of our forces.

 

[truthseeker2010]

Well IMO instead of using ballistic missiles we should concentrate more on cruise missile such as babur for offensive purpose and work on its CEP and better payload.

 

[Safriz]

Killing 5000 souls on an Aircraft Carrier by a conventional weapon or by a nuke? Whats the difference as both are going to be an act of war and kill many people anyway!! But having such Ship-Killer capability at our shores will greatly enhance the stand-of ability of our forces.

Nuking a ship can trigger MAD? Plus a nuclear blast will leave no chance of survival for crew and can be an act of mass killing for the sake of it.
A conventional warhead will damage the ship and will sink it but will not evaporate everybody in vicinity.

 

[truthseeker2010]

We wont be needing nuke tipped missiles for AC's since the type we faces would be much smaller as compared to Nimitz class, so conventional ballistic or even cruise missile should do the job.

 

[applesauce]

this would require a massive amount of sensors of all kinds the kinds of which pakistan does not currently have. thus in addition to weapons research costs these others costs have to be considered and there is the level of the current pakistani expertise in this area to consider, perhaps better to focus on cruise missiles and the like..

 

[TOPGUN]

Speaking to my father at times about defence issues who is ex PN capt proudly served in the navy for many years and then serving PNSC tells me that PN has a decent amount of self defence units and has been upgrading its units and arms for many years now my uncle who is also a capt now has told me PN upgrading is well on its way as we all know all asspect of the navy will be upgraded and added. He told me that one of the major concern for the navy is self/air defence i had asked this question which i should have here posted before about defending the shore lines against AC and larger warships and he stated that the PN top brass have this in mind and is one of the top topics is all the detail i got so far so iam sure there is something in works in purchasing or making some sort of missle sys to conter such threats i will keep up to date with him by the as per my uncle he is in navel intel.

 

[ANG]

Hi, having a system like this will require a lot of satellites that can track, target and alter a ballistic missiles trajectory in real time. How many intelligence satellites does Pakistan have? O! So this system is a no go. Take care.

 

[BelligerentPacifist]

Hi, having a system like this will require a lot of satellites that can track, target and alter a ballistic missiles trajectory in real time. How many intelligence satellites does Pakistan have? O! So this system is a no go. Take care.

A sat isn't compulsory. You can have ground control and AWACS/UAVs do these updates. Maybe these updates aren't necessary either, the intelligence in the payload can take care of guidance, using IR detection for example. A ship with its massive heat-emitting engines might not stick out like a sore thumb over the sea surface, but at least as an area of high thermal gradient. Of course we are talking about guiding the payload at the terminal phase, I doubt on-board sensors will have the eye-in-the-sky kind of range.

 

[Safriz]

A sat isn't compulsory. You can have ground control and AWACS/UAVs do these updates. Maybe these updates aren't necessary either, the intelligence in the payload can take care of guidance, using IR detection for example. A ship with its massive heat-emitting engines might not stick out like a sore thumb over the sea surface, but at least as an area of high thermal gradient. Of course we are talking about guiding the payload at the terminal phase, I doubt on-board sensors will have the eye-in-the-sky kind of range.

Ships are very large targets slow moving on a flat surface with nowhere to hide..Tracking them is no difficult task and doesn't require as many sophistication...Likewise they got lots of room to accommodate anti missile equipment,and may have 6 inches thick plating of solid steel...These are the two issues...Not tracking and detecting a ship..

 

[BelligerentPacifist]

My be a navy man/woman can confirm..But as far a si have observed Pakistan's Naval Defense had been very strong,as that was the only field in which PN had been investing..PN has swarms of small missile boats which can overwhelm warships by number..

An Aircraft carrier will be difficult to destroy as it has very thick Plating..Double hull,buoyancy chambers and partitions.
You can punch a hole and swamp one part of the ship,butt the refraining hull will have enough buoyancy to keep her afloat....The remedy may be in multiple strikes,or just disabling the ship...May be a propeller chasing torpedo which can identify and specifically hit the ship's propulsion system...

Use of nuclear warheads will breach international conventions as hitting an aircraft carrier with Nuke is equivalent to nuclear strike on a small town,as a typical carrier may have 5000 people working on board,and you don't want to nuke them.

Modern Conventional explosives will be enough to punch holes in the ship,if the missiles can be numerous and many missiles hit the target with room for error.

* We're not out to take out ACs. Let's not confuse our objectives with those China has.

* PN does not have a 'swarm' of missile boats. It's only a few.

* Compartmentalization of the ship's construction notwithstanding, a 500kg shot could achieve a mission kill. By fluke you might hit the engine rooms or ammo.

I'm thinking more along the lines of an airburst - wider impact area but not necessarily comparable damage. With moving targets and not-so-accurate guidance, probabilities become important.

* We're not talking nukes. Even if we are, we're talking war where MAD is effectively in place.