What's new

Beating the Indian Navy without going broke

niaz

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Jun 18, 2006
5,028
200
10,789
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Let us get back to the topic of the thread and do some serious thinking.

It is said that task of any Navy is to safeguard the vital shipping lanes and to interdict enemy warships trying to bomb shore-based assets (Defence) and to project power away from the shore and to bomb enemy installations close to the shore ( Offence).

Pakistan Navy has to find some way to respond to the threat posed by the powerful Indian navy. Even though there are no ‘really’ cheap options when it comes to the naval operations, ‘relatively’ low-cost solutions can be found.

What can powerful Indian Navy do to Pakistan?

IN surface vessels and submarines would attempt to sink the merchant vessels taking vital supplies to Pakistan and stop Pakistani export by the sea with a naval blockade. IN aircraft carriers could be used to bomb and destroy critical Pakistani installations such as oil storage and refineries and also bomb any merchant ships that escaped attack from the surface and sub-surface warships.

Pakistan’s largest trading partners are China (16.9%), European Union (13%), UAE (10.9%) & Saudi Arabia (9.0%). Thus with the exception of China; the major volume of our import/export is from the AG & from the West through the Suez Canal.

With the CPEC in operation; Chinese import/export trade could use the land route during wartime reducing the dependence on seaborne trade going East.

There is a huge amount of shipping transiting Suez Canal on daily basis and going towards the AG and Far Eastern ports; hence unless the ship carries Pakistani flag; one would not know where the ship is heading until it is past the Omani coast.

Therefore, during the emergency /war like situation; Pak Navy’s primary task will limited be to safeguarding the sea lanes east of Oman; a distance of less than 1000 km.

With Indian Navy operating nuclear submarine and possibly up to 4 aircraft carriers; Pakistan neither has nor likely to have resources to buy the sufficient number of warships to match Indian naval power in the blue water. So what are the options available to Pakistan to safeguard her sea lanes and 200 miles economic zone?

Pakistan Navy is scheduled to receive 8 Chines submarines, these together with the Augusta fleet should do enough to deter Indian Navy subs & frigates from attacking Karachi bound merchant vessels travelling inside a 600 mile long & 200-mile wide corridor off-Pakistan coast. The main advantage a nuclear submarine has over the AIP equipped submarine is the longer submerged duration. Indian nuclear submarines, therefore, do not pose any significant additional threat in India/Pakistan war scenario.

Ever since the Midway encounter of June 1942, naval battles have been dominated by the aircraft with aircraft carriers as floating bases. Technology has added another offensive weapon in the form of ship & submarine-launched cruise missiles.

An aircraft carrier such as HMS Queen Elizabeth costs about $10-billion. Even a second-hand carrier will cost close to$4-billiob. On the other hand, a state of the art aircraft armed with anti-ship missiles such as Su-35 will cost about $70-million per unit of. Suppose 5 SU-35s are lost sinking one carrier, it is $400-million versus $10-billion; a ratio of 1:25.

A cruise missile such as Tomahawk carrying one 1,000 lb bomb costs less than 2-million and can be fired from the sub, surface warship or from the shore. Just one strike is sufficient to sink $10-bilion carrier or a $400-million frigate.

Admittedly Cruise missiles can be shot down by the ships anti-air defences. However, any defence can be overwhelmed. Say you fire 30 cruise missiles at an aircraft carrier, one or two are bound to get through. This means one could possibly sink a $10-billion carrier at the cost of $60-billion.

Drones /UAV appear to be an even cheaper option. A small UAV such as Israeli ‘Harpo’ can loiter up to 6 hours and carries a 50-lb bomb. Don’t know the actual cost but it would in tens of thousands dollars. One could launch say 100-Harop like UAVs against a major warship and if only 10 get through, it would kill a $400-million frigate for the price of $10-million. (Understand India has ordered $100-million worth of these from Israel – mainly for use as an-anti air defence weapon)

As mentioned earlier, none of the above options is really cheap; but it is all relative.
 
Last edited:

MastanKhan

PDF VETERAN
Dec 26, 2005
19,626
160
53,826
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
@MastanKhan
Midget submarines,Mines?
Hi,

2 Sqdrns of JH7A's would be cheaper than the submarine---would have more " flexible " fire power ( AShP missile ) against the surface fleet---from longer distances---.

Drones---??? They are worthless against naval vessels---.

@niaz---what are you thinking my man---drones against armed ships---. They will be farther away from their base---have you thought about the signal jamming that the enemy would use---.

Two cruise missiles are going to do some damage to the aircraft carrier but not sink it---. That would need a nuc strike---.

What pak navy needs alongwith the JH7A's is nuc tipped torpedoes---.

There is no cheap solution to an expensive problem---.
 

CHACHA"G"

SENIOR MEMBER
Apr 18, 2016
3,414
7
5,570
Country
Australia
Location
Pakistan
Hi,

2 Sqdrns of JH7A's would be cheaper than the submarine---would have more " flexible " fire power ( AShP missile ) against the surface fleet---from longer distances---.

Drones---??? They are worthless against naval vessels---.

@niaz---what are you thinking my man---drones against armed ships---. They will be farther away from their base---have you thought about the signal jamming that the enemy would use---.

Two cruise missiles are going to do some damage to the aircraft carrier but not sink it---. That would need a nuc strike---.

What pak navy needs alongwith the JH7A's is nuc tipped torpedoes---.

There is no cheap solution to an expensive problem---.
Very much on the spot sir g . But instead of JH7B why not we go for SU-35 or J-11/16 from China(if we have only option for 1 type) . They can also defend air on sea very well … And if possible why not both a bomber and a air defender 36 to 40 each , will they be cheap hell no but they will provide much more then 4 F-22Ps and 4 Miglum together .
2ndly We need costal defence systems , in numbers , both cruse and ballistic add some air defence too for our strategic coastline ..
3rdly as I said before buying or having 4 ships like F22Ps without medium or long range air defence is wasting money , we need ships like T-54 r TF-2000(Turkish Frigate) minimum with T-52D . We like it or not . 8 to 12 Frigates (4000+T) with 32+ VLS , and 4 to 6 T-52 Type Destroyer is what we can call a decent navy against Indian Navy . What hurts me more is we just bought Turkish Ships without VLS.
Yes we don't have money I agree , but who said buy 6 or 8 ships in one go , Buy or build 1 or 2 first and then add 1 or 2 ships per 2 years. In 10 years we will get required number . Better we spend money now then latter we cry "IF we Had done that " . Better we cry now "just like indian army officers about money" then latter .
 

niaz

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Jun 18, 2006
5,028
200
10,789
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Hi,

2 Sqdrns of JH7A's would be cheaper than the submarine---would have more " flexible " fire power ( AShP missile ) against the surface fleet---from longer distances---.

Drones---??? They are worthless against naval vessels---.

@niaz---what are you thinking my man---drones against armed ships---. They will be farther away from their base---have you thought about the signal jamming that the enemy would use---.

Two cruise missiles are going to do some damage to the aircraft carrier but not sink it---. That would need a nuc strike---.

What pak navy needs alongwith the JH7A's is nuc tipped torpedoes---.

There is no cheap solution to an expensive problem---.
Hon Sir,

Agreed there is no simple solution. However, I am intrigued by the Indian $100-million purchase of IAI Harop. admittedly it is currently meant for short range strikes and already in use by the Azeris. Kindly read this link:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/azerbaijan-said-using-israeli-drones-against-armenians/

With 6 hours loiter time, its range is surely at least 200 miles. With a little tweaking, it may be possible to increase the range and payload to ( say about 50 kg). It may appear a hairbrained idea, but shouldn't one explore out of the box ideas to solve a tricky problem.

Indian carries employ Mig-29K, I am not convinced that JH-7 can outfight a MIG-29K. That is why I suggested Su-35.
 

MastanKhan

PDF VETERAN
Dec 26, 2005
19,626
160
53,826
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Hon Sir,

Agreed there is no simple solution. However, I am intrigued by the Indian $100-million purchase of IAI Harop. admittedly it is currently meant for short range strikes and already in use by the Azeris. Kindly read this link:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/azerbaijan-said-using-israeli-drones-against-armenians/

With 6 hours loiter time, its range is surely at least 200 miles. With a little tweaking, it may be possible to increase the range and payload to ( say about 50 kg). It may appear a hairbrained idea, but shouldn't one explore out of the box ideas to solve a tricky problem.

Indian carries employ Mig-29K, I am not convinced that JH-7 can outfight a MIG-29K. That is why I suggested Su-35.
Hi,

Your strike aircraft are not going to engage in air to air combat per say---. The migs won't be fying all the time---the window of opportunity always opens up at a critical time of flight when the fuel is low---.

Secondly---the JH7A type would be launching AShM from maximum distance---150---200 miles away.

How far would your drones fly---and from where would they be controlled---and what if the signal is jammed---!!!!

Very much on the spot sir g . But instead of JH7B why not we go for SU-35 or J-11/16 from China(if we have only option for 1 type) . They can also defend air on sea very well … And if possible why not both a bomber and a air defender 36 to 40 each , will they be cheap hell no but they will provide much more then 4 F-22Ps and 4 Miglum together .
2ndly We need costal defence systems , in numbers , both cruse and ballistic add some air defence too for our strategic coastline ..
3rdly as I said before buying or having 4 ships like F22Ps without medium or long range air defence is wasting money , we need ships like T-54 r TF-2000(Turkish Frigate) minimum with T-52D . We like it or not . 8 to 12 Frigates (4000+T) with 32+ VLS , and 4 to 6 T-52 Type Destroyer is what we can call a decent navy against Indian Navy . What hurts me more is we just bought Turkish Ships without VLS.
Yes we don't have money I agree , but who said buy 6 or 8 ships in one go , Buy or build 1 or 2 first and then add 1 or 2 ships per 2 years. In 10 years we will get required number . Better we spend money now then latter we cry "IF we Had done that " . Better we cry now "just like indian army officers about money" then latter .
Hi,

For anti ship roles---naval strikes---the JH7A is still the better of the SU35 / J11 / J16's---. These aircraft are not designed for nap of the earth flight / low flight---.

A bangladeshi poster ( who got banned ) described the JH7 in a very articulate manner---.

Other naval assets are a must to balance out---.
 

SQ8

ADVISORS
Mar 28, 2009
33,970
356
69,226
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Hi,

Your strike aircraft are not going to engage in air to air combat per say---. The migs won't be fying all the time---the window of opportunity always opens up at a critical time of flight when the fuel is low---.

Secondly---the JH7A type would be launching AShM from maximum distance---150---200 miles away.

How far would your drones fly---and from where would they be controlled---and what if the signal is jammed---!!!!
It seems that the PAF has listened to the PN in this regard. The platform hasn’t changed but the off platform targeting and launch profiles have. It is refreshing to hear when even Erieye and ZDK operators have problems picking up a JF with its radar not transmitting and it launches missiles within 60 seconds of warning time of a naval group. That thing has a small RCS.
 

LKJ86

ELITE MEMBER
Feb 1, 2018
19,691
28
53,903
Country
China
Location
China
Hi,

Your strike aircraft are not going to engage in air to air combat per say---. The migs won't be fying all the time---the window of opportunity always opens up at a critical time of flight when the fuel is low---.

Secondly---the JH7A type would be launching AShM from maximum distance---150---200 miles away.

How far would your drones fly---and from where would they be controlled---and what if the signal is jammed---!!!!



Hi,

For anti ship roles---naval strikes---the JH7A is still the better of the SU35 / J11 / J16's---. These aircraft are not designed for nap of the earth flight / low flight---.

A bangladeshi poster ( who got banned ) described the JH7 in a very articulate manner---.

Other naval assets are a must to balance out---.
The schematics in a PLAAF base show the use of JH-7:
53ae0b70ly1frcep2283mj23282aou0x.jpg
53ae0b70ly1frceoszlo2j23282ao7wi.jpg
53ae0b70ly1frceovp401j23282aou0x.jpg
img-6382c99a99b310f09efde130f89222df.jpg
 

MastanKhan

PDF VETERAN
Dec 26, 2005
19,626
160
53,826
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
It seems that the PAF has listened to the PN in this regard. The platform hasn’t changed but the off platform targeting and launch profiles have. It is refreshing to hear when even Erieye and ZDK operators have problems picking up a JF with its radar not transmitting and it launches missiles within 60 seconds of warning time of a naval group. That thing has a small RCS.
Hi,

Very interesting---. Further explanation is requested---.
 

SQ8

ADVISORS
Mar 28, 2009
33,970
356
69,226
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Hi,

Whatever part you want to expand upon---.
Off board targeting is nothing new, similar to another aircraft using a laser to designate a target for another carrying laser guided bombs.
In this case it involves targeting information going over datalink from a different asset; so the JF-17 can essentially keep its electronic noise down to a minimum and due to its fairly low RCS(the RCS of a clean one is ridiculously low for an aircraft not purposely built low observable) which with weapons attched is less than that of a clean #### , it can get really close to a surface group even with AEW coverage to launch its weapons.

Then the fairly effective C-802 takes over and it does its dog legs and pop ups to end up with a fairly respectable kill probability.
 

ziaulislam

ELITE MEMBER
Apr 22, 2010
14,477
10
13,585
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
with current state if affairs even manufacturing and operaring a decent size jf-17 fleet will be a financial challenge despite being several times cheaper than any other external platform
 

randomradio

BANNED
Feb 14, 2016
6,990
-17
4,818
Country
India
Location
India
With Indian Navy operating nuclear submarine and possibly up to 4 aircraft carriers

Pakistan Navy is scheduled to receive 8 Chines submarines,
You seem to be considering a post 2030 world here, since Pak will get all 8 submarines only by 2028, even without considering any delays.

And the IN will have only 2 carriers even by 2030.

An aircraft carrier such as HMS Queen Elizabeth costs about $10-billion. Even a second-hand carrier will cost close to$4-billiob. On the other hand, a state of the art aircraft armed with anti-ship missiles such as Su-35 will cost about $70-million per unit of. Suppose 5 SU-35s are lost sinking one carrier, it is $400-million versus $10-billion; a ratio of 1:25.

A cruise missile such as Tomahawk carrying one 1,000 lb bomb costs less than 2-million and can be fired from the sub, surface warship or from the shore. Just one strike is sufficient to sink $10-bilion carrier or a $400-million frigate.

Admittedly Cruise missiles can be shot down by the ships anti-air defences. However, any defence can be overwhelmed. Say you fire 30 cruise missiles at an aircraft carrier, one or two are bound to get through. This means one could possibly sink a $10-billion carrier at the cost of $60-billion.

Drones /UAV appear to be an even cheaper option. A small UAV such as Israeli ‘Harpo’ can loiter up to 6 hours and carries a 50-lb bomb. Don’t know the actual cost but it would in tens of thousands dollars. One could launch say 100-Harop like UAVs against a major warship and if only 10 get through, it would kill a $400-million frigate for the price of $10-million. (Understand India has ordered $100-million worth of these from Israel – mainly for use as an-anti air defence weapon)

As mentioned earlier, none of the above options is really cheap; but it is all relative.
All of this considers the fact that the carrier has already been detected and firing solutions have been obtained, which means a significant chunk of the carrier's air complement has been destroyed before you are able to obtain such information, and the carrier is already running away at 30 knots at this time.

If India brings two carriers to the fight, then you are talking about first defeating about 50 carrier based fighter jets and about 50-100 shore based IAF/IN jets 500Km away from the carriers before coming close enough to detect the carriers, followed by launching multiple missiles.

Say you fire 30 cruise missiles at an aircraft carrier, one or two are bound to get through. This means one could possibly sink a $10-billion carrier at the cost of $60-billion.
30 missiles won't be enough. A carrier is always complemented by 2 AAW destroyers with Barak, and at least 2 more AAW capable frigates with the Shtil at the minimum.

You are talking about defeating 3 Barak systems, 2 Shtil systems, fighter jets and finally CIWS. If you count 2 SAMs per cruise missile and all the cruise missiles with the same time to target launched from over 500Km away using coastal batteries, then the 3 Baraks alone will be able to defeat 48 cruise missiles. If detected from a range of 70Km, the 2 Shtils will be able to defeat 24 missiles. And if you consider 8 Mig-29s on CAP at any one time with 6 missiles each, they will be able to defeat another 48 missiles. So you will need 120 missiles before the CIWS kicks in.

If one of those frigates is the Shivalik class, then you will have to contend with 32 more Barak-1s, which can defeat 16 more missiles. And if the guns and AAA defeat just 1 missile each, we are talking about 20 missiles more.

So a total of 156 missiles will be needed to saturate the smallest CBG structure. And this is based on currently available IN capability versus Pakistan's non-existent capability to launch such long range cruise missiles for sea denial. Obviously you will need more missiles launched to actually destroy the CBG after first overwhelming the CBG's defences with 156 missiles.

And this is not counting any other ships and fighter jets in the vicinity. The IN is expected to have at least 40 ships at any one time in the waters for the fight.

Nor does it consider the carrier launching more fighter jets to defeat the incoming cruise missiles, or the fact that the Mig-29 can use its cannons also.

Of course, you will need more than 2 cruise missiles hitting the carrier in order to sink it.
To put that into perspective, the RIMPAC exercise conducted recently saw NATO pummeling a defenceless ship for over an hour before it sank. And it was just a 5100T ship.
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...-to-death-during-rimpac-2018-sinking-exercise


Hi,

Your strike aircraft are not going to engage in air to air combat per say---. The migs won't be fying all the time---the window of opportunity always opens up at a critical time of flight when the fuel is low---.
Migs will be flying 24/7.

Buddy refueling takes care of low fuel. With 3 tanks and a single refueling, a Mig-29K can stay in the air for more than 6 hours.

So a squadron of 16 Mig-29s can stay up for 24 hours in 8 groups of 2 each. They only have to perform 2 sorties a day for the patrol mission. Refueling can be carried out by land based fighters. And the remaining 8-16 fighters on a carrier can be used for strike missions.

Of course, patrol missions can be conducted by land based fighters as well. Which means the carrier can dedicate most of its air wing for strike.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom