Asymmetrical War: A Necessity For PN

[CrazyZ]

A stealthy anti ship like this Kongsberg NSM Naval Strike Missile.... would be perfect to target oil and lng tankers in the Arabian sea. Something like this should be part of project AZM for the PN. With a 300 nm range and a warhead big enough to knock out a large tanker...Big non-nuclear strategic option at low cost.

 

[ARMalik]

I disagree with most views here. Like Land warfare, naval warfare has changed. I keep stressing that the PIVOTAL force is not army or navy anymore but it is the AIR FORCE. In the 21st century, Air Force is the power that will decide who wins and who loses a war including naval wars. Together with new generation of missiles, EM weapons, netcentric assets, AWACS, etc. the Air force alone can destroy any naval force.

 

[CrazyZ]

I disagree with most views here. Like Land warfare, naval warfare has changed. I keep stressing that the PIVOTAL force is not army or navy anymore but it is the AIR FORCE. In the 21st century, Air Force is the power that will decide who wins and who loses a war including naval wars. Together with new generation of missiles, EM weapons, netcentric assets, AWACS, etc. the Air force alone can destroy any naval force.

Agreed. Land based air platforms, missiles, subs, and smaller vessels are the most cost effective way foward for PN. We need an arabian sea dominance goal. We don't need a blue water navy to be a key naval player....... because of geographic location.

 

[guest9999]

As I have previously argued, Pakistan needs to use superior numbers of AShM & LACM to saturate and overwhelm IN missile defenses.

Issue is that PN surface fleet has only few ships that can fire missiles. Instead of depending on 4-5 boats that can fire at most 10-30 missiles, why not build land-based launchers which can fire thousands?

This is purely defensive, as it will only come into play once IN comes into range of Pakistani waters. Pakistan can build land-based launch systems and scatter them throughout the:

• coastline
• ports
• naval bases
• mountains

One recent development, courtesy of Russians, is building missile launchers inside cargo containers. You can have thousands of cargo containers located at Port Qasim, Gwadar, Karachi, other coastal areas. This doesn't have to be limited to naval role. You can also run daily freight trains & trucks across length of Pakistan with these containers masked & hidden among regular cargo to attack land targets in Rajasthan, East Punjab, IoK, etc.

800-2000 missiles will easily overwhelm both naval & land-based defenses, SAM can be neutralized, aircraft will be destroyed with CEM on LACM.

Just remember when USN fired Tomahawk LACM against Syrian targets, Russian SAM like S-400 didn't even engage. No use in targeting 100-200 LACM coming straight at you. indians will have no answer to saturation attacks.

 

[CHI RULES]

As I have previously argued, Pakistan needs to use superior numbers of AShM & LACM to saturate and overwhelm IN missile defenses.

Issue is that PN surface fleet has only few ships that can fire missiles. Instead of depending on 4-5 boats that can fire at most 10-30 missiles, why not build land-based launchers which can fire thousands?

This is purely defensive, as it will only come into play once IN comes into range of Pakistani waters. Pakistan can build land-based launch systems and scatter them throughout the:

• coastline
• ports
• naval bases
• mountains

One recent development, courtesy of Russians, is building missile launchers inside cargo containers. You can have thousands of cargo containers located at Port Qasim, Gwadar, Karachi, other coastal areas. This doesn't have to be limited to naval role. You can also run daily freight trains & trucks across length of Pakistan with these containers masked & hidden among regular cargo to attack land targets in Rajasthan, East Punjab, IoK, etc.

800-2000 missiles will easily overwhelm both naval & land-based defenses, SAM can be neutralized, aircraft will be destroyed with CEM on LACM.

Just remember when USN fired Tomahawk LACM against Syrian targets, Russian SAM like S-400 didn't even engage. No use in targeting 100-200 LACM coming straight at you. indians will have no answer to saturation attacks.

Sir S400 was not even installed there, news however suggest at max few S200s perhaps upgraded and other lower to medium range SAMs were present, however as per Russian/Syrian sources at least 70-75 missiles were intercepted however damage done was due to missiles which passed through defenses. The heavy jamming was also done by Allied forces in the area. It is a well known fact that relying only on SAM's cannot be effective, rather offensive defense policy is a practical solution i.e combo of multi role fighter jets , SAMs along with CMs/BMs to counter attack the enemy.

As per news Indians getting export version of S400 which reportedly has max missiles of range up to 200 KM matching to range of HQ9 which Pak should get., however India also getting other latest equipment mainly Rafael as well as up gradation and better availability of Su30s, perhaps not achieved now but shall be achieved in near future. Considering conventional warfare Pak should also have layered SAMs as well along with acquisition of one modern jet along with JF17 block-III. I personally doubt that at same time Pak may launch 800-2000 Missiles. Sneaking and penetration whether it is India or Pakistan is not impossible only requires better strategy and superior tech. Your comments are welcomed.

 

[guest9999]

Sir S400 was not even installed there, news however suggest at max few S200s perhaps upgraded and other lower to medium range SAMs were present, however as per Russian/Syrian sources at least 70-75 missiles were intercepted however damage done was due to missiles which passed through defenses. The heavy jamming was also done by Allied forces in the area. It is a well known fact that relying only on SAM's cannot be effective, rather offensive defense policy is a practical solution i.e combo of multi role fighter jets , SAMs along with CMs/BMs to counter attack the enemy.

I wouldn't say that. I remember an American military analyst on a US network discussing the most recent attack on the Syrian chemical weapons factory. The Tomahawk LACM took a flight path through mountainous terrain and avoided radar. Furthermore, the assault was supported by JASSM, which were not detected. I do not believe Russian/Syrian claims on interception of 70-75 missiles. They got blasted by the wave of missiles. Even if the claim was true, what good did it do them to intercept cruise missiles which were expendable anyway?

Even if the S-400 were not there, it would have not made any difference had Russians placed them there to protect the chemical factory. Let's say you have batteries of S-400, what good are they against 100-200 LACM? the SAM missiles will be used up defending against cruise missiles, leaving the country defenseless against an air assault. This strategy has successfully been used over again repeatedly by US, here in Syria twice, and also the assault that brought down Qaddafi's military in Libya.

Yes, Pakistan does not have cruisers or destroyers that can carry 100+ missiles, but I'm arguing that it should build launchers on fixed platforms that can be constructed anywhere. That will give it numerical superiority in terms of firepower against India. IN will stand no chance against this strategy.

 

[Vortex]

I wouldn't say that. I remember an American military analyst on a US network discussing the most recent attack on the Syrian chemical weapons factory. The Tomahawk LACM took a flight path through mountainous terrain and avoided radar. Furthermore, the assault was supported by JASSM, which were not detected. I do not believe Russian/Syrian claims on interception of 70-75 missiles. They got blasted by the wave of missiles. Even if the claim was true, what good did it do them to intercept cruise missiles which were expendable anyway?

Even if the S-400 were not there, it would have not made any difference had Russians placed them there to protect the chemical factory. Let's say you have batteries of S-400, what good are they against 100-200 LACM? the SAM missiles will be used up defending against cruise missiles, leaving the country defenseless against an air assault. This strategy has successfully been used over again repeatedly by US, here in Syria twice, and also the assault that brought down Qaddafi's military in Libya.

Yes, Pakistan does not have cruisers or destroyers that can carry 100+ missiles, but I'm arguing that it should build launchers on fixed platforms that can be constructed anywhere. That will give it numerical superiority in terms of firepower against India. IN will stand no chance against this strategy.

Aren’t fixed launchpad more vulnerable than mobile one ?

 

[guest9999]

Aren’t fixed launchpad more vulnerable than mobile one ?

They are if you only have few, but not when you have thousands scattered throughout your territory with some being hidden. For example, North Korea has thousands of artillery pieces lined up near border pointing straight at Seoul. One false move, thousands of people will die. This blackmail essentially prevented US from attacking for decades until North Korea developed nuclear weapons. US can easily destroy some, but not all as many are hidden.

If IAF or IN attack some launchers, they cannot destroy all in single attack. There will be many hidden in rocky terrain. One foolish move and India will get hit by a wave of missiles. Furthermore, IAF/IN has to deal with PAF/PN, what do they attack first? They cannot deal with combined might of all this firepower.

Also, the same strategy can be applied underwater. You don't need to rely on just 8-10 submarines and their limited torpedo tubes to launch SLCM. You can launch thousands if PN can construct numerous underwater launchers that can be used to launch SLCM. These will be impossible for IN to detect & destroy completely. Just imagine, you have thousands of missiles scattered throughout coastline, mangroves, marshes, mountains, coves, forests, underwater? India cannot take out everything, let alone find them, and they will be too busy dealing with PAF, SAM, PN submarines, etc.

 

[Fenrir]

A stealthy anti ship like this Kongsberg NSM Naval Strike Missile.... would be perfect to target oil and lng tankers in the Arabian sea. Something like this should be part of project AZM for the PN. With a 300 nm range and a warhead big enough to knock out a large tanker...Big non-nuclear strategic option at low cost.

NSM is a beast for how small it is.

Small, stealthy and intelligent. You'd probably have better luck importing Turkey's SOM-J though. It's the only missile in NSM's class.

With a 300 nm range and a warhead big enough to knock out a large tanker.

It's warhead is actually nearly half the size of similar anti-ship missiles like SOM-J or Harpoon.

It's not the size, but the chemical makeup of the NSM's warhead that makes it so deadly. It explodes with a force greater then Harpoon's despite being far smaller.

 

[Humble Analyst]

I do not agree that land or air based systems can replace Navy. Unfortunately Pakistan never fully understood the naval warfare citing a small coast line. Now even with nuclear capability the real deterrence is second strike capability and that comes from sub based missiles. Pakistan defence budget was always distributed favouring Army. Airforce was even sort of set aside. Air Force on the other hand developed a comfort zone called F16. Navy made one mistake of buying a capital Ship Khayber which was lost during 71. Pakistan needs mobile platforms for second strike capability and denying blockade. This means having a strong naval air arm or Airforce Maritime Aircraft, Submarines which PK is acquiring a combination of Frigates/Destroyers missile/gunboats and a couple of replenishment vessels.
Pakistan does not need Capital ships but needs good land based air cover and maritime patrol for sub detection planes, which we have some, but are old.
Air superiority and denial of air superiority is crucial over Karachi and Pak coast.
If Air Forces only is tasked to deny a blockade then Pak is vulnerable. At best it is fighting a blockade on back foot and worst case if the air superiority is lost a full blockade is in effect bringing Pak to last resort or desperate measures.