What's new

Concepts / Ideas for the Pakistan Navy

Not sure what you mean by total opposite. Let me just say that when I was talking about a P282, I was thinking of it like the DF-17. An HGV boosted by a BM. Yes, it would bring up all those issues we discussed. Which is the source of my confusion as to WHY does the P282 exist.



A likely scenario lol


Right. But back to square one. If it's a SLBM, why not just say that?
A layman's question here who is just enjoying the exchange and trying to develop an understanding of the content being discussed:

If we do not have the eyes in space (military satellites) keeping track of the enemy's surface fleet and giving guidance to a warhead that has been launched to target a moving vessel, why are we even working on an anti-ship ballistic missile i.e. P282? I understand that this confusion is shared by others as well? Remote sensing I understand is vital for a moving target's acquisition and continued tracking till the warhead does its job.

Would china allow us to use its constellation of mil satellites in the event of a hot conflict?
 
Last edited:
.
"In the hypersonic domain, ship-based long-range, anti-ship and land-attack, P282, blas ballistic missile is under development"
Points to note:
1. Long range: So my whole optimistic idea is out the window @Akh1112
2. Ship based: NOT submarine based. Further confirmed by Jinnah brochure.
3. Anti-ship mentioned before land-attack: I'm grasping at straws but anti-ship seems like the primary mission.
4. Ballistic: an HGV will certainly have a ballistic boost phase so not surprising.

Maybe the idea is to hit Indian ports? Do a hypersonic pearl harbour.

EDIT:
5. Blas: Game-changer secret technology.

problem is lol, it’s not doable. Like, we lack the ISR for ‘long range’ anti ship strikes.

ok, let’s say we wanna blow the shit out of their ports, why are we using it as the primary anti shipping armament of Jinnah class, something doesn’t add up.

that’s kinda why I question this whole idea, like, you can’t do this both, I know he said surface ship based but I still have some hope that this is for submarines in the end, because, well, that’s the only sensible and logical option left at this point. We have exhausted ourselves doing mental gymnastics trying to justify the PN’s decision, however, every time we try, they gun it down with the statements from above, I really don’t know how this will work, in fact, I think it’s a terrible idea and needs to be canned for surface use, so that it can be adapted to underwater use and actually be threatening
A layman's question here who is just enjoying the exchange here and trying to develop an understanding of the content being discussed:

If we do not have the eyes in space (military satellites) keeping track of the enemy's surface fleet and giving guidance to a warhead that has been launched to target a moving vessel, why are we even working on an anti-ship ballistic missile i.e. P282? I understand that this confusion is shared by others as well? continued remote sensing I understand is vital for a moving target's acquisition and continued tracking till the warhead does its job.

Would china allow us to use its constellation of mil satellites in the event of a hot conflict?

Yes, we do have access to beidou, though, satellites aren’t exactly ideal because well, afaik they fly in a fixed path, thus you may have coverage gaps.

now that means we have to use other means to sense and track.

however, that’s one part of the problem, the other problem is, you can’t really hit fast moving targets, such as those frigates or destroyers, or even carriers, maybe it’s useful to take out ships undergoing replenishment or something, but I really don’t see any utlility for an ashbm, let alone one being deployed in the way thePN is planning.

my original hope for p282 was that it would be carried aboard a larger ship, so something in the 6000t+ range, alongside anti ship missiles, not replace them which is what the PN is wanting to do. In that case, I guess you could pull out a niche use and also have some sort of deterrence value, but god this is an awful solution.
 
. .
My idea: a fleet of underwater drones patrolling around a submarine in two groups
First group listen sounds around submarine. And send the information to second group.
Second group around them make a sound to achieve active noise cancellation, this way hide submarine from foes SOSUS / Sonars.
 
.
A layman's question here who is just enjoying the exchange here and trying to develop an understanding of the content being discussed:

If we do not have the eyes in space (military satellites) keeping track of the enemy's surface fleet and giving guidance to a warhead that has been launched to target a moving vessel, why are we even working on an anti-ship ballistic missile i.e. P282? I understand that this confusion is shared by others as well? continued remote sensing I understand is vital for a moving target's acquisition and continued tracking till the warhead does its job.

Would china allow us to use its constellation of mil satellites in the event of a hot conflict?
That's an excellent question and one of the main stumbling blocks in implementing an AShBM system.

Would China allow us such use? I really don't think so. Before we even discuss China's willingness, let's talk about the mechanics. This kind of integration needs to be quite intimate and seamless, and I doubt short of hosting DF21s on Pakistani soil, we are going to "link up" to the Chinese targeting system (if indeed there is one that works reliably). The satellites are basically acting as the AShBM's seeker (in theory). So you can imagine the kind of real-time link you would need.
 
.
My idea: a fleet of underwater drones patrolling around a submarine in two groups
First group listen sounds around submarine. And send the information to second group.
Second group around them make a sound to achieve active noise cancellation, this way hide submarine from foes SOSUS / Sonars.
Active cancellation is not fun and can get very dangerous very quickly, it’s great for headphones, for planes and ships, not so much, there’s many problems that lie with this.

how do you sense the sounds?
How do you sense which surface it’s bouncing off of?
How do you sense what other things in the environment it’s bouncing off of?
How do you time the return? Do you emit before it bounces off of you, do you do it after?
How do you prevent being lit up like a Christmas tree by a timing error or whatever.
 
.
My idea: a fleet of underwater drones patrolling around a submarine in two groups
First group listen sounds around submarine. And send the information to second group.
Second group around them make a sound to achieve active noise cancellation, this way hide submarine from foes SOSUS / Sonars.
Hmm active noise cancellation. Well simpler versions of these do exist on some submarines. Not UUVs, but onboard active noise cancellation systems.

The biggest issue with active noise cancellation is that you might suppress noise in one location but might be amplifying it in another. I have worked on active noise cancellation in air but not under water so I don't know what the issues with that might be. I would assume it would be more difficult and require very powerful sonars with high dynamic range.

But certainly an interesting idea.
 
.
Hmm active noise cancellation. Well simpler versions of these do exist on some submarines. Not UUVs, but onboard active noise cancellation systems.

The biggest issue with active noise cancellation is that you might suppress noise in one location but might be amplifying it in another. I have worked on active noise cancellation in air but not under water so I don't know what the issues with that might be. I would assume it would be more difficult and require very powerful sonars with high dynamic range.

But certainly an interesting idea.

Curious about your work on anc In air, any way we could talk about that somewhere?
 
.
Active cancellation is not fun and can get very dangerous very quickly, it’s great for headphones, for planes and ships, not so much, there’s many problems that lie with this.

how do you sense the sounds?
How do you sense which surface it’s bouncing off of?
How do you sense what other things in the environment it’s bouncing off of?
How do you time the return? Do you emit before it bounces off of you, do you do it after?
How do you prevent being lit up like a Christmas tree by a timing error or whatever.

I think Active Noise Cancellation in a headphone is easy because sound goes in only one direction.

In real world sound goes in all directions. It's due to that you need a fleet of underwater drones around the thing that make the sound, and you cancel the sound before any bounce.

Maybe it's impossible to silent all the sound, but it could help make a little less noise in some scenarios.
 
.
Curious about your work on anc In air, any way we could talk about that somewhere?
Sure but let me clarify. By air I just meant not in water. We've applied adaptive control methods for active noise cancellation in lab environments. Nothing fancy application wise.
 
.
I think Active Noise Cancellation in a headphone is easy because sound goes in only one direction.

In real world sound goes in all directions. It's due to that you need a fleet of underwater drones around the thing that make the sound, and you cancel the sound before any bounce.

Maybe it's impossible to silent all the sound, but it could help make a little less noise in some scenarios.
It’s just too complex and risky for it to be worth it, it’s sensible in a controlled environment like jamd mentioned, however, once you’re outside, there’s so many factors out of your control it’ll become a liability rather than help, better off focusing on other means of noise reduction.
Sure but let me clarify. By air I just meant not in water. We've applied adaptive control methods for active noise cancellation in lab environments. Nothing fancy application wise.
Wrt adaptation, what were you looking at using it for? Did you have a particular goal design wise / some sort of expectations?
 
.
@JamD slipped out of my head, but there’s no way they’re putting 8 long range ashbm on Jinnah, like, it’s legit too small unless we go for cm400akg type stuff like we discussed but the PN rubbished that
 
.
NOTE: Following post is completely based on ASSUMPTION formed after reading about number of possible systems, which could be used as base for Ship Based AShM and Land Attack Missile

we lack the ISR for ‘long range’ anti ship strikes.
In my Opinion the term "Long range" in Previous Naval Chief Speech was referring to something greater than 280 KM but less than 999 KM or in more simpler way we could assume something in +450 KM range.

Closest analogy of P-282 as an Anti-Ship Missile could be SM-6 IB missile which with larger rocket motor is capable to achieve hypersonic velocity. In AShM role it is equip not only with Active Radar Guidance but with GPS guidance

So a Missile which may be little heavier than SM-6 IB let say in category of +2,000 Kg with warhead of around 200-250 Kg and approximate length of 6-7 m with suitable diameter of let say less than or equivalent to 0.5 m should be capable enough to achieve + 450 KM.

Any such system might not be a pure ballistic missile system but could be similar to Quasi Ballistic CM-400AKG AShM
 
Last edited:
.
1629678335364.png


Four to six of these should be considered. Or Type 52 D
 
.
1629680178888.png


Fast and Agile missile boats like these can be also great for our Navy
 
.

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom