How should PN counter the IN Carrier Battle Group

[Dazzler]

You could have talked about amphibious tanks floating or MBT's snorkeling but then again, why not put ISI to task and get better results through sabotaging IN facilities and harbors.

With brilliant minds at work, my suggestions may not matter. I have faith in them, theyll bring us victory.

 

[SQ8]

PAF aircrafts and surface naval assets will get detected way before than PN submarines. I never implied PN subs are invulnerable to detection, getting detected as late as possible is better than being detected 100's of km's away as it gives less reaction time to change plan's, communicate and coordinate to counter PN subs.

PN subs should be able to get as close as possible to damage IN carrier or harass it to change direction and scoot away.


You could go on submerged tactics and think about midget subs and SSG (N) doing damage to IN carrier instead of Nasr.

Does Nasr follow GPS guidance for target location? if yes, then Carrier is a moving object, not stationary.


Sitting ducks for enemy CM's and other types of missiles.

why can't subs be used to do this job instead, can the launcher be installed in sub? subs have more chances of survival and can fire from a safe distance. You are thinking through a defensive mindset and im thinking through an offensive.



I would be very surprised if a squadron of the aircraft displayed in your avatar showed up armed with AGM-84 to assist PN fight the IN CBG menace.


You could have talked about amphibious tanks floating or MBT's snorkeling but then again, why not put ISI to task and get better results through sabotaging IN facilities and harbors.


Could you throw some light on deception techniques and tactics used in modern Naval warfare, which could play a part in tackling IN CBG?

Currently only two of our subs are worthy of such deep sea journeys and usually better at being left to harass the CVBG.

Surface assets are better used under air cover as Indian SSMs are far superior to our assets.

250km out we have land based systems capabilities that use third party designation and targeting like A2/AD systems.

My article on this is available.

 

[Signalian]

My article on this is available.

Link ?

 

[SQ8]

Link ?

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/pakistan-navy-the-phoenix-rises.454569/

 

[Surya 1]

PAF aircrafts and surface naval assets will get detected way before than PN submarines. I never implied PN subs are invulnerable to detection, getting detected as late as possible is better than being detected 100's of km's away as it gives less reaction time to change plan's, communicate and coordinate to counter PN subs.

PN subs should be able to get as close as possible to damage IN carrier or harass it to change direction and scoot away.

I agree with one thing. If PN has to counter India's aircraft carrier, submarines shall be the best thing among all available options.

 

[Khafee]

I agree with one thing. If PN has to counter India's aircraft carrier, submarines shall be the best thing among all available options.

In todays day and age, one ALWAYS needs to "think outside the box."

 

[guest9999]

Sitting ducks for enemy CM's and other types of missiles.

why can't subs be used to do this job instead, can the launcher be installed in sub? subs have more chances of survival and can fire from a safe distance. You are thinking through a defensive mindset and im thinking through an offensive.

The land-based launchers are meant for volleys of missiles, to saturate and overwhelm IN defenses. In other words, there should be too many to completely destroy. Furthermore, I also advocate building fixed submerged cartridges to launch SLCM from underneath the water. How will they target that?

Let's say for argument's sake IN will attack, they have variety of targets to choose from: ships, port, naval bases on coast, land-based missile launchers. Since their launchers for SSM are based on ships and air-launched, they are of limited quantity. They will likely concentrate their missiles on manned ships and bases to cause loss of life and destroy command & control. They will not focus on launchers scattered throughout the coast, reefs, and especially those submerged underwater. I advocate building these launchers for the purpose of distributing firepower - to have them not only confined to surface fleet or submarines, but elsewhere so the IN has a much larger missile threat to deal with. This will also give PN numerical advantage in terms of missiles. If IN fields 500 missiles on its naval & air platforms, PN can easily field 2000 missiles through combination of naval, air, and land-based platforms. The point is to no longer limit yourself from launching missiles from ships, aircraft, submarines. You can build launchers anywhere.

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.

It's good to know PN embarked on program to build FAC, but I'm concerned that they have not built anywhere near enough to cope with the IN CBG threat. Is there any chance that this program could accelerated in light of IN expansion?

I think it would be a very realistic and good idea to build even smaller FAC, in the form of speed boats, and equip them with dual or quad launchers. Not only are these cheaper and easier to build, they are much more difficult to hit due to smaller size, and they will also be faster than Azmat class. Furthermore, I don't think there is a need to build them as they can easily be procured COTS in the form of civilian speed boats. Launchers can be installed on them.

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.

Good to know, looks like another one of the points I've mentioned is being worked on. What do you think of the idea of equipping UUV with nuclear weapons, similar to the Russian Kanyon UUV equipped with a 100-200 megaton warhead?

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.

Are these fixed on land? If so, would PN resort to mass saturation attacks to overwhelm IN defenses.

Russian & Chinese A2/AD strategy is based heavily on overwhelming USN fleets with saturation attacks of AShM, and in case of China - also AShBM like DF-21 (which I also believe will be a very good idea for Pakistan to copy). USN has definitely been threatened by these factors, that's why they are increasing the operating range of their CBG by introducing refueling aircraft. They are also changing their war-fighting doctrine to attack source of A2/AD. I don't see any other way PN can fight IN, except through this strategy - A2/AD with overwhelming quantity of missiles for saturation.

 

[Surya 1]

In todays day and age, one ALWAYS needs to "think outside the box."

Its ok but you can not think of something which you don't have. You can do permutation and combinations out of which you possess.

 

[Khafee]

Its ok but you can not think of something which you don't have. You can do permutation and combinations out of which you possess.

You are baiting me, no use.

 

[Surya 1]

You are baiting me, no use.

Namaste!!!

 

[Humble Analyst]

In todays day and age, one ALWAYS needs to "think outside the box."

Agree and subs need protection from Posieden

 

[BRAVO_]

why not use the small size drones without radar signals for such purpose???? say tiny drones crying explosive ???? if thousand of them attack simultaneously they can do the sufficient damage remember on board guns are not designed for such purpose

 

[Signalian]

@Rashid Mahmood
The following reply is from @Armchair who is having issues accessing PDF currently. I have no input in this.
_________________________________________________________________________

I think the best way to deal with this is by creating a swarm of drones that are designed not for Recon and long endurance, but for strike. They don't have to be well built or have long MTBF, with engines that have relatively short lives. This is because they won't be recon drones and since they are robots, they don't need to practice, so can be stored until war comes about.

A swarm of 30-40 drones costing 1-2 million each, carrying two C-802s or CM-400AKG each, while being provided top cover by 8-12 JF-17s would be too much for an Indian CBG to handle.

This is because the battle will take place about 300-350 km from the CBG, meaning CBG ships won't be able to support IN MiG-29s (any closer and the CBG is already dead, so IN would be forced to intercept at such ranges).

IN would be able to max scramble 12 MiG-29s, and even if we imagine, say 8 Su-30 MKIs come into the mix, they would be hard pressed dealing with 12 JF-17s shooting BVRs at them, allowing most of the UCAVs to get within range of the CBG and cause havoc.

A single CM-400-AKG could cause a mission kill for the CBG as the speed and flight profile makes them impossible to intercept. And even with C-802s, that many AShMs would be near impossible to intercept.

Such a drone would also help Messiach with her plan to begin production of jet engines in Pak, as these would not need to be very high tech and have high MTBF.

That's just my 0.02 on the matter. : )
_________________________________________________________________________

 

[Hayreddin]

Time to showcae Df 26 carrier ballistic missile in pakistani color to prevent IN adventure or use it incase of any IN misadvdnture to burn indian carrier a$$ ...

 

[TsAr]

Thats what I said, get an Air Launched one you have a Nasr triad.

@HRK see, i got one,

What an Idea sir Jee