Navy gets only 10pc of defence budget

[DESERT FIGHTER]

a 3000 ton warship will have SAMs too. a 10000 ton warship is more capable than a 3000 ton warship. but it is more vulnerable to an air strike. there is a reason battleships is an extinct category in the modern naval fleet. If you want to rely upon shore based PAF combat aircraft they cannot cover any Pakistani warship more than 500-600 km away your shores

Than consider an aircraft carrier that's a giant target itself... Which itself will remain far from Pak coastline -- in order to protect itself ..


Although I don't think PM needs a "battleship"... It needs to increase its surface fleet with more frigs (much talked about improved F-22Ps) & a few destroyers ...

 

[wiseone2]

Than consider an aircraft carrier that's a giant target itself... Which itself will remain far from Pak coastline -- in order to protect itself ..


Although I don't think PM needs a "battleship"... It needs to increase its surface fleet with more frigs (much talked about improved F-22Ps) & a few destroyers ...

an aircraft carrier is a giant target itself. I do not expect Indian navy aircraft carrier to approach the Pakistani coastline. It can operate 800-1000 km away from Pakistani coast and still shut down your maritime traffic

The F-22Ps are 3000 ton warships. I am not sure what a 10000 ton warship will do for you that a 3000 ton warship does not

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

an aircraft carrier is a giant target itself. I do not expect Indian navy aircraft carrier to approach the Pakistani coastline. It can operate 800-1000 km away from Pakistani coast and still shut down your maritime traffic

Have you seen the map? Shutting down sea lanes isn't possible.. 1000 km away from Pak coast n shutting down sea lanes lanes... With 13+ subs,frigates,FACs n jet armed with CMs n ASCMs.. Sure bro.

The F-22Ps are 3000 ton warships. I am not sure what a 10000 ton warship will do for you that a 3000 ton warship does not

F22P weight around 3144 tons.. But lacks long range SAMs (uses short/med ranged SAMs) the issue can be ratified with a slighlty bigger variant packing LSAMs .. And by acquiring a few type 54s.

 

[wiseone2]

Have you seen the map? Shutting down sea lanes isn't possible.. 1000 km away from Pak coast n shutting down sea lanes lanes... With 13+ subs,frigates,FACs n jet armed with CMs n ASCMs.. Sure bro.




F22P weight around 3144 tons.. But lacks long range SAMs (uses short/med ranged SAMs) the issue can be ratified with a slighlty bigger variant packing LSAMs .. And by acquiring a few type 54s.

What does it mean to shut down the sea lane ? Boarding any ship bound for Pakistan and seizing it was 15-20 armed men. It makes no difference whether it is done 50 miles or 500 miles or 1000 miles away except the Pakistani military has fewer options at 1000 miles away.

There are plenty of 3000 ton warships in Western navies with excellent medium range SAMs. If they have the technology China could build a 4000 ton warship with long range SAMs.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

What does it mean to shut down the sea lane ? Boarding any ship bound for Pakistan and seizing it was 15-20 armed men. It makes no difference whether it is done 50 miles or 500 miles or 1000 miles away except the Pakistani military has fewer options at 1000 miles away.

Lol.. A sea blockade isn't like hijacking ships like Somali pirates! At 1000 km it wouldn't even be possible -- and even if somehow Indian navy can muster up that.. It would also be much more vulnerable itself... In short you aren't an expert on naval warfare neither am I..
But he scenario you are posting is very stupid.

There are plenty of 3000 ton warships in Western navies with excellent medium range SAMs. If they have the technology China could build a 4000 ton warship with long range SAMs.

I'm sure even the SAMs on the existing F22Ps can be replaced with long ranged HQ SAMs.

 

[wiseone2]

Lol.. A sea blockade isn't like hijacking ships like Somali pirates! At 1000 km it wouldn't even be possible -- and even if somehow Indian navy can muster up that.. It would also be much more vulnerable itself... In short you aren't an expert on naval warfare neither am I..
But he scenario you are posting is very stupid.

i never said that is the only way. it could be as simple as it. you do not like it because it is difficult for pakistani navy to counter it without sending warships to protect those merchant vessels.

 

[Manidabest]

I think we PN needs to rethink its strategy ... they must secure atleast 2 tf2000 and 4 milgem class frigates from our brotherly turkey..and work on two destroyers... 3 squadrons of j11s or 2 squadrons su35 ...we are working on subs soo this will be good enough for next 15yrs

 

[waz]

10%......I just cry when I read this. Karachi Pakistan's most populous city, financial heartland, business epicentre sits right on the coast.
I say for a few years the forces go for 30% each, the remaining 10% should be used for pressing needs. The Navy is in a horrible state and would be wiped out in a conventional war.

 

[rockstar08]

That time is not far when PN will grab those Fishing boats from the poor Fishermen from Kimari and put some rusty Ak's on them with some 90 era plate shaped radars and convert them into Frigates ..
someone give them some Chillar man , they should ask people of Karachi to raise funds for them.

 

[Khafee]

Any possibility of PN getting this OHP class ship, and upgrading it?

****************************************************************************************************************
The Royal Australian Navy (RAN) has decommissioned an FFG 7 Adelaide (Oliver Hazard Perry)-class guided-missile frigate.

HMAS Sydney (03) was retired at its namesake city on 7 November in a ceremony attended by senior RAN and government officials, including Australian minister for defence Senator Marise Payne.

" Sydney is being decommissioned to make way for the Hobart-class guided-missile destroyers, which will provide Australia with an improved warfighting capability," said the Department of Defence (DoD) in a statement to mark the vessel's retirement.

According to IHS Jane's Fighting Ships , Sydney was built by Todd Pacific Shipyard Corporation in Seattle, US, and was commissioned into the RAN in January 1983. The ship carried one 76 mm Oto Melara main gun, launchers for anti-surface and anti-air missiles, and six 324 mm torpedo tubes for submarine prosecution. Under Project SEA 1390, Sydney had also been part of an upgrade programme, including the installation of the Mk 41 vertical launching system (VLS) and the Evolved SeaSparrow Missile (ESSM).

The DoD noted in its statement that the ship deployed off Kuwait during the 1991 Gulf War - an operation for which it received a Meritorious Unit Citation - and conducted subsequent deployments to the Middle East as well deploying to East Timor in 1999.

Sydney is the third Adelaide-class ship to be retired in the past decade. Canberra was decommissioned on 12 November 2005, while Adelaide was retired on 19 January 2008. Three other ships - Darwin (04), Melbourne (05), and Newcastle (06) - remain in service. The vessels are homeported at Fleet Base East in Sydney. Melbourne is currently on operations in the Middle East.
Australia retires Adelaide-class frigate HMAS Sydney - IHS Jane's 360

10%......I just cry when I read this. Karachi Pakistan's most populous city, financial heartland, business epicentre sits right on the coast.
I say for a few years the forces go for 30% each, the remaining 10% should be used for pressing needs. The Navy is in a horrible state and would be wiped out in a conventional war.

I'm shocked to see a mod say this. Yes PN has severe budget issues, but in any war it can definitely hold it's own. This is not '71 or '99 for that matter. Today It's defensive capability are very impressive.

For nearly 3 decades UAE Naval officers trained at Pakistan Naval Academy, so did officers from other Qatar and Saudi, do you think they will turn a blind eye to their second home being attacked? Lets not be that negative.

 

[notorious_eagle]

i never said that is the only way. it could be as simple as it. you do not like it because it is difficult for pakistani navy to counter it without sending warships to protect those merchant vessels.

PN does not need to send out vessels to protect foreign flagged merchant ships. You're way overestimating your capabilities here. You do not have the military nor the diplomatic strength to stop and seize a Chinese, American, French, British or a Saudi Flagged MerchantVessel. Maybe India can get away with boarding merchants ships from Congo, Maldives or Fiji Islands but not those flagged of Major Powers. There is one thing that every Major Power agrees on, and that is the Freedom of Navigation.

 

[wiseone2]

PN does not need to send out vessels to protect foreign flagged merchant ships. You're way overestimating your capabilities here. You do not have the military nor the diplomatic strength to stop and seize a Chinese, American, French, British or a Saudi Flagged MerchantVessel. Maybe India can get away with boarding merchants ships from Congo, Maldives or Fiji Islands but not those flagged of Major Powers. There is one thing that every Major Power agrees on, and that is the Freedom of Navigation.

that is a polite way of saying Pakistani navy cannot stop the Indian navy from doing it.

if you are headed for Pakistan in times of war you are fair game. Plus Saudi Arabia, China, USA, France and Britain have no intention of taking military sides in India-Pakistan war. They never did in the past.

 

[Manidabest]

But now Chinese will .... the world is changing .... after Russia stood for bashar ... I think Chinese will stand up for Pakistan ... not because only they get VIP treatment in our country but because they will have huge investment & string of pearls strategy defines how the Chinese will help us ....

 

[notorious_eagle]

that is a polite way of saying Pakistani navy cannot stop the Indian navy from doing it.

Off course, out in the Open Seas PN does not has the firepower nor the experience to match the might of the IN. One has to accept the facts as they are. I have always said that within its borders and close to its borders, Pakistan Armed Forces are a very effecting fighting force. Within its own territorial waters, PN has a very potent Area Denial Capability but out in the Open Seas PN does not has the Aerial, Surface and Sub Surface Assets required to challenge the IN.

if you are headed for Pakistan in times of war you are fair game. Plus Saudi Arabia, China, USA, France and Britain have no intention of taking military sides in India-Pakistan war. They never did in the past.

No, that is not a fair game. You're indeed correct, Great Powers will not take sides and this is why they will continue trade and commerce as business as usual. A halt to trade with Pakistan will be akin to choosing sides and a snub to one of the oldest doctrines(Freedom of Navigation), the USN has effectively imposed this doctrine for the past century. You would be ill advised to think that the US will take sides with India just to snub one of its oldest doctrines. Boarding of any flagged vessel of these countries will be considered a hostile act by India, and i doubt it India has the will to do something like this. If the past is any indicator, i doubt it India will board a Chinese or American flagged Vessel.

 

[Defender@@]

that is a polite way of saying Pakistani navy cannot stop the Indian navy from doing it.

if you are headed for Pakistan in times of war you are fair game. Plus Saudi Arabia, China, USA, France and Britain have no intention of taking military sides in India-Pakistan war. They never did in the past.

Dear Friend, No merchant ship will go to a full blown war zone .. Be it Pakistan or India... In case of a full blown war merchant ships of other countries will halt the operations,, infact all the trade will halt except for necessities,,, Most important wartime necessity is Fuel which is coming from Gulf region,,, Pakistan has smartly build Gawadar port which has increase the capability of Pakistan to secure its most important (Oil Based) sea lanes in case of war...

Furthermore, India has air craft carrier since 1960s but never dare to get it out to fight Pakistan in any war,,, be it latest Kargil war,,, Aircraft carriers are effective for operations away from your borders and against enemy with weak air power,,, however, on contrary Air Craft carrier against Pakistan will be quite useless as India is sharing a large border with Pakistan,,, the best way to launch a surprise air attack is through land based air fields... India's aircraft carriers will always be on Pakistan's radars and a heavy successful attack on aircraft carrier will destroy complete naval morale of indian navy,,, thats the reason Pakistan has deployed JF17 for maritime role having C802 and CM400AKG ... Inidian Navy has more assets but Pakistan has played smartly .... Pakistan is selecting its assets intelligently,, low radar visibility due to small size will help JF17 to get closer and launch supersonic cm400 akg against aircraft which is very difficult to intercept like brahmoos ...

India has put too much eggs in a single basket,,, one successful attack against one asset and half of the assets of India are gone,,,, Just look at the recent move of USA when Russia began strikes in Yemen,, usa called back its aircraft carrier but not the land based aircrafts as they know in worst case scenario the most vulnerable asset of USA in the region will be air craft carrier however, it was very much effective against weak adversaries like Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan ...

So in a war situation India will be more pressurized to protect its aircraft carrier rather than use it as an agressive Platform,,, furthermore, it will also help us to track enemy movement ...