Pak Navy Should Reduce The # of Subs To Buy Type 054 Frigates

[Abingdonboy]

unstable is another way of saying not accepting Indian supremacy and bowing to its wishes

Well then I guess you have won, never mind the self-inclifted cost.


Let's just leave it there, I understand your position (it is one I have heard numerous times) and I am not going to argue with you on the matter for that would be futile on my part.

 

[HRK]

How about you contextualise this- which country prompted India to pursue all of the aforementioned policies? China. India didn't just wake up one day and start building all this technology for the sake of it.

Mr. Homi Bhabha one of the close associates of Nehru was involved in atomic research from mid 40s ... which eventually provided the base for Indian Atomic programme in early 50 just after the independence where was China at that time .... ??

Till early 60s whole of South Asia and world stage was resonating with the chants of HIND CHINI BHA BAHI where was the so called Chinese danger at that time ... ??

Let's just leave it at that, I don't feel like playing this game of "who is more guilty of X".

who rolled the dice first ... ??

The answer to all of Pakistan's problems= MORE NUKES!

It would be funny if it wasn't so predictable and terribly cliche.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Mr. Homi Bhabha one of the close associates of Nehru was involved in atomic research from mid 40s ... which eventually provided the base for Indian Atomic programme in early 50 just after the independence where was China at that time .... ??

Till early 60s whole of South Asia and world stage was resonating with the chants of HIND CHINI BHA BAHI where was the so called Chinese danger at that time ... ??



who rolled the dice first ... ??

 

[araz]

Your closest ally at one time says that if it is overwhelmed by conventional means it can also use nuclear weapons.
The whole point of nuclear weapons is to use them, and not to continuously aim to match every plane or every ship for a ship which is impossible for us. Our whole nuclear policy is to resist with conventional weapons but when a line(main battle line) breaks we will use our nuclear weapons. It is clearly understood in our doctrine and the Indian army also knows this.
This will prevent any major wars between the nations saving lives and keeping the region stable.
If it was not for these weapons at least one war would have been fought dragging both nations back 10 years at the least.So thank our nucs and hope they keep the peace because leaders otherwise can be so impulsive.

I agree. The nuclear deterrent is a good one to prevent both sides from adventurism.The fear is not of a small skirmish but if there is a little more extensive engagement the lack of trust between the two countries is such that no one is goiñg to wait for the other side to start. The other problem is that it will be no good Firing one missile and wait for the adversary to respond. The likely scenario is going to be a massive strike to annihilate the adversary and its defence infrastructure. By the time the dust settles there would not be much left of either country. This fear will hopefully keep both or the countries away from each other's throats. Believe me I write this wishing and praying that we never see that day. It will be a catastrophy of mammoth proportion with no winner.
Araz

 

[Spectre]

I agree. The nuclear deterrent is a good one to prevent both sides from adventurism.The fear is not of a small skirmish but if there is a little more e te sive engagement the lack of trust etween the two countries is such that no one is goiñg to wait for the other side to start. The other problem is that it will be no good Firing one missile ans wait for the adversary to rezpond. The likely scenario is going to be a massive strike to annihilate the qdversary and its defence infrastructure. By the time the dusf aettles there would not be much left of either country. This f3ar will hopefully keep both or th3 fountries away from each other's throats. Believe me I write this wishing and praying that we never see that day. It will be a catastrophy of mammoth proportion with no winner.
Araz

How does a ABM network fit into this?

Now, I know there is an argument that the tech is far from mature and very expensive and as always the other side can develop better missiles to bamboozle the ABM and other defensive measures.

Keeping this in mind, I don't see why countries like Russia would raise such a hue and cry over NATO's plans in Eastern Europe for Missile Defense Shield so there must be some genuine doubts that Missile defense can break the deterrent.

 

[HRK]

 

[Donatello]

The heavies are needed, It would be pointless to send the JF-17's with a counter squadron of Mig 29's or Flankers meeting them.

Yes, but i was being realistic with numbers. 60 is too damn high, navy already needs more funds for running expenses.....you do realize how much the 8 submarines and any frigates are gonna cost to run?

So that's why i said a squadron of lights plus a squadron of heavies.

 

[araz]

How does a ABM network fit into this?

Now, I know there is an argument that the tech is far from mature and very expensive and as always the other side can develop better missiles to bamboozle the ABM and other defensive measures.

Keeping this in mind, I don't see why countries like Russia would raise such a hue and cry over NATO's plans in Eastern Europe for Missile Defense Shield so there must be some genuine doubts that Missile defense can break the deterrent.

I am no expert in these matters and therefore my opinion is just my opinion. However I put in front of you 2 or 3 scenarios and hopefully you will see the futility of this whole argument
During the gulf war the Patriot batteries were only partially successful in intercepting all the Scuds targettiñg Saudi Arabia. We are talking about 100 + warheads on each side and possibly undeclared MIRV capability. Even if half of the Nuclear warheads exploded on either side can you imagine the extent of the damage. Secondly even if you managed to win the war what do you think the radiations let loose on your adversary is going to do to your own country. Thirdly the missiles intercepted in the atmosphere and exploded in midair will still wreak havoc through the radiation and possibly the EM effect which would fry up all the electronics of all the equipment in the area. So either case there are no winners whichever way you look at it. And yet we mention Nukes like they are in our pockets ready to be used whenever we want to.
Araz

 

[MastanKhan]

@MastanKhan
You are right that our navy should have invested in a potent frigate (not F22p) and that a fair balance in the number of frigates and submarines should have been mantained.

What I am sensing is that you are downplaying the role of submarines. Today's subs are not the subs of WW2, which had no ability to fight back if detected. Plus the damage which a submarine can inflict either preemptively or in some surprise attack can be significant.
Remember in 1971, PNS Hangoor had in it's range IN battle group on 2nd Dec.But it wasn't cleared to engage at that time.
Imagine what havoc Hangoor would have wreaked on IN battlegroup with a salvo of deadly acoustic homing torpedoes.
Another tid bit is that khukri and kirpan were dispatched because the transmission sent by Hangoor gave away it's position.

Hi,

I am not down playing the role of the subs---I am just trying to adjust the funds so that 2 major programs can run at one time---and then at a later date put back drawn out funds for the surface fleet back into the sub program 3 to 4 years later so that you can have all your subs.

 

[waz]

Yes, but i was being realistic with numbers. 60 is too damn high, navy already needs more funds for running expenses.....you do realize how much the 8 submarines and any frigates are gonna cost to run?

Of course, that's why I did say if the budget was there, which sadly it isn't.

I wonder if and when a squadron of heavy aircraft are attached to the navy would the cost be shared between the PAF and PN?

 

[niaz]

By the frigate do we refer to surface fighting ships in general or only the warships smaller than destroyer but larger than corvettes? I would assume that we imply any warship of 2,000 DWT or larger.

Submarine is essentially an ‘attack’ weapon system; deadly in war time but with very little useful activities during peace time. Therefore a modern navy does need warships that can perform important roles, especially during the peacetime which a submarine is not suited for.

For example, frigate or a destroyer can perform escort duties such as protection of merchant vessels from the Somali pirates and evacuating Pakistani nationals from foreign lands as happened recently in Yemen. Additionally, submarine has very little defence or offence capability against enemy’s air force and a credible navy would need a few surface vessels with potent air defence capability.

Frigates are very good at scouting and also in the anti-aircraft role which is beyond the capability of the sub-surface vessels. It is not that we should reduce number of subs; PN needs a potent strike arm. IMHO we should not only keep the submarine fleet, but also increase surface warship fleet.

Arguably, navy is the most expensive services arm to acquire and to maintain in fighting condition. Nevertheless 4 new frigate force is indeed too small to be effective. No doubt funding would be major concern therefore I am not proposing a 12 -14 frigate force. In my view even a brown water navy such as Pakistan fleet needs a fleet of 8 to 10 modern frigates or 4 -5 frigates plus 4 - 5 modern destroyers to be effective.

 

[araz]

Hi,

I am not down playing the role of the subs---I am just trying to adjust the funds so that 2 major programs can run at one time---and then at a later date put back drawn out funds for the surface fleet back into the sub program 3 to 4 years later so that you can have all your subs.

Hi.
Your assumption is quite astute. One wonders why the contract was negotiated this way. Even if one signs the contract now the last submarine is not going to be delivered till 6-8 yrs. Given that 4 such boats will be manufactured in Pakistan and going by Pakistani experience with the augustas one assumes that roughly we will get one boat every 18 months whereas the Chinese can easily deliver one boat every 6 months as they have the capacity to build 2 boats simultaneously. Given this we may not have received our first boat when the Chinese would have delivered 3 boats and we would be manufacturing our secons boat when the Chinese would have delivered all the 4 boats. At this junctjre PN will retire the augusta 70s. So all in all one is looking at 6 to 8 yrs before we have all the boats in service. The motive behind the contract is probably to do with capacity bu8lding and possibly enhancing the level of TOT and in house manufacturing sector. The Chinese might not have been happy to sell the boats WITH TOT without sufficient numbers. Similarly 0N m8ght be desperate forcthe capabilities which this boàt brings t9 them and possibly behind the scene help with advancing systems and weapons which it currently uses. So it is possible that PN chose to conduct its affairs in this manner.
As to ships one wonders what PN is looking at. We need to mount a credible defence and a ship with adequate staying power might be the right thing to go for. The F 22 in it's current configuration does not quite do the trick so does one go for type ò54 or wait for a more suitable product remains to be seen.ď

 

[MastanKhan]

By the frigate do we refer to surface fighting ships in general or only the warships smaller than destroyer but larger than corvettes? I would assume that we imply any warship of 2,000 DWT or larger.

Submarine is essentially an ‘attack’ weapon system; deadly in war time but with very little useful activities during peace time. Therefore a modern navy does need warships that can perform important roles, especially during the peacetime which a submarine is not suited for.

For example, frigate or a destroyer can perform escort duties such as protection of merchant vessels from the Somali pirates and evacuating Pakistani nationals from foreign lands as happened recently in Yemen. Additionally, submarine has very little defence or offence capability against enemy’s air force and a credible navy would need a few surface vessels with potent air defence capability.

Frigates are very good at scouting and also in the anti-aircraft role which is beyond the capability of the sub-surface vessels. It is not that we should reduce number of subs; PN needs a potent strike arm. IMHO we should not only keep the submarine fleet, but also increase surface warship fleet.

Arguably, navy is the most expensive services arm to acquire and to maintain in fighting condition. Nevertheless 4 new frigate force is indeed too small to be effective. No doubt funding would be major concern therefore I am not proposing a 12 -14 frigate force. In my view even a brown water navy such as Pakistan fleet needs a fleet of 8 to 10 modern frigates or 4 -5 frigates plus 4 - 5 modern destroyers to be effective.

Hi,

Thank you for your post---. Many a years ago----on this forum I wrote an article about the importance of submarines----how the naval warfare has changed and submarine is the way to go. A nation that would have a stronger submarine fleet would also have more control over the issues at hand.

But that does not reject the idea of having a strong surface fleet. Pakistan navy needs to project more visible force in its arena----the wt class for the frigates needs to be in the 5000---7500 tonnage. They may be procured on purchase payments or lease----.

The 5 billion that is spent on the submarines----you will never see it being used---you will never see its results---you will never see its immediate effects---and that is what is the most important part of this procurement is---to be prepared.

Who knows what our augusta 90's have been doing----no one in the general public knows that---nobody can talk about the glory of serving in that tubular grave or what they did---and the thing is that there is a chance that they may never be able to talk about any glorious moments in their lives while on duty. They are just lurking beneath the surface of the seas and oceans night in and night out for years.

So---to keep them secure and operating and doing their jobs---you need a strong surface fleet.

Pakistan navy needs to be prepared for Gwadar when this port gets into service---. The time is closing in fast and the navy needs to do a catch up game---.

And as you mentioned---you don't send a sub to give check out for pirates on the high seas or to give escort service-( not the escort service in the cities ) to merchant ships or to fastrak onto a situation that is going out of control in the high seas or island---or just to have a physical power presence on the surface----.

 

[tarrar]

I am pretty hopeful that with the passage of time Pakistan will acquire bigger navy ships like type 54. PN is very weak & lot of work needs to be done to strengthen PN.

 

[Gufi]

I am not down playing the role of the subs---I am just trying to adjust the funds so that 2 major programs can run at one time---and then at a later date put back drawn out funds for the surface fleet back into the sub program 3 to 4 years later so that you can have all your subs.

Sir we are already paying these funds in 4 instalments which will most probably span over the delivery of the submarines and maybe even after the submarines are delivered.

Sources in the finance ministry said that Pakistan would make down payments to China in four installments and the delivery of the submarines will be made in the coming years.

Defence cooperation: Pakistan to buy eight submarines from China - The Express Tribune