Pakistan navy post 2020 - Future Plans

[Tank131]

Take S-400 and HQ-9 for example. Many people think that the range of S-400 is much longer than HQ-9.

But according to the same Russian standard, the range of latest HQ-9 is basically the same as that of S-400.

And China never thinks that the range of latest HQ-9 should be claimed to be 400km.

Again my friend you are talking the weapons of Super Powers and slightly different utility than the SAMs that can be fit on the PN ships.

 

[Bilal Khan 777]

Everything is just based on the challenges you face.
USN has aircraft carrier strike groups, and what dos PN have?

There is always a tradeoff between challenges, opportunities, and resources. We are not compared to USN. I don't expect you to understand military history of doctrine theories, and posting pictures does not really contribute to education of people on a forum. BR

 

[niaz]

We need to define ‘TOT” or transfer of Technology. I understand from many posts in this forum over the years that most members of this forum consider TOT to mean the “cradle-to-grave” production model. That is, once you get TOT, you can make the complete item including the structure, engine/propulsion mechanism, electrical connections, communication & management systems, avionics, armament etc. This is a complete misconception. Even the local manufacture under license does not always include the capability of manufacturing of all the systems.

The development of all the value chains requires technical expertise plus a supplicated and advanced manufacturing base that goes beyond the capacity of most countries. Even a country like China has to rely on RD-93 engines from Russia for the JF-17. And China’s modern J-10 fighter uses the Russian built ‘Lyulka-Saturn 31FN engine.

We have been making Al Khalid Tank for decades, but still we need to import the engine & propulsion system from Ukraine. We assembled Augusta 90B submarine in Pakistan, can we make an ‘Air impendent propulsion system’? Even for the mid-life upgrades, we had to turn to Turkey.

TOT is just another term for the exchange of information, materials, or intellectual property rights between and among government, academic, or industry laboratories to facilitate further research and commercialization. Therefore to consider that by acquiring TOT, Pakistan would be able to independently manufacture a sophisticated weapon system is a fool's dream.

 

[MastanKhan]

We need to define ‘TOT” or transfer of Technology. I understand from many posts in this forum over the years that most members of this forum consider TOT to mean the “cradle-to-grave” production model. That is, once you get TOT, you can make the complete item including the structure, engine/propulsion mechanism, electrical connections, communication & management systems, avionics, armament etc. This is a complete misconception. Even the local manufacture under license does not always include the capability of manufacturing of all the systems.

The development of all the value chains requires technical expertise plus a supplicated and advanced manufacturing base that goes beyond the capacity of most countries. Even a country like China has to rely on RD-93 engines from Russia for the JF-17. And China’s modern J-10 fighter uses the Russian built ‘Lyulka-Saturn 31FN engine.

We have been making Al Khalid Tank for decades, but still we need to import the engine & propulsion system from Ukraine. We assembled Augusta 90B submarine in Pakistan, can we make an ‘Air impendent propulsion system’? Even for the mid-life upgrades, we had to turn to Turkey.

TOT is just another term for the exchange of information, materials, or intellectual property rights between and among government, academic, or industry laboratories to facilitate further research and commercialization. Therefore to consider that by acquiring TOT, Pakistan would be able to independently manufacture a sophisticated weapon system is a fool's dream.

Hi,

Thank you for your post---. TOT is not a magic wand that once it is given---you become capable and able to utilize it.

Here is what TOT does from an engineering perspective in a way---.

Think that the original manufacturer is on a Level A capability of a machine you are getting with TOT---.

You basic engineering level is somewhere between C & D---. Once you go thru the building process of the machine in question---depening on your original capabilities and abilities would take you to a C+---C++ levels---.

As R AVM Latif mentioned that when the Paf engineers went to china for JF17---their mental levels & capabilities were on the level of a complete overhaul of the aircraft---and not design and manufacture---. Seeing that problem---they were sent to chinese universities to be taught the design engineering processes and training---.

In a similar manner---the TOT has given the engineer a vision of what is or what maybe on the other side of the VEIL but not the ability to just build it outright---.

Some engineers were given all the blue prints and all the help---but still could not come up with the required output results even after decades of hard work.

To the young and old pakistanis---TOT is like a pill of Viagra---it will give you a temporary feel of euphoria and momentarily make you feel like someone that you are not---so please don't be carried away---.

 

[Pakistani Fighter]

Take S-400 and HQ-9 for example. Many people think that the range of S-400 is much longer than HQ-9.

But according to the same Russian standard, the range of latest HQ-9 is basically the same as that of S-400.

And China never thinks that the range of latest HQ-9 should be claimed to be 400km.

What is the latest version of HQ 9?

 

[LKJ86]

posting pictures does not really contribute to education of people on a forum.

I just show you the real world, not the one in your imagination.

 

[Bilal Khan 777]

I just show you the real world, not the one in your imagination.

with over 60 years of military experience, you call my statements imagination?

 

[MastanKhan]

with over 60 years of military experience, you call my statements imagination? .

Hi,

I cant stop laughing---. A general stays a general---retired or not---hehehehehe---. Love it---.

You are right, range is not everything. But when fighting off a missile with the speed and dimension/mass of Brahmos, speed range and kinetic force are 90%. The other issue is number of interceptors. See if a missile has a range of engagement at say 70km the ship can the engage the target at a further distance and put more missiles between the attacking missile and itself... ie it has more chances to take it out. Add to that that if that longer range missile is quad packed you have 4x the weapons at your disposal to bring it Brahmos down. Lets say all you have is 8 FM-90/HQ-7A missiles. You have 8 shots to bring down brahmos at a range of 12km for supersonic weapons. If you cant bring it down or you run out of missiles because 2-3 brahmos were likely launched at you, you are left to rely on you CIWS. At a short gun range the debris from the missile is likely to significantly damage the ship given the speed it is going even if you can destroy the missile at all. So yeah, if given the option i would take the range and more importantly the numbers of something like CAMM-ER over even HQ-16B even if CAMM-er ends up with 45km range, the number of weapons that can be brought to bear is of the utmost importance. That is why 12 ASTER 15s were replaced by 48 Sea Ceptor (CAMM) on the Daring class destroyers.

Hi,

The debris from the missile is going to do more damage than the missile hit to the ship---.

The rocket fuel from the blown up missile would hit the ship in a massive splatter and nothing worst than rocket fuel on fire---. Bye Bye ship---.

 

[Zarvan]

I really hope we still can get a major change in Type 54 which we would get divide 32 VLS in two category. 16 for Air Defence and 16 for long Range Cruise Missiles

 

[Pakistani Fighter]

I really hope we still can get a major change in Type 54 which we would get divide 32 VLS in two category. 16 for Air Defence and 16 for long Range Cruise Missiles

How much is the max capacity of that ship?

 

[khanasifm]

I really hope we still can get a major change in Type 54 which we would get divide 32 VLS in two category. 16 for Air Defence and 16 for long Range Cruise Missiles

Currently it can carry Sams as well as Asroc but I am sure it’s possible or already an option

https://www.janes.com/images/assets/911/72911/Undersea_dragon_Chinese_ASW_capabilities_advance.pdf

 

[Armchair]

There is no enough space on F22 for 16 SSMs. However, putting so much AsM assets on platform is also wrong. This is suitable for Russian/Chinese Saturation doctrine, where two or four missiles are fired on each target in ripple fire to overwhelm the defenses. Our Navy follows the wester Precision doctrine, where one missile one target is the norm, or there is coordinated attack between various assets towards a unitary target to overwhelm its medium and terminal defenses.

In hind sight, I would recommend that Navy consider installing indigenous anti-ship cum land attack missiles on its platforms, giving us more flexibility at sea for regional interdiction, defence and dominance.

Dear Sir,

It is always a pleasure to read your posts and learn from them. I am just wondering if following the western doctrine is going to be effective for us. I understand we have a 100 year colonial legacy and our boys, specially those that end up in top posts, are still trained in Sandhurst and the US.

However, I would argue that our doctrine must be unique to us and our condition. If we look at the JF17, it is a weapon system outside contemporary Western doctrine. And that is precisely what makes it so much better, while the LCA is closer to western doctrine yet is a tiny white elephant.

If we follow this western doctrine of precision over "quantity has a quality all its own", the latter being the Soviet doctrine, we shortsell our future.
This is because with this doctrine we will forever end up with a small fleet with high tech equipment, which means this will be largely imported.
And guess where it will be imported from?
The West. The same place those undercover atheist Sandhurst grads with sudden Swiss balances got their doctrine from.

The second issue I have is that ideology is getting in the way of clear thinking. A bunch of PN ships with a barely average air defense, surface attack and anti sub weaponry will not be able to block An IN blockade.
This seems to be the white elephant in the room. We don't have a fleet of container ships and tankers and no commercial vessel would take this risk. Even if we did have those, they would be easy pickings for the IN.

Our best bet always was to think asymmetrically and find ways to make the INs life miserable and impose a penalty and a counter blockade.

In contemporary times this can best be done in a number of ways, one which we discussed before (and you broadly agreed with this idea) is to use UUVs. Launched from our ports, the UUVs would be cheap one way kamikazi subs that will go to designated Indian ports and cause mahem.
It wouldn't matter if the enemy sank a few.
Another idea would be to invest in strike aircraft armed with AShMs. Ones with greater legs than the jf17s.
And there are so many more options.
Yet a lot of these options may not fit the doctrine we have yet they may be effective ideas.
Look how you yourself showed interest in the idea we discussed of a small submarine.
I wanted one which would be indigenous and be able to launch the UUVs discussed above. You wanted a more sophisticated SWAT from Italy.
The PN agreed with you, everything went forward and then of course the funds were not there.
Had we gone with what I was proposing today every single Indian West coast port would be under threat from teaming UUVs that cost a dime a dozen.
Just a thought.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Dear Sir,

It is always a pleasure to read your posts and learn from them. I am just wondering if following the western doctrine is going to be effective for us. I understand we have a 100 year colonial legacy and our boys, specially those that end up in top posts, are still trained in Sandhurst and the US.

However, I would argue that our doctrine must be unique to us and our condition. If we look at the JF17, it is a weapon system outside contemporary Western doctrine. And that is precisely what makes it so much better, while the LCA is closer to western doctrine yet is a tiny white elephant.

If we follow this western doctrine of precision over "quantity has a quality all its own", the latter being the Soviet doctrine, we shortsell our future.
This is because with this doctrine we will forever end up with a small fleet with high tech equipment, which means this will be largely imported.
And guess where it will be imported from?
The West. The same place those undercover atheist Sandhurst grads with sudden Swiss balances got their doctrine from.

The second issue I have is that ideology is getting in the way of clear thinking. A bunch of PN ships with a barely average air defense, surface attack and anti sub weaponry will not be able to block An IN blockade.
This seems to be the white elephant in the room. We don't have a fleet of container ships and tankers and no commercial vessel would take this risk. Even if we did have those, they would be easy pickings for the IN.

Our best bet always was to think asymmetrically and find ways to make the INs life miserable and impose a penalty and a counter blockade.

In contemporary times this can best be done in a number of ways, one which we discussed before (and you broadly agreed with this idea) is to use UUVs. Launched from our ports, the UUVs would be cheap one way kamikazi subs that will go to designated Indian ports and cause mahem.
It wouldn't matter if the enemy sank a few.
Another idea would be to invest in strike aircraft armed with AShMs. Ones with greater legs than the jf17s.
And there are so many more options.
Yet a lot of these options may not fit the doctrine we have yet they may be effective ideas.
Look how you yourself showed interest in the idea we discussed of a small submarine.
I wanted one which would be indigenous and be able to launch the UUVs discussed above. You wanted a more sophisticated SWAT from Italy.
The PN agreed with you, everything went forward and then of course the funds were not there.
Had we gone with what I was proposing today every single Indian West coast port would be under threat from teaming UUVs that cost a dime a dozen.
Just a thought.

One other idea worth considering is working with Turkey to develop a trimmed-down version of the FAC-55. Basically, retain the speed and AShM load (switch to supersonic-cruising AShM), but remove the electronics, radar, etc and have them operate passively using off-board sensors (e.g., AEW&C, other ships, etc). Likewise, develop an ASW variant armed with torpedoes.

 

[Tank131]

Why not use something very basic that is already utilized by PN and that is underwater platforms that the PN used to test Babur 3. Construct a few a various spots in EEZ designed to be controlled from land, ship, and/or air and equipped with Missiles and torpedos. Littered around the EEZ they will make a dangerous web when linked to surface, air and sub assets in the A2/AD setting

 

[IblinI]

I think the point was in the context of small ships (less than 2,000 ton displacement, shorter than 90 m in length). So, such ships -- e.g., fast attack crafts, corvettes, etc -- should have a specialized role, not be overloaded with too many subsystems.

Bro, this is exactly what our navy is doing right now, just take a look at Type 056, Type 054A as an example, even some Chinese military fans complained about the lack of fire power on the Type 056 and Type 054A when they compared them with Russian convertte.
I can't say the same for Russian though as they are currently only building converrte and frigate so armed them to the teeth seems to be the only option.