Pakistan Navy's Submarine Plans: S-20 vs Type 214

[Penguin]

I will not go into details. But keep in mind, Pakistan's Shaheen & Ghauri missiles were tested in the Middle East, so don't underestimate Pakistan's MIRV or SLBM capability.

I hope you can read between the lines.

Yes, but there is a big, big difference between a landbased launch and submerged launch.... the latter I believe Pakistan has not tested yet.

Ghauri I: at least 100km, 15.8 tons total, 15.9m x 1.35m, <=12ookg RV, single warhead, liquid fueled.
Ghauri II: 1500-1800km, 17.8 tons total,18.m x 1.5m, 1200kg RV, single warhead, liquid fueled.
Shaheen I: 750km, 9,5 tons total, 12m x 1m, <=1000kg RV, single warhead, liquid fueled.
Shaheen IA: 950-1500km, 10 tons total, 12m x 1m, 1000kg RV, single warhead, liquid fueled.
Shaheen II: 2000km, 25 tons total, 17.5m x 1.4m, 1050kg RV,single warhead, liquid fueled.
Shaheen III: 2750km, at least as large as Ghauri II, single warhead, solid fueled. Potential for Multiple Reentry Vehicles

Chinese SLBMs:
JL-1 (DF-21): 1770km, 14.7 tons total, 10.7m x 1.4m, 600kg RV, single warhead, solid fueled
JL-1A (DF-21): 2500km, 14.7 tons total, 10.7m x 1.4m, 600kg RV, single warhead, solid fueled
JL-2 (DF-31): 7400-8000km, 42 tons total, 13m x 2.25m, 1 single RV or 3-4 MRV/MIRV, solid-fueled.

Pakistan does not have a JL-2/Df-31 equivalent missile. A liquid fueled missile would be out of the question. Ghauri I and II as well as Shaheen I and III would likely be too long for a submarine application. This leaves Shaheen I and IA as potential baseline. Note that these are single RV and warhead vehicles. This couple to a 2 silo Type 032 would give very limited firepower, less then or at best equivalent to a 1950s era Soviet Golf class.

USN/UK
Polaris: 4600km, 35.7 tons total, 9.9m x 1.4m, MRV (3 warheads), solid fueled
Poseidon: 4600-5900km, 29.2 tons total, 10.4m x 1.9m, MRV (10-14 warheads), solid fueled
Trident I: 7,400km, 33.1 tons total, 10.2m x 1.8m, MIRV (8 warheads), solid fueled
Trident II: 12,000km, 59 tons, 13.6m x 2.1m, MIRV (8-12 warheads), solid fueled

France
M1: 3,000km, 20 tons total, 10.7m x 1.5m, single warhead, solid fueled
M2: 3,200km, 19.5 tons total, 10.7m x 1.5m, single warhead, solid fueled
M20: 3000km, 20 tons total, 10.4m x 1.5m, single warhead, solid fueled
M4: 5000km, 36 tons total, 11.5m x 1.9m, MIRV (6 warheads), solid fueled
M45: 6000km, 35 tons total, 11.1m x 1.9m, MIRV (6 warheads), solid fueled
M51: 8,000 - 10,000km, 52 tons total, 12m x 2,3m, MIRV (6-10 warheads), soilid fueled

India
K-15: 750-1900km (depending warhead weight), 6-7 tons total, 10m x 0.7m, single warhead, solid fueled
K4 mk1: 3,500km, 20 tons total, 10m x ?, 2.2 tons RV, single warhead solid fueled
K4 mk2: 5,000-8,000km , 17 ton total, 12m x 1.3m, 1 ton RV, single warhead, solid fueled
K5: 6,000-10,000km, [?], [?], 1-3 ton RV, single warhead, solid fueled

 

[Penguin]

Huh what? When did that happen??? But then again, I've heard rumors that the h bomb and sub launched ballistic missile tests in n korea were actually Pakistani tests. But who knows...

Don't rumor here, please provide sources.

NO they were not. Samjhdar koe ishara kaafi

Yeah, take a hint.

 

[Hurshid Celebi]

it'd be better to make your homework or ask someone who knows the stuff, to not to mislead the people.

@Penguin

Could you please assist , truth or wishful thinking of someone new here ? Thank you.

-------

@Corsair255

It would be nice if you could please inform me and other interested members about "details" of a Turkish project without any material packages,

which is nowhere mentioned. Thank you

I made my homework. Please answer me and don't use "suspicious" accounts created 3 days ago, for attacking cause some unknown reasons .

https://www.eda.europa.eu/docs/default-source/documents/annex-b-rr.pdf

https://www.dzkk.tsk.tr/icerik.php?dil=1&icerik_id=75


I wrote much before about that problems with Germany, an other member mentioned it too

https://defence.pk/threads/germany-ready-to-help-ksa-realize-vision-2030.460195/

 

[Penguin]

"It is not surprising to see the large Turkish industrial participation in the Type 214 project as this project is regarded as preparation phase for the Milli Denizaltı (Milden). Milli Denizaltı means National Submarine in Turkish."
https://turkishnavy.net/2015/02/01/...he-delays-in-reis-class-construction-project/

This implies two distinct (if dovetailed) projects


"Turkey launched the construction of six “new type” submarines under German license with initial deliveries scheduled for 2020.

The next-generation submarines would be locally designed, developed and constructed. Procurement officials have said the next order for the new-generation submarines would be an initial batch of six."
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/turkish-havelsan-develops-submarine-systems

This too.

Preliminary studies for MilDen (National Submarine) are being carried out at Research Centre Command (ArMerKom) of the Turkish Navy.

 

[Thorough Pro]

Then leave it.

I...don't get it

Shaheens are solid fueled

Yes, but there is a big, big difference between a landbased launch and submerged launch.... the latter I believe Pakistan has not tested yet.

Ghauri I: at least 100km, 15.8 tons total, 15.9m x 1.35m, <=12ookg RV, single warhead, liquid fueled.
Ghauri II: 1500-1800km, 17.8 tons total,18.m x 1.5m, 1200kg RV, single warhead, liquid fueled.
Shaheen I: 750km, 9,5 tons total, 12m x 1m, <=1000kg RV, single warhead, liquid fueled.
Shaheen IA: 950-1500km, 10 tons total, 12m x 1m, 1000kg RV, single warhead, liquid fueled.
Shaheen II: 2000km, 25 tons total, 17.5m x 1.4m, 1050kg RV,single warhead, liquid fueled.
Shaheen III: 2750km, at least as large as Ghauri II, single warhead, solid fueled. Potential for Multiple Reentry Vehicles

Chinese SLBMs:
JL-1 (DF-21): 1770km, 14.7 tons total, 10.7m x 1.4m, 600kg RV, single warhead, solid fueled
JL-1A (DF-21): 2500km, 14.7 tons total, 10.7m x 1.4m, 600kg RV, single warhead, solid fueled
JL-2 (DF-31): 7400-8000km, 42 tons total, 13m x 2.25m, 1 single RV or 3-4 MRV/MIRV, solid-fueled.

Pakistan does not have a JL-2/Df-31 equivalent missile. A liquid fueled missile would be out of the question. Ghauri I and II as well as Shaheen I and III would likely be too long for a submarine application. This leaves Shaheen I and IA as potential baseline. Note that these are single RV and warhead vehicles. This couple to a 2 silo Type 032 would give very limited firepower, less then or at best equivalent to a 1950s era Soviet Golf class.

USN/UK
Polaris: 4600km, 35.7 tons total, 9.9m x 1.4m, MRV (3 warheads), solid fueled
Poseidon: 4600-5900km, 29.2 tons total, 10.4m x 1.9m, MRV (10-14 warheads), solid fueled
Trident I: 7,400km, 33.1 tons total, 10.2m x 1.8m, MIRV (8 warheads), solid fueled
Trident II: 12,000km, 59 tons, 13.6m x 2.1m, MIRV (8-12 warheads), solid fueled

France
M1: 3,000km, 20 tons total, 10.7m x 1.5m, single warhead, solid fueled
M2: 3,200km, 19.5 tons total, 10.7m x 1.5m, single warhead, solid fueled
M20: 3000km, 20 tons total, 10.4m x 1.5m, single warhead, solid fueled
M4: 5000km, 36 tons total, 11.5m x 1.9m, MIRV (6 warheads), solid fueled
M45: 6000km, 35 tons total, 11.1m x 1.9m, MIRV (6 warheads), solid fueled
M51: 8,000 - 10,000km, 52 tons total, 12m x 2,3m, MIRV (6-10 warheads), soilid fueled

India
K-15: 750-1900km (depending warhead weight), 6-7 tons total, 10m x 0.7m, single warhead, solid fueled
K4 mk1: 3,500km, 20 tons total, 10m x ?, 2.2 tons RV, single warhead solid fueled
K4 mk2: 5,000-8,000km , 17 ton total, 12m x 1.3m, 1 ton RV, single warhead, solid fueled
K5: 6,000-10,000km, [?], [?], 1-3 ton RV, single warhead, solid fueled

 

[GumNaam]

Shaheens are solid fueled

Yeah? So what? We've known that for over a decade...I still don't get it!

 

[amardeep mishra]

@Khafee
Can you specifically point out what exactly did I say wrong?It will help us all.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Penguin you have some deep deep knowledge of the blue sea

 

[Penguin]

Yeah ok alright, so I'm not very samjhdar so CAN SOMEONE FREAKIN' EXPLAIN TA ME WHAT Y'ALL ARE TALKIN ABOUT HERE?!?!?!

I believe the hint is not to divulge details.

 

[Khafee]

Yes, but there is a big, big difference between a landbased launch and submerged launch.... the latter I believe Pakistan has not tested yet.


Pakistan does not have a JL-2/Df-31 equivalent missile. A liquid fueled missile would be out of the question. Ghauri I and II as well as Shaheen I and III would likely be too long for a submarine application. This leaves Shaheen I and IA as potential baseline. Note that these are single RV and warhead vehicles. This couple to a 2 silo Type 032 would give very limited firepower, less then or at best equivalent to a 1950s era Soviet Golf class.

Couple of things you might want to update yourself on:
1) Pakistan has achieved MIRV capability, which has also been confirmed by senior members and mods on this forum
2) Pakistan is in the process, or has already deployed an ABM system.


Just because you don't know about a certain Pakistani capability, it doesn't mean, it doesn't exist. Just as an example can you tell me how many versions of NASR are there, and what is the difference between them?

Lastly, Can you tell me, the number of tests, of various missiles, carried out, outside of Pakistan?

 

[Penguin]

Couple of things you might want to update yourself on:
1) Pakistan has achieved MIRV capability, which has also been confirmed by senior members and mods on this forum
2) Pakistan is in the process, or has already deployed an ABM system.


Just because you don't know about a certain Pakistani capability, it doesn't mean, it doesn't exist. Just as an example can you tell me how many versions of NASR are there, and what is the difference between them?

Lastly, Can you tell me, the number of tests, of various missiles, carried out, outside of Pakistan?

I don't know why you feel the need to tell me this. After all, I have indicated which missiles have singles RV's, Multiple RVs, Multiple Indepedent RVs etc, where such information was publically available. Which should tell you that I have no issue with claims in this area. I can't use information that is not in the public domain (i.e. unverifiable), obviously.
Second, I do not see at all what having or not having (deployed) an ABM system has to do with having or not having the capability to launch ballistic missiles from submarines. Please explain at your leisure.
Thirdly, what does (knowledge of) the number of versions of a short range landbased tactical ballistic missile (400 km max), a battlefield nuke, have to to with (knowledge of) having or not having the capability to launch ballistic missiles from submarines? It's a system comparable to US MLRS/ATACMS, China's A-100E. It has nothing to do with SLBMs though.
Forth an finaly, why would I have to know about number of tests, of various missiles, carried out, outside of Pakistan? (Nice suggestion, if not admission, that this is the case > what proof?)

Your problem appear to be that you seem think I doubt Pakistan's capability and you are upset by this. I don't know how you goat that idea. All I've done is point out that to the best of my - obviously limited - knowledge, Pakistan has not yet conducted submerged launch tests with ballistic missiles and I've looked at how known ballistic missiles of Pakistan compare to known submarine launched ballistic missiles. In view of claims that Pakistan will use Type 032 submarines, which would have 2 silo's for SLBM (so MIRVs are a must, but even then the number of targets that can be struck by a single boat is very limited).

I also don't see why Pakistan would want to keep succeses in the area of SLBM missile- and launch-capabilities a secret. Quite the contrary would be effective, making stories about SLBM second strike capability more credible.

If you know better, then please inform about submerged launch tests, and when you do, please specify which missile is being used. I don't rule out that Pakistan could purchase SLBMs from China should it not have developed or not choose to develop its own. If you don't want to talk about that, fine with me.

The type of defensive response you in my view give, suggest to me a possible chip-on-shoulder issue, or feeling of inferiority. Much like I often encounter in the Iranian section. And very often uncalled for. I am from a country that doesn't produce any ballistic missiles. I have nothing to (dis)prove in that respect. I hope you can approach this discussion in the same way.

Good evening.

Former defence secretary retired Lt Gen Naeem Khalid Lodhi has claimed that Pakistan possesses second strike capability against India.
...
The nuclear deterrence, he said, had been augmented by the second strike capability, efficient delivery systems and effective command and control system.
He did not explain any specifics about the second strike capability, which could be sea, air or land based.
It is still unclear if Pakistan was any closer to the submarine based ‘assured second strike capability’ for stable deterrence, particularly at time when India has already made the moves towards it.
Discussing Pakistan’s second strike capability, President SVI Dr Zafar Iqbal Cheema said that Pakistan had improved its second strike capability.
Pakistan’s second strike capability, Dr Cheema said, has been augmented by deployment of Hatf-VII/Baber nuclear capable cruise missile that is launchable from aircrafts and conventional submarines. It is further fortified by the deployment of Hatf-VIII/Ra’ad air launched cruise missile, he added.
Technically speaking, he maintained, the best mode of second strike capability is submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), which neither India nor Pakistan have deployed as yet.

http://www.dawn.com/news/1207494

 

[Khafee]

I don't know why you feel the need to tell me this. After all, I have indicated which missiles have singles RV's, Multiple RVs, Multiple Indepedent RVs etc, where such information was publically available. Which should tell you that I have no issue with claims in this area. I can't use information that is not in the public domain (i.e. unverifiable), obviously.
Second, I do not see at all what having or not having (deployed) an ABM system has to do with having or not having the capability to launch ballistic missiles from submarines. Please explain at your leisure.
Thirdly, what does (knowledge of) the number of versions of a short range landbased tactical ballistic missile (400 km max), a battlefield nuke, have to to with (knowledge of) having or not having the capability to launch ballistic missiles from submarines? It's a system comparable to US MLRS/ATACMS, China's A-100E. It has nothing to do with SLBMs though.
Forth an finaly, why would I have to know about number of tests, of various missiles, carried out, outside of Pakistan? (Nice suggestion, if not admission, that this is the case > what proof?)

Your problem appear to be that you seem think I doubt Pakistan's capability and you are upset by this. I don't know how you goat that idea. All I've done is point out that to the best of my - obviously limited - knowledge, Pakistan has not yet conducted submerged launch tests with ballistic missiles and I've looked at how known ballistic missiles of Pakistan compare to known submarine launched ballistic missiles. In view of claims that Pakistan will use Type 032 submarines, which would have 2 silo's for SLBM (so MIRVs are a must, but even then the number of targets that can be struck by a single boat is very limited).

I also don't see why Pakistan would want to keep succeses in the area of SLBM missile- and launch-capabilities a secret. Quite the contrary would be effective, making stories about SLBM second strike capability more credible.

If you know better, then please inform about submerged launch tests, and when you do, please specify which missile is being used. I don't rule out that Pakistan could purchase SLBMs from China should it not have developed or not choose to develop its own. If you don't want to talk about that, fine with me.

The type of defensive response you in my view give, suggest to me a possible chip-on-shoulder issue, or feeling of inferiority. Much like I often encounter in the Iranian section. And very often uncalled for. I am from a country that doesn't produce any ballistic missiles. I have nothing to (dis)prove in that respect. I hope you can approach this discussion in the same way.

Good evening.


http://www.dawn.com/news/1207494

1) I have quoted your original message below regarding Pakistani BM's, kindly show me where you have indicated which missile has MRV's or MIRV's, with the exception of Shaheen3?

2) My reference to ABM Capability & Tactical Nukes - Publicly there is hardly anything out there. Based on what is available publicly how can you draw conclusions of PN's SLBM capability? You can't. But then we have you going round in circles vehemently denying any such capability could exist. Like you say you are from a "non-BM country" then why the intense discomfort (to put it politely)?

3) Pakistani Tests outside Pakistan - Not my job to educate you. Pakistan, despite being a poor country has produced, a very robust, and efficient missile system. To think that there was zero help from anywhere, would be a lot more than just being naive.

4) I don't think you doubt anything, its just that your source is restricted to the English / Dutch / etc Media, but not the Urdu media. More importantly, as evident from your Ctrl C & Ctrl V actions, neither do you have any interaction with any service personnel, nor do you possess the knack to interact with them. Based upon half baked info, you draw conclusions. So your hypothesis, in the real world are nothing less than a joke.

Just on this forum, I personally found a lot of info (that does not exist in the public media), to be quite accurate. Pay close attention, you might actually learn something, instead of arrogantly screaming "source! source! source!"

5) Pakistan publicly announcing SLBM capability- Don't worry they will, at a time of their choosing, when & if they want to. And then each time you open your mouth, people will comment "somewhere a village is being deprived of it's idiot" Until then keep copying and pasting Wikipedia!

If one had a half a brain, then they would have taken notice of Services chiefs hinting at completing the nuclear triad plus the fact that PN is buying 8 Subs for US$5bn, ( US$625m per sub) says a lot! Publicly all I can say is "connect the dots." Might be a tougher task, than copying and pasting, but please do give it a try!

Have a good day!

Ghauri I: at least 100km, 15.8 tons total, 15.9m x 1.35m, <=12ookg RV, single warhead, liquid fueled.
Ghauri II: 1500-1800km, 17.8 tons total,18.m x 1.5m, 1200kg RV, single warhead, liquid fueled.
Shaheen I: 750km, 9,5 tons total, 12m x 1m, <=1000kg RV, single warhead, liquid fueled.
Shaheen IA: 950-1500km, 10 tons total, 12m x 1m, 1000kg RV, single warhead, liquid fueled.
Shaheen II: 2000km, 25 tons total, 17.5m x 1.4m, 1050kg RV,single warhead, liquid fueled.
Shaheen III: 2750km, at least as large as Ghauri II, single warhead, solid fueled. Potential for Multiple Reentry Vehicles

 

[war&peace]

@Khafee

Sir,
I see people using half facts to justify their biased analyses. Before May 28, 1998, many were in doubt around the globe that whether Pakistan had any nuclear capability and Pakistan tested within 15 days of Indian nuclear tests demonstrated how ready the 3rd world country was for it.

I'm sure our 2nd strike capability has been ensured and augmented without going into details as GoP is muted so why should I mumble. I will wait until the GoP decides to make it public at some suitable time as it with nukes and so far it has worked perfectly Alhamdulillah. The acquisition of 6+2 subs from China will further diversify and strengthen it.

 

[Penguin]

1) I have quoted your original message below regarding Pakistani BM's, kindly show me where you have indicated which missile has MRV's or MIRV's, with the exception of Shaheen3?

I've indicated what public sources indicate. Are you suggesting I deliberately changed things?
Do you have public sources that suggest otherwise?

2) My reference to ABM Capability & Tactical Nukes - Publicly there is hardly anything out there. Based on what is available publicly how can you draw conclusions of PN's SLBM capability? You can't. But then we have you going round in circles vehemently denying any such capability could exist. Like you say you are from a "non-BM country" then why the intense discomfort (to put it politely)?

ABM has NOTHING to do with submarine launch. I've not said ANYTHING about Pakistan's ABM capabilities. There is publicly available info on land launched ballistic missiles of Pakistan. No one is denying Pakistan's ability to produce balllistic missiles. However, there is nothing (that I've coime across) that suggest testing from submerged silo has taken place, or is scheduled. Based on reference to Type 032, there are certain size limitations, that preclude many existing land models from being used. The MIRV capability only matters because Type 32 has just 2 silos. WHAT DISCOMFORT (If India and Pakistan want to nuke the crap out of each other, not my problem (to the extent that I do live on the same planet, it is of course a problem if you guys **** it up for the rest of us earthlings))? This is in your mind only.

3) Pakistani Tests outside Pakistan - Not my job to educate you. Pakistan, despite being a poor country has produced, a very robust, and efficient missile system. To think that there was zero help from anywhere, would be a lot more than just being naive.

Ok, this basically mean you want to make claims but not back them up. That means you are not serious about discussing the topic.

4) I don't think you doubt anything, its just that your source is restricted to the English / Dutch / etc Media, but not the Urdu media. More importantly, as evident from your Ctrl C & Ctrl V actions, neither do you have any interaction with any service personnel, nor do you possess the knack to interact with them. Based upon half baked info, you draw conclusions. So your hypothesis, in the real world are nothing less than a joke.

You do think I doubt things, see above second item. You have no idea with whom I have or do not have interactions, nor do you know in what manner I interact with various professionals. Point is "I've heard, I've been told" is not a reliable, verifiable source. Particularly when you're using a medium that requires you to type. As for you attempts to insult, please keep it up and I will simply report you and move on to fruitfull discussion with people who have manners, an actual interest and willingness to discus.

Just on this forum, I personally found a lot of info (that does not exist in the public media), to be quite accurate. Pay close attention, you might actually learn something, instead of arrogantly screaming "source! source! source!"

There is nothing arrogant about asking for sources. It is standard practise in all the sciences, for example. The point here is that non-public info - whatever its quality (and I haven't claimed hearsay necessarily is poor quality) - is not verifiable: I can't go an read the same piece you have to see if I would come to the same conclusion or interpretation of data (and vice versa).

5) Pakistan publicly announcing SLBM capability- Don't worry they will, at a time of their choosing, when & if they want to. And then each time you open your mouth, people will comment "somewhere a village is being deprived of it's idiot" Until then keep copying and pasting Wikipedia!

This is precisely the type of (unneccessarily) defensive response I was talking about. Hey, if you want to be combattive and unsulting, be my guest. I'll report and move on.

If one had a half a brain, then they would have taken notice of Services chiefs hinting at completing the nuclear triad plus the fact that PN is buying 8 Subs for US$5bn, ( US$625m per sub) says a lot! Publicly all I can say is "connect the dots." Might be a tougher task, than copying and pasting, but please do give it a try!

Whatever. Nevermind that you haven't seen or been provided detail such as exacty what kind of sub with what qualities (including missile launch mechanisms).

Have a good day!

I always do, in spite of negativism I sometimes encounter here from those with an inferiority complex.

Enjoy!

 

[Hassan Guy]

Pak Navy will probably go with Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles.

Though I don't think they will be on the S-20 class.

Probably on a Nuclear Sub with VLS.