Turkish navy much stronger with new missile

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

It's not going to Pakistan Navy's bigger ships. But can become an excellent choice for FACMs. It's lighter weight increases the scope of its operability.

Does it mean the big boys will be carrying the carrier killers?

 

[Tipu7]

Does it mean the big boys will be carrying the carrier killers?

Ofcourse.
Pakistan is already upgrading its Azmat class with Turkish STOP (25mm) gun. Imagine Atmaca replacing C-802 on all present and future missile boats of Pakistan.
For its size, Atmaca range is impressive. And combined with its data link and ECM/ECCM potential, I don't see why PN won't explore this option.

 

[Blacklight]

Ofcourse.
Pakistan is already upgrading its Azmat class with Turkish STOP (25mm) gun. Imagine Atmaca replacing C-802 on all present and future missile boats of Pakistan.
For its size, Atmaca range is impressive. And combined with its data link and ECM/ECCM potential, I don't see why PN won't explore this option.

PN already has something better than Atmaca.

 

[MMM-E]

PN already has something better than Atmaca.

which one ?

 

[Philip the Arab]

which one ?

I think the missile is called Candace.

 

[Last starfighter]

I am pretty sure it has embedded EW capability to jam the enemy radar signals and generate “phantom” images so the enemy countermeasures are wasted.....

The Turkish folks are now maestros in the electronic deceptions! The results are there in multiple fronts against the top of the line systems from both Russia and the NATO....

Do you think that is because turkey have an inside knowledge of the workings of NATO equipment and now with the Russian s-400 they are in an enviable position to manufacture their own weapons.
Just a quick question

 

[Tipu7]

PN already has something better than Atmaca.

In same cetagory? I doubt that. The ones we got are bigger, heavier but with more range and payload. Their size and weight put operational limitations. Atmaca will work well on small displacement vessels, including unmanned ones.

*I am mere speculating about Atmaca.

 

[MMM-E]

I think the missile is called Candace.

Pakistan Navy has only HARPOON and C-802 anti-ship Missiles .... also Submarine launched EXOCET
and ATMACA is superior to both HARPOON and C-802

there is no any video about HARBAH missile which hit a naval platform in anti-ship role ( only land attack capability .... nothinng else )

 

[MMM-E]

and superior range

250 km ATMACA
200 km EXOCET Block-III
140 km HARPOON Block-II
120 km C-802

 

[Blacklight]

In same cetagory? I doubt that.

Good. Thats the way it should be.

 

[SQ8]

Pakistan Navy has only HARPOON and C-802 anti-ship Missiles .... also Submarine launched EXOCET
and ATMACA is superior to both HARPOON and C-802

there is no any video about HARBAH missile which hit a naval platform in anti-ship role ( only land attack capability .... nothinng else )

Why does everything need a video?
The Harbah is anti-ship and its range outstrips that of the ATMACA by a couple dozen km and that is all that can be said. However, it has less sophisticated guidance and near non-existant ECCM compared to ATMACA.

So while the Harbah has longer range, the ATMACA has higher chances of hitting the target.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Why does everything need a video?
The Harbah is anti-ship and its range outstrips that of the ATMACA by a couple dozen km and that is all that can be said. However, it has less sophisticated guidance and near non-existant ECCM compared to ATMACA.

So while the Harbah has longer range, the ATMACA has higher chances of hitting the target.

I was going to say upgrading the Harbah with an Atamca-type electronics stack would be a good idea, but that might not be the intended role and function of the Harbah.

The older (and lower-cost) guidance element is a key benefit in that the PN needs the flexibility to deploy these for land-strikes against fixed targets. Raising the cost of these missiles would constrain numbers -- we need as many of these as possible for the intended role.

I wonder if the 'anti-ship' aspect of the Harbah was aimed more at preventing 1971-like issues -- i.e., to take out incoming FACs (which shouldn't have the same level of ECM or self-defensive aids as a frigate) -- than taking out Indian FFGs/DDGs.

So far, the ships deploying Harbah are FAC(M), but IIRC, the Type 054A/P and PN MILGEM seem geared towards SMASH? (@Akh1112 can you confirm?). I suspect the supersonic-cruising ASCM (i.e., Project SMASH) would have the more sophisticated seeker and ECCM stack since its role is to take out ships with better air defence, ECM, and other aids.

 

[SQ8]

I was going to say upgrading the Harbah with an Atamca-type electronics stack would be a good idea, but that might not be the intended role and function of the Harbah.

The older (and lower-cost) guidance element is a key benefit in that the PN needs the flexibility to deploy these for land-strikes against fixed targets. Raising the cost of these missiles would constrain numbers -- we need as many of these as possible for the intended role.

I wonder if the 'anti-ship' aspect of the Harbah was aimed more at preventing 1971-like issues -- i.e., to take out incoming FACs (which shouldn't have the same level of ECM or self-defensive aids as a frigate) -- than taking out Indian FFGs/DDGs.

So far, the ships deploying Harbah are FAC(M), but IIRC, the Type 054A/P and PN MILGEM seem geared towards SMASH? (@Akh1112 can you confirm?). I suspect the supersonic-cruising ASCM (i.e., Project SMASH) would have the more sophisticated seeker and ECCM stack since its role is to take out ships with better air defence, ECM, and other aids.

Harbah is still fairly capable as an anti-ship system and has terminal guidance(too loose a term but essentially comparable to early BGM-109Bs)

Smash apparently is a modified YJ-12 but too many speculations on that. There is a lot going on at PN which I suspect has to do with some great officers from well educated backgrounds. One wishes that would be the same for all forces.

 

[Abid123]

I was going to say upgrading the Harbah with an Atamca-type electronics stack would be a good idea, but that might not be the intended role and function of the Harbah.

The older (and lower-cost) guidance element is a key benefit in that the PN needs the flexibility to deploy these for land-strikes against fixed targets. Raising the cost of these missiles would constrain numbers -- we need as many of these as possible for the intended role.

I wonder if the 'anti-ship' aspect of the Harbah was aimed more at preventing 1971-like issues -- i.e., to take out incoming FACs (which shouldn't have the same level of ECM or self-defensive aids as a frigate) -- than taking out Indian FFGs/DDGs.

So far, the ships deploying Harbah are FAC(M), but IIRC, the Type 054A/P and PN MILGEM seem geared towards SMASH? (@Akh1112 can you confirm?). I suspect the supersonic-cruising ASCM (i.e., Project SMASH) would have the more sophisticated seeker and ECCM stack since its role is to take out ships with better air defence, ECM, and other aids.

The Pakistani navy is developing «hypersonic P282 ship-launched anti-ship/land-attack ballistic missile».

 

[Maarkhoor]

Harbah is overrated on this boards for obvious reasons

Lols....Both different missiles and best in their own class....ex Harbah is a nuclear missile.

Harbah is still fairly capable as an anti-ship system and has terminal guidance(too loose a term but essentially comparable to early BGM-109Bs)

Smash apparently is a modified YJ-12 but too many speculations on that. There is a lot going on at PN which I suspect has to do with some great officers from well educated backgrounds. One wishes that would be the same for all forces.

Harbah is a land attack nuclear tipped missile, I have no idea they are testing or developing of anti-ship role.