Why does our Navy fail so horribly?

[Developereo]

yes, its good advice, trust me

First may be the think tank needs to to tank the idea that a cbg would ever approach coastal defence range. Next you might also want to consider the capability of the aircrafts aboard these A/C carrier.

Also please understand the capability of the CBG defences provided by dedicated air defence corvettes and frigates couple with the destructive firepower of the destroyers. Next you would also need to undertand that combat zone which the CBG will be stationed in might be only accessible to your maritime strike aircraft and surface ships.

If PN does goes offensive it might have limited success but will be heavily outgunned , on the defensive role it will be sitting duck as in previous encounter, unless we somehow forget to read maps and sail right into the trajectory of your 100 missiles.

If you read back, the entire premise of the suggestion is to interdict access to a CBG within 300 miles of the shore. When it is beyond that range, then this discussion does not apply and the missiles are not relevant. Within that range, a phalanx of cruise missiles WILL overwhelm a CBG's defence systems, the only question is how many are needed to do that. Although we certainly appreciate the false bravado of the Indian fanbois.

In the future, please exercise reading skills before engaging in a discussion.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Would India do the same? Consider for a moment that US is using drones in Kashmir killing insurgents but those drones also kill innocent civilians and ofcourse they violate India airspace. Would India allow the US to do that at all???

Is any of that happenning now?
Has that happenned in the past when the zenith of US-Pak honeymoon was still on?

Then you can understand why it is so very "hypothetical" in nature to even consider. But you'll understand why Uncle does'nt dare do it.

While where its all happenning now; there is nothing "hypothetical" about it, its as real as daylight. So that is something for you to think about.

 

[MilSpec]

If you read back, the entire premise of the suggestion is to interdict access to a CBG within 300 miles of the shore. When it is beyond that range, then this discussion does not apply and the missiles are not relevant. Within that range, a phalanx of cruise missiles WILL overwhelm a CBG's defence systems, the only question is how many are needed to do that. Although we certainly appreciate the false bravado of the Indian fanbois.

In the future, please exercise reading skills before engaging in a discussion.

the assumption itself is weird, A cbg that set sail for you shores from 2000 miles, which can very well do its job from 500 miles, and unleash its aircrafts , why would it ever dream of coming withing enemy's coastal battery, now we are not trying to to do a normande here are we?

whats next, how many tanks you station on the shore if the cbg comes with 20 kms of your shore?

 

[LeGenD]

yes, its good advice, trust me

First may be the think tank needs to to tank the idea that a cbg would ever approach coastal defence range. Next you might also want to consider the capability of the aircrafts aboard these A/C carrier.

Also please understand the capability of the CBG defences provided by dedicated air defence corvettes and frigates couple with the destructive firepower of the destroyers. Next you would also need to undertand that combat zone which the CBG will be stationed in might be only accessible to your maritime strike aircraft and surface ships.

If PN does goes offensive it might have limited success but will be heavily outgunned , on the defensive role it will be sitting duck as in previous encounter, unless we somehow forget to read maps and sail right into the trajectory of your 100 missiles.

You are overlooking some key elements here.

If India plans to enforce blockade of Pakistani coastal regions, it will have to deploy assets close to Pakistani coastal regions to ensure blockade. Indian have tendency to do this during the course of major hostilities with Pakistan.

Now their are a few complications. Pakistani naval assets are not just based in Karachi any more but also in Qwadar region. This makes the task of enforcing blockade for India more complicated. Another factor is role of Babur Cruise Missiles and Pakistani submarines in coastal defence.

And PAF has a plan to assist PN in any naval confrontation against an opponent. Therefore, fighting PN is no longer a cake walk for India currently as it was during 1971.

 

[MilSpec]

You are overlooking some key elements here.

If India plans to enforce blockade of Pakistani coastal regions, it will have to deploy assets close to Pakistani coastal regions to ensure blockade. Indian have tendency to do this during the course of major hostilities with Pakistan.

Now their are a few complications. Pakistani naval assets are not just based in Karachi any more but also in Qwadar region. This makes the task of enforcing blockade for India more complicated. Another factor is role of Babur Cruise Missiles and Pakistani submarines in coastal defence.

And PAF has a plan to assist PN in any naval confrontation against an opponent. Therefore, fighting PN is no longer a cake walk for India currently as it was during 1971.

Sir,

Enforcing a Naval blockade will be a big issue for IN, I completely agree. If IN stations itself away from PAk coast, and hostilities start, international traffic will not enter the ocean, rest is Pakistani freighter, We do not need to approach coastal defense for a naval blockade. Any merchant ships suspected in the region can be dealt with from the same standoff distance. PN either fights individual destroyer/ frigate formations which attack PN with maritime a/c's or confront the CBG.

Rest assured there will be Indian Losses, maybe of severe magnitude, but what remains of Pakistani navy when it takes it's share.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

You are overlooking some key elements here.

If India plans to enforce blockade of Pakistani coastal regions, it will have to deploy assets close to Pakistani coastal regions to ensure blockade. Indian have tendency to do this during the course of major hostilities with Pakistan.

No, a blockade to be enforced at sea does not mean a physical encirclement by ships. And most of all, it certainly need not be close to the Pakistan coast. It will be done from the routes where the incoming shipping traffic originates/emanates from. In wartime, no merchant ships need (or will) sail from Pakistani ports to consider.
About the incoming traffic which will be critical to sustaining a conflict, look at a map of the region; and you will see where the SLOCs can be interdicted. Without necessity to approach an enemy coast. Now in the present time and age; other assets other than surface come into play majorly. Why do you think that the IN is investing big in other assets also, be it Subs, LRMR aircraft, Shore based fighters, MALE and HALE UAVs (with UCAVs also in the reckoning) and not the least Satellite based sensors. All of them will work in network.

Now their are a few complications. Pakistani naval assets are not just based in Karachi any more but also in Qwadar region. This makes the task of enforcing blockade for India more complicated. Another factor is role of Babur Cruise Missiles and Pakistani submarines in coastal defence.

I will certainly not claim that its easier. Actually IN has factored all the complications in while making their plans. Hence their multi-fold expansion and growth.

And PAF has a plan to assist PN in any naval confrontation against an opponent.

Undoubtedly there must be such a plan. Though that plan will have some limitations in the sense of: how many assets available and their other capabilities e.g. range, vulnerability to counter-attack etc.

Therefore, fighting PN is no longer a cake walk for India currently as it was during 1971.

War is never a "cake-walk". Unless an adversary chooses to lay down and roll-over.

 

[Aamir Hussain]

The bottom line is that a CBG is a big target. Five hundred miles or three hundred miles that target remains big.

The only problem in targeting a carrier group at 300 NM or 500 NM is the employment of different weapons platforms to target the INCBG.

The inner layer is the passive repsonse shore based cruise type missiles. Engagement on the far end of the targeting envalope will require the use of MSA/c and or subs equipped with cruise missiles.

As I have said before in some of my posts, the biggest headache for a CBG Commander is the one that got away. It just takes one tactical nuke equipped missile to finish off the game.

Yes there are MPA's on board, there is anti sub screen, but it is not sweeping 300 NM out from CBG.

The classic case to target a CBG would be to launch an air interdiction strike in coordination with sub launched cruise platforms. This stirke can be supplemented with standoff strike by PN MPA's at extreme ranges. Overwhelm the layered AAA defence with both missile and actual a/c strike and the cruise missile from the seaward side. PN will loose a/c or one or two subs in the process but the taking our of a carrier in the process would be a big psychological defeat for IN.

We are not debating a clinical strike here from PN's persepctive but a do or die mission - strange things happen when such a situation develops for a country. After all the Argentine pilots did not follow the SoP and ditched their a/c in the sea after engaging the enemy at ranges outside thier mission envalopes.

That is the reason that PN wants a Cruise missile carrying platform in its hands in the shape of the imporved Song/Qing.

 

[Mav3rick]

Is any of that happenning now?
Has that happenned in the past when the zenith of US-Pak honeymoon was still on?

Then you can understand why it is so very "hypothetical" in nature to even consider. But you'll understand why Uncle does'nt dare do it.

While where its all happenning now; there is nothing "hypothetical" about it, its as real as daylight. So that is something for you to think about.

My question was naturally a hypothetical one, that's the reason it started with 'Consider'. Take the question as it was meant to be taken and then answer it.

 

[Moorkh]

Would India do the same? Consider for a moment that US is using drones in Kashmir killing insurgents but those drones also kill innocent civilians and ofcourse they violate India airspace. Would India allow the US to do that at all???

honestly, i cant say what india would do in response to drone strikes.

the ideal solution would be to make sure the americans dont have any excuse to continue the strikes.
i assume the americans are not conducting the strikes to kill civilians. if insurgents exist on my land who are taking my country into confrontation with the sole super power on the planet, i would get rid of the insurgents asap.

but you probably were looking for another answer

 

[Moorkh]

You are overlooking some key elements here.

If India plans to enforce blockade of Pakistani coastal regions, it will have to deploy assets close to Pakistani coastal regions to ensure blockade. Indian have tendency to do this during the course of major hostilities with Pakistan.

true. combatants will have to get close to the pakistani coastline. however that does not imply that the combatant will be the CBG or even part of it. the blockade itself will be enforced by smaller faster craft who have to just shoo away the unarmed civilian ships. at the first sign of the PN making its presence known, the aircraft from the CBG will move in to intercept. the CBG ensures that the PN can not bring its weight to bear on the smaller combatants.

on a side note, somehow this strategy reminds me of 'whack a mole'

Now their are a few complications. Pakistani naval assets are not just based in Karachi any more but also in Qwadar region. This makes the task of enforcing blockade for India more complicated. Another factor is role of Babur Cruise Missiles and Pakistani submarines in coastal defence.

cant argue with these points. having multiple bases to operate from does give PN much more breathing space.

i wasnt aware babur was a anti ship missile. always thought it to be targeted against immobile land based targets. well, so much the better for PN

And PAF has a plan to assist PN in any naval confrontation against an opponent. Therefore, fighting PN is no longer a cake walk for India currently as it was during 1971.

PAF with its current inventory will be stretched thin. there are not too many aircraft in the PAF currently that can carry anti ship armament. they can surely help blunt the IN air wing, but then IN also has the IAF to help it.

it surely wont be easy for IN and it is entirely possible that PN might hold out long enough for international pressure to enforce a ceasefire.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

My question was naturally a hypothetical one, that's the reason it started with 'Consider'. Take the question as it was meant to be taken and then answer it.

I have already considered your question.
To scientifically analyse a hypothesis, one has to go through the hard factual evidence available.
For analysing this hypothesis, there happens to be hard factual evidence. In 1971, USA dispatched a nuclear fuelled, nuclear armed 7th fleet Of USS Enterprise, Long Beach, Bainbridge and asstd. subs to the Bay of Bengal and threatened to unleash it on India if India did not back down, cease hostilities and withdraw from the erstwhile East Pakistan.
What was India's response? India ignored the warning (like thumbed its nose at Uncle) and continued till the objective of making the adversary capitulate; was achieved.

That was the Stimulus and the Response thereto.

Now fast-forward to 2012: Drone attacks in Kashmir? First of all Uncle will not dare do it. In any case, Uncle knows and remembers what a poor, weak India did 4 decades ago. India now has a much bigger thumb (including 50 tonne thumbs) to brandish at Uncle now,

Now compare that with the evidence on the other side where hypothetical is not longer hypothetical. Thats why I said you have to do the thinking on this matter.

 

[Mav3rick]

honestly, i cant say what india would do in response to drone strikes.

the ideal solution would be to make sure the americans dont have any excuse to continue the strikes.
i assume the americans are not conducting the strikes to kill civilians. if insurgents exist on my land who are taking my country into confrontation with the sole super power on the planet, i would get rid of the insurgents asap.

but you probably were looking for another answer

Your answer is acceptable but not complete. If I am correct then, India would not allow any force to challenge her sovereignty, and may even resort to her defence if need be. And that's what I expect my country to do.

 

[Moorkh]

The bottom line is that a CBG is a big target. Five hundred miles or three hundred miles that target remains big.

The only problem in targeting a carrier group at 300 NM or 500 NM is the employment of different weapons platforms to target the INCBG.

The inner layer is the passive repsonse shore based cruise type missiles. Engagement on the far end of the targeting envalope will require the use of MSA/c and or subs equipped with cruise missiles.

As I have said before in some of my posts, the biggest headache for a CBG Commander is the one that got away. It just takes one tactical nuke equipped missile to finish off the game.

not fair. the moment nukes enter the picutre, all conventional capablity comparisons go out the window anyways

Yes there are MPA's on board, there is anti sub screen, but it is not sweeping 300 NM out from CBG.

The classic case to target a CBG would be to launch an air interdiction strike in coordination with sub launched cruise platforms. This stirke can be supplemented with standoff strike by PN MPA's at extreme ranges. Overwhelm the layered AAA defence with both missile and actual a/c strike and the cruise missile from the seaward side. PN will loose a/c or one or two subs in the process but the taking our of a carrier in the process would be a big psychological defeat for IN.

We are not debating a clinical strike here from PN's persepctive but a do or die mission - strange things happen when such a situation develops for a country. After all the Argentine pilots did not follow the SoP and ditched their a/c in the sea after engaging the enemy at ranges outside thier mission envalopes.

That is the reason that PN wants a Cruise missile carrying platform in its hands in the shape of the imporved Song/Qing.

so it turns into a cat and mouse game. if the cbg finds the subs before the subs find the cbg, the subs will be toast and if the subs find the cbg, the cbg will take losses. yes a lot o crazy things can happen, but you cant count on them happening or even succeeding lets stick to the known and predictable.

the cbg will maintain a screen at distances that the attacker has to approach to strike the CBG. if the attackers can overwhelm the screen or penetrate it to find the CBG, its game over for the CBG. however the screen is backed up by the CBG itself when attacked and the standoff distance of the CBG is greater than the standoff distance of the attackers in the current scenario.

the song/qing will be real pain in the backside for the CBG as will the agostas. i however am unwilling to grant the same threat value to the aircraft as they can be detected and intercepted much more easily than the silent subs.
a sub that slipped out silently before the hostilities started could very well wait in an unexpected direction forcing a much more extensive and possibly untenable anti submarine screen

 

[Gessler]

I dont know where the members here are taking this thread to,

BrahMos is undoubtedly the best and the most reliable ASM built to date. The chinese (or even americans) do not have any real equivalents to this missile operational in their inventories. And the funnier part is, a few members are dreaming of Pak Navy will Mach 5 hypersonic missiles!!!! Wow, where did they get this idea from?

I think I should clear up a few doubts here. BrahMos-II is by far the only hypersonic cruise missile designed for basic anti-ship role at speeds of Mach 7+. There are other hypersonic missiles like the LRCM under development in India with speeds of Mach 4 and range of 1000km approx. but nothing much is known of these missiles so I wont quote them any further here.

The BrahMos-2 will have speeds varrying between Mach 6 and 7, with a projected maximum speed reaching close to Mach 8. It'll have a range of 290km which puts it in the range class of the US AGM-84 Harpoon, but is way much faster. The kinetic energy of the missile is supposed to be thirty-six times the impact force of the Tomahawk of US, which by itself can be enough to cripple any warship.

Plus, there is an anti-aircraft carrier variant of the BrahMos-1 under development. A similar configuration can
also be found on the BrahMos-2 IMO.

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNHVj7m0RX5cIP2WfdsaAZkXMnDVjA

By far there is no chinese/american anti-ship hypersonic missile present. Hypersonic missiles currently under development by the US like the X-51 are basically ALCMs designed to attack land targets. But there is no ASM version coming in the forseeable future. The problem is the guidance system. To keep track of a fast-moving target while itself cruisings at hypersonic speeds and maneuvering accordingly in-flight to accurately hit the target with an astonishing CEP of less than 0.2-0.8m is pretty much hard. But these systems have gained pace for development in the India/Russia JV programe and are likely to be operational within 2017 in the inventory of the Indian Navy, yes sir

The USN, IMO would get these equivalents not before 2020 and there is no definitive timeline for when the chinese might get their hands of this hypersonic tech for coming up with their own, IMO it wont be before 2025 at the latest.

 

[Developereo]

I have already considered your question.
To scientifically analyse a hypothesis, one has to go through the hard factual evidence available.
For analysing this hypothesis, there happens to be hard factual evidence. In 1971, USA dispatched a nuclear fuelled, nuclear armed 7th fleet Of USS Enterprise, Long Beach, Bainbridge and asstd. subs to the Bay of Bengal and threatened to unleash it on India if India did not back down, cease hostilities and withdraw from the erstwhile East Pakistan.
What was India's response? India ignored the warning (like thumbed its nose at Uncle) and continued till the objective of making the adversary capitulate; was achieved.

Slight correction. The reason India 'ignored the warning' in 1971 is because the SU dispatched its own counterforce to checkmate the American CBG. I posted the Soviet commander's personal log in another thread.