Does Pakistan have Missile Subs?

[gf0012-aust]

stealth is foremost important and i can see why you would imply acoustics as a primary lethality Multiplier. But I see other aspects of the Subs as there sensor system and the integration of the Tactical Information systems and the Tactical Data link such as our Link 16 as a primary tool in War fighting. You need to have the information, the relevant information the right kind the right kind of resources to analyse evaluate and ready to use in real time. While sharing it simultaneously to effectively conduct warfare. So you see Technology is Vital and I believe is one of the most important aspects of the any warfare doctrine. Welcome to the information Age.

Link16 is not a 24/7 option for a sub - if at all. All the sensor systems and multipliers are actually considered as a unit - not in isolation. The situational awareness and the warfighting capability of a sub is an amorphous mass. Stealth (which is actually an incorrect descriptor for this subject) is thus a combination of various sensor systems, be they autonomous - or be they linked to other assets in the air/sea/land spectrum

By Building subs and building a cooperation spanning 4 decades doesn't qualify a party with the necessary skills required to being a better more suited Marine Warfare personnel (those are technical issues). It’s all down to the Training. Where you got it from and what was on offer while you were enrolled on to it. Personal experience and ((RN)CPD’s) would be the key here. You can't just pick up statements like they have a larger experience with German and Russian vessels and imply that they would perform exceedingly well on the scorpion straight away. (Throw whatever you’ve got at me!!) Depends on the type of training type of crew doctrines and shake down time. That PN can easily bring down to a minimum since they have similar vessels in service. I specifically stated "type specific" for the PN since they have operated the type before. And traditionally Pak Navy Sub Arm has the strongest one since it was created. The reason why I stated Intelligence was important too in the Arabian sea since Pak navy will operate the P-3 c which would provide a decent recon (Every thing I said was specific to this Example I was not challenging that the “Holly grail†beliefs were not relevant anymore.).

I'd actually argue that training received from the Russians would be far more useful than that received from the French (as an example). The Russians have extensive sub handling experience, far greater than any other nation - including the US. The Russians have had numerous historical design and development "firsts", probably just as many as the USN. The Russians just lacked the final ingredient to actually counter the US and NATO - but they were extremely competent and respected even though handicapped. Where the US and UK absolutely dominated the Russsians was in technical prowess and training. The RN was always the service that the Russian submariners were wary of, their ASW was and still is regarded as probably the best in the world at a training and tempo level. No disrespect to the French, but they have never been regarded as elite submariners, they were not privy to a lot of technologies that were shared between the USN, RN, RAN and the Canadians - as such they were always orphans, even though they had a pseudo relationship within NATO.

The Germans always have been highly regarded, not only at the technical level, but in doctrine development and capability. On that basis, countries that have years of experience in sub warfare and warfighting, and who demonstrate discipline superiority across various spectrum, will obviously heavily influence the capability of those nations they train.

At the end of the day, technical parity (and I don't believe that there is between India and Pakistan at a naval warfare level) will be leveraged by numbers as it brings in tipping point influencers such as persistence and projection. Greater numbers means attrition issues are reduced, it also means that subs on station can rotate faster and not lose "sight" of a tail. When you don't have the numbers, you will lose on attrition - irrespective of how good and how competent your team is. There would have to be an absolute mismatch between training and efficiency competencies for attrition leverage factors to be weighted out of any tactical analysis.

 

[gf0012-aust]

by the way gf what type of shape do u think is the scorpenes hull,how does it compare with agosta 90b's and hdw type214's hulls in terms of acoustic signature reduction,isnt scorpenes hull a teardrop shape

The shape of the hull is only relevant at certain speeds. teardrop hulls on conventionally powered subs is somewhat a waste of design. The sig reduction is more important inside the hull. At say 5 knots or less, the sub could be shaped like a potato and still be externally silent. It's the warfighting speeds which are critical.

Older subs have inherent design limitations which make it very very hard for them to be retro "silenced". Acoustic tiles will only do so much - so the gains are critical and need to be addressed right down to the toilet flushing. As an example, the USN Virginias expel a torpedo quieter than other subs flushing an internal toilet. No other submarine comes even remotely close to that kind of acoustic management - and thats the kind of thing that needs to be attended to.

 

[kashifshahzad]

I think this will be a good develpoment if Pakistan have missiles subs but for launching if it has to come to surface then this is a bad thing ofcourse it musr be modranised to make this thing effectiveakistan

 

[mysterious]

The Exocets (I think thats what they're called) on Agostas are capable of launching while the sub is submerged and are pretty effective.

 

[Django]

The 214 is by far a more superior platform to the Scorpene.

Do you face only acoustic aspects (regarding your profession) or is your statement pointing on the general design?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Do you face only acoustic aspects (regarding your profession) or is your statement pointing on the general design?

My main focus is signature management and acoustic warfare, but the design overall is what has to be considered.

The Germans are very very good at submarine design and innovation, concepts that they designed 50+ years ago are still relevant today - even with respect to nukes.

I've worked on a few submarine related projects and I never cease to be amazed at the quality and detail that the Germans attend to in their work.

 

[Air Marshal]

Pakistan Have Am-39 Exocets Missiles that have ability to damage Submarines.
Actually it is "Anti ship" missile which pakistan have in its inventory.
AM-39 is very effectively damage its target.

Mod: Web site link deleted. Please refer to rules re web site promotion.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Pakistan Have Am-39 Exocets Missiles that have ability to damage Submarines.
Actually it is "Anti ship" missile which pakistan have in its inventory.
AM-39 is very effectively damage its target.

http://www.sulman4paf.tk

errr no, you can't use an Exocet for an anti-submarine role unless the other sub is dumb enough to be sitting on the surface. In addition the Exocet would have trouble acquiring a sub on the surface anyway.

Please read the rules about promotion of other web sites.

 

[Pendekar]

Originally Posted by Air Marshal
Pakistan Have Am-39 Exocets Missiles that have ability to damage Submarines.
Actually it is "Anti ship" missile which pakistan have in its inventory.
AM-39 is very effectively damage its target.

i think maybe the missile discharge some kind of small torp or depth charges, if that's possible.

the USN Virginias expel a torpedo quieter than other subs flushing an internal toilet

do you mean they silently expel the torp using gas discharge or silent in swim out mode?

 

[gf0012-aust]

i think maybe the missile discharge some kind of small torp or depth charges, if that's possible.

No, Exocet doesn't do that. You're thinking of the US SUBROC

do you mean they silently expel the torp using gas discharge or silent in swim out mode?

a full launch - not a swimmer

 

[kashifshahzad]

I think Pakistan must make developments in all fields of defence if it is combat air crafts and sub marines tanks and if there is a question if missile Subs i think Pakistan must take intrest in that too if Pakistan have this then this is good.But i want to say again that if it had to come to the surface for launching missiles then this is the greater drawback it have
Long live akistan

 

[gf0012-aust]

.But i want to say again that if it had to come to the surface for launching missiles then this is the greater drawback it have

I'm confused, what are you trying to say?? Exocets are tube launched.

 

[corsair7772]

Have you guys read the reports on the Ohio being converted from SSBN role to SSGN? There reconfiguring the ballistic missiles tubes to fire about 156 tomohawk cruise missiles instead of Tridents. Thats a hell of a lot of missiles. If Pakistan goes for nuclear subs besides the Type 93 we could go for the Type 94s as well and reconfigure them in the same role as the new Ohio class types. There role in performing raids along the indian coasts with 84~96 cruise missiles would be of paramount importance to Pakistan, a country which has so far depended heavily on psycological warfare rather than the traditional material type. The chinese are currently developing a variety of LACMs which could be configued for the tomohawk role.

BTW, i read this war scenario of a south asian war which showed the PN attacking off shore oil installations using midgets which were dropped off at certain redenouze points by frigates, keeping in mind the range limitations of the frigates. The Midgets, due to their stealthiness, managed to heavily damage several oil installations after which they were retrieved by the frigates.

Wouldnt it be more prudent to configre the midgets to be dropped by air from a C-130 or if thats not possible then be dropped by an amphibian? And what about configureing the midget to be operated from a submarine? Surely this would provide more stealthier methods of attacking offshore facilities rather than being dropped off the site by frigates.