Hangor Class Submarine | Updates & Discussion

[iblini]

hmm thats seems good then..but doesnt it would limit its range consedering..the tubes can only be so long?

better range than YJ-18 at least.

 

[Corax]

Pakistan did get the TOT on the MAR-1, in particular the sensor/seeker technology. So, I think it is only a matter of time before we see home ground long range CM's(if not already) that can hunt down radars of India's ballistic missile defence shield to take them out amongst other transmitters. I wouldn't be too negative on that deal, think it was more of a case of you have to spend/buy to get what you really want/need type of setup imho.

Others can opine if my understanding of TOT is incorrect on this front.

If that's the case, it's a very inefficient way of doing things. If all we needed was the seeker/sensor tech, why not just acquire that, instead of an entire weapon that was pretty much useless in terms of the PAF's needs, assuming we could get such a deal of course. And what was so special about Brazilian tech that couldn't be acquired from other sources? But that again is a moot point because there's been no sightings of the MAR1, at least officially, since they were unveiled back in the early 2010s I think. There's certainly no evidence to suggest they were used since then in 2019 or in May this year. And ironically, the PAF used the Chinese CM400AKG to fulfil it's SEAD/DEAD operations since then.

 

[Yasser76]

If that's the case, it's a very inefficient way of doing things. If all we needed was the seeker/sensor tech, why not just acquire that, instead of an entire weapon that was pretty much useless in terms of the PAF's needs, assuming we could get such a deal of course. And what was so special about Brazilian tech that couldn't be acquired from other sources? But that again is a moot point because there's been no sightings of the MAR1, at least officially, since they were unveiled back in the early 2010s I think. There's certainly no evidence to suggest they were used since then in 2019 or in May this year. And ironically, the PAF used the Chinese CM400AKG to fulfil it's SEAD/DEAD operations since then.

Not a lot of great DEAD options out there, HARM, ALARM about it I think. Unsure if Bazlians would have allowed us to get just the tech without a big buy of missiles, but as yiou say, moot point. China can now pretty much do everything

 

[Corax]

I'm all for diversification, I couldn't care less where the weapons come from if they defeat indian systems. But even when we do try to diversify, our track record is tragic. We went for the T129s, what happened to those? We tried to acquire German subs lock stock and barrel, where did that end up...Chinese subs. Even when we tried to integrate German engines in the Hongor, what happened? We had to use Chinese powerplants. I don't begrudge our lack of trying, but when it comes to big capital asset acquisitions, we always seem to hit a dead end and eventually end up acquiring Chinese alternatives. The one successful acception seems to be the Erieyes.

But there's also downsides to diversification too. You only have to look at the indians where they have a plethora of systems from around the world that can't seem to integrate in a cohesive manner, systems that seem inoperable and don't talk to each other in a United TDL.

 

[Aziqbal]

any news on when the 3rd submarine will start construction in Karachi ?

Keel laid for unit 1 was Dec 2022
Keel laid for unit 2 was Feb 2024
Unit 3 should start in 2025? is there space at Karachi for 3rd and 4th ?

Launches from China

Unit 1 April 2024
Unit 2 March 2025
Unit 3 August 2025

so we can expect the 4th from China by 2026

 

[Tank131]

I'm all for diversification, I couldn't care less where the weapons come from if they defeat indian systems. But even when we do try to diversify, our track record is tragic. We went for the T129s, what happened to those? We tried to acquire German subs lock stock and barrel, where did that end up...Chinese subs. Even when we tried to integrate German engines in the Hongor, what happened? We had to use Chinese powerplants. I don't begrudge our lack of trying, but when it comes to big capital asset acquisitions, we always seem to hit a dead end and eventually end up acquiring Chinese alternatives. The one successful acception seems to be the Erieyes.

But there's also downsides to diversification too. You only have to look at the indians where they have a plethora of systems from around the world that can't seem to integrate in a cohesive manner, systems that seem inoperable and don't talk to each other in a United TDL.

I'm all for diversification, I couldn't care less where the weapons come from if they defeat indian systems. But even when we do try to diversify, our track record is tragic. We went for the T129s, what happened to those? We tried to acquire German subs lock stock and barrel, where did that end up...Chinese subs. Even when we tried to integrate German engines in the Hongor, what happened? We had to use Chinese powerplants. I don't begrudge our lack of trying, but when it comes to big capital asset acquisitions, we always seem to hit a dead end and eventually end up acquiring Chinese alternatives. The one successful acception seems to be the Erieyes.

But there's also downsides to diversification too. You only have to look at the indians where they have a plethora of systems from around the world that can't seem to integrate in a cohesive manner, systems that seem inoperable and don't talk to each other in a United TDL.

I'm all for diversification, I couldn't care less where the weapons come from if they defeat indian systems. But even when we do try to diversify, our track record is tragic. We went for the T129s, what happened to those? We tried to acquire German subs lock stock and barrel, where did that end up...Chinese subs. Even when we tried to integrate German engines in the Hongor, what happened? We had to use Chinese powerplants. I don't begrudge our lack of trying, but when it comes to big capital asset acquisitions, we always seem to hit a dead end and eventually end up acquiring Chinese alternatives. The one successful acception seems to be the Erieyes.

But there's also downsides to diversification too. You only have to look at the indians where they have a plethora of systems from around the world that can't seem to integrate in a cohesive manner, systems that seem inoperable and don't talk to each other in a United TDL.

Over diversification is risky too as you say. Thats why nothing beats home grown solutions. The chinese got tech from here and there (both acquisition and espionage) but they always made an effort to indeigenize the tech. Even in the 50s , 60s and 70s. my grandfather worked with chinese in Pakistan in taxila in a factory that build heavy farming equipment. They always came and to borrow manuals of any and all equipment coming from west.

 

[Psyko70]

Absolutely, there's a lot of nuance, but the underlying point we've been making is...don't take any supplier for granted, and leverage a diverse pool where it's available, as was the case with SAMs.

We were crapping on the Chinese SAMs because they a lot of scarce money was spent on outdated and Cold War-era tech. This goes all the way back to the Army procuring the HQ-16, which -- with its SARH-based set-up -- was already technologically behind compared to the Umkhonto, CAMM, or HISAR.

Now, one can argue that the Army could procure many more batteries because of a lower acquisition cost, sure, but then OTOH, what good would those savings be if those missiles can't keep pace with the BrahMos or SCALP threats? What about the cost of losing assets to enemy fire because those SAMs couldn't succeed in the moments we needed them the most?

And, finally, was the HQ-16 (and for that matter, HQ-9P, HQ-9BE, and HQ-16FE) really the best bang for the buck for our specific threat environment?

For ex., could we have achieved comparable results by repurposing the SD-10 for the SAM role instead? Why did we get so fixated on total range when that coverage net (260+ km) wouldn't even matter in our environment (i.e., that range works at higher altitudes, but then the Indians can and will leverage the Earth's curvature to fly low within their borders where we neither have low-level radar coverage or SAM coverage to cut them off).

And, in relation to the Chinese SAMs that we actually have, realistically, what is the actual level of interoperability between those and the cutting-edge Chinese systems we have? I know folks want to trumpet CEC and all, but I'm not sure that older generation platforms -- i.e., the HQ-16 and HQ-9P/BE -- were designed with that compatibility in mind in the first place. Perhaps HQ-9C or HQ-19, sure, but then did we need to procure soon-to-be-out-of-date Chinese SAMs just to get the modern ones? What does that say about the whole situation if this had been forced on us? Or worse, if we decided ourselves this was optimal when actual real-world results show that something like ground-launched SD-10s could have sufficed in 80% of the things we needed? Or why did we not develop something -- or (as with the Raptor-I/II) buy-out a South African program outright? when it had been available back in the early 2010s?

Finally, and this is very critical, the qualitative strength of the Pakistani armed forces had come from its ingenuity, i.e., the ability to integrate diverse systems, to build our original TDLs and network-enabled warfare layer, and so on. If we keep deferring more and more to the Chinese (or any other one supplier), we're at critical risk of basically, for a lack of a better term, dumbing ourselves down to the level of Indian procurement planners, where we go full lock, stock, and barrel with one party, adopt their doctrine, and not develop our own unique insights. Before moving to Canada, I spent my earliest years in Qatar, where my dad was an advisor to the Qatari MoD. I lived in a time where Pakistanis were seen as leaders in a field, such as (in my dad's case) setting up an original air defence system via the best solutions off the market rather than single-sourcing, and building automation + interoperability in-house, rather than deferring to Westerners. This, we're at losing of also losing this, and that would also be a tragedy.

The point here isn't to just crap on the Chinese for the sake of it. In fact, it has nothing to do with the Chinese per se in as much as our own procurement approach. Yes, there are periods where we learn the West is unreliable, fair enough. But at the same time, it doesn't mean we close our eyes to inefficient decisions being made with the Chinese. It's funny, but @Oscar will attest to this, but during the 1980s, my dad was auditing a project that involved several Chinese suppliers. One of these guys was charging like $10 per bolt or something that should cost like 10 cents, my dad inquired, "What is this?" to Chinese OEM guy, and he said, "oh it was a mistake." My dad said to him, "So why does your 'mistake' always involve moving the decimal to the right and not the left?"

In fact, I asked him if he (in the context of the Army HQ-16 purchase back in the mid-2010s) signed off on buying the HQ-16, knowing the differentials about pricing and stuff. He said, "If a technologically newer SAM was available, be it from anywhere, I would've advocated for that, even if it meant buying them at a slower pace. Because, we'd always prioritize guarding our most sensitive, critical assets first, so a smaller initial order is tenable." And this had been PAF mentality with projects like the Mirage III/5, the Erieye, R&S SDR stacks, and so much that no one seems to appreciate, but are the glue of our war-fighting.

Hello sir,

I don't know if my post is worthy of senior members like you to read but it would be an honour if you hear me out, I will try my best to convey a slight different opinion. HQ16 initially had LY80 base model. Now its EV variant. with 70km minimum range (As per quwa.org, You surprisingly) and 160km for active radar homing (rumor not in Quwa.org) as per this LY80EV Inducted in Pak Army yes its twitter post but quiet possibility.
So buying a base model for future expectation is gambling but a good one and very professional. Just like m1 Abrams was ok tank but m1a1 upgrade kit changed it.

I remember once reading or hearing (not even sure) about giraffe radars used in mid 2010's shockingly. However, I have always had this experience reading that what we know about army air defense is always lesser than what we actually have.

For example HQ9. When it was shown to media that we have had them, we were never told since when ?

Same case with HQ9BE and Spada 2000, initially it had 25km range ... Initially.

 

[Yasser76]

I'm all for diversification, I couldn't care less where the weapons come from if they defeat indian systems. But even when we do try to diversify, our track record is tragic. We went for the T129s, what happened to those? We tried to acquire German subs lock stock and barrel, where did that end up...Chinese subs. Even when we tried to integrate German engines in the Hongor, what happened? We had to use Chinese powerplants. I don't begrudge our lack of trying, but when it comes to big capital asset acquisitions, we always seem to hit a dead end and eventually end up acquiring Chinese alternatives. The one successful acception seems to be the Erieyes.

But there's also downsides to diversification too. You only have to look at the indians where they have a plethora of systems from around the world that can't seem to integrate in a cohesive manner, systems that seem inoperable and don't talk to each other in a United TDL.

Spot on here, India is an example of diversification gone too far and too wrong. They will not have a proper integrated network for decades till himegrown Indian solutions come online or they go all in with either Russia or France.

Pakistan's track record on diversification not been great but many factors outside our control. Essentially for last 20 years or so Europeans have had an informal arms embargoe on us for very high end tech. Partly US pressure and also partly out of a fear Chinese could take a close look at what we buy

 

[Michael]

I'm all for diversification, I couldn't care less where the weapons come from if they defeat indian systems. But even when we do try to diversify, our track record is tragic. We went for the T129s, what happened to those? We tried to acquire German subs lock stock and barrel, where did that end up...Chinese subs. Even when we tried to integrate German engines in the Hongor, what happened? We had to use Chinese powerplants. I don't begrudge our lack of trying, but when it comes to big capital asset acquisitions, we always seem to hit a dead end and eventually end up acquiring Chinese alternatives. The one successful acception seems to be the Erieyes.

But there's also downsides to diversification too. You only have to look at the indians where they have a plethora of systems from around the world that can't seem to integrate in a cohesive manner, systems that seem inoperable and don't talk to each other in a United TDL.

Spot on here, India is an example of diversification gone too far and too wrong. They will not have a proper integrated network for decades till himegrown Indian solutions come online or they go all in with either Russia or France.

Pakistan's track record on diversification not been great but many factors outside our control. Essentially for last 20 years or so Europeans have had an informal arms embargoe on us for very high end tech. Partly US pressure and also partly out of a fear Chinese could take a close look at what we buy

Many years ago, the PLA's senior decision-making team proposed the concept model of “多域精确作战.” This is a forward-looking combat concept based on future warfare. The US military's translation of it is “Multi-Domain Precision Warfare(MDPW)”. It shares many similarities with the US military's “Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2)” concept, but there are also many differences.

In 2016, the PLA's military reforms provided the organizational framework for this operational concept.
In 2024, the PLA Strategic Support Force was split into the PLA Aerospace Force, PLA Cyberspace Force, and PLA Information Support Force. This further promoted MDPW.
陆域合成旅(The PLAGF Land-Based Synthetic Brigade), which has recently been revealed, is a representative example of this operational concept.

The PLA's new equipment and tactics are all based on this combat concept. Almost all advanced weapon systems are small nodes in this large system. They obtain information from the large system to enhance their own combat capabilities, and also contribute information to the large system to enhance the combat capabilities of other weapon systems.

When Pakistan purchases these new Chinese weapons and equipment, since Pakistan does not have such a combat environment, these weapon systems must be modified accordingly. That is, the relevant communication and information processing modules of these weapon systems must be removed. ------ Due to the lack of support from relevant information systems, its combat capabilities will be greatly reduced.
Please note that this is not a problem that can be solved simply by Link-17 data links.

I have no objection to Pakistan's diversification in the field of arms procurement. This is Pakistan's internal affair, and Pakistan has every right to decide for itself. At the same time, Pakistan's “hypothetical enemy” is even worse in this regard. Therefore, Pakistan has no issues in this regard.

However, this will lead to an ever-widening gap between China and Pakistan. To the extent that a situation may arise in the future where:
Pakistan wants to purchase a certain Chinese weapon system, and China agrees to sell it. But Pakistan's combat platforms are completely unable to use it......

 

[Quwa]

Hello sir,

I don't know if my post is worthy of senior members like you to read but it would be an honour if you hear me out, I will try my best to convey a slight different opinion. HQ16 initially had LY80 base model. Now its EV variant. with 70km minimum range (As per quwa.org, You surprisingly) and 160km for active radar homing (rumor not in Quwa.org) as per this LY80EV Inducted in Pak Army yes its twitter post but quiet possibility.
So buying a base model for future expectation is gambling but a good one and very professional. Just like m1 Abrams was ok tank but m1a1 upgrade kit changed it.

I remember once reading or hearing (not even sure) about giraffe radars used in mid 2010's shockingly. However, I have always had this experience reading that what we know about army air defense is always lesser than what we actually have.

For example HQ9. When it was shown to media that we have had them, we were never told since when ?

Same case with HQ9BE and Spada 2000, initially it had 25km range ... Initially.

Thanks.

It's not just in a range issue or even the seeker stack. It's the whole platform. The LY-80's originating platform (Buk) was designed for a time when missiles weren't intercepting other missiles, much less supersonic ones. As that threat emerged, we saw the US and even Russia develop their SAM platforms to be more anti-missile capable, hence focus on things like thrust-vectoring nozzles, lighter and more compact missile airframes, and newer propulsion stacks (DPMR).

Frankly, the LY-80-series in service with Pakistan is fine for countering enemy aircraft, but we need a complementary solution that focuses specifically on missiles. That said, a SAM that's good for countering missiles will also be good for countering aircraft, so you would get more mileage out of it than one solely optimized for aircraft.

Overall, I am 100% sure the PAF is aware of this issue, and I think they'll fast-track the development and production of the FAAZ-SL.

The Spada 2000 apparently did pretty good against countering missiles, so the FAAZ would be an advancement. They can load it with FAAZ missiles with both ARH and IIR seekers, giving those units varied firing options.

This is the right approach for the near-term, but I hope they augment it with a longer term effort to develop a proper next-gen SAM stack. This would be a platform that is scalable, e.g., leveraging DPMR + TVC at the core, but then extended the range with boosters (analogous to Barak series). We can do this with any adept partner, be it Turkey or Europe or China. With China, the inputs are all there, e.g., TVC from PL-10E, DPMR from PL-15, and so on.

 

[Yasser76]

Many years ago, the PLA's senior decision-making team proposed the concept model of “多域精确作战.” This is a forward-looking combat concept based on future warfare. The US military's translation of it is “Multi-Domain Precision Warfare(MDPW)”. It shares many similarities with the US military's “Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2)” concept, but there are also many differences.

In 2016, the PLA's military reforms provided the organizational framework for this operational concept.
In 2024, the PLA Strategic Support Force was split into the PLA Aerospace Force, PLA Cyberspace Force, and PLA Information Support Force. This further promoted MDPW.
陆域合成旅(The PLAGF Land-Based Synthetic Brigade), which has recently been revealed, is a representative example of this operational concept.

The PLA's new equipment and tactics are all based on this combat concept. Almost all advanced weapon systems are small nodes in this large system. They obtain information from the large system to enhance their own combat capabilities, and also contribute information to the large system to enhance the combat capabilities of other weapon systems.

When Pakistan purchases these new Chinese weapons and equipment, since Pakistan does not have such a combat environment, these weapon systems must be modified accordingly. That is, the relevant communication and information processing modules of these weapon systems must be removed. ------ Due to the lack of support from relevant information systems, its combat capabilities will be greatly reduced.
Please note that this is not a problem that can be solved simply by Link-17 data links.

I have no objection to Pakistan's diversification in the field of arms procurement. This is Pakistan's internal affair, and Pakistan has every right to decide for itself. At the same time, Pakistan's “hypothetical enemy” is even worse in this regard. Therefore, Pakistan has no issues in this regard.

However, this will lead to an ever-widening gap between China and Pakistan. To the extent that a situation may arise in the future where:
Pakistan wants to purchase a certain Chinese weapon system, and China agrees to sell it. But Pakistan's combat platforms are completely unable to use it......

Yes, very good point, and that is a down side of diversificatiion. It will be Pakistan's fault if we do not keep up with latest Chinese systems, as if these are allowed to become obsolete then we cannot integrate more advanced Chinese systems, am sure PAF is aware of this.

Essentially now similar case with western equipment. In theory PAF could fly the F-35 and integrate it with SAAB Erieye, TPS-77 and SPADA SAMS. In a few years all these systems will be obsolete (less case in Erieye but certainly for TPS-77 and SPADA).
PAF cannot let this happen to our Chinese ecosystem.

However, there are instances were we can integrate non Chinese systems, particularly in the areas of EW and shortrange air defence systems

 

[Michael]

Yes, very good point, and that is a down side of diversificatiion. It will be Pakistan's fault if we do not keep up with latest Chinese systems, as if these are allowed to become obsolete then we cannot integrate more advanced Chinese systems, am sure PAF is aware of this.

Essentially now similar case with western equipment. In theory PAF could fly the F-35 and integrate it with SAAB Erieye, TPS-77 and SPADA SAMS. In a few years all these systems will be obsolete (less case in Erieye but certainly for TPS-77 and SPADA).
PAF cannot let this happen to our Chinese ecosystem.

However, there are instances were we can integrate non Chinese systems, particularly in the areas of EW and shortrange air defence systems

In our understanding, submarines are “lone wolf” weapon systems. Once they submerge underwater, they lose communication with the command center. When they need to communicate, they rise to a height near the surface, raise their communication antenna, and then establish communication with the command center.
Their underwater communication range is very short. Once it surfaces and initiates communication, it is easy to expose itself.

Therefore, the weapon systems, survival systems, and design of submarines themselves are all based on this “lone wolf” combat mode.

However, previously, Northwestern Polytechnical University in China successfully conducted an ultra-long-range underwater communication test. The communication distance reached 603.5 kilometers. The technology is still being refined, but we can already see its future potential. Future Chinese submarines will likely be constantly connected to this vast military command network.
This also means that the operational model of China's submarines will undergo significant changes in the future. They will no longer operate as “lone wolves.”

 

[kimjongun]

h

Thanks.

It's not just in a range issue or even the seeker stack. It's the whole platform. The LY-80's originating platform (Buk) was designed for a time when missiles weren't intercepting other missiles, much less supersonic ones. As that threat emerged, we saw the US and even Russia develop their SAM platforms to be more anti-missile capable, hence focus on things like thrust-vectoring nozzles, lighter and more compact missile airframes, and newer propulsion stacks (DPMR).

Frankly, the LY-80-series in service with Pakistan is fine for countering enemy aircraft, but we need a complementary solution that focuses specifically on missiles. That said, a SAM that's good for countering missiles will also be good for countering aircraft, so you would get more mileage out of it than one solely optimized for aircraft.

Overall, I am 100% sure the PAF is aware of this issue, and I think they'll fast-track the development and production of the FAAZ-SL.

The Spada 2000 apparently did pretty good against countering missiles, so the FAAZ would be an advancement. They can load it with FAAZ missiles with both ARH and IIR seekers, giving those units varied firing options.

This is the right approach for the near-term, but I hope they augment it with a longer term effort to develop a proper next-gen SAM stack. This would be a platform that is scalable, e.g., leveraging DPMR + TVC at the core, but then extended the range with boosters (analogous to Barak series). We can do this with any adept partner, be it Turkey or Europe or China. With China, the inputs are all there, e.g., TVC from PL-10E, DPMR from PL-15, and so on.

Hey quwa.....according to your sightings can we make a AD like the barak 8/MRSAM of india..its currently the workhorse of the indian ad network and is a very capable system...it has a DPRM ,large numbers of interceptors, quite capable against supersonic threats,some say it shot down an iskander during the nagorogh karabag war...,two way datalink,range upto 150km..etc etc. personally i would prefer the mrsam as supposed to other airdefence systems of india...

 

[Quwa]

h

Hey quwa.....according to your sightings can we make a AD like the barak 8/MRSAM of india..its currently the workhorse of the indian ad network and is a very capable system...it has a DPRM ,large numbers of interceptors, quite capable against supersonic threats,some say it shot down an iskander during the nagorogh karabag war...,two way datalink,range upto 150km..etc etc. personally i would prefer the mrsam as supposed to other airdefence systems of india...

With partners like China, Turkey, or Europe, yes. The best approach would be to use their existing inputs to develop a Pakistan-specific solution, and then produce it at home with a deep level of transfer-of-technology.

 

[Princeps]

Thanks.

It's not just in a range issue or even the seeker stack. It's the whole platform. The LY-80's originating platform (Buk) was designed for a time when missiles weren't intercepting other missiles, much less supersonic ones. As that threat emerged, we saw the US and even Russia develop their SAM platforms to be more anti-missile capable, hence focus on things like thrust-vectoring nozzles, lighter and more compact missile airframes, and newer propulsion stacks (DPMR).

Frankly, the LY-80-series in service with Pakistan is fine for countering enemy aircraft, but we need a complementary solution that focuses specifically on missiles. That said, a SAM that's good for countering missiles will also be good for countering aircraft, so you would get more mileage out of it than one solely optimized for aircraft.

Buk was actually developed with intercepting cruise missiles in mind, it might not have been great at it but that's expected given the time period. It along with Tor and their naval variants were the first SAMs developed in Soviet Union that could really do so.

Now HQ-16 being far newer and its role in the PLA, was very much developed with anti-missile capability. It's not simply a Buk clone either, according to photos of its rear section it possesses jet vanes for thrust vector control which afaik no Buk variant does. Not to mention the advances in electronics. It also has been tested against target drones simulating missiles including supersonic ones.

Now I am not privy to the details on how it performed in the recent conflict, and I agree there are better options out there for missile defense. I just wanted to set the record straight regarding its intended role and capability.