Pakistan Navy | News & Discussions

[ghazi52]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[ghazi52]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Aamir Hussain]

What is being cooked in Netherlands? Specially shipbuilding

 

[Quwa]

With CNS in Italy and Italian Aircraft carrier in Karachi for exercises I suspect something is up with regards to a new deal. Lots of Italian defence CEOs were also at the exhibition on the carrier.

Hoping for possibly

1) AW159 for Barbur/Yamook ships
2) More CAMM missiles for larger Yamook ships and possible f-22 Upgrade?
3) AW101 as Sea King replacement?

With the emergence of UCAV technology, I think acquiring an aircraft carrier has gotten relatively feasible.

I'm NOT talking about traditional carriers meant to carry crewed jets like the F-35.

Rather, I think the PN could be giving a drone carrier serious thought, be it for mothership operations for MALE and HALE UAVs, or something that can support a Kızılelma type jet.

We might say, "this is unrealistic," but I'm not sure. With a drone carrier, you're removing the biggest cost-drivers (e.g., catapult, propulsion, etc) because, simply, a drone carrier doesn't need all that. A 15,000-ton ship works, and Pakistan has (or is close to getting) the capacity to build one with foreign help.

Now, we might ask, "well why does the PN need a carrier?" Well, we've basically gotten used to questioning the PN's entire existence. Before its recent acquisition push, folks weren't sure if the PN needed many frigates and corvettes; well, the PN wants 20 such ships. It also wants many AIP-equipped submarines, more than the 11 planned today.

Those are a lot of surface and sub-surface assets, well beyond (IMO) an A2/AD play which just the subs (plus land-based AShWs, FACs, and maybe Babur-class corvettes) can support just fine. The PN wants to get out at sea and make its presence felt.

I'm sure the idea of a drone carrier has merit, even for the PN.

There may be a push to offload more maritime ISR, ASuW, and ASW tasks to drones. It could make sense for it to deploy and recover such drones at sea than to keep them up longer just to leave and/or reach land.

Likewise, a jet UCAV may be a better bet for high-risk anti-ship ops, or - maybe - some Pakistani planners want to begin projecting power, maybe as a way to merit more of the world's attention and, thus, investment, support, etc.

Imagine the idea that a Pakistani strike force can be assembled via a PN drone carrier, some frigates, some subs, a special ops/NSSG unit, etc, and then sent to support allies like Turkiye or the GCC states very quickly. It might sound over the top, but perhaps we do have a school of thought in Pakistan that wants others to acknowledge our relative credibility in defence by asking us to help them with some complex stuff.

 

[Tank131]

With the emergence of UCAV technology, I think acquiring an aircraft carrier has gotten relatively feasible.

I'm NOT talking about traditional carriers meant to carry crewed jets like the F-35.

Rather, I think the PN could be giving a drone carrier serious thought, be it for mothership operations for MALE and HALE UAVs, or something that can support a Kızılelma type jet.

We might say, "this is unrealistic," but I'm not sure. With a drone carrier, you're removing the biggest cost-drivers (e.g., catapult, propulsion, etc) because, simply, a drone carrier doesn't need all that. A 15,000-ton ship works, and Pakistan has (or is close to getting) the capacity to build one with foreign help.

Now, we might ask, "well why does the PN need a carrier?" Well, we've basically gotten used to questioning the PN's entire existence. Before its recent acquisition push, folks weren't sure if the PN needed many frigates and corvettes; well, the PN wants 20 such ships. It also wants many AIP-equipped submarines, more than the 11 planned today.

Those are a lot of surface and sub-surface assets, well beyond (IMO) an A2/AD play which just the subs (plus land-based AShWs, FACs, and maybe Babur-class corvettes) can support just fine. The PN wants to get out at sea and make its presence felt.

I'm sure the idea of a drone carrier has merit, even for the PN.

There may be a push to offload more maritime ISR, ASuW, and ASW tasks to drones. It could make sense for it to deploy and recover such drones at sea than to keep them up longer just to leave and/or reach land.

Likewise, a jet UCAV may be a better bet for high-risk anti-ship ops, or - maybe - some Pakistani planners want to begin projecting power, maybe as a way to merit more of the world's attention and, thus, investment, support, etc.

Imagine the idea that a Pakistani strike force can be assembled via a PN drone carrier, some frigates, some subs, a special ops/NSSG unit, etc, and then sent to support allies like Turkiye or the GCC states very quickly. It might sound over the top, but perhaps we do have a school of thought in Pakistan that wants others to acknowledge our relative credibility in defence by asking us to help them with some complex stuff.

I think the entire saber rattling and missile exchanges between Iran and Israel is a clear understanding of why countries like Pakistan need strong defense capabilities including extending the capabilities to things like carriers. I had mentioned similar possibilities in a number of posts in the past and have stated on a number of occasions that an LDH in the vein of TCG Anadolu (a 25,000T Amphibious Assault/LHD ship) could be in the cards within 10 - 15 years. This could be armed with equipped by 30-50 UCAV using a mix of Jet powered A2A oriented Kizilelma B or C and A2G oriented Anca 3 and Akinci.

 

[Awwad]

With the emergence of UCAV technology, I think acquiring an aircraft carrier has gotten relatively feasible.

I'm NOT talking about traditional carriers meant to carry crewed jets like the F-35.

Rather, I think the PN could be giving a drone carrier serious thought, be it for mothership operations for MALE and HALE UAVs, or something that can support a Kızılelma type jet.

We might say, "this is unrealistic," but I'm not sure. With a drone carrier, you're removing the biggest cost-drivers (e.g., catapult, propulsion, etc) because, simply, a drone carrier doesn't need all that. A 15,000-ton ship works, and Pakistan has (or is close to getting) the capacity to build one with foreign help.

Now, we might ask, "well why does the PN need a carrier?" Well, we've basically gotten used to questioning the PN's entire existence. Before its recent acquisition push, folks weren't sure if the PN needed many frigates and corvettes; well, the PN wants 20 such ships. It also wants many AIP-equipped submarines, more than the 11 planned today.

Those are a lot of surface and sub-surface assets, well beyond (IMO) an A2/AD play which just the subs (plus land-based AShWs, FACs, and maybe Babur-class corvettes) can support just fine. The PN wants to get out at sea and make its presence felt.

I'm sure the idea of a drone carrier has merit, even for the PN.

There may be a push to offload more maritime ISR, ASuW, and ASW tasks to drones. It could make sense for it to deploy and recover such drones at sea than to keep them up longer just to leave and/or reach land.

Likewise, a jet UCAV may be a better bet for high-risk anti-ship ops, or - maybe - some Pakistani planners want to begin projecting power, maybe as a way to merit more of the world's attention and, thus, investment, support, etc.

Imagine the idea that a Pakistani strike force can be assembled via a PN drone carrier, some frigates, some subs, a special ops/NSSG unit, etc, and then sent to support allies like Turkiye or the GCC states very quickly. It might sound over the top, but perhaps we do have a school of thought in Pakistan that wants others to acknowledge our relative credibility in defence by asking us to help them with some complex stuff.

Small carriers with ability to launch UCAVs is the future. UCAVs will only become more lethal & versatile from this time onwards. These ships will become fully unmanned in future. A platform in the sea. Pilots of UCAVs may not necessarily be stationed in the ship. So defense of the ship may not be that critical as compared to traditional ships with lot of man power onboard.

Portugal navy is ditching idea of more frigates in favor of UCAV launching carriers. However PN do require frigates as well as should focus in future technologies as well.

Portugal Navy aims to enter big league by unveiling drone carrier ship

According to a post published by the Portuguese Navy on November 24, 2023, Portugal is set to revolutionize maritime technology with the construction

armyrecognition.com

Interestingly, DAMEN is making these new ships, with which PN already has solid relationship established.

 

[Bentley777]

With the emergence of UCAV technology, I think acquiring an aircraft carrier has gotten relatively feasible.

I'm NOT talking about traditional carriers meant to carry crewed jets like the F-35.

Rather, I think the PN could be giving a drone carrier serious thought, be it for mothership operations for MALE and HALE UAVs, or something that can support a Kızılelma type jet.

We might say, "this is unrealistic," but I'm not sure. With a drone carrier, you're removing the biggest cost-drivers (e.g., catapult, propulsion, etc) because, simply, a drone carrier doesn't need all that. A 15,000-ton ship works, and Pakistan has (or is close to getting) the capacity to build one with foreign help.

Now, we might ask, "well why does the PN need a carrier?" Well, we've basically gotten used to questioning the PN's entire existence. Before its recent acquisition push, folks weren't sure if the PN needed many frigates and corvettes; well, the PN wants 20 such ships. It also wants many AIP-equipped submarines, more than the 11 planned today.

Those are a lot of surface and sub-surface assets, well beyond (IMO) an A2/AD play which just the subs (plus land-based AShWs, FACs, and maybe Babur-class corvettes) can support just fine. The PN wants to get out at sea and make its presence felt.

I'm sure the idea of a drone carrier has merit, even for the PN.

There may be a push to offload more maritime ISR, ASuW, and ASW tasks to drones. It could make sense for it to deploy and recover such drones at sea than to keep them up longer just to leave and/or reach land.

Likewise, a jet UCAV may be a better bet for high-risk anti-ship ops, or - maybe - some Pakistani planners want to begin projecting power, maybe as a way to merit more of the world's attention and, thus, investment, support, etc.

Imagine the idea that a Pakistani strike force can be assembled via a PN drone carrier, some frigates, some subs, a special ops/NSSG unit, etc, and then sent to support allies like Turkiye or the GCC states very quickly. It might sound over the top, but perhaps we do have a school of thought in Pakistan that wants others to acknowledge our relative credibility in defence by asking us to help them with some complex stuff.

I would rather put these resources in nuclear sub project rather than ucav based carrier. Its more lethal. And also to protect a ucav carrier we will require destroyers class war ships. It will also require massive overhauling of PN doctrine.

 

[Awwad]

I would rather put these resources in nuclear sub project rather than ucav based carrier. Its more lethal. And also to protect a ucav carrier we will require destroyers class war ships. It will also require massive overhauling of PN doctrine.

Actually I would love to see nuclear powered sub in PN arsenal too. and I believe PN wants that too in future. However, Roles of these platforms (drones carrier & nuclear sub) are different. These are not interchangeable. Drone carrier can be useful in plenty of support roles / peace time roles / assisting ground ops in far off areas / Helping allies etc.

As far as protection is concerned, its much smaller then traditional carriers or even much smaller than LHD / heli carriers. Secondly, the pilots can be stationed at ground stations. Most of ship operations can be unmanned. So human resources can be only at most same level as a frigate. Traditional carriers requires lot of protection because 1000s of crew is onboard and that platform serves as center piece of the fleet. That will not be the case with drone carrier. It will be just another ship of the fleet.

 

[Quwa]

I would rather put these resources in nuclear sub project rather than ucav based carrier. Its more lethal. And also to protect a ucav carrier we will require destroyers class war ships. It will also require massive overhauling of PN doctrine.

I'd rather we get both.

Okay, just to preface, if the stakes require it (e.g., an increase in Pakistani exports relying on sea trade, growth in our merchant navy, miraculous discovery of natural resources in our EEZ, etc), then the PN would invest in both systems.

That said, I think there's an intermediary step across both that might be affordable for the PN.

So, re: a nuclear submarine. I think a good 'bridge' would be a large conventional AIP sub with VLS cells for SLCM and SLBMs. Yes, it wouldn't have the endurance of a nuclear sub, but with a large enough size, there may be ways (via fuel-cell, high-quality lithium-ion batteries, etc) to get more endurance than a smaller AIP sub. Moreover, this conventional sub might also be quieter than a nuclear sub thanks to fewer moving parts.

This larger SSP design could give the PN the experience to build a design that can one day handle a miniature nuclear reactor.

Then with regards to a drone carrier. I don't know how far a navalized jet UCAV is, but in the mean time, the PN can look at a smaller and simpler multipurpose ship design. The Damen MPSS can support drone ops as well as take on other roles, like HADR, submarine rescue ops, hydrographic research, etc.

I know this sounds like, "spend more money," but it'd probably be the more rational step before going all the way with either a carrier or an SSBN. These are lower cost solutions that can help the PN actually stress test their theories and develop real doctrine ahead of investing in a 'proper' solution. Moreover, these intermediary steps wouldn't be a waste as they can still own important missions.

 

[Bentley777]

I'd rather we get both.

Okay, just to preface, if the stakes require it (e.g., an increase in Pakistani exports relying on sea trade, growth in our merchant navy, miraculous discovery of natural resources in our EEZ, etc), then the PN would invest in both systems.

That said, I think there's an intermediary step across both that might be affordable for the PN.

So, re: a nuclear submarine. I think a good 'bridge' would be a large conventional AIP sub with VLS cells for SLCM and SLBMs. Yes, it wouldn't have the endurance of a nuclear sub, but with a large enough size, there may be ways (via fuel-cell, high-quality lithium-ion batteries, etc) to get more endurance than a smaller AIP sub. Moreover, this conventional sub might also be quieter than a nuclear sub thanks to fewer moving parts.

This larger SSP design could give the PN the experience to build a design that can one day handle a miniature nuclear reactor.

Then with regards to a drone carrier. I don't know how far a navalized jet UCAV is, but in the mean time, the PN can look at a smaller and simpler multipurpose ship design. The Damen MPSS can support drone ops as well as take on other roles, like HADR, submarine rescue ops, hydrographic research, etc.

I know this sounds like, "spend more money," but it'd probably be the more rational step before going all the way with either a carrier or an SSBN. These are lower cost solutions that can help the PN actually stress test their theories and develop real doctrine ahead of investing in a 'proper' solution. Moreover, these intermediary steps wouldn't be a waste as they can still own important missions.

We can want to have both capabilities but we have to focus on which is feasible more. i personally feel pak navy is too defensive and i have not much confidence on them right now with current fleet. Hangoor class 8 submarine is good news but should have inducted all by now. I think if we build ucav carrier it should be more for offensive role which creates problem because pak navy is too defensive as i said earlier . First we need to deter adversary to come into our waters. Nuclear sub is only answer and should be priority it can create great sea denial because it delivers suprise elements it can submerge for months it creates great psychological impact which unfortunately military think tank and islambad is not realizing. Then we can perform offensive operations through ucav carriers which allows ucav carrier to utilize full of its potential operations. Other wise we would be trying to defend it with already more more defensive force. I have read article some days ago on indian news website . A former indian navy officer was asked what if pak navy gets nuclear submarine what difficulties and challenge can it can give to indian navy. He clearly said we cannot bring our aircraft carriers into battlefield until all nuclear subs are detected and destroyed. Thats the impact it can great nuclear subs and offcourse the "golden assured second strike capabilities" . Lastly most imp can we have enough financial power to achieve one of these task nuclear sub or ucav carrier and foreign policy freedom to achieve it.

 

[Sparten]

With the emergence of UCAV technology, I think acquiring an aircraft carrier has gotten relatively feasible.

I'm NOT talking about traditional carriers meant to carry crewed jets like the F-35.

Rather, I think the PN could be giving a drone carrier serious thought, be it for mothership operations for MALE and HALE UAVs, or something that can support a Kızılelma type jet.

We might say, "this is unrealistic," but I'm not sure. With a drone carrier, you're removing the biggest cost-drivers (e.g., catapult, propulsion, etc) because, simply, a drone carrier doesn't need all that. A 15,000-ton ship works, and Pakistan has (or is close to getting) the capacity to build one with foreign help.

Now, we might ask, "well why does the PN need a carrier?" Well, we've basically gotten used to questioning the PN's entire existence. Before its recent acquisition push, folks weren't sure if the PN needed many frigates and corvettes; well, the PN wants 20 such ships. It also wants many AIP-equipped submarines, more than the 11 planned today.

Those are a lot of surface and sub-surface assets, well beyond (IMO) an A2/AD play which just the subs (plus land-based AShWs, FACs, and maybe Babur-class corvettes) can support just fine. The PN wants to get out at sea and make its presence felt.

I'm sure the idea of a drone carrier has merit, even for the PN.

There may be a push to offload more maritime ISR, ASuW, and ASW tasks to drones. It could make sense for it to deploy and recover such drones at sea than to keep them up longer just to leave and/or reach land.

Likewise, a jet UCAV may be a better bet for high-risk anti-ship ops, or - maybe - some Pakistani planners want to begin projecting power, maybe as a way to merit more of the world's attention and, thus, investment, support, etc.

Imagine the idea that a Pakistani strike force can be assembled via a PN drone carrier, some frigates, some subs, a special ops/NSSG unit, etc, and then sent to support allies like Turkiye or the GCC states very quickly. It might sound over the top, but perhaps we do have a school of thought in Pakistan that wants others to acknowledge our relative credibility in defence by asking us to help them with some complex stuff.

A drone carrier will need to be able to carry at least a few fixed wing AC for self defence.
It once again raises the issue of our geograpohic differences from the Turks, which have had an issue in adapting Naval systems. Same reason why our MILGEM had to be upgraded. Much longer endurance needed,. A Turkish Drone CV will be operating within range of land based aircraft. Ours, won't. Unless it stikc to a 1000NM or so from our coast.

 

[ghazi52]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Tank131]

A drone carrier will need to be able to carry at least a few fixed wing AC for self defence.
It once again raises the issue of our geograpohic differences from the Turks, which have had an issue in adapting Naval systems. Same reason why our MILGEM had to be upgraded. Much longer endurance needed,. A Turkish Drone CV will be operating within range of land based aircraft. Ours, won't. Unless it stikc to a 1000NM or so from our coast.

I think the long term thought behind this would be that an a2a version of Kizilelma B (supersonic capable) or C (supersonic twin engined) would take the role of CAP. Between its own radar and those of the ship, long range missiles such as Gokdogan and Gokhan should be able to be deployable from Kizilelmas. They would also be able to perform strike and support missions as could ANKA 3.

Honestly the drones could do most of the fixed wing jobs for PN on a 20-25,000T LDH style vessel with the only manned aircraft needed would be the choppers for SAR, Anti-sub, transport and utility operations. Probably would be able to be manned by a crew not about the size of a large frigate or destroyer and like TCG Anadolu could be configured as an Assault ship carrying hundred of troops and vehicles (in place of a number of its airwing).

 

[bogey_dope]

Why do people think that drone would be any different than a fixed wing aircraft, it has same thrust to weight requirements, kizilelma has a small turbofan what kind of payload would that thing carry off the ship.
And why do you want an LDH, it's an amphibious ship, do you want a aircraft carrier or a large deck ship for marines?
Even if you could imagine such a small ship a ww2 escort carrier or maybe the Thai aircraft carrier fits that image.
Your choice is again stovl or a turboprop

 

[Tank131]

Why do people think that drone would be any different than a fixed wing aircraft, it has same thrust to weight requirements, kizilelma has a small turbofan what kind of payload would that thing carry off the ship.
And why do you want an LDH, it's an amphibious ship, do you want a aircraft carrier or a large deck ship for marines?
Even if you could imagine such a small ship a ww2 escort carrier or maybe the Thai aircraft carrier fits that image.
Your choice is again stovl or a turboprop

Yeahhh... You get that Kizilelma is specifically designed to get into operate from TCG Anadolu right? And while its only 25,000T the Anadolu should be able to carry between 30-50 Helicopters and UAV including Kizilelma and Anka-3.