






Questions Thread About Navy
- Please log in to reply
#41
pakistanigunner
-
- Full Members
-
- 142 posts
COLONEL
- Gender:Male
- Interests:Firearms
- Location:Pakistan
#42
leuitenentcolonel
-
- Senior Members
-
- 2,329 posts
BRIGADIER
- Gender:Male
- Location:Dubai
Posted 02 June 2007 - 01:50 AM
I read this para in some defence website can someone confirm it here
#43
penguin
-
- Senior Members
-
- 4,478 posts
GENERAL
- Interests:Many
- Location:Netherlands
Posted 02 June 2007 - 05:03 AM
Four used S-Class frigates were bought from Greece, the HS Bouboulina (F-463), HS Kanaris (F-464), HS Nikiforos Fokas (F-466) and the HS Themistoklis (F-465). They will be commissioned into the Navy by the end of 2007. The S-Class has a displacement of nearly 3800 tons and surpasses the PN's Type-21 in regards to performance, weapons and systems. It is likely that the Pakistan Navy S-Class frigates will go through a similar upgrade as their Greek counterparts.
I read this para in some defence website can someone confirm it here
This export can only take place when Dutch government approves the resale of these former Dutch frigates by Greece to Pakistan. To the best of my knowledge, this was not applied for / granted yet. I've government documentation dating 13 juli 2006 indicating the Greek government had not yet approached the Dutch government for this at that time.
1.) Refrain from using excessive profanity in any post.
2.) Refrain from using abusive behavior against other members.
3.) No personal attacks.
4.) Do not Spam your posts.
5.) No Raciest Remarks.
6.) Staying within the Forum category.
7.) No post should include Religious hatred/ topics, PDF is a defence forum
8.) Using more than one name. (Traced by IP address)
9.) Posting in wrong froum will either be deleted or moved to correct one
10.) Hatred again Pakistan and its allies including USA is not welcomed
http://forum.pakista...=findpost&p=128
#44
vegeta
-
- Jr. Members
-
- 56 posts
CADET
Posted 14 June 2007 - 02:56 AM
SSK: diesel or other conventionally powered sub. Examples include Pakistani Agostas and Indian Kilos etc. (most countries have SSKs).
SSN: nucleared powered hunter-killer sub. examples include Los Angeles class, UK Trafalgar class etc. (only Britian, France, US, Russia and China have these).
SSBN: nuclear powered ballistic missile subs that provide nuclear detterents for the countries that have them. Examples include the massive Trident class of US and the biggest sub ever made, Russia's Typhoon class of which the Kursk was an example. (the same 5 listed above also have SSBNs).
regards.
KURSK WAS AN OSCAR CLASS SSGN ,NOT SSBN.ITS MAIN ARMAMENT IS SS-N-19 CRUISE MISSILES.THE OSCAR CLASS SUBS ARE THE MOST ADVANCED SSGNs [DEDICATED CRUISE MISSILE LAUNCHERS]IN THE WORLD AND WERE BUILT TO DESTROY THE U.S CARRIER BATTLEGROUPS.OTHER SSGNsARE ECHO1,2 AND YANKEE NOTCH CLASS RUSSIAN SUBS.[NOW NO LONGER IN FRONTLINE SERVICE].REGARDS.
#45
vegeta
-
- Jr. Members
-
- 56 posts
CADET
Posted 14 June 2007 - 03:19 AM
UP UNTILWW2 AND THE ADVENT OF THE AIRCRAFT CARRIERS THE BATTLESHIPS USED TO BE THE FLAGSHIPS OF NAVIES.2ND IN LINE WERE THEBATTLE-CRUISERS.THE MAIN DIFFERENCE WAS THAT THOUGH BOTH HAD VERY GREAT ARMAMENT AND WERE VERY COSTLY ,BATTLE CRUISERS TRADED THE BATTLESHIPS ARMOUR FOR GREATER SPEED.AFTER WW2 THESE SHIPS RAPIDLY DISAPPEARED FROM ALL NAVIES[ONLY THE U.S IOWA CLASS BATTLESHIPS WERE KEPT IN RESERVE] THE MODERN CRUISERS IN NAVIES ARE MUCH SMALLER AND PRINCIPALLY CARRY GUIDED MISSILES IN STEAD OF BIG GUNS.[JAPANESE YAMATO HAD 9 18 INCH GUNS]THEY MAINLY ACT AS CARRIER ESCORTS.[U.S TICONDEROGA CLASS AEGIS CRUISERS].HOWEVER IN THE LATTER PART OF THE COLD WAR THE BATTLE CRUISER MADE A TRIUMPHANT RETURN IN FORM OF THE RUSSIAN KIROV CLASS.THESE ARE STILL THE PRINCIPAL SHIPS OF THE RUSSIAN NAVY WITH CARRIER 'KUZNETSOV'.
[THE KIROV CLASS ARE VERY POWERFUL SHIPS WITHANTI-SHIP CRUISE MISSILES[24LAUNCHERS],CIWS,GUNS,ANTI SUBMARINE WARFARE ROCKET LAUNCHERS AND TORPEDOES,HELICOPTERS AND LARGE NO. OF SAMs.
FACED WITH THESE THREATS THE U.S NAVY REACTIVATED THEIR 4 IOWA CLASS BATTLESHIPS AND REFURBISHED THEM WITH HARPOONS,TOMAHAWKS AND SAMs.AFTER THE END OF THE COLD WAR THEY WERE PUT IN RESERVE.
YOU CAN FIND MORE ABOUT CRUISERS ON WIKIPEDIA.REGARDS.
#46
mmkextreme_1
-
- Jr. Members
-
- 60 posts
CADET
#47
000786
-
- Jr. Members
-
- 31 posts
CADET
Posted 15 October 2007 - 09:28 AM
#48
Avinandan
-
- Full Members
-
- 169 posts
COLONEL
Posted 19 October 2007 - 03:35 PM
Request to provide the specs too.
Thanks in advance,
Avinandan
#49
Avinandan
-
- Full Members
-
- 169 posts
COLONEL
Posted 19 October 2007 - 03:42 PM
Question 2 : Generally you use soft defensive measures like countermeasures to defend against oncoming torpedoes.
Are there any active defensive measures from the Submarine's Point of View.
#50
000786
-
- Jr. Members
-
- 31 posts
CADET
Posted 20 October 2007 - 12:17 PM
Tonnage is one factor.
Also. remember: if for the budget, ships will be underrated (e.g. calling a destroyer a frigate, like Dutch LCF) but for the opponent it will be overrated (calling a corvette a destroyer, like Iranian 1400 ton surface combattant)
where does hovercraft stand in all this classification?
#51
Londo Molari
-
- Senior Members
-
- 2,932 posts
GENERAL
Posted 20 October 2007 - 09:04 PM
hovercrafts have never had the kind of firepower that surface combatants have had. Nor can they lift a lot of weight. They would be smaller than a corvette, smaller than even a missile boat... maybe hovercraft is a class of its own.
#52
faz101
-
- Senior Members
-
- 2,969 posts
GENERAL
- Interests:anything to do with defence or economics....
- Location:UK
Posted 02 November 2007 - 10:52 AM
hovercrafts can lift a sizeable amount of weight...the USN's LCACs for instance can take around 4 M2 Abrams tanks ashore at the same time...
Hermann Göring
#53
Londo Molari
-
- Senior Members
-
- 2,932 posts
GENERAL
Posted 02 November 2007 - 07:20 PM
Then I suppose the only reason we don't see hovercraft as surface combatants is because they would be shaking violently in big deep see waves? They seem to be used for operation in very shallow waters close to shore.
#54
Amna Malik
-
- Banned
-
- 439 posts
CAPTAIN
- Gender:Female
Posted 10 January 2008 - 11:00 AM
#55
noxiouspython
-
- Senior Members
-
- 6,925 posts
GENERAL
- Interests:?
Posted 25 March 2008 - 07:11 PM
Is Pakistan thinking of giving the Navy some fighters as well? I heard something about it, but nothing came after that. I think somoene mention even Rafael, but I thought that was a bit too much, maybe JF-17 or at most FC-20?
I'd appriciate some info on this.
w/salaam
"There is none worthy of worship but He, glorified be He: [Far is He] above that which they associate [with Him]" (Qur'an 9:31)
Not equal are the owners of the fire and the owners of the Garden. The owners of the Garden, they are the victorious. [Quran 59:20]
Allah knows best [who are] your enemies. Allah is sufficient as a Friend, and Allah is sufficient as a Helper. [4:45]
Fudayl ibn Iyaad said: "Verily, if an action was done sincerely for the sake of Allah but was not correct, it will not be accepted by Allah. And if the action was correct but not done sincerely it will not be accepted until the act is sincere and correct. For it to be sincere, it has to be done for the sake of Allah, and in order for it to be correct, it has to agree to the sunnah."
the Messenger of Allah pbuh says; “whoever does not care about the affairs of the Muslims is not one of them.”
islamqa.com
#56
Londo Molari
-
- Senior Members
-
- 2,932 posts
GENERAL
Posted 25 March 2008 - 09:10 PM
As far as I know, there has been no official indication that Pakistan navy would operate its own fighters. Given the size of Pakistan and Pakistan Navy, I don't think its practical for the Navy to have their own pilot training, fighters, and airforce tactics, all just for 1 squadron. It makes a lot more sense to have a PAF squadron work with the Navy. And thats what we do.
As for what fighter will replace the Mirages, again there is no official news. It could be F-16s, armed with Harpoons, or it would be JF-17s armed with Exocets or C-802/3s. I doubt the J-10/FC-20 would be used for naval role.
#57
noxiouspython
-
- Senior Members
-
- 6,925 posts
GENERAL
- Interests:?
Posted 26 March 2008 - 05:20 AM
As far as I know, there has been no official indication that Pakistan navy would operate its own fighters. Given the size of Pakistan and Pakistan Navy, I don't think its practical for the Navy to have their own pilot training, fighters, and airforce tactics, all just for 1 squadron. It makes a lot more sense to have a PAF squadron work with the Navy. And thats what we do.
As for what fighter will replace the Mirages, again there is no official news. It could be F-16s, armed with Harpoons, or it would be JF-17s armed with Exocets or C-802/3s. I doubt the J-10/FC-20 would be used for naval role.
Thanks for the helpful reply. Correct me if I am wrong, but does this mean that there is a squadron at the disposal of our navy all the time?
w/salaam
"There is none worthy of worship but He, glorified be He: [Far is He] above that which they associate [with Him]" (Qur'an 9:31)
Not equal are the owners of the fire and the owners of the Garden. The owners of the Garden, they are the victorious. [Quran 59:20]
Allah knows best [who are] your enemies. Allah is sufficient as a Friend, and Allah is sufficient as a Helper. [4:45]
Fudayl ibn Iyaad said: "Verily, if an action was done sincerely for the sake of Allah but was not correct, it will not be accepted by Allah. And if the action was correct but not done sincerely it will not be accepted until the act is sincere and correct. For it to be sincere, it has to be done for the sake of Allah, and in order for it to be correct, it has to agree to the sunnah."
the Messenger of Allah pbuh says; “whoever does not care about the affairs of the Muslims is not one of them.”
islamqa.com
#58
Londo Molari
-
- Senior Members
-
- 2,932 posts
GENERAL
#59
wulff
-
- Jr. Members
-
- 51 posts
CADET
Posted 13 July 2008 - 06:14 AM
I would any appreciate information regarding the chinese supersonic and hypersonic ship killer missiles, and whether Pakistan is involved in any such programme.
#60
Alkhalid-19
-
- Senior Members
-
- 3,003 posts
GENERAL
- Location:Pakhtunkhwa
Posted 08 August 2008 - 05:22 AM
Best Defense is offensive !
#61
Simpleton
-
- Senior Members
-
- 5,053 posts
GENERAL
- Gender:Male
- Location:the plains of despair
Posted 20 October 2008 - 12:26 AM
Is it undergoing sea trials?
Or is it undergoing installation and final build?
Or by launch back in April 2008 did the mean only the hull was launched and the ship actually isn't fully built yet?
Also when is it expected to be in Pakistan?
WHILE THE WRONG AND SHAME ENDURE.
TO BE WITHOUT SIGHT OR SENSE IS A MOST HAPPY CHANGE FOR ME,
THEREFORE DO NOT ROUSE ME. HUSH! SPEAK LOW.
I said to God "I hate Life" God replied "Who asked you to love life? Just Love me & life will be beautiful"
Living in favorable and unfavorable conditions is PART of living. Smiling in all those conditions is ART of living.
"Anytime you think you need to protect God, you can be sure you're worshiping an idol"
I've stopped fighting my inner demons. We're on the same side now.
#62
daccan
-
- Full Members
-
- 244 posts
COLONEL
Posted 13 April 2009 - 01:50 PM
http://www.paknavy.g...k/destroyer.htm
PNS TARIQ:
PNS TIPPU SULTAN:
PNS BABUR:
PNS KHAIBAR:
PNS BADR:
PNS Shah Jahan is missing
I thought we will be using 6 Type-21 along side 4 F-22P.
Any informed resource can provide update on this. Thanks.
#63
Skull-Buster
-
- Senior Members
-
- 6,512 posts
GENERAL
- Gender:Male
- Location:Pakistan
Posted 22 August 2009 - 12:30 PM
- Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah (11th January 1938)
Let us go back to our holy book, the Quran. Let us revert to the Hadeeth and the the great traditions of Islam which have everything in them for our guidance if we correctly interpret them and follow our great Holy book, the Quran.
- Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah (6th March 1946)
"It is my strong belief, that there is no ideology which is more democratic, enlightened and progressive than Islam."
- General Zai-ul-Haq (23rd March 1988)
#64
Londo Molari
-
- Senior Members
-
- 2,932 posts
GENERAL
Posted 23 August 2009 - 10:31 PM
No I think its being used for training now-a-days. Used to be active before we got the Type-21's.
#65
Alkhalid-19
-
- Senior Members
-
- 3,003 posts
GENERAL
- Location:Pakhtunkhwa
Posted 05 September 2009 - 06:55 AM
Now this ship visit Sri-Lanka vor a goodwill mission !
Best Defense is offensive !
#66
pakpardessi
-
- Full Members
-
- 113 posts
COLONEL
Posted 14 September 2009 - 06:24 PM
#67
Web Master
-
- Admin
-
- 2,854 posts
Field Marshal Administrator
- Location:USA
Posted 15 September 2009 - 01:33 PM
The best thing to do would be to vist one of the Indian defence sites for that info. google it.
Edited by Web Master, 15 September 2009 - 01:33 PM.
#68
Ravi Javed
-
- Full Members
-
- 75 posts
LIEUTENANT
Posted 05 October 2009 - 06:13 AM
Daily Times Monitor
LAHORE: The Indian Air Force (IAF) has decided to station all its MiG-29 squadrons at Adampur to beef up air defence capabilities and react in the shortest possible time along the international border with Pakistan, the Indian Express has reported.
“We consider ourselves to be a strategic air power establishment of the IAF in the western sector, ever ready for operations,” said Air Commodore HS Arora, Air Officer Commanding of the Adampur airbase.
Meanwhile, the Ministry of Defence has signed a contract with the RAC MiG aircraft corporation to extend the service life of the MiG-29 by 25 to 40 years. Arora said six MiG-29 fighters were being upgraded and flight-tested in Russia, adding the remaining aircraft would be overhauled in India with the aid of Russian experts. “The upgraded MiG-29 fighters will have better radar systems and avionics to help fighters, a new weapon control system and modernised RD-33 engines, which would increase the aircraft hitting capability from long ranges,” he added.
Separately, the Indian army is planning to acquire 300 light tanks for deployment in the mountainous regions of the border with China and Pakistan, the Press Trust Of India has reported. It cited army sources as saying the tanks would be deployed in Jammu and Kashmir in the north and Arunachal Pradesh and Assam in the northeast.
#69
pakzgood
-
- Full Members
-
- 177 posts
COLONEL
- Gender:Male
- Location:pakistan
Posted 13 October 2009 - 07:30 AM
#70
penguin
-
- Senior Members
-
- 4,478 posts
GENERAL
- Interests:Many
- Location:Netherlands
Posted 20 January 2010 - 03:27 PM
1.) Refrain from using excessive profanity in any post.
2.) Refrain from using abusive behavior against other members.
3.) No personal attacks.
4.) Do not Spam your posts.
5.) No Raciest Remarks.
6.) Staying within the Forum category.
7.) No post should include Religious hatred/ topics, PDF is a defence forum
8.) Using more than one name. (Traced by IP address)
9.) Posting in wrong froum will either be deleted or moved to correct one
10.) Hatred again Pakistan and its allies including USA is not welcomed
http://forum.pakista...=findpost&p=128
#71
penguin
-
- Senior Members
-
- 4,478 posts
GENERAL
- Interests:Many
- Location:Netherlands
Posted 20 January 2010 - 03:27 PM
5 AM-39 (air-launched version) for 5 Super Étendards. All used, with 3 out of 5 hitting a totla of 2 ships. Of those hitting, at least 1 did not explode. The hits caused fires in the ship, one of which a civilian ship without comparable damage control to a military ship. Eventually the fire damage let to their demise (1 ship flooded in heavy seas, the other was sunk by the brits themselves).
In addtion, the Argentine navy operated 5 ships equipped with the surface launched MM-39 variant, for a total of at least 20 missiles.
Between August and November 1981, five Super Étendards and five [AM-39] Exocets were shipped to Argentina. All five of the missiles were used during the conflict, with one missile hitting the British destroyer HMS Sheffield and two the merchant aircraft transporter Atlantic Conveyor. Two missiles were used in each of those attacks. The fifth missile was launched in an attack intended to strike against the British aircraft carrier HMS Invincible but the attacking aircraft failed to find their target.[6] (A sixth Exocet, which damaged HMS Glamorgan, was a land-launched ship's [MM-38] missile, set up in an improvised truck-trailer platform by Argentine technicians.[7])
An Exocet impacted Sheffield amidships, approximately 8 feet above the waterline on Deck 2, tearing a gash in the hull.[3] The other missile splashed into the sea half a mile off her port beam.The Exocets were fired from two Super Étendards.
The MOD report into the sinking of the Sheffield concluded that: "Evidence indicates that the warhead did not detonate". the impact of the missile and the burning rocket motor set Sheffield ablaze. Accounts suggest that the initial impact of the missile immediately crippled the ship's onboard electricity generating systems and fractured the water main, preventing the anti-fire mechanisms from operating effectively, and thereby dooming the ship to be consumed by the raging fire.
The burnt-out hulk was taken in tow by the Rothesay class frigate HMS Yarmouth but sank at 53°04'S, 56°56' W on 10 May 1982; the high seas led to slow flooding through the hole in the ship's side, which eventually took her to the bottom.
The Exocet that struck Glamorgan failed to explode, but the unburnt rocket fuel caused a significant fire. It is likely that Glamorgan was saved from complete destruction by the prompt action of the officers and men at the helm. With less than a minute's warning that a missile was incoming, they ordered maximum revolutions and turned to present her stern to the missile. When the missile struck, the ship was heeled far over to port and instead of striking the side the missile hit the coaming and was deflected upwards. The dent caused by the impact was clearly visible when Glamorgan was refitted in late 1982.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet
http://en.wikipedia....Sheffield_(D80)
http://en.wikipedia....ard#cite_note-4
http://en.wikipedia....lantic_Conveyor
In 1982, Argentina operated two Type 42 destroyers, just like the british ones, but equiped with MM-38: ARA Hercules and ARA Santisima Trinidad
The ARA Guerrico is NOT a destroyer, but a corvette of the Drummond class, consiting of 3 ships originally built by France (A69 aviso type a.k.a. D'Estienne d'Orves class) for South Africa but sold to Argentina instead. It too was MM-38 equipped.
The ARA's MEKO ships (4 MM-40 armed Meko 360H2 and 6 MM-38 armed MEKO 140) were not yet completed and/or in service at the time of the Falklands conflict.
1.) Refrain from using excessive profanity in any post.
2.) Refrain from using abusive behavior against other members.
3.) No personal attacks.
4.) Do not Spam your posts.
5.) No Raciest Remarks.
6.) Staying within the Forum category.
7.) No post should include Religious hatred/ topics, PDF is a defence forum
8.) Using more than one name. (Traced by IP address)
9.) Posting in wrong froum will either be deleted or moved to correct one
10.) Hatred again Pakistan and its allies including USA is not welcomed
http://forum.pakista...=findpost&p=128
#72
Simpleton
-
- Senior Members
-
- 5,053 posts
GENERAL
- Gender:Male
- Location:the plains of despair
Posted 11 June 2010 - 04:42 AM
Just like with our airspace and incursions is there a limit after which unauthorized vessels can be engaged legally? Like when IAF a/c flew across the border and scurried back last year, from what I understood of the situation had it crossed a certain point it would have been engaged. Is there such a limit if an unauthorized a/c, surface vessel or sub-surface vessel from another nation were to enter the airspace over Pakistani territorial waters or cross into Pakistani territorial waters.
The reason I ask is because submarine v. submarine warfare is inherently secretive. I mean even during peacetime the sub service is always tracking hunting and practicing taking the shot on enemy vessels. Also, subs from the major powers are often patrolling the territorial waters of their potential adversaries, or in the case of actual declared actions such as the recent deployment of Israeli sub in Iranian territorial waters. Of course without permission the presence of such a submarine is in violation of the territorial sovereignty of a nation. Now lets say hypothetically the Indians are doing the same to us and we manage to detect the sub withing our territorial waters without being detected ourselves, why not engage and destroy the Indian sub? After all they can't blame Pakistan for any action, as they aren't supposed to be there and we can easily play dumb and instead show our indignation should they claim that we sunk their vessel, as saying "why were they in our waters, and how dare they blame us for the loss of their sub, for all we know it sank due to their own ineptitude." Besides there will be no "proof" that we did it.
Personally I think we should quietly sink all non Pakistani subs that enter into our territorial waters.
Now let's suppose PN/ISI/MI or whomever discovers the location of Site Bravo (where SSBN Arihant is undergoing sea trials) isn't it worthwhile due to the secretive nature of submarine warfare and the inherent deniability of such actions that we should plan and execute a sinking effort? I mean if they say PN sunk our sub, it's embarrassing for them; if they claim it was "technical" problems that too is embarrassing for them, so they'll have to stay mum, also, they'll probably be other navies subs eavesdropping in the region so whose to say who launched the weapon? Again there will be no "proof" if we do something like this.
WHILE THE WRONG AND SHAME ENDURE.
TO BE WITHOUT SIGHT OR SENSE IS A MOST HAPPY CHANGE FOR ME,
THEREFORE DO NOT ROUSE ME. HUSH! SPEAK LOW.
I said to God "I hate Life" God replied "Who asked you to love life? Just Love me & life will be beautiful"
Living in favorable and unfavorable conditions is PART of living. Smiling in all those conditions is ART of living.
"Anytime you think you need to protect God, you can be sure you're worshiping an idol"
I've stopped fighting my inner demons. We're on the same side now.
#73
Londo Molari
-
- Senior Members
-
- 2,932 posts
GENERAL
Posted 12 June 2010 - 10:33 PM
1) If we sink a ship of theirs outside our territorial waters, they would consider it an act of war, as would be logical, and we would be in serious trouble. Doesn't matter if we deny it. If they believe we did it, it could start a war.
2) Submarines are great at hiding, as long as they don't engage. Once they attack some1, they are in serious danger. So we could lose our attacking sub and sailors in the process.
#74
Simpleton
-
- Senior Members
-
- 5,053 posts
GENERAL
- Gender:Male
- Location:the plains of despair
Posted 17 June 2010 - 04:19 AM
No that's not a worthwhile idea for 2 reasons:
1) If we sink a ship of theirs outside our territorial waters, they would consider it an act of war, as would be logical, and we would be in serious trouble. Doesn't matter if we deny it. If they believe we did it, it could start a war.
2) Submarines are great at hiding, as long as they don't engage. Once they attack some1, they are in serious danger. So we could lose our attacking sub and sailors in the process.
Thanks for the reply. But my main question regarding the limit after which engagement is authorized with regards to the territroial waters remains unanswered.
WHILE THE WRONG AND SHAME ENDURE.
TO BE WITHOUT SIGHT OR SENSE IS A MOST HAPPY CHANGE FOR ME,
THEREFORE DO NOT ROUSE ME. HUSH! SPEAK LOW.
I said to God "I hate Life" God replied "Who asked you to love life? Just Love me & life will be beautiful"
Living in favorable and unfavorable conditions is PART of living. Smiling in all those conditions is ART of living.
"Anytime you think you need to protect God, you can be sure you're worshiping an idol"
I've stopped fighting my inner demons. We're on the same side now.
#75
Londo Molari
-
- Senior Members
-
- 2,932 posts
GENERAL
Posted 20 June 2010 - 11:30 AM
#76
Simpleton
-
- Senior Members
-
- 5,053 posts
GENERAL
- Gender:Male
- Location:the plains of despair
Posted 20 June 2010 - 08:27 PM
I understand what you're saying, but my questions were hypothetical in nature. I think I may have been unclear in asking my question, remember the mid december 2008 IAF airspace violation that was supposedly a "technical intrusion" where IAF jets entered Pakistani airspace in two places and penetrated around 4 to 5 km before PAF forced them back? Well my curiosity piqued in that the IAF wasn't immediately blown out of the sky no questions asked. That was the first time I paid attention to this aspect of our border management, I found out through the discussions on the boards that because jets fly fast they often make technical intrusions into each others space, and to prevent such incidents precipitating a shooting war, a certain leeway is given that if after crossing the border a plane turns back before crossing a certain limit then it won't be fired upon, I think the general consesus on the boards was like 7km or something (I can't be sure and can't find that topic). I also learned that there's usually a stretch of airspace on both sides of the border where military craft don't fly so as to prevent such technical intrusions and also allow air defense time to intercept, barring this combined 20 or so Km strip an aircraft will be engaged. My question arose from looking for a similar scenario on the naval side. i.e., airspace over Pakistani waters (b/c no targets as such so is this no fly area less likely to be enforced or is simply larger?) and the Pakistani territorial water border, again technically if something enters and happens to be in shooting range, how deep a penetration will be tolerated before warnings turn to shooting across the bow to actual engagement?
WHILE THE WRONG AND SHAME ENDURE.
TO BE WITHOUT SIGHT OR SENSE IS A MOST HAPPY CHANGE FOR ME,
THEREFORE DO NOT ROUSE ME. HUSH! SPEAK LOW.
I said to God "I hate Life" God replied "Who asked you to love life? Just Love me & life will be beautiful"
Living in favorable and unfavorable conditions is PART of living. Smiling in all those conditions is ART of living.
"Anytime you think you need to protect God, you can be sure you're worshiping an idol"
I've stopped fighting my inner demons. We're on the same side now.
#77
Londo Molari
-
- Senior Members
-
- 2,932 posts
GENERAL
Posted 21 June 2010 - 11:05 PM
For air force I know that in peacetime if we shoot down enemy aircraft and it crashes back on enemy soil, then it is considered illegal. That is why we give some room. If it crashes in our soil, then we were justified to shoot it down. I don't know if similar laws exist for navy.
#78
AL-khalid
-
- Senior Members
-
- 2,899 posts
GENERAL
- Gender:Male
Posted 13 November 2010 - 08:34 AM
Cry you like women over a kingdom (Pakistan) lost which you could not defend like men.
*¤**¤**¤**¤**¤**¤**¤**¤**¤**¤**¤**¤**¤**¤**¤**¤**¤**¤**¤**¤*
Main Jo Sar-ba-sajada Huaa Kabhi, To Zameen Se Aane Lagi Sada
Tera Dil To Hai Sanam Aashanaa, Tujhe Kya Milega Namaaz Mein
Whenever I went into prostration a voice came from the earth
Your heart is in materialism what would you gain from your prayers
#79
Deepanshu
-
- Banned
-
- 4 posts
CADET
#80
Simpleton
-
- Senior Members
-
- 5,053 posts
GENERAL
- Gender:Male
- Location:the plains of despair
Posted 30 November 2010 - 11:04 AM
PN Careers
Induction of Short Service Commission Officers in following branches of Pakistan Navy is carried out as and when required. Short Service Commission is basically for five years which may be extended and converted into permanent commission:
* Education Branch
* Special Branch (Computer Programmer/IT Specialists)
* Law Branch
Nine months training will be given at various training establishments of Pakistan Navy.
LAW BRANCH
ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS:
· Male/Female citizen of Pakistan
· Age: Between 25 to 40 years
· Height: 162.5 Centimeters (5’ – 4”) Minimum.
· Qualification:
o In possession of Law Degree which should be held in addition to a degree in Arts or Sciences from a recognized university.
o A practicing member of a Bar.
INELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS
· Rejected by ISSB:
o Twice after Post Graduation
o Once before Post Graduation and once after Post Graduation
o Twice before Post Graduation and once after Post Graduation
· Resigned/dismissed/withdrawn from Armed Forces
· Dismissed/removed from Govt service.
· Convicted by a court of law for an offence involving moral turpitude
· Declared medically unfit by an Armed Forces Appeal Medical Board
· Married to a Foreign National
· Submitting tampered original academic certificates
· Concealment of information in the application form
SELECTION PROCEDURE
· Entrance Test (Intelligence Test)
· Preliminary Medical
· Interview
Note: Application forms will be issued to those candidates who qualify all the above tests
· Test/Interview at ISSB Kohat/Gujranwala/Malir/Quetta
· Medical Examination at one of the Military Hospitals
· Interview by Naval Selection Board
· Final selection by Naval Headquarters
HOW TO APPLY
For Registration. visit nearest Pakistan Navy Recruitment & Selection Centre along with original and attested photo copies of following academic documents and an uncrossed Postal Order of Rs. 100/- in the name of Director of Recruitment .
* Matric, FSc, BA/BSc, MA/MSc certificates/degrees and mark sheets
* National Identity Card
* Domicile Certificate
* 3 attested passport size photographs
*Important
· Candidates should apply on prescribed application forms
· Incomplete applications will not be entertained.
· Candidates claiming antedate seniority must attach higher qualification and experience certificates issued by respective heads of recognized institutions.
· Candidate with higher qualification/experience may be considered for grant of higher rank/seniority.
Note
Induction of SSC Officers is not a regular feature. Therefore, application may only be submitted as and when advertisement appears in the press.
WHILE THE WRONG AND SHAME ENDURE.
TO BE WITHOUT SIGHT OR SENSE IS A MOST HAPPY CHANGE FOR ME,
THEREFORE DO NOT ROUSE ME. HUSH! SPEAK LOW.
I said to God "I hate Life" God replied "Who asked you to love life? Just Love me & life will be beautiful"
Living in favorable and unfavorable conditions is PART of living. Smiling in all those conditions is ART of living.
"Anytime you think you need to protect God, you can be sure you're worshiping an idol"
I've stopped fighting my inner demons. We're on the same side now.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Community Forum Software by IP.Board
Licensed to: PakistaniDefence.Com