What's new

Steel cutting ceremony of 2nd Milgem Corvette held at KS&EW - June 2020

Well, first PN squandered the Agusta ToT and then there was all this jumping about for the Azmat but that too seems more like a 1 off story. Hope the J class does not end in the same way.

Still scratching my head as to the purpose of the Azmat class last ship. All that time and effort...

On a different topic, the recent deal with Italy for unknown equipment nearly worth a billion is quite fascinating. I think it may include helicopters for these ships, as well as SAMs. May also include other subsystems and hopefully some second hand gear.
 
Certification and acceptance tests usually take more than 10 months when combined altogether, at least by the standards we are legally and practically bound to oblige. I am not saying this to undermine Chinese Navy or worship ours but from the perspective of safety and platform security, it is essential that the building period from laying the first block to declaring the ship operational goes smoothly as planned and any malfunction and exploitation gets repaired.

There is a reason for why huge number of maintenance and safety accidents occur in Asian navies, particularly India and previously Russia. No matter who they serve, life of sailors should not be jeopardized at the expense of delivery times.

Take the first I-class frigate for example..

January 2021: Laid to sea
May 2022: Port acceptance tests
September 2023: Delivered to navy
January 2023: Cruise tests (contrary to its name, in addition to mobility; weapons sytems and sensors are also tested)

These dates are of course dependent on other factors too like politics, economy, engineering and more. I think our fellow engineer @ANMDT can enlighten us on why our naval ship building time and process is longer than that of Chinese, because I am not 100% sure and might as well as be wrong.

The Turkish approach is extremely sound, but at the same time there is no reason to doubt the Chinese quality either. The difference in timelines can be explained by differences in economies of scale. Having said that, the Type054A is going to be the first modern frigate that PN gets its hands on after F-22, and we will get a definite update on the quality once the ship has been inducted. I am not expecting any surprises since PN has been involved in exercises, the officers must have visited existing ships, and a certain level of quality expectations would have been conveyed. Yes, a lot of could, should, and would, but that's because I don't have any official sources.
 
I don't want to destroy the thread. but I hope the brothers do not misunderstand 054A.

Although China has the ability to build 10+ 054A in one year, but this does not mean that it is at the same level as some light frigates.

I said, 054A adapts to any sea area in the world. Including Indian Ocean, Pacific Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea, Baltic Sea, Persian Gulf..... at the same time, 054A has the experience of holding military exercises in global waters.

Here we do not provide links, videos, and pictures. Keep the thread. please continue.
 
Yep. My bad. I thought I identified the target illumination radars, but what we see on the KSEW MILGEM aren't it (for reference, look at how they're configured on the 054A).

So, they've either not selected a SAM yet, or we're looking at an ARM-based SAM.

I don't know what to make of the VLS. It's not like any that I've seen before -- it's not SYLVER (for CAMM or Aster) nor is it the one used for the Umkhonto (see MEKO A200AN). Either the PN hasn't decided, and it's showing just a placeholder, or this is some different system altogether (in-house SAM?).
Or MDAS?
 


Im fairly certain itll either be the CAMM or the HQ-16, this is based off of two probabilities:

1. the designer of the graphic got lazy and didnt add a common uptake and we did select the HQ-16, which would be reasonable because we already are operating HHQ-16's.

2. The design is accurate, however, there are no VLS systems outside of like Russia that dont make use of a common uptake, there is a possibility of a CCL VLS but we dont know. However, the CAMM would fit the bill as it uses a cold launch system and also has a square VLS tube shape, the MBDA graphic i posted aligns with the graphic of the Jinnah class
 
Im fairly certain itll either be the CAMM or the HQ-16, this is based off of two probabilities:

1. the designer of the graphic got lazy and didnt add a common uptake and we did select the HQ-16, which would be reasonable because we already are operating HHQ-16's.

2. The design is accurate, however, there are no VLS systems outside of like Russia that dont make use of a common uptake, there is a possibility of a CCL VLS but we dont know. However, the CAMM would fit the bill as it uses a cold launch system and also has a square VLS tube shape, the MBDA graphic i posted aligns with the graphic of the Jinnah class
With the PN/KSEW, I think the design is true-to-reality. I remember seeing the first illustrations of FAC(M)-3 -- i.e., PNS Himmat -- with the 2x3 launcher, and we saw it in reality. Then we saw the illustration of FAC(M)-4 with KSEW altering the bow section a bit, and that ended up being real as well.

I'd say, with 90% confidence, KSEW's PN MILGEM illustration is close to the real thing. Now, the uptake VLS could also be a sign of the PN taking things a whole other direction. We know MBDA Italy wants in on this program (i.e., their CEO visited the CNS in October 2019), but the previous CNS asked Denel about the Umkhonto.

Though it is ready (or near-ready), we haven't seen an implementation of the Umkhonto EIR (30-35 km range) yet, just the older variants. So, this could be a proprietary VLS belonging to Denel Group (or some other smaller OEM).

For reference, Algeria paid $61 m to equip its 2 MEKO A-200ANs with the Umkhonto, i.e., a total of 100 missiles, 32 proprietary VLS cells per ship, FCS, integration and testing included.

I'd reckon it can cost the PN around $20 m to configure each ship (including missiles and a proprietary VLS).

@denel you might find this all interesting. Just for your reference, we're talking about the raised VLS onboard the PN's new MILGEM corvette/light frigate.

milgem-big-png.640186
 
Last edited:
With the PN/KSEW, I think the design is true-to-reality. I remember seeing the first illustrations of FAC(M)-3 -- i.e., PNS Himmat -- with the 2x3 launcher, and we saw it in reality. Then we saw the illustration of FAC(M)-4 with KSEW altering the bow section a bit, and that ended up being real as well.

I'd say, with 90% confidence, KSEW's PN MILGEM illustration is close to the real thing. Now, the uptake VLS could also be a sign of the PN taking things a whole other direction. We know MBDA Italy wants in on this program (i.e., their CEO visited the CNS in October 2019), but the previous CNS asked Denel about the Umkhonto.

Though it is ready (or near-ready), we haven't seen an implementation of the Umkhonto EIR (30-35 km range) yet, just the older variants. So, this could be a proprietary VLS belonging to Denel Group (or some other smaller OEM).

@denel you might find this all interesting. Just for your reference, we're talking about the raised VLS onboard the PN's new MILGEM corvette/light frigate.

milgem-big-png.640186


Have to agree, we know the Turks are providing all the radars and EW fit, so hard to see a Chinese solution being mated with Turkish/NATO tech. My guess is Italian missiles.
 
Im fairly certain itll either be the CAMM or the HQ-16, this is based off of two probabilities:

1. the designer of the graphic got lazy and didnt add a common uptake and we did select the HQ-16, which would be reasonable because we already are operating HHQ-16's.

2. The design is accurate, however, there are no VLS systems outside of like Russia that dont make use of a common uptake, there is a possibility of a CCL VLS but we dont know. However, the CAMM would fit the bill as it uses a cold launch system and also has a square VLS tube shape, the MBDA graphic i posted aligns with the graphic of the Jinnah class
I think PN will use HQ-16 as well. G40 will be similar to the CAMM, I'm sure that both the G40 and MDAS will be ready by 2024 so there's also that possibility...
 
With the PN/KSEW, I think the design is true-to-reality. I remember seeing the first illustrations of FAC(M)-3 -- i.e., PNS Himmat -- with the 2x3 launcher, and we saw it in reality. Then we saw the illustration of FAC(M)-4 with KSEW altering the bow section a bit, and that ended up being real as well.

I'd say, with 90% confidence, KSEW's PN MILGEM illustration is close to the real thing. Now, the uptake VLS could also be a sign of the PN taking things a whole other direction. We know MBDA Italy wants in on this program (i.e., their CEO visited the CNS in October 2019), but the previous CNS asked Denel about the Umkhonto.

Though it is ready (or near-ready), we haven't seen an implementation of the Umkhonto EIR (30-35 km range) yet, just the older variants. So, this could be a proprietary VLS belonging to Denel Group (or some other smaller OEM).

For reference, Algeria paid $61 m to equip its 2 MEKO A-200ANs with the Umkhonto, i.e., a total of 100 missiles, 32 proprietary VLS cells per ship, FCS, integration and testing included.

I'd reckon it can cost the PN around $20 m to configure each ship (including missiles and a proprietary VLS).

@denel you might find this all interesting. Just for your reference, we're talking about the raised VLS onboard the PN's new MILGEM corvette/light frigate.

milgem-big-png.640186

In an earlier post you mentioned you haven't seen anything like the raised VLS system. I searched youtube for VLS and this is the first link that came up


Notice the raised VLS?
 
In an earlier post you mentioned you haven't seen anything like the raised VLS system. I searched youtube for VLS and this is the first link that came up


Notice the raised VLS?
Not the raised VLS specifically, but the launch shutters. That specific VLS design (on the KSEW illustration), i.e., raised + that style of launch shutter, spacing between each silo, etc, I haven't seen elsewhere.
 
Not the raised VLS specifically, but the launch shutters. That specific VLS design (on the KSEW illustration), i.e., raised + that style of launch shutter, spacing between each silo, etc, I haven't seen elsewhere.

If you can obtain estimates of hull height, we can put estimates on the size of the raised VLS. From there, we can estimate the length of the missiles themselves. That might shed further light?
 
If you can obtain estimates of hull height, we can put estimates on the size of the raised VLS. From there, we can estimate the length of the missiles themselves. That might shed further light?
The uptake looks about the average man's height (see hatch). So, about 1.7 m extra atop of whatever is recessed in the hull. We don't know how much of the space under the hull was available to them, i.e., was it all or was it just a portion? I'd wager the minimum space needed in the hull is at least 2 m, otherwise, you're going to have trouble fitting any SAM type.
 
Certification and acceptance tests usually take more than 10 months when combined altogether, at least by the standards we are legally and practically bound to oblige. I am not saying this to undermine Chinese Navy or worship ours but from the perspective of safety and platform security, it is essential that the building period from laying the first block to declaring the ship operational goes smoothly as planned and any malfunction and exploitation gets repaired.

There is a reason for why huge number of maintenance and safety accidents occur in Asian navies, particularly India and previously Russia. No matter who they serve, life of sailors should not be jeopardized at the expense of delivery times.

Take the first I-class frigate for example..

January 2021: Laid to sea
May 2022: Port acceptance tests
September 2023: Delivered to navy
January 2023: Cruise tests (contrary to its name, in addition to mobility; weapons sytems and sensors are also tested)

These dates are of course dependent on other factors too like politics, economy, engineering and more. I think our fellow engineer @ANMDT can enlighten us on why our naval ship building time and process is longer than that of Chinese, because I am not 100% sure and might as well as be wrong.
It actually depends on the planning,

13 months span cover from launching to commissioning, probably Chinese shipyard launches the vessel with all systems are integrated on (electronics etc). The time took from first steel cut to commissioning of the first vessel of any order, only this, would tell us the true span about building. This is rather hard to describe in words, but modules of the ships can be built in parallel, 4 ships would take 4 years, but 1 ship alone would take 2.5 -3 years.

This is a preference they can either launch ship equipped if they have enough space ( on drydock-slipway) or launch it bare, tow to the berth or another dry dock (if requires dry works) and equip it in there. It depends on the size of shipyards, crane arrangements, production flow and bunch of other stuff those i don't know.

They have larger shipyards with more steel processing capacity, more automated in terms of steel processing but system integration (equipping) is entirely relies on handwork,and sometimes it is not done in parallel with steelworks or even within themselves, this is valid for testing as well not all procedures can be conducted in parallel. Briefly i can say this: comparing any ship's launching to commissioning timespan does not give any insight about the time it is built unless we know how the shipyard works. But 13 months for steel construction+equipping+remakes+testing doesn't make much sense, it is rather impossible. it is for sure, partially equipping (minor things like furniture that can be equipped in between of testing)+testing to take 13 months.

I know at least one Korean shipyard installs (equips) the steel modules (blocks) before erecting (mounting) this requires high accuracy manufacturing and experience but i am not again sure if this could be achieved in naval vessels, considering mass amount of cabling-piping, but i know our shipyards ,except a few, can not work with large blocks; the smaller blocks are, the more time spend on erecting them. It is simply far more easy to build those blocks on the ground than mounting smaller ones to each other on the slipway.

Assuming China has built enough many warships to gain experience on this as well. This could be another factor to accelerate their progress. They are much more experienced than us in this. However, All aforementioned factors wouldn't double their production speed. It would only accelerate when multiple ships are delivered in a row.

Before 2010 i personally knew people who has avoided Chinese shipyards and leaned on Japan and Korea due to multiple reasons. But nowadays they are good as Koreans and they have already gained majority of the pie and also trusted by shipowners. As of 2020, especially for a Chinese military shipyard, we can hardly speak of low quality production (at least i can say this for steelworks). They spend a lot on R&D. Hundred folds of our research budget for ship design, production, engineering related jobs is poured on the universities.

Last matter, China (or Chinese shipyard) considers this in terms of profit, the sooner they finish and deliver the vessel the more profit they will gain. We consider this in terms of providing ships to a country that our government refers as brother.

One more brief explanation, i have came across a few guys complaining about schedule of this project in almost in threads related to J-Class:

Pakistan ordered Type 54A Frigate in 2018 June, This is a ready to built platform for Chinese and maybe with minor modifications that can be applied (for the PN requirement like Galley- berthing - prayer room and so on) on the go, and first ship will be delivered in 2021 Q2 (Q3 or Q4) which takes about 2.5 years or 3 or more; without any ToT. This simply proves a Type 54A is not built within 13 months.

For F22P the first ship roughly took about 3 years in China, again we don't know when steel cut has started, only keel laying is indicated,in the same way the last ship which is built in Pakistan took about 3 year. For the last ship of the J-Class it is expected to lay keel 18 months after the 1st ship, which will be 2022 and delivered in 2025, which is again 2.5-3 years.

Pakistan has ordered J-Class in 2018 (or 2019 i am not quite sure), with accepting that design modifications applied on Ada-Class will take 18 months or even longer (since Pakistan has also joined on this process). Turkey or any other country is in no place to prepare a design in details just for possible 4 ships purchase. Moreover, Turkey has offered ToT, probably far more than what Chinese has offered within F-22P project and furthermore one vital thing : Ability to design warships, IP rights of the new design and system integration viable for future, The furthest ToT shipbuilders has offered were extending to module building, block erecting and production phase in most of the cases (speaking of purchases and deliveries made by other countries). Turkey has spent years or decades to gain this knowledge, and we are sharing this for sake of brotherhood, not the finances.

Last words: The single matter is how countries' authorities came into agreement, it could have been 10 or 20 year, it all what depends on. There are multiple reasons to settle a schedule, finances, extension of the ToT, Navy's requirement and procurement-replacement schedule-training of personnel is only a few factors. Chinese shipyard can equip (the numbers are just fictitious to make some point) 4 ships in parallel for foreign sales, considering the sources they have got and the huge demand for their own navy, our military shipyard can spare only 1 slot for foreign sales to ensure 1-2 slots for our own demand. Even for I-Class's 2nd-4th vessels a consortium is spoken of, to produce more ships in shorter times.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom