What's new

Discussion Pakistan navy, s frigate options 2016

monitor

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
8,570
Reaction score
7
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Bangladesh
DISCUSSION: THE PAKISTAN NAVY’S FRIGATE OPTIONS (2016)
ShareTweet

Foreword: This is not a news story, but a piece for discussion. The details offered in this article are not authoritative pieces of information, but rather, perspectives of the author.

In 2015, Quwa published an article examining the Pakistan Navy’s known procurement plans, which, in hindsight of recent statements and events, seem relatively conservative. That said, one of the core themes of that article (titled: “Is it finally the Pakistan Navy’s turn?”) was the apparent need for a multi-mission frigate to credibly defend Pakistan’s sea-lines-of-communication (SLOC) – i.e. sea-lanes – in times of peace and in times of war. With the Pakistani government strongly emphasizing the value of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and Gwadar, the call for strengthening the Navy has grown.

Thus far, that strengthening process has comprised of a multi-billion-dollar purchase of eight submarines with air-independent propulsion (AIP) from China and strong interest in four corvettes and four to six new fast attack crafts from Turkey and/or China. In addition, the Pakistan Navy has also procured a third ATR-72-based maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) and an undisclosed number of ScanEagle surveillance drones.

Although the China Shipbuilding & Offshore International Corporation (CSOC) displayed a few new multi-mission frigate designs at the 2016 International Defence Exhibition and Seminar (IDEAS), Pakistan’s bi-annual defence industry exhibition, it is not clear if the Pakistan Navy will procure new frigates. Assuming the Pakistan Navy’s planners are intent on guarding SLOCs, which appears to be the case, then a budget-conscious approach may be under consideration.

For clarity, it is important to understand that modern terms such as “frigate” and “corvette” mean little to today’s navies and shipbuilders. For example, in June, Qatar ordered four 3,000-ton ‘corvettes’ from the Italian shipbuilder Fincantieri. These ‘corvettes’ are not only close in displacement to Pakistan’s F-22P Zulfiqar-class “frigates”, but with the MBDA Aster-30 long-range surface-to-air missile (SAM) system, they are superior air defence assets. Interestingly, the four corvettes that the Pakistan Navy is in talks for from the Turkish shipbuilder Savunma Teknolojileri Mühendislik ve Ticaret A.Ş. (STM) – i.e. the MILGEM – are identical in capability to the F-22P, though lighter in displacement.

In this article, ships with displacements of 2,000-tons or more will be described as “frigates”, and warships weighing 300-tons or more will be described as “corvettes.” This is largely arbitrary, but differentiation is being sought to demarcate between assets suitable for wartime SLOC protection and others (e.g. littoral anti-access and area-denial assets). Ultimately, it is a less of a question of a platform being classified “X” or “Y” and more of an issue of its actual capabilities.

Broadly, Pakistan will likely weigh anti-access and area-denial (A2/AD) as the priority naval need, with sea-lane protection being secondary. In other words, it is unlikely that a fighter aircraft or main battle tank program will be permitted to suffer to foot the bill for an expensive surface warship. If the armed forces leadership determine that the country’s coastal assets are well-defended, which would require stealthy submarines, fast attack crafts (FAC), and coastal anti-ship missile (AShM) batteries, then SLOC protection – while a necessity – may not be the ‘greater necessity’ in comparison to other needs.

Balance would be required in the pursuit of surface warships, and in turn, expectations for 4,000-ton or 5,000-ton frigates should be tempered. Foregoing larger surface warships need not result in limited multi-mission capabilities. Realizing that many navies are unable to afford frigates at $500 million U.S. per ship (if not higher), the shipbuilding industry, particularly outside of Western Europe, has stepped to offer very compelling and much more affordable platforms.

For example, Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI) sold two 114.3 metre 2,600-ton frigates to the Philippines Navy for $311 million U.S. Granted, this probably does not include the cost of onboard sensors, electronics and weapons, but with hulls (and propulsion?) costing $155.5 million U.S., there is considerable vertical room for configuration. A fully-outfitted HHI design with Western European or American subsystems should fit in the $300-350 million U.S. range.

It would curious, to say the least, if Pakistan’s talks with STM (for four MILGEM ships) do not translate into a program comparable to the HHI frigate for the Philippines. While the Ada-class corvette is a sound anti-submarine warfare (ASW) platform, the Istanbul-class frigate is fundamentally the same platform as the Ada, but with 10 additional metres to accommodate eight additional AShM (for a total of 16) and a vertical launch system (VLS) for a SAM system.

The final cost of the Istanbul-class frigate, also known as the MILGEM-G, should be in the range of the HHI frigate bought by the Philippines. The Ada-class itself would cost around $250 million U.S. per ship, so the $50-100 million U.S. gap for genuine anti-air warfare (AAW) and improved anti-ship warfare (AShW) is not significant considering the improvement. If this is unaffordable, then an alternative should be sought.

Pakistan Navy could opt for an upgraded version of the C28A (acquired by Algeria), which is an improved version of the F-22P. In contrast to the F-22P and C28A, one would expect the Pakistan Navy to have VLS incorporated from the design-phase, which would set the foundation for a medium-range SAM system.

Ultimately, be it the MILGEM or ‘improved’ F-22P/C28A, the Pakistan Navy’s emphasis would be on acquiring credible AAW, AShW and ASW capabilities at an affordable cost. Most likely, a conservative path would enable the Navy to assuredly procure the minimal number (i.e. four?) of capable frigates. In the best-case scenario where there is ample funding, a conservative design could be procured in greater numbers. This would emulate the Pakistan Navy’s decision to pursue eight Chinese AIP submarines instead of three or four Western European submarines (flexible financing from China notwithstanding).

The ‘corvette’ space may shift to favour sub-1,000-ton designs. If the purpose is to have assets capable of patrolling SLOCs in peacetime and to defend littoral waters in wartime, then the 2,300-ton STM Ada-class would be unwise. Its role could be fulfilled (albeit with possibly lesser ASW capabilities) by a much smaller – but much more affordable – ship, such as the 640-tons Visby-class corvette. Interestingly, the Visby-class does possess credible ASW capabilities through three 400 mm torpedo tubes, which can deploy Saab’s Tp-45 and Tp-47 lightweight ASW torpedoes.

If Pakistan intends to build a surface fleet, it will essentially need to focus on the smaller and lighter ships of so-called ‘frigate’ and ‘corvette’ classes. In effect, the ‘frigates’ would be in sub-3,000-ton displacement range, and the ‘corvettes’ in the sub-1,000-ton displacement range. In both cases, the priority would be to imbue each design with sufficient mission capabilities in AShW, AAW, and ASW, but with an emphasis on controlling cost. That said, saving on the barebones hull and propulsion would offer Pakistan additional vertical space for onboard configuration, which could (in theory) let the Pakistan Navy invest in industry-standard subsystems (e.g. air and surface surveillance radar and sub-surface sonar).
 
oLMn2MJ.jpg

15109493_10207874244120786_6832912897611586501_n.jpg
 
My philosophy is this: don't put a couple of billion dollars out on the ocean where they will be essentially sitting ducks against saturation attacks. Given the length of time over which our Navy has been neglected, it will take time to build a battle group. We need to start with smaller crafts that are agile and nimble and serve the dual purpose of littoral combat and corvettes. Once we have these in sufficient numbers we should think about advanced frigates that can be supported by their own dedicated corvettes and fighter jets. Destroyers can then follow. Meanwhile we need to improve our indigenous shipbuliding capabilities across the various classes. As a stop gap, nuclear tipped AShW missiles should ward off any evil intentions from the enemy. Also in the short to medium term I envisage JF-17s to be a mainstay against surface based naval threats.

One point where I would differ from the article in OP is trying to save on hull and propulsion. I advocate stealthy designs with reduced RCS as much as possible.
 
F-22P-Pakistan-Oman-Exercise-ISPR-692x360.jpg


Foreword: This is not a news story, but a piece for discussion. The details offered in this article are not authoritative pieces of information, but rather, perspectives of the author.

In 2015, Quwa published an article examining the Pakistan Navy’s known procurement plans, which, in hindsight of recent statements and events, seem relatively conservative. That said, one of the core themes of that article (titled: “Is it finally the Pakistan Navy’s turn?”) was the apparent need for a multi-mission frigate to credibly defend Pakistan’s sea-lines-of-communication (SLOC) – i.e. sea-lanes – in times of peace and in times of war. With the Pakistani government strongly emphasizing the value of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and Gwadar, the call for strengthening the Navy has grown.

Thus far, that strengthening process has comprised of a multi-billion-dollar purchase of eight submarines with air-independent propulsion (AIP) from China and strong interest in four corvettes and four to six new fast attack crafts from Turkey and/or China. In addition, the Pakistan Navy has also procured a third ATR-72-based maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) and an undisclosed number of ScanEagle surveillance drones.

Although the China Shipbuilding & Offshore International Corporation (CSOC) displayed a few new multi-mission frigate designs at the 2016 International Defence Exhibition and Seminar (IDEAS), Pakistan’s bi-annual defence industry exhibition, it is not clear if the Pakistan Navy will procure new frigates. Assuming the Pakistan Navy’s planners are intent on guarding SLOCs, which appears to be the case, then a budget-conscious approach may be under consideration.

For clarity, it is important to understand that modern terms such as “frigate” and “corvette” mean little to today’s navies and shipbuilders. For example, in June, Qatar ordered four 3,000-ton ‘corvettes’ from the Italian shipbuilder Fincantieri. These ‘corvettes’ are not only close in displacement to Pakistan’s F-22P Zulfiqar-class “frigates”, but with the MBDA Aster-30 long-range surface-to-air missile (SAM) system, they are superior air defence assets. Interestingly, the four corvettes that the Pakistan Navy is in talks for from the Turkish shipbuilder Savunma Teknolojileri Mühendislik ve Ticaret A.Ş. (STM) – i.e. the MILGEM – are identical in capability to the F-22P, though lighter in displacement.

In this article, ships with displacements of 2,000-tons or more will be described as “frigates”, and warships weighing 300-tons or more will be described as “corvettes.” This is largely arbitrary, but differentiation is being sought to demarcate between assets suitable for wartime SLOC protection and others (e.g. littoral anti-access and area-denial assets). Ultimately, it is a less of a question of a platform being classified “X” or “Y” and more of an issue of its actual capabilities.

Broadly, Pakistan will likely weigh anti-access and area-denial (A2/AD) as the priority naval need, with sea-lane protection being secondary. In other words, it is unlikely that a fighter aircraft or main battle tank program will be permitted to suffer to foot the bill for an expensive surface warship. If the armed forces leadership determine that the country’s coastal assets are well-defended, which would require stealthy submarines, fast attack crafts (FAC), and coastal anti-ship missile (AShM) batteries, then SLOC protection – while a necessity – may not be the ‘greater necessity’ in comparison to other needs.

Balance would be required in the pursuit of surface warships, and in turn, expectations for 4,000-ton or 5,000-ton frigates should be tempered. Foregoing larger surface warships need not result in limited multi-mission capabilities. Realizing that many navies are unable to afford frigates at $500 million U.S. per ship (if not higher), the shipbuilding industry, particularly outside of Western Europe, has stepped to offer very compelling and much more affordable platforms.

For example, Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI) sold two 114.3 metre 2,600-ton frigates to the Philippines Navy for $311 million U.S. Granted, this probably does not include the cost of onboard sensors, electronics and weapons, but with hulls (and propulsion?) costing $155.5 million U.S., there is considerable vertical room for configuration. A fully-outfitted HHI design with Western European or American subsystems should fit in the $300-350 million U.S. range.

It would curious, to say the least, if Pakistan’s talks with STM (for four MILGEM ships) do not translate into a program comparable to the HHI frigate for the Philippines. While the Ada-class corvette is a sound anti-submarine warfare (ASW) platform, the Istanbul-class frigate is fundamentally the same platform as the Ada, but with 10 additional metres to accommodate eight additional AShM (for a total of 16) and a vertical launch system (VLS) for a SAM system.

The final cost of the Istanbul-class frigate, also known as the MILGEM-G, should be in the range of the HHI frigate bought by the Philippines. The Ada-class itself would cost around $250 million U.S. per ship, so the $50-100 million U.S. gap for genuine anti-air warfare (AAW) and improved anti-ship warfare (AShW) is not significant considering the improvement. If this is unaffordable, then an alternative should be sought.

Pakistan Navy could opt for an upgraded version of the C28A (acquired by Algeria), which is an improved version of the F-22P. In contrast to the F-22P and C28A, one would expect the Pakistan Navy to have VLS incorporated from the design-phase, which would set the foundation for a medium-range SAM system.

Ultimately, be it the MILGEM or ‘improved’ F-22P/C28A, the Pakistan Navy’s emphasis would be on acquiring credible AAW, AShW and ASW capabilities at an affordable cost. Most likely, a conservative path would enable the Navy to assuredly procure the minimal number (i.e. four?) of capable frigates. In the best-case scenario where there is ample funding, a conservative design could be procured in greater numbers. This would emulate the Pakistan Navy’s decision to pursue eight Chinese AIP submarines instead of three or four Western European submarines (flexible financing from China notwithstanding).

The ‘corvette’ space may shift to favour sub-1,000-ton designs. If the purpose is to have assets capable of patrolling SLOCs in peacetime and to defend littoral waters in wartime, then the 2,300-ton STM Ada-class would be unwise. Its role could be fulfilled (albeit with possibly lesser ASW capabilities) by a much smaller – but much more affordable – ship, such as the 640-tons Visby-class corvette. Interestingly, the Visby-class does possess credible ASW capabilities through three 400 mm torpedo tubes, which can deploy Saab’s Tp-45 and Tp-47 lightweight ASW torpedoes.

If Pakistan intends to build a surface fleet, it will essentially need to focus on the smaller and lighter ships of so-called ‘frigate’ and ‘corvette’ classes. In effect, the ‘frigates’ would be in sub-3,000-ton displacement range, and the ‘corvettes’ in the sub-1,000-ton displacement range. In both cases, the priority would be to imbue each design with sufficient mission capabilities in AShW, AAW, and ASW, but with an emphasis on controlling cost. That said, saving on the barebones hull and propulsion would offer Pakistan additional vertical space for onboard configuration, which could (in theory) let the Pakistan Navy invest in industry-standard subsystems (e.g. air and surface surveillance radar and sub-surface sonar).
 
@Penguin Will it be Possible for PN to get Type 23 Frigates from UK ?
I don't know if the UK will put them on the market. In the past, they have (sold 3 to Chilean navy, which is now modernizing them following the T-23 modernization effort of the RN) but this remains to be seen. Then there is a political question (who is UK willing to sell to) and a financial questions (what will be the asking price, and will this be within PNs means).
 
Focus on new and advanced Stuff. No need to go for used stuff as now requirement and role of PN are totally changed.
 
Even if we order now we are looking at 4 years before the first vessel is delivered. I also think there has been a strategic shift in our thinking vis a vis surface platforms. We seem to be going for more smaller vessels with stealth profiles and features and good anti ship warfare capabilities leaving the aggressive posturing to our subsurface platforms. This maybe in response to buildup of capabilities in our neighbourhood. I suspect as suitable medium range surface to air defence systems become available we will incorporate it with in this matrix, otherwise relying on short range anti aircraft defence systems and quick maneouvering and mobility. As this phase of build up matures I think we will then incorporate heavier ships with more robust SAM and S2S and AShW capabilities.
A
 
Even if we order now we are looking at 4 years before the first vessel is delivered. I also think there has been a strategic shift in our thinking vis a vis surface platforms. We seem to be going for more smaller vessels with stealth profiles and features and good anti ship warfare capabilities leaving the aggressive posturing to our subsurface platforms. This maybe in response to buildup of capabilities in our neighbourhood. I suspect as suitable medium range surface to air defence systems become available we will incorporate it with in this matrix, otherwise relying on short range anti aircraft defence systems and quick maneouvering and mobility. As this phase of build up matures I think we will then incorporate heavier ships with more robust SAM and S2S and AShW capabilities.
A

Dear Sir,

Pakistani FACs i.e like Azmat Class have speed of 30 Knots meanwhile with virtually even no short range SAMS. The only stealthy plat forms in FAC class are two Mrtp 33 . If we want to get real punch in case of FACs we should get FAC55 Turkish ones with 50+knots speed and proper stealth or at least Chinese Type 22.

The funny thing is where our enemy continuously getting stealthy destroyers and frigates with LRSAM and MRSAMs and AESA/PESA radars with VLS. Meanwhile at best we have only three F21 class frigates with MRSAM i.e LY60 with vintage Radars even they are in canisters with limited area coverage. While shameful fact is our F22Ps also do not have any MRSAM.

With FM90 the F22P frigates have no chance of defense against multiple ASHM attacks. The F21s are crying permanent rest.

The role of frigates and destroyers though can be covered by capable corvettes but not by FACs.
 
I have said in the past that PNs procurements need to focus on 2 things, stop gap ships thatcan be procured in the next few years and new builds. All ships need to be truely multirole with the ability to survive saturation attacks. That doesnt necessarily mean a long range defense but one that can defeat 3-4 AShM fired at it. To that end, for new frigates The PN should look at 4 MILGEM-G light frigates. With 16 AShM, ASW helicopter, Torpedoes and a 16 cell vls in addition to a missile based ciws this ship could pack quite a bit of fire power. The 250km range of the Atacama will provode good reach against surface threats. For the main SAM go with something quad-packable. I doubt ESSM would be available, so go for sea ceptor if HISAR-O is not quad-packable. Other options would include 40km K-SAAM from Korea which would likely be available or a quad-packable variant of DK-10. That would give it 64 medium range and 24 short range (ciws like fl3000n) SAMs and 16 AShM. Add 1-2 gun based ciws and this is a ship built for survival.

For stop gap i think PN should focus attention on the soon to be retired Australian Adelaides. There are 3 in service of which all have 8 cell mk 41 vls for essm. Equip the same quad-packable SAM as you would on MILGEM-G and upgrade their sensors and radars with Turkish help Utilizing the GENESIS upgrade. Do the same to Alamghir and give it an 8 cell A50 or A43 giving 4 OHP with 32 SAMs and phalanx ciws, and strong antisubmarine capabilities for relatively cheap and quickly (by 2020-2022). These would be the direct replacement for the Amazons.

Additionally PN is looking at the 4-6 FAC which ideally will be of the FAC-55 type which will give 8 AShM and up to 24 short range SAMs (fl3000n ciws in back). At 55kn and a long range radar like SMART-S mk2 it will be a stealthy, quick ship hunter in the EEZ.

Id also try to upgrade the F-22P with a vls (which would change its weight distribution ect). If doable get a 16-24 cell vls in place of the fm90/forward deck it sits on and equip it with the same medium range SAMs as previously mentioned. If that is not possible, replace the FM90 with 2 24 cell FL3000N (Shorter range, but many more missiles) which would help it better survive a saturation attack.

Next phase would be getting large heavy frigates like Type 057 which could likely be equipped with longer range SAMs like HQ9. Its model appears to have 32 cell in fron amd 16 cell in back which could likely allow for 16 hq9 and 128 medium range quad-packable SAMs.
 
With the delays in Type 26 program , and upcoming Carriers for RN , it would be difficult for them to give up present capital vessels.
As of 2012 it is planned that HMS Argyll will be the first Type 23 to retire from the Royal Navy in 2023 while HMS St Albans will be the last, in 2036. If need be, this schedule can be delayed.

That's what they want you to think.
I'm all for the Rhodesian navy.:rolleyes1:
 

Back
Top Bottom