What's new

PNS Azmat Class - Fast Attack Missile Craft | Updates & Discussions.

What is know about this semi auto 25 mm gun mount at the front ?

Rate of fire , guidance , magazine capacity range compared to ak-630 30mm with 4-5 km range


IMG_4974.JPG
 
There is not much space available for added stuff. PN would have to extend the hull design and build a new ship with higher displacement.


View attachment 592284 View attachment 592285 View attachment 592286

Possibly, Probably, but the PN should see if the forward gun could be replaced with the Bofors 40 mm without major modifications, and if the mast can be made into an integrated mast as in the Govind Corvette. Once the mast is integrated, it will free up space forward of the mast for a small; at least 8 cell FL-3000N Launcher.

The triple torpedo launcher may require structural modifications, the hull mounted sonar would definitely require modifications, and the drone helicopter landing system may require a landing pad above the RHIB at the fantail.

Either way, the PN should study it, if not as a modifications, then as a follow-on model.
 
Possibly, Probably, but the PN should see if the forward gun could be replaced with the Bofors 40 mm without major modifications, and if the mast can be made into an integrated mast as in the Govind Corvette. Once the mast is integrated, it will free up space forward of the mast for a small; at least 8 cell FL-3000N Launcher.

The triple torpedo launcher may require structural modifications, the hull mounted sonar would definitely require modifications, and the drone helicopter landing system may require a landing pad above the RHIB at the fantail.

Either way, the PN should study it, if not as a modifications, then as a follow-on model.


Without any major structural changes, I think PN may be (a big may be) could fit a Korkut system instead of the 25 MM at the front and/or a stripped down/modified Pantsir M type system instead of the CIWS to give added firepower.

This is a FAC. We can't make a corvette out of it within this tonnage. Its primary role would be anti-ship/anti surface not anti-sub.

Although I do agree about adding a landing pad above RHIB for a small S-100 type drone copter.

For a follow on model perhaps they could add space for an 8 cell FL-3000 N type SAM.

One more thing is that endurance of FAC is low so it would probably be used for shoot and scoot and not for Anti-sub duty which is of a longer duration.
 
Without any major structural changes, I think PN may be (a big may be) could fit a Korkut system instead of the 25 MM at the front and/or a stripped down/modified Pantsir M type system instead of the CIWS to give added firepower.

This is a FAC. We can't make a corvette out of it within this tonnage. Its primary role would be anti-ship/anti surface not anti-sub.

Although I do agree about adding a landing pad above RHIB for a small S-100 type drone copter.

For a follow on model perhaps they could add space for an 8 cell FL-3000 N type SAM.

One more thing is that endurance of FAC is low so it would probably be used for shoot and scoot and not for Anti-sub duty which is of a longer duration.

I will give you that, real ASW is probably too ambitious, maybe just a self protection suite with a hill mount sonar and decoy launchers so it doesn’t get taken down by an enemy sub.

I agree the Turkish system might be a better fit, and the PN should try to put an integrated on this thing so a FL-3000N can fit up top, if only so this little ship can have limited self protection and engage in effective Blockade running or other such limited offensive actions with the knowledge they can defend themselves if attacked.

A Drone helicopter landing deck can pay off greatly for this little ship at minimal cost. Carrying only a couple of drone helicopters this ship can investigate enemy activity from a safe distance, and if a stealth drone helicopter is fielded, it may even be able to relay targeting data while the ship stays over the horizon.
 
I will give you that, real ASW is probably too ambitious, maybe just a self protection suite with a hill mount sonar and decoy launchers so it doesn’t get taken down by an enemy sub.

I agree the Turkish system might be a better fit, and the PN should try to put an integrated on this thing so a FL-3000N can fit up top, if only so this little ship can have limited self protection and engage in effective Blockade running or other such limited offensive actions with the knowledge they can defend themselves if attacked.

A Drone helicopter landing deck can pay off greatly for this little ship at minimal cost. Carrying only a couple of drone helicopters this ship can investigate enemy activity from a safe distance, and if a stealth drone helicopter is fielded, it may even be able to relay targeting data while the ship stays over the horizon.

We can't add much into it because of design limitation and its purpose.

A redesign for future FAC orders should be done though for added punch.
 
There is not much space available for added stuff. PN would have to extend the hull design and build a new ship with higher displacement.


View attachment 592284 View attachment 592285 View attachment 592286

Well there still can be adjustments with smartly placed weapons and better layout for your electronics. A integrated mast will remove many of the electronic sensors from the top of the ship which could open you up for some additional weapons.

I would say there is no room for torpedoes, but you may get enough room for an additional AK-630 above the bridge. The first 2 vessels (Azmat and Dehshat) had twin 25mm cannon which was replaced by what looks to be an Aselsan STOP 25mm (or 30mm SMASH) remote controlled stabilized gun. THESE could be replaced on all vessels with a Type 1130 CIWS which would enable you to fit 6 HQ-10 missiles. If this system is too large, then simply move the AK630 to the front of the ship in place of the current gun and the current location of the AK-630 could be used for an 8-cell FL-3000N. That gives you 2 CIWS up front which have 4km effective range against aerial targets (although likely on 2-3km against missiles) and 8 missiles with 9km range against subsonic targets 6km against supersonic targets. If you are able to swing it however, i think a Tor-M2KM would be great in the current location of the AK630. You would get 16 missiles with a 15km range. Those missiles infact (according to russian defense forums) can engage targets going ~Mach 2 at 12km. That would ideally put brahmos at being able to be engaged at 9km.

Most cost effective would tor in the back, 1 AK630 up front like on Type 022 FACs (and nothing above bridge) . I dont think you should seek anti sub capabilities on this ship unless you enlarge it.
 
Well there still can be adjustments with smartly placed weapons and better layout for your electronics. A integrated mast will remove many of the electronic sensors from the top of the ship which could open you up for some additional weapons.

I would say there is no room for torpedoes, but you may get enough room for an additional AK-630 above the bridge. The first 2 vessels (Azmat and Dehshat) had twin 25mm cannon which was replaced by what looks to be an Aselsan STOP 25mm (or 30mm SMASH) remote controlled stabilized gun. THESE could be replaced on all vessels with a Type 1130 CIWS which would enable you to fit 6 HQ-10 missiles. If this system is too large, then simply move the AK630 to the front of the ship in place of the current gun and the current location of the AK-630 could be used for an 8-cell FL-3000N. That gives you 2 CIWS up front which have 4km effective range against aerial targets (although likely on 2-3km against missiles) and 8 missiles with 9km range against subsonic targets 6km against supersonic targets. If you are able to swing it however, i think a Tor-M2KM would be great in the current location of the AK630. You would get 16 missiles with a 15km range. Those missiles infact (according to russian defense forums) can engage targets going ~Mach 2 at 12km. That would ideally put brahmos at being able to be engaged at 9km.

Most cost effective would tor in the back, 1 AK630 up front like on Type 022 FACs (and nothing above bridge) . I dont think you should seek anti sub capabilities on this ship unless you enlarge it.


Now that i think about it the front gun should not be replaced with a CIWS like weapon as CIWS has a high rate of fire and we need a low rate of fire weapon for longer engagements (even though you are done for if it comes to using the front gun in conventional fight).


Yes, integrated mast can leave up space for additional stuff. As you said this can be used to install an 8 cell RAM/FL-3000 N or a naval pantsir equivalent (depending upon space) which along with the AK-630 at back would give potent last resort defense.

Its a FAC and and I agree that it should not be modified for anti-sub duties considering ship design limitation and all other factors.
 
Now that i think about it the front gun should not be replaced with a CIWS like weapon as CIWS has a high rate of fire and we need a low rate of fire weapon for longer engagements (even though you are done for if it comes to using the front gun in conventional fight).


Yes, integrated mast can leave up space for additional stuff. As you said this can be used to install an 8 cell RAM/FL-3000 N or a naval pantsir equivalent (depending upon space) which along with the AK-630 at back would give potent last resort defense.

Its a FAC and and I agree that it should not be modified for anti-sub duties considering ship design limitation and all other factors.
The fact that it is an FAC is precisely why it should replace the main gun with a CIWS. The point of its current guns is for aerial defense from UAV, helos and other aircraft. It can also engage small surface targets. But when we talk sustained surface engagement, as you said, if all you have left is the gun, you are screwed. Secondly a protracted engagement would only really occur with larger ships and a 25 or 30mm shell will not penetrate their hulls. For small targets, the CIWS is the weapon of choice in fact, over missiles. The phalanx and in some cases hellfire missiles (aboard the LCS) are the main weapons the USN plans to employ against the "FAC Swarms" of Iran for example. The CIWS provide better aerial protection, longer surface engagement ranges (5km for ak-630) and more devastating firepower for a smaller craft like Azmats.
 
While a true ASW capability may not be possible without significant modification, a hull mounted Sonar can help this small FAC detect if it is under attack by torpedo.

To counter such a threat either the bow or part of the side should be modified to carry decoys from Turkey, similar to what was installed on the Agosta 90B.

At that point the drone helicopter could carry one torpedo to try to engage enemy sub.

Also, depending on what’s in the bow ahead of the main gun, a couple of bow torpedo tubes could be a decent place for light torpedos to engage enemy subs; a more robust defensive option, and a number of tube based decoys or unmanned drone underwater vehicles could also be carried for special operations.
 
The msa 600 ton and 1500 ton ships contract has a clause to be able to put few launcher in time of need meaning the radar and electronic should support that capability even now

Bottom line in time of need those 6 ships can be converted for now they have civilian role, protection against pollution, disaster, Recci and economic zone patrol etc

Assuming two shot launcher somewhere on the ship 2x2 launcher like on 056
 
The fact that it is an FAC is precisely why it should replace the main gun with a CIWS. The point of its current guns is for aerial defense from UAV, helos and other aircraft. It can also engage small surface targets. But when we talk sustained surface engagement, as you said, if all you have left is the gun, you are screwed. Secondly a protracted engagement would only really occur with larger ships and a 25 or 30mm shell will not penetrate their hulls. For small targets, the CIWS is the weapon of choice in fact, over missiles. The phalanx and in some cases hellfire missiles (aboard the LCS) are the main weapons the USN plans to employ against the "FAC Swarms" of Iran for example. The CIWS provide better aerial protection, longer surface engagement ranges (5km for ak-630) and more devastating firepower for a smaller craft like Azmats.

I would have also gone with CIWS/ Naval pantsir e.t.c at the front but then I saw the RHIB at the back which I don't see in other FAC. This means that they probably also have some dual use like VBSS e.t.c which calls the need for a different type of gun at the front with lower rate of fire.

However, in pure offensive role against bigger ships I agree that CIWS or other similar weapon should replace the front gun as a supplement to other point defense assets.
 
I would have also gone with CIWS/ Naval pantsir e.t.c at the front but then I saw the RHIB at the back which I don't see in other FAC. This means that they probably also have some dual use like VBSS e.t.c which calls the need for a different type of gun at the front with lower rate of fire.

However, in pure offensive role against bigger ships I agree that CIWS or other similar weapon should replace the front gun as a supplement to other point defense assets.
For VBSS the ciws is again preferred as it will rip appart small boats in a matter of split second. Against larger craft the threat of those missile will be the deterant. For the gun to be a meaningful threat to a full size surface combant it would need to be something like a 76mm cannon which the Azmat is too small to carry unless it gives up the missiles. Double its size and you could have a buyan-M type light corvette.
 
Same AK-630 with 5km range against surface and 4 Km against air is much better then current one which has range of 22-2400 m or 2.4 km but keep in mind these boats will operate with mothership providing protections part of naval flotilla
 
Back
Top Bottom