REPLACEMENT OF Tariq class

[Penguin]

@Penguin Sir what are the main differences between F-22P and Type54A ?

Size and VLS for starters. Sensors/electronics.

 

[_NOBODY_]

Size and VLS for starters. Sensors/electronics.

What would be the differences between fully upgraded F-22P and Type54A ? Should PN fully upgrade F-22P, induct Type54A or should they induct a different frigate ?

 

[monitor]

What would be the differences between fully upgraded F-22P and Type54A ? Should PN fully upgrade F-22P, induct Type54A or should they induct a different frigate ?

Type 54A is stealth ship with much more weapons pakage then F-22P

 

[Penguin]

Type 54A is stealth ship with much more weapons pakage then F-22P

This is factually incorrect. When you compare F22P to Type053H3 from which is was developed, you will see Type22P too has stealth features. The main difference with Type 054A is another type of SAM, which is longer range and vertically launched. For the rest, the main differences are sensors/electronics.

What would be the differences between fully upgraded F-22P and Type54A ? Should PN fully upgrade F-22P, induct Type54A or should they induct a different frigate ?

Define "fully upgraded F22P". What does that mean?

 

[_NOBODY_]

Define "fully upgraded F22P". What does that mean?

F-22P with VLS and sensors/electronics of Type054A.

 

[Cornered Tiger]

Define "fully upgraded F22P". What does that mean?

Replace FM-90N with 16 cell VLS SAM, Replace C-802 with 16 cell Anti-Ship/Land Missiles (C-803). Upgrade Sensors, Radars. Retain the rest of weapons configuration. Buy 6 more and retire all other frigates

 

[Penguin]

F-22P with VLS and sensors/electronics of Type054A.

It may be difficult to fit the VLS of the Type 054A (well) into F22P due to length and due to limited available deck area, although the latter issue could be solve by the insertion of an additional hull section, effectively lengthening the ship in the area forward of the bridge. Assuming this is possible, you'ld get 2x8 mounted crosswise rather than lengthwise.
When you loose HQ7, you also loose the forward director over the bridge. But you need to find room for a minimum of 2 Orekh-style radar target illuminators. The CIWS of 054A can be moved right in splace and because these have integral firecontrol equipment on the mount, you loose the seperate optical and radar directos above the hangar. Loose the long range search radar and CIWS search radar of F22P over the hangar and stick the Fregat-style main radar of the 054A there. Install the domed radar of the 054A atop a new front mast on the F22P. Install 2 Orekh style illuminators front and rear on that mast and move the gunfire radar into the position where the HQ7 director used to be. SSMs can be swapped out for longer range models. ASW torp tubes and ASW rocket launchers are identical. The only thing I haven't placed yet would be the pair of MLRS for chaff/flares/decoys. The resulting frigate will have near identical capabilities to 054A, but 16 rather than 32 SAM. I doubts 054A carries anything but SAMs in its VLS or, if it does, it has a minimum 16 SAM with e.g. a mix of 8 VL land attack missiles and 8 VL ASW missiles. F22X could mount 4 each in canister launchers if need be, besides its 2x4 AShM in canister. F22X carries a Z-9, while 054A could carrier either Z-9 or Ka-28 Helix for ASW. F-22X will not a adopt a Mineral ME style OTH target acquisition and SSM fire control radar.

I've kept in mind the 2,800 tons standard; 3,320 tons full load Dutch Karel Doorman class frigate / Royal Schelde M-frigate as model.

Best solution would be to work with Sylver and CAMM/Sea Ceptor (possibly in ER version) and Thales I-mast 400. Alternatively, Mk41 + ESSM + I-Mast 500 (with APARr). The Australian Ceafar/Ceamount could be a viable alternative to I-Mast 400 / I-mast 500 with APAR). The South African Umkhonto range SAMs (20km, 30km, 60km) should also be considered. MekoA200 could be an interesting platform to produce if the based F22P platform is no longer sufficient.

 

[_NOBODY_]

It may be difficult to fit the VLS of the Type 054A (well) into F22P due to length and due to limited available deck area, although the latter issue could be solve by the insertion of an additional hull section, effectively lengthening the ship in the area forward of the bridge. Assuming this is possible, you'ld get 2x8 mounted crosswise rather than lengthwise.
When you loose HQ7, you also loose the forward director over the bridge. But you need to find room for a minimum of 2 Orekh-style radar target illuminators. The CIWS of 054A can be moved right in splace and because these have integral firecontrol equipment on the mount, you loose the seperate optical and radar directos above the hangar. Loose the long range search radar and CIWS search radar of F22P over the hangar and stick the Fregat-style main radar of the 054A there. Install the domed radar of the 054A atop a new front mast on the F22P. Install 2 Orekh style illuminators front and rear on that mast and move the gunfire radar into the position where the HQ7 director used to be. SSMs can be swapped out for longer range models. ASW torp tubes and ASW rocket launchers are identical. The only thing I haven't placed yet would be the pair of MLRS for chaff/flares/decoys. The resulting frigate will have near identical capabilities to 054A, but 16 rather than 32 SAM. I doubts 054A carries anything but SAMs in its VLS or, if it does, it has a minimum 16 SAM with e.g. a mix of 8 VL land attack missiles and 8 VL ASW missiles. F22X could mount 4 each in canister launchers if need be, besides its 2x4 AShM in canister. F22X carries a Z-9, while 054A could carrier either Z-9 or Ka-28 Helix for ASW. F-22X will not a adopt a Mineral ME style OTH target acquisition and SSM fire control radar.

I've kept in mind the 2,800 tons standard; 3,320 tons full load Dutch Karel Doorman class frigate / Royal Schelde M-frigate as model.

Best solution would be to work with Sylver and CAMM/Sea Ceptor (possibly in ER version) and Thales I-mast 400. Alternatively, Mk41 + ESSM + I-Mast 500 (with APARr). The Australian Ceafar/Ceamount could be a viable alternative to I-Mast 400 / I-mast 500 with APAR). The South African Umkhonto range SAMs (20km, 30km, 60km) should also be considered. MekoA200 could be an interesting platform to produce if the based F22P platform is no longer sufficient.

How about Type054A with HQ-16 for PN.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Well had the OHP been provided the 4 we requested with SAM Tech etc the OHP was also a wonderful platform
4 OHP would have been awesome if they came with SAM tech

This would have been ideal for us 4 OHP , with SAM system and Genesis platform , reasonable price and would have kept navy happy for 12 years

Back in 2007 etc or later sometime our Navy asked for 4 OHP ships that were about to retire would have been nice deal much better then the Italian ships that are being auctioned

 

[TOPGUN]

The question is how long are the Tariq class going to stay in service and what is the plan to replace them ?

 

[Penguin]

How about Type054A with HQ-16 for PN.

IMHO, the same or better capabity can be had in a smaller hull, with smaller crew. If you can built one type yourself, why bother buying another abroad.

Well had the OHP been provided the 4 we requested with SAM Tech etc the OHP was also a wonderful platform
4 OHP would have been awesome if they came with SAM tech

This would have been ideal for us 4 OHP , with SAM system and Genesis platform , reasonable price and would have kept navy happy for 12 years

Back in 2007 etc or later sometime our Navy asked for 4 OHP ships that were about to retire would have been nice deal much better then the Italian ships that are being auctioned

Yeah, but a single Mk41 with 32 ESSM on F22P gives the same basic SAM number and missile range as the SM1 from Mk13 on original OHP.

 

[Tank131]

@Penguin, i think if you look at what the Israelis did with Sa'ar 5 they were able to fit a 16 cell vls on a 1500t ship. A 3000t F-22P shout be able to fit at least 24 cells in place of the FM90 launcher and deck. F22P itself formed the basis for c28 so any further development on F-22p should be based on this. Dont you think that the domed type 364 and the Smart S mk2 are sufficient enough radars if the SAM is a fire and forget like CAMM OR Umkonto-r.

I honestly think using the c28a as a jumpimg off point pn could get a frigate smaller and cheaper than the Type 054a with either CAMM or Umkonto-r as its quad packed SAM. And this would likely be more potent than Type 054A

 

[Quwa]

@Penguin, i think if you look at what the Israelis did with Sa'ar 5 they were able to fit a 16 cell vls on a 1500t ship. A 3000t F-22P shout be able to fit at least 24 cells in place of the FM90 launcher and deck. F22P itself formed the basis for c28 so any further development on F-22p should be based on this. Dont you think that the domed type 364 and the Smart S mk2 are sufficient enough radars if the SAM is a fire and forget like CAMM OR Umkonto-r.

I honestly think using the c28a as a jumpimg off point pn could get a frigate smaller and cheaper than the Type 054a with either CAMM or Umkonto-r as its quad packed SAM. And this would likely be more potent than Type 054A

C28A ... or the CSOC's new Multi Mission Frigate (clean sheet design with VLS from the onset).

http://quwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/CSOC-Corvette.jpg

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

The issue Pakistan is facing is not regarding the capacity of a platform but what it is built for and also looking at the enemy. For an active role in pursuance of the task in hand PN would require more equipment in a very short time. The area of EEZ and the protection of shipping lines along with the Pirate threats getting more F-22P or its derivatives would take a lot of time.

No doubt 1 platforms can be modified for a particular role but this modification might require more time and additional ships to accompany. Highly unlikely that PN would be going for such a system as this would need massive increase in defence spending.

The reason why PN might want to add used platforms is that they can be procured very quickly unfortunately as some systems would not have been used by PN in the past hence training would take longer.

Getting British, US and Chinese platforms would reduce the time frame.

@Quwa , @Penguin Do you think PN might be interested in having two tier defence by providing multipurpose 500 - 2200 ton platforms to Pakistan Coast Guard and Pakistan Navy taking up larger platforms for them self ?

 

[Penguin]

@Penguin, i think if you look at what the Israelis did with Sa'ar 5 they were able to fit a 16 cell vls on a 1500t ship. A 3000t F-22P shout be able to fit at least 24 cells in place of the FM90 launcher and deck. F22P itself formed the basis for c28 so any further development on F-22p should be based on this. Dont you think that the domed type 364 and the Smart S mk2 are sufficient enough radars if the SAM is a fire and forget like CAMM OR Umkonto-r.

I honestly think using the c28a as a jumpimg off point pn could get a frigate smaller and cheaper than the Type 054a with either CAMM or Umkonto-r as its quad packed SAM. And this would likely be more potent than Type 054A

I've been a proponent of an F-28P or F22P-mod from the beginning, no need to sway me.

The Saar 5 was supposed to have 32 Barak 1 forward and another 32 in the rear plus 2x4 Harpoon and 2x4 Gabriel SSMs. That' plus the associated radar fit made the ships top heavy. In practice, the rear VLS was never used and just 2x4 Harpoon carried.

You must consider also that Barak 1 is extremely compact in terms of size.

Weight 98 kg
Length 2.1 m
Diameter 170 mm
Span 685 mm
Range: 0.5-12 km
Altitude: 0- 5.5 km
Speed: Mach 2.1 (720 m/s)
Guidance: Radar/EO CLOS

HQ-7 (FM-80/FM-90)
Weight: 84.5 kg
Length: 3.00 m;
Diameter: 156 mm
Span: 550 mm
Range:

• FM-80 {500-8,600 m (400 m/s target); 500-10,000 m (300 m/s target); 500-12,000 m (slow flying targets)};
  
• FM-90: 700m -15,000 m to all targets

Altitude: 30~5,000 m (HQ-7/FM-80); 15~6,000 m (FM-90)Speed: Mach 2.3 (750 m/s)
Guidance: Radar/EO CLOS

HQ-16 (Based on BUK)
Weight: 690 kg - 715 kg
Length: 5.55 m
Diameter: 400 mm
Span: 0.860 mm
Range: 30 kilometres
Altitude: 14 km
Speed: Mach 3
Guidance:Semi-active radar homing

So, for HQ-16, its a different story. An unmodified F22P should be able to cope with a Mk41 Self-Defence module of 5.2m long for 32 ESSM. Likewise then a Sylver A-50 or smaller. These too would be quad packed.

These are two Sylver A-43 on ther Italian Cavour. That's an NH-90 in the back for size reference.

The 76mm Oto Melara forward serves a size reference for the A-43s on the French FREMM

F-22P

Type 054 (note the automatic reloader behind and below the HQ-7)

Type 054A, with 4x 8-cell VLUs

The issue Pakistan is facing is not regarding the capacity of a platform but what it is built for and also looking at the enemy. For an active role in pursuance of the task in hand PN would require more equipment in a very short time. The area of EEZ and the protection of shipping lines along with the Pirate threats getting more F-22P or its derivatives would take a lot of time.

No doubt 1 platforms can be modified for a particular role but this modification might require more time and additional ships to accompany. Highly unlikely that PN would be going for such a system as this would need massive increase in defence spending.

The reason why PN might want to add used platforms is that they can be procured very quickly unfortunately as some systems would not have been used by PN in the past hence training would take longer.

Getting British, US and Chinese platforms would reduce the time frame.

@Quwa , @Penguin Do you think PN might be interested in having two tier defence by providing multipurpose 500 - 2200 ton platforms to Pakistan Coast Guard and Pakistan Navy taking up larger platforms for them self ?

2-tier and/or different versions (CG and navy) of the same vessels. ALthough I think the navy would retain some smaller combat platforms to back up the CG.