What's new

Concepts / Ideas for the Pakistan Navy

AZADPAKISTAN2009

ELITE MEMBER
Sep 8, 2009
33,667
65
35,590
Country
Pakistan
Location
China
Don't expect any new gadget till 2030 , only stuff already promised in past interviews
It was a reasonable upgrade

To be Constructed
3x Type054 , possible Options for 2 more in (2023)
1x Jinnah Class Frigate
3 x Milgem Corvettes (2022-2025)
8 x Submarines
1 x Heavy Tonnage Ship undisclosed
Replacement of 11 Orions
Possible +2 Azmat Option (Unconfirmed)

Already Completed
  • 2 x Ocean Patrol Vehicle 90m Ships [YARMOUK] & [TABOUK]
  • 1 x Type054 [Tugril Class]
  • 1 x Milgem [Babur Class]
  • 4th Azmat Class Missile Boat


Pakistan Navy is gradually increasing it's capacity to meet Asian Level Regional Navy
A balanced navy includes both Frigates and Corvettes for Close range regional scope

Aircraft Carriers are but out of scope as the focus is on Patrolling Economic Zones near Pakistani Shores
 
Last edited:

Bilal Khan (Quwa)

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 22, 2016
6,265
77
25,226
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
F22P frigate (Zulifqar class) was made in the 1990's when we had a financial cruch and the Navy was low on our priority.
The new Tughrail and the Babars and Jinnah's are being made at a time when the PN is the centerpeice of our defence strategy.
Now my personal concept is a Carrier. Based off either the PNS Mowain hull or a commercial KSEW hull.
STOBAR, meaning ski jump and arresting cables.
JF17B based carrier fighter. 2 squardrons, meaning 20-24 A/C.
K8 based tankers/ASW craft 6-10
6-8 helos
32-44 aircraft total.
Two vessels.
Re: the carrier concept, the go-to approach these days is to build up an LHD.

Basically, Turkey, Japan, and South Korea are extending and enlarging LHD designs with ski-ramps (and in Turkey's case, arresting cables) so that they could support both manned and unmanned fighter operations.

The Turks are developing the Hurjet for carrier operations. While it's a redundant design to the JF-17, Turkey is absorbing all of the work involved to make its jet carrier-ready. If the PN wants to get in on naval air operations, it might be wiser to get the Hurjet off-the-shelf than to expect PAC to rework the JF-17.

Turkey's vision is to use the Hurjet and MIUS UCAV from its 'carriers'

1638278868302.png


1638278990469.png

1638279036641.png
 

AZADPAKISTAN2009

ELITE MEMBER
Sep 8, 2009
33,667
65
35,590
Country
Pakistan
Location
China
LHD would only be feasible if we had a local production of Helicopters
I thought about it , how Egypt grew their Navy by purchasing the LHD (Helicopter carriers)

But at current junction it makes more sense to focus on Type054 Class and Jinnah Class Program

  • Pakistan will have Ship to Land Attack Missiles
  • Pakistan will have Ship to Ship Attack missiles
  • Pakistan will have Ship to Air Missiles
  • The Helicopters on board will enable Anti Submarine Hunting Role

The role done by LHD is already done by the Ships we are getting and the ships have defensive capabilities

I am Open to Mini Navy Drones usage for light recon over sea

 
Last edited:

sparten

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 11, 2006
1,883
3
1,353
Aircraft Carriers are but out of scope as the focus is on Patrolling Economic Zones near Pakistani Shores
No. You don’t build /acquire 2 dozen or so major surface ships like we are, if all you want to do is patrol your Economic zone. Missile boats and aircraft are sufficient for that.
You do that if you intend to operate as a blue water force. Our current requirements are to do that specifically protect SLOCs from Suez and the East African coast. Also from the Malacca straits.
And if we want that and don’t want our ships sunk, we need carriers.
 

JawadKKhan

FULL MEMBER
Jun 8, 2014
256
0
644
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Arab Emirates
No. You don’t build /acquire 2 dozen or so major surface ships like we are, if all you want to do is patrol your Economic zone. Missile boats and aircraft are sufficient for that.
You do that if you intend to operate as a blue water force. Our current requirements are to do that specifically protect SLOCs from Suez and the East African coast. Also from the Malacca straits.
And if we want that and don’t want our ships sunk, we need carriers.
Nope bro, We are not getting ships to protect SLOCs from Suez till Malacca straits. The primary objective of getting all those surface ships is to create A2/AD in our area of interest that can be from EEZ till Arabian sea at most.

Our navy is considered as a small navies even with all those upcoming ships included. Even much larger navies are not protecting such large areas.

If we ever have to think about carriers, we will need below points to be checked marked:
1) Great & thriving economy! (most important)
2) Massive fleet already deployed as Carrier itself takes lot of surface ships only for its protection
3) Fleet not of just 4000 ton ships but number of Air defense Destroyers as well

I think we might be working towards point no 2 but point no 1 needs attention.
 

sparten

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 11, 2006
1,883
3
1,353
Maybe you are familiar with our latest maritime policy doctrine?

Its been discussed in great detail here. It’s expressly lays out a policy of ensuring freedom of the seas and perserving the safety of SLOCs. This is most assuredly not just A2/AD from coast to EEZ, which admittedly was the old doctrines.
97% of our trade is by sea. As that document notes. Protecting SLOCs is essential and so is ensuring freedom of the seas to us. A2/AD till EEZ does not do that. For instance, 80 percent of our oil comes from the Gulf. Tea, lots of pulses etc comes from Africa. Cooking oil from the Far East. Stick to “A2/AD” of your EEZ“ and you have essentially given that up and given your enemies a big win, for free.
One of the criticisms of the new policy has been that it requires a Blue Water Navy.
 

Bilal Khan (Quwa)

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 22, 2016
6,265
77
25,226
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
Maybe you are familiar with our latest maritime policy doctrine?

Its been discussed in great detail here. It’s expressly lays out a policy of ensuring freedom of the seas and perserving the safety of SLOCs. This is most assuredly not just A2/AD from coast to EEZ, which admittedly was the old doctrines.
97% of our trade is by sea. As that document notes. Protecting SLOCs is essential and so is ensuring freedom of the seas to us. A2/AD till EEZ does not do that. For instance, 80 percent of our oil comes from the Gulf. Tea, lots of pulses etc comes from Africa. Cooking oil from the Far East. Stick to “A2/AD” of your EEZ“ and you have essentially given that up and given your enemies a big win, for free.
One of the criticisms of the new policy has been that it requires a Blue Water Navy.
tbh I think another part of an expanded doctrine is to establish relevancy in the Gulf. Should anything crazy happen there (like a massive humanitarian disaster), Pakistan can insert itself into the situation via HADR and other stabilization operations. Ideally, our Marines would reach a point where they'd have a forward deployable element too.
 

sparten

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 11, 2006
1,883
3
1,353
tbh I think another part of an expanded doctrine is to establish relevancy in the Gulf. Should anything crazy happen there (like a massive humanitarian disaster), Pakistan can insert itself into the situation via HADR and other stabilization operations. Ideally, our Marines would reach a point where they'd have a forward deployable element too.
Agree, but the Gulf was always doable with our land based AirPower.
Look at our pre 2018 doctrine and deployments. You had the 8 or so frigates each bring the flagship of a small flotilla, say a frigate being paired with one missile and one patrol boat and ewch would be responsible for protection of a certain assigned sector.
That worked well. The Indians really couldn’t do much to interadict our trade from the Far East, or the Suez and geography meant we could easily block them from their Gulf SLOCs while making it interesting for them from the Suez. Our ships could sail the open ocean when needed and IN could not do much. Any place where they could bring superior numbers to bear, PAF could protect.

Thats changed the last 20 years. The IN can now easily shut out our Far East SLOCs (say bye bye to most of our cooking oil) and If we do send our shiny expensive new ships to protect them and the African SLOCs they will be vulnerable to enemy air attack, persistently. Bye bye Tea and lots of our pulses.
Which is why we need a carrier, to be able to provide protection to the fleet in the open seas.
 

Bilal Khan (Quwa)

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 22, 2016
6,265
77
25,226
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
Agree, but the Gulf was always doable with our land based AirPower.
Look at our pre 2018 doctrine and deployments. You had the 8 or so frigates each bring the flagship of a small flotilla, say a frigate being paired with one missile and one patrol boat and ewch would be responsible for protection of a certain assigned sector.
That worked well. The Indians really couldn’t do much to interadict our trade from the Far East, or the Suez and geography meant we could easily block them from their Gulf SLOCs while making it interesting for them from the Suez. Our ships could sail the open ocean when needed and IN could not do much. Any place where they could bring superior numbers to bear, PAF could protect.

Thats changed the last 20 years. The IN can now easily shut out our Far East SLOCs (say bye bye to most of our cooking oil) and If we do send our shiny expensive new ships to protect them and the African SLOCs they will be vulnerable to enemy air attack, persistently. Bye bye Tea and lots of our pulses.
Which is why we need a carrier, to be able to provide protection to the fleet in the open seas.
IMO there are basically 2 ways to get a carrier:

1. Work with the Turks on their light carrier concept. So, pick up 1-2 LHDs and configure them as light STOBAR carriers. I think the Hurjet and MIUS are a good combination and, because we're talking about a few dozen aircraft at most, we don't need to rework JF-17.

2. Work with the Chinese on securing a larger STOBAR or CATOBAR system way down the line (i.e. with J-35).

There's a 3rd option, but maybe a little zany. We build ships that can deploy expendable UCAVs. So, the UCAVs are designed along loyal wingman principles (attritible, low-cost), and we deploy them from special ships via catapults or even VLS. These UCAVs are on a one-way trip. Each of these ships would carry like 50-100 said UCAVs.
 

Blacklight

BANNED
Apr 9, 2017
2,698
10
8,790
Country
Pakistan
Location
China
IMO there are basically 2 ways to get a carrier:

1. Work with the Turks on their light carrier concept. So, pick up 1-2 LHDs and configure them as light STOBAR carriers. I think the Hurjet and MIUS are a good combination and, because we're talking about a few dozen aircraft at most, we don't need to rework JF-17.

2. Work with the Chinese on securing a larger STOBAR or CATOBAR system way down the line (i.e. with J-35).

There's a 3rd option, but maybe a little zany. We build ships that can deploy expendable UCAVs. So, the UCAVs are designed along loyal wingman principles (attritible, low-cost), and we deploy them from special ships via catapults or even VLS. These UCAVs are on a one-way trip. Each of these ships would carry like 50-100 said UCAVs.
Good Job Sir! An excellent thread after a long time!
 

JawadKKhan

FULL MEMBER
Jun 8, 2014
256
0
644
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Arab Emirates
Maybe you are familiar with our latest maritime policy doctrine?

Its been discussed in great detail here. It’s expressly lays out a policy of ensuring freedom of the seas and perserving the safety of SLOCs. This is most assuredly not just A2/AD from coast to EEZ, which admittedly was the old doctrines.
97% of our trade is by sea. As that document notes. Protecting SLOCs is essential and so is ensuring freedom of the seas to us. A2/AD till EEZ does not do that. For instance, 80 percent of our oil comes from the Gulf. Tea, lots of pulses etc comes from Africa. Cooking oil from the Far East. Stick to “A2/AD” of your EEZ“ and you have essentially given that up and given your enemies a big win, for free.
One of the criticisms of the new policy has been that it requires a Blue Water Navy.
Bro, there is no way possible for PN even with upcoming ships added + imaginary aircraft carriers to protect massive area. However, this protection can be just usual peace time patrolling, defense against pirates or terrorists but lets say we need to protect against an enemy navy like IN then we will need to consolidate our entire fleet vessels. A distributed fleet in far areas pose no threat to enemy at all.

So, yeah for peace time patrolling they can extend it from suez canal to malaca strait. But in combat situation the doctrine is still A2/AD that starts from EEZ and can extend to arabian sea / Gulf maximum. Cutting IN sea access to GCC.
IMO there are basically 2 ways to get a carrier:

1. Work with the Turks on their light carrier concept. So, pick up 1-2 LHDs and configure them as light STOBAR carriers. I think the Hurjet and MIUS are a good combination and, because we're talking about a few dozen aircraft at most, we don't need to rework JF-17.

2. Work with the Chinese on securing a larger STOBAR or CATOBAR system way down the line (i.e. with J-35).

There's a 3rd option, but maybe a little zany. We build ships that can deploy expendable UCAVs. So, the UCAVs are designed along loyal wingman principles (attritible, low-cost), and we deploy them from special ships via catapults or even VLS. These UCAVs are on a one-way trip. Each of these ships would carry like 50-100 said UCAVs.
These both ways goes through a single route which is economic revival. I don't see a carrier at all until our FX hits over 100 bil US dollar. A carrier costs initial cost and most importantly its operating cost is daunting. The aircrafts, the stress the aircrafts goes through, the stress the ship goes through, the maintenance, the fuel, that is why only handful countries operate such things. I can only see a LHD with helis and UCAVs in 10-20 years.
 

JawadKKhan

FULL MEMBER
Jun 8, 2014
256
0
644
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Arab Emirates
I don't know why our navy never tried to build a mid-size corvette on its own. Like a 1000 to 1500 ton ship with AA / Ashm. After all, navy has done so many ToTs they should have innovated and come up with some decent ship building capacity. That would add great ships in the fleet + creating jobs locally + saving foreign FX. Get ahead of slow and basic Azmat FACs and go for multi-mission corvettes with local industry. For inspiration, see these Gowind-1000:

1414607138_14.jpg

IMG_4920.jpg


If budget allows then we should go for 1-2 large air-defense destroyers (type 52D but i doubt its available for sale.) But for local industry, we need to start doing mid-sized ships like above corvettes and stop relying entirely on foreign powers. Its like asking too much but i hope we get to this stage eventually sometime.
 
Last edited:

FuturePAF

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 17, 2014
6,179
20
7,156
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
The F-22P and el-Fateh-class are both based on Type-053H3. It was a dated design taken to its max from a capability standpoint. Interestingly, the F-22P was going to be similar to the el-Fateh, but the PN opted to scale it back. It was probably a cost-saving measure, but I think the PN saw F-22P's ceiling and didn't want to invest too much into it.

F-22P in 2002.
View attachment 797180

Fun fact: The PN got the F-22P at the tail-end of the PLAN's Type 053H3 production. Ironically, the PN is doing the same thing with the Type 054A/P.
Do you think they would invest in “upgrading” the AAW by replacing the HQ-7 with a 24 cell HQ-10 launcher and a modern radar (same as on our new the Type 054A/P) as has been done on one of the original PLAN Type 054 Frigates?

 

FuturePAF

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 17, 2014
6,179
20
7,156
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Pakistan needs to enforce control over, and surveillance under and above its EEZ, especially if the Navy is to better manage the fisheries for our Fishermen.

I hope they build OTH radars along the shore and on a few platforms in the EEZ.


@Quwa
but also a much overlooked aspect of our EEZ that needs to be addressed ASAP is civilian air traffic control of most of our EEZ by India.
Look at the air space controlled under “Mumbai Oceanic”. At the very least Karachi should control all civilian air traffic in our EEZ, because if we know who is civilian in our EEZ, it will make it a lot easier to figure out what is an unknown and potentially hostile aircraft. Coupled with the OTH radar; we can vector MPAs or fighters to investigate as needed.


1641300289437.png
 
Last edited:

Bilal Khan (Quwa)

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 22, 2016
6,265
77
25,226
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
Just got another thought...

What if we take the Babur-class (MILGEM PN) and design a sub-variant for OPV, MCMV, etc roles?

Call it the 'Multi-Mission Patrol Vessel' (MMPV).

The 'standard' fit could include ESM with ELINT and SIGINT, EO/IR, a Thales SMART-SMk2-type radar, etc. But we could also leave two 'modular mission bays' available for different roles, such as CSAR, HADR, and MCMV. For the MCMV role, the MMPV could be the 'mothership' to manage AUVs, USVs, and ROVs.

Finally, some structural commonality with the MILGEM PN could allow the PN to convert some MMPVs into wartime corvettes with AShMs, ASW torpedoes, and even SAMs (via externally-mounted VLS).
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom