What's new

PAKISTAN NAVY SIGNS ORDER FOR TWENTY INDIGENOUS GUN BOATS - Oct 2022 .

Bilal Khan (Quwa)

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 22, 2016
6,634
92
27,176
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
I really dislike these, infact, i think we should have bought more MRTP33, at 39 meters, these things are woefully underarmed, pirates are carrying RPGs etc nowadays, at gun ranges these become easy targets, at the very least we should have seen some form of SSM, whether it be hellfires, brimstone, some chinese one or heck, even a anti ship missile loadout, MRTP33 has capacity for 5 tons of anti ship missiles. We are poor, we need equiptment that can do many things and not be specialized, these ships had potential, i really wish theyd have slapped some form of anti-ship weaponry onboard. Just imagine 20, reasonably mobile little ships armed with 4 harpoons each, nightmare. This is what the MRTP33 does so well though, its so mobile its a hard target, carries proper weaponry and can do counter-piracy stuff. Domestic design is good, but if we have the opportunity for better, we should take it. PN designers should have taken the azmat and evolved that, filling this gap with locally produced and modified MRTP33, those ships are lethal man. At the very least someone needs to take initiative and get some sort of 8-10km ranged ATGM onboard to protect the vessels from pirates etc.
We'll see MRTP-33-type FAC(M)s too.

The good thing about these gunboats (and Damen OPVs) is that they totally solve the peacetime requirements. Now, the PN doesn't need to mix the sea policing or anti-piracy requirements into its A2/AD assets. For the latter, the PN can finally focus on offensive firepower, speed, and stealth while forgetting about the need for range, endurance, higher sea states, etc.

To me, the fact that the PN is investing in this many patrol boats and OPVs tells me that it wants to bifurcate the peacetime and wartime roles very clearly. In other words, there should be no scenario where the B-Class, J-Class, or future FAC(M) have to do any low-intensity, asymmetrical work. There will be enough other ships (like OPV 1800, OPV 2400, the gunboats, etc) for those jobs.

The MRTP-33 is likely the starting point, e.g., composite superstructure, water jets, etc.
 

Bossman

SENIOR MEMBER
Jul 11, 2010
3,946
-6
5,372
Swiftship USA has a strong Pakistani connection. One of their executive is an ex PN guy and they have been trying do business with Pakistan for a long time. Many years ago they lobbied US Congress to pay for some boats they would build for Pakistan but didn’t work out. I am sure some quid pro quo is involved. The benefit I see is the aluminum welding technology, sensor integration and project management.
 
Last edited:

Bilal Khan (Quwa)

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 22, 2016
6,634
92
27,176
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
Swiftboats USA has a strong Pakistani connection. One of their executive is an ex PN guy and they have been trying do business with Pakistan for a long time. Many years ago they lobbied US Congress to pay for some boats they would build for Pakistan but didn’t work out. I am sure some quid pro quo is involved. The benefit I see is the aluminum welding technology.
It seemed the PN was originally going to go for Swiftships' 70 m corvette but pivoted to the Damen OPV. However, if you look at Swiftships' brochure, they made a lot of design changes to the 70 m corvette. Part of me wonders if they're still in talks with the PN regarding the OPV requirement.
 

ziaulislam

ELITE MEMBER
Apr 22, 2010
19,857
10
21,007
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
simple policing boats, nothing extra ordinary. however, all designed and build in Pakistan is a welcome news. In my opinion, these boats are good for coast guard/ PMSA type role, not for Navy.
Agree 💯 instead we should use bigtships and use bigg 💵💵💵💰💰💰 for anti piracy or leave piracy open so gawadar etc does great 👍👍
 

Goritoes

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 20, 2021
5,176
-1
8,061
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
These 20 ships will be on policing, I'd wish if PN go for 10 of these and added 5+ Azmat Class FAC that would be much better in my opinion.
 

imranyounus

FULL MEMBER
Jan 10, 2010
188
0
144
Having limited budget and procuring multiple purposes equipment is a good idea but such systems often come short when required to perform special tasks.

So it's good that PN is investing in such specialised systems.

However if PN can follow Russian examples and invest in modules containing complete missile system that can be put on all such ships it will be an added bonus.
 

khansaheeb

ELITE MEMBER
Dec 14, 2008
14,255
-5
16,084
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
This gun boat should equip with Turkish UMTAS or sea venom like missile for striking light naval target during war. With only gun I don't think can do any significant damage to warship.
They should incorporate drone storage . maintenance and launch abilities on the ship. In fact all future Pakistan warships must have extended range weaponised drones.
 
Last edited:

Inception-06

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 17, 2007
4,062
18
5,345
Country
Pakistan
Location
Germany
I really dislike these, infact, i think we should have bought more MRTP33, at 39 meters, these things are woefully underarmed, pirates are carrying RPGs etc nowadays, at gun ranges these become easy targets, at the very least we should have seen some form of SSM, whether it be hellfires, brimstone, some chinese one or heck, even a anti ship missile loadout, MRTP33 has capacity for 5 tons of anti ship missiles. We are poor, we need equiptment that can do many things and not be specialized, these ships had potential, i really wish theyd have slapped some form of anti-ship weaponry onboard. Just imagine 20, reasonably mobile little ships armed with 4 harpoons each, nightmare. This is what the MRTP33 does so well though, its so mobile its a hard target, carries proper weaponry and can do counter-piracy stuff. Domestic design is good, but if we have the opportunity for better, we should take it. PN designers should have taken the azmat and evolved that, filling this gap with locally produced and modified MRTP33, those ships are lethal man. At the very least someone needs to take initiative and get some sort of 8-10km ranged ATGM onboard to protect the vessels from pirates etc.

You know that our MRTP33 are only armed with a board gun.

We'll see MRTP-33-type FAC(M)s too.

The good thing about these gunboats (and Damen OPVs) is that they totally solve the peacetime requirements. Now, the PN doesn't need to mix the sea policing or anti-piracy requirements into its A2/AD assets. For the latter, the PN can finally focus on offensive firepower, speed, and stealth while forgetting about the need for range, endurance, higher sea states, etc.

To me, the fact that the PN is investing in this many patrol boats and OPVs tells me that it wants to bifurcate the peacetime and wartime roles very clearly. In other words, there should be no scenario where the B-Class, J-Class, or future FAC(M) have to do any low-intensity, asymmetrical work. There will be enough other ships (like OPV 1800, OPV 2400, the gunboats, etc) for those jobs.

The MRTP-33 is likely the starting point, e.g., composite superstructure, water jets, etc.

Our MRTP-33 don’t carry any missile.
 

Tipu7

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Aug 8, 2014
5,179
97
13,862
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Turkey and Pakistan failed together to install Harpoons US had lust restrictions on this.
Its less about restrictions more about boat limitations.
The speed and range of MRTP-33 when carrying payload equivalent to one Mk-141 launcher (4 tubes) reduces to such level that it become almost non-feasible to equip these "fast" attack crafts with harpoons.
These boats do fine as fast patrol boats without missile. Space reserved for harpoons is used for carrying supplies and other accessories.

I dont actually agree with the statement that missiles will undermine the efficacy of these vessels. I think we here fixate on large anti-ship missiles in the setting of naval warfare between large surface combatants. I think short range anti-tank weapons like Utmas and Hellfire or even Barq/AR-1 or even AR-2 would be a very useful addition for these kind of ships in their anti-piracy or anti-narcotics role. Providing targeting from a small UAV like Scan Eagle but with laser designation capability, they could hit small ships from 6-8km away, greatly increasing their reach.
Its better to channelize the money towards more important areas than "over equipping" fast patrol boats with missiles.
 

arslank03

FULL MEMBER
Feb 5, 2022
280
0
450
Country
United Kingdom
Location
Australia
Turkey and Pakistan failed together to install Harpoons US had lust restrictions on this.

PN is equipping damen opv with harpoons.

Its less about restrictions more about boat limitations.
The speed and range of MRTP-33 when carrying payload equivalent to one Mk-141 launcher (4 tubes) reduces to such level that it become almost non-feasible to equip these "fast" attack crafts with harpoons.
These boats do fine as fast patrol boats without missile. Space reserved for harpoons is used for carrying supplies and other accessories.


Its better to channelize the money towards more important areas than "over equipping" fast patrol boats with missiles.
A fully loaded MRTP33 can accelerate to 45kts in 45s, 47+ kts top speed with the same load depending on sea state.
 

Inception-06

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 17, 2007
4,062
18
5,345
Country
Pakistan
Location
Germany
PN is equipping damen opv with harpoons.


A fully loaded MRTP33 can accelerate to 45kts in 45s, 47+ kts top speed with the same load depending on sea state.

Then explain why Pakistani MRTP-33 don’t have Antiship missiles ?

And as many mentioned here already this gun boats should have some sort of missiles, for anti ship role and MANPAD firing stations !
 

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


Top Bottom