What's new

Featured Pakistan Navy Type 054AP Frigates - Update, News & Discussion

ghazi52

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Mar 21, 2007
65,996
77
104,930
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
1628023409298.png




1628023375896.png




The launching ceremony of 3rd ship of Type-054 Class Frigate constructed for Pakistan Navy, was held at Hudong Zhonghua Shipyard Shanghai, China.

Type-054 Frigates will be one of the most technologically advanced surface platforms of Pakistan Navy Fleet, fitted with latest surface, subsurface and anti-air weapon systems. The ships will be fitted with a range of electronic warfare, air and surface surveillance and acoustic sensors integrated through state of the art Combat Management System enhancing PN Fleet’s war fighting capabilities and will strengthen Pakistan Maritime defence and deterrence capabilities. Induction of these frigates will contribute in maintaining peace, stability and power equilibrium in the Indian Ocean Region.

Pakistan Navy has contracted construction of Type 054 AP Frigates from China under a contract signed in 2017. The first –in-class Frigate was launched in August 2020, followed by Second Frigate Launching in January 2021 at Chinese Hudong Zhonghua Shipyard in Shanghai.

Successful launching of 3rd Ship of the series is a testimony of deep rooted defence and diplomatic Sino-Pak relations.
 

ghazi52

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Mar 21, 2007
65,996
77
104,930
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
AEROSINT Division PSF

@AOBPAK

THIRD PAKISTANI TYPE 054P GUIDED MISSILE FRIGATE LAUNCHED



1628024340234.png


Hudong-Zhonghua shipyard in Shaghai, China launched the third Type 054P Guided Missile & Air Defence Frigate for the Pakistan Navy.

Currently the situation for Type 054P are: Warship No. 1 has completed sea trials and will be delivered to Karachi for commissioning this month. Warship No. 2 has also almost completed sea trials. Warship No. 3 was launched yesterday and Warship No. 4 is in last stages of construction.

The Type 054Ps are state-of-the-art major surface combatant warships, the most modern frigates ever developed by China and are designed for intense Anti-Air, Anti-Surface, and Anti-Submarine operations in the high seas.

The over 4,000 tonne, 440 feet long warships will be armed with a 32-cell Vertical Launch System (VLS), equipped with the HHQ-16 SAM with a range of over 45 kilometres and the Yu-8 Anti Submarine Missile armed with a Yu-11 torpedo with a range of 50 kilometres, 2×4 ASCM launchers armed with the CM-302 supersonic anti-ship cruise missile with a range of 280-320 kilometres and a speed of Mach 3-4, a PJ-26 76 mm main naval gun with a maximum rate of fire of 120 rounds per minute, 2×3 Anti-Submarine Torpedo launchers for the Yu-11 torpedo with a maximum depth and range of 600 meters and over 20 kilometres respectively with a speed of over 50 knots, 2×6 Type 87 Anti-Submarine rocket launchers, two Type 726-4 18-tube decoy rocket launchers and two Type 1130 CIWS with a maximum rate of 11,000 rounds per minute with an interception probability of 96% against high supersonic missiles.

The Pakistan Navy Type 054Ps might get delivered with advanced Z-9D Maritime.
 

ARMalik

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 7, 2017
4,260
5
7,880
Country
Australia
Location
Australia
The ONLY EFFECTIVE WAY of CRIPPLING - YES CRIPPLING - Indian navy is ONLY if PN has JH-7 and J-15/16 Fighters Jets. But as usual it astounds me that PN and Pakistan Military continue to make this strategic blunder of not having these jets. With these jets, Indian Carriers are a sitting duck, and whole of Pakistan's sea border becomes Inaccessible to India.
 

PakFactor

SENIOR MEMBER
Sep 30, 2019
4,944
4
8,844
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
The ONLY EFFECTIVE WAY of CRIPPLING - YES CRIPPLING - Indian navy is ONLY if PN has JH-7 and J-15/16 Fighters Jets. But as usual it astounds me that PN and Pakistan Military continue to make this strategic blunder of not having these jets. With these jets, Indian Carriers are a sitting duck, and whole of Pakistan's sea border becomes Inaccessible to India.
I have been saying this for age's but it falls on deaf ear. You can have a 100 ships but they are useless tin cans in the water without proper air cover (no, Air-Air Missiles will not help).
 

ARMalik

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 7, 2017
4,260
5
7,880
Country
Australia
Location
Australia
I have been saying this for age's but it falls on deaf ear. You can have a 100 ships but they are useless tin cans in the water without proper air cover (no, Air-Air Missiles will not help).
Yes indeed. PN just cannot match IN in numbers. The ONLY WAY is to have JH-7/J-15/J-16 type jets, around 50 in number, which can decimate IN, and can cover all of Eastern and Southern India and go all the way to Kerala.
 

PakFactor

SENIOR MEMBER
Sep 30, 2019
4,944
4
8,844
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Yes indeed. PN just cannot match IN in numbers. The ONLY WAY is to have JH-7/J-15/J-16 type jets, around 50 in number, which can decimate IN, and can cover all of Eastern and Southern India and go all the way to Kerala.
To counter and engage the Indian Navy by itself your going to need a force of approx. 80 fighters the minimum and can't fall below this number -- this was per my conversation with a retired US Navy Officer (ex- F-14 pilot) when I asked him this question several months back and he has been interested in seeing how Pak Navy Modernizes.

Note: I've been trying to get him to register on this site as well, the only thing I'll say he's a Guest observer. :)
 

SQ8

ADVISORS
Mar 28, 2009
35,470
413
74,807
Country
United States
Location
United States
Yes indeed. PN just cannot match IN in numbers. The ONLY WAY is to have JH-7/J-15/J-16 type jets, around 50 in number, which can decimate IN, and can cover all of Eastern and Southern India and go all the way to Kerala.
How exactly would you:

A. Deploy this mixed bag fleet of obsolete and/or heavy fighters in a real world scenario

B. Manage the training and logistics of three types with two different generation engines and performance parameters?

C. The distance to eastern India( assuming you are wanting to fly across mainland India to get to eastern India) is about 1200mi of which 90% is over hostile airspace with air defense and interceptors. That is also roughly the same distance to the southernmost IN base.

The maximum straight line radius of operations for a JH-7 is about 1000mi with refueling and assuming no AB use and forgetting any on station time for them.

The maximum radius for the J-15/J-16 is around 1500mi to 1600mi on high altitude flight with zero evasive maneuvers and no station time(meaning it goes and comes back). Adding the real life aspects of having to engage enemy aircraft on route or means this range drops down further to around 900mi or so effective range which is really why the IAF can only consider using it’s MKIs to fly around Pakistan via air refueling.

So now we need air refueling back and forth to get to South or East India with any meaningful payload - which means that considering the threat level that High value asset so far from friendly skies is going to need its own protection that needs either a J-16 or J-15 to guard it. So now for just 4 J-16s you need 2 or 4 J-15s to guard its refueller. Then, even if these aircraft get that far they need a good indication where to look for vessels otherwise they need a MPA(another HVAA that will need support) out there to advise them where to fine tune their SEA mode searches since the flight time isn’t exactly 10 minutes and ships do move even if at a stately 25 knots.

Finally, after each sortie there is maintenance time so the average servicibikity of flanker variants even in the best of airforces barely crosses 65%. Which means of your proposed 50 mix of JH-7, J-15(why you are even including a carrier variant is beyond me) ,J-16 we have About 30 at best available of which only 20 would be the flanker variants with the pilot fatigue in that mix as well.

So even if we sent a flight of 2 armed with 4 AsHMs(which could even with a 100% success rate that never happens) take 8 ships out every time to fight their way to a target and fight it out with refueling - after the first day surge we would barely have 6-8 flankers serviceable at any given time for responses which may also be required for other duties as well besides blowing the IN out of the water.

Finally, assuming the obsolete “new” JH-7s cost $25 million , J-15s at $60 and J-16s at $65 and getting 16 aircraft each puts you at $2.4 billion for the airframes alone - add in training for pilots and technicians, facilities, spares, weapons adds another $400 million easily with higher priced spares since you cant use volume discounts nor offset with local production unlike the JF-17.

So for all that money you are getting three different systems that require a lot of support to achieve a goal that has really no need to occur with a lifecycle cost that will be too much to bear for the PN budget in the first place. Would love to see what your justifications are for A,B and C
 

Bilal Khan (Quwa)

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 22, 2016
5,886
73
22,959
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
How exactly would you:

A. Deploy this mixed bag fleet of obsolete and/or heavy fighters in a real world scenario

B. Manage the training and logistics of three types with two different generation engines and performance parameters?

C. The distance to eastern India( assuming you are wanting to fly across mainland India to get to eastern India) is about 1200mi of which 90% is over hostile airspace with air defense and interceptors. That is also roughly the same distance to the southernmost IN base.

The maximum straight line radius of operations for a JH-7 is about 1000mi with refueling and assuming no AB use and forgetting any on station time for them.

The maximum radius for the J-15/J-16 is around 1500mi to 1600mi on high altitude flight with zero evasive maneuvers and no station time(meaning it goes and comes back). Adding the real life aspects of having to engage enemy aircraft on route or means this range drops down further to around 900mi or so effective range which is really why the IAF can only consider using it’s MKIs to fly around Pakistan via air refueling.

So now we need air refueling back and forth to get to South or East India with any meaningful payload - which means that considering the threat level that High value asset so far from friendly skies is going to need its own protection that needs either a J-16 or J-15 to guard it. So now for just 4 J-16s you need 2 or 4 J-15s to guard its refueller. Then, even if these aircraft get that far they need a good indication where to look for vessels otherwise they need a MPA(another HVAA that will need support) out there to advise them where to fine tune their SEA mode searches since the flight time isn’t exactly 10 minutes and ships do move even if at a stately 25 knots.

Finally, after each sortie there is maintenance time so the average servicibikity of flanker variants even in the best of airforces barely crosses 65%. Which means of your proposed 50 mix of JH-7, J-15(why you are even including a carrier variant is beyond me) ,J-16 we have About 30 at best available of which only 20 would be the flanker variants with the pilot fatigue in that mix as well.

So even if we sent a flight of 2 armed with 4 AsHMs(which could even with a 100% success rate that never happens) take 8 ships out every time to fight their way to a target and fight it out with refueling - after the first day surge we would barely have 6-8 flankers serviceable at any given time for responses which may also be required for other duties as well besides blowing the IN out of the water.

Finally, assuming the obsolete “new” JH-7s cost $25 million , J-15s at $60 and J-16s at $65 and getting 16 aircraft each puts you at $2.4 billion for the airframes alone - add in training for pilots and technicians, facilities, spares, weapons adds another $400 million easily with higher priced spares since you cant use volume discounts nor offset with local production unlike the JF-17.

So for all that money you are getting three different systems that require a lot of support to achieve a goal that has really no need to occur with a lifecycle cost that will be too much to bear for the PN budget in the first place. Would love to see what your justifications are for A,B and C
Overall, I think the PAF and PN probably agree that a twin-engine heavyweight (MTOW 32-ton) fighter is required for maritime ops. However, said fighter is probably not available on the market, hence the desire to set the ASR of AZM along those lines. In other words, we've acknowledged the need, but there's no real way of fulfilling it unless we pursue an original design (either with a trusted partner or alone).

In this case, we're looking at a procurement roadmap after 2035. Yes, it's a long way away, but the PAF and PN have a packed pipeline already and our economy hasn't turned around for the better. However, if we're successful in securing this bird, I think we'll be set as the PAF could sort both maritime ops and deep-strike needs in one platform, so that could help with streamlining maintenance and ensuring availability rates.

In the short term, I guess the PAF will stick to the JF-17 (and possibly J-10CE). However, they could look at a new AAR solution -- something more efficient than the IL-78. In this case, the Embraer C-390 can be a good option in the maritime space.
 

ARMalik

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 7, 2017
4,260
5
7,880
Country
Australia
Location
Australia
How exactly would you:

A. Deploy this mixed bag fleet of obsolete and/or heavy fighters in a real world scenario

B. Manage the training and logistics of three types with two different generation engines and performance parameters?

C. The distance to eastern India( assuming you are wanting to fly across mainland India to get to eastern India) is about 1200mi of which 90% is over hostile airspace with air defense and interceptors. That is also roughly the same distance to the southernmost IN base.

The maximum straight line radius of operations for a JH-7 is about 1000mi with refueling and assuming no AB use and forgetting any on station time for them.

The maximum radius for the J-15/J-16 is around 1500mi to 1600mi on high altitude flight with zero evasive maneuvers and no station time(meaning it goes and comes back). Adding the real life aspects of having to engage enemy aircraft on route or means this range drops down further to around 900mi or so effective range which is really why the IAF can only consider using it’s MKIs to fly around Pakistan via air refueling.

So now we need air refueling back and forth to get to South or East India with any meaningful payload - which means that considering the threat level that High value asset so far from friendly skies is going to need its own protection that needs either a J-16 or J-15 to guard it. So now for just 4 J-16s you need 2 or 4 J-15s to guard its refueller. Then, even if these aircraft get that far they need a good indication where to look for vessels otherwise they need a MPA(another HVAA that will need support) out there to advise them where to fine tune their SEA mode searches since the flight time isn’t exactly 10 minutes and ships do move even if at a stately 25 knots.

Finally, after each sortie there is maintenance time so the average servicibikity of flanker variants even in the best of airforces barely crosses 65%. Which means of your proposed 50 mix of JH-7, J-15(why you are even including a carrier variant is beyond me) ,J-16 we have About 30 at best available of which only 20 would be the flanker variants with the pilot fatigue in that mix as well.

So even if we sent a flight of 2 armed with 4 AsHMs(which could even with a 100% success rate that never happens) take 8 ships out every time to fight their way to a target and fight it out with refueling - after the first day surge we would barely have 6-8 flankers serviceable at any given time for responses which may also be required for other duties as well besides blowing the IN out of the water.

Finally, assuming the obsolete “new” JH-7s cost $25 million , J-15s at $60 and J-16s at $65 and getting 16 aircraft each puts you at $2.4 billion for the airframes alone - add in training for pilots and technicians, facilities, spares, weapons adds another $400 million easily with higher priced spares since you cant use volume discounts nor offset with local production unlike the JF-17.

So for all that money you are getting three different systems that require a lot of support to achieve a goal that has really no need to occur with a lifecycle cost that will be too much to bear for the PN budget in the first place. Would love to see what your justifications are for A,B and C

Hi SQ,

A. Deploy this mixed bag fleet of obsolete and/or heavy fighters in a real world scenario

The three aircraft I mentioned was an example. PN can get any one of these types. These fighters are not obsolete. Even JH-7s have been modernised with AESA.

B. Manage the training and logistics of three types with two different generation engines and performance parameters?

As above. PN can select only one of these types. If PN wants to manage Indian and other threats, then unfortunately this has to be done. There is NO GAIN WITHOUT PAIN.

C. The distance to eastern India( assuming you are wanting to fly across mainland India to get to eastern India) is about 1200mi of which 90% is over hostile airspace with air defense and interceptors. That is also roughly the same distance to the southernmost IN base.

The maximum straight line radius of operations for a JH-7 is about 1000mi with refueling and assuming no AB use and forgetting any on station time for them.

The maximum radius for the J-15/J-16 is around 1500mi to 1600mi on high altitude flight with zero evasive maneuvers and no station time(meaning it goes and comes back). Adding the real life aspects of having to engage enemy aircraft on route or means this range drops down further to around 900mi or so effective range which is really why the IAF can only consider using it’s MKIs to fly around Pakistan via air refueling.

So now we need air refueling back and forth to get to South or East India with any meaningful payload - which means that considering the threat level that High value asset so far from friendly skies is going to need its own protection that needs either a J-16 or J-15 to guard it. So now for just 4 J-16s you need 2 or 4 J-15s to guard its refueller. Then, even if these aircraft get that far they need a good indication where to look for vessels otherwise they need a MPA(another HVAA that will need support) out there to advise them where to fine tune their SEA mode searches since the flight time isn’t exactly 10 minutes and ships do move even if at a stately 25 knots.

Finally, after each sortie there is maintenance time so the average servicibikity of flanker variants even in the best of airforces barely crosses 65%. Which means of your proposed 50 mix of JH-7, J-15(why you are even including a carrier variant is beyond me) ,J-16 we have About 30 at best available of which only 20 would be the flanker variants with the pilot fatigue in that mix as well.

So even if we sent a flight of 2 armed with 4 AsHMs(which could even with a 100% success rate that never happens) take 8 ships out every time to fight their way to a target and fight it out with refueling - after the first day surge we would barely have 6-8 flankers serviceable at any given time for responses which may also be required for other duties as well besides blowing the IN out of the water.

Finally, assuming the obsolete “new” JH-7s cost $25 million , J-15s at $60 and J-16s at $65 and getting 16 aircraft each puts you at $2.4 billion for the airframes alone - add in training for pilots and technicians, facilities, spares, weapons adds another $400 million easily with higher priced spares since you cant use volume discounts nor offset with local production unlike the JF-17.

So for all that money you are getting three different systems that require a lot of support to achieve a goal that has really no need to occur with a lifecycle cost that will be too much to bear for the PN budget in the first place. Would love to see what your justifications are for A,B and C

Yes there are going to be all these issues you mentioned above. Yes there are going to be some restraints, but to gain STRATEGIC Advantage, it has to be DONE. Again, WITHOUT PAIN THERE IS NO GAIN. There have been plenty of discussion on this forum about the range of these jets. Again these are issues which can be resolved.

The good news is that over the past many years, China has done a lot of work to improve these jets.


 

maverick1977

SENIOR MEMBER
Feb 8, 2009
2,890
0
3,573
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Yes indeed. PN just cannot match IN in numbers. The ONLY WAY is to have JH-7/J-15/J-16 type jets, around 50 in number, which can decimate IN, and can cover all of Eastern and Southern India and go all the way to Kerala.

J10C will be coming to Pakistan. it will be announced at the end of the year to mid march next year. 2 squardons will be stationed, on in karachi and one in New airbase in Turbut Balochiatan.
 

khanasifm

SENIOR MEMBER
Apr 16, 2008
6,751
6
5,266
J10C will be coming to Pakistan. it will be announced at the end of the year to mid march next year. 2 squardons will be stationed, on in karachi and one in New airbase in Turbut Balochiatan.
Ok 👌 if you say so but hearing since 2014 or so
Will wait for official channels till then it’s just hoo haaaa 😂
 

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


Top Bottom