What's new

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

Goritoes

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 20, 2021
3,096
0
4,770
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
If fitted from the start as a Chinese system it has to be MTCR compliant. If manufactured as a sub-variant under license no such restrictions exist.
Do you have any knowledge about Type 54's ASW capabilities ? compared to other modern warships how good this would be for PN ?
 

SQ8

ADVISORS
Mar 28, 2009
36,706
444
79,774
Country
United States
Location
United States
Yeah. Just look at Harbah. I am pretty sure we will see the same with YJ-12 (or HD-1A) being inducted as SMASH, CM401 being inducted as P282.
And really that is ok. This isn’t a matter of “indigenous “ pride. Whatever kills an Indian assets and wherever it comes from is relevant. If Pakistan can modify it, use it as intended then it can come from Israel and they should (as they have) take it.
 

JamD

FULL MEMBER
Mar 26, 2015
1,867
79
6,524
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
And really that is ok. This isn’t a matter of “indigenous “ pride. Whatever kills an Indian assets and wherever it comes from is relevant. If Pakistan can modify it, use it as intended then it can come from Israel and they should (as they have) take it.
Agreed 200%
 

Bilal Khan (Quwa)

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 22, 2016
6,266
77
25,232
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
And really that is ok. This isn’t a matter of “indigenous “ pride. Whatever kills an Indian assets and wherever it comes from is relevant. If Pakistan can modify it, use it as intended then it can come from Israel and they should (as they have) take it.
Agreed 200%
I agree, but I think the Chinese are going to be a little more sophisticated with these transactions moving forward. They're under growing pressure by the US and Europe, and arms proliferation (especially of drones and missiles) is an easy target for regulators. I bet they're keeping a closer eye now on how missiles in Pakistan or Iran look compared to Chinese and North Korean counterparts.

IMO, this situation may lead to either:

1. More 'original' projects in Pakistan that draw on Chinese subsystems and other inputs. So, the 'link' between us and China isn't as clear. This is where P282 and SMASH could factor in if we decide to disclose 300+ km ranges. I think our UAV strategy is going that route.

2. We straight up lie about the range of our missiles. So, the Chinese tell everyone they sold us an MTCR-compliant thing. We tell everyone we bought an MTCR-compliant thing. In reality, only God and the armed forces know what's up.
 
Last edited:

SQ8

ADVISORS
Mar 28, 2009
36,706
444
79,774
Country
United States
Location
United States
How do you think your F-16s flew in the 90s and your fledging UAV programs took off?
I agree, but I think the Chinese are going to be a little more sophisticated with these transactions moving forward. They're under growing pressure by the US and Europe, and arms proliferation (especially of drones and missiles) is an easy target for regulators. I bet they're keeping a closer eye now on how missiles in Pakistan or Iran look compared to Chinese and North Korean counterparts.

IMO, this situation may lead to either:

1. More 'original' projects in Pakistan that draw on Chinese subsystems and other inputs. So, the 'link' between us and China isn't as clear. This is where P282 and SMASH could factor in if we decide to disclose 300+ km ranges. I think our UAV strategy is going that route.

2. We straight up lie about the range of our missiles. So, the Chinese tell everyone they sold us an MTCR-compliant thing. We tell everyone we bought an MTCR-compliant thing. In reality, only God and the armed forces know what's up.
Everyone lies about the actual capabilities of weapon systems. In that aspect indigenous systems have the advantage of not being known by other users.
Besides Pakistan there is likely to be no foreign user of the PL-15 anytime soon but plenty of the users of the meteor who may talk for a price.
So keeping OPSEC is a lot easier - however the JF-17 is pretty much out of the bag especially whenever the PL-12 is offered for export other than Pakistan.
 

aliaselin

FULL MEMBER
Mar 5, 2011
1,513
-2
2,056
Country
China
Location
China
Here's the problem, does china have any equivalent missile operationalized for naval platforms... Yes. The HQ-16. Is the HQ-16 superior to the CAMM-ER in any way except price? No. Neither is it longer range (in fact the range of CAMM-ER could be as much as 120km), not is it more modern (still with the SARH vs ARH of the CAMM). THE CAMM-ER is smaller abd lighter as well allowing for greater weapons capacity. Looking into it, if the CAMM-ER comes with Mk-41 or Sylver A-50, it can be quad packed. If it comes with its own proprietary launcher "CAMM-ER MLS (maritime launch system)" the module still fits more missiles into a space due to the smaller size of the missile requiring a smaller footprint cell, that the overall number of missiles carries per sq foot of deck space will be higher with CAMM-ER. In every facet the CAMM-ER is superior to HQ-16. When other naval solutions for such a sized ship become available from China, we can discuss them, but at this time thats not the case.
120km?Even your 40km CAMM-ER do not get finalized but you now boasted it to 120km?
HQ-16 is the last generation missile, so we do not need to discuss it here but the design concept is much better than CAMM-ER.
New generation exported is LY-70 and FM-3000N, which are both much ahead of CAMM-ER
Our VLS can be fitted with ballastic missiles with DDDDDHM role, how could your tiny VLS fullfill this role?
HQ-16A is too big to be quad packed, it’s an old missile. China is working on its replacement, HQ-16C.

Replacing the VLS system entirely (which will require design and testing work as the VLS system isn’t meant for These frigates) and then buying new missiles for it will be a very costly endeavor, which imo will kind of ruin the point of these ships; they’re meant to be lower cost acquisitions when compared to the Babur and Jinnah class.
The thinking here is, if China does such a thing first, then we can just ask them to put the system in our ships too, instead of asking them to do it for our ships first, in which were bearing extra cost, and that’s before considering wether this is even possible with the 054A design, in which case I’m not the best judge because I don’t know dimensions and such for most of these systems, someone else can answer that better.
HQ-16C served in the navy around 2010, and you are talking "China is working on its replacement HQ-16C"? :rofl::rofl:
 
Last edited:

Tank131

FULL MEMBER
Oct 7, 2015
1,086
5
2,402
Country
United States
Location
United States
120km?Even your 40km CAMM-ER do not get finalized but you now boasted it to 120km?
HQ-16 is the last generation missile, so we do not need to discuss it here but the design concept is much better than CAMM-ER.
New generation exported is LY-70 and FM-3000N, which are both much ahead of CAMM-ER
Our VLS can be fitted with ballastic missiles with DDDDDHM role, how could your tiny VLS fullfill this role?


HQ-16C served in the navy around 2010, and you are talking "China is working on its replacement HQ-16C"? :rofl::rofl:
Firstly i didnt say it is 120km but could be up to 120km. The official rating is 45km+ (emphasis on the '+') with the max range being left ambiguous on purpose. To put it in perspective, the standard CAMM has a stated range of 25km+ but it has been reported by Janes that the missile has been found to be effective, in various tests, out to 60km. With that being the case, it is reasonable to think an extended range missole could be capable out to 120km (probably more like 80-100km) but it is very likely to far exceed 45km (which is an "at least" number). As for FM-3000N being superior or not, that is massively debatable (shorter range by far, likely less numbers able to be fitted in the small deck space too. But the reality is it has not been offered to Pakistan for its ships, so its a moot point. As i said above, when something better than HQ-16A is offered, it can be discussed but there is only the HQ-16A. As for HQ-16C you have exposed that you dont know what you are talking about. HQ-16A has been serving since 2010, and HQ-16C is still in testing phase and may not even enter PLAN service before pate 2022 or early 2023. And as of yet at 70km it may mot even out-range the CAMM-ER nor will it likely be able to fit as many weapons in the same deck space. So with that, we are back to square 1, not mention it will likely be at least 3-5 years of PLAN service before it likely will even be available to PN. So again moot point.

As for VLS your vs Italian, again what in the heck are you talking about? I didnt say who has a better VLS system or can launch the biggest missile. I said the smaller vls foot print of CAMM-ER allows fornmore weapons to be fitted in the same space as a standard cell system. That means more weapons in the space. You are talking idiocy about "our can launch a ballistic missile". Who gives a crap? Is Milgem/Babur going to be launching ballistic missiles? No! Is babur large enough to launch ballistic missiles? No! Is baburs deck space even useful to launch ballistic missiles and still maintain enough defensive missiles? No! Who who cares if you can launch a ballistic missile? Babur can't fit oneso again your argument is nonsense. The reality is the HQ-16A is inferior in every way to the CAMM-ER. That is the full extent of the conversation. All other points have no relevance to the topic. Full stop.
 

khanasifm

SENIOR MEMBER
Apr 16, 2008
7,102
6
5,696
Is pn now ready to retire type 21 once all four 054ap are delivered or plan on keeping last two till all babar class are delivered ?
 

JawadKKhan

FULL MEMBER
Jun 8, 2014
265
0
649
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Arab Emirates
Is pn now ready to retire type 21 once all four 054ap are delivered or plan on keeping last two till all babar class are delivered ?
These should be retired as soon as the second Type-54A is commissioned and perhaps used as target for type-54A testing exercises.
Remember, 4 of the type 21's already retired even when no type-54 or babur ever inducted that means how badly PN wants to get rid of those totally junk ships.
 

Tank131

FULL MEMBER
Oct 7, 2015
1,086
5
2,402
Country
United States
Location
United States

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


Top Bottom