What's new

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

Huffal

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 27, 2020
2,744
0
3,453
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
Pakistan UAV program was important - not keeping some illiterate Mullah happy
Yes but looking at reports coming from israeli softwares and weaponry, the fact they have backdoors and what not, has Pakistan mananged to work around that threat? Also when were the items purchased?

Also please dont use 'mullah' in a negative way
 

JawadKKhan

BANNED
Jun 8, 2014
313
1
776
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Arab Emirates
I think people take ToT part of agreement a but too wrong. ToT in most defense agreements simply mean transfer of maintenance and overhauling facilities to Pakistan. Also it allows us to tweek the said defence equipment without having to take permission from OEM.
Take example of germans who denied us proper ToT in the subs during negotiations but french gave it when we negotiated with them for Augusta subs. Now Pakistan has been maintaining all Augusta subs on its own without having to send them to OEM for overhaul and maintenance. Our contract with STM Turkey is being carried out in Pakistan which reflects that we have the facilities to carry out some critical overhaul and integration for submarines all thanks to ToT we got from France.

If you think logically why an OEM will provide full ToT? They spend billions on research and development so why would they give it to Pakistan for only fraction of cost. As i said ToT part is very misunderstood.

This could be the case, however the statements from Naval chiefs after such agreements comes like that "We will be able to make ships / subs on our own". I agree ToT doesn't mean building the entire ship or sub 100% by own means. Even if it means building the ships / subs using the kits from the original supplies even then we have not done justice to those agreements.

The real mistrust had developed when in 90's Chief of Naval staff stole millions of dollars. When such an immoral person can reach at the highest level in the service then it means something is seriously wrong. Navy needs to fix its organizational problems.


I sort of agree, the emphasis made on Transfer of Knowledge or Technology while it materializes for various projects but we have not taken initiative and expanded the full scope of Engineering to expand the force

  • When you do develop continuously knowledge is maintained as younger crew is trained on how to construct with technology.
  • When you don't construct, then people retire and knowledge is lost

Transfer of Technology Projects
  1. In 80's we made some missile boats under Transfer of Technology scheme only 2 were made
  2. Khalid Tanks TOT project but our speed of manufacturing was too slow
    • Then we had to import engine from outside
  3. Agosta Submarine Project after the 3rd Submarine only 3were made
    • It was deemed a successful project at time and people thought we will make 5 more submarines but nothing happened after the 3rd Submarine
  4. JF17 Thunder was Successful as we continued to Train Engineers out of necessity as we need to cover retirement of many planes
  5. Azmat Class , project slowed down after the 4th Ship and now it is crawling instead of the 8th ship being release
    • 2 Were made efficiently and then productivity slowed in 3rd ship and 4th has taken much longer
  6. F22P , we did not construct 5th ship by ourselves went for Type054 ships
  7. Now we are aiming to build Jinnah Class Frigates after 2025

Imported Ships
  1. OPV ships made with tremendous speed and derived on Time
  2. Type054 was constructed in China at Excellent Speed
  3. Milgem is moving a bit slowly but it's a new project for Turkey

How do you validate if you gained new knowledge ?
  • Of Course you have to construct new designs from knowledge you gained ? But there is no such push, from yearly budget, this is why the old knowledge is lost.

I agree but I think, if nation can take out billions of dollars for a long list of ships / subs then it definitely could take out much lower cost for indigenous mid-size corvettes (with kits / weapons imported).. I think, this is not done because Navy has zero confidence in its own capabilities that's why it went to Damen even for OPVs. BTW!. the OPVs we got 1.5 yrs ago and they are still not weaponized ?. Just one of many endless navy's in-competencies.
 

SQ8

ADVISORS
Mar 28, 2009
37,935
481
84,262
Country
United States
Location
United States
Yes but looking at reports coming from israeli softwares and weaponry, the fact they have backdoors and what not, has Pakistan mananged to work around that threat? Also when were the items purchased?

Also please dont use 'mullah' in a negative way
Mullah no longer carries the respect it used to. I will use it as I wish.

As for backdoors, those weren’t an issue in the 90s and early 2000s.
Have we graduated to make it in-house now?
Yes but open source HW/SW combos are fairly easy to source. I made a 3 axis loitering autopilot for my RC aircraft for $65.
 

AZADPAKISTAN2009

ELITE MEMBER
Sep 8, 2009
34,575
66
37,301
Country
Pakistan
Location
China
The term Transfer of Technology should be used if the Idea is Country will manufacture
10-15 of more units over next 5 years

Pakistan Transferred knowledge for K-8 to Egypt and they manufactured quite a few K-8 Level 1 Jets

Even JF-17 is correct way to visualize the Transfer of Technology term, we have a full scale system in place for manufacturing Year to Year production


The concept is slightly different in meaning when we talk about

More or Less it is "On Going Support and Local Maintenance Ability "
  • 80's Missile Boats
  • Existing F22P
  • Existing Azmat Missiles Boats
  • Existing Agosta

Maintaining/Maintenance and Continuous Production or Manufacture whole unit are two item




We have not even bothered to manufacture a Midget Submarine from Knowledge gained from Agosta , so we won't know for sure what was the scope of TOT claim in 90's , it was a big thing back in day
 

khanasifm

SENIOR MEMBER
Apr 16, 2008
7,086
6
5,683
The term Transfer of Technology should be used if the Idea is Country will manufacture
10-15 of more units over next 5 years

Pakistan Transferred knowledge for K-8 to Egypt and they manufactured quite a few K-8 Level 1 Jets

Even JF-17 is correct way to visualize the Transfer of Technology term, we have a full scale system in place for manufacturing Year to Year production


The concept is slightly different in meaning when we talk about

More or Less it is "On Going Support and Local Maintenance Ability "
  • 80's Missile Boats
  • Existing F22P
  • Existing Azmat Missiles Boats
  • Existing Agosta

Maintaining/Maintenance and Continuous Production or Manufacture whole unit are two item




We have not even bothered to manufacture a Midget Submarine from Knowledge gained from Agosta , so we won't know for sure what was the scope of TOT claim in 90's , it was a big thing back in day

Most of the so called TOT is local assembly based on Oem kits there is no design capability, first kse/pn dock design ship is Jinnah class and Hangore class subs that tells you all

end of story
 

JawadKKhan

BANNED
Jun 8, 2014
313
1
776
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Arab Emirates
So far no one has seen the heli on the ship correct ? Look Like
The video is from
The heli ??
a $200 drone can do the same job. However, I don't know exactly if it was a really a drone or which drone.
Most of the so called TOT is local assembly based on Oem kits there is no design capability, first kse/pn dock design ship is Jinnah class and Hangore class subs that tells you all

end of story

Yes, even if paying double the cost for ToT means developing ships / subs with Kits provided by suppliers even then we have not utilized those projects (agosta and F22P) as we failed to build a single more unit. That money is gone down the drain.

The Hangor is exactly same thing as agosta was. That was also ToT. Hangar is also ToT. I don't see a difference. If there is a difference then correct me please. I would love to be corrected as otherwise, I am seeing fate of this ToT similar to Agosta's. If navy cannot utilize ToTs, it should just get the ships / subs off the shelf and save millions of dollars from Tax payers pocket. I wonder how much ToT cost is in 5 billion dollar. for agosta it was 100% additional cost.
 
Last edited:

JawadKKhan

BANNED
Jun 8, 2014
313
1
776
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Arab Emirates
Malaysia.

Yep, the beast is docking at Malaysia.
264137721_1867230106817269_5510821114729797858_n.jpg
264235069_1867230113483935_1205990531025260116_n.jpg
 

Shah_Deu

FULL MEMBER
Jun 7, 2019
690
0
1,971
Country
Germany
Location
Germany
Just for a change, some of the better technical analysis involving this beast against the indian navy frigates I came across. The video compares the Tughril class with similarly sized indian frigates.

Summarizing, as per the technical analysis in the video, and comparing the on-board sensors and weapon systems, in a head to head conflict involving PNS Tughril following conclusions were drawn
  1. against Brahmaputra class (~3850t), PNS Tughril is heavily favored.
  2. against Talwar class (Batch 1) (~4000t), PNS Tughril again would come out on the top.
  3. against Talwar class (Batch 2 ) (~4000t), PNS Tughril is again favored.
  4. against Shivalik class (~6200t), PNS Tughril is slightly favored.
 

AZADPAKISTAN2009

ELITE MEMBER
Sep 8, 2009
34,575
66
37,301
Country
Pakistan
Location
China
For now difficult to comment , need at least 6-8 Ships in fleet before any comparison can be made
Only first one , and we retied 2 frigates already (UK) based so hardly any numerical addition to navy

2 Retired Ships steps taken backward

  • 2 OPV Added , few steps forward
  • 1 TYPE054 Added few step sforward
 
Last edited:

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


Top Bottom