What's new

Pakistan-Turkey 4 Milgem Ada Class Corvettes Contract - Construction started

khanasifm

SENIOR MEMBER
Apr 16, 2008
6,549
6
5,072
What I don't get is, why reduce VLS to 12 when 16 was already planned? Can't be a space issue, can it...if 16 were already planned earlier.....?? What other reason is there? Even cost doesn't seem logical reason.

Also would appreciate if someone can shed light on how CAMM-ER is superior to the Chinese alternative that was planned earlier.
I would guess not the space but cost may be next step would have been another 6 totaling 3x6 =18 Vls which were perhaps cost going up too much not sure but space does not seems to be a problem especially when chines/Russian Vls and missiles are usually far larger than western types

As far as sam goes two way data link and active guidance vs passive meaning missile seaker pick up 10-15 km after launch not needing ship providing updates also leading to more simultaneous engagement of targets I think hq-16 can do 6 vs say camm twice as many or more but then there are total 12 missiles not sure if in case of camm there is auto loading and Can Cary another load of 12 down under the Vls in the front ??
 
Last edited:

Scorpiooo

FULL MEMBER
Apr 22, 2020
954
0
919
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
I would guess not the space but cost may be next step would have been another 6 totaling 3x6 =18 Vls which were perhaps cost going up too much not sure but space does not seems to be a problem especially when chines/Russian Vls and missiles are usually far larger than western types

As far as sam goes two way data link and active guidance vs passive meaning missile seaker pick up 10-15 km after launch not needing ship providing updates also leading to more simultaneous engagement of targets I think hq-16 can do 6 vs say camm twice as many or more but then there are total 12 missiles not sure if in case of camm there is auto loading and Can Cary another load of 12 down under the Vls in the front ??
That was answered by @Tipu7 that there will be 12 missile per ship no additional, if i am not wrong
 

araz

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Jun 14, 2006
8,327
71
13,773
@Tipu7. @Bilal Khan (Quwa)
Is these any possibility that we can see both western VLS and Chinese VLS together on Jinnah-class based on milgem class
Not that I am an expert but in general mixing equipment brings about complexities both with maintenance, operations, training and repairs. As such it might be better to install one sort of equipment on one platform.
It is intersting and I am not-sure why posters have not latched on to it, but changing equipment such as SAMs midplanning leads to a-few-questions. Firstly, is this really necessary or is-this a cryptic message to someone to up their game and produce and install comparable equipment? PAF has on multiple occasions asked for western equipment for the main vendor to come up with a comparable but cost effective product.
Secondly is this an indication of the infefiority or lack of maturity of the previously planned equipment or simply a bait to the Western providers that we have comparable products in case there is some reluctance?
Lastly what are the plans for indegenization? I dont think we need to worry too much about the system but the ammo can be built in house saving us costs and providing us-with an avenue to build up-our future weaponry?
Perhaps @bilal khan Quwa or @Tipu7 or @Aakh1112 or @Blacklight migt want to comment on this aspect.
Regards
 
Last edited:

Akh1112

FULL MEMBER
Nov 21, 2019
1,014
3
1,394
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
@Tipu7. @Bilal Khan (Quwa)
Is these any possibility that we can see both western VLS and Chinese VLS together on Jinnah-class based on milgem class

Theres no benefit to such a thing.

Whats the point, the smallest AAW missile the chinese make for ships is the HQ-16

The HQ-16 is a pretty meh missile for modern standards. Alongside this, the entire HQ-16 complex(Radars, illuminators, missiles) cannot stand saturation attacks. They can only engage 4 at a time. Theoretically, the CAMM based solution could expend all of its missiles in rapid succession to take on saturation attacks.

Alongside this, range wise, the CAMM-ER is the same as, if not superior to HQ-16(baseline CAMM has been proven to take out targets at ranges of 40km when its stated range is 20km-ish,m of course, with far far degraded pK, it will only really be useful against slow, non-maneuvering targets.)

Chinese VLS is also large and bulky, vs something like ExLS, SYLVER A43 or even GWS-26(as much as i hate the latter).

This isnt a problem of integration, Chinese munitions can be easily integrated into the CMS of the ship, yes you may need to carry a seperate set of radars(+illuminators) , so integration is not an issue. Its a matter of it not being worth it.

The HQ-16 is a far inferior AAW missile to stuff like CAMM/ER, ESSM, BARAK, etc. CAMM also serves as a far better point defence weapon, an important capability as the J/Ada lacks Missile based PD systems (RIM-116, HQ-10) which are far better for defeating faster and larger threats, like the ones we're facing vs gun based CIWS.
 

RadarGudumluMuhimmat

FULL MEMBER
Mar 21, 2019
720
1
975
Country
Turkey
Location
Turkey
Theres no benefit to such a thing.

Whats the point, the smallest AAW missile the chinese make for ships is the HQ-16

The HQ-16 is a pretty meh missile for modern standards. Alongside this, the entire HQ-16 complex(Radars, illuminators, missiles) cannot stand saturation attacks. They can only engage 4 at a time. Theoretically, the CAMM based solution could expend all of its missiles in rapid succession to take on saturation attacks.

Alongside this, range wise, the CAMM-ER is the same as, if not superior to HQ-16(baseline CAMM has been proven to take out targets at ranges of 40km when its stated range is 20km-ish,m of course, with far far degraded pK, it will only really be useful against slow, non-maneuvering targets.)

Chinese VLS is also large and bulky, vs something like ExLS, SYLVER A43 or even GWS-26(as much as i hate the latter).

This isnt a problem of integration, Chinese munitions can be easily integrated into the CMS of the ship, yes you may need to carry a seperate set of radars(+illuminators) , so integration is not an issue. Its a matter of it not being worth it.

The HQ-16 is a far inferior AAW missile to stuff like CAMM/ER, ESSM, BARAK, etc. CAMM also serves as a far better point defence weapon, an important capability as the J/Ada lacks Missile based PD systems (RIM-116, HQ-10) which are far better for defeating faster and larger threats, like the ones we're facing vs gun based CIWS.

Camm has already been finalized for saturation attacks. I don't usually sample Turkish solutions here, but for area defense, Hisar RF and Siper will be ready by 2023.
 

Dreamer.

FULL MEMBER
Apr 1, 2018
443
0
397
Country
Pakistan
Location
Saudi Arabia
Chinese VLS is also large and bulky, vs something like ExLS, SYLVER A43 or even GWS-26(as much as i hate the latter).
And yet when switching from chinese VLS to western we reduce numbers?? How come?
If the western options were less bulky, should we not have more than 16 vls now?
 

Akh1112

FULL MEMBER
Nov 21, 2019
1,014
3
1,394
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
And yet when switching from chinese VLS to western we reduce numbers?? How come?
If the western options were less bulky, should we not have more than 16 vls now?

theres a very good chance this graphic is a placeholder. Its incomplete, for example, its missing the Datalink domes for CAMM.

GWS.26 is also not rated for CAMM-ER yet anyway.

Im relatively confident we are not going for GWS.26 and will go for a sylver or another VLS solution in the end.
 

Tipu7

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Aug 8, 2014
5,059
92
13,347
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
And yet when switching from chinese VLS to western we reduce numbers?? How come?
If the western options were less bulky, should we not have more than 16 vls now?
Possibly this decision is related to Economics. Otherwise, generally speaking from visual observation, that there is space for two additional sets of VLS modules (six missiles each).
In theory, the total missile load out can reach 24 CAMM-ER per ship provided Navy pockets allow to do so.
theres a very good chance this graphic is a placeholder. Its incomplete, for example, its missing the Datalink domes for CAMM.

GWS.26 is also not rated for CAMM-ER yet anyway.

Im relatively confident we are not going for GWS.26 and will go for a sylver or another VLS solution in the end.
Best will be a Sylver-A43 set with 8 Tubes. Ship will be able to carry 32 missiles in Quad configuration.
 

Akh1112

FULL MEMBER
Nov 21, 2019
1,014
3
1,394
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Camm has already been finalized for saturation attacks. I don't usually sample Turkish solutions here, but for area defense, Hisar RF and Siper will be ready by 2023.

If a navalized siper can be readied, theres a chance we could see it on Jinnah since i expect them to focus on area wide air defence as opposed to localized AD like the vessels in the pipeline do so. Its a matter of timelines, for the same reason i also see potential for an ASTER based solution for Jinnah Class- a more risky option being the Navy's domestic SAM project but @Bilal Khan (Quwa) can talk more about that.
 

Bilal Khan (Quwa)

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 22, 2016
5,706
72
21,834
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
If a navalized siper can be readied, theres a chance we could see it on Jinnah since i expect them to focus on area wide air defence as opposed to localized AD like the vessels in the pipeline do so. Its a matter of timelines, for the same reason i also see potential for an ASTER based solution for Jinnah Class- a more risky option being the Navy's domestic SAM project but @Bilal Khan (Quwa) can talk more about that.
I agree that the Jinnah-class frigate will likely be an AAW-focused system. IMHO, the PN is leaning towards the Aster-30. Obviously, if that falls through, the PN will look at other options if they're available, but IMHO, Aster-30 would be the preferred solution.
 

Scorpiooo

FULL MEMBER
Apr 22, 2020
954
0
919
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
In theory, the total missile load out can reach 24 CAMM-ER per ship provided Navy pockets allow to do so.

Best will be a Sylver-A43 set with 8 Tubes. Ship will be able to carry 32 missiles in Quad configuration.
But question is can we afford it now or even in future?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 2, Members: 0, Guests: 2)


Top Bottom