Developing our own VLS system ????

[Arsalan]

You only need second strike capability,the rest is not that important.
Take a look at Israel,small navy but the 6 Dolphin subs make sure that no-one dares to even consider anything stupid.
just make sure your subs are comparable(nuclear missiles) to the Dolphin class of Israel.

And that is being worked upon. What people need to understand is the priorities!
We cannot argue that since we are buying tanks then we have the money to buy destroyers as well. Do we need them? well yes i wont mind a few, can we live without them? I think yes! that is how things are looked upon. Once the more urgent needs are fulfilled and more serious gaps plugged we may consider going for more and more but at the moment there are more pressing needs.
Submarines being one of them are already bein worked upon amd then there are talks of 4 to 6 heavier frigates with better air def. A fighter aviation wing for navy and bigger destroyer ships and nuclear subs only come AFTER the more pressing demands are met. Then there are the other arms of military with similar lists that have to be considered.

 

[princefaisal]

best option is procurement of Umkhonto missile system with TOT and rename it

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

We have every thing we need

1- We have ability to make missiles launchers
2- We have Tracker and Electronics all already done, for our land missiles
3- We make ships 17,000 Tons , and we have this knowledge since 60's


What does VLS needs ?

From structural point of view the ship has to have certain "Height/depth" which is not possible with 500-1000 ton ships. Ideally you need ships size of 3000-4000 tons to have that ideal structure to fit the long missile tubes vertically

Standard , launchers would work even for our fast attack boats with larger design not requiring VLS

Technically we already have similar items on top of trucks , hardly any technological marvel to move it into group launch system

Example

What we really need is a policy of manufacturing 2300-2500 Ton Ships

 

[CHI RULES]

If Pakistan really thinks that we can even defend ourselves against Indian Navy which in next 10 years will have around 100 major ships and at least 25 Submarines with only 12 Frigates and 14 Submarines than I really wish that Pakistan Navy faces war because only than if Pakistan survives we may wake up and get out of this stupid childish dream.

The way Indian Navy is growing really soon even 24 Surface Ships all having VLS which are capable of firing both cruise and Air Defence Missiles would be hardly enough for us to defend our selves yet alone going for an offense. Pakistan it seem is hell bent on learning it really hard way so be it than.

@Rashid Mahmood

It is pointed out that costs do matter and we may not require VLS in numbers, the problem pointed out by you is perhaps due to lack of proper planning and financial limitations. Firts step should be to at least equip our existing F22Ps with some noteworthy medium range SAM like HQ16 if possible or should go for Umkhonto SAM system with credible range.

Then we should equip our sole OHP with long range SAM like HQ9 which is quite possible and it may prove to be more useful rather than to become a mere training ship with some welded harpoon canisters along with CIWS. The radar should also be AESA or PESA may easily be gotten from Italy or China.

First we have to invest in ship building and required materials indignation rather than importing even steel from Turkey or China. We have assembled ships and subs from many years now should enter in real manufacturing.

Initially we should start the JV for SAMS after induction of sufficient warships in our arsenal which don't look to be feasible for a decade then go for VLS.

 

[Neptune]

And that is being worked upon. What people need to understand is the priorities!
We cannot argue that since we are buying tanks then we have the money to buy destroyers as well. Do we need them? well yes i wont mind a few, can we live without them? I think yes! that is how things are looked upon. Once the more urgent needs are fulfilled and more serious gaps plugged we may consider going for more and more but at the moment there are more pressing needs.
Submarines being one of them are already bein worked upon amd then there are talks of 4 to 6 heavier frigates with better air def. A fighter aviation wing for navy and bigger destroyer ships and nuclear subs only come AFTER the more pressing demands are met. Then there are the other arms of military with similar lists that have to be considered.

Meeting the minimal requirements of your navy is fine enough. There was I reply I posted to Rampage's mention at a question regarding coastal naval artillary.

However inducting assets that are considered strategic to Pakistan Navy, solely depends on your foreign policy vision. That's what I've had learnt after all these years. But of course some navies may have a different paradigm when defining their role on foreign policy. So I may be wrong as well. But your geographical location at sea is really complex especially when Indian recon stations southwest of Pakistan are being considered. Rather than complying the aggresor with procuring direct equivalents of it's kind, solution might lie in two sentences only with no budget fantasies:
a) Strengthened situational awareness. (MPA and Naval Intelligence, yeah no super duber crap required)
b) Anti-access/area denial. (enhanced frigates,subs,corvettes do the work well in a networked management, no intense need for destroyers)

Add-ons:

a) Sabotage. It can be a force multiplier if executed with accurate intelligence. Why? Well, it is a commonly known fact that Indian Navy failed in the class in the issues of platform and personnel safety. Their official news shows the evidence of it. It is a very unfortunate thing by the way, I am sorry that many sailors lost their lives this way. Anyways, yes that is a weakness that Indian Navy is not able to fix in no time soon and we all know what SSG is capable of.

b) Counter-intelligence on ELINT/SIGINT. Basically try to lower the emission your ships are screening. This is done through inducting ships with lower RCS, stronger EW structure and stricter EMCON levels when on cruise. EMCON is the emission level that ships designate to use by choice among different levels of threat existance or by other means to reduce the possibility of being detected by hostile fire control systems as unlikely as possible.

I am sick of mud here I missed the seas already

 

[IblinI]

IMO, The main challenge will be to develop the fire control and the search radar systems, and integrating it on the lines of AEGIS, secondly the launch mechanism in the VLS, like hot launch(US) is more complicated than cold launch(chinese, russians).

Let me just make a correction,Chinese VLS system on type 052D, and type 055 is a combination of hot and cold launch.

 

[R Wing]

When approaching any R&D and local production question, you need to ask, will we generate enough to scale - i.e. number of units - to distribute the R&D cost?

Remember: A weapon system is the cost of labour and materials plus the cost of the technology, which in turn is the cost of R&D. So if it is $120m to develop the VLS system, then that $120m has to be divided by the 12 VLS systems you are buying for your ships. That is $10m plus the $20m to produce and integrate the thing. (note: numbers are made-up).

It would be a great idea to develop in-house if we have all of the competencies readily available to us, but we do not. So in order to develop, we will have to spend some serious cash to build capacity, acquire foreign expertise, and maybe just end up licensing some overseas technology we just can't master in time. Furthermore, if the Navy ends up just capping its surface ship requirement to 4 frigates, then the VLS program would cost us several times than what we had intended.

The best current course is to find an existing VLS program elsewhere, e.g. in China, Turkey or South Africa, and then co-invest in exchange for technology transfer and commercial offsets.

Don't know much about aviation --- but I just wanted to drop in and say that I'm glad we have experts like you who understand both the economic and military aspects of systems development.

 

[Arsalan]

Meeting the minimal requirements of your navy is fine enough. There was I reply I posted to Rampage's mention at a question regarding coastal naval artillary.

However inducting assets that are considered strategic to Pakistan Navy, solely depends on your foreign policy vision. That's what I've had learnt after all these years. But of course some navies may have a different paradigm when defining their role on foreign policy. So I may be wrong as well. But your geographical location at sea is really complex especially when Indian recon stations southwest of Pakistan are being considered. Rather than complying the aggresor with procuring direct equivalents of it's kind, solution might lie in two sentences only with no budget fantasies:
a) Strengthened situational awareness. (MPA and Naval Intelligence, yeah no super duber crap required)
b) Anti-access/area denial. (enhanced frigates,subs,corvettes do the work well in a networked management, no intense need for destroyers)

Add-ons:

a) Sabotage. It can be a force multiplier if executed with accurate intelligence. Why? Well, it is a commonly known fact that Indian Navy failed in the class in the issues of platform and personnel safety. Their official news shows the evidence of it. It is a very unfortunate thing by the way, I am sorry that many sailors lost their lives this way. Anyways, yes that is a weakness that Indian Navy is not able to fix in no time soon and we all know what SSG is capable of.

b) Counter-intelligence on ELINT/SIGINT. Basically try to lower the emission your ships are screening. This is done through inducting ships with lower RCS, stronger EW structure and stricter EMCON levels when on cruise. EMCON is the emission level that ships designate to use by choice among different levels of threat existance or by other means to reduce the possibility of being detected by hostile fire control systems as unlikely as possible.

I am sick of mud here I missed the seas already

Well this is actually what is being worked on. However as you can understand this will be a gradual and step by step process and i do not see making VLS for a handful of ships that we will be operating in near future as a viable option. The RnD investment is distributed over the number of units produced and the equation might not be very suitable to spend on a new system. The idea of getting something from market becomes even more lucrative when there are reliable options available. That was the debate on this thread.

The second argument was related to "the handful of ships that we will be operating.....". Like anyone else, i will love to see PN growing to counter any threat. However the truth remains that will a limited budget, the more pressing needs are to be addressed first. It will ALWAYS be like that (thankfully). We cannot expect navy to use the available, for example, 5 billions, for a frigates when we have tree submarines operations! The subs are more important to our doctrine and we are going for that. Then there are demands and needs of other arms of military. For example, again, suppose we have 2 billions funds, i wont expect Navy to go and set up an fighter aircraft wing with J-16s when the main aviation arm, the AIR FORCE is operating F7PGs. First things first, that was the second part of the argument.

I think you will agree with this when you look at things from this perspective.