F-23P or OHP for PN

[Umair Nawaz]

i have a question, Why is the caliber of guns/cannons mounted on ships is very low? I mean why not mount Howitzers of 203mm or 155mm or atleast guns with tank's cannon's caliber 122 or 120mm??

 

[Penguin]

 

[Penguin]

On the other hand OHPs are bigger and they were meant for ocean escort so they can be fitted with much more goodies and on this forum someone said that they are better than F-22P design wise. (i think may be @Penguin said that).

Due to larger size OHPs may have greater endurance/seakeeping that smaller F22P. OHP my also have better ASW. The latter need not apply to modernized F22P developments, however.

 

[Quwa]

Neither. The PN should buy a bunch of CSOC's 'High Performance Frigate'

Specs:

• 3500 tons
• 135 metres
• 32-cell VLS
• FL-3000N PDMS
• 2x4 AShM
• 2x3 ASW torpedo tubes

Chinese Shipbuilder CSOC unveiled new Frigate, LHD and Submarine designs at IDEX 2013

 

[Kompromat]

Neither. The PN should buy a bunch of CSOC's 'High Performance Frigate'

Specs:

• 3500 tons
• 135 metres
• 32-cell VLS
• FL-3000N PDMS
• 2x4 AShM
• 2x3 ASW torpedo tubes

Chinese Shipbuilder CSOC unveiled new Frigate, LHD and Submarine designs at IDEX 2013

They would be expensive don't you think.

 

[Quwa]

They would be expensive don't you think.

Yes, but finances aren't the reason why the PN wouldn't get them. Yes, the lack of money is playing a direct role, but it isn't the root cause. The root cause is our political leadership and its unwillingness to build a country with a good economy.

If Pakistan asserted itself as an independent state and actually worked to guarantee China's interests in the region, the Chinese may be willing to cut some slack on new frigates (and submarines). After all, how could Pakistan guarantee China's interests if it's unable to defend its coasts, sea lanes and other maritime interests?

My point is simple, if we want to see Pakistan's military improve, we need to see it disengage from the US. Moreover, we need sincere leaders who will actually resolve Waziristan, not inexplicably prolong it for the sake of political expediency.

 

[Zarvan]

OHP are FMS item, we just need to pay for upgrades for Genesis and weapons package. If we get 3 OHPs and F-23P with VLS with two Type-54 on lease, it should help our cause greatly.

and 3 more from USA we should try our level best to get those 3 and why 3 I think 4 OHP 2 Type 54 on lease and 4 total from USA 1 we already have 3 more needed

 

[fatman17]

whats a F-23P - figment of our imagination?

 

[Jf Thunder]

WE SHOULD MAKE OUR OWN

 

[Luftwaffe]

whats a F-23P - figment of our imagination?

Pakistanis! bara wala F-22P..

@Aeronaut due to newer Technologies coming in and incorporating with existing Technologies and bigger ships; the price are obviously going to be higher but anything between $325-375m should be considered A Normal price for the capabilities it would offer.

 

[Penguin]

If Pakistan asserted itself as an independent state and actually worked to guarantee China's interests in the region

Well, there is a contradiction if ever I saw one. Swapping dependency on one for dependency on another imho. To be truely independent, Pakistan cannot bend to any particular major power. That means either keep all at bay, or cement relations with all (thus counterbalancing different dependencies).

CSOCs high performance frigate appears armed with HHQ16, which gives a range of 50km at best, which is comperable to ESSM, of which you can load 32 into a single 8-round launcher. I'm not so sure what advantage CSOC's HPF would offer PN over an improved F22P (which could be built by CSOC as well as Karachi shipyard).

 

[Quwa]

Well, there is a contradiction if ever I saw one. Swapping dependency on one for dependency on another imho. To be truely independent, Pakistan cannot bend to any particular major power. That means either keep all at bay, or cement relations with all (thus counterbalancing different dependencies).

Depends on how you read it. From my view, it is in Pakistan's interests to push the US away, to evict the US from within its own borders and to have it leave Afghanistan. This is in Pakistan's security interests, but China will benefit from seeing America's presence diluted in South and Central Asia. However, Pakistan's capacity to maintain such a situation is contingent on its economic and military strength, areas the Chinese can and probably should invest in, for their own sake. This is how an independent Pakistan could guarantee China's interests, albeit as an externality or indirect consequence of its own interests.

 

[Basel]

Pakistan should not be dependent on any country in International Relations, Pakistan should create a balance foreign policy which allow us to safeguard our interests without becoming someones pet.

The problem I see with procurement of OHPs is that, how we can upgrade them to their potential as our economy is not good and our relations with west is not very good either and they will take pressure from India if any one wanna sell any thing to Pakistan now, as we can not spent money like India.

US will not allow Chinese systems on OHPs and PN need robust air defense at their coastal & sea assets as threat from east is growing and evolving fast and PN just can't handle it even in a defensive war, they need power punch to go after IN and hit them hard in any hostility which they lack now, whereas IN can block incoming ships to Pakistan remaining in blue waters, where PN can't create potent threat to them until they have at least OHP class ships or better ships if possible with advance equipment and weapons. PN even lack advance subs in numbers.

ESSM even with SPY-1F/K is still very potent MR air defense if backed by RIM162s / Phalnaz 1B they can give IN run for their money even if they use their prime weapon Brahmos. The question is what China can offer? Type 54As falls similar to OHPs as they will be escorting ships of PLAN and have good air defense too, but is HQ9 Naval version and HH-16 good enough to handle the threat what IN & IAF combined pose to PN?? and how good HH-16 is when compared to ESSM?? and what EU countries can offer in MR SAM systems for PN??

@Penguin @Aeronaut

 

[aliaselin]

Well, there is a contradiction if ever I saw one. Swapping dependency on one for dependency on another imho. To be truely independent, Pakistan cannot bend to any particular major power. That means either keep all at bay, or cement relations with all (thus counterbalancing different dependencies).

CSOCs high performance frigate appears armed with HHQ16, which gives a range of 50km at best, which is comperable to ESSM, of which you can load 32 into a single 8-round launcher. I'm not so sure what advantage CSOC's HPF would offer PN over an improved F22P (which could be built by CSOC as well as Karachi shipyard).

Typically for these ships, it should not only have air-defense ability but also anti-submarine ability, or say anti-submarine is more focused, especially for China. A ships with 8-cell VLS means 4X4=16 ESSM and 4 rocket-assisted torpedo（HNoMS Fridtjof Nansen？）; while 32-cell means 24 HQ-16 and 8 rocket-assisted torpedo.
Personally, I preferred more smaller VLS cell than less larger VLS cell for any anti-submarine frigate, even for the new type 054B/057. However, until now I have not found any other people with the same opinion.

 

[Basel]

@aliaselin can you please post details of Type 54B because when I posted that Type 54B is on the horizon as per Chinese forum member on different forums people here behave like I m lying and making my own stuff.

@nomi007 please read post # 29, you will find answer of your post # 7, which you raised against my post # 3 on this forum.

Thanks.