Indignesous SPARROW needed

[CriticalThought]

Hi Gryphon, I always find your contribution interesting and valuable.
Phalanx has a 20mm gun. Korkut has almost double that caliber. This means:

1. Phalanx will engage a target much closer to the ship, while Korkut will be able to deal with it at greater range.
2. That the weight of the rounds and power of the rounds would be much greater for Korkut than Phalanx.

This is the reason that multiple countries, including the UK have sought higher caliber CIWS (the whole debris issue as you put it). The UK developed the 30mm Goalkeeper for instance. Korkut has an even greater caliber (35mm). With modern tracking, it would significantly outrange any past system.

All meaning much less chance of debris flying into the ship. I hope that clarifies the issue.

Addendum:

Brahmos has two issues, IMHO - speed and mass. Together, they represent a giant amount of kinetic force and momentum. This means they need to be intercepted at greater range and with a greater mass of ammunition.

See if this gives you any ideas

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/mlrs-effective-counter-to-su-30mki-brahmos-combination.496961/

 

[Gryphon]

Hi Gryphon, I always find your contribution interesting and valuable.
Phalanx has a 20mm gun. Korkut has almost double that caliber. This means:

1. Phalanx will engage a target much closer to the ship, while Korkut will be able to deal with it at greater range.
2. That the weight of the rounds and power of the rounds would be much greater for Korkut than Phalanx.

This is the reason that multiple countries, including the UK have sought higher caliber CIWS (the whole debris issue as you put it). The UK developed the 30mm Goalkeeper for instance. Korkut has an even greater caliber (35mm). With modern tracking, it would significantly outrange any past system.

All meaning much less chance of debris flying into the ship. I hope that clarifies the issue.

Addendum:

Brahmos has two issues, IMHO - speed and mass. Together, they represent a giant amount of kinetic force and momentum. This means they need to be intercepted at greater range and with a greater mass of ammunition.

Well explained.

As the deployment of supersonic missiles increases with the day, PN should move towards PDMS instead of these CIWS (gatling guns / autocannons) on new surface platforms (Type 054A, Milgem). CIWS should be restricted to fleet tankers, OPVs, etc.

PDMS offer much greater intercept range against supersonic threats. Thales VT1, for example, has a range of upto 12km.

There is a Phalanx ammo production facility at POF now, which didn't exist two years back. Seems Phalanx will be around much longer than expected.

 

[Armchair]

Small stealth boats in trio dedicated for one role only one boat for air defense other for anti ship still other boat for anti submarine role

I like your out of the box thinking. I wish there were more people who did that. Large ships are a large target. Since WW2, it has been consistently seen that large ships have fared poorly in real-world combat. With ever more dangerous AShMs, submarines, aircraft, satellites, the danger has only grown.

Today there are no more battleships in the world. Cruisers, barely a few. But strangely, the navies of the world do not like submarines and strike aircraft. These are not glamorous, and not fit for the standing of a navy. They keep making bigger and bigger ships, something to do with, perhaps, Freud and egos. Tomorrow, if any given ship in PN has a dozen Brahmos thrown at it, it is unlikely to survive, no matter what ship that is, even if it is was Type 54.

Yet, somehow large capital ships seem to be the thing navies clamour for. Just like so many navies that were beaten into pulp and blown out of existence during WW2.

Now, don't get me wrong, I think the Type 54As are great. As are the large submarines. But the focus should be on a different balance than at present, IMHO. The focus should have been on small submarines, out of the box smaller warships, UUVs, UAVs.

A 1500 ton corvette could house a helicopter with a telescopic hangar. It could have, more or less, the same fitting out as an Ada class.

The fundamental question is: What exactly makes a warship expensive? And how can mass production help?

Here are some of the subsystems that make a warship expensive:

1. VLS SAM system
2. Helicopter
3. PDS SAM
4. Radars of various kinds
5. AShMs
6. Gas turbine engines
7. Diesel engines

Cannot 1 & 3 be developed in-house? With all that supposed tech transfer from Spada-2000? All the AAM tech transfers? Why was this never done?

For an A2D strategy, as openly claimed, near shore, can fewer helicopters be used and manned aeroplanes and UAVs, both shore based be substituted? Why or why not? You get rid of not only one of the most expensive subsystems, but grant yourself a great deal of real estate on a ship.

For gas turbines, is this completely needed? Has there at least been studies of how this can be substituted? For instance, I've discussed using a rotary engine in the 1200 hp range for a CAS aircraft. Such rotary engines are used in the civilian ship market, converted to a role very similar to a turbine engine - giving high speed performance to ships. These are incomparably cheaper and could be built locally, as part of a wider industrial strategy to build CAS aircraft, maritime aircraft, etc locally.

Incidentally, rotary / piston engine can give you similar economies to a turboprop at altitudes below 100 FL. Meaning that for CAS aircraft, they are the most cost effective alternative.

For maritime use, rotary engines are lightweight and provide a lot of RPM and HP. Their downside is that they have lower torque, meaning they are ideally usable alongside diesel engines, which would provide cruise, while the rotary could provide the extra speed when needed.

With the tech out there, the door is wide open in terms of what can be achieved by UUVs. For instance, you could have a UUV attached to a mini-sub or even sent directly from a PN base, go to an Indian port and run amok.

Is the A position main gun really needed in the modern warship? Why? what role does it play other than a ceremonial one? Why not use that space for a rail-mounted UAV launcher? Or a laser? Or a CIWS? Or just more space for VLS?

To be honest, I don't really see why the PN needs anything above 500-2000 ton ships, other than say 4 Type 54As to give top cover. The sweet spot may be 1000-1500 tons.

Everything else is just hubris and bravado, IMHO. I know I'm being harsh, sorry for that.

Well explained.

As the deployment of supersonic missiles increases with the day, PN should move towards PDMS instead of these CIWS (gatling guns / autocannons) on new surface platforms (Type 054A, Milgem). CIWS should be restricted to fleet tankers, OPVs, etc.

PDMS offer much greater intercept range against supersonic threats. Thales VT1, for example, has a range of upto 12km.

There is a Phalanx ammo production facility at POF now, which didn't exist two years back. Seems Phalanx will be around much longer than expected.

Hi Gryphon, why not think of it as layered defense instead of an either / or argument?
You can go the US route of basically using RAM instead, or the British / Russian / Turkish / Chinese route of using both. So you have VLS medium SAMS as your first line of defense, then PDMS, and finally the Korkut, the last line of defense.

There is apparently a PDMS in development at NESCOM for the PN. Will possibly be fitted fleet-wide. Just rumor nothing official.

Incidentally, with the Korkut, you're reaching similar ranges as RAM / FL-3000N, so it may be better to put a bit more legs on the PDMS. So there are distinct kill zones for each layer.

PN has a lot of Phalanx lying around, what with all those ships that retired / are retiring. So its good to have the ammo I guess. Surely Turkey will provide TOT to make ammo for Korkut, which is just a bigger, badder Phalanx.

The Harpoon launchers and Phalanx, along with all the other goodies in the retired / retiring ships, need to go somewhere. This is where the Damen boats become useful. Junk refit, not glorious but smart and cost-effective.

 

[Gryphon]

Hi Gryphon, why not think of it as layered defense instead of an either / or argument?
You can go the US route of basically using RAM instead, or the British / Russian / Turkish / Chinese route of using both. So you have VLS medium SAMS as your first line of defense, then PDMS, and finally the Korkut, the last line of defense.

Many a times, you have to make a choice - either A or B.

There are considerations of space (and weight), which I'll try to briefly explain

This is the Milgem Ada class, with a Mk 49 GMLS atop the helicopter hangar. There is no space to fit a Phalanx CIWS.

Then, there is the F-22P, with 2x Type 730B CIWS installed.

On the Azmat class, they have installed a single AK-630 CIWS when a PDMS (FL-3000N) was doable.

The restrictions which apply to <3000 ton ships don't apply to larger ships like CSOC 4000 ton frigate, which has 32 VLS cells + FL-3000N + 2x Type 730B CIWS.

Incidentally, with the Korkut, you're reaching similar ranges as RAM / FL-3000N, so it may be better to put a bit more legs on the PDMS. So there are distinct kill zones for each layer.

PN has a lot of Phalanx lying around, what with all those ships that retired / are retiring. So its good to have the ammo I guess. Surely Turkey will provide TOT to make ammo for Korkut, which is just a bigger, badder Phalanx.

RAM Block II - 13.5km
Thales VT1 - 12km
FL-3000N - 9km

Korkut-D - 4km
Phalanx - 3.5km

Korkut-D appears to be very large in size

The Harpoon launchers and Phalanx, along with all the other goodies in the retired / retiring ships, need to go somewhere. This is where the Damen boats become useful. Junk refit, not glorious but smart and cost-effective.

I don't think so. Damen ships are OPVs, they will be used for patrol. They may put a search radar and a Phalanx but where will you accommodate the Harpoon's?

OPV 1900

Harpoon's can be installed on any ship PN wants - even on Azmat size FAC-M from China.

 

[Armchair]

Many a times, you have to make a choice - either A or B.

There are considerations of space (and weight), which I'll try to briefly explain

This is the Milgem Ada class, with a Mk 49 GMLS atop the helicopter hangar. There is no space to fit a Phalanx CIWS.

Then, there is the F-22P, with 2x Type 730B CIWS installed.

On the Azmat class, they have installed a single AK-630 CIWS when a PDMS (FL-3000N) was doable.

The restrictions which apply to <3000 ton ships don't apply to larger ships like CSOC 4000 ton frigate, which has 32 VLS cells + FL-3000N + 2x Type 730B CIWS.



RAM Block II - 13.5km
Thales VT1 - 12km
FL-3000N - 9km

Korkut-D - 4km
Phalanx - 3.5km

Korkut-D appears to be very large in size

I don't think so. Damen ships are OPVs, they will be used for patrol. They may put a search radar and a Phalanx but where will you accommodate the Harpoon's?

OPV 1900

Harpoon's can be installed on any ship PN wants - even on Azmat size FAC-M from China.

Interesting, thanks for sharing Gryphon. I don't know the specs of the Korkut-D in actuality. It is a big system.

Agreed, in larger boats it is possible to have both, and in smaller boats it would be harder. Perhaps one aft the other forward. Or one aft and the two on each side, port and starboard.

I do believe, and this is my speculation and nothing more, the Damen boats are stretched in the middle, thus the 1800 has become 1900. The spece in the middle is boxed but there is apparently space. The pic you shared is the 1800 btw.

Overall I agree that it would be a bit crowded to try to fit both Korkut-D and a PDS on the Ada at least, not sure about 54A. Let's see what comes out. Latest rumors are that the Ada comes with VLS.

 

[Gryphon]

I do believe, and this is my speculation and nothing more, the Damen boats are stretched in the middle, thus the 1800 has become 1900. The spece in the middle is boxed but there is apparently space. The pic you shared is the 1800 btw.

Overall I agree that it would be a bit crowded to try to fit both Korkut-D and a PDS on the Ada at least, not sure about 54A. Let's see what comes out.

Damen ships are being built as OPV's, they will not be armed for ASuW even if there is space for Harpoon's because they aren't meant for this role.

The pic I posted is OPV 1900 (taken from PN's official website). It is an elongated OPV 1800, so appears identical.

Regarding Type 054A, the export variant has 32 cell VLS + 1x FL-3000N launcher + 2x Type 730B CIWS as seen in this model.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

My dear friend @denel its always a pleasure to read your opinions. I think there is know how in some areas. A SAM system, lets assume IR based would have the following major subsystems:

1. propulsion
2. guidance system
3. Explosive / proximity fuse
4. Launcher
5. Fire control radar / IRST

Pakistan has enough missile expertise for 1, 3, 4. Main issues are possibly 2 and 5.

The Spada 2000, when we read of it back then, came with TOT. There are also other off-the-shelf solutions one could outsource. This means 5 is taken care of.
Issue then becomes 2. Again, it could be outsourced. Pakistan has little to no experience developing an IR seeker although it has experience with the control mechanisms of guidance. Can this be outsourced? Could Denel or Mekatron be possible sources? Aselsan has a solution.

Basically such a program would be a systems integration project. If you can integrated these subsystems effectively, you can have a reasonable SAM system. At a very reasonable price.

BTW there was a report not too long ago that PN has asked the R&D establishment to work on an IR SAM. If someone remembers it. I will try to dig it up.



Hi Future PAF,

Thanks for your thoughts and interesting discourse. Pakistan does not have access to CAMM and very likely will be unable to replicate it. You need seriously good R&D to develop something like that. While some parts of Pakistani R&D is good, there are whole departments and projects that are highly unprofessional and just eating out their government jobs.

Umkhonto costs 30 million per system (I think). And can barely be called a medium SAM. PN has shown interest in the system but nothing came of it.

I really don't think its wise to try to retrofit F-22P. Not at this point. The F-22P has quality issues and is an old design. In many ways it is not upgradable. Its good as it is. FL-3000N would have been nice. I remember @Bilal Khan (Quwa) suggesting that at some point. However, perhaps PN feels its better to invest the meagre available resources on new ships that can be properly upgraded, are new designs and that have a future.

The F-22P is good for the role it was bought - ASW. Its an ASW frigate. It will mainly operate within the umbrella of PAF, near the Pakistani coast. It is far wiser to invest the money in a proper AAW frigate. Which is what PN is doing with the Type 54A mod. The only issue is negotiations are taking place regarding certain customizations to it.

The LY-80 is a good system and will provide a 70 km radius umbrella for PN strike formations. Would you rather these are not bought and F-22Ps are modified with Umkhonto missiles, only a handful of which would fit the ship to begin with? A very old design ship that is not even properly automated?

Does the F-22P even have the radar capability to effectively target incoming Brahmos missiles at range? If not, does PN need to invest in giant sums of money to upgrade the radars onboard?

Just some thoughts on my part. cheers.

What you're really saying is ... 'the F-22P is a bloody eyesore and it needs to go away ... buy 8 nice looking LF-2400s (aka MILGEM Ada with VLS) to replace the 4 we have and to expand the frigate fleet to 12. God knows if the frigate fleet at least looks nice, our Navy stands a chance.'

 

[Armchair]

What you're really saying is ... 'the F-22P is a bloody eyesore and it needs to go away ... buy 8 nice looking LF-2400s (aka MILGEM Ada with VLS) to replace the 4 we have and to expand the frigate fleet to 12. God knows if the frigate fleet at least looks nice, our Navy stands a chance.'