Mid-life upgrade for F22P

[FuturePAF]

These photos are from china weapons export forum, check the different radar and fire control system. At least these systems could be upgraded on PN F22-Ps.

What are the prospects of the F-22Ps going back into the shipyards and turned into these; most of the ship is the same. While they are at it, they can lengthen the hull to make space for upgrades.

 

[Tank131]

What are the prospects of the F-22Ps going back into the shipyards and turned into these; most of the ship is the same. While they are at it, they can lengthen the hull to make space for upgrades.

There are many exterior differences between F-22p amd C28A that may make such a remodel cost ineffective. I think it woyld be cheaper and more cost effective to focus on systems like weapons and electronics. Very low cost options to improve weaponry is to exchange C-802 with Harba, FM90 with FL-3000N (24 cell), and the 2 Type 730s with 2 Pantsir-M. Exchange the electronics for more modern radars like Smart S mk2 or LY-80N AESA radar and a new combat management system. That gives you a totally different beast which would be very capable in defending itself with 16 medium range missiles (30km), 24 short range missiles (9km) and 4 gatling guns mounted on 2 CIWS. It will also be capable of hitting ships at long range.

 

[randomradio]

There are many exterior differences between F-22p amd C28A that may make such a remodel cost ineffective. I think it woyld be cheaper and more cost effective to focus on systems like weapons and electronics. Very low cost options to improve weaponry is to exchange C-802 with Harba, FM90 with FL-3000N (24 cell), and the 2 Type 730s with 2 Pantsir-M. Exchange the electronics for more modern radars like Smart S mk2 or LY-80N AESA radar and a new combat management system. That gives you a totally different beast which would be very capable in defending itself with 16 medium range missiles (30km), 24 short range missiles (9km) and 4 gatling guns mounted on 2 CIWS. It will also be capable of hitting ships at long range.

The two Pantsirs also carry 64 missiles in total. You should normally be choosing 4 Pantsirs or 4 Type 730.

 

[Tank131]

The two Pantsirs also carry 64 missiles in total. You should normally be choosing 4 Pantsirs or 4 Type 730.

Not sure what system you are referring to. I am referring to the Pantsir-M which is essentially a Kashtan-M with 8 Pantsir 57E6-E (20km on export variant Pantsir-ME) or Hermes K (30km on Pantsir-M domestic variant). The system is equipped with 8 missiles.

Also the F-22P has only 2 CIWS stations. Not sure where you want to put the additional 2 stations...

 

[Basel]

Tor and Buk are completely different systems. They are not in the same class. For the navy, the Buk is called Shilka.

Did I mentioned Navy?? Nope, I clearly said ground forces.

 

[randomradio]

Not sure what system you are referring to. I am referring to the Pantsir-M which is essentially a Kashtan-M with 8 Pantsir 57E6-E (20km on export variant Pantsir-ME) or Hermes K (30km on Pantsir-M domestic variant). The system is equipped with 8 missiles.

The same thing.

The Pantsir-ME has 8 ready to fire missiles and 3 reloads right below it. So 32 missiles in all. That's for each station. So 4 Pantsirs will give you 128 missiles.

Also the F-22P has only 2 CIWS stations. Not sure where you want to put the additional 2 stations...

Pantsir-ME is also CIWS. It takes the same space as the 730. Since you said 2 730s and 2 Pantsirs, I simply used your number. If the Pantsir-ME is chosen, then the FM-90 can be replaced with it. But it's a better idea to get a better SAM in front, like the Shtil.

Did I mentioned Navy?? Nope, I clearly said ground forces.

Sure. Tor and Buk are both designed for the army.

The Chinese equivalents are HQ-17 and HQ-16. And you already bought some HQ-16, so it removes the need for Buk.

PA chose the HQ-7A/FM-90, which removes the need for Tor.

And there's some talk on this forum about Pantsir. There's a tracked version available.

 

[Basel]

The same thing.

The Pantsir-ME has 8 ready to fire missiles and 3 reloads right below it. So 32 missiles in all. That's for each station. So 4 Pantsirs will give you 128 missiles.

Pantsir-ME is also CIWS. It takes the same space as the 730. Since you said 2 730s and 2 Pantsirs, I simply used your number. If the Pantsir-ME is chosen, then the FM-90 can be replaced with it. But it's a better idea to get a better SAM in front, like the Shtil.



Sure. Tor and Buk are both designed for the army.

The Chinese equivalents are HQ-17 and HQ-16. And you already bought some HQ-16, so it removes the need for Buk.

PA chose the HQ-7A/FM-90, which removes the need for Tor.

And there's some talk on this forum about Pantsir. There's a tracked version available.

Not completely, that is why PA is interested in those, specially Buk & Pantsir SAM as both can be very good for fast moving forces.

 

[Tank131]

The same thing.

The Pantsir-ME has 8 ready to fire missiles and 3 reloads right below it. So 32 missiles in all. That's for each station. So 4 Pantsirs will give you 128 missiles.

Pantsir-ME is also CIWS. It takes the same space as the 730. Since you said 2 730s and 2 Pantsirs, I simply used your number. If the Pantsir-ME is chosen, then the FM-90 can be replaced with it. But it's a better idea to get a better SAM in front, like the Shtil.
.

Ah, you mean with reload. I see.
Regarding the number of CIWS, i was. Not suggesting adding the Pantsir system in addition to type 730,but replacing the 730 with Pantsir-M. I dont think tgere is room for 4 stations. Had it been already laid out as C28a had, then it would be doable.

As for the front missiles i agree i wpuld love to see a better system than FM-90, the question is which system and how to add it. Shtil would be unlikely even if a vls is added as the PN will be operating HQ-16A or B with 40-70km range already. As these are development of Buk/Shtil they woupd likely go with HQ-16. As we can see from. TIGER class models (a development of C28A which itself is developed from F-22P) a 12cell vls can be fit in place of the raised platform that the FM-90 occupies. However, given this is meant to be a cost effective upgrade (minimizing structural changes) i would think 1 or 2 FL-3000N (24 cell each) would be more reasonable. You could possibly even do 2 addition Pantsir-M instead, but i like the added number of PD-Missiles, but putting 2 Pantsir-M would give you 32 missiles ready to fire as you say. Request the Hermes-k in place of the Pantsir missiles and you have 32 30km missiles and 4 CIWS gum stations with 2 guns each (8 in total) which i think is a ver reasonable defense.

The same thing.

The Pantsir-ME has 8 ready to fire missiles and 3 reloads right below it. So 32 missiles in all. That's for each station. So 4 Pantsirs will give you 128 missiles.

Pantsir-ME is also CIWS. It takes the same space as the 730. Since you said 2 730s and 2 Pantsirs, I simply used your number. If the Pantsir-ME is chosen, then the FM-90 can be replaced with it. But it's a better idea to get a better SAM in front, like the Shtil.
.

Ah, you mean with reload. I see.
Regarding the number of CIWS, i was. Not suggesting adding the Pantsir system in addition to type 730,but replacing the 730 with Pantsir-M. I dont think tgere is room for 4 stations. Had it been already laid out as C28a had, then it would be doable.

As for the front missiles i agree i wpuld love to see a better system than FM-90, the question is which system and how to add it. Shtil would be unlikely even if a vls is added as the PN will be operating HQ-16A or B with 40-70km range already. As these are development of Buk/Shtil they woupd likely go with HQ-16. As we can see from. TIGER class models (a development of C28A which itself is developed from F-22P) a 12cell vls can be fit in place of the raised platform that the FM-90 occupies. However, given this is meant to be a cost effective upgrade (minimizing structural changes) i would think 1 or 2 FL-3000N (24 cell each) would be more reasonable. You could possibly even do 2 addition Pantsir-M instead, but i like the added number of PD-Missiles, but putting 2 Pantsir-M would give you 32 missiles ready to fire as you say. Request the Hermes-k in place of the Pantsir missiles and you have 32 30km missiles and 4 CIWS gum stations with 2 guns each (8 in total) which i think is a ver reasonable defense.

 

[randomradio]

Not completely, that is why PA is interested in those, specially Buk & Pantsir SAM as both can be very good for fast moving forces.

AFAIK, the PA has already chosen the HQ-16. It's pointless to add a second type now.

Ah, you mean with reload. I see.
Regarding the number of CIWS, i was. Not suggesting adding the Pantsir system in addition to type 730,but replacing the 730 with Pantsir-M. I dont think tgere is room for 4 stations. Had it been already laid out as C28a had, then it would be doable.

As for the front missiles i agree i wpuld love to see a better system than FM-90, the question is which system and how to add it. Shtil would be unlikely even if a vls is added as the PN will be operating HQ-16A or B with 40-70km range already. As these are development of Buk/Shtil they woupd likely go with HQ-16. As we can see from. TIGER class models (a development of C28A which itself is developed from F-22P) a 12cell vls can be fit in place of the raised platform that the FM-90 occupies. However, given this is meant to be a cost effective upgrade (minimizing structural changes) i would think 1 or 2 FL-3000N (24 cell each) would be more reasonable. You could possibly even do 2 addition Pantsir-M instead, but i like the added number of PD-Missiles, but putting 2 Pantsir-M would give you 32 missiles ready to fire as you say. Request the Hermes-k in place of the Pantsir missiles and you have 32 30km missiles and 4 CIWS gum stations with 2 guns each (8 in total) which i think is a ver reasonable defense.



Ah, you mean with reload. I see.
Regarding the number of CIWS, i was. Not suggesting adding the Pantsir system in addition to type 730,but replacing the 730 with Pantsir-M. I dont think tgere is room for 4 stations. Had it been already laid out as C28a had, then it would be doable.

As for the front missiles i agree i wpuld love to see a better system than FM-90, the question is which system and how to add it. Shtil would be unlikely even if a vls is added as the PN will be operating HQ-16A or B with 40-70km range already. As these are development of Buk/Shtil they woupd likely go with HQ-16. As we can see from. TIGER class models (a development of C28A which itself is developed from F-22P) a 12cell vls can be fit in place of the raised platform that the FM-90 occupies. However, given this is meant to be a cost effective upgrade (minimizing structural changes) i would think 1 or 2 FL-3000N (24 cell each) would be more reasonable. You could possibly even do 2 addition Pantsir-M instead, but i like the added number of PD-Missiles, but putting 2 Pantsir-M would give you 32 missiles ready to fire as you say. Request the Hermes-k in place of the Pantsir missiles and you have 32 30km missiles and 4 CIWS gum stations with 2 guns each (8 in total) which i think is a ver reasonable defense.

Choosing Pantsir will eliminate the need for both FL-3000 and 730. Otherwise you have to find space for the FL-3000 as well.

The current version of Shtil is better than the HQ-16 series. The Chinese should up their game with their offer.

But personally, I believe the frigate will be upgraded with all Chinese systems anyway.

 

[Basel]

AFAIK, the PA has already chosen the HQ-16. It's pointless to add a second type now.



Choosing Pantsir will eliminate the need for both FL-3000 and 730. Otherwise you have to find space for the FL-3000 as well.

The current version of Shtil is better than the HQ-16 series. The Chinese should up their game with their offer.

But personally, I believe the frigate will be upgraded with all Chinese systems anyway.

PA is definitely interested in a system like Pantsir, which can move with armour divisions also Buk M-3 can be used with them on the move and it can provide protection against SRBMs too.

HQ-16 & FM-90 then will provide cover to defensive force, as both are not as mobile as Pantsir & Buk M-3.

AFAIK, the PA has already chosen the HQ-16. It's pointless to add a second type now.



Choosing Pantsir will eliminate the need for both FL-3000 and 730. Otherwise you have to find space for the FL-3000 as well.

The current version of Shtil is better than the HQ-16 series. The Chinese should up their game with their offer.

But personally, I believe the frigate will be upgraded with all Chinese systems anyway.

Chinese have DK-10 with 50km range and its quad packable in VLS.

There are many exterior differences between F-22p amd C28A that may make such a remodel cost ineffective. I think it woyld be cheaper and more cost effective to focus on systems like weapons and electronics. Very low cost options to improve weaponry is to exchange C-802 with Harba, FM90 with FL-3000N (24 cell), and the 2 Type 730s with 2 Pantsir-M. Exchange the electronics for more modern radars like Smart S mk2 or LY-80N AESA radar and a new combat management system. That gives you a totally different beast which would be very capable in defending itself with 16 medium range missiles (30km), 24 short range missiles (9km) and 4 gatling guns mounted on 2 CIWS. It will also be capable of hitting ships at long range.

Instead of FL-3000N, DK-10 quad packable MR SAM (50km range) should be considered.

 

[randomradio]

PA is definitely interested in a system like Pantsir, which can move with armour divisions also Buk M-3 can be used with them on the move and it can provide protection against SRBMs too.

HQ-16 & FM-90 then will provide cover to defensive force, as both are not as mobile as Pantsir & Buk M-3.

If the PA bought the HQ-16 and FM-90, then both will be highly mobile. But Buk M3 is definitely much better than the HQ-16.

 

[Tank131]

PA is definitely interested in a system like Pantsir, which can move with armour divisions also Buk M-3 can be used with them on the move and it can provide protection against SRBMs too.

HQ-16 & FM-90 then will provide cover to defensive force, as both are not as mobile as Pantsir & Buk M-3.



Chinese have DK-10 with 50km range and its quad packable in VLS.



Instead of FL-3000N, DK-10 quad packable MR SAM (50km range) should be considered.

There is no indication AFAIK that DK-10 is actually quad packable. There is talk that China is working towards that goal, but nothing is there yet.

 

[randomradio]

There is no indication AFAIK that DK-10 is actually quad packable. There is talk that China is working towards that goal, but nothing is there yet.

The DK-10 is based on the PL-12. It's small enough to be quad packed, or even get its own launcher.

 

[Tank131]

The DK-10 is based on the PL-12. It's small enough to be quad packed, or even get its own launcher.

Just because it is physically possible doesn't mean that it is that way. I more than anyone have been clamoring for PN to get its hands on a quad-packed missile, whether it is CAMM, KSAM, or even a derivative of DK-10. But knowing it could be doesnt mean we plan as if it is. Work with what there is, not what there might be.

 

[randomradio]

Just because it is physically possible doesn't mean that it is that way. I more than anyone have been clamoring for PN to get its hands on a quad-packed missile, whether it is CAMM, KSAM, or even a derivative of DK-10. But knowing it could be doesnt mean we plan as if it is. Work with what there is, not what there might be.

Pretty much why I think the F-22P will get Chinese radars and weapons.