Mid-life upgrade for F22P

[luciferdd]

In PLAN，the HQ7 was replaced by HQ10 simplely.

 

[khanasifm]

https://www.facebook.com/

 

[Sentinal_Sarosh]

 

[Tank131]

In PLAN，the HQ7 was replaced by HQ10 simplely.
View attachment 499366

While that is certainly an option, i think it is important to remember the size amd capability difference between PN and PLAN. In PLAN the ships that were bearing HQ-7 were essential 3rd tier ships (behind destroyers that carry HQ-9 and frigates with HQ-16) that are on the verge of being retired. In PN the F-22P is a front line ship and with the impending arrival of MILGEM and Type 054A it will still be a front line ship. While in PLAN they are umder the cover of long range SAMS on destroyers and MRSAMs on other frigates, PN doesnt have that luxury. They will often operate independently. As such i think PN should seek to replace the HQ-7 with a Pantsir-ME system and replace both Type 730 with Pantsir-MEs as well. That gives you 24 medium range (20-30km) SAMs and 6 gatling guns to protect the ship with. Otherwise add 6 HQ-10s to each Type 730 and exchange the HQ-7 for FL-3000N (21 Cell) and have 33 short ramge SAMs for a fraction of a major upgrade. Albeit the 8 HQ-7 Have a 15km range vs 9km (6km against supersonic targets) of HQ-10.

 

[JohnWick]

I wish it was as simple as that! Different members have put forward various reasons for not keeping these ships around any longer. I will try to summarize them point wise:

1. Age: Two ships stricken off Babur and Badr, both commissioned in 74'. 42 Years of Service!! Latest ship to be commissioned was Tipu Sultan in 1978 ... now 40 years of service. After the advent of Type 54A around 2021, the latest ship would have had 42 years of service! Shah Jahan is about to be stricken off as it was commissioned in 1972. I guess the delay has been due to FFG-7 deal not panning out and the Milgem Deal has taken longer to materialize.
2. Ability to absorb additional weapons, sensors: This was a commercial design with limited capacity for upgrade. For example check the distance between the bridge and the A turret and the forecastle. Very little space to do anything. RN retired these boats due to structural issues but also due to their limited capacity for upgrades. They were inducted as a stopgap measure until the Broadsword class was available. They were the "in-between" Leander and Broadsword classes.
3. Cost of operations: The cost of operating each Type 21 in 1988 was roughly Rs. 50 million/month! Today it would be much higher given the inflation. This cost does not include refit costs that have gone up with age. Furthermore, both Gas turbines engines of Tyne and Olympus types are now longer produced. Other spares are hard to get by. These ships are the only COGOG engines being operated by PN which has its own challenges.

I hope this helps explain why PN retired the first two and why the others will be retired too once the Type 54A join the fleet.

A museum can also be made by these legendary ships to generate profit....

 

[Lone Ranger]

@Rafi @Rashid Mahmood any updates?

 

[Rafi]

@Rafi @Rashid Mahmood any updates?

Final configuration not finalised won't be for a while, navy busy with a lot of stuff at the moment.

 

[araz]

Final configuration not finalised won't be for a while, navy busy with a lot of stuff at the moment.

Could you shed some light on how upgradable the F22P are. My own understanding was that potential for major upgrades was limited due to size and construction. Thanks in advance
A

 

[Zarvan]

Could you shed some light on how upgradable the F22P are. My own understanding was that potential for major upgrades was limited due to size and construction. Thanks in advance
A

F-22 is build in three parts. It's three parts joined together so it can get upgraded.

 

[araz]

F-22 is build in three parts. It's three parts joined together so it can get upgraded.

yaar Maulana Zarvi saheb.
it is not the case of disassembly and additions. What impact will it have on the stability. Is it economically and structurally feasible and scope and benefit of upgrade. So my question was a bit loaded. If you do have specific info THAT CAN BE SHARED ON OPEN FORUM please do share.
Wassalam
A

 

[Rafi]

Could you shed some light on how upgradable the F22P are. My own understanding was that potential for major upgrades was limited due to size and construction. Thanks in advance
A

Design always had replacement of HQ7 and of sensors, as part of the midlife upgrade.

 

[araz]

Design always had replacement of HQ7 and of sensors, as part of the midlife upgrade.

WAS.

Thank you for your input but are we going for MR SAMS in the same position or there is a plug being put in. Secondly are we going mix and match on sensors like the Augusta 90s or sticking withChinese products. I know from previous posts that PN experience with combination products has not been a good one. So have things changed or are they going for a single vendor providing upgrades.
Wassalam
A

 

[Tank131]

@Rafi
What options even exist? Chinese, south african, russian etc. I definitely think a VLS can be added to the F-22P as far as space is concerned the only issues would cost and how much PN is willing to spend. The biggest question is if they do it for cheap or they are willing to spend to get more survivability. Either way i think a reasonable refit could be had but it involves much better cooperation with non-traditional defense suppliers (namely Russia and or S korea).

The Cheap:
As i have stated above, i would upgrade the sensors to something far more robust, specifically around the Smart Smk2. Then i would replace the Type 730s and the HQ-7A with Pantsir-ME. This will replace the 2 CIWS and 8 short range (15km) missiles with 3 CIWS with 2 guns each (6 total) and a total of 24 short/med range (20km) SAMs. I dont believe this upgrade would be cost prohibitive nor do i think the Russians would be averse to it.

Expensive:
I would replace the HQ-7A with a VLS (12-16 cell) this can be done by keeping the forward deck the HQ-7A currently sits on and putting most of the venting and duct work in that section.
It would essentially be the exact refit the Russians did for Steregushchiy class corvettes when the replaced the orginal Kashtan CIWS with a 12 cell VLS for 9M96E2/PolimentRedut missiles (which if im not mistaken are quad-packed)

(Steregushchiy class with Kashtan CIWS)

(Steregushchiy class with 12 cell VLS which is slightly raised from the original deck which the Kashtan sat upon).

These ships are smaller than F-22P (1800t vs 2500t standard load or 2200t vs 3100t full load) and still carry 8 kh-35 AShM and 12 cell vls (with what appears to be a quad packed 9m96e2 125km range missile). So the similar upgrade is possible for the F-22P ships given the similar forward deck and size of Kashtan vs Hq-7A.

The question is which vls and which missile... The options could include S. AFRICAN Umkhonto EIR (which has a 30km range), the Chinese HQ-16, The KS-SAM/K-SAAM/Cheolmae-2/Cheongung from SKorea/Russia, and the Russian Poliment Redut missile (9M96E/E2).

Personally i think the best option would be the Poliment Redut is the best option and given the relative size to range/altitude ratio. It will give PN fleet level coverage with 125km range and altitudes of 50km (35km for ballistic missiles) and they are supposed able to be to be quad-packed.

(9M96E and 9M96E2 on far right show quad packed setup). It would give the F-22P 48 (if 12 cells) to 64 (16 cells) missiles with 125km range. With that many missiles you could theoretically trade some of the vls tube SAMs for LACM or antisub rockets if the vls tubes are long enough. Or put ur AShM in the VLS tubes and replace the current C802A Launchers with 2x3 Harba/Babur 2/3 launchers and put 8 cells in the vls with C802A. Then i would add 6 HQ-10 on the Type 730s for 12 PDMs for an extra layer of protection.

That being said the 9M96E (40km range) and the KS-SAM co-developed with Russia based on 9M96E and also has a range of 40km would all be acceptable if the 9M96E2 was not available.

 

[fatman17]

last on inducted 17 April 2013 and its mid life? kuch khuda khuda kro

yaar there were many issues with the F22P when inducted, safety being one of them so this makes sense. we can call it upgrades instead of mid-life upgrades.

 

[S.Y.A]

@Rafi
What options even exist? Chinese, south african, russian etc. I definitely think a VLS can be added to the F-22P as far as space is concerned the only issues would cost and how much PN is willing to spend. The biggest question is if they do it for cheap or they are willing to spend to get more survivability. Either way i think a reasonable refit could be had but it involves much better cooperation with non-traditional defense suppliers (namely Russia and or S korea).

The Cheap:
As i have stated above, i would upgrade the sensors to something far more robust, specifically around the Smart Smk2. Then i would replace the Type 730s and the HQ-7A with Pantsir-ME. This will replace the 2 CIWS and 8 short range (15km) missiles with 3 CIWS with 2 guns each (6 total) and a total of 24 short/med range (20km) SAMs. I dont believe this upgrade would be cost prohibitive nor do i think the Russians would be averse to it.

Expensive:
I would replace the HQ-7A with a VLS (12-16 cell) this can be done by keeping the forward deck the HQ-7A currently sits on and putting most of the venting and duct work in that section.
It would essentially be the exact refit the Russians did for Steregushchiy class corvettes when the replaced the orginal Kashtan CIWS with a 12 cell VLS for 9M96E2/PolimentRedut missiles (which if im not mistaken are quad-packed)

(Steregushchiy class with Kashtan CIWS)

(Steregushchiy class with 12 cell VLS which is slightly raised from the original deck which the Kashtan sat upon).

These ships are smaller than F-22P (1800t vs 2500t standard load or 2200t vs 3100t full load) and still carry 8 kh-35 AShM and 12 cell vls (with what appears to be a quad packed 9m96e2 125km range missile). So the similar upgrade is possible for the F-22P ships given the similar forward deck and size of Kashtan vs Hq-7A.

The question is which vls and which missile... The options could include S. AFRICAN Umkhonto EIR (which has a 30km range), the Chinese HQ-16, The KS-SAM/K-SAAM/Cheolmae-2/Cheongung from SKorea/Russia, and the Russian Poliment Redut missile (9M96E/E2).

Personally i think the best option would be the Poliment Redut is the best option and given the relative size to range/altitude ratio. It will give PN fleet level coverage with 125km range and altitudes of 50km (35km for ballistic missiles) and they are supposed able to be to be quad-packed.

(9M96E and 9M96E2 on far right show quad packed setup). It would give the F-22P 48 (if 12 cells) to 64 (16 cells) missiles with 125km range. With that many missiles you could theoretically trade some of the vls tube SAMs for LACM or antisub rockets if the vls tubes are long enough. Or put ur AShM in the VLS tubes and replace the current C802A Launchers with 2x3 Harba/Babur 2/3 launchers and put 8 cells in the vls with C802A. Then i would add 6 HQ-10 on the Type 730s for 12 PDMs for an extra layer of protection.

That being said the 9M96E (40km range) and the KS-SAM co-developed with Russia based on 9M96E and also has a range of 40km would all be acceptable if the 9M96E2 was not available.

Can the quad-packed missiles be operated/targeted independently, or are they fired in a salvo?