Need for a 1000 ton Corvette for PN

[Armchair]

Problem with 6x AShM is that given the large, powerful, multi-layered air defence on the Indian side, and increasingly on the PN side, the old "sufficient" may not be sufficient anymore. You need large scale saturation attacks.

Just saw a conversation on Pakdef were they are going round to acknowledging that a coastal defense navy is essentially what PN is - A2D. And acknowledging that corvettes and FAC are the way such strategies are implemented.

It again really surprises me that PN has ignored exactly this. Its like going for a t-20 tournament with mostly Rahul Dravids in the team, or a test match with 10 Afridis in the team. PN is unbalanced.

 

[ARMalik]

There is lot of talk for having plenty of 1000 Ton ships since these can be purchased/built in numbers. But where is the cost analysis to justify this?

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

There is lot of talk for having plenty of 1000 Ton ships since these can be purchased/built in numbers. But where is the cost analysis to justify this?

There are two ways to approach it.

One can just take the core design of the Damen OPVs (or 1,500-ton Chinese MPVs for the PMSA) and arm them with AShW, ASW and AAW capabilities. They'll bring those capabilities at sea at a comparatively low cost (e.g. each Damen OPV is around $60 m, so arming them could be $100-150 m, tops), but they're not truly modern.

The truly modern corvette designs - e.g. MILGEM, Gowind, SIGMA, etc - use composites in the superstructure and (besides aesthetics) put a lot of attention in reducing RCS, acoustics and IR signatures.

A corvette like this in the 1,000-ton area would be $200 m (remember, 75% of the subsystems, weapons, etc will be the same as a heavy advanced ship, reduction in size might not bring that many upfront savings).

So if the idea in this thread is to just deploy AShW, ASW and AAW at-sea in numbers, then up-arming the Damen OPV or MPV 1500 should be enough.

 

[Armchair]

@ARMalik @Bilal Khan (Quwa) @Bilal Khan 777

I think the logical way to approach this is to do a technical evaluation of what roles are needed. Then hypothetically build 3-5 competing models. Do a cost-benefit analysis of each and then come to a decision.

One step needed is to figure out what you want in such a corvette. You can't have everything, you have to make a compromise. It is also important to think outside the box, as IN will always have a much bigger budget. So lets try to think of something other than the orthodoxy.

What are the major cost-driving items in a warship?

1. ASW helicopter / assorted equipment / hangar space / personnel
This takes up a giant amount of space and a lot of money. It also requires a host of highly skilled personnel. They also make up a large portion of the operational cost of a ship.

2. Assorted radars and EW gear
Certain radars are critical for certain equipment. For instance, a VLS SAM may need a specialized and expensive radar. This is a confusing topic, as I don't know enough about it. Also, the advent of AESA radars may have simplified the number of radar types needed.

3. Sonar / torpedoes / towed sonar / assorted subsystems
This is another major cost and yet an important function. Turkish systems here provide a leap in capabilities compared to Chinese ones, but at European cost points.

4. AShM / assorted data link / Radar
Obviously an OTHR is not possible so data-linking is critical. This is in the bag and can be done low-cost with massive capability thanks to the success of the Harbah program.

5. CIWS / PDMS
A world of difference can be made if NESCOM comes through with the PDMS. Would save a ton of money and bring critical capability. CIWS wise the Chinese provide a cheaper solution and the Turks seem to have bought an upgraded version of the Millenium gun with something they are calling the Korkut. This will be the expensive option. But if used in the A position instead of the main gun, may just not be that expensive.

Overall, is it possible to have a cheap solution (perhaps local?) solution for the main gun, that saves space, leaving greater space for a VLS / PDMS?

6. VLS Sam
For a corvette produced in numbers, a local solution has to be found, or a Chinese one.

Overall, I think the vision should be to produce a JF-17 - a "good enough" weapon that can be produced in numbers. A low cost solution. If one stays true to that vision, everything else false in place.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

@ARMalik @Bilal Khan (Quwa) @Bilal Khan 777

I think the logical way to approach this is to do a technical evaluation of what roles are needed. Then hypothetically build 3-5 competing models. Do a cost-benefit analysis of each and then come to a decision.

One step needed is to figure out what you want in such a corvette. You can't have everything, you have to make a compromise. It is also important to think outside the box, as IN will always have a much bigger budget. So lets try to think of something other than the orthodoxy.

What are the major cost-driving items in a warship?

1. ASW helicopter / assorted equipment / hangar space / personnel
This takes up a giant amount of space and a lot of money. It also requires a host of highly skilled personnel. They also make up a large portion of the operational cost of a ship.

2. Assorted radars and EW gear
Certain radars are critical for certain equipment. For instance, a VLS SAM may need a specialized and expensive radar. This is a confusing topic, as I don't know enough about it. Also, the advent of AESA radars may have simplified the number of radar types needed.

3. Sonar / torpedoes / towed sonar / assorted subsystems
This is another major cost and yet an important function. Turkish systems here provide a leap in capabilities compared to Chinese ones, but at European cost points.

4. AShM / assorted data link / Radar
Obviously an OTHR is not possible so data-linking is critical. This is in the bag and can be done low-cost with massive capability thanks to the success of the Harbah program.

5. CIWS / PDMS
A world of difference can be made if NESCOM comes through with the PDMS. Would save a ton of money and bring critical capability. CIWS wise the Chinese provide a cheaper solution and the Turks seem to have bought an upgraded version of the Millenium gun with something they are calling the Korkut. This will be the expensive option. But if used in the A position instead of the main gun, may just not be that expensive.

Overall, is it possible to have a cheap solution (perhaps local?) solution for the main gun, that saves space, leaving greater space for a VLS / PDMS?

6. VLS Sam
For a corvette produced in numbers, a local solution has to be found, or a Chinese one.

Overall, I think the vision should be to produce a JF-17 - a "good enough" weapon that can be produced in numbers. A low cost solution. If one stays true to that vision, everything else false in place.

There are 7th and 8th factors:

7. Hull & Superstructure
An all-steel superstructure is going to be cheaper than incorporating composites (or going mostly composites). The value of a composite superstructure is reducing the RCS, though you'll increase the base cost greatly. But sticking to an all-steel design (e.g. Damen OPV, Swift Corvette, Azmat FAC, MPV 1500, MPV 600, etc) gives you more 'vertical space' in terms of cost to put in costly weapons, sensors and electronics.

8. Propulsion
CODAD or CODAG. Each has its advantage, those you'll probably feel the cost of either over the long-term.

 

[Armchair]

There are 7th and 8th factors:

7. Hull & Superstructure
An all-steel superstructure is going to be cheaper than incorporating composites (or going mostly composites). The value of a composite superstructure is reducing the RCS, though you'll increase the base cost greatly. But sticking to an all-steel design (e.g. Damen OPV, Swift Corvette, Azmat FAC, MPV 1500, MPV 600, etc) gives you more 'vertical space' in terms of cost to put in costly weapons, sensors and electronics.

8. Propulsion
CODAD or CODAG. Each has its advantage, those you'll probably feel the cost of either over the long-term.

7. Hull and superstructure make up about 20 percent of the cost of a warship. The superstructure is mostly aluminum for the expensive option. I think it makes more sense to go with the cheap and simple option but a real cost-benefit analysis will look at what the weapons load can be with either structure, and how that adds or subtracts from the mission.

8. A defensive A2D corvette could go CODAD as that is significantly cheaper and cheaper to maintain. But the added burst of speed that a CODAG provides may just be worth it.

My rule of thumb - when producing a mainstay weapon system and in doubt - go for the cheaper and simpler solution.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

7. Hull and superstructure make up about 20 percent of the cost of a warship. The superstructure is mostly aluminum for the expensive option. I think it makes more sense to go with the cheap and simple option but a real cost-benefit analysis will look at what the weapons load can be with either structure, and how that adds or subtracts from the mission.

8. A defensive A2D corvette could go CODAD as that is significantly cheaper and cheaper to maintain. But the added burst of speed that a CODAG provides may just be worth it.

My rule of thumb - when producing a mainstay weapon system and in doubt - go for the cheaper and simpler solution.

But you can theoretically add the sensors and weapons later (e.g. delay the cost), but the propulsion and structural elements will stick. So you can opt for either absorbing that cost upfront and not arm right away, staging it as a 5-10 year update instead. In the end, you could have a more advanced ship.

Also, the % of cost isn't necessarily fixed in stone. E.g. can we say sourcing the propulsion and structural elements from Europe would cost less than picking up Chinese electronics and weapons?

 

[Armchair]

But you can theoretically add the sensors and weapons later (e.g. delay the cost), but the propulsion and structural elements will stick. So you can opt for either absorbing that cost upfront and not arm right away, staging it as a 5-10 year update instead. In the end, you could have a more advanced ship.

Also, the % of cost isn't necessarily fixed in stone. E.g. can we say sourcing the propulsion and structural elements from Europe would cost less than picking up Chinese electronics and weapons?

That's an interesting take. Some thoughts - even if you delay the costs, the costs are right there, and unless you want your boats to not be properly armed for 5-10 years, you're going to have to put some systems on them. Which means you may end up spending more.

Also - the cost of going CODAG is not only in upfront costs, but in costs of maintenance and overhaul. Are very expensive to replace.

Surely, a nuanced rather than ham-fisted approach is needed. But these are quite regular concerns - things that all navies think about when they choose a warship.

Perhaps what we need is to refocus on the big issues that do need real and solid out of the box thinking. Points 1-6 to me seem more important to hash-out than whether you'd go CODAD or CODAG, just pick one, both have been done a million times by other navies. There are probably huge files of such cost-benefit analysis in PN and most navy evaluation reports.

What to me seems missing - urgency to understand the need for a corvette class as the most efficient and effective warship for A2D in PN's context. Urgency to evaluate the role of helicopters - on whether such ships can substitute UAVs instead. Urgency to see if SAMs can be procured indigenously.

There is also the interesting aspect of sub-classes, where some of these corvettes could have more specialized roles.

Urgency to accept the vision of a "JF-17 of the seas".

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

That's an interesting take. Some thoughts - even if you delay the costs, the costs are right there, and unless you want your boats to not be properly armed for 5-10 years, you're going to have to put some systems on them. Which means you may end up spending more.

Also - the cost of going CODAG is not only in upfront costs, but in costs of maintenance and overhaul. Are very expensive to replace.

Surely, a nuanced rather than ham-fisted approach is needed. But these are quite regular concerns - things that all navies think about when they choose a warship.

Perhaps what we need is to refocus on the big issues that do need real and solid out of the box thinking. Points 1-6 to me seem more important to hash-out than whether you'd go CODAD or CODAG, just pick one, both have been done a million times by other navies. There are probably huge files of such cost-benefit analysis in PN and most navy evaluation reports.

What to me seems missing - urgency to understand the need for a corvette class as the most efficient and effective warship for A2D in PN's context. Urgency to evaluate the role of helicopters - on whether such ships can substitute UAVs instead. Urgency to see if SAMs can be procured indigenously.

There is also the interesting aspect of sub-classes, where some of these corvettes could have more specialized roles.

Urgency to accept the vision of a "JF-17 of the seas".

Then I think the emphasis should be paid (esp. with 'JF-17 of the seas') to deploying specific capabilities at-sea without getting tied up in how we do it.

For ex... if the goal is to push AShW, ASW and AAW, then we look at a design;

• using a low-cost all-steel hull and superstructure with CODAD;
  
  
• a low-cost phased-array radar (e.g. Saab Giraffe Naval AMB is around $12.5 m each);
  
  
• low-cost AShW and ASW munitions (e.g. C-802A, Yu-7, etc);
  
  
• low-cost AAW, e.g. pedestal mounted FL-3000N or upper-deck VLS (Denel Cheetah);
  
  
• a flight deck for an optional helicopter, but a hangar small enough for a UAV (that can carry a light AShM or ASW torpedo).

Maybe invest a little more to get a modular design concept wherein we ensure the corvette has pre-built space for a full-load, but we initially distribute the capabilities along a baseline A2/AD need.

For ex... instead of going all-in with 12 multi-mission corvettes, we have 6 ASW and 6 AShW, but with room to go multi-mission if need be (e.g. a potential climb in tensions).

This way, we get the added capabilities to the sea, but we save on the cost of acquiring the full-extent unless an issue breaks out, or we at least save on the logistics and maintenance side until an issue breaks out.

 

[Tank131]

There is lot of talk for having plenty of 1000 Ton ships since these can be purchased/built in numbers. But where is the cost analysis to justify this?

I suppose that is dependent on the ship. Something like Visby (small size) or Bayunanah (960t) with advamced molding for RCS reduction and western subsystems are $180M and $136M respectively. Something like P18N (based on type-056 corvette) which has less composit and stealth features but is larger with more weapons and combat potential is $42M per ship. I think PN should be somewhere in the middle. There are really 4 options if PN wants to expand this level of ships (which i doubt is really even a priority at this point.

1. Get a new design which may have better stealth and automation but will cost more and you may have to skimp on the systems to make that up a bit as we see on Milgem.

2. Modify an existing design such as Damen or the Chinese OPV (which itself is a modified type 056). The issue is whether or not Damen (Netherlands) would be willing to work with Pakistan on modifying the OPV for 2 reasons. Politically, Pakistan is not really in the good books of the west, and frankly Pakistan should think long and hard about having large scale defense contracts with NATO nations who have been unreliable. Secondly they already have a corvette on the market which may fit any such tender reasonably (Sigma Class). The Type 056 Corvette is already on market so no point in redesigning the opv 1500 which is based on 056 anyway.

3. Upscale Azmat to 1000-1200t range. With upscaling the Azmat, 8 AShM, 8-12 VLS cells (with 8Umkhonto-eir and 16 Cheetah or 32 Cheetah SAMs), hull sonar and towed array and a helipad. Add long range Air and Surface radar like Smart S mk2 and you have a good multimission frigate.

4. Modify Type 056 by increasing its size to around 1800t and adding a 8-12 cell vls where the FL-3000N Launcher is for the same SAfrican sams listed above (umkhonto/cheetah). It already has a bow sonar and a towed sonar array, although i would consider more advanced sensors like those from MILGEM (includong Smart S Mk2 a more advanced. Towed array (possibly from turkey or the one from type 054A). This would be the cheapest and most logical route and would produce a large multirole heavy corvette/light frigate. The Nigerians paid $42M for a 1800t variant of type 056 (P-18N) with 8 AShM and SAMs (i believe 8 FL-3000N). Take FL-3000N out and redesign with a umkhonto vls (a 12vls cell on Visby Class was going to cost $30M per vessel which would mean probably a total of $20M addition to the overall Cost for a similar VLS in a modified Type 056) and probably another 10-15M for upgraded sensors and radars for a total of ~$65-75M/ship.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

I suppose that is dependent on the ship. Something like Visby (small size) or Bayunanah (960t) with advamced molding for RCS reduction and western subsystems are $180M and $136M respectively. Something like P18N (based on type-056 corvette) which has less composit and stealth features but is larger with more weapons and combat potential is $42M per ship. I think PN should be somewhere in the middle. There are really 4 options if PN wants to expand this level of ships (which i doubt is really even a priority at this point.

1. Get a new design which may have better stealth and automation but will cost more and you may have to skimp on the systems to make that up a bit as we see on Milgem.

2. Modify an existing design such as Damen or the Chinese OPV (which itself is a modified type 056). The issue is whether or not Damen (Netherlands) would be willing to work with Pakistan on modifying the OPV for 2 reasons. Politically, Pakistan is not really in the good books of the west, and frankly Pakistan should think long and hard about having large scale defense contracts with NATO nations who have been unreliable. Secondly they already have a corvette on the market which may fit any such tender reasonably (Sigma Class). The Type 056 Corvette is already on market so no point in redesigning the opv 1500 which is based on 056 anyway.

3. Upscale Azmat to 1000-1200t range. With upscaling the Azmat, 8 AShM, 8-12 VLS cells (with 8Umkhonto-eir and 16 Cheetah or 32 Cheetah SAMs), hull sonar and towed array and a helipad. Add long range Air and Surface radar like Smart S mk2 and you have a good multimission frigate.

4. Modify Type 056 by increasing its size to around 1800t and adding a 8-12 cell vls where the FL-3000N Launcher is for the same SAfrican sams listed above (umkhonto/cheetah). It already has a bow sonar and a towed sonar array, although i would consider more advanced sensors like those from MILGEM (includong Smart S Mk2 a more advanced. Towed array (possibly from turkey or the one from type 054A). This would be the cheapest and most logical route and would produce a large multirole heavy corvette/light frigate. The Nigerians paid $42M for a 1800t variant of type 056 (P-18N) with 8 AShM and SAMs (i believe 8 FL-3000N). Take FL-3000N out and redesign with a umkhonto vls (a 12vls cell on Visby Class was going to cost $30M per vessel which would mean probably a total of $20M addition to the overall Cost for a similar VLS in a modified Type 056) and probably another 10-15M for upgraded sensors and radars for a total of ~$65-75M/ship.

The good thing about the Type 056 is that it already is aiming for a low RCS look, just double down with composites (shouldn't be too costly as the core 056 already has tremendous scale).

The alternative is to buy off a Turkish Corvette design like the C-1200 knowing it has been designed to handle AShW, AAW, etc from the design phase.

http://www.deltamarine.com.tr/en/products/products-naval.php?NavalName=Corvette_(C-1200)

 

[Suff Shikan]

I think Buyan-M fits perfect, with 949 tons. Can change the armament configuration, add some torpedoes, Its has 2 x 4 VLS already. Length is similar to FAC.

 

[Zarvan]

Pakistan Navy needs to focus on two things. First get bigger Frigates and Destroyers which have VLS for both Air Defense as well as long range Cruise Missiles. As for 1000 tonne Frigate instead of focusing on that focus on develop a Missile which has range of around 800 KM can fit into our Azmat Class and other such Missile Boats and can target both enemy ships as well as target on the land.

@Bilal Khan (Quwa) @Suff Shikan @Armchair

 

[Armchair]

Later today I will try to summarize into different proposals, the ideas put forward by Bilal, Tank141, Darth Vader and others. Maybe look at each of these and then compare the cost and benefit of each, or attempt to.

 

[ARMalik]

@Bilal Khan (Quwa) @Armchair @Tank131 ... fantastic posts!