Outgoing Pakistan Navy chief details procurement progress

[Zarvan]

Why would PN even modify the existing design of f-22 ,when there are many other options available from same source China with VLS .. From 2500+ ton to 4000 ton ffg shown in opening post .

Because we would use those Frigates for next 30 years so getting it modified with VLS will be great thing to do

 

[YeBeWarned]

Because we would use those Frigates for next 30 years so getting it modified with VLS will be great thing to do

i am not saying to modify the F-22P we have, i am talking about why would we add 4 more F-22P based design with little changes when we have better Stealth Design available from China .

 

[Gryphon]

It is possible that PN has secured 3 Chinese AAW frigates as a replacement of 3 Type 21's currently equipped with LY-60.

The other two Type 21's could be replaced by Milgem Ada corvettes (if the program isn't already dead). Milgem is a good anti-ship & anti-submarine warfare asset after all.

Harpoon systems from two Type 21's could be installed on MRTP 33 FAC's, which are pending AShM capability.

 

[Zarvan]

i am not saying to modify the F-22P we have, i am talking about why would we add 4 more F-22P based design with little changes when we have better Stealth Design available from China .

That I agree

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

It is possible that PN has secured 3 Chinese AAW frigates as a replacement of 3 Type 21's currently equipped with LY-60.

The other two Type 21's could be replaced by Milgem Ada corvettes (if the program isn't already dead). Milgem is a good anti-ship & anti-submarine warfare asset after all.

Harpoon systems from two Type 21's could be installed on MRTP 33 FAC's, which are pending AShM capability.

I don't think the PN would have been able to cut a fresh frigate deal in five months (i.e. the time between the MILGEM letter-of-intent/LOI and the ex-CNS' speech). It is plausible that both programs were being developed in parallel, but funding availability meant that only one could be activated right now.

If these were parallel programs, then that would be a good indication of the Chinese FFGs being proper AAW-capable (the MILGEM Ada is ASW/AShW-only). However, if the Chinese FFGs are the alternate, then the configuration possibilities could be wide, i.e. from AAW-capable to basically just F-22P with FL-3000N.

 

[Advocate Pakistan]

My assessment about the "Harba" missile.
Since people were talking about the two triple missile launchers on the latest FAC(M)

Now, here is what I see as a lot of resemblance with babur's arrangement in this picture.

The roughly triple launchers ignoring the casing.
What I assume is that Harba is a Babur, (probably with slightly smaller dimensions) but optimised for the anti ship role.
Land to sea= Zarb.
Sea to sea= Harba.
But if that is the case than applying the Harba modification back to original Babur TEL, it can be made capable of launching while on the move.

Would need senior's viewpoint on that.

 

[SQ8]

Im happy as long it is the Arabic Harba and not the Punjabi Harba being locked in a Dharba.

To get a clue what it is, look at what capability was missed from the Naval arsenal @Bilal Khan (Quwa)

You already have a subsonic AsM in the C-802 series.. but its limited by range due to MTCR. Did they increase the range and call it Harba?

On the other hand, did the Navy need a supersonic AsHM but needed to bypass MtCR so made it locally and called it Harba?

 

[HRK]

Brief Analysis on Zarb missile
by: @TheOccupiedKashmir

The first test of Zarb AShM was announced by Pakistan Navy in April 2016. Zarb is widely believed to be the Pakistani designation of the Chinese C-602 AShM (possibly produced locally).

-> Land-based Zarb: The Zarb was tested from a land-based launcher in April 2016.

The Pakistan Navy tested an unidentified land-based AShM in March 2017. The officially provided coordinates of the area where the test was carried out indicate a range upto 300 km. Based on the range and the fact that the test was again carried out from the coastal region, the missile has been assessed as Zarb.

-> Ship-based Zarb: No Zarb test from any surface ship has been publicly announced. New AShM launchers seen on PNS Himmat have been assessed as Zarb based on the following observations:

(i) The launchers appear very identical to C-602/YJ-62 launchers in PLAN service and significantly different from AShM launchers currently in PN service.
(ii) The official website of KS&EW notes 'installation of indigenously built Missiles System' as one of the important achievements in the PNS Himmat project. The Pakistan Navy has previously mentioned Zarb as an 'indigenous' anti-ship missile.
(iii) The Pakistan Navy intends to use Azmat class FACs (range: 1000 nautical miles) as littoral A2/AD assets. As such, no LACM capability on Azmat class is conceivable.

Chinese AShM family

PNS Himmat AShM launchers

Zarb is shore based missile (link, Official source-2), while a test of unidentified Surface to Surface Anti-ship Missile (which now after the speech of out going Naval Chief seems HARABA missile in its most probility) was conducted form F-22P Frigate PNS ASLAT [source-1] in the year 2016 & there is no news of any modification to this Frigate as it was mention in the case of PNS Himmat FAC(M) so on the basis of this available information we can make a guess

As we know about F-22P frigates are capable to launch C-802 (Anti-ship missile) if the Navy Chief used the term "SURFACE TO SURFACE MISSILE" to refer a ship based anti ship missile then we can assume (its just a personal guess nothing concrete) Haraba is a Licences copy of C-802

BUT​

IF the term "SURFACE TO SURFACE MISSILE" is used in its popular sense i.e. Ballistic Missile than I don't find any reason for Navy to operate it. Its just so confusing .... but personally I think C-802 licence production theory seem more practical & feasible

 

[Hyperion]

Mate, neither China nor Pakistan are signatories to MTCR.

China:
1. With DF-ZF almost mature, minus the mating with a new ICBM.
2. Mature cruise missile program.
3. Having a field day by selling commercial / military UAV's.

I don't think that they even want to enter MTCR! Look at why US is trying to renegotiate certain clauses of MTCR, so that they can enter the said market (read, General Atomics lobbying to change MTCR rules under Trumplicity).

Basic point being, they no longer need any so called ToT (at HGV level / cruise / satcom + UAV). They are net suppliers of tech, why in hell they'd care or want to join such a regime that would affect their bottom line?

So changing the nomenclature of anything that falls under supposed MTCR, originating from China, we basically shouldn't even bother. Maximum, put a Made in Pakistan sticker on it. A sticker, nothing more.

Im happy as long it is the Arabic Harba and not the Punjabi Harba being locked in a Dharba.

To get a clue what it is, look at what capability was missed from the Naval arsenal @Bilal Khan (Quwa)

You already have a subsonic AsM in the C-802 series.. but its limited by range due to MTCR. Did they increase the range and call it Harba?

On the other hand, did the Navy need a supersonic AsHM but needed to bypass MtCR so made it locally and called it Harba?

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Im happy as long it is the Arabic Harba and not the Punjabi Harba being locked in a Dharba.

To get a clue what it is, look at what capability was missed from the Naval arsenal @Bilal Khan (Quwa)

You already have a subsonic AsM in the C-802 series.. but its limited by range due to MTCR. Did they increase the range and call it Harba?

On the other hand, did the Navy need a supersonic AsHM but needed to bypass MtCR so made it locally and called it Harba?

There's the Zarb coastal AShM, which seems to be the C-602.
There's the Babur v2 LACM with the "ability to hit targets at sea."
There are a plethora of <200 km sub-sonic sea-skimming AShM already (Harpoon, C-802 and Exocet).

All that's left is the supersonic cruising AShM. There are export-grade (i.e. <300 km) missiles available, namely CX-1 and the CM-302. The Arabic term "harba" can mean flight, but it can also mean escape, and another word for 'escape' is "evasion." If one could get a supersonic cruising AShM at 450-600 km, that'd be a huge boon.

Mate, neither China nor Pakistan are signatories to MTCR.

China:
1. With DF-ZF almost mature, minus the mating with a new ICBM.
2. Mature cruise missile program.
3. Having a field day by selling commercial / military UAV's.

I don't think that they even want to enter MTCR! Look at why US is trying to renegotiate certain clauses of MTCR, so that they can enter the said market (read, General Atomics lobbying to change MTCR rules under Trumplicity).

Basic point being, they no longer need any so called ToT (at HGV level / cruise / satcom + UAV). They are net suppliers of tech, why in hell they'd care or want to join such a regime that would affect their bottom line?

So changing the nomenclature of anything that falls under supposed MTCR, originating from China, we basically shouldn't even bother. Maximum, put a Made in Pakistan sticker on it. A sticker, nothing more.

China less so, but Pakistan has incentive to join the MTCR one day as signing the MTCR would let it collaborate with Ukrainian, South African, Turkish, etc, companies in critical technologies. It's tough to salvage image these days, but no point in coming off as a complete rogue pariah.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

HERBA will be Tactical weapon that we have not demonstrated before
It's a weapon that will stun the enemy

 

[SQ8]

Mate, neither China nor Pakistan are signatories to MTCR.

China:
1. With DF-ZF almost mature, minus the mating with a new ICBM.
2. Mature cruise missile program.
3. Having a field day by selling commercial / military UAV's.

I don't think that they even want to enter MTCR! Look at why US is trying to renegotiate certain clauses of MTCR, so that they can enter the said market (read, General Atomics lobbying to change MTCR rules under Trumplicity).

Basic point being, they no longer need any so called ToT (at HGV level / cruise / satcom + UAV). They are net suppliers of tech, why in hell they'd care or want to join such a regime that would affect their bottom line?

So changing the nomenclature of anything that falls under supposed MTCR, originating from China, we basically shouldn't even bother. Maximum, put a Made in Pakistan sticker on it. A sticker, nothing more.

Which is the path of least resistance- that is the motto of PN Navy procurement now- The current Saudi Ambassador has mentioned to me many times.
Unlike the PAF, which as much as I try to give less of a spectre @MastanKhan is right about knowingly or unknowingly- they are by majority in senior positions a corrupt bunch held together by the deeds of a stoic few.

 

[Gryphon]

I don't think the PN would have been able to cut a fresh frigate deal in five months (i.e. the time between the MILGEM letter-of-intent/LOI and the ex-CNS' speech). It is plausible that both programs were being developed in parallel, but funding availability meant that only one could be activated right now.

If these were parallel programs, then that would be a good indication of the Chinese FFGs being proper AAW-capable (the MILGEM Ada is ASW/AShW-only). However, if the Chinese FFGs are the alternate, then the configuration possibilities could be wide, i.e. from AAW-capable to basically just F-22P with FL-3000N.

A possibility is that these are two separate programs: one for AAW frigates and the other for corvettes.

The Turks were to extend a USD 400 million loan for the Milgem purchase, was that fully secured ?

When it comes to Chinese frigates, those can be acquired straight away under loans or paid in installments over the years. China can provide bigger amounts in loans which Turkey cant.

The only point I see in acquiring Milgem corvettes is their ASW capability (western standard radars/sensors and weapons) which are superior to those on the Jiangdao.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Which is the path of least resistance- that is the motto of PN Navy procurement now- The current Saudi Ambassador has mentioned to me many times.
Unlike the PAF, which as much as I try to give less of a spectre @MastanKhan is right about knowingly or unknowingly- they are by majority in senior positions a corrupt bunch held together by the deeds of a stoic few.

I think it's also worth noting that the PAF also has a thinner supply pool than the PAF and even PN. For all intents and purposes the PAF is basically left with the FC-20 - aka J-10A - as its sole fighter option. The J-10C has not yet been cleared for export, and it's uncertain if it ever will seeing that such a move would eat into the FC-31 for the future. Besides doubling down on locally sourcing a solution (i.e. Azm), what more can one really do?

A possibility is that these are two separate programs: one for AAW frigates and the other for corvettes.

The Turks were to extend a USD 400 million loan for the Milgem purchase, was that fully secured ?

When it comes to Chinese frigates, those can be acquired straight away under loans or paid in installments over the years. China can provide bigger amounts in loans which Turkey cant.

The only point I see in acquiring Milgem corvettes is their ASW capability (western standard radars/sensors and weapons) which are superior to those on the Jiangdao.

The Turkish Gov't approved the loan. The issue has to be down-payment, and I suspect the PN decided to prioritize the frigates ahead of the corvettes. The LOI from May/IDEF establishes the PN will go for them, so if the budget is free for corvettes, they'd go for the MILGEM.

As for why the MILGEM ... besides ASW, it can also be for exercises, coalition support, etc, especially with Western navies. One might have a strong interest in keeping the cards to frigate AAW capabilities as close to their chest as possible, even the export-grade stuff. But I don't think the MILGEM was sought for sensors and electronics alone. The Algeria and Thailand examples show us that it is possible to integrate Western systems to Chinese ships, and I imagine KSEW should be able to do as much provided it has supplier approval.

 

[Gryphon]

I think it's also worth noting that the PAF also has a thinner supply pool than the PAF and even PN. For all intents and purposes the PAF is basically left with the FC-20 - aka J-10A - as its sole fighter option. The J-10C has not yet been cleared for export, and it's uncertain if it ever will seeing that such a move would eat into the FC-31 for the future. Besides doubling down on locally sourcing a solution (i.e. Azm), what more can one really do?

In future, not 'donate' procurement funds to the corrupt.