Outgoing Pakistan Navy chief details procurement progress

[Falcon26]

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

Babur is a surface to surface missile but it’s not a ballistic missile. Surface to surface doesn’t have to be ballistic missile.

 

[Yaseen1]

babur should be launched from navy ships

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

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

Even so it doesn't fundamentally change the situation. If the PAF had 36~55 Block-52+ today, we'd certainly say they're in a good position. However, I'd also wager that India would've pumped into the Rafale purchase (i.e. go ahead with 126) and expedite the Su-30MKI upgrade program in response. Perhaps even get Mirage 2000/-5s from the surplus market. The PAF wouldn't be able to add more Block-52+ due to the issues in the U.S. There are far fewer fighter vendors in the world than there are for tanks or even ships.

Side-story: I asked a PAF officer why the PAF hasn't dealt with boom refueling for the F-16s or whether it was looking for alternatives to the IL-78 (i.e. more fuel efficient tankers). The guy said, "money isn't the problem; no one will sell us." Lo and behold, if you take a look at Cobham, you find some of the parts are made in India, and lo and behold, there are just three boom refueling probe makers in the whole world (of which one is Israeli, one is US and the other is French/German). So basically, you can't buy the Airbus MRTTs nor can you make a bespoke solution.

I would say the corruption's effect isn't only on acquisitions, but in fermenting an overall atmosphere - from political, foreign relations, bureaucratic to the armed forces - of problems at every link, even the sincere ones. If you had multiple competing vendors come at you at several levels, including the public level, it'd be a little more challenging to be corrupt (as some guy will ask, "why not X? why Y?"). But we don't have the benefit of fighter bids or tenders in Pakistan, sadly. And we won't get any unless we build economic, foreign relations and governance muscle.

 

[Gryphon]

My assessment about the "Harba" missile.
Since people were talking about the two triple missile launchers on the latest FAC(M)
View attachment 430725

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

View attachment 430726

The roughly triple launchers ignoring the casing.

Take a look at C-602 AShM launcher. Four tube launchers are also available for ships. Pakistan received several batches of C-602's in the last 10 years or so and Zarb tests have been publicly announced.

No reason to put Harba on FAC's because those aren't intended for land attack role. Harba will have both anti-ship & land attack variants as indicated by MoDP report.

Some assume MoDP referred to submarines while others think FAC(M) will carry LACM & AShM both.

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

Go for licensed production after importing hundreds (for surface ships, JF-17s) ?

It's usual to call AShM as surface-to-surface missile as the below links indicate

http://www.karachishipyard.com.pk/ongoing-projects/

http://www.karachishipyard.com.pk/fast-attack-craft-missile/

http://www.karachishipyard.com.pk/f22p-frigate/

 

[Gryphon]

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.

By Western standard, I mean Turkish stuff (like the Aselsan light torpedo being developed). Because non-Turkish suppliers / governments may not allow sale / re-export of their radars/sensors and weapons to Pakistan, including RAM Block II, Mk 46 torpedo, Thales search radar, etc

babur should be launched from navy ships

I would like Babur evolve into something like the Kalibr in the future. Land/Surface ship/Submarine launched anti-ship, land attack and even anti-submarine variants with long ranges.

 

[Zarvan]

What we need is a 1500 KM Cruise Missile which can hit Ship to any where on Land and also ships which has VLS to carry them

Take a look at C-602 AShM launcher. Four tube launchers are also available for ships. Pakistan received several batches of C-602's in the last 10 years or so and Zarb tests have been publicly announced.

No reason to put Harba on FAC's because those aren't intended for land attack role. Harba will have both anti-ship & land attack variants as indicated by MoDP report.

Some assume MoDP referred to submarines while others think FAC(M) will carry LACM & AShM both.



Go for licensed production after importing hundreds (for surface ships, JF-17s) ?

It's usual to call AShM as surface-to-surface missile as the below links indicate

http://www.karachishipyard.com.pk/ongoing-projects/

http://www.karachishipyard.com.pk/fast-attack-craft-missile/

http://www.karachishipyard.com.pk/f22p-frigate/

By the way we are all focusing on Frigates but Admiral ( R ) Zakaullah also mentioned building a Survey Ship at KSEW with Chinese help !!!! So what kind of survey ship are we talking about ? Could it be one of those intelligence ships which China has in fact 7 of them ?

@Horus

 

[Thunder.Storm]

What about survey ships no buddy is discussing that.

 

[The Deterrent]

If Zarb is C-602 then it must have max range of 400kms as it's now local product.

No, China restricts the sale of complete systems to Pakistan, which violate MTCR regulations. Although officially neither are signatory to MTCR, the US had made it clear that Pakistan was not supposed to be provided with sensitive technologies and long range systems.
Its not the 90s anymore.

 

[Hyperion]

Exactly. No one cares anymore. With US arming India to the teeth, and before a manufacturing replacement can be found for China, it's all kosher for Pakistan to acquire. Look at the bull behind 'grandfathered' reactors for Pakistan. Same can be done on multiple fronts.

However, as Oscar stated, it's the path of least resistance to slap a 'made in Pakistan' label on such MTCR sensitive products.

Its not the 90s anymore.

 

[The Deterrent]

Exactly. No one cares anymore. With US arming India to the teeth, and before a manufacturing replacement can be found for China, it's all kosher for Pakistan to acquire. Look at the bull behind 'grandfathered' reactors for Pakistan. Same can be done on multiple fronts.

However, as Oscar stated, it's the path of least resistance to slap a 'made in Pakistan' label on such MTCR sensitive products.

Sadly the Chinese do, because their arm is being twisted by the US. If it was that simple, why would Pakistan still struggle with increasing the range of Babur, after more than 15 years of development? Why can't Pakistan simply import a batch of CJ-10s (>1500km range) and slap "Babur-X" on them? The Chinese won't even sell the CJ-10's turbofan.

For now, Pakistan can only manage to tinker around with Chinese systems, or get small-scale critical technologies. For the more potent systems like CX-1 or M-20, Pakistan doesn't possesses the resources to acquire them.

 

[Advocate Pakistan]

No reason to put Harba on FAC's because those aren't intended for land attack role.

Maybe the roles have changed, remember enemy's bombardment of Karachi with the Osa class missile boats in 1971.
Enemy in present case would be expecting the Submarines in a land attack configuration and their anti-sub assets would be swarming the North Arabian sea. In that case, the FAC's can be committed to reach near the target along the shore line while their might possibly be a dedicated brown water mini submarine to accompany the FACs.
The MoDP report about the indigenous mini-sub could be the same.
But again I agree with you that we can't rule out C-602 and all is speculation until complete information about the Zarb and Harba gets revealed.

 

[Gryphon]

Maybe the roles have changed, remember enemy's bombardment of Karachi with the Osa class missile boats in 1971.
Enemy in present case would be expecting the Submarines in a land attack configuration and their anti-sub assets would be swarming the North Arabian sea. In that case, the FAC's can be committed to reach near the target along the shore line while their might possibly be a dedicated brown water mini submarine to accompany the FACs.
The MoDP report about the indigenous mini-sub could be the same.
But again I agree with you that we can't rule out C-602 and all is speculation until complete information about the Zarb and Harba gets revealed.

In PN, FAC(M) armed with 6 Zarb AShM's in 2x3 configuration is assigned the littoral A2/AD role. Submarines are difficult to detect as compared to surface ships like the Azmat class.

For land attack missions you are referring to, Azmat is limited by range, besides number of ships and the expected range of ship launched Babur (i.e. Harba).

IMO, land attack roles (particularly when the missile can be armed with nuclear warhead) will be assigned to submarines and not FACs. 'Credible' is my point here.

@Bilal Khan (Quwa)

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

In PN, FAC(M) armed with 6 Zarb AShM's in 2x3 configuration is assigned the littoral A2/AD role. Submarines are difficult to detect as compared to surface ships like the Azmat class.

For land attack missions you are referring to, Azmat is limited by range, besides number of ships and the expected range of ship launched Babur (i.e. Harba).

IMO, land attack roles (particularly when the missile can be armed with nuclear warhead) will be assigned to submarines and not FACs. 'Credible' is my point here.

@Bilal Khan (Quwa)

Agreed. FACs don't have the range to undertake land-attack roles. It's theoretically doable by sailing along the adjoining coastline, but it's a certainty that both India and Pakistan will station forces there to thwart FAC and mini-SSK threats. The latter can at least be submerged, but FACs would be in the open and at threat to air, sea and even land-based (e.g. coastal AShM) deterrents.

I think it'll be more interesting to see if the midget-SSK will see AShM/LACM-capable torpedo tubes. From a design standpoint it wouldn't be unique or novel, it'd be an issue of cost and time if anything. But an inherently small submersible scurrying about in noisy coastal waters and armed with LACMs would be a credible threat, especially if it doesn't cost much (<$100 m) to make and deploy in numbers. Power them with batteries, man them with a few diver-trained CO and JCOs so that when they're about to get hit/caught, they can use SDVs to escape.

 

[Hyperion]

Now that is the right question to ask. Why won't China sell CJ-10's turbofan? Think on entirely different lines!

The Chinese won't even sell the CJ-10's turbofan.

CX-1 is an inferior missile if you were thinking on the lines of Brahmos. M-20 is a no go as it adds nothing to our existing capabilities. Unless you want to have a different truck chasis?

Sadly the Chinese do, because their arm is being twisted by the US. If it was that simple, why would Pakistan still struggle with increasing the range of Babur, after more than 15 years of development? Why can't Pakistan simply import a batch of CJ-10s (>1500km range) and slap "Babur-X" on them? The Chinese won't even sell the CJ-10's turbofan.

For now, Pakistan can only manage to tinker around with Chinese systems, or get small-scale critical technologies. For the more potent systems like CX-1 or M-20, Pakistan doesn't possesses the resources to acquire them.

 

[wiseone2]

Even so it doesn't fundamentally change the situation. If the PAF had 36~55 Block-52+ today, we'd certainly say they're in a good position. However, I'd also wager that India would've pumped into the Rafale purchase (i.e. go ahead with 126) and expedite the Su-30MKI upgrade program in response. Perhaps even get Mirage 2000/-5s from the surplus market. The PAF wouldn't be able to add more Block-52+ due to the issues in the U.S. There are far fewer fighter vendors in the world than there are for tanks or even ships.

Side-story: I asked a PAF officer why the PAF hasn't dealt with boom refueling for the F-16s or whether it was looking for alternatives to the IL-78 (i.e. more fuel efficient tankers). The guy said, "money isn't the problem; no one will sell us." Lo and behold, if you take a look at Cobham, you find some of the parts are made in India, and lo and behold, there are just three boom refueling probe makers in the whole world (of which one is Israeli, one is US and the other is French/German). So basically, you can't buy the Airbus MRTTs nor can you make a bespoke solution.

I would say the corruption's effect isn't only on acquisitions, but in fermenting an overall atmosphere - from political, foreign relations, bureaucratic to the armed forces - of problems at every link, even the sincere ones. If you had multiple competing vendors come at you at several levels, including the public level, it'd be a little more challenging to be corrupt (as some guy will ask, "why not X? why Y?"). But we don't have the benefit of fighter bids or tenders in Pakistan, sadly. And we won't get any unless we build economic, foreign relations and governance muscle.

you have to diversify your weapons supplier base. I see no harm in sucking up to the Israelis