Pakistan in talks for 4 Ada Class Corvettes, T-129 Helicopters & modernization of agosta fleet

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Thanks @Bilal Khan (Quwa) for sharing info about the Cheetah SAM. Of note, the missile is only quad-packable in Umkhontos VLS system, not (apparently) in the on deck mounted system which is stand alone. That being said for Pakistan, it would be prudent to use a smaller ASW heli like the Z-9C (which it already operates) rather than a Seahawk sized chopper. That saves 24 ft of hangar space which can be converted to space for an 8 cell Umkhonto VLS (Maybe more but unlikely). Utilize the front VLS pictured above for Umkhonto-eir and the rear for quad packed Cheetah SAM giving 8 medium ranged and 32 short ranged SAM. You can still have a gun based CIWS above the hangar towards the rear (smaller footprint one like AK630).

Of note, the Cheetah is part of a layered C-RAM system (Counter-Rocket Artillery Mortar). Along woth the 3km Mongoose 3 transsonic missile it is said to have high kill probability for cruise missiles, air launched missiles, bombs, artillery and projectiles much in the way C-Dome/Iron Dome does, albeit at shorter ranges. Pakistan should, in my opinion, try to acquire this system (either in co-development/license production etc). In much the way the Israel air defense network merges Iron dome (for CRAM), Barak 8 (medium range), David Sling (long range/ABM) and Arrow 2/3 (ABM) for a comprehensive air defense network (with 90% hit probability in CRAM via Iron Dome), Pakistan could design a network around C-RAM, HQ-16B(medium) , HQ-9 (long range) and Hq-19/26 (long range and ABM). The C-RAM would be tremendously useful for PA at the LOC where routinely India is shelling and killimg people in AZK. Pakistan could use it much like iron dome where it is determined where the weapon will land and if its a residential region, fire off the interceptor.
http://www.janes.com/article/81207/denel-dynamics-unveils-layered-c-ram-system

I'm thinking ... could one just put a bunch of C-RAM VLS tubes all around the ship wherever there's free space? It would make wiring them to the central radar a pain, so maybe position 4 tubes on the bridge and 4 atop of a CIWS gun?

 

[Tank131]

I'm thinking ... could one just put a bunch of C-RAM VLS tubes all around the ship wherever there's free space? It would make wiring them to the central radar a pain, so maybe position 4 tubes on the bridge and 4 atop of a CIWS gun?

Given the 3.3M size of the Umkhonto EIR, it could make for a very effective way to place a vls on F-22p without much in the way of structural changes to the below deck structure or the ship. The entire VLS would sit inside the raised deck where the FM90 currently sits and would likely be 4-4.5M in height (the deck itself is likely 2.5-3m in height as is plus some height taken above it, which would still be less height than the deck plus FM-90). I think with just above deck mods you could get 24 cells (16 en block and 8 others arranged around the 16central cells). 16 cells for Umkhonto-eir (30km range) and 8 cells for quad packed Cheetah (10km range) gives you 16 medium and 32 short range missiles and still allows retention of both Type 730 CIWS. Exchange the SR60 for Smart S-Mk2 and improved EO systems and you could be in good shape regarding air defense for the F-22P (40 missiles in total with 16 having double the reach of your current SAM). Each upgrade. Could be had probably ~$60m/ship which may be steep but would dramatically improve the effectiveness of the vessels.

 

[Armchair]

I think it makes sense that whatever is gotten, is gotten fleet-wide. rather than one type of system on one ship, and another on a different on.

So whatever PDMS is gotten FL-3000N or local, should be fitted fleet-wide. Whatever medium sams are gotten, there should not be 2 types in the fleet.

It would be very hard not to have 2 types of CIWS, or even 3, given that both the US and the Chinese systems are in use, and Korkut is likely to show up on the rear position of the Ada. But over time, there should be an attempt to standardize.

Whenever major weapons systems such as T-129 are bought, ToT could be for small and useful systems like a PDMS or CIWS, or a guided MBRL round. Rather than ToT of an attack helicopter - given that after a large purchase, very few additional units are likely to be bought. It doesn't make any economic sense. Nor would anyone ever buy Agosta-90Bs from a Pakistani shipyard, which costs 20% more than at a globally competitive yard.

 

[The Accountant]

I think it makes sense that whatever is gotten, is gotten fleet-wide. rather than one type of system on one ship, and another on a different on.

So whatever PDMS is gotten FL-3000N or local, should be fitted fleet-wide. Whatever medium sams are gotten, there should not be 2 types in the fleet.

It would be very hard not to have 2 types of CIWS, or even 3, given that both the US and the Chinese systems are in use, and Korkut is likely to show up on the rear position of the Ada. But over time, there should be an attempt to standardize.

Whenever major weapons systems such as T-129 are bought, ToT could be for small and useful systems like a PDMS or CIWS, or a guided MBRL round. Rather than ToT of an attack helicopter - given that after a large purchase, very few additional units are likely to be bought. It doesn't make any economic sense. Nor would anyone ever buy Agosta-90Bs from a Pakistani shipyard, which costs 20% more than at a globally competitive yard.

Agusta 90b tot means it is sanction free and we can upgrade anytime and from anywhere ...

 

[Aamir Hussain]

IMHO Korkut is not happening...too heavy and cumbersome for CIWS type of work

 

[-------]

IMHO Korkut is not happening...too heavy and cumbersome for CIWS type of work

*Looks at Phalanx CIWS, looks at KORKUT-D Prototype*

Ammm okay then...

Just don't tell russians what you think about their CIWS

 

[Armchair]

IMHO Korkut is not happening...too heavy and cumbersome for CIWS type of work

Hi Aamir, there seems to be only one major position for a CIWS, or a CIWS / PDMS combo - its on top of the hangar. That place can't have two lightweight systems, there really can only be 1.

So why not use a substantive system - there is little to no downside here other than cost (which we have no idea about as we don't know what the comparative price-points are). I don't think the Ada would be top heavy just because of a Korkut. Ada is distinctly under-armed compared to a lot of warships in its weight category.

Agusta 90b tot means it is sanction free and we can upgrade anytime and from anywhere ...

Agusta 70s were also upgraded despite no "ToT". Its good to call a spade a spade - the ToT of Agusta 90B was a giant waste. With only show-claims of offering the Agusta for export. Very little good came from that expense. main one being a lot of people later had the training to get foreign jobs for themselves.

 

[The Accountant]

compare

Hi Aamir, there seems to be only one major position for a CIWS, or a CIWS / PDMS combo - its on top of the hangar. That place can't have two lightweight systems, there really can only be 1.

So why not use a substantive system - there is little to no downside here other than cost (which we have no idea about as we don't know what the comparative price-points are). I don't think the Ada would be top heavy just because of a Korkut. Ada is distinctly under-armed compared to a lot of warships in its weight category.



Agusta 70s were also upgraded despite no "ToT". Its good to call a spade a spade - the ToT of Agusta 90B was a giant waste. With only show-claims of offering the Agusta for export. Very little good came from that expense. main one being a lot of people later had the training to get foreign jobs for themselves.

F16s vs mirrage to understand transfer of tech or F16s of PAF vs F16s of Turkey ... Same is case of Agusta 90B, no matter if French allows us future upgrade we can get those done from anywhere in the world which is a great liberty for a strategic weapon system like submarines

 

[Aamir Hussain]

The entity setup to handle construction and later on export it was DefLog. After the final 90B the whole project fizzled out specially after the attack on French Workers near Sheraton. Otherwise thnigs would have been different. We need to thank our own Mr. Zardari

 

[Tank131]

One forgets that the purpose behind ToT wasnt to selk it A90b to the world but to allow Pakistan to locally maintain it and give Pakistan an industrial basis for ita naval construction. Without A90B ToT there is no F-22P, no Azmat, no Type 041/039. These are being made possible because of local development of knowledge/industrial capacity which was started with A90b (even if overall it wasnt a favorable deal). It also allowed maintenance of the subs themselves.

Regarding Korkut D, i dont think its an ideal choice for PN. As I said before there are 3 better options...
1) take a smaller ASW chopper like Z-9C which allows you to create homogenized fleet of ASW choppers and save 24ft in the hangar, allowing for the front of the hangar to have an 8 cell vls installed for 32 Cheetah quad packed point defense missiles. In this setting an AK630 would still fit over the hangar. (less likely senario).

2) they could fit a Type 730 or 1130 over the hangar instead of Korkut -D (both are 30mm gatling gun style cannons). These can be fitted with 6 HQ-10 missiles to allow for some (albeit minimal) added protection.

3) forgoing a gun based weapon system and get a 21 cell FL-3000N (most likely senario in my opinion).

 

[Armchair]

One forgets that the purpose behind ToT wasnt to selk it A90b to the world but to allow Pakistan to locally maintain it and give Pakistan an industrial basis for ita naval construction. Without A90B ToT there is no F-22P, no Azmat, no Type 041/039. These are being made possible because of local development of knowledge/industrial capacity which was started with A90b (even if overall it wasnt a favorable deal). It also allowed maintenance of the subs themselves.

Regarding Korkut D, i dont think its an ideal choice for PN. As I said before there are 3 better options...
1) take a smaller ASW chopper like Z-9C which allows you to create homogenized fleet of ASW choppers and save 24ft in the hangar, allowing for the front of the hangar to have an 8 cell vls installed for 32 Cheetah quad packed point defense missiles. In this setting an AK630 would still fit over the hangar. (less likely senario).

2) they could fit a Type 730 or 1130 over the hangar instead of Korkut -D (both are 30mm gatling gun style cannons). These can be fitted with 6 HQ-10 missiles to allow for some (albeit minimal) added protection.

3) forgoing a gun based weapon system and get a 21 cell FL-3000N (most likely senario in my opinion).

Except what you are saying is not based on any evidence regarding reasons or extent of ToT. And contradicts what's been publicly stated and stated by seniors here. Ability to build submarines was much touted and written about back then, I am old enough to have followed that program closely when it took place. So maybe you need to check your facts.

None of us know what the ideal choice is. That is based on real system analysis, not wish lists. A discussion is only meaningful when specific comparisons are made, based on discussion of pros and cons. Which seems missing. Its easy to have an opinion but its much more fruitful to discuss issues on points, facts, analysis of costs and benefits.

 

[Tank131]

Except what you are saying is not based on any evidence regarding reasons or extent of ToT. And contradicts what's been publicly stated and stated by seniors here. Ability to build submarines was much touted and written about back then, I am old enough to have followed that program closely when it took place. So maybe you need to check your facts.

None of us know what the ideal choice is. That is based on real system analysis, not wish lists. A discussion is only meaningful when specific comparisons are made, based on discussion of pros and cons. Which seems missing. Its easy to have an opinion but its much more fruitful to discuss issues on points, facts, analysis of costs and benefits.

Touted by whom exactly? Keyboard warriors? Pakistani media? People who dont understand that there is no facility in Pakistan to make ship grade steel let alone the systems and subsystems for manufacturing a sub? People who have no understanding that all the systems and material was sent to Pakistan in kits? People who dont know the difference between manufacturing and assembly? The amount of ToT that was provided allowed for Pakistan to locally assemble and maintain the A90b.from kits. There was no ship grade steel factory made. No sonar and computer manufacturing facilities were set up. Please tell me what components beyond assembly did they agree on that indicates Pakistan could build its own subs. It is very different from the ToT Pakistan acquired for something like Al Khalid and JF-17 where actually materials and systems /subsystem manufacturing was set up in addition to assembly.

That is not to say the ToT was useless. Nor is it to say the sub (albeit likely wildly overpriced due to corruption) wasnt good. It was afterall the best diesel electric sub and first AIP sub in all of Asia at the time of its induction. The ToT has allowed PN to keep these operating and maintained by itself. It also helped PN learn how to install the MESMA AIP units into PNS Khalid and Saad independently. Pakistan also gained valuable knowledge in the construction techniques used by one of Europe's best ship manufacturers, knowledge that was certainly applied in F-22P abd Azmat classes and will likely be employed when type 039/041 begins production.

 

[The Accountant]

Touted by whom exactly? Keyboard warriors? Pakistani media? People who dont understand that there is no facility in Pakistan to make ship grade steel let alone the systems and subsystems for manufacturing a sub? People who have no understanding that all the systems and material was sent to Pakistan in kits? People who dont know the difference between manufacturing and assembly? The amount of ToT that was provided allowed for Pakistan to locally assemble and maintain the A90b.from kits. There was no ship grade steel factory made. No sonar and computer manufacturing facilities were set up. Please tell me what components beyond assembly did they agree on that indicates Pakistan could build its own subs. It is very different from the ToT Pakistan acquired for something like Al Khalid and JF-17 where actually materials and systems /subsystem manufacturing was set up in addition to assembly.

That is not to say the ToT was useless. Nor is it to say the sub (albeit likely wildly overpriced due to corruption) wasnt good. It was afterall the best diesel electric sub and first AIP sub in all of Asia at the time of its induction. The ToT has allowed PN to keep these operating and maintained by itself. It also helped PN learn how to install the MESMA AIP units into PNS Khalid and Saad independently. Pakistan also gained valuable knowledge in the construction techniques used by one of Europe's best ship manufacturers, knowledge that was certainly applied in F-22P abd Azmat classes and will likely be employed when type 039/041 begins production.

Keyboard warriors is the correct term ...

People do not understand the word ToT is vague, it can be as big as the transfer of mushaq or as low as assembly and maintenance rights for that particular unit ...

 

[Armchair]

Yes and you two are not keyboard warriors surely. Great professionals telling us what the reality is of course. Media reports is wrong because it doesn't fit with your opinion. Statements by officials during the era are also not right.

And ToT, we all understood it wrong. It only means you can repair and upgrade (with Turkish help) your own submarines. Gee, I wonder why CAD was part of the ToT on the Agusta 90Bs...

Yes, this is where we enter Lala land.

Quite childish and stupid I must say. I'll leave you to your blessed condition.

 

[Aamir Hussain]

Guys ToT was touted by the folks at the GoP and PN level. That was the buzz word then as it is now. Actually it was assembly from Kits.

The plan was for GoP to build these subs in Pakistan eventually with systems/subsystems and steel supplied by France. At least that is what one focal person at DefLog told me.

The CAD/CAM ability was part of the buildup to eventual mfg. from components supplied by France.

I can quote you one small event whereby the local industry benefited from interaction with the French submarine mfg. When the first Daphne was being refitted at the PN dockyard...it required extensive use of metal scaffolding. The French Scaffolding was expensive so the French provided the drawings for the scaffolding system to PN and PN in turn got them produced locally by a private mfg. Later on the same scaffolding system was sold to civil projects and is still being manufactured and sold nationwide and I believe exported to an African country as well.

This is a very basic and crude example but interaction does benefit in the end. It might not have been a technological breakthrough but it did spin off an industry that did not exist at that time in Pakistan where we were using bamboos for scaffolding in civil works projects.