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

[Tank131]

You think 054A can? The HQ-16 SAM is similar to the 9M38E series of export missiles that form part of the Russian Almaz-Antey Shtil systems China purchased for use on its Sovremenny-class (Project 956E/956EM) and Type 052B destroyers. In its naval guise, the HQ-16 is known as the HHQ-16 (Red Sea-16). Claimed hit probability of an aircraft with a single missile is 85%. Hit probability of a cruise missile is 60%.

A sh!tload of submarines for offensieve work, it whats needed. Then some hulls for defensive surface work.

Absolutely not advocating Type 054A or the HQ-16. Rather i have advocated CAMM or K-SAAM for the reason that they a quad packed missiles which give you far more shots to take out those missiles. The same 32 cell vls with CAMM or K-SAAM would fire 128 missiles which, along with ciws, will greatly increase your ability to overcome those AShM.

 

[Penguin]

Absolutely not advocating Type 054A or the HQ-16. Rather i have advocated CAMM or K-SAAM for the reason that they a quad packed missiles which give you far more shots to take out those missiles. The same 32 cell vls with CAMM or K-SAAM would fire 128 missiles which, along with ciws, will greatly increase your ability to overcome those AShM.

With the ships we were discussing (e.g. Istanbul class) there are at best 2x8=16 cells > 64 quadpacked SAMs. It would do well to remember that the large Dutch and German Euro AAW ships typically would have 24-32 SM2 and 32 ESSM, besides e.g. 2 Goal Keeper or 2 RAM 21 cell launchers. Danish Huitfeldt has 32 + 48 plus 35mm milennium. The Spanish F100 has 32 + 64 plus a single Meroka ciws. Horizon and Type 45 have a mix of 48 Aster 15/30 backed by 76mm and/or Mistral and /or Phalanx. In that sense, 128 missiles on a smaller frigate seems outrageous, and useless unless backed by detection-, targeting- and fire control systems that can handle a large number of simultaneousl air targets and large number of SAMs in the air. So, it is not just the number of VLU cells, and/or quadpacking but also command and control, all of which add substantially to cost and thus limit the number of units that can be acquired.

I doubt DK-10 is quad packed at present. If the graphic below is accurate wrt dimensiont, DK-10 has the length of HHQ16 and is not significantly narrower it would seem (looking at non-folding main-body fin span as well as - possibly folding - tail fin span)

Note also that parallel to K-SAAM you have an ASROC type ASW missile, just as there is CY-5/Yu-8 ASW missile next to DK-10. So, more VL cells in a GP-unit may/will also be used for these. Not counting VL AShM just yet, as mostly deck launched to date. So, you might work with 2 ship versions, with different sensor and command fits (ASW/GP and AAW)

 

[Tank131]

With the ships we were discussing (e.g. Istanbul class) there are at best 2x8=16 cells > 64 quadpacked SAMs. It would do well to remember that the large Dutch and German Euro AAW ships typically would have 24-32 SM2 and 32 ESSM, besides e.g. 2 Goal Keeper or 2 RAM 21 cell launchers. Danish Huitfeldt has 32 + 48 plus 35mm milennium. The Spanish F100 has 32 + 64 plus a single Meroka ciws. Horizon and Type 45 have a mix of 48 Aster 15/30 backed by 76mm and/or Mistral and /or Phalanx. In that sense, 128 missiles on a smaller frigate seems outrageous, and useless unless backed by detection-, targeting- and fire control systems that can handle a large number of simultaneousl air targets and large number of SAMs in the air. So, it is not just the number of VLU cells, and/or quadpacking but also command and control, all of which add substantially to cost and thus limit the number of units that can be acquired.

I doubt DK-10 is quad packed at present. If the graphic below is accurate wrt dimensiont, DK-10 has the length of HHQ16 and is not significantly narrower it would seem (looking at non-folding main-body fin span as well as - possibly folding - tail fin span)

I think you are misunderstanding my point. Im not stating any particular ship or particlar missile. I stated 32 cell (128 missile) due to your example of type 054A which i agree, with hq-16 would also not survive an saturation attack from Brahmos missiles when operating alone. But a ship with a longer range sam (like Camm) or more missiles (quad packed) would have a better chance to do so.

I do think the best idea for PN (which cant match india ship for ship) is a medium sized frigate (~3000t) with quad packed medium ranged SAMs. A ship with GENESIS combat management system, and even a 16 cell VLS with 64 SAMs, backed by ciws and possibly an FL-3000N system, has a far better chance of overcoming a saturation style attack from IN. The Istanbul class frigate has the capability to be such a vessel, the Ada does not without significant modification which would either sacrifice other capabilities or make it the Istanbul class anyway.

As for chinese vessels the same could be done as long as China allows PN to field electronics and weaponry from other sources. Given the that they allowed Smar S mk2 on C28A, im sure they would allow sylver or korean vls on their design (for camm or K-SAAM). I dont see an equivalent missile currently in Chinese inventory.

 

[CHI RULES]

I dont agree that Frigates have no role on protecting the coast. The reality is that the biggest threat IN poses to Pakistan is through the air. 2 carriers will be fielding 26 Mig-29k each and numerous frigates and destroy which are capable of launching attacks on surface fleet amd land targets from 300km away. In time of war only 1 JF-17 squad will be dedicated to the navy and it plus a few Orions and 3 ATR-72 will be the only aircover PN has. It's surface boats will be effective for maybe a day until IAF and IN shoot down all PN aor assets and then the boats will be made short work of. The subs will last longer but how long is the question. 11 subs can be dangerous but eventually they will be cleaned from the board by sub hunting aircraft (posidens and helis). The surface fleet must be able to mount an air defense in order to hold the coast for any length of time. Pakistan's big saving grace is its connected by land to its biggest supporter and ally.

I will also humbly differ the Mr Bilal's reply as every naval asset has it's own importance, no navy in the world can survive without capable multipurpose surface warships. If even Pak dedicates two to three squadrons of JF17s they shall be insufficient to stop Mig 29s and expected new coming fighters of IN. Further IN may not require to come near to Pak ports as they have and inducting missiles having ranges over 300 Km. The Bilal Khan's reply is some what not at par with his knowledge.

I think you are misunderstanding my point. Im not stating any particular ship or particlar missile. I stated 32 cell (128 missile) due to your example of type 054A which i agree, with hq-16 would also not survive an saturation attack from Brahmos missiles when operating alone. But a ship with a longer range sam (like Camm) or more missiles (quad packed) would have a better chance to do so.

I do think the best idea for PN (which cant match india ship for ship) is a medium sized frigate (~3000t) with quad packed medium ranged SAMs. A ship with GENESIS combat management system, and even a 16 cell VLS with 64 SAMs, backed by ciws and possibly an FL-3000N system, has a far better chance of overcoming a saturation style attack from IN. The Istanbul class frigate has the capability to be such a vessel, the Ada does not without significant modification which would either sacrifice other capabilities or make it the Istanbul class anyway.

As for chinese vessels the same could be done as long as China allows PN to field electronics and weaponry from other sources. Given the that they allowed Smar S mk2 on C28A, im sure they would allow sylver or korean vls on their design (for camm or K-SAAM). I dont see an equivalent missile currently in Chinese inventory.

Dear Sir, China has recently conducted live tests of upgraded HQ16 with 70KM+ range especially designed to intercept Brahmos/other missiles. China is deploying them near Indo/China border to counter brahmos threat same can be inducted for naval role.

 

[Basel]

I think you are misunderstanding my point. Im not stating any particular ship or particlar missile. I stated 32 cell (128 missile) due to your example of type 054A which i agree, with hq-16 would also not survive an saturation attack from Brahmos missiles when operating alone. But a ship with a longer range sam (like Camm) or more missiles (quad packed) would have a better chance to do so.

I do think the best idea for PN (which cant match india ship for ship) is a medium sized frigate (~3000t) with quad packed medium ranged SAMs. A ship with GENESIS combat management system, and even a 16 cell VLS with 64 SAMs, backed by ciws and possibly an FL-3000N system, has a far better chance of overcoming a saturation style attack from IN. The Istanbul class frigate has the capability to be such a vessel, the Ada does not without significant modification which would either sacrifice other capabilities or make it the Istanbul class anyway.

As for chinese vessels the same could be done as long as China allows PN to field electronics and weaponry from other sources. Given the that they allowed Smar S mk2 on C28A, im sure they would allow sylver or korean vls on their design (for camm or K-SAAM). I dont see an equivalent missile currently in Chinese inventory.

F-22P is hybrid of Chinese and western tech, so Chinese does allow 3rd party equipment, with Smart-S radar, Aster-15/Sea CAMM or possibly CAMM-ER is at least possible for those ships, Italy is willing to sale weapons to Pakistan, also if those are not available then South African option is also available if Pakistan don't want Chinese system on its Turkish ships.

@Penguin your opinion please.

Edit.

http://www.mbda-systems.com/product/sea-ceptor/

http://www.mbda-systems.com/product/camm-er/

http://www.mbda-systems.com/?media-center=aster-15-30

http://www.deneldynamics.co.za/products/missiles/air-defence-missiles/umkhonto

http://www.deneldynamics.co.za/press-article/Denel-Dynamics-upgrading-missile-range/38

https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwide/defence/smart-s-mk2-3d-medium-long-range-surveillance-radar

http://www.aselsan.com.tr/en-us/capabilities/radar-systems/air-defense-radars/smart-s-mk2

 

[Tank131]

If an air defence network is needed, then someone will argue, "spend that $1bn on long-range SAMs, station the necessary number at Southern Command to cover our coastline and littoral seas" As for the IN P-8Is and ASW helicopters, the IN will need to cover Pakistan's littoral seas, which may bring them into the scope of the PAF and Pakistan's air defence network.

I would argue that one is not a replacement for the other. Having ships capable of air defense at sea doesnt replace land base air defense nor does land based air defense have sufficient range to cover the PN ships at sea.

To the point of P-8I and ASW helicopters coming in range of PAF and Pakistan's air defense network, firstly, there are no SAMs in Pakistan that would be capable of threatening PN assets at sea with the most capable SAM being the 40km ranged HQ-16. Getting HQ-9 (which I would strongly advocate for Pakistan) would be better, but there is no evidence that Pakistan has actually acquired this. Beyond that, 1 squadron of JF-17 (as I said before) would be taken out in short order by IN SAMs and the 52 Mig-29Ks that IN will be operating soon when INS Vikrant comes into service (26 Migs per carrier).

In order to keep IN at bay, PN needs an efficient fleet. Ships that are capable individually of anti-surface attack but are capable of contributing to a layered air defense from Medium and short range SAMs and point defense guns. This includes getting new and used frigates capable of fielding quad-packed medium range SAMs (as I have stated before new could be turkish or chinese and used ideally would be the adelaides of Australia). Mounting short range missiles (like FL-3000N) on FAC's like Azmat or future FACs while utilizing CIWS as main guns (ala Type 022). This in addition to the 11 subs will go a long way to improving the overall capability to hold the IN off and even potentially cripple it for a time.

F-22P is hybrid of Chinese and western tech, so Chinese does allow 3rd party equipment, with Smart-S radar, Aster-15/Sea CAMM or possibly CAMM-ER is at least possible for those ships, Italy is willing to sale weapons to Pakistan, also if those are not available then South African option is also available if Pakistan don't want Chinese system on its Turkish ships.

@Penguin your opinion please.

Edit.

http://www.mbda-systems.com/product/sea-ceptor/

http://www.mbda-systems.com/product/camm-er/

http://www.mbda-systems.com/?media-center=aster-15-30

http://www.deneldynamics.co.za/products/missiles/air-defence-missiles/umkhonto

http://www.deneldynamics.co.za/press-article/Denel-Dynamics-upgrading-missile-range/38

https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwide/defence/smart-s-mk2-3d-medium-long-range-surveillance-radar

I am sure between Pakistan and China, they would work out an agreement to field European systems on Chinese designs. That being said, I dont think there is anything in F-22P that is western.

 

[Basel]

I would argue that one is not a replacement for the other. Having ships capable of air defense at sea doesnt replace land base air defense nor does land based air defense have sufficient range to cover the PN ships at sea.

To the point of P-8I and ASW helicopters coming in range of PAF and Pakistan's air defense network, firstly, there are no SAMs in Pakistan that would be capable of threatening PN assets at sea with the most capable SAM being the 40km ranged HQ-16. Getting HQ-9 (which I would strongly advocate for Pakistan) would be better, but there is no evidence that Pakistan has actually acquired this. Beyond that, 1 squadron of JF-17 (as I said before) would be taken out in short order by IN SAMs and the 52 Mig-29Ks that IN will be operating soon when INS Vikrant comes into service (26 Migs per carrier).

In order to keep IN at bay, PN needs an efficient fleet. Ships that are capable individually of anti-surface attack but are capable of contributing to a layered air defense from Medium and short range SAMs and point defense guns. This includes getting new and used frigates capable of fielding quad-packed medium range SAMs (as I have stated before new could be turkish or chinese and used ideally would be the adelaides of Australia). Mounting short range missiles (like FL-3000N) on FAC's like Azmat or future FACs while utilizing CIWS as main guns (ala Type 022). This in addition to the 11 subs will go a long way to improving the overall capability to hold the IN off and even potentially cripple it for a time.



I am sure between Pakistan and China, they would work out an agreement to field European systems on Chinese designs. That being said, I dont think there is anything in F-22P that is western.

Have you seen F-22P from inside? It even had Indian dish TV.

Here we are talking about possible sale of Turkish ships to PN not the Chinese ones.

 

[Tank131]

Here we are talking about possible sale of Turkish ships to PN not the Chinese ones.

I understand that, but I will say that they wll need both Turkish and Chinese ships.

 

[Basel]

I understand that, but I will say that they wll need both Turkish and Chinese ships.

It will happen gradually, it seems PN is going for FACs, Subs from China and Corvettes/Light Frigate from Turkey, they don't want one vendor or tech.

 

[Penguin]

I think you are misunderstanding my point. Im not stating any particular ship or particlar missile. I stated 32 cell (128 missile) due to your example of type 054A which i agree, with hq-16 would also not survive an saturation attack from Brahmos missiles when operating alone. But a ship with a longer range sam (like Camm) or more missiles (quad packed) would have a better chance to do so.

I do think the best idea for PN (which cant match india ship for ship) is a medium sized frigate (~3000t) with quad packed medium ranged SAMs. A ship with GENESIS combat management system, and even a 16 cell VLS with 64 SAMs, backed by ciws and possibly an FL-3000N system, has a far better chance of overcoming a saturation style attack from IN. The Istanbul class frigate has the capability to be such a vessel, the Ada does not without significant modification which would either sacrifice other capabilities or make it the Istanbul class anyway.

As for chinese vessels the same could be done as long as China allows PN to field electronics and weaponry from other sources. Given the that they allowed Smar S mk2 on C28A, im sure they would allow sylver or korean vls on their design (for camm or K-SAAM). I dont see an equivalent missile currently in Chinese inventory.

See https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/paki...-with-turkey-today.479495/page-8#post-9245919

CAMM would require US or French VLS. K-SAAM would use K-VLS. I don't think there is a quadpacked SAM from China for its VLS just yet. I'm not so sure these weapons, launchers, sensors and combat management systems are readily available to PN at this time.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Really don't see what is the fuss about VLS get some surface based launcher installed for SAM and we are good to go, install the units on the deck

Seems like we have various tech on launcher based platform already operating in Military made locally in Pakistan

Or import some basic air defence

Which can easily be setup on ship deck due to its small size
(worse case scenario)

 

[Basel]

Really don't see what is the fuss about VLS get some surface based launcher installed for SAM and we are good to go, install the units on the deck

Seems like we have various tech on launcher based platform already operating in Military made locally in Pakistan

Or import some basic air defence

Which can easily be setup on ship deck due to its small size
(worse case scenario)

There is big difference between ground Launched VLS systems & Ship based VLS system.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

There is big difference between ground Launched VLS systems & Ship based VLS system.

Well I don't quite understand why the launchers / VLS need to be inserted inside the deck , if we don't have such provision just install the "surface" based launchers like we have them on our Trucks

The launching unit can technically be seperated from the Truck and then placed on deck of a Ship even a merchant civilian ship

Technically the same concept when such a device is moved on a ship
This I believe is a US based missile system above the deck

 

[Basel]

Well I don't quite understand why the launchers / VLS need to be inserted inside the deck , if we don't have such provision just install the "surface" based launchers like we have them on our Trucks

The launching unit can technically be seperated from the Truck and then placed on deck of a Ship even a merchant civilian ship

There are several reason due to which VLS are preferred on ships.

@Penguin Please share opinion on quoted post.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Well I was just thinking along the lines , well VLS is not coming in short term , might as well invest in equiping all our ships with some nice Launcher based system

This can even be installed on our Fast Attack boats get rid of the useless cannon and install this in front forget about the looks

If the connon is still needed it can may be get moved a bit further to the front

We could technically introduce a special class which carries the Nasr on it at sea

Since we are planning to make 10-20 Fast attack Stealth Boats might as well go in that direction


What do others think?
a) Cannon
b) Anti Air Protection System from Turkey or China
c) NASR tactical Punch at Sea

On Fast Attack boats ?

The OHP did also used to have same idea
However we were denied this on purpose for OHP we got