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

[ghazi768]

Dear Ghazi, why do you assume I don't know that?

I've provided your the data from producer's marketing material. Typically that is instumented range against combat aircraft and/or MPA (not a large airliner like B747 or A370), unless otherwise specified (see e.g. reference to 'stealth missile' at some point). Likewise, Smart-L's 2000km range in BMD-role does not apply to low flying aircraft or seaskimming missiles, obviously.

Most here are aware of how mounting height affects radar horizon (there are plenty online calculation possibilities for that), and how earth curvature affeact what you can see at long distance.

What one CAN do is in principal unlimited. But you put forward a specific scenario and when I address that scenario, you alter it. First, we went from 1 combat aircraft to saturation attack by several aircraft and now you go to repeat attacks (which is not the same as a saturation attack at all)

I didn't make calculations for a saturation attack. I did at some point (not in this thread) point out that a saturation attack is typically against a surface group (with dedicated - long range - AAW assets and other ships, it is much less likely against a single ship, unless this is e.g a vital asset e.g. the dedicated long range AAW asset of a group).

You can disregarda mental exercise as 'just calculation' but just because you haven't heard or read of 'real life simulations of 2+ AShM at same target at same time' doesn't mean they don't exist. Besides, what exactly is a 'real life simulation' anyway? It is either a simulation (i.e. a set of calculations, reflecting assumptions and one or more scenario's) or it is a life fire exercise.

I did not bring up the relative values of ships and missiles, someone else did that, but I did clarify a bit on that issue, as the assumption that missiles are cheap and ships expensive needed some nuancing: top of the line missiles aren't as cheap as assumed, not all ships cost hundreds of millions, and if missiles are delivered by various platforms, that platform may come at risk and that too can involve costs (e.g. if an attacking Mig-29K is shot down before or after launch of a missile, than that adds several tenths of millions to the monetary cost of the attack, which is much more than the cost of one or more missiles. Not to mention if a pilot is killed: add the cost of training that pilot and/or his replacement ). So, a cost calculation needs to be case-by-case, based on actual events. You could do this for individual attacks on ships or cumulative for a campaign (e.g. Falklands > how many / which ships lost versus cost of missiles expended, of aircraft lost and of training of pilots lost in the proces)

My apologies if it felt as if I am assuming you do not know that. I am sure that I asked very direct questions to you in this regard and I was not talking about some specific damn shiny radar or SAM, I was talking in terms of tactics and their impact. for example during discussion I asked: let say it is a 'jumbo jet' at 5000 feet at 300km, which radar is capable of detecting it? that should have been enough of a pointer.

The thing is weapons/sensors/platforms are there to do a job and achieve ends/goals in terms of strategy and or tactics and are not an end in themselves. Isn't this a defence forum? to discuss/debate effects/implications of weapons/platforms on strategy/tactics or vice versa not some product catalog. But I have seen repeatedly here that someone puts out a spread sheet of specs of some system than some salivate about it, others bemoan about Pakistan not having them, and right after it starts the bloody blame game. But trouble is that I have rarely seen any one than admonishing such acts or explaining it out, actually the most senior of members of this forum seem to relish a chance to berate Pakistan and its defence services on whimsical of grounds. Pardon me, I have now visited such type of forums of other nations as well and I have not yet seen this type of behaviour so widespread.

And post after post and reply after reply, actual crux of the matter always seem to get lost. The post I replied back to was by @Tank131 in post no #169. Now you can go back and read it but summary of what he said was: 'not adapting to times is scary', 'frightening dereliction of duty', 'treasonous dereliction of duty' blah blah blah

Now lets get back to discussion of this thread, will it be better at this time to go for heavier and costlier ships with large VLS and longer range radars and longest range SAMs available?

I'll stand by what I have said in an earlier post. Guided missile destroyers/frigates (of the exotic variety) are useful and necessary when you have a carrier battle group to defend. They work in unison with a carrier based air component and a 'flying radar' to cover up lower approaches. If you do not have any one of these components than the utility of others is greatly reduced and becomes a major vulnerability which enemy can exploit if he has the means to do that.
One of the reasons that US have so many bases is not only to keep supplying their naval fleets but to also keep flying many AWACs with carriers and also be in position to reinforce their carrier air wings if needed. They will not move their carriers an inch without AWACS.

Is it a bad strategy which we are pursuing? relevant to threat perception and enemy's preparations.

Nope, It is a good strategy. It is in fact turning out into an excellent strategy (given their limitations in terms of resources especially financial resources)

The issue had always been Indian plans and preparations to be able to not only block our lines of communications and restrict our naval fleets ability to maneouver but also to destroy our fleet and coastal installations.
We are not only working up to be able to defend Karachi but are now talking up about defending the whole coast. And even about securing our sea lines of communications. To procure/build and induct and place all the relevant assets/components is not an easy task especially in respect of rapid and massive arms buildup Indian Navy is doing. Each time we induct procure one asset, they go in a harangue and induct four/five others.

Are we not building a bigger land based coastal defence system, must be piling up quite a few longer ranged AShMs to be able to do this relevant to what Indians can throw at us.
We are talking about Jf-17s able to fire AShMs of couple of types, is it just to deploy one or two squadrons. You do not do this unless you wish to have the ability to rapidly redeploy a sizeable support for naval operations. Are you sure that, behind the scenes, they are not piling more air-launched AShMs for this.
We also have now dedicated AE&W capability in air with capability to cover usual sea-based approaches for surprise strikes against both our surface and air assets.
We are building up a good enough submarine force to 'harass', stalk and ambush assets in Indian fleet. We are gradually and steadily working towards these goals and to not only defend the coast and essential lines of communication but to be able to plug the damn Gulf for them. Lots of thought have gone into working out which approaches they can come from, what they will have, what we have or should have. Whether corvettes/frigates or destroyers they do not work alone they have to be part of this overall strategy and we must be able to exploit there full utility.

Edit: By the time I have replied back to your post, you have added more details and images to your post (by the way, nice details).
But I am at loss to understand how this all post and replies I had with you were pertinent to the actual question I asked that guy @Tank131

 

[Penguin]

Now lets get back to discussion of this thread, will it be better at this time to go for heavier and costlier ships with large VLS and longer range radars and longest range SAMs available?

I'll stand by what I have said in an earlier post. Guided missile destroyers/frigates (of the exotic variety) are useful and necessary when you have a carrier battle group to defend. They work in unison with a carrier based air component and a 'flying radar' to cover up lower approaches. If you do not have any one of these components than the utility of others is greatly reduced and becomes a major vulnerability which enemy can exploit if he has the means to do that.

Fully agree.

Is it a bad strategy which we are pursuing? relevant to threat perception and enemy's preparations.

Nope, It is a good strategy. It is in fact turning out into an excellent strategy (given their limitations in terms of resources especially financial resources)

Sea denial has always worked well for Pakistan, because it allows the branches to support one another with their respective capability (e.g. marines, coastal missile batteries, land SAM, combat aircraft & awacs, asw/asuw ships).

There is no reason to seek to match every capability IN may have.

FYi another way to tackle radar horizon
http://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2016-10-24
https://www.engadget.com/2016/10/24/darpa-tests-parasailing-radar-with-its-robotic-boat/

 

[Tank131]

My apologies if it felt as if I am assuming you do not know that. I am sure that I asked very direct questions to you in this regard and I was not talking about some specific damn shiny radar or SAM, I was talking in terms of tactics and their impact. for example during discussion I asked: let say it is a 'jumbo jet' at 5000 feet at 300km, which radar is capable of detecting it? that should have been enough of a pointer.

The thing is weapons/sensors/platforms are there to do a job and achieve ends/goals in terms of strategy and or tactics and are not an end in themselves. Isn't this a defence forum? to discuss/debate effects/implications of weapons/platforms on strategy/tactics or vice versa not some product catalog. But I have seen repeatedly here that someone puts out a spread sheet of specs of some system than some salivate about it, others bemoan about Pakistan not having them, and right after it starts the bloody blame game. But trouble is that I have rarely seen any one than admonishing such acts or explaining it out, actually the most senior of members of this forum seem to relish a chance to berate Pakistan and its defence services on whimsical of grounds. Pardon me, I have now visited such type of forums of other nations as well and I have not yet seen this type of behaviour so widespread.

And post after post and reply after reply, actual crux of the matter always seem to get lost. The post I replied back to was by @Tank131 in post no #169. Now you can go back and read it but summary of what he said was: 'not adapting to times is scary', 'frightening dereliction of duty', 'treasonous dereliction of duty' blah blah blah

Now lets get back to discussion of this thread, will it be better at this time to go for heavier and costlier ships with large VLS and longer range radars and longest range SAMs available?

I'll stand by what I have said in an earlier post. Guided missile destroyers/frigates (of the exotic variety) are useful and necessary when you have a carrier battle group to defend. They work in unison with a carrier based air component and a 'flying radar' to cover up lower approaches. If you do not have any one of these components than the utility of others is greatly reduced and becomes a major vulnerability which enemy can exploit if he has the means to do that.
One of the reasons that US have so many bases is not only to keep supplying their naval fleets but to also keep flying many AWACs with carriers and also be in position to reinforce their carrier air wings if needed. They will not move their carriers an inch without AWACS.

Is it a bad strategy which we are pursuing? relevant to threat perception and enemy's preparations.

Nope, It is a good strategy. It is in fact turning out into an excellent strategy (given their limitations in terms of resources especially financial resources)

The issue had always been Indian plans and preparations to be able to not only block our lines of communications and restrict our naval fleets ability to maneouver but also to destroy our fleet and coastal installations.
We are not only working up to be able to defend Karachi but are now talking up about defending the whole coast. And even about securing our sea lines of communications. To procure/build and induct and place all the relevant assets/components is not an easy task especially in respect of rapid and massive arms buildup Indian Navy is doing. Each time we induct procure one asset, they go in a harangue and induct four/five others.

Are we not building a bigger land based coastal defence system, must be piling up quite a few longer ranged AShMs to be able to do this relevant to what Indians can throw at us.
We are talking about Jf-17s able to fire AShMs of couple of types, is it just to deploy one or two squadrons. You do not do this unless you wish to have the ability to rapidly redeploy a sizeable support for naval operations. Are you sure that, behind the scenes, they are not piling more air-launched AShMs for this.
We also have now dedicated AE&W capability in air with capability to cover usual sea-based approaches for surprise strikes against both our surface and air assets.
We are building up a good enough submarine force to 'harass', stalk and ambush assets in Indian fleet. We are gradually and steadily working towards these goals and to not only defend the coast and essential lines of communication but to be able to plug the damn Gulf for them. Lots of thought have gone into working out which approaches they can come from, what they will have, what we have or should have. Whether corvettes/frigates or destroyers they do not work alone they have to be part of this overall strategy and we must be able to exploit there full utility.

Edit: By the time I have replied back to your post, you have added more details and images to your post (by the way, nice details).
But I am at loss to understand how this all post and replies I had with you were pertinent to the actual question I asked that guy @Tank131

To answer what I am assuming to be your question, how is it useful to have medium range defensive systems on relatively smaller platforms when radars (especially at ranges of 250-300km) cant see relatively low flying aircraft due tot he curvature of the earth which is why at 250km an aircraft must be at 14,000m (14km) to be detected, i know that already. The answer is not to say that they will shoot down the weapons or platforms at the point of launch but will detect the weapon as is approaches the defending vessel. The ability to detect a "stealth sea skimming missile" for something like Smart S MK2 is 50km which enables you to employ you missiles at some further range out IF YOU HAVE THEM, which you dont. When you have multiple medium range missiles backed by other systems you have a better chance of survival.

The point I am making is that having vessels which are only able to attack and not reasonably defend themselves against missile attacks is a terrible concept for a navy that values resources. One only needs to look at the British experience in the Falklands to see what relying on minimal to no air defense gets. A vessels like F-22P and Ada have little to very little chance of surviving a naval conflicts. When I say it is a dereliction of duty, it is because you are spending hundreds of millions on a vessel which has minimal ability to survive conflict. It is flushing that money. I am advocating getting vessels which have some ability to survive conflicts. As far as missile defenses only being useful in CBGs, please enlighten us how all the other navies of the world are dunces and stupid as only a handful of countries even operate carriers but most are moving towards defensive missile systems of medium range on their larger surface ships.

As for PN's strategy, I am not discounting the importance of getting a large number of SSK, that is very good, nor am I saying that PN's AShM buildup in both Surface/Submarine, Land Based and Aerial Systems is not good. I am saying that without sufficient air cover provided either by long range fighters (which PAF doesnt have) or a reasonable air defense system with range (which no service in Pakistan has), your fleet will be picked apart in the first few days of full on war. Your point of detecting a Mig at distance is even more poignant when you couple it with the fact that when your vessel finally does detect those missiles (and it will), there will be little you can do about it because you dont have the requisite systems to do so. Your ability to defend an F-22P against a hypersonic missile is limited to 6 or 7 km and you have 8 missiles to do it with. When Hq-16 has a 60% single shot kill probability against sea skimming missiles, what hope does your Hq-7a/FM-90 have against multiple missiles? at least at range with more weapons at your disposal with something like Istanbul class, you have a shot. An Istanbul class frigate with a potential of 64 medium range SAMs and 8-24 PD-SAMs and a ciws has a better to take out those missiles using multiple weapons between the 50km at which it detects the missile and the point where the weapon hits the ship when compared to just 8 short range FM90 on F22p or the 8-24 PD-sams (FL-3000N) with their 6km (vs missiles) range o the Ada class.

Without sufficient air cover, you surface fleet will be erradicated, your submarine fleet will then be hunted relatively undeterred by IN's air assets, and frankly 1 sqd of JF-17s isnt going to change the calculus all that much. Those fighters as such dont have the requisite range to provide sufficient air cover against IN Migs (they can attack surface targets to be sure, but fight off the Migs in deep ocean is unlikely). If you expect help from the rest of the PAF, they will have their hands sufficiently tied up with IAF that they will be able to provide minimum aerial support beyond the afformentioned squadron. You need to have a way to push defend against IN's air and missile assets and you have almost none. You may take some of their assets with you but your fleet will be severely crippled at the end of the conflict.

You can mock me and say rude things like "That guy" all you like, If you disagree, and clearly you are very knowledgeable, then explain what I am missing. You dont even have to get technical as you think that I wont get it, but tell me what strategy of sea/area denial will survive very long without the ability to defend you assets?

 

[Super Falcon]

DID WE ORDERED THE SHIP

 

[TOPGUN]

DID WE ORDERED THE SHIP

No solid news yet on anything !!

 

[cabatli_53]

According to some reports, Turkey will sign two Milgem deal with X countries in IDEF-2017 in May.

 

[Penguin]

You can mock me and say rude things like "That guy" all you like, If you disagree, and clearly you are very knowledgeable, then explain what I am missing. You dont even have to get technical as you think that I wont get it, but tell me what strategy of sea/area denial will survive very long without the ability to defend you assets?

This does assume that the only reason to get a ship is to face IN in combat. I think that is a rather limited view of why PN needs ships and what kind of ships it needs.

There currently are 1 Perry, 4 F22P and 5 remaining Type 21 (not all of which have a SAM or a CIWS). Those 5 are all way old and need replacement,.... by any kind of vessel .... If only to keep sufficient peacetime patrol capability. The 'almost 40' Perry won't last forever either. Getting 5 or 6 ships of the type you propose may be prohibitively expensive for PN and while self defence capability would be better than F22P, they will likely not turn the tables when it comes to the big picture. So, you may wonder whether that's such a good investment.

 

[Hell hound]

they will likely not turn the tables when it comes to the big picture.

so what do we need to turn the table ?

 

[ghazi768]

To answer what I am assuming to be your question, how is it useful to have medium range defensive systems on relatively smaller platforms when radars (especially at ranges of 250-300km) cant see relatively low flying aircraft due tot he curvature of the earth which is why at 250km an aircraft must be at 14,000m (14km) to be detected, i know that already. The answer is not to say that they will shoot down the weapons or platforms at the point of launch but will detect the weapon as is approaches the defending vessel. The ability to detect a "stealth sea skimming missile" for something like Smart S MK2 is 50km which enables you to employ you missiles at some further range out IF YOU HAVE THEM, which you dont. When you have multiple medium range missiles backed by other systems you have a better chance of survival.

I have already pointed out the flaw if you do not have air support with ship or the battle group it is part of.

The point I am making is that having vessels which are only able to attack and not reasonably defend themselves against missile attacks is a terrible concept for a navy that values resources. One only needs to look at the British experience in the Falklands to see what relying on minimal to no air defense gets. A vessels like F-22P and Ada have little to very little chance of surviving a naval conflicts. When I say it is a dereliction of duty, it is because you are spending hundreds of millions on a vessel which has minimal ability to survive conflict. It is flushing that money. I am advocating getting vessels which have some ability to survive conflicts. As far as missile defenses only being useful in CBGs, please enlighten us how all the other navies of the world are dunces and stupid as only a handful of countries even operate carriers but most are moving towards defensive missile systems of medium range on their larger surface ships.

European countries accept French work as part of an integrated force under the banner of NATO. All their numbers and platforms are fine tuned to operated with US forces.

You mentioned Falklands, there were two biggest lessons of that war.

First which Argentinians learned. In start having knowledge of approaching British fleet and invading flotilla of ships, they tried to cut it off by using a pincer movement with one battle group with their air craft carrier moving above the islands and their best armoured and capable cruiser heading other battle group below the islands. They knew two British nuclear subs were in the area but must have confidence in their active/passive sonar sensors. That confidence got shattered by just one torpedo, most probably fired with in 10 nm range, which is within active sonar sensor ranges. That was enough to clear out their admiralty's heads and they turned tale with their carrier and watched the remaining war from comfortable waters in the port. But ended up losing their best ship in matters minutes or hour and hundreds of men as well.

Second which both Argentinians and British learned: The importance of AshMs and trouble in detecting low flying aircrafts. During the day on landing, Argentinian fighters were consistently able to fly low in and bomb ships trying to offload troops, situation was so terrible that defending destroyers basically retreated out of the bay in clear waters to have a better chance to defend themselves, leaving the landing flotilla on its own. But unfortunately for Argentinians, neither their fighters had AShMs nor the capability of night time operations, their dumb bombs kept missing ship. Had they AshMs and the ability to operate at night, British fleet would have got lynched that day near falkland islands even with two air craft carriers.

I remembered a couple of other interesting tidbits about that war as well..just sharing them here for discussion:
- Sheffield, on of the Type-42 I think sunk in that war, had the longest range radar in the fleet instrumented to pick up aircraft size targets at hundreds of kms. When it was sunk it was basically deployed for forward air defence and area denial on a rotating basis with another Type-42. It also had MRSAM (in those time considered long range SAM) with range more than 70 kms. Interestingly, it did not pick up the coming two fighters, it actually did not pick up the coming sea-skimming Exocet until it got hit. The sailors on ship picked up the coming missile actually from seeing its smoke trail. There is some thing called 'clutter' as well..

- Another thing, no other ship in British fleet picked up the fighters or the missiles, but one ship had already issued missile warning because it had picked up Etandard radar's signature. There were some rumours before start of war that french had handed over to British radar signatures for fighters and missiles it had exported to Argentina.

- And most interestingly, Sheffield had one of longest range SAMs of its times but lacked a PDMS or CIWS. These small mundane systems, by the way, have longest reaction times available and are salvo-able, and they can see, start calculating from whenever ship picks up the target.. not from 10-15 km off.

As for PN's strategy, I am not discounting the importance of getting a large number of SSK, that is very good, nor am I saying that PN's AShM buildup in both Surface/Submarine, Land Based and Aerial Systems is not good. I am saying that without sufficient air cover provided either by long range fighters (which PAF doesnt have) or a reasonable air defense system with range (which no service in Pakistan has), your fleet will be picked apart in the first few days of full on war. Your point of detecting a Mig at distance is even more poignant when you couple it with the fact that when your vessel finally does detect those missiles (and it will), there will be little you can do about it because you dont have the requisite systems to do so. Your ability to defend an F-22P against a hypersonic missile is limited to 6 or 7 km and you have 8 missiles to do it with. When Hq-16 has a 60% single shot kill probability against sea skimming missiles, what hope does your Hq-7a/FM-90 have against multiple missiles? at least at range with more weapons at your disposal with something like Istanbul class, you have a shot. An Istanbul class frigate with a potential of 64 medium range SAMs and 8-24 PD-SAMs and a ciws has a better to take out those missiles using multiple weapons between the 50km at which it detects the missile and the point where the weapon hits the ship when compared to just 8 short range FM90 on F22p or the 8-24 PD-sams (FL-3000N) with their 6km (vs missiles) range o the Ada class.

Now this is what I call backward logic, even some senior members on this forum are accustomed to it, heavy..twin engined..looong range..blah blah

You are taking two weapons systems and than comparing them together and than concluding that one is better than other, start working back to tactics and strategy. Rather than first work out enemy strategy, tactics he has available, than your choices of strategy and amount of risk involved in each and than work out what you have or what you need etc.

You are still arguing for one or other type of air defence system when I have pointed out a glaring problem with it, you cannot take it out in deep sea without air support.

Without sufficient air cover, you surface fleet will be erradicated, your submarine fleet will then be hunted relatively undeterred by IN's air assets, and frankly 1 sqd of JF-17s isnt going to change the calculus all that much. Those fighters as such dont have the requisite range to provide sufficient air cover against IN Migs (they can attack surface targets to be sure, but fight off the Migs in deep ocean is unlikely). If you expect help from the rest of the PAF, they will have their hands sufficiently tied up with IAF that they will be able to provide minimum aerial support beyond the afformentioned squadron. You need to have a way to push defend against IN's air and missile assets and you have almost none. You may take some of their assets with you but your fleet will be severely crippled at the end of the conflict.

What we are building is what is in south asian parlance a 'brown water' navy i.e. littoral combat fleet, how your fleet will be eradicated when it will be operating under the umbrella of your airforce? unless you are planning to send the fleet on its last journey in deep blue sea.
They will be basically operating around two static carriers just like Chinese are building a few in South East Asian sea because of their limited ability to produce/induct/operate more air craft carriers and supporting ships like guided missile destroyers. In-fact it is playing out well for them, a guided missile destroyer for AD duty can at best take a couple of hits and is tough to hide once found. Their LRSAMS on land can shoot and scoot and can be deployed to survive more than one hit. And an in-base deployed air support which do not have to worry about reduced payloads because of operating from STOBAR carrier, and an un-sinkable carrier off-course.

Why will there by just one squadron in air, let Indian Naval fleet come with its vaunted Mig-29Ks and find out how many they will be against, and how many sorties they can afford to get up in air and how many sorties we can keep throwing at them consistently.

You can mock me and say rude things like "That guy" all you like, If you disagree, and clearly you are very knowledgeable, then explain what I am missing. You dont even have to get technical as you think that I wont get it, but tell me what strategy of sea/area denial will survive very long without the ability to defend you assets?

I am amazed that your are perturbed by being called 'That guy' but have the audacity of calling our forces 'treasonous' just because they some how do not measure up to your great analytical capabilities about defence matters.

 

[TOPGUN]

According to some reports, Turkey will sign two Milgem deal with X countries in IDEF-2017 in May.

Brother 2 milgem deals ? 2 different deals or for 2 ships only ?

 

[Tank131]

@ghazi768 the world learned of the trouble in detecti g low flying objects and the threat of AShM in Falklands, but as it relates to HMS Sheffield, the incident was a swiss cheese effect of error where every possible issue that could go wrong did. They were at secondary readiness with regard to the threat from Exocets and had 2 previous warning and disregarded them as overrated. They regarded the threat from AN type 209s far more seriously. Infact the two super etendards that sunk her were picked up at 74km out by HMS Glasgow (which was on high readiness) and was relayed over UHF and HF radio using a secure codeword to all ships in the task force and Sheffield's commanders regarded the warning as a false alert. Due to the secondary readiness they failed to detect the Super Etendards which Glasgow picked up and as a result failed to go to battle stations. Neither her AA Guns not her sea darts were activated and readied.

She did however pick up the missiles on her type 965 radar however no weapons were activated and she had little in the way of ECM systems to defend herself. When there was visual confirmation of missiles it was too late and within 5 seconds she was hit and started sinking. Had she been on operational alert amd with todays systems with long ranfe radar amd improved ability to detect missiles and fire weapons in rapid succession in 360 degree coverage, she may have had a better chance.

"The Royal Navy Court of Inquiry suggested the critical factors leading to loss of Sheffield were:

1. Failure to respond to HMS Glasgow's detection and communication of two approaching Super Etendards by immediately going to action stations and launching chaff decoys
2. Lack of ECM jamming capability;
3. Lack of a point defense system
4. Inadequate operator training, in particular simulated realistic low-level target acquisition.

Slow response of the available 909 Sea Dart tracking radar and its operator limited the possible response. "

Report of HMS Nelson Board of Inquiry into the loss of HMS Sheffield, 1982. Released CIC Fleet Northwood Sept 82

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sheffield_(D80)

To me this indicates more of a lack of preparation than failure of concept missile defense systems.

Also i think you may misunderstand me. I am not advocating one air defense over another. I saying both fighter and missile based defense is critical for a fleet like PN. I am advocating that you will have to spend the money for multipurpose ships which can assist better in their own defense even if that means less number of total warships because the ones that you have will be effective especially if employed effectively.

I accept the premise that you are build towards a brown water navy, but that will still entail need to defend your assets as best as possible. One Istanbul class frigate in time of war would carry more firepower and defensive power than 2 Ada class corvettes. It will be better positioned to assist in air defense and fleet protection than Ada class. Relying solely on PAF for air cover is not feasible when even they will be out gunned during a war. Both services will need to complement each other. As such you must have some modicum of air defense or it will simply be too much pressure on PAF. If your goal is a brown water navy, you can make up the numbers with large FAC/light corvettes like Azmat class or FAC-55 which carry the same number of AShM and can be fit with similar air defense as Ada (8-24 cell FL-3000N) and could use CIWS as main guns to give an additional layer of defense. These are more cost effective for peacetime patrol and securing sea and communications lanes.

As far as my audacity to call it treasonous to go with Ada, i accept that perhaps its too strong a word, but read the full premise, it smells like a repeat of the Agosta 90b saga of kickbacks. I could be wrong and hope i am, but there has been numerous precedence where Pakistan is to buy a system (even one that is actually good) but its used to line pockets. If i offended you i apologize. But to me, spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a watered down system is problematic and questionable at best, when a better solution is sitting next to it and fits the holes in your capabilities fairly well.

 

[cabatli_53]

Brother 2 milgem deals ? 2 different deals or for 2 ships only ?

Two deal for Milgem bro. Quantity of ships or the name of related countries are not given.

 

[Tank131]

@Penguin i get that the Istanbul or similar vessel will be more expensive and as such you may not be able to replace type 21 ship for ship with respect to large surface combatants, but you can supplement the fleet with more large FAC/Light Corvettes in Azmat's mold. Modify them with a PDMS like FL-3000N they will provide you with the same peacetime capabilities (albeit with less range) as a larger far more expensive Ada. Of course they wont be able to hunt subs in times of war, but 4 Istanbul class frigates or similar Chinese vessel, 4 F-22p, 1 OHP, and numerous ASW aircraft and helis and 11 SSK will be a reasonable start if you are talking about a brown water fleet.

 

[Penguin]

so what do we need to turn the table ?

A more equal sized fleet (which is not going to happen).
A (mutual) realization that perhaps there are other possibilities than adversarial relations (picture the amount of resources that would free up for other purposes ....)

@Penguin i get that the Istanbul or similar vessel will be more expensive and as such you may not be able to replace type 21 ship for ship with respect to large surface combatants, but you can supplement the fleet with more large FAC/Light Corvettes in Azmat's mold. Modify them with a PDMS like FL-3000N they will provide you with the same peacetime capabilities (albeit with less range) as a larger far more expensive Ada. Of course they wont be able to hunt subs in times of war, but 4 Istanbul class frigates or similar Chinese vessel, 4 F-22p, 1 OHP, and numerous ASW aircraft and helis and 11 SSK will be a reasonable start if you are talking about a brown water fleet.

And your 'enhance Azmat' (Range: approximately 1,000 nmi) would be able to effectively patrol and control Pakistan's EEZ and - more importantly - its ECS? As compared to e.g. Ada class (range: 3,500 nmi)

Taking into account that while PAK EEZ is out of the piracy 'High Risk Area', the ECS is not.

Coinsidering that IN will likely most easily dominate traffic flows along the Indian West-coast, traffic flows important to maintaining Pakistan's SLOCs are along the Jemeni coastline towards Red Sea and beyond along the East-Aftrican coast. As well as those in and out of Persian Gulf. It dosn't suffice to rely on relatively short-legged ships for this.

 

[Basel]

A more equal sized fleet (which is not going to happen).
A (mutual) realization that perhaps there are other possibilities than adversarial relations (picture the amount of resources that would free up for other purposes ....)


And your 'enhance Azmat' (Range: approximately 1,000 nmi) would be able to effectively patrol and control Pakistan's EEZ and - more importantly - its ECS? As compared to e.g. Ada class (range: 3,500 nmi)

Taking into account that while PAK EEZ is out of the piracy 'High Risk Area', the ECS is not.

Coinsidering that IN will likely most easily dominate traffic flows along the Indian West-coast, traffic flows important to maintaining Pakistan's SLOCs are along the Jemeni coastline towards Red Sea and beyond along the East-Aftrican coast. As well as those in and out of Persian Gulf. It dosn't suffice to rely on relatively short-legged ships for this.

It would be better for Pakistan to get (purchase or lease) at least 4 Type-54As & 2 Type-52C/D with current buildup to get some decent capabilities against IN.

@Penguin What you think will it be good to face IN?