@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:
- 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
- Lack of ECM jamming capability;
- Lack of a point defense system
- 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.
lets hope we get more open to the idea in the future
