The PN should be fine with the LF-2400 - 2,350 tons, 2x4 AShM, 2x3 ASW, 16-cell VLS, RAM, 76 mm main gun, etc.
The PN will likely stick to lighter surface ships - i.e under 3,000 tons. They're cheaper to procure and build numbers. But for long-range AAW, the key is to secure SAMs that can cross 75 km without compromising heavily on size. You can fit such SAMs to light frigates and corvettes (see Israeli Barak-8).
Indeed. But for the Pakistan Navy, it would be a very weird decision to select the Ada over the LF-2400. The LF-2400 fits the PN's needs in every area, e.g. CODAD, VLS, standard-fare AShW and ASW, etc. I also don't think the LF-2400 would be all that different in cost compared to the Ada. Even the addition of VLS and SAMs doesn't have to be expensive, e.g. Algeria paid South Africa $60 m to integrate the Umkhonto to two MEKO A-200s.
There is also the 30-35 km range Umkhonto EIR.
CAMM would be the ideal. 25+ km range and quad-packing. However, Pakistan is cost-sensitive, so it'll push for a solution that has the best balance of cost and performance. In that sense, I think the Umkhonto could be a leading option, especially if it costs $20-30 million to fit one ship. As for DK-10, besides mock-ups, we haven't heard much of it in terms of testing or being put to use.
Umkhonto will be politically relatively safe options after DK-10. Can it quad packed like CAMM?
No it can't be quad-packed, but I was told that research was done in SA for using strakes instead of fins, which would enable quad-packing. Denel Group is among a few entities in the world with the underlying R&D, testing facilities, and competency (in dual-pulse rocket motors, nose cones, etc) to develop good and modern SAMs.
Comparing Umkhonto and VT-1 (both Crotal descendants), would suggest that making the Umkhonto's mid-body fins fold can make the missile quad-pakable. But perhaps replacing them with strakes has additional advantages or is technically easier option. VT-1 is quadpacked into Sylver A-35.
