Pakistan in the frame for Type 42 destroyers

[hj786]

Pakistan in the frame for Type 42 destroyers

Pakistan in the frame for Type 42 destroyers

By Richard Scott

27 May 2009

The UK and Pakistan are discussing a deal under which the Pakistan Navy (PN) could acquire up to three Type 42 Batch 3 destroyers following their retirement from the Royal Navy (RN), Jane's has learned.

Meanwhile, Pakistan is conducting a separate dialogue with the United States regarding the availability of additional FFG 7 frigates, as the PN looks to recapitalise a large part of its surface combatant force through second-hand acquisitions.

The PN frigate force currently comprises six ex-RN Type 21s constituting the 25th Destroyer Squadron. Transferred between 1993 and 1994, these ships – now known as the Tariq class – have undergone significant modernisation since transfer, but all are now over 30 years old and becoming increasingly difficult to support.

Pakistan also has four F22P frigates on order from China with the first, Zulfiquar, due to be accepted into service later this year.

145 of 409 words
Copyright © IHS (Global) Limited, 2009

According to wiki:

Sensors and processing systems:
Radar Type 1022/965P air surveillance,
Radar Type 996/992Q 3-D surveillance,
2 x Radar Type 909 GWS-30 fire-control,
Radar Type 1007 navigation,
Sonar Type 2050 / 2016 search,
Sonar Type 162 bottom profiling,

Armament:
Twin launcher for GWS-30 Sea Dart missiles,
4.5 inch (114 mm) Mark 8 naval gun,
2 x 3-tube STWS-1 launchers for 324 mm (12.75") A/S torpedoes (only on Argentine ships),
2 x 20 mm Phalanx CIWS (not on Argentine ships),
2 x Oerlikon / BMARC 20 mm L/70 KBA guns in GAM-B01 single mounts,
4 x MM38 Exocet anti-ship missile launchers (only on Argentine ships)

Assuming PN gets these and keeps them fitted for air defence, would they replace the Sea Dart/Sea Wolf systems and what with? If they could get them fitted with an export version of PAAMS from the Type 45, that would be awesome but expensive. Then again they are saving money by not buying new ships.

Penguin, Mark, if you have time can you please give some input here?
Considering when these were designed, they won't have any attention paid to radar signature reduction, right?
Are they worth buying/maintaining/upgrading and are the current systems potent enough, or would they have to be re-fitted them with newer systems?
If 1-3 of these were purchased, how would if affect numbers of MEKO frigates, co-developed Milgem corvettes, OHP frigates, etc? I'm guessing more F-22P and that interesting F-16U would be out, OHP are anti-sub so I guess no affect on those.

 

[Hyde]

some more details about this destroyer from Wiki:

Class and type: Guided Missile Destroyer
Type: 42
Displacement: Batch 1 & 2: 4,350 tons full load
Batch 3: 5,350 tons
Length: Batch 1 & 2: 125 m (413 feet)
Batch 3: 141.1 m (466 feet)
Beam: Batch 1 & 2: 14 m (46 feet)
Batch 3: 14.9 (49 feet)
Draught: 5.8 m (19 feet)
Decks: 8
Installed power: 50,000 shp
Propulsion: 2 shafts COGOG;
2 x Rolls-Royce Olympus TM3B high-speed gas turbines, (50,000 shp (37.5 MW))


2 x Rolls-Royce Tyne RM1A cruise gas turbines, (8,000 shp (6 MW))
Speed: 30 knots (Olympus)
18 knots (Tyne)
Boats and landing
craft carried: 2
Complement: 274 (Batch 1 and 2) 314 (Batch 3)
Sensors and
processing systems: Radar Type 1022/965P air surveillance,
Radar Type 996/992Q 3-D surveillance,
2 x Radar Type 909 GWS-30 fire-control,
Radar Type 1007 navigation,
Sonar Type 2050 / 2016 search,


Sonar Type 162 bottom profiling,

Armament: Twin launcher for GWS-30 Sea Dart missiles,
4.5 inch (114 mm) Mark 8 naval gun,
2 x 3-tube STWS-1 launchers for 324 mm (12.75") A/S torpedoes (only on Argentine ships),
2 x 20 mm Phalanx CIWS (not on Argentine ships),
2 x Oerlikon / BMARC 20 mm L/70 KBA guns in GAM-B01 single mounts,


4 x MM38 Exocet anti-ship missile launchers (only on Argentine ships)
Aircraft carried: 1 x Westland Lynx HAS / HMA
Aviation facilities: Flightdeck and hangar

Full details: Type 42 destroyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Arsalan]

oh nooooo not agian!

we MUST NOT buy any such ships that will only be serving us for 10 to 12 years and after that we have to retire them! why spend money on such short term benifit, rather utilize it on new system and even in smaller numbers!
we do not have such a large coast line so that we have to get high numbers, what we need with navy is quality not quantity, a small coast line will be more efficiently defended with state pf the art boats even in small numbers!!

regards!

 

[Hyde]

i notice many users always saying we have a very small coastline and do not need large naval forces but please bear in mind that the Pakistan's sea is larger than Israel's land jnd see how strong they r, many rich countries including dubai do not posses more land then ouq coastline, we all know we r the neighbours of one of the biggest economy and populated country and in order to defend ourself we not just need to further strong our Air Force and army but also navy

 

[Arsalan]

i notice many users always saying we have a very small coastline and do not need large naval forces but please bear in mind that the Pakistan's sea is larger than Israel's land jnd see how strong they r, many rich countries including dubai do not posses more land then ouq coastline, we all know we r the neighbours of one of the biggest economy and populated country and in order to defend ourself we not just need to further strong our Air Force and army but also navy

well i do agree with you but we also have to keep in mind our financial limitation. israel is a US/europe pampred kid and other countries you mention are all floating on oil!!

the thing is that if we see the requirment on navy in relation to airforce and/or army the point becomes pretty clear! for pakistan army and air force are of more importance! we can never neglect the importance of navy but it is a case of limitaion of money!
i didnt said that we do not need a strong navy! my point was that our navy serves us best with quality rather than quantity!

what is the point in getting 10 old ships that will increase maintainance load at our dock, when the same sense of security can be acheived with 6 new modren vessels! here when we are considerig quantity, the small coastline comes in effect!

i hope i have made my point clear!


regards!

 

[Penguin]

"Assuming PN gets these and keeps them fitted for air defence, would they replace the Sea Dart/Sea Wolf systems and what with?"
No, not likely IMHO

"Considering when these were designed, they won't have any attention paid to radar signature reduction, right? "
No

"Are they worth buying/maintaining/upgrading and are the current systems potent enough, or would they have to be re-fitted them with newer systems? ""
Batch 3 ships are a good 3-5 years newer than McInerney FFG-8

 

[Tomahawk]

Royal Navy's Four Batch 3 Ships (D95, D96, D97 and D98) commissioned from 1982 through 1985.

HMS Manchester D95
HMS Gloucester D96
HMS Edinburgh D97
HMS York D98

 

[hj786]

"Assuming PN gets these and keeps them fitted for air defence, would they replace the Sea Dart/Sea Wolf systems and what with?"
No, not likely IMHO

"Considering when these were designed, they won't have any attention paid to radar signature reduction, right? "
No

"Are they worth buying/maintaining/upgrading and are the current systems potent enough, or would they have to be re-fitted them with newer systems? ""
Batch 3 ships are a good 3-5 years newer than McInerney FFG-8

Thanks for replying Penguin. Do you reckon these would be a cost-effective buy for PN, or are there any new-build ship of the same role/size class that would be a better choice? Especially considering lack of radar signature reduction on these old ships. From your reply, seems to me the PN would be crazy to not sign up for all three Type 42.

The thing that concerns me is maintenance and fuel costs, those old gas turbines must be pretty greedy by today's standards. PN needs to reduce costs as much as possible.

 

[Penguin]

Thanks for replying Penguin. Do you reckon these would be a cost-effective buy for PN, or are there any new-build ship of the same role/size class that would be a better choice? Especially considering lack of radar signature reduction on these old ships. From your reply, seems to me the PN would be crazy to not sign up for all three Type 42.

Cost-effective in the short term, i.e. as interim solution. untill such time that PN gets adequate ships built in Pakistan and/or can import sufficient quantity and quality of ships from China. But it depends on what the emphasis of PN is: AAW or ASW. Type 42 is more oriented toward AAW (but not up to most intense threat scenario's anymore).

The thing that concerns me is maintenance and fuel costs, those old gas turbines must be pretty greedy by today's standards. PN needs to reduce costs as much as possible.

No problem there.

Type 42
Propulsion: 2 shafts, 2 RM1C cruise gas turbines, 10,680 shp, 18 knots;
2 TM3B boost gas turbines, 54,400 shp, 29.5 knots

Type 22
Propulsion: 2 shafts, 2 RM1C cruise gas turbines, 10,680 shp, 18 knots;
2 SM1A boost gas turbines, 37,540 shp, 30 knots

Type 23
Propulsion: 2 shafts, 4 cruise diesels, diesel-electric drive, 4,000 shp,
15 knots; 2 SM1C (F229-F236: SM1A) boost gas turbines, 52,300 shp, 28 knots

Kortenaer "S" / Heemskerck "L" classes
Propulsion: 2 shafts, 2 RM1C cruise gas turbines, 9,800 shp, 20 knots;
2 TM3B boost gas turbines, 51,600 shp, 30 knots

Doorman "M" class
Propulsion: 2 shafts, 2 cruise diesels, 8,540 bhp, 21 knots;
2 SM1C boost gas turbines, 48,972 shp, 29 knots (F 827: SM1A, 37,540 shp)

Zeven Provincien "LCF" class
Propulsion CODOG
Gas Turbines 2 x Rolls-Royce Spey SM1C (18.5MW each)
Diesel Engines 2 x Stork-Wartsila 16V6ST (10MW

 

[Arsalan]

Cost-effective in the short term, i.e. as interim solution. untill such time that PN gets adequate ships built in Pakistan and/or can import sufficient quantity and quality of ships from China. But it depends on what the emphasis of PN is: AAW or ASW. Type 42 is more oriented toward AAW (but not up to most intense threat scenario's anymore).

very true! they might serve us good for a short term but then we would be seeking there repalcement! i think beside getting old ships in such huge numbers it would be benificial to get them in smaller number, invest the rest of money and in new project and slowly replace them by new platforms! i would not suggest to spend every thing in your pocket on 10 to 12 old ships and then after 15 years sitting ideal with no new platform within buying range!

 

[Arsalan]

Cost-effective in the short term, i.e. as interim solution. untill such time that PN gets adequate ships built in Pakistan and/or can import sufficient quantity and quality of ships from China. But it depends on what the emphasis of PN is: AAW or ASW. Type 42 is more oriented toward AAW (but not up to most intense threat scenario's anymore).

very true! they might serve us good for a short term but then we would be seeking there repalcement! i think beside getting old ships in such huge numbers it would be benificial to get them in smaller number, invest the rest of money and in new project and slowly replace them by new platforms! i would not suggest to spend every thing in your pocket on 10 to 12 old ships and then after 15 years sitting ideal with no new platform within buying range!

what do you think!

 

[pak avatar]

I thk PN should get these and along with the U214 subs and F-22P frigates create a indian ocean fleet.The 6 Oliver Hazard frigates should replace the current PN frigates. Otherwise the indian navy will simply blockade us again in case of war, if PN stays near the coast. Its high time we make our presence felt in the indian ocean.

 

[niaz]

Naval vessels are extremely expensive toys and prone to be sunk by a single missile; therefore it stands to reason why navies that cannot afford to buy new, opt for second hand vessels. In addition to hull and weaponry, running costs are also important. Hence PN refused to accept US Cushing, a Spruance class destroyer because of high running and maintenance cost.

I see many posts claiming that we should not take this or that. No country has unlimited resources, Pakistan has more problems than most. Navy has therefore always been the last in the priority list. The question we should be asking is it better to buy second hand or wait until God knows when we have money to pay for the new ones which could be never?

A naval vessel is essentially a floating weapons platform. As long as vessel hull is in good condition and able to last 20 years of operational life, there is little harm in obtaining second hand vessels and arming the same with the state of the art weaponry and power plant. If the vessel can perform the tasks assigned to it to satisfaction, where is the problem?

The vessel will be as good as new only available earlier and at half the cost! Historically Pakistan Navy has used most of her surface fleet, even though purchased second hand for 20 years. Whether or not we should buy/induct second hand naval destroyers/frigates should depend upon a cost benefit analysis over a 20 year period.

 

[Patriot]

Naval vessels are extremely expensive toys and prone to be sunk by a single missile; therefore it stands to reason why navies that cannot afford to buy new, opt for second hand vessels. In addition to hull and weaponry, running costs are also important. Hence PN refused to accept US Cushing, a Spruance class destroyer because of high running and maintenance cost.

I see many posts claiming that we should not take this or that. No country has unlimited resources, Pakistan has more problems than most. Navy has therefore always been the last in the priority list. The question we should be asking is it better to by second hand or wait until God knows when we have money to pay for the new ones which could be never?

A naval vessel is essentially a floating weapons platform. As long as vessel hull is in good condition and able to last 20 years of operational life, there is little harm in obtaining second hand vessels and arming the same with the state of the art weaponry and power plant. If the vessel can perform the tasks assigned to it to satisfaction, where is the problem?

The vessel will be as good as new only available earlier and at half the cost! Historically Pakistan Navy has used most of her surface fleet, even though purchased second hand for 20 years. Whether or not we should buy/induct second hand naval destroyers/frigates should depend upon a cost benefit analysis over a 20 year period.

Yep, the amount of harpoons we have.We can virtually flush all the Indian Naval assets near karachi if they to block it during War.

 

[Penguin]

Naval vessels are extremely expensive toys and prone to be sunk by a single missile

I'm sorry but that just isn't true.

In addition to hull and weaponry, running costs are also important. Hence PN refused to accept US Cushing, a Spruance class destroyer because of high running and maintenance cost.

Of course, the Spruance class destroyer displaces 3-4 times that of the ex-UKType 21 frigates and F22P, and need twice the crew of the ex-UKType 21 frigates and F22P. But that need not apply in the case of Perry class or Type 42.

I see many posts claiming that we should not take this or that. No country has unlimited resources, Pakistan has more problems than most. Navy has therefore always been the last in the priority list. The question we should be asking is it better to buy second hand or wait until God knows when we have money to pay for the new ones which could be never?

It is not an either/or choice. The fact is that if you don't have a shipyard in Pakistan capable of building F22P today. If you insist on building new ships at home trhen it will take years before they enter service if you order them today. Even if ordereing new ships abroad, there will be a period of time to overcome before that are available. In the meantime, you need to maintain a viable fleet, and so you might acquire a used ship as a gap-filler. Next, there is the quality versus quantity issue: you'ld like the best available ship but its price and may prohibit the acquisition of a sufficient number of hulls to cover the future operations area. It makes sense to get a few top of the line ships new while at the same time getting a few lower quality (in this case older) ships to make up for the numbers.

A naval vessel is essentially a floating weapons platform. As long as vessel hull is in good condition and able to last 20 years of operational life, there is little harm in obtaining second hand vessels and arming the same with the state of the art weaponry and power plant. If the vessel can perform the tasks assigned to it to satisfaction, where is the problem?

Clearly there is a point were the hull just fall apart and so there is always a limit to any refitting. Whether a ship can still be usefull depends on the nature of the threat too: the brits are ridding themselves of the Type 42 because is no longer adequate for the threats the RN expects to face. Question is whether the threat PN faces is sufficiently less advanced than that which the RN faces in order to allow continued operation of the Type 42 in PN service.

The vessel will be as good as new only available earlier and at half the cost! Historically Pakistan Navy has used most of her surface fleet, even though purchased second hand for 20 years. Whether or not we should buy/induct second hand naval destroyers/frigates should depend upon a cost benefit analysis over a 20 year period.

Fully agree, plus a threat analysis!