What's new

Pakistan Naval Aviation - Updated

If we can get those old sea kings replaced that would be great. However i would love to see a common platform for all the ships. It was said that we chose Sea King for the new fleet tanker. I guess we should stick to one option, maximum tow!! Buying all sorts of helicopters and buying them all in single digit quantities do not makes much sense to me at least.
The Caracal is essentially just a modified Super Puma, which the Army may be interested in (if the MoDP's statements about the revived Romanian line is of any indication). Airbus Helicopters managed to bring the Super Puma's unit price to the same ballpark of the Mi-171. The Caracal is much more expensive though, but the Navy wouldn't need many.
 
.
The Caracal is essentially just a modified Super Puma, which the Army may be interested in (if the MoDP's statements about the revived Romanian line is of any indication). Airbus Helicopters managed to bring the Super Puma's unit price to the same ballpark of the Mi-171. The Caracal is much more expensive though, but the Navy wouldn't need many.
Yeah i know about the Puma connection and frankly it will make sense if army do go for Super Puma to compliment Mi17 and navy goes for these more expensive Caracals' since these are required in lower number. We can then replace the sea kings etc. AW129 are also being bought but that is in limited numbers as well, i would have liked if those Puma was considered for that as well if we have decided to go for it eventually. However, still i am not so sure why would we want to replace Mi17 with Puma specially considering the fact that Mi17 is what we have in big numbers, we have the training and equipment to fly and maintain them and CHINA have a production for these now. I guess Mi17 are the best option for us in this category.

lets see what happens.
 
.
Pakistan navy rolls out new ATR 72 and ScanEagle



02 SEPTEMBER, 2016 BY: BETH STEVENSON LONDON

The Pakistan navy has inducted two new capabilities into its air fleet, namely the ATR 72 twin-engined turboprop, which will be configured as a maritime patrol aircraft, and the Insitu ScanEagle unmanned air vehicle.

According to video and news reports from Pakistan, chief of naval staff Adm Muhammad Zakaullah introduced the aircraft at an event at Pakistan naval station Mehran in Karachi, saying they would contribute to the service’s “Aviation Vision 2030”.

In July, pictures emerged of an ATR 72 with Pakistan markings at Rheinland Air Service’s facilities in Germany, where it is understood that the aircraft will undergo modifications to take it to a maritime patrol configuration.

Flight Fleets Analyzer shows that the navy has three ATR 72s in its inventory that will receive the modifications. Aircraft 712 and 808 were at the roll-out at Mehran, with the former next to go in for conversion and the latter – having been delivered in April – likely to be modified last.

Aircraft 788, meanwhile, is already being configured, having entered the workshop in July, Flight Fleets Analyzer shows.

The three aircraft had previously been operated in a civilian role by airlines including Air Botswana, Binter Canariasand Islas Airways.

The ScanEagle, meanwhile, was acquired by Pakistan under an order with the US government placed via its Foreign Military Sales mechanism. Announced in September 2015, the order was made in parallel with others from Cameroon and Kenya, which are acquiring one ScanEagle system each.

Details of Pakistan’s $15.2 million order were announced at the time by the US Department of Defense, but the number of systems delivered was not disclosed. The DoD said hardware and technical data would be delivered to the Pakistani government under the programme by August 2016. It added that 90% of the programme work would be carried out in the USA, with the remaining 10% in Pakistan.
 
.
Yeah i know about the Puma connection and frankly it will make sense if army do go for Super Puma to compliment Mi17 and navy goes for these more expensive Caracals' since these are required in lower number. We can then replace the sea kings etc. AW129 are also being bought but that is in limited numbers as well, i would have liked if those Puma was considered for that as well if we have decided to go for it eventually. However, still i am not so sure why would we want to replace Mi17 with Puma specially considering the fact that Mi17 is what we have in big numbers, we have the training and equipment to fly and maintain them and CHINA have a production for these now. I guess Mi17 are the best option for us in this category.

lets see what happens.
We could operate both Mi-171 and Super Puma. We have the necessary infrastructure for both, it is just a question of scaling as much as possible. Somewhat redundant, yes, but one could also start distributing the industry element - an MRO line for Baluchistan and an MRO line for KP. Standardize the civil and government requirement on the AW139, bring in the MRO for it (in Sindh). The PAF doesn't need many helicopters, just a few for S&R and SOC ops in high threat areas, the Caracal should suffice. If we select the T-129 with MRO and some offsets, we'd have the groundwork for a helicopter industry.
 
.
We could operate both Mi-171 and Super Puma. We have the necessary infrastructure for both, it is just a question of scaling as much as possible. Somewhat redundant, yes, but one could also start distributing the industry element - an MRO line for Baluchistan and an MRO line for KP. Standardize the civil and government requirement on the AW139, bring in the MRO for it (in Sindh). The PAF doesn't need many helicopters, just a few for S&R and SOC ops in high threat areas, the Caracal should suffice. If we select the T-129 with MRO and some offsets, we'd have the groundwork for a helicopter industry.
Well Puma and Mi17 both in operation (though they offer the same capabilities so we can do with one of them as well) is fine but getting some three four other planes as well is when it starts getting problematic. Specially when we are buying four AW129 here, 5 Sea Kings there! Stuff like that. We must look to standardize AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. Especially when the different platforms are not offering much over the other ones.
I am not sure what was the reason for going for AW129 frankly speaking. They are super expensive and we could have done the same with the choppers we operate in numbers. Luxury?
 
.
Well Puma and Mi17 both in operation (though they offer the same capabilities so we can do with one of them as well) is fine but getting some three four other planes as well is when it starts getting problematic. Specially when we are buying four AW129 here, 5 Sea Kings there! Stuff like that. We must look to standardize AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. Especially when the different platforms are not offering much over the other ones.
I am not sure what was the reason for going for AW129 frankly speaking. They are super expensive and we could have done the same with the choppers we operate in numbers. Luxury?
The AW139 has quite a bit of scale on the global market, it might not be that expensive (to buy or operate). It seems like a decent enough civil utility helicopter, we can just hope the entire civil apparatus standardizes on it as much as possible. It would be horrible if Lahore starts an air ambulance service, but with T-70 Black Hawks from Turkey...
 
.
The AW139 has quite a bit of scale on the global market, it might not be that expensive (to buy or operate). It seems like a decent enough civil utility helicopter, we can just hope the entire civil apparatus standardizes on it as much as possible. It would be horrible if Lahore starts an air ambulance service, but with T-70 Black Hawks from Turkey...
True and ok now, i do feel that we can fit in AW129 as well somewhere in there if we can find wide spread civilian usage for this. Try and standardize it for the gov. use, emergency evac and medical and things like that. That will mean we will be operating a sort of decent number and thus will be able to support limited numbers in military as well. For military use we must try and standardize on one or MAX 2 platforms for transport and utility (med lift) and same for light utility and transport. Attack helo fleet may come in 2 or 3 types. Just try and get a decent number in service so it do not ends up as a logistics nightmare!
 
.
True and ok now, i do feel that we can fit in AW129 as well somewhere in there if we can find wide spread civilian usage for this. Try and standardize it for the gov. use, emergency evac and medical and things like that. That will mean we will be operating a sort of decent number and thus will be able to support limited numbers in military as well. For military use we must try and standardize on one or MAX 2 platforms for transport and utility (med lift) and same for light utility and transport. Attack helo fleet may come in 2 or 3 types. Just try and get a decent number in service so it do not ends up as a logistics nightmare!
There are a couple of other considerations. The Navy's top-end utility need (i.e. to replace the Sea King) is going to hover in the 6-8 unit range and max out at 12. Unless there's a sudden influx of a lot of surface ships, they wouldn't need many, perhaps fewer than the six Sea Kings (if more efficient turnaround times and heavier payloads are attained - e.g. AW101 or Caracal). In that case, as nice as standardization would be, the marginal benefit of roping in the Navy isn't going to be that great. In fact, it may end up being detrimental in that for the sake of standardization, we may prevent the Navy from acquiring the best possible platform for its needs. Inversely, the Navy's pursuit of the ideal naval platform might burden the PA with an overly expensive platform. This wouldn't be the case with the Caracal, it is - thankfully - a Super Puma at heart. But what if the Caracal isn't that great in replacing the Sea King? Perhaps the AW101 is the better fit?

These "micro needs" (e.g. 8-12 units) are tricky to deal with when trying to push for standardization between each of the service arms. I think one method would be to break the needs apart in terms of tier. For example, "Tier A" would involve helicopters that are high-quality, packed with ECM/EW and weapons capable. These Tier A units would be used by the Navy as well as Army and Air Force SOF units. The three need to agree upon the same Tier A platform.

For Tier B - i.e. the beater - then we basically build upon the platforms we already own. The Hip and Puma have newer iterations utilizing many of the same components (e.g. engine, transmission, etc), we should just switch up to newer versions such as Mi-171 and Super Puma. Who knows, maybe the Ministry of Interior, Navy Marines, etc, can buy a bunch of the beaters too.

For Tier C - i.e. the civil helicopter - we just stick to what we already have, i.e. the AW139, and we mainstream it across the civil service.

For Tier X - i.e. the attack helicopter - the Army needs to be rational and select the one platform that works best in all main combat environments.
 
.
True again, in fact, i think the same for Civilian use and that is why i mentioned that we may standardize AW139 and that can support a few special requirement units of military as well. Same goes for naval ones as well where the requirement will be low. We are already operating Z9C as well. We wont be needing double figure numbers for Sea King or a Caracal or whatever we end up choosing so i think that we should decide carefully and buy any one kind for Navy since they number will be around 8 - 10. Caracal offers a major advantage over Z9C in terms of range and we can even chose to operate a few from land.Sea King can also be the choice.

The requirement for air force is again of limited numbers so it will be best if that can be paired with someone, like the AW139 for civilian use!! They also wont have special mission requirements, NAVY HAVE!

The main thing about standardizing it will come from army. They are the ones who need the biggest fleet and a couple of different chopper can fit in. May be Mi17 and Super Puma (as that will also support Navy's Caracal if that is what they decide to go for).
 
.
True again, in fact, i think the same for Civilian use and that is why i mentioned that we may standardize AW139 and that can support a few special requirement units of military as well. Same goes for naval ones as well where the requirement will be low. We are already operating Z9C as well. We wont be needing double figure numbers for Sea King or a Caracal or whatever we end up choosing so i think that we should decide carefully and buy any one kind for Navy since they number will be around 8 - 10. Caracal offers a major advantage over Z9C in terms of range and we can even chose to operate a few from land.Sea King can also be the choice.

The requirement for air force is again of limited numbers so it will be best if that can be paired with someone, like the AW139 for civilian use!! They also wont have special mission requirements, NAVY HAVE!

The main thing about standardizing it will come from army. They are the ones who need the biggest fleet and a couple of different chopper can fit in. May be Mi17 and Super Puma (as that will also support Navy's Caracal if that is what they decide to go for).

The issue has to do with various kickback operated influences that will work towards the decision. I do not doubt that the AW-139 is a fine choice as a standardized fit; yet the Puma series has been operated for long so the flight characteristics are well known as knowledge.

What should be done is to stick with the Mi-17 as the backbone for the Army, Puma's for high alt, 412 as the utility and the Squirrels for light observation.

The Navy needs something that can operate out of the F-22Ps and the Z-9 is the right fit.
 
.
The issue has to do with various kickback operated influences that will work towards the decision. I do not doubt that the AW-139 is a fine choice as a standardized fit; yet the Puma series has been operated for long so the flight characteristics are well known as knowledge.

What should be done is to stick with the Mi-17 as the backbone for the Army, Puma's for high alt, 412 as the utility and the Squirrels for light observation.

The Navy needs something that can operate out of the F-22Ps and the Z-9 is the right fit.
Squirrels or Ecureuils ?:lol::lol::lol:
 
. .
True again, in fact, i think the same for Civilian use and that is why i mentioned that we may standardize AW139 and that can support a few special requirement units of military as well. Same goes for naval ones as well where the requirement will be low. We are already operating Z9C as well. We wont be needing double figure numbers for Sea King or a Caracal or whatever we end up choosing so i think that we should decide carefully and buy any one kind for Navy since they number will be around 8 - 10. Caracal offers a major advantage over Z9C in terms of range and we can even chose to operate a few from land.Sea King can also be the choice.

The requirement for air force is again of limited numbers so it will be best if that can be paired with someone, like the AW139 for civilian use!! They also wont have special mission requirements, NAVY HAVE!

The main thing about standardizing it will come from army. They are the ones who need the biggest fleet and a couple of different chopper can fit in. May be Mi17 and Super Puma (as that will also support Navy's Caracal if that is what they decide to go for).
Agreed. Also, 770 AW139s have been built, and that too for around two to three dozen unique users around the world. Leonardo has an unenviable track record no doubt, but GOP could have done much, much worse by picking up the Lynx or something. I just hope some random service out in nowhere'abad doesn't go and pick up S-70s for policing!

Airbus is nearing a major Caracal contract with Poland, which will see the helicopter in full-scale production over the next few years. There are offsets involved and Poland is hoping to export Caracals as well. A deal here would have the backing of Airbus Helicopters as well as Poland (and Romania in the case of the Super Puma). The AW101 would be Italian, and given that they're blacklisted from India over the next couple of years, there should be no interference issues from Delhi. Also, Algeria is looking to get into the AW101 supply chain business in some shape or form, so - while not much - there's still that multi-party backing we could draw on.
 
Last edited:
.
The issue has to do with various kickback operated influences that will work towards the decision. I do not doubt that the AW-139 is a fine choice as a standardized fit; yet the Puma series has been operated for long so the flight characteristics are well known as knowledge.

What should be done is to stick with the Mi-17 as the backbone for the Army, Puma's for high alt, 412 as the utility and the Squirrels for light observation.

The Navy needs something that can operate out of the F-22Ps and the Z-9 is the right fit.

So thats what I think since years and weeks after reading that we are now buying also a italien type helicopter. Pakistan Forces have now to maintain more than 15 Types of Helicopters, a maintenance nightmare ! Only idiots will support this new Helicopter deal with italia !
 
Last edited:
.
So thast what I think since years and weeks after reading that we are no buying also a italien type helicopter. Pakistan Forces have now to maintain more than 15 Types of Helicopters, that is a nightmare ! Only idiots will support this this new Helicopter deal with italia !

Italy is a strong source for western equipment, don't knock it.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom