Pakistan Naval Aviation - Updated

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

If Pakistan can:
1. Learn how to design and build ships
2. Build some key components like a SAM system and AShMs

Pakistan should not thereafter import more ships unless at bargain basement prices. Rather, Pakistan should develop:

1. A Jinnah Class in the 3000 ton range
2. A new corvette in the 1000-1500 ton range
3. An enlarged Azmat class in the 600 ton range
4. 500 ton range submarine

Support these with a powerfule LRMPA fleet and en even more powerful PN-AF with a fighter with decent numbers.

This setup takes care of virtually all threat scenarios.

Additionally, Pakistan should invest in an under-water detection system local to Pakistan's shores - small scale SOSUS which is what NATO and the Chinese have done. Makes detection of enemy submarines a lot less problematic than having tons of frigates, submarines and LRMPA.

Finally, a SAR satellite would be an added bonus.

I think the MILGEM-J is close to 3,000 tons. Or, rather, bringing it to the 3,000 ton range (e.g. if it's say 2,800 tons) isn't going to add much relative to the cost of the redesign. Rather, they should figure out how to cut costs further (localization, in-house SAM, AShM, etc) and roll-out another 8-12 such ships through the long-term.

In parallel, I'd challenge MTC to figure out a way to copy what Denmark did with the Iver Huitfeldt Frigate, specifically the ability to design a 6,000-ton frigate with a cost of around $320 m per ship. Load this ship with VLS for LR-SAM and LACM, and a 4x3 or 4x4 AShM. If we can build 6 such ships to complement 12-16 MILGEM-Js...

I agree with the idea of a new corvette, but only on the condition that it is packed with firepower -- i.e., 2x8 or 2x6 AShM, 2x3 ASW, and, at least an 8-cell VLS for a MR-SAM. If they can rope in a PDMS like the Denel Cheetah CRAM, and a telescopic helicopter hangar too, then all the better. I don't think it's impossible. In fact, the Turks were toying with such designs already, see: Delta Marine C1200.

I'm torn on enlarging the FAC(M)/Azmat. If you have a 1,000+ ton corvette, then you're really eating into the need for an FAC as large as the Azmat. In this case, the better option might be to go smaller, lighter, stealthier, and faster. Now, if you're packing a 2x3 or 2x4 AShM load, you might not be able to get much smaller, but there is opportunity with making the FAC(M) lighter (composites, fiberglass, etc) and faster (e.g., CODAG).

I think, ultimately, MTC should take up the challenge of taking what it learned about the FAC(M) and will learn about the MILGEM-J to design a clean-sheet 1,000-1,500-ton corvette and a clean-sheet 500-ton FAC(M).

Besides a 500-ton SWAT, we should also engage in a full-sized SSP program too. Perhaps draw on STM's xTS1700 concept and develop it through the long-term to eventually replace the Agosta 90B, and expand the fleet.

 

[mikaal hassan]

I think the MILGEM-J is close to 3,000 tons. Or, rather, bringing it to the 3,000 ton range (e.g. if it's say 2,800 tons) isn't going to add much relative to the cost of the redesign. Rather, they should figure out how to cut costs further (localization, in-house SAM, AShM, etc) and roll-out another 8-12 such ships through the long-term.

In parallel, I'd challenge MTC to figure out a way to copy what Denmark did with the Iver Huitfeldt Frigate, specifically the ability to design a 6,000-ton frigate with a cost of around $320 m per ship. Load this ship with VLS for LR-SAM and LACM, and a 4x3 or 4x4 AShM. If we can build 6 such ships to complement 12-16 MILGEM-Js...

I agree with the idea of a new corvette, but only on the condition that it is packed with firepower -- i.e., 2x8 or 2x6 AShM, 2x3 ASW, and, at least an 8-cell VLS for a MR-SAM. If they can rope in a PDMS like the Denel Cheetah CRAM, and a telescopic helicopter hangar too, then all the better. I don't think it's impossible. In fact, the Turks were toying with such designs already, see: Delta Marine C1200.

I'm torn on enlarging the FAC(M)/Azmat. If you have a 1,000+ ton corvette, then you're really eating into the need for an FAC as large as the Azmat. In this case, the better option might be to go smaller, lighter, stealthier, and faster. Now, if you're packing a 2x3 or 2x4 AShM load, you might not be able to get much smaller, but there is opportunity with making the FAC(M) lighter (composites, fiberglass, etc) and faster (e.g., CODAG).

I think, ultimately, MTC should take up the challenge of taking what it learned about the FAC(M) and will learn about the MILGEM-J to design a clean-sheet 1,000-1,500-ton corvette and a clean-sheet 500-ton FAC(M).

Besides a 500-ton SWAT, we should also engage in a full-sized SSP program too. Perhaps draw on STM's xTS1700 concept and develop it through the long-term to eventually replace the Agosta 90B, and expand the fleet.

sir what engines are we using on the Turkish and Chinese ships ?is there any chance you can do an article about up coming engine technology or even compare both Chinese and Turkish engines for Pakistani ships .Rolls Royce have supplied New Zealand navy with this new auxiliary ship but they have used some new fuel efficient engine
https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/hmnzs-aotearoa-logistics-support-vessel/
any chance for us to get similar engines from them for j -class ships may be for the next batch ?

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

sir what engines are we using on the Turkish and Chinese ships ?is there any chance you can do an article about up coming engine technology or even compare both Chinese and Turkish engines for Pakistani ships .Rolls Royce have supplied New Zealand navy with this new auxiliary ship but they have used some new fuel efficient engine
https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/hmnzs-aotearoa-logistics-support-vessel/
any chance for us to get similar engines from them for j -class ships may be for the next batch ?

Turkish will likely be MTU CODAD.

Chinese are Chinese CODAD.

 

[Armchair]

@Bilal Khan (Quwa) I generally agree with what you wrote and we seem to be on the same page. There are a few caveats however.

Generally, it is not the physical structure of the ship that is costly - they can make up as little as 20-30% of the costs. The real costs are in what you add in terms of subsystems. This is why adding all the goodies in a small ship does not generally make sense.

If you have a corvette in the 1200 ton range, for me it doesn't make sense for it to have a hangar and a helicopter. This is because the helicopter is costing you $20-$50 million USD. If you include various specialized equipment, that cost increases by 50%. All for what purpose? The ship doesn't have enough endurance to make best utilization of the helicopter. Also, even more importantly, the ship cannot operate the helicopter at relatively higher sea states. small ships are not as stable as large ones, and when a ship is rocking about in weather, and their is wind involved, operating helicopters can be a nightmare or not possible at all.

For me the role that a slightly enlarged Azmat class or a larger corvette can play is very different from trying to be a mini-frigate. Their role is two fold:

1. To act as a screen for PN's capital ships
2. To supplement the firepower of PN's capital ships

(1) is achieved by the onboard CIWS / PDMS / SAMs. As well as ASW sensors and weapons onboard.
(2) is achieved by a healthy number of AShMs and data linking.

So, a PN task force can have:

1 Type 54
1 J-class
1 Yarmook
1. F-22P
2 Corvettes
2 Azmat Class

This is a much more powerful force than the four ships alone. That is, the whole is greater than the sum of parts.

The Azmat is an FAC / OPV only by name. In reality it is essentially a Sloop-of-War. A small FAC is useless except of a primitive defense of Karachi, or to a lesser extent Gwadar. They are not useful for a task force for the PN. They have no endurance or sea keeping ability to help PN's task forces, or act in any coordinated manner with the task force.

The need for an FAC was outdated or became of very limited use, the day PN got coastal batteries with classified ranges.

specifically the ability to design a 6,000-ton frigate with a cost of around $320 m per ship

For me, anything above 5000 tons is a Destroyer. I am personally against having destroyers for PN's requirements. Perhaps in very small numbers. I think it puts a lot of eggs in one basket. Perhaps 1 destroyer per task force is a compromise.

Building a ship in Pakistan is actually costlier than getting a ship built in China. Perhaps the engineering plan can be Pakistani-Turkish, the actual physical ship can be built in China, and the subsystems can be Turkish-Pakistani-Chinese-European.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

@Bilal Khan (Quwa) I generally agree with what you wrote and we seem to be on the same page. There are a few caveats however.

Generally, it is not the physical structure of the ship that is costly - they can make up as little as 20-30% of the costs. The real costs are in what you add in terms of subsystems. This is why adding all the goodies in a small ship does not generally make sense.

If you have a corvette in the 1200 ton range, for me it doesn't make sense for it to have a hangar and a helicopter. This is because the helicopter is costing you $20-$50 million USD. If you include various specialized equipment, that cost increases by 50%. All for what purpose? The ship doesn't have enough endurance to make best utilization of the helicopter. Also, even more importantly, the ship cannot operate the helicopter at relatively higher sea states. small ships are not as stable as large ones, and when a ship is rocking about in weather, and their is wind involved, operating helicopters can be a nightmare or not possible at all.

That's why I think a telescopic hangar is a good idea. It's retractable and not meant to be a full-service facility as seen on larger ships. Rather, the idea is flexibility. You might not make use of helicopters very often, but you can use those facilities to deploy VTOL UAVs for ISTAR. In 3-5 years, I think we'll see VTOL UAVs capable of ASW too.

I think we can control the cost of the subsystems and weapons of a corvette via in-house design. Pakistan doesn't yet have the industrial capacity to manufacture everything at home, but it can break-free of OEMs by designing a suite of radars, sonars, ESM/EW/EA, CMS, etc, by using COTS inputs. Likewise, a venture with the South Africans on the Umkhonto EIR and Cheetah CRAM would yield lower-cost AAW solutions.

With enough ingenuity, I think we can pull the cost of a true multi-mission corvette to $90-120 m per ship with all of its weapons and a helicopter. The latter need not be high-end like AW159, but rather, AW139 or AW169.

 

[Armchair]

AW139

Hi Bilal, the militarized and navalized version of the AW-139 is going to cost you $20 million approximately. Perhaps more with specialized equipment.

It won't function as well from such a small ship. I think you missed the explanation I gave why up there and I don't want to repeat myself.

Again, I fear I am repeating myself here - the physical structure of the ship is not that expensive. If you have a $120 million hitech corvette as you noted (firstly its a cost underestimation but we will get into that later), the physical ship will cost you 25% approx. So that is $30 million. If you doubled the size of the ship, it would only cost you about $50 million (assuming your base cost is right). A mere $20 million more.

So we end up with the Yarmouk class then - big enough to allow a helicopter to land in relatively rough seas and operate - remember India won't just attack on a calm day. Big enough to allow extended and effective operations at sea and not be shore bound.

So it doesn't make sense to have a Corvette that is armed like a Frigate.

I do agree that whether its a Corvette or a 600 ton enlarged Azmat, they should both operate UAVs, something roughly equal to a Camcopter.

 

[Michel Niesten]

27th of June the next ATR72 of the Pakistan Navy (serial 77) will arrive in Germany for upgrade to RAS-72 Sea Eagle

 

[Pakistan Ka Beta]

27th of June the next ATR72 of the Pakistan Navy (serial 77) will arrive in Germany for upgrade to RAS-72 Sea Eagle

Thank you . It will be 3rd Sea Eagle right ???

 

[Michel Niesten]

Thank you . It will be 3rd Sea Eagle right ???

Yes indeed

 

[Pakistani Fighter]

I am personally against having destroyers for PN's requirements.

Why?

27th of June the next ATR72 of the Pakistan Navy (serial 77) will arrive in Germany for upgrade to RAS-72 Sea Eagle

How much time it takes to get upgraded?

 

[Pakistan Ka Beta]

Yes indeed

Thank you for reply .

 

[Michel Niesten]

Why?


How much time it takes to get upgraded?

Hard to say, the first one took almost 2 years to upgrade. Because it was a new project, all systems had to be tested extensively. Second ATR took less than a year. So I expect this one to be finished somewhere between 6-10 months

 

[syed_yusuf]

It seems eventually PNwill going to have 4 atr upgraded not bad at all

At be up to 7 if they go for 1:1 Fokker replacement

But it seems due to funds PN is going for one per year upgrade so it might take another 4 toyto 5 to get all 7 done appx

 

[aziqbal]

27th of June the next ATR72 of the Pakistan Navy (serial 77) will arrive in Germany for upgrade to RAS-72 Sea Eagle

this is great news we really do need more of these type if aircraft I believe the final number could be as high as 6 units

we managed to snap that Indian submarine last year during standoff which shocked the Indians and the rest watching

however I believe that was the P3C Orion aircraft that took the photo I could be wrong and we have only 7 units

ZDK-03 we have 4 if we can add 6 x MPA it would give a good mix

I would also like to see 12-24 x medium sized naval helicopters from a European supplier dedicated for naval operations

and keeping bringing the home built UAV to the assets

 

[kursed]

The Turks are putting MAD on their ATR-72 MELTEM-III program and even Italy is using it for their P-72A, why are we not adapting something similar for RAS-72 Sea Eagle platform? It cannot be costing. So, ITAR? Or any other reasons?