Pakistan Navy making efforts to acquire modern warships: Admiral Zakaullah

[Surya 1]

I would recommend Type 52D so that Kolkata class may have a worthy opponent.

 

[Khafee]

These subs i believe used one and not including into 8 subs which we ordered earlier ?

Daphne Class in PN service were called Hangor Class, after the lead ship PNS Hangor S131.
PNS Hangor had the distinction of being the first sub to score a kill after WW2, i.e. INS Khukri F149, in the 1971 war.
The Hangor class's 4 subs were retired in 2006.

The new 8 Chinese subs will also be called Hangor Class.

PNS Hangor at Karachi Maritime Museum:

Other Hangor Pics:

INS Khukri taken out by PNS Hangor:

 

[YeBeWarned]

read b/w the lines ....

Not good in reading between the lines .. can you help

 

[Jinn Baba]

PN will likely try to finalize the MILGEM deal in the coming months. I just hope they don't do something stupid by going for the standard MILGEM and forget about actual Airdefense. I also hope they get an actually decent SAM with quad pack capabilities (because 16 VLS SAMS just doesnt cut it) and decent range (at least 40kms). None of this stupid 15km bull$h*t anymore. ESSM is LIKELY unavailable to PN. Even if it is available, it is from an unreliable source so go for CAMM from Italy/UK. If CAMM is unavailable, go for K-SAAM or see i China makes a quad-packed variant of DK-10A.

Beyond this, PN needs 2 Type 057s. With 48 VLS cells, you could theoretically field 16 HQ9 in the rear cells and 128 VLS missiles up front (K-SAAM or a quad-packable variant of DK-10A).

But if it goes for the standard MILGEM or gets a shitty ranged SAM, you know the jigg is up and PN Admirals are taking massive kickbacks.

What difference does it make if we get 15km or 40km SAMs when most aircraft are able to launch anti ship missiles from 100km away?

 

[Tank131]

I have no problem with MILGEM-G, its milgem id have a problem with.

What difference does it make if we get 15km or 40km SAMs when most aircraft are able to launch anti ship missiles from 100km away?

The difference is the ability to react to the 100km missile is much higher when u have a longer range sam. Its to kill the missiles, not just the aircraft that launched it.

 

[Jinn Baba]

I have no problem with MILGEM-G, its milgem id have a problem with.

The difference is the ability to react to the 100km missile is much higher when u have a longer range sam. Its to kill the missiles, not just the aircraft that launched it.

Aah! I didn't know that. What is the probability of successfully intercepting such missiles? And would such SAMs be useful against the likes of Brahmos?

Will do some youtubeing on this lol

 

[Hassan Guy]

Whatever they get should be sourced locally.

 

[Tank131]

Aah! I didn't know that. What is the probability of successfully intercepting such missiles? And would such SAMs be useful against the likes of Brahmos?

Will do some youtubeing on this lol

It varies from system to system, usually for moderns systems somewhere from 70-80%per the manufacturer (whether that's true or not maybe @Penguin would know better). That beimg said its not 100% which is why you need more than 1 missile per target. That is why more missiles on the ship are better, to survive and possibly defeat a saturation style attack designed to overcome your defenses. Best way to protect your ship is use long range SAMs backed by numerous quad-packed medium range missiles backed by short ranged missiles from missile based CIWS like FL3000N or RAM backed Gatling gun based CIWS (Multi tiered).

If a ship is carrying 64 medium ranged SAMs (as would be the case with MILGEM-G of you have a quad packed missile like ESSM, CAMM, or K-SAAM) backed by 2 CIWS and a 24 cell short ranged missile CIWS (Likely fl3000n) you have a reasonable chance to overcome a saturation style attack where an enemy fires 5-6 missiles at your ship. If you have only a 8 cell RAM/Fl3000n and a CIWS... Not so much of a chance.

 

[Penguin]

I recently read, for a 98% killchance, USN practice is 2 missile against a subsonic missile target, and 6-8 envisioned against serious supersonic missile target. So, I would agree, more missiles is better.

 

[CriticalThought]

It varies from system to system, usually for moderns systems somewhere from 70-80%per the manufacturer (whether that's true or not maybe @Penguin would know better). That beimg said its not 100% which is why you need more than 1 missile per target. That is why more missiles on the ship are better, to survive and possibly defeat a saturation style attack designed to overcome your defenses. Best way to protect your ship is use long range SAMs backed by numerous quad-packed medium range missiles backed by short ranged missiles from missile based CIWS like FL3000N or RAM backed Gatling gun based CIWS (Multi tiered).

If a ship is carrying 64 medium ranged SAMs (as would be the case with MILGEM-G of you have a quad packed missile like ESSM, CAMM, or K-SAAM) backed by 2 CIWS and a 24 cell short ranged missile CIWS (Likely fl3000n) you have a reasonable chance to overcome a saturation style attack where an enemy fires 5-6 missiles at your ship. If you have only a 8 cell RAM/Fl3000n and a CIWS... Not so much of a chance.

The only thing is, I'd expect that type of fire power on a destroyer, NOT on an FAC.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

PNS Hangor wil shortly be recommissioned, as the name sake of its class.


milgem is final...but yes, you may dream high.

As @Tank131 mentioned, it needs to be MILGEM-G (aka Istanbul-class). The MILGEM-G is just the MILGEM, but with a slightly longer hull (10 metres), which provides room for VLS for MR-SAM and 16 sub-sonic AShM (instead of 8). Sure, it will be pricier than the MILGEM Ada-class, but the added cost will fetch the PN significant offensive and air defence gains. If the PN intends to build proper air defence coverage at sea, then going for 4 MILGEM-G would be cheaper than going for 4 MILGEM and 4 Chinese SAM-equipped frigates. Of course, this is assuming air defence is the intent. I also think the PN is just seeking the MILGEM in a lighter configuration to simply manage peace time naval duties and wartime ASW for A2/AD, and then conferring the sea interdiction role to the new submarines. So, it can go either way.

The only thing is, I'd expect that type of fire power on a destroyer, NOT on an FAC.

The advantage of FACs rest in numbers and speed. In A2/AD a swarm of a dozen FACs, especially the Azmat or STM FAC-55 kind that can carry 6 or 8 AShM, will generate that saturated attack collectively. Stopping them can be a headache for one or two individual ships, especially if said FACs are dispersed, low-RCS and fast moving.

 

[CHI RULES]

The FACs in anti ship role are only effective if they have speed and true stealth like FAC55 also to be launched in large numbers not 4-5.

It is estimated that Iran has deployed 100+ FACS/Missile boats of catraman style having high speed.

 

[Tank131]

The only thing is, I'd expect that type of fire power on a destroyer, NOT on an FAC.

We are talkimg about frigates not FAC. If you see that MILGEM-G is 3000t class frigate with 16 vls cells and a rear missile based ciws. Turkey will likely field it with quad packed ESSM (64 medium range missiles) and up to 24 short range with a RAM Launcher in the rear. Those are not likely options for PN, so alternatives for RAM are an 8-24 cell FL3000N Launcher in rear. Instead of ESSM options are CAMM (60km quad pack), K-SAAM (40km quad packed), a variant of DK10A (50km hopefully quad packed), Hisar-O (40km unlikely quad-packable) and Umkhonto-ir (35km? Quad-packable)

 

[Bilal Khan 777]

As @Tank131 mentioned, it needs to be MILGEM-G (aka Istanbul-class). The MILGEM-G is just the MILGEM, but with a slightly longer hull (10 metres), which provides room for VLS for MR-SAM and 16 sub-sonic AShM (instead of 8). Sure, it will be pricier than the MILGEM Ada-class, but the added cost will fetch the PN significant offensive and air defence gains. If the PN intends to build proper air defence coverage at sea, then going for 4 MILGEM-G would be cheaper than going for 4 MILGEM and 4 Chinese SAM-equipped frigates. Of course, this is assuming air defence is the intent. I also think the PN is just seeking the MILGEM in a lighter configuration to simply manage peace time naval duties and wartime ASW for A2/AD, and then conferring the sea interdiction role to the new submarines. So, it can go either way.

The advantage of FACs rest in numbers and speed. In A2/AD a swarm of a dozen FACs, especially the Azmat or STM FAC-55 kind that can carry 6 or 8 AShM, will generate that saturated attack collectively. Stopping them can be a headache for one or two individual ships, especially if said FACs are dispersed, low-RCS and fast moving.

I think all the bloody chaps in NHQ are better equipped to decide what platforms they should get and with what mix.
BR

Which Milgem sir ? The simple ADA class or the G variant the Istanbul class?

I am not a navy guy.

Considering we have a full Steeles mills inactive, we could be making enough steel to make 10 corvettes a year and fully using the steeles mills 100% for defence purpose

Even in one of the threads someone posted we are "importing" the railway lines from outside the country like who the hell imports train railway lines from outside ?

Pakistani government coughs up the bill for steel mills workers , so at least let them produce something we can use

> Steel Walls for fencing / border development
> Metal / Steel products for ship manufacturing

It would have been ideal that the InActive steeles mills was repurposed for Defence products
Metal products for JF17 Thunder , Frigate Ships and Corvettes or Tanks

Steel companies world wide make steel products for defence sector , ships and other large items
We need to turn the existing Steeles mills into a functional unit that makes something useful we need

We need ships , frigates and corvettes

If workforce is getting bail out cash $$$ every year might as well make them product something for shipping industry instead of sitting on their arses


No reason why the Steeles mills can't be producing such work for Government of Pakistan no need to import these vehicles

Or bare minimum a contractor for Border fencing material

This is a tragedy of Pakistan.

We fool everyone saying we "make" stuff, while we dont make the steel, the aluminum, the cabling, the connectors, the motors, the pumps, we only make fool of ourselves, by assembling kit of material.
BR

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

I think all the bloody chaps in NHQ are better equipped to decide what platforms they should get and with what mix.
BR

That's why I laid out two options and said it could go either way. Not saying one is necessarily better than the other.