What's new

PAKISTAN NAVY SHIPS: YARMOOK-CLASS CORVETTE

The 500-600-ton mine-laying sub might be doable indigenously, albeit with severe limitations to operating depth and speed. But for the specific role, it could be good enough.

That would be nice if they did it. They don't need diving depth, Germans kept it simple and gave them just the capability they needed. Good enough to have the highest tonnage record of the Great War!

UUV would be equally easy as this won't be a terminator or have data links to need communication or commanding. An INS to get to a location and go mad dog. It's as simple as that. Somehow people imagine this is difficult perhaps due to all the sci-fi attached to robot wars.
 
.
That would be nice if they did it. They don't need diving depth, Germans kept it simple and gave them just the capability they needed. Good enough to have the highest tonnage record of the Great War!

UUV would be equally easy as this won't be a terminator or have data links to need communication or commanding. An INS to get to a location and go mad dog. It's as simple as that. Somehow people imagine this is difficult perhaps due to all the sci-fi attached to robot wars.
You can create a UUV around a heavyweight torpedo. Essentially, it's the underwater equivalent of a cruise missile. You develop the UUV as any other UUV, but case it with a heavyweight torpedo (or two if your propulsion can support it).

You can deploy them at 'trigger points' using larger submarines (attach them to the hull/fuselage), freighters, OPVs, etc. Leave them be, but activate them towards their intended target remotely.

This might be challenging; if the UUVs are submerged, you will need to develop a way of getting a command through using VLF. But if they're still surfaced, then it shouldn't be a problem: once the order is given, they'll submerge and do their thing.
 
.
You can create a UUV around a heavyweight torpedo. Essentially, it's the underwater equivalent of a cruise missile. You develop the UUV as any other UUV, but case it with a heavyweight torpedo (or two if your propulsion can support it).

You can deploy them at 'trigger points' using larger submarines (attach them to the hull/fuselage), freighters, OPVs, etc. Leave them be, but activate them towards their intended target remotely.

This might be challenging; if the UUVs are submerged, you will need to develop a way of getting a command through using VLF. But if they're still surfaced, then it shouldn't be a problem: once the order is given, they'll submerge and do their thing.


If we take the idea a little further, and turn the torpedo into an "MIRV" you have a small sub. It launches from Karachi and goes underwater. Armed with 4 mines and 4 torpedoes. Simple enough and punching 8x the capability of the single homing torpedo (and a much greater range).
 
.
Pak forces across all services continue with their linear conventional thinking. Frigates, more light frigates, even lighter frigates, more patrol boats floating around as corvettes, under-powered and under-equipped "fast" attack craft...

Asymmetrical warfare and procurement is the only way forward. Distributed lethality plopped on patrol vessels and merchant ships. Yes more subs of different roles and varying capabilities and designs. Flexible weapons modules ala Stanflex. As mentioned UAVs and UUVs of varying degree. All would be a lot cheaper and effective than trying to compete vertically or in the conventional sense. Would deliver deterrence instead of fanboy dreams of a far-sea large blue water navy.
 
.
For surface warships, it was better to just focus on the developmental track. I would have stuck with solely the MILGEM-J, and omitted the Ada and Type 054A/P. Simply, work with Turkey on designing a frigate for the future, and learn to manufacture it on your own without OEM-supplied KoMs through the 2030s.

By back-loading the frigate (via MILGEM-J), the PN could've aimed for a much more ambitious design, and consolidated on a single type for 12-16 ships (much like the major navies elsewhere around the world).
Is there a specific reason why this much more logical idea wasn't pursued.
 
.
IMHO... it would've been wiser to take it slow with all surface warships.

Ultimately, even 12 modern frigates isn't going to tip the balance in Pakistan's favour against India. Rather, the biggest difference-maker in the naval equation was A2/AD, and for that, the PN was fine with a large number of submarines, ideally paired with AShM-equipped JF-17s (via PAF), FACs, and shore-based ASBMs.

It isn't pretty, but it would've deterred the IN from trying to impose a MEZ. Granted, the PN would still need ships for peacetime sea control, but I think commercial-grade OPVs bought at $50-60 m a ship would've done fine for that role.

For surface warships, it was better to just focus on the developmental track. I would have stuck with solely the MILGEM-J, and omitted the Ada and Type 054A/P. Simply, work with Turkey on designing a frigate for the future, and learn to manufacture it on your own without OEM-supplied KoMs through the 2030s.

By back-loading the frigate (via MILGEM-J), the PN could've aimed for a much more ambitious design, and consolidated on a single type for 12-16 ships (much like the major navies elsewhere around the world).

Otherwise, front-load more submarines.

I believe the major issue here is the simple lack of funds available to PN. As of right now, they’ve exhausted the entire credit line extended to them by the Chinese. This would not have been possible with the Turks. This is while keeping in mind that we’d not see the Turkish ships for another 3 years or more. While Chinese ships should start joining the PN within the year or early next year.

They really didn’t have a choice at this. The speed at which the situation in IOR is unraveling, PN needs to be a credible force in its own neighborhood. And not just a coastal patrol service that it’s been so far. That wouldn’t be possible without Chinese help.
 
.
That is a brilliant post and I concur. It is what all contemporary naval wars from WWII to now has taught us - submarines and aircraft are the key. For some odd reason it missed the PN.

The only thing I would add are:

1. Unmanned UUVs (robotic mini submarines). Basically you can't control them much, they are like mad and suicidal attack dogs. You set them loose, give them an area to go to and create a mess. Say, for instance, one putters off from Karachi, no control, but goes underwater, heads near a designated Indian port, if something shows up from an East to North West vector, it gets a bad day.

If nothing shows up, it reaches near the Indian port, lays mines, and shoots torpedoes at any and all boats at the port. Once it is out of ammo, it blows up taking whatever else it can with it.

Imagine the headache that would create for every single Indian port and sea lane on their West coast. It would be a nightmare to face. And at the cost of no Pakistani lives and a small investment.

2. A 400 - 500 ton mine laying submarine. These were in fact the subs that got the most kills during the War but were the cheapest and smaller submarines. They don't need great loiter time or deep diving capability. This is how the Germans used them - they go off a port, stay abou 50 meters below the surface.

Reach near a port / sea lane (perhaps at a safe distance from the mad dogs we sent earlier in (1). Lays mines and comes back home. No need for deep diving stalking or staying on station to get a hot kill.

As the mad dogs start doing their work, the mine laying submarine turns around and scoots back home. I'd simply add one more addition other than the German concept - a single ballistic / cruise missile at the back to fire off as the submarine leaves the operational area. Aimed at the general direction of the Indian port, the cruise missile / ballistic missile will lock on to any boat it sees or simply crash into the port.

This would cause the Indians to get upset and set off a knee jerk reaction, speeding up in their frigates and destroyers, exactly to the mine field layed by the mine layer and the UUV. By then the mine laying submarine has already left the area and the IN warships are headed straight to their designated mines...

How much would these UUVs and submarines cost? A fraction of the cost of all these big ships and big egos. But the damage they would do would be disproportional. As was in fact the case both in WWI, WWII and the Falklands.

I once met a US senior officer who told me a story about their submarines finding a gigantic fleet of British warships at the bottom of the Atlantic, between Argentina and the Falklands. He laughed and said that the British were too ashamed to admit how much they lost and hid their actual losses by a gigantic margin. @MastanKhan thought you may find that interesting.

Hi

Surface ships we need to watch our fish being stolen by foreign fishing trawlers.

then we can provide protection to our trawlers as well.

Again when the Jf17 will do the same job as a mirage 3 then do we need to place a more expensive aircraft in the arena.

what is needed is a heavier anti ship capable heavier aircraft.

jf17 is not a low flyer. Get more mirages fir that job
 
.
But we do have an adversary with a humongous naval force and nations who won't take long to unite with India against us i.e Pakistan.
40 major surface vessels is insane for a country like Pakistan.

1) We do not have global committments that we need to send ships all over the world
2) We do not want to, nor can we afford to defeat the IN face to face in the Indian Ocean
3) We have no carriers that need protecting


Essentially all PN needs to do if protect our shipping lanes and coastline. A smart combination of MPAs, Subs and Frigates (like we are doing) should be enough. 40 ships is insane. That would make our navy the size of Australias, who are an island nation!

Bro you do realize that Pakistan ideally wants to participate in CPEC and have trade in multiple continents in coming decade???
Do you know what "power projection" is or do you use this terminology to just look informed?

PN nor Pakistan needs or wants global power projection. We have no formal defence treaties or need to protect interests any further then Arabian Sea/Gulf.

We are not required to defeat the IN in the Open Seas. Anyone has access to the stated aims of the Pakistan Navy here

"Protect Maritime Interests of Pakistan, deter aggression at and from sea, provide disaster relief, participate in development of coastal communities and contribute to international efforts in maintaining good order at sea."

https://www.paknavy.gov.pk/


Basically the aim of the Navy is to protect our coast and shipping routes. Very simple. 40 major ships is insane and unaffordable. Those resources would be better off in the Air Force or Army.
 
.
IMHO and I have elaborated this in my post on other threads, the optimum for PN is:

1 16 x Ship Major Surface Combatant Fleet made up multi mission frigates (Mix of Milgem, 54A & B with UVLS or the Jinnah Class). We will be four short when all the planned surface combatants join and the rest are retired.
2. Fast Attack craft (M) x 12. We are way short of this min figure.
3. Minesweepers (MCMIV) x 6. We are 50% short of the target. We have four major ports to clear in the event of hostilities. PQA, KPT, JNB, & Gawader.
3. Fast Fleet Replenishment Vessels x 3. We are one short and I believe another one will be ordered soon.
4. A 12 Boat Sub fleet. We are one short of the optimum.
5. A 12 plane LRMP fleet
6. Atleast four dedicated AWACS to keep an eye on the sea coat and EEZ.

Do away with Coast Guard and beef up MSA to become a real coast guard. Coast guard is not needed now after formation of so many permanent coastal stations and beefing up of naval presence along the coast. ANF can look inwards and let MSA handle the seaward patrolling.

The Commercial Grade OPV's should be given to MSA and make it a real sea going organization with the duty of patrolling and keeping our EEZ safe, Rescue and relief ops. Anti Smuggling & piracy sweeps, and safe navigation duties.

Navy should be left to prep up for a war and not indulge in police duties. Or we shut these huge agencies and leave it all to Navy.

Btw Customs marine wing should also be discontinued and port security should be under MSA as well. Streamline the whole structure now before it becomes too cumbersome and too difficult to dismantle.

The real Achilles heel for PN is the deep air strike and shipboard helicopter. I don't think PN should fly fighter jets as fighter flying is an acquired skill that requires a lot of man hours fine tuning and honing that skill. PN does not have the budget nor the skill set or the training structure to keep their fighter pilots up there with the best.
 
.
Objective, hit the financial areas, demoralizing forces, splitting of enemy strategy in punjab and sindh. WASP can carry helis and other transport helis, J16 can extend CAP and mission support with the help of Refulers. sub can deny enemy frigates and destroyers from approaching the landing zone

when you open a front down south, you relieve pressure on main land. part of larger strategy to have an aggressive posture..

A couple of Battalions of troops without organic air support wont last a day. India will not even need a Division to finish them off, they would all be killed or captured, It would demoralise Pakistan not India.
They will probably be able to handle this with reserve formations, they will not be required to split any forces. Us hitting financial areas wont effect their war effort in the short term and can be done better by jets. The WASP carriers will be sitting ducks for Indian subs too.

Glad you can play fantasy games with the lives and money on Pakistan
 
.
We can call these Dutch built Yarmook class vessels 'Corvettes' or even frigates, if we so desire, after all, what is the name. However, Corvette is traditionally a fast naval craft smaller than a Frigate but larger than a Gunboat or Torpedo boat. IMHO a Corvette should be able to reach at least 29 or 30 Knots; Yarmook class with the maximum speed of 23 knots is too slow in the present naval environment. These are in fact Off-shore Patrol vessels.
 
.
Why not Cruise Missiles?

IMHO and I have elaborated this in my post on other threads, the optimum for PN is:

1 16 x Ship Major Surface Combatant Fleet made up multi mission frigates (Mix of Milgem, 54A & B with UVLS or the Jinnah Class). We will be four short when all the planned surface combatants join and the rest are retired.
2. Fast Attack craft (M) x 12. We are way short of this min figure.
3. Minesweepers (MCMIV) x 6. We are 50% short of the target. We have four major ports to clear in the event of hostilities. PQA, KPT, JNB, & Gawader.
3. Fast Fleet Replenishment Vessels x 3. We are one short and I believe another one will be ordered soon.
4. A 12 Boat Sub fleet. We are one short of the optimum.
5. A 12 plane LRMP fleet
6. Atleast four dedicated AWACS to keep an eye on the sea coat and EEZ.

Do away with Coast Guard and beef up MSA to become a real coast guard. Coast guard is not needed now after formation of so many permanent coastal stations and beefing up of naval presence along the coast. ANF can look inwards and let MSA handle the seaward patrolling.

The Commercial Grade OPV's should be given to MSA and make it a real sea going organization with the duty of patrolling and keeping our EEZ safe, Rescue and relief ops. Anti Smuggling & piracy sweeps, and safe navigation duties.

Navy should be left to prep up for a war and not indulge in police duties. Or we shut these huge agencies and leave it all to Navy.

Btw Customs marine wing should also be discontinued and port security should be under MSA as well. Streamline the whole structure now before it becomes too cumbersome and too difficult to dismantle.

The real Achilles heel for PN is the deep air strike and shipboard helicopter. I don't think PN should fly fighter jets as fighter flying is an acquired skill that requires a lot of man hours fine tuning and honing that skill. PN does not have the budget nor the skill set or the training structure to keep their fighter pilots up there with the best.
Go for 4 destroyers atleast
 
.
upload_2020-6-20_14-32-55.jpeg
Why not Cruise Missiles?


Go for 4 destroyers atleast
Talking of ASBM. An off the shelf option is already available in the form of CM401 from China, if need be. So not so hard to acquire capability.
@Bilal Khan (Quwa)
 
.
View attachment 643204
Talking of ASBM. An off the shelf option is already available in the form of CM401 from China, if need be. So not so hard to acquire capability.
@Bilal Khan (Quwa)
We should look at developing newer BM technology. Basically, get more compact designs that can fly farther than our current BMs. There's a way, e.g., working with Ukraine (under the table).
 
. .

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom