Featured Pakistan Navy Type 054AP Frigates - Update, News & Discussion

[YeBeWarned]

Think about it this way , 2 Pakistani bombers, costing the same as 8-9 17's , take off from pasni, cruise missile range 1200 KM , Indian radar picks them up , ( bombers tend to have a large RCS) , ships perform evasive manuvers, flanker and rafale from mainland take off to bag the prize asset bombers, Mig 29 from CBG lift off ,
Bombers only work when you have at least limited local air superiority,
An asset is only good if it can be reused

we need to increase payload of JF , even if they are flying from Pasni they need external tanks , armed with 2 AshM and 2 BVR's .. launching a CM over a range of 800-1000 KM will be a escapable distance ..

 

[Army research]

we need to increase payload of JF , even if they are flying from Pasni they need external tanks , armed with 2 AshM and 2 BVR's .. launching a CM over a range of 800-1000 KM will be a escapable distance ..

Even if you increase payload doesn't matter, what needs increasing is better electronical components, better missiles, large radar station( like the one Iran is making And powerful nations already have ) far inland like balochistan, then you need effective air defence , powerful layered air defence, then we need heavy strike craft with an escort of lighter BVR craft, so when enemy assets fly off to meet this threat , they have to be cautious as they need to avoid one casualties too

 

[ziaulislam]

Nobody in Pak Military thinks outside the box. I have for years advocated a stronger for a small strategic bomber fleet in PN for heavy saturating Cruise Missile strikes on IAF SAM and FOB positions and similarly advocated for increasing the numbers of PNs ASW aircraft fleet, specifically the Y-8GX6 which can carry 8 torpedoes or 4-6 AShM. The Orions are capable of delivering Harpoons (4 per aircraft). Using naval assets like JF-17 for strike is fool hardy in pitched battles. For patrol is one thing but if IN brings a CBG you will need those JF-17 To take out fighters in order to attack the ships. Using the JF-17 as escorts you can deliver far greater weaponry to target with ASW aircraft like the Y-8 and P-3c.

in any war senrio the first and the most important task will be air superiority denial..thats it..no ground assault, no amphibious assualt, even bigger shops/destroyers can with stand air power..

this is because of better smarter, precision cluster weapons

 

[Tank131]

Think about it this way , 2 Pakistani bombers, costing the same as 8-9 17's , take off from pasni, cruise missile range 1200 KM , Indian radar picks them up , ( bombers tend to have a large RCS) , ships perform evasive manuvers, flanker and rafale from mainland take off to bag the prize asset bombers, Mig 29 from CBG lift off ,
Bombers only work when you have at least limited local air superiority,
An asset is only good if it can be reused

For bomber senario (over land) they will have 1200km between them and India, plus they have 1200km worth of fighters and sams not to mention Pakistani AWACS revectoring bombers away feom any intercept package prior to getting to those bombers. They would be quite safe from IAF (at least as safe as PAF tankers and AWACS).

Regarding ASW aircraft in the naval theater, JF-17 will be escorting them and they will be under the protection of AWACs and SAMs (from land and Type 054A) as well so they will likely have space to operate. Nothing regarding the IAF threat to these systems is something Pakistan doesnt already have contingencies for. PAF knows hiw to take care of AWACs and Tankers and it already takes care of ASW aircraft. You just expand the number availabile.

in any war senrio the first and the most important task will be air superiority denial..thats it..no ground assault, no amphibious assualt, even bigger shops/destroyers can with stand air power..

this is because of better smarter, precision cluster weapons

When you face a foe that has a quantitative and qualitative edge, you need to have force multipliers. Heavy payload missile trucks like H-6K can launch 6-8 bombers at a time and will have the survivability of being over 1000km away from IAF airbases and SAM positions when launching strikes. They will be behind a wall of fighters and SAMs as well as AWACs and ground radar who will vector them away from any threat that gets past interceptors amd SAMs. You will use the bombers not just to disrupt IA troops and armor, but also limit IAF capacity to bring its full strength to bear in the fight by destroying IAF FOBs. That will not only destroy aircraft on the ground but makes IAF fighters and strike packages need to fly further to enter the combat theater. That limits fighter turn around (decreasing the number of sorties IAF can fly, and range of their intrusion into Pak airspace is limited as the aircraft need fly further both to get to the fight and then back home. It will expose IAF tankers to fire from PAF as they will need to come closer to Pakistan to assist in getting their fighers home as FOBs are gone.

Additionally you will preserve your own fighter force more effectively by taking out SAM positions which can threaten PAF fighters.

 

[Basel]

Well I was interested to know if we can add our tactical Nasr Missile on these Type054
Having 1-2 Units on these ships would be a great insurance policy

Its not necessary as PN have more variety of Missiles then PA to deploy TNWs.

Hangor 2 + mini subs??? One thing that is very clear to me is that asymmetric warfare will not work. There is no Nasr type solution. We either need lots of firepower distributed in smaller packages, or we need lots of firepower in a few hefty ships. In either case, emphasis is on lots of firepower. Personally, I prefer the distributed approach utilizing sub-surface, (semi-)autonomous elements.

Historically TNWs effects are tested in naval use, and calculated saturated attack can destroy a CBG of IN.

 

[CriticalThought]

Its not necessary as PN have more variety of Missiles then PA to deploy TNWs.



Historically TNWs effects are tested in naval use, and calculated saturated attack can destroy a CBG of IN.

The CBG will be spread out in tens of miles, let's say a 30 mile radius. You are not going to saturate that with TNWs. You'd need nuclear devices in the megaton range. Btw, I am not totally writing off nukes at sea - just TNWs.

 

[Basel]

The CBG will be spread out in tens of miles, let's say a 30 mile radius. You are not going to saturate that with TNWs. You'd need nuclear devices in the megaton range. Btw, I am not totally writing off nukes at sea - just TNWs.

Nope, big device is not worth it, TNWs with knowledge of enemy deployment can be used effectively and they will not create radioactive problem like the big weapon, also even if ships are deployed in 50 miles areas, how many ships IN CBG will have? Also deploying far from each other could also create problem against defending saturated AShM attack specially on ACC.

 

[CriticalThought]

Nope, big device is not worth it, TNWs with knowledge of enemy deployment can be used effectively and they will not create radioactive problem like the big weapon, also even if ships are deployed in 50 miles areas, how many ships IN CBG will have? Also deploying far from each other could also create problem against defending saturated AShM attack specially on ACC.

You show lack of knowledge on a lot of issues. First, try to get a sense of how far apart ships in a carrier battle group really are when in active deployment. Watch the video on this page:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-...-south-china-sea-in-defiance-of-china/9483828

notice there are no support ships in sight anywhere. The video actually shows the deployed carrier from various angles. Read the following paragraphs in the accompanying article:

The other vessels are here — but you can't see them.

Somewhere over the horizon, guided missile cruisers and destroyers form a protective shield around the aircraft carrier.

Second, how many ships the group will have cannot be predicted. They will have as many as needed for operational requirements. But the fact of the matter is, they will be chosen to create a very big problem for us.

In order to understand how difficult it is to strike against a well protected carrier group, read the following article:

http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/aircraft-carrier-invulnerability.pdf

DO NOT take the enemy lightly. You should expect an Indian carrier group to be similarly protected.

Finally, consider what would happen if a US carrier group decides to help out the Indian group? How do you plan to handle that situation?

 

[Basel]

You show lack of knowledge on a lot of issues. First, try to get a sense of how far apart ships in a carrier battle group really are when in active deployment. Watch the video on this page:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-...-south-china-sea-in-defiance-of-china/9483828

notice there are no support ships in sight anywhere. The video actually shows the deployed carrier from various angles. Read the following paragraphs in the accompanying article:



Second, how many ships the group will have cannot be predicted. They will have as many as needed for operational requirements. But the fact of the matter is, they will be chosen to create a very big problem for us.

In order to understand how difficult it is to strike against a well protected carrier group, read the following article:

http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/aircraft-carrier-invulnerability.pdf

DO NOT take the enemy lightly. You should expect an Indian carrier group to be similarly protected.

Finally, consider what would happen if a US carrier group decides to help out the Indian group? How do you plan to handle that situation?

I know what I m talking about its you who don't know how PN thinks and work, if they think its possible then its possible, period.

A PN officer onboard F-22P told me that they can sneak close to 50km to IN ships and launch AShMs, when I asked how? He smiled and said that is classified, we can't share that info. So that is how capable PN think it is.

 

[CriticalThought]

I know what I m talking about its you who don't know how PN thinks and work, if they think its possible then its possible, period.

A PN officer onboard F-22P told me that they can sneak close to 50km to IN ships and launch AShMs, when I asked how? He smiled and said that is classified, we can't share that info. So that is how capable PN think it is.

Just sharing what you have shared above is enough for the enemy to decipher our plans. That's how good defence analysts are. What ONE PN officer told you is NOT the top secret plan of entire PN.

Now I have provided you authentic, and valid information. Peruse it, or discard it, its your own choice.

 

[Basel]

You show lack of knowledge on a lot of issues. First, try to get a sense of how far apart ships in a carrier battle group really are when in active deployment. Watch the video on this page:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-...-south-china-sea-in-defiance-of-china/9483828

notice there are no support ships in sight anywhere. The video actually shows the deployed carrier from various angles. Read the following paragraphs in the accompanying article:



Second, how many ships the group will have cannot be predicted. They will have as many as needed for operational requirements. But the fact of the matter is, they will be chosen to create a very big problem for us.

In order to understand how difficult it is to strike against a well protected carrier group, read the following article:

http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploadaircraft-carrier-invty

Just sharing what you have shared above is enough for the enemy to decipher our plans. That's how good defence analysts are. What ONE PN officer told you is NOT the top secret plan of entire PN.

Now I have provided you authentic, and valid information. Peruse it, or discard it, its your own choice.

Get one thing clear, that both countries militaries know much about each other then what is discussed here. I will take word of a professional rather then a keyboard warrior who have not even worked in MoD.

 

[SQ8]

Finally, consider what would happen if a US carrier group decides to help out the Indian group? How do you plan to handle that situation?

While that is an unlikely scenario since the US would not like to engage Pakistan directly due to a variety of sensitivities that intertwine both with China and the US gulf allies.
The very idea of a nuked India is unacceptable to the United States as both strategically and economically it may suffer serious affects. Hence the need to keep any conflict as conventional and as “balanced” as possible is in US interests.

But Frankly in such a situation you wait for a good butt whooping and recite with utmost seriousness.. although this should be for everything Pakistan is facing.

 

[CriticalThought]

While that is an unlikely scenario since the US would not like to engage Pakistan directly due to a variety of sensitivities that intertwine both with China and the US gulf allies.
The very idea of a nuked India is unacceptable to the United States as both strategically and economically it may suffer serious affects. Hence the need to keep any conflict as conventional and as “balanced” as possible is in US interests.

But Frankly in such a situation you wait for a good butt whooping and recite with utmost seriousness.. although this should be for everything Pakistan is facing.
View attachment 483657

Sir, nobody likes a loser - including China. In the Feb session of FATF, China rescinded its support in the face of a lost cause. This should wake us up.

The current discontent between China and US is on resources. There are any number of ways this can get resolved, including asteroid mining. As soon as a global cartel of asteroid mining nations is formed, we can say good bye to Chinese and Russian support. In such a world, every 'advanced' nation will turn against Islam. At that point, we will need to make a choice: give up our very identity, or face the combined wrath of world nations. This is just one scenario. There are any number of other ways in which we can end up alone. Hence we need to plan our defence in a way that we do not seem like a complete push over. This defence encompasses both military and economic might. May Allah Help us. Aameen.

Prayers are essential, but ignoring the writing on the wall and burying head in the sand are not the teachings of our religion.

On topic, I favor distributed, sub-surface, (semi-)autonomous firepower in large numbers for defence of the homeland.

Get one thing clear, that both countries militaries know much about each other then what is discussed here. I will take word of a professional rather then a keyboard warrior who have not even worked in MoD.

On the internet, everybody is an internet warrior. So talk with reference to authentic, verifiable, and credible sources. If you are not a title holder on the forum, and not backed by the mods regarding your authenticity and veracity, you are a nobody.

 

[cqjwjx]

Doesnt china has stopped producing 54A, so most probably either these will be cistomised one or 54B version.

054A的确即将停止建造，取而代之的是054B，054B现在能确定的是升级了火力通道，比054A提高了同事应对多目标的能力

 

[khanasifm]

B model main difference is propulsion system if it’s new experimental then I think pn will opt for standard A model version as it’s tested version

Plus b model is still not know but speculated to be larger and more expensive 5000 tons ??
plaan production may end at 30 plus but export will continue..

Lastly already stated by pn officer in an interview it’s A model with same setup as plaan end of story no reason to spread rumours and speculate

Time will tell what’s the real specs when delivered but as all are being built in China looks like pn is satisfied with Stf setup

The lead ship of an improved 5,000-ton variant, the Type 054B or Jiangkai III-class guided-missile frigate, is expected to be commissioned in 2018. Type 054B ships purportedly feature enhanced anti-submarine warfare capabilities and an all-electric propulsion system, among other improvements. These new ships will likely feature 32 VLS cells and broadly similar armament to the Type 054A class.