Pakistan orders Dutch OPV (1,900 tons, 90 m). To be built at KSEW

[Penguin]

Besides the Schelde one I referred to above, another more recent one is this one: combattant 12717
See http://forum.keypublishing.com/show...ombatant-12717-Dutch-Stealth-Frigate-Proposal

Follow discussion (ah, hello, good ol' Wanshan ;-)

This is the corvette design I meant (based on M-frigate?)

Combatant 12717 (note waterjet propulsion)

Perhaps some more infos here http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/1523/Ship-drawings-site-opened?page=2#.WUJxUOlpyUk

Schelde did offer a modified, less complex version of the M-frigate
handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA444498

I agree. It seems that the Crossover 115 Security (4,500 tons) is being positioned as that in-between design, though it has a few characteristics of a Landing Platform Dock (LPD). This would be an interesting option as a command ship for a navy with a light frigate/corvette fleet.

It's more like Absalon class.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Besides the Schelde one I referred to above, another more recent one is this one: combattant 12717
See http://forum.keypublishing.com/show...ombatant-12717-Dutch-Stealth-Frigate-Proposal

Follow discussion (ah, hello, good ol' Wanshan ;-)

This is the corvette design I meant (based on M-frigate?)

Combatant 12717 (note waterjet propulsion)

Perhaps some more infos here http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/1523/Ship-drawings-site-opened?page=2#.WUJxUOlpyUk

Schelde did offer a modified, less complex version of the M-frigate
handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA444498


It's more like Absalon class.

Will it have the curiously low price point of the Absalon-class?

 

[Penguin]

Will it have the curiously low price point of the Absalon-class?

If you don't include the prise of actual weapons ;-)
wiki says: US$225m/ship excluding weapon modules for Absalon, as compared to US$325M/ship for Huitfeldt
Keep in mind that upon delivery not all weapons modules may have been delivered or, more importantly, that existing weapons modules from Thetis class [StanFlex 3000] and Flyvevisken class [Stanflex 300, of which 8 by now sold abroad and 1 scrapped, with just 3 remaining in Danish service] may be reused or recapitalized. Notably Harpoon SSM and Mk48 VLS modules, possibly some 76mm and sonar modules.
You have to view these two classes together, as far as design/development is concerned, as they share many modules (so you spread their total, shared R&D costs over the total of 5 ships). Note these five ships are all entirely diesel powered.
Not all 5 ships will be out on mission (or all 2 or all 3) at the same time, so, in principle if wouldn't even be necessary to have a complete set of weapons modules for each ship. Some modules are installed permanently (e.g. guns, with exception 76mm) but the Mk48 (ESSM) and Harpoon modules may be moved around from ships in port to ships going out.
Those are things keeping unit costs down, I would think.

SF300 in Portugese service (Tejo class) >> What weapons modules?

SF300 in Lithuanian service >> what weapons modules (besides 76mm gun module)
P11 "Žemaitis"

P12 "Dzūkas".

P14 "Aukštaitis"

P15 Sėlis

SF300 in Danish service: 76mm, VLS, Sonar

Harpoon,VLS, torpedoes

Mines

Benefits and drawbacks

• Unused modules can be stored in controlled conditions, reducing the need for preventative maintenance.
• Ships do not need to be taken out of service when equipment requires maintenance, and vice versa.
• New weapons and systems can be installed on the vessels by fitting them to a module, instead of refitting the entire ship.
• When a ship or class is removed from service, the modules can be reused by other vessels. Similarly, as they do not have to be built into the ship, modular weapons and systems do not have to be factored into the purchase cost of a new vessel: in 2006, a proposed 6,000-ton frigate design for the KDM was predicted to cost DKK 1.6 billion per ship (USD 238 million), while similar projects in other European nations were slated to cost between DKK 2.6 billion and DKK 6.3 billion (USD 386 million to 936 million).
• The multi-role ships are slightly less efficient than a dedicated ship in a particular role, but the ability to be quickly reequipped for other roles more than makes up for this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StanFlex#Benefits_and_drawbacks

Fourteen Flyvefisken (SF 300) were ordered and built between 1987 and 1996. The Royal Danish Navy decommissioned its Flyvefisken fleet in October 2010. Five were dispensed to Portugal (1 as spare parts hull), another four to Lithuania (possibly here too 1 more for spares). One ship scrapped, three remaining decommissioned with the Danes. Makes 14.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyvefisken-class_patrol_vessel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Royal_Danish_Navy_ships
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Navy#Ships
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian_Naval_Force#Current

Type Equipment Quantity
SSM= 2 Mk 141 quad launchers for Boeing RGM-84 Harpoon missiles. #= 10
SAM= 6-cell Mk 48 Mod 3 launcher for RIM-7 Sea Sparrow missiles . #= 20
Gun= 1 Otobreda 76/62 Super Rapid gun. #= 19
ASW= Launchers for MU90 Impact torpedoes. #= 4
VDS= Thales TSM2640 Salmon variable-depth active/passive sonar. #= 4
MCM= Command & control equipment to operate MSF & MRD class drone minehunters, Double Eagle ROVs. #= 5
Crane= hydraulic crane for launch/recovery of RHIB or deployment of sea mines. #= 22
Oceanography= ? #= 2
Anti-pollution= ? #= 3
Survey= ? #= 1
Storage= ? #=14
SIGINT/ELINT= ? #= 1
As of 2001, the KDM inventory of StanFlex modules included: 105 units of 11 types
By 2006, there were 101 units of 11 types.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StanFlex#Inventory

2 Absalon ships at 2 Harpoon modules and 2-3 VLS modules each (5 slots, only missile-firing, SIGINT/ELINT and storage modules can be used)

3 Huitfeldt ships at 2 Harpoon modules and 2 VLS modules each plus 4x 8-cell Mk41 VLS. Total six modules (including guns). Each of the four stanflex positions on the missile deck is able to accommodate either the Mark 141 8-cell Harpoon launcher module, or the 12-cell Mark 56 ESSM VLS

Total need:
10 Harpoon modules (available, matches the above number)
10-12 VLS modules (available)

Other Stanflex ships in Danish navy service: Thetis class (4 ships, capable of all unit types, normally 3 units, incl. gun), Rasmussen class (2 ships of planned 3, capable of all unit types, normally 2 units incl gun, max. 4 units), Diana class (6 ships, storage and anti-polution only, max. 1 unit), 4 MSF drone (max 1 unit), 6 MRD drone (2 units), 6 Holm class (2 MSD drones / 2 Survey ships / 2 training ships, all with one flex container position aft for environmental container, crane or stores unit)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StanFlex#Ships_with_StanFlex

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

If you don't include the prise of actual weapons ;-)
wiki says: US$225m/ship excluding weapon modules for Absalon, as compared to US$325M/ship for Huitfeldt
Keep in mind that upon delivery not all weapons modules may have been delivered (or, more importantly, that existing weapons modules from Thetis class [StanFlex 3000] and Flyvevisken class [Stanflex 300, of which 8 by now sold abroad and 1 scrapped, with just 3 remaining in Danish service] may be reused or recapitalized. Notably Harpoon SSM and Mk48 VLS modules)
You have to view these classes together, as far as design/development is concerned, as they share many modules (so you spread their total, shared R&D costs over the total of 5 ships). Note these five ships are all entirely diesel powered.
Those are things keeping unit costs down, I would think.

If a Crossover 115S (XO115S) with AShW, ASW and AAW (w/MR-SAM) could be had for $350-400 m a ship, then 2 of these ships could be an interesting for Pakistan. They could serve as an effective command ships to coordinate the MILGEM and F-22P. Granted, the real competitive edge would be in how much less it'd cost to operate these versus a conventional frigate from China or Turkey. The partial-LPD attributes could strengthen the PN Marines without being overkill (relative to the Marines' current capabilities) and enable the PN to be a factor in HADR operations.

 

[Hammer Has Fallen]

Why not go for a full fledged 2400 tonne OPV?

 

[Cool_Soldier]

None of your business.

 

[Penguin]

If a Crossover 115S (XO115S) with AShW, ASW and AAW (w/MR-SAM) could be had for $350-400 m a ship, then 2 of these ships could be an interesting for Pakistan. They could serve as an effective command ships to coordinate the MILGEM and F-22P. Granted, the real competitive edge would be in how much less it'd cost to operate these versus a conventional frigate from China or Turkey. The partial-LPD attributes could strengthen the PN Marines without being overkill (relative to the Marines' current capabilities) and enable the PN to be a factor in HADR operations.

If you have 4 F22P and will get 4 Ada class (or variation thereof), all of which have a max speed of some 29kn, then a more logical choice would seem a faster ship e.g. two 28kn XO 131 C or 30kn XO 137 CF. This could be combined with 2 slow (18-22kn) XO 131 T aka XO 131 L, which would complement the new 1 STM/KSEW fleet tanker in alongside replenishment at sea. Thus, 10 combat ships - incl 2 Crossovers - would be supported by 3 auxiliaries (2 Crossover "closer in" and 1 fleet tanker "farther out", once both current AORs are retired). A total of 4 ships could then support your marines. These can lift 656 personnel and their equipment, which is about a battalion's worth i.e. about a third of the current force and a fourth to a fifth of a full brigade).

 

[ZAC1]

how much of these are we getting them n till what date

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

If you have 4 F22P and will get 4 Ada class (or variation thereof), all of which have a max speed of some 29kn, then a more logical choice would seem a faster ship e.g. two 28kn XO 131 C or 30kn XO 137 CF. This could be combined with 2 slow (18-22kn) XO 131 T aka XO 131 L, which would complement the new 1 STM/KSEW fleet tanker in alongside replenishment at sea. Thus, 10 combat ships - incl 2 Crossovers - would be supported by 3 auxiliaries (2 Crossover "closer in" and 1 fleet tanker "farther out", once both current AORs are retired). A total of 4 ships could then support your marines. These can lift 656 personnel and their equipment, which is about a battalion's worth i.e. about a third of the current force and a fourth to a fifth of a full brigade).

A payment-plan notwithstanding, for Pakistan to make space for four XOs (without eating into other programs), it would need to settle with two lightly armed versions (akin to the Absalon-class without its modules).

Basically, 2 XO-131C (or XO-139CF) with AShW, ASW and AAW plus two XO-131L without armaments (bar a 76mm gun, several RWS and a RAM). Granted, the modular design of the XO-131L would leave the option of up-gunning them in the future, but it wouldn't be the focus from the onset.

 

[Penguin]

A payment-plan notwithstanding, for Pakistan to make space for four XOs (without eating into other programs), it would need to settle with two lightly armed versions (akin to the Absalon-class without its modules).

Basically, 2 XO-131C (or XO-139CF) with AShW, ASW and AAW plus two XO-131L without armaments (bar a 76mm gun, several RWS and a RAM). Granted, the modular design of the XO-131L would leave the option of up-gunning them in the future, but it wouldn't be the focus from the onset.

Agree.

However, if you look at how PNs present and future AORs are armed, that is essentially a Phalanx CIWS, a pair of light cannon, a few HMGs and - possibly - some handheld MANPADS. So that would be normal in that role. And, while the new fleet tanker is clearly to replace steampowered (needing 17 hours to get ready to sail from cold start!) PNS Moawin in the immediate future, at some point in the not too distant future PNS Nasr will also need replacing. She's from 1987 or so i.e. about 30 years old now. PN may keep her going for longer than is usual - after all, PNS Moawin was about 30 when acquired and is now over 50 - but still.
In any case, two XO 131L would be a much longer term item than 2 XO 131 C or XO 137 CF which would be more immediate in terms of procurement. The two logistics ships would be an unavoidable program that probably is already being planned for (but would limit fleet tanker production at KSEW to a single ship). Alternatively, look at the Damen Supporter 19000 logistic support vessel as a development direction for KSEW built second AOR: has 2 david-launched LCMs and 76 'additional personnel' aka marines as option.
http://products.damen.com/en/ranges/logistic-support-vessel/logistic-support-vessel-supporter-19000

The versions we're discussing for landing marines have 1 flight spot for 1 helicopter, but have enough flight deck space that they could in principle also fly off 2 simultaneously. However, the 'reserve' flight deck space could also be used for lashing down a modern land-based MRLs (artillery rocket systems) on deck, that could be used to provide fire support to a landing operation. Much like the French have done with M270 MLRS on Mistral and USN is now planning to do too. E.g. the 40-100km WS-1/A100 combo or the equivalent Turkish T-300 Kasırga.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/inde...ion-modular-naval-concept-at-dimdex-2014.html

http://forum.irishmilitaryonline.co...3765cfb6ab2192&p=439740&viewfull=1#post439740

Damen also has a nice LST range.

http://products.damen.com/en/ranges/landing-ship/landing-ship-transport-100

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Agree.

However, if you look at how PNs present and future AORs are armed, that is essentially a Phalanx CIWS, a pair of light cannon, a few HMGs and - possibly - some handheld MANPADS. So that would be normal in that role. And, while the new fleet tanker is clearly to replace steampowered (needing 17 hours to get ready to sail from cold start!) PNS Moawin in the immediate future, at some point in the not too distant future PNS Nasr will also need replacing. She's from 1987 or so i.e. about 30 years old now. PN may keep her going for longer than is usual - after all, PNS Moawin was about 30 when acquired and is now over 50 - but still. In any case, two XO 131L would be a much longer term item than 2 XO 131 C or XO 137 CF which would be more immediate in terms of procurement. The two logistics ships would be an unavoidable program that probably is already being planned for (but would limit fleet tanker production at KSEW to a single ship).

The versions we're discussing for landing marines have 1 flight spot for 1 helicopter, but have enough flight deck space that they could in principle also fly off 2 simultaneously. However, the 'reserve' flight deck space could also be used for lashing down a modern land-based MRLs (artillery rocket systems) on deck, that could be used to provide fire support to a landing operation. Much like the French have done with M270 MLRS on Mistral and USN is now planning to do too. E.g. the 40-100km WS-1/A100 combo or the equivalent Turkish T-300 Kasırga.

The STM Fleet Tanker cost Pakistan $90 m to acquire, so the PN may add more of those to replace the Moawin and Nasr. OTOH the XO-131L sits in the unique spot of being a tanker with LPD-capabilities, so it fulfills new roles that would be unavailable to another specialized tanker. It also opens the PN to have an LPD without over-committing to a platform it may not prioritize with its budget. It also serves as the platform for two additional frigates, buying the XO-131L would be like putting down a 50% down-payment and still getting the ships. Alternatively, as you've stated, they can stage an XO-131L purchase over a much longer-term, and budget accordingly.

As for KSEW production. Currently, most of it is confined to basically assembling from imported kits. I don't think the STM Fleet Tanker added a strain on infrastructure that'd necessitate scale. This is in contrast to the Hangor (II) submarine program, which is seeing the transfer of systems to enable for manufacturing.

Regarding the near-term, I am increasingly of the opinion that the PN might pursue 2 multi-mission frigates (just an opinion) with AAW capability. These would function to lead the MILGEM and F-22P (irrespective of how their AAW is developed moving forward) and provide some coverage.

I am a bit optimistic here, but the Fincantieri and MBDA visit to Pakistan a few months ago might have been more than just a last minute attempt to pry Pakistan away from the MILGEM and Damen OPV.

The PN might have solicited information about a proper frigate. In my mind, if two ships cost $800m to $1b with their weapons and life-cycle maintenance, then an acquisition can be staged over 10 years (plausibly). They could smoothly fit with the PN's emerging fleet make-up.

Damen is a little unique in that it has shipyards all over the world, so it might be in a position to better compete on cost (for the hull and construction at least) by sourcing work to Lithuania, Romania, etc. It could even try a public-private partnership at Omara or Gwadar for the program (i.e. an offset).

Finally, the XO-series - even the combat-oriented XO-115S, XO-123FS, XO-131C and XO-139FC - has this quality of doing peacetime roles really well. The PN's ability to support HADR, peacekeeping and CTF work goes up by a wide margin without cutting into money spent for conventional needs.

Besides the XO, the DCNS BELH@RRA, BAE Type 31, STM TF-4500 and Chinese (for discussion's sake) Type 057 could fit that bill as well. The PN has a client relationship with each one of those shipbuilders in some shape or form.

 

[Gryphon]

I am a bit optimistic here, but the Fincantieri and MBDA visit to Pakistan a few months ago might have been more than just a last minute attempt to pry Pakistan away from the MILGEM and Damen OPV.

The PN might have solicited information about a proper frigate. In my mind, if two ships cost $800m to $1b with their weapons and life-cycle maintenance, then an acquisition can be staged over 10 years (plausibly). They could smoothly fit with the PN's emerging fleet make-up.

This is nothing more than speculation. It was just a marketing demonstration.

http://news.kuwaittimes.net/website/italy-anti-submarine-ship-carabiniere-visits-kuwait/

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

This is nothing more than speculation. It was just a marketing demonstration.

http://news.kuwaittimes.net/website/italy-anti-submarine-ship-carabiniere-visits-kuwait/

It's speculation, but I think it's plausible.

The PN currently maintains a frigate fleet of 10 ships - i.e. 1 Alamgir, 5 Type 21 and 4 F-22P. The 4 MILGEM will replace 4 of the 5 Type 21s, leaving 1 Alamgir and 1 Type 21.

I understand a 1:1 replacement isn't necessary, but unlike fighters, tanks or APCs, the capability gap caused by the loss of surface warship numbers is genuine loss - it pushes the usage rate of other ships and thins naval coverage.

Moreover, the Alamgir and Type 21 have a measure of AShW and ASW that the Damen OPVs won't have, so it is unlikely the Damen OPVs would supplant the warship fleet in any way.

Fincantieri et. al did have a regional marketing campaign, but they included Pakistan all the same, fully knowing that the Pakistani market is dominated by Turkish and Chinese suppliers. Whether it be the industry, the Navy or both, I feel there's a sense that the PN could pursue additional warships.

The notion of 2 AAW-capable frigates just fits with the PN's apparent acquisition route. It would provide them with suitable command vessels and area-wide AAW to cover each flotilla. Yes, I am pulling a "Zarvan" here, but I feel it is within reason. All this time the MILGEM remained a factor, so my thoughts on this aren't much stranger.

 

[Basel]

Like these Malaysian ships, Bunga Mas Lima [5] and Bunga Mas Enam [6] but with some containerized AShMs added, say 4 containers at 4 missiles each, plus maybe 2 more fitted with pedestal mounted MANPADS?

PN can also go for following solution.

 

[Penguin]

PN can also go for following solution.

As was already suggested.

Kh-35 Uran and/or Club family missiles.