PAKISTAN SEEKING 4 TO 6 NEW FAST ATTACK CRAFTS TO GUARD GWADAR

[maximuswarrior]

I'm not defending anyone. Using your post, I am calling on all here to make an effort and treat each other with civility. You can't change other people's behavior (easily) but you can change your own behavior (easily). We have an ignore button, we have a report button. You don't necessarily need to respond. Etc.

Solomon is going to get the response he asks for. He cannot and won't get away with throwing silly questions that are off topic and meant to stir the pot. He will keep doing this despite being reported because that is why he became a member of this forum. We won't let him do any of it. If he poses silly questions he should be ready for a solid response. You cannot expect the majority to adapt to one troll.

 

[Penguin]

Solomon is going to get the response he asks for. He cannot and won't get away with throwing silly questions that are off topic and meant to stir the pot. He will keep doing this despite being reported because that is why he became a member of this forum. We won't let him do any of it. If he poses silly questions he should be ready for a solid response. You cannot expect the majority to adapt to one troll.

You insist on a different approach, fine. Then I have nothing further to ad. Good day.

 

[Tank131]

Leave it, these kind flame wars aren't worth it.

As for FAC use in anti piracy, the FACs like Azmat and FAC 55 (500+ton range) are really light corvettes and with their main guns and or ciws alone, they can more than adequately deal with pirates in small boats and even motherships. The notion previously mentioned of fighting man to man is so ridiculous, this isnt the 1700s with people boarding each others ships. A phalanx, type 730 or ak630 ciws have effective ranges of 3-4km and a rate of fire high enough to make short work of most small vessels. The gun systems alone are more than enough to deal with pirates.

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

Leave it, these kind flame wars aren't worth it.

As for FAC use in anti piracy, the FACs like Azmat and FAC 55 (500+ton range) are really light corvettes and with their main guns and or ciws alone, they can more than adequately deal with pirates in small boats and even motherships. The notion previously mentioned of fighting man to man is so ridiculous, this isnt the 1700s with people boarding each others ships. A phalanx, type 730 or ak630 ciws have effective ranges of 3-4km and a rate of fire high enough to make short work of most small vessels. The gun systems alone are more than enough to deal with pirates.

In case a team has to board a pirate ship a team of 6-8 comandos can be easily despatched from a FAC. And if these FAC's operate in a pair then even two identical or three smaller teams can be made available.

 

[maximuswarrior]

You insist on a different approach, fine. Then I have nothing further to ad. Good day.

Let Solomon pose his questions. We will entertain them.

Having said that, I agree with most you have said. However, I do believe the PN would require the assistance of missile based FACs. Such high speed warships would certainly complement the rest of the vessels. FACs are typically small, fast and flexible offensive warships armed with adequate punch. Of course, they don't substitute all-round capabilities such as full fledged destroyers and frigates. However, for PN it is all about affordability and getting the best bang for buck. FACs certainly fit this profile. These vessels would be used in close proximity to land and would complement other hardware at sea.

 

[Penguin]

Looking at the current PN composition, many ships including smaller craft carry AShM. There are larger units with ASW capability but no smaller units with such capability. The planned CSTC 1500 Ton Offshore Patrol Ship does not appear to have ASW weapons (rockets, light torpedoes). That means inshore (armed) ASW is conducted by ASW helicopter (Sea Kings, Harbin Z-9s) and/or MPA (P-3 Orions, possibly F-27, and in future possibly also ATR-72), if at all. As for MCM capability, there are just 3 minehunters (Dutch/Belgian/French trii-partite MH) and they are by now 35 years old and in need of at least modernization.

Military defence of Gwadar (or Karachi for that matter) should really start with land-based cover i.e. PAF naval strike capability, coastal missile battery (C-602, the export version of the YJ-62) and some air defence capability (layered LY-80, Spada Aspide 2000, Manpads, AAA). In addition, monitoring and C4I systems, possibly coupled to shore dual purpose guns, ASW and anti-diver weapons e.g. ATLAS Security for Coastal Areas ( https://www.atlas-elektronik.com/what-we-do/maritime-security-systems/)

Complementing this, three types of ships might be usefull:
Inshore MW(minelaying)/MCM(sweeping/hunting)/Patrol, with cannon and some light ASW/anti-diver armament e.g. rockets (ASW cued from shore or ASW helicopter).
Anti-ship units (FAC-M), with AShM and good AA self-defence (AAA and/or SAM) as well as reasonable anti-surface firepower (20-30mm cannon + ATGW like weapon, or heavier 35mm-76mm gun)
Anti-piracy / Fishery protection / Customs/ Coast Guard vessel, with helideck, 35-76mm cannon, interceptor boat(s) and very good range, endurance and seakeeping.

Pakistan appears to have or to be working on the latter two types ships, respectively Navy and MSA ships. There appears no effort on the first type. Unclear what the status is regarding shore/shore-based equipment and facilities.

 

[Solomon2]

Military defence of Gwadar (or Karachi for that matter) should really start with land-based cover i.e. PAF naval strike capability, coastal missile battery (C-602, the export version of the YJ-62) and some air defence capability (layered LY-80, Spada Aspide 2000, Manpads, AAA). In addition, monitoring and C4I systems, possibly coupled to shore dual purpose guns, ASW and anti-diver weapons e.g. ATLAS Security for Coastal Areas ( https://www.atlas-elektronik.com/what-we-do/maritime-security-systems/)

What about protection from land-based attacks?

And there's supposed to be an offshore LNG terminal, that likely needs its own protection, doesn't it?

 

[Penguin]

What about protection from land-based attacks?

And there's supposed to be an offshore LNG terminal, that likely needs its own protection, doesn't it?

I didn't suggest my ideas made for a complete defence, did I now? The off-shore LNG terminal is another argument for a systemic harbor defence in the wide sense of the word (i.e. part of the landbased element) and inshore craft. While part of a wider network, a terminal can have its own sensors and possibly also weapons, especially against divers, minisubs, special forces elements etc..

As for defence against land attack, the geography is advantageous. You can easily isolate the actual port area at the tip of the peninsula and the waterways further land inward provide a basis for a wider defensive ring.

Do you have any ideas of your own in this respect, or just questions?

 

[Solomon2]

As for defence against land attack, the geography is advantageous. You can easily isolate the actual port area at the tip of the peninsula and the waterways further land inward provide a basis for a wider defensive ring. Do you have any ideas of your own in this respect, or just questions?

When PN bases were attacked in the recent past they were "inside jobs", right? And regardless of the surrounding territory, Gwadar will be the hub of multiple transit corridors, so geography isn't going to be a deterrent factor.

 

[Tank131]

In case a team has to board a pirate ship a team of 6-8 comandos can be easily despatched from a FAC. And if these FAC's operate in a pair then even two identical or three smaller teams can be made available.

In case a team has to board a pirate ship a team of 6-8 comandos can be easily despatched from a FAC. And if these FAC's operate in a pair then even two identical or three smaller teams can be made available.

In case a team has to board a pirate ship a team of 6-8 comandos can be easily despatched from a FAC. And if these FAC's operate in a pair then even two identical or three smaller teams can be made available.

Remember, Pakistan also has an active MSA which is getting 6 new OPV who will be the primary source for antipiracy efforts. The FAC will act in support.

@Penguin, with respect to land based protection, the induction of the JF-17 at Masroor, PAF has started increasing its ability to provide aircover to PN and increase its naval strike ability using C-802A (and likely CM400AKG i near future). Pakistan also has C-602 and Zarb land based AShM (in ramges of 290 amd 300km respectively (Zarb likely a locally produced C602). With the indiction of PNS Hameed base, Pakistan has the VLF for better command/control of its subsurface fleet. With the recent encounter with the Indian navy sub, it appears that Pakistan has a good strategy to hunt subs using MPA and surface vessels but i agree that both need to be far more robust in nature (more MPA and more sub-hunting capabilities). To that effect, a potentially deal for MiLGEM-G would go a long way, adding 4 large surface ships with strong ASW capabilities. If it also gets type 057 frigates it will be stronger yet still. However there is a distinct need for a larger fleet of MPA which for now only number around 10 (3 Foker 27 and 7 P-3C). There has been talk of adding ASW capabilities to the 3 ATR-72 with Germany's RAS set to do the upgrade (1st delivery in 2017). However with only 2 pylons for Light torpedo, im not sure it is a robust enough solution. I would be interested to see if PAC could get co-production of Y-8GX6 which will house the largest MAD on any MPA, in addition to a large surface search radar and has the potential to house 8 torpedoes. Also of interest would be CASA/IPTN CN-235 MPA which has 6 harpoints for the use of Excocet or torpedoes. I would think this aircraft would represent an opportunity to enhance defense relations with Indonesia given they are developing the N245 variant of cn235 which will be slightly larger. Acquiring ToT for this would allow local manufacturing of light weight transports and MPA with robust ASW and AShW capabilities (a modified n245 with ability to fire off 6 c802 at ships or drop 6 torpedoes at subs is an intersting prospect).

 

[Penguin]

When PN bases were attacked in the recent past they were "inside jobs", right? And regardless of the surrounding territory, Gwadar will be the hub of multiple transit corridors, so geography isn't going to be a deterrent factor.

Well then, since you brought up 'land-based attacks", you need to be more specific about 'defence against what' up front. Inside jobs are always a risk, do you wish an expose on how to prevent those? Because that is a) a thread in itself and b) not really part of 'military defences' as I understand that term. And against land based attack as an array of possibilities, geography does play a role (just not against this particular constituting elem ent of that whole array).

 

[Basel]

Remember, Pakistan also has an active MSA which is getting 6 new OPV who will be the primary source for antipiracy efforts. The FAC will act in support.

@Penguin, with respect to land based protection, the induction of the JF-17 at Masroor, PAF has started increasing its ability to provide aircover to PN and increase its naval strike ability using C-802A (and likely CM400AKG i near future). Pakistan also has C-602 and Zarb land based AShM (in ramges of 290 amd 300km respectively (Zarb likely a locally produced C602). With the indiction of PNS Hameed base, Pakistan has the VLF for better command/control of its subsurface fleet. With the recent encounter with the Indian navy sub, it appears that Pakistan has a good strategy to hunt subs using MPA and surface vessels but i agree that both need to be far more robust in nature (more MPA and more sub-hunting capabilities). To that effect, a potentially deal for MiLGEM-G would go a long way, adding 4 large surface ships with strong ASW capabilities. If it also gets type 057 frigates it will be stronger yet still. However there is a distinct need for a larger fleet of MPA which for now only number around 10 (3 Foker 27 and 7 P-3C). There has been talk of adding ASW capabilities to the 3 ATR-72 with Germany's RAS set to do the upgrade (1st delivery in 2017). However with only 2 pylons for Light torpedo, im not sure it is a robust enough solution. I would be interested to see if PAC could get co-production of Y-8GX6 which will house the largest MAD on any MPA, in addition to a large surface search radar and has the potential to house 8 torpedoes. Also of interest would be CASA/IPTN CN-235 MPA which has 6 harpoints for the use of Excocet or torpedoes. I would think this aircraft would represent an opportunity to enhance defense relations with Indonesia given they are developing the N245 variant of cn235 which will be slightly larger. Acquiring ToT for this would allow local manufacturing of light weight transports and MPA with robust ASW and AShW capabilities (a modified n245 with ability to fire off 6 c802 at ships or drop 6 torpedoes at subs is an intersting prospect).

You forgot to mention 8 high speed cutters for patrolling from USA.

 

[Tank131]

If they actually come which at this point is up in the air with congress holding their funding. If you actually look at these vessels when used in conjunction with the scam eagle uav, theu are quite potent MSA/Coast Guard vessels.

 

[Muhammad Omar]

You forgot to mention 8 high speed cutters for patrolling from USA.

I think US cancelled that...

 

[araz]

STM offers FAC-55 design to Pakistan.
FAC-55 is designed for TN Assault Boat project (10 to be produced) but It is officially introduced to Pakistan Navy officials and It is reported that Pakistan liked FAC-55.

It is actually designed to be a game changer in Aegean thanks to very fast speed and frigate like fire power.


76 mm head cannon,
RAM (21 missiles),
8 x SSMs (probably Atmaca),
4xTorpedos (probably Akya),
3D radar,
EW soft and hard suits,
50+ knots speed,
Max 600t displacement

Low siluet, stealth design, very high speed and frigate like firepower make this boat a deadly threat to enemy platforms. She can hunt a frigate and think a few of them on sea making maneuvring (55kts) against enemy assets.

http://www.star.com.tr/guncel/en-hizli-hucumbot-denizlere-iniyor-haber-1162245/
https://www.stm.com.tr/tr/haberler/...pakistan-savunma-fuari-ve-seminerine-katildik

Sorry @cabatli_53 but what is the range and rough estimate of cost of this beauty.
A

PN will most likely stick with the Azmat class FACs as they are being built locally also.

I see the logic however they need to modify and add armaments to fulfill some additional duties including AD which seems to be a glaring deficiency in most PN platforms. I am no expert but I think we need more of FACs /Corvettes in the 600-1000 Ton capacity for littoral water defence leaving the larger frigates to patrol further for aggressive maneouvers.
A

I talked to @Horus on forum and finally found out he agrees with me. Pakistan needs to 25 Frigates in total but those Frigates should have capability of what French FREMM class has. I mean two kind of VLS one which can fire long range cruise missiles and one which can fire long range Air Defence system. Also around 14 Submarines 11 AIP and 3 nuclear. As for Missile Boats. Well the more the are the better. But we also need work develop Missiles which can be fired from these small missile boats but have at least range of 1000 KM and can hit both surface ships as well as targets on land.

Not on the meagre handouts which the PN gets. The workforce projected in your post and platforms require a lot more expenditure as well as man power.
A

Well if @Horus agreed we you that "We should develop a missile that can be fired from these small missile boats and have at least range of 10000KM" i should shoot myself and the blame on him somehow. With my ghost returning to haunt him,, not you but HIM!!!

I think Zarvan meant the range of the ship being 1000Km rather than the missile. Probably a typo. And then I saw his next post arguing for a 1000km missile!!!!!!! I give up.
A