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

[Fenrir]

Visby Class is a Corvette not FAC.

The Norwegian Skjold Klassen is smaller then Visby, but classified as a Corvette because of their handling in high sea states. In any other country they'd be MTBs or FACs.

There's no standard maritime hull classification standard (or else the Eurofrigates would be destroyers).

Now I disagree with @Penguin on the Skjold as an option for Pakistan (not that he was making an actual sales pitch, just a template). Norway does not like to sell military equipment to Pakistan and doesn't exactly have a history of supplying them with even basic arms and the Skjold Class boats were designed and optimized for operations near the Norwegian coastline, or even in inland waterways.

They are capable of traversing open ocean waters, but that's not really how they are intended to be used. They are designed to support the larger Norwegian fleet of frigates and minecontrol vessels to clear near-shore waters in conjunction with land-based MPAs and fighter aircraft and coastal artillery units and special forces.

The PN has a similar mission, but is structured in a way that'd not be optimized to support the Skjold class corvettes, which is good because Pakistan probably isn't interested in them anyway.

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

We've gotten pretty far away from the subject topic: how to guard gwadar port. Do Pakistanis want Gwadar to be a viable commercial port that contributes to Pakistan's economy or merely a justification for an irrelevant military shopping list? If the former, Pakistan should consult with the major shipping companies, not just the Chinese; if the latter, chat away....

Once again you are asking the wrong question. Did you read the TITLE of this thread?
Please read about the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean along with the strategic choke points in the vicinity of Pakistan. Also read about the EEA and EEZ of Pakistan and Oman & Piracy in this region.

The Italian comandos mistook Indian fishermen to be Pirates and shot them. EU has a flotilla in these waters for the very same reason. You would get you answers. Till then stop Trolling

 

[Solomon2]

Once again you are asking the wrong question. Did you read the TITLE of this thread?

Of course.

Please read about the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean along with the strategic choke points in the vicinity of Pakistan.

Ohhh....the FACs can be used to deny ships access to the Arabian/Persian Gulf. Don't see how that protects Gwadar.

Also read about the EEA and EEZ of Pakistan and Oman & Piracy in this region.

And I've pointed out the FACs aren't optimal in the anti-piracy role: speedboats favored by pirates can outrun them, whereas FACs aren't suited for harbor patrol, nor optimal for medium-range patrol and boarding of "mother ships".

And mini-subs are of no use "protecting" a target at all; being "out of sight and out of mind" they do not even deter; rather, they are offensive weapons, most useful for sneaky naval attacks or transporting terrorists.

 

[Fenrir]

And I've pointed out the FACs aren't optimal in the anti-piracy role: speedboats favored by pirates can outrun them.

No speedboat is outrunning the Norwegian Skjold class. +70kn speed, they're the fastest surface combatants in the world. And if that's not fast enough, I doubt any pirate speedboat could outrun a 76mm shell either.

Having a FAC provide an armed escort deters pirates in the first place, as they transit territorial waters. Deterrence, that's how a FAC can protect Gwadar from piracy, and their armament can keep hostile combatants at a safe distance too.

In any event it's not piracy which is the main concern of the Gwadar port, though smugglers and pirates are still a concern in the region, but FACs are more then capable of dealing with them.

Larger FACs like the Israeli Sa'ar 5 can even accommodate helicopter facilities for HITRON or interdiction teams against go-fast boats.

Larger vessels outfitted with RHIBs are still the preferred interdiction method for dealing with or capturing pirates and their vessels, but they aren't suited for the bottled-up near-shore waters of an EEZ. They are extended patrol vessels.

FACs may provide an escort or fire support, but they aren't the primary means of dealing with piracy. They are for near-to-shore defense, and that is what Pakistan intends to do with them near Gwadar port.

I think you're confusing the role of these vessels with another. They aren't going to be tasked with counter piracy, though they can be.

nor optimal for medium-range patrol

Define medium range. Is medium range for Turkey the same as Norway? Or the US? Or Pakistan or India whos concerns differ from one another?

For us medium range is several KM outside of our territorial waters, which our Skjold Class Corvettes (MTBs) are more then capable of patrolling in conjunction with and support of larger assets like the Nansen class frigates.

Of course that's not really what they were intended for, and again, you might be confusing the role of FACs.

Medium range isn't half-way across the ocean for anyone, it could still be near-to-shore depending on the nation's concerns or areas of interest. FACs fulfill patrol roles for a myriad of nations in their areas of interest, near and far.

 

[Penguin]

Yes Madam.

Cap doffed.

A good combination as these are already in service with PN. MRTP-42 would not add anything other then being bigger.

57m-76mm guns could be included into armament, and remote controlled Stinger. As opposed to 40mm max on stretched MRTP-33.
http://www.trdefence.com/yonca-onuk-to-open-shipyard-in-azerbaijan-interview/

Type-22 is more relevant for point defence. Though it can be upgrade with Genesis. The only limitation is the speed as compared to FAC - 55.

No corvette or frigate (> 1000 tons) will do over 30kn. F22P with compact VLS and moden IR homing / AR homing missile would be an improvement. A port and a starboard set of 4 cells with 4 Sea Ceptor each just in front of the bridge?

Umkhonto would take up more space.

Why do we require a heli deck on an FAC when we can use Drone Copters? They can land on a smaller area.

A heli-deck plus refuel capability would allow using a heli-born boarding team, SAR, MedEvac, OtH AShM targeting using radar, ASW etc., even if the heli itself is landbased. Steel is cheap. Additional landingpads wouldn't hurt.

This could be a very good option if the helideck is reduced it could be upgraded with Umkhonto VLS. Or increase the size by 10-20 meters for adding SAM options.

I don't think you would need to reduce the landing area or increase shiplength: just use the area directly behind the AShM's and forward of the helipad markings. NB: €534.8m (about S$880m) to design and build four of these patrol vessels (PVs) and the provision of associated logistic support for the Royal Navy of Oman (RNO)....

What do you think of Hamina class?

Small, modern design and materials, well rounded set of weapons and sensors, very good for coastal work (shallow draft). But ... relatively short-legged (500 nmi range as compared to 800 nmi at 33kn for MRTP-33)

Sir,
Torpedoes? seem unrealistic.

Not currently so with Turkish navy (see e.g. Kilic class) but does occur (see e.g. Singapore's Victory and Fearless classes FAC, although now removed from Vicotory's. See also some Israeli Saar 4's in the past). FAC have big diesels for high speed, both of which are not condusive to sonar operation. Because of ship noise, towed sonars are used, which can be placed deeper in the water and way from the hull. However, there are limitations on their use in shallow water. Alternatively, variable depth sonars are used. A problem with TAS and VDS is that the winches required to deploy/recover are large (see Israeli Saar 4s) and expensive.

Likewise compare Soviet Tarantul class (FAC) and Pauk class (ASW), using same basic hull.

Now I disagree with @Penguin on the Skjold as an option for Pakistan (not that he was making an actual sales pitch, just a template). Norway does not like to sell military equipment to Pakistan and doesn't exactly have a history of supplying them with even basic arms and the Skjold Class boats were designed and optimized for operations near the Norwegian coastline, or even in inland waterways.

They are capable of traversing open ocean waters, but that's not really how they are intended to be used. They are designed to support the larger Norwegian fleet of frigates and minecontrol vessels to clear near-shore waters in conjunction with land-based MPAs and fighter aircraft and coastal artillery units and special forces.

The PN has a similar mission, but is structured in a way that'd not be optimized to support the Skjold class corvettes, which is good because Pakistan probably isn't interested in them anyway.

Realistically, they are indeed not an option for PN, for the reason you give: Norway wouldn't sell them. You also have a point in relating to the specific operating environments. Just Google Earth their respective coastlines to see the difference: lots of inlets and islands (places to hide / features to blend into) versus nice clean, sharp coastline (nowhere to hide). Different weather conditions too.

But Skjold at speed is simply ... hot.

Visby Class is a Corvette not FAC.

At 640 tons, it is quite in the FAC displacement range. It's SAM and some ASW weapons (not sonar or torpedoes) got cancelled. So in many ways, it is closer to a FAC than a corvette.

Singapore's 595 t Victory class are also referred to as corvettes, but are basically a 62m Lurrsen FAC, not much different from Israeli Saar 4.5 Hetz

See
https://defence.pk/threads/what-is-the-difference-between-frigate-and-destroyer.33514/#post-474928
http://www.amiinter.com/pagex.php?pg=vesseltypes

 

[maximuswarrior]

Do you think such bland put-offs will be enough to assure major shipping companies? The route may be shorter but sea travel is much cheaper than road/rail and insurance can be expensive. Gwadar is going to have to deliver value for the money and while the Chinese value it for strategic reasons they also have a built-in disincentive for Gwadar to succeed in regular commercial operations, as its competition is China's own home ports.

You obviously don't have a clue what you are talking about. Let China the main financier first fully complete and benefit from this project. We will talk about major shipping companies in years to come. We are in no hurry. In fact, China is initially supposed to be the sole beneficiary as intended. We don't have to convince anyone. China has pumped tens of billions because they are confident about the firm guarantees they have received from the establishment and civilian rulers in Pakistan. No country spends tens of billions on a risky prospect. China and Pakistan have done their homework for decades. Gwadar has been on the cards for decades. Your fake worries are unfounded.

For your information, many countries around the world are already interested in joining CPEC. You need to be a little more informed.

 

[The SC]

Can't we design build them ourselves?

That is the question..
China is offering 6 Type 22..2 made in China and 4 in Pakistan..
Turkey entered the competition with its FAC-55, no one knows what or how they are offering it with..

 

[The SC]

The FAC-55 has some AAW too along with Surface to surface missiles..

 

[The SC]

Visby Class is a Corvette not FAC.

A more practical approach should be Midjet Submarines in the class of 500-600 ton. Some thing KSEW has worked on.
http://www.karachishipyard.com.pk/midget-submarines/

Midget subs have much less tonnage than 500/600 ton, The Iranian Ghadir midget sub is 120 ton, North Korea had the same tonnage plus other 300 ton and some heavier.. If Pakistan can make a sophisticated 250 to 550 series of subs in big numbers, something like 30 or 40 it can make Any navy, big or small think more than twice before approaching its sea lines with bad intentions..these midget and small subs can be very nasty to even the most modern frigates or corvettes as it was proven by NK 's 320 ton sub sinking a very modern SK frigate or corvette..

Pakistan actually has 3 of the following:

SX-756-class midget submarines


A State of the Art MIDGET submarine built for Pakistan Navy in collaboration with M/s COSMOS of Italy. The boat is capable of firing torpedoes and carrying mines. It is available both in Offensive as well as Defensive roles.

Other features include:
• Stealth capability
• Quiet Transiting
• Shallow Water Operations
• Sneak Operations
• Commando Operations
• Surveillance and Intelligence Missions

Technical details are:


Specifications
Dimensions
Length (Overall)
27.28 M
Height (Overall)
5.59 M
Pressure Hull Diameter
2.30 M
Pressure Hull Length
19.10 M
Displacement (Surfaced)
102 Tons
Displacement (Submerged)
110 Tons
Operation Depth
100 M
Max. speed (Surfaced
9 Knots (on diesel engine)
Max. speed (Submerged)
6 Knots (on batteries)
Endurance
Over 1000 Nautical Miles
on Diesel Engine
Complement
14 (6+8)
Armament
• Torpedo Firing Tubes
• Mines Laying Hooks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pakistan needs a bit heavier midget or small subs of between 250 ton to 500/600 ton.. maybe the new Turkish:"AIP" coming soon ..can fit on the 500 ton ones giving them at least some 8 days submerged.. The more Pakistan will get of these types of Submarines, the more important roles will be played by its other full size submarines..

 

[Arsalan]

might be typo .....

@Zarvan

Well you cant be sure in THIS case

I ended up writing 10000 Okay that was mistake I meant 1000 KM. We need to get produce Missiles which can be fired from Fast Attack Crafts like Azmat which have range of 1000 KM and can hit both Surface Ships as well targets on land let say hitting my favourite target in Mumbai may be a Naval base or a radar sight or something similar.

By the way just corrected that blunder. I was talking about 1000 KM range Missile.

Ok, so it was 1000 km. Fine, will come back to this.

They are close to 50 to 60 ships right now and they are increasing tender for around 14 Corvettes already issued and more major ships being planned and tenders being issued and many are being built.

Ok, so it is 50-60 bigger ships like frigates and destroyers along with an AC. That is what is the strength at present. Let us just not include the ships that are ORDERED. Currently it is a 50-60 ship naval force. Plus the P8 and the fighter jets, what quantity there? any idea or can you please look that up and share?

 

[Penguin]

You obviously don't have a clue what you are talking about. Let China the main financier first fully complete and benefit from this project. We will talk about major shipping companies in years to come. We are in no hurry. In fact, China is initially supposed to be the sole beneficiary as intended. We don't have to convince anyone. China has pumped tens of billions because they are confident about the firm guarantees they have received from the establishment and civilian rulers in Pakistan. No country spends tens of billions on a risky prospect. China and Pakistan have done their homework for decades. Gwadar has been on the cards for decades. Your fake worries are unfounded.

For your information, many countries around the world are already interested in joining CPEC. You need to be a little more informed.

Don't take it personally but for good discussion, sections like those highlighted blue are not helping to create a good setting for productive discussion.... ;-)

 

[maximuswarrior]

Don't take it personally but for good discussion, sections like those highlighted blue are not helping to create a good setting for productive discussion.... ;-)

You should pay attention to his questions. This thread is about the security of Gwadar and not its marketing potential. We understand why this guy keeps posing such irrelevant questions. We understand his pain. Additionally, he doesn't seem to have a basic understanding about Gwadar/CPEC. If there is anyone derailing this discussion it is him. I felt obliged to reply to his rhetorical questions. It is done and dusted as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Penguin]

You should pay attention to his questions. We understand why this guy keeps posing such irrelevant questions. We understand his pain. Additionally, he doesn't seem to have a basic understanding about Gwadar/CPEC. If there is anyone derailing this discussion it is him. I felt obliged to reply to his rhetorical questions. It is done and dusted as far as I'm concerned.

I don't see anything wrong with his posts. There is clearly a distinction between effective protection of commercial shipping in/out of Gwadar and the effective military defence of Gwadar as a naval base.

In relation to the former issue: As it said in the inital post "It is likely that these FACs are primarily being sought to patrol littoral waters and to interdict and deter maritime criminal activity, such as trafficking and piracy. However, the inclusion of missile capability would indicate that these boats will double as anti-access and area denial (A2/AD) assets in wartime." Missile FACs may indeed not be the best choise for the primary tasks. The persuit of missile FACs rather than other assets could indicate emphasis on the military defence of Gwadar as naval base as primary task.
In relation to the latter issue: I can see how missile FACs could deter surface combattants from a potenial naval foe. But how do missile FACs protect the Gwadar port and approaches from e.g. submarines, or mines, or air attack, or underwater infiltration (special forces, mini subs)?

His posts can only 'derail' this thread to the extent that you and others let him (by responding).

All I'm saying is, don't be rude or attack the messenger rather than the message.

 

[maximuswarrior]

I don't see anything wrong with his posts. There is clearly a distinction between effective protection of commercial shipping in/out of Gwadar and the effective military defence of Gwadar as a naval base. His posts can only 'derail' this thread to the extent that you and others let him (by responding).

All I'm saying is, don't be rude or attack the messenger rather than the message.

I've already answered his doubts regarding Gwadar's value for money argument. China and Pakistan have done their homework for decades. Anyone who participates in this thread should know such basic facts. The value for money aspect has been worked out rigorously. China and Pakistan have worked out the return of investment. Also, Gwadar is going to complement existing Chinese sea ports. It is not competition. Such questions don't make much sense, but they do reveal malice and/or ignorance.

Gwadar doesn't require the cooperation of international major shipping companies. Although, it has received much attention from international shipping companies. Chinese shipping companies will initially be operating from this port. The Chinese will be in charge of managing the port.

 

[Penguin]

I've already answered his doubts regarding Gwadar's value for money argument. China and Pakistan have done their homework for decades. Anyone who participates in this thread should know such basic facts. The value for money aspect has been worked out rigorously. China and Pakistan have worked out the return of investment. Also, Gwadar is going to complement existing Chinese sea ports. It is not competition. Such questions don't make much sense, but they do reveal malice and/or ignorance.

Gwadar doesn't require the cooperation of international major shipping companies. Although, it has received much attention from international shipping companies. Chinese shipping companies will initially be operating from this port. The Chinese will be in charge of managing the port.

ALL VERY WELL BUT DOES IT MEAN YOU HAVE TO BE IMPOLITE, OR ATTACK A PERSON?

How one best conducts anti-piracy should lead the question of what military equipment one needs for it. It could be that employing 'Vessel Protection Detachment' (VPDs) consisting of privately contracted armed security personnel Private (Military and) Security Company ((PCASP) from a Private (Military and) Security Company P(M)SC might well be more usefull, thus negating the need for e.g. missile FACs.