Pakistani OHP ship Status

[Contrarian]

That is precisely our Naval Doctrine and Strategy.

We have no ambition to becoming a Blue Water Navy to Project Power.

Thats a little like Nepal saying they dont have an ambition become the leading military power of Asia.
Pakistan simply does not have the resources to even field a Blue Water Navy, let alone a Navy capable of projecting power. Ambition or not is downright irrelevant.

Our sole purpose is to protect our Sea Lanes, Territorial Waters and our Coastline.

That is why our emphasis is on having a Large Submarine Force.

And your current Navy is incapable of that.
Even the submarines wont be able to stop a blockade.

To effectively stop a Naval blockade, Pakistan needs to invest in
1. A capable Surface Fleet
2. A capable air wing of the Navy.

 

[Penguin]

I think Pakistan should look more towards a potent sub-surface fleet than surface. Pakistan's main aim is area denial.

But that leaves it incapable of conducting its peacetime role, if not also its wartime role (some balance is required).

If it so than where are the other 7 what happen to them ?

Still sailing in active US duty: there is not stock of retired OHPs and the US ahs other allies to supply as well, notably Taiwan, which seeks to replace 8 ex-US Knox class frigates and operates 8 domestically constructed ships of an OHP variant.

Is it possible to install on this OHP Ships Chinese weapons ?

Yes. Already they mount non-western 12,7mm HMGs (DShK's).

In the past we did install the LY-60 air defence system on the Type-21 Frigates, I thought it would be again a cheap solution, if install a new system like the "HQ-9"(may be to large and heavy^^) or another Chinese AD-System on the OHP class ?

This would be feasible. It wouldn't be to difficult to move the 76mm forward to the bow area, plate over the current gun position and put the LY-60 launcher there. Or just leave the 76mm alone an install the LY-60 forward. C-802's can't be mounted on the superstructure (see how Taiwan has instally HY2 and HY-3 on its Perry's)

 

[ziaulislam]

Thats a little like Nepal saying they dont have an ambition become the leading military power of Asia.
Pakistan simply does not have the resources to even field a Blue Water Navy, let alone a Navy capable of projecting power. Ambition or not is downright irrelevant.


And your current Navy is incapable of that.
Even the submarines wont be able to stop a blockade.

To effectively stop a Naval blockade, Pakistan needs to invest in
1. A capable Surface Fleet
2. A capable air wing of the Navy.

i am surprised that you think 5 subs including three AIP cant stop a blockade. i am not talking about the other navy assests
india will be having significant losses.

 

[Contrarian]

i am surprised that you think 5 subs including three AIP cant stop a blockade. i am not talking about the other navy assests

No. 5 subs cannot stop a blockade by any stretch when your enemy literally dominates the surface and airspace over the waters.

india will be having significant losses.

India would have some losses, definitely. Not enough to stop a blockade.

For stopping a blockade Pakistan will have to fund better and more Surface combatants along with Naval Jets. And I dont see that happening -funding - in the next 5 years.

 

[MilSpec]

Thats a little like Nepal saying they dont have an ambition become the leading military power of Asia.
Pakistan simply does not have the resources to even field a Blue Water Navy, let alone a Navy capable of projecting power. Ambition or not is downright irrelevant.


And your current Navy is incapable of that.
Even the submarines wont be able to stop a blockade.

To effectively stop a Naval blockade, Pakistan needs to invest in
1. A capable Surface Fleet
2. A capable air wing of the Navy.

Well......

Lets not get ahead of ourselves.

Pakistan's all strategic deployments are primarily India-centric and they have managed their acquisitions very well within their limited budget.

On the other hand India with it's larger defence budget has absolutely muddled both the development and procurement programs.
Kolkatta class, kamorta class, and P17A designs are running years late, DCNS scorpene and follow up P75I are not delayed.

In my personal opinion (which may be wrong), India is not in any position to enforce significant blockade and successfully protect it's taskforce assets at the same time....

 

[fatman17]

Well......

Lets not get ahead of ourselves.

Pakistan's all strategic deployments are primarily India-centric and they have managed their acquisitions very well within their limited budget.

On the other hand India with it's larger defence budget has absolutely muddled both the development and procurement programs.
Kolkatta class, kamorta class, and P17A designs are running years late, DCNS scorpene and follow up P75I are not delayed.

In my personal opinion (which may be wrong), India is not in any position to enforce significant blockade and successfully protect it's taskforce assets at the same time....

dont believe what the india media writes. IMO these are just ploys to scare and spur the india govt. to release funds for the indian armed forces. IN remains a capable force.

 

[Contrarian]

dont believe what the india media writes. IMO these are just ploys to scare and spur the india govt. to release funds for the indian armed forces. IN remains a capable force.

Well......

Lets not get ahead of ourselves.

Pakistan's all strategic deployments are primarily India-centric and they have managed their acquisitions very well within their limited budget.

On the other hand India with it's larger defence budget has absolutely muddled both the development and procurement programs.
Kolkatta class, kamorta class, and P17A designs are running years late, DCNS scorpene and follow up P75I are not delayed.

In my personal opinion (which may be wrong), India is not in any position to enforce significant blockade and successfully protect it's taskforce assets at the same time....

Pakistan has used its funding well enough - no doubt. It used its budget to buy capable submarines.
Subs are most effective for harassing and targetting enemy ships. So in that sense, Pakistan made the most of its budget.

But is that what stops a blockade?
Sandy, a blockade today is very different from a blockade that used to be in the 70's and 80's.
Indian ships no longer need to be present anywhere near a minimum of 300 kms of the Pakistani coastline to enforce an effective blockade on Pakistan. They need not station themselves close or even in fixed routes of patrol like the old days.

What is a blockade? - to ensure that no men and material can be supplied to Pakistan during the period of war
How can it be achieved - simply by making sure no major ship can unload its goods on Pakistani soil.

How do you enforce a blockade - by getting complete situational awareness of the Pakistani coastline. We dont need to station ships in an area or keep up constant fixed patrolling to achieve that. All the ports of Pakistan would be bombed in the first 24 hours of the war by missiles fired from a variety of platforms - planes, land, ships and subs.
That alone would ensure that no major material can land.

After that, Indian ships only need to run long patrols. The main onus on keeping this up would be up to air elements.

Can subs make a difference - yes. Undoubtedly they would. Are they enough ? Not even close. Indian SAG's would be out hunting for the subs themselves and the new aerial acquisitions in this department would be more useful than can be imagined.

If the Pakistani subs do not get damaged at the first declaration of war - which would be the Navy's first priority, then sustaining a blockade would be made difficult by the Pakistani subs. The question that comes to mind is then - how long do we assume the war to last.

On the spending of Pakistani Naval budget - had Pakistan invested more on air assets - from jets to LRMP's, then coupled with the Subs, it would have made a blockade quite difficult for IN.

Lastly, I agree - Indian Naval production has been pathetic - and that is a compliment to them. The only way I see out is to start farming out orders to the private yards. I would say that the Navy needs 10 years to become an effective force. Right now, they are really not.

 

[Rajput_Pakistani]

Pakistan has used its funding well enough - no doubt. It used its budget to buy capable submarines.
Subs are most effective for harassing and targetting enemy ships. So in that sense, Pakistan made the most of its budget.

But is that what stops a blockade?
Sandy, a blockade today is very different from a blockade that used to be in the 70's and 80's.
Indian ships no longer need to be present anywhere near a minimum of 300 kms of the Pakistani coastline to enforce an effective blockade on Pakistan. They need not station themselves close or even in fixed routes of patrol like the old days.

What is a blockade? - to ensure that no men and material can be supplied to Pakistan during the period of war
How can it be achieved - simply by making sure no major ship can unload its goods on Pakistani soil.

How do you enforce a blockade - by getting complete situational awareness of the Pakistani coastline. We dont need to station ships in an area or keep up constant fixed patrolling to achieve that. All the ports of Pakistan would be bombed in the first 24 hours of the war by missiles fired from a variety of platforms - planes, land, ships and subs.
That alone would ensure that no major material can land.

After that, Indian ships only need to run long patrols. The main onus on keeping this up would be up to air elements.

Can subs make a difference - yes. Undoubtedly they would. Are they enough ? Not even close. Indian SAG's would be out hunting for the subs themselves and the new aerial acquisitions in this department would be more useful than can be imagined.

If the Pakistani subs do not get damaged at the first declaration of war - which would be the Navy's first priority, then sustaining a blockade would be made difficult by the Pakistani subs. The question that comes to mind is then - how long do we assume the war to last.

On the spending of Pakistani Naval budget - had Pakistan invested more on air assets - from jets to LRMP's, then coupled with the Subs, it would have made a blockade quite difficult for IN.

Lastly, I agree - Indian Naval production has been pathetic - and that is a compliment to them. The only way I see out is to start farming out orders to the private yards. I would say that the Navy needs 10 years to become an effective force. Right now, they are really not.

1. Pakistan has not only one port of Karachi, Gwadar is situated 700 km away. So if as per your claim that an effective naval blockade could be enforced from 300km away by IN, its a day dream only. There are other smaller ports as well. Ever heard of Ormara Naval Base?

2. Anti-submarine warfare is a very very difficult thing. How many days have passed since Malaysian Airline plane is lost? Where are all these P8is and Orien P3s and other cool gadgets? And there is no war going out there, no threats, no hostile environment. Rest i left to your imagination.

3. Pakistan is a very large country. I can give you 2 examples from recent past..
Operation Desert Storm, 1990-91. It took 2 months of sustained bombing of Iraq before the Allied forces felt comfortable to launch ground offensive. Even then Iraqi military was not completely destroyed.
Serbian Campaign: 1998. Took 100+ days of continuous bombing before Serbia agreed to UN resolutions regarding Kosovo.

Now Pakistan is not Serbia/Iraq and nor India is USA. BTW for how long your economy can sustained a prolong bombing campaign? I again left the rest to your imagination.

Its better for India and Pakistan both to live in peace. The war of today is not an easy business as some Indian Hawks and their media want Indian public to believe. The price is too heavy.

I can bet for my life that just lost of 1 destroyer and you are talking about 300kms, Indians wouldn't be near 1000kms of Pakistani coastline. Same goes for your Air Force as well.

Have a nice weekend !

 

[Contrarian]

1. Pakistan has not only one port of Karachi, Gwadar is situated 700 km away. So if as per your claim that an effective naval blockade could be enforced from 300km away by IN, its a day dream only. There are other smaller ports as well. Ever heard of Ormara Naval Base?

2. Anti-submarine warfare is a very very difficult thing. How many days have passed since Malaysian Airline plane is lost? Where are all these P8is and Orien P3s and other cool gadgets? And there is no war going out there, no threats, no hostile environment. Rest i left to your imagination.

3. Pakistan is a very large country. I can give you 2 examples from recent past..
Operation Desert Storm, 1990-91. It took 2 months of sustained bombing of Iraq before the Allied forces felt comfortable to launch ground offensive. Even then Iraqi military was not completely destroyed.
Serbian Campaign: 1998. Took 100+ days of continuous bombing before Serbia agreed to UN resolutions regarding Kosovo.

Now Pakistan is not Serbia/Iraq and nor India is USA. BTW for how long your economy can sustained a prolong bombing campaign? I again left the rest to your imagination.

Its better for India and Pakistan both to live in peace. The war of today is not an easy business as some Indian Hawks and their media want Indian public to believe. The price is too heavy.

I can bet for my life that just lost of 1 destroyer and you are talking about 300kms, Indians wouldn't be near 1000kms of Pakistani coastline. Same goes for your Air Force as well.
Have a nice weekend !

I could refute each point that you have written separately. But frankly, whats the point. I'd rather have a conversation with the more aware members of the forum than your kinds of posts.

So cheers!

 

[Rajput_Pakistani]

I could refute each point that you have written separately. But frankly, whats the point. I'd rather have a conversation with the more aware members of the forum than your kinds of posts.

So cheers!

Will be waiting for your reply.

 

[ziaulislam]

well our friend here claims that india will able to do so by dominating our skies. that means it will have to destroy PAF first. it also means that it will face great losses itself and it also means that it would be a full scale war . any full scale war will bring nukes in equation

anyway with active subs sitting quietly india will be stupid to blockade us

 

[Penguin]

No. 5 subs cannot stop a blockade by any stretch when your enemy literally dominates the surface and airspace over the waters.

India would have some losses, definitely. Not enough to stop a blockade.

For stopping a blockade Pakistan will have to fund better and more Surface combatants along with Naval Jets. And I dont see that happening -funding - in the next 5 years.

No, Pakistan should not let itself be tempted to compete in that way with the forces of India as the latter will be able to outspend and outbuild and outprocure the former.

 

[Contrarian]

No, Pakistan should not let itself be tempted to compete in that way with the forces of India as the latter will be able to outspend and outbuild and outprocure the former.

True
But how else are they supposed to ensure that they are not blockaded.

I didnt advocate them spending just on a surface fleet. A subsurface and air fleet - much more quantities than they have now - would be required to effectively deny IN blockading Karachi, Gwadar and Pasni.

 

[Penguin]

True
But how else are they supposed to ensure that they are not blockaded.

I didnt advocate them spending just on a surface fleet. A subsurface and air fleet - much more quantities than they have now - would be required to effectively deny IN blockading Karachi, Gwadar and Pasni.

Avoid/resolve conflict (diplomatic)
Have a strategic deterrant (military/strategic)
Look into landroutes, as well as overland (underground) and underwater pipelines (economic/infrastructure).
Sea denial through a variety of means (in which small and larger conventional submarines are an important factor, but fast attack craft, landbased AShM, mining capability, landbased strike capabity feature as well)

You don't need a lot of subs, the mere possibility of them being present will demand committment of significant naval resources to safeguard friendly units.

 

[fatman17]

US Frigate Transfer Bill Moves Out of House

Apr. 11, 2014 - 01:32PM | By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS |

A number of foreign navies are eager to acquire ex-US Navy frigates, but politics is preventing some allies, like Turkey, from receiving any more. Here, the Turkish frigate Gelibolu, ex-USS Reid, approaches Doha, Qatar, on March 24. (Christopher P. Cavas/Staff)

WASHINGTON — The US Navy’s frigate force is rapidly shrinking as the 1980s-era ships are taken out of service. The Navy wants to transfer the ships to friendly nations for further service, and several nations are eager to have them.

But in recent years, congressional politics have made some of the proposed moves overly controversial, and measures to approve the transfers have run afoul of partisan politics, particularly where Turkey and Pakistan are concerned.

But on April 7, the House passed a bill approving the transfer of eight frigates — four to Taiwan, two to Thailand and two to Mexico. Two of the ships named in the bill already have left service, with the other six set to leave the US fleet in 2015.

The bill now lies with the Senate, where it might have come to a vote before the body adjourned for a two-week recess. As of April 10, however, it appeared the opportunity for quick action would pass, leaving the measure to be taken up at a later date.

The House-sponsored bill eliminated a Senate bill introduced in November that included the same ships, plus three more for Pakistan — along with a series of conditions that country has recoiled from meeting.

Forces in the Senate have balked as well at providing Pakistan with the ships, and a hold — reportedly from Sen. Rand Paul R-Ky., — has been placed on the bill.

Similar squabbles led to another frigate transfer bill dying with the previous Congress. That bill would have provided more frigates for Turkey, which already operates eight ex-US frigates.

The latest House bill avoids those questions and centers the move on Taiwan.

“The transfer to Taiwan of retired US Navy frigates is an important part of the US commitment to Taiwan’s security,” Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., a co-sponsor of the bill, said in a statement. “The administration and Congress must continue to find ways to enhance Taiwan’s self-defense capabilities.”

The bill would only approve a ship’s transfer should the specified nation and the US reach agreement. It does not indicate such a move is a done deal. ■