PN recieves Spruance class destroyer

[IceCold]

Is PN ever going to buy a destroyer? Destroyer is a very important part of all modern navies and unfourtanely we have none. Any news on if PN plans to accuire destroyers along with the f22p.

 

[Master Chief]

It is good to have destroyer of this deadly class. If it successfully fires babur missile then will enhanse PN capibilities in firing missiles from ships. but i dont know what type type of SAM it has?

Only SAMS are most likly going to be NATO Sea Sparrow and RAM missle system.

I also want to address the issue of a few other post about this ship being at the end of it life. This is not true, "Golden rule, NEVER UNDER ESTIMATE YOUR ENEMY"

Yes, these ships are up there in age, but are still one of the best ASW platforms around. Maybe not the best, but still in the top ten! Yes these ship are very expensive to operate, but well worth the cost! I had several friends on the spru-cans, they can do alot more then meets the eye. Just rember the US navy had the old sumner/gearings classes up till the 80's! A ship is only as good as it sailors! I think they will be fine with this ship.

 

[Master Chief]

What would have better for Pakistan's navy would have been the Kidd class. That class is for AAW and ASW.

 

[IceCold]

What about the uks type45 AAW destroyer? Kid class is also based on the spruance class destroyer, but then again they are always subjected to sactions, F67 class of France is another good option it also has ASW, besides AAW

 

[Master Chief]

Yes, the Type-45 destroyer is great. But I thought that we were talking about older destroyers. There are many new ones the PN could use!

 

[EagleEyes]

PN usually gets the frigates. Its not the navy which can afford to operate destroyers which require major maintenance, more crews and over all expenses. For one destroyer PN can operate 2 frigates, and its operational fleet is usually limited to 6-8 frigates.

What can a destroyer provide that a good frigate cannot, and isn't it good for Pakistan Navy to stick with the frigates/corvettes for the surface fleet and not to go on with something it cannot afford or maintain? Please keep in mind that a major threat only comes from India and the area to protect is much small.

 

[IceCold]

Please keep in mind that a major threat only comes from India and the area to protect is much small.

Not to mention there is another threat that is coming on the horizon, the threat frm US. And 1 never knows when it could turn into a full flege conflict, I think navy needs to be prepared like army and airforce for any future conflict with any 1 of or perhaps both the countries.

 

[Master Chief]

Yes, this is true but you must rember india has a sizeable navy! As a threat from the US against Pak. well yes its possible but not likley. I would worrie about india first.

 

[Contrarian]

Webby, if its Indian Navy you are concerned about, 6-8 frigates are not going to be defending your beaches.

Get atleast 30 then talk about defence.

 

[IceCold]

Webby, if its Indian Navy you are concerned about, 6-8 frigates are not going to be defending your beaches.

Get atleast 30 then talk about defence.

To some extent i agree with you mala. PN has always been neglected in the past and yet in 71 they were the only force deterant agianst india when army and airforce got bashed out, anyhow i believe tht PN should be allocated more fundings i.e. for the pruchase of new subs, destroyers along with the frigates inorder to make it into a true force that can counter the threat placed from india.
IA is going at a hell of a pace.

 

[Keysersoze]

Well from what i can gather there will be at least 12-14 new vessels

4 Fremm corvettes
a indeterminate number of OHP's (six has been bandied around)
4 F-22p's
Plus a indeterminate number of frigates.

 

[Keysersoze]

No plan to attack Iran, says Mullen




By Ihtasham ul Haque

ISLAMABAD, April 16: A senior US naval officer declared here on Monday that the United States and its coalition partners had no plan to attack Iran because diplomacy would hopefully succeed in preventing Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

“Let me straightaway tell you that there is no plan that involves an attack on Iran. Hopefully, the diplomatic channel will resolve matters pertaining to Tehran’s desire to acquire nuclear weapons,” the visiting US Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Michael G. Mullen told a news conference.

“But we are very much concerned about Iran’s development of nuclear weapons and our goal is to ensure that it does not happen,” he said.

He said there had been a strong US navy’s presence in this region for many decades and recently his country had added more “vital ships” in its naval fleet to check Al Qaeda activities. The increased presence of US warships was meant to ensure maritime security in the region. “And this does not mean we are planning any attack on Iran,” he said, adding that he was in Pakistan to ensure that global war on terror continued.

He, however, accused Iran of smuggling “technology and technical material” to Iraq to kill US soldiers there.

The objective of his visit to Pakistan, he said, was to discuss with his Pakistani counterpart and other senior officials free flow of ships and the security of goods being transferred from one place to another.

He was asked to comment on President Gen Pervez Musharraf’s dissatisfaction over the performance of US-led coalition forces in the region and his threat to come out of this collation if the blame-game continued against Pakistan. “I have no doubt in my mind that Pakistan and Musharraf are very much committed against the war on terror. Musharraf is our very terrific partner,” he said.

Admiral Mullen said Pakistan was making serious efforts to meet with the challenge of the war on terror and “I am here to strengthen these efforts which can take a long time to succeed”.

Responding to a question, he said Pakistan had requested to obtain used US naval gunships and frigates which were not currently available. At least for two years, these gunships and frigates could not be provided to Pakistan, he added.

“But this is our priority that as soon as these ships and frigates are available, they will be given to Pakistan,” he said. Pakistan, he said, had earlier received P-3 Orion aircraft for its maritime security.

“We got other weapon system programme for Pakistan which is going very well,” Admiral Mullen said, adding that his country was providing improved computer- based training to Pakistan’s navy, which also included necessary assimilation.

Asked about the proposed US legislation aimed at linking aid to Pakistan with the war on terror, he said the issue was raised when Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited Pakistan recently. However, he believed that the proposed legislation would not be eventually adopted by the Congress because Pakistan and President Musharraf were committed against the war on terror.

http://www.dawn.com/2007/04/17/top8.htm

 

[kidwaibhai]

I personally believe that Pakistan should concentrate on building our submarine fleet. We cannot match India on a ship by ship bases, neither can we match them with superior technology the only way that we can stop or even destroy the Indian naval armada is through our submarine fleet. We should also be focusing on developing the technology or at least getting the technology for underwater launch of babur.

 

[bhangra12345]

I personally believe that Pakistan should concentrate on building our submarine fleet. We cannot match India on a ship by ship bases, neither can we match them with superior technology the only way that we can stop or even destroy the Indian naval armada is through our submarine fleet. We should also be focusing on developing the technology or at least getting the technology for underwater launch of babur.

A simple drawback for your plan is, if India gets itselves good anti-submarine warfare technology( and it has good enough), you will be doomed. You are putting all your eggs in one basket, which is bad for defence technologies.

 

[Adux]

India has currently one of the best ASW Fleets in the world.