PNS Azmat Class - Fast Attack Missile Craft | Updates & Discussions.

[S.Y.A]

Pn hasn't retired any fleet ship yet.

not officially retired, its just rusting at the dockyard, mostly used as a spare parts supply for other ships. you can see it on google maps too.

 

[592257001]

A funny thing i noticed on azmat clas,the boat doesn't have sensors necessary to track,acquire and guide its c-802 missiles.Requires guidance from external sensors?Its useless on its own.Or am i missing something here?

Any warship of a potent navy is never about "fighting on its own". Naval warfare is always about fighting within a system, a system of varies sensor inputs. The C802 launched from Azmat could utilize data from PN P-3 Orions, or Z-9s for mid-course correction while it cruises to terminal guidance phase. That being said, the Azmat does have a type 36X radar (improved upon type 360)E/F band radar for target acquisition and inputting firing solution for WVR air and surface targets. The realistic surface target acquisition distance is not dependent on "power" as some naive Indian member pointed out above, but based on the height of the radar mast(excluding certain BVR radar made by Russia/China). Thus, it can be concluded that Azmat is just as potent in its ability as a surface combatant as any other Indian counterpart.

We don't intend to build missile boats in the first place.Our aegis type systems will be on destroyers,something PN only pretends to have with fake designations on old light frigates.

"Will", that's some thing I hear alot from the IN. Talk 'bout what you do have, because I am afraid the Kolkata will not be combat effective for some time.
I hope you are not SERIOUSLY drawing comparisons between MF STAR and AN/SPY-1 or Barak 8 and SM2/3 here.

 

[alimobin memon]

The pupose of this 700ton is not to do offence but defence and for that it is suited. its AK 630 CIWS which in my opinion is one of the best weapon for both offense and defence. it has C802 Ashm which is definitely deadly. It has main gun to fight other FAC which is 23mm good against any FAC and faster to point at target faster reload and complete automatic are some of its good qualities. But most important thing is its speed which gives it an edge over missiles. Targetting a ship with missile is tough specially against FAC. Ashm have a similar properties like Cruise missile they fall on the projected distance or in most advance can change its course slowly but by that time FAC are manuevered away.

We always look in weapons in a way like western having heavy firepower. But Mostly if u see in documentaries and read the war stories they throw a missile on tiny targets. thats what fools us we think we require a 75mm gun for FAC or so. its just an example but I hope u understand. for a class of FAC its already have more than enough punch. furthermore the navy has already equipped its ship with man pad they can fend of any target in terms of speed as on sea level most targets dont go beyong M 1.4-1.6.

 

[592257001]

Well with BARAK 8 it will be. You missed out the MF-STAR. Aegis has two categories. The Aegis Combat System for self defence and the Aegis BMD with the RIM 174 for Ballistic missile defence. Both are derivatives of the SM-2 platform.

The Heart of the Aegis being the AN/SPY-1 Radar which is similar to the MF-STAR

http://www.iai.co.il/sip_storage/FILES/3/27543.pdf

I am sorry if I misunderstood you, but it seems that you are suggesting that Barak 8, a missile that could supposedly reach out to 70km at Mach 2, is as good as Aegis systems, based on the "SM-2 platform"(mind you, that is a missile with range of 170km at mach 3.5). That is MUCH less than the stand-off distance required by the IN to deter PAF birds from launching ASMs such as the CM-400, with range of 240km+ and terminal speed of Mach 5.5. (I believe most people here here knows why it is claimed as 240km only, as per international arms trade regulation)

A "comparable" Aegis TYPE vessel would be the type 52D, with its HHQ-9 missile with range of 200km+ and travels at mach 4+ (data of HHQ-9, since data for the HHQ-9A/B, which is meant for the 52D is still classified and therefore speculation only)

 

[592257001]

We don't intend to build missile boats in the first place.Our aegis type systems will be on destroyers,something PN only pretends to have with fake designations on old light frigates.

oh I don't think the 22nd KILLER missile vessel squadron of the IN would be too pleased to hear their names being forgotten. Does the Abhay class and the Veer class mean any thing to you? Or maybe you should be less ignorant 'bout your own navy before pointing fingers.

Funny how the same thing could be said for "IN only pretend to have fake designations (corvette)on old missile boats"

As for the quality of the Azmat, I would like to post a picture of their Indian counterparts in comparison.

 

[satishkumarcsc]

I am sorry if I misunderstood you, but it seems that you are suggesting that Barak 8, a missile that could supposedly reach out to 70km at Mach 2, is as good as Aegis systems, based on the "SM-2 platform"(mind you, that is a missile with range of 170km at mach 3.5). That is MUCH less than the stand-off distance required by the IN to deter PAF birds from launching ASMs such as the CM-400, with range of 240km+ and terminal speed of Mach 5.5. (I believe most people here here knows why it is claimed as 240km only, as per international arms trade regulation)

A "comparable" Aegis TYPE vessel would be the type 52D, with its HHQ-9 missile with range of 200km+ and travels at mach 4+ (data of HHQ-9, since data for the HHQ-9A/B, which is meant for the 52D is still classified and therefore speculation only)

You are still confused between the two derivatives of the RIM 174. One is an ABM and the other is a Missile defence system.

And the CM-400 is not a new system and is based on the Kh 15 Raduga which is a very old concept. The missile is modern but the concept has existed for a very long time.

I still have my reservations comparing the Aleigh-Burke to the Type 52D.

 

[592257001]

You are still confused between the two derivatives of the RIM 174. One is an ABM and the other is a Missile defence system.

And the CM-400 is not a new system and is based on the Kh 15 Raduga which is a very old concept. The missile is modern but the concept has existed for a very long time.

I still have my reservations comparing the Aleigh-Burke to the Type 52D.

Lol, i ain't the one confused. This comment of yours just further emphasized your lack of knowledge.

First, it's not the "two derivatives of the RIM 174", but the "two derivatives of Aegis combat system" since RIM 174 refers to SM-6 (based on SM-2), that is intended for all non-ABM role of Aegis.

Secondly, you were the one who previously said "the two variants of aegis are both based on the SM-2", not me. I didn't even bothered pointing out your mistake the first time, but the two variants of Aegis are based on two different MISSILES, the one based on SM-3 is for ABM while the other based on SM-2ER is for fleet-wide air defense.

Third mistake of yours, no one claimed the CM-400 to be a "New design", since super-sonic long range ASMs that follows a high-low flight path have definitely existed before, though I don't know what you would classify as a new design (My guess is you would consider all ballistic missiles in the world a shameless copy of V-2?). Especially since the Kh-15 can only be fitted on board Tupolov bombers, and the CM-400 can be fitted on board a nimble bird such as JF-17. Plus, the focus here was never about whether or not CM-400 is an old or new design, is it?

Lastly, I have SERIES reservation about your logic as you would consider Kolkata as an Aegis type ship but reluctant to think 52D as such.

 

[satishkumarcsc]

Lol, i ain't the one confused. This comment of yours just further emphasized your lack of knowledge.

First, it's not the "two derivatives of the RIM 174", but the "two derivatives of Aegis combat system" since RIM 174 refers to SM-6 (based on SM-2), that is intended for all non-ABM role of Aegis.

Secondly, you were the one who previously said "the two variants of aegis are both based on the SM-2", not me. I didn't even bothered pointing out your mistake the first time, but the two variants of Aegis are based on two different MISSILES, the one based on SM-3 is for ABM while the other based on SM-2ER is for fleet-wide air defense.

Third mistake of yours, no one claimed the CM-400 to be a "New design", since terminally hyper-sonic long range ASMs have definitely existed before, though I don't know what you would classify as a new design.

Lastly, I have SERIES reservation about your logic as you would consider Kolkata as an Aegis type ship but reluctant to think 52D as such.

Not worth my time.

 

[592257001]

Not worth my time.

With tail tugged between tis hind legs, like the others before him, he refuse to accept the truth...

Seriously, I really hoped some respectable Indian member like yourself would have shed some meaningful light on this, not just come into a post about PN vessels and troll

 

[alimobin memon]

Aegis is being discussed here in thread is it being inducted in PN ships or what ?

 

[Nishan_101]

I still think PN needs to add more Azmat Class FAC about 16 of them total with 57mm Main Gun, a proper CIWS and also with some submarine rockets to counter some submarines as well.

 

[Penguin]

I still think PN needs to add more Azmat Class FAC about 16 of them total with 57mm Main Gun, a proper CIWS and also with some submarine rockets to counter some submarines as well.

Why do you think so?
Why 16 and not 14 or 18; 12 or 20?
Why a 57mm rather than e.g. a 35-40mm or a 76mm?
Why attempt to put a FAC (fast, loud) into an ASW role (slow, quiet)?

Aegis is being discussed here in thread is it being inducted in PN ships or what ?

No

Not worth my time.

Pity. Some good points were made.

 

[Penguin]

Lastly, I have SERIES reservation about your logic as you would consider Kolkata as an Aegis type ship but reluctant to think 52D as such.

Just because a ship has certain types of fixed arrays doesn't necessarily make it have a capability comparable to an Aegis ship, esp when those tend to be large destroyers/ small cruisers. I would be vey careful to compare/equate Kolkata (i.e. Israëli EL/M-2248 MF-STAR radar, EL/M-2238 L-band STAR and Thales LW-08 D-band air search radar coupled to BEL Electronic Modular Command & Control Applications EMCCA Mk4 combat management system) as well as 052D (lord knows what's inside) to, say, the late model Burke's and Tico's. Just as I would be carefull to do so with our Tales outfitted Dutch LCF Zeven Provincien. They do all have area air defence roles and are tasked with protecting not only themselves but also other vessels in a task group. I think the weapons used by the respective VLS's should not be included in (considered part of) these AAW command systems

 

[fatman17]

I still think PN needs to add more Azmat Class FAC about 16 of them total with 57mm Main Gun, a proper CIWS and also with some submarine rockets to counter some submarines as well.

finally somebody woke up

 

[Thorough Pro]

Buddy, you are wasting your time, he is an indian

So this is how IN makes her missile boats hmm, can they convert my boat into a missile boat?

you forgot a painstaking integration process, a decent combat management system with sufficient speed to handle various tasks, a decent EW system for self protection, radar and sonars to name a few. All to make sure the whole system works.