Steel Cutting Ceremony of Indigenously Designed FAC-M No.4 for Pakistan Navy was held at KS&EW

[YeBeWarned]

C602/YJ-62? As on 052C?

So does this mean old Azmat Class Square Shape Tubes uses C-608 Anti Ship Missile ?

 

[JamD]

My sixth Sense is Saying this thing is goona fire "Babur Cruise Missile". and looks more Stealthy!

Like if you Agree!

View attachment 364326

View attachment 364329

After completion of this 4th Azmat Boat we should consider something like this.

View attachment 364333

My thoughts exactly. As a test platform perhaps.

 

[HRK]

the more I thought about the this modified configuration, the presence of Chairman NESCOM & the involvement of Maritime Technology Complex (MTC) the more I am getting convince that this new ship will be dedicated for land attack

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

A ship that can't attack a ship vessel and instead is meant to attack land targets makes no sense , we could just launch a land based missile for that purpose

We could technically used OHP frigate we have by installing Cruise missile launchers on that ship as it is Big enough to carry 10 Cruise missiles

 

[Penguin]

So does this mean old Azmat Class Square Shape Tubes uses C-608 Anti Ship Missile ?

C-208(A)

the more I thought about the this modified configuration, the presence of Chairman NESCOM & the involvement of Maritime Technology Complex (MTC) the more I am getting convince that this new ship will be dedicated for land attack

I sincerely doubt that.
6 missiles hardly makes a dent (unless nuclear tipped). Small surface vessels lacking good AAW capability are relatively easily located and VERY vulnerable to air attack (see Gulf War Battle of Bubiyan).

may be you are right but the presence of Chairman NESCOM & the involvement of MTC in this project indicates the other possibilities .... about which we might not aware as of now ....

Anti-ship Babur could be a possibility. Dimensions and weight of Tomahawk and C-602 are pretty similar. Possibly C-602 launch canister could have been adapted/adopted for Babur (could be a quick solution to a surface / sea-based launcher) .

 

[Penguin]

YJ-62, I think.

C-802

 

[Areesh]

YJ-62, I think.

C-802

So it is C602 as per you.

 

[biloo700]

Babur Cruise Missile Version 2 Possible ?

 

[The Eagle]

the more I thought about the this modified configuration, the presence of Chairman NESCOM & the involvement of Maritime Technology Complex (MTC) the more I am getting convince that this new ship will be dedicated for land attack

Can we connect the dots with Defence Book saying Sea/land based launch system. Your words...?

 

[HRK]

I sincerely doubt that.
6 missiles hardly makes a dent (unless nuclear tipped).

if what I am thinking (rightly or wrongly) is the case then this must be the first ship not the last ship with this configuration & would be ideal for shoot & scoot missions but this would only be worth considering if it have long range land attack missile and we know

- Pakistan do not have any other long range land attack missile which is capable to be launched from ship other then Babar (at least this is the declared position)

- It was explicitly mention by Dr. Samar & by ISPR as well that it is capable to be launched form sea

- The capability of PN to attack land targets are quit weak (I should say PN almost lack this capability currently)

- PN can't afford to have large destroyers or heavy frigates due to financial constrains but a small group of two or three such small ships working in coordination with other support assets can give the same level of fire power of at least a single destroyer for land attack purpose

- & possibly will tie more enemy assets for their search, track & destroy operations as compare to gingle bigger size ship

Small surface vessels lacking good AAW capability are relatively easily located and VERY vulnerable to air attack (see Gulf War Battle of Bubiyan).

- You are rightly pointing the vulnerability of such group of small ships against the aerial assets of enemy, but consider such group of ships operating either from close to the shore under PAF umbrella (at least for near future) or as support/reinforcement group of some Air Defence Frigates with anti-ship capabilities but limited or completely absent long range land attack capabilities (possibly in middle to long term)

- We have seen in past few years the induction of FACs, Frigates (currently both are limited in numbers) agreement for Submarine, long range land based Antis-ship missile C-602 (& its derivative/ local version Zarb), aerial platforms etc. etc. the only thing missing is the the Air Defence assets

- The very basic theme is that Pakistan Navy is surely building assets which can not only help in A2/AD strategy but can possibly hit back at the belly of the enemy

Anti-ship Babur could be a possibility. Dimensions and weight of Tomahawk and C-602 are pretty similar. Possibly C-602 launch canister could have been adapted/adopted for Babur (could be a quick solution to a surface / sea-based launcher) .

this exactly what the possibility might be a FAC having Zarb & Babar missiles combination ..... might be this is what MODP annual book-2015 was refereeing as a Ship based system capable to support land attack & Anti-Ship missiles

Basically the thought I have presented is not to argue with you or to counter you but know the shortcoming & flaws of it, the areas which I might have ignored, I would really appreciate your understanding & opinion about this development

Can we connect the dots with Defence Book saying Sea/land based launch system. Your words...?

^^^ ....

 

[JamD]

if what I am thinking (rightly or wrongly) is the case then this must be the first ship not the last ship

If it is what we think it is, I strongly suspect (as you have hinted) that this is a 'stepping stone' platform. As one would imagine, launching from a ship that's bobbing around in the ocean is not a trivial task (there have been many SPD projects for this task going back many years). The idea may be to get the system tested, iterated and improved upon using a relatively cheap platform, and then based on the results decide on specifics of Babur integration for the future frigate/corvette program (VLS or not to VLS).

 

[Penguin]

So it is C602 as per you.

Nah, i meant 'this is what YJ-62 and its launch container look like'. Logistically not a poor choice as it is already in Pakistan's service as coastal battery missile. Equal or Better range and heavier warhead compared to C802(A).

As I (also) indicated, it would be a possibility that you have an ASuW Babur version in the same or a very similar launch container. Container lengths aren't that different from the square container of C802, but it is larger diameter and the missile weight of YJ62 (1,350kg) is larger than YJ83 (715 kg).

8 C802/YJ83 gives about a minimum weight of 5.7 tons, while 6 C602/YJ62 are 8.1 tons. I suppose racks of the latter are similar in structure but might be a bit sturdier and hence also heavier (this possibly preventing the carriage of 8)

Babur Cruise Missile Version 2 Possible ?

Yeah, certainly. Very similar launch container. A bit shorter than that of YJ62 (5 'ribs' instead of 6')

Can we connect the dots with Defence Book saying Sea/land based launch system. Your words...?

Antiship with (limited) land attack (e.g. ships in port)

 

[Areesh]

Nah, i meant 'this is what YJ-62 and its launch container look like'. Logistically not a poor choice as it is already in Pakistan's service as coastal battery missile. Equal or Better range and heavier warhead compared to C802(A).

As I (also) indicated, it would be a possibility that you have an ASuW Babur version in the same or a very similar launch container. Container lengths aren't that different from the square container of C802, but it is larger diameter and the missile weight of YJ62 (1,350kg) is larger than YJ83 (715 kg).

8 C802/YJ83 gives about a minimum weight of 5.7 tons, while 6 C602/YJ62 are 8.1 tons. I suppose racks of the latter are similar in structure but might be a bit sturdier and hence also heavier (this possibly preventing the carriage of 8)


Yeah, certainly. Very similar launch container. A bit shorter than that of YJ62 (5 'ribs' instead of 6')


Antiship with (limited) land attack (e.g. ships in port)

One thing. How you rate this new development? Will this make our FAC's more lethal against enemy surface fleets etc? Is it a significant move ahead? How good is this development?

 

[Deltaviper]

Hello,

SInce we are all connecting the dots here...

So this ship is being designed by MTC and NESCOM presence was noted at the steel cutting. Interesting to note that both these entities got slapped with US sanctions. Along with other strategic organisations. Now the inclusion of MTC in these sanctions is a clear hint towards this platform (and/or potentially other goodies being worked on) being more than just another FAC.

 

[hussain0216]

Hello,

SInce we are all connecting the dots here...

So this ship is being designed by MTC and NESCOM presence was noted at the steel cutting. Interesting to note that both these entities got slapped with US sanctions. Along with other strategic organisations. Now the inclusion of MTC in these sanctions is a clear hint towards this platform (and/or potentially other goodies being worked on) being more than just another FAC.

There is no other good reason for these specifically targeted sanctions now other then to try and slow down the progress of these organisations

It should be a matter of pride that we are pushing along but also worry that the likes of the U.S have a wary eye on our advancements