F-22p News & Discussions

[Fennecus]

Type 054 for Pakistan is still rumor, but I have been hearing about that a lot lately.

 

[fatman17]

Why this requires a new and separate thread from that on F22P News and discussion is a mystery to me. Besides, some of this information was already reported there.

Mods: perhaps consolidate several F22P threads into a single one?

MODS please merge to please our friend!

 

[aimarraul]

chinese government should help the PN built the 054 in pakistan if our friend want,like the last F22P 254

 

[Penguin]

MODS please merge to please our friend!

Thank you. That's very gratious of you.

 

[owais.usmani]

There are several different versions of type 054, can anybody elaborate on which version Pakistan has got its eyes fixed?

 

[Penguin]

There are several different versions of type 054, can anybody elaborate on which version Pakistan has got its eyes fixed?

Probably ANY version.

A ship along the lines of Type 054 with have a similar SAM and SSM and ASW-torpedoes as F22P but would differ in terms of the main gun (French 100mm Creusot-Loire Compact pattern rather than Russian pattern 76mm AK176) and CIWS (russian pattern 4 AK630 6 barrel gatling mounts rather than chinese pattern 2x 7 barrel 30mm Gatlings mounts).

A ship along the lines of Type 054A would have te same SSM, ASW-torpedoes and main gun as F22P. Though not identical, the type 730 CIWS would be more similar to F22Ps 2 gatling 30mm mounts than to AK630). However, it would introduce yet another SAM system, which is undesireable from a logistics point of view (remember, ex-UK Type21s have chinese LY60 SAM versus F22P/Type 054 HQ7 SAM versus Type 054A HQ16 VL)

The so called Type 054B is no different from Type 054A in any respect but the shape of the edge of the bow area.

Simplest would be to adopt the Type054A. In time perhaps a refit of the F22P would be possible e.g. with 16 HQ16 and 2 Orekh directors.

I could also see a hybrid being developed for PN, a Type 054A fitted with HQ7 of F22P/Type 054 rather than the HQ16 and the F22P CIWS set up.

 

[hj786]

Probably ANY version.

A ship along the lines of Type 054 with have a similar SAM and SSM and ASW-torpedoes as F22P but would differ in terms of the main gun (French 100mm Creusot-Loire Compact pattern rather than Russian pattern 76mm AK176) and CIWS (russian pattern 4 AK630 6 barrel gatling mounts rather than chinese pattern 2x 7 barrel 30mm Gatlings mounts).

A ship along the lines of Type 054A would have te same SSM, ASW-torpedoes and main gun as F22P. Though not identical, the type 730 CIWS would be more similar to F22Ps 2 gatling 30mm mounts than to AK630). However, it would introduce yet another SAM system, which is undesireable from a logistics point of view (remember, ex-UK Type21s have chinese LY60 SAM versus F22P/Type 054 HQ7 SAM versus Type 054A HQ16 VL)

The so called Type 054B is no different from Type 054A in any respect but the shape of the edge of the bow area.

Simplest would be to adopt the Type054A. In time perhaps a refit of the F22P would be possible e.g. with 16 HQ16 and 2 Orekh directors.

I could also see a hybrid being developed for PN, a Type 054A fitted with HQ7 of F22P/Type 054 rather than the HQ16 and the F22P CIWS set up.

054A has a 32-cell VLS system for the HQ-16 according to Wiki, range 65 km according to Janes. If all other capabilities (ASW, Anti-ship) are equal, why would PN want a redesigned one with an 8 cell HQ-7, range ~12 km?

 

[owais.usmani]

054A has a 32-cell VLS system for the HQ-16 according to Wiki, range 65 km according to Janes. If all other capabilities (ASW, Anti-ship) are equal, why would PN want a redesigned one with an 8 cell HQ-7, range ~12 km?

Ohhhhhhhhh NO! I was about to type the same but you just beat me, oh well

Anyways, answer please, Mr. Penguin!

 

[Penguin]

054A has a 32-cell VLS system for the HQ-16 according to Wiki, range 65 km according to Janes. If all other capabilities (ASW, Anti-ship) are equal, why would PN want a redesigned one with an 8 cell HQ-7, range ~12 km?

As I explained already, it may want to avoid yet another type of SAM added to its inventory (Type 21 /LY60, F22P/HQ7, Type 054A / HQ16). And it is also not just a matter of 'want' but perhaps also a matter of 'can afford'. Type 054A will not be cheap. And it's not a major redesign, given that HQ7 is used on Type 054.

Apart from that, maybe PN won't be getting any Type 054/As at all.

 

[Penguin]

Ohhhhhhhhh NO! I was about to type the same but you just beat me, oh well

Anyways, answer please, Mr. Penguin!

Already answered twice now, inlcuding in original post. Mind you, I'm not saying PN plans to do this, just that I could see this happen.

 

[owais.usmani]

As I explained already, it may want to avoid yet another type of SAM added to its inventory (Type 21 /LY60, F22P/HQ7, Type 054A / HQ16). And it is also not just a matter of 'want' but perhaps also a matter of 'can afford'. Type 054A will not be cheap. And it's not a major redesign, given that HQ7 is used on Type 054.

Apart from that, maybe PN won't be getting any Type 054/As at all.

The LY60 and its mother ship Type 21 may already be on their way to the Gaddani ship breaking yard, so why bother about them? Type 054 armed with a medium range SAM would be in my view the perfect choice for PN. Remember PN still does not has a dedicated air wing, so it needs at least some thing to counter the growing air dominance of IN. And as for the affordability issue, wouldn't the type 054 be the cheapest option PN has? I seriously doubt that the French FREMM, FM 400, German MEKO series or the Turkish TF-2000 would be cheaper than the type 054 (remember we are talking about newly built frigates here, not used ones).

Your thoughts on this,Mr. Penguin?

 

[Penguin]

The LY60 and its mother ship Type 21 may already be on their way to the Gaddani ship breaking yard, so why bother about them? Type 054 armed with a medium range SAM would be in my view the perfect choice for PN. Remember PN still does not has a dedicated air wing, so it needs at least some thing to counter the growing air dominance of IN. And as for the affordability issue, wouldn't the type 054 be the cheapest option PN has? I seriously doubt that the French FREMM, FM 400, German MEKO series or the Turkish TF-2000 would be cheaper than the type 054 (remember we are talking about newly built frigates here, not used ones).

Your thoughts on this,Mr. Penguin?

First inventory change: from LY-90 to HQ7/FM90
Second inventory change: adding HQ16 to HQ7
Operationally/logistically it may be more economic to stick with HQ7. But I can't look into PN purse and know priorities. My priority would be to start building F22P domestically, renew current fleet, expand numbers and ONLY THEN start looking into AAW.

AFAIK, TF2000 is a program rather than a specific shipdesign (i.e.a version of FREMM or MEKO A-200 or -D may fullfill the TF-2000 requirement). As for costs of various vessels mentioned, see:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/naval-...l-hand-over-pak-navy-2010-a-3.html#post371405

http://www.defence.pk/forums/naval-...l-hand-over-pak-navy-2010-a-3.html#post372346

I doubt Type 054A in fact costs much less than a Meko A-200 variant. Question would be under what terms it would be offered by China. If at below-cost 'friendship prices' or under favorably financing conditions, then overall it may be an attractive purchase relative to other ships. But make no mistake, Type-054A is not cheap.

 

[owais.usmani]

First inventory change: from LY-90 to HQ7/FM90
Second inventory change: adding HQ16 to HQ7
Operationally/logistically it may be more economic to stick with HQ7. But I can't look into PN purse and know priorities. My priority would be to start building F22P domestically, renew current fleet, expand numbers and ONLY THEN start looking into AAW.

AFAIK, TF2000 is a program rather than a specific shipdesign (i.e.a version of FREMM or MEKO A-200 or -D may fullfill the TF-2000 requirement). As for costs of various vessels mentioned, see:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/naval-...l-hand-over-pak-navy-2010-a-3.html#post371405

http://www.defence.pk/forums/naval-...l-hand-over-pak-navy-2010-a-3.html#post372346

I doubt Type 054A in fact costs much less than a Meko A-200 variant. Question would be under what terms it would be offered by China. If at below-cost 'friendship prices' or under favorably financing conditions, then overall it may be an attractive purchase relative to other ships. But make no mistake, Type-054A is not cheap.

Well, you might be right, but a part of me still feels that type 054 without its long rang HQ16 SAM would be like missing a major sting from its arsenal.

Anyways, it was great talking to you Mr. Penguin. I am really impressed by your naval knowledge. Looking forward to having another fruitful discussion with you some other day, some other time, on some other topic. Cheers.

 

[Penguin]

Rather than an (imported?) Type 054A or variant, one might also see a domestically built F22P variant with 16 of e.g. the South African 12 km Umkhonto-IR or the 25km Umkhonto-R vertical launched SAMs or the French 12+km VL Mica.

 

[hj786]

Rather than an (imported?) Type 054A or variant, one might also see a domestically built F22P variant with 16 of e.g. the South African 12 km Umkhonto-IR or the 25km Umkhonto-R vertical launched SAMs or the French 12+km VL Mica.

Isn't it pointless to make a stealthy hull, add stealthy VL air defence then leave the anti-ship missiles in exposed box launchers? What VL AShM options would be available to the PN and what about stealthy CIWS options? Or am I going overboard with the stealth thing and VL air defence is nothing to do with reducing radar signature?

Would VL MICA be a good option if the PAF adopt it on their new fighters? Common maintenance facilities, reduced price due to large order, etc.? In the last couple of years the PAF have been serious about buying it for their next batch of JF-17.