What's new

IDEF 2017: PAKISTAN MOVES CLOSER TO FINALIZING MILGEM CORVETTE PURCHASE - 10MAY17

Dk-10 has not been shown to be quad packable, but is a step in the direction towards a chinese equivalent to essm. I am relatively certain though that PN eith enough cash, could get CAMM or K-SAAM for its turkish vessels... At least from a political standpoint.

CAMM ER (customized for Navy) should be considered as it offer better range although PN have checked South African SAM which on paper looks good.

http://www.mbda-systems.com/product/camm-er/
 
.
so basically when pn feels like signing on the dotted line. dont you think thats a bit strange due to the desperate need for frigates? i personally dont buy that pn just has to give the go ahead, there has to be some thing slowing things down.


would you rather rule the sea or the sky?
Things are generally opaque at this stage, but it's a requirement they're intending to fulfill. When they plan to get it into motion, I can't say.
 
.
Things are generally opaque at this stage, but it's a requirement they're intending to fulfill. When they plan to get it into motion, I can't say.
one would wonder why in god name would they go out side china and lose the one stop shop luxury
 
.
Royal Navy lost 8 vessels in that conflict. What I could gather about Amazon Class frigates was that equipped with 4.5 inch (112.5 mm) gun, these were very good for the shore bombardment, however their anti-ship warfare capability was limited. Aluminium reduced the weight but caught fire when hit by the Exocet missiles. The remaining 6 were later sold to Pakistan and after modification, have served well with PN with 5 still in active service.

Even though these ships were originally commission in 1974; as long as the hull is solid, a naval vessel can be modernized. Understand Turkish corvettes will cost around $250 to $ 300-million each. A complete refurbishment at Karachi shipyard with modern weapons, radar and command & control systems etc (say $50 to 60-million per unit), PN can possibly have 5 capable littoral warships for the price of one Ada class corvette.

However the “Hull” is still good enough to last another 20 years?

Actually 7 hulls. However, an LCU isn't really a ship (its a craft carried by an LPD). Of the remaining 6 hulls, 1 was an unarmed civilian ship (Atlantic Conveyor) and 1 a barely armed Landing Ship. So, in effect, 4 warships lost.
Type 21 was intended as a relatively cheap, yet modern, general purpose escort vessel. It was also envisaged as an out-of-area RN gunboat that would retain UK presence in South America and Australasia, as well as the Caribbean and the Gulf; essentially replacing the diesel Types Type 41, Type 61 and COSAG Type 81 with smaller crewed vessels. Vospers claimed that, by ignoring what they claimed to be the conservative design practices followed by the MoD team at Bath, they could deliver the new frigate at a significantly lower price.

As delivered, the Type 21s were armed with a single 4.5 inch Mark 8 naval gun forward, and a four-round launcher for the Sea Cat surface-to-air missile aft. The Italian Selenia Orion-10X lightweight fire control radar was adopted to control both the gun and the Sea Cat missile (as the GWS-24 system) in an effort to save weight. A Type 992Q air/surface radar was fitted, but a long-range air-search radar was not provided. A hangar and flight deck were provided for a single helicopter, at first the Westland Wasp. The CAAIS was provided to integrate the ship's weapons and sensor systems and provide the crew with all the relevant information they required to fight the ship, as and when they needed it. In terms of automation, systems integration and habitability, they were well in advance of many of the ships that they replaced, such as the Type 81 frigate and Rothesay-class frigate.

When they entered service, the Type 21s were criticized for being under-armed in relation to their size and cost. A program was put in hand to increase their firepower by fitting four French-built MM38 Exocet anti-ship missiles. These were sited in front of the bridge screen aft of the forecastle, displacing the Corvus countermeasure launchers to amidships. This improvement was quickly carried out to all ships of the class except Antelope and Ambuscade. The Westland Wasp, a single-role torpedo-carrying helicopter, was replaced by the vastly more capable multi-mission Westland Lynx when it became available. As and when ships came in for refit, ship-launched anti-submarine torpedoes were also fitted, in the form of two STWS-1 triple-tube launchers capable of firing United States USN/NATO-standard Mark 44 or Mark 46 torpedoes. After the Falklands War, two more 20mm Oerlikon guns were mounted, one each side of the hangar, to provide extra close-in armament on some ships of the class.

By the late 1970s it was clear the commercially designed Type 21 had 'insufficient margin' , of weight and space allowed in in-house Royal Navy warship designs, for major modernization of the type being applied to other classes e.g. Leander. Five modernization proposals for the Type 21s were considered by the Royal Navy and rejected by 1979 when it was 'reluctantly' decided not to modernize the class
 
.
I wish to see a 16 cell VLS system installed in it along with a RAM having local missiles ANZA MK-IIIs.
 
.
i thought that PN would have considered trying to get type 23 ships that are due to be retired from royal navy soon. they are very good vessels even having 30x3 VLS with sea cepter, whther this would be available is another question
 
. .
IMO Pakistan probably tapped its arms credit line from China with the Hangor and HQ-16 purchases. The MILGEM itself is only on the table because Turkey is extending credit.
Interesting proposition! Could be a worthwhile exercise to come up with a small list of countries with a credible arms industry that might be willing and able to extent credit to Pakistan for arms purchases, coupled to systems produced by these countries that might be of interest to Pakistan's armed forced (and notably navy).

Besides the usual suspects (top ten arms exporters like US, Russia, China, UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy) think e.g. Singapore, South Korea, South Africa, Brazil, Japan, Sweden, Norway.
 
.
Interesting proposition! Could be a worthwhile exercise to come up with a small list of countries with a credible arms industry that might be willing and able to extent credit to Pakistan for arms purchases, coupled to systems produced by these countries that might be of interest to Pakistan's armed forced (and notably navy).

Besides the usual suspects (top ten arms exporters like US, Russia, China, UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy) think e.g. Singapore, South Korea, South Africa, Brazil, Japan, Sweden, Norway.
Yep. That said, credit might not be necessary from South Africa. There's more currency parity between RSA and Pakistan than between Pakistan and UK or Europe, making RSA systems cheaper. For example, it cost Algeria $62 m to fit its 2 MEKO A-200AN with Umkhonto SAM systems (incl. missiles, FCS and integration work). Moreover, South Africa doesn't have any big-ticket items (besides the Rooivalk) that might necessitate credit.

On the other hand, the Erieye AEW&C, MILGEM, Hangor SSP, etc, are all credit based. The T129 has an offset component, which isn't credit, but tries to soften the cost by keeping some expenditure in Pakistan (and reducing the net expense by contracting work to PAC). I'm not sure about the F-16 and AH-1Z as they're via FMS, but I imagine some backing was present too (though the term payments were hefty).

If the UK was to open credit to Pakistan, then I imagine the PN would take a good look at BAE Type 31 and BMT Venator 110. If Berlin is willing to remember that credit it offered for the Type 214, then the MEKO would become a factor. Once Pakistan pays into the Hangor SSPs, Chinese frigates may well return to the table.

I wonder ... with that grease built up in Italy thanks to the AW139 and Spada 2000-Plus deals, could Pakistan ask for credit to back a Fincantieri frigate deal? Or perhaps that request is being reserved for something else? Germany had also offered credit for the Type 214, but that submarine program was canned due to austerity cuts. The $1.2 to $1.5 bn for those 3 submarines could fetch 2-3 MEKO frigates.
 
.
Yep. That said, credit might not be necessary from South Africa. There's more currency parity between RSA and Pakistan than between Pakistan and UK or Europe, making RSA systems cheaper. For example, it cost Algeria $62 m to fit its 2 MEKO A-200AN with Umkhonto SAM systems (incl. missiles, FCS and integration work). Moreover, South Africa doesn't have any big-ticket items (besides the Rooivalk) that might necessitate credit.

On the other hand, the Erieye AEW&C, MILGEM, Hangor SSP, etc, are all credit based. The T129 has an offset component, which isn't credit, but tries to soften the cost by keeping some expenditure in Pakistan (and reducing the net expense by contracting work to PAC). I'm not sure about the F-16 and AH-1Z as they're via FMS, but I imagine some backing was present too (though the term payments were hefty).

If the UK was to open credit to Pakistan, then I imagine the PN would take a good look at BAE Type 31 and BMT Venator 110. If Berlin is willing to remember that credit it offered for the Type 214, then the MEKO would become a factor. Once Pakistan pays into the Hangor SSPs, Chinese frigates may well return to the table.

I wonder ... with that grease built up in Italy thanks to the AW139 and Spada 2000-Plus deals, could Pakistan ask for credit to back a Fincantieri frigate deal? Or perhaps that request is being reserved for something else? Germany had also offered credit for the Type 214, but that submarine program was canned due to austerity cuts. The $1.2 to $1.5 bn for those 3 submarines could fetch 2-3 MEKO frigates.

What about other Asian countries?
 
. .
interesting claim got proof ?


@Rashid Mahmood what would you say to bilal's claim.
No proof, that's why I prefaced with an "IMO" (in my opinion). But if you think about it: if the PN would buy 8 subs from China, then why would it not buy frigates as well if the mechanisms (e.g. credit) were available? Sure you could say stuff about hull quality, but that didn't stop them from buying the riskiest hulls possible (subs). If there's no credit, then you have to open the door to other options (incl. not buying at all). They even went for a Dutch OPV when they could have added two more Chinese MPVs.

IMO if it were possible to buy 4 Tiger class FFGs with 8 Hangors, it would have happened. The day they payoff half of the Hangor order, we could very well see talks with CSOC for frigates.
 
Last edited:
.
No proof, that's why I prefaced with an "IMO" (in my opinion). But if you think about it: if the PN would buy 8 subs from China, then why would it not buy frigates as well if the mechanisms (e.g. credit) were available? Sure you could say stuff about hull quality, but that didn't stop them from buying the riskiest hulls possible (subs). If there's no credit, then you have to open the door to other options (incl. not buying at all). They even went for a Dutch OPV when they could have added two more Chinese MPVs.

IMO if it were possible to buy 4 Tiger class FFGs with 8 Hangors, it would have happened. The day they payoff half of the Hangor order, we could very well see talks with CSOC for frigates.
depends on whats more important 8 subs or x number of frigates? [i say subs] why are the chinese subs risky, dont you think they compared them to the a90b's? honestly once the ship lift system is in place then we would see progress as the ship lift system would mean pakistan is building these chinese sub from scratch and would be built in a enclosed shed/hall. id imagine the ships would mean the same thing. pakistan has not to my knowledge built the 1500 tonne opv and i would expect that to be the first ship to use the lift system.
 
.
depends on whats more important 8 subs or x number of frigates? [i say subs] why are the chinese subs risky, dont you think they compared them to the a90b's? honestly once the ship lift system is in place then we would see progress as the ship lift system would mean pakistan is building these chinese sub from scratch and would be built in a enclosed shed/hall. id imagine the ships would mean the same thing. pakistan has not to my knowledge built the 1500 tonne opv and i would expect that to be the first ship to use the lift system.
I was just making a point about people questioning why the PN went for MILGEM instead of Chinese frigates. There were no decisive quality issues with the Chinese stuff - be it for the subs or frigates - but the decision to go with the Turks probably stemmed from maxing out the Chinese credit line.

Now as to why they picked 8 Hangors instead of 4 Hangors and 4 Tiger-class FFGs (or even 6 Hangors and 2 Tiger-class FFGs), that is a doctrine issue. They evidently wanted to build a sizable sub-surface fleet so that they have enough subs to spare for deep-sea operations. However, if the Chinese had another $1bn available in credit, I think they would have added 4 Tiger-class FFGs (or Type 054As or whatever).
 
Last edited:
.
i thought that PN would have considered trying to get type 23 ships that are due to be retired from royal navy soon. they are very good vessels even having 30x3 VLS with sea cepter, whther this would be available is another question

I dont think there is currently a timeline for type 23s retirement. The type is going through mid-life refits with upgrades to sonar, missile defense, ciws and radars. Its unlikely they will be on the block until mid 2020s when the global combat ships start coming online.
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom