Outgoing Pakistan Navy chief details procurement progress

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

I believe CSOC isn't offering this design anymore.

Correct. In 2016-2017 the main designs were the Tiger (i.e. F-22P w/VLS), C28A, Trimaran Frigate and 4,000-ton frigate (which seems to have two designs, one with the taller VLS shown at IDEAS).

 

[Gryphon]

Correct. In 2016-2017 the main designs were the Tiger (i.e. F-22P w/VLS), C28A, Trimaran Frigate and 4,000-ton frigate (which seems to have two designs, one with the taller VLS shown at IDEAS).

It comes down to 4x Tiger class or 2x 4000-ton shown at IDEAS 2016. I am inclined towards the former. Tiger class appears to be a ready-for-production design.

The trimaran frigate design is being developed for PLAN. Not ready for production anytime soon.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

It comes down to 4x Tiger class or 2x 4000-ton shown at IDEAS 2016. I am inclined towards the former. Tiger class appears to be a ready-for-production design.

The trimaran frigate design is being developed for PLAN. Not ready for production anytime soon.

It could also be four 4,000-ton frigates, but with varying configurations. Remember, the costliest parts of a modern warship come from electronics and weapons. It's possible that out of four, two are equipped with good AAW (e.g. with VLS for MR/LR-SAM and LACM, OTH radar, etc) and the other two in an emptier configuration (e.g. no OTH radar, only SR/MR-SAM, etc). That or they just invest upfront for four fully-capable FFG and deal with it, like the 8 Hangor (II) SSPs.

 

[Gryphon]

It could also be four 4,000-ton frigates, but with varying configurations. Remember, the costliest parts of a modern warship come from electronics and weapons. It's possible that out of four, two are equipped with good AAW (e.g. with VLS for MR/LR-SAM and LACM, OTH radar, etc) and the other two in an emptier configuration (e.g. no OTH radar, only SR/MR-SAM, etc). That or they just invest upfront for four fully-capable FFG and deal with it, like the 8 Hangor (II) SSPs.

In last 2-3 years, PN has taken up projects which had stalled due to PPP govt's massive economic disasters.

PN wanted 3 Type 214 and 3 additional Agosta 90B as replacement for 4 Daphne and 2 Agosta 70. Both plans didn't materialize. Daphne were retired and Agosta 70's underwent some 'life extension' upgrade. Eventually, Navy signed contract for 8 Chinese submarines in 2015.

Milgem corvette contract was to be signed in 2009. PN revived talks 2 years ago.

PN wanted 4 additional F-22P frigates 5 years back. It is more likely that the contract Ex-Navy chief mentioned concerns 4 Tiger class or 4 more F-22P.

Sadly, PN doesn't do what you and I wish for.

I agree that the weapons and radars/sensors are the costliest parts of surface ships. PN may acquire some stuff from GIDS like SLTA and RIBAT.

Besides, Pakistan developing an inclined launcher for LACM & AShM, indigenously developed SSM (Harba, believed to be based on Babur-2) and AShM Zarb (C-602? believed to be locally manufactured) doesn't indicate LACM role for VLS (if the new ships have any).
Two Milgem may get Harba or Zarb as well.

*Corrections will be appreciated.

 

[Thunder.Storm]

In last 2-3 years, PN has taken up projects which had stalled due to PPP govt's massive economic disasters.

PN wanted 3 Type 214 and 3 additional Agosta 90B as replacement for 4 Daphne and 2 Agosta 70. Both plans didn't materialize. Daphne were retired and Agosta 70's underwent some 'life extension' upgrade. Eventually, Navy signed contract for 8 Chinese submarines in 2015.

Milgem corvette contract was to be signed in 2009. PN revived talks 2 years ago.

PN wanted 4 additional F-22P frigates 5 years back. It is more likely that the contract Ex-Navy chief mentioned concerns 4 Tiger class or 4 more F-22P.

Sadly, PN doesn't do what you and I wish for.

I agree that the weapons and radars/sensors are the costliest parts of surface ships. PN may acquire some stuff from GIDS like SLTA and RIBAT.

Besides, Pakistan developing an inclined launcher for LACM & AShM, indigenously developed SSM (Harba, believed to be based on Babur-2) and AShM Zarb (C-602? believed to be locally manufactured) doesn't indicate LACM role for VLS (if the new ships have any).
Two Milgem may get Harba or Zarb as well.

*Corrections will be appreciated.

Herba is air to surface missile and mainly a ndc proj.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

In last 2-3 years, PN has taken up projects which had stalled due to PPP govt's massive economic disasters.

PN wanted 3 Type 214 and 3 additional Agosta 90B as replacement for 4 Daphne and 2 Agosta 70. Both plans didn't materialize. Daphne were retired and Agosta 70's underwent some 'life extension' upgrade. Eventually, Navy signed contract for 8 Chinese submarines in 2015.

Milgem corvette contract was to be signed in 2009. PN revived talks 2 years ago.

PN wanted 4 additional F-22P frigates 5 years back. It is more likely that the contract Ex-Navy chief mentioned concerns 4 Tiger class or 4 more F-22P.

Sadly, PN doesn't do what you and I wish for.

I agree that the weapons and radars/sensors are the costliest parts of surface ships. PN may acquire some stuff from GIDS like SLTA and RIBAT.

Besides, Pakistan developing an inclined launcher for LACM & AShM, indigenously developed SSM (Harba, believed to be based on Babur-2) and AShM Zarb (C-602? believed to be locally manufactured) doesn't indicate LACM role for VLS (if the new ships have any).
Two Milgem may get Harba or Zarb as well.

*Corrections will be appreciated.

Logically, the development of a dual AShM/LACM launcher for some ships doesn't negate the possibility of having a LACM-capable VLS on another ship. It just tells us the PN wants to bring AShM/LACM capabilities to the ships that use slant-launchers.

It's also worth remembering that no one was actually expecting a frigate order from China. While it is contingent on financing options, I think the PN would go for the better CSOC design provided the credit mechanisms are in place.

At the end of the day, these new ships have to stick for several decades, and going for a less versatile design today - while cheap today - can be costly over the long-term. That $100-150 m per ship cost difference could save you by giving you a ship that can sustain its relative utility (vs threats) for another 15, 20 or 25 years.

It's worth remembering that even the Hangor (II) seem to be the best submarine (likely a S26-variant) CSOC can offer, even though the PN could have saved money by going for the non-AIP capable S20.

 

[Gryphon]

Logically, the development of a dual AShM/LACM launcher for some ships doesn't negate the possibility of having a LACM-capable VLS on another ship. It just tells us the PN wants to bring AShM/LACM capabilities to the ships that use slant-launchers.

F-22P Sword-class (without VLS):
It may be possible to replace existing C-802 launchers but the ship lacks MR-SAM to actually survive an air attack and launch a potentially nuclear warhead fitted LACM.

Milgem Ada-class (without VLS):
I understand that Milgem is intended primarily for ASW role. It could in future data-link with MPA (Orion and/or ATR-72) and other western aircraft. It allows reuse of large existing Harpoon stocks though Harba AShM or Zarb should also be possible. Ada lacks MR-SAM capability.

IMO, it doesn't make sense to develop a dual AShM/LACM launcher for a 4000 ton frigate (with as many as 32 VLS cells) when the same ship can fire LACM using VLS.

A year ago, PN was interested in Umkhonto missile system which IIRC can be deployed only from Denel's own VLS.

It's worth remembering that even the Hangor (II) seem to be the best submarines (likely a S26-variant) CSOC can offer, even though the PN could have saved money by going for non-AIP capable S20s.

Submarines are different case altogether. Those are meant to be NSFC's 'credible' second-strike capable assets which necessitates AIP for more endurance and less probability of detection.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

F-22P Sword-class (without VLS):
It may be possible to replace existing C-802 launchers but the ship lacks MR-SAM to actually survive an air attack and launch a potentially nuclear warhead fitted LACM.

Milgem Ada-class (without VLS):
I understand that Milgem is intended primarily for ASW role. It could in future data-link with MPA (Orion and/or ATR-72) and other western aircraft. It allows reuse of large existing Harpoon stocks though Harba AShM or Zarb should also be possible. Ada lacks MR-SAM capability.

IMO, it doesn't make sense to develop a dual AShM/LACM launcher for a 4000 ton frigate (with as many as 32 VLS cells) when the same ship can fire LACM using VLS.

A year ago, PN was interested in Umkhonto missile system which IIRC can be deployed only from Denel's own VLS.



Submarines are different case altogether. Those are meant to be NSFC's 'credible' second-strike capable assets which necessitates AIP for more endurance and less probability of detection.

What I meant was that the dual launcher could be for the F-22P, Azmat, etc. As for the new frigate. Why not? The dual launcher would let it carry more of those long-range missiles, be it from VLS or from the slant launcher.

 

[Gryphon]

What I meant was that the dual launcher could be for the F-22P, Azmat, etc. As for the new frigate. Why not? The dual launcher would let it carry more of those long-range missiles, be it from VLS or from the slant launcher.

As I have said earlier, Azmat is a littoral A2/AD asset which can carry 6 or 8 anti-ship missiles. For land attack missions, it is limited by range.

Regarding F-22P, sure it may be possible to replace the existing C-802 launchers with the dual AShM/LACM launcher currently being developed.

But, are you certain Pakistan doesn't intend to arm those ship-launched LACM's with nuclear warheads?

In case F-22P's are equipped with LACM's, in absence of medium or long range air defence, those won't survive for long (in wartime) to actually fire the LACM's. Arming F-22P with LACM's is sensible only when it is protected by another ship with significant AAW capabilities.

If PN gets the Tiger class,

I expect AShM and LACM in inclined launchers and Umkhonto in VLS (PN has already shown interest in Umkhonto).
IIRC, Umkhonto can be fired only from Denel's own Umkhonto-specific VLS.

If 4000 ton CSOC frigate,

AShM/LACM in inclined launchers and AShM/LACM + SAM's in VLS if the VLS is Chinese.

@Penguin @Tank131

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

As I have said earlier, Azmat is a littoral A2/AD asset which can carry 6 or 8 anti-ship missiles. For land attack missions, it is limited by range.

Regarding F-22P, sure it may be possible to replace the existing C-802 launchers with the dual AShM/LACM launcher currently being developed.

But, are you certain Pakistan doesn't intend to arm those ship-launched LACM's with nuclear warheads?

In case F-22P's are equipped with LACM's, in absence of medium or long range air defence, those won't survive for long (in wartime) to actually fire the LACM's. Arming F-22P with LACM's is sensible only when it is protected by another ship with significant AAW capabilities.

If PN gets the Tiger class,

I expect AShM and LACM in inclined launchers and Umkhonto in VLS (PN has already shown interest in Umkhonto).
IIRC, Umkhonto can be fired only from Denel's own Umkhonto-specific VLS.

If 4000 ton CSOC frigate,

AShM/LACM in inclined launchers and AShM/LACM + SAM's in VLS if the VLS is Chinese.

@Penguin @Tank131

It's a dual AShM/LACM launcher. In other words, that launcher can fit with the Azmat and F-22Ps' A2/AD profile by being armed with whatever new AShM that launcher is meant to carry. It'd give them longer range and/or heavier hitting AShW capabilities.

 

[Tank131]

The notion of using a VLS launcher for a LACM or AShM on sub-6000t vessel represents a problem of lack of space. The required VLS length for such weapons is ~7m which generally will mot be used in such sized vessels, certainly not something the size of the Tiger Class which is derived from C28A (which is developed from F-22p). The better use for the VLS is for SAMs. AShM and LACM should be used from inclined launchers in my opinion. The only vessel pruposed that i could see potentially using LR-SAMs is the so called Type 057 which is thought to have 16 cell VLS midship which may give enough clearance for a 5-7m VLS module (my opinion is that this wpuld he better utilized for LR-SAMS like HQ-9 (or its longer range variants like HQ-26) while the 32 front VLS would be fotted with medium range sams which are preferably quad packed. I am mot sure i see Umkhonto in PN unless its a turkish ship. Chinese would want purchase of their weapons.

A question for the large number of Harpoons supposedly in PN, If PN doesn't have enough platforms to field these, why not develop underwater platforms to launch these as is used to test sublaunched AShM? They could be put dotted across the EEZ and utilized in times of war with little to no detection time on behalf of the attacker.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

The notion of using a VLS launcher for a LACM or AShM on sub-6000t vessel represents a problem of lack of space. The required VLS length for such weapons is ~7m which generally will mot be used in such sized vessels, certainly not something the size of the Tiger Class which is derived from C28A (which is developed from F-22p). The better use for the VLS is for SAMs. AShM and LACM should be used from inclined launchers in my opinion. The only vessel pruposed that i could see potentially using LR-SAMs is the so called Type 057 which is thought to have 16 cell VLS midship which may give enough clearance for a 5-7m VLS module (my opinion is that this wpuld he better utilized for LR-SAMS like HQ-9 (or its longer range variants like HQ-26) while the 32 front VLS would be fotted with medium range sams which are preferably quad packed. I am mot sure i see Umkhonto in PN unless its a turkish ship. Chinese would want purchase of their weapons.

A question for the large number of Harpoons supposedly in PN, If PN doesn't have enough platforms to field these, why not develop underwater platforms to launch these as is used to test sublaunched AShM? They could be put dotted across the EEZ and utilized in times of war with little to no detection time on behalf of the attacker.

On the supposed Type 057, the ideal configuration would be: 8-cells for LACM, 16-cells for LR-SAM and 8-cells for quad-packed MR-SAM (i.e. 32 missiles). The MR-SAM would need to be the DK-10 or an upgraded Umkhonto with quad-pack'ability - would be a good addition to request from Denel in the 60 km Umkhonto LR/ER. I'd allocate the slant launchers for supersonic cruising AShM.

 

[Gryphon]

It's a dual AShM/LACM launcher. In other words, that launcher can fit with the Azmat and F-22Ps' A2/AD profile by being armed with whatever new AShM that launcher is meant to carry. It'd give them longer range and/or heavier hitting AShW capabilities.

C-802 (120km) and Harpoon Block II (124km) are relatively lighter missiles than Babur's expected anti-ship version. As seen with Azmat No. 3, heavier AShM's can reduce the number of weapons a ship can carry.

Your statement implies that even the Harpoon's could be replaced by a heavier, long range AShM.
I would suggest not judging AShM's by their range.

 

[Blue Marlin]

C-802 (120km) and Harpoon Block II (124km) are relatively lighter missiles than Babur's expected anti-ship version. As seen with Azmat No. 3, heavier AShM's can reduce the number of weapons a ship can carry.

Your statement implies that even the Harpoon's could be replaced by a heavier, long range AShM.
I would suggest not judging AShM's by their range.

im sure the c802 has a greater range than 120km?
also why has the former naval chief not mentioned the milgem corvettes ? where as the pm mentioned it?
very confusing.

 

[Gryphon]

im sure the c802 has a greater range than 120km?
also why has the former naval chief not mentioned the milgem corvettes ? where as the pm mentioned it?
very confusing.

C-802: 120km
C-802A: 180km

Ex-Navy chief only mentioned contracts which are already finalized.

PM Abbasi reportedly said that talks with Turkey regarding Milgem are going on. Final contract not reached yet.