Pakistan hopes to revive its naval modernization program

[Tank131]

I'm beginning to wonder...

Our maritime AAW needs, are they of need in order to defend our SLOC, or to strengthen our A2/AD? Pakistan's merchant navy is on the small side, so I am not sure if maritime trade will be a decisive factor for us in wartime (unless other countries are willing to engage if given PN escorts - unlikely). It seems maritime AAW would be centered on A2/AD. If we come into possession of compact MR/LR SAMs, would we really need larger frigates? Why not take the Israeli approach and build maritime AAW on sub-2500 ton (and sub-1500 ton) ships?

I have long maintained that what PN needs isnt a fleet level air defense capability but rather a fleet of highly capable multirole ships that are able to defend a small flotilla. 3-4 ships carrying 32 cell VLS with quad packed MRSAMs of 50 - 60km (like Dk10, CAMM, or Umkhonto-R) that are fire and forget, along with strong surface and air surveillance radars like the smart s mk 2 or if the ship is large enough, the Smart L will be far more cost-effective than a large billion dollar destroyer for PN

 

[Quwa]

I have long maintained that what PN needs isnt a fleet level air defense capability but rather a fleet of highly capable multirole ships that are able to defend a small flotilla. 3-4 ships carrying 32 cell VLS with quad packed MRSAMs of 50 - 60km (like Dk10, CAMM, or Umkhonto-R) that are fire and forget, along with strong surface and air surveillance radars like the smart s mk 2 or if the ship is large enough, the Smart L will be far more cost-effective than a large billion dollar destroyer for PN

I think the multi-mission vessel can be made to be very affordable provided some key comprises are made, e.g. reducing the size and endurance of the ship (making it less suitable for SLOC and more focused on A2/AD). These sub-2000 - or even sub-1500 ton - ships can still be heavily armed (e.g. 2x4 AShM, 32 VLS MR/LR SAM, 2x3 ASW torpedo tube, helicopter deck, etc), but they'll stay within littoral waters - akin to Sa'ar 5. With this approach, we could field a relatively sizable number of very capable multi-mission ships, albeit at the cost of being A2/AD centric.

 

[Tank131]

I think you would need at least 3000T, like I have said before, the C28 is the ideal size for a vessel for PN but with the afformentioned VLS/missiles. Additionally I would add a FL-3000N in addition to the Type 730 CIWSs. For PN it must be able to patrol the full breadth of Pakistan's territorial waters and give cover to the submarine fleet of Pakistan, otherwise while subs are guarding Pakistan against the brunt of the IN, their P8's and Antisub helicopters will make short work of PN subs. Submarine arms need to have requisite cover by surface fleet. A 24 or 32 cell VLS wont fit on a sub-3000t ship and certainly wont be able to quad pack missiles. They Sa'ar 5 (1500t) has a 16 cell VLS but the territorial waters of Israel are far smaller than Pakistan, and further more, Israeli navy has no real threats (lebanese navy is non-existent and the syrian navy has 2 post-WW2 era frigates (1950s) and a few old missile boats. They dont have to patrol larger areas.

For Pakistan, it must be able to maintain its open access for waters because of its energy needs. Most of Pakistan's energy is imported from Gulf and it must maintain open access for Karachi and Gwadar. If IN blockades or sea lanes in the Gulf are closed off to PN, then Pakistan's energy access will be closed off. For PN to maintain those sea lanes, the Subs will need to operate un-harassed by a surface fleet that can protect it. 8 ships with 96-128 50-60km missiles (24-32 cells quad packed) with surveillance capability of 250km. 4 of these ships can patrol almost all of the Pakistani waters, backed by F-22P and numerous FACs Pakistan will be fielding a respectable surface fleet. If you want to get more corvettes then something like the Hamina class FAC is more appropriate.

I think the multi-mission vessel can be made to be very affordable provided some key comprises are made, e.g. reducing the size and endurance of the ship (making it less suitable for SLOC and more focused on A2/AD). These sub-2000 - or even sub-1500 ton - ships can still be heavily armed (e.g. 2x4 AShM, 32 VLS MR/LR SAM, 2x3 ASW torpedo tube, helicopter deck, etc), but they'll stay within littoral waters - akin to Sa'ar 5. With this approach, we could field a relatively sizable number of very capable multi-mission ships, albeit at the cost of being A2/AD centric.

 

[Arsalan]

The subsystems can always be upgraded. The hull design is too primitive by today's standards. Look at the difference between F-22P and its successor. The evolution represented in C28A's design was already the standard in frigate designing back in 2003 when we decided to go for the F-22Ps whose hull's design I'm not sure is even an upgrade from the ship it replaced. Nay, After looking closely at Type 21, I think it just might be a downgrade.

@Bratva

True, If you talk about Hull shape. However please note that i did mentioned the detailed connection of the two options you mentions, Valour and Formidable class frigates and the problems that might be cited as a reason for those two boats. Furthermore about the subsystems, that too could have been a problem given our history of dealing with those suppliers. It can in fact very well be the reason we choose a Chinese ship, we know we can always upgrade it without a problem when we want to. South African option would have been relatively better but then again @Bratva also mentioned the price issue and I also talked about the “priority” thing. Given all details, I think that F22p was a deal which can be termed as good. Off course there could have been some excellent choice that could have been made but it is easy for us to talk about them now. Sure i agree that if we had opted for the South African that MIGHT have turned out to be a better option for us.

@Arsalan The trend is to go for compact medium/long-range SAM - e.g. Barak-8, CAMM and Aster 15/30. The benefit of the shift is that smaller warships, e.g. Ada-class, F-22P and even a sub-1500 ton design, would be able to pack proper AAW equipment. The South African Umkhonto has the potential, especially with Denel developing the ~35km EIR and ~60km R.

Agreed!
And that is an excellent approach for us as well. We surely are not the ones who will be looking to invest heavily in lesser number but heavier platforms. Smaller frigates in more numbers fitted with decent SAMs will do the job just fine. All we can then look forward too will be around 4 slightly larger frigates (still not in destroyer category) to give a good fleet defense AAW capability and it is job well done. The real offensive forces will operate beneath the sea surface in form of submarines and even the future LACM will also come from them and not likely to be from Frigates or Destroyers.


Pakistan need to select there next surface ships carefully and sensibly as there are quite a few options available now.

 

[cabatli_53]

RFP for the second batch of Milgems (TF-100) containing four ship, have been announced.

http://www.ssm.gov.tr/anasayfa/hizli/duyurular/projeDuyurulari/Sayfalar/20160727_MILGEM.aspx

In announcement, I class frigate is underlined as "Milgem ship" which reminds me the likely deal Pakistan is going to sign under the name of "Milgem".

It is requested to have a dock capacity more than 115m.

https://defence.pk/threads/turkish-naval-programs.20746/page-149

 

[RAMPAGE]

@cabatli_53

What do we know about this Augusta upgrade? Do you have any information? If not then what Turkish subsystems and upgrades do you think could end up on those subs?

 

[Rocky rock]

@cabatli_53

What do we know about this Augusta upgrade? Do you have any information? If not then what Turkish subsystems and upgrades do you think could end up on those subs?

1. A Real-time Acoustic Processor Suite, with:
• Pre-filtering,
• Beam forming,
• Detection,
• Sonar track management,
• Target classification,
• Pulse processing & integrating,
• Range & doppler speed estimation.

2. A Command and Control Subsystem with:
• Tactical picture compilation & display,
• Target & own track history,
• Radar & sonar overlay on tactical picture,
• Threat & compatibility analysis,
• Navigation & tactical navigation,
• Track management,
• Target Motion Analysis (TMA),
• Course recommendation based on TMA,
• Non-acoustic sensor integration.

3. A Torpedo Fire Control (TORAKS) Subsystem with:
• Target assignment,
• Attack and engagement planning,
• Preset loading and prelaunch checking,
• Firing sequence execution,
• Torpedo guidance and data processing,
• Safety zone calculations.

it's called SEDA system which Turkey has implemented on it's Type 214 subs.