What's new

Pakistan Navy | News & Discussions.

??? I didn;'t say any of that.


This approach might increase probability of hit but not the level of damage inflicted.


The purpose of LHDs is to transport and troops. Everything else is secondary. Juan Carlos 'as is' is suited for AV-8B Harrier but not for F-35B (this would require modifications, as the Australian navy studies of this indicate). But you could use it to fly multipurpose helicopters like EH-101 for ASW and ASuW work. In fact that is the idea behind the Japanese new 'DDHs' (which don't have trooptransport and landing role per se, but could assist by embarking cargo helicopters)

I know u did not say something like that. Dnt worry we r on same page.

For LHD topic is it plausable to come up with a miniature aircraft carrier so to speak.

Also as far as I can see theres not much difference between LHDs and carriers they appear quite similar physically. LHDs have a higher height can store/transport multiple cargoes types of equipment and utilize VTOL aircraft like helicopters and harriers. Whereas, carriers are shorter in height, limited ability to carry different types equipment(depending on size) and mostly carryout non vtol air operations. So is it plausable to make mini carriers if you will that are versatile and can be used for a wide variety of operations

Just like the turks are planning to do and many other countries who aspire to have carriers I thinks. Look up Turkish section of Juan Carlos page on wikipedia (Not a juan carlos fan but taking it as an example)
 
19430020_1378052762230219_8694594270275279521_n.jpg

China's Stealth Fast Attack Missile Boat would be a problem if Pakistan acquires it.

The Type-022 stealth fast attack missile boat of China is a fabulous creation as per me. It has an Australian origin Catamaran Wave piercing design that makes it fast. Designed by a pretty looking lady Yang Yi who was in her 20s back in ‘94 when she was assigned, this boat’s water jet propulsion avoids the noise caused by the air bubbles in propeller propulsion to make it very quiet.

It is small in size, capable of max 63 knots and is quite stealthy. Equipped with eight YJ83 new-type medium-range (150 km) anti-ship missiles that can attack multi-targets beyond visual range and a 30mm six-barrel high-speed gun for short-range air and missile defense, they can formidably approach enemy fleet to a very short distance without being detected due to its radar and optical invisibility and quietness. They may leave the battle field after firing their missiles as due to the boat’s advanced data link, they can leave the missiles to the care of Chinese AEW&C aircraft or other warships. Its own radar is quite decent and looks like it is mostly meant for volume search.

The mass production of the Type-022 suggests the Chinese navy believes these vessels will complement its so-called "anti-access" strategy aimed at keeping foreign forces away from waters surrounding Taiwan in time of conflict, said Sam Roggeveen, an analyst. Its YJ-83 anti ship subsonic missile that can be launched from the two launchers are quite relevant to perform saturation type attacks on a flotilla of ships. And can also be used to patrol the beaches. Because of lack of a big air defence capability small attack boats have always poorly fared against big ships. But this boat may get supplementary aerial cover either by a big ship or an aircraft.

Pakistan is interested to manufacture this ship at Karachi Shipyard. This ship is cost effective and if locally manufactured can further reduce costs to around 15 to 20 million per unit. It would be used to patrol Pakistani waters and may even come to harass Indian ships and boats. Being stealthy it may be used to come close to Indian territory and land proxies on Indian coast. Although it is no big deal for a BrahMos equipped battleship of Indian navy but can be used to saturate the situation. The Upgraded variants may be in pipeline or already developed
 
For LHD topic is it plausable to come up with a miniature aircraft carrier so to speak.

Also as far as I can see theres not much difference between LHDs and carriers they appear quite similar physically. LHDs have a higher height can store/transport multiple cargoes types of equipment and utilize VTOL aircraft like helicopters and harriers. Whereas, carriers are shorter in height, limited ability to carry different types equipment(depending on size) and mostly carryout non vtol air operations. So is it plausable to make mini carriers if you will that are versatile and can be used for a wide variety of operations

Just like the turks are planning to do and many other countries who aspire to have carriers I thinks. Look up Turkish section of Juan Carlos page on wikipedia (Not a juan carlos fan but taking it as an example)
Carriers and LHDs may appear similar from the outside, but they aren't on the inside. The LHDs youy are suggesting will be used as carriers would all require F-35B, which will be the only operational (in service) STOVL jet for many years to come. AV-8B Harriers or Sea Harriers will not be available or provided to third navies. Hence, the concept of a LHD based mini-carrier revolves in its entirely around the F-35B. This too will not be available to all, not in the last place because of cost. As indicated, the Australian navy operates 2 Juan Carlos type ships and has studied what it would take to make them F-35B compatible. As a result of the studie, acquisition of F-35B was ruled out as too costly. I am aware Turkey will be adopting a similar ship and may decide to get F-35B with them (or at least have the ships prepared for them). Turkey, like Australia, is a level 3 partner in the F-35 program. Thusfar, Turkey - like Australia - has ordered only F-35A. Likewise Japan and South Korea. The only F-35B customers to date are UK and Italy (for the dedicated carrier Cavour: not an LHD design).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#F-35B_2

"Although the Australian Canberra-class landing helicopter dock ships were not originally planned to operate fixed-wing aircraft, in May 2014, the Minister for Defence David Johnston stated in media interviews that the government was considering acquiring F-35B fighters for Canberras, and Prime Minister Tony Abbott instructed 2015 Defence White Paper planners to consider the option of embarking F-35B squadrons aboard the two ships. Supporters of the idea stated that providing fixed-wing support to amphibious operations would maximize aircraft capability, and the presence of a ski-jump ramp, inherited from the original design, meant that the vessels were better suited to STOVL operations than equivalent ships with flat flight decks. Opponents to the idea countered that embarking enough F-35Bs to be effective required abandoning the ships' amphibious capability and would make the pseudo-carriers more valuable targets, modifications would be required to make the flight deck capable of handling vertical-landing thrust and to increase fuel and ordnance capacity for sustained operations, and that the F-35B project itself has been the most expensive and most problematic of the Joint Strike Fighter variants. In July 2015 Australia ended consideration of buying the F-35B for its two largest assault ships, as the ship modifications were projected to cost more than AUS$5 billion (US$4.4 billion). The plan was opposed by the Royal Australian Air Force, as an F-35B order could have diminished the number of F-35As purchased."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#F-35B

Even with STOVL/VTOL jets, the difference between using an LHD for carrier role rather than using a dedicated light carrier os obvious. See example of Spanish navy ships Juan Carlos and Principe d'Asturias.
BCa0YgjCMAA4pJh.jpg



Principe d'Asturia
Displacement: 15,912 tons standard, 16,700 tons full load
Length: 195.9 m (643 ft)
Beam: 24.3 m (80 ft)
Draught: 9.4 m (31 ft)
Aircraft carried: 29 fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft

Juan Carlos
Displacement: 26,000 tonnes standard, 27,500 tonnes at full load
Length: 230.82 m (757.3 ft)
Beam: 32 m (105 ft)
Draught: 6.9 m (23 ft)
Aircraft carried: AV-8B Harrier II, Chinook, Sea King, NH-90
Aircraft composition:
  • Pure combat: 25 AV-8B/F-35B + 6 flight deck parking spots
  • Mix: 11 AV-8B + 12 NH90 + 6 flight deck parking spots
  • Pure transport: 25 NH90 + 6 flight deck parking spots
FOR THE SAME AIRWING, the LHD IS 1.5-2x the displacement of the 'Sea Control ship' . So, if purely used for carrier role, the LHD is actually 'overweight' and 'oversized'.

Besides, USN carrier studies reveal that 1 large carrier with a big airwing is more cost effective than several smaller ones wich combained have an equivalent airwing. The carriers thems selved require a large sum total of crew, for example, and each smaller carriers would need its own escorts i.e more escorts needed > more ships and crews needed.
 
Carriers and LHDs may appear similar from the outside, but they aren't on the inside. The LHDs youy are suggesting will be used as carriers would all require F-35B, which will be the only operational (in service) STOVL jet for many years to come. AV-8B Harriers or Sea Harriers will not be available or provided to third navies. Hence, the concept of a LHD based mini-carrier revolves in its entirely around the F-35B. This too will not be available to all, not in the last place because of cost. As indicated, the Australian navy operates 2 Juan Carlos type ships and has studied what it would take to make them F-35B compatible. As a result of the studie, acquisition of F-35B was ruled out as too costly. I am aware Turkey will be adopting a similar ship and may decide to get F-35B with them (or at least have the ships prepared for them). Turkey, like Australia, is a level 3 partner in the F-35 program. Thusfar, Turkey - like Australia - has ordered only F-35A. Likewise Japan and South Korea. The only F-35B customers to date are UK and Italy (for the dedicated carrier Cavour: not an LHD design).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#F-35B_2

"Although the Australian Canberra-class landing helicopter dock ships were not originally planned to operate fixed-wing aircraft, in May 2014, the Minister for Defence David Johnston stated in media interviews that the government was considering acquiring F-35B fighters for Canberras, and Prime Minister Tony Abbott instructed 2015 Defence White Paper planners to consider the option of embarking F-35B squadrons aboard the two ships. Supporters of the idea stated that providing fixed-wing support to amphibious operations would maximize aircraft capability, and the presence of a ski-jump ramp, inherited from the original design, meant that the vessels were better suited to STOVL operations than equivalent ships with flat flight decks. Opponents to the idea countered that embarking enough F-35Bs to be effective required abandoning the ships' amphibious capability and would make the pseudo-carriers more valuable targets, modifications would be required to make the flight deck capable of handling vertical-landing thrust and to increase fuel and ordnance capacity for sustained operations, and that the F-35B project itself has been the most expensive and most problematic of the Joint Strike Fighter variants. In July 2015 Australia ended consideration of buying the F-35B for its two largest assault ships, as the ship modifications were projected to cost more than AUS$5 billion (US$4.4 billion). The plan was opposed by the Royal Australian Air Force, as an F-35B order could have diminished the number of F-35As purchased."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#F-35B

Even with STOVL/VTOL jets, the difference between using an LHD for carrier role rather than using a dedicated light carrier os obvious. See example of Spanish navy ships Juan Carlos and Principe d'Asturias.
BCa0YgjCMAA4pJh.jpg



Principe d'Asturia
Displacement: 15,912 tons standard, 16,700 tons full load
Length: 195.9 m (643 ft)
Beam: 24.3 m (80 ft)
Draught: 9.4 m (31 ft)
Aircraft carried: 29 fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft

Juan Carlos
Displacement: 26,000 tonnes standard, 27,500 tonnes at full load
Length: 230.82 m (757.3 ft)
Beam: 32 m (105 ft)
Draught: 6.9 m (23 ft)
Aircraft carried: AV-8B Harrier II, Chinook, Sea King, NH-90
Aircraft composition:
  • Pure combat: 25 AV-8B/F-35B + 6 flight deck parking spots
  • Mix: 11 AV-8B + 12 NH90 + 6 flight deck parking spots
  • Pure transport: 25 NH90 + 6 flight deck parking spots
FOR THE SAME AIRWING, the LHD IS 1.5-2x the displacement of the 'Sea Control ship' . So, if purely used for carrier role, the LHD is actually 'overweight' and 'oversized'.

Besides, USN carrier studies reveal that 1 large carrier with a big airwing is more cost effective than several smaller ones wich combained have an equivalent airwing. The carriers thems selved require a large sum total of crew, for example, and each smaller carriers would need its own escorts i.e more escorts needed > more ships and crews needed.

Thanks for the input.
So what plans does PN have to counter indian careers.
And what do u think would be an effective strategy to counter enemy carriers?
 
Thanks for the input.
So what plans does PN have to counter indian careers.
And what do u think would be an effective strategy to counter enemy carriers?
Why would India's carrier(s) - 1 operational at present - be a problem for Pakistan? Would it even be involved in a serious conflict (which would likely focus on air and ground operations rather than naval ones)
 
Why would India's carrier(s) - 1 operational at present - be a problem for Pakistan? Would it even be involved in a serious conflict (which would likely focus on air and ground operations rather than naval ones)

Yes but it would be nice to have a contingency in place. In past they have chocked us with blockade.
 
In past they have chocked us with blockade.
Well, better maintain good relations with all or some of China, Iran, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan, as well as Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgizstan and Kazachstan. Perhaps also Azerbeijan, Georgia and Armenia. As far as land routes are concerned. Think pipelines, roads. Otherwise, there's the possibility of a kind of 'Berlin Airlift' concept...
 
??? I didn;'t say any of that.


This approach might increase probability of hit but not the level of damage inflicted.


The purpose of LHDs is to transport and troops. Everything else is secondary. Juan Carlos 'as is' is suited for AV-8B Harrier but not for F-35B (this would require modifications, as the Australian navy studies of this indicate). But you could use it to fly multipurpose helicopters like EH-101 for ASW and ASuW work. In fact that is the idea behind the Japanese new 'DDHs' (which don't have trooptransport and landing role per se, but could assist by embarking cargo helicopters)


Aren't Juan Carlos based Turkish LHD going to operate F-35 or iam mistaking something?
 
@Penguin is PN really interested in The Type-022 stealth fast attack missile boat of China ?
 
@Penguin is PN really interested in The Type-022 stealth fast attack missile boat of China ?
Honestly, I don't know. Personally, since Pakistan does not have a coastline littered with small islands (like e.g. Sweden, Greece or Turkey) or fjords (like Norway), which these boats can use to help mask their approach, I think they would be very vulnerable to detection and air attack even with their stealth features. Nighttime operation would lessen this vulnerability a bit - esp. in areas with a lot of ship traffic - but not significantly against an opfor with advanced ISR capability and attack aircraft. Also, based as they are on the Australian AMD-350, I don't think these boats have a lot of range. So, they are 'doomed' to perform quick hit-and-run attacks from port(s) within striking range of their likely targets, and since the number of those ports is limited, that limits both the number of places and surface area for an opponent to surveille and increases the probability of early detection and air attack. And, although not as expensive as larger units to procure, I still think Pakistan would not acquire them in the numbers necessary/sufficient to succesfully fullfill a saturation attack role, in the way that China would use them (Some analysts forecasted the Chinese navy would take delivery of up to 100 of these vessels, which carry an estimated price tag of about $15 million each. Wiki states 83 active. Price estimates vary from $14.3 million to $50 million). To say the least, they would have to operate in close conjunction with coastal missile batteries and air assets (ISR platforms, MPAs, helicopters, naval strike units).

naval-bases.gif

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/ports.htm

If you put 2-3 boats in each port, you would need 12-18 boats minimum. At the very lowest number of boats (two per port), that would cost $172 - $600 million (at least the friendship price for an F22P), depending on unit cost. Three per port would be $257 - $900 million. Of course, you could choose to concentrate numbers in one or two ports, to increase the chances of being able to launch a saturation attack locally, but that would make it easier on the opponent to monitor what the boats are doing.

These boats have little to no value for peacetime patrolling, lacking e.g. a ship's boat (RIB) for closer inspection and boarding of other vessels. That too limited their usefullness for PN imho.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_22_missile_boat
http://www.amd.com.au/vessels_in_service.php
http://www.amd.com.au/vessels/amd350.php
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-military-technology-idUSBRE84U1HG20120601
https://books.google.nl/books?id=ERwSQC8r868C&pg=PT128&lpg=PT128&dq="AMD+350"+catamaran&source=bl&ots=fmSgOPp6Jb&sig=le648wNf1JEMU8KWyzTJ35iov1U&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjr-qGIu93UAhUPYlAKHcByASAQ6AEIVDAH#v=onepage&q="AMD 350" catamaran&f=false
 
A new domestically-built destroyer has been unveiled by China. Dubbed the Type 055 destroyer, the vessel is considered to be a successor class to the smaller Type 052D guided missile destroyers and is part of a drive by Beijing to modernize and increase its naval presence within its armed forces. Local media described the vessel as “equipped with new air defense, anti-missile, anti-ship and anti-submarine weapons,” and will undergo testing before being commissioned into use. China’s naval effort comes alongside its increasingly assertive stance over disputed territory in the South China, where it lays claim to territory believed to hold oil and gas reserves and through which about $5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes every year.
 
Back
Top Bottom