Featured Pakistan Navy Type 054AP Frigates - Update, News & Discussion

[Imran Khan]

Is it? Maybe someone should tell the PN to remove all the CIWS systems from their ships!!!!

Or Maybe.....Just maybe they fit the missiles that can fit onto the ship with the longest range Available. For example the Destroyers carry HQ9's (Or the RIM 174 for US ships)

The missile range on ships is limited by the space. Hence destroyers have longer ranged missiles. Frigates get smaller missiles.

RIM or same as rim may help us otherwise no aircraft will go 40km to these frigates . also CIWS is total other story

 

[araz]

Type 54 a/p can protect our small ships also thanks to its 32 vls hq 16.

Due to arrival of yj 12 brahmose advantage will be over.
Exciting times ahead for PN.insha Allah

The argument which @Akh1112 has been projecting is-that due to limitation of being able to fight against a limited number of missiles the HQ16 series might not be the best we can get. However tbis is the best that is on offer and is better missiles become available we will have to upgrade accordingly. It is cergaiy better than anything we have previously gotten from China.
A

 

[iLION12345_1]

The argument which @Akh1112 has been projecting is-that due to limitation of being able to fight against a limited number of missiles the HQ16 series might not be the best we can get. However tbis is the best that is on offer and is better missiles become available we will have to upgrade accordingly. It is cergaiy better than anything we have previously gotten from China.
A

He is correct in his own right, but that doesn't change the fact that these ships are still a massive upgrade for the PN and the HQ-16, even if it’s not the best system, is adding to our capability and not handicapping it, nobody doubts that, and he would surely agree to that as well.

China has better ship based SAM systems on its destroyers in the form of navalised FD2000 iirc. But those are for their larger ships, for smaller ships their new HQ16C system is not ready yet, I expect we will see it in the future when we inevitably upgrade these ships. China knows HQ16A is old now, but they use it on their frigates too because they haven’t made a better version yet, they’re working on it though. It is certainly better than FM90 however, which is what is present on F22P, those are short range SAM systems.

The CAMM-ER on Babur class however is currently our best SAM system for the near future, until either Jinnah-class or another Chinese ship/upgrade comes into service.

 

[Muhammad Saftain Anjum]

Jinnah-class

We should pray for aster 30 on Jinnah class.this will outclass our enemy.their Barak 8 is not that capable and their brahmose will not survive against CAMM ER and Aster 30

 

[serenity]

Why not use HHQ-16B? That is the standard one for PLAN.

Why use HHQ-16 with only 40km but not 70km range HHQ-16A or HHQ-16B?

 

[Muhammad Saftain Anjum]

It is very encouraging to see that how rapidly Pakistan is filling the technological gap with its adversary in conventional warfare.and Bangladeshi members @Avicenna ,@bluesky ,@Michael Corleone etc. were saying that Pakistan will not be able to keep it's military advancements in future due to falling economy.thank God they are proven wrong.

 

[bluesky]

It is very encouraging to see that how rapidly Pakistan is filling the technological gap with its adversary in conventional warfare.and Bangladeshi members @Avicenna ,@bluesky ,@Michael Corleone etc. were saying that Pakistan will not be able to keep it's military advancements in future due to falling economy.thank God they are proven wrong.

Well and good if PN is rapidly filling up the technological gap. But, a technology gain cannot be sustained without a strong economic muscle.

 

[Michael Corleone]

It is very encouraging to see that how rapidly Pakistan is filling the technological gap with its adversary in conventional warfare.and Bangladeshi members @Avicenna ,@bluesky ,@Michael Corleone etc. were saying that Pakistan will not be able to keep it's military advancements in future due to falling economy.thank God they are proven wrong.

With tot you can do wonders. But if Pakistan wants to keep its deterrence against India, it needs a quick economic recovery.

 

[iLION12345_1]

Why not use HHQ-16B? That is the standard one for PLAN.

Why use HHQ-16 with only 40km but not 70km range HHQ-16A or HHQ-16B?

HHQ-16 And HHQ-16A are the same thing. HQ16B does not have a navalised variant, only ground based so far. PLAN also uses HHQ-16A. HQ-16C will be the next iteration of the naval variant however it is not ready yet. Here the distinction between naval and ground based variants is made by the single H for ground and double HH for naval if I remember it correctly.

It is very encouraging to see that how rapidly Pakistan is filling the technological gap with its adversary in conventional warfare.and Bangladeshi members @Avicenna ,@bluesky ,@Michael Corleone etc. were saying that Pakistan will not be able to keep it's military advancements in future due to falling economy.thank God they are proven wrong.

Well and good if PN is rapidly filling up the technological gap. But, a technology gain cannot be sustained without a strong economic muscle.

With tot you can do wonders. But if Pakistan wants to keep its deterrence against India, it needs a quick economic recovery.

They are correct too. Pakistan needs to improve its economy for any military related purchases. It’s not sustainable to buy more than you can afford, the reason we are buying all these things is specifically because there was an increase in the amount of funds available, which was a direct result of economic stability after the war on terror ended. The reason most military procurements and especially naval procurements were on halt was because the money was being used to fund operations, they were hence being given to the Air Force and army, which is not the case anymore.

 

[serenity]

HHQ-16 And HHQ-16A are the same thing. HQ16B does not have a navalised variant, only ground based so far. PLAN also uses HHQ-16A. HQ-16C will be the next iteration of the naval variant however it is not ready yet. Here the distinction between naval and ground based variants is made by the single H for ground and double HH for naval if I remember it correctly.




They are correct too. Pakistan needs to improve its economy for any military related purchases. It’s not sustainable to buy more than you can afford, the reason we are buying all these things is specifically because there was an increase in the amount of funds available, which was a direct result of economic stability after the war on terror ended. The reason most military procurements and especially naval procurements were on halt was because the money was being used to fund operations, they were hence being given to the Air Force and army, which is not the case anymore.

No HHQ-16 and HHQ-16A are different.

Like J-10 and J-10A are different.

Type 99 and Type 99A are different.

The next Type 055 development will be Type 055A and different to the current Type 055.

Type 039 is Song class and very different to Type 039A Yuan class.

HHQ-16A is more than the HHQ-16's range of 40km.

Anyway the current one is HQ-16B but you are right the navy has not gotten a naval version HHQ-16B yet. So best version is HHQ-16A at the moment.

 

[iLION12345_1]

No HHQ-16 and HHQ-16A are different.

Like J-10 and J-10A are different.

Type 99 and Type 99A are different.

The next Type 055 development will be Type 055A and different to the current Type 055.

Type 039 is Song class and very different to Type 039A Yuan class.

HHQ-16A is more than the HHQ-16's range of 40km.

Anyway the current one is HQ-16B but you are right the navy has not gotten a naval version HHQ-16B yet. So best version is HHQ-16A at the moment.

i had originally thought so too, I know ”A“ designation is usually an upgrade, but this is one case where it seems to be different, from what I can remember. HQ-16 is the cold-launch variant. For ships. HQ-16A is the hot-launch variant, for ground, and then it splits into HQ-16B for the upgraded hot-launch ground variant and HQ-16C for the upgraded cold launch ship variant. Both HQ-16 and 16A are credited with a 40KM range, 16B has 70KM. Though I admit I was probably wrong about the H and HH designations.

This may be because The ground based 16A had a better guidance radar or some other improvements So they considered it an upgrade? But that’s just a speculation.

About the HQ-16C, I remember at least one Chinese media article stating that “HQ-16C” had been tested from a PLAN ship as well as a western source about it (a French reporter, which is usually accurate about Chinese leaks and has relations with chinese companies, he stated that “B” was ground variant only and “C” would be ship variant).

 

[Dreamer.]

He is correct in his own right, but that doesn't change the fact that these ships are still a massive upgrade for the PN and the HQ-16, even if it’s not the best system, is adding to our capability and not handicapping it, nobody doubts that, and he would surely agree to that as well.

China has better ship based SAM systems on its destroyers in the form of navalised FD2000 iirc. But those are for their larger ships, for smaller ships their new HQ16C system is not ready yet, I expect we will see it in the future when we inevitably upgrade these ships. China knows HQ16A is old now, but they use it on their frigates too because they haven’t made a better version yet, they’re working on it though. It is certainly better than FM90 however, which is what is present on F22P, those are short range SAM systems.

The CAMM-ER on Babur class however is currently our best SAM system for the near future, until either Jinnah-class or another Chinese ship/upgrade comes into service.

Actually according to @Akh1112 better AD is already available on latest chinese frigates, just not for PN. And it has more to do with sensors rather than range of missiles, so that can be improved without naval hq-16 b/c being available.

 

[iLION12345_1]

Actually according to @Akh1112 better AD is already available on latest chinese frigates, just not for PN. And it has more to do with sensors rather than range of missiles, so that can be improved without naval hq-16 b/c being available.

He is correct, and I said the same exact same thing just a few posts back. Said better AD is the Navalized HQ9 system Present on Chinese Destroyers as well as HQ-10 Short range SAMS (only present on Type 55). These are not present on Chinese frigates either, they use the same HQ-16 as ours will, however the most recent Chinese 054A frigate has been seen with new illuminators, it’s still using the same old HQ-16 system.

PN can buy HQ-9 as well, it’s offered for export. PA is already looking to buy it’s ground based version. However Wether this can be fitted into 054A, at least without expensive modifications, something which PN clearly didn’t want to do with these frigates and instead spent the money on Babur and Jinnah, I’m not the best judge of that.

I’m not sure what the second part of your post means. Upgrading just the sensors and not the missiles? Sure that’s an option, but the HQ-16s shortcomings cannot just be addressed by changing the sensors since the missile itself is limited to a range of 40KM on account of being outdated. If we want to appreciably improve the system, we need a newer version, which is exactly why China is developing one. HQ-16C might be seen on Our frigates when they receive future upgrades, but they will surely be only Chinese ones as soon as they’re ready. For now our only option is HQ-16 and that too in the configuration we have it in, unless we’re willing to pay to make our ships unique like we did with the Babur and Jinnah class, and I have a feeling PN chose those modify because they had better options available there in the form of CAMM-ER, something which the Chinese ships didn’t have as I mentioned above.

 

[Avicenna]

It is very encouraging to see that how rapidly Pakistan is filling the technological gap with its adversary in conventional warfare.and Bangladeshi members @Avicenna ,@bluesky ,@Michael Corleone etc. were saying that Pakistan will not be able to keep it's military advancements in future due to falling economy.thank God they are proven wrong.

Don't tag me with inaccurate statements.

I hope Pakistan continues to strengthen itself against a hostile India.

 

[Muhammad Saftain Anjum]

Don't tag me with inaccurate statements.

I hope Pakistan continues to strengthen itself against a hostile India.

Sorry bhai I will not do this again without confirming