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

[Rafi]

That's true, but I'm really trying to parse it out, how much more would an air-launched supersonic AShM add to the equation? I know it'll add something, but if you have a supersonic AShM abord frigates, corvettes, FACs, submarines and ground vehicles, you will have many attack vectors. By adding the air, you're adding yet another vector, but is it a necessity? If you have fighters that can (with ship-based AAW) defend the surface and sub-surface vectors, isn't it enough?

If as per PAF and Chinese efforts are successful in getting the GOP to purchase initial (36) J10C aircraft.

Then these planes will take up delivery for ALCM Raad and for Supersonic AShM.

 

[MastanKhan]

Which is why if flankers are not available, which seems to be the case, many including @MastanKhan and myself have advocated for getting a dedicated heavy strike fighter for PN Like a modified JH-7BA/B as a replacement for the mirage Vs assigned to PN. Change the avionics to something along the lines of J-16s suite and you have a fighter which can function as a missile truck for the PAF/PN and protect itself at long ranges. It can be protected up close by JF-17 that are currently assigned to PN

Hi,

Flankers are not the best aircraft for the naval strike missions. The JH7A is still far superior in naval strike missions---with an upgraded EW package targetted towards naval strike missions---.

The JH7A should be procured and kept only as a strike aircraft and NOT as a fighter which it is not and will never be---.

The naval missions will become the most important missions of the future military conflicts---.

For naval strike missions---the appropriate aircraft would be able to carry a minimum of TWO heavy AShM's---that would be the minimum qualification---and for that very reason the Japanese went onwards to design their own aircraft---the F2---.

Otherwise---there was no reason to build a two heavy AShM carrying aircraft---the F16 would have done the job right---.

Some courageous Prime minister / General would have to force a heavy strike aircraft over the air force by a supreme order---.

 

[Tank131]

YJ-12/CM-302 can be.
View attachment 528526 View attachment 528527 View attachment 528528

View attachment 528530 View attachment 528531

They supersonic boxes are still 2x1s for a total of 4 missiles. With that being said, the major role in PN will be long range attack and air defense. It will be operating with MILGEM and F-22P which will either be carrying Harbah (300-500km range). Or C-802A (190km).

That's true, but I'm really trying to parse it out, how much more would an air-launched supersonic AShM add to the equation? I know it'll add something, but if you have a supersonic AShM abord frigates, corvettes, FACs, submarines and ground vehicles, you will have many attack vectors. By adding the air, you're adding yet another vector, but is it a necessity? If you have fighters that can (with ship-based AAW) defend the surface and sub-surface vectors, isn't it enough?

While the coastal batteries, surface and subsurface vessels are an appropriate defense the maximum range of these platforms will be limited to 300-500km from shore in times of war. Having a CBG parked offshore and launchung airstrikes is a different problem. Nothing should be off the table and given the quality of INs ships and fighters, especially with Brahmos, the importance of being able to reach deep into the Arabian to strike them is important.the JH-7A Is ideally suited for this. Equipped with 2 KD-1 and still able to carry 2 C-802 and 4 A2A missiles married to a long range AESA and a HMS cuing Pl-10, and potentially a good EW suite would make it a nightmare for opposing fleets. Especially if backed by JF-17 providing protection.

 

[LKJ86]

They supersonic boxes are still 2x1s for a total of 4 missiles.

4x2

 

[Maxpane]

If as per PAF and Chinese efforts are successful in getting the GOP to purchase initial (36) J10C aircraft.

Then these planes will take up delivery for ALCM Raad and for Supersonic AShM.

Hope they get j 10

 

[Tank131]

4x2

I had a typo. In the picture they are 2x2 (not 2 x 1)cell launchers (total of 4 missiles). Clearly each launcher has 2 missiles. 4 x 2 launchers are what you see with C-802. Are you saying that they will have CM-302/YJ-12 In a 4 x 2 box (total 8 missiles)? If so, I hope you are correct, but as we saw woth Zarb, the size of such missiles is prohibitive from putting too many missiles on board..

 

[LKJ86]

I had a typo. In the picture they are 2x2 (not 2 x 1)cell launchers (total of 4 missiles). Clearly each launcher has 2 missiles. 4 x 2 launchers are what you see with C-802. Are you saying that they will have CM-302/YJ-12 In a 4 x 2 box (total 8 missiles)? If so, I hope you are correct, but as we saw woth Zarb, the size of such missiles is prohibitive from putting too many missiles on board..

Yes, it can take 4x2 YJ-12/CM-302 AShMs.
Type 051B DDG (hull 167) took 4x4 YJ-83 AShMs before upgraded, and now it can take 4x4 YJ-12 AShMs.

 

[Basel]

YJ-12/CM-302 can be.
View attachment 528526 View attachment 528527 View attachment 528528

View attachment 528530 View attachment 528531

Can those be fitted in VLS of PN ships?

 

[LKJ86]

Can those be fitted in VLS of PN ships?

No, it can't.

YJ-12 can be launched from land, ship, and air, but it is not for VLS.

Besides, the VLS of Type 054A FFG is too small to HHQ-9 and YJ-18.

 

[Gryphon]

Hi,

Flankers are not the best aircraft for the naval strike missions. The JH7A is still far superior in naval strike missions---with an upgraded EW package targetted towards naval strike missions---.

The JH7A should be procured and kept only as a strike aircraft and NOT as a fighter which it is not and will never be---.

The naval missions will become the most important missions of the future military conflicts---.

For naval strike missions---the appropriate aircraft would be able to carry a minimum of TWO heavy AShM's---that would be the minimum qualification---and for that very reason the Japanese went onwards to design their own aircraft---the F2---.

Otherwise---there was no reason to build a two heavy AShM carrying aircraft---the F16 would have done the job right---.

Some courageous Prime minister / General would have to force a heavy strike aircraft over the air force by a supreme order---.

Agreed.

JH-7A (with upto 4x HD-1A supersonic missiles) will be a force multiplier in the naval strike role, while being escorted by AESA radar equipped JF-17 Block III & AEW&C aircraft.

There is no viable alternative.

 

[LKJ86]

JH-7A (with upto 4x HD-1A supersonic missiles) will be a force multiplier in the naval strike role, while being escorted by AESA radar equipped JF-17 Block III

The AESA radar equipped JF-17 Block III is too small to JH-7A.

 

[Basel]

No, it can't.

YJ-12 can be launched from land, ship, and air, but it is not for VLS.

Besides, the VLS of Type 054A FFG is too small to HHQ-9 and YJ-18.

Can larger VLS be fitted in PN type -54Bs and what is difference between Yj-18 and C-302?

 

[LKJ86]

Can larger VLS be fitted in PN type -54Bs and what is difference between Yj-18 and C-302?

There are three types of VLS mainly used in PLANS:
1. Type 054A FFG: HQ-16 and Yu-8
2. Type 052C DDG: HHQ-9
3. Type 052D/055 DDG: HHQ-9, YJ-18, and so on

Type 054A/P FFG will use the same VLS as Type 054A FFG.

YJ-18 can be launched from ship and submarine, and it is a subsonic-supersonic AShMs.

 

[khanasifm]

Yj-12 or yj-18 ?? And ASROC

http://www.navyrecognition.com/inde...marine-rocket-asroc-emerges-out-of-china.html


http://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/m...liferation/missile-proliferation/china/yj-12/

 

[khanasifm]

https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Research/China’s New YJ-18 Antiship Cruise Missile.pdf

http://navyrecognition.com/index.ph...ket-assisted-torpedoq-system-at-aad-2014.html