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

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Yeah I have seen this too. The only issue I have with the Chinese ship is china's willingness to allow 3rd party weapons. If they can come up with a quad packed medium ranged missile then great, otherwise I hope they would allow PN to incorporate Turkeys future G-40 quad packed missile. Giving such a ship 32 HQ-9 and 64 medium range (40km) G-40 would make it pack a strong fleet level defense. Beyond that, I hope the the Type 054A will also consider moving to such a missile.


I beg to differ with the first part. The 057 artist rendition is what many people believe to be the Type 054B concept. If that is the case then they are intended to serve in PLAN. As for extending the range of HQ-16, the current range of the HQ-16B is 70km which is fairly good for a medium range missile. Maybe it could be extended to 100km but I don't see the utility of a long range HQ-16 when there is the HQ-9 already present. If anything they should look into quad packing a medium range missile with a 40-70km range as it would be a huge force multiplier.

It's easier for the PN to secure surface ships than it is for the PAF to get off-the-shelf fighters.

First, each full multi-mission vessel is the equivalent in price to a single 4.5/4+-gen fighter, and the PN needs far fewer said ships in absolute terms than the PAF needs fighters.

Second, it seems the world is generally okay with supplying the PN with surface ships and aircraft; these arms are defensive in nature and are unlikely to alter the naval balance in South Asia (but submarines are a different story).

Third, the ship design process works differently than fighter aircraft. With a fighter design, you can't mess around with the existing subsystem configuration, the OEM tends to package things as-is and you'll seldom see customized fighters (the Block-60 and MKI are exceptions). But with ships, you're largely integrating off-the-shelf components and subsystem -- the key is having the design expertise to implement it.

With the MILGEM-J, the PN is looking to build that exact expertise. So, it wouldn't surprise me if any future 3,000+ ton ship (or even larger) is an internal design (with foreign help) leveraging COTS. The PN could design the frigate, but it will import the engines, electronics and weapons from various sources, and integrate it locally.

 

[Tank131]

HHQ-9 is also increasing its range, and old versions would be knocked out.

Yes I have read. There are also numerous versions on the horizon.

It's easier for the PN to secure surface ships than it is for the PAF to get off-the-shelf fighters.

First, each full multi-mission vessel is the equivalent in price to a single 4.5/4+-gen fighter, and the PN needs far fewer said ships in absolute terms than the PAF needs fighters.

Second, it seems the world is generally okay with supplying the PN with surface ships and aircraft; these arms are defensive in nature and are unlikely to alter the naval balance in South Asia (but submarines are a different story).

Third, the ship design process works differently than fighter aircraft. With a fighter design, you can't mess around with the existing subsystem configuration, the OEM tends to package things as-is and you'll seldom see customized fighters (the Block-60 and MKI are exceptions). But with ships, you're largely integrating off-the-shelf components and subsystem -- the key is having the design expertise to implement it.

With the MILGEM-J, the PN is looking to build that exact expertise. So, it wouldn't surprise me if any future 3,000+ ton ship (or even larger) is an internal design (with foreign help) leveraging COTS. The PN could design the frigate, but it will import the engines, electronics and weapons from various sources, and integrate it locally.

I hope that is the case with the in house design, but honestly to be a fleet level defender, it would need to be in the 4500-5000t range and I'm not sure PN will have the technical expertise to design such a ship from scratch or even alter the Jinnah design. It may need to include turkey and or China to create such a ship.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Yes I have read. There are also numerous versions on the horizon.



I hope that is the case with the in house design, but honestly to be a fleet level defender, it would need to be in the 4500-5000t range and I'm not sure PN will have the technical expertise to design such a ship from scratch or even alter the Jinnah design. It may need to include turkey and or China to create such a ship.

I think the PN is looking to develop the ship design, testing, etc process domestically, but the inputs (steel, engines, superstructure material, electronics, sensors, etc) will come from abroad.

 

[Zarvan]

It's easier for the PN to secure surface ships than it is for the PAF to get off-the-shelf fighters.

First, each full multi-mission vessel is the equivalent in price to a single 4.5/4+-gen fighter, and the PN needs far fewer said ships in absolute terms than the PAF needs fighters.

Second, it seems the world is generally okay with supplying the PN with surface ships and aircraft; these arms are defensive in nature and are unlikely to alter the naval balance in South Asia (but submarines are a different story).

Third, the ship design process works differently than fighter aircraft. With a fighter design, you can't mess around with the existing subsystem configuration, the OEM tends to package things as-is and you'll seldom see customized fighters (the Block-60 and MKI are exceptions). But with ships, you're largely integrating off-the-shelf components and subsystem -- the key is having the design expertise to implement it.

With the MILGEM-J, the PN is looking to build that exact expertise. So, it wouldn't surprise me if any future 3,000+ ton ship (or even larger) is an internal design (with foreign help) leveraging COTS. The PN could design the frigate, but it will import the engines, electronics and weapons from various sources, and integrate it locally.

What if we try to go got big Destroyers which can launch aggressive missions like cruise Missile strikes on Indian cities ???

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

What if we try to go got big Destroyers which can launch aggressive missions like cruise Missile strikes on Indian cities ???

It depends. Technically, you don't need a destroyer-sized ship to launch long-range LACMs, but rather, VLS that is large/deep enough to accommodate said cruise missiles. You can fit that to a smaller ship. Those VLS are generally not on the market for anyone, so it isn't a restriction on the PN. Now, if Pakistan develops such a VLS of its own, I don't know; but such a capability doesn't add much to land-based LACMs. In fact, it might not be as threatening as 4 destroyers would mean 4 possible LACM launchers, whereas from land, you can have 100+ launchers.

Submarines are a different story because there's an element of stealth involved, so when you combine that with land-attack capability it's seen as an issue. However, the Germans more or less knew the PN would use the Type 214s for LACMs, and they didn't really care, so even then it might not be as much of an issue.

For the most part, it seems the West is more concerned with Pakistan acquiring strategic air platforms, e.g., new tankers, next-gen fighters, AAMs, etc, more so than ships. The French were fine when we inked the Agosta 90B order, but when the Mirage 2000/-5 came into the picture, only then did their Ministry of Finance start going nuts.

 

[Tipu7]

What if we try to go got big Destroyers which can launch aggressive missions like cruise Missile strikes on Indian cities ???

Even if we procure Destroyers they won't be used for conduction cruise strikes over Indian land based targets. Reasons are numerous, few important ones are

1: In the absence of mature Indian missile defense system, Pakistan's land based cruise assets covers roughly all important Indian land based target. Even if PN acquire destroyers are equip them with LACMs, it will simply be a capability overlap which is undesirable.

2: PN destroyers, in case of conflict, will be high value targets themselves. If they are equipped with LACMs then India will prefer to pre-empt them in initial hours of conflict or atleast deny their access to regions from where they could strike land based targets on Indian territory. This will nulify their role as land attack platform.

3: The survivability of PN's destroyers will be questionable if we used them as forward deployed assets for head on confrontation against Indian Navy in Indian Ocean. Instead, Destroyers (if procured) will serve as Anti Access/Area Denial assets and will provide protective coverage to own naval flotilla. Equipping them with LACMs will undermine the roles they will be meant to play.

4: PN is upgrading its Agosta-90 class subs and is procuring eight S26 subs from China cutomized to meet PN specific deamands. One of the key specific demand is ability of sub to launch SLCMs against naval as well as land based targets. Therefore, its safe to assume that subs will be weapons of choice for PN for cruise strikes instead of vulnerable surface ships.

5: PN focus, as far as surface and airborne assets are concerned, is to develop as much anti-surface and anti-sub capability as much possible. All these assets are purposed (or will be purposed) for countering Indian Navy specifically by acting as crucial multi-layer A2/AD spectrum in a defensive pattern. The offensive arm of PN is subs, and they will be used for it.

6: For justifying the role of surface ships as carrier of LACMs, PN will be needing to comprehensively modernize and expand its naval capacity; perhaps as much as 70% of entire Indian Navy. Only then the PN naval flotilla will "pierce through" Indian defenses and be able to strike Indian mainlands from points where its land based attack assets cannot reach. In simply words, naval superiority and air superiority will be needed to undertake such tasks. But such massive capability build up is beyond practicality considering our economics and requirements.

Due to the few factors mentioned above, PN will not equip any of its surface vessel with LACMs. Destroyers (if came) will not be used for this role either.

 

[Zarvan]

Even if we procure Destroyers they won't be used for conduction cruise strikes over Indian land based targets. Reasons are numerous, few important ones are

1: In the absence of mature Indian missile defense system, Pakistan's land based cruise assets covers roughly all important Indian land based target. Even if PN acquire destroyers are equip them with LACMs, it will simply be a capability overlap which is undesirable.

2: PN destroyers, in case of conflict, will be high value targets themselves. If they are equipped with LACMs then India will prefer to pre-empt them in initial hours of conflict or atleast deny their access to regions from where they could strike land based targets on Indian territory. This will nulify their role as land attack platform.

3: The survivability of PN's destroyers will be questionable if we used them as forward deployed assets for head on confrontation against Indian Navy in Indian Ocean. Instead, Destroyers (if procured) will serve as Anti Access/Area Denial assets and will provide protective coverage to own naval flotilla. Equipping them with LACMs will undermine the roles they will be meant to play.

4: PN is upgrading its Agosta-90 class subs and is procuring eight S26 subs from China cutomized to meet PN specific deamands. One of the key specific demand is ability of sub to launch SLCMs against naval as well as land based targets. Therefore, its safe to assume that subs will be weapons of choice for PN for cruise strikes instead of vulnerable surface ships.

5: PN focus, as far as surface and airborne assets are concerned, is to develop as much anti-surface and anti-sub capability as much possible. All these assets are purposed (or will be purposed) for countering Indian Navy specifically by acting as crucial multi-layer A2/AD spectrum in a defensive pattern. The offensive arm of PN is subs, and they will be used for it.

6: For justifying the role of surface ships as carrier of LACMs, PN will be needing to comprehensively modernize and expand its naval capacity; perhaps as much as 70% of entire Indian Navy. Only then the PN naval flotilla will "pierce through" Indian defenses and be able to strike Indian mainlands from points where its land based attack assets cannot reach. In simply words, naval superiority and air superiority will be needed to undertake such tasks. But such massive capability build up is beyond practicality considering our economics and requirements.

Due to the few factors mentioned above, PN will not equip any of its surface vessel with LACMs. Destroyers (if came) will not be used for this role either.

Surface Ships on both sides will be targets that doesn't mean we should not induct surface ships. Destroyers if inducted will be inducted to carry out the role similar to what USA did in Syria against chemical weapons factory of Assad regime. The missiles which cover entire India are mainly meant for nuclear strikes yes they can be used for conventional strikes but covering entire India from sea for conventional purposes is equally necessary

 

[Basel]

Even if we procure Destroyers they won't be used for conduction cruise strikes over Indian land based targets. Reasons are numerous, few important ones are

1: In the absence of mature Indian missile defense system, Pakistan's land based cruise assets covers roughly all important Indian land based target. Even if PN acquire destroyers are equip them with LACMs, it will simply be a capability overlap which is undesirable.

2: PN destroyers, in case of conflict, will be high value targets themselves. If they are equipped with LACMs then India will prefer to pre-empt them in initial hours of conflict or atleast deny their access to regions from where they could strike land based targets on Indian territory. This will nulify their role as land attack platform.

3: The survivability of PN's destroyers will be questionable if we used them as forward deployed assets for head on confrontation against Indian Navy in Indian Ocean. Instead, Destroyers (if procured) will serve as Anti Access/Area Denial assets and will provide protective coverage to own naval flotilla. Equipping them with LACMs will undermine the roles they will be meant to play.

4: PN is upgrading its Agosta-90 class subs and is procuring eight S26 subs from China cutomized to meet PN specific deamands. One of the key specific demand is ability of sub to launch SLCMs against naval as well as land based targets. Therefore, its safe to assume that subs will be weapons of choice for PN for cruise strikes instead of vulnerable surface ships.

5: PN focus, as far as surface and airborne assets are concerned, is to develop as much anti-surface and anti-sub capability as much possible. All these assets are purposed (or will be purposed) for countering Indian Navy specifically by acting as crucial multi-layer A2/AD spectrum in a defensive pattern. The offensive arm of PN is subs, and they will be used for it.

6: For justifying the role of surface ships as carrier of LACMs, PN will be needing to comprehensively modernize and expand its naval capacity; perhaps as much as 70% of entire Indian Navy. Only then the PN naval flotilla will "pierce through" Indian defenses and be able to strike Indian mainlands from points where its land based attack assets cannot reach. In simply words, naval superiority and air superiority will be needed to undertake such tasks. But such massive capability build up is beyond practicality considering our economics and requirements.

Due to the few factors mentioned above, PN will not equip any of its surface vessel with LACMs. Destroyers (if came) will not be used for this role either.

When ships are used to launch LACMs they are 1000km or more away from target which makes them safe from enemy attack.

A 2500km range LACM will be needed for ships.

 

[Ali_Baba]

For the most part, it seems the West is more concerned with Pakistan acquiring strategic air platforms, e.g., new tankers, next-gen fighters, AAMs, etc, more so than ships. The French were fine when we inked the Agosta 90B order, but when the Mirage 2000/-5 came into the picture, only then did their Ministry of Finance start going nuts.

It is because in the India / Pakistan equation, Air power is more important(as we saw last year) than both naval and landforces equation. They want a weak Pakistan that cannot respond to Indian airpower, thankfully Pakistan had a bit of luck and managed to escapte that, but the advantage only lasts 3 or so years from now and the west wont help to keep that advantage. That is why Turkey and China are so important to Pakistan.

Even if USA agrees to "sell" F16s, they will never arrive in Pakistan as Pakistan will get sanctioned before delivery We know this...

 

[Tipu7]

Surface Ships on both sides will be targets that doesn't mean we should not induct surface ships. Destroyers if inducted will be inducted to carry out the role similar to what USA did in Syria against chemical weapons factory of Assad regime. The missiles which cover entire India are mainly meant for nuclear strikes yes they can be used for conventional strikes but covering entire India from sea for conventional purposes is equally necessary

No. As I mentioned above, PN is working on better strategy.

When ships are used to launch LACMs they are 1000km or more away from target which makes them safe from enemy attack.

A 2500km range LACM will be needed for ships.

Then isn't it better to attack from land? After all, the majority of important military infrastructure of India can easily be covered via 2500km range land based CMs.

And if PN is sending its naval flotilla far from its shores at ranges where it can fire missiles thousands of kms away, then it's creating significant gap in its naval defense line. Such flotilla will be very much exposed and probably will not survive long enough for undertaking the requisite task. Such task itself will have little strategic importance when the overall risk is put into perspective. We simply don't have the lexury of using surface assets for offensive as well as defensive purposes at the same time.

 

[Pakistani Fighter]

So, a destroyer for each could make sense

If for 2 destroyers than I would go for 2 Type 055s

Besides, HQ-16 has the huge potential to increase its range.

Can HQ 16A be converted to HQ 16B?

 

[Basel]

No. As I mentioned above, PN is working on better strategy.


Then isn't it better to attack from land? After all, the majority of important military infrastructure of India can easily be covered via 2500km range land based CMs.

And if PN is sending its naval flotilla far from its shores at ranges where it can fire missiles thousands of kms away, then it's creating significant gap in its naval defense line. Such flotilla will be very much exposed and probably will not survive long enough for undertaking the requisite task. Such task itself will have little strategic importance when the overall risk is put into perspective. We simply don't have the lexury of using surface assets for offensive as well as defensive purposes at the same time.

Ocean is big and if we use 2500-3000km range CM far from Indian coast around 2000km then it will put huge burden on Indian defences and they will have to allocate resources to tackle it which will reduce pressure on Pakistani coastline and also allow Pakistan to hit any target deep inside India and keep that asset away from Indian CM or Air attacks.

 

[Basel]

Not practical bro with limited assets.

Very practical because you don't know how daring PN is about striking enemy with current asset not including upcoming assets.

 

[Falcon26]

Even if we procure Destroyers they won't be used for conduction cruise strikes over Indian land based targets. Reasons are numerous, few important ones are

1: In the absence of mature Indian missile defense system, Pakistan's land based cruise assets covers roughly all important Indian land based target. Even if PN acquire destroyers are equip them with LACMs, it will simply be a capability overlap which is undesirable.

2: PN destroyers, in case of conflict, will be high value targets themselves. If they are equipped with LACMs then India will prefer to pre-empt them in initial hours of conflict or atleast deny their access to regions from where they could strike land based targets on Indian territory. This will nulify their role as land attack platform.

3: The survivability of PN's destroyers will be questionable if we used them as forward deployed assets for head on confrontation against Indian Navy in Indian Ocean. Instead, Destroyers (if procured) will serve as Anti Access/Area Denial assets and will provide protective coverage to own naval flotilla. Equipping them with LACMs will undermine the roles they will be meant to play.

4: PN is upgrading its Agosta-90 class subs and is procuring eight S26 subs from China cutomized to meet PN specific deamands. One of the key specific demand is ability of sub to launch SLCMs against naval as well as land based targets. Therefore, its safe to assume that subs will be weapons of choice for PN for cruise strikes instead of vulnerable surface ships.

5: PN focus, as far as surface and airborne assets are concerned, is to develop as much anti-surface and anti-sub capability as much possible. All these assets are purposed (or will be purposed) for countering Indian Navy specifically by acting as crucial multi-layer A2/AD spectrum in a defensive pattern. The offensive arm of PN is subs, and they will be used for it.

6: For justifying the role of surface ships as carrier of LACMs, PN will be needing to comprehensively modernize and expand its naval capacity; perhaps as much as 70% of entire Indian Navy. Only then the PN naval flotilla will "pierce through" Indian defenses and be able to strike Indian mainlands from points where its land based attack assets cannot reach. In simply words, naval superiority and air superiority will be needed to undertake such tasks. But such massive capability build up is beyond practicality considering our economics and requirements.

Due to the few factors mentioned above, PN will not equip any of its surface vessel with LACMs. Destroyers (if came) will not be used for this role either.

How do the PN upgraded Agosta-90B submarines compare to India’s Scorpène-class submarine? @Bilal Khan (Quwa)

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

How do the PN upgraded Agosta-90B submarines compare to India’s Scorpène-class submarine? @Bilal Khan (Quwa)

It's tough to say since performance information re: submarines is generally kept under wraps. That said, we should assume Naval Group instituted various design improvements to the Scorpene, e.g., in acoustics. However, the gap -- if any -- on the electronics front is probably really close (it was the same argument the Indians were making with their upgraded Type 209s vs the PN Type 214 selection). For now, the A90Bs also have AIP while the Scorpenes do not, but that will obviously change.