What's new

Pakistan-Turkey 4 Milgem Ada Class Corvettes Contract - Construction started

Due credit to the PN for pulling this together the right way, e.g., seemingly changing the scope of the MILGEM to include VLA, commonality in SAMs between the 054A and Jinnah Class, etc. Question is, can they take it a step further and secure the HQ-16B with 70 km range? Or maybe add a supersonic AShM to both ships?
 
. . .
Can you give a source of quad packing of redut missile on naval ships?
I haven't seen whether reduts themselves are quad-packed on ships, but their mobile launchers (quad packs the 9m96e and E2). With that being said, the KS-SAM which was jointly developed by Russia and S. Korea is quad packed and is based on the 9M100 and 9M96.
 
. .
I think imthat the only way to get cruise missiles onto this ship will be dual use Harba. Unlikely that the launch tubes on this ship would be the requisite lenght to house Babur.

That being said, i wish the PN would not go for HQ-16 on any of its vessels. It is a large missile for a relatively short range. If CAMM was marketed at IDEAS as @Bilal Khan (Quwa) stated and it is available for PN, then i would consider that. However #1 on my list would be the Poliment-Redut based on either that 9M96E (or if the tubes are long enough the 9M96E2). That gives you quad-packed 60km range missile or 120km if the E2 is available and can be fit. I think even the Type 054A should be equipped with these as they will give longer range and vastly superior number of missiles. Even the SKorean KS-SAM is based on the older 9M100 of this line (40km quad packed).

These give you the flexibility to load 32 missiles and reserve the other cells for other weapons including ASROC style weapons from china, or 64 missile loadout to really provide good protection to the group. The same would be true on a Type 054A equipped with these missiles. A Type 054A with these missiles and 32 cells could take advantage of numerous different loadouts including having 16 HQ-9s for longer range fleet level defense backed by 64 9M96E2s providing more medium ranged defense, also supported by having up to an additional 64 SAMs on the MILGEM in the group. It would provide the best of all options of any missile on the market that is even a potential option for PN (along with CAMM).
Ultimately, the ships will outlast the weapons and electronics. Yes, the HHQ-16 isn't ideal, but it's good seeing the PN work towards commonality across its own fleet and with the PA. Of course, HHQ-16 or HHQ-16, I would prefer we co-develop SAMs with South Africa and/or Turkey. We can then update the 054A and Jinnah (JN) down the line.
 
.
Ultimately, the ships will outlast the weapons and electronics. Yes, the HHQ-16 isn't ideal, but it's good seeing the PN work towards commonality across its own fleet and with the PA. Of course, HHQ-16 or HHQ-16, I would prefer we co-develop SAMs with South Africa and/or Turkey. We can then update the 054A and Jinnah (JN) down the line.
It does appear that PN will be looking to develop a SAM with assistance (likely turkey or china) given that there has been talk of an indigenous VLS unit being developed. That being said they need to have some foresight regarding force multipliers and ultimately try for 2 types of SAMs. A medium ranged, quad-packed sam (ideally in the 50-70km range) and a lomg range high altitude SAM with 250-300km range both of which need land and naval applications. Its a large task but Pakistans military has never given SAMs the proper respect and attention and now they are way behind the game on naval amd land front.
 
.
It does appear that PN will be looking to develop a SAM with assistance (likely turkey or china) given that there has been talk of an indigenous VLS unit being developed. That being said they need to have some foresight regarding force multipliers and ultimately try for 2 types of SAMs. A medium ranged, quad-packed sam (ideally in the 50-70km range) and a lomg range high altitude SAM with 250-300km range both of which need land and naval applications. Its a large task but Pakistans military has never given SAMs the proper respect and attention and now they are way behind the game on naval amd land front.
Of the service arms, I think the PN is the most 'even keel' (no pun intended).

The PA seems to move slow (every program is a massive investment due to size) and, in some cases, might adopt solutions that aren't the latest or greatest (e.g., SALH HQ-16 instead of a ARH SAM).

The PAF is more ambitious and, as of late, can swing between the extremes. Case in point, the PAF CAS said that their current plan for Project Azm is to have a twin-engine fighter with super cruise, but they also want to develop something with the goal of ending imports once and for all. It's high risk, high reward.

The PN is proving that it's open to ideas, but it also wants to expedite timelines and avoid excessive risk. In this case, the Hangor SSP, Type 054A/P FFG, JN FFG, and Damen Corvettes are all based on proven platforms, but if possible or realistic, the PN asked for future-leaning capabilities.

With the Type 054A/P, we reportedly have supersonic-cruising ASCMs. With the JN FFG, we evidently have a VLS system that will carry a MR-SAM in the HHQ-16. Yes, it isn't ideal, but there's nothing to stop the PN from re-fitting the JN FFG and 054A/P with a next-gen MR/LR quad-packable SAM should one become accessible in the future.

Had the PN taken the PA way, then it'd just be the MILGEM Ada without VLS, and we would really have no shot at improving it. Had the PN taken the PAF way, then we wouldn't have either 054A/P or JN FFGs in the pipeline, but a vague plan about 8 next-gen frigates and rumours of interest in the Turkish I-Class.

Instead, the JN FFG gives us something to work with by being good when it launches (with the HQ-16), with the potential to be much, much better 10-15 years later via a quad-pack SM-2/3-like SAM if and when available.
 
.
Due credit to the PN for pulling this together the right way, e.g., seemingly changing the scope of the MILGEM to include VLA, commonality in SAMs between the 054A and Jinnah Class, etc. Question is, can they take it a step further and secure the HQ-16B with 70 km range? Or maybe add a supersonic AShM to both ships?
should be an issue of money only..hq16b is same system with same launcher
 
.
Ultimately, the ships will outlast the weapons and electronics. Yes, the HHQ-16 isn't ideal, but it's good seeing the PN work towards commonality across its own fleet and with the PA. Of course, HHQ-16 or HHQ-16, I would prefer we co-develop SAMs with South Africa and/or Turkey. We can then update the 054A and Jinnah (JN) down the line.
Do HQ16 and 16A have the same sized launchers or twould there be a different VLS system for both? In the former case it may just be a case of upgrade of missiles as they become available. In the later case we might have to think long term. The only question is whether availability is assured for the 16Bs.
A
 
.
Do HQ16 and 16A have the same sized launchers or twould there be a different VLS system for both? In the former case it may just be a case of upgrade of missiles as they become available. In the later case we might have to think long term. The only question is whether availability is assured for the 16Bs.
A
Besides the range, I'm not too clear on the HQ-16B's differences to be honest. Someone reliable even told me that the main difference is apparently software related, so moving to HQ-16B (land or sea) shouldn't be a problem.

So, we'll basically have to wait and see. But it'd be a weird move not to go for HQ-16B seeing how it'll give both the 054A/P and JN FFGs a 70 km-range SAM.
 
.
If there are going to be Chinese MR-SAM then PN should go for a chinese CIWS (Type 1130 with 6 HQ-10). Gives you just a bit more defensive capability when you are considering the fact that you will only have 16 SAMs.
 
. . . .

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom