REPLACEMENT OF Tariq class

[Penguin]

If you need AAW assest, you can always make a dedicated AAW version of F-22P by ditching the hangar and helideck.

Consider how the Dutch derived the L-frigate (Jacob van Heemskerck) from the S-frigate (Kortenaer)

Original Kortenaer / S-frigate (ASW/GP)

Heemskerck L-frigate (AAW)

 

[Penguin]

 

[leftfordead]

@Penguin if PN goes for Type -23 from UK , refurbished and some upgraded how much it will cost ? and how this decision will stand against buying new F-22P's with a VLC 4x8 Cell like you show in about Type 54A pic . ? which will be best option ? cost vise and technology vice .

 

[Tank131]

@Penguin, while Sa'ar 5 was designed for barak 1 which is relatively small it currently operates barak 8 which is slighly larger/longer than umkhonto and CAMM. If it can get 16 cells of that sized missile i see no reason china couldn't do the same or better with a much larger ship.

@Penguin if PN goes for Type -23 from UK , refurbished and some upgraded how much it will cost ? and how this decision will stand against buying new F-22P's with a VLC 4x8 Cell like you show in about Type 54A pic . ? which will be best option ? cost vise and technology vice .

Problem with the type 23 is they will ve i service for the foreseeable future. Certainly too long for PN to wait for. The first Type 26 GCS is to be laid down this year with service expected to start in mid 2020s (another 10 yrs) if there are no delays.

 

[Genghis khan1]

Or 3 destroyers..

How about this baby.

 

[Tank131]

PN needs cost effective platform for both acquisition and operation. We are talking about ships in the $200-300M range, these large scale destroyers in the 6000t-9000t range are over $1Billion per ship. PN cant afford to acquire that. Then you have to equip them with personelle which is expensive.

 

[Quwa]

PN needs cost effective platform for both acquisition and operation. We are talking about ships in the $200-300M range, these large scale destroyers in the 6000t-9000t range are over $1Billion per ship. PN cant afford to acquire that. Then you have to equip them with personelle which is expensive.

Agreed. In fact, if we take a mature and comparatively low-cost design such as the F-22P and C-28A, we have a lot of room to build on top of it in terms of sensors and weapon systems. Take the C-28A, incorporate VLS from the design stage, and 'splurge' on a good set of active and passive phased-array radars. The price-point of such a system will probably be under $300mn a unit, easily, potentially $250mn.

Speaking of 'upgraded C-28A' - did you notice how this CSOC design inherits the elevated deck of the C-28A and F-22P?

http://i.imgur.com/NBq6SyH.jpg

 

[Arsalan]

PN needs cost effective platform for both acquisition and operation. We are talking about ships in the $200-300M range, these large scale destroyers in the 6000t-9000t range are over $1Billion per ship. PN cant afford to acquire that. Then you have to equip them with personelle which is expensive.

Just to add, it is not only about procurement costs. We also do not want to invest heavily in bigger ships because there loss will be a huge blow to moral. Also it will limit the numbers we are operating and thus any loss will seriously hamper the PN capabilities. The idea is to invest in medium frigates, equip them with better sensors and radars and get them in relatively higher number. Some of the options that we can go for offer EXCELLENT capabilities as well.
What need to be done is that even if we stay in the lower end of displacement limit, we should go for ships with much better AAW. This is one department that we seriously lack in. Chinese Type 54A are a great options. Also with Chinese rumored to be working on one HQ17, that is also likely to offer excellent AAW capabilities in future. Around 8 to 12 frigates with relatively similar capabilities (we will include F22P in this category as well even with its lack luster AAW capability. It will however make up the AShW or ASW arm) will meet our requirements. Achieve that target in the next decade or so together with a decent subsurface fleet, and then we can think about something bigger with even better AAW.

 

[Tank131]

Yeah, but it makes me think that the vls is meant for short range SAM like hq7 development similar to vt1 (as it was itself based on crotales which gave rise to vt1) that is a corvette the same class as sa'ar5 so the only other possiblity is something like fm3000.

 

[Quwa]

In terms of compact MR-SAM, I reckon China's focus will be on the DK-10 (or some other AAM-inspired SAM). For Pakistan, that could be a good option (considering it is also derived from the SD-10). Alternatively (and less likely), the Denel Umkhonto ER and Umkhonto R, Aselsan Hisar-O, and MBDA CAMM.

Whether F-22P/C-28A based or not, we need a good medium-sized multi-mission frigate capable of easily carrying at least 32 MR-SAM in VLS format.

 

[Tank131]

Just to add, it is not only about procurement costs. We also do not want to invest heavily in bigger ships because there loss will be a huge blow to moral. Also it will limit the numbers we are operating and thus any loss will seriously hamper the PN capabilities. The idea is to invest in medium frigates, equip them with better sensors and radars and get them in relatively higher number. Some of the options that we can go for offer EXCELLENT capabilities as well.
What need to be done is that even if we stay in the lower end of displacement limit, we should go for ships with much better AAW. This is one department that we seriously lack in. Chinese Type 54A are a great options. Also with Chinese rumored to be working on one HQ17, that is also likely to offer excellent AAW capabilities in future. Around 8 to 12 frigates with relatively similar capabilities (we will include F22P in this category as well even with its lack luster AAW capability. It will however make up the AShW or ASW arm) will meet our requirements. Achieve that target in the next decade or so together with a decent subsurface fleet, and then we can think about something bigger with even better AAW.

Major word of caution. Not doing something because you are afraid of losing it is a sign of mental weakness and lack of fortitude. Pakistanis over the last 20 yrs have developed a soft spine. You risk losing weaponry in war, thats why you have it. It would be a moral hit to lose anything from a plane, sub, or frigate, but also each soldier. But that cant be the reason not to get a piece of equipment.

 

[Cornered Tiger]

One more great option is High Performace Frigate

 

[Arsalan]

Major word of caution. Not doing something because you are afraid of losing it is a sign of mental weakness and lack of fortitude. Pakistanis over the last 20 yrs have developed a soft spine. You risk losing weaponry in war, thats why you have it. It would be a moral hit to lose anything from a plane, sub, or frigate, but also each soldier. But that cant be the reason not to get a piece of equipment.

I agree with you completely. Perhaps that is why this never is the official statement or stance.

Big or small, a loss is a loss and it is part of the war. However we cannot deny that putting all eggs in one basket is not wise either. An increased number of platforms have there own advantages and if you can give them decent multirole capabilities and good AAW like in Type 54A, then it meets our requirements perfectly.

 

[Quwa]

Major word of caution. Not doing something because you are afraid of losing it is a sign of mental weakness and lack of fortitude. Pakistanis over the last 20 yrs have developed a soft spine. You risk losing weaponry in war, thats why you have it. It would be a moral hit to lose anything from a plane, sub, or frigate, but also each soldier. But that cant be the reason not to get a piece of equipment.

I agree with you completely. Perhaps that is why this never is the official statement or stance.

Big or small, a loss is a loss and it is part of the war. However we cannot deny that putting all eggs in one basket is not wise either. An increased number of platforms have there own advantages and if you can give them decent multirole capabilities and good AAW like in Type 54A, then it meets our requirements perfectly.

Another point to consider is that the more we build out our capacities, the more risk-averse our foes will be. Just as we are afraid of losing a high value AAW frigate, the enemy will also be worried about the prospect of losing a high-cost MPA. A lot of the wars we've seen in recent years have been between severely asymmetrical sides, e.g. non-state actors with no real AAW versus powers with industry leading aircraft.

 

[Tank131]

@Arsalan i agree not puttimg all eggs in one basket...unless its your own basket. Rather than type 054a, PN AND KSEW should work with the chinese to reconfigure the c28A. Remeber, under the reskin, it is the F-22p which itself is based on type 053h3. This allow KSEW to wprk umder a design it os relatively familiar with with a few tweaks. The re-engineering i have outlined above includes moving the c802 missiles and the fm90 launcher and deck. Replace them all with 2 vls systems (24-32 cell in front and 8 cell where the c802 missiles were) if the 8 cell launchwr wont fit (which looking at the space i believe it would), put 2 24 cell fl-3000n there. Keep the type 364 and smart s mk ii and you have a solid air defense for, lets call it flotilla defense (not longe range enough missiles for fleet defense). But that gives around 96-160 missiles if you go for quad packable missiles like CAMM or Umkonto-r in an all vls solution or 96-128 medium range SAM and 48 short range SAM if you go qith the fl300n solution, and it will cost less than type 054a and puts most of the eggs in Pakistan's basket.