Solving Pakistan Navy's Ship Problem

[AUSTERLITZ]

With modest means i think this is what PN needs 6-8 modern AIP diesel subs for area denial.These should be key of PN's gameplan.
A wing of 20 odd jf-17 with at least one awacs available for its own air defence.Coastal air defence batteries to provide umbrella.

Azmats and f-22ps,flexible cheap ships with missile power.Main weakness of PN is its total vulnerability to missile and air attack.So ideally they need 2-3 air defence ships but those are brutally costly.Till then coastal air defence sams and jf-17 squadrons will have to do.Even type-054a with hq-16 has under 20 km range vs cruise missile so can't give area air defenceSomething like the type 52 would be necessary but they are very costly..

 

[Armchair]

A SAM in the class of the SPADA 2000 / Aspide derivates / DK-10 / FM-90 derivatives / Umkhonto can give this ship a 20-30 km range air defence system. However, the forward deck would need to be cleared, and that means no big main gun, maybe a small gun like the Azmat class. In essence, this ship could have at least the same and with a little effort much better AD than the F-22P.

The per tonnage cost of F-22P is 70,000 USD ((175/2500)*1,000,000). The per tonnage cost of the Azmat class is 89,286 ((50/560)*1,000,000). Even if we don't discount for the cost savings of local production, the cost of a 1000 ton corvette would be approximately ((70,000+89285.7)/2)*1,000 = $79.6 million.

Let us now discount the price for local production by 10% - approximately $70 million per unit.

Imagine the bang for the buck you could get for such a ship. There is already ToT for the Azmat class, and the Spada 2000 system. Add select Chinese / Russian / Turkish system and you have a very potent and low cost system, a true JF-17 of the navy, at very little sweat and labor.

Pakistan needs surface ships in the next decade, there is no escaping that (even if one wishes more submarines and aircraft, you need something on the surface). If you have a few big capital ships, and if even one gets knocked out with a swarm of Brahmos, you'd have a huge moral cost in any future scenario.

This solution thus provides the lowest cost alternative to a meaningful naval surface deterrent. Begging and waiting for free goods is a mentality that will not help, but harm in the long term. A single or even 2-3 OHPs will be giant targets in the sea, with most of their really effective systems removed. Any meaningful weapons capability addition will cost astronomic figures, and maintaining such large ships will cost the equivalent of an F-16 purchase cost every single year of operation.

An F-22P class alone cannot help, even if you added a few 054A for AD, you need numbers to counter IN and the increasingly threatening scenario where even Israeli nuclear armed subs are patrolling close to Pakistan. These ships would provide a workhorse, and coupled with a strong submarine force, a naval aviation element, and some additional AD, would be the only way forward for an independent, self-sufficient and strong navy. All this to boot - in a stealthy frame, among the stealthiest and most automated ships in the Indian ocean.

 

[Armchair]

For a long time in the postwar years, the smallest valuable unit in medium to large navies were Frigates, they were like small destroyers, being able to do much of the task of destroyers at a smaller scale.

Essentially, they were the MBTs of the seas. The reason they could do this, was that as the years progressed, radars, electronics and weapon systems progressively became lighter, smaller, cheaper, while having equal or better capabilities.

However, as technology progresses, what lags behind is culture and thinking. While in the last two decades there have been an increasing change in technology that allows yet another jump, the frigates have stuck in the minds of planners as still the smallest generally effective unit.

The idea of a corvette playing the basic unit role would change that thinking. These are some of the reasons this is increasingly possible:

1. The main gun is increasingly obsolete. They take a lot of key real estate, weight and are among the biggest recoil problems in the ship (adding to stress, structure, weight in ship design).

2. gun based CIWS is also another weight, location and recoil hog. They too are increasingly obsolete, with the US now essentially focused on using RAM missiles. The Chinese have the equivalent in the TY-90 now ready for export. Incidentally, missile-based close-in defense requires fare less stability than gun based, again helping our case.

3. Radars and sensors have also drastically improved and shrunk, which everyone is already aware. (With the new radar manufacturing capability in Pakistan via the JF-17, this would incidentally become yet another synergy...)

4. Remotely piloted systems bring meaningful alternatives for capabilities off-board rather than having every capability on-board. In some cases, these capabilities far exceed those of even destroyers of yester years.

 

[Penguin]

class. In essence, this ship could have at least the same and with a little effort much better AD than the F-22P.

What can Russia offer Pakistan as there is news today that they have lifted arms embargo on Pakistan??

Russia lifts arms embargo to Pakistan: report - Pakistan - DAWN.COM
.
Russia Lifts Embargo on Weapons Sales to Pakistan | Business | The Moscow Times

@Penguin can you put some light on it?

Although this is quite old already, it may give an idea: www.military-discussion.com/files/navy.pdf

Submarines, frigates, corvettes, missile boats, patrol craft spring to mind. Expect Russia to guard its relationship with India, so probably limits on submarines, MPA's, various naval weapons e.g. AShM. I think of three services Pakistan's army will benefit most and Navy least.

Lada/Amur 1650 submarine Russian Navy

Kilo submarine Algeria and others

Project 11356 batch 2 for Russian navy

Project 20380 frigate Rssian navy

Gepard 3.9 frigate Vietnamese navy

Project 21631 missile corvette (vls) Russian navy

Project 21360 Patrol ship Russian navy

Project 12418 FAC-M Vietnamese navy, India

New Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment "Academician Pashin” (project 23130) Russian navy

 

[Basel]

Submarines, frigates, corvettes, missile boats, patrol craft spring to mind. Expect Russia to guard its relationship with India, so probably limits on submarines, MPA's, various naval weapons e.g. AShM. I think of three services Pakistan's army will benefit most and Navy least.

You mean that PA will benefit from off the shelve systems and PAF may get missiles or subsystems like radars etc but PN may not get any thing??

But the way Russian ships came to our port it shows that PN may get more or same as PAF, but if you were in charge of purchasing in current economic and geopolitical situation of Pakistan what would you have wanted to handle threats around the country??

 

[Penguin]

New Border Guards (FSB) patrol ship

Project 22350 frigate for Russian navy

Project 22356 export version

You mean that PA will benefit from off the shelve systems and PAF may get missiles or subsystems like radars etc but PN may not get any thing??

But the way Russian ships came to our port it shows that PN may get more or same as PAF, but if you were in charge of purchasing in current economic and geopolitical situation of Pakistan what would you have wanted to handle threats around the country??

I'm saying that delivery of army equipment may be less sensitive than certain naval products, given that IN operates Russian Kilo submarines and many russian weapon and sensor system. But perhaps a smaller relative of the Lada/Amur family might fly. I don't see aircraft deals, but I do see e.g. SAM and radar deals. Delivering wheeled APC and various other common gear will not raise an eyebrow with the neighbours. But now, with all this '' seeing' I've turned visionary, which I am not. Time will tell.

 

[Penguin]

A SAM in the class of the SPADA 2000 / Aspide derivates / DK-10 / FM-90 derivatives / Umkhonto can give this ship a 20-30 km range air defence system. However, the forward deck would need to be cleared, and that means no big main gun, maybe a small gun like the Azmat class. In essence, this ship could have at least the same and with a little effort much better AD than the F-22P.

In the list given only Umkhonto is at this point VL. DK-10 may become available in VL. Aspide and FM-90 are not VL.
An 8 round Mk29 launcher with Aspide takes up no more space than the HQ7 launcher. That raised part of the superstructure could house at least 1 but possibly 2 x 1 8-cell VLU without much trouble. If you needed more space, a hull plug of a few meters would do just fine: no need to mess with the forward area and main gun position on F22P.

An F-22P class alone cannot help, even if you added a few 054A for AD, you need numbers to counter IN and the increasingly threatening scenario where even Israeli nuclear armed subs are patrolling close to Pakistan. These ships would provide a workhorse, and coupled with a strong submarine force, a naval aviation element, and some additional AD, would be the only way forward for an independent, self-sufficient and strong navy. All this to boot - in a stealthy frame, among the stealthiest and most automated ships in the Indian ocean.

The need for numbers is why F22P derivatives are probably a better optioon than 054A. You can't do ASW with small ships alone.

 

[Penguin]

1. The main gun is increasingly obsolete. They take a lot of key real estate, weight and are among the biggest recoil problems in the ship (adding to stress, structure, weight in ship design).

In what role? Notice very long range projectiles for the larger calibers (50-100km), guided ronuds for CIWS role (Strales 76mm)

2. gun based CIWS is also another weight, location and recoil hog. They too are increasingly obsolete, with the US now essentially focused on using RAM missiles. The Chinese have the equivalent in the TY-90 now ready for export. Incidentally, missile-based close-in defense requires fare less stability than gun based, again helping our case.

If so, I wonder why the chinese developed no less than 3 gun CIWS (see F22P, Type 054A, Liaoning). USN maintains gun ciws on auxiliaries, amphibious units, LCS, Coast guard national security cutters, along with 25mm and 57mm cannon.

3. Radars and sensors have also drastically improved and shrunk, which everyone is already aware. (With the new radar manufacturing capability in Pakistan via the JF-17, this would incidentally become yet another synergy...)

Availability of active radar homing, infrared homing and rf-homing missiles with capability to lock on after launch is really important as it eliminates the need for all manner of radar or elop missile directors (CLOS) and radar illuminators (SARH). Add to that the compactness of modern 3D radars.

4. Remotely piloted systems bring meaningful alternatives for capabilities off-board rather than having every capability on-board. In some cases, these capabilities far exceed those of even destroyers of yester years.

I'ld like some examples here of the capabilities in question. Fuzzy as is.

 

[araz]

Very well indeed, but does it really mean anything or is it just a load of words stuck together to pacify people who are looking for such words ie solutions?

Now if there is a will there is a way.........I will appreciate if u start talking abt the solutions now. And frankly im not interested in other talk. If u have solutions then bring them on.

I dont piece words just to win an argument. The problem is till you understand the requirements you wont find solutions. If you had read my posts I have been giving you solutions all along. If you are not interested dont respond.
To reiterate. The solutions demand
A. Peace in the land.
B. A concerted effort to alleviate the shortages that will hamper development namely energy.
C. Revamp the current infrastructure to rebuild the declining shipping industry. Till you do that you will never have the resources and work to keep the industry going.
D. Start small and work up towards bigger projects. Due to the small market look towards joint ventures with suitable partners who might be willing to help you and at least initially might have more established infrastructure than you.
E. Look at developed states to send your graduates for postgraduate studies and research making sure they come back and are renumerated enough to be able to serve thier country.
F. Once the industry develops setup or ask the private sector to setup specialized steel plants. (You may want to set up a much smaller plant for your own research).
G. Give theindustrialists enough incentives to set up the necessary plants and assure them future business.
H. LEADERSHIP WITH A VISION rather than khao piyoo nahri khor siyasat dan.
That aught to do it in about 10-20yrs or so.
Araz

 

[Armchair]

If so, I wonder why the chinese developed no less than 3 gun CIWS (see F22P, Type 054A, Liaoning). USN maintains gun ciws on auxiliaries, amphibious units, LCS, Coast guard national security cutters, along with 25mm and 57mm cannon.

Well brother, the Chinese developing doesn't mean its were things are headed. The Phalanx CIWS has severe limitations against supersonic missiles and even the RN has looked to goalkeeper, and the US in quite a few ships has sought out SeaRAM. In short, the reason is as follows:

"They have obvious limitations such as a short kill range often 500m or less. At such ranges, the system has only one-third of a second to respond to missiles screaming in at 1,500m/s! Another problem is that, even if hit, a missile may not be sufficiently incapacitated or destroyed, plus a CIWS can engage only one target at a time. Another problem is that modern AShMs steer intentionally erratic courses on final approach to avoid such countermeasures."
-defencereviewasia (can't post links, if you do some research on the development path of CIWS it would become quite clear and there are many links, news items, etc)

Something coming at you at Mach 2 would, with the kinetic and thermal energy still harm the ship significantly. The Chinese equivalent of the RAM CIWS (missile based CIWS) is the new FL-3000N.

You may have missed out on how the CIWS game has been changing. The only reason the Phalanx is still here is because its cheap and can be fit into any ship without much refit. And also because it now can even have a surface role against "suicide speedboats", etc.

Countries that are not facing a large supersonic anti-ship missile threat may still find the Phalanx and other gun based CIWS of use, but...


The capabilities are already there. A corvette does not need a standardized VL system in the three sizes the USN uses. A VL system is not a highly complex system and the chinese have mastered how to do it pretty effectively. The missiles I mentioned including the DK-10 and Umkhont are readily available and can easily be mated to a VL system.

We are getting sidetracked from the real goal here, which is to see, quite evidently that a 1000 ton or thereabouts corvette can have a very decent weapons fit with the present technological level available.

 

[tarrar]

Without a doubt PN is very week & a lot needs to be done to solve & fix PN.

When politicians are busy doing corruption then Pak Defence budget will be low & Pak defence will suffer.

 

[Penguin]

Well brother, the Chinese developing doesn't mean its were things are headed. The Phalanx CIWS has severe limitations against supersonic missiles and even the RN has looked to goalkeeper, and the US in quite a few ships has sought out SeaRAM. In short, the reason is as follows:

It would seem in PLAN especially - given modernization and expansion efforts - any new direction would become more apparent sooner than in many other navies. USN isn't chucking Phalanx or just introducing RAM, it is expanding the role of ESSM in counter anti-ship missile roles, so it is less dependend on Phalanx.

Goalkeeper functions and always has functioned quite well against supersonic targets. Nonetheless, RN has turned away from Goalkeeper yet is maintaining Phalanx... (so, obviously there are other factors than gun performance at play)

"They have obvious limitations such as a short kill range often 500m or less. At such ranges, the system has only one-third of a second to respond to missiles screaming in at 1,500m/s! Another problem is that, even if hit, a missile may not be sufficiently incapacitated or destroyed, plus a CIWS can engage only one target at a time. Another problem is that modern AShMs steer intentionally erratic courses on final approach to avoid such countermeasures."
-defencereviewasia (can't post links, if you do some research on the development path of CIWS it would become quite clear and there are many links, news items, etc)

They are not called CLOSE IN weapon systems for nothing: they are intended as last ditch hard kill measures. For every AD systyem the engagement envelope has been expanding outward: SM2 has far greater range than SM1, ESSM has the range of SM1, RAM has the range of early Sea Sparrow etc. It is only natural then that gun CIWS are complemented by missile based systems. Of course, space and weight and volume on a ship is finite so then one might have to make choices. What else is new?

Something coming at you at Mach 2 would, with the kinetic and thermal energy still harm the ship significantly.

Absolutely, but this even applies for subsonic missiles: see e.g. the effect of the impact damage of a dud-Exocet on USS Stark
Note tha HMS Sheffield was most likely lost due to damage to her electrical and firefighting equipment (account of possible dud-Exocet). Likewise Atlantic Conveyor was lost to fire by missile impact rather than explosion of its warhead. CIWS are LAST DITCH weapons to deal with leakers (so you want to make sure there are no leakers in the first place)

The Chinese equivalent of the RAM CIWS (missile based CIWS) is the new FL-3000N.

[sarcasm on] Really? [sarcasm off]

You may have missed out on how the CIWS game has been changing. The only reason the Phalanx is still here is because its cheap and can be fit into any ship without much refit. And also because it now can even have a surface role against "suicide speedboats", etc.

So where does this leave your earlier recoil hog argument? Besides not all cannon are heavy on recoil. See e.g. the 30mm German RMK-30, which is on the Eurocopter Tiger UHT helicopter of the German Army as well as on the Wiesel tracked vehicle. I don't see why one could not group some of those together for a low-recoil CIWS. Along the lines of how the Germans came up with a quad 27mm gun CIWS, based on the 27mm aircraft gun of the Tornado, which is also used as secondary single cannon on german ships.

Army Guide - RMK 30, Gun

CIWS und die Flugabwehr zur See

Clinton And Bush Both Sold Us Out To Israeli Racists

Countries that are not facing a large supersonic anti-ship missile threat may still find the Phalanx and other gun based CIWS of use, but...

I guess RN doesn't face these as their project Type 23 follow on, the Type 26 still uses Phalanx (as does the Daring class). Some navies (i.e. France, Italy, Germany) never used Phalanx or Goalkeeper to begin. Germany co-developed RAM with the US. Italy had its twin 40 mm and single 76mm naval guns (now relying on guided 76mm projectiles), France used Sandral (6 round Mistral manpad) and now uses Italian 76mm on Horizon and Fremm. Sweden consistenly relies on single 40mm and 57mm guns.

The capabilities are already there. A corvette does not need a standardized VL system in the three sizes the USN uses. A VL system is not a highly complex system and the chinese have mastered how to do it pretty effectively. The missiles I mentioned including the DK-10 and Umkhont are readily available and can easily be mated to a VL system.

I think you missed I put these forward consistenly in previous posts.

We are getting sidetracked from the real goal here, which is to see, quite evidently that a 1000 ton or thereabouts corvette can have a very decent weapons fit with the present technological level available.

I think I also illustrated that previously, with the UAE corvette example. 8 ESSM in 2x 2-cell Mk56 VLS, 1x 21 RAM, 76mm Oto (Strales)

 

[aliaselin]

Well brother, the Chinese developing doesn't mean its were things are headed. The Phalanx CIWS has severe limitations against supersonic missiles and even the RN has looked to goalkeeper, and the US in quite a few ships has sought out SeaRAM. In short, the reason is as follows:

"They have obvious limitations such as a short kill range often 500m or less. At such ranges, the system has only one-third of a second to respond to missiles screaming in at 1,500m/s! Another problem is that, even if hit, a missile may not be sufficiently incapacitated or destroyed, plus a CIWS can engage only one target at a time. Another problem is that modern AShMs steer intentionally erratic courses on final approach to avoid such countermeasures."
-defencereviewasia (can't post links, if you do some research on the development path of CIWS it would become quite clear and there are many links, news items, etc)

Something coming at you at Mach 2 would, with the kinetic and thermal energy still harm the ship significantly. The Chinese equivalent of the RAM CIWS (missile based CIWS) is the new FL-3000N.

You may have missed out on how the CIWS game has been changing. The only reason the Phalanx is still here is because its cheap and can be fit into any ship without much refit. And also because it now can even have a surface role against "suicide speedboats", etc.

Countries that are not facing a large supersonic anti-ship missile threat may still find the Phalanx and other gun based CIWS of use, but...


The capabilities are already there. A corvette does not need a standardized VL system in the three sizes the USN uses. A VL system is not a highly complex system and the chinese have mastered how to do it pretty effectively. The missiles I mentioned including the DK-10 and Umkhont are readily available and can easily be mated to a VL system.

We are getting sidetracked from the real goal here, which is to see, quite evidently that a 1000 ton or thereabouts corvette can have a very decent weapons fit with the present technological level available.

http://digitalpaper.stdaily.com/http_www.kjrb.com/kjrb/images/2013-01/15/09/DefPub2013011509.pdf
By the way, type 703 is more expensive than HQ-10/FL-3000N, let alone type 1130

 

[Penguin]

05/26/2014
Grande Strategy
Pakistan Navy is facing a crisis of obsolescence and retiring ships; its mainstay the Type 21 class of frigates are due for retirement. The OHP class of ships that PN had hoped to pursue are not available, and no workable solution has been found with the Chinese. Meanwhile, a much larger and rapidly modernizing Indian Navy (IN) remains a looming threat. What is more worrying is that the PN does not have credible air defence while the air defence threat could not be greater with systems like the Brahmos in operation.

In theory a handful of Indian MKIs could sink most of PN's capital ships if they slipped past PAF, something not always possible for PAF to guarantee from happening.

So what now for the PN? With no budget and limited options, perhaps it may be best for PN to take a more innovative and visionary view than buying beatup secondhand fair from global players.

Perhaps what PN needs is to understand that big ticket capital ships are great for prestige but increasingly sitting targets in a world of supersonic long range AShMs and a wide range of detection, targeting and delivery systems.

Once these are recognized, a relevant solution can then be devised. One solution is to use the JF-17 / Al-Khalid method - to scale up the Azmat class to 1000 tons and locally manufacture 10-20 such boats, with the hope of selling a few. Such ships can provide enough size for either meaningful air defence or ASW. In a mixed squadron of ships, they can thus be very relevant, while having enough range to threaten vurtually all of the IN's Westerly bases.

But such a ship can go further, it could perhaps shift paradigms - Naval warfare is increasingly moving toward Alvin Toffler's ThirdWave, with information technology and remote piloting playing a game changing role. What if we stopped considering the main role of these ships to not be weapons delivery systems but C4I enablers?

One of the central problems that all forces including USN face is controlling remotely piloted systems usimg limited satellite bandwith. Direct control is not feasible and satellites are unaffordable for the PN. With these ships as C&C centres for matched unmanmed aerial and submersible assets, suddenly the power and capability increases manifold.

Since such remotely controlled assets can be based ashore and paired for missions on a need basis, they do not need large ships, just ships that can stay present in their areas of responsibility.



Read more: Grande Strategy

Give where Pakistan is situated, relative to internatinoal shipping routes, I pose it would actually be very difficult for IN to blockade sea lines of communications to/from Pakistan in open water. Esp. if ships used are not under Pakistan's flag. At least not without imposing a severe burden on its resources and on other nations' shipping (which would generate pressures against such a blockade)

 

[Rank]

Why not take the trouble to make yr own ships like indians. Why always bank on China and America for weapons?

You're not even capable to make a CAR - 90% of Pakistani made products have foreign components either TABLET - CAR. How you believe that you can make WEAPONS for your National security local made ???