Steel cutting ceremony of 2nd Milgem Corvette held at KS&EW - June 2020

[Armchair]

As I (feel and) understand it:
Corvette: 1000 - 2500 tons
Frigate: 2500 - 5000 tons
Destroyer: 5000 - 10000 tons
Cruisers >10000 tons

This is just my understanding, actual classification by the world navies is largely political even for the US: http://cimsec.org/what-do-you-call-...racticalities-of-warship-classification/38731

In terms of capability, the Milgem and 054 are frigates. The F-22P is capabilities wise, closer to a large corvette.

For Pakistan to make sense of these classifications, not being a seafaring nation and in a limited geography, I think the classification I suggested makes the most sense. Its also more technical than political, and thus more objective than subjective.

The only change I would make is to add an old defunct class of ships - sloop-of-war.

The Azmat class is neither really a FAC nor an OPV. It is something that defines conventional definitions but fits perfectly with the relative capability set of a Sloop of War.

If we define this (for PN) as 500-1000 tons, Azmat fits perfectly both technically, capability wise, and use in war as a Sloop of War.

Remember, the Azmat is being planned to be used as part of a task force of frigates and destroyers, which is its main wartime purpose. This is different from the hit and run tactics of a FAC and the benign purpose of an OPV.

 

[cabatli_53]

What will be the VLS count on the TF-2000?

64 cell MDAS VLS and quad packable G40 and/or Siper missiles. I think the capacity of sensors play more major role than the number of VLS. Simultaneous tracking and engagement capacity of ÇAFRAD radars controlled by Advent CMS will be the most vital section of Tf-2000.

 

[Arsalan]

What will be the VLS count on the TF-2000?

Reportedly 64 cell.

 

[Pakistani Fighter]

64 cell MDAS VLS and quad packable G40 and/or Siper missiles. I think the capacity of sensors play more major role than the number of VLS. Simultaneous tracking and engagement capacity of ÇAFRAD radars controlled by Advent CMS will be the most vital section of Tf-2000.

Net says G40 has 40+km range. Pakistan should go for HHQ 9 since it has 200+km range

 

[Arsalan]

Interestingly, Navy is calling these ships as Milgem and designating them as Corvettes. This leads to assumption that the 4th Ship will be Jinnah Class frigate and will be a very different project inspired from I-Class with domestic modifications.
Henceforth, we are looking at 3 Milgum and 1 J-class. And then the J- class will be produced further once the first ship will deliver the requisite results.

Yes, that is most probable outcome as explained earlier as well.

Not that the first three ships are also not the typical Ada Class corvettes rather we have added/improved AAW capability by adding a 16 cell VLS for SAM. Also the AShM setup is most likely the domestic Harba missile. So we have acquired a corvette+ for the first three ships and the fourth one to be called Jinnah Class frigate have been officially labeled as "A different and jointly designed and produced ship which will become lead ship of a new class of boats" is most likely to be a Istanbul Class Frigate modification with technology aspirations from then then running TF-2000 AAW Frigate program. Also this clearly indicates that these four wont be last ships we produce with Turkey and there will surely be more in Jinnah class frigate category (the 4th ship of current deal). I am expecting a 3000+ ton category ship with more VLS (48 or 64) with a quad pack capable SAM. More firepower than the Istanbul class but relatively similar displacement. Just like the first three have more firepower than ada class but similar displacement.

 

[cabatli_53]

Net says G40 has 40+km range. Pakistan should go for HHQ 9 since it has 200+km range

In naval warfare, the horizontal plane effects the operational requirements of naval missiles and main sensors so the naval concept have its own limitations in terms of range scale. With a simple geometric calculation, we can find the best case detection+engagement scenarios a radar can work on sea. I suppose Milgem has an air draught around 30m and this height is the place where Smart-S radars were installed. From this height, The aprox horizon line will be measured as 20km. If we consider the target’s altitude factor into the consideration, Detection ranges at best case scenarios will improve up to 60-70km. That is the reason the missiles like ESSM and CAMM are the most wanted and widely used missiles. The longer range missiles are used inside a network that a command-control aircraft (or other naval units inside the same network will take the lead) will guide the missiles over the horizon. The network centric warfare concept play the most vital role at longer ranges. That’s why Pakistan will have Advent CMS on J class ships. On naval warfare, Integrating a long range missile having a range around 200km won’t make much sense because If a naval radar track a target from a range of 200-300km, It will be most likely a ballistic missile proceeding out of atmosphere and the defensive missile to be fired to this target should have exoatmospheric engagement capability. That’s the reason US are developing SM family naval missiles having exoatmospheric engagement capability.

 

[Pakistani Fighter]

In naval warfare, the horizontal plane effects the operational requirements of naval missiles and main sensors so the naval concept have its own limitations in terms of range scale. With a simple geometric calculation, we can find the best case detection+engagement scenarios a radar can work on sea. I suppose Milgem has an air draught around 30m and this height is the place where Smart-S radars were installed. From this height, The aprox horizon line will be measured as 20km. If we consider the target’s altitude factor into the consideration, Detection ranges at best case scenarios will improve up to 40/60km. That is the reason the missiles like ESSM and CAMM are the most wanted and widely used missiles. The longer range missiles are used inside a network that a command-control aircraft (or other naval units inside the same network will take the lead) will guide the missiles over the horizon. The network centric warfare concept play the most vital role at longer ranges. That’s why Pakistan will have Advent CMS on J class ships.

Ok Sir bit we have ZDKs for Maritime and are also going for LRMPAs

 

[Akh1112]

In naval warfare, the horizontal plane effects the operational requirements of naval missiles and main sensors so the naval concept have its own limitations in terms of range scale. With a simple geometric calculation, we can find the best case detection+engagement scenarios a radar can work on sea. I suppose Milgem has an air draught around 30m and this height is the place where Smart-S radars were installed. From this height, The aprox horizon line will be measured as 20km. If we consider the target’s altitude factor into the consideration, Detection ranges at best case scenarios will improve up to 60-70km. That is the reason the missiles like ESSM and CAMM are the most wanted and widely used missiles. The longer range missiles are used inside a network that a command-control aircraft (or other naval units inside the same network will take the lead) will guide the missiles over the horizon. The network centric warfare concept play the most vital role at longer ranges. That’s why Pakistan will have Advent CMS on J class ships. On naval warfare, Integrating a long range missile having a range around 200km won’t make much sense because If a naval radar track a target from a range of 200-300km, It will be most likely a ballistic missile proceeding out of atmosphere and the defensive missile to be fired to this target should have exoatmospheric engagement capability. That’s the reason US are developing SM family naval missiles having exoatmospheric engagement capability.

This is correct in the sense that the ship is working alone, however, we know in the PN thats not the case, theres a reason we use AShM's with over 700km in range, we make use of datalinks and other targeting platforms, i.e MPA's or AWACS, even the Turks recognize this, the Hisar series of SAM's can be cued via AWACS using Link-16. The reason why ESSM and CAMM are so popular is their ability to be crammed onto a smaller ship, i.e a ship such as the PN Ada can carry 64 CAMM in 16 cells.

 

[cabatli_53]

This is correct in the sense that the ship is working alone, however, we know in the PN thats not the case, theres a reason we use AShM's with over 700km in range, we make use of datalinks and other targeting platforms, i.e MPA's or AWACS, even the Turks recognize this, the Hisar series of SAM's can be cued via AWACS using Link-16. The reason why ESSM and CAMM are so popular is their ability to be crammed onto a smaller ship, i.e a ship such as the PN Ada can carry 64 CAMM in 16 cells.

I told similar things not about solely PN but about general frame of naval warfare and importance of network centric concept. Anti-ship cruise missiles are a little different. Indeed network concept improve their effectiveness over the horizon ranges as well but they are using different guidance methods and they don’t follow a strait path to reach their targets.

Besides, The popularity of ESSM and CAMM like missiles are not solely about their compactibility but about their effectiveness at radar line of sight propagation. They have perfect ranges that suits the nature of naval warfare. Link provides enhanced range capability indeed but you can not fully rely on AWACS or MPA to provide your self defense and aerial coverage missions. If you confront an army having a strong air force and EW capability, The complexity of the battle environment may damage your previous calculations so No matter what will be the mission type or How big the warships are, The VLS tubes are fulled with considering this fact. That makes the missiles like ESSM and CAMM well-known perfect missiles for ships. That’s why Turkey is following similar path to develop two type missiles (G40:40+km, Siper:120km) for naval platforms. If the bigger was always better, It wouldn’t need to develop G-40.

 

[Akh1112]

I told similar things not about solely PN but about general frame of naval warfare and importance of network centric concept. Anti-ship cruise missiles are a little different. Indeed network concept improve their effectiveness over the horizon ranges as well but they are using different guidance methods and they don’t follow a strait path to reach their targets.

Besides, The popularity of ESSM and CAMM like missiles are not solely about their compactibility but about their effectiveness at radar line of sight propagation. They have perfect ranges that suits the nature of naval warfare. Link provides enhanced range capability indeed but you can not fully rely on AWACS or MPA to provide your self defense and aerial coverage missions. If you confront an army having a strong air force and EW capability, The complexity of the battle environment may damage your previous calculations so No matter what will be the mission type or How big the warships are, The VLS tubes are fulled with considering this fact. That makes the missiles like ESSM and CAMM well-known perfect missiles for ships. That’s why Turkey is following similar path to develop two type missiles (G40:40+km, Siper:120km) for naval platforms.

But logically that makes no sense. If that was the case, the CAMM-ER wouldnt exist for example. In terms of line of sight propagation, they have nothing that no other active homing missile wouldn't have. This kind of logic would completely discount long ranged naval SAM's, i.e HHQ-9 or even medium ranged systems like the HHQ-16. I completely understand you can rely on an external sensor for targeting as you could be denied access to said sensor platform but once again, that does not discount longer ranged SAM's, since most SAM's still have reasonably low minimum engagement ranges, potentially within a few miles, making them capable of undertaking the roles of a shorter ranged missile and a longer ranged system. Warship size is important though, literally, it logically makes more sense to equip something like the Ada class with smaller SAM's which you can fit more of in the same space since for example, something like a HQ-16 has a probability of kill of around 60% or something for an AShM, so you would need two missiles to ensure a kill, however if you only have 16 missiles at your disposal, you are opening yourself up to real danger by expending missiles at such a rate, however, with CAMM for example, you'd have 4x the missiles to use against the threat. However, i think we are looking at this from two different POV's, me from a Pak Navy point of view, whereas you are looking at it from a more generalized point of view.

 

[cabatli_53]

But logically that makes no sense. If that was the case, the CAMM-ER wouldnt exist for example. In terms of line of sight propagation, they have nothing that no other active homing missile wouldn't have. This kind of logic would completely discount long ranged naval SAM's, i.e HHQ-9 or even medium ranged systems like the HHQ-16. I completely understand you can rely on an external sensor for targeting as you could be denied access to said sensor platform but once again, that does not discount longer ranged SAM's, since most SAM's still have reasonably low minimum engagement ranges, potentially within a few miles, making them capable of undertaking the roles of a shorter ranged missile and a longer ranged system. Warship size is important though, literally, it logically makes more sense to equip something like the Ada class with smaller SAM's which you can fit more of in the same space since for example, something like a HQ-16 has a probability of kill of around 60% or something for an AShM, so you would need two missiles to ensure a kill, however if you only have 16 missiles at your disposal, you are opening yourself up to real danger by expending missiles at such a rate, however, with CAMM for example, you'd have 4x the missiles to use against the threat. However, i think we are looking at this from two different POV's, me from a Pak Navy point of view, whereas you are looking at it from a more generalized point of view.

Actually, Both of us are defending the same things but with some differences. If the target is beyond horizon, The link capability is a must to guide the missiles. No matter what is the range of SAM missile. Be it 100, or 500km. There must be an external source in the scenario. The important matter is the sustainability of link capbility in most complex war scenarios. The missiles like CAMM, CAMM-ER, ESSM and G-40 are used to engage the targets inside the horizon without needing any external radar sources and they have a better minimum and in-horizon range performance. Longer range naval missiles have a bigger mass and powered mostly by boosters so It takes time to accelerate them and they have to take some distances to drop the booster. During acceleration phase, They are risen to the sky and then, follow their programmed trajectory. All these matters decrease their minimum engagement capabilities and It may cause a serious headache against low flying fast targets when you equipped the ship solely with long range missiles.

That is a real test scenario that was carried out by US. The missile is SM-2 and the engagement was done by the radars mounted at the top of a mountain. Mid-course guidance were performed by ship. Without external source, It would be too late for SM-2 missile to engage coming threat.

 

[Akh1112]

Actually, Both of us are defending the same things but with some differences. If the target is beyond horizon, The link capability is a must to guide the missiles. No matter what is the range of SAM missile. Be it 100, or 500km. There must be an external source in the scenario. The important matter is the sustainability of link capbility in most complex war scenarios. The missiles like CAMM, CAMM-ER, ESSM and G-40 are used to engage the targets inside the horizon without needing any external radar sources and they have a better minimum and in-horizon range performance. Longer range naval missiles have a bigger mass and powered mostly by boosters so It takes time to accelerate them and they have to take some distances to drop the booster. During acceleration phase, They are risen to the sky and then, follow their programmed trajectory. All these matters decrease their minimum engagement capabilities and It may cause a serious headache against low flying fast targets when you equipped the ship solely with long range missiles.

That is a real test scenario that was carried out by US. The missile is SM-2 and the engagement was done by the radars mounted at the top of a mountain. Mid-course guidance were performed by ship. Without external source, It would be too late for SM-2 missile to engage coming threat.
View attachment 642224

"No matter what is the range of SAM missile. Be it 100, or 500km. There must be an external source in the scenario. The important matter is the sustainability of link capbility in most complex war scenarios."

I completely agree.

"The missiles like CAMM, CAMM-ER, ESSM and G-40 are used to engage the targets inside the horizon without needing any external radar sources and they have a better minimum and in-horizon range performance."

"Longer range naval missiles have a bigger mass and powered mostly by boosters so It takes time to accelerate them"

If we use the Aster 30 as an example, it is a two stage missile. The booster and the "terminal dart" while yes you are right, it would take longer to accelerate due to heavier mass, it shouldn't make much of a difference since an offensive target would be coming towards the missile, not opposing it, therefore the missile doesn't exactly need to out accelerate or catch up to the target, therefore, i think acceleration time in this context is irrelevant.

"they have to take some distances to drop the booster. During acceleration phase, They are risen to the sky and then, follow their programmed trajectory. All these matters decrease their minimum engagement capabilities and It may cause a serious headache against low flying fast targets when you equipped the ship solely with long range missiles."

Again, using the Aster 30, it should only dispense of the booster once it is expended, if you look at the launch, it doesn't make use of a disposable booster to leave its cell, instead making use of its first stage booster to leave the cell. While you may think it is less maneuverable than something like its CAMM counterpart, to an extent you are right, however, it is still very maneuverable as it makes use of TVC nozzles on the booster stage alongside the PIF system (Pilotage Intertiel en Force) which as seen in the diagram has 4 nozzles on the center of gravity of the missile for once again, added maneuverability. While yes, smaller missiles may tend to be more gifted in terms of maneuverability, this doesn't mean larger systems cannot perform as well, they can, just need a few extra bits.

Another thing, infact, a missile with more fuel, something like, once again the Aster-30 could be more beneficial to taking out lower flying targets quicker as they have more fuel to expend for flight/acceleration as at lower altitudes, probability of kill drops significantly alongside range and top speed due to additional drag and other factors.

The Aster-15 has a minimum engagement zone of 1.7km, the Aster-30 should have something similar too.


"That is a real test scenario that was carried out by US. The missile is SM-2 and the engagement was done by the radars mounted at the top of a mountain. Mid-course guidance were performed by ship. Without external source, It would be too late for SM-2 missile to engage coming threat."


In terms of this, im unsure what you are trying to show? The SM-2 should be able to take out the threat if its within the SPY-1's radar coverage, of course, if the radar cant see beyond that, the missile cannot be cued to a target? We are saying the same thing?

 

[ziaulislam]

"No matter what is the range of SAM missile. Be it 100, or 500km. There must be an external source in the scenario. The important matter is the sustainability of link capbility in most complex war scenarios."

I completely agree.

"The missiles like CAMM, CAMM-ER, ESSM and G-40 are used to engage the targets inside the horizon without needing any external radar sources and they have a better minimum and in-horizon range performance."

"Longer range naval missiles have a bigger mass and powered mostly by boosters so It takes time to accelerate them"

If we use the Aster 30 as an example, it is a two stage missile. The booster and the "terminal dart" while yes you are right, it would take longer to accelerate due to heavier mass, it shouldn't make much of a difference since an offensive target would be coming towards the missile, not opposing it, therefore the missile doesn't exactly need to out accelerate or catch up to the target, therefore, i think acceleration time in this context is irrelevant.

"they have to take some distances to drop the booster. During acceleration phase, They are risen to the sky and then, follow their programmed trajectory. All these matters decrease their minimum engagement capabilities and It may cause a serious headache against low flying fast targets when you equipped the ship solely with long range missiles."

Again, using the Aster 30, it should only dispense of the booster once it is expended, if you look at the launch, it doesn't make use of a disposable booster to leave its cell, instead making use of its first stage booster to leave the cell. While you may think it is less maneuverable than something like its CAMM counterpart, to an extent you are right, however, it is still very maneuverable as it makes use of TVC nozzles on the booster stage alongside the PIF system (Pilotage Intertiel en Force) which as seen in the diagram has 4 nozzles on the center of gravity of the missile for once again, added maneuverability. While yes, smaller missiles may tend to be more gifted in terms of maneuverability, this doesn't mean larger systems cannot perform as well, they can, just need a few extra bits.

Another thing, infact, a missile with more fuel, something like, once again the Aster-30 could be more beneficial to taking out lower flying targets quicker as they have more fuel to expend for flight/acceleration as at lower altitudes, probability of kill drops significantly alongside range and top speed due to additional drag and other factors.

The Aster-15 has a minimum engagement zone of 1.7km, the Aster-30 should have something similar too.


"That is a real test scenario that was carried out by US. The missile is SM-2 and the engagement was done by the radars mounted at the top of a mountain. Mid-course guidance were performed by ship. Without external source, It would be too late for SM-2 missile to engage coming threat."


In terms of this, im unsure what you are trying to show? The SM-2 should be able to take out the threat if its within the SPY-1's radar coverage, of course, if the radar cant see beyond that, the missile cannot be cued to a target? We are saying the same thing?View attachment 642237

This is where the RAM come sinto play..
RAM has range of 10-22km depending upon the block..
if you are worried about shorter-range dont use the ASTER at that range..

the ship has to have both to be effective

 

[Akh1112]

This is where the RAM come sinto play..
RAM has range of 10-22km depending upon the block..
if you are worried about shorter-range dont use the ASTER at that range..

the ship has to have both to be effective

Of course, its merely an example in a worst case scenario.

 

[cabatli_53]

If we use the Aster 30 as an example, it is a two stage missile. The booster and the "terminal dart" while yes you are right, it would take longer to accelerate due to heavier mass, it shouldn't make much of a difference since an offensive target would be coming towards the missile, not opposing it, therefore the missile doesn't exactly need to out accelerate or catch up to the target, therefore, i think acceleration time in this context is irrelevant.

Another thing, infact, a missile with more fuel, something like, once again the Aster-30 could be more beneficial to taking out lower flying targets quicker as they have more fuel to expend for flight/acceleration as at lower altitudes, probability of kill drops significantly alongside range and top speed due to additional drag and other factors.

Acceleration time is actually about the reaction speed of missiles against coming targets. If you are talking about a sea-skimming missile coming 1m above the sea surface, The radars will be able to detect the missile at final 15-20km and The missile will take this range max. 1min for subsonic missiles and 20-30 second for supersonic missiles. If you want to engage such a serious threat, You need fast and agile missile defense system that has active divert&attitude control mechanism during first launch period. In this aspect, Long range missiles are not convenient for these kind of engagements because they are not designed to engage the fast targets at close ranges.

Although Aster-30 is a medium range compact missile that is hosting lots of revolutionary technologies to reduce the defficiencies (we talked above) that bigger missiles have, They come with some disadvantages against close targets compared to missiles like CAMM. Aster-30 has a booster that has a weight around 340kg. This booster burns 3,5 second during acceleration phase. No matter How advanced TVC control that the booster have, That is a dead time because The missile can not pass into terminal phase before jetisonning the booster motor. Do not forget that Aster-30 with Booster can not make sharp maneouvrings. TVC will control the missile around the limits at first acceleration phase, otherwise high G force may damage the missile (Compare the hot launch scenarios between Aster-15 and Aster-30 to see the differences). In addition, The missile seeker will be activated when the missile started to burn second stage rocket motors. PIF-PAF will also be activated only when missile seeker radar started collecting precision target datas but Such a short time period, The missile wouldn't have balanced enough to go a stable course. I mean All these will waste the valuable time and endanger the security of platform. Anyhow, If you launch a missile with a 150-200km range against a target locating 15-20km away from ship, It means you are already doomed. It is the actual reasons the VLS tubes are fulled with different kind of missiles that will be used for different engagement scenarios. If you load the job of CAMM, RAM, G-40, CIWS on the shoulders of Long range missiles, They will do their job around their limits indeed but This will increase the error rate and endanger the security/safety of platform and sailors. That is my point.