The Pakistan Navy's Frigate Options

[Basel]

I'm beginning to see a trend in the Chinese defence industry where two state-owned entities will offer competing solutions for the same problem. The DK-10 is basically NORINCO's medium-range SAM program and it is taking aim at the HQ-16, which is made by CASC.

Which one is better and why?

Lets hope that PN finally gets some respectable air defense on this ship. The RAM is not sufficient. It needs to have 24-32 medium range SAMsin addition to the RAM launcher.

Issue is that ESSM and Harpoon may not be an ideal solution for PN give US supplier, but perhaps Turkey can work with China or South Africa untils own missiles are ready.

ESSM or any other US SAM is not possible but European one is possible like Aster-15/30 or may be other currently latest underdevelop SAMs. Harpoon is possible but it lack range which is very important factor now.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

I think Pakistan will acquire a modified Istanbul class frigate with VLS. I am just predicting a time scale like following;

Signature ceremony in IDEF 2017 in May 2017.
Tech transfer/First block productions and Keel laying Ceremony in Karachi: ~ Sep/Oct 2017
Launching on Sea: ~Dec 2018
Commission to Navy: ~ August/Sep 2019

Until this date: (If they goes well)

Atmaca anti-ship missile serial production will have been commenced.
Hisar-A SAM development will have been either completed or near to compilation.
Hisar-O SAM prototypes will have been on field for extensive trials.
Tork torpedo active protection torpedo will have already been inducted into service.
Korkut 35mm CIWS will have already been inducted into service.
TF-2000 destroyer production will have been commenced.

The key benefit with the istanbul-class frigate is that it is fundamentally the same ship as the Ada-class corvette, except with a lengthened hull. Correct? If this is the case, then the added R&D overhead should be negligible, which means the cost of each Istanbul-class frigate shouldn't be much higher than each MILGEM if both were identically equipped.

 

[Tank131]

The key benefit with the istanbul-class frigate is that it is fundamentally the same ship as the Ada-class corvette, except with a lengthened hull. Correct? If this is the case, then the added R&D overhead should be negligible, which means the cost of each Istanbul-class frigate shouldn't be much higher than each MILGEM if both were identically equipped.

From what i understand the Istanbul class was abandoned for MiLGEM-G. Its 10m longer only but significantly better equipped (16 cell vls and 16AShM). There does (on the mockup) look to be room for at leat 4 more VLS cells but ots just the mockup .

@Basel, there doesn't seem to be enough information on dk10 other than its a derivative of SD-10A and has a 50km range (10km better than hq-16). Butthere are rumors that it may serve as chinese equivalent to ESSM in that it will be quad packable, but where essm is semi-homing, the dk10 is an active seeker. Also, i agree the ESSM wont be available for PN, which is why i proposed working with China/Turkey /South Africa, but if european weapons like the Aster family are available, tn id go for CAMM over Aster 15 any day. Better range (has been tested out to 60km) and is quad packable (which is why the horizon class destroyers are being refit with them...more missiles same space. Aster 30 may be too big for this class pf ship but if not, maybe a mix of the aster 30 and CAMM, something like 8 Aster 30 and 32 CAMM (In current 16 cell setup, though i think 64 CAMM may be better for this ship) backed by 24 cell FL-3000N ciws (in place of RAM which also would likely not be available to PN)

@cabatli_53, the one hisar-a will not likely be sufficient in range for pn at 15km (brings nothing new to the table as hq-7a/fm90 of F22P have same range and capabilities) and im not sure it is meant for naval use. Hisar-O would be useful and given its shape it appears low profile so may be quad packable with the right mods (hopefully that is the plan). Again i would prefer CAMM (stated range 25km+ but confirmed reports of capabilities out to 60km)

 

[Hassan Guy]

The only option is the Pakistani one

 

[Basel]

From what i understand the Istanbul class was abandoned for MiLGEM-G. Its 10m longer only but significantly better equipped (16 cell vls and 16AShM). There does (on the mockup) look to be room for at leat 4 more VLS cells but ots just the mockup .

@Basel, there doesn't seem to be enough information on dk10 other than its a derivative of SD-10A and has a 50km range (10km better than hq-16). Butthere are rumors that it may serve as chinese equivalent to ESSM in that it will be quad packable, but where essm is semi-homing, the dk10 is an active seeker. Also, i agree the ESSM wont be available for PN, which is why i proposed working with China/Turkey /South Africa, but if european weapons like the Aster family are available, tn id go for CAMM over Aster 15 any day. Better range (has been tested out to 60km) and is quad packable (which is why the horizon class destroyers are being refit with them...more missiles same space. Aster 30 may be too big for this class pf ship but if not, maybe a mix of the aster 30 and CAMM, something like 8 Aster 30 and 32 CAMM (In current 16 cell setup, though i think 64 CAMM may be better for this ship) backed by 24 cell FL-3000N ciws (in place of RAM which also would likely not be available to PN)

@cabatli_53, the one hisar-a will not likely be sufficient in range for pn at 15km (brings nothing new to the table as hq-7a/fm90 of F22P have same range and capabilities) and im not sure it is meant for naval use. Hisar-O would be useful and given its shape it appears low profile so may be quad packable with the right mods (hopefully that is the plan). Again i would prefer CAMM (stated range 25km+ but confirmed reports of capabilities out to 60km)

PN is definitely looking into Turkish, Chinese, South African and now possibly European via Italy options for their equipment and systems like SAMS etc.


Edit.

PN is interested in following missile from South Africa, don't know which version, hope they go for best in latest version.

http://www.deneldynamics.co.za/press-article/Denel-Dynamics-upgrading-missile-range/38

 

[Tank131]

Yeah, but currently only the 20km range umkhonto-ir blk2 is on the market . As such its not sufficient . When the Umkhonto-R (60km variant hits the market) then we can talk about it. The a darter and marlin (80-100km missile) are certainly a possibility for JF-17. As such still the missile that would make the most sense is CAMM, otherwise wait for Hisar-O .

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Yeah, but currently only the 20km range umkhonto-ir blk2 is on the market . As such its not sufficient . When the Umkhonto-R (60km variant hits the market) then we can talk about it. The a darter and marlin (80-100km missile) are certainly a possibility for JF-17. As such still the missile that would make the most sense is CAMM, otherwise wait for Hisar-O .

The Umkhonto R and Marlin are non-factors in the short-term (under development).

I would reckon that the AAW solution the PN would look for in a light frigate such as MILGEM-G would be CAMM (or CAMM-ER), ideally coupled with a FL-3000N PDMS.

 

[Tank131]

I know that CAMM can be quad packed, not sure about CAMM-ER. CAMM i think would be sufficient for this vessel based on its size. As it stands, its 60km range far outstrips most other missiles in this size category (hq-7/vt-1, umkhonto-ir, aster-15 and unlike aster and Hq-7, its quad packable. VT-1 is also quad packable but its range is significantly less (15km). Both VT-1 and CAMM could fit into Sylver A35 in quad packed configuration.

 

[Basel]

I know that CAMM can be quad packed, not sure about CAMM-ER. CAMM i think would be sufficient for this vessel based on its size. As it stands, its 60km range far outstrips most other missiles in this size category (hq-7/vt-1, umkhonto-ir, aster-15 and unlike aster and Hq-7, its quad packable. VT-1 is also quad packable but its range is significantly less (15km). Both VT-1 and CAMM could fit into Sylver A35 in quad packed configuration.

PN should look into CAMM-ER & Aster-30 block-1 & 1NT (2018) for their ships and coastal & base defence. PNS Alamgir may be good option to be upgraded with such systems.

http://www.mbda-systems.com/camm-solution/camm-er/

The Umkhonto R and Marlin are non-factors in the short-term (under development).

I would reckon that the AAW solution the PN would look for in a light frigate such as MILGEM-G would be CAMM (or CAMM-ER), ideally coupled with a FL-3000N PDMS.

Is it possible to replace HQ-7 with VLS CAMM-ER in terms of space on F-22P?

 

[Tank131]

PN should look into CAMM-ER & Aster-30 block-1 & 1NT (2018) for their ships and coastal & base defence. PNS Alamgir may be good option to be upgraded with such systems.

http://www.mbda-systems.com/camm-solution/camm-er/




Is it possible to replace HQ-7 with VLS CAMM-ER in terms of space on F-22P?

For coastal defense, i dont think either is adequate, certainly not CAMM-ER whose range is likely around 100-120km. Aster 30 is 120km+ but has been shown to be able tp intercept missiles. I would probably lean more in line with hq9 for national sam network and continue with HQ-16 for lomad as PA has.the issue is you want to push IN as far away from shore as you can. HQ-9 does that and i for the life of me cant fathom why Pakistan has yet to acquire it (of course there are rumors of FD2000 AND FT2000 in Pakistan but it is hard to hide such systems.

As for Alamgir, again i would go for CAMM. If you look at the g-class and Adelaide frigates, you can see Alamgir's max potential. Now they have the advantage of theor Mk13 launchers being intact for SM-1mr, but they fit an 8 cell mk41 vls in the ship for 32 ESSM Missiles. So that means likely you wont be able to get more than 8-12 cells for vls meanimg to have any meaningful air defense you need quad packed missiles (ie ESSM or CAMM or VT1(which is too low range). Of note there are 3 Adelaides still in service set to be retired in the next 5 years. PN should move to acquire these and get alamgir a mk41 or Sylver A35 or A43. That would allow all 4 OHPs (Alamgir and the Adelaides) to operate CAMM. Then get them a genesis upgrade and you have 4 decent air defense frigates along with your 4 F-22p and potentially 4 MiLGEM-G on the way...pits you in good shape moving forward with you oldest ship being the 4 OHPs which could easily serve anothwr 15 years (would consoder some electrical upgrades though like new radars and fcs)

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

As for Alamgir, again i would go for CAMM. If you look at the g-class and Adelaide frigates, you can see Alamgir's max potential. Now they have the advantage of theor Mk13 launchers being intact for SM-1mr, but they fit an 8 cell mk41 vls in the ship for 32 ESSM Missiles. So that means likely you wont be able to get more than 8-12 cells for vls meanimg to have any meaningful air defense you need quad packed missiles (ie ESSM or CAMM or VT1(which is too low range). Of note there are 3 Adelaides still in service set to be retired in the next 5 years. PN should move to acquire these and get alamgir a mk41 or Sylver A35 or A43. That would allow all 4 OHPs (Alamgir and the Adelaides) to operate CAMM. Then get them a genesis upgrade and you have 4 decent air defense frigates along with your 4 F-22p and potentially 4 MiLGEM-G on the way...pits you in good shape moving forward with you oldest ship being the 4 OHPs which could easily serve anothwr 15 years (would consoder some electrical upgrades though like new radars and fcs)

Sir,
Option 1 is your option above. May be in 5-7 years more OHP will be available through Turkey. Though these are still if USA permits (highly unlikely).

Option 2 PN would rather have 4 Ada Class Corvettes for sea denial and 4 Istanbul Class / MiLGEM -G air defence Frigates. Along with the 4 F-22P

Option 3 PN only gets 4 C28A type Corvettes for sea denial and 4 more F-22P upgraded with some Chinese Air Defence systems. This would indeed increase the F-22P to 8 ships.

What do you think about these alternates?

 

[Joe Shearer]

For coastal defense, i dont think either is adequate, certainly not CAMM-ER whose range is likely around 100-120km. Aster 30 is 120km+ but has been shown to be able tp intercept missiles. I would probably lean more in line with hq9 for national sam network and continue with HQ-16 for lomad as PA has.the issue is you want to push IN as far away from shore as you can. HQ-9 does that and i for the life of me cant fathom why Pakistan has yet to acquire it (of course there are rumors of FD2000 AND FT2000 in Pakistan but it is hard to hide such systems.

As for Alamgir, again i would go for CAMM. If you look at the g-class and Adelaide frigates, you can see Alamgir's max potential. Now they have the advantage of theor Mk13 launchers being intact for SM-1mr, but they fit an 8 cell mk41 vls in the ship for 32 ESSM Missiles. So that means likely you wont be able to get more than 8-12 cells for vls meanimg to have any meaningful air defense you need quad packed missiles (ie ESSM or CAMM or VT1(which is too low range). Of note there are 3 Adelaides still in service set to be retired in the next 5 years. PN should move to acquire these and get alamgir a mk41 or Sylver A35 or A43. That would allow all 4 OHPs (Alamgir and the Adelaides) to operate CAMM. Then get them a genesis upgrade and you have 4 decent air defense frigates along with your 4 F-22p and potentially 4 MiLGEM-G on the way...pits you in good shape moving forward with you oldest ship being the 4 OHPs which could easily serve anothwr 15 years (would consoder some electrical upgrades though like new radars and fcs)

This makes certain assumptions about limits to Fleet Air Arm aircraft stand-off missile range, and about ship-mounted missile ranges. It also presumably makes assumptions about the possible number of missiles to be intercepted at peak. The difficulty with such an analysis is that the IN is steadily working on increasing its capabilities. Currently, the emphasis is on air warfare and on anti-submarine warfare, but there will be initiatives taken to strengthen ship-to-shore missile capabilities.

Point is, this cycle of stimulus and response will continue for ever. The prescription above is probably good for a three year horizon.

 

[Joe Shearer]

THE PAKISTAN NAVY’S FRIGATE OPTIONS
A look at how the Pakistan Navy might acquire new and used frigates

15 February 2016

By Bilal Khan

‘Frigates’ are surface warships. These warships are the mainstay of a naval fleet, often serving in roles such as patrolling a country’s maritime space, escorting other ships, and engaging in direct combat operations against enemy naval assets. A modern frigate is a multi-mission system, most often equipped for anti-ship warfare (AShW), anti-submarine warfare (ASW), and anti-air warfare (AAW).

It is important to understand that modern frigates, i.e. systems equipped with sufficient AAW capabilities, are indispensable naval assets. Yes, diesel-electric submarines (SSKs) have emerged as major threats for all surface combatants, but for one to possess the maximum possible flexibility in using their own SSKs, it is imperative they have the means to counter systems designed to track and hunt SSKs, such as maritime patrol aircraft (MPA).

A frigate equipped with sufficient AAW capabilities, particularly in the form of medium-range surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), is an example of an effective countermeasure. Unfortunately, the Pakistan Navy (PN) is completely lacking in this regard, and there is no clear roadmap as to when or how this will be resolved.

The PN’s current fleet is composed of one FFG-7 (Oliver Hazard Perry-class), five ex-Royal Navy Type-21 (Amazon-class) and four F-22P (Zulfiqar-class) frigates. Taken together, the FFG-7, Type-21 and F-22P are decent AShW and ASW platforms, but their collective AAW capabilities are restricted to short-range air defence (SHORAD) systems. For example, the FM-90 SAM used on the F-22P has a maximum engagement range of 15km. While this is good for protecting the vessel, it does not offer area wide air defence coverage.

Moreover, the PN’s Type-21s are heavily aged platforms that are basically in need of being phased out. Once these ships are gone, the PN will be left with a glaring capability gap in its surface fleet. In order to rectify this problem, the PN had originally hoped to acquire up to six retired FFG-7/Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates from the U.S., but general hostility in Congress towards Pakistan closed this avenue. Instead, the PN will have to look for used frigates in other countries.

For the PN, it may not be prudent to heavily invest in upgrading used platforms. At this stage, the PN simply needs ships it can operate in accordance with its peacetime needs, such as its participation in Combined Task Force 150. But in terms of the long-term, the PN will be best served by selecting a new-generation platform, which it can then build-upon to develop a solution tuned to its specific needs. While several options may exist in this regard, it is likely that the PN would ultimately select China Shipbuilding and Offshore International Co. (CSOC) as its partner in this project.

It is worth noting that the PN is acquiring eight new submarines from CSOC, hence it is well within the realm of reason to see the PN expand that partnership into the area of frigates. In fact, CSOC even has an export-focused design, i.e. the “High Performance Frigate.” The 3700 ton High Performance Frigate utilizes a stealthy hull design meant to reduce the ship’s radar and infrared signatures. With a length of 135 metres, maximum speed of 28 knots, and a crew of around 110 personnel, the High Performance Frigate is essentially a medium-sized multi-mission frigate.

According to the defence news site Navy Recognition, CSOC’s design incorporates a 32-cell vertical launch system (VLS). These VLS cells could be used to deploy medium-range SAMs, such as the Chinese HHQ-16, which has a range of at least 40km. In addition, the frigate can be equipped with two anti-ship missile (AShM) quad-launchers and a 76.2mm main naval gun. Two close-in weapon-systems (CIWS) and a point-defence missile system (PDMS) are also present for protection against incoming anti-ship missiles.

Interestingly, CSOC did not specify the frigate’s ASW capabilities. Instead, CSOC representatives told Navy Recognition that it “depends on customer needs.” Since CSOC did not explicitly mention that the VLS was restricted to SAMs, it is possible that the design could be configured to carry (in addition to two triple ASW torpedo launchers) a VLS-launched rocket-powered torpedo solution, such as the CY-5. This would confer the High Performance Frigate with VL-ASROC-style ASW capabilities. While a modern frigate’s torpedo tubes give it ASW capabilities, ASROC-like capability can offer additional engagement range.

It is evident that the CSOC High Performance Frigate design has the features (e.g. VLS) to warrant at least the possibility of serving as the basis of the PN’s next-generation surface fleet. CSOC has developed a balanced design, and if paired with the full-suite of Chinese armaments (i.e. HHQ-16 SAM, C-802 AShM, CY-5 VL-ASROC, FL-3000N PDMS, and Yu-7 ASW torpedo), a fleet of six to eight of these frigates would be an exponential leap compared to the PN’s existing fleet.

Moreover, the PN has the option to customize the design, which it could use to fulfill future requirements. For example, it could work with CSOC to develop an enlarged version with an additional 16 or 32 VLS-cells, which could be allocated for the Babur land-attack cruise missile (LACM) and/or long-range SAMs (100km+). A smaller number (three or four) of these large frigates could compliment a larger number (six to eight) of medium-sized frigates, thereby giving the PN a robust frigate fleet capable of addressing key maritime challenges, especially in wartime.

Unfortunately, Pakistan’s structural economic problems will dampen the PN’s modernization efforts. While an expensive acquisition, a new design offers long-term cost-savings (by freeing the PN of maintaining heavily aged platforms and replacing them more frequently), in addition to enhanced operational capabilities. Given that a fleet of modern multi-mission frigates is vital to Pakistan’s long-term maritime interests, it is imperative that the Pakistan Navy not be put into a situation to compromise on this front.

The Pakistan Navy’s Frigate Options

@Horus

If Pakistan's naval strategy in times of war were to keep the IN (no other visible opponent exists, unless there is any thought of at some stage being opposed by the USN) well out of range of Karachi and of Gwadar, this is one of the three possible routes. The other two routes to achieve that strategic goal would be to invest in shore-based missile systems, or to depend on air power to guard the approaches, both of which might be far less expensive, btw.

But the IN is not confined to surface ships to implement attacks on Pakistani land-based sites, after all. It is possible to hit those targets with cruise missiles, ship-borne, submarine-borne or air-borne missiles all being available. A combination of carrier-based aircraft carrying cruise missiles with a 400 kms range would be difficult to combat with surface ships.

If Pakistan's naval strategy were to go further, and ensure that no blockade of shipping to and from Pakistani ports takes place (blockades in such waters given the contiguity of numerous other ports would mean blockading at such close ranges as to be vulnerable to shore-based systems or to aerial attack), then submarines would play as great or an even greater role than frigates. In that scenario, the IN will seek to physically verify the port of call of merchant shipping. Unless it does something innovative, this involves surface ships. So the IN in the second scenario is committed to a presence that can be detected and attacked. But there is no such commitment of resources for the first scenario - an aircraft carrier can lurk in wait far out at sea and move in at will.
Mention was made of peace-time needs. These are not needs, merely military rituals and can be dispensed with.

Pakistan has to ask herself what her naval goals are, in times of peace and in times of war, in a realistic manner, before addressing the issue of choice of surface warfare vessel.

IMHO, and I have said this before and am saying this again, swarms of small missile-bearing vessels, corvette-class boats, in essence, plus beefy shore-based anti-shipping and anti-surface vessel missiles, plus an active air wing is essentially what Pakistan's naval configuration should be. My two paise.

 

[Tank131]

This makes certain assumptions about limits to Fleet Air Arm aircraft stand-off missile range, and about ship-mounted missile ranges. It also presumably makes assumptions about the possible number of missiles to be intercepted at peak. The difficulty with such an analysis is that the IN is steadily working on increasing its capabilities. Currently, the emphasis is on air warfare and on anti-submarine warfare, but there will be initiatives taken to strengthen ship-to-shore missile capabilities.

Point is, this cycle of stimulus and response will continue for ever. The prescription above is probably good for a three year horizon.

This makes no assumption, the issue has nothing to do with the range of IN's antiship missiles, or its ability to strike Pakistan, what it has to do with is Pakistan and PN's ability to create a layered defense. Pakistan currently has no significant anti-air defense be it on land or at sea. They have taken some (albeit small) steps with the induction HQ-16 and Aspide 2000. But the induction of something like Aster 30 or more likely HQ-9, will be a quantum leap of air defense on land, and they would certainly help put a dent in IN's ability to strike Pakistan. The range of India's missiles dont matter as much as do the Pakistani missile that is meant to intercept it and both have sufficient range to intercept missiles at safe enough ranges to protect Pakistan. Will they get all missiles fired at Pakistan, no but they would likely get significant number of them.

Regarding PN's ability, currently its barely existent given that the best air defense missile in PN is FM-90/HQ-7A (15km range) and that too, only 8 cell launcher with 1 refill. A 60km missile would be a boon for PN and the fact that it is quad-packable and could be in numbers of 32 - 64 missiles per ship (if looking at the above formula). That would be sufficient to protect at least the ship from most attacks (though of course some missiles could get through and sink a ship given the size difference). But when you look at where it would put the PN, this formula within 5-10 years would make the PN infinately more potent than it currently is, with 4 F-22P (not counting the Type 21s cuz they are not worth the metal they are made of curretly). Those 4 F-22P (8 HQ-7A), 4 MILGEM-G (potentially 64 CAMM if the formula above is followed) and 4 OHP (32 CAMM if formula above is followed). In addition they would be supported by 6 Type 022 and 4 Azmat class FACs. That is a very decent leap forward in a 10 year span. Again there are definitely a lot of variables. The Australians would need to agree to sale of the 3 Adelaide (which are modified OHPs) and the British/Italians would need to agree to sale of CAMM and Sylver Launchers, but provided PN has the $$$ for all that and the MILGEM-G, it is politically feasible.

So I agree with the strategy you laid above and my previous post puts PN in a position to give Pakistan breathing space in keeping sea lanes open and IN ships away from Pakistan's shores. PN must make it hard for even a CBG to be able to interfere with Pakistan's sea trade in time of conflict. In this senario PN has 11 AIP equiped attack subs with long range missiles, 3 midget subs, 12 large surface vessels carrying 8-16 (in MILGEM-G case) long range AShM AND 10 large FAC as well as numerous smaller FAC like MRTP-33 and Jalalat/Jalalat II call missile boats not to mention Aircraft carrying C-802A, and potentially even CM-400AKG as well as numerous 300+km coastal batteries of Zarb missiles and 290km C-602 missiles. Remember, PN doesnt need to hit India, it need to prevent IN from effectively blockading Pakistan, and with an above force of ships, subs, fighters, and missiles, it certainly wouldn't be easy to blockade Pakistan...all this is also not taking into account the fact that IN would not likley be able to field the full breadth of the IN fleet against Pakistan given its responsibilities in the rest of the Indian Ocean.

 

[Joe Shearer]

This makes no assumption, the issue has nothing to do with the range of IN's antiship missiles, or its ability to strike Pakistan, what it has to do with is Pakistan and PN's ability to create a layered defense. Pakistan currently has no significant anti-air defense be it on land or at sea. They have taken some (albeit small) steps with the induction HQ-16 and Aspide 2000. But the induction of something like Aster 30 or more likely HQ-9, will be a quantum leap of air defense on land, and they would certainly help put a dent in IN's ability to strike Pakistan. The range of India's missiles dont matter as much as do the Pakistani missile that is meant to intercept it and both have sufficient range to intercept missiles at safe enough ranges to protect Pakistan. Will they get all missiles fired at Pakistan, no but they would likely get significant number of them.

Regarding PN's ability, currently its barely existent given that the best air defense missile in PN is FM-90/HQ-7A (15km range) and that too, only 8 cell launcher with 1 refill. A 60km missile would be a boon for PN and the fact that it is quad-packable and could be in numbers of 32 - 64 missiles per ship (if looking at the above formula). That would be sufficient to protect at least the ship from most attacks (though of course some missiles could get through and sink a ship given the size difference). But when you look at where it would put the PN, this formula within 5-10 years would make the PN infinately more potent than it currently is, with 4 F-22P (not counting the Type 21s cuz they are not worth the metal they are made of curretly). Those 4 F-22P (8 HQ-7A), 4 MILGEM-G (potentially 64 CAMM if the formula above is followed) and 4 OHP (32 CAMM if formula above is followed). In addition they would be supported by 6 Type 022 and 4 Azmat class FACs. That is a very decent leap forward in a 10 year span. Again there are definitely a lot of variables. The Australians would need to agree to sale of the 3 Adelaide (which are modified OHPs) and the British/Italians would need to agree to sale of CAMM and Sylver Launchers, but provided PN has the $$$ for all that and the MILGEM-G, it is politically feasible.


So I agree with the strategy you laid above and my previous post puts PN in a position to give Pakistan breathing space in keeping sea lanes open and IN ships away from Pakistan's shores. PN must make it hard for even a CBG to be able to interfere with Pakistan's sea trade in time of conflict. In this senario PN has 11 AIP equiped attack subs with long range missiles, 3 midget subs, 12 large surface vessels carrying 8-16 (in MILGEM-G case) long range AShM AND 10 large FAC as well as numerous smaller FAC like MRTP-33 and Jalalat/Jalalat II call missile boats not to mention Aircraft carrying C-802A, and potentially even CM-400AKG as well as numerous 300+km coastal batteries of Zarb missiles and 290km C-602 missiles. Remember, PN doesnt need to hit India, it need to prevent IN from effectively blockading Pakistan, and with an above force of ships, subs, fighters, and missiles, it certainly wouldn't be easy to blockade Pakistan...all this is also not taking into account the fact that IN would not likley be able to field the full breadth of the IN fleet against Pakistan given its responsibilities in the rest of the Indian Ocean.

Unfortunately, I have to re-join the rest of the world, which is swirling by at a higher and higher speed. But if this thread is still alive by evening, I would like to look at your closely-argued post in what little detail I can muster.

My basis will be that Pakistan cannot match her obvious opposition dollar for dollar and needs to think in terms of the nation in arms. With the possible exception of the Air Force.

But I will hope that such a proposition is not considered to be gratuitous interference and that fanboys will not have woken up by then, read this thread and marched over en masse with hammers and sickles at the ready.

Until evening, I hope.