Jinnah Class Frigate | Updates & Discussion

[Yasser76]

When did I say that? By the whole point is about wartime that the surface fleet is simply not ready for.

Yeah no shit.

This is why most debates with you on here are pointless.

 

[Yasser76]

Because peacetime patrols is not same as sailing out when you are in conflict with a adversary with a far more capable surface fleet.

Missing the point, war will not be about "my ship is better then your ship" , in fact surface ships facing off directly against each other os straight out of WW2.

Modern naval warfare is very different

 

[MirageV3ff]

These peace time patrols are important for Pakistani security, economy and diplomacy, are you saying we should give them up?

 

[hasssanali8998]

View attachment 199923

This is why most debates with you on here are pointless

 

[Yasser76]

View attachment 199923

Gonna be a great day on this forum when you finally add value

 

[Pakistan First]

stealthy fast missile boats can approach a Indian flotilla far closer then a frigate or destroyer can

Hi bro, I used to think on such lines too. But as I studied naval warfare, its history and future trends so my thinking changed on subject. Let me give you few pointers.

Iran have 100s of missile boats. Their approach was also to ambush US navy warships but missile boats have severe limitations due to size. US navy has effectively done blockade of Iran and missile boats alone cannot undo that.

At sea dominance, the key factors are always range and endurance. A large warship with its continuous presence (upto several weeks) can create deterrence and fullfill operational needs. A missile boat lacks range and have no endurance.

Many times, you just need presence and need operations are deep sea. How you can even imagine to do that with missile boats.

What if Indian navy do a blockade at a larger diameter (away from range of missile boats) then how we are going to tackle that if PN only relied on missile boats? You need large surface combatants that can do multirole operations including Anti-sub and anti-air.

What if India start blocking our merchant ships much farther away around arabian penisula / red sea. How we are going to do anything about it with only missile boats?

One thing that has stood test of time for naval warfare is always bigger is better. Large warship means more endurance, more range, more firepower, more powerul EW weapon system, more powerful missiles, more powerful radar systems, and future weapons accommodations (energy based weapons) needs large platforms anyways.

So yes, missile boats and coastal batteries are good for last tier of defence. But you can't rely on those to win a war. You simply cannot afford your enemy to create sea dominance in the region around you. With Pakistan's growing geopolitical / defense responsibilities, and growing Indian naval fleet, it is now more than important for Pakistan to seek large platforms.

The importance of modern large warships is already on display in this war. US navy has created a blockade of Iran and Iranian missile boats cannot do anything about it, secondly in one instance the arleigh burkes passed through the strait, Iranian coastal batteries fired upon those but those ships are unsinkable due to their size, powerful EW/radars and so many air defense missiles.

Point is large surface combatants have their critical benefits which are irreplaceable by any other platform. Missile boats / coastal missile batteries should always be the last tier of defence.

 

[Toxic]

Hi bro, I used to think on such lines too. But as I studied naval warfare, its history and future trends so my thinking changed on subject. Let me give you few pointers.

Iran have 100s of missile boats. Their approach was also to ambush US navy warships but missile boats have severe limitations due to size. US navy has effectively done blockade of Iran and missile boats alone cannot undo that.

At sea dominance, the key factors are always range and endurance. A large warship with its continuous presence (upto several weeks) can create deterrence and fullfill operational needs. A missile boat lacks range and have no endurance.

Many times, you just need presence and need operations are deep sea. How you can even imagine to do that with missile boats.

What if Indian navy do a blockade at a larger diameter (away from range of missile boats) then how we are going to tackle that if PN only relied on missile boats? You need large surface combatants that can do multirole operations including Anti-sub and anti-air.

What if India start blocking our merchant ships much farther away around arabian penisula / red sea. How we are going to do anything about it with only missile boats?

One thing that has stood test of time for naval warfare is always bigger is better. Large warship means more endurance, more range, more firepower, more powerul EW weapon system, more powerful missiles, more powerful radar systems, and future weapons accommodations (energy based weapons) needs large platforms anyways.

So yes, missile boats and coastal batteries are good for last tier of defence. But you can't rely on those to win a war. You simply cannot afford your enemy to create sea dominance in the region around you. With Pakistan's growing geopolitical / defense responsibilities, and growing Indian naval fleet, it is now more than important for Pakistan to seek large platforms.

The importance of modern large warships is already on display in this war. US navy has created a blockade of Iran and Iranian missile boats cannot do anything about it, secondly in one instance the arleigh burkes passed through the strait, Iranian coastal batteries fired upon those but those ships are unsinkable due to their size, powerful EW/radars and so many air defense missiles.

Point is large surface combatants have their critical benefits which are irreplaceable by another other platform. Missile boats / coastal missile batteries should always be the last tier of defence.

I am not saying we saying we should only rely on missiles or that they even be more primary offense also not talking about Iranian missile speedboats but proper multiple hundred ton FAC something like the Norwegian skjold class.

I am not opposed to larger surface combatants either just disagree with how some people are suggesting they be used.

The point is having multiple attack vectors.

 

[Ak01]

EDIT: I realise it may look like i've confused my east and west, but ive been looking at it from the angle of an observer looking south, so iran being east, and india being west in this case, wig

Hi bro, I used to think on such lines too. But as I studied naval warfare, its history and future trends so my thinking changed on subject. Let me give you few pointers.

Iran have 100s of missile boats. Their approach was also to ambush US navy warships but missile boats have severe limitations due to size. US navy has effectively done blockade of Iran and missile boats alone cannot undo that.

I feel this argument would have been valid, had the iranians actually made large scale deployments of them, and they were not sunk at port. But also, the iranian strategy relied old, clunky, close in missile systems, like the Nasr, which was a C704, which in itself, a copy of the early exocet. Even with this however, they were able to get some shots off, but the reality is their strike options were really limited:


The earths curvature starts to become an issue at about 3 miles, when at surface level. The radars are on a mast, perhaps maybe 10-15 feet above the surface? That means at about 10 miles, the earth would hide about 16 feet of an object 10 miles away... im sure you can see where im going from here.

in effect, the strategy looks quite similar to the stuff insurgents do, look for opportunistic attack chances, make a few shots after getting in close and trying to ambush, then running away if they make it out alive.

the issue is, these little things would be relatively easy to detect at those ranges, adversary vessels will have radars hundreds of feet high up, not only that, but also passive detection means too. The Iranians did not have the kind of detection networks of the PN, but instead, seemingly relied on localised detection using commercial nav radars. Most of the time, when you'd see C704s captured, they would come with a kevin hughes radar set, the kind used for navigation.

At sea dominance, the key factors are always range and endurance. A large warship with its continuous presence (upto several weeks) can create deterrence and fullfill operational needs. A missile boat lacks range and have no endurance.

But this is the difference in idea here. Pak Navy will never rely on its surface fleet for sea dominance, not only that, the PN cannot achieve sea dominance. Full stop. The PN is at a HUGE surface disadvantage, hence the asymmetric push to undersea vessels. The reality is, in the opening days, the goal of the IN will be to try to take out every surface vessel, launching huge brahmos attacks against the PN's surface fleet. Its a given. For the PN to venture deeper into the seas is suicide. IMO, the ideal scenario would be the naval fleet will stay relatively close to shores, providing a protective bubble eastwards to ensure energy supplies remain untouched, while submarines venture out deeper to push the IN backwards, keeping the PN fleet out of range of Indian strike vectors.

Many times, you just need presence and need operations are deep sea. How you can even imagine to do that with missile boats.

In the Pak Navy's case, i dont agree. In wartime, i dont think the PN will be interested in deep sea ops beyond the eastern flank to ensure any bullying of naval ships does not occur. I dont expect any deep sea ops in the western flank, rather, just attempts at ensuring pak waters dont end up with any Indians making misadventures, but also providing air cover against any cruise missiles.

What if Indian navy do a blockade at a larger diameter (away from range of missile boats) then how we are going to tackle that if PN only relied on missile boats? You need large surface combatants that can do multirole operations including Anti-sub and anti-air.

Again, i dont believe this is the case. The entire idea behind the huge submarine fleet is to prevent this in its entirety, making any blockades a deadly idea. The IN will not be able to conduct ASW ops near our shores, the PAF would be responsible for ensuring that doesnt happen, so the hangors could very well enforce a "no indian zone" a few hundred KM out from our shores, hell, we could possibly even make life hell for indian trade coming out of the ME, limiting potential energy shipments from them, because there is a chokepoint that could in theory be enforced. Between Jiwani and Sur is about 300km, thats not a ton.

While yes, its far greater than the hormuz straits, there is nothing stopping the PN from putting out some ambiguous statements about the presence of mines, and the chances of missiles flying at random intervals causing danger for any vessels in the area, this would send insurance premiums skyrocketing and once again, not entirely close off the area, but make ships think twice. Hell, Pak could even setup a corridor at the coast, allowing for our own energy to flow in.

The key behind this all is submarines, in this scenario, the Indian Navy would very well try to stop this, but the PN tactically deploying a few submarines in the area to catch out any IN vessel trying to, but also, support that with coastal missile batteries to overwhelm and attack any IN ship trying to do so. This would further support the above claim of potential risk for missile strikes to merchant ships, choking Indian energy supplies from the ME and trade, 60% of its energy comes from the ME.

This also has the secondary effect of supporting Pak's warfighting strategy of short, high intensity war. Choking trade and risking marine traffic would likely support Paks idea of having other countries get involved to try and stop the war, so that their economies are not impacted.

Pakistan NEEDS to play this card, there is no other way, and for this card, its not the large Babur/Jinnah's that will be important, but rather the subsurface fleets and FAC's. I will touch on the FAC point at the end.

What if India start blocking our merchant ships much farther away around arabian penisula / red sea. How we are going to do anything about it with only missile boats?

As above, if this was to occur, it would only occur as a result of a massive failure on the Pak Navy's part to ensure that they could hold on control. The smallest chokepoint is within range of basically every Pakistani anti ship missile... anything beyond that point westwards should be under the control of PN submarines

This area should be effectively controlled by Pak anti ship missiles, seriously, the deployment of 2/3 batteries in Jiwani would make the insurance threat and also the threat to IN ships significant. Not only that, this could be supported by the deployment of a few JF-17s armed with anti shippers in the area. Put some SMASH/FATAH V batteries in Jiwani and the 'last line of defence' is formed.

Moving westwards, having a SWAT parked somewhere around Sir Creek once again Pushes the IN backwards, we need to create a sort of defensive bubble, once again, with subs at the forefront. Its the only way we can create an effective buffer between our surface ships and theirs, that too, HAS to be supported by aircraft operating under a naval AD umbrella. The key is to operate as a wholly defensive force, attacking their economy, but also opportunistic targets, and once again, ill touch on that with the FAC front later.

One thing that has stood test of time for naval warfare is always bigger is better. Large warship means more endurance, more range, more firepower, more powerul EW weapon system, more powerful missiles, more powerful radar systems, and future weapons accommodations (energy based weapons) needs large platforms anyways.

This is somewhat valid, not entirely, but to an extent. However, it also means more cost, it also means more risk and also means less numbers. All of which are deadly for Pak. PN cant afford huge capital ships. Its a bad investment. You as a ship need to get lucky every time, defending yourself, whereas an attacker only needs to get lucky once. They dont even need to destroy you, but they could get a mission kill. Its a gamble sinking tons of money into one platform type. At best, the kind of ship you describe would cost 2/3x the current setups, reducing numbers by as much too then, it just doesnt work for a navy like ours.

The USN needs this, absolutely, because they power project. They NEED to be visible to make a statement.

The Pak navy however NEEDS to be invisible to ensure its success, the harder time they have getting targeting solutions off on us, the better for us. The harder time they have looking for us, the easier it is for us to create no go zones and blockades for them. They however, cant enforce blockades on us if they don't know whether a torpedo is going to come under them and snap their keel in half.

So yes, missile boats and coastal batteries are good for last tier of defence. But you can't rely on those to win a war. You simply cannot afford your enemy to create sea dominance in the region around you. With Pakistan's growing geopolitical / defense responsibilities, and growing Indian naval fleet, it is now more than important for Pakistan to seek large platforms.

And this is the misconception. Sea Dominance isnt a result of large capital ships in a handful of numbers. It works for the USN because they can deploy a staggering amount of assets to a combat zone. Pak cant. What pak really needs is a proper ship, procurable in lower cost, but capable of carrying proper missiles and sensors, while operating at high speeds.

I would ditch the endurance requirements, the idea is to take opportunity shots, at long ranges. The Harbah has a 700km range, you could target the eastern flank of India easily from within air cover.

The PN already has a further requirement for FAC's, something more advanced than the Azmat's, IMO, the optimal solution will focus heavily on passive defences, stealth and speed!



That is a visby class corvette, from its side, at a distance of 1.5 miles, on an X band Nav radar.

Now obviously, naval targeting radars will be infinitely more powerful, and use different frequency bands to allow for longer ranged targeting, but the point still applies.

If at 1.5nm, on its worst angle, the visby has a tiny signature, and even then, its quite a large ship. Relatively slow too at 35kts...

Imagine if the PN was to use the Visby as inspiration, shrinking it in size by ditching alot of the 'extra' equip like the ASW suite, reducing endurance requirements, but also then as a result of the smaller, lighter hull, being able to push its top speeds up, you've got the ideal 'anti brahmos' ship. One that cant be targeted very easily, and one, when it is targeted, is able to sprint away from the missile to an extent, or possibly try to outmaneuver it (yes, i know it will be difficult), but also, one that may just actually be invisible to the missile. You could in theory have a ship that has a lower return than some of the waves/wake around it, causing an exceptionally difficult time for the missile to process and pick it out amongst the clutter!

The importance of modern large warships is already on display in this war. US navy has created a blockade of Iran and Iranian missile boats cannot do anything about it, secondly in one instance the arleigh burkes passed through the strait, Iranian coastal batteries fired upon those but those ships are unsinkable due to their size, powerful EW/radars and so many air defense missiles.

I would put this more down to Iranian inadequacy but also the insane capabilities the USN brings to the fight, which the PN cant do.

Point is large surface combatants have their critical benefits which are irreplaceable by any other platform. Missile boats / coastal missile batteries should always be the last tier of defence.

Anyway, what i propose here is offensive packages of FAC's to go beyond the protective bubble setup by the large ships, to then focus on launching attacks on Indian facilities from hundreds of KM away, all while staying hidden to radar and targeting solutions, and being able to safely return to the 'safe zone' bubbles.

I previously wasnt too sure about equipping the PNs fleet of large ships with long range, large ish numbers of ad, but thinking about it now, if the PN's ships were used as basically a floating extension of our AD to create a safe zone, the best solution would be to equip them with a mix of wide area AAW to provide overlapping coverage, but also SHORADS against anything slipping through the net, supported by AEW from the 'safe zone' to provide long range targeting, ensuring nothing slips through, everything stays safe, and the PN is able to enforce a blockade on Indian energy supplies, trade and also naval vessels from entering Pak waters, all while ensuring stealthy, speedy FAC's can go out, farther forward to be able to launch attacks on Indian facilities, using long range cruise missiles, perhaps even supersonic ones like the CM302.

 

[MirageV3ff]

Gonna be a great day on this forum when you finally add value

Aw someone's hurt. Please do impart your wisdom. I'm waiting

 

[MirageV3ff]

Anyway, what i propose here is offensive packages of FAC's to go beyond the protective bubble setup by the large ships, to then focus on launching attacks on Indian facilities from hundreds of KM away, all while staying hidden to radar and targeting solutions, and being able to safely return to the 'safe zone' bubbles

How about a larger USV? Arming it with Anti Ship missiles, say something similar to HD-1? Deploying it along side FACs, where FACs can do shoot and scoots from a distance but USV? Can directly go into a suicide mission.

 

[Yasser76]

Aw someone's hurt. Please do impart your wisdom. I'm waiting

No need to impart anything on you or waste time, but yeah, fill the forum with pointless memes...

 

[Princeps]

Honestly aircraft can do the job of a missile boat better.

 

[Corax]

Honestly aircraft can do the job of a missile boat better.

It's why I've advocated for a dedicated fleet air arm with a couple of squadrons.

 

[Yasser76]

It's why I've advocated for a dedicated fleet air arm with a couple of squadrons.

I think that wasteful duplication, we may as well just expand the PAF and it seems like at least one JF-17 unit is already doing this. If you look at say the Italian and British Navies, many are consolidating bases, traning, leadership with their respective air forces. For all intents and purposes the Italian and British F-35 forces are basically one organisation with some people in navy and some people in air force uniforms.

Two navy dedicated JF-17 units is all we need here, no need for the navy to set up another branch

 

[Corax]

I think that wasteful duplication, we may as well just expand the PAF and it seems like at least one JF-17 unit is already doing this. If you look at say the Italian and British Navies, many are consolidating bases, traning, leadership with their respective air forces. For all intents and purposes the Italian and British F-35 forces are basically one organisation with some people in navy and some people in air force uniforms.

Two navy dedicated JF-17 units is all we need here, no need for the navy to set up another branch

I was thinking more in terms of command, have them directly under navy command rather than PAF.