But what is cost of these opvs or baburs in comparison? A type 052D can cost 800-900m i dont think any frigate option costs less than 400m. We are already buying a large number of these ships (4 opvs 4 baburs 4 tughrils 6+ JCF at that point buy a competent destroyer that may cost 2x but provide 3-4x more AAD capability. With standard chinese vls you can get something like hhq-9C which can protect our ships from ballistic attacks with the likes of LORA. Same vls also provides infinitely more strike options and is actively being improved upon by chinese rather than the smaller hhq-16 system on 054As basically becoming irrelevant. You cannot compare these two directly as they are incredibly different in role and capability. I just dont see your logic. Yes sub fleet is primary arm of PN but leaving surface fleet to just die is incredibly stupid.
the problem is you're looking at it from one very specific angle.
One, the OPV's in their current form have not cost much. They lack a bunch of the high end mission systems and vls needed to be able to make them fully mission capable. They're only good for patrol at the minute. As a result of this, the cost is marginal in terms of naval vessels. Perhaps sub 250 million for the 4. If i recall correctly, a single hull had a cost of about 50 million.
Tughrils were also dirt cheap as the purchase was subsidised by the PLA. I believe another 250 million or something per unit? I forgot really.
Baburs were not a purely capability purchase, but also an exercise in building capacity to actually develop ships at home. So the cost there is a bit skewed since the PN paid over the odds to buy the IP of the ships too, not just the hulls or ToT. It was an extremely comprehensive package.
In terms of Jinnah class, the reality is theres no guarantee it will go through. I suspect that even if it does, it will be a case of the PN reducing numbers and dripfeeding the orders to KSEW to keep them busy (something everyone overlooks), but also to sustain the surface fleet long term.
So we're talking 250 million, 1bn (worst case) and then another 1.5bn for the Ada class program.
We're at 2.75bn. Thats for 12 hulls, including extensive modifications and IP rights for others.
If we're talking a cost of 900m per unit, as you can see there, the math just doesnt add up.
You would be swapping 12 hulls for... 3! With that, while you may get tons of AD capability, you lose the ability to escort multiple ships, while also conducting HADR or SAR ops, or conducting ASW, or all of the other dozens of missions navies have to conduct.
You're looking at this from a very limited scope of air defence. The navy's purpose is not to defend the skies, its to defend the seas, but also to conduct the other plethora of ops that are conducted at sea. It just doesnt work.
We DONT need wide area AAW capabilities. We have no CSG's to protect, nor do we have vast islands. Our ships will need to defend themselves, and at best case scenario, one or two vessels being escorted at once. While the reality is, against vast swarm attacks these ships would struggle, that is factored into the calculus. Who knows, maybe you'll have 2/3 ships sailing together with overlapping coverage for self defence.
You also need to remember, the cost of hulls is one thing, but whos going to equip those cells? Even 64 cells, at 1 million a missile on average means to equip one ship, you're spending the equivalent of a fully capable OPV2600 on armament. This works for wealthy navies, but the PN is having to skip installing radars on some ships at the moment because the funds dont exist.
The PN NEEDS large numbers of surface ships for its OTHER missions. You have arabian sea patrols, CTF151, gulf patrols, asw etc etc. If you cull ship numbers in exchange for a handful of higher end ships, you also need to start culling your missions, but also, you need to give up your capabilities in other areas to gain in one area(AAW). That loss, is far greater because the Navy's mission set is far greater than the one you place specific emphasis on.
And yes, ships are sent to die, but attrition is once again a part of every war plan. You're better off losing 30% of your fleet of 12 or 20 ships than you are losing 30% of your fleet of 3 or 6. Those losses are far harder to bare than the former. We've also not even talked about the maintenance, sustainment and lifecycle costs that come with these things. This is something very commonly overlooked.
At the end of the day, your perspective is just a very narrow one.
