Tughril-Class (Type 054A/P) Frigate | Updates & Discussion

[Rebirth]

CAMM-ER fingers crossed

Why?? Are going for western upgrade package for F-22Ps? Also PN operates Albatross NG successor of CAMM ER.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

I personally feel buying a missile which is limited ammo is a big limitation

As we see in Iran - Israel war , you need to be able to get resupply of Ammo for your missile launchers

Not a big fan of any tech which has a limitation of number of units

 

[Tank131]

I personally feel buying a missile which is limited ammo is a big limitation

As we see in Iran - Israel war , you need to be able to get resupply of Ammo for your missile launchers

Not a big fan of any tech which has a limitation of number of units

Which missile are you referring to? Any missile you dont produce in house is limited by import time and cash flow. The thing is, there is no evidence that the CAMM-ER is limited by anything other than PNs financial ability. Italy for its part has always seemed forthcoming with respect to providing Pakistan weapons.

 

[PakistaniDefender]

I don't understand why PN is buying large warships like the 054AP. In a big Indo-Pak war, these warships will hardly get out of the harbor and will be of little use.

PN will gain more by investing this military money in submarines, missile boats, naval air force, etc.

We need Type 052Ds

 

[Michael]

2-4 Used frigates from China , refurbished may get entertained
if Navy find it beneficial , but unlikely

China won't sell any newer warship from its own service. It will sell 20,25 yrs old hull. So better to go new ones, go for couple of 54-Bs. Otherwise if not much budget then again go for couple more Damen-2600s and armed these with CAMMs & SMASH.

The PLA Navy does have many warships ready for decommissioning. They can be sold to other friendly countries.
However, the Chinese Coast Guard also needs a large number of ships. Many PLA Navy warships will be refitted after decommissioning and then continue to serve in the Chinese Coast Guard.
Therefore, China is not in a hurry to sell the PLA Navy's retired warships. Whether someone buys them or not? It doesn't matter.
=================
PLA Navy's 056A light frigate (anti-submarine enhanced). Some ships are already in the decommissioning and refitting stage, ready to be delivered to target customers.

We need Type 052Ds

You need to have enough money......

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

I am generally in favour to acquire

10 refurbished Frigate Ship , would work for Pakistan

Equip the Frigates (Local Missiles)

• Harba Cruise Missiles
• SMASH

Add a new Chinese SAM on the ship (Foreign Defence item purchase)

Just time for Weapon System install the development time will be cut down as ship is mostly functional

Would be decent option, in theory

 

[Scorpio]

We need Type 052Ds

Can we afford it ?

 

[Toxic]

Can we afford it ?

No, Neither do we "need" them

 

[PakistaniDefender]

No, Neither do we "need" them

We need them the same like we need HQ 9B and HQ 9P

 

[PakistaniDefender]

Can we afford it ?

Can we afford HQ9??

 

[ghazi52]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[ghazi52]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Pak-Warrior]

No, Neither do we "need" them

Large warships have tremendous advantages over the smaller ones. You see warships sizes are increasing. UK type-26 frigate is 8000 Ton (almost a destroyer). All European warships are transitioning from 3K tonnage to larger ones. China, Russia, SK, Japan, India, even NK now, all are going towards larger designs. There is a reason for it. Its not necessarily that they only need range and blue water capabilities. Like SK, Japan and many Europeans don't care about range or long distances but still going for larger designs.

I see many people in our forum don't appreciate the value of larger designs including knowledgeable fellows. I think this overall understanding is shaped in the forum because of reflection of the reputed members.

But larger warships have much higher survivability. They have much more weapons onboard for self defense. Much more offensive weapons to eliminate the threat, before the threat can eliminate you first. Even if everything fails you get hit by an Ashm, the larger 8000 tonnage ship has more changes to take couple of hits and survive but a 3000 tonnage ship most likely cannot survive a direct hit. Aircraft carrier is unsinkable with Anti-ship missiles alone, Torpedoes however can do the job.

Secondly, larger warships have much more service life, they have more space onboard, so much more room for upgradations. All future weapons are going to be energy consuming. Laser weapons, powerful EW systems, powerful & bigger radars & sensors. For all that you need massive warships. Even the missiles with more ranges (bigger missiles), more VLS sizes, all that opens up if you have larger hull size. See in this forum, countless threads on VLS sizes/ space availability and room for upgradation for Baburs, Jinnahs, F-22Ps etc. We are bogged down in these discussions only because of limited space and limited options in what we can do.

So, yes larger warship costs more but it's well worth. It serves you for much longer duration, can remain upto date with enough firepower and self defense. Plus it has extended endurance & range, can stay relevant or / in action for longer in extended periods of tensions / escalations.

 

[rafale]

Large warships have tremendous advantages over the smaller ones. You see warships sizes are increasing. UK type-26 frigate is 8000 Ton (almost a destroyer). All European warships are transitioning from 3K tonnage to larger ones. China, Russia, SK, Japan, India, even NK now, all are going towards larger designs. There is a reason for it. Its not necessarily that they only need range and blue water capabilities. Like SK, Japan and many Europeans don't care about range or long distances but still going for larger designs.

I see many people in our forum don't appreciate the value of larger designs including knowledgeable fellows. I think this overall understanding is shaped in the forum because of reflection of the reputed members.

But larger warships have much higher survivability. They have much more weapons onboard for self defense. Much more offensive weapons to eliminate the threat, before the threat can eliminate you first. Even if everything fails you get hit by an Ashm, the larger 8000 tonnage ship has more changes to take couple of hits and survive but a 3000 tonnage ship most likely cannot survive a direct hit. Aircraft carrier is unsinkable with Anti-ship missiles alone, Torpedoes however can do the job.

Secondly, larger warships have much more service life, they have more space onboard, so much more room for upgradations. All future weapons are going to be energy consuming. Laser weapons, powerful EW systems, powerful & bigger radars & sensors. For all that you need massive warships. Even the missiles with more ranges (bigger missiles), more VLS sizes, all that opens up if you have larger hull size. See in this forum, countless threads on VLS sizes/ space availability and room for upgradation for Baburs, Jinnahs, F-22Ps etc. We are bogged down in these discussions only because of limited space and limited options in what we can do.

So, yes larger warship costs more but it's well worth. It serves you for much longer duration, can remain upto date with enough firepower and self defense. Plus it has extended endurance & range, can stay relevant or / in action for longer in extended periods of tensions / escalations.

These are all valid points, but then most of the Navies you mentioned such as Europeans or USA/CHINA/Russia/India are blue water navies or have ambitions to be one. So larger warship dimensions make sense.

UK's Type 26 as a frigate is as large as the Type-45 destroyer.....so in reality the distinction between a frigate and destroyer is now blurred. Potent weapons on a frigate can make it superior to a destroyer or a cruiser. Which is also why USN wants to quickly get done with the Ticonderoga class cruisers and build more, smaller Arleigh Burke....because Arleigh Burke can do the same job now with AEGIS.

Problem with PN is funding. Larger ships means more funds and more operating and maintenance costs.

But with good technology and tactics you can turn on the challenge.

PAF didn't need twin engine, heavy fighters like SU30MKI to shoot down Rafales and MKIs.......single engine J-10CEs did just fine. SU30s larger nose cone had larger radar and power output and more weapons carrying ability......yet apparently they failed to lock J-10s or counter them......

I think PN hasn't yet gotten out of the mindset or budget to go on offense. They are pretty much adamant on defending Karachi only.......which may not be an astute decision in time to come.

 

[Pak-Warrior]

These are all valid points, but then most of the Navies you mentioned such as Europeans or USA/CHINA/Russia/India are blue water navies or have ambitions to be one. So larger warship dimensions make sense.

UK's Type 26 as a frigate is as large as the Type-45 destroyer.....so in reality the distinction between a frigate and destroyer is now blurred. Potent weapons on a frigate can make it superior to a destroyer or a cruiser. Which is also why USN wants to quickly get done with the Ticonderoga class cruisers and build more, smaller Arleigh Burke....because Arleigh Burke can do the same job now with AEGIS.

Problem with PN is funding. Larger ships means more funds and more operating and maintenance costs.

But with good technology and tactics you can turn on the challenge.

PAF didn't need twin engine, heavy fighters like SU30MKI to shoot down Rafales and MKIs.......single engine J-10CEs did just fine. SU30s larger nose cone had larger radar and power output and more weapons carrying ability......yet apparently they failed to lock J-10s or counter them......

I think PN hasn't yet gotten out of the mindset or budget to go on offense. They are pretty much adamant on defending Karachi only.......which may not be an astute decision in time to come.

Arleigh Burke is not a small ship either. Its also about 9000 tonnage. US needs large warships that makes sense. But many Europeans do not have blue water ambitions like many smaller countries but still they are going for larger platforms. Denmark, Netherlands etc too have warships above 6000 tonnages.

South Korea's primary threat is right next to border. The SK's large warships are not only for blue water ambitions but their firepower and air-defense will help them against NK as their primary objective. Similarly, Japan is no more imperial Japan. Its primary threat is in neighborhood (China) too.

Biggest advantage is excellent room for upgradations. Future weapon systems will require more space, bigger missiles, bigger & powerful EW equipment, laser systems etc. Large hull gives possibilities which you can't have with smaller ships. Endurance and greater number of missiles itself are massive advantages.

All am saying is more cost of larger ships is well justified and worth it. Also note on average larger warships serves longer too. That's a cost benefit in long run.