What's new

Pakistan in talks for 4 Ada Class Corvettes, T-129 Helicopters & modernization of agosta fleet

Both Ada and 054a heli hanger and flight deck can support medium size 10-12 ton class heli so Sea King can/should be able operate from it giving it over the horizon anti sub/surface capability and sar reach

054a

The stern helicopter deck features a single landing spot for supporting the missions of a medium size helicopter. The heli-deck is fitted with helicopter handling system and can accommodate a Kamov Ka-28 Helix or a Harbin Z-9C helicopter.
 
A small detail, It is realized on trials that Aselsan 76mm Naval Gun fire control system is able to deliver the rounds against targets locating 2x(+) longer distance preciously, when It is compared with the one provided by foreign producers. I think It is about software related restriction applied for export costumers to keep original producers ahead of international users at likely conflicts.

software can change ballistics, firing tables and physics? Come out of conspiracy theories. Naval guns now give no particular advantage to a naval battle. Every manufacturer wants to show off and provide maximum capability, not minimum. The de-militarization is done to sensors and missiles, to increase reaction time for export systems.
 
Bro There is no difference between you and us.Pakistan is also in middle of war.You should diversify not just air defence systems but all of your weapons.
At last, money talks.

Pakistan need save money to build a better economics.
 
I think that what cabatli meant was that the software the Turkish 76mm gun is using, allows it to shoot a longer distance. This has been stated multiple times by multiple people.

So the issue is - why can't the Oto Melara guns from the OEM do the same? Basically Turkey bought the white-box licence to make the same.

It cannot be that a professional company, one of the best in the world, naval gun maker, Oto Malara, would be so incompetent as to have a software that only allows half the reach of the actual system.

The inferred conclusion is that there is a software limit set for export.

Why? What reason? Whether naval guns have some sensitive role (such as skirmishing with NATO ships, always taking place at short ranges), we don't know. We don't need to go into a conspiracy theory why, or how important a naval gun is or isn't.

The facts and the logical conclusion is that the given ranges for Western and Russian weapons are often downgraded for export to countries not deemed favorable.

We have seen this repeatedly. For instance the bug found in the crashed Turkish F-16. Are any other NATO F-16s bugged by the US or is it only for the single Muslim NATO state?

We have seen this also with Malaysia, were software was dumbed down for the Hornets, and the Malaysians complained about this to no avail. Also, the Malaysians complained they had a hard time trying to get a track on Singapore air force aircraft.

Why all this has happened, we don't know for certain. But the bug found in the Turkish F-16 didn't show up there by evolution. Nor did it fall out of the sky. Let us not be intentionally naive about it.
 
software can change ballistics, firing tables and physics? Come out of conspiracy theories. Naval guns now give no particular advantage to a naval battle. Every manufacturer wants to show off and provide maximum capability, not minimum. The de-militarization is done to sensors and missiles, to increase reaction time for export systems.

Better ballistic calculation on longer ranges for more precision strike. That’s possible but “More precision on 2x longer range than rivals” issue reminds me a clear fire control software limitation on ballistic calculation capability. It is actually not about physics or original provider’s incapability but about fire control softwares.

371B0322-BE9C-4FC9-8568-EEC25C6E146D.jpeg
 
software can change ballistics, firing tables and physics? Come out of conspiracy theories. Naval guns now give no particular advantage to a naval battle. Every manufacturer wants to show off and provide maximum capability, not minimum. The de-militarization is done to sensors and missiles, to increase reaction time for export systems.

You call him a conspiracist then go on to say that they do reduce systems effectiveness...
SafeCorruptBuffalo-max-1mb.gif


Better ballistic calculation on longer ranges for more precision strike. That’s possible but “More precision on 2x longer range than rivals” issue reminds me a clear fire control software limitation on ballistic calculation capability. It is actually not about physics or original provider’s incapability but about fire control softwares.

View attachment 485175

Bro, in Firtina-II to increase range and accuracy of SPG, Aselsan got a Turkish company to develop a positive-pressure and climate controlled ammunition rack. I wonder if such an implementation is done with 76mm
 
Naval guns now give no particular advantage to a naval battle

Are you sure? You are right maybe in open seas but sea like egean have countless islands.

adalar.JPG


Look at this picture.Islands is everywhere and there is more than map in real because map doesnt show small islands and rocks.

You have to do what you have to do face to face.

At last, money talks.

Pakistan need save money to build a better economics.

Yes.Strong army requires strong economy.
 
Aoa ..it is possible that in future ADA also upgraded like F 22p going too as sir rafi mentions in his another thread

Aoa ..it is possible that in future ADA also upgraded like F 22p going too as sir rafi mentions in his another thread
 
Are you sure? You are right maybe in open seas but sea like egean have countless islands.

adalar.JPG


Look at this picture.Islands is everywhere and there is more than map in real because map doesnt show small islands and rocks.

You have to do what you have to do face to face.



Yes.Strong army requires strong economy.

Actually Naval guns are used as CIWS in modern warfare and there are very succesful as they can shoot from longer distance than 30mm..
 
In the Freedom class variant proposed to Saudi Arabia, Mk41 VLS was positioned on the rear deck over the helicopter hangar.
MMSC_160115_01.jpg


Another example is the solution on the deck. Bae introduced the ADL system in SNA.
20180411_091448.jpg


Also Lockheed Martin studying integration of LRASM Anti-Ship Missile on small USV platforms with same kind of canisters.

Now, Pakistan has a platform that can develop. You are overextending the VLS issue. What is important here is to understand the doctrine of the Pakistani navy and the definition of the mission it has set for this ship.
 
Problem is people don't have much trust on the "doctrine" of PN which has consistently shown itself in war to be incapable of even basic logical thinking. Like even to this day no meaningful VLS and air defense. Even with 4 Type 54As, that's just 4 ships with AD. What happens when these are overwhelmed, or kept busy while other ships are saturated?

Its a stupid doctrine, if a doctrine at all. 250 million USD ships without meaningful air defense. Can't explain this way with what ifs in the future.

Pakistan is not getting ships with all these fancy pie-in-the-sky systems like deck launchers. Never happening. Like the F-22Ps, these are going to be show boats during peace time and coffins during a war.

And no, Pakistan Navy nor KSEW will be able to do anything with this supposed TOT and transfer of IP. These are another fantasy lalaland drama. If the past is anything to go by, next ship or submarine will be another TOT effort with cobbling toghether knocked down kits from foreign sources then claiming they can now "build" ships, submarines, starships, death stars, etc.
 
Here is what is criminal - not leaving space for a VLS system in the future. Meaning if ever there is a capability to add - a lot of structural (expensive and time consuming) effort will be needed to fix the systems in.
 
Here is what is criminal - not leaving space for a VLS system in the future. Meaning if ever there is a capability to add - a lot of structural (expensive and time consuming) effort will be needed to fix the systems in.
The F-22P is a very old design still kept going on. The issue is basic lack of funds and general concept of priorities within all procurement that happens in Pakistani defense establishment.
 
The F-22P is a very old design still kept going on. The issue is basic lack of funds and general concept of priorities within all procurement that happens in Pakistani defense establishment.

The fact is that every ship plays its own role in the fleet. Are we implying that the Turks are dumb for conceptualizing and manufacturing these ships?
 

Back
Top Bottom