There's talk of Pakistan also getting some more of the Perry Class Frigates the US will soon be decommissioning. If they do an upgrade along the order of what the Aussies did, they will be very effective vessels.
054/A FFG Thread II
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
Dizasta1
Senior Member
Well than it ought to be a longer range SAM. If so, there is every likelihood that the previous F-22Ps would also be upgraded to same type of same. Personally, I think that Pakistan Navy should seriously think about Type-052Cs. This warship provides Pakistan Navy an offensive-defensive platform, with greater capacity, longer range and greater variety of weapons to have on board. Off late, Govt of Pakistan has been showing interest in increasing Pakistan Navy's fire-power and expansion in terms of warfare assets. It would be a good time for Pakistan Navy to take advantage of GoP's interest in the service's expansion and to try and seek permission/approval from the Chinese Govt, for talks on possible procurement of the Type-052Cs. At most, (6) Type-052Cs, would be good to compliment the (8) F-22Ps/UPGRADE and would allow Pakistan Navy to project power as well as gain full control of the North Arabian Sea.
Mysterre
Banned Idiot
Not going to happen. If the PLAN builds any more 052C's, it will be building them for its own fleets. As it is, I have no doubt whatever shipyards have been involved in the building of 052C's will be shifting full time to 052D's. The previous building of both 052C and 052D types at the same time clearly indicates the PLAN wanted to push out as many ships as possible. These ships are clearly not complementary to each other in any significant tactical sense, so it makes no sense to build both of these at the same time unless it was for the purpose of getting more units out.
Not to mention PN almost definitely do not have the funds to buy that many 052Cs...
I think their best deal will be to purchase fully fledged 054As instead. Very multirole, and proven service in the PLAN, with good support facilities already existing in china. Also, that ship has quite a capable SAM with the range necessary to rival the best that IN can offer (HQ-16 has 50km min, likely 70km max from that shipboard weapons magazine a month or two back).
OT a little, but I find it amazing that IN will only get its true wide area anti air warfare orientated surface combatant in the form of the kolkata class... and even then, barak 8 will only have a range of 70km for the first few years. That's much below the likes of SM-2/6, aster 30 and HQ-9 too, which a CCTV interview with a rear admiral recently revealed, has a range of 150 km.
I think their best deal will be to purchase fully fledged 054As instead. Very multirole, and proven service in the PLAN, with good support facilities already existing in china. Also, that ship has quite a capable SAM with the range necessary to rival the best that IN can offer (HQ-16 has 50km min, likely 70km max from that shipboard weapons magazine a month or two back).
OT a little, but I find it amazing that IN will only get its true wide area anti air warfare orientated surface combatant in the form of the kolkata class... and even then, barak 8 will only have a range of 70km for the first few years. That's much below the likes of SM-2/6, aster 30 and HQ-9 too, which a CCTV interview with a rear admiral recently revealed, has a range of 150 km.
Mysterre
Banned Idiot
I would not be surprised if the HQ-16 missile itself has such a range, but its Orekh copies may be the limiting factor in the relationship here. We may never know.
I am definitely surprised an admiral would frankly admit the actual range of one of the premier defensive weapons of his fleets, and would not necessarily take his number at face value. The true range could be less, or possibly even more, than his stated number.
In context, the admiral phrased it more like "excess of 150km" in regards to a SAM that 150 (the newly commissioned 052C) was equipped with. Also, mentioned an AShM that had a range "in excess of 400km" in a similar fashion too. So it's definitely not an absolute range but more of a vague minimum.
Well, for the surface to air, I would not call it a minimum. Just depends on what they are shooting at. At a high alititude profile, sure the longer number is something to talk about. At a sea skimming altitude, then the number falls way off and can only be fired once a solution is had, which will be at a closer range for such a missile.
I would call it a minimum.
The thing about ranges for SAMs and AAMs, like you said, is that their effective range changes with altitude, type of target, headings, etc.
All militaries and especially contractors, would naturally use the stated slant range for their SAM against optimal targets as the maximum for their system, unless specified otherwise. So the word "minimum" is in relation to the standard metric for measuring max effective range, and if the real range of HQ-9 is say, 150km+X, then the effective range against various types of targets should be (150km+X)/(A constant for a particular type of target). That is to say, the max range should scale (unless someone more knowledge can enlighten. I am sure it is mor complicated than this)
Measuring max range will only get more complicated in future with proliferation of CeC and off board targeting.
Mysterre
Banned Idiot
I'm not sure I would believe a number in excess of 150km for the HQ-9, especially since this missile is smaller than the Rif-M, and that missile has a claimed range of 150km. One area of Russian military technology which is still state of the art is missile technology, so the likelihood that a smaller PLAN missile somehow manages to outrange a larger Russian missile is low IMO, especially if the baseline HQ-9 was originally based off of the Rif system to begin with. Perhaps a newer iteration of the missile like the "HQ-9A" could have such a range.
AFAIK a missile's quoted range if given without further specification is usually assumed to be maximum slant range vs a fighter-sized target that its FCR can see and engage.
Mysterre
Banned Idiot
I would rather assume that the statement of the range being "in excess of 150km" is not a minimum but a maximum, as in the "maximum range is in excess of 150km". Or even more specifically, "the maximum slant range vs a fighter-sized target is in excess of 150km".