China-Pakistan finalize frigate deal

tphuang · May 26, 2006

maglomanic said:
Yes indeed you pointed that out to me on PDF once before. Still i couldnt get any source to substantiate that. I would really appreciate something like that

(P.S we need to get this info on our website. Alot of people rely on SDF and treat as quite reliable , lets keep it this way )

First huitong's site disagrees with that assessment,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

it's basic concept, it's on Chinese forums (verified by people much closer to Chinese military than myself), but I deciphered it through other means.

All exports have been C-801 or C-802. There hasn't been any export of C-803. We know that C-801 is using rocket engine and C-802 uses turbojet engine. At the same time, we know that YJ-82 is used exclusively in submarines in PLAN. It seems to be a submarine version of YJ-8A (I might be wrong on this). Even though YJ-83, the turbojet engine of choice for PLAN has proliferated amongst ships, but has not made itself in to submarine. C-802/C-802A is a ship launched missile with similar stats and usage to YJ-83 rather than a submarine launched missile like YJ-82.

maglomanic · May 26, 2006

tphuang said:
First huitong's site disagrees with that assessment,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

it's basic concept, it's on Chinese forums (verified by people much closer to Chinese military than myself), but I deciphered it through other means.

All exports have been C-801 or C-802. There hasn't been any export of C-803. We know that C-801 is using rocket engine and C-802 uses turbojet engine. At the same time, we know that YJ-82 is used exclusively in submarines in PLAN. It seems to be a submarine version of YJ-8A (I might be wrong on this). Even though YJ-83, the turbojet engine of choice for PLAN has proliferated amongst ships, but has not made itself in to submarine. C-802/C-802A is a ship launched missile with similar stats and usage to YJ-83 rather than a submarine launched missile like YJ-82.

Ok appoligize for that but i am still kind of confused. Most sources who use C-803 use it for YJ-83.

I read through the stormpages (is it huitong?? website looks same) website before too.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Now this page mentions both YJ-82 and YJ-83 and talks about improved version of C-802 with 180 km range. It also mentions 160 kms for YJ-83 and that it has midcourse correction ability.

it seems to me that he is talking about entirely two differnt missiles. The capabilities might be same, but accuracy and architecture,cost could still be different.

(YJ-83: speed 1.5M, range of 160km, with mid-course correction provided by shipborne helicopter via datalink),

AND

Its primary surface-to-surface weapons are 8 YJ-81/YJ-82 sea-skimming SSMs(C-801A or C-802/CSS-N-8, active radar homing to 85/120km at Mach 0.9, the improved version has a range of 180km)

tphuang · May 26, 2006

maglomanic said:
Ok appoligize for that but i am still kind of confused. Most sources who use C-803 use it for YJ-83.

I read through the stormpages (is it huitong?? website looks same) website before too.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Now this page mentions both YJ-82 and YJ-83 and talks about improved version of C-802 with 180 km range. It also mentions 160 kms for YJ-83 and that it has midcourse correction ability.

it seems to me that he is talking about entirely two differnt missiles. The capabilities might be same, but accuracy and architecture,cost could still be different.

(YJ-83: speed 1.5M, range of 160km, with mid-course correction provided by shipborne helicopter via datalink),

AND

Its primary surface-to-surface weapons are 8 YJ-81/YJ-82 sea-skimming SSMs(C-801A or C-802/CSS-N-8, active radar homing to 85/120km at Mach 0.9, the improved version has a range of 180km)

check out his latest version

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

the ambiguity over YJ-82 is removed. You just need to know the following:
There is a submarine launched version of YJ-8 series that people call YJ-82.
There is a turbojet based naval version of YJ-8 series that people call YJ-83.
There may also be an airlaunched version of YJ-83, but that might use a different designation, who cares, really?
The export turbojet naval version of YJ-8 is C-802 series.
So, C-802 is based on YJ-83. Of course, the domestic version should be more capable, but we don't have the exact stats on YJ-83.
My point in the beginning is that C-802 can be quite a powerful SSM. Since PN is not getting most of its F-22P for a few years, there would be even better YJ-8 series SSM getting exported. Although, only the communists would know what's under development. Also, it's the same case with SAM. I'm sure better SAMs would be available in the next 5 years.

maglomanic · May 26, 2006

tphuang said:
check out his latest version

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

the ambiguity over YJ-82 is removed. You just need to know the following:
There is a submarine launched version of YJ-8 series that people call YJ-82.
There is a turbojet based naval version of YJ-8 series that people call YJ-83.
There may also be an airlaunched version of YJ-83, but that might use a different designation, who cares, really?
The export turbojet naval version of YJ-8 is C-802 series.
So, C-802 is based on YJ-83. Of course, the domestic version should be more capable, but we don't have the exact stats on YJ-83.
My point in the beginning is that C-802 can be quite a powerful SSM. Since PN is not getting most of its F-22P for a few years, there would be even better YJ-8 series SSM getting exported. Although, only the communists would know what's under development. Also, it's the same case with SAM. I'm sure better SAMs would be available in the next 5 years.

Yes, the link you gave only mentions yj-83 uniformly. But lookking at the firgates page under Jiangwei II 522 Lianyungang it again says
"More powerful weapon systems include two quadruple YJ-82/83 SSM systems (compared to the original two triple)". Pretty much implying the ship can use yj-82(sub launched version??)

Anyway it seems it will be better to stick to yj-XX naming convention than C-XXX for clarity.

Back to your point i agree in both SSM and SAM systems there will be improvemnst that could be taken advantage by PN. Sticking to Chinese system will ensure smooth flow and quick upgrades too unlike Western tech.

Dizasta · May 29, 2006

In all honestly, to Tphuang & Maglo's discussion, if you look at the procurement pattern of PN. There is a ominous indicator as to which direction PN is headed. This deal not simply about the current level lethality the platform would provide PN to do battle. Rather it is the significance of establishing the 'know how' of building battleships for modern naval warfare. Keep in mind, we (Pakistanis) are aware that there is no capability at our disposal, such as China's enormous manpower and resources to go indigenous on our own. Nor do we have an exhorbitant amount of money to spend on building a frigate and importing technology, like the indians.

A realistic likelyhood seems, where PN establishes the basic functionality of constructing such battleships. The 'know how', would go a significant length into putting in the foundation of a dynamic naval warfare capability.

By procuring Greek and possibly American Frigates, suggests that PN is looking to closely study, analyse and possibly build on the technology that the western ships would have. This, in conjunction with Chinese help ofcourse, would go a long way into establishing a credible capability of producing power-packed frigates for our navy.

PakTopGun · Jun 3, 2006

Dizasta said:
In all honestly, to Tphuang & Maglo's discussion, if you look at the procurement pattern of PN. There is a ominous indicator as to which direction PN is headed. This deal not simply about the current level lethality the platform would provide PN to do battle. Rather it is the significance of establishing the 'know how' of building battleships for modern naval warfare. Keep in mind, we (Pakistanis) are aware that there is no capability at our disposal, such as China's enormous manpower and resources to go indigenous on our own. Nor do we have an exhorbitant amount of money to spend on building a frigate and importing technology, like the indians.

A realistic likelyhood seems, where PN establishes the basic functionality of constructing such battleships. The 'know how', would go a significant length into putting in the foundation of a dynamic naval warfare capability.

By procuring Greek and possibly American Frigates, suggests that PN is looking to closely study, analyse and possibly build on the technology that the western ships would have. This, in conjunction with Chinese help ofcourse, would go a long way into establishing a credible capability of producing power-packed frigates for our navy.

I agree for the most part but I dont think we have any shortage of manpower or resources. 160 million people and vast arrays of natural resources(exception large deposits of oil-yet deposits may be found in untapped Balochistan) are no shortcomings at all. However, as the PN enlarges, experience and the necessary infrastructure will gradually develop. Submarine contruction and ship construction are good starters this coming from a nation that just a few decades ago didnt have any infrastructure or technical know-how in naval ship construction(quite a leap in my opinion), I think in the future u'll only see this capability expand and branch out into other spheres. Key being that Pakistan maintain upward economic motion(if conflict is avoided) this will seem likely given the ideal geo-strategic location of the country, the rest should fall in place

sumdud · Jul 5, 2006

HQ-7? Why'd Pakistan use that? Pakistan has been been using the LY-60 for its past frigates, why HQ-7 now? It'll make supplying their........rather poor.........navy harder. The LY-60 has a better performance than the HQ-7.
And if one says HQ-7 has French technology, so does the LY-60 have American and Italian technology.

(And why doesn't China use the LY-60 SAM? Might open thread for this.)

eecsmaster · Jul 5, 2006

LY-60 was based on Aspide. HQ-7 is based on SeaCrotale. Different systems.

keep in mind that LY-60 didn't win the contract because it didn't offer a significant enough performance boost to offset the price vis a vis the HQ-7.

tphuang · Jul 5, 2006

sumdud said:
HQ-7? Why'd Pakistan use that? Pakistan has been been using the LY-60 for its past frigates, why HQ-7 now? It'll make supplying their........rather poor.........navy harder. The LY-60 has a better performance than the HQ-7.
And if one says HQ-7 has French technology, so does the LY-60 have American and Italian technology.

(And why doesn't China use the LY-60 SAM? Might open thread for this.)

no, HQ-7 actually offers the better performance in terms of engaging sea-skimming targets than LY-60, that's why it's the standard SAM in use with PLAN like YJ-83.

isthvan · Jul 5, 2006

Well I would guess that it doesn’t matter which they choused because if we are realistic both HQ-7 and LY-60 aren’t exactly top of the line... Both have quite limited capabilities and can provide only weary limited protection against SSM because they were never intended for that role... IMHO China should ASAP introduce more modern and capable short/medium range air defense system if they won’t to provide credible protection for there ships...

I think that PN needed to fallow Thai example and install western air defense system on this frigates, and Sea Sparrow or Apside would probably be better option especially since newly bought ex. Greek Kortnaers use Sea Sparrow...

China-Pakistan finalize frigate deal

tphuang

Lieutenant General

maglomanic

Junior Member

tphuang

Lieutenant General

maglomanic

Junior Member

Dizasta

New Member

PakTopGun

New Member

sumdud

Senior Member

eecsmaster

Junior Member

tphuang

Lieutenant General

isthvan

Tailgunner