Amazon VS Jaingwei II

Oqaab

New Member
Currently Pakistan Navy is equipped with 6 Amazon Frigates which are backbone of PNs fleet. PN will also be getting 4 Jaingwei II frigates in near future. Now, which ship do u ppl think will give better results in a war. Here is a slight comparison between the two. All contributions are welcomed. :)


DISPLACEMENT

Jiangwei : Full load 2,250 tons, Standard 1850.
Amazon : Full load 3,700 tons, Standard 3100.

SPEED

Jaingwei : 27 knots.
Amazon : 30 knots, 18 on tynes.

RANGE

Jaingwei : 4000 NM at 18 knts.
Amazon : 4000 NM at 17 knts.

COMPLEMENT

Jaingwei : 180-200 (30 officers)
Amazon : 175 (13 officers) (accommodation for 192).

ARMAMENT

Jaingwei :
SAM = 1 HQ-7 launcher.
Main Gun = 2 x 100mm/56 cal China DP built in 1 twin mount 1 forward
ASW = 2 RBU 1200 5 tubed fixed launchers (4 in some)

Amazon :
MISSILES : SSM: 4 McDonnell Douglas Harpoon 1C (may be fitted in due course).
SAM: China LY 60N [Ref 2] semi-active radar homing to 13 km (7 n miles) at 2.5 Mach; warhead 33 kg. Replacing Seacat.
GUNS : 1 Vickers 4.5 in (114 mm)/55 Mk 8 [Ref 3]; 55° elevation; 25 rds/min to 22 km (11.9 n miles) anti-surface; 6 km (3.3 n miles) anti-aircraft; weight of shell 21 kg. 4 - 25 mm/60 (2 twin) [Ref 4]; 270 rds/min to 3 km (1.6 n miles); weight of shell 0.34 kg. 2 or 4 Oerlikon 20 mm Mk 7A; 1 MSI DS 30B 30 mm/75 and 2 GAM-BO1 20 mm may be fitted in lieu.

RADAR

Jaingwei :
Air Search : MX 902 Eye Shield (type 354),2D Rice Screen,2D
Surface Search : Square Tie (Type 352)
Navigation : Don 2 or Fin Curve or Racal Decca
Fire Control : Rice Lamp Sun Visor B Wok Won weapons director (in some)
Sonars : Echo Type 5 (S-07H) ,hull mounted.

Amazon :
Air/surface search: Marconi Type 992R; E/F-band. To be replaced by Signaal DA08.
Surface search: Kelvin Hughes Type 1006; I-band.
Fire control: 2 Selenia Type 912 (RTN 10X); I/J-band; range 40 km (22 n miles).
Sonars : Graseby Type 184P; hull-mounted; active search and attack; medium frequency. Kelvin Hughes Type 162M; hull-mounted; bottom classification; 50 kHz. Thomson Marconi ATAS; active; medium frequency.

HELICOPTERS

Jaingwei : 1 Harbin Z-9A Dauphin.
Amazon : 1 Westland Lynx HAS 3.

BEAM

Jaingwei : 14 m
Amazon : 12.7 m.

DRAUGHT

Jaingwei : 4 m
Amazon : 5.9 m.
 

corsair7772

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
Seems 2 me that the Amazon is better but if the Jiangwe is operated in numbers then it'll get a good cahnce 2 fight.
PS rmmbr? we aint gettin western crap anymore
 

corsair7772

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
Seems 2 me that the Amazon is better but if the Jiangwe is operated in numbers then it'll get a good cahnce 2 fight.
PS rmmbr? we aint gettin western crap anymore
 

shamsi

New Member
To your kind info, Amazon Type 21 have already been update to Tariq class configuration, and are highly operational. A recent visit by the Admiralty were highly impressed by the condition of such vintage ships.

Keeping your current platform operational is sometimes more important rather than going to buy ships that will take years to integrate.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The Amazons are a proven design. Known sea keeping qualities, blue water tested and have already shown a weapons and comms suite upgrade solution.

China has had significant problems with build quality. There have been a number of new build chinese vessels that have (quietly) been docked into Thai shipyards for repairs after structural problems were discovered.

All new construction "first of type" vessels are expexted to have teething problems, but structural faults are a different issue.

As much as China is seeking to establish independance from "off country" builders, I think the Amazons would have been a better choice.

Much more knowledge can be gained from witnessing how new systems are integrated into an older platform, than by buying a brand new platform.
The Amazons are an extablished capability. Building new concepts after operating proven platforms usually yields much more benefit.
 

Winter

New Member
gf0012 said:
The Amazons are a proven design. Know sea keeping qualities, blue water tested and have already shown a weapons and comms suite upgrade solution.
The Amazon-class actually had several structural problems during the British reign didn't they?...Though I believe this was mostly solved in the 80s...
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Winter said:
gf0012 said:
The Amazons are a proven design. Know sea keeping qualities, blue water tested and have already shown a weapons and comms suite upgrade solution.
The Amazon-class actually had several structural problems during the British reign didn't they?...Though I believe this was mostly solved in the 80s...
Yes, thats true, which reinforces the fact that "foundation" vessels will hilight initial problems. Australia had teething problems with the Anzac class
but relatively few in comparison with the Perth (Charles F Adams) or Adelaide (Oliver Hazard Perry) classes.

Oberons were trouble free, whereas the Collins (through a variety of reasons) were seen as "lemons" by the public. Although these diesels now are arguably the best large diesel subs in the world now. They are certainly rated higher than the Kilos and emit lower signals than the Oberons.

In pakistans case, my argument would be that at the naval combattant level she should invest in stable proven platforms that will be cheaper, cost effective and train crews in different systems.

China has yet to prove without any fear or favour that she has a reliable skilled ship building capability (and the fact that the Thais are already contracted to do repair work) reinforces that view for me. OTOH South Korea has a demonstrably capable industry that passes all international insurance and qualitative controls.

The perpetual problem for China, Russia etc... is that there is a very visible history of building en masse to a poor quality product, low shelf life, low attrition potential etc... That was acceptable (to those countries) on the basis of short, sharp violent warfighting where "rushing" (ie massing of forces in a sustained rolling fashion) was intended to carry the military day.
In modern warfare that is a recipe for force suicide.

Both Russia and China sat up and noticed the effects of GW1 and Iraq. Getting their industries to embrace the requisite quality control is going to be a long term process requiring volumes of patience.

That is why I have difficulty accepting the build philosophy of (particularly) chinese platforms as they don't build to (what as I see as an) acceptable standard.

Milspec quality is vastly different to commercial quality. Quality and professional training will win everytime. Anything less renders your forces into eventual cannon fodder.
 

Oqaab

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #9
shamsi said:
To your kind info, Amazon Type 21 have already been update to Tariq class configuration, and are highly operational. A recent visit by the Admiralty were highly impressed by the condition of such vintage ships.

Keeping your current platform operational is sometimes more important rather than going to buy ships that will take years to integrate.
They were upgraded ??? When ??

The Amazons are called "Tariq class" by PN. Just like F-22p (actual name = Jiangwei II)
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Australia paid a third of the initial development price for these ships. :)

So pakistan has good taste in ships and aircraft (you buy stuff that we recommend for our own people) :eek
 

shamsi

New Member
gf0012 said:
The Amazons are a proven design. Known sea keeping qualities, blue water tested and have already shown a weapons and comms suite upgrade solution.

China has had significant problems with build quality. There have been a number of new build chinese vessels that have (quietly) been docked into Thai shipyards for repairs after structural problems were discovered.

All new construction "first of type" vessels are expexted to have teething problems, but structural faults are a different issue.

As much as China is seeking to establish independance from "off country" builders, I think the Amazons would have been a better choice.

Much more knowledge can be gained from witnessing how new systems are integrated into an older platform, than by buying a brand new platform.
The Amazons are an extablished capability. Building new concepts after operating proven platforms usually yields much more benefit.
The structural issues such as cracking were rectified.
 

shamsi

New Member
Oqaab said:
shamsi said:
To your kind info, Amazon Type 21 have already been update to Tariq class configuration, and are highly operational. A recent visit by the Admiralty were highly impressed by the condition of such vintage ships.

Keeping your current platform operational is sometimes more important rather than going to buy ships that will take years to integrate.
They were upgraded ??? When ??

The Amazons are called "Tariq class" by PN. Just like F-22p (actual name = Jiangwei II)
I don't keep Dockyard's refit calender on hand. But, Type-21 operates on a 3-3 configuration with PN, with 3 in each configuration focused for a specific role. While some main systems like 184 Sonar were not (cannot be) replaced, most of the sensors and weapons were replaced, refitted, or upgraded.
 

Oqaab

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #14
What I have heard is that they are now in a bad condition. PN may have dicomisioned some.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Oqaab said:
What I have heard is that they are now in a bad condition. PN may have dicomisioned some.
I'm not in a position to say, Shamsi may have a better idea of their current status
 

joker

New Member
Apparently from what I have read is that the Jiangwei II and the F22P are two completely different ships. For example the F22Ps are allegedly to incorporate stealth features in the hull design. Furthermore as far as the weapons combat suite and powerplant are concerned the F22P is to makeuse of western & ukrainian (powerplant) suppliers. So even if the F22P was the Jiangwei II then there would have to be some major structural changes not only in the case of stealth features but also for incorporating non Chinese powerplant.

PS. the F22P wil be acquired with a ToT for the hull.

I remember seeing a pic of a model. Will try and find it.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
joker said:
Apparently from what I have read is that the Jiangwei II and the F22P are two completely different ships. For example the F22Ps are allegedly to incorporate stealth features in the hull design. Furthermore as far as the weapons combat suite and powerplant are concerned the F22P is to makeuse of western & ukrainian (powerplant) suppliers. So even if the F22P was the Jiangwei II then there would have to be some major structural changes not only in the case of stealth features but also for incorporating non Chinese powerplant.

PS. the F22P wil be acquired with a ToT for the hull.

I remember seeing a pic of a model. Will try and find it.
Don't know why anyone would consider Ukrainian power plants. They are boat anchors. MTU would be a far better purchase, and depending on speed required (and for tasking) smaller vessels could pick any number of european engines (if US was not possible). My understanding is that US marine engines are available.

Strip down any CIS power plant and you are reaching for the headache tablets.
 

shamsi

New Member
gf0012 said:
Oqaab said:
What I have heard is that they are now in a bad condition. PN may have dicomisioned some.
I'm not in a position to say, Shamsi may have a better idea of their current status
And the wardroom whispers channels the oceans.... As I sat in a little fishing boat in Karachi harbour this December, I saw one sail by, still looking grand. Your comment might be more relevant for Leanders, but then one of them was recently decom, the other one still sails.

I have not heard/seen any Type 21 ships decommisioned. I don't think PN can afford to. There were some issues in the past, but they were due to embargo on Tyne/Olympus spares, and operational mishaps.
 

shamsi

New Member
gf0012 said:
joker said:
Apparently from what I have read is that the Jiangwei II and the F22P are two completely different ships. For example the F22Ps are allegedly to incorporate stealth features in the hull design. Furthermore as far as the weapons combat suite and powerplant are concerned the F22P is to makeuse of western & ukrainian (powerplant) suppliers. So even if the F22P was the Jiangwei II then there would have to be some major structural changes not only in the case of stealth features but also for incorporating non Chinese powerplant.

PS. the F22P wil be acquired with a ToT for the hull.

I remember seeing a pic of a model. Will try and find it.
Don't know why anyone would consider Ukrainian power plants. They are boat anchors. MTU would be a far better purchase, and depending on speed required (and for tasking) smaller vessels could pick any number of european engines (if US was not possible). My understanding is that US marine engines are available.

Strip down any CIS power plant and you are reaching for the headache tablets.
Now this is news for me. Ukraine for Powerplants? Are we talking T85s for Army here? Blah. I don't see CIS PP in a newly build PN ship.
The option is diesel, but I don't think the company is decided. Might just be MTU, as they win almost every second contract.

So you notice the difference of a type 53 to an F-22. Salute the chinese of starting the hull of one ship, and then changing their mind to modify the super structure. Not much different from starting to buy super 7, talk about FC-1, and then end up with JF-17.
 

joker

New Member
Apparently the PN is looking into gas turbines and not diesel. The pic of the model for the F22P is below:
http://www.pakdef.info/ideas2002/f22p_pakchina.jpg

Judging from the articles posted below as well as PNC Mirza's week long visit to Ukraine back in 1999 the probability that the F22Ps gas turbine will be Ukrainian is pretty high. The Ukrainians make pretty good engines thats for sure.


Ukraine offers to help rehabilitate Railways, defence production

RECORDER REPORT
KARACHI (May 28) : Ukraine has expressed its willingness to help in the rehabilitation of Pakistan Railways and has identified more areas for future cooperation like spares for the tanks already supplied, ammunition and maintenance support machinery. Ukraine's offer of cooperation was conveyed by its Charge de Affaires in Pakistan during a meeting with the Additional Secretary, Defence Production, in Islamabad recently. The diplomat recalled that all contracts had been completed and despite strong pressures on the Ukraine government in the wake of the nuclear blast by Pakistan, the President of Ukraine had personally stated that all contractual obligations with Pakistan would be met and were met.

The Ukrainian diplomat stated that they were ready to promote cooperation. They knew that Pakistan is not in the best of times, and they were ready to promote cooperation in the engine and transmission sectors and supply all engines and spares that Pakistan required. They were even willing to redesign them for us if necessary. He also indicated that they were willing to supply additional TBOUD tanks if so desired by Pakistan.

He also informed the Secretary that Ukraine had vast industrial base as 40 percent of the military industrial complex of the former USSR was inherited by Ukraine. He indicated his government's readiness for cooperation in the Naval field also as the former fleet of USSR was built by Ukrainian shipyards. The shipyards had the capability to design and construct all types of ships including Aircraft carriers, which they could do for Pakistan. They had the know-how, but no money to build it.

On a query whether the ships would be built in Ukraine or in Pakistan, the diplomat replied that it was up to the Government of Pakistan to decide in accordance with the capacity of the shipyard. He was informed that Pakistan had design and integration problem and that is where assistance from Ukraine was needed. Pakistan wanted indigenisation as it was the need of the day. Buying a vessel was one way but building it in Pakistan was what we prefer. It was suggested that a team from Ukraine could have a look at the KSEW & PN Dockyard and in case they had an order for a ship from any country in the region, they might consider utilising these facilities. Pakistan was also trying to produce a frigate with Chinese assistance. They could make one frigate in Ukraine and their engineers, specialists and designers could come to Pakistan to make subsequent frigates in Pakistan.

It was suggested that there should be a tripartite cooperation i.e. Pakistan-China-Ukraine. Pakistan would use the expertise of Ukraine that China did not have. The Additional Secretary also indicated that they were developing a jet aircraft Super-7 with Chinese assistance. For the avionics and weapon systems, Pakistan wanted Ukraine to come and make an offer, as Ukrainian systems were as advanced as any comparable western system and cost wise very competitive.

The Ukrainian charge pointed out that AN74 transport aircraft with 10 ton load carrying or 32 paratroopers capacity, was demonstrated in Pakistan and it had used only one quarters of airstrip at Gilgit for take off. He also said that a newest Aircraft AN70 was available. Being a futuristic aircraft, they were in negotiation with the UK, Germany and USA. He also indicated that they were willing to co-produce the engine of this aircraft in Pakistan and the engine could be used in Super-7 also. A facility of this nature was established in Asfahan in Iran and they could send a team to Pakistan to study the possibility.

It was indicated that the trade imbalance was heavily in favour of Ukraine and they might import sports goods, surgical goods, carpets other consumer goods, rice etc., from Pakistan as our goods were of quality and cheap. The charge indicated that they were in perfect position to supply all the infrastructure for Railways and recalled that 89 percent of all railways of former USSR were supplied by Ukrainians factories.




Islamabad Needs Ukranian Weapons

Ukraine is participating in 15 military-industrial projects in Pakistan. Kiev has already signed contracts to create two field bases for repairing the T-80UD tanks, which Ukraine recently sold to Pakistan. Negotiations regarding a third base are in the closing stages. Kiev is also prepared for exporting new anti-aircraft complexes and elements of high-precision weapons. In addition, Ukraine may participate in a major program to launch production of frigates in Pakistan. Ukrainian enterprises intend to design gas turbines, public address systems, and radar stations for the warships.

In June 2002, Ukrainian and Pakistani companies signed a contract to supply Pakistan with transmissions for the Al Khalid tank ($100 million). Ukraine sold 320 T-80UD tanks to Pakistan ($640 million) in 1997-99.

(Reference: Krasnaya Zvezda, August 20, 2002, p. 3)


Ukrainians pushing for military cooperation

Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma said in Dnipropetrovsk last week that he was going to visit Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon in April. Although Ukraine's main economic partner is Russia, Ukraine needs to think about expanding the markets for its products beyond Russia and the CIS, the head of state said. Although each of these visits could be fateful for some Ukrainian industries, we would like to discuss the visit to Pakistan in more detail.

Islamabad has long been waiting for the Ukrainian leader's visit, and not only because five years of fruitful cooperation with Ukraine have turned Pakistan into a traditional importer of Ukrainian military equipment and related services. Despite the sales slump since 1999 - the year when the tank contract expired - Islamabad might again start placing new and maybe even large orders. Several years ago, Pakistan did not have any other options for military and technical cooperation, but after the US embargo was lifted and loans started pouring in, Islamabad was allowed to develop cooperation with its old partners and even add new arms suppliers which Pakistani leaders had been eyeing. Now the situation could change drastically, and not necessarily in favour of Ukraine China. It was Ukraine and China that were Pakistan's main suppliers of military equipment for ground forces. Although Pakistan has no plans to increase its defence spending this financial year (which started on 1 July 2001), its military budget remains quite impressive - about 21bn dollars - which makes the country an attractive importer of arms and military equipment. Many experts believe that the Pakistani authorities had no other option but to accept the US offer of participation in the anti-terrorist campaign. First, the government's legitimacy had to be proved, as some Western powers had questions about this. And second, Islamabad had to prevent Delhi from getting stronger after it had accepted the allies' rules of the game. Add to this the lifting of the economic blockade, and the Pakistani decision looks more than logical.

As a result, Pakistan received a unique opportunity for political maneuvers, including the ability o choose its arms suppliers.

As for Ukraine, Ukrainian-Pakistani trade turnover has fallen to 20-30m dollars at the present stage of cooperation. This differs significantly from the 150-180m dollars coming into Ukraine annually between 1996 and 1999. Moreover, the turnover no longer even exceeds that of the trade turnover between Ukraine and India. Surely, this state of affairs can not please Kiev or Islamabad. But, on the other hand, this does not mean that no increase in trade turnover is possible in the future. On the contrary, military cooperation is not the only subject on which detailed discussions between the partners can focus. Moreover, civilian and hi-tech cooperation is becoming increasingly important because it does not irritate another Ukrainian partner, India.

As for non-military projects, Pakistani ambassador to Ukraine Shamoon Alam Khan believes that while both sides have so far focused on developing military ties, it is necessary to diversify cooperation by adding science and technology, education and culture. The Pakistani ambassador has recently spoken in favour of Ukrainian participation in a tender to construct a railway in Pakistan. Ukraine could supply Pakistan with carriages and rails, and a 0.5bn-dollar tender will be announced this year. Pakistan is also developing its space programme. Kiev's participation in both the construction of satellites and their launches could be intensified. But still, military cooperation has to play a key role in cooperation between the two countries. Pakistani officials confirm that their country's arms market has not been saturated yet. Pakistan is becoming more solvent and the situation in the region has induced Islamabad to increase its military muscle.

Indeed, the military and technical cooperation policy between Ukraine and Pakistan can not be considered an absolute success for several reasons. The head of the state commission for the military-industrial complex, Volodymyr Horbulin, believes that any changes in the policy's implementation will negatively affect a number of Ukrainian defence-industry companies. He believes that the lack of coordination between Ukrainian structures and companies implementing military and technical projects in Pakistan can damage Ukrainian-Pakistani military trade cooperation no matter what actions Ukraine takes on the Indian market of military and dual-purpose goods.

Lastly, comparing Ukraine's prospects on the Pakistani and Indian markets, the mere fact that the survival of Ukraine's tank-building industry is in question speaks in favour of Pakistan. For those who link the prospects of working in India to closer ties with Russia, the head of the Russian Defence Ministry's main directorate for motorized, armoured and tank forces, [Col-]Gen Sergey Mayev, said twice during his visits to Kiev last year that Russian armoured vehicle and tank manufacturers will work independently [of Ukraine] in India. Friends are all right as long as they do not interfere with your business, and there are enough of those in need in Russia.

According to experts from the centre for army, conversion and disarmament research, there is no threat to Ukraine as an armoured vehicle and tank supplier to Pakistan yet. But there is a threat that Ukraine will not be able to engage in the lucrative naval cooperation. Although commander-in-chief of the Pakistani navy Adm Abdul Aziz Mirza said at an April 2001 meeting in Sevastopol with Ukrainian counterpart Mykhaylo Yezhel that "Ukraine's navy produces and uses up-to-date equipment and arms which Pakistan could add to its armoury", the visit of a Pakistani naval delegation, which was due to take place in January or February, was postponed. Although Pakistan says officially that the meeting was only postponed, experts do not rule out it may prefer a different partner, France or the USA, for instance.

We remind our readers that the Clinton administration recalled eight US frigates of the Garcia and Brooke types, which had been leased out to Pakistan in 1989. It was after Washington had made this decision that Islamabad engaged in active negotiations with China and started eyeing Ukrainian naval equipment with increased interest. At the same time, many specialists are sure that even if Pakistan chooses China as its naval supplier, there would still be some work to do for Ukrainian ship-builders. For surface ships of the frigate type have never before been built at a Pakistani shipyard, and Ukrainian specialists could offer the Pakistanis a lot of help in this. It is not excluded that it was in this context that Ukrainian-Chinese naval negotiations intensified. With the help provided by Chinese specialists, three high-speed missile cutters have already been built at a Pakistani shipyard. Meanwhile, Ukraine is highly experienced in this field after the works it carried out in Vietnam. It is worth pointing out here the potential of the Feodosiya-based More [Sea] plant, which the Chinese are interested in. Lastly, designers of war ships from Mykolayiv are ready to offer a design for an up-to-date frigate to Pakistan. Therefore, it is not excluded that Kuchma's visit, although it is not directly connected with military trade cooperation, could have an impact in this area.

As for armoured hardware, Ukraine has a stronger position here. Because of the military campaign in Afghanistan, however, there were drawbacks, if not problems, with setting up a service network for T-80UD [tanks]. On the other hand, according to Russian sources, Ukraine and Pakistan are preparing to sign two tank contracts. One is on the supply of units and parts to Pakistani Al-Khalid tanks, the other is on an upgrade of old T-59 tanks used by the Pakistani armed forces. Under the first deal, the [Kharkiv-based] Malyshev plant will supply engines and gearboxes for the Al-Khalids for three years. Assisted by China, Pakistan has been working on the creation of the Al-Khalid since 1988. When engine problems arose, it was Ukraine which solved the problem of adapting the engine to deserts. Last year, the [Pakistani] Heavy Industries Taxila company produced the first 15 tanks of this type, which were equipped with Ukrainian diesel engines.

Under the second contract, the Ukrainians will provide assistance in the upgrade of T-59 tanks, which Pakistan produced with China's help. Tanks of this type were once assembled in the People's Republic of China on the basis of the Russian T-55 tank. Pakistan's ground forces are equipped with a total of 1,300 of these tanks. Several hundred of them will be upgraded in 2002-2003 during the first stage of the programme.

In short, there is a lot of potential. "Delay may mean death" seems to be the motto now, as Kiev is intent on keeping its presence on the Pakistani market. There is hope that the Ukrainian president's upcoming visit to Pakistan will strengthen military cooperation between the two states as well as diversify it with a wide range of bilateral ties.

Excerpt translated by BBC Monitoring © BBC.

All articles are sourced from Pakdef.info
 
Top