I was lucky enough to attend AMAN11 last year off Karachi, and spent the day onboard PNS Zulfiquar, the lead ship of the Pakistan Navy's F-22P/Zulfiquar/Sword Class frigates. Her two active sister-ships, Shamsheer and Saif, were also present. So I got a good look at the ships both from being onboard and observing them from a distance. I was in two minds about the class before I went onboard Zulfiquar. By no means was I alone by holding such views, but I thought a few things could have been done differently to get more out of the design. However, on the whole I was pleasantly surprised by what I saw firsthand. I think they are good ships. Their crews are well-trained and motivated. They are eager to prove themselves and are proud of serving on what amount to the first ever new-build major surface combatants to enter Pakistani service.

The requirement was for a good multi-purpose general patrol frigate, and I think Pakistan has acquired a pretty decent all-round design for what it is that fits this need very well. Even though the F-22P is an evolution of the earlier Jiangwei-II frigate design, I think it is a good frigate that fits Pakistan's operational requirements fairly well. I do however think that the design was constrained by the limits of Chinese technology at the time it was finalised, and also the need to get the ships into service. Therefore, there are some fairly obvious shortcomings in the design and systems, and consequently room for improvement that shall no doubt be made once they start being cycled through a deep refit. Some things have already been mentioned as being highly likely, but from what I saw I'd like to give an opinion on possible improvements that can be made.

I think it is worthwhile giving a short explanation of the wartime environment in which Pakistani ships are likely to find themselves first. Pakistani navy warships will find themselves operating in a very high anti-ship missile threat environment where large numbers of advanced and highly capable subsonic and supersonic anti-ship missiles can be launched from enemy air, sea, and subsurface platforms. Possible co-ordinated attacks by these enemy platforms could see the smaller number of Pakistani warships overwhelmed by sheer numbers alone. In this environment Pakistani warships will have to conduct ASW in search of Indian submarines that will be capable of launching land attack cruise missiles, and also have a good capability to conduct ASuW. Consequently, they have to have a good defence against these types of threat. I would therefore generally place ASuW at secondary importance to ASW with regards Pakistani ships for the simple reason that no one will be expecting Pakistani warships to steam towards a mass of Indian warships (many if not most of which have twice the number of anti-ship missiles compared to Pakistani surface combatants), and start exchanging salvos of missiles. In such a scenario Pakistani warships would almost definitely end up getting sunk to the last ship. For that reason it's not a realistic scenario. A combination of the limited number of Pakistani anti-shipping strike aircraft, surface ships, and especially submarines, will help to deter Indian surface warships and encourage them to maintain their distance. However, this is not the case for Indian submarines any more than it is for Pakistani submarines in reverse. We can expect submarines of both nations to be used quite aggressively. So conducting robust and capable ASW in a high missile threat environment is something Pakistani ships will have to face, and you can see recognition of that in elements of the F-22P design. It is somewhat reminiscent of the threat posed to the Royal Navy in the Atlantic at the latter stages of the Cold War, (ASW in a high missile threat environment). So it's worthwhile to look at how the British responded to the threat in the design of their principal ASW warships of the period. They came up with the Type-22 Broadsword and later Type-23 Duke Class frigates.

So what can be improved for the F-22P? The rather obvious shortcoming that everyone can see is the SAM armament. Eight FM-90 SAMs with no reloads are not going to do much. The FM-90 probably represents the maximum the Chinese can squeeze out of the old French Crotale design, which was probably never very good to start off with. The irony to be seen in this regard at AMAN11 was that the PLAN's two Type-054 Jiangkai-I Class frigates were present, and they are armed with the same SAM system. The crucial difference is that the Chinese ships are larger and are fitted with a reloading system (the hatch of which can clearly be seen on the deck behind the FM-90 launcher) that carries at least a further 16 missiles. There was simply no room for a reloading system on the F-22P, so eight SAMs is all it could be fitted with. The maximum engagement range of the FM-90 missile is 15km according to the manufacturer, CNPMIEC. However, that is for a helicopter target. When you start to examine the figures for anti-ship missiles the maximum engagement range starts to fall quite markedly to 11km for a subsonic anti-ship missile and 7km for a supersonic anti-ship missile. Especially with regards supersonic missiles this is really taking a big risk, because if for whatever reason one SAM misses, there is limited engagement time for another shot, and even more crucially a very restricted number of SAMs meaning they could soon be exhausted.

The saving grace of the F-22P design, and one which I thought was impressive, is the CIWS fit of two Type-730B systems, atop the hangar. They are well placed to give fairly robust last-ditch protection against all aerial threats, be they subsonic or supersonic. This was one of things that intrigued me before my visit, why had the PN opted for the Type-730B CIWS that adopts an ‘off-platform' approach to the weapon's sensors? Both CIWS mounts are actually controlled by larger, more powerful search and fire control radars than on the standard Type-730 CIWS. These are visible on the centreline between the two Type-730Bs, and backed up by an electro-optical sensor ‘ball'. Apparently, this approach allows the CIWS to be controlled by more powerful sensors and engage threats on either beam with one being controlled by the electro-optical sensor, and the other by the CIWS fire control radar in case of a saturation attack. When both FCR and electro-optical sensor are controlling one mount the combination of both types of sensor controlling the fire of the CIWS increases the accuracy of fire as the electro-optical sensor can more accurately track the 30mm rounds. Though this is very impressive, the CIWS obviously should not be the main defence against aerial threats, which may very quickly become the case once the eight FM-90 SAMs are exhausted. The CIWS is supposed to be a last ditch defence against such threats. There is of course the dual purpose AK-176M 76.2mm (an improved Chinese variant of the Russian AK-176 - which I experienced being fired to good effect during the gunnery trials and was surprisingly loud from my perch on the bridge wing, and then later the bridge roof). It is quite capable of shooting down missiles, but has limited capability compared to the CIWS (though admittedly it may be able to do so at a longer range than a CIWS), and even less so when compared to a SAM. If trying to shoot down an incoming anti-ship missile however, the AK-176M should really be considered a back up weapon to be used out of desperation in conjunction with other weaponry, rather than something which can be relied on to fully protect the ship against such threats. If the Chinese built example shares most technical characteristics of its Russian forebear, it is likely that when fired at its maximum rate of fire it will need a certain period (about half an hour with the Russian gun) to cool down afterwards. Either way, it is a good piece of kit, so I'm not criticising it. I'm merely saying in the case of anti-ship missile attack it would very much be a last ditch weapon that was fired in addition to the CIWS.

So what can be done? In the absence of a SAM type from any other source due to a lack of funds, I think a Chinese option is the only likely candidate at present to replace the FM-90. The type that has hitherto been mentioned is the HQ-16. The HQ-16 is Chinese development of the Russian SA-N-12 ‘Grizzly', and by all means the Chinese seem to be quite pleased with it considering it forms the principal AAW armament for its growing number of Type-054A Jiangkai-II Class frigates. By all accounts it is a capable missile. However, I have my doubts about whether the HQ-16 is the right choice for the F-22P. It is a fairly large and bulky missile to fit on a frigate the size of the F-22P. I think at a very maximum it may be possible to fit 16 missiles in a VLS in the space currently taken up by the FM-90 launcher, but perhaps even that after some considerable ‘surgery' which could see that section of the deck removed entirely to save weight. I have two concerns however, the number of missiles may be too small, and how can all the associated electronics and sensors be installed? It is after all not merely a case of fitting the VLS cells into the space provided. I'm sure that can be done, but all the associated electronics also have to be shoehorned into place. Electronics and associated machinery are shrinking all the time with technological advancements the way they are going. However, I am currently unsure this can be done with the complete HQ-16 package to the extent that it can be installed on the F-22P. The other concern I have is numbers. Even eight HQ-16s would be better than the current FM-90s, but there really needs to be a worthwhile number onboard, and I don't think 16 SAMs (a number I'm guessing would be technically feasible considering the space available and a roughly approximation of the space taken up by the HQ-16 VLS on the Type-054As) is really going to be enough. Considering that these can't be reloaded at sea, a worthwhile weapon load needs to be carried, and I think that is definitely going to be in the region of 32 rather than 16.

In the absence of being able to have 32 HQ-16s on the F-22P I think other alternatives should be considered. The RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile, (which was itself designed to counter supersonic threats) would have been ideal, and I think a 32-cell VLS would fit in the available space, plus I don't doubt that the associated sensors and electronics could be fitted. That obviously isn't going to happen though. The South Africans have for a while been trying to interest Pakistan in the Umkhonto IR SAM, and even test fired a missile in the presence of former CNS Admiral Afzal Tahir before he left office. The ability of the Umkhonto IR to cope with supersonic threats is uncertain however, and the range (approx 12km) is perhaps a bit of a letdown. A more advanced variant (considering the missile continues to be developed) may still be an option if an alternative isn't found, but it really depends on the performance of the missile and of course, cost. There may be scope for another Chinese option however, a VLS variant of the PL-12/SD-10. There have been all sorts of rumours over the years about a VLS variant of the PL-12/SD-10. Initial speculation was that the Type-054A would be armed with the missile. Obviously that didn't happen, but I think there is scope for such a variant of the PL-12/SD-10. Despite the considerable Chinese naval expansion, especially the continued construction of Type-054A Class frigates, there are still 14 Jiangwei series frigates in service (four Jiangwei-I and ten Jiangwei-II). They appear to be currently being put through an incremental upgrade programme that is seeing the eight round HQ-7 SAM (more likely to be FM-90 or domestic variant thereof) replacing the six round HQ-61 SAM that was fitted in earlier units. The Jiangwei frigate design, the Type-053H2G/Type-053H3, formed the basis for the F-22P. So I think there is scope here to interest the Chinese in a VLS variant of the PL-12/SD-10 if it is not already something which is actively being developed. If nothing else, it could also be an export weapon with which Chinese designed and built frigates could be armed with.

Due to the smaller dimensions and weight of PL-12/SD-10 in comparison to the HQ-16 I think it would definitely be possible to have a larger number of SAMs installed in a VLS module. I admit I don't know if there would be considerable space and weight penalties to pay with regards the associated electronics, but I'm guessing there may not be purely on the basis that the LY-60N was fitted to three of Pakistan's Type-21s, and that weapon system fit was only really constrained by having that huge launcher in ‘B' position. The associated electronics and systems seem to have been fitted without too much trouble, and considering the equivalent for the PL-12/SD-10 may be more compact, I think it's reasonable to assume it may not be too difficult to install the whole PL-12/SD-10 VLS variant package on the Jiangwei and F-22P Class frigates, (or at least I see it as more straight forward with the latter). How many PL-12/SD-10 missiles could be fitted to the F-22P as a replacement for the FM-90 SAM is really perhaps something which depends on the type of VLS used, but I don't for a moment doubt that it would be more than 16. However, coupled with larger numbers carried, the faster response time of the PL-12/SD-10 SAM system to supersonic threats, and perhaps considerably better performance compared to the FM-90 in terms of engagement range and intercept timings, the SAM shortcomings of the F-22P Class could be rectified.

Given the nature of the anti-ship missile threat however, there is perhaps a further measure that could be taken, and one which can potentially be carried out more easily, fitting the FL-3000N. I'm unsure of the under-deck requirements for the FL-3000N, but I think there is scope to fit a 24-cell launcher either on the bridge roof (though I admit that may not be as straight forward as it seems), or if a PL-12/SD-10-loaded VLS replaces the FM-90 SAM launcher, then in ‘B' position immediately in front of the VLS, but still on that raised deck (if it can be retained) to give the FL-3000N launcher clearance over the main gun, (pretty much where the FM-90 launcher is at present, though slightly further forward). In either position, it would give good forward hemisphere protection in addition to the larger SAMs, AK-176M, and Type-730B CIWS armament. It would add a useful layer of protection between the PL-12/SD-10 and the Type-730B CIWS, and that for comparatively little increase in weight overall. The effectiveness of the FL-3000N is perhaps reflected in the fact that we increasingly see it fitted to newer PLAN warship designs as well as their refitted carrier. So the Chinese at least seem to think it is a mature and capable enough system, even if it may not be as capable as the latest RIM-116 RAM, (with which it is often compared). At the very least if six of these lightweight missiles could be fitted to each Type-730B CIWS mount it would give an extra layer of protection for very little cost. All things considered I think that's probably the most realistic and likely option. However, overall, as time progresses the chances of a far more capable Chinese-origin SAM system to replace the FM-90 increase, so we will really have to wait until the F-22Ps start being cycled through deep refits. They are going to serve under the Pakistani ensign for a very long time (perhaps 30 years or more), so Pakistan will continue to invest in the design to a considerable degree.

Connected with the need to replace the FM-90 SAMs, and no less obvious, is the possibility of replacing the SUR-17 long range air search radar with a modern 3D equivalent. The SUR-17 is the array that looks like a ‘1950s-style TV aerial' on the second mast between the funnel and hangar. It has a range of 310km, but I think it's fairly obvious that as soon as Pakistan can find a suitable replacement it will be replaced, and indeed it has already been mentioned, (semi-officially at least). I suppose it would have an effect on the possibility of a newer more capable SAM fit as any new radar will no doubt be heavier than what it replaces. So there is that to also consider with regards any increases in overall displacement. We shall see I guess.

Anyway, considering the ASW mission however, could there have been scope to squeeze some more out of the design? The main shipboard ASW sensor is the hull-mounted Atlas ASO-94 hull-mounted sonar (with an active range of 15km and a passive range of 48km). There is no other ASW sensor, and there definitely is no Towed Array Sonar (TAS) because the space where it should otherwise be is an open quarterdeck (which is a nice spot to have a smoke if you are so inclined). This may strike people as a curious omission (considering their obvious importance with other navies), and I did ask about it. The PN has in the past trialled such TAS, but found that the local conditions, (where varying degrees of salinity, thermals, and such make ASW very difficult), reduced the effectiveness of the TAS. I think that may well have been more due to a combination of the TAS that were available at the time, and the TAS that were available to the PN when they carried out these trials. The capabilities of the British Sonar-2087 TAS demonstrates that the abilities of such sensors are improving all the time, and in future there may be scope for Pakistan to either procure a capable enough foreign TAS, or develop one indigenously. Marine Systems Limited developed their ‘Slim-Line TAS', which is optimised for local conditions, primarily for submarine use. I don't doubt however that given time and investment they could develop a highly capable TAS for surface warships that is similarly optimised for local conditions.  We'll have to see, but in the meantime the PN thinks it has a reasonably good ASW capability between the shipboard sonar and the ASW sensors on the Z-9EC. The idea being that between the ship and helicopter, any submarine present in the area can be hunted down by both platforms acting in concert.

This brings me to another point, if the Z-9EC is so important to this, what happens when it needs to refuel and rearm, or change crews? Under such circumstances the ship would temporarily lose its most flexible and powerful ASW sensor/weapon. So why not have designed the ship with a dual hangar for two Z-9ECs? I think visually it would appear there was scope to do that. There is after all a gangway either side of the hangar that gives you access to the flight-deck from the rest of the ship. If these had been deleted and the hangar widened, then there may just have been scope for there to have been space for two ASW helicopters. It would perhaps have been a tight squeeze, but I think it was perfectly possible. There may been consequences for the Type-730B CIWS and associated sensors on the hangar roof, as I think they penetrate that deck to some degree (though I wasn't able to see firsthand just by how much even though I did climb up into the flight control position). I think an enlarged hangar and facilities for two helicopters would definitely have increased the tonnage of the design. It may have pushed right to the limits of the design, or even past them. After all, other frigates that are equipped to embark two helicopters are somewhat heavier. I think a good example of modifying an existing frigate to do so is the Indian Godavari Class frigate, which is ultimately a modification of the British Leander Class. However, even that is heavier by a considerable margin. Either way, it didn't happen. That's not to say that there is no scope for another alternative. Advances in rotary UAVs/UCAVs are progressing at a considerable pace, so there is every reason to think that in the future there may be a rotary ship-board ASW UCAV that could allow warships like the F-22P to increase their ASW footprint and effectiveness.

Some of the above mentioned possible improvements mirror the upgrade programme currently being undertaken for the Royal Australian Navy's ANZAC Class frigates. They have had a new radar, new missiles (the ESSM), and can have a TAS fitted. Though they are larger vessels, I don't see why something similar couldn't be undertaken for the F-22P. Perhaps there is scope for some or all of these improvements mentioned above to be included from the beginning if a second batch of four ‘Improved F-22P' (or F-23P?) frigates was ordered. The programme could therefore be similar to the British Type-22 frigate (which was designed for ASW in a high missile threat environment albeit with the Atlantic in mind), in the sense that each batch was an improvement over the preceding one. I really think this is the project model to follow for the F-22P. So a new ‘Improved F-22P'/‘F-22P Batch 2' could include all of the above, and perhaps incorporate more stealth features in line with some of the latest developments in Chinese ship design, (because quite obviously the Chinese would be involved in such an endeavour as it is beyond Pakistan to do such things on its own at present). We have to take into consideration that the Type-21 frigates will not see out the decade, and though the navy is hoping to acquire another four Oliver Hazard Perry Class frigates from the US (which I shall deal with at another time), the PN needs to grow, and is growing. It needs more ships like the F-22P, and considering the infrastructure has been put in place to build and support such warships the navy should carry on with the project and include design sensor/weaponry improvements as it goes. Some may disagree and say that the Type-054A (or variant thereof) should be acquired. Nominally, I would support such an endeavour. However, we have to remember that to even get the four F-22Ps Pakistan had to ‘go on the scrounge' and get a loan from China. I think therefore that it is more realistic to have a second batch of F-22Ps, to build on experience with the design, and have a high degree of commonality in the frigate force, than acquire the Type-054A. As far as the timescale for any potential modifications go, I think we have to be realistic that the fourth ship in the class, Aslat, will have to commission first, and then an upgrade package developed. At the earliest therefore we could be talking from the middle of the decade for any such physical work to commence, but realistically I'd say we'd be looking at the second half of the decade. Sadly that means the F-22Ps will have to soldier on with a far from ideal SAM fit, but there doesn't to be any other choice at present. However, they are good ships, and Pakistan made the right choice in acquiring them.

I just hope there's no dramatic escalation in tensions between India and Pakistan before they upgraded.