360Views 29Comments
KSEW launches 600-ton patrol boat for Pakistan Maritime Security Agency
On December 05, Karachi Shipyard & Engineering Works (KSEW) conducted the launch ceremony of a 600-ton Hingol-class Maritime Patrol Vessel (MPV) for the Pakistan Maritime Security Agency (PMSA).
According to KSEW, the MPV “is being built with technical collaboration of China Shipbuilding & Trading Co. (CSTC).” The MPV is built with a steel hull and aluminum super structure. It has a length of 68.5 m, a breadth of 8.7 m and top speed of 27 knots. Construction began in May 2016.
As part of an order of two 1,500-ton and four 600-ton MPVs, the ships will be deployed for undertaking “maritime security [and] search and rescue mission in [Pakistan’s] … exclusive economic zone.” KSEW was tasked with manufacturing one of each MPV.
The first ships of the type, PMSS Hingol (1070) and PMSS Basol (1071), were commissioned into the PMSA in December 2016. The PMSA deployed the MPVs to support the Gwadar deep-sea port, the centerpiece of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) initiative.
Notes & Comments:
It appears that the Hingol-class MPV was acquired in lieu of the GRC43M cutter, which Pakistan requested from the U.S. in 2014 under a proposed $350 million purchase for eight ships. The GRC43M has a length of 43 m and displacement of 237.5 tons. This deal did not come to fruition.
In January, KSEW also laid the keel for one of the two 1,500-ton MPVs. In June, photos had emerged of the first of these ships at Huangpu Shipyard in China. With a length of 95 m, the 1,500-ton MPV possesses an aft flight deck suitable for light-to-medium utility helicopters. The 1,500-ton MPV may serve as a task-force command ships of sorts for the Hingol-class MPV and other smaller vessels.
In the Pakistan Navy’s capability set, the PMSA’s MPVs provide baseline maritime policing and security. In scenarios with escalated seaborne threats, such as piracy necessitating VBSS (i.e. visit, board, search and seizure) or asymmetrical security threats at deep-sea, the Navy is procuring 1,500 to 2,000-ton offshore patrol vessels (OPV) and corvettes from Damen Shipyards and Swiftships, respectively. Further, the Navy is poised to procure new-built frigates, corvettes and submarines for conventional operations.
The Hangor (II) air-independent propulsion (AIP) submarine program is envisaged to restore and expand the Navy’s submarine fleet with eight new ships. However, besides being AIP-equipped, neither the Navy or the China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation (CSIC) provided specific details into the model or design. CSIC recently revealed three new single-hull designs, joining its Type 039-based double-hull S20 and S26. However, KSEW will manufacture and deliver four of the Hangor (II)-class submarines by 2028.
29 Comments
by sami shahid
It’s good that we bought these MPV’s from China as they are brand new and we would even get the technology. US would agree to sell us weapons only if we start buying from Russia.
by sam
it was 80s. and 90s when pakistan (karachi shipyard) was selling vessels to iran, today iran build frigates, but pakistan still has to get help from outside for ordinary patrol boat.
i feel sorry for pakistanis, who are blindly electing incompetent and corrupt leaders, and then stand behind the opportunist army generals to remove those leaders.
everyone is milking the country. unfortunately no one is learning
either dependance on US, or China, but no one really cares to innovate
by bill
I wonder how much technology shall come with these MPVs as Pakistan already manufacturing Azmat class FACS. Real capability shall come when we are able to design and manufacture required grade steel and other raw materials ourselves along with major portion of other gadgets like Guns/CIWS, not just import materials, radars and avionics from China and assemble it as per even design given by foreign companies. Even with Agosta 90B project we were supposed to manufacture submarines our selves.
by Faisal Jawaid
we are so jubilant on assembling a foreign design as per vendor specifications. All hardware imported from the vendor country. Announcing these launch to pacify public and give them false illusion of self reliance.
by TZK
The Ayub era was a unique one off geopolitical situation at the height of the cold war, never to be repeated again and now ‘we are were we are’ as they say. Don’t forget that Pak has invested heavily in nuclear weapons which have afforded protection from a belligerent neighbour. Z A Bhutto famously said that ‘we will eat grass to build the bomb’. Luckily grass was not on the menu but sacrifices were made in conventional weapons and by people.
http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/well-eat-grass-but-build-the-bomb
by PewPew
It’s worth noting that the Ayub era was the very era where some critical problems formed in the first place, most notably ZAB. ZAB orchestrated the bizarre nationalization scheme of privately owned industrial units and ‘made’ (so to speak) Zia, who in turn ‘made’ other problems and so on.
Unlike later Pakistani governments, Ayub was also given a lot by the U.S. in the way of aid, legitimacy and access to enable Pakistan to develop. To be fair in a sense, this was also given to ROK, West Germany and others, but for Pakistan, it had been aggressively cut down from the 1970s. The aid of the 1980s wasn’t as holistic as the late 1950s and early 1960s.
Ultimately, the Pakistani public and, to a great extent, well-to-do Pakistanis working for the state in various capacities (incl. armed forces) need to call-out corruption, negligence and other shady activity, regardless of where it comes from. It’s an exceptional period, one where so-called order and stability doesn’t really exist, but is being used an excuse by the highest-ups to stifle accountability from the lower ranks.
by Headstrong
‘To be fair in a sense, this was also given to ROK, West Germany and others, but for Pakistan, it had been aggressively cut down from the 1970s’
Wasn’t that because Pakistan kept promising to help the US in Vietnam, but didn’t send one man, in contravention of the terms of SEATO and CENTO?
by TZK
I suspect more disinformation that is being spewed out on the internet against Pak and Muslims in general. In relation to the Vietnam war major allies of USA including UK and NATO nations kept out of the war.
by sami shahid
BTW I was just saying. Anyway, we will definitely get the technology of manufacturing sub marines & a mini nature sub marine is already under construction.
by sami shahid
Dude don’t be so negative. We will be getting technology of manufacturing sub marines. A mini nature sab marine is already under construction. Increase your knowledge & B-Positive.
by PewPew
ZAB was anti-U.S. (note: that doesn’t mean “pro-Pakistani” either). Through the 1970s he had thrown himself and Pakistan on the side of OPEC oil embargo and helped KSA indulge in a brouhaha about poking the US by co-founding OIC.
Whether he was an actual threat or severe irritation is another matter, but the U.S. was quite happy about him getting hanged in the end. After that it was apparent that ZAB’s roots were quite deep, with the PPP re-emerging strongly as soon as Zia died. The US couldn’t see Pakistan as an all-weather ally (Ayub-era) in as much as an asset to utilize for specific foreign policy objectives (Zia-era onwards).
by TZK
ZAB appeared to be centre left in his politics and this not only alienated USA but the Pakistani establishment. It was an untenable position to take during the cold war especially for a nation signed up against communism. A year after Zia took over the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Interesting to see what ZAB would have done had he remained in power.
by Hammad Hassan
US for your info has not been such a bestie for Pakistan..always imposing arms embargo when we needed them and always saying that Pakistan is our friend and this and that but always compromosing our interests….and always helping india…if it were up to me I would suspend all the help that we are hiving them in afg so that they learn their place!!!
by Headstrong
Disinformation? This is information – all over the net, including on sites managed by you people.
Pakistan joined up in the hope that the alliance would come to its aid in case of any conflict with India. It seemed to deliberately ignore the fact that these were anti-Communist treaties and did not bind anyone, much less the US, to come to its aid in a self-initiated conflict with India.
The Vietnam War was very much an anti-Communist war. Pakistan, by not assisting the US, went back on its signed word. Yes, so did other signatories – but surely the US was under no obligation to pander to those who wilfully misled them?
by Headstrong
From what I read, including from Pakistani websites and blogs, the US felt betrayed. Not only did Pakistan not abide by its written word to assist the US in anti-Communism, it also encouraged anti-US feeling within Pakistan when the US didn’t ‘aid’ Pakistan in the ’65 conflict with India,when clearly it wasn’t obliged to do so, especially since it was Pakistan which initiated the war in the first place.
Much like the present time, the US felt that it was being used by Pakistan to bolster its anti-India capabilities. Hence the decision then, as now, to go slow on arms sales/ gifts
by Headstrong
I guess Pakistan is grateful that its not up to you 😉
by Hammad Hassan
We will see about that!!! And people like mr headstrong never give up saying ” yes your majesty”!!!
by TZK
Early 50’s USA had just fought the Korean war and embarked on a global crusade to check communism. Pakistan was one of the beneficiaries of that drive and Ayub was a popular figure that they could do business with. U2 incident in 1960 resulted in Russia threatened to bomb CIA bases in Pak. USA’s wanted to keep Pak in the capitalist camp and prevent India from taking it over. To this end they provided aid and made sure those in charge were pro-USA. Ayub later on in his Presidency referring to USA said ‘we need friends not masters’. This statement now seems very naïve but it shows how the Pak side felt. ZAB was Ayub’s FM and When Russia invaded Afghanistan another military man was conveniently in place to see through that.
by TZK
You are saying that a nation joins a treaty whose aims it does not understand. FYI CENTO was the Bagdad pact and USA was not and has never been a member . SEATO formed immediately (1954) after the Korean war to prevent spread of Communism and a year later Vietnam war commenced. Pak had only been independent for 7 years and apart from men could not contribute anything else, in any case man power was in SV’s favour 1.5M against 1.1M. I have to hand it to you for bleating on about a topic even when you have no argument. If it was about repeating the same thing over and over again you win hand down! It seams to be national trait.
by Headstrong
I’m saying that Pakistan knew exactly what it wanted from this treaty. It wanted arms and aid, but didn’t want to contribute its obligations. And then began a national vilification programme against the US because it didn’t come to Pakistan’s aid in ’65, which continues to this day.
‘Unlike India during the Sino-Indian war Pak has never requested direct USA intervention except perhaps the supply of arms to fights its wars’
Factually incorrect. On both counts. And you know it.
‘I have to hand it to you for bleating on about a topic even when you have no argument’
Sugar-coating bitter pills may work within closed societies, but that’s not how the modern world works. As they say, Google is your friend. You can find Pakistani sites on the issue.
http://historypak.com/pakistan-and-the-south-east-asia-treaty-organization/
‘To us rules are made to be broken, standards set to be compromised and results made to be manipulated. We need to get this mindset out of our lives and set foreign policy keeping in front the larger interest of the state further more respecting the sovereignty of the other states. If we had a troubled foreign policy, there is no shame in having a new go for the foreign policy and setting new principles and standards that would serve Pakistan and its masses’
by TZK
‘Sugar-coating bitter pills may work within closed societies, but that’s not how the modern world works.’ So you think the reference and quote you provided is from a closed society? If any thing it is overly critical of Pak with the benefit of hindsight. Effectively, Pak had no foreign policy as it was decided in Washington and it is this that Pakistanis objected to at the time and still do rather than anything else. An interesting fact from the Sino-Chinese war conveniently forgotten by India was that Pak provided India with assurances so they could relocate forces to the east. It just goes to show how scared the Pak establishment was of Communism at the time. It felt threatened by both India and communism and decided that Communism was the bigger threat.
by Headstrong
‘Pak had no foreign policy as it was decided in Washington and it is this that Pakistanis objected to at the time and still do rather than anything else’
Imo, that is a bizarre claim. Pakistan’s foreign policy is not decided in Islamabad, that much is true (it’s decided in Rawalpindi – the major facets, anyway). But to claim that Washington prevents you people from executing the foreign policy you wish to follow is plain scapegoating.
And can you back up your claim about Pakistani ‘assurances’ to India and that it felt more threatened by Communism (China?) than India? From what I’ve read, Pakistan gave even more ‘assurances’ to China after signing on to SEATO and CENTO, which as we’ve seen before were anti-communism pacts. Pakistan continued its parleys with China in the immediate aftermath of signing the treaty, and the US looked the other way as it believed that the real evil resided in Moscow. You’ll recall the Frontier Agreement in 1960, in which Pakistan gave away Shaksgam Valley (part of disputed Kashmir) to China.
On the contrary, India’s sorry performance in ’62 encouraged Ayub Khan to attempt to force the issue of Kashmir in ’65. He also expected some sort of support from both the US and China. Therefore, to claim that Pakistan felt more threatened by Communism than India is imo false.
The SEATO fiasco can only be explained by what can be diplomatically termed ‘realpolitik’, although less complimentary terms are more accurate. Pakistan signed on to these agreements not because it felt obliged to ideologically, but because it felt it could milk the US and the West for arms and freebies.
by TZK
Time magazine at the time but you have to subscribe to view it. Quote
‘In 1962, President of Pakistan Ayub Khan made clear to India that Indian troops could safely be transferred from the Pakistan frontier to the Himalayas.’
Before the Sino-Indian war Pak had offered India the chance to form an alliance against northern states meaning communist states. Nehru rejected the offer. Pak than in 1962 resolved its border dispute with China peacefully. Following the war in 1962 Pak improved its relations with China as it was concerned about western military aid to India but Nehru was angry especially with USA for not intervening. USA was facing the Cuban missile crisis during that period and the Sino- Indian war had been off their radar. Nehru instead approached Russia for aid. USA ( fresh from Cuban Missile crisis) then reengaged with Pak fearing that the Soviets were a bigger threat than China. Now they fear China and Pak is unpopular.
by Headstrong
I don’t have a subscription to Time magazine,but I’ll take your word for it on the quote. However, Pakistan and China had already established close ties by 1962. In 1956, Pakistani Prime Minister Suhrawardy and Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai signed the Treaty of Friendship Between China and Pakistan, marking closer bilateral ties. Mind you, this was just two years after the formation of SEATO, of which Pakistan was a member. It was evident that Pakistan didn’t particularly regard China as a threat, and while the relations may not have been as ‘iron brother-ish’ as they are now, Nehru would have been wary of Pakistan’s intentions.
That Pakistan was eyeing Jammu and Kashmir was hardly a secret. Pakistan was already emboldened by its membership of SEATO and CENTO, which, as noted above, were primarily aimed at countering India and not communism.
If Nehru had indeed taken up Ayub Khan at his word, Operation Gibralter would certainly have happened a lot sooner.
by TZK
It was more ideology than you give them credit, for instance during that period they banned prominent left leaning overseas Pakistanis from travelling to Pak and how many were imprisoned internally is not known although there was no McCarthyite which hunt as in USA. In relation to Operation Gibralter in 1965, it was partly influenced by the Sino-Indian war but partly as a result of the diminishing threat of Communism from Pak’s perspective which bears out the fact that Pak regarded Communism a bigger threat than India. In any case it was the wrong time to fight a war with India as India had learned its lesson from the 62 war and strengthened its military by then.
by Headstrong
Just because there was no perceived threat from China, doesn’t mean you wanted them at home. Pakistan was/is a religiously motivated society. Communism could never be allowed to take root. But, hey. business is business, right?
by TZK
Socialism yes but soviet style communism probably not although anything would be possible in a dictatorship supported by a super power say USSR. Unlike former USSR, China does not want to export its political views only its products.
by Headstrong
May I request you to refrain from editing your comments after I have replied? The last para has been tagged on after I replied.
‘USA never wanted Pak to contribute anything in the Vietnam war, even if they had it would have been a token gesture’
Not true. Bhutto has written extensively in his book (Myth of Independence) on this –
“To counter its increasing isolation, the United States seeks the participation of other countries on its side in the war. That is why so much pressure is being brought to bear on Pakistan to make some token contribution to the United States’ war effort, but under no circumstances, no matter how heavy the pressure, should we weaken in our resolve to have no part in that war or desist from condemning its continuance”
This from a supposed co-signatory of SEATO specifically formed to fight Communism.
The US did what it had to in its interests. Pakistan did what it had to in its interests. That involved going back on its written word. Even more damning, it invoked these same agreements to vilify the US for not coming to its aid in ’65. This false vilification and inability to stick to its word is what I am attributing the loss of US support, as charged by PewPew in his original comment above.
by Headstrong
Exactly why I said that Pakistan did not feel threatened by China