Oliver Hazard Class Frigate Acquisition by Pakistan

[Keysersoze]

I think he is confusing the Frigates with the Spruance deal which was touted for a while where the ship would have been in the stripped down state

 

[Penguin]

I think he is confusing the Frigates with the Spruance deal which was touted for a while where the ship would have been in the stripped down state

US has never delivered a ship in stripped down state.

 

[Keysersoze]

US has never delivered a ship in stripped down state.

I believe the spruance would have been. However since the deal never happened we shall never know.....

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

Its a waste of money . We should go for turkish naval ships like F-511 TCG Heybeliada or the TF-2000 AAW FFG instead oof rustly old ships who hardly have any life left.

 

[Penguin]

I believe the spruance would have been. However since the deal never happened we shall never know.....

USS Fletcher DD 992
Decommissioned October 1 2004 at San Diego, CA
Sunk as a target on July 16 2008 off Kauai, Hawaii

August 29, 2005 pics
http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0599230.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0599231.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0599232.jpg
from Destroyer Photo Index DD-992 USS FLETCHER

July 29, 2006 pic
http://navysite.de/dd/dd-images/dd985-ph.jpg
from USS Fletcher (DD 992)

Look pretty intact to me. Phalanx placed in storage, which is normal procedure. Exactly what items were supposedly stripped? (clearly, before SINKEX some items get removed, but preparation for SINKEX is not the same as preparation for disposal to foreign navy)

 

[Penguin]

Its a waste of money . We should go for turkish naval ships like F-511 TCG Heybeliada or the TF-2000 AAW FFG instead oof rustly old ships who hardly have any life left.

If OHPs are so lousy, with little service life left, then why are both Australian navy and Turkish navy modernizing these ships for continued use in the future? In fact, the Turkish navy is using even older ex-US ships (Knox class frigates) in addition to the Perry's, as are the navies of Egypt and Taiwan (and Spain, if you consider the Balaeres class Knox derivatives andSanta Maria class Perry version) . Other Knox users are Greece, Thailand and Mexico

The thing is that PN has limited budget. So, given defence needs, what's a waste of money?

The MILGEM program comprises up to 12 vessels, with the first 8 to be completed by 2008 at a cost of $1.6 billion. That's $200 million per ship, maybe $175 million if you seperate out development costs.

The F22P base-price is US$120 million, not including weapon systems, helicopters and the corresponding radar and sensor systems to be fitted on board. It comes out to about $175 million with those systems included. Maybe a little more if there are sensor changes.

A new FREMM has a unit cost of $500mn per ship. A new MEKO D has a unit cost of $350-$400mn per ship. The brits sold 3 used Type 23 to Chili for $325mn total ($108mn per ship)

The OHPs would come at about $65mn apiece... i.e. you can get 2-3 for the price of a single F22P and 3-4 for the price of a single Milgem... moreover, you can get then "now!" ... go figure!

 

[Arsalan]

is this this the one w will be having!

the issue is:
ships to be given to pakistan are deprived of all these systems!!

after having a pic of the ship how come we say that this is the one to be given to Pakistan!!

sp if you are SURE about that this ship is going to be given to us with all the equipment visible, good enough!!

 

[Keysersoze]

is this this the one w will be having!

the issue is:
ships to be given to pakistan are deprived of all these systems!!

after having a pic of the ship how come we say that this is the one to be given to Pakistan!!

sp if you are SURE about that this ship is going to be given to us with all the equipment visible, good enough!!

Ok first things first. take your time to write your posts as they seem to be a jumble.

Secondly it doesn't matter if they are stripped or not, As the cost of fitting systems is always going to a lot less than buying new ships. This money saved can be put toward other projects. Or used to UPGRADE onboard systems.

 

[Penguin]

is this this the one w will be having!

the issue is:
ships to be given to pakistan are deprived of all these systems!!

after having a pic of the ship how come we say that this is the one to be given to Pakistan!!

sp if you are SURE about that this ship is going to be given to us with all the equipment visible, good enough!!

Yes, that's the very one FFG-8 McInerney.

On what do you base the statement "ships to be given to pakistan are deprived of all these systems!! " > what is the source for that?

I see no (0 zero zip nada) reason why any OHP frigate to Pakistan would be stripped. All previous exports of used OHP frigates have not ever been stripped versions (i.e. to Bahrain , Turkey, Egypt, Poland). The only issue is that all active USN ships no longer have a Mk13 Launcher arm and no STIR (removed 2003-2004 as economy measure). So, unlike any OHP delivered before that, any ship coming from the active pool will not have a functional launcher for SM1 and Harpoon. But it is not taken specifically because of delivery to Pakistan. Also, it is easily remedied.

 

[Arsalan]

I think he is confusing the Frigates with the Spruance deal which was touted for a while where the ship would have been in the stripped down state

actually not sir!
well i am not in a hurry and do not want just to argue with penguin for nothing! all i want is to get clear and help others do so! i hope you will understand!

well sir keysersoze i am not a navy officer so that i can sya that may info is the most reliale one, all this is being said on all other threads regarding this deal! the ships are deprived of most of the electronic systems and weapons if not all!

anyways penguin to end all this let us have a look at other threads about this topic and see what other members think of it!

the OHP are meant to be a replacement for our F21 fleet for SHORT TERM of 10 to 12 years after which they will be retired! can we afford such spendings??

 

[Arsalan]

Washington, Oct 19 : President George W Bush has approved provision of a US anti-submarine frigate to Pakistan, which will be refurbished with latest systems and delivered in August 2010.

Pakistani Embassy in Washington has been informed that the US President signed a bill on Friday, authorizing provision of Frigate FFG-8 McInerney anti-submarine (type Oliver Hazard Perry) from the American fleet. The US Congress has already endorsed the decision.

Pakistan’s Ambassador to the US Husain Haqqani lobbied hectically over the last few weeks and worked closely with the US departments of State and Defense as well as senior officials at the White House to secure support for Pakistan’s request, which received a positive response inside a month.

In his several interactions, Haqqani made a strong case for Pakistan, arguing that the US should help improve its ally’s maritime security capabilities.

This ship will enhance Pakistan’s ability to monitor territorial waters, an embassy official said.

Pakistan plays a key role as member of the Combined Task Force 150 of anti-terrorism allies, which conducts maritime security operations in the Gulf of Aden, Gulf of Oman, Arabian Sea, Red Sea and Indian Ocean. Pakistan has twice commanded the force.

The frigate will be refurbished with anti-submarine missile and other latest systems at a cost of 65 million dollar, The News reported. (ANI

US to give anti-submarine frigate to Pakistan | Top News

 

[Arsalan]

why spend millions to buy something to rest with us only for 10 to 15 years!!

well my argument point is actually based on this fact!

look we do not have a large coastline that we need a large number of ships to defend it! what we need here is quality not quantity (only)! we will be having chines frigates by some years, isnt it wiser to add two or three more advanced chines type 054 or something from turkey rather than buying OHP and then looking for replacement in 10 years time!

this is my point of view and if you dont agree, good for you!

regards!

 

[Penguin]

anyways penguin to end all this let us have a look at other threads about this topic and see what other members think of it!

the OHP are meant to be a replacement for our F21 fleet for SHORT TERM of 10 to 12 years after which they will be retired! can we afford such spendings??

No, lets you provide evidence in support of the claim that the McInerney is deprived of most of the electronic systems and weapons.

F22P and Milgem probably come out at a similar unit cost of $150-175 million, with F22P having the advantage over Milgem of being available much quicker via Chinese yards. Domestic building of F22P will take longer and it probably is wise to begin with home-building a relatively simple ship such as F22P before moving on to a more modern design like Milgem. Let alone a larger and even more complex ship such as the Type 54A (the production of which China will prefer to reserve for PLAN modernization). You can bet that a Type 054A, at 4500 ton and with a more modern weapons and sensor fit, costs about twice what a F22P costs.

Now, if you spend say 300-400 million on a (new) ship, you want it to last you at least 30-40 years. However, if you spend just 65 million on a (used) ship, it is ok if it lasts less long, say 10-12 years. That plus the fact that new build ships are not available on as short a notice as used OHPs might be (and that's important considering we are talking short/intermediate term, and PN is in need of replacement platforms) makes it not a bad investment.

The PNs Type 21 frigates entered service with RN in the period 1974-1978. The first Uk Amazon Type 21 frigate was turned over to the Pakistan Navy in 1993 the last in early 1995. These are expected to retire between 2010 and 2020. So, they wereabout 20 years old when acquired by PN and by final retirement will have served PN 15-20 years.

McInerney entered US service in 1979. She is the oldest of OHPs still serving in the USN. She is 5 years younger than the oldest Type 21 and 1 year younger than the newest Type 21. Considering US warship standards of built being stricter than those of UK (e.g. using steel rather than aluminium superstructures), she probably is in better shape structurally than the newest Type 21 and will have more servicelife left. The next oldest OHP ships are all 3-5 younger, so I see no reason why they could no easily last for another 15 years. Indeed, this is why AUstralia and Turkey are modernizing their OHPs.

OHPs do not employ any anti-submarine missiles (ASROC). THey have ASW torpedoes, just like Type 21 and F22P and most frigates around the world.

The U.S. Navy plans to update its Oliver Hazard Perry-class warships' Phalanx CIWS to the "Block 1B" capability, which will allow the Mk 15 20 mm. Phalanx gun to shoot at fast-moving surface craft and helicopters. The remaining Oliver Hazard Perry-class ships are also to be fitted with the Mk 53 DLS "Nulka" missile decoy system, which will be better than the presently-equipped chaff (SRBOC, Super Rapid Blooming Offboard Chaff) and flares at guarding against anti-ship missiles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_21_frigate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_Navy#Frigates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Hazard_Perry_class_frigate
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/navy.htm

 

[Arsalan]

bro this is what we all know!! dont be over reactive, you take all the post as an offense to your claims!

in the above post, at a point you mentioned F22p comming at some 150 to 175 million dollars and at the next what is the point in saying that a new ship comes in 400 million dollars?? service life of new ship is 30-40 years old!! we have been using the type 21 for decades now and they came to us when old enough! the type 22P is coming with ToT which means we will be able to keep it operational for much longer period by proper maintainance and upgradation!

you are asking about the link again n again, sorry but i do not have one at the time in my list but the fact is that we havr gone through this disscussion again n again! i told you to visit some sister threads!

as for the source i wil provide you with it soon, in the mean while why dont you help out the members by providing link to what you have said!
brother Pics do not serve as source, provide us with some article claiming what you have said and i wont have any regrets in admitting whatever you have claimed, i am here to get information not for baseless arguments!

sorry if you find my words harsh bro but unfortunately the disscussion with you have been frustrating rather being informative

i will wait for your article

best wishes!

 

[Penguin]

in the above post, at a point you mentioned F22p comming at some 150 to 175 million dollars and at the next what is the point in saying that a new ship comes in 400 million dollars??

Yep, because a ship like the Type 054A will be more expensive than a ship like the F22P. It has twice the displacement and more advanced propulsion, sensor- and weapon systems systems. What problem is there with that statement?

service life of new ship is 30-40 years old!!

Yes, that's what I said, expected servicelife of a new ship is 30 years. Why are you repeating this as if it is somehow new info and contrary to my position?

Ships in the USN fleet were originally intended to have an economical, useful life as follows:
Attack Submarines - 30 years
Carriers - 45 years
Combatants - 28 years (provided they have a significant upgrade at 12 to 17 years of age)
Amphibious ships - 20 to 30 years.
LHA class was built for a 20-year life.
Logistic ships - 25 years.
If operation and maintenance dollars are no object, it is possible to conduct major overhauls and system upgrades on these ship classes to keep them operating past their intended service life.

Source American Shipbuilding Association - ASA Analysis of Navy's 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan - July 2000 See also http://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS20535.pdf
28 years is an age at which US ships typical get turned over at low cost to foreign navies e.g. Turkey, Poland, Greece, Brazil, Thailand, Mexico etc. These navies get capable ships for relatively litte initial cost, though they pay a bit more in operation and maintenance compared to new built ships (which are significantly more expensive to purchase and often not affordable to those navies at a similar level of capability). That's the trade off.

we have been using the type 21 for decades now and they came to us when old enough!

Again, why are you repeating what I said earlier as if it were a new point of your own? As indicated, these ship came to PN in 1994-1995, which is 15 years ago today (decades???), after 20 years of service in RN. So, they are now around 35 years old and expected to serve up to 5 more years. The FFG7s are at least 5 years younger and of better built.

the type 22P is coming with ToT which means we will be able to keep it operational for much longer period by proper maintainance and upgradation!

See earlier comment about US ships: "If operation and maintenance dollars are no object, it is possible to conduct major overhauls and system upgrades on these ship classes to keep them operating past their intended service life." In this respect, the F22P, Milgem or any other ship are no different from the Type 21 or the FFG7. ToT is primarily of importance for developing domestic shipbuilding capability: whether at home or abroad, PN can always get its vessels maintained and upgraded.

you are asking about the link again n again, sorry but i do not have one at the time in my list but the fact is that we havr gone through this disscussion again n again! i told you to visit some sister threads!

If you make a claim that FFG-8 McInerney is stripped, you should be prepared to back that claim up. Just as I've back up my claim that she isn't stripped.

as for the source i wil provide you with it soon, in the mean while why dont you help out the members by providing link to what you have said!

In contrast to yourself, I've provided plenty of links to source material.

brother Pics do not serve as source, provide us with some article claiming what you have said and i wont have any regrets in admitting whatever you have claimed, i am here to get information not for baseless arguments!

In contrast to yourself, I've provided plenty of links to source material, both pictoral and textual. You seriously wish to discount picture material of FFG-8 McInerney from an official US Military website from december 2008. Are you claiming those images to be false somehow? Regardless of pics, can you explain to me and other forum readers why the USN would strip an active duty ship? That would be a little strange, wouldn't it?

sorry if you find my words harsh bro but unfortunately the disscussion with you have been frustrating rather being informative

i will wait for your article

best wishes!

You gotten all the material you need from me. If you wish to continue to stick your head in the sand, be my guest.

Goodbye.