What's new

3 more OHP class Frigates to be delivered to Pakistan between 2014-2016.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is there any public access to these or older 'protocols', that you are aware of? (I don't like unverifiable statements)

If you are an US citizen, then you can consider using the FOIA to get the details; otherwise wait for de-classification to set in.....

Oh, btw; another point. I noticed another discussion about performance of US Sonars that you had someplace with a colleague of ours (on this board) and he said that they under-performed. Understandably; he refrained from providing the details. Let me attest to the veracity of what he said too. The what and how of it is known in Naval Professional circles. But I cannot embarass him by saying more (again for understandable reasons). I can only urge you to accept what he said.
 
If you are an US citizen, then you can consider using the FOIA to get the details; otherwise wait for de-classification to set in.....
In short, you are saying the information is not in the public domain. And yet, you know (so this then begs the question of how come?). Besides, it is a little silly under these circumstances to suggest to me "Just read the associated protocols involved in the transfer of the Alamgir for instance." Wouldn't you agree?

Oh, btw; another point. I noticed another discussion about performance of US Sonars that you had someplace with a colleague of ours (on this board) and he said that they under-performed. Understandably; he refrained from providing the details. Let me attest to the veracity of what he said too. The what and how of it is known in Naval Professional circles. But I cannot embarass him by saying more (again for understandable reasons). I can only urge you to accept what he said.

Again, if true, this sonar fit is in service in all US ship and has been for many years. Likewise the foreign operators I mentioned. I have not heard of or read about complaints like the before (and I've followed naval 'stuff' since, well, about the early 1980's). By using the term 'under perform' you suggest a technical issue with the sonar fit (i.e. a flaw). Let's keep in mind this is a 1970s designed ship, which has been upgraded. I'm sure new built new equipped ships today might fare better. Having said that, I mentioned I could understand that the ship might encounter conditions which are not favourable to sonar performance. But, and that is the key point in the earlier discussion, that can apply to any sonar. Your collegue suggested the problem lie with the sonar fit not being designed for the operating area, which I find on the one hand logical (is it a us fleet asset, which will go anywhere and everywhere, so naturally it is not equipped with a sonar fit especially suited for a specific operating area) but illogical on the other hand (name me a current sonar that is specifically designed for the operating area of the PN). So, on those GENERAL ISSUES (not involving any specific or operational details) I took and take issue.

Provide a plausible explanation (i.e. convince me) and I rest my case.
 
Last edited:
In short, you are saying the information is not in the public domain. And yet, you know (so this then begs the question of how come?). Besides, it is a little silly under these circumstances to suggest to me "Just read the associated protocols involved in the transfer of the Alamgir for instance." Wouldn't you agree?



Again, if true, this sonar fit is in service in all US ship and has been for many years. Likewise the foreign operators I mentioned. I have not heard of or read about complaints like the before (and I've followed naval 'stuff' since, well, about the early 1980's). By using the term 'under perform' you suggest a technical issue with the sonar fit (i.e. a flaw). Let's keep in mind this is a 1970s designed ship, which has been upgraded. I'm sure new built new equipped ships today might fare better. Having said that, I mentioned I could understand that the ship might encounter conditions which are not favourable to sonar performance. But, and that is the key point in the earlier discussion, that can apply to any sonar. Your collegue suggested the problem lie with the sonar fit not being designed for the operating area, which I find on the one hand logical (is it a us fleet asset, which will go anywhere and everywhere, so naturally it is not equipped with a sonar fit especially suited for a specific operating area) but illogical on the other hand (name me a current sonar that is specifically designed for the operating area of the PN). So, on those GENERAL ISSUES (not involving any specific or operational details) I took and take issue.

Provide a plausible explanation (i.e. convince me) and I rest my case.

The first issue concerns State Policy; it stands to reason that at least some part of it may not be in the public domain, is'nt it. And any linear extrapolation will not work. Which is what I was cautioning you about.

The second issue concerns classified information that will be accesible on a "need to know basis" which is why our colleague on this board seems to be aware of this fact. I.E. only professionally connected persons will, while "followers" or "enthusiasts" may not.

Now about this part: "(name me a current sonar that is specifically designed for the operating area of the PN)." That part will be best answered by the PN or our colleague here ideally; if they deign to.
But I'll tell you this: the IN has been designing and making its own sonars for quite some time just as I may be able to tell which Western Origin Sonar seems more suitable for the conditions (but am not permitted to). So you can take it or leave it at that.
 
Admittedly, the SQS-56 was less sophisticated than the 1950s SQS-26 used on e.g. Bronstein, Brooke/Garcia and Knox frigates and on cruisers but OHP was intended to receive targeting info from these vessel.
In preliminary design, the SQQ-23 sonar was selected as the FFG-7 hull-mounted sonar. The US Navy, however, later decided to replace it with the AN/SQS-56 sonar. This decision was based on cost, space, and personnel considerations and the decision to add the capability to handle a second LAMPS helicopter. The AN/SQS-56 is a less costly, less effective system, which initially encountered serious developmental problems. The Navy upgraded the system to overcome its effectiveness and suitability deficiencies.
The primary threat to the FFG-7 and its escorted forces was Soviet submarines armed with both torpedoes and missiles. Overall protection, therefore, depended largely on the effectiveness of the FFG-7 frigate's anti-submarine warfare systems. Since the AN/SQS-56 sonar was a short-range active sonar, the ship depended on the development of towed sonar for longer-range submarine detections. Until the towed sonar was approved for service use, the FFG-7 frigates had to rely on the short-range AN/SQS-56 sonar. The improved AN/SQS-56 sonar underwent tests at sea in 1978. The test results indicated that it was operationally effective against its primary target and thus had been provisionally approved for service use pending determination of its reliability. However, since the system did not meet all of its operational performance criteria, a waiver was issued so production could begin. The Office of the Secretary of Defense reviewed the results of the follow-on test and evaluation in the fall of 1979 to confirm the operational suitability of the AN/SQS-56.
The Navy believed that the FFG-7 with the improved AN/SQS-56 sonar and two LAMPS MK-1 helicopters, operating in conjunction with other ASW forces, was an effective ASW platform. With towed sonar and a LAMPS-MK III, the FFG-7 was considerably more effective in prosecuting submarines at longer ranges.
FFG-7 OLIVER HAZARD PERRY-class Design

However, in PN context, the question is the performance relative to other PN assets

OHP
Raytheon SQS-56 hull mounted sonar (aka DE 1160 for export, or DE 1164 when configured as a Variable-Depth Sonar: also used on e.g. Italian Meastrale class, Meko-200 HN and Meko 200 TN, Spanish Navantia F-100 class, Italy's Garibaldi. National Sonar design developed for MilGem corvette is based on SQS-56. )+ Gould SQR 19(V)2 tactical towed array sonar (also used on USN Spruance, Ticonderoga, Burke classes, JMSDF Hatsuyuki cand Abukuma classes, Canada's Halifax-class)

Type 21
Original British configuration: Kelvin Hughes Type 162M + Graseby Type 184 (both also used on UK Leander class)
PN configuration (2 units at least): BAeSEMA/Thomson Sintra (now Thales) ATAS active towed-array sonar (also used on eg Taiwan's OHPs and LaFayettes, option on Spanish Navantia F-100) + Type 184M (used also on eg IN Viraat)

F22P
Atlas ASO 94 Hull Mounted Sonar System for Surface Ships (also used on e.g. Danmark's Absalon and Huitfeldt classes)

(Note this does not include any dipping sonar equipped shipborn helicopter)

Note: all are European or American systems, none likely specifically designed for the PN operating area...
 
Last edited:
Raytheon sonar selected for ACTUV programme
Huw Williams, London - IHS Jane's International Defence Review
12 March 2013

Raytheon's Modular Scalable Sonar System (MS3) technology has been selected to equip the prototype unmanned surface vessel (USV) under development by SAIC for the US Defense Advanced Project Agency's (DARPA's) ASW Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessel (ACTUV) programme, the company announced on 12 March.

The fifth-generation medium-frequency, hull-mounted sonar system being supplied by Raytheon is a modernised commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) version of the AN/SQS-56/DE 1160 and 1167 series of systems and will be the primary search-and-detection sonar on SAIC's vessel.
Raytheon sonar selected for ACTUV programme - IHS Jane's 360

The Chinese equivalent of DE-1160 HMS portion of DE-1164 is rumored to be ESS-2 HMS, and DE-1163 VDS portion of the DE-1164 is ESS-1 VDS towed sonar, but this is challenged by some sources which claims that ESS-1/2 are the Chinese copies of French DUBV-23/43 respectively.
Type 051 destroyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Both Type 052 Luhu class destroyers, Harbin (112) and Qingdao (113), were fitted with the U.S. designed DE-1164 integrated hull sonar and variable depth sonar (VDS), not the French DUBV-23/43 as reported in Jane’s publications.
It appears that the DE-1164 was sold to the PRC as part of the late 1980s purchase from Italy of A224/S torpedoes and the B515 triple torpedo tubes. Whitehead Alenia was an authorized licensed manufacturer of the Raytheon DE-1160 series sonars for the Italian Navy. One set was installed on
the Type 051 Luda class destroyer Zhuhai (166), launched in 1990, as a trials platform. Two other sets were fitted to Harbin (launched in 1991) and Qingdao (launched in 1993). The SJD-7 integrated sonar has been identified as an indigenous version of the DE-1164 – possibly both hull and VDS
http://www.clashofarms.com/files/PLAN_Towed_Array_and_Acoustic_Decoy.pdf
 
Well certainly the OHP 3 ships would add to prestige of Pakistan Navy
 
PN should ask USN to give another 11 OHPs to PN for free and PN should upgrade it at home and sell the 4 F-22Ps to BDs...
 
PN should ask USN to give another 11 OHPs to PN for free and PN should upgrade it at home and sell the 4 F-22Ps to BDs...

Bro, if you want to make some constructive comments, then please do, but don't discuss buying selling of ships/aircrafts/military equipment like they are re-conditioned cars.

Most of the comments here are from enthusiasts and do not really convey the requirement of the PN.
They have a specific department which deals with this stuff and they do good keeping in view the numerous limitations faced by them.
 
Last edited:
PN should ask USN to give another 11 OHPs to PN for free and PN should upgrade it at home and sell the 4 F-22Ps to BDs...
That would constitute the entire supply remaining in service in the US.... You do realize the US also has to provide some ships to its other allies, including e.g. Taiwan, which has a known requirement for 8 OHPs to replace its ex-US Knox ships? Perhaps Pakistan should turn to Spain and/or Australia which at some point in the not too distant future will retire similar ships. Australia operates 4 modernized ships, Spain is modernizing it Santa Maria's. All of these retain the Mk13 launcher and Australia's ships also got a Mk41 installed.

PS: why sell good ships like F22P?
 
That would constitute the entire supply remaining in service in the US.... You do realize the US also has to provide some ships to its other allies, including e.g. Taiwan, which has a known requirement for 8 OHPs to replace its ex-US Knox ships? Perhaps Pakistan should turn to Spain and/or Australia which at some point in the not too distant future will retire similar ships. Australia operates 4 modernized ships, Spain is modernizing it Santa Maria's. All of these retain the Mk13 launcher and Australia's ships also got a Mk41 installed.

PS: why sell good ships like F22P?

Then better to design ships with Chinese help on our own.
 
@Nishan_101 @Penguin at 2018, TF-2000 will replace OHPs, and TF-100 will replace MEKO-200s. US will also transfer 2 more OHPs to TNF. I mean at future we will have 10 Perrys upgraded with GENESIS Advent which 8 are already upgraded. As Lockheed recognised that program as the official upgrade package with SMART-S Mk.2 and Mk.41 VLS and Pakistan being Turkey's major ally. There's a great possibility that we may transfer them to you after the retirement.

G-class frigate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Brilliant deal.
I wonder why India doesnt acquire such ships from US, if anything to reduce their availability to Pakistan.

You remember the INS Jaleshwa (ex USN LPD) with all the strings attached? Thats most likely the reason.

Apart from that, our own shipyards are producing great results on their own :) Increased production capabilities could be better though ;)
 
@Nishan_101 @Penguin at 2018, TF-2000 will replace OHPs, and TF-100 will replace MEKO-200s. US will also transfer 2 more OHPs to TNF. I mean at future we will have 10 Perrys upgraded with GENESIS Advent which 8 are already upgraded. As Lockheed recognised that program as the official upgrade package with SMART-S Mk.2 and Mk.41 VLS and Pakistan being Turkey's major ally. There's a great possibility that we may transfer them to you after the retirement.

G-class frigate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am not 100% sure. But PN should be looking to take Chinese and other expertise in designing our own Commercial and Military Surface vessels.

Also PN needs to do JV with Chinese on:
7000 Tons SSBNs
3000 Tons SSKs
1600 Tons SSKs-small
700 Tons SSKs-Coastal
160 Tons Special Force Submarines
Rescue Submarines

As submarines are the real force of any Navy and PN should also look towards a much bigger and advance Submerged Fleet. Ameen.:pakistan:
 
@Nishan_101 @Penguin at 2018, TF-2000 will replace OHPs, and TF-100 will replace MEKO-200s. US will also transfer 2 more OHPs to TNF. I mean at future we will have 10 Perrys upgraded with GENESIS Advent which 8 are already upgraded. As Lockheed recognised that program as the official upgrade package with SMART-S Mk.2 and Mk.41 VLS and Pakistan being Turkey's major ally. There's a great possibility that we may transfer them to you after the retirement.

G-class frigate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Agree, some more ships of the OHP variety may come available from Turkey. They again, those are older ships than are currently still sailing with USN....

If Pakistan can produce frigates and submarines at home, then that's the way to go.

PM does NOT need SSBN, SSGN or SSN. There is no need for a range of different sub types: it is better to have one type that can fullfill a number of roles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom