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



## Kompromat

Thats 1 ship per year, Pakistan would have to pay for upgrade costs. In total Pakistan would have 4 OHP guided missile frigates.


*Sources | *

S.1683 - 113th Congress (2013-2014): A bill to provide for the transfer of naval vessels to certain foreign recipients, and for other purposes. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

http://www.ausn.org/Portals/0/pdfs/advocacy/Letter of Support for Sen Menendez Bill S 1683.pdf


___________________________________________________


@Penguin @cabatli_53 @Neptune | Would like to have your opinions.

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## jhungary

Is it the same deal as before? 65 mil each for upgrade??

If so, then Pakistan Navy is in for a big bargin

OHP Class upclose

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Kompromat

Pakistan has upgraded PNS Alamgir with Genesis system from Turkey. If these ships are upgraded the same way, i am sure they along with 8X F-22s will be good a deterrence.
















@jhungary

Its the same deal, i guess 5 were to be delivered originally.

1st PNS Alamgir - FFG8 is going to have Genesis upgrade in Turkey, when these ships are upgraded through the same system, they will be fully networked. We will also have 4 more upgraded F-22P frigates built in Pakistan. We are also trying to get 2 Type-54A frigates on lease from China. 8 F-22s with 4 OHPs, networked with P-3C orion, JF-17 Block-II and ZDK-03 AWACs, along with 5X AIP D.E subs look like a comfy little fighting navy, it will help our maritime security needs a lot.

I hope if this turns out okay, we would wait till we have some funds to buy U-214s in the future.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Read the fine print !!! 

On condition of releasing Traitor Doctor Afridi

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jhungary

Aeronaut said:


> Pakistan has upgraded PNS Alamgir with Genesis system from Turkey. If these ships are upgraded the same way, i am sure they along with 8X F-22s will be good a deterrence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @jhungary
> 
> Its the same deal, i guess 5 were to be delivered originally.
> 
> 1st PNS Alamgir - FFG8 is going to have Genesis upgrade in Turkey, when these ships are upgraded through the same system, they will be fully networked. We will also have 4 more upgraded F-22P frigates built in Pakistan. We are also trying to get 2 Type-54A frigates on lease from China. 8 F-22s with 4 OHPs, networked with P-3C orion, JF-17 Block-II and ZDK-03 AWACs, along with 5X AIP D.E subs look like a comfy little fighting navy, it will help our maritime security needs a lot.
> 
> I hope if this turns out okay, we would wait till we have some funds to buy U-214s in the future.


 

OHP is a very competent platform inspite of the age (35 years old)

However, i think it would be wise for Pakistan to build more upgraded F-22P and use them as the backbone of PN, but then there would be a problem of F-22P and their light armament, while it's either competent to do Anti-Air and Anti-Ship attack, it's not enough to do both. PN would probably wise to acquire more OHP for supplymentry service and take the load off of the F-22P, i reckon PN should look at acquiring more OHP (either from US or other Allied like Spain or Australia), while the OHP focus on Aerial Target, F-22P focus on Sea/Ground target. PN should also consider putting Mk41 VLS on their OHP frigate.

In theory, it's best for PN to have at least 12 F-22P and 8 OHP in service. Eventually PN would require to have air defence destroyer if they want to competently hold the naval region they Own.

Depend on what is PN intentional target, if PN goal is to counter India in this aim, the best PN can do is to hold India as long as you can in case of war, and awaiting the Chinese Fleet intervention. I think ultimately, PN would need about 12 Subs (Nuclear/Diesel) 30 Frigate (20 F-22P combine with other Frigate, OHP or homemade) and 10 Destroyer (Possible Type 52C/D or later) to be able to competently defend Pakistani Coast

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Roybot

> Authorizes the President to transfer on a grant basis to Pakistan in each of FY2014-FY2016 one of the OLIVER HAZARD PERRY class guided missile frigates USS KLAKRING, USS DE WERT, and USS ROBERT G. BRADLEY 15 days after certifying to Congress that Pakistan is: (1) cooperating with the United States in counterterrorism and nonproliferation efforts, (2) *not supporting terrorist activities against the United States in Afghanistan or elsewhere, (3) taking steps towards releasing Dr. Shakil Afridi, *(4) taking steps to dismantle improvised explosive device (IED) networks, (5) providing humanitarian groups with access to detainees and other Pakistani civilians, and (6) *ensuring that Pakistan's military and intelligence agencies are not intervening into Pakistan's political and judicial processes.*



I wonder how that will go down with the Pakistani public. Good luck getting all that certified in the Congress.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## fatman17

it was a matter of allocation and timing. if PK had cooperated as US would like, these OHP's would already have been transferred. if now the GoP 'fcuks around' with NATO supply lines, you will never see this ships in PN livery.

'PK' military mindset should remember - 'you cannot have the cake and eat it too' - the US has decided that its needs PK however difficult it is for them to swallow - we need to tone down our 'jingoism'

having said that 3 FFG for say 240m is not a bad deal.



Aeronaut said:


> Pakistan has upgraded PNS Alamgir with Genesis system from Turkey. If these ships are upgraded the same way, i am sure they along with 8X F-22s will be good a deterrence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @jhungary
> 
> Its the same deal, i guess 5 were to be delivered originally.
> 
> 1st PNS Alamgir - FFG8 is going to have Genesis upgrade in Turkey, when these ships are upgraded through the same system, they will be fully networked. We will also have 4 more upgraded F-22P frigates built in Pakistan. We are also trying to get 2 Type-54A frigates on lease from China. 8 F-22s with 4 OHPs, networked with P-3C orion, JF-17 Block-II and ZDK-03 AWACs, along with 5X AIP D.E subs look like a comfy little fighting navy, it will help our maritime security needs a lot.
> 
> I hope if this turns out okay, we would wait till we have some funds to buy U-214s in the future.


 
8 F-22P's.....?



Roybot said:


> I wonder how that will go down with the Pakistani public. Good luck getting all that certified in the Congress.


 
Dr. S/Afridi will be quietly released....things are already moving in that direction. OBL is dead....its over!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Its a matter of principle , the man was an agent working against the state god knows what else he was up to may be took blood samples from Kiyani and Americans are not making a clone Kiyani (our ex army cheif)

The * fine prints is very difficult to satisfy

a) Release a traitor, can you imagine tomorrow a nurse is hired in hospital to assassinate a political leader

b) Help with supply routes what are chances of that happening ?
c) Keep the war going internally in Pakistan

For mere $240 Million dollar frigates

If we have a prisoner exchange treaty then yes no harm


----------



## Roybot

fatman17 said:


> Dr. S/Afridi will be quietly released....things are already moving in that direction. OBL is dead....its over!!!



Interesting, and what about the other conditions? They might even want Pakistan to oust/dismantle Haqqani network. Would that be something Pakistan would be willing to do? The conditions are so generic that America may want a lot out of Pakistan in return for this frigates.

Are these frigates worth it?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## farhan_9909

Each OHP will cost 65million dollars and than each genesis upgrade will cost atleast 70-80million dollars 
eventually the overall cost per OHP would be more like 150millions.while a brand new F-22P cost 175million dollars.

More important with this much money KSEW itself can start a indigenous frigate program with the designing team either from GIDS/MSL or NESCOM.even if they developed a 2000tons frigata but indigenous with ofcourse subsystems like engine,radar,SAM and related imported this would be a big boost to Pak shipbuilding capabilities

Anyway considering the large size of OHP?can we integrate Burraq cruise missile LACM variant on the ship?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## acetophenol

You guys are going to surrender your "national interests'' for a couple of 35 years ships?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Capt.Popeye

Roybot said:


> Interesting, and what about the other conditions? They might even want Pakistan to oust/dismantle Haqqani network. Would that be something Pakistan would be willing to do? The conditions are so generic that America may want a lot out of Pakistan in return for this frigates.
> 
> Are these frigates worth it?


 

Those Frigates might be even worth it. 

There are no other _"cut-price Frigates"_ on offer from anybody else.
While the Tariq Class Frigates (Amazons) of the PN are thoroughly knackered.
_Hobson's Choice? Or an "offer that can't be refused"?_

Disregard the other side's rhetoric............its just that; rhetoric.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## FNFAL

err isnt there anything comparable from china?


----------



## Tameem

@Aeronaut

On one hand you actively support IK/PTI who are hell bent on destroying our any remaining relations with US and on the other hand you hope & prey both GOP and US could somehow reach on an agreement to have these ships in PN with *any conditions* as soon as possible 

At the end of the day, its only hypocrites people like you who blame and tarnish GOP for plain Sell out against US just for political usance and on the same hand prouding & threatening Indians on these assets in this same forum and threads forever

Yani...chit bhee meri pat bhee mari aur khara mere baap ka....
bhai-jan koee din, mazhab hay kay naheen

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## T-123456

jhungary said:


> OHP is a very competent platform inspite of the age (35 years old)
> 
> However, i think it would be wise for Pakistan to build more upgraded F-22P and use them as the backbone of PN, but then there would be a problem of F-22P and their light armament, while it's either competent to do Anti-Air and Anti-Ship attack, it's not enough to do both. PN would probably wise to acquire more OHP for supplymentry service and take the load off of the F-22P, i reckon PN should look at acquiring more OHP (either from US or other Allied like Spain or Australia), while the OHP focus on Aerial Target, F-22P focus on Sea/Ground target. PN should also consider putting Mk41 VLS on their OHP frigate.
> 
> In theory, it's best for PN to have at least 12 F-22P and 8 OHP in service. Eventually PN would require to have air defence destroyer if they want to competently hold the naval region they Own.
> 
> Depend on what is PN intentional target, if PN goal is to counter India in this aim, the best PN can do is to hold India as long as you can in case of war, and awaiting the Chinese Fleet intervention. I think ultimately, PN would need about 12 Subs (Nuclear/Diesel) 30 Frigate (20 F-22P combine with other Frigate, OHP or homemade) and 10 Destroyer (Possible Type 52C/D or later) to be able to competently defend Pakistani Coast


For such a ''small'' coast,you want alot of ships.
The operating costs of such a fleet would be a big burden.


----------



## GR!FF!N

Roybot said:


> I wonder how that will go down with the Pakistani public. Good luck getting all that certified in the Congress.



Nah..they will just clap and dance when it'll be inducted.but after that,they'll start whining on drones and chant "Amrika Murdabad"..you're seeing so much protests on roads.how many demanded that Pakistan should throw all the gifts from USA like OHP Frigates and F-16s??? 

welcome to "Great Pakistan Laughter Show"..


----------



## HariPrasad

Congratulations!!!!!!!!


----------



## Contrarian

Brilliant deal.
I wonder why India doesnt acquire such ships from US, if anything to reduce their availability to Pakistan.


----------



## Capt.Popeye

HariPrasad said:


> Congratulations!!!!!!!!


 
"Congratulations!!!!!!!!"............. for what?
This is just the _"Invitation to Lunch". _But the _"Lunch has not even been cooked yet";_ if you read the fine-print carefully.

Can there be any _"Free Lunches"_ ?



Contrarian said:


> Brilliant deal.
> I wonder why India doesnt acquire such ships from US, if anything to reduce their availability to Pakistan.


 
Ummmm, that is some _smart_ idea....
But 35 year old ships?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Contrarian

Capt.Popeye said:


> Ummmm, that is some _smart_ idea....
> But 35 year old ships?


They dont have to be our frontline ships like Pakistan.
Let them get the patrol duties. Its still worth it from a monetary POV and keeping it out of Pakistan's POV.


----------



## Nishan_101

PN needs to produce their own 3800 Tons frigates... rather then getting old ones...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Contrarian

Capt.Popeye said:


> That idea is _smart_; but a little _too smart_........
> As far as I'm concerned; let Pakistan get the old crocks, even the Kitty Hawk; for that matter.
> I feel that is _even smarter _still_._


I disagree.
OHP's would be more potent than the F-22P's.
If Pakistan gets Kitty hawk, that would be ideal.

But OHP's are ships that when retrofitted would be of use to PN. F-22Ps at more cost are less potent than OHP's.


----------



## Neptune

@Aeronaut

Well...it'll depend on the US-Pakistan relations. I think there will be delays but sooner or later Pakistan will get them. 3 more ships to PN means, 3 more ships to be upgraded by Turkey (HAVELSAN and ASELSAN). The Iron Lady of Pakistan has been upgraded with GENESIS-I. Which in case of such a deal. I'd suggest the current upgrade program known as GENESIS ADVENT which differs from the earlier GENESIS variant by having SMART-S Mk2, 8-cell Mk41 VLS, upgrade of software/avionics/suites...etc. Here's a Gaziantep-class upgraded with the latest variant of GENESIS, operating at in Horn of Africa:








A blueprint of frigate equipped with Genesis Advent which's the variant PN will likely choose for these three ships:

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Secur

@Neptune

How's the work on the Iron Lady coming up , mate ? I thought that the Navy of the Republic was always ready !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MilSpec

65 million for what? weren't these Excess Defence article with the transfer charges written to FMA account, thus almost free of cost vessels?


----------



## abbasniazi

I have no objection if GoP and PN acquire used vessels and then retrofit them with state of the art systems from trusted friends as a stop gap measure. however, the conditions putforth are highly insulting and even more insulting then the conditions which might be put forth to a nation who surrenders to an agressor. I think GoP and PN should slap on the face of GoUSA, Pentagon and CIA and formulate a free foreign and military policy. USA is not putting forward such conditions without reason, we have proven ourselves to be the fools of the highest standard who have not learnt from the lesson taught to us by the USA in F16 deal. the quote from paulo coehlo's book "warrior of light" came to my mind where he say "Remember, there are no "mistakes" in life, just "lessons" and lessons will keep on repeating themselves untill learnt". lets see when GoP, Pakistani Military and People of Pakistan finally learn a lesson. I wish and pray they do that without paying a heavy cost.


----------



## Donatello

Roybot said:


> Interesting, and what about the other conditions? They might even want Pakistan to oust/dismantle Haqqani network. Would that be something Pakistan would be willing to do? The conditions are so generic that America may want a lot out of Pakistan in return for this frigates.
> 
> Are these frigates worth it?




Considering they are the US Naval frontline frigate for time to come, yes they are worth it, but only when upgraded with proper systems.

They are about 4000 tons, so lots of room to upgrade.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Neptune

Secur said:


> @Neptune
> 
> How's the work on the Iron Lady coming up , mate ? I thought that the Navy of the Republic was always ready !



lolz it used to be ready, not anymore since many of active duty naval officers mostly admirals are jailed. 

Well bro, the article's ready, hot to serve. It's in my laptop now which I gave it to my cousin who went to Izmir now. He'll return very soon

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kaykay

Well $65 million seems a bit expensive considering these are 35+ years old ships. Also we got an 16000 tons second hand US navy' LPD in around $48 million. Anyway congrats if deal is signed.
PS: If delivered then how many years will it serve PN?


----------



## Donatello

Capt.Popeye said:


> That idea is _smart_; but a little _too smart_........
> As far as I'm concerned; let Pakistan get the old crocks, even the Kitty Hawk; for that matter.
> I feel that is _even smarter _still_._



INS Vikramaditya is brand new? Right?

Post reported for trolling.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Luffy 500

Good news. Along with those F22 Ps this would give PAK a decent navy. In the long run with turkish frigates and possibly chinese destroyers PAK can hope to go for a robust green water navy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kbd-raaf

Donatello said:


> INS Vikramaditya is brand new? Right?
> 
> Post reported for trolling.



The Vikramaditya is something like 75% new. India spent 2.3B refurbishing it.

The former OHPs will nowhere near that level.


----------



## Secur

kbd-raaf said:


> The former OHPs will nowhere near that level.



Comparing the price of a AC and a frigate ? 

You know that how ?


----------



## Zarvan

Aeronaut said:


> View attachment 11404
> 
> 
> View attachment 11405
> 
> 
> Thats 1 ship per year, Pakistan would have to pay for upgrade costs. In total Pakistan would have 4 OHP guided missile frigates.
> 
> 
> *Sources | *
> 
> S.1683 - 113th Congress (2013-2014): A bill to provide for the transfer of naval vessels to certain foreign recipients, and for other purposes. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
> 
> http://www.ausn.org/Portals/0/pdfs/advocacy/Letter of Support for Sen Menendez Bill S 1683.pdf
> 
> 
> ___________________________________________________
> 
> 
> @Penguin @cabatli_53 @Neptune | Would like to have your opinions.


That would mean in next few years we would have 12 frigates in total 4F-22 and 4off these and 4 more F-22 or F-23 from china man if our economy improves or we get money miracolously we should go for few Adaa class corvettes too from Turkey @Neptune @Oscar


----------



## SQ8

Zarvan said:


> That would mean in next few years we would have 12 frigates in total 4F-22 and 4off these and 4 more F-22 or F-23 from china man if our economy improves or we get money miracolously we should go for few Adaa class corvettes too from Turkey @Neptune @Oscar



No money.


----------



## Zarvan

Tameem said:


> @Aeronaut
> 
> On one hand you actively support IK/PTI who are hell bent on destroying our any remaining relations with US and on the other hand you hope & prey both GOP and US could somehow reach on an agreement to have these ships in PN with *any conditions* as soon as possible
> 
> At the end of the day, its only hypocrites people like you who blame and tarnish GOP for plain Sell out against US just for political usance and on the same hand prouding & threatening Indians on these assets in this same forum and threads forever
> 
> Yani...chit bhee meri pat bhee mari aur khara mere baap ka....
> bhai-jan koee din, mazhab hay kay naheen


Mr we don't want these ships on cost off our own people otherwise we should not take these ships



Oscar said:


> No money.


That is why I said if economy or some miracle happens still 4new F-22 3 off these are coming



T-123456 said:


> For such a ''small'' coast,you want alot of ships.
> The operating costs of such a fleet would be a big burden.


Yes sir we need at least 24 frigates and corvettes because we have monster size enemy


----------



## Secur

Neptune said:


> lolz it used to be ready, not anymore since many of active duty naval officers mostly admirals are jailed.
> 
> Well bro, the article's ready, hot to serve. It's in my laptop now which I gave it to my cousin who went to Izmir now. He'll return very soon



Well , its still that ready even today , I know . 

That is great then , not unless your cousin plans to pay a visit to Nicosia too , in the meantime .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Donatello

Neptune said:


> @Aeronaut
> 
> Well...it'll depend on the US-Pakistan relations. I think there will be delays but sooner or later Pakistan will get them. 3 more ships to PN means, 3 more ships to be upgraded by Turkey (HAVELSAN and ASELSAN). The Iron Lady of Pakistan has been upgraded with GENESIS-I. Which in case of such a deal. I'd suggest the current upgrade program known as GENESIS ADVENT which differs from the earlier GENESIS variant by having SMART-S Mk2, 8-cell Mk41 VLS, upgrade of software/avionics/suites...etc. Here's a Gaziantep-class upgraded with the latest variant of GENESIS, operating at in Horn of Africa:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A blueprint of frigate equipped with Genesis Advent which's the variant PN will likely choose for these three ships:




To what spec is PNS Alamgir being upgraded? Would you be able to provide details on combat systems and any offensive weapons?

Thanks.


----------



## kaykay

@Oscar If PN select these warships( likely), how many years they'll serve your navy??


----------



## Kompromat

@Neptune @jhungary

The issue is 'money', otherwise TF-2000 and Type-54B (56?) are too good of options to miss. 

We don't have much of a choice, we just have to make the best of what we have or what we can get while not blowing our tiny budget.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan

Aeronaut said:


> @Neptune @jhungary
> 
> The issue is 'money', otherwise TF-2000 and Type-54B (56?) are too good of options to miss.
> 
> We don't have much of a choice, we just have to make the best of what we have or what we can get while not blowing our tiny budget.


Yes if we had budget we would have ordered these long ago may be few would have been delivered by now


----------



## alimobin memon

I have a Question what current OHP of PN Genesis upgrade make it better what does Genesis provide ?


----------



## Neptune

Aeronaut said:


> @Neptune @jhungary
> 
> The issue is 'money', otherwise TF-2000 and Type-54B (56?) are too good of options to miss.
> 
> We don't have much of a choice, we just have to make the best of what we have or what we can get while not blowing our tiny budget.



But you'll recieve then at 2015. Pakistan has a great potentional in terms of economy. I think you guys will make sprint in near future.



Donatello said:


> To what spec is PNS Alamgir being upgraded? Would you be able to provide details on combat systems and any offensive weapons?
> 
> Thanks.



replacing the combat management system. The new Turkish system allows the ship to track 1000 targets within it's range. It also allows her to communicate with other Perrys with GPS, integration of 8-cell Mk-41 VLS...etc. @cabatli_53 can provide more info

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rockstar08

dam again they want to Fcuk our A$$ for these ships , why we are so interested in these old elephants ? 
why not better makes deals with china or russia ? 
who is this idiot policy maker ? ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rashid Mahmood

It's a total waste of money to buy these ships.
Instead PN should go for new upgraded F 22Ps.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Neptune

@Aeronaut @Zarvan @Donatello @alimobin memon

Here's a detailed information regarding the GENESIS program :

G-class frigate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Imran Khan

lolz again unarmed

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kompromat

@Neptune

We may end up with 8 F-22s and 4 OHPs, if Turkey can help us integrate all of them, 12 frigates fully networked with Maritime aviation assets like P-3C orion HAWKEYEs, JF-17 Block-II, ZDK-3 awacs and five AIP rather okay subs, makes a good little fighting navy.


----------



## Stealth

kaykay said:


> Well $65 million seems a bit expensive considering these are 35+ years old ships. Also we got an 16000 tons second hand US navy' LPD in around $48 million. Anyway congrats if deal is signed.
> PS: If delivered then how many years will it serve PN?



what about 20 30 years old Aircraft Carrier now vikramdtya ?


----------



## Imran Khan

Stealth said:


> what about 20 30 years old Aircraft Carrier now vikramdtya ?




not only this what abut pride of IN INS _Viraat _launched 16 February 1953??????????

* 60 years, 9 months, 22 days today* and will be active till 2020 transferred to India in 1987 when it was* 34 years, 17 days old*

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Assault Rifle

Pakistan will also decommiwion 3 out of 6 Tariq class frigates by 2016.
So PN frigate fleet size will remain same


----------



## Capt.Popeye

Donatello said:


> INS Vikramaditya is brand new? Right?
> 
> Post reported for trolling.


 
LOL, No. Vikramaditya is old; but not on a _"Black Friday"_ Sale.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Neptune

Aeronaut said:


> @Neptune
> 
> We may end up with 8 F-22s and 4 OHPs, if Turkey can help us integrate all of them, 12 frigates fully networked with Maritime aviation assets like P-3C orion HAWKEYEs, JF-17 Block-II, ZDK-3 awacs and five AIP rather okay subs, makes a good little fighting navy.



That'd be a good surface fleet with considerable firepower when thinking Pakistan's coastlines, especially thinking the AIPs. When your gonna get them btw

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## airmarshal

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> Its a matter of principle , the man was an agent working against the state god knows what else he was up to may be took blood samples from Kiyani and Americans are not making a clone Kiyani (our ex army cheif)
> 
> The * fine prints is very difficult to satisfy
> 
> a) Release a traitor, can you imagine tomorrow a nurse is hired in hospital to assassinate a political leader
> 
> b) Help with supply routes what are chances of that happening ?
> c) Keep the war going internally in Pakistan
> 
> For mere $240 Million dollar frigates
> 
> If we have a prisoner exchange treaty then yes no harm



What principle? Which principle Pakistan follows. This traitor like Hussain Haqqani will be walking free in a few days spewing hatred & malice against Pakistan from a foreign country.


----------



## Kompromat

@Neptune 

We have 5 augosta class subs with AIP. They are the only AIP subs in the Indian ocean so far. 

The plan is to either acquire 3 U_214s or 6 Chinese AIP subs. Some say that they are the Qing class subs with a displacement of 6000 tonnes, however according to Janes reports the sub Pakistan is looking at is in the 'development stages'.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Neptune

Aeronaut said:


> @Neptune
> 
> We have 5 augosta class subs with AIP. They are the only AIP subs in the Indian ocean so far.
> 
> The plan is to either acquire 3 U_214s or 6 Chinese AIP subs. Some say that they are the Qing class subs with a displacement of 6000 tonnes, however according to Janes reports the sub Pakistan is looking at is in the 'development stages'.



Type 214 would be good. We've ordered 6 of them. They're being build in Turkey that they will have Turkish systems. Wiki says, it's likely to classify them as Type-214TN's. Damn!!! I love our submarine fleet


----------



## kbd-raaf

Secur said:


> Comparing the price of a AC and a frigate ?
> 
> You know that how ?



Because only 65M was spent upgrading it. Anti-sub capabilities specifically


----------



## Kompromat

@ Indians

Please stop the titflashing contest!!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TOPGUN

All indian trolls are being reported one by one , hatered is a disease seek medical and mental help ASAP .

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Pakistanisage

Roybot said:


> Interesting, and what about the other conditions? They might even want Pakistan to oust/dismantle Haqqani network. Would that be something Pakistan would be willing to do? The conditions are so generic that America may want a lot out of Pakistan in return for this frigates.
> 
> Are these frigates worth it?






You missed the part where the President is authorized to waive any of these Certifications....

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

The 3 Ship would be great addition in general but it has be given with no attachment , as a acknowledgement of Pakistan's role in positive move against terrorism

No string attached deal = DEAL







The three ships would help balance the mismatch in Naval Forces , OHP is still fairly useful ship for 10-15 years


----------



## Pakistanisage

These three Frigates are 30 years old ( Built in 1983 ). USS KLAKRING was decommissioned in March of 2013 and the other two will be decommissioned in April/May of 2014.


----------



## Penguin

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> Read the fine print !!!
> 
> On condition of releasing Traitor Doctor Afridi


Reads the subsequent fine print: President may way the certification requirement (which includes the above) in the national interest.



Roybot said:


> I wonder how that will go down with the Pakistani public. Good luck getting all that certified in the Congress.


BUilt in escape clause: President may waive certification in the US national security interest.



Donatello said:


> Considering they are the US Naval frontline frigate for time to come, yes they are worth it, but only when upgraded with proper systems.
> 
> They are about 4000 tons, so lots of room to upgrade.


Actually, there is very limited 'spare' tonnage (lt 50) in the design. So, you have to take stuff off to put other stuff on. There is only a small margin for added capability/weight


----------



## Penguin

kaykay said:


> Well $65 million seems a bit expensive considering these are 35+ years old ships. Also we got an 16000 tons second hand US navy' LPD in around $48 million. Anyway congrats if deal is signed.
> PS: If delivered then how many years will it serve PN?



It cost about $19m a year to run a Type 22 Batch 3. FAS put the annual cost of operating a Perry at about the same figure ($16m year). That $65m includes a ships overhaul before delivery (putting her at ´zero mileage´), crew training, logistics and maintenance support package. S`not a bad deal. THe LPD referred to above was a older: commissioned 1971. McInerney commissioned 1979 , Uss Klakring commissioned 1983, go figure. Also Trenton is a steamship, FFG7 ships are gasturbine powered.
FFG7s when delivered should last another 10-15 years.



kbd-raaf said:


> Because only 65M was spent upgrading it. Anti-sub capabilities specifically


65 was spent including rerurbishment and overhaul. ONly VERY minimal upgrading

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Well certainly something to be excited about but , the delivery time is 2014-2016 would have been nicer had we received these a bit sooner perhaps Mid 2014


----------



## Roybot

Pakistanisage said:


> You missed the part where the President is authorized to waive any of these Certifications....



Nah I read it, but why exactly would the president be inclined to waive off any certifications? Obama isn't exactly Pakistan-friendly is he? I don't see any reason why his concerns would be any different from the concerns raised by the Congress. 

This deal would only go through if and when Pakistan agrees to the US demands.


----------



## Shadow_Hunter

Another thread selling unfulfilled dreams. Pakistanis here want to kick out US of Afghanistan while expecting that US president will give them the Frigates.


----------



## PoKeMon

Stealth said:


> what about 20 30 years old Aircraft Carrier now vikramdtya ?



What is old in Vicky apart from 50% hull?



Imran Khan said:


> not only this what abut pride of IN INS _Viraat _launched 16 February 1953??????????
> 
> * 60 years, 9 months, 22 days today* and will be active till 2020 transferred to India in 1987 when it was* 34 years, 17 days old*



That time even that carrier was a potent power considering no other force in south asia operate any carrier.

Can you say the same about 35 yr old frigate Imran sahab?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## rockstar08

Rashid Mahmood said:


> It's a total waste of money to buy these ships.
> Instead PN should go for new upgraded F 22Ps.



i agree ... its way too better to ask china to build 1-2 upgraded F-22p and 1-2 in pakistan so till 2015-2016 we can have 7-8 F-22p's

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jhungary

T-123456 said:


> For such a ''small'' coast,you want alot of ships.
> The operating costs of such a fleet would be a big burden.



The coast is small but the ships is necessary

Do remember Pakistani coast and the Chinese coast does not connect, it route through Indian Coast, if you stay at 8 frigate, theen you will probably got wip out in 24 hours at sea, which will be a lot harder for the Chinese to salvage the situation..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## jhungary

Aeronaut said:


> @Neptune @jhungary
> 
> The issue is 'money', otherwise TF-2000 and Type-54B (56?) are too good of options to miss.
> 
> We don't have much of a choice, we just have to make the best of what we have or what we can get while not blowing our tiny budget.



Yeah, $$ is alway a problem, hence I said acquire some more OHP is a good choice for PN

You need to know OHP with 8 cell Mk41 VLS is a very potent anti-air platform, if PN do acquire the Aussie OHP, then you can put SM2MR on OHP, which is one of the best SAM in the world

Chinese frigate is generally anti-ship orientated
While PN do not have a 2-D platform in service, then you need to use 2 different type of Frigate for Hi-Lo combination

If you uses JF-17 and P-3C matched with F22P, it will only achieve a 2 Dimension defense, you still lack a dedicated AA platform to cover what your JF-17 missed, see, JF-17 is a point to point Air Defence, they can only shoot down enemy near them, when you have multiple enemy approach from different Angel and direction, each Sq. of JF-17 can only take one 1 Sqn of enemy, you need an air control platform to pick up and attack enemy air in a given AO, which PN currently lacking this ability

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Rashid Mahmood

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> The 3 Ship would be great addition in general but it has be given with no attachment , as a acknowledgement of Pakistan's role in positive move against terrorism
> 
> No string attached deal = DEAL
> 
> 
> 
> The three ships would help balance the mismatch in Naval Forces , OHP is still fairly useful ship for 10-15 years



I would disagree.
OHPs are totally useless for any use by the PN.
They will be a burden on our navy and will be have no role, just like the Brooke's & Garcia's the PN operated in the 90's.


----------



## rockstar08

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> The 3 Ship would be great addition in general but it has be given with no attachment , as a acknowledgement of Pakistan's role in positive move against terrorism
> 
> No string attached deal = DEAL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The three ships would help balance the mismatch in Naval Forces , OHP is still fairly useful ship for 10-15 years



can you tell me that why this ship will be useful for us ? ? what kind of SAMs systems it has ? we need guided missile destroyer at least 2 before 2016


----------



## Rashid Mahmood

rockstar08 said:


> can you tell me that why this ship will be useful for us ? ? what kind of SAMs systems it has ? we need guided missile destroyer at least 2 before 2016




They have "NIL" weapons systems...............


----------



## rockstar08

Rashid Mahmood said:


> They have "NIL" weapons systems...............



than why not give them to our fishers ?


----------



## Rashid Mahmood

rockstar08 said:


> than why not give them to our fishers ?



See my comments above.
I am totally against their acquisition.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rockstar08

Rashid Mahmood said:


> See my comments above.
> I am totally against their acquisition.



yep i read them already ....


----------



## Capt.Popeye

Rashid Mahmood said:


> I would disagree.
> OHPs are totally useless for any use by the PN.
> They will be a burden on our navy and will be have no role, just like the Brooke's & Garcia's the PN operated in the 90's.


 
The Brookes and Garcias performed well with the Pakistani version of its Coast Guard as Patrol Vessels.


----------



## Munir

There are many strings but some strings are made bigger by us then they are. Surely Afridi has been acting without Pakistani officials but does the result make any difference? OBL was a saudi. He was linked with Al Qaida (founder) and for that reason the US invaded Afghanistan. I think sending a few choppers and ending it this way was a the least negative for Pakistan. Bad, I agree. But let us more take the deal to get our prisoners back then cry about the dead foreigners. We should remember how US killed our military on the checkpoint. Let us get our female doctor back as a trade. If Israel swaps prisoners with the Palestinians then why can we not...


----------



## Imran Khan

they will sure have harpoons and other weapons from these type-21 frigates kids don't cry now .


----------



## Rashid Mahmood

Capt.Popeye said:


> The Brookes and Garcias performed well with the Pakistani version of its Coast Guard as Patrol Vessels.



Brooke's & Garcia's (FFG's) were not part of the Coast Guard.
They were part for the PN and were on lease from the US. When the lease expired, they were sent back.


----------



## Capt.Popeye

Rashid Mahmood said:


> Brooke's & Garcia's (FFG's) were not part of the Coast Guard.
> They were part for the PN and were on lease from the US. When the lease expired, they were sent back.


 
One remained and was re-painted in MSA (Coast Guard) colors.
Even with the PN, they were pretty much good Patrol Vessels.


----------



## Rashid Mahmood

Capt.Popeye said:


> One remained and was re-painted in MSA (Coast Guard) colors.
> Even with the PN, they were pretty much good Patrol Vessels.



None remained. All 8 went back.
The MSA ships were old Gearing class destroyers.

I have served on them, so I know....

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Well if we get these fishing boats , after the upgrade we will done by 2018-2019 may be by then we will be able to use them fully


----------



## Penguin

Rashid Mahmood said:


> I would disagree.
> OHPs are totally useless for any use by the PN.
> They will be a burden on our navy and will be have no role, just like the Brooke's & Garcia's the PN operated in the 90's.


And it was different with the ex-US Gearings, or is different with the ex-UK Type 21?

As an allround useful fleet boat, the Perry class frigates are an asset to most navies that use them. Even without their original anti-air and anti-ship capability after removal of their Mark 13 guided missile launcher, they remain extremely good at ASW, esp. when used in combination with LAMPSIII SH-60B helicopter and the SQQ-89 ASW system with associated SQR-19 towed array sonar. Don't tell me PN does not face subsurface threats...

They are intended for a nominal service life of 30 years, but as seen with many other USN classes, many ships can last a lot longer.

For those with an interest in costs, some may find this of interest http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a272492.pdf



Pakistanisage said:


> These three Frigates are 30 years old ( Built in 1983 ). USS KLAKRING was decommissioned in March of 2013 and the other two will be decommissioned in April/May of 2014.


Yes, that is their nominal service life in the USN.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Armstrong

Penguin said:


> And it was different with the ex-US Gearings, or is different with the ex-UK Type 21?
> 
> As an allround useful fleet boat, the Perry class frigates are an asset to most navies that use them. Even without their original anti-air and anti-ship capability after removal of their Mark 13 guided missile launcher, they remain extremely good at ASW, esp. when used in combination with LAMPSIII SH-60B helicopter and the SQQ-89 ASW system with associated SQR-19 towed array sonar. Don't tell me PN does not face subsurface threats...
> 
> They are intended for a nominal service life of 30 years, but as seen with many other USN classes, many ships can last a lot longer.
> 
> For those with an interest in costs, some may find this of interest http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a272492.pdf
> 
> 
> Yes, that is their nominal service life in the USN.



But wouldn't it make more sense to go for more F-22Ps (possibly with some upgrades) & get a reasonably good well rounded capability then to go for a vessel with 'extremely good' ASW capability but a significantly toned down anti-ship & anti-air capabilities ?


----------



## Penguin

Armstrong said:


> But wouldn't it make more sense to go for more F-22Ps (possibly with some upgrades) & get a reasonably good well rounded capability then to go for a vessel with 'extremely good' ASW capability but a significantly toned down anti-ship & anti-air capabilities ?



Well, Perry's won't solve the issue of block obsolescence that PN faces. Then again, considering what Pakistan's neighbouring navies put in the water (or should I say under the water), good ASW is quite a usefull capability to have. It shouldn't be rocket science to bolt some Harpoons onto those Perry's and/or a RAM launcher. And when you do that, in the AShW and AAW departments, there is roughly parity with other type in PN again (and you still have great ASW).

As it is, F22P is ok, but doesn't excel in any particular area. Better if she got a active homing VL SAM, for starters.

In the end though, given extremely limited recources of PN, it's a matter availability, money and politics rather than what you'ld ideally get...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Kompromat

jhungary said:


> Yeah, $$ is alway a problem, hence I said acquire some more OHP is a good choice for PN
> 
> You need to know OHP with 8 cell Mk41 VLS is a very potent anti-air platform, if PN do acquire the Aussie OHP, then you can put SM2MR on OHP, which is one of the best SAM in the world




Do you have any idea when the Aussie Navy might be selling their OHPs?



> Chinese frigate is generally anti-ship orientated
> While PN do not have a 2-D platform in service, then you need to use 2 different type of Frigate for Hi-Lo combination





> If you uses JF-17 and P-3C matched with F22P, it will only achieve a 2 Dimension defense, you still lack a dedicated AA platform to cover what your JF-17 missed, see, JF-17 is a point to point Air Defence, they can only shoot down enemy near them, when you have multiple enemy approach from different Angel and direction, each Sq. of JF-17 can only take one 1 Sqn of enemy,* you need an air control platform to pick up and attack enemy air in a given AO, which PN currently lacking this ability*




First of all our Navy's main goal is 'sea denial', since we are not going to be the invaders but the invaded. For that we are going to have multiple squadrons of JF-17 Block IIs ( Actual number specified yet) armed with C-802AK - CM-400AKG and Exocests along with Electronic warfare escorts , air defense net, and JF-17s armed with BVRs and other air to air armament for fleet protection.

As for, the airborne command and control is concerned, if you are talking about Airborne Early Warning and Control System. AEWCS then we already have ~ 8 in service. The one which is at the Navy's disposal is 4X ZDK-3 Karokaram Eagle AEWCS which is used in conjunction with the Air Force. It has an AESA radar like our Erieye AEWCS with a range of ~ 400kms. For ELINT and ECM, we have a small fleet of Dassault Falcon 20 air crafts.















jhungary said:


> The coast is small but the ships is necessary
> 
> Do remember Pakistani coast and the Chinese coast does not connect, it route through Indian Coast, if you stay at 8 frigate, theen you will probably got wip out in 24 hours at sea, which will be a lot harder for the Chinese to salvage the situation..



You are right, in saying that PN needs to opt for a larger fleet of frigates with Hi-Lo mix of anti ship, anti submarine and anti air capabilities. I'd like to stress again that OHPs upgraded with Genesis, due to the lack of funds is our best bet right now.

For coastal defense, Pakistan also has ~ 45 batteries of C-602 anti ship cruise missiles capable of being networked to the AEWCS. They are available in TEL platforms.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Rashid Mahmood

Penguin said:


> And it was different with the ex-US Gearings, or is different with the ex-UK Type 21?
> 
> As an allround useful fleet boat, the Perry class frigates are an asset to most navies that use them. Even without their original anti-air and anti-ship capability after removal of their Mark 13 guided missile launcher, they remain extremely good at ASW, esp. when used in combination with LAMPSIII SH-60B helicopter and the SQQ-89 ASW system with associated SQR-19 towed array sonar. Don't tell me PN does not face subsurface threats...
> 
> They are intended for a nominal service life of 30 years, but as seen with many other USN classes, many ships can last a lot longer.
> 
> For those with an interest in costs, some may find this of interest http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a272492.pdf
> 
> 
> Yes, that is their nominal service life in the USN.



We got the Gearing's in the 80's, and slowly and gradually started to upgrade them with Harpoon's, CIWS, APECS-II and by the time we upgraded some, we started to decommission the others.

The same is happening to the Type 21's. Out of 6, one is already de-commissioned, and a couple are inline.

Buying old ships (20 years +) and investing billions to upgrade their weapons & sensors does not increase their sea life. It only acts as a filler for the time being, which may look good on paper, but it is not so in actual.

OHPs will only be an asset if acquired with all of the weapons & sensors intact. Otherwise just buying a platform for later modifications will not be feasible.

They have the LM2500 GT's, which is 1970's tech for which we do not have any support and we will be dependent on GE, just like we are dependent on RR for the Type 21's GTs.

The OHP which we acquired, does not have a single weapon on board. The Sonar on board the OHP is not designed for these types of water's. We do not have the SH-60's or the SQR-19 and we don't plan to, so its of no use to talk about them.

PN does face a big sub-surface threat, and ASW is one of the major roles for Ships & the naval aviation. Seaking's, P-3C's are primarily ASW aircraft.

This has been the dilemma of PN, that we have been buying old warships and painting them to look like new, where as it does not help at all.

The PN have started a program with the F-22P's, we can plan for up gradation of the same platform in ASW, AAW, ASM role's easily and these ships will serve us for the next 25 - 30 years, if maintained properly.

The potential for these new platforms is immense, and can be a formidable Surface fleet if planned properly.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

One thing that is never clear to me is what is our strategy for air defence of these ships. We don't have a sufficient Air crafts for Navy Operations , just wondering how can we protect these assets in Sea ?

Specially considering foes that operate aircraft carriers which come with loaded planes threat

Will the OHP make Pakistan a recognized blue water Navy and not just regional waters force ?

10-15 Frigates does give us some what more credibility alot better then what we started with 10 years ago etc

Just don't see the same level of enthusiasm from community as we did for the first OHP frigate when we got that one all stripped down barebone ship


----------



## monitor

Aeronaut said:


> @Neptune @jhungary
> 
> The issue is 'money', otherwise TF-2000 and Type-54B (56?) are too good of options to miss.
> 
> We don't have much of a choice, we just have to make the best of what we have or what we can get while not blowing our tiny budget.




We always hear Pakistani leaders praise the relation between China and Pakistan as higher then mountain and sweeter then honey then why not china can provide adequate long term loan to Pakistan to get few Type 54A/54B. A country like china can easily 2~3 billion dollar loan for buying Chinese new generation frigate for suppose 20~25 years payment option .


----------



## Zarvan

monitor said:


> We always hear Pakistani leaders praise the relation between China and Pakistan as higher then mountain and sweeter then honey then why not china can provide adequate long term loan to Pakistan to get few Type 54A/54B. A country like china can easily 2~3 billion dollar loan for buying Chinese new generation frigate for suppose 20~25 years payment option .


Mr around for 30 years China almost gave you free weapons Sir from 65 to 80s many of weapons were given to you without any money and yes next time instead of giving Aid China should give money to its companies and we get Type 54 but I hope our economy improves or we make a deal with China or some other country for extraction of either Gold or search for oil and gas and in return we get war ships and fighter jets



AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> One thing that is never clear to me is what is our strategy for air defence of these ships. We don't have a sufficient Air crafts for Navy Operations , just wondering how can we protect these assets in Sea ?
> 
> Specially considering foes that operate aircraft carriers which come with loaded planes threat
> 
> Will the OHP make Pakistan a recognized blue water Navy and not just regional waters force ?
> 
> 10-15 Frigates does give us some what more credibility alot better then what we started with 10 years ago etc
> 
> Just don't see the same level of enthusiasm from community as we did for the first OHP frigate when we got that one all stripped down barebone ship


Sir our economy is the problem other wise we should have around 24 Frigates and Corvettes with around 12 to 14 Submarines and lot of missile boats and at least 72 Fighter Jets to back our Navy

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PiyaraPakistan

Assault Rifle said:


> Pakistan will also decommiwion 3 out of 6 Tariq class frigates by 2016.
> So PN frigate fleet size will remain same


Maybe Qty will remain the same but Tonnage will definatly increase, which means more/better fire power and many more.


----------



## nomi007

*USS Klakring (FFG-42)*
status _Klakring_ was decommissioned on 22 March 2013.





*USS De Wert (FFG-45)*
status :still active today




*USS Robert G. Bradley (FFG-49)*
status still active duty

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MuZammiL Dr. s[1]n

Zarvan said:


> Mr we don't want these ships on cost off our own people otherwise we should not take these ships
> 
> 
> That is why I said if economy or some miracle happens still *4new F-22* 3 off these are coming
> 
> 
> Yes sir we need at least 24 frigates and corvettes because we have monster size enemy


zarvan brother , can not just our Pakistan navy install turkish genesis or genesis advent system in to our 4-new f-22p frigates ??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Neptune

count de wert outta the list. She has just completed her NATO deployment. She's on her way to home to retire.


----------



## niaz

What people keep forgetting that as a nation, except for a brief period during Musharraf and the height of US- Al-Qaida war; Pakistan has always been critically short of “MONEY”. Additionally PN has been perpetually treated as step sister of the Services, thus getting only the leftovers of the Defence Budget.

Hence PN as well as other services have to make do with whatever they can get or go without. That is why PN along with PA & PAF have been relying largely on second hand and or dated equipment ever since one can remember; in my case; since 1947. Talk of buying this or that such as Aircraft carrier or Nuclear Submarine is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Do we expect Pak Navy to be strong enough to defeat Indian Navy in a traditional surface naval engagement? 

Dreaming aside, common sense dictates that given the disparity in size and the resources available to IN, this is highly unlikely. All we can expect is to keep see lanes; say 200 miles along our Arabian Sea coast; clear so that we can import essential commodities in case of hostilities with India or any other medium level sea power.

For this purpose PN needs mine hunters, ASW platforms (frigates) and FAC supported by credible naval air arm. Any blue water interdiction left to the submarines. Need for surface men of war such as destroyers, cruisers and A/ C carriers comes last.

Surface vessel consists of the platform (hull & engines) and weapons systems. OHP frigates may be old, but if the hull & engines are sound, weapons systems can be upgraded in stages; with OHP’s providing satisfactory anti -submarine & the anti-craft defence for another 20 years. Orions are even more useful.

Given the pro-Taliban & anti –US actions by PTI and the extremist loving section of the society, I am not convinced that we will actually get these OHP’s & Orions. This debate could therefore be another exercise in futility.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Secur

@Aeronaut 

The total number of AWACS at navy's disposal is eight ? 

Not the seven I last heard of ?


----------



## niaz

Secur said:


> @Aeronaut
> 
> The total number of AWACS at navy's disposal is eight ?
> 
> Not the seven I last heard of ?





Secur said:


> @Aeronaut
> 
> The total number of AWACS at navy's disposal is eight ?
> 
> Not the seven I last heard of ?



I think Hon Aeronaut is talking about total number of AWACS with Pakistan that includes Saab & the Chinese ZK-3. To the best my info all AWACS are operated by the Airforce. After the Kamra incident, am not sure as how many Saab Erieyes are in working order.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## fatman17

only 2 ZDK's have been delivered as there is an radar upgrade involved in the balance two, hence the delay. if we add the 3 Saab erieye's we have 5 AWACS deployed with 2 on order. i doubt if the damaged/destroyed erieye will ever be replaced.


----------



## Secur

niaz said:


> I think Hon Aeronaut is talking about total number of AWACS with Pakistan that includes Saab & the Chinese ZK-3. To the best my info all AWACS are operated by the Airforce. After the Kamra incident, am not sure as how many Saab Erieyes are in working order.



I am sure the ZDK-03 are there too , in what number , that I do not know .


----------



## fatman17

fatman17 said:


> only 2 ZDK's have been delivered as there is an radar upgrade involved in the balance two, hence the delay. if we add the 3 Saab erieye's we have 5 AWACS deployed with 2 on order. i doubt if the damaged/destroyed erieye will ever be replaced.


 
from JDW

"This was followed in November 2013 by images suggesting a new airborne early warning (AEW) variant of the Y-8/9 was also under
development. This featured a top-mounted rotating dome radar, possibly representing a further development of the ZDK-03 AEW
aircraft supplied to the Pakistan Air Force in 2011"


----------



## Assault Rifle

PiyaraPakistan said:


> Maybe Qty will remain the same but Tonnage will definatly increase, which means more/better fire power and many more.


Still Quantity matters a lot.


----------



## Kompromat

@Secur @niaz

Sure sir thats why i used the ~ symbol.

Our airborne early warning capabilities can't be reversed now. With ZDK-3 and Hawker 800 ELINT, coastal defense, maritime strike wing and upgraded surface and submerged fleet, 'fall back' naval bases in Port Qasim, Pasni and Gwadar, the Navy will be capable of maintaing effective sea denial.

In my humble opinion sir, i'd like Pakistan to focus on 'synergy' bt linking all assets with fast real time datalink like the LINK-16/21 and our own tactical data link Raabta.

I'm also hopeful that our FAC fleet will be increased to ~ 8 boats, with the rest being built at home.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Neptune

MuZammiL Dr. s[1]n said:


> zarvan brother , can not just our Pakistan navy install turkish genesis or genesis advent system in to our 4-new f-22p frigates ??



It's possible. But it'll need us to reset and create a new GENESIS variant suitable for F-22P, just as we did to Ada-class corvettes under the name G-MSYS. Regarding issues such as Chinese weapons systems. An integration is of course possible technically. But the technologies used are mostly Turkish and others are nato's that both Turkey and NATO wouldn't want it's technology to get revealed to integrate them with the Chinese. That's the same reason why NATO whines us that we picked the Chinese Red Flag at air defence missile tender. In this case, it's Turkey that wouldn't want it's stuff to get revealed... Thats all. But if Pakistan wants it, Erdogan would make it happen for sure.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MuZammiL Dr. s[1]n

Neptune said:


> It's possible. But it'll need us to reset and create a new GENESIS variant suitable for F-22P, just as we did to Ada-class corvettes under the name G-MSYS. Regarding issues such as Chinese weapons systems. An integration is of course possible technically. But the technologies used are mostly Turkish and others are nato's that both Turkey and NATO wouldn't want it's technology to get revealed to integrate them with the Chinese. That's the same reason why NATO whines us that we picked the Chinese Red Flag at air defence missile tender. In this case, it's Turkey that wouldn't want it's stuff to get revealed... Thats all. But if Pakistan wants it, Erdogan would make it happen for sure.


So niCe 0f You dear that you explained the teChniCaL angle of things associated with the development of this hybrid system for PakisTan Navy  ...  
GoD bleSs you brother ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## nomi007

Open Nato Supply otherwise your aid will be in danger . US Defense Minister Message to Nawaz


----------



## jhungary

Aeronaut said:


> Do you have any idea when the Aussie Navy might be selling their OHPs?
> 
> First of all our Navy's main goal is 'sea denial', since we are not going to be the invaders but the invaded. For that we are going to have multiple squadrons of JF-17 Block IIs ( Actual number specified yet) armed with C-802AK - CM-400AKG and Exocests along with Electronic warfare escorts , air defense net, and JF-17s armed with BVRs and other air to air armament for fleet protection.
> 
> As for, the airborne command and control is concerned, if you are talking about Airborne Early Warning and Control System. AEWCS then we already have ~ 8 in service. The one which is at the Navy's disposal is 4X ZDK-3 Karokaram Eagle AEWCS which is used in conjunction with the Air Force. It has an AESA radar like our Erieye AEWCS with a range of ~ 400kms. For ELINT and ECM, we have a small fleet of Dassault Falcon 20 air crafts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are right, in saying that PN needs to opt for a larger fleet of frigates with Hi-Lo mix of anti ship, anti submarine and anti air capabilities. I'd like to stress again that OHPs upgraded with Genesis, due to the lack of funds is our best bet right now.
> 
> For coastal defense, Pakistan also has ~ 45 batteries of C-602 anti ship cruise missiles capable of being networked to the AEWCS. They are available in TEL platforms.


 

I think you misunderstand what i said when i say "*you need an air control platform to pick up and attack enemy air in a given AO, which PN currently lacking this ability*"

I do not mean the AWACS or EWACS. but a platfrom to perform multi-dimension attack instead of a point to point attack.

You are indeed correct, if you are talking solely a naval engagement. a JF-17/P-3C/F-22P can provded a good solution in a sole Combine Naval Engagement, but when you factor in Air Engagement and the need for ground support. The JF-17/P-3C/F-22P will not cut it.

JF-17, along with all other Air Asset is only point to point (1-Dimensional) able. That mean if you pick up a Squadron of bandit coming over, you send a squadron of your own JF-17 to counter them, but you cannot send 1 Sqn of JF-17 to deal with 2 Sqn of Enemy fighter, nor can you send the same JF-17 to one end of the Map and deal with an enemy Sqn of fighter and at the same time you want that same sqn of JF-17 to deal with a naval threat on the otherside of the map. Hence JF-17 is a 1-Dimension attacker.

What i was saying is a force multiplier stuff. You put a OHP near your coast, and it can detect 400 incoming target and attack 40 at the same time, be that Naval Threat (enemy Naval Aviation) or Air Threat (enemy Air Force), at the same time, you can use the Mk-13 to launch ASM missile and engage Surface Target or Naval Target (Ship), and finally the ASW capability mean you can do all that, when you are hunting subs. Which is a 3-dimension attack.

In any combine ops, Air Force are needed in all circumstance, CAS, CAP and Naval Support. However, each plane can only do one thing at a time, and unless you have more Aircraft than your enemy, you cannot do them all.

I am not saying you definitely need OHP, but OHP is currently the cheapest choice you can get in the market. Everything is a money problem. How much money you can afford to pay vs what you can buy with that money. Currently other than OHP, the other choice is to buy brand spanking new frigate, or make your own, both choice seems impossible for now.

And Aussie OHP is due to decom in 2016, when the hobart class enter service

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kompromat

jhungary said:


> I think you misunderstand what i said when i say "*you need an air control platform to pick up and attack enemy air in a given AO, which PN currently lacking this ability*"
> 
> I do not mean the AWACS or EWACS. but a platfrom to perform multi-dimension attack instead of a point to point attack.
> 
> You are indeed correct, if you are talking solely a naval engagement. a JF-17/P-3C/F-22P can provded a good solution in a sole Combine Naval Engagement, but when you factor in Air Engagement and the need for ground support. The JF-17/P-3C/F-22P will not cut it.
> 
> JF-17, along with all other Air Asset is only point to point (1-Dimension) able. That mean if you pick up a Squadron of bandit coming over, you send a squadron of your own JF-17 to counter them, but you cannot send 1 Sqn of JF-17 to deal with 2 Sqn of Enemy fighter, nor can you send the same JF-17 to one end of the Map and deal with an enemy Sqn of fighter and at the same time you want that same sqn of JF-17 to deal with a naval threat on the otherside of the map. Hence JF-17 is a 1-Dimension attacker.
> 
> What i was saying is a force multiper stuff. You put a OHP near your coast, and it can detect 400 incoming target and attack 40 at the same time, be that Naval Threat (enemy Naval Aviation) or Air Threat (enemy Air Force), at the same time, you can use the Mk-13 to launch ASM missile and engage Surface Target or Naval Target (Ship), and finally the ASW capability mean you can do all that, when you are hunting subs. Which is a 3-dimension attack.
> 
> In any combine ops, Air Force are needed in all circumstance, CAS, CAP and Naval Support. However, each plane can only do one thing at a time, and unless you have more Aircraft than your enemy, you cannot do them all.
> 
> I am not saying you definitely need OHP, but OHP is currently the cheapest choice you can get in the market. Everything is a money problem. How much money you can afford to pay vs what you can buy with that money. Currently other than OHP, the other choice is to buy brand spanling new frigate, or make your own, both choice seems impossible for now.
> 
> And Aussie OHP is due to decom in 2016, when the hobart class enter service




I just need to ask what sort of aircrafts are EWACS and how are they different from the AEW&C air crafts we have already?


Rest of your post is very enlightening - Thank you.


----------



## jhungary

Aeronaut said:


> I just need to ask what sort of aircrafts are EWACS and how are they different from the AEW&C air crafts we have already?
> 
> 
> Rest of your post is very enlightening - Thank you.


 
lol......

AWACS and EWACS is the old naval term, while AEW&C is the modern term.

AEW&C is the general term for both. Which is the name dervided by the function. But if you have to put it down to the last letter, it only the same as EWACS and AWACS is a different system than EWACS or AEW&C

*AWACS* is a specific system that a rotational radar dish on top

System like





ZDK-03





KJ-2000





E-2C






E-3

*EWACS* is a type of Early Warning system without the Rotating Antenna

Planes like




Boeing 737 AEW&C





E-8 JSTARS





DRDO AEW&C





SAAB 100B

Basically, in the old days, AWACS is the warning aircraft dedicate to pish out Enemy air target, and EWACS do both Air/Ground/Sea target.

But nowadays, most of the system can do all 3 anyway, the need to seperate these system has gone, but you know, i am an old fashion guy and i am probably the only one here still use both AWACS and EWACS instead of using AEW&C. Hehe

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Kompromat

@jhungary

So we have both

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Penguin

Rashid Mahmood said:


> We got the Gearing's in the 80's, and slowly and gradually started to upgrade them with Harpoon's, CIWS, APECS-II and by the time we upgraded some, we started to decommission the others.
> 
> The same is happening to the Type 21's. Out of 6, one is already de-commissioned, and a couple are inline.
> 
> Buying old ships (20 years +) and investing billions to upgrade their weapons & sensors does not increase their sea life. It only acts as a filler for the time being, which may look good on paper, but it is not so in actual.
> 
> OHPs will only be an asset if acquired with all of the weapons & sensors intact. Otherwise just buying a platform for later modifications will not be feasible.



So, how do you explain PN has done this at least twice (Gearings, Amazons). They must be silly? 

While the refurb McInerney got doesn't decrease the age of the hull, it does give her key machinery something akin to a 'zero mileage' reset, if I understand it correctly.



> PNS Alamgir will receive a mostly mechanical overhaul, which has to be conducted in the US as part of the deal. All four diesels were removed and overhauled, along with air conditioning units and refrigeration. Fuel oil tanks and voids were cleaned, inspected, repaired and painted. All shafting was removed and renovated. The controllable pitch propeller system was overhauled. Sea valves were removed and either repaired or replaced, and almost every pump was opened and inspected and overhauled as needed. Ventilators and fans went through a similar process of inspection and overhaul. Breakers, NR3 switchboard, windlass, and boat davit all got inspections and overhauls. Completely new equipment includes a new navigation suite and bridge, the composite dome over the fully overhauledAN/SQS-56 sonar, and a VIP cabin.


USS McInerney (FFG-8) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Rashid Mahmood said:


> They have the LM2500 GT's, which is 1970's tech for which we do not have any support and we will be dependent on GE, just like we are dependent on RR for the Type 21's GTs.


It was also used in Spruance DDGs and is still used in Ticonderoga CGs. The LM2500 uprated to 26,500 shp (19,800 kW) is used for the Arleigh Burke DDGs, which were initiated in the 1980s and started to see service in the early 1990s, and are still being produced. Also, the T-AOE-6 class of fast combat tanker. It was also used by one of People's Republic of China's Type 52 Luho (Harbin, 112), acquired before the embargo. In 2001 the LM2500 ( 20 MW ) was installed in a sound-proof capsule in the South African Navy Valou class (Meko A-200 SAN) frigates as part of a CODAG propulsion system with two MTU 16V 1163 TB93 Propulsion Diesels.. The LM2500 is license-built in Japan by Ishikawajima-Harima, in India by HAL, and in Italy by Avio. All of these countries use is in their ships. For a list of applications see: General Electric LM2500 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Rashid Mahmood said:


> The OHP which we acquired, does not have a single weapon on board.


76mm Oto Melara naval gun, 20mm Phalanx CIWS, 2x3 torpedo tubes for 324mm lightweight ASW torpedoes, 6 HMGs?













Rashid Mahmood said:


> The Sonar on board the OHP is not designed for these types of water's. We do not have the SH-60's or the SQR-19 and we don't plan to, so its of no use to talk about them.


Well...


> The units with long hulls (FFG 7, 8, 15, 28, 29, 32, 36-61) were to have had the sonar suite upgraded to SQQ-89(V)2, with SQS-56 hull sonar retained, SQR-19 towed linear passive hydrophone array added, and SQQ-28 helicopter sonobuoy datalink system added. There were, however, significant delays in the development of the SQQ-89’s processor equipment, and *many ships received the SQR-18A towed array with SQR-17 processor as an interim fit. USS McINERNEY (FFG 8) received the towed array during FY 87*, along with FFG 55-60; in FY 88, FFG 28, 29, 32, 36, and 39 were equipped; in FY 90, FFG 7 and 15 received the system during overhauls (FFG 7 was lengthened and received the SQQ-89 suite but was not equipped with RAST, leaving her unable to employ SH-60B helicopters); under the FY 91 budget, FFG 9, 48-50, and 52 were modified, and in FY 92, FFG 20 and 51 were equipped. FFG 12 is unusual in having the electronics fit for the LAMPS III system and in having the towed sonar array but not having had the hull extension to permit flying SH-60B LAMPS-III helicopters. As of 1997, two variants of the SQQ-89 sonar system were in service on this class: SQQ-89(V)10 on FFG 14, 30, 34, 37, 50, 51, 52, and 54, with SQR-19B(V)2 towed array sonar; and *SQQ-89(V)2 on FFG 7-9*, 11-13, 15, 28, 29, 32, 33, 36, 38-43, 45-49, 53, 55-59, and 61, with SQR-19(V)2 and the UYQ-25A(V)2 processor.


The FFG 7 OLIVER HAZARD PERRY Class
See also The naval Instirure guide to the ships and aircraft of the US fleet, by Norman Polmar p. 161
The Naval Institute Guide to the Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet - Norman Polmar - Google Boeken

As for the sonar being 'not designed for these types of waters', that simply is blabla. This is a USN fleet unit, designed to go anywhere in the world.


> The AN/SQQ-89 is the ASW Combat System for all surface combatants and will be the technological foundation for the ASW combat system of the DD-21. The ANISQQ-89 combat system suite provides Oliver Hazard Perry (FFG-7), Spruance (DD-963), Ticonderoga (CG-47), and Arleigb Burke (DDG-51) warships with an integrated undersea warfare detection, clas-sification, display, and targeting capability. The system combines and processes all active sonar information, and processes and displays all SH-60B Light Airborne Multi-Purpose System (LAMPS) Mk III sensor data.
> The SQQ-89 tactical sonar suite is composed of a hull-mounted sonar (SQS-53B) and Tactical Towed Array Sonar (TACTAS), and is fully integrated with the ship's Light Airborne Multi-Purpose Systems (LAMPS MK 111) helicopter. The AN/SQQ-89 Integrated ASW Combat System suite is the most advanced ASW system in the world today, and makes the AEGIS cruiser the best equipped anti- submarine warfare platform in the world today. In light of various deficiencies identified in 1998, the Navy is reviewing and revising its AN/SQQ 89 upgrade program to develop and procure a fully integrated system in FY 03.


AN/SQQ-89 ASW Combat System [ASWCS]



Neptune said:


> has just completed her NATO deployment. She's on her way to home to retire.





Neptune said:


> count de wert outta the list. She has just completed her NATO deployment. She's on her way to home to retire.


i.e. available for hot transfer soon. Count her in.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## FaujHistorian

Contrarian said:


> Brilliant deal.
> I wonder why India doesnt acquire such ships from US, if anything to reduce their availability to Pakistan.





Just like a women would buy 12 pairs of shoes so no other woman could buy them 

Surely a recipe for going bankrupt. 


peace

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Armstrong

jhungary said:


> What i was saying is a force multiplier stuff. You put a OHP near your coast, and it can detect 400 incoming target and attack 40 at the same time, be that Naval Threat (enemy Naval Aviation) or Air Threat (enemy Air Force), at the same time, you can use the Mk-13 to launch ASM missile and engage Surface Target or Naval Target (Ship), and finally the ASW capability mean you can do all that, when you are hunting subs. Which is a 3-dimension attack.



Wouldn't it be possible to have an HQ10 Battery on each of our main naval basis alongside some land-based radar coverage that links to missile boats armed with C-802s/3s patrolling near the cost to be used as a missile battery with the guidance being provided by the ground radar coverage in much the same way an AWAC is able to guide missiles launched by platforms linked with it or so I've heard !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Slayer786

Trolls Alert!

lol indians ki bohot jal rahi hain. Their trolls are rampant here. We need to call an exterminator to get rid of them.


----------



## jhungary

Aeronaut said:


> @jhungary
> 
> So we have both


 
AEW&C or old man?? hehe 



Armstrong said:


> Wouldn't it be possible to have an HQ10 Battery on each of our main naval basis alongside some land-based radar coverage that links to missile boats armed with C-802s/3s patrolling near the cost to be used as a missile battery with the guidance being provided by the ground radar coverage in much the same way an AWAC is able to guide missiles launched by platforms linked with it or so I've heard !


 
Depend on the comm/datalink system with your guided missile, it may or may not be linked to AWACS or any airborne/ground base radar.

Even so, it would not have do you any good. As you have a long front line against India, either you will spread thin your resource, so gap will present, or you really jam your frontline with radar and present itself a big target to the enemy Iron hand mission, that's how we deal with the AA/SAM in Vietnam war.

Beside, landbase radar have limited range and they are static, they are probably be the first one to go in case of war anyway, you need some mobile platform to minimize the lost.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Rashid Mahmood

Penguin said:


> So, how do you explain PN has done this at least twice (Gearings, Amazons). They must be silly?
> 
> While the refurb McInerney got doesn't decrease the age of the hull, it does give her key machinery something akin to a 'zero mileage' reset, if I understand it correctly.
> 
> 76mm Oto Melara naval gun, 20mm Phalanx CIWS, 2x3 torpedo tubes for 324mm lightweight ASW torpedoes, 6 HMGs?
> 
> 
> As for the sonar being 'not designed for these types of waters', that simply is blabla. This is a USN fleet unit, designed to go anywhere in the world.
> 
> i.e. available for hot transfer soon. Count her in.



PN has done this twice because there was no money. And when you have no money you don't have a choice. *The decision was to have ships or to keep the berths empty*.

Internal machinery doesn't increase the life of the hull. 
GTs have a service life, which is in "*hours*" and they have to be overhauled after completing that time.

*As for the sonar being 'not designed for these types of waters', that simply is blabla. This is a USN fleet unit, designed to go anywhere in the world.*

I have studied and "operated" sonar's for a pretty long time, so I guess I know what I am saying.

I cannot tell you the details, but you can be happy on the info available on the internet.

That's all what I can say, anything more would not be appropriate on such a public forum.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Contrarian

FaujHistorian said:


> Just like a women would buy 12 pairs of shoes so no other woman could buy them
> 
> Surely a recipe for going bankrupt.
> 
> 
> peace


At 160m dollars per ship..no sir. Its peanuts.


----------



## Penguin

Rashid Mahmood said:


> PN has done this twice because there was no money. And when you have no money you don't have a choice. *The decision was to have ships or to keep the berths empty*.
> 
> Internal machinery doesn't increase the life of the hull.
> GTs have a service life, which is in "*hours*" and they have to be overhauled after completing that time.
> 
> *As for the sonar being 'not designed for these types of waters', that simply is blabla. This is a USN fleet unit, designed to go anywhere in the world.*
> 
> I have studied and "operated" sonar's for a pretty long time, so I guess I know what I am saying.
> 
> I cannot tell you the details, but you can be happy on the info available on the internet.
> 
> That's all what I can say, anything more would not be appropriate on such a public forum.



PN still has 'no money'. I bet building an F22P at home (let alone an improved design) is more expensive than the $175m per unit friendship price that the Chinese delivered for. And significantly more expensive than $65m for a hot transfer of an ex-USN ship.

On the OHPs: The hull remains the hull, obviously. But who is to say the GTU's in McInerney today are those she was initially delivered with to the USN? It would be efficient (for ship availability) to swap out GTU units when original units need refurbishments: you take out those that need work and stick others in their place (which may have already been refurbished), so you ship doesn't need to linger shore-side while its GTU are worked on.

The hull sonar of the OHP isn't impressive, but when combined with a towed array, it's a different ball game. Then add an helicopter (which may also be Z-9), and it is yet different. The integrated ASW command suite is basically the same as on Arleigh Burke.

While I'm sure some environments pose greater challenges than others to the sonar suite a a whole, I am also confident that the USN has selected a system that provides usefullness in all manner of scenario's that a USN ship might find itself in around the globe.

Question is: how does the sonar in OHP compare to e.g. the original fit in the Type 21 (Sonar Type 184M and 162M). Upon delivery, the first four Type 21 for PN underwent upgrade to equip them with the 9LV Mk3 command, control and communication system as well as Bofors torpedoes and, reportedly, the BAeSEMA-Thomson Sintra active towed array sonars. So, how does OHP fit compare to that upgrade? Finally, how does it compare to F22Ps sonar, which (I read somewhere) has not a Chinese sonar but a European one.

In any case, it does not sound to me as though Type 21's original sonar fit, nor the upgrade, nor F22P sonar fit have sonars specifically designed for Pakistan's coastal area and beyond. Besides, PN is operating in the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean. Are you suggesting OHPs fit is not working there? This makes no sense: the USN would have been seriously handicapped for maby years.

It is a good fit, but surely you can find coastal areas or sea conditions where it does not function optimally. But that goes for ANY sonar and is not a disqualifier.

So, I'm sorry, you have to become more specific about those limitations and its causes...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nishan_101

I support local building....


----------



## Penguin

SQS-56 and DE 1160, which is the Italian version, is used in:
Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates (US), Spain (Santa Maria), Australia (Adelaide) and Taiwan (Cheng Kung), plus users of ex-US ships including Turkey, Egypt, Poland, Bahrein, Pakistan
Italian Lupo and Meastrale class frigates, Durand de la Penne class destroyers
Greek Hydra class frigates (Meko200H)
Turkish Yavuz class frigate (Meko200TN-I, 200TN-II and 200TNIIA)
Saudi Badr class corvette
Chinese Type 51G and 052 destroyers

Italian DE-1164 is consisted of 2 subsystems using the same electrical cabinet, DE-1160 hull mounted sonar (HMS, with a maximum range around 20 km) and DE-1163 variable depth sonar (VDS). Spain replaced the old SQS-23G sonar on its Baleares frigates (Knox variant) by a more modern DE-1160LF set, built in Spain (a larger, lower frequency version of the SQS-56 sonar)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rashid Mahmood

Penguin said:


> PN still has no money. I bet building a F22P at home (let alone an improved design) is more expensive than the $175m freidnship price that the Chinese delivered for. And significantly more expensive than $65m for a hot transfer of an ex-USN ship.
> 
> The hull remains the hull, obviously. But who is to say the GTU's in McInerney today are those she was initially delivered with to the USN? It would be efficient (for ship availability) to swap out GTU units when original units need refurbishments: you take out those that need work and stick others in their place (which may have already been refurbished, so you ship doesn't need to linger shore-side while its GTU are worked on).
> 
> The hull sonar of the OHP isn't impressive, but when comboned with a towed array, it's a different ball game. Then add an helicopter (which may also be Z-9). While I'm sure some environments pose greater challenges than others to the sonar suite a a whole, I am also confident USN has selected a system that provides usefullness in all manner of scenario that a USN ship might find itself in around the globe.
> 
> Question is how does the sonar in OHP compare to e.g. the original fit in the Type 21 (Sonar Type 184M and 162M) . Upon delivery, the first four Type 21 for PN underwent upgrade to equip them with the 9LV Mk3 command, control and communication system as well as Bofors torpedoes and, reportedly, the BAeSEMA-Thomson Sintra active towed array sonars. So, how does OHP fit compare to that? Finally, how does it compare to F22Ps sonar, which (I read somewhere) has not a chinese sonar but a European one. In any case, it does not sound to me as though TRype 21's original sonar fit, nor the upgrade, nor F22P sonar fit have sonars specifically designed for Pakistan's coastal area and beyond. Besides, PN is operating in the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean. Are you suggesting OHPs fit is not working there? This makes no sense: the USN would have been seriously handicapped for years. It is a good fit, but surely you can find coastal areas or sea conditions where it does not function optimally. But that goes for ANY sonar and is not a disqualifier.
> 
> So, I'm sorry, you have to become more specific about those limitations and its causes..




Obviously you "read" alot, but alot of info you have mentioned in your comments is not actually true.
But its good to be optimistic about everything.

I am also sorry that becoming more specific will not be possible coz unfortunately I am not willing to discuss further operational details.


----------



## Water Car Engineer

jhungary said:


> OHP is a very competent platform inspite of the age (35 years old)
> 
> However, i think it would be wise for Pakistan to build more upgraded F-22P and use them as the backbone of PN, but then there would be a problem of F-22P and their light armament, while it's either competent to do Anti-Air and Anti-Ship attack, it's not enough to do both. PN would probably wise to acquire more OHP for supplymentry service and take the load off of the F-22P, i reckon PN should look at acquiring more OHP (either from US or other Allied like Spain or Australia), while the OHP focus on Aerial Target, F-22P focus on Sea/Ground target. PN should also consider putting Mk41 VLS on their OHP frigate.
> 
> In theory, it's best for PN to have at least 12 F-22P and 8 OHP in service. Eventually PN would require to have air defence destroyer if they want to competently hold the naval region they Own.
> 
> Depend on what is PN intentional target, if PN goal is to counter India in this aim, the best PN can do is to hold India as long as you can in case of war, and awaiting the Chinese Fleet intervention.* I think ultimately, PN would need about 12 Subs (Nuclear/Diesel) 30 Frigate (20 F-22P combine with other Frigate, OHP or homemade) and 10 Destroyer (Possible Type 52C/D or later) *to be able to competently defend Pakistani Coast




That's beyond an overkill, and way too expensive.

The other branches of Pakistan's military will suffer to buy and upkeep all that.


----------



## Penguin

Rashid Mahmood said:


> Obviously you "read" alot, but alot of info you have mentioned in your comments is not actually true.
> But its good to be optimistic about everything.
> 
> I am also sorry that becoming more specific will not be possible coz unfortunately I am not willing to discuss further operational details.



There is noone being optimistic about anything. Quite the contrary, I'm tryging to arrive a a reralistic assessment. For that purpose, I've invited you - and still am - to share your knowledge. I am not asking you to reveal anyting secret. But you are not forthcoming. When you claim I'm saying things that are not true, why to you not become specific about that it is that you claim is not true (you don't have to reveal anything, only become specific about what part you think is not correct). I've used open source material where possible because others can verify that. Since when is that a bad thing? And since when can one not discuss a topic without revealing operational details. To me it just sounds like 'acting mysterious'. There are plenty professionals out there who discus topics without 'revealing operational details' .

If you serve(d), may I ask what kind of PN ship (class) and roughly when (e.g. pre or post 2000, if the former, pre or post 1995 and if the latter pre or post 2007?\

Or is 'can neither confirm nor deny', or 'could tell you but would have to kill you'?


----------



## Rashid Mahmood

Penguin said:


> There is noone being optimistic about anything. Quite the contrary, I'm tryging to arrive a a reralistic assessment. For that purpose, I've invited you - and still am - to share your knowledge. I am not asking you to reveal anyting secret. But you are not forthcoming. When you claim I'm saying things that are not true, why to you not become specific about that it is that you claim is not true (you don't have to reveal anything, only become specific about what part you think is not correct). I've used open source material where possible because others can verify that. Since when is that a bad thing? And since when can one not discuss a topic without revealing operational details. To me it just sounds like 'acting mysterious'. There are plenty professionals out there who discus topics without 'revealing operational details' .
> 
> If you serve(d), may I ask what kind of PN ship (class) and roughly when (e.g. pre or post 2000, if the former, pre or post 1995 and if the latter pre or post 2007?\
> 
> Or is 'can neither confirm nor deny', or 'could tell you but would have to kill you'?



Being realistic is good and we all need to do that.
But being realistic on such public forums can cause more harm than benefit.

I very humbly decline to share any personal or official information on a public forum.
I am not "acting mysterious". I am sorry I led the discussion to this extent anyway.

We should keep the discussion limited to the open source material already available openly.
There is nothing bad in that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jhungary

Water Car Engineer said:


> That's beyond an overkill, and way too expensive.
> 
> The other branches of Pakistan's military will suffer to buy and upkeep all that.


 
well, in a perfect world, in a perfect world......

That's why i said ultimately......


----------



## Penguin

Rashid Mahmood said:


> Being realistic is good and we all need to do that.
> But being realistic on such public forums can cause more harm than benefit.
> 
> I very humbly decline to share any personal or official information on a public forum.
> I am not "acting mysterious". I am sorry I led the discussion to this extent anyway.
> 
> We should keep the discussion limited to the open source material already available openly.
> There is nothing bad in that.



I respect and appreciate the sensitivity in relation to the issue of operational security and personal information. My apologies if I've pressed too much.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Arrival of 3 OHP frigates will offer a formidable check on Indian Navy , and equipped with Genesis Upgrades


----------



## jawadqamar

Some sort of SAM system (preferably RIM-162 Evolved SeaSparrow Missile (ESSM) or may be Umkhonto surface-to-air missiles as i believe Chinese options are out question for US provided ships) is a must have along with Harpoons onboard these ships

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nishan_101

I think so that US might refuse in the end as it used to do. But I will prefer getting some Chinese Twin Engine Propeller planes for MPA roles and about 11 of them with Avionics and Sensors that can detect and engage Submarines and Ships...


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Well 4 OHP offers some serious improvements plus our 4-8 F22P frigates offer a ample deterrent to any misadventure by our neighbors







F22P and OHP offer a great improvement for performance for Pakistani Navy


F22P Pakistan


----------



## Basel

Why it is said that old OHPs are ahead in terms of tech to our F-22Ps? and what advantage they have over F-22Ps and what we can install at them?


----------



## rockstar08

does this OHP have some good SAM systems ?


----------



## masifchang

We have everthing in here why dont we even tried to built one ourselves .. We need to achieve self efficiency in field of military


----------



## Manindra

Basel said:


> Why it is said that old OHPs are ahead in terms of tech to our F-22Ps? and what advantage they have over F-22Ps and what we can install at them?



OHP class is frigate but F-22P is competing with our Corvettes & OPVs.


----------



## Basel

Manindra said:


> OHP class is frigate but F-22P is competing with our Corvettes & OPVs.



Thanks for info, now what is interesting to see is after having 4 OHP ships what kind of upgrade and weapons system PN will go for, they may try to make them their primary air defense vessels with other capabilities as secondary.


----------



## Manindra

Basel said:


> Thanks for info, now what is interesting to see is after having 4 OHP ships what kind of upgrade and weapons system PN will go for, they may try to make them their primary air defense vessels with other capabilities as secondary.



You need to add SAM, anti shop missile & cruise missile in it & Turkey can give it genesis upgrade then it would be very potent weapon. F-22P sucks


----------



## Basel

Manindra said:


> You need to add SAM, anti shop missile & cruise missile in it & Turkey can give it genesis upgrade then it would be very potent weapon. F-22P sucks



If PN some how upgrade OHPs to these standards (link below) than F-22Ps will not suck because they need stong air defense protection and in this kind of protection they can bring hell to IN.

Sachsen Class (F124) - Naval Technology

Further F-22Ps are not as bad as many think, if they were that bad then why PN did not go for Type 54-As, where PM Yousuf Raza Gilani had signed lease agreement for 2 Type-54s along with 6 subs during his visit to China, the news has been circulated locally that new F-22Ps will be Superior to Type-54A, and here is what Type-54-A capability link.

Type 054A frigate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Manindra

Basel said:


> If PN some how upgrade OHPs to these standards (link below) than F-22Ps will not suck because they need stong air defense protection and in this kind of protection they can bring hell to IN.
> 
> Sachsen Class (F124) - Naval Technology
> 
> Further F-22Ps are not as bad as many think, if they were that bad then why PN did not go for Type 54-As, where PM Yousuf Raza Gilani had signed lease agreement for 2 Type-54s along with 6 subs during his visit to China, the news has been circulated locally that new F-22Ps will be Superior to Type-54A, and here is what Type-54-A capability link.
> 
> Type 054A frigate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



This give PN a good deterence but where is money ?
F-22P is cost effective solution for PN.


----------



## Basel

Manindra said:


> This give PN a good deterence but where is money ?
> F-22P is cost effective solution for PN.



If you are taking about China & Turkey then they are ready to provide long term loans on soft conditions and China can also be repaid by raw material or other goods, Pakistan and China have an agreement to trade in local currencies which make is less expensive too.

@Penguin I will like to have your opinion regarding upgrade potential of those 4 OHPs and to what level & system wise PN can get them upgraded as per their conditions?


----------



## Manindra

Basel said:


> If you are taking about China & Turkey then they are ready to provide long term loans on soft conditions and China can also be repaid by raw material or other goods, Pakistan and China have an agreement to trade in local currencies which make is less expensive too.



Turkey is in position to provide technology but not soft loans & Chinese are give enough loans to you & they are holding 36 J-10B & 6 Qing class submarine deal due to non availibility of funds.


----------



## Basel

Manindra said:


> Turkey is in position to provide technology but not soft loans & Chinese are give enough loans to you & they are holding 36 J-10B & 6 Qing class submarine deal due to non availibility of funds.



Those six sub have to be constructed and funds are not always the main issue if it was then PN would have not ordered more F-22Ps but some times its our political mess too.

For J-10B, PAF will only go for them when IAF will give go ahead to Rafales, because they will customize it as per new threat perception and now there is news on PDF that J-10C is ready which is similar to Silent Hornet if true PAF may know it since long and they might be waiting for a good avionics and stealthy J-10 version to be called FC-20.


----------



## Manindra

Basel said:


> Those six sub have to be constructed and funds are not always the main issue if it was then PN would have not ordered more F-22Ps but some times its our political mess too.
> 
> For J-10B, PAF will only go for them when IAF will give go ahead to Rafales, because they will customize it as per new threat perception and now there is news on PDF that J-10C is ready which is similar to Silent Hornet if true PAF may know it since long and they might be waiting for a good avionics and stealthy J-10 version to be called FC-20.



Rafale is another league compare to J10 B or C, its more a ground attack fighter with multirole capabilities. J10 real competition is from Su-30 MKI , MIG-29 UPG or K
FC-20 is another name of J-10 its not a different version just like JF-17 is called FC-1
PAF seriously needs J-10B to complement their F-16 fighters & its clearly stated by PAF officials & other bureaucrats that J-10B deal is put on hold due to financial reason.
Money makes all possible if PN got sufficient budget then they never order F-22P in those big number but other more capable warships.


----------



## rockstar08

Manindra said:


> Rafale is another league compare to J10 B or C, its more a ground attack fighter with multirole capabilities. J10 real competition is from Su-30 MKI , MIG-29 UPG or K
> FC-20 is another name of J-10 its not a different version just like JF-17 is called FC-1
> PAF seriously needs J-10B to complement their F-16 fighters & its clearly stated by PAF officials & other bureaucrats that J-10B deal is put on hold due to financial reason.
> Money makes all possible if PN got sufficient budget then they never order F-22P in those big number but other more capable warships.



dude first of all f-16's are not a kind of aircraft you cant underestimate its excellent performance record . and j-10b/c will to counter rafale if IAF gets them , ever heard about f-16 blk50/52 and MLU ? and blockII jf-17 is already started ... after j-10 we will have everything to counter your IAF . and by the end of 2016 block-III jf-17 will come out with many many more upgrades . 
feel free to search on PDF i am a lazy person to provide you links


----------



## Manindra

rockstar08 said:


> dude first of all f-16's are not a kind of aircraft you cant underestimate its excellent performance record . and j-10b/c will to counter rafale if IAF gets them , ever heard about f-16 blk50/52 and MLU ? and blockII jf-17 is already started ... after j-10 we will have everything to counter your IAF . and by the end of 2016 block-III jf-17 will come out with many many more upgrades .
> feel free to search on PDF i am a lazy person to provide you links



Rafale is mainly for ground attack role which you didn't have answer. F-16 MLU is not on the par with BLOCK 52. PAF Block 52 is not in the par with USAF F-16 Block 52. Our MIG-29K are slightly better than this. Kindly note that PAF have only 18 F-16 Block 52.
Tejas MK1 have more feature than JF-17 Block II.


----------



## rockstar08

Manindra said:


> Rafale is mainly for ground attack role which you didn't have answer. F-16 MLU is not on the par with BLOCK 52. PAF Block 52 is not in the par with USAF F-16 Block 52. Our MIG-29K are slightly better than this. Kindly note that PAF have only 18 F-16 Block 52.
> Tejas MK1 have more feature than JF-17 Block II.


 
dude i told you to update yourself , Jf-17 is multirole fighter , and check out the recent upgrades on blk50/52 , and if you are talking about the Tejas which is yet to become a reality since last 30 years so i feel sorry for you ... 
there is a separate thread for f-16blk 50/52 vs miG-29 you can kindly visit ..
again i am lazy to found it for you


----------



## Basel

Manindra said:


> Rafale is another league compare to J10 B or C, its more a ground attack fighter with multirole capabilities. J10 real competition is from Su-30 MKI , MIG-29 UPG or K
> FC-20 is another name of J-10 its not a different version just like JF-17 is called FC-1
> PAF seriously needs J-10B to complement their F-16 fighters & its clearly stated by PAF officials & other bureaucrats that J-10B deal is put on hold due to financial reason.
> Money makes all possible if PN got sufficient budget then they never order F-22P in those big number but other more capable warships.



True for J-10s but PAF will have its own customize version which will be called FC-20, PAF is delaying it because they want most advance variant which surpasses F-16 Block-60s and now J-10B is near/same to block-52s in terms of avionics, as per its design it ahead of F-16s. What PAF want is a fighter which is multirole but with strong air dominance capabilities which they lack now. 

For you Rafale is for ground attack in primary role but you dont understand that it is much more of a concern for PAF then MKIs air dominance as it will be stealthy at low level interdiction and with very good weapons & avionics. PAF always had concern of low level strike package of IAF since 80s Mig-27s, Mig-23s & Jag escorted with Mig-29s or M2Ks was seen as major threat, so now you can understand where Rafale stand because it is a combination of all 80s IAF strike package planes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## arp2041

Contrarian said:


> Brilliant deal.
> I wonder why India doesnt acquire such ships from US, if anything to reduce their availability to Pakistan.



You mean under the same conditions as INS Jalashwa ----> Not to use in war, on site inspections, blah blah blah??


----------



## Contrarian

arp2041 said:


> You mean under the same conditions as INS Jalashwa ----> Not to use in war, on site inspections, blah blah blah??


We have different onsite conditions. They are different from the standard US protocols.
They would get to see the log books instead of physical inspection.

And yes, for patrol vessels, there really is no need for them to go to war. They can be easily used for patrol duties.
Its a question of prioritizing. I think spending and making front line warships at high cost makes more sense than expending high cost on second line ships which are easily available from elsewhere. The savings can be directed towards more front line warships.


----------



## Srinivas

Contrarian said:


> Brilliant deal.
> I wonder why India doesnt acquire such ships from US, if anything to reduce their availability to Pakistan.



USA is helping Pakistani navy, just like they used to do earlier. It is like china and USA are vying for the influence in Pakistani armed forces, But USA is miles ahead in this game.


----------



## Manindra

Basel said:


> True for J-10s but PAF will have its own customize version which will be called FC-20, PAF is delaying it because they want most advance variant which surpasses F-16 Block-60s and now J-10B is near/same to block-52s in terms of avionics, as per its design it ahead of F-16s. What PAF want is a fighter which is multirole but with strong air dominance capabilities which they lack now.
> 
> For you Rafale is for ground attack in primary role but you dont understand that it is much more of a concern for PAF then MKIs air dominance as it will be stealthy at low level interdiction and with very good weapons & avionics. PAF always had concern of low level strike package of IAF since 80s Mig-27s, Mig-23s & Jag escorted with Mig-29s or M2Ks was seen as major threat, so now you can understand where Rafale stand because it is a combination of all 80s IAF strike package planes.



True, but you should also consider that a big chunk of IAF fleet were for take on China. So, numerical superiority of IAF. Thats why IAF is more concern with quality of Aircrafts.



rockstar08 said:


> dude i told you to update yourself , Jf-17 is multirole fighter , and check out the recent upgrades on blk50/52 , and if you are talking about the Tejas which is yet to become a reality since last 30 years so i feel sorry for you ...
> there is a separate thread for f-16blk 50/52 vs miG-29 you can kindly visit ..
> again i am lazy to found it for you



Your F-16 block 52 is not with the par with USAF F-16 Block50/52
Your F-16 does not have AIM-9X Sidewinder.
Its like lion without claws go to challenge tiger.
Tejas MKI have HMS, IFR, WVR & BVR, Qudraplex FCL, HOBS
Tell Does your JFT Block I have any feature currently.


----------



## Basel

Manindra said:


> Your F-16 block 52 is not with the par with USAF F-16 Block50/52
> Your F-16 does not have AIM-9X Sidewinder.
> Its like lion without claws go to challenge tiger.
> Tejas MKI have HMS, IFR, WVR & BVR, Qudraplex FCL, HOBS
> Tell Does your JFT Block I have any feature currently.



US is also using F-16 block-40, PAF's new & MLUed F-16s as per tech has very potent ones and they have nearly same goodies as per current US F-16 50s/52s reason for that is because US have gone miles ahead in tech and these are not their primary front line fighter now and it is not against in their interest too, they are going to upgrade their current fleet of F-16s which will surpass capabilities of any current F-16s operators of then ours will become less advance in terms of tech.

PAF is not much interested in AIM-9X they were more interested in IRIS-T from Germany which was said to be more advance and mature than AIM-9X, further PAF have MAA-1Bs & A-Darters for WVR battles and they are co-developing their next version with manufacturing countries.

HMS, IFR, WVR & BVR are available for JF-17s too but not disclosed publicly which version will have all of them.


----------



## Penguin

rockstar08 said:


> does this OHP have some good SAM systems ?


None of the currently existing USN OHPs has a functional Mk13 launcher i.e. no functional capability to launch Harpoon and SM1. The STIR associated with SM1 has also been removed.



Basel said:


> ave over F-22Ps and what we can install at t





Basel said:


> Why it is said that old OHPs are ahead in terms of tech to our F-22Ps? and what advantage they have over F-22Ps and what we can install at them?


Dig up some of the discussions about McInerney that are available on the forum: it has been extensively debated and discussed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Basel

Penguin said:


> None of the currently existing USN OHPs has a functional Mk13 launcher i.e. no functional capability to launch Harpoon and SM1. The STIR associated with SM1 has also been removed.



But can PN upgrade these OHPs to potent air defense assets? and if yes what you think they can put on them as per current geopolitical situation faced by Pakistan.

@Penguin I asked you because this thread is also about OHPs and people specially from India treat F-22Ps as junk and compare them with OHPs too, and what I want to know is that if OHPs are ahead of them then why and what Pakistan can do with them in current situation if faces i.e. economic, geopolitical etc.


----------



## Penguin

Basel said:


> @Penguin I will like to have your opinion regarding upgrade potential of those 4 OHPs and to what level & system wise PN can get them upgraded as per their conditions?


Look at how similar ships have been upgrade by Turkish and Australian navies. Of course, they did start out with ships that still had the Mk13 and Stir... but doesn't necessarily make for a disadvantage. 

Think e.g.:
Genesis
1x Mk41 + 32 ESSM
2x4 Harpoon
Ceafar/Ceamount mast (as on ANZAC)
Thales Smart

Mind you, this is not cheap and question is whether such a fix would be cost-effective (given the life left in those hulls)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Basel

Penguin said:


> Look at how similar ships have been upgrade by Turkish and Australian navies. Of course, they did start out with ships that still had the Mk13 and Stir... but doesn't necessarily make for a disadvantage.
> Think e.g.:
> Genesis
> 1x Mk41 + 32 ESSM
> 2x4 Harpoon
> Ceafar/Ceamount mast (as on ANZAC)
> Thales Smart
> Mind you, this is not cheap and question is whether such a fix would be cost-effective (given the life left in those hulls)



Will US allow this upgrade? if yes then will these ships will be able to handle the threat pose by IN's missiles and air wing?

If US don't allow upgrade with their stuff, what else PN can get to make them potent platforms specially for air defense?


----------



## BDforever

congrats to pakistani brothers and sisters


----------



## Penguin

Basel said:


> But can PN upgrade these OHPs to potent air defense assets? and if yes what you think they can put on them as per current geopolitical situation faced by Pakistan.
> 
> @Penguin I asked you because this thread is also about OHPs and people specially from India treat F-22Ps as junk and compare them with OHPs too, and what I want to know is that if OHPs are ahead of them then why and what Pakistan can do with them in current situation if faces i.e. economic, geopolitical etc.



Perry's are likely superiors in terms of ASW and EW. Obviously, without Harpoon and SM1, they are inferior to F22P in terms of AAW and ASuW. They are large fleet assets, while F22P is smaller, with likely lesser seakeeping and endurance. F22Ps as they are are not bad ships, though they would benefit from installation of a IIRH or ARH VL SAM and possibly by changing some Chinese systems to European or US system (thinking in terms of sensors, electronics and C3I)



Basel said:


> Will US allow this upgrade? if yes then will these ships will be able to handle the threat pose by IN's missiles and air wing?
> 
> If US don't allow upgrade with their stuff, what else PN can get to make them potent platforms specially for air defense?


Why wouldn't they if PN owns the ships and pays for the upgrade?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Capt.Popeye

Penguin said:


> Why wouldn't they if PN owns the ships and pays for the upgrade?


 

There are always conditions attached to FMS deals, even more so if they fall under the ambit of MAP and EDA transactions. Statecraft comes with strings attached, unless these points are clarified in the intial contract. Uncle Sam is the least forthcoming of all weapon-suppliers.


----------



## rockstar08

without proper sam's these ship are nothing but sitting ducks


----------



## Penguin

Capt.Popeye said:


> There are always conditions attached to FMS deals, even more so if they fall under the ambit of MAP and EDA transactions. Statecraft comes with strings attached, unless these points are clarified in the intial contract. Uncle Sam is the least forthcoming of all weapon-suppliers.


Basis? None of the non-US OHP builders or operators have experienced problems upgrading their ships. Likewise Knox class (see e.g. Taiwan).


----------



## Manindra

Basel said:


> US is also using F-16 block-40, PAF's new & MLUed F-16s as per tech has very potent ones and they have nearly same goodies as per current US F-16 50s/52s reason for that is because US have gone miles ahead in tech and these are not their primary front line fighter now and it is not against in their interest too, they are going to upgrade their current fleet of F-16s which will surpass capabilities of any current F-16s operators of then ours will become less advance in terms of tech.
> 
> PAF is not much interested in AIM-9X they were more interested in IRIS-T from Germany which was said to be more advance and mature than AIM-9X, further PAF have MAA-1Bs & A-Darters for WVR battles and they are co-developing their next version with manufacturing countries.
> 
> HMS, IFR, WVR & BVR are available for JF-17s too but not disclosed publicly which version will have all of them.



It is a very lame claim that JFT have but it would disclose later is like Pakistan radio announce that PA is advance in Siliguri in 1971 & after 3 days news broke out that PA surrendered with more than 93000 persons.
AIM-9X is not mature weapon????????

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## haman10

very good , we muslim countries need to strengthen our naval warfare capabilities .

just in case someone from 10000 km away goes crazy !! yet again

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Penguin

rockstar08 said:


> without proper sam's these ship are nothing but sitting ducks


Try stating something that is not obvious?


----------



## rockstar08

Penguin said:


> Try stating something that is not obvious?



ok give me time to think than


----------



## Capt.Popeye

Penguin said:


> Basis? None of the non-US OHP builders or operators have experienced problems upgrading their ships. Likewise Knox class (see e.g. Taiwan).


 
All the others have used US sources or US approved sources, in other words all upgrades were permitted/approved by the US.


----------



## Basel

Manindra said:


> It is a very lame claim that JFT have but it would disclose later is like Pakistan radio announce that PA is advance in Siliguri in 1971 & after 3 days news broke out that PA surrendered with more than 93000 persons.
> AIM-9X is not mature weapon????????



As per tech for JF-17s there are many tech goodies available for them even from China only integration is the problem OR PAF may be waiting for better western tech for other resources, only AESA radar and OLS may not be ready for it now.

link for those who think China don't have HMS for its planes they have it even for J-7s, as discussed in this thread.

Aviation Helmet Designs & Helmet Mounted Systems

IRIS-T was developed prior to AIM-9X therefore it was mature before AIM-9X.


----------



## Penguin

Basel said:


> As per tech for JF-17s there are many tech goodies available for them even from China only integration is the problem OR PAF may be waiting for better western tech for other resources, only AESA radar and OLS may not be ready for it now.
> 
> link for those who think China don't have HMS for its planes they have it even for J-7s, as discussed in this thread.
> 
> Aviation Helmet Designs & Helmet Mounted Systems
> 
> IRIS-T was developed prior to AIM-9X therefore it was mature before AIM-9X.





> As of June 2013, Raytheon has delivered 5,000 AIM-9X missiles to the armed services.


AIM-9 Sidewinder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> The US Air Force requires 5,080 Sidewinder missiles, while the US Navy plans to buy 5,000 missiles. The AIM-9X is also being supplied to Nato member countries and other US allied nations.
> 
> In October 2012, the Netherlands requested 28 AIM-9X-2 Sidewinder Block II missiles.
> 
> In July 2012, Morocco and the US exercised a letter of offer and acceptance (LOA) for AIM-9X Block II missiles.


AIM-9X Sidewinder Air-to-Air Missile - Airforce Technology


> All in, IRIS-T program represents around 4,000 missiles for the armed forces of Germany, Greece, Italy, Norway, Spain and Sweden.Deliveries of the 4,000 missiles are expected to begin in 2005 and to be ongoing until 2011.


IRIS-T



> More than 4,000 IRIS-T missiles initially ordered by the consortium are scheduled to be delivered by the end of 2012.


IRIS-T Air-to-Air Guided Missile - Airforce Technology

Thusfar, it seems, AIM-9X is ahead.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Basel

@Penguin what do u think which one among IRIS-T & AIM-9X is better not talking about AIM-9X2, some years back there were news that Pakistan was interested in IRIS-Ts, and it was discussed in a package of weapons systems which Pakistan wanted to purchase from them.


----------



## Penguin

Capt.Popeye said:


> All the others have used US sources or US approved sources, in other words all upgrades were permitted/approved by the US.


Pls document approval is even necessary. E.g. instances in which intended upgrades were blocked due to US intervention or non-cooperation.



Basel said:


> @Penguin what do u think which one among IRIS-T & AIM-9X is better not talking about AIM-9X2, some years back there were news that Pakistan was interested in IRIS-Ts, and it was discussed in a package of weapons systems which Pakistan wanted to purchase from them.


I have no idea, would have to study info on each.



rockstar08 said:


> ok give me time to think than


This message will self destruct in 10 seconds, 9, 8, 7, ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Capt.Popeye

Penguin said:


> Pls document approval is even necessary. E.g. instances in which intended upgrades were blocked due to US intervention or non-cooperation.


 
Did'nt get what you're trying to say there....


----------



## Kompromat

*STICK TO THE TOPIC!*

@Basel @Manindra

STOP derailing the thread!


----------



## Penguin

Capt.Popeye said:


> Did'nt get what you're trying to say there....


What - if any - proof or indication is there of the need for US approval for updated to OHPs (or any older ex-US ship for that matter - such as Knox, Gearing etc.). One indication would be instances where US has blocked upgrade plans, particurly if this involved non-US sources equipments.


----------



## Penguin

Capt.Popeye said:


> All the others have used US sources or US approved sources, in other words all upgrades were permitted/approved by the US.



Any upgrade would require integration with any existing systems remaining and hence involvement of original suppliers. US companies are bound by laws guiding US exports of technology items, which prohibit the export of certain technologies to certain countries (e.g. Iran, North Korea). But if it is not US companies delivering equipment for an upgrade, it is a different situation. 

That is not the same as having to get approval for an upgrade of ex-US ship with non-US equipment.


----------



## Capt.Popeye

Penguin said:


> What - if any - proof or indication is there of the need for US approval for updated to OHPs (or any older ex-US ship for that matter - such as Knox, Gearing etc.). One indication would be instances where US has blocked upgrade plans, particurly if this involved non-US sources equipments.


 
Just read the associated protocols involved in the transfer of the Alamgir for instance. Protocol is the correct expression, btw, since it did not come under a contract.
Similarly for the Trenton/Jalashwa. Even though it came under a Contract. The USA is very careful to incorporate these terms in all transfer agreements. The only latitude that they may extend is in the execution of those terms. Which varies from recepient to recepient. Hence Australia will not be on the same page with Taiwan for instance, just as both of them will not be on the same page with Pakistan.


----------



## Penguin

Capt.Popeye said:


> Just read the associated protocols involved in the transfer of the Alamgir for instance. Protocol is the correct expression, btw, since it did not come under a contract.
> Similarly for the Trenton/Jalashwa. Even though it came under a Contract. The USA is very careful to incorporate these terms in all transfer agreements. The only latitude that they may extend is in the execution of those terms. Which varies from recepient to recepient. Hence Australia will not be on the same page with Taiwan for instance, just as both of them will not be on the same page with Pakistan.


Fifty-five ships were built in the United States: 51 for the USN and four for the RAN. In addition, eight were built in the ROC (Taiwan), six in Spain, and two in Australia for those navies. Ships built in Spain included Spanish weapons and sensor systems. Ships built in Taiwan eventually received Taiwanese AShM. Former U.S. Navy warships of this class have been sold or donated to the navies of Bahrain, Egypt, Poland, Pakistan and Turkey. Thusfar major upgrades were conducted by Australia and Turkey only. Four of six ships built by Spain are currently undergoing an mlu.

No reference to any restrictions on upgrading / permissions here:
www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/pakistan-–-refurbishment-oliver-hazard-perry-class-frigate
http://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/mas/pakistan_09-28_0.pdf

If you were referring to


> (d)
> Repair and refurbishment in United States Shipyards
> 
> To the maximum extent practicable, the President shall require, as a condition of the transfer of a vessel under this section, that the recipient to which the vessel is transferred have such repair or refurbishment of the vessel as is needed, before the vessel joins the naval forces of the recipient, performed at a shipyard located in the United States, including a United States Navy shipyard.


Text of S. 3052 (110th): Naval Vessel Transfer Act of 2008 (Reported by Senate Committee version) - GovTrack.us

then note this refers only to any work PRIOR to transfer to recipient

Likewise for USS Trenton / Jalashwa
Text of S. 1886 (109th): Naval Vessels Transfer Act of 2005 (Passed Congress/Enrolled Bill version) - GovTrack.us

While there was some hubhub surrounding the acquisition of Trenton by IN, it had nothing to do with any permission to upgrade. In fact, it's IN service history suggests quite the contrary. See:
INS Jalashwa (L41) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
INS Jalashwa (L41) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If this is not what you are referring to, please point to the source material via a link.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Capt.Popeye

Penguin said:


> Fifty-five ships were built in the United States: 51 for the USN and four for the RAN. In addition, eight were built in the ROC (Taiwan), six in Spain, and two in Australia for those navies. Ships built in Spain included Spanish weapons and sensor systems. Ships built in Taiwan eventually received Taiwanese AShM. Former U.S. Navy warships of this class have been sold or donated to the navies of Bahrain, Egypt, Poland, Pakistan and Turkey. Thusfar major upgrades were conducted by Australia and Turkey only. Four of six ships built by Spain are currently undergoing an mlu.
> 
> No reference to any restrictions on upgrading / permissions here:
> www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/pakistan-–-refurbishment-oliver-hazard-perry-class-frigate
> http://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/mas/pakistan_09-28_0.pdf
> 
> If you were referring to
> 
> Text of S. 3052 (110th): Naval Vessel Transfer Act of 2008 (Reported by Senate Committee version) - GovTrack.us
> 
> then note this refers only to any work PRIOR to transfer to recipient
> 
> Likewise for USS Trenton / Jalashwa
> Text of S. 1886 (109th): Naval Vessels Transfer Act of 2005 (Passed Congress/Enrolled Bill version) - GovTrack.us
> 
> While there was some hubhub surrounding the acquisition of Trenton by IN, it had nothing to do with any permission to upgrade. In fact, it's IN service history suggests quite the contrary. See:
> INS Jalashwa (L41) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> INS Jalashwa (L41) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> If this is not what you are referring to, please point to the source material via a link.


 
Nope, its nothing to do with what you quote. The protocols have all the associated conditions attached.
If the IN (hypothetically) decides to replace the Phalanx system with an Indian built AK-630 CIWS or install a Barak-1 system from Israel on Jalashwa, then a US nod will be required and will not be a fore-gone conclusion. These conditions attach to FMS transfers and even more so to MAP and EDA transactions as I have mentioned before. And as I have said earlier, the only latitude that USA extends is in execution of that proviso on a case-to-case basis and on a recepient-to recepient basis.
The one exception that comes to mind in case of pakistan was when the PAF was allowed to re-wire the Chinese origin MiG-19s in its fleet for Sidewinders in 1970-71. That exceptional ok was granted in the light of PAF's desperation at the time. But with very dubious results and on a limited scale that made little difference.
Nothing has changed since then. Any changes/improvements/upgrades/transfers needs US approval/permission.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Donatello

Capt.Popeye said:


> Nope, its nothing to do with what you quote. The protocols have all the associated conditions attached.
> If the IN (hypothetically) decides to replace the Phalanx system with an Indian built AK-630 CIWS or install a Barak-1 system from Israel on Jalashwa, then a US nod will be required and will not be a fore-gone conclusion. These conditions attach to FMS transfers and even more so to MAP and EDA transactions as I have mentioned before. And as I have said earlier, the only latitude that USA extends is in execution of that proviso on a case-to-case basis and on a recepient-to recepient basis.
> The one exception that comes to mind in case of pakistan was when the PAF was allowed to re-wire the Chinese origin MiG-19s in its fleet for Sidewinders in 1970-71. That exceptional ok was granted in the light of PAF's desperation at the time. But with very dubious results and on a limited scale that made little difference.
> Nothing has changed since then. Any changes/improvements/upgrades/transfers needs US approval/permission.




Stop parroting one thing again and again.

When USA has allowed the P3-Cs to be armed with Harpoons and F-16s with AMRAAMs, why would they stop the upgrade of OHP?

And in case of Genesis, that will come from Turkey. Or pehaps, PN can install Chinese systems.

OHPs are big ships meaning they need to have a large contingent of crew etc. Why would PN waste it's limited resources in running ships that are not properly armed?

It is none of your concern, so no need to argue here again and again and bring in India or Taiwan or Australia.


@Oscar @TaimiKhan @Aeronaut 

MODs can you please put an end to this discussion. I would say, ban all those posters who have nothing technical to contribute in Pakistan's section. US sanctions, restrictions bla bla, what utter non-sense is this? I am sick and tired of this behavior. Every thread is being ruined.



Penguin said:


> Fifty-five ships were built in the United States: 51 for the USN and four for the RAN. In addition, eight were built in the ROC (Taiwan), six in Spain, and two in Australia for those navies. Ships built in Spain included Spanish weapons and sensor systems. Ships built in Taiwan eventually received Taiwanese AShM. Former U.S. Navy warships of this class have been sold or donated to the navies of Bahrain, Egypt, Poland, Pakistan and Turkey. Thusfar major upgrades were conducted by Australia and Turkey only. Four of six ships built by Spain are currently undergoing an mlu.
> 
> No reference to any restrictions on upgrading / permissions here:
> www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/pakistan-–-refurbishment-oliver-hazard-perry-class-frigate
> http://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/mas/pakistan_09-28_0.pdf
> 
> If you were referring to
> 
> Text of S. 3052 (110th): Naval Vessel Transfer Act of 2008 (Reported by Senate Committee version) - GovTrack.us
> 
> then note this refers only to any work PRIOR to transfer to recipient
> 
> Likewise for USS Trenton / Jalashwa
> Text of S. 1886 (109th): Naval Vessels Transfer Act of 2005 (Passed Congress/Enrolled Bill version) - GovTrack.us
> 
> While there was some hubhub surrounding the acquisition of Trenton by IN, it had nothing to do with any permission to upgrade. In fact, it's IN service history suggests quite the contrary. See:
> INS Jalashwa (L41) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> INS Jalashwa (L41) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> If this is not what you are referring to, please point to the source material via a link.




Penguin,

You are a respected member, but please no need to reply. These people will never learn. They will keep trolling.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Capt.Popeye

Donatello said:


> Stop parroting one thing again and again.
> 
> When USA has allowed the P3-Cs to be armed with Harpoons and F-16s with AMRAAMs, why would they stop the upgrade of OHP?
> 
> And in case of Genesis, that will come from Turkey. Or pehaps, PN can install Chinese systems.
> 
> OHPs are big ships meaning they need to have a large contingent of crew etc. Why would PN waste it's limited resources in running ships that are not properly armed?
> 
> It is none of your concern, so no need to argue here again and again and bring in India or Taiwan or Australia.
> 
> 
> @Oscar @TaimiKhan @Aeronaut
> 
> MODs can you please put an end to this discussion. I would say, ban all those posters who have nothing technical to contribute in Pakistan's section. US sanctions, restrictions bla bla, what utter non-sense is this? I am sick and tired of this behavior. Every thread is being ruined.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penguin,
> 
> You are a respected member, but please no need to reply. These people will never learn. They will keep trolling.


 
Read through all my posts on this particular discussion. I have not said that upgrades are ruled out. I have clearly said that the upgrades have to be permitted/approved by the USA. Also the source/origin of the equipment has to be either US origin or US approved. Then you wiil understand what and how the upgrades that you mention in your post happened.
Remember that the USA has been very consistent in incorporating all the fine-print in all their protocols, agreements, contracts as the case may be. It also happens that I have some familiarity with these aspects; just as GoI has had to have and just as upwards of 90 countries world-wide have had to have when they dealt with the USA for weaponry transfers/acquisitions. Thats just the way things are and have been.

Probably the only people who did not get bothered with these legal niceties were the Mujaheddin/Contra/Sandinistas for all the understandable reasons.


----------



## Penguin

Capt.Popeye said:


> Nope, its nothing to do with what you quote. The protocols have all the associated conditions attached.
> If the IN (hypothetically) decides to replace the Phalanx system with an Indian built AK-630 CIWS or install a Barak-1 system from Israel on Jalashwa, then a US nod will be required and will not be a fore-gone conclusion. These conditions attach to FMS transfers and even more so to MAP and EDA transactions as I have mentioned before. And as I have said earlier, the only latitude that USA extends is in execution of that proviso on a case-to-case basis and on a recepient-to recepient basis.
> The one exception that comes to mind in case of pakistan was when the PAF was allowed to re-wire the Chinese origin MiG-19s in its fleet for Sidewinders in 1970-71. That exceptional ok was granted in the light of PAF's desperation at the time. But with very dubious results and on a limited scale that made little difference.
> Nothing has changed since then. Any changes/improvements/upgrades/transfers needs US approval/permission.


Is there any public access to these or older 'protocols', that you are aware of? (I don't like unverifiable statements and would like to see some documentation that supports your position / assertion)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Capt.Popeye

Penguin said:


> 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.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Basel

Aeronaut said:


> STICK TO THE TOPIC!
> @Basel @Manindra
> STOP derailing the thread!



Sorry!


----------



## Penguin

Capt.Popeye 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?



Capt.Popeye said:


> 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.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Capt.Popeye

Penguin said:


> 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.


----------



## Penguin

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...


----------



## Penguin

> *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


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Well certainly the OHP 3 ships would add to prestige of Pakistan Navy


----------



## Nishan_101

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...


----------



## Rashid Mahmood

Nishan_101 said:


> 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.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Penguin

Nishan_101 said:


> 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?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Nishan_101

Penguin said:


> 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.


----------



## Neptune

@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

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Koovie

Contrarian said:


> 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

Neptune said:


> @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.


----------



## Penguin

Neptune said:


> @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.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Nishan_101

Penguin said:


> 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.



So its 100% better for PN to give away with US permission the OHP we have and PN needs to build F-22P Block-IIs or an entirely new Frigate like of 5000 Tons max. and 25 tons Corvette Max. In a numbers like:

5000 Tons Frigate max. = 11
2500 Tons Corvette max.= 11-14
1100 Tons FAC max. = 16

This will allow PN to sell 4 F-22P and 2 FAC to any other country in coming 7 years time.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

Nishan_101 said:


> So its 100% better for PN to give away with US permission the OHP we have and PN needs to build F-22P Block-IIs or an entirely new Frigate like of 5000 Tons max. and 25 tons Corvette Max. In a numbers like:
> 
> 5000 Tons Frigate max. = 11
> 2500 Tons Corvette max.= 11-14
> 1100 Tons FAC max. = 16
> 
> This will allow PN to sell 4 F-22P and 2 FAC to any other country in coming 7 years time.



if u cannot discuss anything seriously please stop posting such rubbish 
do we have money to buy yourc dream goodies ?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kaykay

Nishan_101 said:


> So its 100% better for PN to give away with US permission the OHP we have and PN needs to build F-22P Block-IIs or an entirely new Frigate like of 5000 Tons max. and 25 tons Corvette Max. In a numbers like:
> 
> 5000 Tons Frigate max. = 11
> 2500 Tons Corvette max.= 11-14
> 1100 Tons FAC max. = 16
> 
> This will allow PN to sell 4 F-22P and 2 FAC to any other country in coming 7 years time.


That would take atleast 2 decades and your Navy alone will need atleast $5-6 Billion/annum budget.


----------



## monitor

Nishan_101 said:


> So its 100% better for PN to give away with US permission the OHP we have and PN needs to build F-22P Block-IIs or an entirely new Frigate like of 5000 Tons max. and 25 tons Corvette Max. In a numbers like:
> 
> 5000 Tons Frigate max. = 11
> 2500 Tons Corvette max.= 11-14
> 1100 Tons FAC max. = 16
> 
> This will allow PN to sell 4 F-22P and 2 FAC to any other country in coming 7 years time.




Whom you want to fight with this giant fleet 
better to invest few stealth Type 54B along with 2~4 destroyer from China along with F-22p with some modification in latter batch. a fleet composition would 4 destroyer ~5 stealth frigate 10 F-22p enough to deter your main enemy from any attack . beside this modest fleet of sub and FAC thats enough i think .


----------



## rockstar08

Nishan_101 said:


> 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...



looks like you are a " jugardo " man ..... buy , upgrade and sell

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Penguin

Nishan_101 said:


> So its 100% better for PN to give away with US permission the OHP we have and PN needs to build F-22P Block-IIs or an entirely new Frigate like of 5000 Tons max. and 25 tons Corvette Max. In a numbers like:
> 
> 5000 Tons Frigate max. = 11
> 2500 Tons Corvette max.= 11-14
> 1100 Tons FAC max. = 16
> 
> This will allow PN to sell 4 F-22P and 2 FAC to any other country in coming 7 years time.


Uhm no, not at all. PN is facing block obsolescense in its major surface units. Anything that will bring down average fleet age should be encouraged.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pakistanisage

jhungary said:


> OHP is a very competent platform inspite of the age (35 years old)
> 
> However, i think it would be wise for Pakistan to build more upgraded F-22P and use them as the backbone of PN, but then there would be a problem of F-22P and their light armament, while it's either competent to do Anti-Air and Anti-Ship attack, it's not enough to do both. PN would probably wise to acquire more OHP for supplymentry service and take the load off of the F-22P, i reckon PN should look at acquiring more OHP (either from US or other Allied like Spain or Australia), while the OHP focus on Aerial Target, F-22P focus on Sea/Ground target. PN should also consider putting Mk41 VLS on their OHP frigate.
> 
> In theory, it's best for PN to have at least 12 F-22P and 8 OHP in service. Eventually PN would require to have air defence destroyer if they want to competently hold the naval region they Own.
> 
> Depend on what is PN intentional target, if PN goal is to counter India in this aim, the best PN can do is to hold India as long as you can in case of war, and awaiting the Chinese Fleet intervention. I think ultimately, PN would need about 12 Subs (Nuclear/Diesel) 30 Frigate (20 F-22P combine with other Frigate, OHP or homemade) and 10 Destroyer (Possible Type 52C/D or later) to be able to competently defend Pakistani Coast





*I sincerely hope Pakistan does not spend anymore money on the useless F22-P's and for 60 million more usd get 8 more Type 54-A Stealth Frigates ( we paid 175 million usd for each of those F22-P whereas the much more powerful Type 54-A is $230 million ). F22-P Air Defence System sucks. It uses FM-90 (HQ-7) Air Defence missile with a range of 15 KM and has no VLS. Type 54-A uses Stealth Technology and has 32 VLS using HQ-16 and much stronger Sensors.

SLATED FOR DEC. 15TH – JAN. 7TH →
THE US$230 MILLION, 4000 TON TYPE 054A “JIANGKAI II” AREA AIR DEFENSE FRIGATE
Posted on December 12, 2012 by beegeagle













Length: 134m

Beam: 16m.

Draft: 6m

Displacement (Full): 4,000 ton

Propulsion: – MAN Diesel SA 16 PA6V-280 STC diesel engines, 2 shafts – 4,720kW (6,330hp) each.

- 18,880kW (25,320hp) total

Speed: 30+ knots

Range:6,500 nautical miles(18 knots)est.

Crew: 250 est.

Helicopter(s): 1 KA-27 or Harbin Z-9EC

ASW Sensors:

- Fregat-MAE-5 (Top Plate) 3D radar,
120km aircraft, 50km sea-skimming

- MR90 (Front Dome) F-band radars for air defence missiles

- Mineral-ME (Band Stand) radar, ASM
missile control & OTH targeting

- Type 347G I-band radars, two for Type
730 CIWS & 1 or 76mm gun

- TR47C fire-control radar integrated in
Type 730 CIWS

- MR36 (Type 346) surface search radar

- Type MGK-335 fixed sonar, Bull Horn active & Whale Tongue passive

Armament:

- 1 x 32 VLS 9M38/HQ-16 MR AAM

- 8 x YJ-83 (C803) SSM

- 1 x 76mm DP Gun

- 2 x Type 730 30mm CIWS, 5800 rpm,
3000 m

- 6 x 533mm torpedoes

- 2 x Type 87 240mm, 6 tube anti-sub
rocket launchers. 36 rockets 1,200m

The Type 054A is equipped with 32 vertically launched HHQ-16 surface to air missiles for local area defense and 8 C-803 anti-ship cruise missiles.

The Type 054A was designed primarily for air defence role, featuring a medium-range air defence missile system with a
32-cell vertical launch system (VLS) on the bow deck. The frigate is also capable of anti-surface strike with its YJ-83 anti- ship missiles.

The sensors of the Type 054A Jiangkai-II
class are mainly Russian designs,
produced either by licensed co-production or reverse-engineering of the systems obtained along with the Project 956 Sovremenny class missile destroyers.

The air search radar is a Fregat-MAE-5
(NATO reporting name: Top Plate) 3D air
search radar mounted at the top of the
front mast, offering two channels in E-
band. The radar can track up to 40 targets simultaneously, and has a maximum range of 120km to aircraft and 50km to sea-skimming missile. Four MR90 (NATO reporting name: Front
Dome) F-band radars (two on top of the
bridge, two on the roof of the helicopter
hanger) provide guidance for the air
defence missiles.

Originally designed to provide fire-control for the 9M317/SA-N-7 Shtil SAM, each radar can provide two channels to guide two missiles simultaneously. A large round radome installed on top of
the bridge houses the Mineral-ME (NATO
reporting name: Band Stand) radar that
provides anti-ship missile control and
over-the-horizon radar acquisition and
target designation of surface ships.

The ship has three indigenous Type 347G
I-band radars, two of which are integrated with the Type 730 CIWS to
provide fire-control and a standalone
radar is installed on top of the bridge
behind the large round radome provides fire-control for the 76mm main gun. There is also a large round radome
mounted at the top of the rear mast,
possibly housing a MR36 (Type 346?)
surface search radar.*

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Indus Falcon

Pakistanisage said:


> *I sincerely hope Pakistan does not spend anymore money on the useless F22-P's and for 60 million more usd get 8 more Type 54-A Stealth Frigates ( we paid 175 million usd for each of those F22-P whereas the much more powerful Type 54-A is $230 million ). F22-P Air Defence System sucks and has no VLS. Type 54-A uses Stealth Technology and has 32 VLS and much stronger Sensors.
> 
> SLATED FOR DEC. 15TH – JAN. 7TH →
> THE US$230 MILLION, 4000 TON TYPE 054A “JIANGKAI II” AREA AIR DEFENSE FRIGATE
> Posted on December 12, 2012 by beegeagle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Length: 134m
> 
> Beam: 16m.
> 
> Draft: 6m
> 
> Displacement (Full): 4,000 ton
> 
> Propulsion: – MAN Diesel SA 16 PA6V-280 STC diesel engines, 2 shafts – 4,720kW (6,330hp) each.
> 
> - 18,880kW (25,320hp) total
> 
> Speed: 30+ knots
> 
> Range:6,500 nautical miles(18 knots)est.
> 
> Crew: 250 est.
> 
> Helicopter(s): 1 KA-27 or Harbin Z-9EC
> 
> ASW Sensors:
> 
> - Fregat-MAE-5 (Top Plate) 3D radar,
> 120km aircraft, 50km sea-skimming
> 
> - MR90 (Front Dome) F-band radars for air defence missiles
> 
> - Mineral-ME (Band Stand) radar, ASM
> missile control & OTH targeting
> 
> - Type 347G I-band radars, two for Type
> 730 CIWS & 1 or 76mm gun
> 
> - TR47C fire-control radar integrated in
> Type 730 CIWS
> 
> - MR36 (Type 346) surface search radar
> 
> - Type MGK-335 fixed sonar, Bull Horn active & Whale Tongue passive
> 
> Armament:
> 
> - 1 x 32 VLS 9M38/HQ-16 MR AAM
> 
> - 8 x YJ-83 (C803) SSM
> 
> - 1 x 76mm DP Gun
> 
> - 2 x Type 730 30mm CIWS, 5800 rpm,
> 3000 m
> 
> - 6 x 533mm torpedoes
> 
> - 2 x Type 87 240mm, 6 tube anti-sub
> rocket launchers. 36 rockets 1,200m
> 
> The Type 054A is equipped with 32 vertically launched HHQ-16 surface to air missiles for local area defense and 8 C-803 anti-ship cruise missiles.
> 
> The Type 054A was designed primarily for air defence role, featuring a medium-range air defence missile system with a
> 32-cell vertical launch system (VLS) on the bow deck. The frigate is also capable of anti-surface strike with its YJ-83 anti- ship missiles.
> 
> The sensors of the Type 054A Jiangkai-II
> class are mainly Russian designs,
> produced either by licensed co-production or reverse-engineering of the systems obtained along with the Project 956 Sovremenny class missile destroyers.
> 
> The air search radar is a Fregat-MAE-5
> (NATO reporting name: Top Plate) 3D air
> search radar mounted at the top of the
> front mast, offering two channels in E-
> band. The radar can track up to 40 targets simultaneously, and has a maximum range of 120km to aircraft and 50km to sea-skimming missile. Four MR90 (NATO reporting name: Front
> Dome) F-band radars (two on top of the
> bridge, two on the roof of the helicopter
> hanger) provide guidance for the air
> defence missiles.
> 
> Originally designed to provide fire-control for the 9M317/SA-N-7 Shtil SAM, each radar can provide two channels to guide two missiles simultaneously. A large round radome installed on top of
> the bridge houses the Mineral-ME (NATO
> reporting name: Band Stand) radar that
> provides anti-ship missile control and
> over-the-horizon radar acquisition and
> target designation of surface ships.
> 
> The ship has three indigenous Type 347G
> I-band radars, two of which are integrated with the Type 730 CIWS to
> provide fire-control and a standalone
> radar is installed on top of the bridge
> behind the large round radome provides fire-control for the 76mm main gun. There is also a large round radome
> mounted at the top of the rear mast,
> possibly housing a MR36 (Type 346?)
> surface search radar.*


Well said!
How would you compare the 54B to the 54A, both in terms of price and specs?


----------



## Indus Falcon

4 Type 54B and 
2 Type 52D's / Type 55 
They would really bring PN up to speed, at the same time maybe we could upgrade the type 22P's with some formidable systems? What do you think?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistanisage

I think we don't have any information on Type 54B as it is still on Paper.

Even PLAN does not have one Operational yet.

What we do know is that it will be much improved version of existing Type 54A.

Displacement 5000 tons as opposed to 4000 ton 54A

will have C805 as opposed to C803 used in 54A

and many other changes....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Basel

Pakistanisage said:


> I sincerely hope Pakistan does not spend anymore money on the useless F22-P's and for 60 million more usd get 8 more Type 54-A Stealth Frigates ( we paid 175 million usd for each of those F22-P whereas the much more powerful Type 54-A is $230 million ). F22-P Air Defence System sucks and has no VLS. Type 54-A uses Stealth Technology and has 32 VLS and much stronger Sensors.



F-22P is not a bad ship but the problem is that PN is facing a huge IN & IAF which not just big in quantity but they are much superior in quality too, therefore F-22P type of ships should come in 3rd or 2nd tier of defense not primary defense ships, they are good for defensive purpose as they have good anti ship and anti sub capabilities but they don't have good air defense and they don't have good endurance at sea.

OHPs must be upgraded to their full potential, specially if we can get at least HAS capable ESSM, RIM-116, Sea RAM, Phalnax-1B or equivalent for air defense with limited anti ship and good anti sub capabilities on them, because they were built for CBG escort ships and they can operate in ocean well, which will allow PN to go after IN in case of any attempt of blockade by them, but still only OHPs will not be enough for the task PN need comprehensive upgrade in surface vessel capabilities.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Penguin

Pakistanisage said:


> *I sincerely hope Pakistan does not spend anymore money on the useless F22-P's and for 60 million more usd get 8 more Type 54-A Stealth Frigates ( we paid 175 million usd for each of those F22-P whereas the much more powerful Type 54-A is $230 million ). F22-P Air Defence System sucks. It uses FM-90 (HQ-7) Air Defence missile with a range of 15 KM and has no VLS. Type 54-A uses Stealth Technology and has 32 VLS using HQ-16 and much stronger Sensors.*


So, F22P suck huh?

How about comparing them to current fleet ships e.g. Type 21s obtained from UK (Tariq class). Oh yes, PN is now much worse off with 4 F22P added (NOT!). All of which incidentally have 8 SSM and SAM and a pair ofr gun CIWS (whereas the Tariq class has a 3/3 split between ASuW version with Harpoon (but no SAM) and AAW version with 5 round LY-60 launcher (but no SSM). LY-60 is 18km range. Not all Tariq class carry Phalanx CIWS.

And if F22P sucks, by extension you are effectively saying PLAN's Jiangwei II (which are inferior to F22P) suck. Wonder why PLAN keeps 14 of them in use, considering the rate at which the Chinese are cranking out new ships....

F22P sucks because is has FM90 and that has a range of 15km. Might I point out Type 056, of which production for PLAN is approaching 20 units, has a FL3000N / HHQ10 (no VLS) with a range of just 9km and no pair of gun CIWS....

Might I point out both Type 056 and F22P use stealth technology. Visibly, this includes shaping of hull an superstructure.

Really, I think the only thing 054A has over F22P is HQ16, a 50km max range variant of Russian Shtil. F22P could accommodate a single Mk41 in place of HQ7 launcher and give the same SAM firepower with ESSM. It is very much value for money.

All of you's with your pipedreams of 054As and fleets .... get real. PN is in no position to acquire such ships anytime soon.

You might be so lucky to get that pair of 052s if and when they pay of (which won't be soon, considering they've been extensively MLU-ed fairly recently)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pakistanisage

Penguin said:


> So, F22P suck huh?
> 
> How about comparing them to current fleet ships e.g. Type 21s obtained from UK (Tariq class). Oh yes, PN is now much worse off with 4 F22P added (NOT!). All of which have 8 SSM and SAM and a pair ofr gun CIWS (whereas the Tariq class has a 3/3 split between ASuW version with Harpoon (but no SAM) and AAW version with 5 round LY-60 launcher (but no SSM). LY-60 is 18km range. Not all Tariq class carry Phalanx CIWS.
> 
> And if F22P sucks, by extension you are effectively saying PLAN's Jianwei II (which are inferior to F22P) suck. Wonder why PLAN keeps 14 of them in use, considering the rate at which the Chinese are cranking out new ships....
> 
> F22P sucks because is has FM90 and that has a range of 15km. Might I point out Type 056, of which production for PLAN is approaching 20 units, has a FL3000N / HHQ10 (no VLS) with a range of just 9km and no pair of gun CIWS....
> 
> Might I point out both Type 056 and F22P use stealth technology. Visibly, this includes shaping of hull an superstructure.
> 
> Really, I think the only thing 054A has over F22P is HQ16, a 50km max range variant of Russian Shtil. F22P could accommodate a single Mk41 in place of HQ7 launcher and give the same SAM firepower with ESSM. It is very much value for money.
> 
> *All of you's with your pipedreams of 054As and fleets .... get real. PN is in no position to acquire such ships anytime soon.*
> 
> You might be so lucky to get that pair of 052s if and when they pay of (which won't be soon, considering they've been extensively MLU-ed fairly recently)




Are you on Drugs ? I said the Air Defence system on F22-P sucks. You took that to mean that F22-P as a whole sucks.

You are not making any Sense , dude.

Then you start comparing F22-P Frigate with Type 56 which is a corvette ?

Then you try to compare F22-P Frigate with Type 21 Tariq class Frigate which are 40 year old Technology.

Then you talk about plan using similar Frigate. Well PLAN has 24 Destroyers and 20 + 54A's in addition to a lot more Surface ships. F22-P are Pakistan's main Surface Ships.

And how do you know what PN has plans for. Are you Privy to their Plans ?

And you call yourself a Think Tank Analyst ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Penguin

Pakistanisage said:


> Are you on Drugs ? I said the Air Defence system on F22-P sucks. You took that to mean that F22-P as a whole sucks.
> 
> You are not making any Sense , dude.
> 
> Thn you start comparing F22-P Frigate with Type 56 which is a corvette ?
> 
> Then you try to compare F22-P Frigate with Type 21 Tariq class Frigate which are 40 year old Technology.
> 
> And you call yourself a Think Tank Analyst ?


I am comparing WEAPON SYSTEMS (for AAW) on offer by Chinese and other parties, in case you missed it. Of course I am comparing to Type 21, because - like it of not - F22Ps will be its replacement. I'm not EQUATING them, obviously.

IF FM90 sucks than 14 PLAN ships suck, as to those corvettes which have a 9km system as their main AAW and lack CIWS. You do the math.

And there is Abu Nasar again too, cheering on anyone who will post negative about me while remaining silent himself.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pakistanisage

Penguin said:


> I am comparing WEAPON SYSTEMS (for AAW) on offer by Chinese and other parties, in case you missed it. Of course I am comparing to Type 21, because - like it of not - F22Ps will be its replacement. I'm not EQUATING them, obviously.
> 
> *All of you's with your pipedreams of 054As and fleets .... get real. PN is in no position to acquire such ships anytime soon.*





How the hell do you know what our Navy has Budgeted for.

Do you have inside track on Pakistani Navy Plans ?

Or are you just blowing your top without any Evidence or Facts ?

BTW, Are you Indian ?

You are not displaying your National Flags so I have no idea what your Nationality is ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indus Falcon

Penguin said:


> I am comparing WEAPON SYSTEMS (for AAW) on offer by Chinese and other parties, in case you missed it. Of course I am comparing to Type 21, because - like it of not - F22Ps will be its replacement. I'm not EQUATING them, obviously.
> 
> IF FM90 sucks than 14 PLAN ships suck, as to those corvettes which have a 9km system as their main AAW and lack CIWS. You do the math.
> 
> And there is Abu Nasar again too, cheering on anyone who will post negative about me while remaining silent himself.


I'm not a navy guy. I'm a retired army guy. Sorry Navy is my interest, not my expertise. 

I hear things from my classmates / friends who are still in the service, but no point in talking about things, you are not good at.

Btw I retired as a lowly lance corporal  which being a think tank analyst you must have figured out by now!


----------



## RAMPAGE

Pakistanisage said:


> the Air Defence system on F22-P sucks.


Sirgee we can always put a VLS on F-22P.


----------



## Indus Falcon

RAMPAGE said:


> Sirgee we can always but a VLS on F-22P.


and where would you do that?


----------



## Pakistanisage

RAMPAGE said:


> Sirgee we can always but a VLS on F-22P.




If we continue with F22-P improved version , we will definitely have at least 16 if not 24 VLS cells with HQ-16.

The problem would be to make it fit because it is a 2500 Ton Ship and there is not enough space.

To make it fit, they will have to rearrange the design and move things around somewhat. As it is now, there is no room for VLS. It will only be possible with quite a bit of restructuring.

We have already given China our preferences as to the Equipment if we go that route, which China has accepted.

If we dig little deeper in our pockets, we could by-pass this brain damage and go for 54-A.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Penguin

I suppose the fact F22P is the first class of major surface ships PN has bought NEW in the past couple of DECADES suggests huge streams of money being available to PN? Why do you think PN has operated ex-USN and ex-RN ships for decades?

Antarctica has no government (although various countries claim sovereignty in certain regions) and hence no flag. My nationality is irrelevant (not to mention none of your business: who are you anyway to be 'checking up ' on anyone's nationality here?). Plus, had you paid attention to any previous posts on this forum, you would have figured it out.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RAMPAGE

Abu Nasar said:


> and where would you do that?


Replace it with the HQ-7 launcher.


----------



## Penguin

Abu Nasar said:


> and where would you do that?


1) you take away the HQ7 and make a hole in which you can stick a 8-cell Mk41 self defence module (32 ESSM), or 1 or 2 of those 6 cell mk 48/57 (12-24 ESSM). See F25T (Thai Naresuan class) upgrade.
naresuan
HTMS Naresuan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Naresuan
Displacement:2,985 tons full load
Length:120.5 m
Beam:13.7 m
Draught:
6 m

Zulfiquar
Displacement:
2,500 tonnes (standard) 3,144 tonnes (full load)
Length:


123.2 m (404 ft)
Beam:13.8 m (45 ft)
Draught:3.76 m (12.3 ft)

2) you use e.g. single cell launchers mounted distributed artound the superstructure. Each can be quad packed.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/conte...s/launchers/Single_Cell_Launcher_brochure.pdf

3) Use Sylver in place of Mk41 and stick CAMM in in quad packs

sure I can think up some more.



Abu Nasar said:


> I'm not a navy guy. I'm a retired army guy. Sorry Navy is my interest, not my expertise.
> 
> I hear things from my classmates / friends who are still in the service, but no point in talking about things, you are not good at.
> 
> Btw I retired as a lowly lance corporal  which being a think tank analyst you must have figured out by now!


I apologize, I shouldn't have snapped at you.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## RAMPAGE

Pakistanisage said:


> If we continue with F22-P improved version , we will definitely have at least 16 if not 24 VLS cells with HQ-16.


16 cell VLS will do for now.

PN will go for a CVBG in a decade when our GDP hits $trillion mark. 

These frigates will make nice escorts with something like the Mistral Class which can be a second fleet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistanisage

Penguin said:


> I suppose the fact F22P is the first class of major surface ships PN has bought NEW in the past couple of DECADES suggests huge stream of money being available to PN? Why do you think PN has operated ex-USN and ex-RN ships for decades?
> 
> Antarctica has no government (although various countries claim sovereignty in certain regions) and hence no flag. My nationality is irrelevant (not to mention none of your business: who are you anyway to be 'checking up ' on anyone's nationality here?). Plus, had you paid attention to any previous posts on this forum, you would have figured it out.




Yes I have figured it out that you are an Indian deeply ashamed of your Nationality.

I am a citizen of two countries and I proudly wave the Flag of both those countries.

Obviously, someone has decided to make assign you a Think Tank Analyst status which in my opinion you do not deserve.

Avoid making caustic remarks about " Pakistani Pipedreams " and try to read post carefully before responding.

And when you respond keep your Indian Trolling to minimum and maintain objectivity.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan

Pakistanisage said:


> *I sincerely hope Pakistan does not spend anymore money on the useless F22-P's and for 60 million more usd get 8 more Type 54-A Stealth Frigates ( we paid 175 million usd for each of those F22-P whereas the much more powerful Type 54-A is $230 million ). F22-P Air Defence System sucks. It uses FM-90 (HQ-7) Air Defence missile with a range of 15 KM and has no VLS. Type 54-A uses Stealth Technology and has 32 VLS using HQ-16 and much stronger Sensors.
> 
> SLATED FOR DEC. 15TH – JAN. 7TH →
> THE US$230 MILLION, 4000 TON TYPE 054A “JIANGKAI II” AREA AIR DEFENSE FRIGATE
> Posted on December 12, 2012 by beegeagle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Length: 134m
> 
> Beam: 16m.
> 
> Draft: 6m
> 
> Displacement (Full): 4,000 ton
> 
> Propulsion: – MAN Diesel SA 16 PA6V-280 STC diesel engines, 2 shafts – 4,720kW (6,330hp) each.
> 
> - 18,880kW (25,320hp) total
> 
> Speed: 30+ knots
> 
> Range:6,500 nautical miles(18 knots)est.
> 
> Crew: 250 est.
> 
> Helicopter(s): 1 KA-27 or Harbin Z-9EC
> 
> ASW Sensors:
> 
> - Fregat-MAE-5 (Top Plate) 3D radar,
> 120km aircraft, 50km sea-skimming
> 
> - MR90 (Front Dome) F-band radars for air defence missiles
> 
> - Mineral-ME (Band Stand) radar, ASM
> missile control & OTH targeting
> 
> - Type 347G I-band radars, two for Type
> 730 CIWS & 1 or 76mm gun
> 
> - TR47C fire-control radar integrated in
> Type 730 CIWS
> 
> - MR36 (Type 346) surface search radar
> 
> - Type MGK-335 fixed sonar, Bull Horn active & Whale Tongue passive
> 
> Armament:
> 
> - 1 x 32 VLS 9M38/HQ-16 MR AAM
> 
> - 8 x YJ-83 (C803) SSM
> 
> - 1 x 76mm DP Gun
> 
> - 2 x Type 730 30mm CIWS, 5800 rpm,
> 3000 m
> 
> - 6 x 533mm torpedoes
> 
> - 2 x Type 87 240mm, 6 tube anti-sub
> rocket launchers. 36 rockets 1,200m
> 
> The Type 054A is equipped with 32 vertically launched HHQ-16 surface to air missiles for local area defense and 8 C-803 anti-ship cruise missiles.
> 
> The Type 054A was designed primarily for air defence role, featuring a medium-range air defence missile system with a
> 32-cell vertical launch system (VLS) on the bow deck. The frigate is also capable of anti-surface strike with its YJ-83 anti- ship missiles.
> 
> The sensors of the Type 054A Jiangkai-II
> class are mainly Russian designs,
> produced either by licensed co-production or reverse-engineering of the systems obtained along with the Project 956 Sovremenny class missile destroyers.
> 
> The air search radar is a Fregat-MAE-5
> (NATO reporting name: Top Plate) 3D air
> search radar mounted at the top of the
> front mast, offering two channels in E-
> band. The radar can track up to 40 targets simultaneously, and has a maximum range of 120km to aircraft and 50km to sea-skimming missile. Four MR90 (NATO reporting name: Front
> Dome) F-band radars (two on top of the
> bridge, two on the roof of the helicopter
> hanger) provide guidance for the air
> defence missiles.
> 
> Originally designed to provide fire-control for the 9M317/SA-N-7 Shtil SAM, each radar can provide two channels to guide two missiles simultaneously. A large round radome installed on top of
> the bridge houses the Mineral-ME (NATO
> reporting name: Band Stand) radar that
> provides anti-ship missile control and
> over-the-horizon radar acquisition and
> target designation of surface ships.
> 
> The ship has three indigenous Type 347G
> I-band radars, two of which are integrated with the Type 730 CIWS to
> provide fire-control and a standalone
> radar is installed on top of the bridge
> behind the large round radome provides fire-control for the 76mm main gun. There is also a large round radome
> mounted at the top of the rear mast,
> possibly housing a MR36 (Type 346?)
> surface search radar.*


We need 8 more new Frigates and we should go for 3 more from USA making total number to 16 at least and also new Submarines

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistanisage

Zarvan said:


> We need 8 more new Frigates and we should go for 3 more from USA making total number to 16 at least and also new Submarines




Yara, I am not too excited about the Oliver Hazard Perry class Frigates from the US.

Too many strings attached.

Anything can happen between now and 2016.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indus Falcon

Pakistanisage said:


> Yara, I am not too excited about the Oliver Perry class Frigate from the US.
> 
> Too many strings attached.


I remember they refused us once, when we asked for some changes in the T&C.

Refused us the ships i.e.


----------



## Zarvan

Pakistanisage said:


> Yara, I am not too excited about the Oliver Perry class Frigate from the US.
> 
> Too many strings attached.


Than we need to go for some other one and ask some Middle east country to finance that deal we need to increase our Frigates at least 16


----------



## Luftwaffe

RAMPAGE said:


> 16 cell VLS will do for now.
> 
> PN will go for a CVBG in a decade when our GDP hits $trillion mark.
> 
> These frigates will make nice escorts with something like the Mistral Class which can be a second fleet.



Yaar don't be another Nishan.

It would be a miracle if by 2025 Pakistan receives and have atleast 4 OPH FFGs, another 4 F-22P And entire F-22Ps Fleet modernized-upgraded. Rest is nothing more than dreams for Type 54A/B/52?


----------



## RAMPAGE

Luftwaffe said:


> Yaar don't be another Nishan.
> 
> It would be a miracle if by 2025 Pakistan receives and have atleast 4 OPH FFGs, another 4 F-22P And entire F-22Ps modernized-upgraded. Rest is nothing more than dreams for Type 54A/B/52?


Meri jaan If we have a $1 trillion GDP then our defence budget would at least $25 billion.

It would be a huge disappointment if PN doesn't go for a CVBG even then.


----------



## Luftwaffe

RAMPAGE said:


> Meri jaan If we have a $1 trillion GDP then our defence budget would at least $25 billion.
> 
> It would be a huge disappointment if PN doesn't go for a CVBG even then.



I am sending you to reko dekh.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RAMPAGE

Luftwaffe said:


> I am sending you to reko dekh.


Yara dreaming big isn't a bad thing. 

Don't be such a pessimist.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kesang

Pakistanisage said:


> Yes I have figured it out that you are an Indian deeply ashamed of your Nationality.
> 
> I am a citizen of two countries and I proudly wave the Flag of both those countries.
> 
> Obviously, someone has decided to make assign you a Think Tank Analyst status which in my opinion you do not deserve.
> 
> Avoid making caustic remarks about " Pakistani Pipedreams " and try to read post carefully before responding.
> 
> And when you respond keep your Indian Trolling to minimum and maintain objectivity.



He is a dutch.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

3 More OHP , would be fine , when is the arrival date

Just in time to greet Modi's arrival 16 gun salute


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Strings attached

(1) cooperating with the United States in counterterrorism and nonproliferation efforts, (YES)
(2) not supporting terrorist activities against the United States in Afghanistan or elsewhere (No Proof)
(3) taking steps towards releasing Dr. Shakil Afridi, (hahahaha)
(4) taking steps to dismantle improvised explosive device (IED) networks, (not our job to clean up afganistan_
(5) providing humanitarian groups with access to detainees and other Pakistani civilians (very politcal ....)
(6) ensuring that Pakistan's military and intelligence agencies are not intervening into Pakistan's political and judicial processes.(hahahahaha)










With China its so simple , expected day of arrival , we wait date comes we get F22P frigate done

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Penguin

Pakistanisage said:


> Yes I have figured it out that you are an Indian deeply ashamed of your Nationality.
> 
> I am a citizen of two countries and I proudly wave the Flag of both those countries.
> 
> Obviously, someone has decided to make assign you a Think Tank Analyst status which in my opinion you do not deserve.
> 
> Avoid making caustic remarks about " Pakistani Pipedreams " and try to read post carefully before responding.
> 
> And when you respond keep your Indian Trolling to minimum and maintain objectivity.




Well, if the accuracy of the above is any indication, your analysis skills aren't all that. And I will very much post what I please, within the boundaries set by forum rules and following the lead of moderators.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## alimobin memon

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> 3 More OHP , would be fine , when is the arrival date
> 
> Just in time to greet Modi's arrival 16 gun salute


*Reports: Increase in Pakistan Defense and Nuclear Budgets Likely
May. 19, 2014 - 05:22PM | By USMAN ANSARI | *



*Media reports indicate a budget increase is coming for the Pakistani military. (Aamir Qureshi / AFP)*

*ISLAMABAD* — Media reports here have outlined that Pakistan is set to increase funding for the armed forces and the national nuclear body, the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC), under the forthcoming 2014-FY2015 budget.

The budget would be just over US $81 million for the PAEC, up from nearly $63 million the previous year (which was later increased to $66 million).

Mansoor Ahmed, from Quaid-e-Azam University’s Department of Defence and Strategic Studies, who specializes in Pakistan’s national deterrent and delivery programs, said although the figures earmarked for the national nuclear body are mainly for a civilian power generation project, there are national security implications.
“This sum is primarily geared toward the construction of the two 1,000-megawatt generation-III safeguarded Chinese nuclear power reactors to be established at Karachi, K-1 and K-2, that were recently initiated by the prime minister,” he said.

However, he added, “Additional financial allocations are most likely earmarked for the unsafeguarded Khushab Nuclear Complex where the fourth plutonium production heavy water reactor is reportedly nearing completion.”

Ahmed said the Khushab Nuclear Complex has been vital in allowing Pakistan to modernize its national deterrent due to its central role in the production of plutonium.

“These and other classified projects are presumably aimed at the development of a new variety of lightweight, compact and more powerful and efficient weapon designs, suitable for a variety of ballistic and cruise missiles, that require additional fissile material [plutonium] production, and fuel fabrication in addition to maintaining and improving existing infrastructure.

“All this has been possible due to the steady enhancement of indigenous manufacturing capabilities developed by the PAEC during the past 35 years,” he added.

The budget increase for the armed forces is also significant.
The new defense budget proper is said to be just over $7.6 billion. This is an increase from the nearly $6.4 billion the previous year, (revised later to $6.6 billion).

The budget is broken down to nearly $3.8 billion for the Army, about $1.6 billion for the Air Force and slightly more than $760 million for the Navy.

This puts the “operational” aspect of the budget at some $6.1 billion for the services and the remaining $1.5 billion earmarked for various defense and defense production bodies.

Former Australian defense attache to Islamabad, Brian Cloughley, says while the sources for the figures reported in the media “seem to be pretty good,” he cautions, “it’s still conjecture rather than hard fact.”

The possible increases “may well be because the Army and Air Force have asked for more in order to pay for the Waziristan operation” to root out the Pakistani Taliban, “which has got to take place, irrespective of what [Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif] thinks or says,” he said.

But this will not necessarily translate into acquisition of new equipment, he said.
“I think they’ll maintain the balance between operating costs and capital equipment acquisitions,” he said.
The Navy in particular could use a capital upgrade, he said.

“I don’t think it’s looking too good for the Navy” Cloughley said. Adding, “Pakistan has simply got to get some more submarines.”

The Navy operates two aging Agosta-70 submarines acquired in the 1970s and three more modern Agosta-90Bs equipped with air independent propulsion (AIP) under a deal signed in the 1990s, and which entered service in the last decade.

However, a deal for three German HDW Type-214 submarines fell through in 2008 due to a lack of finances, and negotiations have been underway for some time with China for six AIP-equipped diesel electric boats.
Analysts said these are likely the S-20 development of the Chinese Type-041 Yuan class, with government officials expecting a deal to be signed by the end of the year.

Analyst Usman Shabbir of the Pakistan Military Consortium think tank said too much cannot be read into the small size of the Navy’s budget, as it has generally been small compared with the other services.

“Large buys are not part of specific force budgets, so Navy’s budget will not tell you if [it] has money for subs or not”, he said.

There is more optimism among analysts over the possible acquisition of Chinese submarines than obtaining further Perry-class frigates from the US. These are desperately required to replace the aging ex-British Type-21 frigates.

One of the six Type-21s, Badr (ex-Alacrity), has already been decommissioned and the remainder will pay off by the end of the decade. Officials had hoped to acquire up to six Perrys to replace these, but to date only one, Alamgir (ex-McInerney) has been acquired. *Recent proposals for three more are effectively being blocked by the US Congress.*

Though US Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert was in Pakistan last week, it is not known if transfer of equipment was discussed in addition to the reported talks about regional security. ■
*Email: uansari@gannettgov.com.*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Basel

alimobin memon said:


> One of the six Type-21s, Badr (ex-Alacrity),



True and all other Type-21s are now just air defense ships, all surface missiles have been removed, also current PN F-22Ps air defense capability can be improved without structrual modifications if China develop Mk-29 class launcher for HHQ-16s, allowing 8 HHQ-16 missiles in place of HHQ-7s.


----------



## alimobin memon

Basel said:


> True and all other Type-21s are now just air defense ships, all surface missiles have been removed, also current PN F-22Ps air defense capability can be improved without structrual modifications if China develop Mk-29 class launcher for HHQ-16s, allowing 8 HHQ-16 missiles in place of HHQ-7s.


that also but the article says 3 OHP are blocked


----------



## Munir

The issue is that Pakistani government is filled with politicians that do not understand that one can say... No OHP means no secure naval routes... Within short time you have free OHP. Trust me. Western societies are used to handle on emergencies if they hit their economy.. Otherwise they are sucking you empty and hit you if you resist... Hence the bombing back to stone age of Bush and the F16's to counter Russian invasion form Reagan... Zia knew how to play the game. These idiots these days only know how to fill Swiss bank accounts and lend some billions more..

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## elitepilot09

^^ Can a moderator please put an end to this?? @Aeronaut 

Nishan, this is like your 5th username, take a hint please! Atleast stop pointless, wishlisting posts..



Munir said:


> The issue is that Pakistani government is filled with politicians that do not understand that one can say... No OHP means no secure naval routes... Within short time you have free OHP. Trust me. Western societies are used to handle on emergencies if they hit their economy.. Otherwise they are sucking you empty and hit you if you resist... Hence the bombing back to stone age of Bush and the F16's to counter Russian invasion form Reagan... Zia knew how to play the game. These idiots these days only know how to fill Swiss bank accounts and lend some billions more..



On a side note, this is a great post. The problem starts from the top of our structure... if we can stress the importance of these frigates in the right manner, I'm sure at the very least, the US and congress will have to look over their initial verdicts.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## genmirajborgza786

Pakistanisage said:


> Yes I have figured it out that you are an Indian deeply ashamed of your Nationality.
> 
> I am a citizen of two countries and I proudly wave the Flag of both those countries.
> 
> Obviously, someone has decided to make assign you a Think Tank Analyst status which in my opinion you do not deserve.
> 
> Avoid making caustic remarks about " Pakistani Pipedreams " and try to read post carefully before responding.
> 
> And when you respond keep your Indian Trolling to minimum and maintain objectivity.


he is not Indian, he is Dutch ,plus he is one of the most knowledgeable & respected members of this forum , his knowledge on naval warfare is appreciated throughout the forum

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Pakistanisage

genmirajborgza786 said:


> he is not Indian, he is Dutch ,plus he is one of the most knowledgeable & respected members of this forum , his knowledge on naval warfare is appreciated throughout the forum





Thank you for your Vote of Confidence Mr. Buttinsky.

Did you read his comments about Pakistani Pipedreams.

Does not sound to knowledgeable to me.

Sounds like a DAMN TROLLER.


----------



## Bilal.

Pakistanisage said:


> Thank you for your Vote of Confidence Mr. Buttinsky.
> 
> Did you read his comments about Pakistani Pipedreams.
> 
> Does not sound to knowledgeable to me.
> 
> Sounds like a DAMN TROLLER.



Sir he is indeed very knowledgeable, specially in matters related to navy. Sometimes harsh in analysis though and often takes over enthusiastic Indians to task too


----------



## genmirajborgza786

Pakistanisage said:


> Thank you for your Vote of Confidence *Mr. Buttinsky*.
> 
> Did you read his comments about Pakistani Pipedreams.
> 
> Does not sound to knowledgeable to me.
> 
> Sounds like a DAMN TROLLER.


hey mate don't call me names, I debate with civility, & I respect other members irrespective of their cast, creed or nationalities, because it is my fundamental belief, that everybody deserves to be treated with respect, & I don't attack anyone personally , I am a Canadian & thus i have to maintain certain decorum & standards. I like Americans , so as an American & as a fellow north American, I expected better from you, rather then name calling , as for his opinion, then this is an international forum & one can comment about any projects, pipedreams, programs _etc's ,_ be it from the perspectives of its pros or cons for that matter

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Pakistanisage

genmirajborgza786 said:


> hey mate don't call me names, I debate with civility & respect other members irrespective of their cast, creed or nationalities, because it is my fundamental belief, that everybody deserves to be treated with respect, & I don't attack anyone personally , I am a Canadian & thus i have to maintain certain decorum & standards. I like Americans , so as an American & as a fellow north American, I expected better from you, rather then name calling , as for his opinion, then this is an international forum & one can comment about any projects, pipedreams, programs _etc's ,_ be it from the perspectives of its pros or cons for that matter




I can tell about the quality of one's post by evaluating their objectivity.

Congratulations for arriving in Canada.

I have spent last 40 years of my life in the US so I know little bit about your frame of mind.

I never solicited your opinion and do not care for what you think which by the way I can judge by your Avatar.

Stay away from me. Do not quote me or address me.

Thank you.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## razgriz19

2 OHP will retire this year
actually one of them already did this month.

one of them will go to Turkish Navy, but about the other one i'm not too sure


----------



## Penguin

Pakistanisage said:


> Are you on Drugs ? I said the Air Defence system on F22-P sucks. *You took that to mean that F22-P as a whole sucks.*
> 
> And you call yourself a Think Tank Analyst ?



Incidentally, in your own words:



> I sincerely hope Pakistan does not spend anymore money on *the useless F22-P's* and for 60 million more usd get 8 more Type 54-A Stealth Frigates ( we paid 175 million usd for each of those F22-P whereas the much more powerful Type 54-A is $230 million ). F22-P Air Defence System sucks. It uses FM-90 (HQ-7) Air Defence missile with a range of 15 KM and has no VLS. Type 54-A uses Stealth Technology and has 32 VLS using HQ-16 and much stronger Sensors.



3 more OHP class Frigates to be delivered to Pakistan between 2014-2016. | Page 14

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Penguin

Pakistanisage said:


> I can tell about the quality of one's post by evaluating their objectivity.
> 
> Congratulations for arriving in Canada.
> 
> I have spent last 40 years of my life in the US so I know little bit about your frame of mind.
> 
> I never solicited your opinion and do not care for what you think which by the way I can judge by your Avatar.
> 
> Stay away from me. Do not quote me or address me.
> 
> Thank you.


Considering the above statement, why are you an a public forum in the first place?
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Luftwaffe

I said it before and that can be confirmed from knowledgeable Chinese members that Type 54A costs atleast $125m more than F-22P thus the notion "a little more" expensive is wrong. Every penny counts so Pakistan had to choose what was/is affordable. 

PN traditionally always opt for giving MLUs to FFGs later on if I am not wrong @Penguin


----------



## Hakan

com123 said:


> I think PN should request 11 more OHP and 12 Corvettes from US with upgrade package.


Add the space ship enterprise to that wish list as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Penguin

Luftwaffe said:


> I said it before and that can be confirmed from knowledgeable Chinese members that Type 54A costs atleast $125m more than F-22P thus the notion "a little more" expensive is wrong. Every penny counts so Pakistan had to choose what was/is affordable.
> 
> PN traditionally always opt for giving MLUs to FFGs later on if I am not wrong @Penguin



Well, PN workied on the US Gearings and on the UK Amazons, but not on the US Brooke/Garcia's (these were leased, not purchased). Not sure what happened with the pair of Leanders or the County from UK.

$175m+$125m > around $300m

'Wiki Type 054A' states ¥ 1.58 billion
at 1.00 CNY =
0.160377 USD
1.58 CNY =0.253396 USD
Suggests $253m
Type 054A frigate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is elsewere too e.g.
PLAN Type 054 FFG Thread II - Page 64

Someone else here suggested $230m
probably based on THE US$230 MILLION, 4000 TON TYPE 054A “JIANGKAI II” AREA AIR DEFENSE FRIGATE | Beegeagle's Blog

Personally, I like this estimate



> POLICY BRIEF
> STUDY OF INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY IN CHINA
> 2014-10 January 2014
> The Type 054/054A Frigate Series: China’s All-Purpose Surface Combatant
> Gabe COLLINS, Morgan CLEMENS, and Kristen GUNNESS
> 
> ...
> 
> The Type 054A likely costs around US$280 million per vessel to build. This estimate derives from breaking the ship down by its main systems categories (hull and equipment, propulsion, weapons, and electronics) and calculating their respective costs, as well as the cost of the labor needed to assemble the ship into a finished product. Our preliminary estimate is that the Type 054A’s cost structure lies as follows:
> • Electronics: US$83 million.
> • Weapons: US$81 million.
> • Hull and equipment: US$54.5 million.
> • Labor: US$27 million.
> • Propulsion: US$24 million.
> • Miscellaneous costs: US$10 million.
> 
> The US$280 million unit cost esti-mate dovetails well with the price at which China offered Type 054 frigates to Thailand in early 2013. Thailand’s navy sought to spend US$1 billion on new frigates and China reportedly offered three Type 054s at that price.
> China’s offer of ships at an effective price of US$333 million each suggests that with higher international-level profit margins built in, the actual delivered ship cost is likely between US$275 million and US$300 million per vessel.


http://www-igcc.ucsd.edu/assets/001/505322.pdf



> China has offered Thailand its Type 054-class Jiangkai frigate to meet a requirement to procure multipurpose frigates for the Royal Thai Navy (RTN), thus potentially putting Beijing and Washington head to head in a large-scale international procurement programme.
> Sources have confirmed to IHS Jane's that preliminary discussions between Thailand and China have commenced over the potential deal, in which China has said it is prepared to sell to the RTN three Type 054-class vessels at a cost that will meet the programme's budget of USD1 billion.
> While the RTN is said to favour a purchase of a US, European, or South Korean platform, the potential deal to procure from China is being led by the government, which views the Type 054-class as a cost-effective alternative to Western vessels. Additionally, logistical arrangements would favour China given that Thailand already operates a number of Chinese naval platforms.
> Lockheed Martin of the US has already confirmed that it is considering offering its Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) as a solution.
> A deal to procure the Type 054-class vessel would include technology transfer to enable maintenance, repair, and overhaul


China offers Type 054 to meet Thai frigate requirement



> *Thailand to negotiate purchase of 3 Chinese Type 054A class frigates *
> 
> Thailand is to negotiate a Chinese proposal of 3 Type 054A class frigates for the Royal Thai Navy, which has budgeted 30 billion Thai Baht or roughly $1 billion for 2 frigates.
> 
> The Thai government last year approved the purchase of 2 frigates after a previous attempt to purchase 6 used Type U-206 submarines from Germany was unsuccessful.
> 
> Instead of the 2 frigates budgeted, Thailand would receive 3 Type 054T frigates, build according to Thai specifications, and which could come with offsets for local component production and up to 6 Z-9C Anti-Submarine Warfare helicopters.
> 
> The Thai Navy already operates 4 Type 053 frigates, which were build by China for Thailand during the nineties and fitted with various western systems and weapons.
> 
> The Type 054A frigates are upgraded versions of the 2 earlier Type 054 frigates, which in the past have been reported to cost the Chinese Navy around $250 million each. So far, 16 Type 054A hulls have been either launched or commissioned with several more under contruction.


Defense Updates: Thailand to negotiate purchase of 3 Chinese Type 054A class frigates

If you look at the deal offered to Thailand, that $333m may on the one hand be 'friendship prices', (i.e. lower than actual ship) but on the other includes technology transfer to enable maintenance, repair, and overhaul (i.e. more than just the ships). Either way, $230m is probably too low an estimate and $250-255 probably relates to the cost of the Type 054 rather than 054A.

A modified F22P using systems from Type 054A could have a unit cost of approximately $200m.
www.asianmilitaryreview.com/naval-directory-2013

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Rashid Mahmood

Penguin said:


> Not sure what happened with the pair of Leanders or the County from UK.



The County Class cruiser (PNS BABUR C-84) was decommissioned in 1993 and scrapped in 1995.
(I served on it)

Both the Leander class ships were decommissioned and used as missile targets during different exercises.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Capt.Popeye

genmirajborgza786 said:


> hey mate don't call me names, I debate with civility, & I respect other members irrespective of their cast, creed or nationalities, because it is my fundamental belief, that everybody deserves to be treated with respect, & I don't attack anyone personally , I am a Canadian & thus i have to maintain certain decorum & standards. I like Americans , so as an American & as a fellow north American, I expected better from you, rather then name calling , as for his opinion, then this is an international forum & one can comment about any projects, pipedreams, programs _etc's ,_ be it from the perspectives of its pros or cons for that matter



Its unfortunate that your input begat a patently obnoxious reaction. More so since you predicated your interjection on a corrective (and correct) point. However, that kind of behaviour comes naturally to some. Its of a pattern really; just as that diatribe against @Penguin was totally unwarranted and completely absurd.
But can all those who post here be educated enough?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Luisstevie

hehe.. god


----------



## Penguin

Rashid Mahmood said:


> The County Class cruiser (PNS BABUR C-84) was decommissioned in 1993 and scrapped in 1995.
> (I served on it)
> 
> Both the Leander class ships were decommissioned and used as missile targets during different exercises.


What can you tell us from your experience about these ships being refitted/modernized/rearmed? It would be interesting to hear from someone who actually experienced these ships.


----------



## Rashid Mahmood

Penguin said:


> What can you tell us from your experience about these ships being refitted/modernized/rearmed? It would be interesting to hear from someone who actually experienced these ships.



PNS Babur was basically used as the Command training ship till it was decommissioned in 1993.
PN installed Harpoon Missile launchers, Vulcan Phalanx CIWS and APECS-II EW System
It was a huge ship with lots of accommodation for under-training officers.
It was also the first ship in PN which had the flight deck to handle the Seaking helicopter.









The Leander class ships were not modernized and were primarily used as training ships.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Penguin

Rashid Mahmood said:


> PN installed Harpoon Missile launchers, Vulcan Phalanx CIWS and APECS-II EW System



Thx. Seeing the location of the Phalanx, I suppose that means PN has SeaSlug removed?


----------



## Rashid Mahmood

Penguin said:


> Thx. Seeing the location of the Phalanx, I suppose that means PN has SeaSlug removed?




Yes the Sea Slug launchers were removed and Harpoon launchers were installed instead.
CIWS was installed in place of the Sea Slug Missile guidance radar.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Penguin

CCD Photo Page 4

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

What is the cost to maintain these OHP ships vs F22P frigates I would be interested to know more details

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## dexter

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> What is the cost to maintain these OHP ships vs F22P frigates I would be interested to know more details



According to Globalsecurity.org and FAS.org, the average operating cost of an OHP frigate in 1996 was $16 million a year. That was when the _OHP_-class still has its Mk. 13 single-arm multi-purpose missile launchers with SM-1MR Standard surface-to-air missiles and Harpoon anti-ship missiles.


----------



## Penguin

dexter said:


> According to Globalsecurity.org and FAS.org, the average operating cost of an OHP frigate in 1996 was $16 million a year. That was when the _OHP_-class still has its Mk. 13 single-arm multi-purpose missile launchers with SM-1MR Standard surface-to-air missiles and Harpoon anti-ship missiles.



That's about half the annual cost of running a UK Type 22 batch 3 frigate
Type 22 frigate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BUT! (exclamation mark)



> According to Globalsecurity.org and FAS.org, the average operating cost of an OHP frigate* in 1996* was $16 million a year. That was when the _OHP_-class still has its Mk. 13 single-arm multi-purpose missile launchers with SM-1MR Standard surface-to-air missiles and Harpoon anti-ship missiles.


MaxDefense: Why Not The Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate for the Philippine Navy?
Let's take that into account: ... 1996 is almost 20 years ago!

Perry cost see here: _www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a272492.pdf


If you consider Type 22 operating cost in 2001 (11,9 million POUND > 20 million dollar) then the 2010 number of 16 million POUND > 26,9 million dollar probably is more realistic, given that these arew ships of similar size and vintage._

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

With inflation and droping Rupee value , our cost to maintain OHP would be really 45-55 Million dollars per ship

These ships only are viable option with the Genesis Upgrade

Which is sufficient platform for our defensive needs








4 Ships would be a respectable addition for OHP perry class the Genesis modernization is a great addition on the ships

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Penguin

Why the painting of a Ticonderoga CG?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Capt.Popeye

Penguin said:


> Why the painting of a Ticonderoga CG?



Good question.......Will the GENESIS upgrade to the OHPs achieve that?


----------



## Penguin

Capt.Popeye said:


> Good question.......Will the GENESIS upgrade to the OHPs achieve that?


H..l no!


----------



## lutfishah

Details of China's type 039B submarine revealed: Kanwa｜Politics｜News｜WantChinaTimes.com
More submarines coming soon


----------



## Capt.Popeye

Penguin said:


> H..l no!



That is obvious.....  But thanks @Penguin for confirming it!


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Looks good scares off any newbie from invading our waters looking at paintin


----------



## nk2120132471

i dont know if FL3000N could be a replacement of HQ7 on f22p?
it seems affordable and reasonable.however i dont know much if FL3000N would perform better than hq7.BTW i can still see hq7 pics on land forces of PLA,which indicates hq7 to be reliable to PLA


----------



## HariPrasad

I once again say that Pakistan should put its money on SUBs.


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

We are putting money on both subs and frigates


----------



## HariPrasad

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> We are putting money on both subs and frigates




Frigates will be of little use against your arc rival India. India may take them out with single shot of brahmos. Subs may cause some concern and danger for Indian navy.


----------



## nk2120132471

frigates has its position in nearly every navy.it's a symbol when you send your ship to exclusive economic zone during peaceful days.While other ships can also do that thing,but frigates is a composite of fire power,cruising endurance and many other things


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Not to mention it can rescue stranded people in oceans and transport soldiers and goods


----------



## Basel

nk2120132471 said:


> i dont know if FL3000N could be a replacement of HQ7 on f22p?
> it seems affordable and reasonable.however i dont know much if FL3000N would perform better than hq7.BTW i can still see hq7 pics on land forces of PLA,which indicates hq7 to be reliable to PLA



PN were offered both but they choose HQ7 as they believe it suits PN needs better.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Viper0011.

Basel said:


> PN were offered both but they choose HQ7 as they believe it suits PN needs better.



What's HQ 7's range? Does PN has any SAMS that are long range and high altitude to defend her ships?



Roybot said:


> Interesting, and what about the other conditions? They might even want Pakistan to oust/dismantle Haqqani network. Would that be something Pakistan would be willing to do? The conditions are so generic that America may want a lot out of Pakistan in return for this frigates.
> 
> Are these frigates worth it?




You are missing another key thing.....to make sure Pakistan's civilian government isn't being interfered by the military. That is very critical to meet. This is also what I've been lecturing people about. Keep a democratic system and learn to respect others and wait for your turn. I am MORE than positive that if the democratically elected government remains in power, these ships will get to the PN soon

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Basel

orangzaib said:


> What's HQ 7's range? Does PN has any SAMS that are long range and high altitude to defend her ships?



*FM-90 / HQ-7B SAM Air Defense System*

The FM-90 was developed by China National Precision Machinery Import and Export Corp (CNPMIEC) for Short Range Air Defense (SHORAD) . It is an improved version of the FM-80 Surface-to-Air (SAM) Air Defense System, which in turn was a copy of the French Thomson-CSF Crotale Air Defense System. The system has most recently been exported to Bangladesh.

FM-90 / HQ-7B specifications
Length: 3.00 m
Diameter: 0.16 m
Wingspan: 0.55 m
Weight: 84.5 kg
Maximum Altitude: 6000 m
Maximum Range: 15000 m
Speed: Mach 2.3
Guidance: Command + Electro-Optical Tracking
Maximum Radar Range: 25000 m

Defense Updates: FM-90 / HQ-7B SAM Air Defense System
.
HQ-7 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sadly PN don't have long range SAM, I had asked the same question to a serving PN officer and one thing what he said is that we don't have funds but also point defense systems are deployed in vast numbers with capability to engage incoming missiles, PGM, helos & air crafts in their effective range.


----------



## umair86

HariPrasad said:


> Frigates will be of little use against your arc rival India. India may take them out with single shot of brahmos. Subs may cause some concern and danger for Indian navy.



for taking out anything brahmos should work first which it doesn't.


----------



## HariPrasad

umair86 said:


> for taking out anything brahmos should work first which it doesn't.




That is great. This is like a real *********.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gslv mk3

umair86 said:


> brahmos should work first which it doesn't.



Are you so stupid ?


----------



## kaykay

umair86 said:


> for taking out anything brahmos should work first which it doesn't.


hundreds of brahmos missiles are already deployed on ground and ships. enough says.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Alphacharlie

umair86 said:


> for taking out anything brahmos should work first which it doesn't.



A great Visionary is Talking laurels about this Observations. This Great Visionary would have started shaving just 2 years ago...

Comments are being made without an Iota of Research....

See People like Oscar who Dare to call Spade a Spade......

Its a Pity these Numnuts need a Lid....

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Pretty sure we can construct a local SAM system with Local Resources


----------



## Basel

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> Pretty sure we can construct a local SAM system with Local Resources



Check post No.4 on this thread it says HQ-9 in Sargodha, if true it means our air defense is boosted many folds.

Pakistan's awareness of enemy missile launches or strikes
.
HQ-9 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Suprsied we don't have active program with Turkey for Mid to high altitude interceptor Missiles


----------



## Basel

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> Suprsied we don't have active program with Turkey for Mid to high altitude interceptor Missiles



because we don't have money and China is ahead of Turkey in this field for now.


----------



## Viper0011.

Basel said:


> But also point defense systems are deployed in vast numbers with capability to engage incoming missiles, PGM, helos & air crafts in their effective range.



This AD layer if limited and doesn't help as its easy to fire a barrage of missiles towards a large ship and then use electronic decoys to further confuse the AD radars and other sensors. You can't really defend ships that way. But, if you had long range SAMS, you could engage enemy aircraft at a greater range before their missile can be airborne or get within the effective range.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## fatman17

orangzaib said:


> What's HQ 7's range? Does PN has any SAMS that are long range and high altitude to defend her ships?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are missing another key thing.....to make sure Pakistan's civilian government isn't being interfered by the military. That is very critical to meet. This is also what I've been lecturing people about. Keep a democratic system and learn to respect others and wait for your turn. I am MORE than positive that if the democratically elected government remains in power, these ships will get to the PN soon


 
these ships wont be released until we (PK) do the following.
1. fight the haqqani network.
2. release Dr. Afridi.
so in effect 'kiss the OHP's goodbye'.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Capt.Popeye

fatman17 said:


> these ships wont be released until we (PK) do the following.
> 1. fight the haqqani network.
> 2. release Dr. Afridi.
> so in effect 'kiss the OHP's goodbye'.



Are those the "strings" attached?
Somehow the impression was that they will come through, but in calibrated manner.


----------



## Talha Mateen

After going through it seems PN is looking to acquire more of this and F-22P is not according to PN needs.


----------



## alimobin memon

It is very good topic to discuss on that whether our air defense for our land is effective or not. First of all I would like to make this very clear SAM's are one of the most crucial asset of any countries defense mechanism it should be kept secret that whether an armed forces has one or how many it has. 2nd No matter what armed forces officer you ask they will never tell you anything true. 3rd even if they tell u something is probably an act of lie, I am not saying any ones uncle is lying here. I am just saying you are not that special or some asset that they tell you that we have this and that operational in armed forces. So chill out I am pretty sure we have everything to defend our land against India if not NATO.


----------



## MilSpec

Aeronaut said:


> View attachment 11404
> 
> 
> View attachment 11405
> 
> 
> Thats 1 ship per year, Pakistan would have to pay for upgrade costs. In total Pakistan would have 4 OHP guided missile frigates.
> 
> 
> *Sources | *
> 
> S.1683 - 113th Congress (2013-2014): A bill to provide for the transfer of naval vessels to certain foreign recipients, and for other purposes. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
> 
> http://www.ausn.org/Portals/0/pdfs/advocacy/Letter of Support for Sen Menendez Bill S 1683.pdf
> 
> 
> ___________________________________________________
> 
> 
> @Penguin @cabatli_53 @Neptune | Would like to have your opinions.



All EDA transfers?


----------



## Viper0011.

fatman17 said:


> these ships wont be released until we (PK) do the following.
> 1. fight the haqqani network.
> 2. release Dr. Afridi.
> so in effect 'kiss the OHP's goodbye'.



AND there was the third most critical thing. (3):The military should NOT interfere with the democratically elected government's affairs and shouldn't become a destabilizing force. The democratic system should be allowed to continue.
If the number 3 is focused on and the system isn't derailed, I can assure you, the elected government can make the US work with them on No: 1 & 2 and you can still get the ships. But the democracy will be toppled in Pakistan just like before and more sanctions will be applied. The ongoing progress in the economy will stop and it'll collapse. All because Pakistanis pull their own people's legs for their political agenda. I've never seen such a divided nation on the planet. So yes, you should probably kiss good bye to OHP. They won't be sold to a military regime for sure, specially after bringing down a democratically elected gov't.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Donatello

fatman17 said:


> these ships wont be released until we (PK) do the following.
> 1. fight the haqqani network.
> 2. release Dr. Afridi.
> so in effect 'kiss the OHP's goodbye'.



Shakil Afridi is an old case, with no benefits to Pakistan. The nation has already forgotten that saga, better to release him and get your US diplomacy on track. I am sure Shakil Afridi got the message, since he has served 3 years in custody already. As Aeronaut posted, most of the strings attached are something Pakistan can easily abide by. Get these 4 vessels and upgrade them along the Turkish Genesis platform. The notification also allows the president to waive these conditions, and as such seen with the Jordanian transfer of Cobras and F-16s, OHPs can easily be taken.

4 OHPs with Genesis, 4 F-22Ps and another 4 Type 54s would help navy more than anything.


----------



## Skywalker

Donatello said:


> Shakil Afridi is an old case, with no benefits to Pakistan. The nation has already forgotten that saga, better to release him and get your US diplomacy on track. I am sure Shakil Afridi got the message, since he has served 3 years in custody already. As Aeronaut posted, most of the strings attached are something Pakistan can easily abide by. Get these 4 vessels and upgrade them along the Turkish Genesis platform. The notification also allows the president to waive these conditions, and as such seen with the Jordanian transfer of Cobras and F-16s, OHPs can easily be taken.
> 
> 4 OHPs with Genesis, 4 F-22Ps and another 4 Type 54s would help navy more than anything.


So you are telling us to sell our whatever leftover pride just get these used old third class frigates...nice advise.


----------



## Donatello

Skywalker said:


> So you are telling us to sell our whatever leftover pride just get these used old third class frigates...nice advise.


There is no pride bigger than getting something to defend your country. Shakil Afridi case is well beyond it's expiry date. What benefits does it bring us by keeping him in jail? How many times do you hear about him on the local news? People have forgotten that. No need to make it a matter of pride. If he wants to leave Pakistan, let it be. Thousands do that every year.


----------



## Skywalker

Donatello said:


> There is no pride bigger than getting something to defend your country. Shakil Afridi case is well beyond it's expiry date. What benefits does it bring us by keeping him in jail? How many times do you hear about him on the local news? People have forgotten that. No need to make it a matter of pride. If he wants to leave Pakistan, let it be. Thousands do that every year.


Let him leave so that he can enjoy millions he earned...well not in this life.


----------



## niaz

Talha Mateen said:


> Its shameful that EU is not supporting PN at all even Uk can give away all of its 13 Frigates along with buying back 3 from Chile and offer free upgrade to PN.




Honourable Sir,

Your post is highly presumptuous to say the least? Selling arms against hard cash helps the local industry and supports the country’s economy. But you desire that EU nations, who have no quarrel with India, would gift Pakistan warships worth hundreds of millions of dollar with free upgrade so that Pakistan Navy becomes more capable of competing with IN?

The expectation is highly naïve. The world is harsh and no country offers charity; a 'quid pro quo' is always there. Even the US Aid under PL-84 is an indirect way of supporting US farmers and it is expected that we would further US interest in the region. 

This is not a case of humanitarian assistance. Regret to admit that a lot of my countrymen have this misconceived notion that rest of the world owes Pakistan something. It is about time we wake and face the reality.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tacticool

so when are these 3 arriving in Pakistan. And what is the status of genisis and weapons upgrade of PNS Alamgir?


----------



## airmarshal

Donatello said:


> Shakil Afridi is an old case, with no benefits to Pakistan. The nation has already forgotten that saga, better to release him and get your US diplomacy on track. I am sure Shakil Afridi got the message,



No mercy for terrorists and traitors.PERIOD.

If we forget and forgive such people, we will be slain by them eventually.

By your logic, why shouldn't Assange or Snowden be forgiven?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kompromat

So.... Nothing happened on this front

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------

