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

[MuZammiL Dr. s[1]n]

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 ...

 

[nomi007]

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

 

[jhungary]

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

 

[Kompromat]

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]

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

 

[Kompromat]

@jhungary

So we have both

 

[Penguin]

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

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

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?

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]

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

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.

 

[FaujHistorian]

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

 

[Armstrong]

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 !

 

[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]

@jhungary

So we have both

AEW&C or old man?? hehe

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.

 

[Rashid Mahmood]

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.

 

[Contrarian]

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]

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...

 

[Nishan_101]

I support local building....