Discuss PN potential up-gradation of FFGs

[Myth_buster_1]

The Smart-S radar that Turkey is acquiring for Milgem class corvette and FFG upgrades is a very good choice for PN FFGs as well.
And this is where Pak has to pay money on its own where as upgrading with US systems may cost us nothing.

Smart-S Mk2 3D medium to long range surveillance radar
Loading...


SMART-S Mk2, Thales’s latest 3D multibeam radar, operates in S-band and is optimised for medium-to-long-range surveillance and target designation in littoral environments.



The latter consisting of a mix of sea, land, islands, coastal rains and thunderstorms and a multiple of radar targets including small surface targets, helicopters and anti-ship missiles. Furthermore, SMART-S Mk2 is designed to match the full performance of surface to air missiles (SAM), such as the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM).



SMART-S Mk2 is extremely suitable as the main air and surface surveillance radar in a one radar concept for light frigates, corvettes and ships such as Landing Platform Docks (LPD). With its 2 main modes, 250-km range, special helicopter mode, surface fire channels, easy installation, high reliability and easy maintainability, SMART-S Mk2 is again a step forward in Thales’s radar development.



SMART-S Mk2 is very succesful. Only six years after its introduction, an impressive 30 systems were sold to navies all over the world. They will be installed on new ships as well as on older vessels that are being modernized.

 

[Penguin]

This Thread is dedicated to PN potential up-gradation of FFGs only.

By 2014 8 FFGs will be delivered to PN after intensive refurbishment which will extend its life and retain systems that were striped off for USN FFGs only.
These platforms which are free of cost and the refurbishment paid with US Military founds will be a very cost effective solution and IMO PN will most likely upgrade their FFGs to meet Naval modernization plan of surface fleet.
In order to to come up with a cost effective plan these frigates should be given dedicated role of ASW to 4 FFGs and AShW/AAW to other 4 FFGs with secondary capabilities respectively.

Firstly I want to start with AShW/AAW potential up-gradation of 4 FFGs and the systems they are going to hold.

Combat Management System in 21st century warfare is very essential for surface combatants and FFGs should not be left behind. According to Turkish sources Pakistan navy has shown keen interest and will likely acquire this system for its FFGs.

GENESİS
21st Century Combat Management System for Perry-Class Frigates

In my opinion its quite essential to equip these frigates with SPY-5 which increases the performance by many times. This system is specifically targeted at those costumers who are looking for a cost effective and a reliable solution for almost all type of surface combatant vessels.

The FFG air surveillance radar is a very long range radar with 400+KM range and the A(V)1 configuration provides enhanced capabilities and utilizes ESSM and SM-2 block IIIA very effectively.


FFG UPGRADE
Air search radar AN/SPS-49(V)4 radar to the A(V)1
configuration provides:

• Automatic target detection
• Improved waveform and signal
processing for low altitude/small
radar cross section (RCS) targets
• Coherent side lobe cancellation
giving considerable electronic
protection capability
• Two scan threat alerts
• Improved reliability.


Air surveillance capability

• The long-range air surveillance,
target indication and Automatic
Detect and Track (ADT) functions
are upgraded
• The AN/SPS 49A(V)1 long-range
air surveillance radar provides
improved low elevation small
target performance and increased
detection range
• The Electro Optical Tracking System
(EOTS) is integrated into the combat
system and provides a new fire
control channel
• The Electronic Support (ES) function
is replaced by a modern high
performance system.

It is already crystal clear that PN newly induction of RGM-84 Harpoon block II missiles will be primary AShM.
As for SAM the only series of missiles that can be launched from MK-13 launching system is Standard Missiles 2 series.

Part 2 to be continue

Interesting, but given that SPY-5 is tailored to ESSM and that ESSM has a range of 'only' about 27+ nmi (31+ mi, 50+km), which is roughly twice that of RIM-7 Sea Sparrow and about the same as the old SM-1B, what works as illuminator for the 40 to 90 nmi (46 to 104 mi, 74 to 167 km) SM2 Block IIIA? At least the Turks and Australians retain a STIR 2.4, which the USN OHPs no longer do and which also appears absent in the image of the OHP with SPY-5. STIR 2.4 has and instrumented range of some 180-200km (140 against a 1m sqr target) while the smaller STIR 1.8 (inside the CAS) has a range of 60-120 km

Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems (Stand 1555) has lifted the veil on its new AN/SPY-5 phased array X-band multifunction radar, developed as a single sensor capable of providing horizon search, threat illumination and missile guidance/homing support.

The system – targeted at smaller surface combatants and large-deck amphibious ships and carriers requiring an improved self-defence capability – has been engineered to match the capabilities of the semiactive radar-guided Evolved SeaSparrow Missile (ESSM) system. An engineering development model (EDM), built using private venture funding, is now beginning test and evaluation.

...

In addition, SPY-5 provides improved defensive fire power for the combatant, with each array face capable of supporting multiple simultaneous engagements. Additionally, SPY-5’s range, accuracy and beam agility are designed to maximise ESSM’s performance envelope, while operation in the X-band optimises performance in the littoral maritime environment.

DSEi 2009 - SPY-5 radar scans new horizons

Enables the full performance of the Evolved SeaSparrow
...
SPY-5 meets this challenge with its range, accuracy and beam agility that is designed to optimize the Evolved SeaSparrow Missile’s advanced capabilities.
...
Missile Illumination range '> 50 km'

http://www.raytheon.com/media/dsei09/Products/SPY-5/SPY-5.pdf


Put differently, if the illuminator is limited in range (ESSM), why bother with SM2? Putting 2 or 3 Mk41 directly in place of the Mk13 would give a much higher missile loadout (64 or 96 ESSM), which could be used effectively (as opposed to 1x Mk41 with 32 ESSM plus Mk13 with 32 SM2 but without effective missile control)

 

[ironman]

Hi guys... have I missed something ? Is OHP FF is going to get back MK13 ? Is PN requested for the re-installation..

 

[Penguin]

Hi guys... have I missed something ? Is OHP FF is going to get back MK13 ? Is PN requested for the re-installation..

Yeah, I thing you did miss something: it's besides the point in this thread, which is about POTENTIAL upgrade of OHP (nothing to do with actual immediate situation/state of McInerney or with any of the subsequent OHPs which may get transferred in the not too distanct future). Which may include reinstallation of Mk13 launcher arm and Mk13 reactivation on USN ships which currently do have neither a functional Mk13 nor a STIR. However, It may also involve complete replacement of the Mk13 by e.g. a small VLS 'farm' with multiple Mk41. Anything goes here.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Interesting, but given that SPY-5 is tailored to ESSM and that ESSM has a range of 'only' about 27+ nmi (31+ mi, 50+km), which is roughly twice that of RIM-7 Sea Sparrow and about the same as the old SM-1B, what works as illuminator for the 40 to 90 nmi (46 to 104 mi, 74 to 167 km) SM2 Block IIIA? At least the Turks and Australians retain a STIR 2.4, which the USN OHPs no longer do and which also appears absent in the image of the OHP with SPY-5. STIR 2.4 has and instrumented range of some 180-200km (140 against a 1m sqr target) while the smaller STIR 1.8 (inside the CAS) has a range of 60-120 km


DSEi 2009 - SPY-5 radar scans new horizons


http://www.raytheon.com/media/dsei09/Products/SPY-5/SPY-5.pdf


Put differently, if the illuminator is limited in range (ESSM), why bother with SM2? Putting 2 or 3 Mk41 directly in place of the Mk13 would give a much higher missile loadout (64 or 96 ESSM), which could be used effectively (as opposed to 1x Mk41 with 32 ESSM plus Mk13 with 32 SM2 but without effective missile control)

As far as i understand. Illumination range is different from instrumental range of the radar? Illumination = source of light? perhaps IR? So a stealth air crafts with very low RCS can be compromised with the radar illumination?
If PN plans to upgrade these FFGs in the same scale as P-3s then their are quite variety of configurations we can think about.
Btw RAN will utilize its good old SPS-49 with av1 configuration for SM-2 block IIIA.
Oh btw the pic is PS and if i am not mistaken I read somewhere that with the installation of SPY-5 STIR is not required.

 

[SeaToby]

The SM-1MR missiles and the Mk 13 launcher are dated, going back to the 1960s and 1970s. When the US pulled the launcher and stored their inventory of SM-1s for others, they had planned to upgrade the FFG-07s with SeaRam and Harpoons racks. If the SeaRams are good enough for one version of the LCS, they are good enough for Pakistan... RAM is using the Mk 49 launcher for 21 missiles, whereas SeaRam is using the Mk 29 RAM launcher for 11 missiles...

The US didn't fund the simple, not to expensive upgrade as the ships were too old to do the upgrade. Thus the US decided to save the funds to spend elsewhere. Even the US has budget problems and a national debt... The US Navy is adding RAM and SeaRam to over 74 ships in the fleet, including aircraft carriers, supply ships, and amphibious ships.

On the other hand it would be wise for Pakistan to upgrade the CIWS with SeaRam and mount SSMs, either Harpoons or another SSM in front of the bridge.

You will end up with a good used frigate with a good self defense anti-air and anti-missile missile, and a good surface to surface missile as well... With at least ten more years of life left in the ship, if not more for almost nothing...

 

[ironman]

Yeah, I thing you did miss something: it's besides the point in this thread, which is about POTENTIAL upgrade of OHP (nothing to do with actual immediate situation/state of McInerney or with any of the subsequent OHPs which may get transferred in the not too distanct future). Which may include reinstallation of Mk13 launcher arm and Mk13 reactivation on USN ships which currently do have neither a functional Mk13 nor a STIR. However, It may also involve complete replacement of the Mk13 by e.g. a small VLS 'farm' with multiple Mk41. Anything goes here.

But the thread starter's explanation goes this way..

ESSM will require VLS-41 at additional cost while SM-2 can utilized with already existing system MK-13 without any additional cost which is very important for Pakistan. The another advantage SM-2 gives is its long range compared to ESSM so that airborne threats such as MPA, Fighter aircrafts on anti-ship role etc can be effectively engaged at long distance.
SM-2 Block IIIA that Australia has acquired for its FFGs has a range of 160+ KM. The SM-2 block IIIB has dual seekers the RF and IR and can engaged surface targets as well.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

But the thread starter's explanation goes this way..

Try to comprehend the context before start posting.

What is wrong with MK13 being a existing system? MK13 are stored in US stocks and at PN request they can be reinstalled. their is no rocket science involved in here.

 

[Penguin]

But the thread starter's explanation goes this way..

So? It has been documented from authoritarive sources that most of the Mk13 still sits inside the OHPs.

 

[Penguin]

Try to comprehend the context before start posting.

their is no rocket science involved in here.

Might I suggest using a less abrasive tone, it rubs fewer people the wrong way and keeps focus on substance.

 

[Penguin]

As far as i understand. Illumination range is different from instrumental range of the radar? Illumination = source of light? perhaps IR? So a stealth air crafts with very low RCS can be compromised with the radar illumination?
If PN plans to upgrade these FFGs in the same scale as P-3s then their are quite variety of configurations we can think about.
Btw RAN will utilize its good old SPS-49 with av1 configuration for SM-2 block IIIA.
Oh btw the pic is PS and if i am not mistaken I read somewhere that with the installation of SPY-5 STIR is not required.

A semi-active radar homing missile like SM2 requires (at least in the final stage of flight) that the target is 'illuminated' continuously by a dedicated fire control/direction radar (as distinct from a search/track radar like AN/SPS-49, which sweeps the target intermittently as it rotates rather than 'painting' it continuously), while the missile homes in on the radar emissions that are reflected back off the target in the direction of the missile.

SARH missiles require tracking radar to acquire the target (AN/SPS-49), and a more narrowly focused illuminator radar to "light up" the target in order for the missile to lock on to the radar return reflected off target (CAS close in and STIR at longer range). Sea Sparrow, ESSM, and both Standard SM-1 and -2, they all are all semi-active radar homing missiles.

SPY-5 takes over target illumination functions from both CAS and STIR, but since its performance is tuned to the characteristics of ESSM and the missile range of ESSM is very much shorter than that of SM-2 block IIIb, the question is whether SPY-5 is suitable for target illumination at those much greater distances that are involved when dealing with SM-2 block IIIb instead of ESSM. If that is not the case, then an SPY-5 equipped OHP cannot fully utilize the range envelope of the SM2 block IIIb (i.e. can only guide SM2 out to a range similar to that of ESSM)

For ESSM, the STIR is no longer necessary if SPY-5 is installed. However, for SM2, that is not a given.

While improving the AN/SPS-49 main search air surveillance radar and undertaking substantial improvements to the Mk 92 missile fire control system and CAS and STIR radars, RAN will continue to use both STIR 2.4 for SM2 target 'illumination' and have both CAS and STIR to work with ESSM.

The pic of OHP with SPY-5 that you posted is an artist impression from the manufacturers website.

 

[ironman]

SPY-5 takes over target illumination functions from both CAS and STIR, but since its performance is tuned to the characteristics of ESSM and the missile range of ESSM is very much shorter than that of SM-2 block IIIb, the question is whether SPY-5 is suitable for target illumination at those much greater distances that are involved when dealing with SM-2 block IIIb instead of ESSM. If that is not the case, then an SPY-5 equipped OHP cannot fully utilize the range envelope of the SM2 block IIIb (i.e. can only guide SM2 out to a range similar to that of ESSM)

For ESSM, the STIR is no longer necessary if SPY-5 is installed. However, for SM2, that is not a given.

While improving the AN/SPS-49 main search air surveillance radar and undertaking substantial improvements to the Mk 92 missile fire control system and CAS and STIR radars, RAN will continue to use both STIR 2.4 for SM2 target 'illumination' and have both CAS and STIR to work with ESSM.

The pic of OHP with SPY-5 that you posted is an artist impression from the manufacturers website.

But Raytheon explains..

Raytheon cites several benefits. For example, the arrays require less power and weigh far less than rotating radars and individual fire control directors, enabling SPY-5’s fixed phased-array to be flexibly located on the upper deck or mast. Simultaneous tracking and illumination of both air and surface targets, combined with support for both missile and surface gunfire control, alleviates the need for multiple radars.

In addition, SPY-5 provides improved defensive fire power for the combatant, with each array face capable of supporting multiple simultaneous engagements. Additionally, SPY-5’s range, accuracy and beam agility are designed to maximise ESSM’s performance envelope, while operation in the X-band optimises performance in the littoral maritime environment.
DSEi 2009 - SPY-5 radar scans new horizons

However the discussion is pointless Spy-5 is not matured yet...

 

[ironman]

Try to comprehend the context before start posting.

What is wrong with MK13 being a existing system? MK13 are stored in US stocks and at PN request they can be reinstalled. their is no rocket science involved in here.

Normally the removed parts will be transferred to other users as spare parts. There is no point in keep them in garage. However I'm not sure about MK13 , can you provide a link..

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Normally the removed parts will be transferred to other users as spare parts. There is no point in keep them in garage. However I'm not sure about MK13 , can you provide a link..

Back up your claims with sources. Are you trying to imply Mk-13 arm was supplied to other nations? Do you have a link that US has not kept the MK13 arm in its storage? Only SM-1 was supplied to other nations which was diverted from USN FFGs.
I dont have to provide any sources because all i have said is that under intensive refurbishment PN can request US to reinstall MK13 arm back to its original place probably without any significant cost.

 

[Penguin]

Normally the removed parts will be transferred to other users as spare parts. There is no point in keep them in garage. However I'm not sure about MK13 , can you provide a link..

Leave it alone.