F-22P a bad decision by PN?

[Myth_buster_1]

The political statement over here is that pakistan has chosen to accept what china has to offer---if it doesnot get any other better system---they might opt for the next step up---the 054's---.

To begin with, China never offers its top of the line equipments... even if it does... they will make you wait for 10 years until they have something better for their own. the reason why pakistan chose F-22P had to do more with "politics" gain/importance then technical...

Sometimes---the best system is not the best deal---because it comes with too many strings attached---or there is too much time delay related to its delivery---like the OHP---we might see it operational in 2--3 years time---but our defence need was yesterday to fill in some kind of void---.

hey.... then according to your analogy then lets drop the Type-214 deal "best system" in favor of Chinese conventional subs.. that will be just disgusting. that will be waist of money....
btw this is almost end of 2009.... USN will retire FFG-08 in begging of 2010 and within months the frigate will be upgraded and shipped to Pakistan at the end of the year...

Even though---supposedly---F 22 maynot be the greatest system there is---but it still has deep fangs---it can destroy the enemy as good as any other platform.

Now to wait for another 4---5 years for milgem---plus train on the new platform for another two to four years so that your crew is somewhat capable to fight in a war---that is getting to 10 years time frame.

oh my oh my.... you do simply love to jot down numbers while being so pessimistic.. once the construction is started for PN crews can always be ready in simulations and training in turkey..
accourding to your own statement after the induction of such platform 2-4 years are needed to have the capability to fight in war then F-22P also needs 2-4 years.....

What do people on this board think---that pakistanis can jump on a ship and from day one operate it at a 110 % of its capabilities just because they are pakistanis----.

hey dont get down so low..... just because i am ignoring your irrelevant comments does not mean you have the right to call pakistanis this and that to make you look "mr. not so blind patriot".. next time please be care full...

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Type of Frigates F-22P will possibly face...
and not to forget fallow on orders with advance version.

Shivalik class frigate

Talwar class frigate


F-22P

 

[Myth_buster_1]

What could have been a better option then 4 F-22P?

Pakistani version of 2 La Fayette class frigate.. VLS Aster 15 and possibly 30 and 2 Phalanx block 1B the most prominent add on features which French version lacks.
Of course it costs twice as much as F-22P but with the sacrifice of "quantity" 4 over "quality". 4 advance light frigate goal could be achieved with a fallow on order and 2 being built at home.
Another advantage.. These frigate could be inducted and operational much quicker then F-22P...

 

[Penguin]

Like indicated in many articles that PN OHP will be a pimped out version with improved ASW capabilities like anti-submarine rocket. So utilizing MK41 with ESSM is not a first priority but RUM-139 is...

I disagree. Fitting a Mk41 forward like in the Aussie vessels just to put a mere 8 RUM-139 there is not cost-effective. It only provides another means to launch an a handfull of ASW-torpedoes out to a distance already covered by the 2 ship helicopters. It does not address the main current armament weakness of OHP: no SSM, no SAM so long as Mk13 launcher is out of order.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

I disagree. Fitting a Mk41 forward like in the Aussie vessels just to put a mere 8 RUM-139 there is not cost-effective. It does not address the main current armament weakness of OHP: no SSM, no SAM so long as Mk13 launcher is out of order.

I am merely stating PN concern with the OHP.. early version of ASROC was in use with PN and i bet they are very eager to use newer version RUM-139 for ASW role. IMO OHP is merely going to be coastal defence vessel and its prime job will be to hunt Submarines...

There are over 100 GMLS Mk 13 Mods 0 through 7 serving the US Navy and 14 allied fleets.

their is no MK13 shortage but the SM1 missile itself is, and my guess that PN will opt for SM2 to over come the SM1 problem.

It only provides another means to launch an a handfull of ASW-torpedoes out to a distance already covered by the 2 ship helicopters.

Well buddy PN is not going to have the luxurry of operating 2 ASW choppers from OHP.. Plus if you understand the concept of ASROC its a quick reaction sub hunter armament. RUM-139 can achieve a surprise attack on subs and unlike with ASW choppers the sub will be aware of the chopper's presence and avoid detection....

 

[Penguin]

their is no MK13 shortage but the SM1 missile itself is, and my guess that PN will opt for SM2 to over come the SM1 problem.

There is no shortage of SM1s either. It is just than USN has opted to no longer operate it, as an economy measure.

"Tthere are over 100 GMLS Mk 13 Mods 0 through 7 serving the US Navy and 14 allied fleets"
MK 13/22 Guided Missile Launching System

Wonder what USN shipclasses they are on. Certainly not on board any current USN carriers, CGs and DDGs. As for the USN FFGs, the Mk13 launcher arm removed.

Mk13 remains in service in ex-USN Perry's (Egypt, Poland, Turkey, Bahrain), Australian Perrys, Taiwanese Perry's, Spanish Perry's and Knox variants, and Italian, Ex-Dutch and French frigates. And those do not add up to 100.

Well buddy PN is not going to have the luxurry of operating 2 ASW choppers from OHP.. Plus if you understand the concept of ASROC its a quick reaction sub hunter armament. RUM-139 can achieve a surprise attack on subs and unlike with ASW choppers the sub will be aware of the chopper's presence and avoid detection....

Why not, PN got get OHP McInerney for a mere 65 million dollars, chances are 2 SH2G Sea Sprite would come as military aid (i.e. free)

Submarines are generally blind to the actions of a patrolling aircraft/helicopter until it uses active sonar or fires a weapon. ASW choppers don't necessarily have to dip a sonar or drop buoys. With sufficient altitude, they can launch a torpedo undetected by a sub (well, untill the torp hits the water, but that is no different from RUM-139), while under direction from the frigate (as opposed to going off to 100km away from the frigate and hunt more independently/actively).

With 'old' asroc, e.g. on PN ex-USN Gearing class ships, there was an 8 round launcher but this could be reloaded manually. Don't underestimate the cost of the Australian upgrade, particularly that of the installation of the Mk41 forward (in a hull which can barely tolerate any tonnage increase).

But I do not want to convince you, rather just want to put my forward. Let everybody make up their own mind.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

There is no shortage of SM1s either. It is just than USN has opted to no longer operate it, as an economy measure.

"Tthere are over 100 GMLS Mk 13 Mods 0 through 7 serving the US Navy and 14 allied fleets"
MK 13/22 Guided Missile Launching System

Wonder what USN shipclasses they are on. Certainly not on board any current USN carriers, CGs and DDGs. As for the USN FFGs, the Mk13 launcher arm removed.

Mk13 remains in service in ex-USN Perry's (Egypt, Poland, Turkey, Bahrain), Australian Perrys, Taiwanese Perry's, Spanish Perry's and Knox variants, and Italian, Ex-Dutch and French frigates. And those do not add up to 100.

The thing is FAS report is outdated. Mk13 GMLS were merely developed for OHP frigates (71 produced) and most of USN old destroyers also adopted this systems.. so at one point all 100 Mk13 were operational..

The remaining American "long-hull" Oliver Hazard Perry-class warships are being modified to reduce their operating costs. The Detroit Diesel Company electrical generators are being replaced with more modern Caterpillar, Inc.-made diesel engines and the ships' Mk 13 single arm missile launchers and magazines have been removed from all U.S. Navy active frigates because the primary missile that it was meant to fire, the Standard missile SM-1MR, has outlived its service life.[1] This unfortunately also removes the capability of firing Harpoon missiles (anti-ship missiles) from these warships.
It would supposedly be too costly to refit the Standard Missile SM-1MR missiles, which had a marginal ability to bring down sea-skimming missiles. Another reason for withdrawing the SM-1MR from the American ships is to focus the supplies of these missiles to American allies, such as Poland, Spain, Australia, Turkey, and the Republic of China (Taiwan), which need them most. (Possessing no or few other guided-missile warships in their navies.)

Why not, PN got get OHP McInerney for a mere 65 million dollars, chances are 2 SH2G Sea Sprite would come as military aid (i.e. free)

that will be great if it does happen.

With 'old' asroc, e.g. on PN ex-USN Gearing class ships, there was an 8 round launcher but this could be reloaded manually. Don't underestimate the cost of the Australian upgrade, particularly that of the installation of the Mk41 forward (in a hull which can barely tolerate any tonnage increase).

Turkey will pay 227 million dollars for 6 MK41 plus 2 upgrade kits as well as other associated equipments like fire control systems to allow ESSM to be fired and i believe we can put an estimated cost of about 30 million dollars for each mk41..... adding ESSM will cost more...

 

[Penguin]

The thing is FAS report is outdated. Mk13 GMLS were merely developed for OHP frigates (71 produced) and most of USN old destroyers also adopted this systems.. so at one point all 100 Mk13 were operational..

Indeed, I was wondering why you put it forward.

Prior to OHP, Mk13 GMLS was used on board California class CGN [2x2] and the last 10 Charles F. Adams class DDG 15-24 [10x1] (The first 10 used Mk11) and German Lutjens [3x1]and Australian Perth class [3x1] derivatives.

Turkey will pay 227 million dollars for 6 MK41 plus 2 upgrade kits as well as other associated equipments like fire control systems to allow ESSM to be fired and i believe we can put an estimated cost of about 30 million dollars for each mk41..... adding ESSM will cost more...

So what does that $ 227 mil buy, really?

April 4/08: The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency announces [PDF] Turkey’s formal request for 6 MK 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS) Baseline VII tactical modules, and 2 sets of MK 41 VLS upgrade kits. They would be used to modernize 2 MEKO Track IIA frigates and 4 ex-FFG-7 Oliver Hazard Perry Class frigates, and to upgrade 2 MEKO Track IIB frigates’ MK-41 VLS from baseline IV to baseline VII configuration. Updates to the ships’ fire control system upgrades will add RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile capability. Services will include installation and testing, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics personnel services, equipment operation and maintenance, personnel training and training equipment, support and test equipment, spare and repair parts, publications and technical documentation, launch system software development and maintenance and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $227 million.

The principal contractor will be Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems and Sensors of Baltimore, MD, and Moorestown, NJ. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale, and implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government representatives or contractor representatives to Turkey.

MK 41 Naval Vertical Missile Launch Systems Delivered, Supported (updated)

I think 30 mil for a Mk41 is overestimated, considering what's lumped into the contract.

By comparison:

March 20/09: Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems and Sensors in Baltimore, MD received a fixed-price, not-to-exceed $49.9 million contract for FY 2009 MK 41 Vertical Launching System (VLS) production and delivery requirements. This contract combines purchases for the U.S. Navy (43&#37, and for the governments of Turkey (56%) and Australia (1%t) under the Foreign Military Sales Program.

Work will be performed in Baltimore, MD (64%); Minneapolis, MN (19%); Fort Walton Beach, FL (14%); Eagan, MN (2%); and Virginia Beach, VA (1%), and is expected to be complete by December 2012. This contract was not competitively procured (N00024-09-C-5392).

MK 41 Naval Vertical Missile Launch Systems Delivered, Supported (updated)

Aug 30/07: Lockheed Martin Naval Electronics & Surveillance Systems in Baltimore, MD received a $6.4 million firm-fixed-price modification #P00121 to previously awarded contract (N00024-98-C-5363) for procurement of 2 MK 41 Vertical Launching System shipsets for the Government of Turkey under the Foreign Military Sales Program. This procurement will include spares, special tools, test equipment, material and services to refurbish fixtures and transport equipment.

Work will be performed in Baltimore, MD (70%) and Minneapolis, MN (30%), and is expected to be complete by March 2010.

MK 41 Naval Vertical Missile Launch Systems Delivered, Supported (updated)

The cost is not so much the VLU itself but rather in its installation and integration with the frigate. Note that for RUM-139, fire control modifications are also necessary. Now, if you're gonna spend that money anyway, then wouldn't 32 ESSM be more bang for the buck than 8 RUM-139?

ADI Ltd was chosen by Australia's Royal Navy to upgrade its Adelaide-class FFG7 guided missile frigates. The contract valued at just under A$1 bil or $0.6 bil, will require the installation of base line capabilities, such as a tactical length Mark 41 vertical missile launching system, a Petrel mine and obstacle avoidance equipment from Thomson Marconi Sonar(TMS) and a Spherion MFS hull mounted sensor from TMS into the frigates. ADI will perform upgrades, trials and evaluation on RAN's frigates.

Read more: Abstracts: Details emerge on Royal Australian Navy's frigate upgrade. Australia surges ahead with new procurement strategy

US $0.6 billion for 4 ships > $150 million per ship

The Adelaide Class upgrade program's 3 most important changes are (1) a new combat and fire control system with an upgraded long-range air search radar, (2) improved air defense missiles, and (3) an upgraded sonar suite that includes both a new hull-mounted sonar and integration of towed sonars into a common data picture.

The SEA 1390 project has had several phases:

Phase 1 – Project Definition Studies (1995-1998) – completed
Phase 2 – FFG Upgrade Implementation (1999-2008)
Phase 3 – A Study into the replacement of the SM-1 missile.
Phase 4A – Upgrade of the existing test set to enable testing of the SM-1 replacement missile.
Phase 4B – Replacement of the SM-1 Missile capability.

Reports place the total cost of the upgrade to date at A$ 1.46 billion (about $1.01 billion at June 2004 conversion), or A$ 360 million per ship

Australia’s Hazard(ous) Frigate Upgrade

 

[Penguin]

Lockheed Martin Receives $16 Million Contract to Provide MK 41 Vertical Launching Missile Systems for Australian and Spanish Navies

Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) recently received a $16 million contract to provide four MK 41 Vertical Launcher System (VLS) ship sets to the Australian and Spanish navies.

The fixed-price contract modification covers the labor associated with
production of MK 41 Baseline VII VLS ship sets for three Royal Australian Navy Hobart-class Air Warfare Destroyers (AWD) and one launcher ship set for an Alvaro de Bazan-class Spanish F-105 frigate. The work will be performed at Lockheed Martin's facility in Middle River, MD

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Penguin

i hope your intention here is not to contradict me but to (positively contribute which you are doing).. So When i state that PN OHP should come with Mk13 you seem to believe other wise because mk13 are striped and out of order... Then i say PN OHP is merely going to be Anti-sub frigate with enhanced ASubW capabilities such as ASROC and most probably new hull mounted sonar which has been indicated in various sources. The only way to integrate ASROC is to install VLS MK41 and not a smart idea of having primary and secondary Anti-air missiles when the primary task of these ships will be ant-submarine warfare. (Btw if MK41 costs less then the figure that i posted then good for pakistan as more money from 65 million dollars could be utilized for enhancing the frigate).

 

[MastanKhan]

Penguin

i hope you intention here is not to contradict me but to (positively contribute which you are doing).. So When i state that PN OHP should come with


Sir,

Are you threatening a member over here---your tone is getting very patronizing---please, you need to tone down a little bit and stop badgering people.

What are you going to do if he is contradicting you? Are you going to further insult him on a personal basis.

You know what---we will take you much much seriously---if you share some of your qualifications with us---what kind of work experience you have----if you have had any experience in dealing with any foreigners---worked in procurement---millitary---civil engr etc etc.

Bottomline is---in order for us to agree with you---we would like to know how qualified you are to make the statements that you are making---.

 

[qsaark]

Bottomline is---in order for us to agree with you---we would like to know how qualified you are to make the statements that you are making---.

Mastan Bhai, in my opinion, this is not the bottom line. The bottom line is to see what a person is saying makes sense or not. It is totally irrelevant what he/she does for making the ends meat. There are dozens of members who have nothing to do with Defense or allied fields, yet possess very good grip on the subject (that includes you as well). And there are also many who claim to be ‘professionals’ but their analysis is seldom better than just scratching the surface.

 

[MastanKhan]

Growler quote "oh my oh my.... you do simply love to jot down numbers while being so pessimistic.. once the construction is started for PN crews can always be ready in simulations and training in turkey..
accourding to your own statement after the induction of such platform 2-4 years are needed to have the capability to fight in war then F-22P also needs 2-4 years..... "



Hi,

You can fight a war anytime you want to---but to justify and give your 110% and get the 110% out of the machine you need constant training on any new system on war footings----that is---you are simulating war games every time you are put in the ocean---that is what training is---continuous and constant---2 to 4 years on a new machine being inducted for the first time is not a long period of time.

" training in simulators "

That is a bad bad example---training in simulator familiarizes you with the machine and the weapons systems---there are differentr scenarios created as well---and that training is also meant mostly for the officers in our navy---there are three times the numbers of non comms and enlisted men on the ship---.

Lastly---you are taking too much for granted that one day the OHP will be decommissined---and in the next few months---we will get them in our backyard with all the upgrades---that is being very optimistic---looking at the past history of the americans---that is taking it too far.


"hey dont get down so low..... just because i am ignoring your irrelevant comments does not mean you have the right to call pakistanis this and that to make you look "mr. not so blind patriot".. next time please be care full... "

You need to calm down a little bit and take a chill pill---.

Now for once---don't ignore my comments and tell me what are you going to do to me over here.

You have on occassion used abusive language with other members---I warned you at that time---is that where you are headed with me!!!

 

[MastanKhan]

Mastan Bhai, in my opinion, this is not the bottom line. The bottom line is to see what a person is saying makes sense or not. It is totally irrelevant what he/she does for making the ends meat. There are dozens of members who have nothing to do with Defense or allied fields, yet possess very good grip on the subject (that includes you as well). And there are also many who claim to be ‘professionals’ but their analysis is seldom better than just scratching the surface.

Qsaark,

In matters of defence procurement--it is not a matter of making sense all the time---it is a matter of what is available at the earliest possible---the maximum bang for the buck----.

When you go out on a limb and make it either black or white---then you need to know where that person is coming from---what experience does that person have to have based his discussions----.

I reccommend you to visit a forum defence talk dot com---a world class very informative techincal forum----over there if you make a technical statement---every one wants to know your background---you know why---because there are a lots of ex-servicemen and defence pros on that site---they would want to know why you are talking different than everybody else---what is your source and experience that makes it different.

Same thing---while discussing microbiology with you---there would come a stage that you will ask me---MK---what is your background in microbiology---so that you may understand that I am not 'winging' it just like that----you want to find out if there is 'substance' behind my argument.


Other than that---talk is so very cheap----the board is filled up with paste and post information---.

If you are giving my example---then you conveniently forgot that so many times I have given out my background as to what I do for a living and for every argument that I have, I have shared my reasons basing it upon my experience.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

You can fight a war anytime you want to---but to justify and give your 110% and get the 110% out of the machine you need constant training on any new system on war footings----that is---you are simulating war games every time you are put in the ocean---that is what training is---continuous and constant---2 to 4 years on a new machine being inducted for the first time is not a long period of time.

and that----- does not apply for ---- F-22P?

" training in simulators "
That is a bad bad example---training in simulator familiarizes you with the machine and the weapons systems---there are differentr scenarios created as well---and that training is also meant mostly for the officers in our navy---there are three times the numbers of non comms and enlisted men on the ship---.

Lastly---you are taking too much for granted that one day the OHP will be decommissined---and in the next few months---we will get them in our backyard with all the upgrades---that is being very optimistic---looking at the past history of the americans---that is taking it too far.

No I am not being optimistic. just stating facts... now after the agreement did it take a decade for US to deliver 12 F-16s 110+ M-109A5 6 AN/TPS-77 AGM-154 and many other stuff? Do you have a personal issue with America? Do you know America is still our number 1 or 2 source of defence import?

You need to calm down a little bit and take a chill pill---.

Now for once---don't ignore my comments and tell me what are you going to do to me over here.

You have on occassion used abusive language with other members---I warned you at that time---is that where you are headed with me!!!

huh? arent you the one who is personally after me? even though you are not a moderator you still gave me some sort of a warning through PMs? are you ok sir?