F-22p News & Discussions

[SeaToby]

When the Americans removed the FFG-7 class Mk 13 missile launchers, they decided not to upgrade the class with SeaRam and harpoon racks due to the ship's age. Since Pakistan will be using the FFG-7 class ships for a longer period of time, I would do the upgrade the Americans decided not to do for a very modest price compared to what the Australians did with the very expensive Mk 41 VLS ESSM upgrade...

The Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates are very useful ASW frigates and would be an asset for any navy with the SeaRam/harpoon racks upgrade...

 

[wangrong]

F22P is relatively inexpensive for a new ship of this size and capability. That doesn't make is cheap ($175 mil or so is not peanuts)

ANZAC is somewhat heavier than F22P and has CODOG propulsion versus CODAD on F22P

QUOTE]

technology transfer+Z9EC+Weapons and ammunition+ships=F22P Project

so the price is wrong

 

[SeaToby]

technology transfer+Z9EC+Weapons and ammunition+ships=F22P Project

so the price is wrong

Why would you say the price is wrong? New Zealand passed on its option for a third and/or fourth Anzac during 1999 for NZ $470 million each, which at that time was probably worth in the neighborhood of US $250 million...

The Anzacs are slightly larger ships with more expensive labor costs and Western built weapons systems. It seems to me a Chinese built ship with lesser labor costs in the neighborhood of US $180 million is about right for the F-22P class frigates.

 

[wangrong]

$175 million=technology transfer price +Z9EC price +Weapons and ammunition price +ships price

 

[Ibr0kEmYrAz0r]

Why would you say the price is wrong? New Zealand passed on its option for a third and/or fourth Anzac during 1999 for NZ $470 million each, which at that time was probably worth in the neighborhood of US $250 million...

The Anzacs are slightly larger ships with more expensive labor costs and Western built weapons systems. It seems to me a Chinese built ship with lesser labor costs in the neighborhood of US $180 million is about right for the F-22P class frigates.

F-22P is more in the region of $150 million each if no helicopters/spare ammo/TOT are taken into account, not $180 mil.

These days most people are lazy and just tend to look up in the Wikipedia, again, not very accurate - anyone can change it - no mention of TOT there, and the unit price listed there of $175 mil doesn't do it justice. I remembered it listed $ 150 mil a while ago, then someone changed it.

During 1999-2000, the exchange rate between New Zealand dollar and US dollar, hit all time low; they should have paid in US dollars during that time while their currency was weaker, as in 2005 and also nowadays $470 mil NZ dollar would have costed them $330 mil US dollar.

 

[Penguin]

$175 million=technology transfer price +Z9EC price +Weapons and ammunition price +ships price

Repeating a message doesn't make it true ;-)

Put differently, let's assume you're right: what is your source? (i.e. please provide links/'evidence')

IIRC:

Pakistan had been negotiating with China for the supply of 4 frigates since the late 1990s. The contract was signed on 4 April 2006 with the conclusion of negotiations for financing and technology transfer.
...
The $750 million contract also includes 4-6 Harbin Z-9EC anti-submarine warfare (ASW) helicopters as well as ammunition for the frigates.

$750million / 4 frigates plus all that= 187.5 per

> For 4x$175 million, there is 4x$12.5 million=$50 million left for e.g. for ammo and TOT

 

[Guest]

C-802*8 4m
HHQ-7*8 9m (not sure about this, each HQ-7 cost 0.2m in 1989)
Z-9 10.6m

 

[Penguin]

C-802*8 4m
HHQ-7*8 9m (not sure about this, each HQ-7 cost 0.2m in 1989)
Z-9 10.6m

What currency? C802 and seems a bit expensive: Harpoon is $720k per round. On the other hand, at $16 million the SH-2F is more expensive. And ESSM is $800k per round.

If we take Guest's numbers and consider 6 helicopters plus 4 ships with main munitions (32 HQ7, 16 C-802 per ship)

$63.6m for heli + $25.6m for HQ7 + $256m for C-802 = $345.2m
1 ships = ($750m - TOT - $345,2m) = (404.8-TOT)/4
That would imply a max unit cost of $100m (but C-802 is too much)


With C-802 at $800k per round, it adds up to:
$63.6m for heli + $25.6m for HQ7 + $51,2m for C-802 = $140.4m
1 ships = ($750m - TOT - $140,4m) = ($609.6m - TOT)/4
That would imply a max unit cost of $152m (if TOT is free)

 

[Guest]

What currency? C802 and seems a bit expensive: Harpoon is $720k per round. On the other hand, at $16 million the SH-2F is more expensive. And ESSM is $800k per round.

If we take Guest's numbers and consider 6 helicopters plus 4 ships with main munitions (32 HQ7, 16 C-802 per ship)

$63.6m for heli + $25.6m for HQ7 + $256m for C-802 = $345.2m
1 ships = ($750m - TOT - $345,2m) = (404.8-TOT)/4
That would imply a max unit cost of $100m (but C-802 is too much)


With C-802 at $800k per round, it adds up to:
$63.6m for heli + $25.6m for HQ7 + $51,2m for C-802 = $140.4m
1 ships = ($750m - TOT - $140,4m) = ($609.6m - TOT)/4
That would imply a max unit cost of $152m (if TOT is free)

what i mean is C802*8 cost 4 million, 0.5m each.

as i said before, the HHQ-7 seems to be too expensive, more then 1m each. but i also need to point out that HQ-7s and HHQ-7s are not the same missiles, HHQ-7s are redesigned for the PLAN which was based on the HQ-7. however, PLAN's bought them in very limited number, so the price goes up. therefore, i am sure that the price tag is higher then 0.2m.

one more thing, the cost of tropedoes and rockets is not included yet.

 

[Ibr0kEmYrAz0r]

C-802*8 4m
HHQ-7*8 9m (not sure about this, each HQ-7 cost 0.2m in 1989)
Z-9 10.6m

FM-90N / HHQ-7 costs $9M seems so expensive, are we still paying patents fees to the French?

Was under the impressions that $10.6m was for the army version of Z-9, while naval Z-9EC costs $13m each. (cos the basic civilian version of Z-9 costs RMB Yuan 45.47m, i.e. $7m)

Z-9EC: $13m x 6 = $78m

C-802: $0.5 x 32 = $16m (but surely with more spares)

FM-90N / HHQ-7: $9m x 4 = $36m (this may have already included launcher price + spare missiles, e.g. 32 in launchers + 32~64 spares)

$78m + $16m + $36m = $130m

$750m - $130m = $620m for 4 ships = $155m per ship (with Free TOT + spare C-802s + torpedoes + rockets + gun ammos + ammos for choppers, etc.)

or if $20m are allocated for TOT + spare C-802s + torpedoes + rockets + gun ammos + ammos for choppers, etc. then

unit price is ($750m - $130m - $20m) / 4 = $150m

 

[a1b2c145]

 

[Penguin]

what i mean is C802*8 cost 4 million, 0.5m each.

as i said before, the HHQ-7 seems to be too expensive, more then 1m each. but i also need to point out that HQ-7s and HHQ-7s are not the same missiles, HHQ-7s are redesigned for the PLAN which was based on the HQ-7. however, PLAN's bought them in very limited number, so the price goes up. therefore, i am sure that the price tag is higher then 0.2m.

one more thing, the cost of tropedoes and rockets is not included yet.

Well maybe better to use the FM-## designation then, so we know what we're taling about.

RIM-7 Sea Sparrow is about 123.000 EUR / $165,400 each. But as said, the newer ESSM is far more expensive.

 

[wangrong]

 

[Penguin]

When the Americans removed the FFG-7 class Mk 13 missile launchers, they decided not to upgrade the class with SeaRam and harpoon racks due to the ship's age. Since Pakistan will be using the FFG-7 class ships for a longer period of time, I would do the upgrade the Americans decided not to do for a very modest price compared to what the Australians did with the very expensive Mk 41 VLS ESSM upgrade...

The Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates are very useful ASW frigates and would be an asset for any navy with the SeaRam/harpoon racks upgrade...

The removal of the Mk13 launcher arm from OHP in 2003 had to do with the USNs decision to retire SM1 from service as an economy measure and to reserve remaining SM1s for foreign operators. Given the originally intended role of these ships (relatively cheap oceangoing fleet and convoy escorts), the greatly reduced threat with the demise of the USSR and their current use mostly for patrol uses, it was decided that the remaining armament was sufficient. All other on board systems have been kept up to date, in view of continued operational service in the fleet. The USN never envisioned a major weapons and sysems upgrade such as e.g. the Australians recently opted for, or a systems upgrade such as developed by Turkey.

 

[nightrider_saulat]

what is sole purpose of F-22P is it design for coastal air defense
or for some another purpose like attacking enemy's surface combatants with c-802 or harpoos