Oliver Hazard Class Frigate Acquisition by Pakistan

[Penguin]

And how is PN planing to fit those 20 years old 3 sets of 2x2 launchers in 8 OHPs? OHP has enough room to fit 4x4 Harpoon launchers on its deck so why should they be limited to only half of that?
Retaining Mk-13 and updating OHP fire control system will be much more effective then 2x2 launchers.

Actually, IIRC, those 2x2 launchers came from ex-US Gearing/Sumner class ships the PN used for some time.

Clearly, you can't spread 3 sets over 8 ships. But re-use does mean that at least 3 ships can be refitted in Pakistan at very additional cost (after US delivery). It also means fewer additional sets would have to be procured for the remaining ships. Just because they are now on Type 21 doesn't mean the Harpoons need to be retired when these ships are.

As for the choice 2x2 versus 2x4, if you look at some of the possible upgrade options I suggested over the last couple of years in various threads on the McInerney on this forum, you'ld find I've often advocated 2x4 Harpoon. Contrary to objections made by some about too much top weight, this would be entirely feasible. But the point here is not what could be fitted. The question is in what state will McInerney be delivered and what would happen next, after transfer. The chance that she arrives with no Harpoon capability is quite substantial, although I would think it at least equalliy possible that the MK13 launch capability will be reinstated.

You have to understand that USN FFGs currently have no Harpoon/SM1 launch capability left: visible evidence of this it that the Mk13 launcher arm has no longer been there since 2003, at which time the STIR for SM1 target illumination was also removed (we can only guess what remains below decks)

 

[Penguin]

rrrright. I am referring to 60-70 newly acquired RGM-84block II that are launched by Frigates.

If you did, then why did you write AGM-84?

Anyway, as for new RGM-84 block II, I would assumed these can be used by the 3 Type 21s, as well as by the MRTP-33 boats PN is getting from Turkey (2 ordered, requirement of 8, each with 4 Harpoon). Just putting the new Harpoons on 5 ships (3 FF and 2 PB) would require 20 missiles, then add 2 reloads worth of missilestock and you have 60 missiles accounted for. Alternatively, you have 11 ships x 4 missiles = 40 missiles plus 20-30 stock.

You don't order for 60-70 Block II Harpoon just for McInerney. But if you get a total of 8 FFG-7s with functional Mk13, yeah, you'ld need 8x8=64 missiles for just a single loadout (but you'ld then likely order more than 60-70, 'cause you need some in stock in case war breaks out).

The 70 million dollars pakistan is paying for are not for paint jobs and few nuts and bolt changes. We must not confuse refurbished cobras and F-16 block 15 with this extensive refurbishment for OHP that are customized for PN requirement.

Indeed, besides the paint job, it includes spares, training and whole bunch of other things and if you take those into account, there isn't much left for weapons of systems upgrades. It is not called refurbishment rader than modernization for nothing

"WASHINGTON: The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress Feb. 18 of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Pakistan for refurbishment of one OLIVER HAZARD PERRY Class Frigate and associated equipment, parts and logistical support for a complete package worth approximately $78 million."
Navy News — By US Defense Security Cooperation Agency on February 23, 2010 at 7:55 am

PN has operated RUR-5 in the past and I wont be surprised if 8 cell MK-41 VLS is acquired for RUM-139 use. These are anti submarine frigates meaning their prime task is what it is built for, not a 4000+T coastal petrol vessel. IMO either all 8 OHP are to be fitted with MK-41 or 4 and the other 4 maybe utilized for cost effective AAW for fleet defense.

Mk 41 comes in 3 lengths: Self defence (530 cm deep, ESSM only)
Tactical (675 cm deep, SM2 block II/III , VL ASROC), and Strike (770 cm deep, SM2 block IV, Tomahawk)
Australia has used the shorter Self-Defence variant for its frigate upgrade program. This already sticks out well above deck (i.e. they can't place it lower down). A longer Mk41 Tactical would really tower above deck and likely cause weight distribution, hull tension issues, considering its position forward near the bow.


source: Navy Matters | Type 45 Section

The FFG-7 can only serve fleet defence AAW if it has a functional Mk13 launcher.

So does the new Block II Harpoon which requires new fire control system. Once the MK-13 and new fire control is installed the SM-2 is all good to go.

"The multi-mission Block II is deployable from all current Harpoon missile system platforms with either existing command and launch equipment or the commercially available Advanced Harpoon Weapon Control System (AHWCS)."
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/missiles/harpoon/docs/HarpoonBlockIIBackgrounder.pdf

SM-1 is a one old surface to air missile near to end of its life 25-30 years, and if PN acquires these oldies it will be impossible to operate them beyond 40-45 years of life. SM-1 has no future in indo-pak context against latest Indian AShM and cruise missile acquisitions. Its like PAF requesting US for AIM-54 and AIM-7.
SM-1 is as useless as AIM-54 even though PAF never had a AAM with a range beyond 30 KM.

Do you see Turkey switching to SM2 on its Perry's? It is not part of the Genesis upgrade. They retain SM-1 and therefor must think differently about it than you do.
As for the Australians, this is how Thales Australia describes it:
"The upgraded weapons suite provides an effective four layer hard kill
capability, which together with an extensive soft kill capability, assures
significant protection in air warfare.
The effectors and weapons are:
• SM-1 missiles with a growth path to SM-2"
Note how it does not say "SM-2"

"The ships’ existing Mk13 GMLS pop-up launcher will retain its 40 round magazine, but will be fitted for more advanced SM-2 anti-air missiles and Harpoon strike missiles (usually fitted 32 SM-2 and 8 Harpoon). "
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/australias-hazardous-frigate-upgrade-04586/
It doesn't say "fitted with"

SM-1 Medium Range Blocks VI/VIA/VIB, RIM-66E:
The final SM-1MR version was the Block VI, designated RIM-66E. The RIM-66E featured the monopulse seeker of the SM-2, and a new MK 45 MOD 4 proximity fuze (also known as TDD - Target Detection Device). The subvariants of Block VI include RIM-66E-1/3/7/8 (-3/8 have the MK 115 warhead of SM-2). Block VI A (RIM-66E-5) and Block VI B (RIM-66E-6) had later MODs (6 and 7, respectively) of the MK 45 fuze for improved performance against low-RCS targets, and both use the MK 115 warhead.
The RIM-66E was the last version of the standard missile one medium range. The RIM-66E was used by all remaining Tartar vessels that were not modified to use the New Threat Upgrade and Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates which controlled it with the Mk92 fire control system. The missile is still widely used abroad (not just on ex USN vessels) and is expected to remain viable until 2020.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Actually, IIRC, those 2x2 launchers came from ex-US Gearing/Sumner class ships the PN used for some time.

Clearly, you can't spread 3 sets over 8 ships. But re-use does mean that at least 3 ships can be refitted in Pakistan at very additional cost (after US delivery). It also means fewer additional sets would have to be procured for the remaining ships. Just because they are now on Type 21 doesn't mean the Harpoons need to be retired when these ships are.

As for the choice 2x2 versus 2x4, if you look at some of the possible upgrade options I suggested over the last couple of years in various threads on the McInerney on this forum, you'ld find I've often advocated 2x4 Harpoon. Contrary to objections made by some about too much top weight, this would be entirely feasible. But the point here is not what could be fitted. The question is in what state will McInerney be delivered and what would happen next, after transfer. The chance that she arrives with no Harpoon capability is quite substantial, although I would think it at least equalliy possible that the MK13 launch capability will be reinstated.

You have to understand that USN FFGs currently have no Harpoon/SM1 launch capability left: visible evidence of this it that the Mk13 launcher arm has no longer been there since 2003, at which time the STIR for SM1 target illumination was also removed (we can only guess what remains below decks)

Lets just end this debate once in for all and I think its gonna be just waist of time discussing about weather PN OHP are gonna arrive here without MK-13 launching system or not.

I am totally not in favor of sticking harpoon containers on the deck as it will cost pakistan a lot more that way and more containers will be required as well at Pak's expense. And then another expense will be addition of SAM cells. Why waist money on unnecessary spending when PN can request to bring back OHP's MK-13 back to its original shape. I dont see why US wont bring back the MK-13 launchers from its storage and reinstall it. That way 40 magazine round for 8 harpoons and 32 Standard Missile will be utilized without any cost.
The only reason why US took away MK-13 launchers from OHPs was because SM-1 had lived its service in US, the launcher was requiring some refurbishments, and US did not see any potential in OHP as much more capable frigates were being available to USN. However allies forces with OHPs saw a lot of potential in OHP thus SM-1 were diverted to their requirements.

 

[Penguin]

I think its gonna be just waist of time discussing about weather PN OHP are gonna arrive here without MK-13 launching system or not.

Well, it is THE big question: does the refurb include reactivation of the Mk13 and refitting of the STIR?

I am totally not in favor of sticking harpoon containers on the deck as it will cost pakistan a lot more that way and more containers will be required as well at Pak's expense. And then another expense will be addition of SAM cells.

Clearly, a working mk13 would be best. However, one has to consider the possibility that for $65mil it comes as it is, namely w/o Mk 13. And then what?

Cost of Harpoon on deck is modest as it is just a couple of steel racks and a few canisters (which aren't hightech items). As for the expenses, weren't you earlier arguing that the refurb included installation of Mk41s? That is a PN-born expense on the addition of SAM cells. Besides, any missiles going inside a Mk41s also need canisters... including any RUM-139 or ESSM. Those are paid for by PN. So, is there really extra expense?

Why waist money on unnecessary spending when PN can request to bring back OHP's MK-13 back to its original shape. I dont see why US wont bring back the MK-13 launchers from its storage and reinstall it. That way 40 magazine round for 8 harpoons and 32 Standard Missile will be utilized without any cost.

I have argued at various points in earlier threads that IMHO the Mk13 could be restored relatively easily. Indeed, that I would be somewhat surprised if it was not included as part of a refurb. The point remains that we don't know at this point. Nonetheless, even without Mk13, the FFG-7 'as is' can have reasonable ASuW and AAW capability restored at a very modest cost.

The only reason why US took away MK-13 launchers from OHPs was because SM-1 had lived its service in US, the launcher was requiring some refurbishments, and US did not see any potential in OHP as much more capable frigates were being available to USN. However allies forces with OHPs saw a lot of potential in OHP thus SM-1 were diverted to their requirements.

For the first two parts of the statement (outlived service in USN, launcher requiring refurbs), there is no supporting evidence. The main difference SM1 > SM2 is in their motor and hence range and - due to the rangedifference - in mid-course guidance: SM1 shares hominghead and warhead with SM2. The third statement is blatently untrue: there are no other, more modern frigates available to the USN, which increasingly relies on Ticonderoga class cruisers and Burk class destroyers, having paid off the Spruance class and reduced the number of frigates.
As for seeing potential: the USN saw fit to keep OHP in service despite removal of Mk13 in 2003 (7 years ago!) because even without SM1 and Harpoon it fulfilled very usefull ASW and patrol roles. Although in dwindling numbers, it is certain that ships of this class will remain in USN active service for another 5-10 years! Your final statement suggests foreign users saw potential in SM1 is contradicted by your earlier argument against SM1 and for SM2, to which my counter was that no foreign OHP operators have actually adopted SM2.

Finally, re. Harpoon block II:

Harpoon Block II will be capable of deployment from all platforms which currently have the Harpoon Missile system by using existing command and launch equipment. A growth path is envisioned for integration with the Vertical Launch System and modern integrated weapon control systems.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-84.htm

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Anyway, as for new RGM-84 block II, I would assumed these can be used by the 3 Type 21s, as well as by the MRTP-33 boats PN is getting from Turkey (2 ordered, requirement of 8, each with 4 Harpoon). Just putting the new Harpoons on 5 ships (3 FF and 2 PB) would require 20 missiles, then add 2 reloads worth of missilestock and you have 60 missiles accounted for. Alternatively, you have 11 ships x 4 missiles = 40 missiles plus 20-30 stock.

Why are you always contradicting every thing and coming up with 180 degree different ideas? for the sake of arguments?
The type 21 is near to its end of life and MRTP-33 is a small petrol boat so the first priority will be OHP which will utilize the block II harpoon more effectively. Either Exocets may be acquired to equip MRTP-33 or no more then 2 block 1 harpoon retained from Amazon class frigates for cost saving.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Well, it is THE big question: does the refurb include reactivation of the Mk13 and refitting of the STIR?

Why wouldnt it? Isnt MK-13 part of original OHP program? IMO PN is insisting on restoring MK13 on its OHP with free of cost as it is originally supposed to be installed on the frigate.

Clearly, a working mk13 would be best. However, one has to consider the possibility that for $65mil it comes as it is, namely w/o Mk 13. And then what?

78 million dollars to be precise. If OHP does not come with MK13 then the frigate is nothing but a 4000+T floating target vessel for IN cruise missiles and AShM. Without SAMs I dont know how OHP is going to survive in war even against Submarines with AShM.

Cost of Harpoon on deck is modest as it is just a couple of steel racks and a few canisters (which aren't hightech items). As for the expenses, weren't you earlier arguing that the refurb included installation of Mk41s? That is a PN-born expense on the addition of SAM cells. Besides, any missiles going inside a Mk41s also need canisters... including any RUM-139 or ESSM. Those are paid for by PN. So, is there really extra expense?

Not as modest as you seem to sound it like. Wiring may be required, modification on deck, canisters could cost a bit much, and approval from US will be required as well.

You could be right that in initial stage after delivery OHP will not be equipped with MK41 but IMO since the main priority is ASW for these frigates MK41 could eventually be installed with RUM-139 to increase ASW capability. or for cost saving PN could adopt 4 OHP for entirely ASW dedication with RUM-139 and 60+ SM-1 arsenal that PN acquired in 1989 for Brooke class frigates. While the other 4 without MK41 may eventually be upgraded with FCS for SM-2 to form a more effective fleet defence system. I dough PN is just going to throw the SM1 away without using it too much so MK-13 is a must for many reasons.

I have argued at various points in earlier threads that IMHO the Mk13 could be restored relatively easily. Indeed, that I would be somewhat surprised if it was not included as part of a refurb. The point remains that we don't know at this point. Nonetheless, even without Mk13, the FFG-7 'as is' can have reasonable ASuW and AAW capability restored at a very modest cost.

I dough restoring MK13 would cost anything at all as only a crane and few nuts and bolts will be required. The 40 magazine still rests in all FFGs in USN service.
Tell me why wont the MK13 be restored? Has the USN sold the MK13s in scrap yard? or does it costs over a million dollars to reinstall MK13?

For the first two parts of the statement (outlived service in USN, launcher requiring refurbs), there is no supporting evidence. The main difference SM1 > SM2 is in their motor and hence range and - due to the rangedifference - in mid-course guidance: SM1 shares hominghead and warhead with SM2.

Do you have a link for this? Are you talking about the early model of SM2 and the latest one that Australia is recently acquired? Because WHat i have read shows that all internal systems are improved.

As for seeing potential: the USN saw fit to keep OHP in service despite removal of Mk13 in 2003 (7 years ago!) because even without SM1 and Harpoon it fulfilled very usefull ASW and patrol roles. Although in dwindling numbers, it is certain that ships of this class will remain in USN active service for another 5-10 years! Your final statement suggests foreign users saw potential in SM1 is contradicted by your earlier argument against SM1 and for SM2, to which my counter was that no foreign OHP operators have actually adopted SM2.

The question is. Can Pakistan afford to pay over 630 million dollars for the frigates that only provides coastal paroling and only one role ASW? My main concern is the fact that IN will be equipping its surface and sub fleet with top notch AShM and cruise missiles which is going to have more kill probability if PN is just going to stick with only SM1 or no SM1 without MK13.
As for no foreign operator of OHP has adopted SM2. the Aussies are upgrading their OHPs with SM2 capability.

 

[Penguin]

Why are you always contradicting every thing and coming up with 180 degree different ideas? for the sake of arguments?
The type 21 is near to its end of life and MRTP-33 is a small petrol boat so the first priority will be OHP which will utilize the block II harpoon more effectively. Either Exocets may be acquired to equip MRTP-33 or no more then 2 block 1 harpoon retained from Amazon class frigates for cost saving.

It is not at all a given that those RGM-84 are for any Perry class ships. If only because none are there yet. I've given a reasonable alternative. And I also looked at the Perry's. So, I've just considering the various possible explanations and options. What is so strange about that?

Type 21 maybe near its life's end but is not quite there yet. Putting on newer missiles (i.e. which in this case is just a matter of swapping out canistered missiles), which add littoral land attack capability, makes perfect sense while they remain in service. And when the ships are finally retired, those canisters and missiles will be used on other available assets.

As for MRTP-33, it comes equipped for 4 Harpoon, I've not seen it offered with Exocet (which for this ship would have to be MM-40) and besides that, why use a 70km/43mi/38nmi missile in place of a 93km/58mi missile on such a nice, new modern boat? Also, Pakistan currently operates only AM-39 (Atlantic, Mirage) and SM-39 (submarines).

MRTP-33 is designed for patrol missions, and littoral warfare operations, including escort and fast attack missions, insertion and extraction of special forces.

MRTP 15 / 27 / 33 - Fast Patrol Boats

Somehow, it makes sense for this vessel to use a missile with enhanced capabilities for littoral warfare i.e. Harpoon block II rather than block I.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

It is not at all a given that those RGM-84 are for any Perry class ships. If only because none are there yet. I've given a reasonable alternative. And I also looked at the Perry's. So, I've just considering the various possible explanations and options. What is so strange about that?

Type 21 maybe near its life's end but is not quite there yet. Putting on newer missiles (i.e. which in this case is just a matter of swapping out canistered missiles), which add littoral land attack capability, makes perfect sense while they remain in service. And when the ships are finally retired, those canisters and missiles will be used on other available assets.

As for MRTP-33, it comes equipped for 4 Harpoon, I've not seen it offered with Exocet (which for this ship would have to be MM-40) and besides that, why use a 70km/43mi/38nmi missile in place of a 93km/58mi missile on such a nice, new modern boat? Also, Pakistan currently operates only AM-39 (Atlantic, Mirage) and SM-39 (submarines).

Pakistan has acquired 64 RGM-84 block I and I dont know what the current inventory stands at today as some have already been used in exercises. And in total RGM-84 Block I and II inventory stands at 110 or so and more are on order. OHP will gradually replace Amazon class frigates with in 4 years meaning 8 OHP and 2 MRTP (dont know when 6 more will be ordered) and roughly these are the platform in coming years which will use harpoons. OHP 8x8= 64 + MRTP (supposedly 8) 8x4= 32 and 96 in total leaving almost 14 in reserve.
In case if Amazon MRTP and OHP are all operational IMO OHP will get first priority to use block 2 harpoon as it will be the most important asset and much more capable to fully utilize it for PN and MRTP will have to wait for its turn or work with few harpoons that are left after OHP and Amazon share.

 

[Aamir Hussain]

And how is PN planing to fit those 20 years old 3 sets of 2x2 launchers in 8 OHPs? OHP has enough room to fit 4x4 Harpoon launchers on its deck so why should they be limited to only half of that?
Retaining Mk-13 and updating OHP fire control system will be much more effective then 2x2 launchers.

Agreed. You observation is quite correct.

 

[Rank]

I dont know Why PAkistan NAvy spend money on junkss! out of Question! outdated stuff remains outdated either you can put $$$$ on that!

 

[Aamir Hussain]

I think based upon possible uses of the platform the MK13 launcher will most probably will be retained. There is no problem of technology transfer issues. If so both the SM1 and the Harpoon Block I & II can be utilized.

I also believe that the basic ASW capability will also be there with MK 46 mod 5 torps and associated TACTAS etc. (It was a typo TACAS)

The capability of the platform will however be increased many folds if LAMPS III is also included in the deal. There would be issues with sale of LAMPS III.

However, I feel that PN will buy the platform with basic AAW/AShM/ASW capability with helo to be added later as and when funds are made available.

I do not see possibility that the sensor suite will be torn down or removed as the vessel would be floating junk if this gets done.

Furthermore, I do not see the Type 21 retiring before the third OHP is delivered

 

[Myth_buster_1]

I dont know Why PAkistan NAvy spend money on junkss! out of Question! outdated stuff remains outdated either you can put $$$$ on that!

If you can come up with 2-3 billion dollars for PN to spend on latest frigates then we may consider this deal a junk.

 

[Aamir Hussain]

I dont know Why PAkistan NAvy spend money on junkss! out of Question! outdated stuff remains outdated either you can put $$$$ on that!

Need money to get out of this "Junk" deal! Until then we should not sit twiddling our thumbs and hoping for the best.

We require at least 14 to 16 surface vessels to mount a respectable defense.

We would only have 4 F22P's in the near future and 6 Type 21's with depleting capability by the hour. Some of our Chinese members have clearly mentioned that Chinese shipyards are tied up with production of F54 and other surface programs till 2014!. The other option is go the Turkish route which will also take a long lead time and is a gamble because Turkey – however good they are, they do not have a tradition of building proven major surface platforms. Furthermore, they are banking upon US supplied components to equip their vessels --it might lead to stoppage of sale of vessels.

Therefore, the OHP are the stop gap measure till 2014.

Cheers!

 

[Penguin]

Agreed. You observation is quite correct.

No, the premise is incorrect. Of course, since this is the original design, a functional Mk13 is most effective.

As indicated by me to those that say OHP is a piece of crap, I have pointed out they are mistaken a) because Mk13 and STIR can be easily restored to working order and, if not, b) SAM and SSM capability can be easily refitted.

Now, if I were PN and got stuck with a OHP without SSM and SAM and had little funds to spare, I would retire the Type 21s and reinstal part of their armament (which I already own) onto whatever OHP that are not armed. This has already been practiced by PN with the Type-21, which got SSM and CIWS from retiring Gearings. The same practice is found in Taiwanese navy (canister SM1, ciws and Harpoon from Gearings to Knox). Clearly, if you have 3 sets, you can refit (only) 3 OHP. If I had plenty of funds, I'ld take a different course. If my OHPs had a functional Mk13 I would consider none of these options.

 

[Penguin]

I think based upon possible uses of the platform the MK13 launcher will most probably will be retained. There is no problem of technology transfer issues. If so both the SM1 and the Harpoon Block I & II can be utilized.

I also believe that the basic ASW capability will also be there with MK 46 mod 5 torps and associated TACTAS etc. (It was a typo TACAS)

The capability of the platform will however be increased many folds if LAMPS III is also included in the deal. There would be issues with sale of LAMPS III.

However, I feel that PN will buy the platform with basic AAW/AShM/ASW capability with helo to be added later as and when funds are made available.

I do not see possibility that the sensor suite will be torn down or removed as the vessel would be floating junk if this gets done.

Furthermore, I do not see the Type 21 retiring before the third OHP is delivered

All USN OHPs including McInerney have had the launching arm of the Mk13 and the STIR removed since 2003. They have been without SSM and SAM since 2003. Except for ships currently in foreign services, there are no OHPs left with a functional Mk13 and a STIR. This makes the issue of whether or not the refurbishment includes reinstallation of the two pieces of equipment key to what capability the McInerney and sisterships will bring the PN