Oliver Hazard Class Frigate Acquisition by Pakistan

[Penguin]

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.

You are shifting the argument. You indicated the purchase of 60-70 block II harpoons pointed to 8 OHPs with functional Mk13. That simply incorrect reasoning.

 

[Penguin]

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.

Irrespective of you opinion, we only OHPs currently do not have a functioning Mk13 and do not have a STIR for SM1 target illumination (essential for a SARH missile). We know ther will be refurbishment, but we do not know what it includes. Everything else is speculation.
As indicated, I would expect PN to want a ship with functioning Mk13 and thus I expect it to be part of the refurb. But I don't know. Neither do you. Just admit it.

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.

Refurb is 65 million, total contract is 78 million. Which is exactply why some defence secto professionals expect little by way of 'modernization' or added capability. You underestimate the value of the platform for surveillance, command & control and for ASW. As I have often argued, it takes little extra money to fit a bare OHP with a few Harpoons and RAM and, voila, it's no 'OPV no more.

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.

Not any more (most likely less) than the installation of a Mk41 which you suggest is included:

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.

If you argue PN doesn't need a 4000 ton OPV with no SSM and no SAM, then isn't it (more) logical to use any newly installed Mk41 for ESSM (for which the CAS/WM25 can provide illumination) than for RUM-139 (this aside from the fact that ESSM can be used from the smallest of MK41 and RUM-139 cant, which is important in a ship with limited spare capacity and know hull stress and crackling issues)

WIll get back to remaining points later.

 

[Aamir Hussain]

Penguin:

Sir, you seem to be an expert on this subject and have accurately pointed out some of inaccuracies and dis-connects on various arguments by some of the discussion contributors.

It is good to have some one who knows what he is talking about on a discussion like this, on a topic which is turning out to be a bit technical for some of us -- but extremely enriching -- at least for me.

However, let me ask you a question here; based upon the doctrine of PN (known), Threats faced by PN, present configuration of the fleet, prior acquisition methodology (both type21's and the Brooks/Garcia lease), and recent armament transfers, what should PN look for in the HOT TRANSFER Refit of OHP's.

I would be extremely obliged if you can give us your comprehensive opinion on this.

Thank you in advance!!! looking ofrward to your input.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

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

You have yet to provide any substantial details of why their is a very slight chance for MK13 to be reinstalled to its original status. The MK13 was only removed at USN order for cost savings and I highly dough you are right with your assumptions and just because the MK13 was removed from all USN FFGs does not mean PN does not gets it either.

and a comprehensive refurbishment of the ship, in line with Pakistan Navy’s requirements, will be undertaken under the supervision of US Navy

This should give us an idea that OHP will be slightly different from currently used by USN.
The refurbishment also includes "enhanced" ASW capability which you have missed to comprehend.

USS McInerney’s onboard refurbishment includes anti-submarine missile defences, surface-to-surface missiles, other advance weaponry systems and with helicopter deck landing facilities.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

You are shifting the argument. You indicated the purchase of 60-70 block II harpoons pointed to 8 OHPs with functional Mk13. That simply incorrect reasoning.

Shifting the argument? Give me one good reason why MK13 cant be reinstalled back to its original status. The reason should not be that USN has removed its MK13 launchers since 2003.

 

[Penguin]

Shifting the argument? Give me one good reason why MK13 cant be reinstalled back to its original status. The reason should not be that USN has removed its MK13 launchers since 2003.

Please, you know very well that in the past I've argued here to many people that IMHO the Mk13 can probably be reinstated fairly easily. But that's opinion, not fact. In fact, I don't know (and neither do you) what else was removed besides the launcher arm (i.e. any below deck equipment, including wiring, consoles etc.) and so it is difficult to assess with any degree of certainty if it's a big job or not.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Please, you know very well that in the past I've argued here to many people that IMHO the Mk13 can probably be reinstated fairly easily. But that's opinion, not fact. In fact, I don't know (and neither do you) what else was removed besides the launcher arm (i.e. any below deck equipment, including wiring, consoles etc.) and so it is difficult to assess with any degree of certainty if it's a big job or not.

Its pretty much a logical fact for me even though news have not specified about mk13. For cost saving PN would rather opt for MK13 and utilize 8 harpoons at a time as well as 60 stock of SM-1 that it acquired from US for a 40 million dollars deal during late 80s and wont be suitable for low budget PN to waist those missiles without using it much.
Without a shadow of any dough the MK13 will be retained in "intensive refurbishment" for PN OHP as well as upgradtion on ASW.

 

[Penguin]

Its pretty much a logical fact for me even though news have not specified about mk13. For cost saving PN would rather opt for MK13 and utilize 8 harpoons at a time as well as 60 stock of SM-1 that it acquired from US for a 40 million dollars deal during late 80s and wont be suitable for low budget PN to waist those missiles without using it much.
Without a shadow of any dough the MK13 will be retained in "intensive refurbishment" for PN OHP as well as upgradtion on ASW.

If there is any stock of SM-1 still in existence with PN, then it dates back to the days (1990s) when PN leased 4 Brooke + 4 Garcia class frigates. The Brooke's had Mk 22 single arm GMLS midship, which could hold 16 missiles. Brooke class ships also had the AN/SPS-52 3D air search radar instead of the two dimension AN/SPS-40 and added the AN/SPG-51 for target tracking and missile guidance. As originally installed this and associated fire control equipment comprised the Tartar missile system, which the SM1 later replaced. Like the Garcia's, the Brookes also had an 8-cell ASROC launcher forward of the bridge (2 cells of which would also used to fired Harpoon, at least in the follow-on Knox class frigates). Some of the Brooke/Garcia ships had an automatic reloading system for the ASROC launcher (recognizable by the angled structure below the bridge)

- I sincerely doubt that PN would keep a stock of SM-1 missile after the lease for said frigates was terminated and the ships were returned in 1991: a) they would have no use for them after acquisition of the ex-UK Type 21s, b) they could very well be sold back to USN or to other SM1 users and c) by today, they would be outdated, having missed many missile updates and rebuilds (which constitute some of the subvariants of RIM-66E Block VI), and would probably have outlived their 'shelf life' (the rocket motor deteriorates of time as the missile lies idle in storage).

- As regards the Mk13, I would think/hope it gets reinstated, together with the STIR that would be needed needed to guide SM1, but the fact is that there is no firm information on this at this time. Where there is no information, there is room for at least a shadow of a doubt.

- Likewise, there is no indication of VLU + RUM-139. There is mention by some [non-official] sources only of installation of 'anti-submarine missiles'. But this is often accompanied by the remark 'and modern guns' (as if the Oto 76mm and the Phalanx CIWS block IB somehow aren't modern), which to me indicates ill-informed press reports. It may very well be that some reporter has mistaken the abbreviation ASM (anti-ship missile) to mean anti-submarine missile. If so, that term could even refer to the use of Harpoon block II then (which would be an indicator to support the reinstatement of the Mk13!). Alternatively, some articles mention 'improved anti-submarine missile defences' but what is that exactly? It could refere to RUM-139 VL ASROC. But it could very well also mean 'better defences against submarine launched anti-ship missile' i.e. improvement of Phalanx (which would be in line with remarks about 'modern guns'). Reporters make little mistakes like that.
Either way, there is no official source which mentions either RUM-139 or Mk41. Nor do they mention the older RUR-5 Asroc and associated launcher. So, it is guesswork, really.

- Please note that none of the OHPs and Knox and other frigate classes disposed of via FMS have ever received major new weapon systems upon transfer (Taiwan has made modifications to their Knox frigates, installin boxed SM1s and STIR from retiring Gearings but only well after the Knoxes were first transferred). Installing Mk41 and RUM-139 would represent a significant departure from this well established practice. It is not impossible, but it is less improbable. We'll have to see.

 

[Penguin]

You have yet to provide any substantial details of why their is a very slight chance for MK13 to be reinstalled to its original status.

I don't need to provide proof for something I've not said. I'ld figure the odds of Mk13+STIR being reinstated are about 50/50. On the one hand, I'm assuming the USN would want to be able to restore the Harpoon/SM1 capability in case war broke out and would take the launcher and STIR off in a way that would allow reinstatement. But on the other hand, little is known about the extent of work it would required (importantly we don't know the below deck situation) and it would be fair to assumed that PN isn't throwing funds around like they have a great budget. Given the age of the vessel and apparent ship building/acquisition plans, it would make sense to try and get the most for as little cost. PN might very well have gone for the lowest cost option, which would mean not reinstating the Harpoon/SM1 capability by reinstalling the Mk13 launcher arm.
Whether you like it or not, let's not pretend it is a certainty the McInerney will have a functional Mk13 (though I think there is a fair chance it will have it, but this is based on logic rather than concrete informetion.)

The MK13 was only removed at USN order for cost savings and I highly dough you are right with your assumptions and just because the MK13 was removed from all USN FFGs does not mean PN does not gets it either.

Mk13 was removed both to save USN operating cost [by a) standardizing on SM2 and reducing the number of different missiles in service, and b) by avoiding the cost of making OHP capable of firing and guiding SM2] and to service foreign navies still using SM1.

This should give us an idea that OHP will be slightly different from currently used by USN.

This is a line used in all transfer contracts and can refer to just about anything. It basically is used be cause different navies has different amounts of money to lavish on refurbishments, so each navy chooses what to fix and what not to fix as part of the transfer process (and what not to do, or to do later in domestics yards, where manpower costs may be significantly less).

The refurbishment also includes "enhanced" ASW capability which you have missed to comprehend.

There is no need to become personal or impolite. I'm sure you realize that "enhanced ASW capability" can mean different things, from improvements to sonar arrays or ASW-torpedoes to improvements in data-processing and firecontrol systems.

 

[Penguin]

As for no foreign operator of OHP has adopted SM2. the Aussies are upgrading their OHPs with SM2 capability.
YouTube - SM2 Launch

FROM PREVIOUS POST:

As for the Australians, this is how contractor 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 simply say "SM-2"

http://www.thalesgroup.com/assets/0...1126-496c-90ac-65100a132d84.pdf?LangType=2057

Australia will purchase SM-2 irrespective of what it does with its OHP because its 3 new Air Warfare Destroyers will be equipped with it.

 

[Saleem]

What a waste of money! a 30+ year old piece of junk - for what? to fight Somali "pirates"? keep smugglers off the Mekran coast?

Better to spend the money on energy - nuclear electricity generation plants. education.

Just paying money to the MIC (Military-Industrial Complex) and lining pockets in "commission".

 

[Myth_buster_1]

If there is any stock of SM-1 still in existence with PN, then it dates back to the days (1990s) when PN leased 4 Brooke + 4 Garcia class frigates.
- I sincerely doubt that PN would keep a stock of SM-1 missile after the lease for said frigates was terminated and the ships were returned in 1991: a) they would have no use for them after acquisition of the ex-UK Type 21s, b) they could very well be sold back to USN or to other SM1 users and c) by today, they would be outdated, having missed many missile updates and rebuilds (which constitute some of the subvariants of RIM-66E Block VI), and would probably have outlived their 'shelf life' (the rocket motor deteriorates of time as the missile lies idle in storage).

You are just way too over pessimistic. According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute PN acquired 64 RIM-66B Standard-1MR for Brooke Frigates in a 40 million dollars deal. And according to same source no such Missiles were transferred back and I can not find any sources which confirms this. Unless you can prove it with credible sources then your only assuming based on your own personal opinion and nothing more. From 1998-2003 Turkey also acquired same variant RIM-66B Standard-1MR (for OHP) as Pakistan and they still use it. Some of those RIM-66B were from USN stocks meaning both PN and Turk SM-1 stock are roughly the same age. PN bought these Missiles not leased them despite knowing that they would shortly hand over the frigates back to US.
I sincerely believe PN can utilize these missiles and can order US to refurbish SM-1 stocks. According to Raytheon the SM-1(full-service support) FSS program will run through 2020.

- As regards the Mk13, I would think/hope it gets reinstated, together with the STIR that would be needed needed to guide SM1, but the fact is that there is no firm information on this at this time. Where there is no information, there is room for at least a shadow of a doubt.

Free Frigates and 78 Million dollars worth of "INTENSIVE" refurbishment is enough to comprehend that MK13 will be reinstalled back to its original status.

- Likewise, there is no indication of VLU + RUM-139. There is mention by some [non-official] sources only of installation of 'anti-submarine missiles'.

Indeed you could be right.
Initially the ship could arrive without VLS and RUM-139 but I am expecting a further upgrades on the 8 OHP fleets.

i will reply to rest of your post in a while.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

FROM PREVIOUS POST:

As for the Australians, this is how contractor 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 simply say "SM-2"

http://www.thalesgroup.com/assets/0...1126-496c-90ac-65100a132d84.pdf?LangType=2057

Australia will purchase SM-2 irrespective of what it does with its OHP because its 3 new Air Warfare Destroyers will be equipped with it.

Not exactly right.

According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Australia received 175 Standard Missile-2MR in 2008-2009 under Project Sea 1390-4B for modernized FFGs.

The SM1 will eventually be replaced by SM2 in RAN FFGs.

SEA 1390 Ph 4B — Standard Missile-1 (SM-1) Replacement
Prime Contractor: The DMO is the procurement coordinator and is supported by the United States
Department of Defense under a FMS case and a range of commercial contractors.
This project is to replace the SM-1 missile with a modern variant of the same missile system (SM-2) and
improve the air defence capability of the Guided Missile Frigate fleet, adding to the capability delivered by
the FFG Upgrade Project.
A mix of United States commercial and FMS cases will deliver equipment hardware, software development,
integration, equipment installation and system testing. Development work required for the guided missile
launching system, onboard training and land-based simulation systems and the fire control system will be
delivered by commercial contracts which will deliver the preliminary design materials with cost and schedule
data for their respective planned procurements that follow. The contract for the guided missile launching
system is due for award in late 2007.
The system critical design review of other components is due in late 2007.
The risk to guaranteed interoperability of the systems, equipment and logistic support is mitigated by a
combination of FMS acquisition cases and direct contracts with original equipment manufacturers. This
combination will cover ship modifications, system hardware alterations and support equipment and will
reduce the risk of access and availability of proprietary information and intellectual property necessary for
system integration and the related technology. System development schedule risks are mitigated by the
engagement of the United States government and experienced system integration agents for the major subsystems
and subsequent overall system integration and test and trial.
This project contributes to Navy capability.

SEA 1390 Ph 4B — Standard Missile-1 (SM-1) Replacement
Prime Contractor: The DMO is the procurement coordinator and is supported by the United States
Department of Defense under a FMS case and a range of commercial contractors.
This project is to replace the SM-1 missile with a modern variant of the same missile system (SM-2) and
improve the air defence capability of the Guided Missile Frigate fleet, adding to the capability delivered by
the FFG Upgrade Project.
A mix of United States commercial and FMS cases will deliver equipment hardware, software development,
integration, equipment installation and system testing. Development work required for the guided missile
launching system, onboard training and land-based simulation systems and the fire control system will be
delivered by commercial contracts which will deliver the preliminary design materials with cost and schedule
data for their respective planned procurements that follow. The contract for the guided missile launching
system is due for award in late 2007.
The system critical design review of other components is due in late 2007.
The risk to guaranteed interoperability of the systems, equipment and logistic support is mitigated by a
combination of FMS acquisition cases and direct contracts with original equipment manufacturers. This
combination will cover ship modifications, system hardware alterations and support equipment and will
reduce the risk of access and availability of proprietary information and intellectual property necessary for
system integration and the related technology. System development schedule risks are mitigated by the
engagement of the United States government and experienced system integration agents for the major subsystems
and subsequent overall system integration and test and trial.
This project contributes to Navy capability.

SM-1 in PN Brooke frigate.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Some Interesting pictures of USN FFGs in Mayport FL under going some maintenance where FFG-08 is also stationed. IMO the sat picturesin this site gets updated pretty often and we will be able to spot FFG-08 refurbishment for PN.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Penguin I need your opinion on what "intensive refurbishment" could be for PN FFGs vs just "refurbishment".