Oliver Hazard Class Frigate Acquisition by Pakistan

[Penguin]

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

You'ld maintain an OHP every so often. Short cycle: every 6 months, longer cycle: every 2 years. Since this is a transfer, they'ld do what they would to for major maintenance, plus go the extra mile (i.e. replace some items they'ld normally not yet replace). Not quite 'back to zero milaege, but more thorough than normal major maintenance.

http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA304566
click Handle / proxy Url

 

[Penguin]

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.

PN should insist on reinstallation of Mk13 and STIR to restore SM1 and Harpoon capability. Whether they did, probably but I don't know. Whether it's possible, I think so but I don't know. Whether there is enough money made available, maybe but I don't know.

If somehow Mk13 and STIR are not reinstalled, PN should invest in purchase and installation 2x2 Harpoon and a RAM launcher minimum (or equivalent e.g. 2x2 C802 and FL2000) for these ships and maybe add a couple of good old Chines twin 25mm cannon for good measure. That's it. No modernization, as these are interim units, gap fillers.

This is informative on the topic of transfer process:

New Lease on Life for Ex-Navy Ships
Ship Transfer Program Aids Friends and Allies
By OTTO KREISHER
Otto Kreisher is the national security reporter for Copley News Service
New Lease on Life for Ex-Navy Ships

You might also check these out sometime:
Hot Growth Companies: VSE Profile
VSE Corporation
http://www.navsea.navy.mil/teamships/Inactiveships/default.aspx
Ship Transfers / Transfer of Naval Vessels

This gives insight into what's involved in transfer in detail (pdf)
An Analysis of Foreign Military Sale/Lease of U.S. Navy Ships to Allied Countries by Using 'Hot Ship' Transfer Methods: 'Turkish Knox Class Frigate Transfer Example'.
click Handle / proxy Url

 

[Super Falcon]

what about other 7 when we get them

 

[Penguin]

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.

I don't need to prove that missiles have a limited shelf live: it applies to all missiles.

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.

Yes, but that's 8-10 years later and like you said, they - unlike PN - have active OHPs. Which translates active maintenance of the missile stock (maintenance cycles). Besides, there may be imporant differences in missile storage in Turkey and Pakistan (e.g. predominant weather and method of storage e.g. whether or not in a climate controlled facility > affects rate of missile motor deterioration)

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.

If it hasn't actively maintained them and cycled them over the past 20 years, there may not be anything usefull left of refurb of the missile electronics. Add to that limited motor shelf live.

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

Fact is you and I don't know this. It is speculation.

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

Then RUM_139 and Mk41 installation are not be part of the present rufurb.

 

[Aamir Hussain]

PN should insist on reinstallation of Mk13 and STIR to restore SM1 and Harpoon capability. Whether they did, probably but I don't know. Whether it's possible, I think so but I don't know. Whether there is enough money made available, maybe but I don't know.

If somehow Mk13 and STIR are not reinstalled, PN should invest in purchase and installation 2x2 Harpoon and a RAM launcher minimum (or equivalent e.g. 2x2 C802 and FL2000) for these ships and maybe add a couple of good old Chines twin 25mm cannon for good measure. That's it. No modernization, as these are interim units, gap fillers.

This is informative on the topic of transfer process:

New Lease on Life for Ex-Navy Ships
Ship Transfer Program Aids Friends and Allies
By OTTO KREISHER
Otto Kreisher is the national security reporter for Copley News Service
New Lease on Life for Ex-Navy Ships

You might also check these out sometime:
Hot Growth Companies: VSE Profile
VSE Corporation
http://www.navsea.navy.mil/teamships/Inactiveships/default.aspx
Ship Transfers / Transfer of Naval Vessels

This gives insight into what's involved in transfer in detail (pdf)
An Analysis of Foreign Military Sale/Lease of U.S. Navy Ships to Allied Countries by Using 'Hot Ship' Transfer Methods: 'Turkish Knox Class Frigate Transfer Example'.
click Handle / proxy Url

Many thanks for your input. I too believe that MK-13 launcher (And Growler also subscribes to the same belief) should be restored but it is altogether a different matter that it can be or will be.

However, as pointed out by you and also posted in some of my previous posts-- Harpoons (easily affordable by PN as they already have the launchers and the missiles), CWS (No issue with technology transfers), RAM (A new weapons system - not yet cleared for sale and if it is cleared, I believe it will be added in a later refit) will be available on the platform before it is handed over to PN or soon after it.

The only question mark in my opinion is the ASW weapons and sensor suite. Any ideas on this?

Once again many thanks for the reply. I am enjoy this thread and getting loads of information from both your and Growlers' posts.

 

[Super Falcon]

atleast 2 of them would be dedicated to ASW role 2 of them should be dedicated to Anti aircraft role other fours purely fight a sea to sea war

 

[Penguin]

The only question mark in my opinion is the ASW weapons and sensor suite. Any ideas on this?

As for upgrades, these weapons and sensors have been kept up to date throughout USN service (which is: up to now). That suite 'as is' is already equal or better than anything PN currently has in service. I really don't see why one would spend money to improve in this particular area. Especially not with glaring lack of SSM and SAM.

Besides, I don't think 8x RUM-139 would add significantly to the ASW-capability this ship already has, especially if it gets a decent couple of ASW-capable helicopters (whether SeaLynx, Z-9, SH-2 or SH-60) And that, helicopters, is where I'ld spend my extra money on, not on a VLS with RUM-139.

IMHO the ASW-upgrade bit is either a snafu by the press (as already explained) or deliberate 'misinformation' (i.e. by putting the focus of attention on the patrol and ASW-role of the ship, USN/PN reduce the threat these vessels might be perceived to pose to IN, thus easing potential diplomatic tension in the context of this three-way relationship).

I doubt it would be worthwhile ("cost-effective") to standardized the OHP with (elements of) the ASW-suite of the Tariq class, (some of) which use a BAeSEMA/Thomson Sintra ATAS active towed-array sonar and Bofors Underwater Systems Tp45 (formerly known as Tp43X2) 400mm lightweight torpedoes. These wire-guided, electrically powered weapons are optimised for use against quiet submarines in shallow water. While the rest of western forces have standardised on 324mm diameter lightweight torpedoes, Sweden's Bofors Underwater Systems continues to develop its line of 400mm weapons for ship-, submarine- and air-launched applications. OHP already has the AN/SQR-19 Tactical Towed Array SONAR (TACTAS) and its AN/SQS-56 is a modern hull-mounted sonar, which tough limited is probably better than that Grasby 184 on the ex-Brit ships. The ANISQQ-89 ASW combat system suite provides Oliver Hazard Perry (FFG-7), Spruance (DD-963), Ticonderoga (CG-47), and Arleigb Burke (DDG-51) warships with an integrated undersea warfare detection, clas-sification, display, and targeting capability. The system combines and processes all active sonar information, and processes and displays all SH-60B Light Airborne Multi-Purpose System (LAMPS) Mk III sensor data. Not sure how th Tariq's new-generation CelsiusTech 9LV Mk3 command-and-weapon-control system holds up against this, but it is less specialized for ASW.

 

[Penguin]

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.

For comparison:

Sea Eagle is stored as a 'round of ammunition', with inspection every two years or so, and a life of at least 15 years. When stored the wings and tail surfaces are removed, but the weapon can be kept fully fuelled.

Sea Eagle missile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note Sea Eagle is air breathing (turbojet rather than rocket motor)

See "R-77b bvraam handling and storage-procedures" (third image), this says RVV-AE shelf life is 8 years and lists the conditions under which this is the case.

Note Russian missiles typically have shorter shelf lives than their western equivalents.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

You'ld maintain an OHP every so often. Short cycle: every 6 months, longer cycle: every 2 years. Since this is a transfer, they'ld do what they would to for major maintenance, plus go the extra mile (i.e. replace some items they'ld normally not yet replace). Not quite 'back to zero milaege, but more thorough than normal major maintenance.

An Analysis of Foreign Military Sale/Lease of U.S. Navy Ships to Allied Countries by Using 'Hot Ship' Transfer Methods: 'Turkish Knox Class Frigate Transfer Example'.
click Handle / proxy Url

So according to you they will replaces some items but a 50/50 percent chance of reinstalling MK13 to its original place where it belongs?

 

[Myth_buster_1]

PN should insist on reinstallation of Mk13 and STIR to restore SM1 and Harpoon capability. Whether they did, probably but I don't know. Whether it's possible, I think so but I don't know. Whether there is enough money made available, maybe but I don't know.

Money available for what? Reinstalling MK13? The key word here is "reinstalling" not re producing or producing it from scratch. MK13 is stored in stocks and PN can request for re installment and I dont see any big problem with it.

FFG12 FFG14 were supposed to have been sold to Portugal back in 2004 but refused to buy them due to cost and still today these frigates have retained MK13.


In this pictures we can see some work on maintenance on MK13 magazine deck. Meaning not the entire system was removed and and magazine deck is maintained quite frequently.

If somehow Mk13 and STIR are not reinstalled, PN should invest in purchase and installation 2x2 Harpoon and a RAM launcher minimum (or equivalent e.g. 2x2 C802 and FL2000) for these ships and maybe add a couple of good old Chines twin 25mm cannon for good measure. That's it. No modernization, as these are interim units, gap fillers.

Not plausible. In order for PN to make any changes to US equipments they must first seek permission and their is a big possibility that US will never give PAK permission to refit their equipment with chinese technologies.
removing and reinstalling harpoon canisters over and over again in 20+ years will cause a lot of wear and tear, frequent maintenance, and defected equipment with less reliability. The so called "cost effect" solution may have a great risk of failure in time of need.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

I don't need to prove that missiles have a limited shelf live: it applies to all missiles.

When you make an argument you have to prove it with credible sources. You cant apply your opinions as facts.

Yes, but that's 8-10 years later and like you said, they - unlike PN - have active OHPs. Which translates active maintenance of the missile stock (maintenance cycles). Besides, there may be imporant differences in missile storage in Turkey and Pakistan (e.g. predominant weather and method of storage e.g. whether or not in a climate controlled facility > affects rate of missile motor deterioration) If it hasn't actively maintained them and cycled them over the past 20 years, there may not be anything usefull left of refurb of the missile electronics. Add to that limited motor shelf live.

You did not comprehend the context here. Turkey acquired the SM1 from USN stocks meaning they were first produced for USN earlier and then were ordered by Turkey.
Unfortunately you have been only undermining everything here and lack knowledge in some field. You Called PN maintenance and storage facility as inadequate for SM-1 when they have been operating almost 30 years old AM-39 quite successfully.

Weapons & Ammunition

1. The Weapon & Ammunition Group’s mission is :

To provide armament logistics support to PN fleet, Naval Air Arm and establishments ensuring that the armaments supplied are:

• Safe in Storage

• Reliable in Use

• Efficient in Functioning

2. Functioning of W&A group is based on mission–oriented approach i.e. all the functions and activities towards fulfillment of the mission are performed by the group in totality and independently. Hence this group exhibits a perfect example of one window operation.

3. For purpose of command and control as well as for effective and efficient utilization of resources, the Armament Depots have been grouped together to form Weapons & Ammunition Group, headed by a Managing Director.

Pakistan Navy Ammunition Depot (PNAD) It was established in 1958 at Mauripur. The main task of PNAD is to provide storage, maintenance and repair facilities for all types of ammunition. The depot is self sufficient to carry out complete maintenance and repair of the entire range of ammunition independently and have dedicated ammunition proof testing facilities.

PN Missile Complex (PNMC) As the name implies it takes care of the storage, maintenance and repair of missiles, air to surface Exocet AM-39, subsurface to surface SM-39, surface to surface SY-I(G), all three versions of Harpoons, surface to air Mistral, LY-60(N) and surface to surface C-802.

PN Torpedo Depot (PNTD) Takes care of the storage, maintenance and repair of all types of torpedoes held in the service including their preparation and analysis for their exercise firings.

PN Armament Supply Depot (PNASD). PNASD is located at sub depot area and provides guns, small arms and webbing equipment support to PN units afloat and ashore.

PN Ordnance Repair Depot (PNORD). This depot provides maintenance support for all inventory managed by PNASD.

Chief Inspector of Naval Armaments (CINA). Another important aspects of the Armament Logistics support is the concept of Quality Assurance, which is achieved for the entire range of in-service weapons and ammunition through an independent inspection organization headed by a Chief Inspector of Naval Armaments (CINA).

 

[Aamir Hussain]

As for upgrades, these weapons and sensors have been kept up to date throughout USN service (which is: up to now). That suite 'as is' is already equal or better than anything PN currently has in service. I really don't see why one would spend money to improve in this particular area. Especially not with glaring lack of SSM and SAM.

Besides, I don't think 8x RUM-139 would add significantly to the ASW-capability this ship already has, especially if it gets a decent couple of ASW-capable helicopters (whether SeaLynx, Z-9, SH-2 or SH-60) And that, helicopters, is where I'ld spend my extra money on, not on a VLS with RUM-139.

IMHO the ASW-upgrade bit is either a snafu by the press (as already explained) or deliberate 'misinformation' (i.e. by putting the focus of attention on the patrol and ASW-role of the ship, USN/PN reduce the threat these vessels might be perceived to pose to IN, thus easing potential diplomatic tension in the context of this three-way relationship).

I doubt it would be worthwhile ("cost-effective") to standardized the OHP with (elements of) the ASW-suite of the Tariq class, (some of) which use a BAeSEMA/Thomson Sintra ATAS active towed-array sonar and Bofors Underwater Systems Tp45 (formerly known as Tp43X2) 400mm lightweight torpedoes. These wire-guided, electrically powered weapons are optimised for use against quiet submarines in shallow water. While the rest of western forces have standardised on 324mm diameter lightweight torpedoes, Sweden's Bofors Underwater Systems continues to develop its line of 400mm weapons for ship-, submarine- and air-launched applications. OHP already has the AN/SQR-19 Tactical Towed Array SONAR (TACTAS) and its AN/SQS-56 is a modern hull-mounted sonar, which tough limited is probably better than that Grasby 184 on the ex-Brit ships. The ANISQQ-89 ASW combat system suite provides Oliver Hazard Perry (FFG-7), Spruance (DD-963), Ticonderoga (CG-47), and Arleigb Burke (DDG-51) warships with an integrated undersea warfare detection, clas-sification, display, and targeting capability. The system combines and processes all active sonar information, and processes and displays all SH-60B Light Airborne Multi-Purpose System (LAMPS) Mk III sensor data. Not sure how th Tariq's new-generation CelsiusTech 9LV Mk3 command-and-weapon-control system holds up against this, but it is less specialized for ASW.

Thanks. Excellent input. I think the key ingredient is the Helo capability and ability of PN to use it to its fullest. 2x LAMPS is an immense capability boost on the ASW mission of these ships.

 

[Aamir Hussain]

Money available for what? Reinstalling MK13? The key word here is "reinstalling" not re producing or producing it from scratch. MK13 is stored in stocks and PN can request for re installment and I dont see any big problem with it.

FFG12 FFG14 were supposed to have been sold to Portugal back in 2004 but refused to buy them due to cost and still today these frigates have retained MK13.


In this pictures we can see some work on maintenance on MK13 magazine deck. Meaning not the entire system was removed and and magazine deck is maintained quite frequently.

Not plausible. In order for PN to make any changes to US equipments they must first seek permission and their is a big possibility that US will never give PAK permission to refit their equipment with chinese technologies.
removing and reinstalling harpoon canisters over and over again in 20+ years will cause a lot of wear and tear, frequent maintenance, and defected equipment with less reliability. The so called "cost effect" solution may have a great risk of failure in time of need.

Great images. Thanks for the info., sure enough, the MK-13 are there. This is good news for PN if they can, in addition to getting the MK-13 reinstalled, also get hold of these FFG's earmarked for Portugal, but not delivered!!!!

If we can pull this off it would add atleast three OHP in relatively shorter time frame as comparee to theone already given.

 

[TOPGUN]

By the way what kind of heli's is it gona carry ? anything new from the US?

 

[Myth_buster_1]

For comparison:


Sea Eagle missile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note Sea Eagle is air breathing (turbojet rather than rocket motor)

See "R-77b bvraam handling and storage-procedures" (third image), this says RVV-AE shelf life is 8 years and lists the conditions under which this is the case.

Note Russian missiles typically have shorter shelf lives than their western equivalents.

This does not prove anything.
Sea Eagle life is not as the same as SM1.
Raytheon SM-1(full-service support) FSS program will run through 2020.