Oliver Hazard Class Frigate Acquisition by Pakistan

[Aamir Hussain]

You're entitled to think that (you would be wrong, but that's you right)

Obviously. Look again. The compressor is atop the Mk13-base. The hose runs from the compressor to elsewhere on the ship. It is elsewhere that the venting is taking place. As said, we've seen this type of venting take place from much closer up on virtually all major new construction of the PLAN, for example. Imagine spray painting inside, or welding. Lots of fumes.


For the hundredth time (so please pay attention): IF (notice that << IF i.e. a condition) it happens to be the case that the McInerney is delivered without a functional Mk13 and STIR radar THEN (notice that << THEN i.e. a consequence) it is necessary take action to fill the glaring lack of SSM and SAM. You can read, can't you?

More effective > at what? Defence against antiship missiles? Not something SM1 is particularly good at. RAM or FL2000 might be much better for that.

Cheaper? You just earlier proposed to get FFG12 and FFG14 out of mothballs. For the price of those 2 in cold transfer, you can have 3-4 in hot transfer.

But with onboard MK13 and ancillary equipment it would be a meaningful addition to the fleet with enhanced capabilities.

We have to compute the installation and reactivation cost of the MK13 launcher on the "Hot Transfer" FFG's versus the mothballed FFG's.

The major consideration in all of this would be the payment mode for the hot transfer versus the de-mothballing. In case US is picking up the cost through FMS/EDA/Military Aid (We will have at least $1.5 billion not counting at least $2.0 billion in WOT reimbursements-- available -- with most of the deliveries being done today, are out of already allocated funding).

I have yet to see details of any new major procurement programs to be supported by this fund other than the Perry purchase which will cost us around $600M for eight units. In case we add another 18F-16's to be funded by US Military Aid than that will add up another $1.08 billion. This still leaves room for procurement/transfer of more robust//capable platform over the next three years ($4.5 Billion).

Another interesting spin would be the installation of sensors and equipment released from Type 21 frigates once they are retired on these FFG's.

PN has been known to shift weapon systems from one vessel to another and add capability in stages

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Quite possibly. In fact - as I've repeatedly indicated in this thread - I've stated this in the past. But neither of us knows for sure. For one, we don't have an equally detailed pic of a stripped Mk13. And we don't know what happened below deck (and no I don't mean the remainder portion of the Mk13, which reportedly has remained there for reasons of weight distribution and maintaining hull strength, but rather to wiring, interfaces, control consoles etc). How hard is it to acknowledge that?

Your own source clearly states...

U.S. Perry-class frigates had the above deck parts of their mk13 launchers removed. The belowdecks portion remains because its weight is necessary to balance the ship fore and aft.

Pff, right...
McInerney (FFG 8) is from 1979. The next oldest is Boone (FFG 28), from 1982. The youngest OHP is Ingraham (FFG 61) is from 1989. In between Boone and Ingraham are 27 other OHP class ships.

Of the 29 OHP class ships still remaining in USN service once McInerney is decommissioned, 3 are from 1982, 8 are from 1983, 8 are from 1984, 5 are from 1985, 2 from 1986, 2 from 1987 and 1 from 1989. The odds are therefore that additional OHP class ships to reach PN will be from 1982-1985 i.e. just 3-6 years younger than McInerney. After all, the USN will need some of the OHP class frigates in service for some time (while LCS comes online) and they will keep the youngest units for themselves so long as they operate any and release the oldest units first.
Certainly not more than 10 years younger ...

Whats the pfff for? lol
Isnt the average USN FFGs 5 years younger then FFG-08? Isnt FFG-61 10 years younger?
So the FFG-08 will serve less then rest of the FFGs in PN.

Let's see, for one of the most comprehensively modernized OHPs:
Can't imagine Turkey's modernized ships will be in service much longer.

Like I said. Pakistan has tendency of operating military equipments to its limit and FFGs will serve PN beyond 2020 easily. their is no argument to it.

 

[Babur Han]

Cabatli mentioned in WAFF that Perry FFG for PN should recieve GENESIS Upgrade by Raytheon - Havelsan.

 

[Penguin]

The question is if these frigates are not for PN then what will happen to them? will it be disposed of? Or is PN only interested in long hulls such as FFG-08 or any with short and long hulls since its not clear which chopper PN will get for these frigates and if its SH-60 then longer hull is required.
If i am not wrong, some of the cobras for PA are cold transfers and they are free?
The original plan was for 6 FFGs and now its 8 could it be that these two 12 and 14 have been cleared by USN?

The longer they are deactivated, the more expensive it probably is to bring them back to operational condition. So, ultimately, if there are not takers, they'll eventually be scrapped or sunk in a Sinkex or used as artificial reef or made a museum ship.

FFG12 and 14 might be included in a deal as spare parts hulks, which would avoid the cost of reactivation. But unlikely to be included if for active service. Newer ships will become available as USN retires them from 2013 onwards.

 

[Penguin]

rrrright... The thing is, every missile has its own self life and Standard Missile series have pretty good life and the example is FSS program which will run through 2020. Giving examples of other SAMs wont prove anything about SM1.

At least I give examples and sources consistently. Unlike some here.

If you are going to make a claim that SM1 in Pak storage is useless then provide some details with sources.

Where did I state or suggest that? Trying to put words in my mouth?

Kindly do you have any sources about Turkish SM1 getting a new rebuild, new versions.

Why would I give any? I never stated such a thing: trying again to put words in my mouth?

Any sources about PN AM-39 receiving a new rocket motor?

What do you think these maintenance guys do for a living? Just look at the stored missiles? C'mon, get a grip.

 

[Penguin]

Your own source clearly states...

And I clearly stated to be referring to other equipment than the Mk13 base i.e. control cabinets, wiring, interfaces etc. Do read the post.

Whats the pfff for? lol
Isnt the average USN FFGs 5 years younger then FFG-08? Isnt FFG-61 10 years younger?

There are liars, damned liars and statisticians. Do you expect to get FFG61 any time soon? Don't hold your breath.

Like I said. Pakistan has tendency of operating military equipments to its limit and FFGs will serve PN beyond 2020 easily. their is no argument to it.

As with most of your ego-driven rantings, totally besides the main point of the discussion: in what state will the ship be delivered.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Their is no need to get your blood boiled and get down to personal attacking low level. You are just showing signs of some desperation.
I dont have any intention of getting my message across through personal attacks and neither should you.

At least I give examples and sources consistently. Unlike some here.

Oh really?

Where did I state or suggest that? Trying to put words in my mouth?

Oh really? In fact you have been arguing about it in the last 2 pages.

Page5 post# 61I don't need to prove that missiles have a limited shelf live: it applies to all missiles.
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.

Why would I give any? I never stated such a thing: trying again to put words in my mouth?

Page6 post# 78

And if they were in USN stock, they were maintained properly all that time. And in many cases even completely rebuild. Since newer versions of SM1 are often produced by rebuilding older verions.

So were the Turk SM-1 upgraded or rebuild even before or after the delivery?

What do you think these maintenance guys do for a living? Just look at the stored missiles? C'mon, get a grip.

So the maintenance guys job is to change the rocket motors? You claimed AM-39 acquired in early 80s has got a rocket motor changed. So i am kindly asking for a source which mentions anything like that be it for a different navy.
Again no need to get flared up.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

And I clearly stated to be referring to other equipment than the Mk13 base i.e. control cabinets, wiring, interfaces etc. Do read the post.

So reinstalling MK-13 with bolts and nuts, control cabinets, wiring, interfaces etc is a mammoth job with a budget exceeding beyond PAK expense? Look its very well understood and a fact that PN requires MK-13 for many reasons and they will get it 100&#37;. You are most welcome to disagree to it because its your own opinion.

There are liars, damned liars and statisticians.
As with most of your ego-driven rantings,

And you feel its quite necessary..

totally besides the main point of the discussion: in what state will the ship be delivered.

Thanks to you.
I sincerely apologize if i have hurt you in anyway but was not my intention because I feel you are good contributor to Naval section and its always good to have your input.
Now lets get back to the topic?

 

[Myth_buster_1]

The SM-2 is very essential for enhancement of PN capability to a new level. If acquired under FFG armament package for the first time PN will get a capability to engage air targets beyond 80 kms. Interestingly SM2 has anti ship capability as secondary mission watch the video as a vessel at 15~ KM range is targeted with great precision.
Imagine the devastating effect of 4-5 SM-2 at mach 3+ hurled upon a modern frigate fallowed by a Harpoon!

 

[SeaToby]

The US Navy pulled the SAM/SSM Mk 13 launcher to keep and save an inventory of SM-1MR SAM missiles for the other countries who have bought the system. The US Navy did not buy any additional SM-1MR missiles because they thought the missile is dated. When the US Navy removed the Mk 13 launcher they had plans to upgrade the Vulcan Phalanx CIWS with a SeaRam installation, along with adding 8 Harpoons SSM missiles and their racks in front of the bridge. To save money the US did not do this upgrade.

While the SeaRam SAM does not have the area defense range of a Standard missile, its of a newer generation and better at self defense against cruise missiles. The SeaRam launcher carries 11 missiles, but others can be stored in a bunker aboard the ship. Many NATO Sea Sparrow SAMs launchers carry 8 missiles.

Pakistan can choose to upgrade the CIWS to SeaRam and add Harpoons, or another SSM in front of the bridge. Doing so would provide the OHPerry's the anti-air and anti-missile capability at a very low price. Adding Harpoons or another SSM and their racks will provide these ships a good surface to surface missile capability.

Thus, Pakistan will end up with up to eight good anti-submarine frigates, newer than the Type 21s, with the planned US Navy upgrade which the US didn't buy... I regret the US Navy didn't buy the upgrade. Pakistan should correct this mistake. I have always thought the OHPerry's should have had the NATO Sea Sparrow SAM instead of SM-1MR SAM to begin with.

One should get the impression the US Navy lost confidence with the SM-1MR missiles. You should also notice the Dutch and the French have also lost confidence with the SM-1MR missiles as well. Why the fuss over a dated system from the 1970s? I prefer SeaRam over SM-1MR... Do the upgrade the US was going to do, not what Australia chose to do... Australia spent a lot of money to upgrade to SM-2 missiles wanting an area defense missile. Pakistan should stick to self defense missiles, and modern missiles as well...

If the RAM and SeaRam missiles are good enough for the US Navy's new LCS, the ships replacing the FFG-07s, they should be good enough for Pakistan....

 

[zulfiqar74]

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.

well i guess we should calm down an stop being missile experts, other wise i think everyone here is a commander or captain in the PN with no professional understanding at all. let just wait and see what they have put on the new boats iam sure they are far more advance in strategy and how they will equip these new boats.......

 

[ironman]

U.S. to transfer USS McInerney ship to Pakistan Navy​

Our Bureau
Thu, May 6, 2010 15:18 CET

VSE Corporation recently hosted a meeting between the United States and Pakistan Navies to solidify an agreement for the transfer of the USS McInerney, which is scheduled to be decommissioned this summer.


Pakistan Navy Captain Abdul Rehman signed a Letter of Offer and Acceptance to initiate the ship transfer. Captain Rehman is assigned to the Embassy of Pakistan as Attaché for Defense Procurement (Air Force/Navy). U.S. Navy Captain Chris Pietras represented the Naval Sea Systems Command in accepting the offer.

For VSE’s Naval Ship Transfer and Repair Team, the agreement translates into a contract covering training responsibilities. VSE will support U.S. Navy training of the 248 Pakistani crew members, beginning this month, until the ship is officially transferred around the end of August. In the near future, VSE will develop a work package for approval by the Pakistan Navy. After the transfer, VSE will manage a shipyard industrial availability contract to make ship repairs that will extend its life. During the availability the VSE’s Ship Training and Assistance Team (STAT) will provide hands on maintenance and operational training for the Pakistan crew.

In January 2011, the VSE STAT is scheduled to conduct underway training for the crew, with a final evaluation by the U.S. Navy Afloat Training Group on the ability of the Pakistan crew to operate the ship and equipment in a safe-to-sail manner. Afterwards, the crew will sail the ship home to Karachi, Pakistan. A small contingent of the VSE Transfer Assistance Team personnel will accompany the ship and provide additional underway training.

VSE CEO Maurice “Mo” Gauthier said, “Together, with our customers and the highly experienced and competent team we have assembled, we are confident that we will meet and exceed the requirements of this allied mission. We look forward to the challenge." “Our expertise with training, equipment repair, and working in tandem with both the U.S. and Pakistan Navies will be a rewarding experience and great collaborative opportunity,” added Mike Hamerly, President of International Group.

U.S. to transfer USS McInerney ship to Pakistan Navy : Defense news

 

[Penguin]

(post deleted)

 

[nightrider_saulat]

has it been confirmed now that which weapons and armaments will be coming with these 8 frigates.....?

 

[Penguin]

has it been confirmed now that which weapons and armaments will be coming with these 8 frigates.....?

No. But after McInerney, there won't be other OHPs retiring in USN service untill 2011. See page 29 table 1 here for a decommisioning schedule (though the remaining class member might yet see a service life extension program a.k.a. SLEP. See page 19 under 'senate' here). The ones currently in service have everything except Standard SM1MR and Harpoon, i.e.:
2x1 SH60 helo's
2x1 triple asw torpedo tubes
1x1 76m Oto compact naval gun
1x1 Phalanx CIWS
some small calibre stuff (HMGs)