Pakistan Navy Frigates & Destroyers Information pool

[alimobin memon]

It didn't initiate defence responses, that is one reason why it got hit so bad (it was not expecting to be fired on by Iraqi jets in international waters). Fire resulting from a missile hit is the most dangerous to ship survival, less so the blast itself.



WHAT armor? You can't view modern ships' armor as it is inside the ship insofar as there is any armor, and it is mostly in the form of layers of kevlar. There is one important difference in this respect between naval combat ships and (coast guard) patrol boats: the latter sometimes udo not use the high tensile steel that high speed combat ships use and this milder steel actually has better properties as far as ballistics protection is concerned.

armour as in tank armour even in fighter jets it is considered. If its not discussed in pdf doesnt mean it can be neglected. The FFG if didnt initiate the response than after getting hit it still didnt sink because the ship wasnt completed cut into piece even after hit by 2 even one in side. Imagine the same missile hit azmat I tell u it would have sunk. What I mean is Higher Displacement also leads to thicker body.

Just like Flankers are considered to have armor that could stand alot of cannon fire than normal light fighter aircrafts.

See friend these things are rarely discussed but the have their own importance.

 

[Penguin]

armour as in tank armour even in fighter jets it is considered. If its not discussed in pdf doesnt mean it can be neglected. The FFG if didnt initiate the response than after getting hit it still didnt sink because the ship wasnt completed cut into piece even after hit by 2 even one in side. Imagine the same missile hit azmat I tell u it would have sunk. What I mean is Higher Displacement also leads to thicker body.

Just like Flankers are considered to have armor that could stand alot of cannon fire than normal light fighter aircrafts.

See friend these things are rarely discussed but the have their own importance.

Missiles in class that the Exocet is in, typically it takes more than 1 to actually cause a ship to sink given their warhead weight (150-200 kg). HMS Sheffield was hit by 2 Exocet but sank due to out of control fire, not the blast damage. Likewise Atlantic Conveyor.

USS Stark did not detect the missiles with radar; warning was given by the lookout only moments before the missiles struck. The first penetrated the port-side hull and failed to detonate, but left flaming rocket fuel in its path. The second entered at almost the same point, and, leaving a 3-by-4-meter gash, exploded in crew quarters. 37 sailors were killed and 21 were injured. No weapons were fired in defense of Stark.
The Phalanx CIWS remained in standby mode, Mark 36 SRBOC countermeasures were not armed until seconds before the missile hit. The attacking Exocet missiles and Mirage aircraft were in a blindspot of the STIR fire control director (Separate tracking and illumination Radar, part of the Mk 92 Guided Missile Fire Control System), and the Oto Melara Mk 75 76 mm/62 caliber naval gun, but in the clear for the MK 92 CAS (Combined Antenna System, primary search and tracking radar of the Mk 92 Guided Missile Fire Control System) and the Mk 13 Mod 4 single-arm launcher. The ship failed to maneuver to bring its Mk 75 to bear before the first missile hit.

Again: you were comparing ships armor as if one ship looked more armored than another: modern ship armor is on the inside and not visible.

 

[CHI RULES]

Mmm, and you think the OHPs are any less vulnerable?

OHPs with proper Long to Medium range automated Air defence, having capable long range Antiship and submarine capabilities may prove to be effective like Turkish OHPs not like Pakistani lone OHP having no effective Ammo. Even Pak F22Ps having some stealthiness are handicapped due to limited short range Air defense,

 

[Bilal9]

Missiles in class that the Exocet is in, typically it takes more than 1 to actually cause a ship to sink given their warhead weight (150-200 kg). HMS Sheffield was hit by 2 Exocet but sank due to out of control fire, not the blast damage. Likewise Atlantic Conveyor.

USS Stark did not detect the missiles with radar; warning was given by the lookout only moments before the missiles struck. The first penetrated the port-side hull and failed to detonate, but left flaming rocket fuel in its path. The second entered at almost the same point, and, leaving a 3-by-4-meter gash, exploded in crew quarters. 37 sailors were killed and 21 were injured. No weapons were fired in defense of Stark.
The Phalanx CIWS remained in standby mode, Mark 36 SRBOC countermeasures were not armed until seconds before the missile hit. The attacking Exocet missiles and Mirage aircraft were in a blindspot of the STIR fire control director (Separate tracking and illumination Radar, part of the Mk 92 Guided Missile Fire Control System), and the Oto Melara Mk 75 76 mm/62 caliber naval gun, but in the clear for the MK 92 CAS (Combined Antenna System, primary search and tracking radar of the Mk 92 Guided Missile Fire Control System) and the Mk 13 Mod 4 single-arm launcher. The ship failed to maneuver to bring its Mk 75 to bear before the first missile hit.

Again: you were comparing ships armor as if one ship looked more armored than another: modern ship armor is on the inside and not visible.

Very succinctly put @Penguin bhai.

To simplify for those uninitiated in naval matters among us - there are four layers of protection in a fighting ship with the requisite sensors and fire control mechanisms (my understanding though I could be slightly off base).

1. Long Range Tactical Interception Missiles with range of say more than twenty five / thirty miles.
2. Intermediate range smaller counter-missile missiles usually with range of ten or more miles to meet the incoming missile (RIM-7 Sea Sparrow),
3. Chaff launchers (throws metallic particles in the air away from the ship) or other countermeasures to confuse the incoming attacking missile - and,
4. Close in weapons systems (CIWS - High rate-of-fire Gatling guns that spray a hail of large caliber bullets within the range of say a mile to explode the incoming missile). US/Nato uses Phalanx/variants as CIWS while Russia/China uses AK630/730/Kashtan and other variants. Kashtan combines #2 and #4 in one platform.

In the case of the USS Stark, as @Penguin bhai said, all four layers of these protections was simply - off. Hence the missile hits and ensuing fire and destruction.

Heavy Armor with thick plate steel is a World War II concept - in the age of High-explosive bunker-busting armor-piercing missiles, having thick plate steel as armor is of almost no use in a ship.

 

[Penguin]

OHPs with proper Long to Medium range automated Air defence, having capable long range Antiship and submarine capabilities may prove to be effective like Turkish OHPs not like Pakistani lone OHP having no effective Ammo. Even Pak F22Ps having some stealthiness are handicapped due to limited short range Air defense,

Turkish OHPs (G-class frigates) have undergone a major modernization, with key elements:

• GENESIS advanced combat management system
• 8-cell Mk-41 VLS for Evolved Sea Sparrow, including the upgrade of the Mk-92 fire control system
• new advanced SMART-S Mk2 3D air search radar to replace AN/SPS-49

Note they had a functional Mk13 launcher to begin with (32 SM1 + 8 Harpoon)
Note also that Turkey has not elected to switch to SM2.

Under SEA 1390, the Australian Adelaide Class ships received a modified and re-hosted FFG Naval Combat Data System (NCDS) and Australian Distributed Architecture Combat System (ADACS), operating on upgraded computers with new Q70 consoles, and using an upgraded Local Area Network (LAN) with higher data transmission rates. Link-16 equipment was introduced to complement the older Link-11 standard, and provide the combat system with better allied and helicopter interoperability.
The AN/SPS-49v4 air surveillance radar is upgraded to AN/SPS-49Av1MPU, and the AN/SPS-55 surface search and navigation radar is improved.
The Mk92 Fire Control System is upgraded from the original MOD 2 to MOD 12, which includes upgrades to the Separate Target Illumination Radar (STIR).
An Radamec 2500 EOTS system offers long-range passive TV & infrared surveillance that doesn’t warn its targets, plus a laser rangefinder. It’s integrated into the targeting system, but the RAN has placed operational limitations on it due to performance.
Along related lines, a multi-sensor Radar Integrated Automatic Detect and Track System (RIADT) was added to improve target detection, tracking and engagement, particularly against low altitude targets in cluttered ocean or near-shore environments.
The old AN/SLQ-32v2 “Slick 32” electronic support system was replaced with newer technology from Israel’s Elbit (EA-2118) and RAFAEL (C-Pearl). An ESM system picks up and classifies enemy radar emissions, and part of its role is to act as a 2nd layer of warning against attacks.
The ships’ existing Mk13 GMLS pop-up launcher retains its 40 round magazine, but it can now be fitted for more advanced SM-2 Standard anti-air missiles and Harpoon strike missiles (usually fitted: 32 x SM and 8 x Harpoon). An 8-cell Mk41 tactical-length vertical launching system will generally carry up to 32 shorter-range RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow air defense missiles, but could carry different weapons including SM-1/ SM-2s.

Ships owned by Bahrein (1), Egypt (4), Pakistan (1) Poland (2), Taiwan (8) and Spain (6) have not be so modernized. Some entered current navy service without Stir and Mk13 (Pakistan). Ships leaving USN service haven't had Mk13 / Stir since 2003.

Nothing inhibits the ASW capability of the ship in PN service. It would not be difficult to add Harpoon (see racklaunched HF2 and HF3 on Taiwanese ships). It would not be difficult to add some VLs forward e.g. 3-cell sets with quad packed CAMM (12 missiles), a Sylver A-35 or A-43 with Mica etc. These require no guidance radars. A Mk 48 six pack with 2 ESSM per cell (12 missiles), a mk41 with 32 ESSM would require reinstallation of STIR(s).

I doubt if these old ships are worth that kind of investment for a navy with few of them.

Very succinctly put @Penguin bhai.

Heavy Armor with thick plate steel is a World War II concept - in the age of High-explosive bunker-busting armor-piercing missiles, having thick plate steel as armor is of almost no use in a ship.

Agree, still ....

Arleigh Burke destroyer design
The entire ship (except the two aluminium funnels) is constructed from steel, with vital areas protected by two layers of steel and 70t of Kevlar armour.

Arleigh Burke Class (Aegis) Destroyer - Naval Technology

The DDG-51 Class ships are specifically constructed from a survivability-enhanced design that affords passive protection to personnel and vital systems. This design provides protection against underwater shock, nuclear air blasts, fragment incursions into vital spaces, radar detection, electronic countermeasures, gun and missile attacks and a Chemical, Biological and Radiological (CBR) attack. A comprehensive Collective Protection System guards against nuclear, chemical, or biological agents. The ship's damage control features and constructional design make the DDG-51 Class Destroyer the most "survivable" surface ship in the world.
In the ARLEIGH BURKE Class, all-steel construction is used. Extensive topside armor is placed around vital combat systems and machinery spaces. The bulkheads are constructed of steel from the waterline to the pilot house. The bulkheads are designed with double-spaced plate construction for fragment protection. The frontal plate causes fragments to break up and the backup plate stops the fragments from causing further damage to the interior of the ship. Other Aegis combat system equipment rooms are protected by Kevlar shielding. And, topside weight is reduced by incorporating an aluminum mast.
Acoustic, infrared, and radar signatures have been reduced, and vital shipboard systems are hardened against electromagnetic pulse and over-pressure damage. Sound isolators or "shock absorbers" have been placed on the reduction gears, giving the ship an added advantage when pursuing submarines. State-of-the-art propulsion and damage control systems are managed by an all-new data multiplexing system. Fire detectors and increased AFFF and Halon protection add to improved survivability.

Ship Info

The George HW Bush has the same new bulbous bow design that was used in the CVN 76 USS Ronald Reagan, commissioned in 2003.
...
Safety features include areas of 6.4cm-thick Kevlar panels over sections of the hull. Other safety and damage control measures include box protection structures over the magazines and machinery spaces, and also full and empty compartments are located at the sides of the ship.

USS George HW Bush (CVN 77) Aircraft Carrier - Naval Technology
Some 130 tons worth, I gather.

I suppose Kevlar does better than steel against semi-armor piercing warheads

 

[Inception-06]

Which Friendly Muslim countries operate the OHP. I think PN is still very interested in acquiring at least 5-7 of these OHPs and with electronic upgrades.

Nishan what we can do with this ships without weapons ? The current OHP Alamgir in service with pakistan Navy, has no anti ship weapons and zero air defence capability, so why we should buy more of this junk ? Please explain, what is the sense for buying this ships and how we can get the funds for this ?

Check this picture, and explain me how this ship can survive in a sea battle and or what are kinde of board weapons it has, compare it to the second ship in the picture !

Which Friendly Muslim countries operate the OHP. I think PN is still very interested in acquiring at least 5-7 of these OHPs and with electronic upgrades.

The Pakistani Alamgir Ship has only defensive weapons check this:

 

[black-hawk_101]

We can easily get it for free:
1 from Bahrain
Egypt
Turkey
Thailand
and even a lot from US if ME can give us secret funds
Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Inception-06]

We can easily get it for free:
1 from Bahrain
Egypt
Turkey
Thailand
and even a lot from US if ME can give us secret funds
Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prove that with facts, write a paper for this I want see documents ! not wikipedia Links ! Bring a little bit realistic worke to show the other readers in PDF that you have learned from the Past a la Nishan !

 

[Bilal9]

Nishan what we can do with this ships without weapons ? The current OHP Alamgir in service with pakistan Navy, has no anti ship weapons and zero air defence capability, so why we should buy more of this junk ? Please explain, what is the sense for buying this ships and how we can get the funds for this ?

Check this picture, and explain me how this ship can survive in a sea battle and or what are kinde of board weapons it has, compare it to the second ship in the picture !

View attachment 262837
View attachment 262838




The Pakistani Alamgir Ship has only defensive weapons check this:

View attachment 262842 View attachment 262843 View attachment 262844 View attachment 262845 View attachment 262846

Very Informative post

A video on the Kashtan from a couple decades ago, from the company that marketed it (TULAMASH),

The modern (and very recent) US-made missile equivalent of the Kashtan with the missiles replacing the gatling gun is the SeaRAM (using the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile which is an improved version of the stinger MANPAD missile). This was developed in collaboration with the German company RAMSYS GmbH. @Penguin bhai can correct me if I'm off base here. Defensive can be pretty effective if one wants it to be.

The SeaRAM combines the radar and electro-optical system of the Phalanx CIWS Mk-15 Block 1B (CRDC) with an 11-cell RAM launcher to produce an autonomous system — one which does not need any external information to engage threats. Like the Phalanx, SeaRAM can be fitted to any class of ship. In 2008 a SeaRAM system was delivered to be installed on USS Independence (LCS - Littoral Combat System Vessel). As of December 2013, one SeaRAM is fitted to each Independence-class vessel.

In late 2014, the US Navy revealed it had chosen to install the SeaRAM on its Small Surface Combatant LCS follow-on ships (Based on the new USCG National Security Cutter hull, video here).

Beginning in November 2015, the Navy will complete installation of a SeaRAM on the first of four Arleigh Burke-class destroyers patrolling with the U.S. 6th Fleet.

 

[black-hawk_101]

I think PN should try their luck with UKs old Frigates.

 

[black-hawk_101]

Can PN think over buying Frigates from US like the KSA is doing right now?

 

[Ankit Kumar]

Can PN think over buying Frigates from US like the KSA is doing right now?

If Pakistan has the resources, it will rather concentrate on getting Type054A and Type 056 from China. US ships with restictions and huge cost is out of equation.

And I don't think PN is in a situation to even but the old cutters of US Coast guard, leave new frigates.

 

[Tank131]

I read that the c28a was deemed too small to fit a medium range SAM in vls which leads me to believe the same would be true of the f22p (even a heavily modified version). Would somebody comment on why we couldn't think outside the box? If the current fm90 launcher were removed you could easily for the 2 AShM quad launcher boxes in its place after that an above deck/partially above deck vls could potentially be fit behind the main tower where the current AShM are. That would give enough room for a for system without requiring significant below deck redesign and a vent system could be designed to vent straight out as you are above deck. Then body slats can be added to give the stealthiness.

Additionally I think the dk10 is a more appropriate missile for on them hq16. More range and is essentially sd10a with a booster.

 

[MastanKhan]

armour as in tank armour even in fighter jets it is considered. If its not discussed in pdf doesnt mean it can be neglected. The FFG if didnt initiate the response than after getting hit it still didnt sink because the ship wasnt completed cut into piece even after hit by 2 even one in side. Imagine the same missile hit azmat I tell u it would have sunk. What I mean is Higher Displacement also leads to thicker body.

Just like Flankers are considered to have armor that could stand alot of cannon fire than normal light fighter aircrafts.

See friend these things are rarely discussed but the have their own importance.

Hi,

The only armor an aircraft may have is the titanium bathtub that the pilot sits in---ie the cockpit----that is what the SU25 had and so did the A10 and same with the Hind 25 / 35----otherwise aircraft do not have armor----.

The ships don't sink with a hit is because they are compartmentalized----the hatches can be shut and are sealed from one compartment to the other---same thing with the submarines---they also have compartments that will be sealed by shutting the hatches.

 

[alimobin memon]

Hi,

The only armor an aircraft may have is the titanium bathtub that the pilot sits in---ie the cockpit----that is what the SU25 had and so did the A10 and same with the Hind 25 / 35----otherwise aircraft do not have armor----.

The ships don't sink with a hit is because they are compartmentalized----the hatches can be shut and are sealed from one compartment to the other---same thing with the submarines---they also have compartments that will be sealed by shutting the hatches.

Hmm. Thanks man I should research more on this maybe I know less as u said they shut compartments i shud study thanks again (Y).