...and so it begins.

Pakistan eyes US frigate as Congress debates transfer bill

Pakistan will acquire an Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate if US legislators approve a bill allowing retired US Navy (USN) vessels to be transferred to ...
26-Jun-2008

Janes

Pakistan only wants 1 OHP Frigate? Or are we just testing the waters waters first before a much larger request?

It is probably the first of several (~6 ships) requested in 2007.

Man I don't know--I am just too Skeptical about US stuff!! Somehow it always turns bad!!

Like it or not...embargoes or "close relations"...American weapons have always shown their excellent technical merit over the decades.

For the most part, the Pakistani military is seeking used U.S. weapons that hold some water in the South Asian region; that includes F-16A/Bs, P-3s, OHPs, AH-1Fs, M109A5s and C-130s. If it is holding the water or acting as stopgaps, these systems are on the top of the list in not only Pakistan, but also others such as Turkey, Egypt and Jordan. Regardlesso of age, the above mentioned goods are better than a lot of things in our neighbourhood...

I assume SM1 is obosolete and we will be getting SM2 with it? we will be lucky if we got SM3 ?? ?!!!! :):) .... anyways, this is what i picked up from another forum from a sonar operator of US navy on a OHP frigate


""""I spent four years on an OHP class FFG, and let's just say they didn't call the SQS-56 sonar "Hellen Keller" for nothing.

Although I did pick up an active contact well beyond the listed maximum effective range and after the TAO said there was no f**king way he was launching a helo to investigate, the CO asked if I was sure. "As sure as I can be." The CO ordered the TAO to launch the helo. After a brief argument about sound propagation and cost of flying a helo based on "an elisted man's recommendation", the helo was launched. We vectored the helo out to the datum and got a MAD hit within five minutes! Needless to say, the TAO lost a bunch of cool guy points on that deal. And I got a hearty slap on the back from the skipper."""""

Here is the link of US navy personnel discussing OHP frigate and their experiences...

http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tp...m/5960051750001


I am wondering what active sonar pakistan will get !!! is it going to be a complete tech transfer or a salvaged ship with critical components replaced with 70s era technology... Below is the brief history of OHPs


History

The Oliver Hazard Perry (OHP) class of guide missile frigates (FFG7) was developed as a replacement for the navy's aging fleet of WWII era destroyers. Of limited capability (the frigate's air defense capabilities are limited to self protection only) the OHPs were intended to fill the classic frigate role - patrolling sealanes of communication (SLOC) and merchant protection and escort. Their reduced capabilities also make the ship relatively cheap to manufacture, ensuring that large numbers of them could be purchased.

The USS Oliver Hazard Perry (FFG7) was ordered in March of 1973, with the keel laid down at the Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME. in June of 1975. The Perry was launched in September of 1976 and commissioned into active service in December of 1977. A total of 51 FFG7 frigates were produced, with the last, the USS Ingraham (FFG61) being commissioned in 1989. Construction was divided between Bath Iron Works, and the Todd Shipyards in Seattle WA, and San Pedro, CA.

Ship construction was along two different hull designs. The "short hull" Flight I frigates were 445 feet long, non-RAST equipped, and embarked only a single SH-2F LAMPS I ASW helicopter. The "long hull" Flight III frigates were 453 feet long, were RAST equipped, and embarked two SH-60 LAMPS III ASW helicopters.

Currently there are still 30 FFG7 frigates in commissioned service. All of the original "short hull" frigates, to include the original Perry (FFG7) have either been decommissioned or sold and transferred to foreign navies. There are currently no plans to develop and produce a replacement for the FFG7 class.


Description
General Characteristics:
The Oliver Hazard Perry class guided missile frigates (FFG7) are either 445 feet long (Flight I) or 453 feet long (Flight III.) All flights have a beam of 45 feet, and draw 22 feet of water. The full load displacement for Flight I OHP frigates is 3,638 tons, while the displacement for the Flight III frigates is 4,100 tons. They are all fitted with sea keeping stabilizers. Ship's compliment (all flights) is 15 officers and 285 enlisted, with 6 officers and 15 enlisted as aircrew and maintainers for the embarked helicopters. The OHP frigates have a top speed of 29 knots, and a cruising speed of 20 knots. Their operational range at 20 knots is 4,500 miles.


The Flight I OHP frigates are equipped with one SH-2G LAMPS I helicopter, while the Flight III frigates are equipped with two SH-60 LAMPS III helicopters. The Flight III frigates are RAST equipped, while the Flight I frigates are not.

Propulsion:
The OHP frigates are powered by two General Electric LM 2500 (some frigates have had their propulsion upgraded to two LM 2500-30 engines) gas turbine engines producing 41,000 horsepower combined. Propulsion is provided by a single shaft with a variable pitch screw.

Electronics:
The OHP frigates are equipped with a SPS-49(v)4/5 C/D band long range air search radar, SPS-55 I band surface search and navigation radar.

All OHP frigates are equipped with the SQS-53C bow mounted medium frequency active search and attack sonar, the SQQ-28 LAMPS signal processing set and the SQR-19 TACTAS passive very low frequency towed array.

Fire control for the Mk13 launcher is provided by a modified SPG-60 STIR (Separate Target Illuminating Radar.) Harpoon launch management is provided by the SWG-1A system. Gunfire and missile control is provided by the Mk92 I/J band fire control system.

Command and control systems include the Naval Tactical Data System (NTDS) and the SQQ-28 LAMPS sonobouy datalink.

Defensive and electronic warfare systems include two Mk36 SRBOC chaff launchers, the SLQ-36 Nixie passive electro-acoustic torpedo decoy system, and the SLQ-32A(v)2 electronic warfare system.

Armament:
The Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates are armed with a single, forward mounted Mk13 mod 4 missile launcher with 36 SM-1MR standard missiles four Harpoon anti-ship missiles available in a below decks magazine (beginning in 2003 the Navy began removing this launcher from existing OHP hulls following the retirement of the SM-1MR missile.) In addition, the OHP frigates are armed with a single, amidships mounted Mk75 3"/62 caliber rapid fire cannon. Each frigate is also armed with two triple Mk32 mod 14 324mm torpedo tubes capable of launching either the Mk46 mod 5 or the Mk50 ASW torpedoes. For self defense the OHP frigates are armed with one Mk15 mod 2 Phalanx CIWS anti-missile system, two Mk38 25mm Bushmaster guns and four M2 .50 caliber machine guns.

the turks are acquiring 2 long hull OHP's this summer (2008)

they are upgrading up modern sonar and radar as well as one mk-41 for essm and possibly keeping the arm for launching sm-2
(acording to wikipedia under oliver hazard perry frigate) Qoute below
=================
pakistan should look at acquiring at least 3 long hulls and upgrading these ships in turkey

No, it means US DOD / Bush administration has put forward a proposal for transfer of 1 ship as part of Foreign militairy aid. Has nothing to do IMHO with any Pakistani request.

BS, witness previous leases of US Brooke and Garcia class ships.

Most likely: long OHPs exclusive Mk13 launcher. These would need something like RAM added or a single Mk41 with ESSM, and at least 2x2 Harpoon.

Well I'm not sure if the request was specifically made to Congress, but the PN did ask for 6 OHPs from the U.S Navy...

Same as with the Spruance class destroyer Fletcher.
http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/olc/docs/May9.pdf

Hey anyone knows what type of Helicopter we will operate off this ????
Cause the US examples have LAMPS Helicopters like the Seasprite or the Seahawk, and I dont think the US would want to talk on their sale or transfer ????
Any comment on this ????

Look at what is PN currently operating from its frigates and what will it be inducting in the near future (i.e. Sea Lynx and Z-9C). From a logistical point of view these are the most likely candidates (why introduce yet another type?).

Yeah i know that, but the LAMPS system was made for such ships, would'nt that cause any problems ???
I'd rather prefer the Sea Lynx over the Z-9.

IIRC the Sea Lynx have been out of use for a few years now, and the PN does not intend to revive them. At this point the Z-9Cs will be operated off the F-22P...and the PN may want a suitable replacement for the Seaking.

You mean to say there currently is NOTHING flying from the Type 21s?

For any OHP, I'ld still stick with the Z-9s. While it may not be the optimal ASW heli, there is something to say for standardization. A similarly sized Sea King replacement might not fit the F22P. Perhaps an SH60/70 wouldn't be too bad an option. I'ld stay away from the SH2 if I were PN.

IIRC Alouette III and Seaking are flying off Type-21...the Lynx helicopters were out of commission for a few years now.

At this point, it is very likely that the Z-9s will operate off the F-22P.

IMO I would rather have something like SH-60 or NH-90 to replace Seaking and use on OHP & its successor FFG.

Just don't see the rationale for the acquisition of such ships. What does Pakistan intend to do with these ships? They are large , noisy, legacy and are sitting ducks for new generation warfare. Pakistan would better off spending money on anti-sub long range tracking sensors , hunter killer torpedoes and high resolution satellite spy cameras. If we need ships these should be stealth high speed missile boats. I just can't understand why Pakistan wants to be a dumping ground for redundant and outdated US weapons.

With all due & sincere respect...

The OHPs would be great interm ships if upgraded with 2x4 Harpoon Block-II, 32-cell ESSM, SeaRAM and already existing ASW capability of 2x3 Mk.32 tubes for Mk.46 torpedoes...further that with the Turkish GENESIS upgrade and a good helicopter like SH-60 or NH-90...excellent system and quite far from outdated. Plans are already underway to procure advanced stealthy corvettes (MILGEM), frigates (type undecided) and AIP-SSKs (type undecided). Procurement of stealthy FACs such as MRTP-33 has already begun, and there are prospects of the larger MRTP-40 joining in the future. However as you can see...these take time...but when a corporation like Boeing imagines the PN would procure P-8A to replace its P-3Cs after 2018, you know the branch is serious about improvement.

Mark, all the signs point to an eventual conflict with the USA one way or another. Why should we acquire second hand ships that are too expensive to maintain and a poor platform as weapons carrierss? The equivalent is a knight in shining armour with latest weapons sitting on an old wobbly horse. These ships with their engine signatures signalling their presence would be easily tracked down by intelligent torpedoes and under water sensors. Also we always never seem to get out of our interim requirements . The reson being we always seem to go for the short term cheap strategy than the far sighted self reliance strategy. We must break the cycle and go it alone; we have the scientists , the engineers and the technology, all we need is the guts to make the move.

pakistan is evaluating the f-22p so see what china has to offer, as well as waiting for the 054B
we are also waiting for the tf-2000 frigate project from turkey

the european offers are always there but these two seem the best for joint ventures
---------
a significant conflict highly unlikely, so the turkish frigate with mk41 (with essm and sm-2) is an option, and considering missile development is lengthy and costly, we will have to commit to either chinese systems or western (which are superior)

money for r&d should go in to the economy then we can develop, like china with bought and cloned, and now (within the last 15 years) is truely developing modern systems

The mentioned frigate was used in the movie: The Hunt for Red October.

Well the ozys seem to be hoked on it > F-111, F-18s to Globemaster with Superhornets in pipeline etc.

I think we must think about new 054Cs than this US ship. Reason, well everyone here aware of that... aren't you?

More info on the OHP that may be transferred to PN:


http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-3052

Info from pshamim on PakDef a fair while ago:

http://www.pakdef.info/forum/showpost.php?...p;postcount=171

On the other hand we have no dangers, we are not frontline like Pakistan in WOT. However, in a few years we will be inducting F-35s, three new Air Warfare destroyers, and other other stuff. Not bad for a small nation with huge land mass.

Should Pakistan Procure these ships and upgrade them to the level turkey plans to do?

The facts are:
1. Pakistan has asked to receive 6 Oliver Hazard Perry Class Frigates on grant basis (basically FREE)
2. They want to upgrade them with mk.41 VLS system to house ESSM
3. Australia has already done this and turkey is doing something similar with more advanced sensors (to almost the level of the Dutch LCF frigates)
4. The costs to the Australians was AU$1.46 Billion for 6 Ships, or about US$230 Million for each Ship
7. The Turks are planning a more extensive and more expensive upgrade, but it will for the basis for there own indigenous AAW frigate program
8. The Turks will upgrade the sonar to a modern frigate sonar system and purchase modern ASW helicopters, mostly the Seahawk, and also procure the mk.46 torpedo
9. The Turks plan to install modern 3d radars and x-band directors on these ships
10. The mk.41 VLS system can hold 32 ESSM missiles (RANGE: 50+km SPEED MACH 4+)
11. The MK. 13 Launcher can fire SM-2MR (latest is RIM-66K) and Harpoon Anti-ship Missiles
12. The RIM-66K has a Range of up to 167KM (Speed MACH 3.5+)

SPECULATION
1. The upgrade for 3-4 ships will cost US$1-1.2 Billion
2. The MK. 13 Launcher magazine will probably hold a combination of 16 Harpoon and RIM-66K (possibly 8 each, but in an AAW role probably more heavily towards the RIM-66K)
3. The development of a Chinese design with similar AAW capabilities with the size limits of a frigate will be many years away, cost more, and have many teething problems
4. A European option can be available in a similar timetable, but will cost 2-3X as much

The Turkish upgrade going to be available soon, this ship can give the PN modern capabilities in a less than desirable hull, but at a reasonable cost
======

The PN wants it but is the PN and Government willing to go all out and modernize these ships to the a credible AAW frigate or do a half @$$ job of it, knowing the GoP, once it gives an upgrade like this to the PN it will not allow another significant purchase for at least as decade, which will take at least 15 years to materialize from the previous deal (time from augusta90B to f-22p)

=====

With the four follow on f-22p in Mark Sien’s post
The PN Frigate would look like

6 OHP Frigates
8 F-22P Frigates

If at least 3 of these OHP were modern AAW, then we could at least patrol/protect/control our coastline

============
If the PN is a little wiser, considering it will probably not get another significant procurement soon after an OHP AAW upgrade, it should look into upgrading the engines to modern frigate engines

As well as modifying the hull to reduce the signatures (acoustic, radar, IR, etc.) so that it will be harder to detect, and can stay undetected long enough to shoot down its threats.

especially the mast should be substituted with a smaller but solid structure like the F-100 frigate of spain or masts of the LCF Frigate of the Dutch
check out these links (designted for mid-size ships, like the OHP)
The Integrated Mast
For 3D search this would be ideal, modern 3d search with just enough range for sm-2mr use

The costs might be another US$100 million per hull, but it will allow the ships to stay modern structurally as well as surviving against modern threats
============================

these are old ships but pakistan will be utilizing them for at least 15 years after their delivery, which means they will probably be around till 2030 if upgraded and then delievred around 2015, and in that time a fully upgraded OHP can protect pakistan's sea lines

===
P.S. all these ships can be stripped and added to another ship if a new hull is procured, but in the mean time we should not apss up this opportunity
by the time these hulls "start going bad" we could have dweveloped our own naval industry to the level where we transfer the electronics and missiles to an indigenous hull and keep using the systems, making the hulls the actually stop-gap while we actually upgraded our systems (radars, sonars, and missiles)

Pictures from after the upgrade

Picture 1
Picture 2
Picture 3

small but advanced
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyVoUr3tYyk
this is a great modern 3d naval radar (250km range)
combined with x-band radars into to a small mast it can dramatically reduce the RCS of an OHP AAW upgrade

correction the mk 13 can carry up to 40 missiles
so in theroy it can carry up to 40 SM-2MR's

the lancher will probably be a mix of essm, sm-2MR, and harpoons in anyAAW Design

but thats still 72 Missiles

Well that doesn't answer the question, your statement was that, u r sceptical about stuff made in US, my answer was that Australians have accumalated a good bundle of American goods, and here you are detailing even more of the same!
If the US made items are decimal, then who do you think Pakistan should turn to?...............Australia ?

It remains to be seen which OHP PN would get, if more are to follow FFG-8 (second of class). FFG-8 is a converted short OHP. The short OHPs are with other navies already or sunk. The remainder are long versions. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Hazard...y_class_frigate

Most long OHPs are still with the USN and no longer have the Mk13 launcher installed. You can tell when you Google earth to San Diego (CA) or Norfolk (VA). So, you might have to factor in the possibility that you're getting OHP without Mk13 (which does not preclude an upgrade, but it would be a different one than the Australian navy's)

http://www.navysite.de/frigates.htm#8


http://www.navsource.org/archives/07/0761.htm


http://www.navsource.org/archives/07/0758.htm

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-3052



Thank the Dems but don't get your hopes too high up just yet.

A MK 13 can be reinstalled, especially if pakistan expressed an interest
with a capability of ~170km range SM-2MR and 50+km ESSM (up to 72 missiles) by just getting the mk13 launcher, a mk 41 vls, and a new set of radars is well worth it
---------
the pn wants to get the essm and mk. 41 (which at least would give 50+km range AAW), new radars would be installed, a mk13 is probably a little more cost

also with datalink with erieye, the SM-2MR can fly to max range

if the PN does not want to go for the SM-2MR and associated upgrade, that space could be used for a RAM launcher (21 Missiles)

with the 32 ESSM Missiles, 21 Ram Missiles, and CIWS, a robust point defence can be achieved
---
harpoon launcher could be installed on 3 of the six ships and ram launchers on 3 of the other ships, to keep costs down

Nope u read it wrong--but I was implying and always will--with so much political and other strings attached US equipment is just not worth it!! Example, F-16s--our military is bending over to get an obselete tech whereas we are better off just with J-10s, JF-17, etc.

these ships are meant as stop gaps
modern firepower, minimal costs, and short procurement time, and the training that brings the PN to a whole new level

the chinese are reliable and have promised to match western tech, but that will take time
in the mean time we will be retiring the type-21's and we also need a robust naval air and submarine defense
the OHPs can provide, and with modest upgrades can hold their own against the current indian fleet (with the possible exception of the brahmos equipped destroyers, for now)
================
gets the ships free, put around 100 million to upgrade them each and another 50 million to equip them, buy some spare parts, and get technology so our ports can maintain these ships, and we are looking at 6 mk.41 armed ships with essm and the radars to guide them (which is what the government wants) all this for a total of 1 billion

OR go for european FREMM at $500 million each or 054A at $200-300 Million each, but take into account they are still new and teething
so in th emean time we can make the AAW generation jump, and transition to a new platform, while getting the training, and being ready to go to a truely modern AAW frigate when they are ready for us and at areasonable price

US will not sell you SM-2, it might not sell you ESSM. You won't get the same number of VLS cells as the number of missiles held by a MK-13 launcher. And finally, the sensors on OHP as it stands do not work with SM-2/ESSM. Please refer to the adelaide class upgrade. There are inherent limitations for such an upgrade, unless you think you can get SPG-62 and SPY-1F installed on OHP.

pshamim on Pakdef thinks otherwise.

If pshamim from Pakdef is correct pakistan is requesting the mk.41, and naturally the associated missiles would also be requested
the austrilian upgrade gives them the essm and at the amount they have put in they have tried to make it at least able to guide an essm to its full range

if the mk.41 is given then essm should be expected
you are probably right the sm-2mr might be too much to ask for, but the essm is in league with modern AAW, and the ship will need one
part of a transfer is upgrading as much within a US yard, so probably a US system

aegis systems are obviously out of the question(i noted the sarcasim), but something like the Smart-S and associated directors can be purchased from thales at a modest price, and can guide the weapons effectively
----------------
lets say the mk.13 is out, a 8 cell mk.41 can hold 32 essm (a good AAW number)

These stumbling blocks, unfortunatley come with the terriorty, even when Pakistan bought the Mirages from Australia, the deal included Australian assistance in refurbishment of the aircraft, but as India habitually started to make a song and dance about it, the Ozys declined to honor the agreement.
However the Americans know well that by imposing sanctions, they have lost any leverage they once enjoyed!

Consider that Mk13 held 40 missile, including Harpoon. So, in terms of replacing the numer of SM1MR, 4 Mk41 would do for the VL version of SM2MR. However, assuming an OHP without Mk13 is delivered, you could put 2 Mk4 in the space taken that used to hold the Mk13. Thats takes 64 ESSM, which is similar in range to SM1MR (and thats double the number of SAMs compared to Mk13/SM1MR). Add the Australian-style extra Mk41 forward and you are talking 96 ESSM in one load.

I'm thinking an 8-cell VLS like the Adelaide class. But either way, there is no real point of having that many more missiles if you don't have the necessary sensors to support them. I'm a little fuzzy here, but what are you expecting to guide ESSMs? CAS/STIR?

Well, considering that the OHP had 1 single stir 240 plus a single WM25 (CAS) as backup for missile firecontrol for 32 SM1MR, in conjunction with a single search radar ... and considering that Australia with its upgrade of the class (32 SM2MR +32 ESSM SAMs) is not adding any sensors (keeping 1 Stir, 1 WM25, 1 AN/SPS49) yet managing to demonstrate significant improvements to long range detection and engagement capabilities of the Combat System ... pretty much what is on there. Or, if more and better is needed and money is available, e.g. Thales Smart-S Mk.2 + Seapar.

well, you can improve the reliability of the sensors and get them to work better together with better fire control system, but in the end, you can still only engage two targets at the same time. You only really need a lot of missiles if you have the capability of engaging many targets at once. For example, if you have 64 ESSMs, what's the chance that you will get 16 waves of 2 targets coming at you? There are just simply inherent limitations for directing ESSMs with STIR/CAS. And if you are talking about putting newer MFR + LRR combination on OHP, then you have to do more testing to make sure that combination works with ESSM. And more importantly, you have to worry about sea-worthiness when you are installing these new sensors. Where are you going to put them on the ship?

I think I read somewhere the Aussie upgrade allows for handling 3 targets at a time. As for the rest, it makes no sense then for an Arleigh Burke (which has only 3 FC channels) to have so many missiles.
In short, I'm not sure what your point is here. The Aussie upgrade has 64 SAMs (32 SM2MR and 32 ESSM) with just a Stir 240 and a WM-25, any limitations notwithstanding (The goal of the Aussie upgrade was to create ships that would retain some air defense utility in conjunction with other ships, while enhancing their anti-submarine capabilities to deal with the growing number of quiet diesel-electric submarines being purchased by nations near Australia’s sea lanes.).

But here are some options: instead of the single centermounted rearfacing STIR 240, get 2 lighter lighter Stir 180 or even Sting EO. These can be mounted side by side towards the flanks (e.g. remember the Trumped Canadian Tribal class ships?) or one above the other on a light mast (see Dutch L and M frigates). Same deal for the WM25. For ESSM these will surely do and 4 channels should be possible. Or switch to the Seapar MFR.

Trust me, Smart-S Mk2 and Stir will work with ESSM (e.g. on newest Danish navy ships the combo is operational except for Seapar. Dutch navy was the first to launch ESSM) as will SeaPar (basically a lightweight APAR geared towards ESSM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-162_ESSM
http://www.naval-technology.com/contractor...es4/press1.html

I'm fairly confident an integrated mast with Smart-S Mk2 on top and Seapar on the facets will weight less than the Stir 240/WM-25/AN-SPS49 set with their associated masts combined.

And did I mention CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT/ESSM/Saab 9LV Mk3E Combat Management System combo for the ANZACs?
http://www.cea.com.au/products_services/ph...ed_array01.html

Proposed Design for Upgrade of a Pakistani Oliver Hazard Perry Frigate

or

Proposed Design for Upgrade of a Pakistani Oliver Hazard Perry Frigate 2

http://www.saabsystems.com.au/brochures/na...-airwarfare.pdf
http://integrator.hanscom.af.mil/2007/Febr...02152007-22.htm

SPY-1D supports guidance for 18 missiles, whereas SPG-62 is only for terminal illumination. STIR/CAS guides the whole way, that's the difference.
As for sea-worthiness, it's not just a simple matter of weight. You need to do work to find the optimal location to place the sensors. And then you need to conduct sea tests and such. And integrating the new sensors will certainly take time/work. I'm sure PN will have to pay for this if they wanted the upgrade.