3 more OHP class Frigates to be delivered to Pakistan between 2014-2016.

[Capt.Popeye]

Basis? None of the non-US OHP builders or operators have experienced problems upgrading their ships. Likewise Knox class (see e.g. Taiwan).

All the others have used US sources or US approved sources, in other words all upgrades were permitted/approved by the US.

 

[Basel]

It is a very lame claim that JFT have but it would disclose later is like Pakistan radio announce that PA is advance in Siliguri in 1971 & after 3 days news broke out that PA surrendered with more than 93000 persons.
AIM-9X is not mature weapon????????

As per tech for JF-17s there are many tech goodies available for them even from China only integration is the problem OR PAF may be waiting for better western tech for other resources, only AESA radar and OLS may not be ready for it now.

link for those who think China don't have HMS for its planes they have it even for J-7s, as discussed in this thread.

Aviation Helmet Designs & Helmet Mounted Systems

IRIS-T was developed prior to AIM-9X therefore it was mature before AIM-9X.

 

[Penguin]

As per tech for JF-17s there are many tech goodies available for them even from China only integration is the problem OR PAF may be waiting for better western tech for other resources, only AESA radar and OLS may not be ready for it now.

link for those who think China don't have HMS for its planes they have it even for J-7s, as discussed in this thread.

Aviation Helmet Designs & Helmet Mounted Systems

IRIS-T was developed prior to AIM-9X therefore it was mature before AIM-9X.

As of June 2013, Raytheon has delivered 5,000 AIM-9X missiles to the armed services.

AIM-9 Sidewinder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The US Air Force requires 5,080 Sidewinder missiles, while the US Navy plans to buy 5,000 missiles. The AIM-9X is also being supplied to Nato member countries and other US allied nations.

In October 2012, the Netherlands requested 28 AIM-9X-2 Sidewinder Block II missiles.

In July 2012, Morocco and the US exercised a letter of offer and acceptance (LOA) for AIM-9X Block II missiles.

AIM-9X Sidewinder Air-to-Air Missile - Airforce Technology

All in, IRIS-T program represents around 4,000 missiles for the armed forces of Germany, Greece, Italy, Norway, Spain and Sweden.Deliveries of the 4,000 missiles are expected to begin in 2005 and to be ongoing until 2011.

IRIS-T

More than 4,000 IRIS-T missiles initially ordered by the consortium are scheduled to be delivered by the end of 2012.

IRIS-T Air-to-Air Guided Missile - Airforce Technology

Thusfar, it seems, AIM-9X is ahead.

 

[Basel]

@Penguin what do u think which one among IRIS-T & AIM-9X is better not talking about AIM-9X2, some years back there were news that Pakistan was interested in IRIS-Ts, and it was discussed in a package of weapons systems which Pakistan wanted to purchase from them.

 

[Penguin]

All the others have used US sources or US approved sources, in other words all upgrades were permitted/approved by the US.

Pls document approval is even necessary. E.g. instances in which intended upgrades were blocked due to US intervention or non-cooperation.

@Penguin what do u think which one among IRIS-T & AIM-9X is better not talking about AIM-9X2, some years back there were news that Pakistan was interested in IRIS-Ts, and it was discussed in a package of weapons systems which Pakistan wanted to purchase from them.

I have no idea, would have to study info on each.

ok give me time to think than

This message will self destruct in 10 seconds, 9, 8, 7, ...

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Pls document approval is even necessary. E.g. instances in which intended upgrades were blocked due to US intervention or non-cooperation.

Did'nt get what you're trying to say there....

 

[Kompromat]

STICK TO THE TOPIC!

@Basel @Manindra

STOP derailing the thread!

 

[Penguin]

Did'nt get what you're trying to say there....

What - if any - proof or indication is there of the need for US approval for updated to OHPs (or any older ex-US ship for that matter - such as Knox, Gearing etc.). One indication would be instances where US has blocked upgrade plans, particurly if this involved non-US sources equipments.

 

[Penguin]

All the others have used US sources or US approved sources, in other words all upgrades were permitted/approved by the US.

Any upgrade would require integration with any existing systems remaining and hence involvement of original suppliers. US companies are bound by laws guiding US exports of technology items, which prohibit the export of certain technologies to certain countries (e.g. Iran, North Korea). But if it is not US companies delivering equipment for an upgrade, it is a different situation.

That is not the same as having to get approval for an upgrade of ex-US ship with non-US equipment.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

What - if any - proof or indication is there of the need for US approval for updated to OHPs (or any older ex-US ship for that matter - such as Knox, Gearing etc.). One indication would be instances where US has blocked upgrade plans, particurly if this involved non-US sources equipments.

Just read the associated protocols involved in the transfer of the Alamgir for instance. Protocol is the correct expression, btw, since it did not come under a contract.
Similarly for the Trenton/Jalashwa. Even though it came under a Contract. The USA is very careful to incorporate these terms in all transfer agreements. The only latitude that they may extend is in the execution of those terms. Which varies from recepient to recepient. Hence Australia will not be on the same page with Taiwan for instance, just as both of them will not be on the same page with Pakistan.

 

[Penguin]

Just read the associated protocols involved in the transfer of the Alamgir for instance. Protocol is the correct expression, btw, since it did not come under a contract.
Similarly for the Trenton/Jalashwa. Even though it came under a Contract. The USA is very careful to incorporate these terms in all transfer agreements. The only latitude that they may extend is in the execution of those terms. Which varies from recepient to recepient. Hence Australia will not be on the same page with Taiwan for instance, just as both of them will not be on the same page with Pakistan.

Fifty-five ships were built in the United States: 51 for the USN and four for the RAN. In addition, eight were built in the ROC (Taiwan), six in Spain, and two in Australia for those navies. Ships built in Spain included Spanish weapons and sensor systems. Ships built in Taiwan eventually received Taiwanese AShM. Former U.S. Navy warships of this class have been sold or donated to the navies of Bahrain, Egypt, Poland, Pakistan and Turkey. Thusfar major upgrades were conducted by Australia and Turkey only. Four of six ships built by Spain are currently undergoing an mlu.

No reference to any restrictions on upgrading / permissions here:
www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/pakistan-–-refurbishment-oliver-hazard-perry-class-frigate
http://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/mas/pakistan_09-28_0.pdf

If you were referring to

(d)
Repair and refurbishment in United States Shipyards

To the maximum extent practicable, the President shall require, as a condition of the transfer of a vessel under this section, that the recipient to which the vessel is transferred have such repair or refurbishment of the vessel as is needed, before the vessel joins the naval forces of the recipient, performed at a shipyard located in the United States, including a United States Navy shipyard.

Text of S. 3052 (110th): Naval Vessel Transfer Act of 2008 (Reported by Senate Committee version) - GovTrack.us

then note this refers only to any work PRIOR to transfer to recipient

Likewise for USS Trenton / Jalashwa
Text of S. 1886 (109th): Naval Vessels Transfer Act of 2005 (Passed Congress/Enrolled Bill version) - GovTrack.us

While there was some hubhub surrounding the acquisition of Trenton by IN, it had nothing to do with any permission to upgrade. In fact, it's IN service history suggests quite the contrary. See:
INS Jalashwa (L41) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
INS Jalashwa (L41) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If this is not what you are referring to, please point to the source material via a link.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Fifty-five ships were built in the United States: 51 for the USN and four for the RAN. In addition, eight were built in the ROC (Taiwan), six in Spain, and two in Australia for those navies. Ships built in Spain included Spanish weapons and sensor systems. Ships built in Taiwan eventually received Taiwanese AShM. Former U.S. Navy warships of this class have been sold or donated to the navies of Bahrain, Egypt, Poland, Pakistan and Turkey. Thusfar major upgrades were conducted by Australia and Turkey only. Four of six ships built by Spain are currently undergoing an mlu.

No reference to any restrictions on upgrading / permissions here:
www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/pakistan-–-refurbishment-oliver-hazard-perry-class-frigate
http://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/mas/pakistan_09-28_0.pdf

If you were referring to

Text of S. 3052 (110th): Naval Vessel Transfer Act of 2008 (Reported by Senate Committee version) - GovTrack.us

then note this refers only to any work PRIOR to transfer to recipient

Likewise for USS Trenton / Jalashwa
Text of S. 1886 (109th): Naval Vessels Transfer Act of 2005 (Passed Congress/Enrolled Bill version) - GovTrack.us

While there was some hubhub surrounding the acquisition of Trenton by IN, it had nothing to do with any permission to upgrade. In fact, it's IN service history suggests quite the contrary. See:
INS Jalashwa (L41) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
INS Jalashwa (L41) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If this is not what you are referring to, please point to the source material via a link.

Nope, its nothing to do with what you quote. The protocols have all the associated conditions attached.
If the IN (hypothetically) decides to replace the Phalanx system with an Indian built AK-630 CIWS or install a Barak-1 system from Israel on Jalashwa, then a US nod will be required and will not be a fore-gone conclusion. These conditions attach to FMS transfers and even more so to MAP and EDA transactions as I have mentioned before. And as I have said earlier, the only latitude that USA extends is in execution of that proviso on a case-to-case basis and on a recepient-to recepient basis.
The one exception that comes to mind in case of pakistan was when the PAF was allowed to re-wire the Chinese origin MiG-19s in its fleet for Sidewinders in 1970-71. That exceptional ok was granted in the light of PAF's desperation at the time. But with very dubious results and on a limited scale that made little difference.
Nothing has changed since then. Any changes/improvements/upgrades/transfers needs US approval/permission.

 

[Donatello]

Nope, its nothing to do with what you quote. The protocols have all the associated conditions attached.
If the IN (hypothetically) decides to replace the Phalanx system with an Indian built AK-630 CIWS or install a Barak-1 system from Israel on Jalashwa, then a US nod will be required and will not be a fore-gone conclusion. These conditions attach to FMS transfers and even more so to MAP and EDA transactions as I have mentioned before. And as I have said earlier, the only latitude that USA extends is in execution of that proviso on a case-to-case basis and on a recepient-to recepient basis.
The one exception that comes to mind in case of pakistan was when the PAF was allowed to re-wire the Chinese origin MiG-19s in its fleet for Sidewinders in 1970-71. That exceptional ok was granted in the light of PAF's desperation at the time. But with very dubious results and on a limited scale that made little difference.
Nothing has changed since then. Any changes/improvements/upgrades/transfers needs US approval/permission.

Stop parroting one thing again and again.

When USA has allowed the P3-Cs to be armed with Harpoons and F-16s with AMRAAMs, why would they stop the upgrade of OHP?

And in case of Genesis, that will come from Turkey. Or pehaps, PN can install Chinese systems.

OHPs are big ships meaning they need to have a large contingent of crew etc. Why would PN waste it's limited resources in running ships that are not properly armed?

It is none of your concern, so no need to argue here again and again and bring in India or Taiwan or Australia.


@Oscar @TaimiKhan @Aeronaut

MODs can you please put an end to this discussion. I would say, ban all those posters who have nothing technical to contribute in Pakistan's section. US sanctions, restrictions bla bla, what utter non-sense is this? I am sick and tired of this behavior. Every thread is being ruined.

Fifty-five ships were built in the United States: 51 for the USN and four for the RAN. In addition, eight were built in the ROC (Taiwan), six in Spain, and two in Australia for those navies. Ships built in Spain included Spanish weapons and sensor systems. Ships built in Taiwan eventually received Taiwanese AShM. Former U.S. Navy warships of this class have been sold or donated to the navies of Bahrain, Egypt, Poland, Pakistan and Turkey. Thusfar major upgrades were conducted by Australia and Turkey only. Four of six ships built by Spain are currently undergoing an mlu.

No reference to any restrictions on upgrading / permissions here:
www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/pakistan-–-refurbishment-oliver-hazard-perry-class-frigate
http://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/mas/pakistan_09-28_0.pdf

If you were referring to

Text of S. 3052 (110th): Naval Vessel Transfer Act of 2008 (Reported by Senate Committee version) - GovTrack.us

then note this refers only to any work PRIOR to transfer to recipient

Likewise for USS Trenton / Jalashwa
Text of S. 1886 (109th): Naval Vessels Transfer Act of 2005 (Passed Congress/Enrolled Bill version) - GovTrack.us

While there was some hubhub surrounding the acquisition of Trenton by IN, it had nothing to do with any permission to upgrade. In fact, it's IN service history suggests quite the contrary. See:
INS Jalashwa (L41) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
INS Jalashwa (L41) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If this is not what you are referring to, please point to the source material via a link.

Penguin,

You are a respected member, but please no need to reply. These people will never learn. They will keep trolling.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Stop parroting one thing again and again.

When USA has allowed the P3-Cs to be armed with Harpoons and F-16s with AMRAAMs, why would they stop the upgrade of OHP?

And in case of Genesis, that will come from Turkey. Or pehaps, PN can install Chinese systems.

OHPs are big ships meaning they need to have a large contingent of crew etc. Why would PN waste it's limited resources in running ships that are not properly armed?

It is none of your concern, so no need to argue here again and again and bring in India or Taiwan or Australia.


@Oscar @TaimiKhan @Aeronaut

MODs can you please put an end to this discussion. I would say, ban all those posters who have nothing technical to contribute in Pakistan's section. US sanctions, restrictions bla bla, what utter non-sense is this? I am sick and tired of this behavior. Every thread is being ruined.




Penguin,

You are a respected member, but please no need to reply. These people will never learn. They will keep trolling.

Read through all my posts on this particular discussion. I have not said that upgrades are ruled out. I have clearly said that the upgrades have to be permitted/approved by the USA. Also the source/origin of the equipment has to be either US origin or US approved. Then you wiil understand what and how the upgrades that you mention in your post happened.
Remember that the USA has been very consistent in incorporating all the fine-print in all their protocols, agreements, contracts as the case may be. It also happens that I have some familiarity with these aspects; just as GoI has had to have and just as upwards of 90 countries world-wide have had to have when they dealt with the USA for weaponry transfers/acquisitions. Thats just the way things are and have been.

Probably the only people who did not get bothered with these legal niceties were the Mujaheddin/Contra/Sandinistas for all the understandable reasons.

 

[Penguin]

Nope, its nothing to do with what you quote. The protocols have all the associated conditions attached.
If the IN (hypothetically) decides to replace the Phalanx system with an Indian built AK-630 CIWS or install a Barak-1 system from Israel on Jalashwa, then a US nod will be required and will not be a fore-gone conclusion. These conditions attach to FMS transfers and even more so to MAP and EDA transactions as I have mentioned before. And as I have said earlier, the only latitude that USA extends is in execution of that proviso on a case-to-case basis and on a recepient-to recepient basis.
The one exception that comes to mind in case of pakistan was when the PAF was allowed to re-wire the Chinese origin MiG-19s in its fleet for Sidewinders in 1970-71. That exceptional ok was granted in the light of PAF's desperation at the time. But with very dubious results and on a limited scale that made little difference.
Nothing has changed since then. Any changes/improvements/upgrades/transfers needs US approval/permission.

Is there any public access to these or older 'protocols', that you are aware of? (I don't like unverifiable statements and would like to see some documentation that supports your position / assertion)