What's new

F-22P a bad decision by PN?

for miligem covertts that you suggest would have been a better option, sir they also lack VLS for missiles and even no news about any gataling gun on-board. yes they are equipped with better surface to air missiles but then again there anti-ship missiles ie Harpoons cannot be termed as better by far then the chines one on F22p
 
.
You are making a mockery out of yourself bro by sticking to one tune, and i am not deluded, its you who has some research and thinking to do and see what is better for PN. It was you who said it is based on Exocet, so if it is why does not it have the same figures as Exocet ??

Any logical answer ???

Simple, because 'based on' isn't 'identical'. And why settle for an identical missile and performance relative early Exocet? Specially when you can - for example - use a better, more efficient rocket (=more range) or replace it with a turbojet (= even greater range). Increasing range however is fairly easy. More difficult is the missile guidance system.
 
.
nest, the claim if OPH frigates to be superior is and cant be backed up by any evidence. they are of different class. the only good they can bring is VLS for missiles but the ones comming to us lack this abiity, infact, they are stripped of most of there weaponary!
So, what do you consider several radars (AN/SPS-49, AN/SPS-55, Mk 92 fire control system), sonar suite (SQS-56, SQR-19 Towed Array), EW/ECM suite (SLQ-32(V)2, Flight III with sidekick,
Mark 36 SRBOC), AN/SLQ-25 Nixie torpedo decoy, 2 triple Mark 32 Anti-submarine warfare torpedo tubes with Mark 46 or Mark 50 anti-submarine warfare torpedoes, an OTO Melara 76 mm/62 caliber naval gun, a 20 mm Phalanx CIWS, 2 LAMPS multi-purpose helicopters?
The only thing that was taken off all operational active USN Perry's is the launcher arm of the Mk13 launcher (so no Harpoon and SM1 can be fired) and the STIR illuminator radar (used for SM1 guidance). There is no sign the rest of the Mk13 launcher was removed. The removed item can very easily be reinstalled
No used Perry class ships that went to foreign navies were ever stripped. The stripping story is just that, a story (as in FICTION)

insisting a Phlanx1B, the best we MAY get to be superio then the chines CIWS is adain arguable. more over the OPH are some thirty year old ships, they will be comming in for 65 million dollar and many more will be spend on them for weapon system and also the helicopters? dont forget this. now you yourself have said in a post that OPH are more of a stop gap then do you really thiink that they are worth some 90-100 million dollar serving us for just 8 - 10 years when F22p, Type 54 would have served us for decades to come.
Perry class (crew 190+aircrew):
$65 million Acquisition Cost
$16 million Unit Operating Cost (Annual Average)
> PN lifetime (10 years) cost = $65+160 million = $215 million
> $21.5 million per ship per year

F22P class (crew 170+aircrew):
$175 million Acquisition cost
$14 million est. annual operating cost (based on relative crew sizes only)
> PN lifetime (30 years) cost = $175+420 million = $595 million
> $19.8 million per ship per year

A fairly small difference! Suppose you factor in age (older ship, more repair, higher operating cost) and put F22P operating cost at $10 million annually, it still comes out to 175+300=$475million total or $15,8 million per year.

Next, factor in that Type 054A is more likely well over $250 million initial purchase and at least the same as F22P in annual operating cost.

Whether PN get Perry's or F22Ps, each will have to be provided with helicopter(s). F22P gets 1x Z9 , a Perry would likely get 2 SH2 Seasprite. That makes for a greater expense in helicopters, though it should be kept in mind Z-9s are NEW and SH2 would be used (making the difference smaller) and possibly as foreign military assistance (i.e. no charge for aircraft only for cost of refit/transfer). Perry would need a bigger aircrew. In all though I don't think there will be much of a difference in expense for air complement either way.
 
Last edited:
.
Whether PN get Perry's or F22Ps, each will have to be provided with helicopter(s). F22P gets 1x Z9 , a Perry would likely get 2 SH2 Seasprite. That makes for a greater expense in helicopters, though it should be kept in mind Z-9s are NEW and SH2 would be used (making the difference smaller) and possibly as foreign military assistance (i.e. no charge for aircraft only for cost of refit/transfer). Perry would need a bigger aircrew. In all though I don't think there will be much of a difference in expense for air complement either way.

the Z9 come along with the F22p deal, i mean the price includes them aswell. the SH2 will have to be bought from extra money and there too exists an IF they are offered!
alos add the price of weapon system that have to be re-installed, even as you asy there is not much to be done in this field!
yes we can say that there is only a little difference but even if it was in favour of US machines, the idea must have been to go for alternative option as we have suffered a lot due to US sanctions in the past!

regards!
 
.
I think in my posts i have not give any indication of Blind China Love statements.
pretty much sounds to mee...
Kindly get your mind to start working and see that my posts have facts & figures to support, while your statements & stubborn insistence on harpoon is a Blind America Love attitude that you are not even considering or taking into perspective other ASMs.
hmmm? excuse me? well i am certianly not going to copy paste something off wikipedia to support my claim.. their is somthing called "common sense" which is America has not lost any edge in any field to chinese yet. Harpoon is still USN prime AShM and still the best in the world.. i dont have to say this without any "facts and figures" because its waist of exercise... no one is showing any blind love to americans and i wish pakistan/china gain first hand over US very soon...

U have not given anything to prove that harpoon is a superior weapon system except for its heavier warhead & electronics nor can harpoon defeat any CIWS. And what will 150 harpoons do against IN, who are equipped with Barack AAM & Russian CIWS. If you read, nowadays a single ASM or even 2 ASM can't do any damage to a ship equipped with a good CIWS, u need a good tactical simultaneous attack capability to have good chances of hitting the ship. So kindly get out of your Blind Love for American Harpoon Missile & see that other capable missiles are available.

very very obserd claim. so your claim is based on 1980s video of goal keeper shooting down a dummy AShM? and you do know that it was a demonstration? i can show you videos of stingers with same lethealty shooting down drones and planes.. it does not prove squat! in real time situation not every CIWS has this type of situational awareness like provieded in your previous video of goal keeper..
yet again you are only making fool out of yourself if you claim "chinese CIWS" is supirior to Phalanx block1b.

I posted it and read it quiet well enough and it was for your understanding that Subsonic & Supersonic missiles can be defeated & have countermeasures in the form of soft kill & hard kill options, this is the reason that the latest ships are being equipped with multiple hard kill options, the days of a single Phalanx CIWS are over. This is the reason that Americans are now going directly for Hypersonic ASM capability.
like seriously if you make these kind of abord calims then you are only proving yourself to be a "TROLL"!
Phalanx time is over?

Man u made me talk so much and in return i did not get any useful information from you to show that what new Harpoon can do or how is it superior, rather American themselves are questioning its ability to destroy the ship and less ships are carrying them and are going for advanced ASMs.
to be honest with you i am just being lazy.. and btw your information is nothing but BS.. do a research on your own... you just like to wright alot and have very limited knowlege of outside your chinese bubble.

And by the way Israel & Indians are very close friends nowadays, & Israel has Harpoons & its data, so don't you think the Israeli's would or might even have given the Indians the codes or other stuff related to harpoon so that In can counter them in case of war, just like what happened in the falkland war when french gave the british the codes to nullify the Exocet Missile which proved devastating in destroying 2 britich ships.

"The French gave Britain information on the Exocet - which sank the Sheffield and Atlantic Conveyor - showing how to tamper with it."
oh god... uffffff.. you are really beign a troller...
so accourding to you Pakistan should not get..
-Erieye
-F-16mlu/block52
-cobras
-Tigers
-M-109A5
-OHP Frigate

because of the above reasion?
 
.
well Sir Growler,
first of all, getting a 1 FREMM and 1 agost 90B is not a replacement of four frigates, i mean even if the FREMM is superior it does not serves the purpose of four frigates.
So PN should only full fill its "quantatity" formalulity and ignor IN quantatity and quality edge over PN? what is PN going to achive with 4 F-22P aganist IN ture stealth frigates like talwar?
if you need a hundred planes to defend your entire airspcce with an average plane you can never to it by ten high tech birds. i mean the number do matter.
i do not know where you got this 100 vs 10 thing but i was merely talking about 1 FREEM which is technically 4 times better then F-22P and you will still have 300 million dollars more to spend... and with the rest 300 million dollars you can have decent corvette fleet to work in conjunction with the mother ship "FREMM".
you need to defend your terrirotiral water not serve your formuality of having just tquantatity and number of sailars on board the ship...

nest, the claim if OPH frigates to be superior is and cant be backed up by any evidence. they are of different class. the only good they can bring is VLS for missiles but the ones comming to us lack this abiity, infact, they are stripped of most of there weaponary!
dont assume or come to conclusion of what you do not know of...
OHP will be refurbished and their is no "Stripping" thing involved.. and oh their is much talk of upgrading PN OHP fleet with turkish indigenous systems... good stop gap for TF-2000...

insisting a Phlanx1B, the best we MAY get to be superio then the chines CIWS is adain arguable. more over the OPH are some thirty year old ships, they will be comming in for 65 million dollar and many more will be spend on them for weapon system and also the helicopters?
REFURBISHED!
dont forget this. now you yourself have said in a post that OPH are more of a stop gap then do you really thiink that they are worth some 90-100 million dollar serving us for just 8 - 10 years when F22p, Type 54 would have served us for decades to come.
i hope this make you understand what i want to say,
if we can use type-21 for almost 20 years then OHP can also achive that and be replaced by same displacement the "TF-2000"..
 
.
for miligem covertts that you suggest would have been a better option, sir they also lack VLS for missiles and even no news about any gataling gun on-board. yes they are equipped with better surface to air missiles but then again there anti-ship missiles ie Harpoons cannot be termed as better by far then the chines one on F22p

ever heard of RAM? or is it another "infirior" western weapon compared to the chinese super alian technology? even F-22P lacks VLS.. however Miligem has next generation systems that F-22P lacks.. Milgem new generation mian gun can be fitted with
Strales system represents a remarkable evolution for the 76/62 naval artilleries, including three main components: a 76/62 naval gun, DART precision guided ammunition and a Radio Frequency Guidance System with associated electronic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
well as being the independence day, all i want to say is that WISH PN good luck" about this OPH deal :pakistan:. i mean there have been so many posts relationg to stripping of weapons system for example the launch platform for Anti-ship and Anti-Air missiles that i dont want to keep on posting them again and again. it have been discussed on a NUMBER of threads!!
i sincerely wish that i may prove wrong with many of my points and we do not have to sit and re-evaluate this decesion in years to come.

sir Growler it has been a nice debate with you, with both of us sticking to our ideas. i hope it wont effect our relation and wish the realtionship does not get sore on other threads because of the hot debate here!
we can still continue in a much better enviorment on various other topics but for this deal, i better sign off.
wishing you and PN best of luck!
over n out!

regards!
 
. .
no buddy.... we are just havin a healthy argument..... not a problem..

well as being the independence day, all i want to say is that WISH PN good luck" about this OPH deal :pakistan:. i mean there have been so many posts relationg to stripping of weapons system for example the launch platform for Anti-ship and Anti-Air missiles that i dont want to keep on posting them again and again. it have been discussed on a NUMBER of threads!!
i do not know why you keep repeating the same stuff which has been corrected before... their is absolutely no point of inducting warships without its "armaments"... you want to think everything nagative about OHP because its not chinese and it would hurt your sentiments if something factual is said about F-22P?
let me tell you this again...
OHP are free of cost as it is...
The ship will be refurbished and then hand over to PN
Pakistan will pay from US money not ours..

i sincerely wish that i may prove wrong with many of my points and we do not have to sit and re-evaluate this decesion in years to come
with all due respect you have been proven wrong..
 
.
no buddy.... we are just havin a healthy argument..... not a problem..


i do not know why you keep repeating the same stuff which has been corrected before... their is absolutely no point of inducting warships without its "armaments"... you want to think everything nagative about OHP because its not chinese and it would hurt your sentiments if something factual is said about F-22P?
let me tell you this again...
OHP are free of cost as it is...
The ship will be refurbished and then hand over to PN
Pakistan will pay from US money not ours..


with all due respect you have been proven wrong..

please refer to Alfred marshal's statement "Economics is an art and science of studying human behavior as a link between limited means and unlimited wants"
 
. . .

No, new Russian single barrel 130mm naval gun A-192E. Look at the length of the rounds relative to the height of a deck: no way thats a 76mm round. Plus, a 76mm like that by Oto Melara or the Russian AK-176 penetrates only one deck, not three (that's why it can be used also on small ships like FACs and corvettes)
 
Last edited:
.
the Z9 come along with the F22p deal, i mean the price includes them aswell. the SH2 will have to be bought from extra money and there too exists an IF they are offered!
alos add the price of weapon system that have to be re-installed, even as you asy there is not much to be done in this field!
yes we can say that there is only a little difference but even if it was in favour of US machines, the idea must have been to go for alternative option as we have suffered a lot due to US sanctions in the past!

regards!
There is not cost of RE_installing of any weapon systems on the ship that isn't already covered by the transfr price.

The cost of McInerney is not a purchase cost. It is the cost of refurbishing and transferring the vessel as it leave US service. Chances are SH-2 heliocopters c/would be provided as military assitance or aid (i.e. at no or minimal cost)

For ANY helicopter (including chinese), you need to add cost of weapons.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom