Oliver Hazard Class Frigate Acquisition by Pakistan

[Myth_buster_1]

By the way what kind of heli's is it gona carry ? anything new from the US?

SH-2 super seaspirit

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Great images. Thanks for the info., sure enough, the MK-13 are there. This is good news for PN if they can, in addition to getting the MK-13 reinstalled, also get hold of these FFG's earmarked for Portugal, but not delivered!!!!

If we can pull this off it would add atleast three OHP in relatively shorter time frame as comparee to theone already given.

IMO in fact FFG-12/14 could well be the next frigates after FFG-08 order. These are not active since 2003 by USN and 2 navies showed interust in its purchas but refused due to prise. After Purtugal Turkey showed interust in 2008 so i think they were maintained so their should not be much problem.

 

[Penguin]

So according to you they will replaces some items but a 50/50 percent chance of reinstalling MK13 to its original place where it belongs?

For its time, the OHP embraced a new maintenaince system, with fewer maintenance being conducted on board (hence fewer and less specialized personnel needed) and more conducted off board. That is to say, items would be replaced in their entirety during the short cycles, with the removed items being fixed on-shore. So, e.g. rather than tinkering on board with a GTu, the whole thing would be taken away and a replacement dropped in and the original than fixed in a shop ashore. Plug 'nd play before that term came into vogue.

I'm saying that for this refurb they will replace more items than would other wise be the case, just to make sure she's in the best of condition for transfer.

Based on available public domain info, however, I'm not sure that the removal of the Mk13 launcher arm and STIR (whose removal is visible even to the casual observer) comprises all that was removed in 2003. So, I'm being cautious. If I were PN I would want to have that capability. And it would also seem in the US interest to deliver it, though there is a but of diplomatic risk. Nonetheless, it is not a given that it is technically still feasible to reinstate the Harpoon and SM1 capability (put bluntly: you can brake something down part by part and remove it, or you can take a blowtorch to it and remove it. You get the difference). And it is also not a given that the transfer/refurb amount is sufficient to do so. Perhaps PN has opted to be especially frugal, e.g. because these ships are not expected to serve long and there may be other projects in need of the money e.g. acquisition of Type 054A orr domestic production of Milgem.). Hence the odds.

 

[Penguin]

Money available for what? Reinstalling MK13? The key word here is "reinstalling" not re producing or producing it from scratch. MK13 is stored in stocks and PN can request for re installment and I dont see any big problem with it.

The issue is not that there are no Mk13s around. The issue is what (else) was removed below decks and how. That and money (for labor, for alterations, for fixes, for parts) determines the outcome.

In this pictures we can see some work on maintenance on MK13 magazine deck. Meaning not the entire system was removed and and magazine deck is maintained quite frequently.

Check out the blue box on top of the Mk13 base. There is a yellow hose running from it to another portion of the ship. We saw this too when the Chinese were building their 052s: it is an aircompressor of sorts which is used to vent the ship while work is being done inside. It is not indicative of work being done on the Mk13 itself. There is a similar unit with hose ashore next to the hangar.

Not plausible. In order for PN to make any changes to US equipments they must first seek permission and their is a big possibility that US will never give PAK permission to refit their equipment with chinese technologies.

Well, if Chinese equipment (technologies is a rather big word in this context) is the problem, then buy some MM40 and a couple of Sandral launchers for Mistral from the French. Or a few RBS15 and RBS-70 or -90 with Bolide missile. There used to be offered a really nifty 24 round navalized launcher called Sea Streak for the UKs Starstreak missile. Turkey offers a few very compact naval remote control launching systems for a variety of MANPADS. Any compact SAM unit would be better than none at all.

removing and reinstalling harpoon canisters over and over again in 20+ years will cause a lot of wear and tear, frequent maintenance, and defected equipment with less reliability. The so called "cost effect" solution may have a great risk of failure in time of need.

In the Dutch navy, where all frigates carry racks for 2x4 Harpoon, it is common to see ships with just 1 or 2 canisters on board in port or along the coast but as soon as they go on a mission (whether for training or for real) all 8 canisters are present. The implication is that the canisters are taken on and off board as needed. This is what they are designed for: complete rounds, that can be handled as munitions. Remember. they have to be sturdy enough to be taken from an AOR to a frigate at sea during RAS. As for maintenance, you'ld have to maintain the missiles anyway which in the case of Harpoon would mean taking it from the canisters. (see example Sea Eagle: stored missile every 2 years. So go figure: it will be more frequent if you actually do something with the missile)

 

[Penguin]

Great images. Thanks for the info., sure enough, the MK-13 are there. This is good news for PN if they can, in addition to getting the MK-13 reinstalled, also get hold of these FFG's earmarked for Portugal, but not delivered!!!!

If we can pull this off it would add atleast three OHP in relatively shorter time frame as comparee to theone already given.

FFG12 and FFG14 where 'mothballed' in 2003. That means the USN has incurred the cost of deactivating them and will want to recoup some of that cost upon reactivation, which itself also costs money (i.e. this would be a cold transfer). Hence a much steeper price than for a hot transfer and the reason why neither Portugal nor any other potential takers were interested. You are looking at twice the money per ship as is involved with McInerney, for essentially the same capability. If that's the only way to get a functional Mk13, it becomes a very expensive bit of equipment....

 

[Penguin]

When you make an argument you have to prove it with credible sources. You cant apply your opinions as facts.

Shelf life is a matter of fact, not of opinion. See examples of Sea Eagle and R-771

You did not comprehend the context here. Turkey acquired the SM1 from USN stocks meaning they were first produced for USN earlier and then were ordered by Turkey.

You didn't state that. 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. Again, no need to get personal.

Unfortunately you have been only undermining everything here and lack knowledge in some field. You Called PN maintenance and storage facility as inadequate for SM-1 when they have been operating almost 30 years old AM-39 quite successfully.

Again, no need to get personal. Where exactly did I say anything negative about PN maintenance and storage facilities? IIRC, I did no such thing, nor did I hint at it. Could it be you are developing a chip on your shoulder?

How rapidly a rocket motor deteriorates depends on the conditions under which it is stored. Let's say the US stored theirs in Arizona (dry, desert country) and Pakistan stores theirs near the capital, then clearly, there is a difference in environment. So unless you have very good climate controls (on both sides), which keep the missiles under exactly the same conditions, there will be differences between how rapidly missiles in both countries decay. There is nothing offensive or insulting about that. Shelf live is usually given in relation to optimal storage conditions.

Besides, 30 years of operating AM and SM variants of Exocet need not mean that each missile is 30 years old. Check SIPRI database: missile from France to Pakistan 1950-present.
(36) AM-39 Exocet Anti-ship missile (1974) 1975 (36) Incl for Sea King helicopters
(36) AM-39 Exocet Anti-ship missile (1980) 1982-1983 (36)
(25) SM-39 Exocet Anti-ship missile 1994 1999-2006 (25)
I'm pretty sure that the oldest missiles have seen maintenance, including rocket motor replacement. Because they've reached their max shelf live. But of course, these missiles have been in service with PN for the entire period. Which would not be the case for any SM1 bought in 1988, since the Brooke lease ended and all four ships were returend to USA by the end of 1994. If you are a cash strapped service and have to economize, which missile to you maintain best? The ones in service on active platforms or the ones for which you no longer have no platforms?

 

[Penguin]

This does not prove anything.
Sea Eagle life is not as the same as SM1.
Raytheon SM-1(full-service support) FSS program will run through 2020.

I'm sorry but now you are being childish. A missile has a shelf life, any missile has a shelf life. In fact, their components have different shelf lives (rocket motors vs electronics per example). This is an industry recognized fact. Why else would you have your much vaunted PNMC? If it weren't the case you would need those guys.

 

[Penguin]

IMO in fact FFG-12/14 could well be the next frigates after FFG-08 order. These are not active since 2003 by USN and 2 navies showed interust in its purchas but refused due to prise. After Purtugal Turkey showed interust in 2008 so i think they were maintained so their should not be much problem.

Bahrain was offered and rejected FFG12.
Portugal were offered them both but went for 2 newer yet cheaper ex-Dutch frigates.
Turkey was offered both butrejected them both (on grounds of higher than initially calculated actual reactivation cost)

Procurement [of SM-1] began in FY67, a total of about 12,000 SM1 (MR and ER) being made for U.S. and foreign service. US procurement ended in FY85 (700 in FY84, 600 in FY85), but foreign demand led Hughes to reopen the line (171 in FY90, 242 in FY91, 153 in FY92-93).
...
Most export customers use Block V (RIM-66B, 2,141 made 1969-83)
...
Block VI (RIM-66E) ... procurement began in FY80 ... This version remains in production for export to e.g. Taiwan.
..
The US Navy ceased supporting SM-1 at the end of FY03 (end of september 2003): 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. Raytheon formed a consortium to continue to support the missile for export customers, and in particular to regrain and refurbish its Mk56 motor, production of which ended about 1997. Late in 2002, it is estimated that 2,500 to 3,000 SM-1 remained in service.It hoped to both maintain these weapons and sell ex-US Navy stock. About 12 customers had expressed interest, and the company hoped to keep the missile in service through 2020.

The Naval Institute guide to world naval weapon systems (Norman Friedman), Editie: 5 - 2006, pp 594-595.

The SM-1 was phased out of US service in 2003, but still serves with some allied navies; most US and international orders are currently SM-2s, but many countries operating FFG-7 Oliver Hazard Perry Class frigates and similar vintage ships still use them. The “growth space” inherent in its basic design is a big reason that the Standard missile family remains relevant to this day.

Support for foreign SM-1 missiles has transitioned from the US government to Raytheon, who leads a team of companies that provides customers with continued access to spares and repair services. The SM-1 FSS Program consists of core support (program management, asset storage, test equipment support, logistics support and tasking to demilitarize hardware no longer needed for long-term support of the SM-1 Program), intermediate level maintenance (re-certification of SM-1 Block VI, VIA, VIB missiles), depot level maintenance (repair and maintenance of, or preparation, upgrade and installation of SM-1 Block V, VI, VIA and VIB sections, assemblies, sub-assemblies, and components), MK56 Rocket Motor Regrain Program (qualification and production), test equipment support, All-Up-Round (AUR), and technical engineering services. Countries listed in SM-1 support contracts over the past few years have included: Bahrain, Canada, Chile, Egypt, France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Taiwan, and Turkey.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/raytheons-standard-missile-naval-defense-family-updated-02919/
(clearly, the Netherlands no longer uses SM1 since the sale of the L-frigates to Chile, following the replacement of the Tromp class DDG by De Zeven Provincien class FFG.)

Feb 19/10: US DSCA announces [PDF] Pakistan’s official request for the initial ship, plus plus refurbishment, onboard spares, spare and repairs parts, support equipment, publications and technical data, and U.S. Government and contractor support.

The prime contractor is unknown at this time, but the estimated cost of the initial transfer plus refurbishment and support is $78 million. Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any U.S. Government and contractor representatives to Pakistan.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/McInerney-06197/

The Government of Pakistan has requested a possible sale for refurbishment of one OLIVER HAZARD PERRY Class Frigate, USS MCINERNEY (FFG-8), being provided as Excess Defense Articles (grant EDA notification is being submitted separately) with onboard spares, spare and repairs parts, support equipment, publications and technical data, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost of the refurbishment and support is $78 million.
...
Pakistan requires the capabilities of USS McINERNEY (FFG-8) to participate in U.S. and coalition led counter-narcotics and counter-piracy operations and to assist with Pakistan’s efforts to secure its maritime border. Pakistan will have no difficulty absorbing the ship into its armed forces.

http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2010/Pakistan_09-28.pdf\

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Based on available public domain info, however, I'm not sure that the removal of the Mk13 launcher arm and STIR (whose removal is visible even to the casual observer) comprises all that was removed in 2003. So, I'm being cautious.

All MK13 from USN FFGs were removed and FFG-12 and FFG-14 are speical case since they were all set to sail for Purtugal and later Turkey showed interust in it but refused due to prise.

If I were PN I would want to have that capability. And it would also seem in the US interest to deliver it, though there is a but of diplomatic risk. Nonetheless, it is not a given that it is technically still feasible to reinstate the Harpoon and SM1 capability (put bluntly: you can brake something down part by part and remove it, or you can take a blowtorch to it and remove it. You get the difference). And it is also not a given that the transfer/refurb amount is sufficient to do so.

The reinstalling only involves bolts and nuts. The MK13 arm was not removed by welding or parts of it removed piece by piece. The process for reinstalling does not involves anything more then a crane to hoist the launcher on the magazine deck and few bolts and nuts and few wiring to go with it. All this process should not cost no more then few thousand dollars however up gradation or refurbishment may have its own cost.
Notice the ring of bolts.

Perhaps PN has opted to be especially frugal, e.g. because these ships are not expected to serve long and there may be other projects in need of the money e.g. acquisition of Type 054A orr domestic production of Milgem.). Hence the odds.

Notice that the 78 million dollars paid for refurbishment of FFG Pak will not pay a single penny for it as all the money have been allocated from US funds. IMO the FFG-08 may serve as a training vessel for PN due to its age and eventually may have the least upgrades compared to other FFGs for PN which are 5-10 years younger or even more. Most of the FFG operators intend to use their FFGs beyond year 2020 and PN can easily touch 2025 due to its nature of operating equipment to its limit.
IMO PN can afford to spend about 100 million dollars on each of the FFGs and the result will be a very capable frigate with the best bang for the buck and even match the PLAAN Type-054A capabilities.
If I were PN, I would give 4 FFGs ASW oriented role with RUM-139 new torpedoes and other 4 for AAW role with SM-2 and ESSM capabilities. And give all but the old FFG-08 GENESIS Combat Management system.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

The issue is not that there are no Mk13s around. The issue is what (else) was removed below decks and how. That and money (for labor, for alterations, for fixes, for parts) determines the outcome.

quoting from the same source that you have provided. Reinstalling a very important element to a frigate is a must for PN and i dough the cost of reinstalling MK13 would cost anything greater then 10-20,000 dollars. PN can afford the expense.

The US Navy ceased supporting SM-1 at the end of FY03 (end of september 2003): 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.

Check out the blue box on top of the Mk13 base. There is a yellow hose running from it to another portion of the ship. We saw this too when the Chinese were building their 052s: it is an aircompressor of sorts which is used to vent the ship while work is being done inside. It is not indicative of work being done on the Mk13 itself. There is a similar unit with hose ashore next to the hangar.

I am confused here. the MK13 below deck is a 40 round magazine and why would the vent work going on their? Are you sure about the purpose of the yellow hose in that picture?

Well, if Chinese equipment (technologies is a rather big word in this context) is the problem, then buy some MM40 and a couple of Sandral launchers for Mistral from the French. Or a few RBS15 and RBS-70 or -90 with Bolide missile. There used to be offered a really nifty 24 round navalized launcher called Sea Streak for the UKs Starstreak missile. Turkey offers a few very compact naval remote control launching systems for a variety of MANPADS. Any compact SAM unit would be better than none at all.

Why would PN wanna bare the cost for all this when they can get a cheaper and more effective solution the MK13?

 

[Penguin]

All MK13 from USN FFGs were removed and FFG-12 and FFG-14 are speical case since they were all set to sail for Purtugal and later Turkey showed interust in it but refused due to prise.

All Mk13 were removed from active USN FFGs in 2003. FFG12 and 14 decommissioned in 2003 and hence kept the Mk13 (indeed, why spend money on removing the Mk13 if the ship decommissions?). They were deactivated and stored in Bremerton Navy Yard where they still sit today, in deactivated condition. They were offered to Bahrain (FFG 12 only) and when that country didn't want it both were offered to Portugal, which opted for hot transfer of used Dutch frigates instead, and then they were offered to Turkey, which refused them for reasons of higher than initially calculated price. In all cases, they were offered to said navies while still in deactivated condition i.e. as cold transfer. USN isn't silly: they aren't going to reactivate any ship from Bremerton reserve until a deal has been signed and sealed. After all, deactivation costs money and reactivation costs additional money.

The reinstalling only involves bolts and nuts. The MK13 arm was not removed by welding or parts of it removed piece by piece. The process for reinstalling does not involves anything more then a crane to hoist the launcher on the magazine deck and few bolts and nuts and few wiring to go with it. All this process should not cost no more then few thousand dollars however up gradation or refurbishment may have its own cost.

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?

other FFGs for PN which are 5-10 years younger or even more.

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 ...

FFG-7 OLIVER HAZARD PERRY-class

Most of the FFG operators intend to use their FFGs beyond year 2020

Let's see, for one of the most comprehensively modernized OHPs:

With the SEA 4000 Hobart Class air warfare frigates still just a gleam in an admiral’s eye, the government looked for a way to upgrade their FFG-7 “Adelaide Class” to keep them in service until 2020 or so.
...
The SEA 1390 project has had several phases:

Phase 1 – Project Definition Studies (1995-1998) – completed
Phase 2 – FFG Upgrade Implementation (1999-2008)
Phase 3 – A Study into the replacement of the SM-1 missile.
Phase 4A – Upgrade of the existing test set to enable testing of the SM-1 replacement missile.
Phase 4B – Replacement of the SM-1 Missile capability
...
On July 12/04 the Government gave Second Pass approval to upgrade 4 of its 6 Adelaide Class frigates to fire SM-2 Surface to Air Missiles. SEA 1390 Pase 4B originally intended to achieve this capability upgrade within a Government approved budget of A$ 582m in 2004 dollars. On July 15/04, ADI won the contract for A$ 402.5 million, covering 4 ships: HMAS Darwin, Melbourne, Newcastle, and Sydney, with completion scheduled for early 2009. These 4 ships would then serve until 2020 or so, while HMAS Adelaide and Canberra would be decommissioned.

Australia’s Hazard(ous) Frigate Upgrade

Can't imagine Turkey's modernized ships will be in service much longer.

 

[Penguin]

i dough the cost of reinstalling MK13 would cost anything greater then 10-20,000 dollars. PN can afford the expense.

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

I am confused here. the MK13 below deck is a 40 round magazine and why would the vent work going on their? Are you sure about the purpose of the yellow hose in that picture?

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.

Why would PN wanna bare the cost for all this when they can get a cheaper and more effective solution the MK13?

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.

 

[TOPGUN]

SH-2 super seaspirit

Any conformed source of this?

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Shelf life is a matter of fact, not of opinion. See examples of Sea Eagle and R-771

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.
If you are going to make a claim that SM1 in Pak storage is useless then provide some details with sources. If SM1 requires intensive refurbishment then PN will request US to reactive them.

You didn't state that. 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. Again, no need to get personal.

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

How rapidly a rocket motor deteriorates depends on the conditions under which it is stored. Let's say the US stored theirs in Arizona (dry, desert country) and Pakistan stores theirs near the capital, then clearly, there is a difference in environment.

The answer is in your own post.

So unless you have very good climate controls (on both sides), which keep the missiles under exactly the same conditions, there will be differences between how rapidly missiles in both countries decay.

I'm pretty sure that the oldest missiles have seen maintenance, including rocket motor replacement. Because they've reached their max shelf live. But of course, these missiles have been in service with PN for the entire period.

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

Which would not be the case for any SM1 bought in 1988, since the Brooke lease ended and all four ships were returend to USA by the end of 1994. If you are a cash strapped service and have to economize, which missile to you maintain best? The ones in service on active platforms or the ones for which you no longer have no platforms?

If SM-1 requires some replacement then they will be done before they are reactivated. Remember that the original FFGs refurbishment cost wont be paid from PAK budget but funds allocated from US military aid as an award for WOT. So PN can bare the few million dollars expense to reactive the missiles that will give PN the capability to engage targets beyond 40 KM that it does not posses at the moment.
Standard Missile-1 is the world’s anti-air warfare weapon with a full-service support program that provides a complete framework of missile support activities.

$11M to Support Foreign SM-1 Missile Customers This contract combines purchases for the countries of Egypt (43%), Taiwan (26%); Spain (10%); Japan (6%); Turkey (6%); France (3%); Italy (3%); Bahrain (1%); Netherlands (1%); and Poland (1%) under the Foreign Military Sales Program.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

FFG12 and FFG14 where 'mothballed' in 2003. That means the USN has incurred the cost of deactivating them and will want to recoup some of that cost upon reactivation, which itself also costs money (i.e. this would be a cold transfer). Hence a much steeper price than for a hot transfer and the reason why neither Portugal nor any other potential takers were interested. You are looking at twice the money per ship as is involved with McInerney, for essentially the same capability. If that's the only way to get a functional Mk13, it becomes a very expensive bit of equipment....

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?