Oliver Hazard Class Frigate Acquisition by Pakistan

[Penguin]

Well obviously something as large as the Perry Class is going to have a longer range/endurance/etc but how is the Milgem something basic ? For a corvette it fits the bill perfectly.

Why bring the Roussen Class into this ? I could say the same thing that it has no torpedos. No deck for a helicopter(or hanger) nor any ability to carry helicopter fuel. Less range and 7 day endurance. You also forget the Milgem has a low observability haul which would play a factor on how much stuff you can put on the ship without compromise. Plus Milgem project will give way to a version that will be fitted with MK-41 VLS and even more advanced systems. I see nothing basic for it being a corvette. It is quite capable and will be a much needed edition to the Pakistani Navy as well as other navies that want it.

If you want to exclude Roussen for lacking torpedoes, consider the Singapore navy's 595 t (586 LT; 656 ST) Victory class. And should you wish to exclude that for lacking a helicopter facility, consider the Qahir Class corvettes of Oman, Bahrain's Ahmed Al-Fateh class (Lurssen MGB62) or the United Arab Emirates' 915 ton Baynunah class 915t instead. These all have ASW torpedoes and/or helicopter facilities on FAC sized hull. Some even have stealthy design features.

Far more basic is taken RELATIVE to a (in this case larger) ship. Just like the Roussen is RELATIVE to MILGEM. Just as Perry class ships are basic RELATIVE to Spruance or Kidd class destroyers or Ticonderoga cruiser (which are FFG7 contemporaries based on the a single hull design and intended as the 'Hi'-end of the mix in which the FFG7 is the 'Lo'-end). Don't blame me for comparing a large ship like MILGEM to a small ship like Roussen, when someone here else started comparing the larger OHP and the smaller MILGEM.

Anyway, you mistake me for saying MILGEM is not capable. I never said that.

 

[Nutuk]

If you want to exclude Roussen for lacking torpedoes, consider the Singapore navy's 595 t (586 LT; 656 ST) Victory class. And should you wish to exclude that for lacking a helicopter facility, consider the Qahir Class corvettes of Oman, Bahrain's Ahmed Al-Fateh class (Lurssen MGB62) or the United Arab Emirates' 915 ton Baynunah class 915t instead. These all have ASW torpedoes and/or helicopter facilities on FAC sized hull. Some even have stealthy design features.

Far more basic is taken RELATIVE to a (in this case larger) ship. Just like the Roussen is RELATIVE to MILGEM. Just as Perry class ships are basic RELATIVE to Spruance or Kidd class destroyers or Ticonderoga cruiser (which are FFG7 contemporaries based on the a single hull design and intended as the 'Hi'-end of the mix in which the FFG7 is the 'Lo'-end). Don't blame me for comparing a large ship like MILGEM to a small ship like Roussen, when someone here else started comparing the larger OHP and the smaller MILGEM.

Anyway, you mistake me for saying MILGEM is not capable. I never said that.

I don't understand how you can compare a Roussen class FAC to a Milgem class dedicated submarine hunter, they have totally different tasks. Roussen doesn't even carry a sonar (hence no torpedo's aboard) or seahawk helicopter. An analogy of the Milgem with the OHP is more appropriate as they have the same tasks (anti submarine and escort), with the difference that Milgem is a littoral combat ship with lesser range but has superior abilities like stealth feature, degaussing system (anti magnetic signature), reduced heat signature, superb combat management system, network centric, much lower operational costs.

 

[mjnaushad]

I don't think it would be illegal at all. After all, see what equipment Turkey is refitting onto its used OHPs with (GENESIS).

Don't know what this would do to the warrenty though ;-)

Thanks....We need to be sure. We dont want another Harpoon modifying drama by some media to sell news.

 

[Nutuk]

Thanks....We need to be sure. We dont want another Harpoon modifying drama by some media to sell news.

I don't think installing the GENESIS on the Pakistani OHP would have any repercussions, since Havelsan (the maker of GENESIS) teamed up with Lockheed Martin to "Americanize" this product on paper exactly to circumvent these kind of restrictions put on OHP users throughout the world.

 

[Jigs]

If you want to exclude Roussen for lacking torpedoes, consider the Singapore navy's 595 t (586 LT; 656 ST) Victory class. And should you wish to exclude that for lacking a helicopter facility, consider the Qahir Class corvettes of Oman, Bahrain's Ahmed Al-Fateh class (Lurssen MGB62) or the United Arab Emirates' 915 ton Baynunah class 915t instead. These all have ASW torpedoes and/or helicopter facilities on FAC sized hull. Some even have stealthy design features.

Far more basic is taken RELATIVE to a (in this case larger) ship. Just like the Roussen is RELATIVE to MILGEM. Just as Perry class ships are basic RELATIVE to Spruance or Kidd class destroyers or Ticonderoga cruiser (which are FFG7 contemporaries based on the a single hull design and intended as the 'Hi'-end of the mix in which the FFG7 is the 'Lo'-end). Don't blame me for comparing a large ship like MILGEM to a small ship like Roussen, when someone here else started comparing the larger OHP and the smaller MILGEM.

Anyway, you mistake me for saying MILGEM is not capable. I never said that.

I made my reference based on you calling the Milgem " far more basic" compared to the OHP and F-22P. Both ships have no stealth design in mind. Or the advanced systems the Milgem has so i was wondering why the Milgem was considered basic. You then started to pick random ships and show them to me saying because these were fitted with more weapons on their hull they are less basic. Would that make the Visby class more basic ? Remember the Milgem project is intended not to just produce stealth corvettes but also stealth frigates. I am not comparing the Milgem to the world here. Only that if Pakistan gets them in terms of stealth and systems they would be better then the OHP and F-22P. I won't compare weapons since idk what exactly PN would fit the Milgem corvettes with or what they will do to the OHP.

 

[Donatello]

Well obviously something as large as the Perry Class is going to have a longer range/endurance/etc but how is the Milgem something basic ? For a corvette it fits the bill perfectly.

Why bring the Roussen Class into this ? I could say the same thing that it has no torpedos. No deck for a helicopter(or hanger) nor any ability to carry helicopter fuel. Less range and 7 day endurance. You also forget the Milgem has a low observability haul which would play a factor on how much stuff you can put on the ship without compromise. Plus Milgem project will give way to a version that will be fitted with MK-41 VLS and even more advanced systems. I see nothing basic for it being a corvette. It is quite capable and will be a much needed edition to the Pakistani Navy as well as other navies that want it.

Aren't they two different classes?

i mean, OHPs can hold up to two Helis and it is yet to be seen what PN will doing with it.

With 1000ton or 500 ton FACs you might have Helis, but then you have to sacrifice the space for any Missiles that might have been installed there.


In any case you can't compare larger displacement OHPs with smaller displacement Corvettes. Two different roles for these ships, which can complement any navy.

 

[Tomahawk]

One of the two mk32 triple-tube torpedo tubes onboard USS McInerney during the decommissioning ceremony.

 

[Nutuk]

In any case you can't compare larger displacement OHPs with smaller displacement Corvettes. Two different roles for these ships, which can complement any navy.

From point of displacement you are right, the OHP (4000tonnes) has twice the displacement of the Milgem (2000tonnes).

But from point of operation the Milgem beats the OHP with ease.
Both ships carry similar weapons for their prime duty: hunting submarines.

The US built the OHP because of overseas duties where they need more displacement to stack more fuel, food, logistics and personell on the ship (the OHP is designed on US operational needs).

Countries like Turkey and Pakistan use the OHP more like littoral combat ships for anti submarine duties and there the Milgem beats the OHP with ease, since Milgem has much more modern combat systems, sensors and weaponry complemented with stealth features which makes her less detectable to enemy. One on one the OHP would rarely have chance to survive a battle with a Milgem corvette.

 

[Jigs]

^^^Exactly my point.

 

[Penguin]

I don't understand how you can compare a Roussen class FAC to a Milgem class dedicated submarine hunter, they have totally different tasks. Roussen doesn't even carry a sonar (hence no torpedo's aboard) or seahawk helicopter. An analogy of the Milgem with the OHP is more appropriate as they have the same tasks (anti submarine and escort), with the difference that Milgem is a littoral combat ship with lesser range but has superior abilities like stealth feature, degaussing system (anti magnetic signature), reduced heat signature, superb combat management system, network centric, much lower operational costs.

I think my point was quite clear: you can stuff a lot of equipment onto a small hull, but that does not necessarily make it a better or even more effective platform. Instead of the Roussen, you take the 915 ton Baynunah class, which comes with ASW torps, SAM, SSM, 76mm gun, Helicopter, platform and hanger etc. the works.

Incidentally, all navy ships are degaussed (regularly), most ships have some form of noise and heat signature reduction these days etc.

Again, you have mistaken me for calling Milgem a poor ship.

 

[Penguin]

But from point of operation the Milgem beats the OHP with ease. Both ships carry similar weapons for their prime duty: hunting submarines.[/qoute] Similar weapons and sensors on a smaller hull are NOT equally effective. e.g. radars and ew gear are placed lower relative to the sea, limiting detection horizon and the platform is less stable limiting e.g. helicopter ops.

The US built the OHP because of overseas duties where they need more displacement to stack more fuel, food, logistics and personell on the ship (the OHP is designed on US operational needs).

The Perry or FFG-7 class warships were designed in the United States in the mid-1970s as general-purpose escort vessels inexpensive enough to be bought in large quantities to replace World War II-era destroyers. They operated in an anti-submarine role to protect amphibious landing forces, supply and replenishment groups, and merchant convoys.

Countries like Turkey and Pakistan use the OHP more like littoral combat ships for anti submarine duties and there the Milgem beats the OHP with ease, since Milgem has much more modern combat systems, sensors and weaponry complemented with stealth features which makes her less detectable to enemy. One on one the OHP would rarely have chance to survive a battle with a Milgem corvette.

The OHP is in PN service is intended to combat Indian submarines threatening SLOC (just as is it did with russian subs in the north atalantic). A littoral combat ship is not intended for that. Put differently, the subs would move further out to sea and simply avoid LCSs.

Any modern FAC could probably beat an OHP (and a MILGEM for that matter).

Do note, Turkish navies is not discarting its OHPs, in spite of acquisition of Milgem and development of TF2000.

 

[Penguin]

I made my reference based on you calling the Milgem " far more basic" compared to the OHP and F-22P. Both ships have no stealth design in mind. Or the advanced systems the Milgem has so i was wondering why the Milgem was considered basic. You then started to pick random ships and show them to me saying because these were fitted with more weapons on their hull they are less basic. Would that make the Visby class more basic ? Remember the Milgem project is intended not to just produce stealth corvettes but also stealth frigates. I am not comparing the Milgem to the world here. Only that if Pakistan gets them in terms of stealth and systems they would be better then the OHP and F-22P. I won't compare weapons since idk what exactly PN would fit the Milgem corvettes with or what they will do to the OHP.

I've only compared Milgem and OHP, not Milgem and F22P.
Stealth features don't make a ship's equipment advanced.
The systems on the Milgem are modern, but not particularly advanced. It is not a wondervessel.
The systems on the OHP that matter have been continuously upgrade to meet evolving threat levels.
The F22P is neither particularly modern nor stealthy (though it is stealthier than the Type53H3 from which it derives)
Corvettes, by nature of their intended roles, are more basic than frigates, which are more basic than destroyers, which are ... etc.

 

[Jigs]

I've only compared Milgem and OHP, not Milgem and F22P.
Stealth features don't make a ship's equipment advanced.
The systems on the Milgem are modern, but not particularly advanced. It is not a wondervessel.
The systems on the OHP that matter have been continuously upgrade to meet evolving threat levels.
The F22P is neither particularly modern nor stealthy (though it is stealthier than the Type53H3 from which it derives)
Corvettes, by nature of their intended roles, are more basic than frigates, which are more basic than destroyers, which are ... etc.

I agree with that. Class wise i never said they were not. Also i never said stealth made it more advanced but the Milgem has considerable reduction in frontal RCS just look at the designs and that is certainly a advantage. Is the SMART-S Mk2 not one of the most advanced radars Thales currently has out ?

 

[Nutuk]

1) The OHP is in PN service is intended to combat Indian submarines threatening SLOC (just as is it did with russian subs in the north atalantic). A littoral combat ship is not intended for that. Put differently, the subs would move further out to sea and simply avoid LCSs.

2) Do note, Turkish navies is not discarting its OHPs, in spite of acquisition of Milgem and development of TF2000.

1) range of OHP: 4500 miles at 20knt
range of Milgem: 3500 miles at 15knt

How many miles do you suppose enemy submarines will position themselves to become a threath? By the way if you noticed the modern trend is using Corvettes in anti submarine roles, the US with LCS, Turkey with Milgem, Russia with Steregusky, the Netherlands with new type corvette/light frigate. According to you all of them are doing wrong?

2) Turkish navy is not discarting the OHP's because we have not replaced them yet. The first Milgem is still in test phase and not commissioned. Therefore Turkey opted for the obvious solution= upgrade 4 OHP's in a modest modernization program, these will be discarted once enough Milgems are there and upgrade the other 4 OHP's in a more advanced modernization (including new radar + MK41VLS), these will be replaced by TF100.

 

[Arsalan]

Flawed assumptions.

Jane's is indicating that FFG will be refurbished with AShM and SAM. Most probably MK41 cells for ESSM and Racks for Harpoons.
Or reinstatement of MK13 which will enable the capability to launch long range SM and Harpoons as well.
All these weapons are much much superior to C-802 and Short range SAM on F-22P.
FFG SPS-49 has a range of 500 KM and is frequently upgraded. F-22P radars are not next generation radars. They are upgraded versions of soviet era systems.
The Z-9 is not actually a great deal. SH-60 is most likely to be part of the package and is superior to z-9.
I advice you to do bit more research on this subject. In fact go throw in depth posts by me and Penguin in naval section as well as this thread.

brotherdont you think we are basing too much on assuumption..

i mean we are assuming that US will upgrade the boats with the very best Mk-41 or Mk-13,,

we think that they will be giving us Sea King!!

we suppose that the radrs are upgraded frequently!!!


what do you say??
in F-22p, atleast we are sure of what we have and we know the potential of the boat!dont you think this comes into account?

regards!