Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Philippines Defense Forces Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Old new again; second-hand bargains
Topic Started: Aug 3 2005, 06:31 AM (8,061 Views)
possible
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  * ]
taking off from what’s been posted on datu’s OPV thread, suggest possible future acquisitions for the Philippine Navy, the caveat being that these should all be a. strictly second-hand and b. suitable for Philippine requirements (give arguments).

starting with a couple more oldies but goodies, this time from closer to home, the Republic of Korea

Posted Image

ULSAN-CLASS

Posted Image

POHANG-CLASS

<a href='http://www.hanjinsc.com' target='_blank'>http://www.hanjinsc.com</a>

frigate and corvette-class ships built in Korea, mid-80s to the early 90s. the ULSAN-class are 1,500-2,000 tonners, the POHANG-class weigh in at 1,300 tons. both equipped for ASuW, AAW and ASW. generous propulsion arrangements – among the most powerful in the world horsepower per ton – in addition to twin diesels each mounts GE LM2500 gas turbines (standard US Navy fit), the ULSAN with two, the POHANG one, allowing 30+ knot speeds.

a concern is that gas turbines inherently cost more to run than four-stroke diesels, but fuel consumption is also a factor of ship size, tonnage and most importantly operational use, reasonable to assume less expensive coastal and limited EEZ ops in vessels less than half the weight of, say, the USN’s PERRY-class globetrotters, and unlike the PERRY-class (which don’t have diesels) the Korean duo can choose to run using gas or diesel engines.

one thing with the ROKN is that their ships invariably pack a heavy gun armament, consequence of frequent border skirmishes with their Northern neighbors, missiles being a no-no in these situations since an anti-ship missile fired near the coast runs the risk of straying and hitting something on land, obviously a missile detected heading toward North Korea might just make things very interesting on the DMZ . still both classes have room for antiship missiles and are sometimes armed with Harpoons or Exocets.

these ships are suitable platforms for the PN because they are multi-role vessels in more ways than one: large enough to patrol places smaller ships can’t (like the big water up North, and Korean seas are very challenging being so close to the Arctic) yet still compact for the shallows (like in the South), fast with gas turbines for responding rapidly to incidents yet economical with diesels for more sedate assignments, and armed with guns for dealing with terrs yet, external defense-wise, equipped with sonar to take on the critical coastal and internal waters ASW task necessary to secure, say, the ships transporting troops from Mindanao back to Luzon (vice-versa) from submarine attack.

the ROKN is currently undergoing a massive modernization with virtually all older units lined up for replacement. this could very well be a bonanza for smaller navies like the PN since there are more than 40 units of the ULSAN, POHANG, and TONGHAE (POHANG prototype) classes in South Korean Navy service. given the longstanding friendship between our two nations (deluge of sissy-ass telenovelas notwithstanding), wouldn’t be surprised to see, God willing, some of these vessels flying the Philippine flag within the next decade.


War. What is it good for?--James Brown

What's love got to do with it?--Tina Turner

Only the intelligent are brave.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
possible
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  * ]
in case some are wondering whether (relatively) old second-hand ships are still worthwhile options,

Posted Image

ORKAN-CLASS (aka SASSNITZ-CLASS)

hardly old (1992-1995) but the Polish Navy decided that their electronics were outdated. enter the usual suspects

Quote:
 
Poland : Thales Nederland signs modernisation contract for the ORKAN class Corvettes

The Naval Shipyard SMW (Stocznia Marynarki Wojennej) and Thales Nederland B.V. have signed the contract for the modernisation of the three ORKAN class Corvettes with the Polish Navy (Marynarki Wojennej RP) and Thales Nederland's Swedish sub-contractors, Ericsson Microwave System AB and SAAB Bofors Dynamics AB on 31 July, 2001. The ship's communications system will be delivered by Thales Naval GmbH, subsidiary of Thales Nederland B.V. in Germany. The contract covers the delivery and integration of the combat systems on-board the Polish Navy's three existing ORKAN class Corvettes.

<a href='http://www.thales-nederland.nl' target='_blank'>http://www.thales-nederland.nl</a>

the result

Posted Image

more pics

a smart upgrade: Poland retained the very effective hardware of Russian origin (the AK-176 main gun, AK-630 Gatling CIWS, and the ASW RLs), added some equipment of their own (Grom VSHORAD missiles, improved Polish version of the Igla), and laid it all on the foundation of a solid electronics and missile package: Thales TACTICOS Combat Management System, Ericsson Sea Giraffe AMB phased-array multi-role radar, Thales STING-EO combined radar/infrared camera fire control and surveillance sensor, and the Saab Bofors Dynamics RBS-15 Mark 3 200-kilometer range anti-ship/land-attack missile. a Cold War-era boat transformed into one of the most powerful naval platforms of its size in the world.

given all these options, does the PN still need to look at brand-new combat vessels? :armyhuh:


War. What is it good for?--James Brown

What's love got to do with it?--Tina Turner

Only the intelligent are brave.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
horge
Member
[ *  *  * ]
deleted
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
edwin
Member
[ *  *  * ]
possible
Aug 3 2005, 06:42 AM

given all these options, does the PN still need to look at brand-new combat vessels? :armyhuh:


In my opinion, All options you posted are PERFECT(ULSAN,POHANG,ORKAN)considering the current status of PN. Philippine Navy are in pressing need of a combatant ship enough to project power in our territorial economic zone.

If Endurance of those ships are not in the same class like OPV,
then just upgrade the radar system in order to have a longer coverage coupled with long range anti-ship/anti-aircraft missile.

Those Korean Naval Ships are more than enough since they are Multi Role and are capable as other modern Navy ships with a budget price(i think) affordable by smaller navy. Peace to all.
Posted Image
It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and reality of tomorrow.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Manokski
Member
[ *  *  * ]
horge
Aug 3 2005, 08:26 AM
Good thread.

A thing is what it does.
The Orkan, Ulsan and Pohang are technically not OPV's.
Those corvettes (though the Ulsan is technically a frigate) are designed for both speed and lethality, but not particularly for endurance. They do look pretty, bristling with all that neat pointy stuff.

Off-shore patrol is about long duty and loiter in very harsh seas. Certainly a corvette or even a cruiser can be pressed into OPV duty. But the operational costs can be less effective: in asense it's sort of like wearing out your track star on foot-trips to the next town's grocery. To handle harsher sea states, Philippine OPV's have to have size, and are perhaps best served by a CODAD or possibly a CODAG propulsion arangement ---to allow slower speeds for a longer haul, and a better chance of at-sea repair of less-involved technology.

OPV's are generally well-served by attached helo and/or RIB/RHIB assets, to take care of expanding its reach, and short chasedowns: the OPV is thus a stable long-endurance platform: a military base at sea.

Guns are short-range implements nowadays.
A ship-launched ASM is an all-or-nothing long range contact (all out lethality, or silence), while a helo allows a more measured response (while still retaining all-out lethal standoff ASM capability), and RIBs/RHIBs are great for boardings.

Humanitarian work is increasingly a key consideration for OPV's ---which after all are often the last resort for anyone adrift in the 'laot', and are often the most forward-positioned assets towards trans-national humanitarian relief/assistance. This means a lot of space (and infirmary capacityy) for potential refugees survivors is a plus.

---
Given that in your purchase scenario, export restrictions on sensitive defense articles are presumed waived...

I'd rather build an OPV, using a second-hand commercial double-hull that can support a 1,000 to 1,200 ton standard displacement. Those ARE available on the world market. The evolution of OPV's has actually been towards adopting the lines of long-haul freighters (seen the MEKO MRV hulls?) and fishing vessels, which after all incorporate hard-won lessons over the millennia when it comes to seaworthiness and endurance. I am talking about the wiring and hardware for an 800 ton warship on a 1,200 tonner hull. LOTS of space for expansion (ie:. the pretty pointy things). should the mission and environment demand it.

Armaments?
Just a single DP up front for flexibility, and --let's keep dreaming-- CIWS atop the aft helo hangar and maybe just behind the forward gun. Under the helo platform grid would be a stern ramp for multiple RHIB launch and recovery (an easier hull mod than one might suppose).

It'll be ugly as hell, but it'll be capable of handling terrible weather, a lot of sea-time, and a lot of refugees, all for less operating cost than a gas-turbine corvette/frigate. It'll also be less confrontationl in appearance, if you want to go a little covert --though our known enemies would certinly know about its punch.

I'd do a quick sketch and append it to this post, if that would make my babbling clearer... but I'm sure others have better contributions to make to this nice thread.

:pushup:



horge

Nice thread and nice post Horge..

To expand on his point - me thinks (IMHO) he is exactly right. In fact, the idea as some of you probably know too, has been floated around in the US a while back in the 80s and 90s I think. There was a program started in the US to assist the Philippine Navy along those lines.

The program had gotten as far as the proposal stage (I'm hunting around for a copy of it...I think I have it here somewhere in the nether regions of my hard drives...). The plan was to design, build and give to the Philippines as part of foreign military aid a ship with long endurance that would be simple for the PN to acquire and maintain.

It would basically, if I remember it right, use a modern hull powered with diesel engines but equipped with either surplus weapons and sensors (older but still modern enough to be maintainable and useful for PN purposes) and/or simpler weapons and sensors that would be cheaper to acquire and easier for the PN to maintain. The reasoning being was that the biggest chunk of money was not really the cost of the hull and engines but the cost of the the weapons and sensors. (ie instead of using new 5 inch full automatic guns, take older 5 inch guns from retired US ships like the Charles F Adams class). The program even had the support of US industry. A consortium had gotten together to put a plan in place if I remember it right)..

As Horge well knows (but Im repeating it for the benefit of those who dont know) Using merchie hulls and second hand engines and equipment to flesh out a ship is not exactly a new thing for the PN either - the two most modern ships in the PN - the Besson class LSVs are based on a merchie hull and built to merchie standards. They also use second hand engines.

Of course, that plan has long since died but it is noteworthy to point out that Philippine shipyards have built merchant hulls from the ground up in the Philippines - hulls as large as 3,000 tons if Im not mistaken. How about using a relatively small merchie hull, 1000 or so tons to capable of 20 or so knots (speed is money) powered by diesel engines, helo deck behind and take the guns from our current ships like the Rajah Humabon (which btw is still plagued by hull problems so really does not deploy very far these days and so for all intents and purposes is nearly useless). As money becomes available, sensors can be improved and equipment added.

While it would be nice to have the best in pointy things, we have to start modestly. The idea is to get something started and get something useful that does not sit around the dock looking pretty and drains the PN budget just from starting its engines...

My apologies for my babbling...here's hoping that it's made a little sense...


Manokski's ORBAT www.HueyBravo.net
Manokski's Orbat
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brassballs
Member
[ *  *  * ]
Manokski
Aug 3 2005, 12:43 PM
horge
Aug 3 2005, 08:26 AM
Good thread.

A thing is what it does.
The Orkan, Ulsan and Pohang are technically not OPV's.
Those corvettes (though the Ulsan is technically a frigate) are designed for both speed and lethality, but not particularly for endurance. They do look pretty, bristling with all that neat pointy stuff.

Off-shore patrol is about long duty and loiter in very harsh seas. Certainly a corvette or even a cruiser can be pressed into OPV duty. But the operational costs can be less effective: in asense it's sort of like wearing out your track star on foot-trips to the next town's grocery. To handle harsher sea states, Philippine OPV's have to have size, and are perhaps best served by a CODAD or possibly a CODAG propulsion arangement ---to allow slower speeds for a longer haul, and a better chance of at-sea repair of less-involved technology. 

OPV's are generally well-served by attached helo and/or RIB/RHIB assets, to take care of expanding its reach, and short chasedowns: the OPV is thus a stable long-endurance platform: a military base at sea.

Guns are short-range implements nowadays.
A ship-launched ASM is an all-or-nothing long range contact (all out lethality, or silence), while a helo allows a more measured response (while still retaining all-out lethal standoff ASM capability), and RIBs/RHIBs are great for boardings.

Humanitarian work is increasingly a key consideration for OPV's ---which after all are often the last resort for anyone adrift in the 'laot', and are often the most forward-positioned assets towards trans-national humanitarian relief/assistance. This means a lot of space (and infirmary capacityy) for potential refugees survivors is a plus.

---
Given that in your purchase scenario, export restrictions on sensitive defense articles are presumed waived...

I'd rather build an OPV, using a second-hand commercial double-hull that can support a 1,000 to 1,200 ton standard displacement. Those ARE available on the world market. The evolution of OPV's has actually been towards adopting the lines of long-haul freighters (seen the MEKO MRV hulls?) and fishing vessels, which after all incorporate hard-won lessons over the millennia when it comes to seaworthiness and endurance. I am talking about the wiring and hardware for an 800 ton warship on a 1,200 tonner hull. LOTS of space for expansion (ie:. the pretty pointy things). should the mission and environment demand it.

Armaments?
Just a single DP up front for flexibility, and --let's keep dreaming--  CIWS atop the aft helo hangar and maybe just behind the forward gun. Under the helo platform grid would be a stern ramp for multiple RHIB launch and recovery (an easier hull mod than one might suppose).

It'll be ugly as hell, but it'll be capable of handling terrible weather, a lot of sea-time, and a lot of refugees, all for less operating cost than a gas-turbine corvette/frigate. It'll also be less confrontationl in appearance, if you want to go a little covert --though our known enemies would certinly know about its punch.

I'd do a quick sketch and append it to this post, if that would make my babbling clearer... but I'm sure others have better contributions to make to this nice thread.

:pushup:



horge

Nice thread and nice post Horge..

To expand on his point - me thinks (IMHO) he is exactly right. In fact, the idea as some of you probably know too, has been floated around in the US a while back in the 80s and 90s I think. There was a program started in the US to assist the Philippine Navy along those lines.

The program had gotten as far as the proposal stage (I'm hunting around for a copy of it...I think I have it here somewhere in the nether regions of my hard drives...). The plan was to design, build and give to the Philippines as part of foreign military aid a ship with long endurance that would be simple for the PN to acquire and maintain.

It would basically, if I remember it right, use a modern hull powered with diesel engines but equipped with either surplus weapons and sensors (older but still modern enough to be maintainable and useful for PN purposes) and/or simpler weapons and sensors that would be cheaper to acquire and easier for the PN to maintain. The reasoning being was that the biggest chunk of money was not really the cost of the hull and engines but the cost of the the weapons and sensors. (ie instead of using new 5 inch full automatic guns, take older 5 inch guns from retired US ships like the Charles F Adams class). The program even had the support of US industry. A consortium had gotten together to put a plan in place if I remember it right)..

As Horge well knows (but Im repeating it for the benefit of those who dont know) Using merchie hulls and second hand engines and equipment to flesh out a ship is not exactly a new thing for the PN either - the two most modern ships in the PN - the Besson class LSVs are based on a merchie hull and built to merchie standards. They also use second hand engines.

Of course, that plan has long since died but it is noteworthy to point out that Philippine shipyards have built merchant hulls from the ground up in the Philippines - hulls as large as 3,000 tons if Im not mistaken. How about using a relatively small merchie hull, 1000 or so tons to capable of 20 or so knots (speed is money) powered by diesel engines, helo deck behind and take the guns from our current ships like the Rajah Humabon (which btw is still plagued by hull problems so really does not deploy very far these days and so for all intents and purposes is nearly useless). As money becomes available, sensors can be improved and equipment added.

While it would be nice to have the best in pointy things, we have to start modestly. The idea is to get something started and get something useful that does not sit around the dock looking pretty and drains the PN budget just from starting its engines...

My apologies for my babbling...here's hoping that it's made a little sense...

Do you think that their thinking these days are different compared back in the 80's and 90's? (dont get me wrong this is just a curiosity.)since back then It is more of a conventional way of trying to check Soviet encroachments on the far east or other communist nations in Southeast asia.
Maybe these days they are more keen on coastal patrols trying to curb terrorists infiltrators from neighboring countries or our exports to theirs?

to stray a little bit off topic, I saw a segment on history channel regarding boneyards in the US from different type of naval ships that can be refitted or recommisioned on a short notice.This involves different capital ships to destroyers and carriers.Included on that part is the AMARC-center where they generated billions of dollars of savings/revenues by saving parts on different types of aircrafts and able to salvage aircrafts for future use (drones,training etc..)
Posted Image
Posted Image
Shock the monkey....!Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
israeli
Member Avatar


regarding the Pohangs, correct me if i'm wrong about this question. was there an instance in the past when the South Koreans actually offered some of their Pohang class corvettes (four to six of the vessels) to the Philippine Navy? i think they did offered those vessels to us after we bought some of their PKM patrol vessels. :dunno:

nice thread, possible. :thumb:
"To secure peace is to prepare for war." - Carl Von Clausewitz
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
horge
Member
[ *  *  * ]
deleted
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
israeli
Member Avatar


horge: wouldn't the PN be better off in getting newly-built ships than second-hand ones? the acquisition cost maybe high but in the long run, the newly-built ships will be more cost effective to operate compared to the older ships, which will spend more of their time in the drydocks for repairs than at sea.
"To secure peace is to prepare for war." - Carl Von Clausewitz
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
horge
Member
[ *  *  * ]
israeli,

Well, sure, brand new is best. But...
as has been intimated already: no money, no honey.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Philippine Navy · Next Topic »
Add Reply