Perry-class Frigates could return to fill perceived service gap

[Battlecruiser_Siegfried]

I see this as only good news. The Oliver Hazard Perrys were always extremely rugged boats that could be converted to different roles with only relatively minor refits.

 

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/navy-looking-at-bringing-back-old-ships-to-grow-fleet-but-not-battleships/

 

I just wish we hadn't sold off the freaking Kidd-class.

[Cognitive_Dissonance]

Because the Littorals (now reclassified as Frigates) are as problem riddled and full of teething pains like the F-35 . . . but yes, good news!

[GrandAdmiral_2016]

Thirt-five year old platforms in both cases. The OHPs were decent single screw escort ships when built but the only use they have now is as GP frigates, a role they are not designed or equipped for and would cost 100 million each to upgrade. The Kidds??  Built for the Shah as prestige ships and taken into the USN to avoid giving them to the Ayatollahs. Another old platform, better off scrapped. The problem was (and is) the USN admirals are gold-platers and believe the best is the enemy of the good enough. Quality over quantity?? Not so sure the money is well spent when you don't have enough small ships to make the big ones viable. Right now the USN has too many big ships (CVNs, LHAs LPDs, cruiser-sized DDGs, Zumwalts, CGs LPDs etc.) that need lots of escorts with (you heard it here) decent guns and close quarter AAA capability. Even your SSNs are huge, plus you have no conventional subs with AIP for inshore work. Even the small attack craft gang needs more than the littoral ships that you do have. Plus there is the political dynamic involving  NATO allies that the current administration seems hell-bent on ruining. They have most of the small stuff the USN relies on in multi-national  defence scenarios. Makes one Wonder....

[Flieger56]

9 hours ago, Battlecruiser_Renown said:

I see this as only good news. The Oliver Hazard Perrys were always extremely rugged boats that could be converted to different roles with only relatively minor refits.

 

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/navy-looking-at-bringing-back-old-ships-to-grow-fleet-but-not-battleships/

 

I just wish we hadn't sold off the freaking Kidd-class.

The question is, what sort of equipment would a Perry use? Would it look something like an Adelaide Class, using an 8-cell Mk41 VLS for quad-packed ESSMs plus the ability for the singe-rail launcher to fire SM-2s? Or maybe more like a Turkish G Class, with instead of the rail launcher upgrade an improved combat system [maybe Aegis?].

[JohnPJones]

I don't know much about what happened to the OHPs that were sold but how are they good for converting exactly? 

 

They're so small there isn't much room to put much of anything.

sure a few of the 8 cell VLS get dropped on the f'c'sle, and maybe replace the the 76mm with a 57mm and you might have space for another 8cells amidships.

as I understand the reasoning for the OHPs in the first place they were simply cheap ships to fill in numbers for the USN and force the soviets to spend more than they could afford to counter the numbers.

 

between the iowas, this and one or two other recommissioning ideas I've seen(and even tossed out just for funsies) it seems that people have an obsession with bringing back old ships and old classes.

 

I would have no problem with taking older designs and giving them new modern twists. 

Maybe a beamier OHP class to allow for 25s or 30s  to support a modern 76 or 57 with FAC/FIAC with another set of 8 cell VLS either fore or aft of those gun mounts. Significant increase in capability for what seems to be relatively little extra effort 

 

Edit 

the LCSes are not being reclassified they're being redisgned similarly to how I suggested adapting the OHP class design at best. They will be larger and have greater capability

 

 https://news.usni.org/2017/04/12/navy-considering-hulls-frigate-competition-expanding-anti-air-capability

[JohnPJones]

Giving it a bit of thought I'd do a frigate about 415ft long and about 50-58ft wide

 

kind of a mix between the freedom and OHP classes.

on the f'c'sle I'd put a 57mm

up high amidships a 76mm

low amidships p/s PVLS x2

aft above hangar CIWS/CRAM

hangar and flight deck

 

id use super structure similar to the freedom class's since the OHP style doesn't seem to take stealth in account very much.

 

layered AA defense.

up to 32cells for whatever AA missiles you want along with 3 different guns that can deal with air and small surface targets.

 

or cells can be divided between SAMs and ASMs 20:12 or 22:10 

to give other surface ships reason to be weary.

[Murotsu]

As it stands, they'd be little more than a hull showing the flag.  Their missile system is obsolete and not supported.  That's why the launcher was cut off, to end maintenance requirements on the system.  That leaves them with a 3" gun, a CWIS, and the Mk 32 torpedo tubes.  Basically, the ship is all but defenseless.

In sensors, the ship is marginal and its data links are marginal as well.  It can't even be used as a sensor platform.

The helo deck, even on the expanded version, really can't support SH 60 operations and the hangers are too small to take an SH 60.

Upgrading them would be a major exercise and big expense.  The hangers would have to be redone, along with flight deck lighting to support the SH 60.  The ship doesn't have room for a VLS system forward, so the only choice would be a self-contained short range missile system on deck.

If you wanted an SSM aboard, it'd probably have to be something from a NATO ally, as Harpoon is no longer in the inventory and there's really nothing else that would fit as an alternative the USN is currently using.

They'd need major upgrades and modifications to be viable as a warship today.

[YamatoA150]

I feel it'd be more ideal to just build and utilize a full military spec variant of the US Coast Guard's newest cutters.  IIRC, those things are already about 80-90% military grade for emergency joint ops with the USN, and are one of the few ships capable of working under Artic conditions as-designed.  As well, there's been some proposals to use the design for possible naval frigates; cheaper and more conventional than the Freedom or Independence classes.

[JohnPJones]

18 hours ago, YamatoA150 said:

I feel it'd be more ideal to just build and utilize a full military spec variant of the US Coast Guard's newest cutters.  IIRC, those things are already about 80-90% military grade for emergency joint ops with the USN, and are one of the few ships capable of working under Artic conditions as-designed.  As well, there's been some proposals to use the design for possible naval frigates; cheaper and more conventional than the Freedom or Independence classes.

Huntington ingals has a frigate variant called the patrol frigate 4501 and patrol frigate 4921

 

[anonym_hbcd02TO24yw]

On 6/15/2017 at 2:11 AM, Flieger56 said:

The question is, what sort of equipment would a Perry use? Would it look something like an Adelaide Class, using an 8-cell Mk41 VLS for quad-packed ESSMs plus the ability for the singe-rail launcher to fire SM-2s? Or maybe more like a Turkish G Class, with instead of the rail launcher upgrade an improved combat system [maybe Aegis?].

This was the problem with the Perry's.  The Mk-13 missile launcher was only capable of firing SM-1 (which is only being produced in small numbers for foriegn navies).   A 21 tube Mk-49 SeaRAM launcher would have been the easiest upgrade for the Perry's.  But they are old, tired platforms which require large crews to maintain and operate.  There was a very short discussion on building NSCs as Frigates with appropriate weapons, sensors and countermeasures.  The Navy was afraid the NSC hull couldn't survive the shock resistance required for a frigate. 

[anonym_hbcd02TO24yw]

On 6/15/2017 at 3:42 PM, YamatoA150 said:

I feel it'd be more ideal to just build and utilize a full military spec variant of the US Coast Guard's newest cutters.  IIRC, those things are already about 80-90% military grade for emergency joint ops with the USN, and are one of the few ships capable of working under Artic conditions as-designed.  As well, there's been some proposals to use the design for possible naval frigates; cheaper and more conventional than the Freedom or Independence classes.

After hull issues on the first two NSC's, and because the Coast Guard's specs are slightly different the Navy had issues with shock resistance on these hulls.  They didn't want to spend the money to research it.  The hull issues have been rectified, and last 3-4 units haven't had issues.

 

Also, keep in mind, Coast Guard ships are no longer equipped with sonar.  An effective ASW Frigate would need a bow array and a towed array.  The towed array would interfere with the ability to launch RHIBs.  The bow sonar dome is extra stress on the keel when the ship is underway.  The Navy would probably want a slightly larger hanger, also. 

[Fletcher7_1944]

On 6/17/2017 at 5:40 AM, Shot_Out_1 said:

After hull issues on the first two NSC's, and because the Coast Guard's specs are slightly different the Navy had issues with shock resistance on these hulls.  They didn't want to spend the money to research it.  The hull issues have been rectified, and last 3-4 units haven't had issues.

 

Also, keep in mind, Coast Guard ships are no longer equipped with sonar.  An effective ASW Frigate would need a bow array and a towed array.  The towed array would interfere with the ability to launch RHIBs.  The bow sonar dome is extra stress on the keel when the ship is underway.  The Navy would probably want a slightly larger hanger, also. 

 

  The RHIB thing is easily rectified- just put the hoists on the sides like most European frigates do.   Nothing says you HAVE to launch them from the stern.

 

  I agree that we need a real purpose built frigate.  However, we don't need to re-invent the wheel, or pack every not yet developed shiny gizmo on it.   There are a ton of options already out there that can "frigate" perfectly well.  If we can just prevent the Pentagon types from being mesmerized by all the shiny gadgets and slick presentations, and procure us a good, affordable, and effective frigate...

  A common hull that's ridiculously durable and difficult to sink.  With a fully modern power plant producing more than enough power to leave room for future developments.  CODLAG for example.  Lots of range and plenty of speed to get to where it's needed.  Top it off with the best sensor and combat management suite we can put on it.

 THEN customize it for the tasks we need it to do.   ASW?  Escort?  Surface warfare (littoral or otherwise)?  General purpose?   Kinda like the FREMM, but with our needs in mind.  It needn't be a destroyer by another name, but it should be quite capable of defending itself, and whomever it is protecting.

  Just avoid the pitfalls of the last few procurements:  avoid loading it down with technology that isn't ready for deployment yet;  resist the temptation to put everything but the kitchen sink on it; and come up with a good plan-and STICK with it.  Do that, and we might actually be able to build and commission ALL the ships we plan for.  (and possibly even be able to afford them!)

[Hiro_Yoshi]

The Perry class were built to replace WW2 era destroyers, with economy in mind. As with the ships they replaced, the Perrys are tired platforms with limited potential for modernization.

[wtfovr]

Reactiving the Perry's would be perfect to relieve the DDGs that are tasked with the counter-narcotics mission down in the Eastern Pacific and Caribbean.

Don't really need updated SSMs and SM-2s to prosecute go-fasts. The 76mm is just enough to deal with a hostile drug runner, although the 25mm and .50cal and Barrett are the primary weapons against those.   Just need a Link-16/Link-22 and updated shipboard electronics to allow the datalink with the MH-60R and P-8.

 

I think the problem is that the more modern Perrys were sold to foreign navies or sunk as targets, leaving the ones left in the reserve fleet being the way older ones that still weren't modified for the SH-60Bs but carrying the SH-2G instead.  When we had to cannibalize one of the older mothballed Perrys for parts for the propulsion plant (17 years ago), the parts weren't compatible with the equipment on an active line Perry.

 

Maintenance on the RAM coating on the topside structure was a pain.

 

A lot of the Perry's have corrosion problems, due to the thinner steel used for the hull and the aluminium superstructure sitting on top of a steel hull.  Lots of doubler plates installed along the waterline to address the corrosion there over the years.   I was quite shocked when one of the sonar techs was needle gunning in the sonar equipment room one day, and said, "Hey sir, watch this..."  as he poked his finger into the area he was needlegunning to remove rust in preparation for painting and preservation....  His finger pushed into the side of the hull and poked through.  As he removed his finger, water from the harbor sprayed back in through his finger hole....   He stuck his finger back into the hole to try to stem the influx of water into the space, but only succeeded in making the hold bigger... "Flooding, flooding, flooding....  Flooding in compartment 2-12-4-Q  Sonar equipment room, away the inport emergency response team away....."

[JohnPJones]

7 hours ago, wtfovr said:

Reactiving the Perry's would be perfect to relieve the DDGs that are tasked with the counter-narcotics mission down in the Eastern Pacific and Caribbean.

Don't really need updated SSMs and SM-2s to prosecute go-fasts. The 76mm is just enough to deal with a hostile drug runner, although the 25mm and .50cal and Barrett are the primary weapons against those.   Just need a Link-16/Link-22 and updated shipboard electronics to allow the datalink with the MH-60R and P-8.

 

I think the problem is that the more modern Perrys were sold to foreign navies or sunk as targets, leaving the ones left in the reserve fleet being the way older ones that still weren't modified for the SH-60Bs but carrying the SH-2G instead.  When we had to cannibalize one of the older mothballed Perrys for parts for the propulsion plant (17 years ago), the parts weren't compatible with the equipment on an active line Perry.

 

Maintenance on the RAM coating on the topside structure was a pain.

 

A lot of the Perry's have corrosion problems, due to the thinner steel used for the hull and the aluminium superstructure sitting on top of a steel hull.  Lots of doubler plates installed along the waterline to address the corrosion there over the years.   I was quite shocked when one of the sonar techs was needle gunning in the sonar equipment room one day, and said, "Hey sir, watch this..."  as he poked his finger into the area he was needlegunning to remove rust in preparation for painting and preservation....  His finger pushed into the side of the hull and poked through.  As he removed his finger, water from the harbor sprayed back in through his finger hole....   He stuck his finger back into the hole to try to stem the influx of water into the space, but only succeeded in making the hold bigger... "Flooding, flooding, flooding....  Flooding in compartment 2-12-4-Q  Sonar equipment room, away the inport emergency response team away....."

LCS classes are more well suited and have more uses...

 

there is no reason to bring the OHPs back 

[TornadoADV]

Need a new general class frigate to fill numbers in battlegroups and patrol/picket duties. Sadly, the Perry is past her prime.

[anonym_hbcd02TO24yw]

On 6/18/2017 at 9:45 AM, Hiro_Yoshi said:

The Perry class were built to replace WW2 era destroyers, with economy in mind. As with the ships they replaced, the Perrys are tired platforms with limited potential for modernization.

The Perry's didn't replace WWII ships, they were designed as ASW/AA ocean escorts.  The Knox and Garcia classes were ASW ocean escorts.  The Knox had either Mk-15 or RAM as a point defense against aerial targets, but couldn't provide an AA defense envelope.  The Brooke Class SM-1 magazine was too small.

The Perry's had upgraded TAS and could accommodate 2 x SH60's.  By 1978 their were no real WWII hulls still in service.  The Forest Sherman's and their DDG variants were all 1950-66.  The Knox, Brooke, Garcia and Bronstein were kept in service until late 80's early 90's.   There were a few Gearing FRAM DDs still in serivce until the early 80's. 

[anonym_hbcd02TO24yw]

10 hours ago, JohnPJones said:

LCS classes are more well suited and have more uses...

 

there is no reason to bring the OHPs back 

Lots of teething problems with the LCS.  Not sure we'll ever get our moneys worth from these hulls.  Only time will tell.  The navy's position has been the LCS are not survivable enough for dedicated Frigates. 

[anonym_hbcd02TO24yw]

10 hours ago, TornadoADV said:

Need a new general class frigate to fill numbers in battlegroups and patrol/picket duties. Sadly, the Perry is past her prime.

Couldn't agree more.

[JohnPJones]

5 hours ago, Shot_Out_1 said:

Lots of teething problems with the LCS.  Not sure we'll ever get our moneys worth from these hulls.  Only time will tell.  The navy's position has been the LCS are not survivable enough for dedicated Frigates. 

But general frigate stuff isn't what I was talking about.

 

my response was to someone saying OHPs could do MIO operations to relieve stress  from the work load of our destroyers. A job LCSes are perfectly capable of doing, but they still the capability to do more...not particularly well in some cases but still more capability.

 

 

[anonym_hbcd02TO24yw]

2 hours ago, JohnPJones said:

But general frigate stuff isn't what I was talking about.

 

my response was to someone saying OHPs could do MIO operations to relieve stress  from the work load of our destroyers. A job LCSes are perfectly capable of doing, but they still the capability to do more...not particularly well in some cases but still more capability.

 

 

 

Ah, Roger that!  

[poeticmotion]

The OHPs aren't coming back. The capacity isnt there to make refitting them for VLS worth it. We do need a new frigate to pair with the DDG-51s as part of a high/low fleet mix, and the LCS isn't it. Given the lead time to design and build something new, I'd go with a proven design from one of our NATO allies, like the German Sachsen-class or the Dutch De Zeven Provincien-class, and tweak it to meet USN needs. Both mesh well with the DDG-51s (similar sensor capabilities, but less endurance and about half the VLS cells) for a lower price. 

 

A Sachsen or De Zeven Provincien is more expensive than an LCS but is FAR more capable, reliable and survivable and still much cheaper than a DDG-51.

[Murotsu]

Actually, there's a serious proposal to bring back 7 OHP's starting with two, and using a competition among vendors along with in house ideas as to how to refit them.  There's an article in this months USNI Proceedings about it.  Doesn't mean it will happen, but it's getting serious consideration.

[RedBear87]

3 hours ago, poeticmotion said:

Given the lead time to design and build something new, I'd go with a proven design from one of our NATO allies, like the German Sachsen-class or the Dutch De Zeven Provincien-class, and tweak it to meet USN needs. Both mesh well with the DDG-51s (similar sensor capabilities, but less endurance and about half the VLS cells) for a lower price.

The question is whether similarly large and high end frigates can be afforded in sufficient numbers, some of the most important European navies are already designing lower end frigates to get enough numbers, including the British Type 31, the French FTI and, to a large extent, the Italian PPA (full and light+ configurations). I would also be careful about direct cost comparisons.

[poeticmotion]

2 hours ago, RedBear87 said:

The question is whether similarly large and high end frigates can be afforded in sufficient numbers, some of the most important European navies are already designing lower end frigates to get enough numbers, including the British Type 31, the French FTI and, to a large extent, the Italian PPA (full and light+ configurations). I would also be careful about direct cost comparisons.

 

I mean, those are definitely high-end frigates, but still, you're getting two platforms for the cost of a DDG-51 based on current costs. And the USN needs platforms to carry out all its obligations.