Oliver Hazard Perry class Frigate reactivation proposal (2017)

Tzoli said:
Fascinating! It is like the modernization of the WW1 warships before WW2! And show if enough willpower is avaliable, older vessels could be modernized as well! It's a shame the USN sold and scrapped them rather modernizing them like the Turkish did.
Click to expand...

Fundamentally the same as the RAN FFGup upgrades. But not something the USN could really have used.

The USN retired the FFGs (after briefly using them sans missiles) because of the manpower costs more than anything else. And yes, obviously the DDG-51s that replaced them also required large crews but there were industrial policy (and political) reasons that the Navy needed to keep building new DDGs rather than keeping old FFGs running.
 
I have to admit I'm really sceptical about modernising ships by adding an entirely new combat system and sensors, it seems that you're paying a significant proportion of the cost of a new ship (which could last 20-40 years) to extend the life of an older vessel by a decade. Especially when the ships involved are still limited to a single fire channel.

Interwar modernisations made some sense, when treaty limits prevented the construction of new ships, and they were before an era when "steel is cheap, and air is free" was as true as it is now, combat systems were not a driver of cost to anywhere near as much as they are now.
 
Another issue is their vulnerability, having only the single screw. They might be useful to smaller countries, as a gun and helicopter platform, but there are cheaper alternatives for such that would provide a modern vessel.
 
Four were upgraded with an 8 cell Mk-41 with 32 ESSM and Smart-S (mk-2 in this case) radars. The information I can see on the radars says they can track 500 (or 700, depending on the source) surface and air targets, but not how many separate targets it can attack at once. Does anyone know?
 
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
I have to admit I'm really sceptical about modernising ships by adding an entirely new combat system and sensors, it seems that you're paying a significant proportion of the cost of a new ship (which could last 20-40 years) to extend the life of an older vessel by a decade. Especially when the ships involved are still limited to a single fire channel.
Click to expand...

The late Stuart Slade once said words to the effect that electronics have whittled down the world's reserve fleets. By the time the electronics of a given platform are updated, for the expense one might as well construct a new ship.

Regards,
 
It was a cheap modernization at the time that enabled the ships to remain relevant for another 15 to 20 years.

Screenshot 2024-08-20 173834.png


apparition13 said:
Four were upgraded with an 8 cell Mk-41 with 32 ESSM and Smart-S (mk-2 in this case) radars. The information I can see on the radars says they can track 500 (or 700, depending on the source) surface and air targets
Click to expand...
Screenshot 2024-08-20 174150.png
 
snne said:
It was a cheap modernization at the time that enabled the ships to remain relevant for another 15 to 20 years.
Click to expand...
They're limited to a single STIR illuminator, the ships were barely relevant when they were laid down, let alone now.

The modernisation almost certainly wasn't cheap, given it consisted of the most expensive component of a warship.
 
Tzoli said:
Fascinating! It is like the modernization of the WW1 warships before WW2! And show if enough willpower is avaliable, older vessels could be modernized as well! It's a shame the USN sold and scrapped them rather modernizing them like the Turkish did.
Click to expand...
Yeah, good luck trying to do a meaningful refit to the Perrys.
 

Attachments

  • 1724178844464.png
    1724178844464.png
    124.2 KB · Views: 46
Tzoli said:
Fascinating! It is like the modernization of the WW1 warships before WW2! And show if enough willpower is avaliable, older vessels could be modernized as well! It's a shame the USN sold and scrapped them rather modernizing them like the Turkish did.
Click to expand...
Could be worse. They SANK the Spruances, even those with the Mk41 VLS.

sinkex-photos-from-some-of-the-proud-ships-of-the-spruance-class-periscope-torpedo.jpg
 
Tzoli said:
Erm.. the Turks actually did that as the start of the thread shows. Or you know another Oliver Hazard Perry class?
Click to expand...
GENESIS doesn't really do much. It adds a new combat system, a new VSR, and a Mk41.

First, the combat system updates are great, I'll give them that. But new computers alone doesn't actually do much, you need the hardware to support it. This is were the limitations of the Perry hull really come into play.

They changed the VSR which is great, but kept the 2 pieces that were in most need of replacement, the STIR and Mk13.

Instead of replacing the latter, they bolted on an 8-cell self-defense Mk41. This achieves nothing. You can now launch 32 ESSMs. Great. The ship isn't gaining anything meaningful, it doesn't take on a new mission set, it doesn't help the carrier group, it doesn't actually do anything.
Self-Defense Length cells are so limited in length they don't expand the payload set, which nullifies the point of using a VLS.

Regarding the STIR, it makes the ESSM addition borderline worthless.
Only 1 director means it can only illuminate targets in 1 direction, leaving anything outside of that narrow arc un-illuminated. And even the modernized STIRs only have 2 illumination channels, so good luck having more than 3-4 ESSMs airborne at any given time.
Had the replaced the STIR and CAS with a new system, say something analogous to SPY-5, they would be in a much better position.

Oh, and one more thing. Perrys were only designed to last 25 years. The last Perry commissioned in 1989(?), so all the hulls would've reached their designed service life in 2014. That was a full decade ago. The ships are held together with duct tape and bubblegum.
 
Last edited:
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
I have to admit I'm really sceptical about modernising ships by adding an entirely new combat system and sensors, it seems that you're paying a significant proportion of the cost of a new ship (which could last 20-40 years) to extend the life of an older vessel by a decade. Especially when the ships involved are still limited to a single fire channel.
Click to expand...
Well, merely installing VLS in place of Mk-13 would allow Perry's to use ESSM and ASROC - which would significantly increase their capabilities even if not much else would be changed.
 
sferrin said:
Could be worse. They SANK the Spruances, even those with the Mk41 VLS.
Click to expand...
They could have run on for up to another decade, budgets permitting, but the scope for further upgrades was limited and the handful that ran out their full service life were pretty tired by the end. Using them for SINKEX means getting useful trials data, and you don't have to spend time telling people why they can't be refitted.
that_person said:
Oh, and one more thing. Perrys were only designed to last 25 years. The last Perry commissioned in 1989(?), so all the hulls would've reached their designed service life in 2014. That was a full decade ago. The ships are held together with duct tape and bubblegum.
Click to expand...
Extending the life of a ship from 25 years to 30 years reportedly costs as much in life extension refits and increased operating costs as building a replacement. The combat systems are outdated, the condition of the ship is poor, and the crew is larger than for a modern ship.

That's one of the reasons why the Royal Navy has shrunk so badly. A lot of money has been spent on extending Type 23s - designed for a 18 year service life, with no combat system replacement - to last in excess of 30 years. The 2087/Merlin system should have been going into new hulls twenty years ago, after the Type 42 replacements entered service ten years before that....
 
Dilandu said:
Well, merely installing VLS in place of Mk-13 would allow Perry's to use ESSM and ASROC - which would significantly increase their capabilities even if not much else would be changed.
Click to expand...
On the modernised OHPs, the Mk 41 VLS was deployed forward of the Mk 13 though, and I'm not sure if it was strike length, tactical length or self-defence length.

As for ESSM, if they're Block 1s they only increase magazine depth, still being dependent on the two fire channels of the STIR and Mk 87 FCS for illumination. Block 2s with Terminal Active Homing would massively increase capability, with number of potential engaments only being limited to the number of missiles in the VLS.
 
Last edited:
sferrin said:
Not even close. The Mk13 was deployed in the 60s. (Charles F. Adams class) The Mk 41 wasn't even on paper until the late 70s.
Click to expand...

Not chronologically, physically. The Mk 41 is installed FORWARD of the Mk 13, rather than replacing as Dilandu said.

It is interesting that no one ever pulled the Mk 13 and dropped Mk 41 in its place. Both the Turks and Australians felt it was better/easier to add a new module forward of the Mk 13 instead. Because at best, you get four Mk 41 modules (32 cells) in that space, and even that may require moving a fair bit of structure around the corners of the new opening (roughly 7m x 5m, compared to a roughly 5m circle for the Mk 13). A low impact mod fits only 16 cells.

And it costs you Harpoon; at the time there were zero options for an antiship missile that fit in a Mk 41.
 
Fitting VLS instead of the Mk 13 is literally fitting a square peg into a round hole.

Something interesting to note is that the Mk 13 has quite a big hole in the ships deck compared to the ships beam. This hole then goes all the way to the ships waterline. The section in front of the pilothouse is a relatively high-stress area, so big holes in a deck there are normally avoided if possible. If you do put a hole in, you round the edges and strengthen the area around it.

Putting a VLS on a perry hull in (roughly) that location is proven possible by the proposals for the last Perry for Taiwan, which in the end was build to the standard design but fitting a big bank of VLS in an quite modified design was considered.

However! Refitting an perry with VLS would mean not just the VLS taking more space, but also those reinforcements would have to be redone. The area modified/rebuild would thus be almost everything between where those additional VLS were added and the superstructure.

In comparison, adding a tactical length VLS forwards above the sonar rooms is in an area with less stress (the closer to the ships midship the higher the stresses, normally, and further away from big changes in weight and cross section) only influences those sections the VLS is placed into, as the hole is smaller and the reinforcements just need to keep the strength of the decks the holes were made in the same and support the weight of the VLS.

So, what would you do. Remove the Mk 13 to fit 16 or 32 cells instead of the space for 40 missiles in the Mk 13, or just choose the much cheaper, simpler, more reliable option and keep the Mk 13 and add some VLS in which you can quadpack ESSM, and just keep the standards in the Mk 13.
 
acelanceloet said:
Fitting VLS instead of the Mk 13 is literally fitting a square peg into a round hole.

Something interesting to note is that the Mk 13 has quite a big hole in the ships deck compared to the ships beam. This hole then goes all the way to the ships waterline. The section in front of the pilothouse is a relatively high-stress area, so big holes in a deck there are normally avoided if possible. If you do put a hole in, you round the edges and strengthen the area around it.

Putting a VLS on a perry hull in (roughly) that location is proven possible by the proposals for the last Perry for Taiwan, which in the end was build to the standard design but fitting a big bank of VLS in an quite modified design was considered.

However! Refitting an perry with VLS would mean not just the VLS taking more space, but also those reinforcements would have to be redone. The area modified/rebuild would thus be almost everything between where those additional VLS were added and the superstructure.

In comparison, adding a tactical length VLS forwards above the sonar rooms is in an area with less stress (the closer to the ships midship the higher the stresses, normally, and further away from big changes in weight and cross section) only influences those sections the VLS is placed into, as the hole is smaller and the reinforcements just need to keep the strength of the decks the holes were made in the same and support the weight of the VLS.

So, what would you do. Remove the Mk 13 to fit 16 or 32 cells instead of the space for 40 missiles in the Mk 13, or just choose the much cheaper, simpler, more reliable option and keep the Mk 13 and add some VLS in which you can quadpack ESSM, and just keep the standards in the Mk 13.
Click to expand...
...or shoot Harpoons. 40 Harpoons is an interesting capability. Possibly not a practical one, but interesting.
 
Brickmuppet said:
...or shoot Harpoons. 40 Harpoons is an interesting capability. Possibly not a practical one, but interesting.
Click to expand...
If you wanted to shoot 40 Harpoons at something, you'd want simultaneous arrival to saturate defences. A Mark 13 would be poorly suited to achieving that.

I always thought it was a bit odd that a Mark 13 derivative that could handle ASROC wasn't developed. Would have been a useful addition to the FFGs.
 
Yellow Palace said:
I always thought it was a bit odd that a Mark 13 derivative that could handle ASROC wasn't developed.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure ASROC would fit in the Mk13 magazine without redesigning the missile (at very least for folding fins).
 
BTW, I found another good diagram showing jsut how little room there is along the sides of the Mk 13 in the FFG, especially near the bottom. Putting a block of four MK 41 modules in there might not even leave room for a companionway to get to the forward spaces.

1724340171163.png
 
Yellow Palace said:
If you wanted to shoot 40 Harpoons at something, you'd want simultaneous arrival to saturate defences. A Mark 13 would be poorly suited to achieving that.

I always thought it was a bit odd that a Mark 13 derivative that could handle ASROC wasn't developed. Would have been a useful addition to the FFGs.
Click to expand...
An Mk 13 that could fire Mk 26 would very quickly become over Mk 26 in size. Which meant that the answer to an Mk 13 that fired ASROC would be more or less the Mod 0 Mk 26, which was equal in size but with an square footprint instead of round (but could take less missiles then the extremely compact Mk 13)

Mk 13 could be so compact partially because all it's missiles were the same size.
 
TomS said:
I'm not sure ASROC would fit in the Mk13 magazine without redesigning the missile (at very least for folding fins).
Click to expand...
If it won't fit in the same space as Standard MR, then the whole thing is unviable. On paper it's a smaller missile (2 inches longer than SM-1, but still shorter than SM-2), including fin span, though the devil is in the detail on these things.
 
Yellow Palace said:
If it won't fit in the same space as Standard MR, then the whole thing is unviable. On paper it's a smaller missile (2 inches longer than SM-1, but still shorter than SM-2), including fin span, though the devil is in the detail on these things.
Click to expand...

SM-1MR has folding fins. ASROC does not seem to. Fin-span is 16.5 inches, which is seems Mk 26 could handle, but Mk 13 could not.

Still, if they had wanted to put AASROC in the MK 13, folding fins would have been an easy modification. The bigger problem might have been that Mk 13 needed a fair bit of modification to handle nuclear weapons (hence the Mk 14 proposed for Typhon) including some way to access the missiles and unlock them from the rail (each rail had a key lock to positively retain a nuke until released). And the torpedo version of ASROC was not regarded as all that useful; the nuke was the decisive weapon.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom