Article Archive: Current 1999 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics
Surface Forces: Pleading For Perrys
   Next Article → WEAPONS: You Gotta Love That Little Nuisance

October 17, 2008: Ukraine has asked the United States for some surplus Perry class frigates. The U.S. said they would think about it, as Russia has become very testy about Ukrainian attempts to join NATO. Getting American warships would not, everyone agrees, please the Russians.

The Perrys  came along in the late 1970s. They are 408 foot long, 4,200 ton warships armed with a 76mm gun, anti-ship, anti-aircraft and anti-missile missiles, as well as torpedoes, a helicopter and a crew of 176. Many of the 69 Perrys have been retired from U.S. service, and most are given to foreign navies, who are glad to have them. Currently the Ukrainian navy has two Russian built Krivak II class frigates, which are a little smaller (3,500 tons) than the Perrys, and a decade or two older in terms of technology. The Ukrainians would prefer Perrys, and have seen the Turkish ones operating in the Black Sea.

Next Article → WEAPONS: You Gotta Love That Little Nuisance
  

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
rd6apache    I like it   10/17/2008 7:59:11 AM
"Getting American warships would not, everyone agrees, please the Russians. "
 
All the more reason to do so. When the evil empire finally gets the idea that they are not going to win this round either the rest of Eastern Europe will breathe easier.
 
Quote    Reply

FJV    I don't    10/17/2008 12:01:43 PM
The Ukraine builds naval ships for Russia.
 
 
Why give the competitor a close indepth look at US ship designs? Especially when everything they learn from it will end up in Russia's arsenal.
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

doggtag       10/17/2008 3:23:17 PM

The Ukraine builds naval ships for Russia.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevastopol_Shipyard ;
">link
 

Why give the competitor a close indepth look at US ship designs? Especially when everything they learn from it will end up in Russia's arsenal.

The Perrys are what? a 1970s design?
 
If we're so paranoid about the Russians getting their hands on US ship tech that's easily 30 years old or more,
that the country's far more paranoid than I give credit for.
 
The Perrys in question: are they still retaining teir single arm Standard launchers on the foredeck, or are these ships also some of those who've had them removed?
 
Either orr, the Russians went to VLS before the US considered it (Kirov class), so it's not like US single arm missile launchers and mechanically reloading apparatus is state of the art anymore.
 
Ditto for the Italian-designed 76/62 gun turret, the model which currently mounts on even the youngest Perry still being the 1970s design, not the newest low-RCS Super Rapide model.
 
And it's not like the 12.75" ASW TT on Perrys are the pinnacle design, either, or the early Mk46s that Perrys operate (the newest batches of US ASW torps all went to the Burkes and Ticos, with Perrys being little more than an afterthought, what with the collapse of the USSR/WP into the 1990s.
Wouldn't surprise me at all if the Perrys in the USN didn't even go to sea with any ASW torps for those tubes.
 
Same goes for its radars and combat information center: the height of 1970s tech in a Perry was little more than analog tube tech, with the earliest of integrated circuit boards that were huge and ran hot compared to today's highly efficient boards.
Monochrome CRTs for radar displays. Real high tech there. And how many targets could a Perry track and engage at any one time? 2 dozen tracks tops, if that? And engage all of maybe 3 or 4 at once good luck with that part!) ?
 
Not a lot of useful technological edge the Russians would really gain by stripping down a Perry and "stealing" its secrets...unless they plan on running1970-1980s era war simulations over and over.
 
This is a Perry we're talking about, not the latest generation MEKO or FREMM.
Perrys are being replaced in the USN for good reason: they're just too obsolete and inefficient  for USN requirements for little more than training.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       10/17/2008 5:51:10 PM
Interesting option is that the Australian Perrys will revert to US ownership etc when they retire (depending on FMS provisions and whether the State Dept via USGov exercises rights)
 
They're updated models compared to US Perrys. VLS launchers, Nulka (not that we would let that capability be going anywhere but the US and UK), and have stretched hulls.  They're slightly better at sea keeping than US models due to the hull mods etc...
 
As the US under FMS reverts to being the nominal owner (again depending on whether they want to exercise that reversion release), they could end up on the market for other US allies

 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    Australian Perrys   10/17/2008 7:46:33 PM
Depending if/when these cycle back into the US (if they're not outright cleared to sell off as scrap),
the USN might well hang onto them for a bit,
especially if LCS costs keep rising,
as it could remind the USN everything it didn't do right in further upgrading its Perrys,
and provide a basis for what generally to put into a new frigate design if the LCS program continues to get out of hand cost-wise (or at least use the hulls as technology test beds)...
 
I remember quite a few drawings and specs from the late 1980s, even early 1990s before Streetfighter ships were little more than a pipe dream,
about some of the possible upgrades that could've seen the Perrys improved, especially after the USS Stark incident.
 
One of my fave frigates was the Kortenaer class of the 1970-80s ( Wiki entry looks pretty good...),
as close to an all-around well-balanced NATO frigate as one would like:
76/62 on the foredeck at A position,
8 cell trainable RIM-7 at B pos (can't remember if 24 or 32 missiles total),
ASW TTs and Harpoons amidships,
an option for a Goalkeeper CIWS over the hangar deck aft if you didn't like Phalanx,
and up to 2 Lynx-sized helos.
And I always did like their idea of 2 screws over the Perry's 1, even if Perrys had those interesting emergency pods for propulsion.
Nice kit those Kortenaers.
 
One of the suggested Perry mods had the single arm launcher up front replaced by an early VLS concept.
Will have to dig thru old Proceedings, maybe even Popular Mechanics magazines,
but am pretty sure it was mostly for VL ASRocs, VL Sea Sparrows, and a few Standard MRs. I think they left Harpoon launchers at the very stern, aft of the flight deck.
A second Phalanx was mounted in B pos thanks to a slightly longer bow section to accomodate the VLS and with the removal of all the old magazine gear for the single arm launcher,
thus covering the forward arc where it was estimated the Phalanx over the hangar aft couldn't really have stopped the Stark's inbound Exocet anyway...
 
Still, none of the Perry mods do I recall ever came close to the well-laid-out, well-balanced design of the Kortenaers.
 
Quote    Reply

Sandy       10/19/2008 3:08:03 PM
Will have to agree with Doggtag: the Perry is by now a fairly obsolescent design; without the SM-1 it's useless as an AAW ship. Electronics aside (and I think that the really sensitive stuff would've been taken off long before the sale), the only advantage the Perry would have over the Krivak I/II is the helos that it carries--and the Krivak-III has helo capacity (according to Wiki the article isn't quite right, as Ukraine does have a Krivak-III).
 
For the VLS guys, do you mean the ESSM upgrade that Australia and Turkey got for their FFGs? Those were indigenous upgrades--the US didn't supply them, and in any case all they could fire were ESSMs, not SM-1/SM-2s or VL-ASROCs. Unless Ukraine is offering to pay for the expensive upgrade, they're not going to get it. They're definitely not going to get ESSM or Nulka, no matter what.
 
So basically, the Ukrainians are asking for an outdated ship that, even if Russia gets its hands on it, won't reveal anything that they didn't know before, and has only ASW, not AAW or even ASUW capacity. Guess they need it to round out their fleet until something better comes along that they could buy/build.
 
Quote    Reply