More trash on the Oliver Hazard Perry Class

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

MilesDei Thetis 2/17/2004 12:15:24 PM

I looked up the Thetis class in my 2002 edition of Jane'Warships Recognition Guide and another reference book and both gave the full load displacement as 3500 tons and the armament as one 76mm gun, one or two 20mm AA guns, and two depth charge racks. It has a crew of 61 and can operate one Lynx. It has a top speed of 20kts. On the other hand, the OHP displaces 4100 tons fully loaded (in the later versions)and is armed with a 76mm gun (in the most awkward position ever, if I may say so), a Phalanx CIWS, six 324mm torpedo tubes, and a variety of .50 MGs and 25mm Bushmaster cannons, depending on the version. Some ships retain the Mk. 13 single-arm missle launcher and the ability to fire SM-1MR AA missles and Harpoon SSMs.It has a crew of 214 and can operate two Seahawk helicopters. It has a top speed of 29kts. I guess it boils down to whether or not you want a newer ship with an ability to enlarge the weapons fit or a proven design that might be getting a little long in the tooth. The Perry without the Mk.13 doesn't differ much in weapons and requires significantly more men, but it can operate more helicopters. Basically, it all depends on the mission and the money you want to spend. How's that for an original two cents? ;)

Quote Reply

Thomas RE:Thetis 2/18/2004 4:01:39 AM

That is excatly my point. But an annual saving of say 10 mio USD can finance an expenditure of between 100 and 200 mio USD (depending on calculation interest) - so the OHP must be very cheap indeed. Put it in another way: What did the US pay Australia to use the OHP? It is not uncommon to sell secondhand equipment at a very low price, because the profit on spares is (in my experience) 80% of the price. Old tubs do need a lot of spares.

Quote Reply

Mark F RE:Thetis 2/18/2004 4:57:48 AM

Australia purchased her OHP frigates as new-build, not second-hand. She acquired them because they are warships. Thetis is not. Australia paid for the ships, not the other way around.

Quote Reply

Jack Tar RE:Thetis 2/18/2004 5:09:54 AM

Is the Thetis class the one with a modular design, so their weapons/sensor suites can be taylored to specific missions? (My memory isn't what it used to be!)

Quote Reply

Thomas RE:Thetis Jack Tar Mark F 2/18/2004 8:24:26 AM

Yes they have at least some modularity. The ones You probably are thinking of is the Standard Flex - which are a completely diffent kettle of fish as they are for shallow waters. Furthermore all new Danish warships are being build on the modularity principle - there even talk about a HomeGuard cutter on that principle. So the future classes will be sized according to how many shoeboxes they can accomodate. Mark F. Thanks for the information. If we consider the task of the OHP class in Australian service to be patrolling the waters south of Australia it seems to me like they are unnessecary large. Thetis not a warship??? They are called Fisheries Protection Vessels due to political concerns. If they had had a more warlike name - like frigate - the Radikale Venstre (a small pacifist party hold a controlling vote in the center of Danish politics) would never have voted for them.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aus OHP's in the RAN - Thomas 2/18/2004 4:21:00 PM

Thomas, the OHP's are used as blue water assets in the Aust Navy (RAN). SO they do range "far and wide". The changing ORBAT of our navy also means that until they are used as divers wrecks/RIMPAC kill opportunities or sunk for testing by our subs, that they will be more ocean tasked. The coastal work will be picked up by Ocean Patrol Vessels (armidale class) and this will release them for more vigorous work.

Quote Reply

Mark F RE:Thetis Jack Tar Mark F 2/18/2004 4:32:05 PM

No the Thetis is not a warship. It's too slow for task force escort and carries no credible anti-air, anti-surface or anti-submarine armament. Even if fully fitted out with all the possible weapons containers (which have not been procured which makes this difficult) she would be the modern equivilant of a WWII PCE or a post-war Type 14 - a 3rd rate frigate. They are called fisheries protection vessels because that is what they are and the compromises made in the design CLEARLY favor that role. That is of course just fine because that is what the user required. The Nils Juel class are warships and have very little practical peacetime role. The differences between what a fishery protection vessel requires and what a warship requires is fairly obvious just comparing these two classes. The OHP's are not "overly large" for patrolling north or south of Australia. They are proper warships procured with the intention to guarantee Australia's sea lines of communication from air, surface and sub-surface threats.

Quote Reply

Thomas RE:Thetis Jack Tar Mark F 2/19/2004 5:13:07 AM

Mark F: link

Quote Reply

Mark F RE:Thetis Jack Tar Mark F 2/19/2004 7:28:57 AM

Sorry, don't read Danish. Your point is?

Quote Reply

Thomas RE:Thetis Jack Tar Mark F 2/20/2004 1:59:33 AM

Point is: What they tell you and what reality is is not always the same. As there is standard containers, the actual weapon fit is according to an evaluation of the operational situation. The air air containers have been bought, as far as I know, but you may be better informed, though not necessarily for the arctic patrols. By the way: The last Convoy escorts Denmark had was the Herluf Trolle class frigates. As far as I know, they were never run to full speed at delivery trial. In one of the defence debates, where the argument was that the frigates were necessary for the defence of the inner Danish shores, a British admiral just blew it by praising them for their ability to escort convoys. The meandering of a Danish defence debate follows other rules than an american one: We got to be able to defend ourselves, but nothing lethal! They are especially dodgy about anything around Greenland and the Fairisles.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 NEXT