Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Oliver Hazard Perry Evolved
YelliChink    4/27/2011 3:51:51 PM
Just some thoughts about it. Had the USN and allied navies need new frigates with enhanced capability, it wouldn't be ridiculous to design a new ship based on OHP design. With all defficiencies and drawback of OHP, it has the following advantage: 1. It is large enough hull; 2. It has a large helideck compared to other comparable designs; 3. It has TWO MH-60R hangers, complete PITA for any subs; 4. It has a damage control model, no reinventing of the wheel. Here is the idea: 1. Modify the upper structure and the hull design to be somewhat stealthy; 2. Mk.13 has to go. Replace it with 8x2 or 8x4 Mk.41 VLS with VLASROC capability; 3. No more middle 76mm Oto Melara gun. Move it to the bow. Some structural modification and upper structure redesign is a must;
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
gf0012-aust       4/27/2011 4:05:24 PM
the best of the Perrys are the "final" adelaide class

RAN Adelaides had longer hulls, VLS and if the AWDs had been delayed, all fitted with phased array via CEAFAR making them as sensor sensitive as the harunas and acting in similar teamed roles.  ie kongo, haruna, tico AB.  a
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    To what end?   4/27/2011 4:14:22 PM
Why do we need a frigate?  The OHP were to escort convoys.  As the USN is out of that business now, why a frigate?  The OHP's "ran out of steam" so to speak with the USN after the Cold War...no convoys to escort, and they weren't really a suitable battle group escort.  So, to ask a third time, "Why a frigate?"
 
Also, we're going to move the gun, the handling room and magazine forward...no cost or design problems I'm sure...and now a VLS system goes in, where, forward?  Depth, width, length issues, considering there's now a gun forward, too?  Any design, balance, hull issues involved? (Honestly I don't know, but you ware changing things around on a hull, so it's going to have SOME effect on the structure and sea-worthiness).  And re-doing the super-structure...how, to what end, how much cost, how much effect on sea-worthiness?
 
You know you're talking NOT CHEAP here, and for all this not cheapness, the USN gets what?  A platform for a role it doesn't expect to fulfill?  The LCS has a niche to fill...the argument is it a niche that it fills well.  Here is there a niche at all?  The LCS is an in-shore vessel for LIC combat....it's NOT designed to hunt submarines in Blue Water, to provide AAW, or ASuW, or BMD defense for a Battle Group.  And as such is correspondingly less well-equipped....Surely you aren't suggesting the OHP for an LCS role, are you?  Because IF you are, you aren't getting any cheaper than LCS, adding things you don't need in an LCS role, but getting a platform that's not useful in Blue Water either...the OHP would be Betwixt and Between...Neither fish nor fowl nor good red meat.....
 
Bottom-Line: rather than suggest an OHP re-make, suggest a role for such a vessel, and then start from there?  What does your OHP bring to the table?
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       4/27/2011 4:31:29 PM

the best of the Perrys are the "final" adelaide class

RAN Adelaides had longer hulls, VLS and if the AWDs had been delayed, all fitted with phased array via CEAFAR making them as sensor sensitive as the harunas and acting in similar teamed roles.  ie kongo, haruna, tico AB.  a

Wasn't HMAS Adelaide sunk as artificial reef just weeks ago? The Turks have theirs modified with 8-cell Mk.41
and SMART-L. I'm not sure about Turk's, but at least yours have SQQ-89 and SQR-19.
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       4/27/2011 4:39:07 PM

Why do we need a frigate?  The OHP were to escort convoys.  As the USN is out of that business now, why a frigate?  The OHP's "ran out of steam" so to speak with the USN after the Cold War...no convoys to escort, and they weren't really a suitable battle group escort.  So, to ask a third time, "Why a frigate?"


LCS concept was conjectured up during the 90s when Russian navy was in dilapidated state and PLAN was decades behind. Now the Ruskies are back (to a certain degree), but the real menace lies in the Far East. Even though commies are trying to build up a CBG, their naval strategic will still be centered at massive sub warfare that will extend from Bering Sea all the way to the Strait of Malacca.
Besides, some of US allies will be looking for frigate replacement in the following decade, and they are not looking at solution based on LCS.
 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       4/27/2011 5:00:11 PM
as capable as the Adelaides are, the spend required to bring them up to spec is questionable

these were modified for a requirement 
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       4/27/2011 5:57:22 PM

as capable as the Adelaides are, the spend required to bring them up to spec is questionable
these were modified for a requirement 

And that is the problem. OHP is a frigate design to fulfill the roll of, you bet, a Cold War frigate. ROCN had similar concept back in the 90s, but were eventually backed out for variety of reasons, and that plan was even more audacious. Such misplacement of resources is really wasteful spending. I have hard time telling some of my friends such decision NOT to pursue such project is good thing.
 
Especially when the beef is underwater, not in the air.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

LB       4/28/2011 10:16:14 AM
It's not clear were we designing a new general purpose frigate that we couldn't do better than a Perry hull.  The question is whether there is a requirement for more surface ship asw, convoy escort, limited area AA below the cost of an Aegis DDG, radar picket, etc?
 
If there is then the only choice the USN is going to have is sending a DDG.  It's a rather poor model in terms of operational costs.  We retired a lot of asw ships early and without replacement and then decided within a decade that asw was indeed still a priority.  It's frankly idiotic that the only escorts the USN will soon have are all Aegis DDG's.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    upgraded Perrys   4/28/2011 10:56:52 AM
Discussed before,
A lot of interesting discussion there as well.
But key problem today is, the Perry lines are closed (short of minor repairs, but no new keels could be laid anytime soon, and the technical folks whgo knew it are probably retired or long in their years with little time left in the workforce),
and the LCS is too engrained in all the USN's future plans.
 
There was some time ago, after the incident with the Stark,
a Popular Mechanics or Popular Science article,
depicting a suitably-upgraded FFG-7 class, with a most notable feature being an additional CIWS up front (just one of many Perry-enhancing ideas from the 1980s).
 
Seeing that a key role the Perrys were built for was ASW patrols in the Atlantic,
and seeing that ASW does again need to be taken seriously, only this time in the Pacific,
there is some concern that the planned ASW modules for the LCS class may not be adequate enough for deep water work.
 
Against air threats, with rising tides in the Pacific area again, anti-air capability is going to need ESSMs minimally to add much credible threat, andjust as importantly, suitable ship-mounted radar suites that can effectively handle various situations of numerous aircraft and threat missiles inbound (to include ballistic, the closer we get into actual shallower coastal territories).
 
To date, there's no mention of an AAW module for LCS, implying that USN doctrine feels that either it will operate outside the protective umbrella of Aegis ships and/or carrier aviation,
or that enough LCS can somehow talk to each other (a naval FBCB2 thing?) sufficiently enough that multiple ships with multiple RAM launchers and 57mm guns can sufficiently handle any perceived scenarios,
or that LCS just won't be sent anywhere there's a remote chance that any credible threat aircraft presence is possible.
 
Granted, the current LCS' radar systems are generations beyond anything the Perrys had,
but if we're expecting some kind of forward picket role to be performed by littoral ships, minimally some kind of lightweight Aegis type SPY-letter/number system is goingto be needed, in addition to nothing less than a decent number of ESSMs, enabling any such vessel to handle, and possibly even hand off, large numbers of adversary target tracks.
 
Were there still Perry slipways still active, perhaps "trimaran'ing" the Perry hull (HUGE-honkin' flight deck then) might've given us an ideal solution: use the LCS as the tech test beds, then incorporate the tech into the next build Perrys (a major redesign, certainly, but to a ship already capable of longer-ranged anti-air, anti-surface, and ASW support).
 
People argue that Perrys just don't have the "stealth thing" going for them,
but with all the "stuff" hung onto either of the LCS designs, supposedly built with at least some measure of signature reduction, these new ships obviously aren't going to present a much smaller, if any at all, radar signature as any Perry would have.
 
After the frigates are gone (ignoring most of the comments...).
 
This could be another good discussion to have, for those who've forgotten other threads about it,
and since we've learned more since about what the LCS can or can't do (or will or won't do),
and certainly a lot of previous stuff will be discussed again.
 
But hey, that's what we do here. http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emwink.gif" align="absMiddle" border="0" alt="" />
 
 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics