The Ship Model Forum

..

Looks like the standard 76mm Oto Melera to me - the top looks flat in the first image because the lighting blends it with the background, but other than that I don't see anything odd about it.

..

Not Whif - cutaway of the Australian Perry's. Note the symbol on the helo.

..

Could not resist posting these pics here to help other whiffers in visualizing internal space on the Perry's.

My only time on a OHP was limited to an afternoon visit to George Phillip, so people other than me can comment on the accuracy here.

[quote="Busto963"]I heard that the Perry's have hull erosion issues,[/quote]

most likely, they were built as cheap as possible.

[quote][quote]
the Mk144 launcher for the Mk49 Rolling Airframe Missile launching system. The Navy has (or at least had) plans to retrofit them onto the OHP in place of the Mk13. though this plan may have been put on hold ...[/quote]

The plan is on hold and has been on hold since 2003 almost ten years now. The RAM and SeaRAM can be added if needed but there hasn't been a need. The launchers can be shipped via C-130 or C-17 to where they are needed, bolted down and plugged in and turned on.[/quote]
I heard that the Perry's have hull erosion issues, particularly under AMR 3.

FFG-7s were great for what they were designed for, but they were never robustly built, and probably need to just go away. But that leaves the requirement for a replacement! :heh:

And no, the LCS is not qualified...

[quote="GMG4RWF"][quote="Sauragnmon"]Excepting the fact there IS no new launcher, unless you count 25mm as something worthy of note on a warship.[/quote]

the Mk144 launcher for the Mk49 Rolling Airframe Missile launching system. The Navy has (or at least had) plans to retrofit them onto the OHP in place of the Mk13. though this plan may have been put on hold due to Obamaism (ie. shortchanging national defence to fund his :censored_2: socialism :mad_1: ). The US Navys probably going the way the Spanish Navy did in the 1890s..(being short changed by idiot politicians). so you may not see anything actually done there (kinda like the Coln at Santiago) but it's suppose to.[/quote]

The plan is on hold and has been on hold since 2003 almost ten years now. The RAM and SeaRAM can be added if needed but there hasn't been a need. The launchers can be shipped via C-130 or C-17 to where they are needed, bolted down and plugged in and turned on.

[quote="GMG4RWF"][quote="Sauragnmon"]What's wrong is the fact that there are proven cases of SM-2 being loaded and fired from the Mk13, so the claim that the Mk13 could not support SM-2, thus justifying the removal of the Mk13 from the Perry class, was nothing short of absolute BS.[/quote]

Perhaps a better (of clarified) statement would be “the US Navy ships carrying the Mk13 won’t currently support the SM-2, & we don’t want to pay for the upgrades on such old ships, so we’ll just scrap the launchers & replace them with a new launcher we can reuse after the ships get replaced & scraped.” :big_grin:[/quote]

The Mk13 launcher can and has been used to store and launch the standard missile 2 medium range (SM-2MR) (RIM-66D). The Last USN vessel to do so were the USS South Carolina, and USS California. The main reason for withdrawing the RIM-66E from service in the USN in 2003 was that the Mk-92 fire control system which the Perry class is equipped with was not capable of dealing with the latest generation of anti-ship cruise missiles. The Mk92 system was selected so that a convoy crossing the Atlantic escorted by three or four of the Perry class could deal with pop up anti-ship missiles from a soviet submarine or a missile attack from a detachment of bombers. The current model being built is the P-800 "Oniks" (Onyx). Its replacing a whole bunch of older anti-ship missiles types.

At this point the remaining Perry frigates are still decent patrol assets rather than front line material. The 25mm stabilized gun has been fit to most of the remaining ships and it is fully gyro-stabilized. Its a nice anti-surface weapon. The Phalanx gun is upgraded to block 1B standard and can engage light aircraft, and fast surface vessels as well as missiles. Taking out the Mk13 launcher is possible but unlike the Spruance/Tico/Kidd class ships they were not designed to facilitate that kind of modernization. Since the Perry class is fit with the SPS-49 and the combined antenna system of the Mk92 fire control system, the 21 round RAM launcher can be fit rather than the 11 round SeaRAM launcher. Without a 3D air search, or the Mk23 TAS, or AN/SPQ-9B, RAM is the best option for AAW. The MH-60R Seahawk can fire Hellfire missiles which can be stored in the torpedo magazine.

A real possibility would be an export sale of the Perry. Exocet launchers can be fit on the bow and a wide variety of weapons could be fit on the hull. A SLEP refit paid for by the buyer could enable the vessel to sail on for another 15 years.

[quote="Sauragnmon"]Excepting the fact there IS no new launcher, unless you count 25mm as something worthy of note on a warship.[/quote]

the Mk144 launcher for the Mk49 Rolling Airframe Missile launching system. The Navy has (or at least had) plans to retrofit them onto the OHP in place of the Mk13. though this plan may have been put on hold due to Obamaism (ie. shortchanging national defence to fund his :censored_2: socialism :mad_1: ). The US Navys probably going the way the Spanish Navy did in the 1890s..(being short changed by idiot politicians). so you may not see anything actually done there (kinda like the Coln at Santiago) but it's suppose to.

Excepting the fact there IS no new launcher, unless you count 25mm as something worthy of note on a warship.

[quote="Sauragnmon"]What's wrong is the fact that there are proven cases of SM-2 being loaded and fired from the Mk13, so the claim that the Mk13 could not support SM-2, thus justifying the removal of the Mk13 from the Perry class, was nothing short of absolute BS.[/quote]

Perhaps a better (of clarified) statement would be “the US Navy ships carrying the Mk13 won’t currently support the SM-2, & we don’t want to pay for the upgrades on such old ships, so we’ll just scrap the launchers & replace them with a new launcher we can reuse after the ships get replaced & scraped.” :big_grin:

What's wrong is the fact that there are proven cases of SM-2 being loaded and fired from the Mk13, so the claim that the Mk13 could not support SM-2, thus justifying the removal of the Mk13 from the Perry class, was nothing short of absolute BS.

To be honest, what's wrong with the currently refitted Turkish and Aussie Perries, with 32 ESSMs in 8 VLS cells? Seems a lot more practical than any SM-1 retainment with the Mk 13.

Though what I don't see is why removing the Mk13 was necessary, the RIM-116 is way smaller than the RIM-66, seems like it would be an easy mod to fit the Mk13 to hold the '116 & still retain the AGM-84 capacity (even if you needed a small 1-use disposable sheath to hold the missile & liaison with the launcher for it) then you could retain a 40 missile capacity with SSM & SAM loads.

[quote="carr"]Each VLS cell must have room for exhaust handling/venting, cooling, electronics status monitoring, launch door machinery, etc. I don't have the exact numbers in front of me but the spacing between missiles in the VLS works out to around four feet or so. There's a cost associated with having every missile ready to launch and that cost is room.[/quote]
[quote="Timmy C"]Because the Mk13 magazine stores the missiles in concentric rings around the launcher like in a gun turret magazine, whereas VLS puts them each in their individual cells, each ready to fire. There's a significant difference between packing missiles as tightly as possible for storage versus packing them for firing with no physical preparations.[/quote]
They both carry their missiles ready to use (as did the Mk26). The Mk13 (& 26) simply strikes them up onto the rail first, then they’re ready to fly. The exhaust system for the Mk41 is internal of the container which is about 2’ to a side, & the Mk13 holds is missiles in an elaborate Chain-link system (kind of like a sideways tank track with hooks, a similar system was used on the Mk26 but it wasn’t set as round).

The main difference in the mounts are the maintenance areas for the GMMs. The Mk13 had a cramped cubby hole in the middle, that all the maintenance had to be performed from, the Mk41 has huge gantries all around each 8-cell block (Ironic it has virtually no maintenance requirements to the actual cells). The cells themselves were much larger as well, as they were required to handle the RGM -109 Tomahawk (a missile about the size of a WWII torpedo). The Mk13 was never designed for such a large missile & couldn’t be refit for it (a whole new launcher would result from the attempt). Still the Germans fitted an 8-cell VLS forward of their Mk13 without removing it at all. As for it being round, any such refit would necessitate structural modifications to fit the new launcher (while your right that an “el-cheapo” refit would only allow 1 full rack (7’x14’), with full maintenance gantries, within the diameter (203”) of the Mk13) a proper rebuild would allow at least 3 to be fitted (that’s 24 tubes) & if the USN asked them nicely, I’m sure the manufacturer would be glad to build an independent (3 cell) loader arm which could be fitted just forward of the cells.

Having said that I still think the best fitting here would be the Mk49 RAM launcher with no reloads (21 on mount, which I believe is what’s planed). A Mk29 could also be mounted in this positions. If you place it a little forward you could also mount a pair of crossing Mk141s just ahead of the bridge (as someone previously suggested). The Mk75 cap-gun should be removed & replaced with point defense (though instead of 1-Mk15 amidships, a pair side by side (4 total) would be better).

The ships are old cheap tin cans that are not worth an elaborate rebuild.

..

[quote="GMG4RWF"][quote="carr"].... where the Mk13 was, it would still only be possible to fit, at most, two 8-cell modules arranged fore and aft. Side by side modules won't fit.[/quote]

How is that? The Mk13 had mag space for 32 missiles plus the handling gear to hold, move & load them. How come the same area can’t have more than 16 loaded in VLS?
[/quote]
Because the Mk13 magazine stores the missiles in [url=http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/USN%20missile%20systems/mk13arrangement.gif]concentric rings[/url] around the launcher like in a gun turret magazine, whereas VLS puts them each in their individual cells, each ready to fire. There's a significant difference between packing missiles as tightly as possible for storage versus packing them for firing with no physical preparations.