The Ship Model Forum

I've always been quite disappointed by the lack of offensive and defensive capability of the O.H. Perry class frigates, especially since all the Standard missile launchers have been removed from all US vessels. The poor ships right now couldn't defend a convoy of rowboats much less an aircraft carrier battle group. Torpedo tubes, CIWS gun, plus another smaller gun amidships, really isn't much at all.
I was thinking of the following:
Replace the Phalanx with RAM.
"Maybe" keep the OTO Melara 76mm gun amidships?
Keep the torpedo tubes.
Would it be possible to put a 5"/54 cal. Mk.45 or a 5"/62 cal. Mk.45 gun on the bows of these ships? Or what about a small 8 cell VLS for ESSM missiles?

Also, why couldn't these ships have been modernised for littoral warfare instead of the US trying to buy and build the new LCS ships?

Who needs a gun if you can put Hellfire on a Seahawk?

Seriously, though - I think the Perry's maior asset is the capability to carry a helo; against anything short of an aircraft carrier helo gunships are pretty evil. My idea of an upgrade would be trying to integrate something like an Apache on them.

Jorit

_________________

There was an interesting altered profile for the FFG-7 design in the Naval proceedings for a refit layout, that was supposed to retain similar internal volume while expanding on its offensive capacity, let me see here... Here it is.




Their concept alters the design in some ways, and it certainly gets rid of the half-useless (in my opinion with that blanked fields of fire) gun positioning. Alternately, one could conceive bolting an ESSM launcher in there Somewhere, but the design as it stands, I somewhat like and do plan on building my Inghram in a similar fashion.

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/

Those reconstructions look awfully Soviet in basis, don't they? I like!

_________________
--
Sean Hert

So do I, Sean, so do I - she's just nice and beefy, and looks real good like that. I have plans to do a modified FFG-7, and the Step-deck layout on the Spruance with both guns forward and the ASROC aft - I have the reload hatches set in the bulkhead fore of 52 to that end.

My OHP will likely have a second 3" forward mounting.

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/

Actually, they are very european, with very obvious influences from the MEKO series.

I think the OHP's are no longer viable frontline warships. The range of reconstruction in those drawings is probably wasted on a very limited and cramped hull with little to no space to fit decent armament and the electronics to go with them, all the while being already old and tired ships. The USA should by some European frigates like Portugal did

Marco

While your points are true, unfortunately, these concepts are older by a fair shot, from the late 90's if I recall, from the pages of the Naval Proceedings, back when the Perries were still in service. The aft section reminds me partially of a Knox, in a way, for the step down over the gun mounting.

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/

With those aft sloping funnels is anyone else reminded of RN frigates? Specifically the Amazons? The Perry sketch looks a lot like a beefed up Amazon with US equipment, at least to me....

*gets ideas *

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984

Hey guys, I found these drawings while going through some files. The shipbucket ones are all on there and are done by others. I can't remember where I found the design sketches from the Naval Engineer's Journal. It was really poor quality so I repaired it a bit in Photoshop and made the composite image.

They should generate some ideas for you as to what can be done with OHPs. The bottom shipbucket drawing is my fav but they're all rather neat so I thought I'd share.

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984

Yes, I remember when Scifibug posted the second down left side picture - the RCA proposal was similarly posted at that time. Pride of the Fleet modified the RCA proposal for his take on the Underwoods, which actually went Against the original proposal's concept - this being that the RCA concept was to minimize the external exposure for regular ship operation, it was considered for operation in high NBC or heavy Weather, when operating outside the structure is dangerous.

The bottom Wadsworth was Scifibug's take on the Warlike Perry article that I posted above - he did his version, then I did mine, which I'll show here:



Hood/Tornado's Perry was likely for his grand Cold War AU he's been working on, some interesting alternate progressions he's had there. VossieJ's version? not a clue where he went with that, or what he planned. He's kinda one to go a little off the wide end sometimes.

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/

Well, I don't entirely mean to bump such an old topic back to the top, but I've been working on a design to modernize and improve upon the OHP without radically changing the overall layout of the hull and thought it more appropriate to use an existing thread than start my own. (Haven't been here in a while, and when I saw that there were some people that might be able to help out, I thought it'd be a pretty good idea.)





I'll just come out and say outright that I did use somebody else's design on Shipbucket to make this drawing. I liked the flow of the design, so I decided to use it for my own.

Regardless, I lost the original file with all of the layers separated, so I figured I would start out fresh. Current plans are to probably remove the mid-ship CIWS mount, remove what I'd designed as an armored box launcher for the Harpoons (That's what the box behind the mid-ship CIWS is), as well as extend the cutter on the front of the hull to extend all the way back to provide not only the protection that the rails formerly provided, but also to attempt to reduce the radar signature by eliminating that return area..

Also according to what I was reading on the shipbucket forums, I may need to update the templates for some of the weapons... is anybody here familiar with the site and able to convey what exactly I'd have to change?

While the design looks "cool", there are several features that are not possible. If you'd like me to comment, ask. Otherwise, I won't rain on your parade!

Well opinions are what I came here for, so I value all of them, positive or negative. Besides, I think that it could make for an interesting discussion.

All right, here goes!

The forward gun (I don't recognize it - a non-US type, maybe?) can't fit where it's placed. The hull cross section at that point is the shape of a very narrow "V" and when allowance is made for internal support beams and fore/aft passage, there is only a few feet of usable width and depth left - not enough to fit a gun's magazine and ammo handling apparatus. Proof of this is the Australian attempt to fit a VLS in that area. Because of the issues I mentioned, they were only able to fit an 8-cell module of the short length and, even then, 7 feet of it had to be above deck.

Ditto for the VLS just aft of the gun. The drawing appears to show a 16-32 cell VLS. While there is more space here, 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. Again, the Australians looked at this so it isn't just an opinion on my part. Also, it's highly unlikely that Standard (SM) length modules would fit. You would probably be limited to SSD (ESSM length) modules.

Because of the above limitations (ESSM only in the forward location) the SPG-62 guidance antennas would be pointless. Also, the location of the forward SPG-62 directly atop the pilothouse seems unlikely due to the radiation hazards and electrical interference. The original STIR system had an antenna atop the pilothouse, however, it was raised around 15 feet or so on a mini-mast.

The drawing shows what appears to be Aegis SPY-1 radar. A Perry does not have either the power capacity or the weight margins for installation of an Aegis system. There is a smaller version, the SPY-1F, that is claimed to be sized for frigates but it is not approved for use by the US Navy.

The forward CIWS is lower than the bow and forward gun which, while OK, greatly restricts the field of fire and would be unlikely to be installed like that. The same applies to the midships CIWS, which you indicated you might delete or move.

The drawing has omitted a bunch of equipment like SRBOC, Nulka, UNREP, etc., however, I realize that it's just a concept drawing not a detailed design blueprint.

Where's the ship's boat(s)?

That's enough for now, I think. It's a fun little drawing but not a practical or realistic design.

I'd had an entire response written already for this post, but I lost it.. :l

Yea, the gun's an Oto Melara 127/64 Lightweight naval gun, and from what I've been reading thus far it should be able to fit in conjunction with the modifications to the hull that would be performed (I was thinking that the forward area would be widened to allow for not only more space but better turning performance and the like.). I can raise the gun slightly, or I also thought after reading your point on the SPG-62s that I could move the entire bridge superstructure back, and move the 127mm to where the Phalanx is (At the cost of having to figure out where to place that for forward area coverage)

Regarding the VLS, I was thinking that I could replace it with the Mk-26 rail launch system to avoid the shortfalls of VLS usage as well as potentially fix space issues. Do you think this arrangement would be possible, and if it is possible could you link me to some reading regarding the Australian VLS mods and the reason they opted for the 8 cells? I wasn't initially able to find anything about them not being able to use the full length modules or more cells.

Regarding the SPG-62s, is there something wrong with the way that they are mounted on the Ticonderoga as well? I'm under the impression ATM that they're essentially in the same position, if albeit slightly back of the bridge, still in the same general area. With the bridge superstructure movement idea I'd be able to give them a slight buffer similar to the Ticonderogas.

AEGIS I plan to keep, as SPY-1F could be tested while the development of this new ship is done. Weight margins would likely be fixed with the hull modifications that I alluded to earlier, and I'm sure that power capacity could be fixed with a new powerplant arrangement.

I was surprised when you only called out the forward CIWS for clearances since the 127mm also shares forward clearance issues, however if the mount was on each side of the ship (Two forward) then that should fix the firing angle problems and add redundancy.

Most of the equipment that you listed there is rather small at this scale, and I usually try to prevent clutter whenever possible in my designs. If you could provide me with some references for the UNREP equipment, I'd see about putting it in (Though I don't see any major differences between my profile and the profiles for the OHPs, which are UNREP capable)

Regarding the boats, it falls under the same area as above. I even looked through the profiles for low observable ships (As this one is intended to be) as well as other OHP profiles, and they have not been depicted on the ship, however they all must have a means for getting off the ship?

Finally, I'd just like to say that I've had commentary completely contradictory to what you said in your final point. Between myself and the people that have seen it, we believe that on the whole the design is more conservative and practical in its weapons suite, has a general flow better than that of many shipbucket profiles (Instead of some guy who just plopped every weapons system and electronic system he could on a square shaped hull and superstructure and called it a day), and tries to be fairly realistic in its design. This isn't to say that I don't value your input, but to be honest after reading your initial response I didn't expect much in the way of positive reinforcement.

Keep it coming though, we'll see if we can't iron out some things (And I kinda wish that my original response hadn't been deleted.)

Check your PM for further information.

Thanks,
Bob

Anybody? Was kinda expecting more input, couple more days and I'll just go off-site..

The CIWS amidships seems a little redundant. You might want to consider replacing that with the ship's boats.

_________________
Current builds:
Hobby Boss 1/700 Type VIIC U-Boat for my AH

Planned builds:
3 more 1/700 AH submarines

Good evening,
the OHP was a cheap gap-filling platform, that had a hull shrink-wrapped around all they systems they wanted to have.
If we are talking about improvements.. Other than what has already been discussed.. Enclosed are a couple of NAVSEA designs for actual replacements for the OHP.. These are slightly bigger but had a lot of potential take a look..

Thank you for the post, it actually gave me an idea to forge ahead in my project with! Will have something to post probably here within the next couple days...