Bill Davidson wrote:I'm intriged that you replaced the Mk 13 with a 57mm ...
Bill,
Thanks for jumping in with some really good thoughts and with your Australian Navy information. David addressed the thought process concerning the replacement of the Mk13 with the Mk110 in the previous post. Just to expand on that a bit, remember that we're not trying to make the "best" upgrade we can but, rather, the most likely upgrade that the U.S. Navy would do if they had decided to create a stopgap Littoral Perry. Our assessment was that the most likely Navy action would have been to eliminate the Mk13 (they already have on all active Perrys!) and replace it with a gun of some sort and we chose the Mk110 because, for whatever reason, the U.S. Navy is in love with the Mk110.
To further emphasize one of David's points, this Littoral Perry is not an offensive weapon except for shallow water ASW. It is mainly a littoral patrol vessel. The 8 Harpoons we chose to give it are for self-defense rather than offensive operations.
Also looking at the harpoon canisters on 02 deck, there are a couple of other problems (at least in the Aussie FFGs which I'm familiar with) that would preclude placing them there; the HF fan aerials terminate to the small outrigger platform on either side immediately fwd of the main mast and there is a diesel exhaust stack on the outboard stbd side just fwd of the main mast, both of which would further imapct on the launch trajectory. Between the main mast and STIR might be an option, I can't recall what is there.
You are quite correct, sir. After much looking at many alternate arrangements, we came to the conclusion, as you have here, that there just wasn't any good place to put the Harpoons on the 02 deck. That left only the main deck, forward of the bridge. The Taiwan FFGs have a Harpoon-like launcher between the masts which led us to look very carefully at that but we just couldn't see how to make it work.
The Aussie navy also mounts its Nulka launchers outboard on the main deck just behind the forward spray shield with a pair between the main exhaust and the CIWS. I think you will be too crowded with them on top of the bridge.
I have photos of the Aussie Nulka arrangement and I like it very much. If it were up to me, I'd do it that way. Again, though, we're trying to mimic actual U.S. Navy practice and the Navy actually has Nulkas mounted on top of the bridge on its active Perrys in exactly the arrangement shown on the model. And, yes, it does make for a very crowded top of the bridge! Here's a photo showing the U.S. Navy placement of Nulkas on FFG-41. I don't know why the chose to do it this way rather than the very nice solution the Aussies have, but they did and we're trying to mimic what they did and minimize costs by not making changes. Our follow on "what if" new build Littoral Perry will not be bound by any of these restrictions. The Nulkas are circled in red (big circle). You can see the port pair of Nulkas and there's also a corresponding starboard pair that aren't readily visible in this photo. Also circled in red (small circle), note the little extension walkway platforms that have been added to the rear of the bridge topside. That was done to create a walkway due to exactly the crowding that you pointed out!
In addition to the Mk 38 you could also consider the mini typhoon, which is the little brother of the Mk38, designed for a 50cal MG. A few of those around the waist, AX and FX would be good for those small boats that are between the ship's side and the depression of the 76/Mk38.
Again, you are right on the money! We are going to add additional small guns. David has picked out a 50cal that the Navy uses. Maybe it's the same one you're talking about? I'll let him address that.
Oh and the RAS/UNREP gear fwd, was mainly used as the alternative fuelling point (the primary was on the aft end of the main exhaust funnel)...
I don't see a fuel receptacle near the forward outrigger platform. Do you mean the location on the 02 level immediately aft of the bridge? There is what appears to be a fueling receptacle there.
I've got to close by saying that the Australian FFG upgrade program was the inspiration behind this build. They did exactly what the U.S. should have done instead of decommisioning and selling off most of the Perrys or stripping the remaining ones of weapons. Many of the things that the Australians did make so much more sense than what the U.S. did or would have done (Nulka placement, Mk13 Harpoons, Mk13 SM-2 which the U.S. said couldn't be done, etc.). Congratulations to the Australians for doing what we couldn't or wouldn't do. "Tip of the hat" to you, Australia!
Thanks very much for your comments. They're helpful and educational. Keep commenting as we go!
Regards,
Bob
