The Ship Model Forum

I always felt the same about the Perry Class (and I served on one), but thought the ship was otherwise well thought out.

Given the age and condition of the hulls, it is probably better to build new ships, and frankly I think the Japanese Takanami class destroyers represent what the Perry class should have been (granted they are longer and have a greater beam):
- 5" gun
- 32 cell Mk41 VLS
- 2x MK15 Block 1B CIWS
- Anti-ship missiles
- SH-60
- Towed array sonar
- Torpedo tubes

Considering the age of the hull and that it is a frigate (general purpose surface ship) the best but costly upgrades someone might do to the existing configuration would be:

Replace the forward launcher with a 5" gun (I do not know if the gun fits though)
Place harpoon missiles near the main mast (the Chinese ships of the class are a fine example)
Add spgs at the mainmast or modify the existing mast with more radar equipment
Remove the 3" gun and perhaps use the space for a small VLS installation or a RAM launcher

A more radical approach would be eliminating the hangar and adding vls cells...

_________________
NIKOS (NICK)
ΜΕΓΑ ΤΟ ΤΗΣ ΘΑΛΑΣΣΗΣ ΚΡΑΤΟΣ
(GREAT IS THE NATION THAT MASTERS THE SEAS)

It's a shame that the Mk13s were removed, but the SM-1s were no longer supported. It's funny how they didn't remove the G from FFG. The Australian FFG's were upgraded with an 8 cell Mk41 for ESSM forward of the Mk13 plus other upgrades in early-mid 2000's. Notice how much the VLS protrudes above the deck. This cost them $A1.5 billion for 4 ships and they retired the last 2 to help pay for it. Hopefully this and the Anzac upgrades will tie them over until the Hobarts go into service.

The hull life on the US FFGs are close to the end so upgrades are not very cost effective. Speculating on what-if's is fun but not very realistic on a 30-40 year old hull. Never liked the single screw configuration either, but she can haul-a$$ when she needed with those gas turbines cranked up. We were on a 40ft sailboat in San Diego harbor once and an FFG roared by us like a runaway freight train!

..

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?



I was wondering about that? The SM-1 & SM-2 are basically the same missile (hence “Standard” missile) the differences are mostly internal & what does that have to do with the launch rail?



No such thing! The Mk15 spits out 6000r/m with only (what?) 350 in the mag. It’s lucky if it can get off 3-5 shots before taking itself out of action (takes an eternity to reload) a salvo of 8-12 missiles can easily swamp the 1-2 mounts normally carried, always…if you can put more…do it!
Also that would help in the escort role, to provide additional cover for whatever your escorting (when I’m the attacker (simulated) I always target the escorts, nobody’s covering them & I’d rather sink a frigate than miss a carrier, so if it can carry more coverage for itself all the better.)

If you going with a FF design with multiple guns I think the Mk110 fore & aft/mid would be the way to go, but I think a Mk 49 on the bow would be better (the 57s a little light). Maybe shift some of the aft/mid equipment to the Mk13 mag area to free up room for more Helo or Torp mags.

I was thinking about the RAN's FFG's with SM2 the biggest cost with upgrading to SM2 would be guidance and targeting system's, the launcher is the same...In fact the mk13's on USS California CGN36 and USS South Carolina CGN37 got the full NTU update with SM2's in their final refit in the early 90's. So the USN saying it wasn't possible is a pile of bantha doo doo....the mag holds a maximum of 40 rds (on an FFG a mix of SM's and 'Poon's) its a cylindrical mag below the mount, so it does not take up as much volume as a 32 cell VLS which would not fit due to hull shape (which is the reason the 8 cell ESSM VLS on the RAN FFG's sit raised above deck level.

Mk15 CIWS holds 1550 rds not 350.....its the same magazine used in most US built modern fighters up to the F22(which has a different cannon)

Cheers Bruce

_________________
building:
1/72 RC USS LONG BEACH CGN9
1/72 RC USS CALIFORNIA CGN36
1/72 RC USS SAIPAN LHA2
1/72 RC USS JOHN PAUL JONES DDG53
1/72 RC USS SHARK SSN591
1/72 RC USS SEAWOLF SSN21
1/72 RC USS ALBANY CG10

Opps typo



Hmmm…still that’s only 20 seconds of fire & the system continues to fire on the same target until it disintegrates enough to quit registering as a threat (unless they’ve gotten a new SW update I haven’t heard of) so having more systems available to cover the ship during reload is always a good thing.



I’d have to see the specs on that, the missiles the same size (same missile) & both are vertical, I agree It wouldn’t be the same due to the squaring off but all the cells don’t need to lay in the same direction (some lengthwise & some sideways), you should be able to get more in (perhaps with some adjustment to the placement of other equipment), but a Mk49 with 21 RAMs would be better.



Yea, it’s more a cost measure. The reason the bulk of the Brooke class FFGs were made into Garcia class FFs was the Navy didn’t want to pay for the cost of the missile guidance (which was nearly as much as the whole rest of the ship combined) for a little frigate.

I am 100% with Busto on a Takanami based replacement, however I had thought a 2000-05 time frame refit/update would have been a better choice than simply removing the SM-1 capability for nothing really in return.

My thoughts had the Mk 13 removed and a Mk 45 from a decommed Spruance added, with Harpoon launchers behind what becomes mount 51 (between the Bridge and mount 51.) The 76mm gets pulled and MK 48 VLS for Sea Sparrow goes in its place (weight says 16 would not have an issue fitting here - may have to 'flare' the superstructure slightly for size). I'd also have added Mk 38 P/S, later upgraded to Mod2 - location for these is probably on the forward end of the after section of superstructure - more or less abreast of the stack.

Existing OHP sensors would have been functional, but maybe not ideal. Not sure of the space/weight/electrical load of adding SPQ-9 and/or MK 23 TAS - also from decommed Spruance's.

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.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

..

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.

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.

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.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

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.

_________________
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/

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.”

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

_________________
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/

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 socialism ). 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.

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.

_________________
╔═════╗
║ Seasick║
╚═════╝

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.

_________________
╔═════╗
║ Seasick║
╚═════╝

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.

_________________
╔═════╗
║ Seasick║
╚═════╝