The Ship Model Forum

el Cid wrote:It is UNREP equipment. I recall many ammo and stores UNREPs on the flightdeck, and many VERTREPs on the focsle, but don't recall ever using the forward UNREP gear.

Keith, thanks for the confirmation. There was a similar set of gear mounted on top of the extreme aft edge of the hangar roof. Do you ever recall seeing the aft set in use? Again, I've seen hundreds of photos without ever seeing it in use.

Apparently, the gear was one of those ideas that seemed good on paper but never panned out in practice.

Thanks,
Bob

ex-navy wrote:... have you given thought to some how adding larger RHIB handling.. for intervention ops..
my thought would be an arrangement similar to the Burkes with remote mine system it would most mean losing one Hangar space but it would not be that costly or a major structure change IMHO...

Thanks for the kind words.

The kind of modifications you're talking about would be excellent additions but don't fit with the premise of an absolutely minimal stopgap upgrade. You must be a mindreader, though, because it does fit with the next version of an alternate Perry that David and I have discussed and that is a new construction Littoral Perry (again, as a replacement for the "cancelled" LCS). Being new construction, the possibilities for extensive modifications and new capabilities are wide open (stern RHIB ramps, for instance).

So, the answer is quite possibly yes but in the next version.

Thanks,
Bob

carr wrote:

el Cid wrote:It is UNREP equipment. I recall many ammo and stores UNREPs on the flightdeck, and many VERTREPs on the focsle, but don't recall ever using the forward UNREP gear.

Keith, thanks for the confirmation. There was a similar set of gear mounted on top of the extreme aft edge of the hangar roof. Do you ever recall seeing the aft set in use? Again, I've seen hundreds of photos without ever seeing it in use.

Apparently, the gear was one of those ideas that seemed good on paper but never panned out in practice.

Thanks,
Bob

Yes, the equipment (I forget the proper terminology) on the 02 level over the hanger doors was often rigged out and used for transferring stores/ammo to the flightdeck. I recall we had a wirerope part during a night UNREP and it made quite a display of sparks as it whizzed through the sheave.

Cheers,

Keith

el Cid wrote:Yes, the equipment (I forget the proper terminology) on the 02 level over the hanger doors was often rigged out and used for transferring stores/ammo to the flightdeck. I recall we had a wirerope part during a night UNREP and it made quite a display of sparks as it whizzed through the sheave.

One of the reasons I love this forum is the opportunity to learn about the subjects we model. Keith, was the aft gear used as a crane, an anchor point for transfer lines, both, or in some other fashion? Thanks for educating me!

Oddly enough, both the forward and aft gear have been removed from most/all of the still active Perrys. Someone must have deemed the gear not worth the weight/space or whatever other drawback.

Thanks for your help!

Regards,
Bob

Regarding the placement of the Harpoons between the masts, the photo below shows a mockup of the relevant pieces of equipment just loosely set in place. You can see how the Mk141 inside cannisters either overlap in their firing path or have such little clearance that it would seem highly unlikely to be placed in this position. Of course, this assumes that the kit mast locations are accurate. Maybe the gap between the masts is actually bigger and there's more room. On the other hand, the gap may be smaller. In any event, it seemed easier to mount the launchers in front of the bridge.

You can also see Nulka launchers on top of the bridge and the new "stealth" quick-firing version of the Oto Melara 76mm gun. Again, everything is just loosely set in place to check positioning.


Here's another small piece of equipment that needed to be fabricated. The Mk38 remote controlled gun will be placed on the Littoral Perry, one to port and one to starboard in yet to be determined positions. Here's the real item.


Here's the scratchbuilt version. The barrels are oversize due to the limitation of scale and styrene. I turned the barrels on the lathe and that's the smallest diameter I can achieve with styrene. Any smaller and the soft (relative to brass, for instance) styrene would break or melt. I sure wish I knew how to turn brass barrels like some of the commercial companies! Unfortunately, I just don't have that skill.

What are you going to use for the barrels of the new version of 76mm.. maybe master replacement brass barrels,

? how about using the Veteran 25 MM kit and adding the optical device.. I don't think it would too hard..

I agree the harpoon need to be on the bow..

Forgive for the not making RHIB statement claification.. I mostly was thinking about S.O.F boat which is larger then RHIB..

As far as the the unrep gear on the front and aft as I said they where used more as attachment points then transfering other then (Fuel lines) now I think about it.. we got most of supplies via helo deck ie vertrep..

Again.. I was only one the Doyle for a short time..

Also if you going with saving money proposal Does the SPS-49 need to be used.. now that you have removed the AAW function.. if you use that space that SPG-60 and SPS-49 had been using then maybe the Harpoon could be used in that location.. However, this only a thought..

But your build is very logical and I feel would fall in line.. with a approved funding SLEP...

ex-navy wrote:What are you going to use for the barrels of the new version of 76mm.. maybe master replacement brass barrels?

Exactly right.

how about using the Veteran 25 MM kit and adding the optical device..

I looked into that but it turns out that the body of the gun (the mount, I mean) is a completely different shape. Compare some photos and you'll see what I mean. I wish Veteran made a remote version.

Also if you going with saving money proposal Does the SPS-49 need to be used.. now that you have removed the AAW function..

That's a great thought. David and I have discussed this one and tentatively settled on keeping the SPS-49. Again, the premise is an absolutely minimal (lowest cost) upgrade. Our assessment is that the Navy would probably just leave the radar as is. Now, for the follow up, new construction Littoral Perry, the SPS-49 would absolutely be replaced, probably by the TRS-3D.

I know that in the realm of "what if" everyone (me included) wants to maximize technology and effectiveness but minimizing cost is the driving force behind this upgrade. This build, then, is not a question of how much can we fit onto the Perry but, rather, how little can we change the Perry and still have it just barely able to fill a littoral role?

You can understand the premise of this build by picturing the moment (and it had to actually have occurred in some form) when a group of Navy brass got together and started the meeting by admitting that the LCS was, for all practical purposes, a failure. You could imagine them saying, "Oh crap. What are we going to do for a littoral vessel, now?" Well, this would have been one answer; perform an absolutely minimal cost upgrade of the existing Perrys to fill the gap until the LCS could be reworked. Of course, as we all know by now, the answer they came up with was to buy 10 more of each LCS! Go figure!

Thanks,
Bob

carr wrote:

el Cid wrote:Yes, the equipment (I forget the proper terminology) on the 02 level over the hanger doors was often rigged out and used for transferring stores/ammo to the flightdeck. I recall we had a wirerope part during a night UNREP and it made quite a display of sparks as it whizzed through the sheave.

One of the reasons I love this forum is the opportunity to learn about the subjects we model. Keith, was the aft gear used as a crane, an anchor point for transfer lines, both, or in some other fashion? Thanks for educating me!

Oddly enough, both the forward and aft gear have been removed from most/all of the still active Perrys. Someone must have deemed the gear not worth the weight/space or whatever other drawback.

Thanks for your help!

Regards,
Bob

Bob,

These rigs were just the anchor points for the highline. Not sure why they've been removed...maybe everything done by VERTREP now? Can't imagine it was for weight savings, hell, they've already removed the Mk13 launcher, STIR antenna (and equipment), and 26ft MWB...getting lighter all the time.

Cheers,

Keith

el Cid wrote:Can't imagine it was for weight savings, hell, they've already removed the Mk13 launcher, STIR antenna (and equipment), and 26ft MWB...getting lighter all the time.

If they remove much more, the ships will wind up just skimming across the wave tops with the stabilizer fins acting as wings!

carr wrote:

el Cid wrote:Can't imagine it was for weight savings, hell, they've already removed the Mk13 launcher, STIR antenna (and equipment), and 26ft MWB...getting lighter all the time.

If they remove much more, the ships will wind up just skimming across the wave tops with the stabilizer fins acting as wings!

That's one way to bring back the hydrofoils

In a manner most akin to a...LCS? My god - those sneaky bastards!

Hey Carr, look what I just found on Wikipedia!!!!!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ematic.jpg

Enjoy

Cliffy B wrote:Hey Carr, look what I just found on Wikipedia!!!!!

Nice! That drawing answers a few questions. What we've been calling UNREP gear is identified on the drawing as outriggers and the outrigger locations are identified as cargo receiving stations which confirms the highline usage. Also, the drawing identifies six cargo stations: the two forward outriggers, the two aft outriggers and two midship locations that consist of simple anchor points.

Now all I need is a docking plan for the FFGs so I can get the underwater hull openings. Any idea where to get that?

Well done, Cliffy. Thanks!

Regards,
Bob

ex-navy wrote:Forgive for the not making RHIB statement claification.. I mostly was thinking about S.O.F boat which is larger then RHIB...

NAVSOF is also known as NAVSPECWAR or naval special warfare. The big boats they have are owned and operated by a group of special operators called SWCC or special warfare combat crewmen. The RHIBs they use are 11 meter RHIBs. Their equipment, seats, and sensors are just a little different...so they're the same size and can be embarked. However, we don't have enough SWCC to be using against pirates and such. That's what a ship's VBSS team is for. The SWCC guys are in the mountains with SEALs, EOD, Delta, Recon, etc. etc. etc. being utilized as trigger pullers, because there just are not enough SOF guys to go around.

Here's another small update. The kit's propellor and rudder (or rudder location, to be precise) just weren't going to do so a new prop was made. Individual propellor blades were made from strip styrene and attached to the kit hub. The kit hub was also turned on the lathe to add some correct joint lines. Finally, the rudder centerline attachment hole was filled in and a new one was drilled offset to starboard, as on the real ship. The rudder itself is actually pretty good and will be used as is.

Enjoy!

Bob,

I'm intriged that you replaced the Mk 13 with a 57mm and retained the 76mm gun. If you wanted Harpoon why not keep the Mk 13 and upgrade the 76mm to the latest version? That would remove the issue of where to place the canisters and give you a greater loadout. Unless you were going to mount a 127mm gun fwd I'm not sure I understand why you would step back in caliber? 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.

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. Like the Mk41 VLS all the design is done so the cost is minimal as opposed to the bridge roof install. Also the launchers are designed to mount vertically when closed and 'pop' open when ready to launch if that makes sense.

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.

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) and for underway Mk 13 rearming - saved bringing the canisters all the way up from the flight deck. But the gantry wasn't used as a crane to reload, the launcher did this.

cheers,

Bill Davidson wrote:Bob,

I'm intriged that you replaced the Mk 13 with a 57mm and retained the 76mm gun. If you wanted Harpoon why not keep the Mk 13 and upgrade the 76mm to the latest version?

If I may add an answer in addition to what Bob may want to give, the Mk110 57mm gun addition is to improve the ship's littoral combat capability. Specifically this is answering the need to confront relatively large numbers of small boats. The single Mk 110 of the LCS really can't do much more than defend the ship from a small number of boats whereas the combined fire of the upgraded 76mm and the 57mm would be able to address multiple targets at a time and quickly shift from one to the other. So, essentially what this gets you is volume of fire and option of caliber. Both mounts are super rapid-fire whereas the original 76mm is not.

New 76mm:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrUXDAhP3Fg

57mm:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxVOclDHI9Y

The new 76mm is a far better system than the old one. It has fixed a whole lot of the problems with the earlier mount and has boosted the available rate of fire.

The 8 Harpoons are for self-defense against big-boy ships as opposed to carrying dozens of Harpoons in the Mk13 that really can't and/or shouldn't be used against boats.

Great contributing comments and questions

"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) and for underway Mk 13 rearming - saved bringing the canisters all the way up from the flight deck. But the gantry wasn't used as a crane to reload, the launcher did this."

Actually the forward fueling station was located on the 02 level just behind the pilot house (more accurately the CAS equipment room (stbd) and a fan room (port). You're probably correct about the forward outriggers and missile reloads.

Even back in the big, bad Soviet Union days, figs never carried "dozens" of Harpoons, not even eight (at least the Mayport-based ships). Chock-a-block full of SM-1s though.

Cheers,

Keith

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

carr wrote: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.

Hmmm, hmmm, interesting. Well, I believe what he is talking about is what the US Navy calls the "ROSAM" system. It is a remote-controlled mount that controls a number of crew-served weapon systems ranging from the M-240 to Mk19 40mm machine gun (grenade launcher). However, one way or the other, on a ship a person (gunner's mate, fire controlman, or otherwise well trained sailor) can better operate the weapon manually as opposed from a console that relies on a computer system that can be out of calibration.

The other weapon Bob is referring to is the GAU-17 .50 caliber gatling gun.




This bad boy is one bad ass gun that triples the .50 caliber rate of fire and gives the .50 a true anti-suicide boat capability whereas the M2 .50 only kills the suicide crew before the suicide boat reaches the ship.
While this would give guys like me a lot more work at the end of the day, it would give the ship a real capability it pretends to have today with the M2.

I look forward to making little, tiny 1/350 GAU-17s. How much fun!