Calling all Oliver Hazard Perry-class FFG fans

[GTDEATH13]

Willie your progress is amazing!!!

thanks for sharing

[ex-navy]

willie,
I can not believe your work.. BZ..... Just One question.. When you did The Mast you said you used 1.2MM tubing what was the product number you use I thinking 1/8" is about right.. and what do you plan on using for the NIXIE and Towed Sonar opening on the fantail... I was on the USS DOYLE FFG-39 as very young Officer so many years ago...

[Willie]

When you did The Mast you said you used 1.2MM tubing what was the product number you use I thinking 1/8" is about right

Hi there Ex-Navy and all,

Glad to know my work is of some use for you.
I was using Evergreen rod in three calibers : 0.025" (Ref # 219), 0.035" (Ref # 220) and 3/64" (Ref #221), and glued with Humbrol liquid poly. You can use Plastruct Bondene, which is as good as Humbrol, if not better.

and what do you plan on using for the NIXIE and Towed Sonar opening on the fantail

I don�t know yet, but I am not worried at all about this. I presume that I will be using Evergreen plates with stretched sprue. Honestly, I don�t think it will be difficult at all.

Very bets regards,

Willie ( Ex-Navy too, Knox/Baleares class frigate SPS F73 Catalu�a )

[carr]

Greetings!

Does anyone know what size (vertical length) VLS the Australians used in their FFG upgrade?

As a reminder, VLS comes in three sizes, strike (longest), tactical (mid), and SSD (Ship Self Defense - shortest).

I've seen conflicting reports claiming either the tactical or SSD. SSD could only hold ESSM's, while tactical can also hold Standards.

On a related note, does anyone know why the VLS is mounted with about five feet above deck rather than flush mounted with the deck, as is commonly done? I've speculated that the higher mount was to allow below decks access to the bow areas, but I don't know that for sure.

Any help is appreciated!

Thanks,
Bob

[Unicorn]

They used self-defence length, same as the Anzac frigates.

The reason that the VLS projects so high above the deck is that there was limited space available due to the narrowing of the hull lines.

Unicorn

[navydavesof]

Does anyone know what size (vertical length) VLS the Australians used in their FFG upgrade?

Tactical. It has been assumed that just because the tubes have ESSMs in them they are limited to ESSMs. However, they are tactical.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/aus ... ade-04586/
"All this must work together well, in order to make the Improved Adelaide Class� weapons upgrades effective. The ships� existing Mk13 GMLS pop-up launcher will retain its 40 round magazine, but will be fitted for more advanced SM-2 anti-air missiles and Harpoon strike missiles (usually fitted 32 SM-2 and 8 Harpoon). An 8-cell Mk41 tactical-length (vs. longer strike length) vertical launching system adds room for another 8 SM-2 Standards � or up to 32 shorter-range RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow air defense missiles."


The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapon Systems said:
..."Lockheed Martin was promoting a Mod 12 upgrade [to the Mk41 Mod4) to service the SM-2 and ESSMS missiles...The Austrailian Perry-class modernization uses this program...advantages include sub-caliber visibility (for littoral operations,) better reliability/maintainability, and growth capacity to use the SM-2 missile."

So, not only are they tactical length, they can also fire SM-2s.

[Cliffy B]

Geeeee.....so why couldn't the USN modify OUR Perrys to fire SM-2s or do I not want to know the answer? More politics/mismanagement?

[Unicorn]

Um, no they don't.

The Mk-41 VLS system on the FFGs was intended to be the tactical length system, which may explain the issues with media thinking they were tactical length on the FFGs as on the ANZACs, however they ended up being fitted with self-defence length VLS.

This is because they could not fit Mk-41 Tactical VLS into the bows of the ship, given the narrowness of the area and the extent that the tactical system's length would impinge down into the areas affected by the narrowness of the underwater profile at that point.

The ANZAC's have the tactical length, however they only carry the ESSM, although they could be fitted for other weapons. The length was not an issue with the ANZAC's as it is fitted from the 03 level down, not the main deck as on the FFGs. The reason the system sits up some 2 metres above deck level on the FFGs is due to the issues of fitting it into the confines of the FFG bow.

The FFGs were not intended to fit SM-2 VLS as the FFG-UP upgrade was an interim fix to see the FFGs out of service and replaced by the Hobart class and their follow on design. They already operate an area AAW capability via the Mk-13 launcher and SM-1 and it was determined that the Mk-13 launcher could be upgraded to operate SM-2, an upgrade that is now underway, obviating the need to fit SM-2 in the VLS, when quad-packed ESSM is far more effective use of space.

The tactical length was fitted to the Anzacs as they had no organic area AAW capability as designed, the new phased array radar system will allow them to operate SM-2 out to the full range of the system and interface with the Hobart Class using CEC.

Unicorn

[carr]

The Mk-41 VLS system on the FFGs was intended to be the tactical length system, which may explain the issues with media thinking they were tactical length on the FFGs as on the ANZACs, however they ended up being fitted with self-defence length VLS.

Thanks for responding, Unicorn. I mean no disrespect, but would you tell me your source for this information? The reason I ask is that half the sources I read say tactical length, half say self defense length, and all claim to be correct. Your account makes sense and would explain all the confusion if the source is authoritative.

The reason the system sits up some 2 metres above deck level on the FFGs is due to the issues of fitting it into the confines of the FFG bow.

Was any thought given to locating the VLS module in another location (midships deck or atop the superstructure, for instance)?

Thanks for the help!

Regards,
Bob

[Unicorn]

I did 12 years in the ADF, 8 with the RAN, 4 with the RAAF, and retain many of my contacts as friends, who pass on what they see and hear.

In addition, I was given a personal tour of FFG-03, HMAS Sydney, during its trails post the FFG-UP.

I have climbed all over the upgrade area, including seeing how tight it was in the bow. The refit needed to fit in and still leave access to all four sides and underneath the launcher for damage control purposes.

The range of modifications that were considered was considerable.

One option was to fit a 5 inch where the Mk-13 is and fit a tactical length VLS where the 76 is on the 03 deck, plus another channel of fire for missile guidance.

Unfortunately the issue came down to cost and risk mitigation, so a fairly conservative approach ended up being taken by the RAN.

Unicorn

[Sauragnmon]

I'm guessing the RAN also managed to get the Mk13 to not get as wet as was claimed by the USN in their "reasons" for removing the Mk13's from the OHP's? One could also have replaced the Mk13 with Mk41 Tactical cells, but the Mk13's arrangement is more efficient for the space.

[Unicorn]

The reason the USN removed the Mk-13 from service was that they sold the remaining inventory of SM-1's to allies such as Poland, Egypt, Oman and such who operate ex-USN FFGs or who built their own such as Taiwan and Spain. The USNs position was that it was better to pass those missiles to allies and concentrate on SM-2, than continue to operate the SM-1 and see allies run out of war stocks.

The USN reasons that as the FFG is no longer an effective warship (it was always seen as a cheap, disposable vessel by the USN surface warfare community), SM-1 is no longer required, and can undertake a range of tasks without the Mk-13.

The AAW mission is considered more effectively undertaken by the Ticonderoga / Burke classes with their VLS missile farms and phased array radars. They are right of course, but those VLS farms can't be everywhere at once.

In the end, it was a finance driven decision, as they usually are.

Unicorn

[navydavesof]

Unicorn,
Off topic here, but where is a good place to get some of the larger scale fittings such as CIWS, SPG-67, SGP-51, Mk-32 tubes, Mk45 mounts, etc? I am at a place where large scale models would be greatly desired by a number of my co-workers. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks!

navydave

[Unicorn]

Hi mate

If you are referring to 1:72 as large scale, then I can help you with a number of FFG fittings.

APS Models of Australia have a wide variety of resin parts in 1:72, including;

78mm Oto Melara
Mk-13 GMLS
Mk-41 VLS
Phalanx CIWS
Torpedo Tubes
Nulka Decoy launchers
Mk-62 Radar
SPG-60 Director
SPS-49 radar base
Inmarsat Dome
ECM systems
SRBOC Launchers
OE-82 Satcomm
Liferaft cannisters
Slewing arm davit
RAST Control Station
Capstan
Bollards
Hawsers
Bow deck vents
Deck hatches and bulkead doors
Loudspeakers
Firehose racks
Bulkhead downlights
IR Camera

That was it was the last time I looked at the catalogue, however they may have added more since.

You con contact them at apsmods at bigpond.net.au

Hope this helps.

Unicorn

[AndrexP]

The AAW mission is considered more effectively undertaken by the Ticonderoga / Burke classes with their VLS missile farms and phased array radars. ...
Unicorn

OF note, the SM-1 was not only an effective AAW weapon, but a terribly effective ASuW missile, too. It was limited to the range of the illuminator, of course, to just over the horizon. And it's aircraft-optimized warhead wouldn't sing the baddie, but it would certainly trash anything above the waterline - sensors, antennae, weapon systems, or squishy squids - near the aiming point.

We learned to love it as a "I hate you" weapon that could "reach out and touch someone" in mere seconds, while the Harpoon Weapons Coordinator was just starting their manual plot.

We performed an SM-1 surface shot from the USS South Carolina (CGN-37) while doing COMPTUEX in 1994(?). It was a beaut - flying off the rail, arcing in a graceful trajectory, and ending in just a few seconds in a puff of smoke just above the target that was on the horizon. It was also one of the few times we could see (visually) an entire missile engagement from the launching ship. I forget who the missile sink was - an old cutter, I think.

[AndrexP]

and [the FFGs] can undertake a range of tasks without the Mk-13. ...

Oh, and recall that with the loss of the Mk-13, the Figs also lost the ability to shoot Harpoon. Of course, they still are formidable surface-to-surface platforms, armed with:

- 76mm pop-gun
- 20mm CIWS (if armed with CIWS block 1B)
- .50 cal M2HB machine guns
- 7.62mm M-14 semi-auto rifles
- 9mm Berretta semi-auto pistols
- hand grenades
- potatoes
- very small rocks
- broomsticks
- stinging words
- ugly looks

"Bring It ON!"

[Sauragnmon]

An interesting conversion for the US Figs would be to go ahead with the Aussie 5" Forward concept, and turn the 3" area into a staging area for canistered Harpoons or the like. They'd be able to offer some degree of surface support in that case... but then I remember that they did everything in their power to get rid of the Figs in favour of the Literally Crappy Ship project.

[Willie]

Hi all,

Some advances on my FFG F81 Santa Mar�a.
I have already made the bridge wings, which in the Spanish FFG�s are a modification made for two sea cabins for the admiral and the CO.
They are made with Evergreen plate, that was cut using a template, and had to be sanded afterwards, so that the excessive thickness didn�t make the plates to go overboard. Quite boring, but very easy.

These wings make a kind of a corridor under the cabins, and the interior is like this, with beams, equipment boxes, mooring defences and stretchers.

The elements are not too accurate, but they don�t have to either, because when the corridors are closed all of the will be barely visible, if visible at all, so it is not necessary to give them too much importance. It is now like this :

Best regards,

Willie.[/size]

[Willie]

Hi all again,

And now the RHIB davit, which is like this :

And this is what I was able to produce, with a total of 45 pieces made with stretched sprue, Evergreen rods and yogourth container :

I have also started the bulkheads details, which are quite different from the US FFG�s and differ even among the Spanish FFG�s themselves. This work will as usual correspond to Santa Mar�a in fall 2006.

It is not finished yet :

I hope you like it, and very best regards,

Willie.[/size]

[pingjockey]

Very impressive! I am working on a 1/350 USS Reuben James FFG 57 right now and I wish I had your eye for detail!