The Ship Model Forum

Greetings,

This forum has seen a great deal of discussion concerning the pros and cons of the Navy's LCS. Without reopening a debate on the merits of the LCS, it is safe to say that it is not yet all that the Navy hoped for. Worse, the price tag is very high relative to the capabilities. Navydavesof and I have been discussing alternatives to the LCS such as "reworked" versions, dedicated (single task, such as ASW) versions, and so forth. One of the options that was (and technically, I suppose, still is) available to the Navy was to have terminated (or never started) the LCS program and turned, instead, to a littoral version of the existing Perry class FFG's. With only very slight modifications the Perry could have taken on all the LCS roles and, in many cases, performed them better.

The premise of this build, therefore, is to present a littoral version of the Perry requiring very minimal modifications and, hence, very minimal costs. In other words, something that the Navy could and would have actually done had they opted to go this route. As such, this build represents a gap-filling alternative for the littoral mission with the premise that the LCS either never existed or was terminated once the problems and costs became evident.

As a gap-filling option, it would not be expected to be an optimized littoral vessel, merely one that is minimally adequate. Thus, the overriding criteria would be cost. The Navy, had they gone this route, would have attempted to do so with as minimal an expenditure as possible. The littoral Perry would be fitted with only the upgrades and modifications needed to meet the most minimal requirements for littoral missions.

This build, then, is the collaboration between navydavesof and myself.

With the above in mind, here is the list of notable modifications that will convert the standard Perry into a Littoral Perry:

-replace Mk13 missile launcher with Mk110 gun
-add an 8-cell Mk41 VLS for ESSM to the bow as the Australians have done
-upgrade the Oto Melara 76mm gun to the newest version (still considering this?)
-add (2)Mk141 Harpoon launchers
-remove the forward (UNREP?) gear from the bridge face (already done on some Perrys)
-add Nulka decoy launchers
-add (2)Mk38 remote guns
-replace the ship�s boat with a RHIB (already done on most/all Perrys)

Electronics (radars and sensors) would, for the most part, be left as is in keeping with the premise of a minimal upgrade.

The basis for this build is the Academy 1/350 short hull Perry. For those who are unfamiliar with the kit, it is pretty decent and includes the hull parts to covert it to a long hull, although this is not mentioned in the instructions. Unfortunately, the bilge keels are the longer ones that were present prior to the addition of stabilizers. Also, the Masker tubes do not continue to the bottom of the hull, as they should. The most unfortunate problem, though, is the prevalence of soft, rounded detail on the topside of the superstructure rendering most of it unusable. Not to worry, all these problems will be dealt with by the shipyard during the refit period.

So, with no further ado, let's build!

Here is the basic hull and superstructure assembled. Much of the topside detail has been removed and is in the process of being filled. I kept trying to save at least some of the detail but eventually wound up filing and sanding the entire topside flat. There just wasn't anything that could be kept and still maintain minimal shipyard standards.



Next is a shot of the hull with small holes drilled for the various drains. The Masker belts have been extended to the bottom of the hull. They actually stop just short of the keel. Also visible are the new, scratchbuilt bilge keels and stabilizer fins. I believe this arrangement is now present on all active Perrys. I also modified the kit's stand supports and drilled holes for them.



Here's a shot from above.



Here's another view of the superstructure. As you can see, more and more of the detail is being removed. Eventually, it all went. Oddly, the majority of the detail on the vertical walls of the superstructure is pretty decent and has been retained. I don't know why the topside was so bad.

Bob,

Oto Melara 76mm - 80 RPM, 10NM range

Mk 110 57mm - 220 RPM, 15NM range

Mk 38, Mod 2

Why not replace the Oto Melara with another Mk 110 and cut your logistics issues, unless there's a reason why you would want the extra 20mm of diameter over a shorter range? Also, could SeaRam plug and play with the existing electronics suite?

Russ

Empirically, a SINKEX on a Canadian Iroquois class destroyer (modern DDG/H) using a variety of guns concluded with the result that the 57mm was insufficient to do any real damage while the 76mm was able to punch some holes in the hull.

Russ2146 wrote:Why not replace the Oto Melara with another Mk 110 and cut your logistics issues, unless there's a reason why you would want the extra 20mm of diameter over a shorter range? Also, could SeaRam plug and play with the existing electronics suite?

Russ, good questions. At the moment, I'm opting to use the new version of the 76mm for the sake of commonality with the existing 76mm equipment, magazine, and loading mechanisms. If that premise of commonality is true, and I'm not sure it is, then it would fit with the idea of an absolutely minimal upgrade. If fact, I'm not sure, yet, that I won't just wind up leaving the standard 76mm in place.

As far as SeaRam, I don't have any idea about compatibility but, again, the premise of a minimal upgrade dictates leaving the CIWS as is. That's the beauty of this build. Had the Navy wanted to do it, it would have been dirt cheap and very quick to do.

Thanks,
Bob

Timmy C wrote:Empirically, a SINKEX on a Canadian Iroquois class destroyer (modern DDG/H) using a variety of guns concluded with the result that the 57mm was insufficient to do any real damage while the 76mm was able to punch some holes in the hull.

Timmy, yeah that sounds about right. In this case, for a littoral role, neither gun would be expected to sink a destroyer. The purpose of the guns would be strictly to deal with small boats.

Thanks,
Bob

Here is the 8-cell VLS that will go on the bow in the same location as the Australian Perrys. Again, in keeping with the premise of a minimal upgrade, the supposition is that the Navy would use the Australian installation since the engineering has already been worked out. This is the shortest VLS, by the way, and would mount 32 ESSM's in quad packs.



Here's the scratchbuilt version.



Now, on to the Mk110. Anticipating future uses for this gun, I made a master and molded it so I can produce copies, if needed. Here's the begining of the master with the basic dimensions. More angles and detail will be added.



Once the master was ready, a mold was built from Leggos, the master placed inside, and the mold was filled with the silicone rubber.



Here's the completed casting waiting to be checked.



Flipping the casting over shows so far, so good. The moment of truth. I only occasionally dabble in molding so it really is a moment of uncertainty.



And, here's the final result. Good enough!



Now, just to see what this might look like, here's the VLS and Mk110 mocked up in position.



Thanks,
Bob

Looking great so far!! I just layed the keel for my FFG-7 and I'm wondering if you have any reference info for the bilge keels and stabilizers? What did you use for the masker belt?

Mk 75 Gunner wrote:... I'm wondering if you have any reference info for the bilge keels and stabilizers? What did you use for the masker belt?

I appreciate the kind words. There's plenty of references dealing with the stabilizer/keel. For example, here's a photo of USS Roberts showing the stabilizer and bilge keel as well as the Masker belts, if you look closely. I used the smallest half-round styrene rod I could find and blended it into the existing belt. Hope this helps.

wow..
great work...

It seems like am a mind reader.. I just started a What-if post on this project...

Pretty good looking, Bob! It's going to be a blast watching this project come together.

You know, Bob, I was thinking about this as we were loading Harpoons aboard a DDG recently. If we are going to have the Harpoons up front where they are (which I still think is a great idea) we might want to keep the unrep gear on the face of the super structure. What that would afford is the ability to service the Harpoons without needing a barge with a crane next to the ship or having to be moored up next to the pier.

As you can see, loading Harpoons is a real pain in the butt. Loading them with the stability of the ship working to your advantage is a big help. If the UNREP gear can be used for that I would keep it.

navydavesof wrote: If we are going to have the Harpoons up front where they are (which I still think is a great idea) we might want to keep the unrep gear on the face of the super structure. What that would afford is the ability to service the Harpoons without needing a barge with a crane next to the ship or having to be moored up next to the pier.

Loading them with the stability of the ship working to your advantage is a big help. If the UNREP gear can be used for that I would keep it.

Well, that's a great idea. Here's some considerations, though.

1. I'm not sure that gear is actually for UNREP. I call it that because I can't think of anything else it might be. Oddly, in the hundreds of photos I've seen of Perrys and the dozens of articles and writeups I've read, I've never seen or read anything that shows the gear in use or discusses what it's for. There's a lot of ex-FFG sailors on the forum. Maybe someone can confirm what the gear was used for.

2. Not knowing for sure what the gear does, I'm not sure that it's designed to take significant weight.

3. The UNREP gear appears to be designed to swing out 90 degrees to the face of the bridge (deploys in a line pointing straight towards the bow) and is locked in place by a second, supporting part of the gear. It does not appear to be a swinging type crane, when in use.

4. There are no pulleys or fore/aft travel mechanism associated with the gear, as best I can tell. It probably wouldn't be difficult to add some kind of mechanism to it.

5. The height of the UNREP gear is actually a bit below the top of the Harpoon cannisters which would make its use as a crane questionable.

6. The Mk141 launcher/cannister pretty much completely blocks the gear. If the Mk141 launcher is in place, the gear would be prevented from swinging out and deploying. As you recall, it wasn't until we starting realizing that current versions of the Perry have had the UNREP gear removed, that locating the Harpoons in front of the bridge became an option.

7. I already removed the gear from the model although I could fabricate replacements.

Item 6 is the major drawback with item 5 a close second. It doesn't appear feasible to use the UNREP gear, as is, and my suggestion is to leave it off. However, your idea of an on-board crane is good. Could we postulate a simple, purpose built crane that would mount higher on the bridge face and be positioned in such a way that it wouldn't be blocked by the launcher itself? I'm not sure how much weight strain the underlying bridge framework could handle. My understanding is that the superstructure isn't built all that strong. How far over the side of the ship would the crane have to be able to reach to pick up the load? Ponder this and let me know what you think.

Hey Russ, the max range of Mk-110 is actually 9.2 NM and the Mk-75 is 10.8 NM, at least according to NavWeaps. Not sure where you got 15NM for a 57mm. Just a friendly FYI and nothing else.

One site had that or 17,000 yds

Great work,
You know I have been doing some thinking.. your proposal/build is right on money..
The orginial Design of the Perry was a cheap general purpose ship that could do a little AAW,ASW but most do lattoral or patrol missions..

as far as the unrep gear on the bridge face.. I don't seem to recall it was used for the purpose that was discussed.. but my memory could be wrong..

Lastly..
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...

ex-navy wrote:You know I have been doing some thinking.. your proposal/build is right on money..

Bob and I worked some gears working out some nitty gritty details. It was a lot of fun!

ex-navy wrote:Lastly..
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...

The largest RHIBs used by the USN are 11 meter boats, and the boat platforms should be able to be expanded to accommodate them. We would not need to sacrifice a helicopter hanger for a RHIB. Are you thinking about the 11 meter RHIB, or maybe fitting more than 2? I don't really know what kind of interdiction use you are thinking of with more than 2 RHIBs. Could you clarify?

I know you already put the Harpoon tubes in front of the bridge but did you ever consider using the Taiwanese arrangement? They have them arranged the same way but they're on top of the superstructure behind the SPS-49 mast. Just a thought. I'd use them as an example of where to place your Mk-38s as well. I do really like the idea Carr and I'm glad to see it progressing well. Looking forward to more updates

As per the original design of the class, they were conceived as ocean going convoy escorts during the cold war. ASW was their primary role but after the big Soviet bombers and cruise missiles showed up, the USN wanted some AAW ability too. Hence the installation of the Mk-13 GMLS. That was my understanding at least.

Cliffy B wrote:I know you already put the Harpoon tubes in front of the bridge but did you ever consider using the Taiwanese arrangement?

Yes, David and I looked closely at that. In fact, it was our original choice for a location. However, once we mocked it up, it became obvious that the Harpoon launchers either didn't fit in the space or fit with about a scale 1 inch clearance. The problem is that the mockup assumes that both the Veteran Models Harpoons and the Academy kit components are sized accurately. So, if some of the parts are oversized, they could well be enough room. On the other hand, if the parts are undersized then the fit problem is even worse than it looks.

Remember that the Taiwan FFGs do not actually have Harpoons. They have some other type of missile and we don't know whether the overall launcher is bigger or smaller than the Mk141.

It's certainly a debatable location but without exact dimensions for all components we can't know for sure. If the Veteran Models Harpoons are accurately sized, the fit would be tight, at best.

In the end, it was just easier and cleaner to locate them in front of the bridge.

Finally, the intent of the build is to present a concept of what a Littoral Perry (minimal upgrade) could be. Whether the Navy would actually locate the Harpoons in front of the bridge or somewhere else doesn't change the concept of the build or its applicability.

Regardless, it's a good idea, Cliffy. If you have or can find some size info (like the exact spacing between the masts and the exact width of the Mk141s), it's not too late to consider a change. Let me know if you find something!

Thanks for chiming in!

Regards,
Bob

carr wrote:

navydavesof wrote:

1. I'm not sure that gear is actually for UNREP. I call it that because I can't think of anything else it might be. Oddly, in the hundreds of photos I've seen of Perrys and the dozens of articles and writeups I've read, I've never seen or read anything that shows the gear in use or discusses what it's for. There's a lot of ex-FFG sailors on the forum. Maybe someone can confirm what the gear was used for.

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.

Cheers,

Keith