OH Perry Class Frigate Armament ?

seasick:  great info!  of course, everything being equal, it would always be nicer to have a CG or DDG in hand for when things got interesting.

easy to see why the USN decided to forgo more mods on the OHPs.  plus, the LCS and DDX may end p being quite the interesting ships, too  

The missions being performed by the remaining Perrys are patrol in regions where the threat of missile and air attack are low. The capability of the Mk92 fire control system to engage modern anti-ship missiles was judged to be far to limited to justify it being retained. If needed the Rolling airframe missile can be fit, and would be better than the Standard missile one for ship self defense against anti-ship missiles. An air attack would still have to face the Mk75 76mm cannon and the Phalanx Block 1B. The MH-60R helecoptor is replacing the earlier SH-60B and amonst other capabilities can target and launch the Penguin anti-ship missiles; the helecoptors can also be armed with Hellfire missiles.

The reason the Australian Perrys have had the VLS upgrade is that the RAN does not have a more powerful AAW vessel. The USN on the other hand has 22 Ticonderoga CG, and 50 Arleigh Burke DDG.

The Perry class is also deficient in radar capability. The Mk74 "Tartar" system that was fit to the Virginia, California, and Kidd classes had the following: A long range 2D air search set originally the AN/SPS-40 later AN/SPS-49, a 3D air-search radar, the AN/SPS-48C later AN/SPS-48E, and subordinate tracking and illumination radars: the AN/SPG-51 ans AN/SPG-60.  The so fit ships were able to fires the standard missile one under a semi-active scheme, later with improved software and upgrades to their radars were able to control the standard missile two under a more powerful system called New Threat upgrade (NTU) which gave them a near Aegis capability. The Mk92 fire control system on the Perrys can't be upgraded to the NTU standard. The Perry has the powerful AN/SPS-49 2D air search radar, but has no 3D radar. The combined antenna system (CAS) has two small radars in it that have a limited height finding capability but are short ranged. The STIR antenna that was also fit to the system was more powerful and can track an air target, but is too slow to acquire a target for time sharing as a target illuminator. A partial solution was the Mk92 mod5 modification to the Mk92 system. The Mod5 would have added faster computers and small phased array radars to fill gaps in capabilities. Two Perrys were fit with the mod5 system but it was canceled in 1986 in favor of the never built Frigate-90 program.    

If anyone is interested I'll produce some foot notes for my rant here.

Good information.  I was wondering if a VLS could be installed on the OHPs both from a space constraint and also a cost effectiveness sense.  Apparently it can. 

Selfishly, it would have been nice if the USN had done this to their OHPs, just cuz I like how they look and I'm use to having them in the fleet.  Oh well, the more things change, the more they stay the same. 

Good info.  This is what I was kinda wondering as to what the USN did to keep the OHP "teethy."

All short hull OH Perry frigates have been decomissioned @1996 most have been exported. Long hull Perry frigates had their Mk13 launchers deactivated in the forth quarter of 2003. The USN retired the Standard missile one (RIM-66E) from active service at the same time, Standard missile two (RIM-66M-5) SM-2MR Block IIIB is stll active. The STIR antenna of the Mk92 fire control system has also been retired. I might note that the air defense system built on to the Perry class FFG was designed to cope with medium and high altitude air attack during the cold war. The capability of the system against modern low altitude threats is limited. The Perry class retains its full ASW capability. To compensate for the loss of the AAW missiles and Harpoon some measures have been taken: 1. The Phalanx 20mm has been upgraded from block 1 to block 1B.  The block 1B standard introduces a capability against light aircraft, helecoptors, and fast moving surface targets. The torpedo magazine on Perry FFG have been equiped with adapters so that cells in the torpedo magazine can hold Penguin anti-ship missiles in place of torpedos one a one for one basis. Provisions have been made to fit the Mk49 21 cell RAM (rolling airframe missile, RIM-116) aboard the vessels if needed.

The Perry frigates had these modifications to hold down operating cost and lower the top weight. Otherwise the USN would have had to decomission them.

The Perry frigates noticeable external changes. The launch arm of the Mk13 launcher has been removed, The STIR antenna for the Mk92 fire control system has been removed, the combined antenna system (CAS) or as it is called "Egg" is still in place. Underway replenishment equipment on the super structure below the bridge has been removed.

Antipodean Andy wrote:

Riggsie15, look forward to that build.  I almost bought the kit today in Wagga but I hadn't done any research on it so played it safe (and bought three aircraft kits!).  How's it look?

Yeah I'm building it in stages and I about ready to paint the hull.  It's my first conversion kit so its going to be interesting.  Im sill waiting on a digital camera before I can post pictures.

Thanks again, Ed.  I was on WEM yesterday but looking at PE kits.  Would have found those other kits eventually but you've saved me a tonne of time.

Wow, ISW has everything.  Awesome.

Riggsie15, look forward to that build.  I almost bought the kit today in Wagga but I hadn't done any research on it so played it safe (and bought three aircraft kits!).  How's it look?

I know your doing a US ship and not Australian but I thought this might be  and interesting note.  Australia's remaining four Perry's have just undergone an extencive upgrade.  The core upgrade was the VLS cells installed on fore of the Single Arm Launcher.  This now give Aussie Perry's the ablity to use the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile, while still retaining Harpoon and Standard Missile capability through the Single Arm Launcher.  Another addon was improved torpeado tubs for the firering of I think the Mk48 Light torpeado.  Our Perry's also carry the 3-in cannon, CIWS and 4 50cal. MGs.  Oh and the Nuka decoy system and towed decoys.  The magazine Australian Warship stated that they were the most heaverly armed and up-to-date Perry's still in service around the world.  They are planned to be decomissioned aroung 2015 when the RAN recieves its new AWD's.

Anyhow I at the moment doing a conversion of Academy's OH Perry to HMAS Sydney (IV), one of Australia's upgraded Perry's.

Antipodean Andy wrote:

Amazing family history there, ddp59. I just ordered a couple of 1/350 kits off Dragon.  I'll have to keep an eye out for an OHP.  Mind you, I'd also like to find a Knox, a Belknap, a Coontz, a Leahy, CFA etc etc.  Love the smaller ships.

In 1:350 scale your Knox is available in resin & brass from either White Ensign Models or Iron Shipwright.

http://www.whiteensignmodels.com/brochure/1_350_knox1.htm

http://ironshipwrights.com/pages/Ainsworth-Judy.html

The Charles Adams is also available either from WEM or ISW

http://www.whiteensignmodels.com/brochure/1_350_stoddert1.htm

http://ironshipwrights.com/pages/barney.html

ISW offers a Coontz as the King,  the Belknapp as the Jouett, and the Leahy as the Halsey

http://ironshipwrights.com/ships_350.html

If you're partial to small ships you really should check Iron Shipwright's selection

Amazing family history there, ddp59.

I just ordered a couple of 1/350 kits off Dragon.  I'll have to keep an eye out for an OHP.  Mind you, I'd also like to find a Knox, a Belknap, a Coontz, a Leahy, CFA etc etc.  Love the smaller ships.

Thanks Ed, that all makes perfect sense.  I have to admit I haven't been keeping track of the OHPs but was aware of several being decommissioned a couple of years ago.  When the early Ticos started getting decomm'd I realised they were paying off the ones with the Mk 26 launcher but when I read the above I didn't put two and two together.  My thoughts were that the OHPs are workhorses so should be well-armed.  They're pretty much patrol frigates now.

We've just sunk one of our Adelaides (HMAS Canberra).  They've always been a part of the RAN as I know it so it's weird to see them being paid off here and in the US.

Yeah, the USS McInerney, FFG-8, which I modeled for a friend several years ago, is going to Pakistan, of all places, in mid-2010 (go figure). Why Pakistan feels the need to have a nominally formidable ASW capability is beyond me.

The McInerney is the oldest-serving Perry-class FFG, and I guess transferring the old gal to another navy is a better fate than melting her down into razor blades.

Antipodean Andy wrote:

The Standard launchers are being taken off?!  WTF???  Any good reason for this?  I can't think of one.

Three reasons; reliability, maintainance & logistics issues.  Both the single-arm launchers and the double-arm launchers as seen on the early Ticonderogas have been removed from USN service.  

Many of the Perrys have been decommissioned and/or sold.  The remaining ones have had their MK13 launchers removed.  The early Ticos (Ticonderoga through Gates) with MK26 launchers have been decommisisoned also.

The VLS system is more reliable and is fielded across more platforms making maintenance & logistics easier & cheaper

The Standard launchers are being taken off?!  WTF???  Any good reason for this?  I can't think of one.

I think the LCS' that will be coming on line to effectively replace the OHPs are also under-armed for a ship that is supposed to operate close to shore.

In addition to the info ddp59  dug up from NavSource, that is also what is on the RJ and Ingraham official web sites:  2-triple tube torpedos, 1- 76mm gun, 2-25mm, 2-.50s, 1 CIWS. 

Now, being only a Navy fan and not expert, and again, setting aside the helicopters, I still think the ships are under-armed and are really more of a sea-going patrol craft, as opposed to being a sea control ship as orignally designed and appear to be "over-resourced."  Note:  I'm an OHP fan; I've always liked their looks; and this is strictly an observation.  Sort of a "Thoughts I've Thunk."

Please to compare:

Visby class/corvette/Sweden - provision for 8 RBS-15 SSM, 1 57mm/70cal DP, 4 15.7 inch torpedo tubes, 4 ASW RL, reservation for SAM system. (No aircraft, but only a 1/5 the size of a OHP.)

Type 23/frigate/UK - 8 Harpoon, 1 Sea Wolf VLS (32 missiles), 1 114mm/55, 2 30 mm,
   4 torpedo tubes

Type 22/frigate/UK - 8 Harpoon, 2 6-cell Sea Wolf (72 missiles total, manual
   reload), 1 114mm/55 DP, 1 30 mm Goalkeeper CIWS, 2 triple 12.75 inch torpedo
   tubes, 2 30 mm

F85s/frigate/Norway - ESSM (VLS), NSM SSMs, 12.75" torpedo tubes, 76mm OTO gun, 12.7mm MG (about 20% larger then a OHP)

Type 123/frigate/Germany - 4 MM38 Exocet SSM, VLS for 16 Sea Sparrow SAM, 1 76 mm
  OTO DP, 2 21 cell RAM, 4 12.75 inch torpedo tubes, 2 20 mm

Nils Juel class/corvette/Denmark - 8 Harpoon SSM, 6-cell VLS Sea Sparrow, 1 76 mm OTO DP, 4 20 mm (No aircraft)

source:  http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/

I wish I had an answer for you. You raise an interesting question.

Bill Morrison