Author Topic: Why not the Oliver Hazard Perry class?  (Read 15684 times)

dr demented

  • Global Moderator
  • Boffin
  • *****
  • Posts: 592
    • View Profile
Re: Why not the Oliver Hazard Perry class?
« Reply #15 on: July 26, 2017, 12:00:48 PM »
https://blog.usni.org/posts/2017/07/25/put-the-g-back-in-ffg

Quote
Put the ‘G’ Back in FFG
By Captain Peter Peter Pagano, U.S. Navy (Retired) | July 25, 2017

The Chief of Naval Operations has announced that he is open to various ways of growing the Fleet to the desired 355 ships, including the return to service of up to eight Oliver Hazard Perry-class guided missile frigates. However, in the last ten or so years of their service, the Perry-class frigates operated without a missile system despite retaining the fast frigate, guided missile (FFG) designation. If the Navy returns the frigates to service it should arm them with sufficient combat power to make it worthwhile from both cost and operational employment perspectives.

In 2003, Navy leadership accepted risk with the Perry class and removed the Mark 13 guided-missile launching system (GMLS) in a cost-cutting move. With the removal of the GMLS went the frigates’ ability to employ SM-1 surface-to-air and Harpoon antiship missiles. This left the ships with only point defense systems— guns and soft-kill devices. Employing its SPS-49 long-range air search radar, LAMPS SH-60B helicopter, and SQR-19 passive towed array (TACTASS), it became a patrol frigate (PF). Design work began in the early 1970’s with the class was conceived as a low-cost ocean escort for convoys, logistic ships, and amphibious formations. The Perry class received the designation PF. In 1975, their designation was changed to FFG.

The geopolitical landscape has changed considerably since the Navy’s 2003 decision to remove the principal offensive and defensive weapon systems of the Perrys. China’s rise as a military power and its aggressive maritime moves in the South China Sea; a resurgent Russia acting in opposition to Western interests; North Korea’s saber rattling—nuclear and otherwise; and Iran’s ongoing attempts at regional hegemony and increasingly provocative actions in the Arabian Gulf have combined to render unwise the idea of deploying a lightly armed warship exclusively for “presence” and theater engagement missions. That was the role the “defanged” Perrys were fulfilling before their retirement.

If the Perry class are returned to operational service, they should be in a condition that permits them to contribute to the emerging Fleet design concept of distributed maritime operations and distributed lethality. With the installation of an 8-to-16 cell MK41 vertical launching system (VLS) in place of the former MK13 GMLS and below-deck magazine, the Perry-class frigate could be armed with quad packs of Evolved Sea Sparrow (ESSM) missiles for air defense (and limited surface employment); an over the horizon antiship missile such as naval strike missile or LRASM, for example, and vertical launch ASROC for antisubmarine warfare. Any concerns regarding hull depth to accommodate the MK41 VLS can be addressed by employing a deck house-like arrangement as the Royal Australian Navy did when they added an eight-cell VLS to their Perry-class frigates. When combined with existing sensors, datalink, and hard/soft kill self-defense systems installed in the class, the Perry-class frigate brings credible combat capability at an affordable price both in system installation and operating cost to the Navy’s mission of sea control.

Wisely, the Navy mandated all support equipment associated with MK13 GMLS and STIR fire control illuminator be retained on board when those systems were removed. This was more for foreign military sales potential than with an eye towards possible return to service. Nonetheless, reinstalling the STIR or a comparable illuminator onto its pedestal and refurbishing the existing support equipment would bring the fire control system back online.

In addition to VLS, upgrading from LINK 11 to LINK 16 datalink is necessary. Additional upgrades might include replacing the SQR-19 TACTASS with the multifunction towed array, though the cost might be at odds with fleet expansion at an affordable price tag. Strengthening the hangar and flight deck to accommodate the MH-60R multirole helicopter is another possible improvement. If upgrading the aviation facilities is a bridge too far, then the frigates can advance the Navy’s drive in unmanned aviation operations by using its twin hangars and flight deck to accommodate up to four MQ-8B Fire Scout unmanned aerial systems (UAS) for surveillance and kill chain support.

Returning to service Perry-class frigates to quickly expand the Fleet makes only sense if they are equipped with combat power that allows them to contribute to distributed maritime operations and distributed lethality. Installation of an eight to sixteen cell VLS and LINK 16 would give the Oliver Hazard Perry class that credible combat power.

dr demented

  • Global Moderator
  • Boffin
  • *****
  • Posts: 592
    • View Profile
Re: Why not the Oliver Hazard Perry class?
« Reply #16 on: September 21, 2017, 10:12:31 AM »
It seems that SECNAV sees bringing back the Perrys as a cheap option.

https://news.usni.org/2017/09/20/secnav-spencer-oliver-hazard-perry-frigates-low-cost-drug-interdiction-platforms

Quote
SECNAV Spencer: Oliver Hazard Perry Frigates Could be Low-Cost Drug Interdiction Platforms
By: Ben Werner
September 20, 2017 4:31 PM

THE PENTAGON — If recommissioned, seven retired Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates would serve as basic surface platforms, stay close to U.S. shores, assist drug interdiction efforts or patrol the Arctic without an extensive upgrade to its combat systems, the Secretary of the Navy said on Wednesday.

SECNAV Richard V. Spencer told reporters he and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson are studying how the Navy faces-off a threat and how the Navy can best match the different types of threats.

“Is a (guided-missile destroyer) DDG the thing to put for drug interdictions down in the Caribbean? I don’t think so,” Spencer said.
“Do we actually have something in the portfolio right now?”

If pressed, Spencer said he’d task the Littoral Combat Ship with assisting the Coast Guard’s drug interdiction work in U.S. 4th Fleet in the short term. But looking forward to the Navy’s stated goal of increasing its fleet size to 355 ships, Spencer said part of his planning will include considering recommissioning the seven Perrys (FFG-7).

“One of the things we might look at is bringing the Perry-class to do a limited drug interdiction mode,” Spencer said.

Since December, when the Navy revealed the goal of building up to a 355-ship fleet, some analysts have called for reactivating several ships from the inactive fleet. Currently, the Navy has some 50 warships considered part of the inactive fleet, but these ships are varying states of repair.

While some analysts have called to reactivate other sidelined ships, such as three older Ticonderoga-class cruisers (CG-47) inactive for dozen years or the conventionally powered Kitty Hawk (CV-63) aircraft carrier, the Navy is really only considering bringing back the Perry-class ships for now.

In June, when discussing the prospect of reactivating older ships including the Perry-class frigates, CNO Richardson said the process is complicated. As a ship class nears the end of its anticipated life, the Navy doesn’t invest a lot of money into keeping the class modernized, opting instead to invest money in current programs.

In the 1980s, the service reactivated ships from the inactive fleet as part of the Reagan Administration’s drive to a 600-ship Navy – most notably the four Iowa-class battleships (BB-61) from World War II.

What makes the Perry-class intriguing is the relative ease and low-cost to put these ships back in service, to perform specific roles, Spencer said. Supporting his point, Spencer mentioned the March deal where Taiwan spent $35,000 per-ship to put two Perry-class frigates back to sea.

“No combat systems, but sea-ready, navigation ready, radar ready out the door,” Spencer said. “That’s a pretty inexpensive proven platform right there,” Spencer said. “Can you arm it up with Tomahawks? No.”

But for drug interdiction or operating in low threat areas, Spencer said the frigates could accomplish these important missions without expensive upgrades to weapons systems.

Juramentado

  • Timawan
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
Re: Why not the Oliver Hazard Perry class?
« Reply #17 on: September 21, 2017, 09:40:48 PM »
I've been talking with a lot of the surface folks, some with very recent tours, and they all agree the Perrys could actually be useful. However, Counter-Narcotics in Latin America should not be the primary use. In essence, the figs would end up occupying the last role they performed - independent steaming Presence assets.

adroth

  • Administrator
  • Boffin
  • *****
  • Posts: 14239
    • View Profile
    • The ADROTH Project
Re: Why not the Oliver Hazard Perry class?
« Reply #18 on: November 15, 2017, 02:29:47 PM »
CNO info paper warns reactivating Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates too costly
November 14, 2017 | Lee Hudson

https://insidedefense.com/insider/cno-info-paper-warns-reactivating-oliver-hazard-perry-class-frigates-too-costly

Four months after announcing the Navy would conduct a cost-benefit analysis on reactivating the 10 remaining Oliver Hazard Perry-class guided missile frigates to increase the service's fleet size, a chief of naval operations information paper reveals it is too expensive.

The minimum cost for 10 ships across a 10-year service life would exceed $4.32 billion, according to the CNO. Defense News first reported the paper's findings.

The Navy "should instead prioritize resources toward modernization of the existing fleet, enhanced training, and acquisition of a more capable FFG(X)," the Oct. 6 paper reads.

< Edited >

dr demented

  • Global Moderator
  • Boffin
  • *****
  • Posts: 592
    • View Profile
Re: Why not the Oliver Hazard Perry class?
« Reply #19 on: December 12, 2017, 05:57:03 AM »
https://news.usni.org/2017/12/11/secnav-memo-navy-wont-reactivate-perry-frigates-southcom-mission-will-send-ships-fight-drug-war-2018

Quote
SECNAV Memo: Navy Won’t Reactivate Perry Frigates for SOUTHCOM Mission; Will Send Ships to Fight Drug War in 2018
By: Sam LaGrone
December 11, 2017 4:35 PM

The Navy won’t reactivate any Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates in support of operations in U.S. Southern Command, according to an internal service memo obtained by USNI News.

Instead, the service will support SOUTHCOM’s anti-trafficking missions with Littoral Combat Ships and Spearhead-class expeditionary fast transports (T-EPF) through a commitment to support the Joint Interagency Task Force South by next year, according to the Dec. 5 memo from Secretary of the Navy Richard V. Spencer to Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson.

“We discussed the idea of reactivating FFG-7 ships, but the process of evaluating alternatives identified better solutions using LCS and T-EPF ships,” wrote Spencer.

Spencer called for four ships to be deployed to the region by next year.

“Multiple demands will require prioritization, but this mission must be in the top priority category for these ships, reversing the prior decision to eliminate support [to SOUTHCOM],” he wrote.
“Since the training areas are close to the operational areas covered by the Task Force, it is likely possible that part of the training profile can be real maritime security tasks likely to be encountered many places in the world.”

Earlier this year, Spencer and Richardson both said the Navy was examining the idea of reactivating some number of the decommissioned frigates as a low-cost solution to support the anti-trafficking operations by JIATF South.

However, an internal CNO memo obtained by USNI News found the cost to reactivate the ships could be in the hundreds of millions of dollars per hull. The memo recommended putting more funds in modernizing the Navy’s guided-missile cruisers and into the development of the next-generation frigate program (FFG(X)).

The Navy has not been an active player in the anti-trafficking mission since the Perry’s left the fleet.

Well past their warfighting prime, these frigates provided presence and reconnaissance support to the effort. The ships also hosted U.S. Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachments (LEDET) that had the legal authority to interdict and detain suspected traffickers on the high seas.

“This Task Force is a very important element in the control of illegal drug transportation. Navy ceased providing surface ship support at the end of 2015 when the FFG-7 class was retired,” wrote Spencer.
“Since then maritime events have doubled and more growth is expected by the Task Force in the coming years. Clearly the presence of Navy ships had a deterrent effect on the drug transportation process. We must restore this impact now in this vital national priority program.”

Trafficking was considered a mission for at least the Freedom-class LCS early in the program’s history. USS Freedom (LCS-1) transported a Coast Guard LEDET team as part of its first deployment in 2010. As part of the Navy’s shift in the LCS operational vision, all of the LCSs based at Naval Station Mayport, Fla,. will be Freedom-variant hulls.

In addition to committing the ships to SOUTHCOM, Spencer called for equipping both the LCS and the T-EPFs with additional unmanned aerial vehicle capabilities similar to the Scan Eagle UAV arrangement the service used on the afloat forward staging base USS Ponce (AFSB(I)-15) to provide additional reconnaissance and communications capabilities.

adroth

  • Administrator
  • Boffin
  • *****
  • Posts: 14239
    • View Profile
    • The ADROTH Project
Re: Why not the Oliver Hazard Perry class?
« Reply #20 on: December 17, 2017, 04:43:48 PM »
One less OHP class frigate in service

RAN decommissions Adelaide-class frigate HMAS Darwin
Gabriel Dominguez - Jane's Defence Weekly
11 December 2017

http://www.janes.com/article/76314/ran-decommissions-adelaide-class-frigate-hmas-darwin
   
The Royal Australian Navy (RAN) has decommissioned its Adelaide-class, guided missile frigate HMAS Darwin after 33 years of service.

< Edited >

Since entering service in 1984, Darwin has steamed over a million n miles, visited more than 50 countries, and undertaken operations in the Middle East, East Timor, and the Solomon Islands, according to the Australian Department of Defence (DoD).

The RAN’s Adelaide-class (US Oliver Hazard Perry design) frigates, of which only two now remain in service, are being retired to make way for the Hobart-class Air Warfare Destroyers (AWDs), which provide the service with an improved war fighting capability.

< Edited >