Perry Frigates' Mission(s) Today?

[fretburner]

I read that the Perry Frigates Missiles were removed in 2004 (Oliver Hazard Perry Class Guided Missile Frigate - Naval Technology.

The US ships' surface-to-air and surface-to-surface missiles were removed in 2004 but the ship supports Penguin-missile-armed LAMPS III helicopters.

Does this mean now that USN Perry Frigates' mission today is "purely" ASW?

 

[AegisFC]

No, these days they mostly do low intensity operations like counter drug ops and general support duties.

 

[StevoJH]

No, these days they mostly do low intensity operations like counter drug ops and general support duties.

So basically coast guard duties, stuff probably done more cheaply by a dedicated OPV.

 

[AegisFC]

So basically coast guard duties, stuff probably done more cheaply by a dedicated OPV.

OPV's in general don't have the range or endurance of the Perries, also the hulls are already in the water and available, in and they are already cheap to operate.

The SM-1 launcher wasn't really needed for what the USN was using them for and the SM-1's were approaching the end of their service life anyway so removing the launcher and putting the rest of the equipment in layup makes sense.

 

[fretburner]

OPV's in general don't have the range or endurance of the Perries, also the hulls are already in the water and available, in and they are already cheap to operate.

Why are they still in carrier strike groups then? A carrier usually have 1 cruiser and 3 destroyers right?

Seems like they can help in anti-piracy but what I'm reading is that it's usually Aegis destroyers doing that mission right now in Somalia?

 

[bd popeye]

AegisFC is, of course, correct.

Why are they still in carrier strike groups then? A carrier usually have 1 cruiser and 3 destroyers right?

FFGs are not assigned to CSG. CSG consist of;

* a carrier – The carrier provides a wide range of options to the U.S. government from simply showing the flag to attacks on airborne, afloat and ashore targets. Because carriers operate in international waters, its aircraft do not need to secure landing rights on foreign soil. These ships also engage in sustained operations in support of other forces.
* a guided missile cruiser – multi-mission surface combatant. Equipped with Tomahawks for long-range strike capability.
* two guided missile destroyers – multi-mission surface combatants, used primarily for anti-air warfare (AAW)
* an attack submarine – in a direct support role seeking out and destroying hostile surface ships and submarines
* a combined ammunition, oiler, and supply ship – provides logistic support enabling the Navy's forward presence; on station, ready to respond

The Carrier Strike Group (CSG) could be employed in a variety of roles, all of which would involve the gaining and maintenance of sea control:

* Protection of economic and/or military shipping.
* Protection of a Marine amphibious force while enroute to, and upon arrival in, an amphibious objective area.
* Establishing a naval presence in support of national interests.

In some cases the Cruiser is replaced by a DDG.

Seems like they can help in anti-piracy but what I'm reading is that it's usually Aegis destroyers doing that mission right now in Somalia?

Yes Arliegh Burkes are assigned to a variety of missions including anti-piracy.

Remember that the US Navy has Fifty Seven Arliegh Burke class DDGs.

 

[StevoJH]

OPV's in general don't have the range or endurance of the Perries, also the hulls are already in the water and available, in and they are already cheap to operate.

The SM-1 launcher wasn't really needed for what the USN was using them for and the SM-1's were approaching the end of their service life anyway so removing the launcher and putting the rest of the equipment in layup makes sense.

Cheap to operate? How can they be cheap to operate when they have 160-180 crew on board?

Compare that to the cheap french Floreals with a crew of 88. They have long range, a medium gun for firing warning shots and a helicopter for chasing down drug runners and pirates. What more do you need? They also have double the range of a perry.

 

[fretburner]

AegisFC is, of course, correct.



FFGs are not assigned to CSG. CSG consist of;

Just checked on globalsecurity.org and you are right. They used to be in CSG's but they're no longer there...

Carrier Strike Group

In some cases the Cruiser is replaced by a DDG.

Looking at the link above, doesn't 3 DDG's or 2 DDG's + 1 CDG too few an escort for a Carrier? I know they got 70 fighters or so, but I thought one of the reasons why the F-14 was retired was that its role is no primarily "taken over" by the Aegis + SM2 systems?

Yes Arliegh Burkes are assigned to a variety of missions including anti-piracy.

Remember that the US Navy has Fifty Seven Arliegh Burke class DDGs.

57 and still counting

So is it safe to assume that once the LCS are commissioned and in good numbers, these Perry Frigates are likely to go away?

 

[Sea Toby]

Just checked on globalsecurity.org and you are right. They used to be in CSG's but they're no longer there...

Carrier Strike Group



Looking at the link above, doesn't 3 DDG's or 2 DDG's + 1 CDG too few an escort for a Carrier? I know they got 70 fighters or so, but I thought one of the reasons why the F-14 was retired was that its role is no primarily "taken over" by the Aegis + SM2 systems?




57 and still counting

So is it safe to assume that once the LCS are commissioned and in good numbers, these Perry Frigates are likely to go away?

Yes, they will be decommissioned... They are a Cold War relic whose main role was ASW for escorting replenishment groups, amphibious groups, and merchant convoys. The US Navy has never considered the Perrys' front line warships.... With the Standard SM1 medium range missiles they were able to provide some area air defense. This was never as good as a Standard SM2 long range missiles.

The LCS can do those roles as well and more, being designed for shallower waters littoral operations too. While the LCS won't have an area defense SAM, they do have a self defense SAM.

 

[fretburner]

The LCS can do those roles as well and more, being designed for shallower waters littoral operations too. While the LCS won't have an area defense SAM, they do have a self defense SAM.

Looking at the Global Security Website, they will have NLOS-LS for SUW. Isn't that system still under development? Or is it supposed to be that way - many of the mission "packages" would be developed as the ships are developed?

 

[Sea Toby]

Looking at the Global Security Website, they will have NLOS-LS for SUW. Isn't that system still under development? Or is it supposed to be that way - many of the mission "packages" would be developed as the ships are developed?

Yes they are working on or testing a new surface to surface missile, but its smaller with less range than a harpoon, the ships which carry this package will have more missiles than a Perry...Its a part of the surface warfare package, its not a part of the anti-submarine or mine countermeasures package. These ships can have one of three packages/modules installed which can be flown around the world quickly in a Hercules or a Globemaster aircraft. C-130 or C-17.... I would assume the C-17 would be used in most cases, but they can fit in a C-130....

For example a ship deployed to West Pac could have a mine countermeasures package delivered to Perth, Singapore, or Guam to replace its anti-submarine package within a couple of days.... These ships' flexibility are great....

As I said before new technologies and weapons systems are involved with the LCS program. Its the new technologies and systems that are making the first few ship having costs overruns. What I call teething pains. Its practically a new ship from top to bottom....

However, all of the LCS ships will have RAM and the 57-mm gun....

 

[kato]

Yes they are working on or testing a new surface to surface missile, but its smaller with less range than a harpoon

NLOS-LS/Netfires-PAM performance isn't even remotely comparable to a Harpoon. Its range and punch are comparable to a 5"/64 gun using guided base-bleed ammunition, but it of course doesn't provide anywhere near the volume of fire of such a gun.

C-130 or C-17.... I would assume the C-17 would be used in most cases, but they can fit in a C-130....

You'll need at least two (2) C-17 or around nine (9) C-130 sorties to transport a full module. A LCS module typically consists of nine or ten 20-feet containers.
And for C-130, you better hope the logistics crew thought of using low-height (8') Type 1C containers to package the module, not commercial-standard (8'6") Type 1CC.

However, all of the LCS ships will have RAM and the 57-mm gun....

Which gives a bare LCS the defensive capability of a late 80s missile boat...

 

[StevoJH]

Yes they are working on or testing a new surface to surface missile, but its smaller with less range than a harpoon, the ships which carry this package will have more missiles than a Perry...Its a part of the surface warfare package, its not a part of the anti-submarine or mine countermeasures package. These ships can have one of three packages/modules installed which can be flown around the world quickly in a Hercules or a Globemaster aircraft. C-130 or C-17.... I would assume the C-17 would be used in most cases, but they can fit in a C-130....

For example a ship deployed to West Pac could have a mine countermeasures package delivered to Perth, Singapore, or Guam to replace its anti-submarine package within a couple of days.... These ships' flexibility are great....

As I said before new technologies and weapons systems are involved with the LCS program. Its the new technologies and systems that are making the first few ship having costs overruns. What I call teething pains. Its practically a new ship from top to bottom....

However, all of the LCS ships will have RAM and the 57-mm gun....

I thought they were planning 55 LCS's and around 60 modules, meaning the modules would not rotate between ships very often at all, as they will already be aboard ships.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Still they are transportable quickly.

If you need something absolutely then 2 C-17 flights will be worth it. But its not an everyday thing.

Could LCS be armed with a few harpoon canisters? Even with 4 or 6 harpoons, it would make a big change to what a LCS could defend against. Even if they shared a pool of harpoons and have them deployed as needed.

 

[fretburner]

Could LCS be armed with a few harpoon canisters? Even with 4 or 6 harpoons, it would make a big change to what a LCS could defend against. Even if they shared a pool of harpoons and have them deployed as needed.

How big a modification does it need for the LCS to carry Harpoons? I guess it will have systems/radar that are flexible enough for this? It doesn't seem like a couple of Harpoon canisters would require a lot of deck space.

 

[Sea Toby]

The US Navy is going to have over sixty Burke class DDGs. The US Navy has never considered frigates as first line warships, they are not cruisers or destroyers. While harpoons are very effective in at sea battles, the LCS's are designed for littoral operations closer to the shore and will have shorter range weapons systems. Including surface to surface missiles.

Most likely they will deploy with a fleet of more capable navy ships, they will not be alone for long. Even in the mid ocean escort ASW missions, its very likely other navies frigates with longer range surface to surface missiles will be tagging along escorting an international convoy of merchant ships.

The US Navy doesn't want baby destroyers or frigates, they want a ship more capable for missions in the littoral regions of the world.... We have plenty of destroyers as ocean warships. Why does everyone attempt to put a square peg through a round hole? The LCS is not a square peg.....

At the start of the last century battleships were the rage. But still every navy saw the need for cruisers and destroyers and submarines. Even during WWII the US Navy saw a need for plywood built PT boats....

There is and will always be a McHale's Navy of smaller ships with lesser range weapons systems.....

 

[tatra]

Cheap to operate? How can they be cheap to operate when they have 160-180 crew on board?

Compare that to the cheap french Floreals with a crew of 88. They have long range, a medium gun for firing warning shots and a helicopter for chasing down drug runners and pirates. What more do you need? They also have double the range of a perry.

They don't have Sonar (Perry has SQS-56, SQR-19 Towed Array), ASW armament (Perry has two triple Mark 32 Anti-submarine warfare torpedo tubes with Mark 46 or Mark 50 anti-submarine warfare torpedoes), a torpedo decoy (Perry has AN/SLQ-25 Nixie), or a CIWS (Perry has a Phalanx Block 1B).
They have only a single helicopter (Perry has 2, and of a more capable type).
They have an inferior L-band (1 to 2 GHz) air and surface surveillance radar with instrumented ranges are 110 km for the air channel and 80 km for the optional surface channel (Perry has the an L-Band AN/SPS-49 air search radar with a range of 46km and an I-Band A/SPS-55 surface search and navigation radar with a range of 93km). They also have an inferior electronic warfare and decoy suite in the form of ARBG-1A Saïgon and 2 Dagaie decoy systems (Perry has SLQ-32(V)2, Flight III with sidekick, Mark 36 SRBOC, to be replaced by the Mk 53 DLS "Nulka" missile decoy system, which will be even better than the present chaff). And they have inferior speed (20kn versus 29+kn, which allows to Perry to operate with a carrier strike group is necessary).

Moreover, whereas it would be hard to increase the AShM load of the Florean, or to add SAMs, the Perry can be fitted with 2x4 Harpoon in a jiffy (it is fitted for Harpoon already) and with e.g. a 21 round RAM launcher with barely any work.