A Ruskie vs US Scenario

Are the OHP FFgs equipped with datalink so they could be "controlled" by a single AB DDG while out on the picket line? If so, there's a whole lotta missiles in the air, right there, albeit maybe SM1s or can they fire SM2s now? This is about how both fleets can take each other on and that's what I'm really interested in. Surprising that nobody's mentioned HARM or anything like it to "blind" the russkie fleet at least. If the Russkies sent helos aloft, they'd be no big problem to take down, so the real major problem would become, IMHO, the SSN/SSKs.

exported_kiwi said:

Are the OHP FFgs equipped with datalink so they could be "controlled" by a single AB DDG while out on the picket line? If so, there's a whole lotta missiles in the air, right there, albeit maybe SM1s or can they fire SM2s now? This is about how both fleets can take each other on and that's what I'm really interested in. Surprising that nobody's mentioned HARM or anything like it to "blind" the russkie fleet at least. If the Russkies sent helos aloft, they'd be no big problem to take down, so the real major problem would become, IMHO, the SSN/SSKs.

Click to expand...

The Mk-13 launcher was removed from the USN OHP class as the SM-1MR was phased out. So SM-1 or Harpoons are no longer carried.

Salty Dog said:

Sorry mate. Your description of the links are system to system weapons control, CGI to aircraft, SAM system terminals and not a complete C3I datalink. How are AAW, ASUW, ASW and EW functions integrated and controlled? Are these systems you describe on any warships? They look like land systems to me.

Click to expand...

Sure, land systems. As i said, there is no open reliable info about naval BM systems. In USSR ships description there are just few words about full developed battle management system and datalinks between ships.

I gave just known example of USSR networking technology of the 80x time. As we see, USSR networking/datalink technology was on par with West, and in many cases surpassed as in f.e. SAM's (quite relevant also for naval SAM's, no?) or fighters aircrafts case. Now, of course, at least in fighters case USA catched up and got ahead.

Chrom said:

Sure, land systems. As i said, there is no open reliable info about naval BM systems. In USSR ships description there are just few words about full developed battle management system and datalinks between ships.

I gave just known example of USSR networking technology of the 80x time. As we see, USSR networking/datalink technology was on par with West, and in many cases surpassed as in f.e. SAM's (quite relevant also for naval SAM's, no?) or fighters aircrafts case. Now, of course, at least in fighters case USA catched up and got ahead.

Click to expand...

Our discussion was on naval C4I systems which you have not produced.

I do not see how you can justify that any Russian C4I system is so advanced (surpassing the West?) when you have not given any Russian TDS comparable to a Link 11/16 where a CWC may control AAW, ASUW, ASW and EW assets in a battle group.

Salty Dog said:

Our discussion was on naval C4I systems which you have not produced.

I do not see how you can justify that any Russian C4I system is so advanced (surpassing the West?) when you have not given any Russian TDS comparable to a Link 11/16 where a CWC may control AAW, ASUW, ASW and EW assets in a battle group.

Click to expand...

We dont have facts if russian TDS is better or worse. Classified. We dont know much about it. We just know it exist. We can, however, assume its capability by comparison of other known examples of russian datalink and BM technology compared, again, to known examples of USA technology in other areas - f.e. SAM's, aircrafts...
At least these examples provide comparable to Link-16 datalink capabilities, so it is very resonable to assume russian big, expencive naval ships are not so far behind russian small, relatively cheap aircrafts.

Chrom said:

We dont have facts if russian TDS is better or worse. Classified. We dont know much about it. We just know it exist. We can, however, assume its capability by comparison of other known examples of russian datalink and BM technology compared, again, to known examples of USA technology in other areas - f.e. SAM's, aircrafts...
At least these examples provide comparable to Link-16 datalink capabilities, so it is very resonable to assume russian big, expencive naval ships are not so far behind russian small, relatively cheap aircrafts.

Click to expand...

Well mate, your responses have been based on assumptions and speculation.

I do not wish to pursue the datalink topic any further with you.

Salty Dog said:

Well mate, your responses have been based on assumptions and speculation.

I do not wish to pursue the datalink topic any further with you.

Click to expand...

But you responses didnt even based on that

Chrom said:

But you responses didnt even based on that

Click to expand...

You are absolutely right mate!!! I did not use assumptions and speculation. I just stuck to the facts and systems that really exist. Many thanks for your support!

So with no Mk13, no SAMs or anything, why would anybody use OHPs in such a battle group, as a sub hunter or Harpoon platform (how'd they launch 'em without the launcher) or what? Seems kinda wasteful now that I know the ships aren't properly armed now and a whole lotta folks'd be killed for nothing. Why not, if we're gonna use OHPs, make them remote controlled and use them as missile soaks for when the inevitable salvo from the Ruskies appear. This makes more sense to me!

exported_kiwi said:

So with no Mk13, no SAMs or anything, why would anybody use OHPs in such a battle group, as a sub hunter or Harpoon platform (how'd they launch 'em without the launcher) or what? Seems kinda wasteful now that I know the ships aren't properly armed now and a whole lotta folks'd be killed for nothing. Why not, if we're gonna use OHPs, make them remote controlled and use them as missile soaks for when the inevitable salvo from the Ruskies appear. This makes more sense to me!

Click to expand...

Nope x

Why nope Izzy? What else can the OHPs be used for?

Whilst her AAW and ASUW capabilites have been clipped, the OHP in the USN should continue to be an excellent ASW platform with the two embarked SH-60s and the SQQ-89 tail.

As noted, the OH Perrys are still useful as ASW escorts, and they still retain their Phalanx CIWS. The US Navy has enough Arleigh Burkes in the fleet now to use them as AAW radar picket ships, much like they used the Charles F. Adams class. When the Adams class were decomissioned, some of the large number of OH Perrys were used for this role until the navy stopped supporting the SM-1. The last of the SM-1 inventory is being saved to support foreign navies that use the Mk 13 launcher systems.

Frankly, the US Navy has never really considered the OH Perrys front line warships. They were mainly built to replace a larger number of WWII destroyers for the ocean escort role, and with their SM-1s provided some area air cover. Today, many of the amphibious and replenishment ships have their own self defense anti-air systems, and the large number of ex-Soviet submarines are gone. It is thought today that with their CIWS they are able to defend themselves against a limited air strike against civilian shipping in the ocean escort role.

Notice that LCS will only have a RAM SAM launcher for 21 missiles in this ocean escort role in the future. If the LCS building program does die, and National Security Cutter type navy escort ships were built instead, they would most likely have the same RAM SAM.

"Frankly, the US Navy has never really considered the OH Perrys front line warships. "

Not entirely true.

Like the Knox class before them they were in fact "frontline warships" integrated into all combat formations.

In the mid-1990s before enough Burkes came online they did in fact perfiorm the DDG role.

And thats the problem with a high /low mix.

The low mix always has to assume roles for which it is ill equipped.

That the USN repeatedly stated that they didnt consider the frigates(ALL classes) as "frontline warships" that is in fact how they were employed.

Any study of Carrier/Battleship Battllegroups will clearly show this to be so.

As will a look at historical DESRON makeups.

And you dont need alot a time or special resources.

Google searches alone will provide you with an abundance of documentation.

The USN may not like to admit it but thats the reality.

Its one reason why the OHP cost quadrupled in short order before the first unit was completed and quadrupled again before the last was completed and then another mammoth investment was undertaken in the early 1990s to help the OHP class cope with ALL the duties it was asked to perform.

Of course no amount of funding could ever solve the classes inherent limitations.

They werent described by their operators as "Helen Keller" ships for sh-ts and giggles.

The only ASW capability(the Hull mounted-sonar is mostly useless and the towed-arrays were long ago stored ashore) or Combat capability in general(with the demise of the MK 13 launcher) has for sometime and now resides exclusively in their abililty to employ two helos and complement a Burke Flight I/II DDG.

Now with soon enough Burke Flight IIA DDGs online even this limited usefulness is about to pass.

Dont get me wrong this calss has performed admirably in roles it was ill-equipped to perform.

Another reason why in 1986(20 +years ago!!!!!!!) the USN vowed never to build another frigate.

However they were to reiterate employed as "frontline warships" from the start.

And the same quandries are a major reason why the LCS program struggles.

In fact its why the DDX program struggles.

Cost vs Capability. Capability vs Cost.

rickusn said:

"They werent described by their operators as "Helen Keller" ships for sh-ts and giggles.

The only ASW capability(the Hull mounted-sonar is mostly useless and the towed-arrays were long ago stored ashore) or Combat capability in general(with the demise of the MK 13 launcher) has for sometime and now resides exclusively in their abililty to employ two helos and complement a Burke Flight I/II DDG.

Click to expand...

I do remember the FFG-7 reputation for the "Helen Keller" sonar.

I was not aware that the AN/SQR-19 tails were "clipped".

Sea Toby said:

As noted, the OH Perrys are still useful as ASW escorts, and they still retain their Phalanx CIWS. The US Navy has enough Arleigh Burkes in the fleet now to use them as AAW radar picket ships, much like they used the Charles F. Adams class. When the Adams class were decomissioned, some of the large number of OH Perrys were used for this role until the navy stopped supporting the SM-1. The last of the SM-1 inventory is being saved to support foreign navies that use the Mk 13 launcher systems.

Frankly, the US Navy has never really considered the OH Perrys front line warships. They were mainly built to replace a larger number of WWII destroyers for the ocean escort role, and with their SM-1s provided some area air cover. Today, many of the amphibious and replenishment ships have their own self defense anti-air systems, and the large number of ex-Soviet submarines are gone. It is thought today that with their CIWS they are able to defend themselves against a limited air strike against civilian shipping in the ocean escort role.

Click to expand...

However there was one role were the OHP's would have excelled, but they never got the chance. Escorting convoys across the atlantic. Haveing 2x helo's + SM1 on the bulk of your escorts would provide a reasonable AAW + ASW umbrella for even smaller convoys when no DDG's could be spared. They provided the mass needed to keep the sea lanes open with ample capability for that role.

Ozzy Blizzard said:

However there was one role were the OHP's would have excelled, but they never got the chance. Escorting convoys across the atlantic. Haveing 2x helo's + SM1 on the bulk of your escorts would provide a reasonable AAW + ASW umbrella for even smaller convoys when no DDG's could be spared. They provided the mass needed to keep the sea lanes open with ample capability for that role.

Click to expand...

Protecton of Shipping (POS) is a primary role of the OHP.

Form the US Navy Fact File http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=1300&ct=4:

Frigates - FFG

Description
Frigates fulfill a Protection of Shipping (POS) mission as Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) combatants for amphibious expeditionary forces, underway replenishment groups and merchant convoys.

Background
The guided missile frigates (FFG) bring a short range anti-air warfare (AAW) capability (provided by their Phalanx Close-In Weapon System) to the frigate mission, but they have some limitations. Designed as cost efficient surface combatants, they lack the multi-mission capability necessary for modern surface combatants faced with multiple, high-technology threats. They also offer limited capacity for growth. Despite this, the FFG 7 class is a robust platform, capable of withstanding considerable damage. This "toughness" was aptly demonstrated when USS Samuel B. Roberts struck a mine and USS Stark was hit by two Exocet cruise missiles. In both cases the ships survived, were repaired and returned to the fleet. USS Stark was decommissioned in May 1999.

The Surface Combatant Force Requirement Study does not define any need for a single mission ship such as the frigate and there are no frigates planned in the Navy's five-year shipbuilding plan.

The SM-1 missiles were considered area defense missiles, although of much shorter range than the SM-2 missiles. They were capable of defending the air space of a convoy, whether a civilian convoy or a military replenishment group and/or marine expeditionary task force. As I noted, many of these ships are being replaced with ships with RAM missiles, therefore, their SM-1 missiles aren't needed much anymore. The OH Perrys were built for the ocean escort role, ASW and AAW. But their use as radar picket ships for carrier battle groups where not what they were built for. And today, destroyers have replaced their radar picket role.

The navy today wants to replace them with LCS, the littoral combat ships. These ships will have RAM for anti-air self defense, along with a medium caliber gun, 57-mm. With three different task modules these ships will be capable of minehunting, and or anti-submarine, and littoral roles. There will be no modest area defense anti-air role filled by the new ships, just self defense.

Since the US Navy built bigger destroyers, it appears they wish to do away with the frigates and build smaller ships to replace them with more flexibility.

Sea Toby said:

The SM-1 missiles were considered area defense missiles, although of much shorter range than the SM-2 missiles. They were capable of defending the air space of a convoy, whether a civilian convoy or a military replenishment group and/or marine expeditionary task force. As I noted, many of these ships are being replaced with ships with RAM missiles, therefore, their SM-1 missiles aren't needed much anymore. The OH Perrys were built for the ocean escort role, ASW and AAW. But their use as radar picket ships for carrier battle groups where not what they were built for. And today, destroyers have replaced their radar picket role.

Click to expand...

I guess they were allways meant to provide the mass needed to keep the sea lanes open and provide sufficient if limited AAW + ASW to protect civilian convoys. They would have been excellent at this role. But now the requirement has gone.

Still i dont see the LCS as a true replacement, i wonder how well those things would handle a northeaster off newfoundland? Not too well i would think.:shudder

A frigate provides mass becasue of the cost. I guess the USN will just (and can afford to) rely on the AB DDG's for most of their warfighting roles.

Sea Toby said:

The SM-1 missiles were considered area defense missiles, although of much shorter range than the SM-2 missiles. They were capable of defending the air space of a convoy, whether a civilian convoy or a military replenishment group and/or marine expeditionary task force. As I noted, many of these ships are being replaced with ships with RAM missiles, therefore, their SM-1 missiles aren't needed much anymore. The OH Perrys were built for the ocean escort role, ASW and AAW. But their use as radar picket ships for carrier battle groups where not what they were built for. And today, destroyers have replaced their radar picket role.

The navy today wants to replace them with LCS, the littoral combat ships. These ships will have RAM for anti-air self defense, along with a medium caliber gun, 57-mm. With three different task modules these ships will be capable of minehunting, and or anti-submarine, and littoral roles. There will be no modest area defense anti-air role filled by the new ships, just self defense.

Since the US Navy built bigger destroyers, it appears they wish to do away with the frigates and build smaller ships to replace them with more flexibility.

Click to expand...

I would put the RIM-162 ESSM in the place of the SM-1 in a Mk-41 VLS (you can put a quad-pack per cell).

The ESSM has about a 50 kM range versus 7.5 kM for the RIM-116 RAM.