Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MK 13 launcher removed from Perrys?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • MK 13 launcher removed from Perrys?

    New guy here

    I just read some news report stating that the Perry class FFGs in USN service had their Mk 13 launchers removed. So now all they have are the 76mm gun, Phalanx, 2 helos, and torpedo launchers? What's on the bow station then?

    I know the navy wants to save some money but doesn't this look a bit drastic?
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  • #2
    The system was disabled, but i'm not sure if it was actually entirely physically removed.

    The 76mm guns are supposed to be retired from USN service sometime soon too, if they havn't been already.

    Comment


    • #3
      I was under the impression that America was replacing the Mk13 launchers with the RAM missile launcher. The Australians have kept their Mk13 launcher for the harpoon missiles, but are adding a ESSM 8 cell Mk 41 VLS forward of the launcher. Why? The US Navy has stopped supporting the smaller tartar sized SM-1MR missile. The other navies that have the Perry class FFGs will more than likely either follow the American or the Australian path in upgrading their Perry class frigates. Either path is not all that expensive.

      Simply put, while the ships can last 30 or more years, it seems the missile systems become outdated much sooner. Technolgy is advancing faster and faster all the time.

      Comment


      • #4
        I dug around some on navsource: http://www.navsource.org/archives/07/0732.htm

        23 September 2004: Guantanamo Bay, Cuba - John L. Hall moored pier-side at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba. Hall, assigned to Western Hemisphere Group, mainly operates in the Caribbean Sea and near South America, conducting counter-drug operations and bi-lateral/multi-lateral training exercises with South American navies. (US Navy photo #040923-N-9362D-010 by PHAN Randall Damm)
        Just kinda weird to see these frigates underway without their main armament. I guess it's not cost effective to put a RAM or ESSM launcher on the bow mount. USN probably want to use that money to buy new ships.
        Attached Files
        Last edited by TopHatter; 03 Sep 06,, 16:25. Reason: Restored picture
        "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

        Comment


        • #5
          Yeah, the USN has a hard on for the LCS.

          Should be in service in a couple years. As long as there's no naval war before then we should be OK, lol.

          Comment


          • #6
            Also keep in mind the Arleigh Burke guided missile destroyer programme went to 63 ships from the orginally planned 28, a net increase of 35 ships. With a planned purchase of up to 60 LCS, along with the non support of the tartar sized SM-1MR, the Perrys will soon be either sold abroad or end up being scrapped. Its time for their mid-life refits, and the Navy would prefer to build LCS instead of upgrading the Perrys, they have always treated the Perrys as insiginificant warships.

            One of the reasons why the Spruances and Kidds went so quickly was that as they aged their cooling water piping of the early model gas turbines began to fail early. Its not the ESSM or RAM upgrade that's expensive, its the cooling water piping.....

            Comment


            • #7
              I think the extra burkes were mainly intended as replacements for the retiring Sprucans moreso than the Perrys.

              Comment


              • #8
                "One of the reasons why the Spruances and Kidds went so quickly was that as they aged their cooling water piping of the early model gas turbines began to fail early. "

                I hadnt heard this. Do you have a source?

                The Burke program was originally a 63 ship program. Reduced to 56. Increased to 59 nd finally to 62.

                The first phase was 29. With 18 being Flight I/II ships w/o helo facilities.

                The next 11 any further orders would have been the much larger and capable Flight III ships.

                This classes design and production has been plagued by severe cost-cutting restraints. And yet is still a very successful design.

                Culminating in the cancellation of the Flight III versions that were replaced by the Flight IIA version. In essence a degraded Flight III or a minimally upgraded Flight II take your pick. The main feature being the incorporation of a helo hanger.

                The cost-cutting measures also prolonged the Flight I production run from 8 to 21. The Flight II ships decreased from 10 to 7.

                Cost constraints at one point (1984) compelled the USN to limit the program to only 29 ships with a cheaper destroyer envisioned to follow. The design of this follow-on ship of course never happened. But then the Flight III version never made it into construction either.

                The 29th unit began the Flight IIA construction which continues.

                The 56 # came from the need to replace the 18 prematurely retired Forrest Sherman class DD/DDG's, 30 of the Coontz & CF Adams classes of DDG's and the 18 Belknap & Leahy classes of CG's. The 63 # envisioned hulls to replace the other three units of the Coontz & CF Adams classes that were removed from the 56# plan because they were to be modernized instead plus the four Mitscher class DL/DDG's that had been prematurely decommissioned in 1969(2) and 1978(2). The 59 # reflects the additional reinstated replacment construction for the above mentioned three Coontz/CF Aadams classes. Four more were requested to bring the total back to 63 but apparently one was not funded bring the # back to 62.

                Right now, if I remember correctly, 62 will be completed in a building program that
                has been stretched out far longer than envisioned. The last of the original 63# program was to have been in service no later than 2002 when the last of the Leahy class were envisioned to leave service after 35 years of life.

                The OHP frigates have already or are now reaching the historical nominal service life of 22 years for ships of this type.

                While they have been very successful and useful ships they are severely outdated.

                Some have been extended in service to partially make up for the early decommissioning of the Spruance class although this may be rescinded starting with the next budget depending in part on the world situation and on how well the LCS program pans out.

                The 12 ships that under went CORT (an extensive electronics upgrade in the early 1990's) and 10 other less extensively upgraded ships were to last as long as 30 years.

                This now seems highly unlikely.

                But they do compliment the Burke Flight I/II ships quite well with their ability to operate and maintain two helos. And are quite good patrol ships.

                But are a rather expensive means for either purpose.

                Crew reduction and system inactivations mitigate the cost factor somewhat but also reduces their wartime utility.

                As for losing the 76mm gun that seems to be an error on someones part that continues to be repeated. Ive seen no evidence to support the contention that it is to be removed.

                OTOH where it is sited amidships makes it less than useful for a # of possible scenarios and would be no great loss. It is also somewhat more vulnerable to battle damage because of its siting.

                AS one expert states the OHP's "....are essentially mini-helo carriers.".
                Last edited by rickusn; 28 Jan 06,, 23:29.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by rickusn
                  As for losing the 76mm gun that seems to be an error on someones part that continues to be repeated. Ive seen no evidence to support the contention that it is to be removed.
                  Rick, if you'll recall i was the first guy to break the Mk13 removal story over 3 years ago on Warships1 (I got it from one of the guys at NWS who was actve USN at the time when i was writing the V16.8+ patch for Janes fleet command). He also stated at that time that the 76mm guns were being withdrawn.

                  Apparently he was right about the first, wrong about the second.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I think one of the reasons why the SM-1MR missile wasn't improved and upgraded was that the ESSM missile's range is similar.... Thus the navy concentrated on upgrading the SM-2ER missiles and the ESSM missiles and the RAM missiles instead. That's three SAM missile systems being funded, there wasn't any funds left to upgrade the SM-1MR missile.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Sea Toby
                      I think one of the reasons why the SM-1MR missile wasn't improved and upgraded was that the ESSM missile's range is similar.... Thus the navy concentrated on upgrading the SM-2ER missiles and the ESSM missiles and the RAM missiles instead. That's three SAM missile systems being funded, there wasn't any funds left to upgrade the SM-1MR missile.
                      The USN had originally planned to convert most of the SM-1's into SM-4's IIRC, so the SM-1 improvement programs were ditched, and then, the SM-4 was ditched.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I'm not surprised the forward missile launcher was removed or deactivated. What I am surprised is that someone thought of putting a RAM (Rotating Airframe Missile) launcher in its placed. Not a bad idea since the Perry's only have one CIWS and it well aft of the stack.

                        While still employed at LBNSY, I was assigned as project leader to study the possibility of putting RAM on the Perry's. But where NAVSEA wanted it was absolutely stupid. They said it was to augment CIWS and they wanted it on 03 level BETWEEN the stack and existing CIWS.

                        I replied with the groan of "12 pounds of potatos in a 10 pound sack".

                        I suggested we dump the 76mm gun. Now, the 76 is a good gun, against up to and including a T-54/55. But you don't see too many of them out in the middle of the ocean. As for a boat buster, it really was too slow even being "fully automatically operated" (though a human being still had to put a round in the ammo hoist down below). So when the Perry's were deployed to ports that had suspicious boat traffic, they always had 25mm Chain guns mounted port and starboard near the Mk-46 torpedo launchers.

                        My argument was removing the 76 would also provide lots of space below for missile reloads as well as a maintenance shop. Where NAVSEA wanted to put it would have required erection of very heavy ablative blast shields to protect the stack from a hangfire. When I mentioned that need while touring General Dynamics (who were to build the RAM and demonstrated one for us) the rep said "Our missiles don't hangfire." Well then, that was just the day after we got a report that one of THEIR Tomahawks had a hangfire on the Missouri over in the Gulf War. Naturally I reminded the rep of that.

                        Moving the RAM launcher down to the Main Deck may still require ablative shielding on the main deckhouse front, but that would be low weight and not affect the ship's stability that much. Plus it would give forward anti-missile protection and PROPERLY augmenting the CIWS aft.
                        Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          What type of Ram launcher were they planning on?

                          Mk31 or the SEARAM/Phalanx thingy?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Wow, lots of great info here. Not only did I have my questions regarding the Perrys answered, I get some extra info on the Burkes as well. I knew I came to the right board for hardware news.

                            More questions on the Perry. How about putting the Mk 45 5" gun on the forward mount and delete the 3" mount? Or a 16 cell Mk 41 VLS with 32 ESSM and 8 VLA on the front?

                            I also read somewhere the Australians plan to upgrade their Perrys to fire SM-2. Would that be an expensive upgrade so the USN don't want to do it? Or they would prefer to spend the money on LCS?
                            "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by M21Sniper
                              What type of Ram launcher were they planning on?

                              Mk31 or the SEARAM/Phalanx thingy?
                              General Dynamics had two types they were testing but the one they were pushing was the single mount of 20 some odd tubes (I forget the actual number now). It was very high weight but they wanted the bigger launcher because they had no room left for a magazine that would have been needed for the twin-armed launcher of 10 tubes total.

                              Oh yeah. About RAM. You know there are two definitions for that acronym, don't you? One is Rotating Airframe Missile and the other is Radar Absorbent Material (for Stealth). I worked on both those projects and was the west coast Point of Contact for the Perry's on the latter definition. I even wrote the Shipalt and Installation procedures. On the computer I wrote those on, I even code named two of the files as RCD and KCD (Romulan and Klingon Cloaking Devices). I was very surprised that when our computer maintenance people (all with high clearances of course) that restored my files when we had a glitch in the mainframe (about the size of a U-Haul trailer down on the 2nd floor) they couldn't figure out what those code names meant. None of them were Star Trek fans.

                              Well, you gotta have some fun sometime.
                              Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X