Posted on 09/20/2017 8:16:18 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
On its mission to field a 355 ship fleet, the US Navy has been looking at what it has in storage to help make that goal a reality. Even the carrier USS Kitty Hawk has been put forward as a possible candidate for regeneration, although the reality of what it would take to truly make such an endeavor successful puts it firmly in the unlikely category. But the seven Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates now sitting in mothballs tell another story. Now Secretary of Navy Richard Spencer is saying these ships could be regenerated very cheaply and without any major upgrades at all, but their mission set would be very limited.
Many of the Navy's retired Perry class frigates were sold to friendly countries all over the globe. Many of those navies have drastically upgraded the stoutly built ships with modern systems, including vertical launch cells and RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles (ESSM). If the Navy were to go down a similar path with the seven Perry class frigates it still has its hands on, these ships could serve in higher threat environments than their Littoral Combat Ship replacements. In addition, foreign operators of the Perry class plan on sailing the ships for decades to comes, so there really isn't any reason why the US Navy couldn't do the same.
But under the plan that SECNAV Spencer is talking about, these ships wouldn't get any combat system upgrades at all. Instead they would be seaworthy and navigation ready only. USNI News reports Spencer mentioned that other navies have gotten retired Perry class frigates back out to sea for as little as $35,000, which is about one sixth the price of a full tank of gas for the type.
USN
Independence class LCS and the Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate.
With no combat system upgrades, a reintroduced Perry class would primarily be tasked with supporting the highly controversial war on drugs—sailing in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico to interdict contraband shipments. Basically they would work as counter-narcotics platforms for operations in very low threat environments. In doing so, the plan would relieve higher-end assets of the mission, including Arleigh Burke class destroyers and Littoral Combat Ships.
Spencer stated the following regarding bringing back what's left of the Perry class:
“Is a DDG the thing to put for drug interdictions down in the Caribbean? I don’t think so... Do we actually have something in the portfolio right now? One of the things we might look at is bringing the Perry-class to do a limited drug interdiction mode... No combat systems, but sea-ready, navigation ready, radar ready out the door... That’s a pretty inexpensive proven platform right there...Can you arm it up with Tomahawks? No.”
USN
Foreign allies have received dozens of second-hand Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates, many of which have been upgraded with modern systems, including vertical launch cells and larger hangar decks. Here is Turkey's G class alongside an USN Arleigh Burke class destroyer.
I know what you're asking yourself—why not just fund the Coast Guard to operate these ships and get the Navy out of the drug interdiction game altogether? Good question, one that I am not fully prepared to answer definitively on, but it likely has to do with petty budget squabbling, the fact that the Coast Guard is part of the Department of Homeland Security, and fear of mission and budget loss on behalf of the Navy. And remember, it's all about claiming a 355 ship fleet, and Coast Guard vessels don't factor into that goal.
Let's be clear, the DoD gives a lot to the war on drugs—including many absurdly mismatched capabilities like hunting for drug boats with heavy bombers. So the fact that US Navy surface combatants continue to support these operations isn't surprising. But in an era of overworked crews and hardware, and a growing number of priorities to satisfy with limited budgets, maybe rethinking how the DoD contributes to this mission is necessary before committing what will be largely single role assets to it.
By reviewing the roles of the other federal agencies that primarily deal with drug interdiction on a daily basis, along with coming up with a list of what gear they would need to execute the mission without the DoD's help, we could get a better idea of if getting the Navy—and possibly the other services as well—out of this mission makes sense or not. We would also get a better idea of what the mission truly costs to sustain.
With tightening land borders, the sea will only become a more prevalent drug smuggling medium, so more advanced maritime assets will be needed in the future to accomplish the mission proficiently, not the other way around. Maybe a smaller commercial grade vessel with more advanced sensors could be built and operated over time for far less than the aging Perry class. Going that route could also offer more capability to confront future smuggling threats.
So what I am saying here is there are alternatives to using a destroyer or LCS to hunt for drug smugglers, and even the Perry class may be better used as an upgraded surface combatant capable of operating in medium to higher threat scenarios or even for lower intensity operations in troubled regions than as a stripped-down drug interdiction platform.
On the other hand, maybe they are suited for this mission, but in the hands of the Coast Guard not the Navy. And if the Coast Guard is given a bump in budget to field these seven frigates instead of the Navy, the Navy would then lower their 355 ship goal to 348 ships right?
Don't count on it.
I’ve been saying this for years. Not just for drug trafficking, but anti-piracy operations as well. Why use a destroyer when a frigate or even a corvette could do the job? Misuse of resources imo.
I hope they don’t mean there aren’t defensive weapons.
Not the $#!++¥ Kitty !!!
$35k to get mothballed ship sea worthy??? Now that’s BS fake news ...
That is exactly what I was thinking.
I knew a guy who served aboard her, and that is exactly what he called her.
I did two WestPac’s with her task group
Mk 38 Mod 2 Naval Gun Systems installed on platforms over the removed MK 13 launchers
Two triple Mark 32 Anti-submarine warfare torpedo tubes with Mark 46 or Mark 50 anti-submarine warfare torpedoes
One OTO Melara 76 mm/62 caliber naval gun
One 20 mm Phalanx CIWS rapid-fire cannon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Hazard_Perry-class_frigate
If by chance the Navy did decide to upgrade:
They have a 45 foot beam; could an aegis system be built onto that narrow a platform?
Wait, ripping out the urinals alone would cost more than 35k
IIRC they have CIWS, EW, and Super-RBOC, for defense and a 3 inch gun mount for surface action. Their single-arm missile launcher and weapons system was only capable of firing SM-I... I don't *think* it ever got the SM-2 upgrade??? Could probably punt the launcher and put a RAM cell in it's place, then use the below-deck magazine space for something else. They also have a hanger aft. Put an Apache on there and you've got a pirate-killer.
$35 K won’t even pay for the paint and chipping hammers ...
I have no idea, but it wouldn’t be needed. Frigates would be used for anti-drug, anti-piracy, and humanitarian assistance operations, which would free up the more powerful warships for the jobs they were intended for.
If it is just to chase drugs in carribean then it makes sense.
If it is fir any other reason then spruance class makes more sense.
Built pretty solid too!
Durability
On July 14, 2016, USS Thach took over 12 hours to sink after being used in a live-fire, SINKEX during naval exercise RIMPAC 2016. During the exercise, the ship was directly or indirectly hit with the following ordnance: a Harpoon missile from a South Korean submarine, another Harpoon missile from the Australian frigate HMAS Ballarat, a Hellfire missile from an Australian SH-60S helicopter, another Harpoon missile and a Maverick missile from US maritime patrol aircraft, another Harpoon missile from the cruiser USS Princeton, additional Hellfire missiles from an American SH-60S Navy helicopter, a 2,000-pound Mark 84 bomb from a US Navy F/A-18 Hornet, a GBU-12 Paveway laser-guided 500-pound bomb from a US Air Force B-52 bomber, and a Mark 48 torpedo from an unnamed US Navy submarine.[10][11]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Hazard_Perry-class_frigate#Durability
Someone is just throwing a low-ball number up...without much thinking.
One might imagine $20k in paint required as a minimum. By the time that the Pentagon gets to the final bill....it’ll probably be over 25-million.
It would, if all the Spruances had not already gone through SINKEX
A highly weaponised Navy PT boat would do just as good.
Why paint them? Just gas them up and go.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.