Once upon a time, the US Navy faced a choice about how to
deal with the fake ‘littoral’ issue (see, “LittoralWarfare – Is There Such a Thing?”):
either upgrade/modify the Perry class frigates or build an entire new
class of ships, the LCS. One required
new hulls. The other required only
upgrades of existing hulls. Of course,
the Navy being the Navy, unhesitatingly opted to build new LCS hulls, thereby
ensuring their continued shipbuilding budget slice. In order to eliminate the possibility of
anyone suggesting that Perrys could be upgraded for a fraction of the cost of
new construction, the Navy neutered the Perrys by removing weapons (2003
timeframe) and stating publicly that it was not possible to upgrade the Perrys
to use the new SM-2 missiles that were then coming. In addition, the Navy wound up giving away Perrys in order
to irretrievably remove them from possible service.
Of course, as is so often the case, the Navy was quickly proven wrong as the Australian navy proceeded to upgrade their Perrys (the Adelaide class) to use the SM-2 and, in fact, added an 8-cell VLS in the bow of the ship.
Not only did Australia upgrade their Perrys and continue to
operate them but so did quite a few other countries. Let’s take a look at some of the upgrades
performed by other countries after the US Navy stated that upgrades were not
affordable or technically feasible.
Australia
The Australian Perrys (Adelaide class) received an extensive
upgrade in the mid-2000’s. The program
cost around A$1.46B to upgrade four Perrys (A$365M ea). Following is a partial list of the upgrades.[2]
Taiwan
Spain
Pakistan
Following are some other countries that have operated Perrys
although I could not readily find lists of upgrades:
Poland
Turkey
Bahrain
Egypt
Philippines
Discussion
It is clear that the Navy lied when they stated that the
Perrys could not be upgraded. They
simply wanted to ensure that no viable option remained that could derail the –
even then – controversial LCS program.
Looking at the list of upgrades proves that we could have
added racks of Harpoon anti-ship missiles, VLS cells, added more guns, and
upgraded almost every weapon, sensor, and piece of equipment on the ship. In short, we could have had a very powerful littoral
combat ship worthy of the name that would have put the LCS to shame and all for
a fraction of the cost of the LCS. This
is all the more disappointing when we note that many of the Perrys were retired
after only 14 years or so of service. We
had serviceable ships, viable upgrades, acceptable costs, and we chose to scrap
the entire Perry class and build the LCS … just a monumentally stupid decision. And, of course, we are now early retiring the
LCS which simply emphasizes and compounds the near-criminal stupidity of the
Navy.
The USN had decommissioned 25 "FFG-7 Short" ships via "bargain basement sales to allies or outright retirement, after an average of only 18 years of service".[1]
Of course, as is so often the case, the Navy was quickly proven wrong as the Australian navy proceeded to upgrade their Perrys (the Adelaide class) to use the SM-2 and, in fact, added an 8-cell VLS in the bow of the ship.
- Added 8-cell tactical length VLS in the bow for ESSM missiles
- Upgraded to use SM-2MR Standard missiles
- Switched to Eurotorp MU90 Impact torpedoes
- Upgraded fire control from Mk92 Mod 2 to Mod 12
- Replaced sonar with new Thompson (Thales) Spherion Medium Frequency Sonar
- Upgraded Phalanx CIWS to Block IB
- Added Link 16
- Upgraded computers
- Upgraded SPS-49 and SPS-55 radars
- Added Radamec 2500 EOTS long-range passive TV & infrared surveillance
- Added laser rangefinder.
- Added multi-sensor Radar Integrated Automatic Detect and Track System (RIADT) for improved target detection, tracking, and engagement, particularly against low altitude targets in cluttered ocean or near-shore environments
- Replaced SLQ-32 EW system with Elbit (EA-2118) and RAFAEL (C-Pearl)
- Added ALBATROS towed sonar
- Added two RAFAEL Mini-Typhoon 12.7mm remote weapon systems
- Added additional decoy launchers
 |
| Adelaide Class Frigate with 8-Cell VLS and SM-2 |
- Added 8x Hsiung Feng II/III SSM in two box launcher racks
- Added 2x Bofors 40 mm/L70 guns
- Added 2x Type 75 20 mm/75 guns
- Replaced Phalanx CIWS with Meroka 20 mm CIWS
- Replaced SLQ-32 with Nettunel Mk-3000 EW suite
- Added RAN-12L/RAN-30 air search radar for low horizon scanning
- overhaul of all four diesels
- replacement of sea valves and air conditioning
- new bridge and navigational suite
- composite dome over the overhauled AN/SQS-56 sonar array
Turkey
Bahrain
Egypt
Philippines
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/australias-hazardous-frigate-upgrade-04586/
Well, if we'd take up CNOs thoughts on non-CVNs having a 20year.life cycle, the Navy could have their constant new ships!!
ReplyDeleteBut that aside, along with the obvious mental deficiencies of those in charge... I wonder if the Ticos for instance, would be worth a complete RCOH level overhaul? I've read that the Navy is looking at retrofitting SPY6 into older Burkes, so why not ships with the extra vls and AAW Cdr facilities? I understand that much of the mechanical and structural parts of the ships have been neglected for a decade, since the Navy has been trying to shed them that long. But right now there's what, 20 ships lying around awaiting their end? We talked about wanting to see SECNAV and SECDEF make bold moves... so how about decomming every LCS by months end, and cut orders for the crews to report to the mothball fleet to begin reactivation and eventual comprehensive overhaul?? Funds can be found by cancelling the Connie immediately. Even at a $1B each overhaul, its cheaper than the absurd new FFG, and half the price of a Burke, for a better ship!
( I know, never happen, and it'd be a struggle to overcome the full level of neglect the CGs have faced. And maybe they are in fact beyond saving. But as someone who's restored old cars all his life, I truly believe it when I say, "I have a torch and a welder, so anythings fixable!", and I think that can apply to ships as well!)
"maybe they are in fact beyond saving"
DeleteBecause of what the Navy has done to them, they probably are beyond rescue at this point. It's not just the weapons and sensors but the tankage that is corroded beyond repair. It would require wholesale replacement of much/most of the ship's equipment.
This leads to the question, is it worth it even if it could be done? Let me pose this question: if you could restore a Model-T perfectly, would you want it if the goal was to produce a race car? Of course not! Even if you could perfectly restore a Tico would you want it for the modern naval battlefield? It's emphatically non-stealthy. It has an aluminum superstructure and is subject to chronic cracking. It's decidedly top-heavy. It has a poor weapons and sensor layout as far as redundancy and separation. And so on. A perfectly restored Tico would not only not be a benefit on the naval battlefield, it would be a detriment. It's time has come and gone. What's needed is a new design, new build, cruiser sized and equipped Visby.
I agree, we need fresh up to date designs, using the most current proven systems. 100%!! But even if the Secretaries prove to be men of action, are they smart enough to turn things around and give the Navy what it needs, whether it likes it or not?? Can/will they ramrod through a modern AAW cruiser without it being a gold plated do-everything monster? The fact that the Connies haven't been halted yet makes me doubt it. Right now I doubt if the Navy will ever build a proper ship again, as the ongoing Fremm FFG debacle has taken my last shred of hope.
DeleteThat wasn't where I was going initially... but I was going to disagree a bit. I liked the Model T analogy, but, to be fair, the reality is more like a 60s muscle car with a new Hellcat drive train. Some things about it are still dated, but it'd still be quite competitive in most forms of racing. And as such, the cruisers wouldn't be perfect, but with a proper overhaul, theyd be significantly cheaper than a new ship. I cant agree with them being a detriment to the fleet, and I'd point out that in the past you called bs on the Admiralty for saying that the ships suddenly arent useful and survivable. So can we afford to throw away 20+ powerful, proven(if imperfect) ships right now?
Yes, cracking superstructure (they're weldable), imperfect sensor layouts (but they do work),not stealthy (at first hint of a threat wont they be radiating anyway?), corroded tanks (they aren't even tucked behind an armor belt... so, steel plates and welders), they're top heavy (blisters did wonders for older ships before)...
Oversimplified, sure. But right now, we can't seem to design and build ships. The next incarnation of... any type of ship, right now... is a dream. But, upgrading ships we possess today, with proven current systems and a proper HME overhaul... that would give us hulls that would reverse the shrinking fleet and the big vls count dropoff, for less money than new construction.
I wasn't initially advocating to REALLY prolong the Ticos, but the more I think about them and the reality of our shipbuilding right now... its growing on me...
Is it possible that, for some powerful individuals in the navy, the kickbacks they can get from upgrades are not as much as they would get from building a new type of ship?
ReplyDeleteSo, has the navy been making the “right” (increasing the wealth of certain navy personnel) decisions for the past 30 years?