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?
The Navy's mission is not increase the wealth of any individual, it is preserve, protect and defend it's budget
Deletefrom it's ancient enemy, the US Army and those upstarts in the Air Corps.
Maybe, just pick one example:
DeleteRobert P. Burke
Position: Retired four-star admiral, former Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (2019–2020) and Commander of U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa (2020–2022).
Post-retirement activities: After retiring in 2022, Burke joined the technology training company Next Jump as an executive, earning an annual salary of $500,000 and receiving 100,000 stock options.
Controversy: Burke was accused of using his position to secure Navy training contracts for Next Jump in exchange for a high-paying post-retirement position. In May 2025, he was found guilty by a jury on four charges, including bribery, conspiracy to commit bribery, seeking personal economic gain, and making false statements, facing a maximum sentence of 50 years in prison.
Based on the search results, here are key details about US Navy officials who retired and joined private military or defense-related companies in recent years:
Delete### 1. **General Trend of Retired 4-Star Officers Joining Defense Industry**
- A 2023 report by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft found that over 80% of retired 4-star officers (across all military branches, including the Navy) from 2018–2023 joined defense contractors, lobbying firms, or financial institutions investing in defense. This includes roles as board members, advisors, executives, or consultants .
- While the report doesn't name specific Navy officials, it highlights systemic issues with the "revolving door" between the Pentagon and arms manufacturers like Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, and General Dynamics .
### 2. **Example of Influence on Navy Programs**
- Retired officers (likely including Navy personnel) lobbied to sustain the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program despite its documented flaws, benefiting contractors like Lockheed Martin. The program cost taxpayers billions before being scrapped in 2022 .
### 3. **Blackwater’s Hiring of Former Military Personnel**
- Though not Navy-specific, Blackwater (now Constellis) historically recruited heavily from special operations units, including Navy SEALs. Its founder, Erik Prince, is a former SEAL officer . The company employed ex-military personnel for contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan, though most were not high-ranking officials.
### 4. **Legislative Efforts to Curb the Revolving Door**
- Recent bills (e.g., by Sen. Elizabeth Warren) propose cooling-off periods to prevent top officers from joining defense firms within 4 years of retirement, suggesting concerns extend to Navy leadership .
### Key Takeaway:
While the search results lack named Navy examples, the data underscores a pervasive pattern of senior military leaders—likely including Navy flag officers—transitioning to defense contractors. For specific names, official Pentagon disclosures or lobbying records (as suggested in ) would be needed.
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2023/10/04/majority-of-retired-4-star-officers-got-jobs-defense-industry-new-report-says.html
The phenomenon of retired military officers joining defense companies is well documented. There's no need to belabor the obvious. The practice is both legal and logical for the retirees and companies. However, that does not make it right or wise and, in fact, sets up the obvious potential for conflicts of interest and abuse. Congress needs to step in and outlaw the practice, similar to the non-compete contracts in industry. There is also much the Navy could do internally to watch for and eliminate the abuses but, again for obvious reasons, they choose not to.
DeleteIn any event, there is no need to cite endless lists of examples.
What I mean is, when we see articles on this blog criticizing the Navy's mistakes and delays in research and development, construction, and future direction, it seems like they are only treating the symptoms and not the root cause.
DeleteThis is because the fundamental cause may be that Navy officials are deliberately ignoring things they know are wrong for their own interests (kickbacks, post-retirement employment), and instead deliberately doing those things.
" it seems like they are only treating the symptoms and not the root cause."
Delete??? Are you kidding me? Have you read more than two posts on this blog? I'm constantly documenting and criticizing Navy leadership which, of course, is the root cause. Seriously, read the archives and come up to speed.
The USN tried but failed to extend the life except for a couple of the Ticos at a prohibitive cost and ended the program..Even those that made it through the SLEP are being retired far before planned. Its Burkes forever.
ReplyDeleteNo, the Navy never tried to extend the Ticos. That was a ruse to retire the ships in the face of Congressional resistance. We've posted on this and documented that the ships were left to, literally, rot, for the first couple years of the so-called modernization.
DeleteThe upgrade program didn't fail. It accomplished exactly what the Navy wanted which was to retire the Ticos.
You need to come up to speed on the archives.
RE: Tico's. Let's assume, for the moment, that it's possible, even now, to rehab the Tico's so that they'd be sea worthy, navigation safe, and their current weapons fits made to work. Obviously we don't know whether this is true, but let's suppose it is.
ReplyDeleteAnd let's also assume that they are, as CNO says, obsolete and not really fit for the modern battlefield at sea, due to stealth and other issues.
Could there perhaps be other uses for these ships in a war with China (where we absolutely will be desperate for hulls) other than the pointiest end of the spear (for example, with a carrier battle group)?
Perhaps they could be used to provide missile defense for bases like Guam, Wake, or maybe even Pearl Harbor. Even if these bases start the war with THAAD and PATRIOT, those installations will surely be targeted and some will be lost. Perhaps these ships could serve as replacements.
Or perhaps they could serve as escorts for merchant convoys. The 4 stack destroyers that we gave to the British in World War 2 were surely obsolete and wouldn't be useful in a fleet on fleet battle, but they were sill of value in escorting merchant ships.
In my view, these ships could be kept in a relatively high availability reserve status and crewed mainly by reservists. Not normal reserve status since that would probably require a lengthy rehabilitation before use, but still not active duty. Since these missions that I mentioned probably aren't day one missions but still needed sooner that could be met by new construction or lengthy rehab.
Another missile system is the Typhon which enables the Sm6 missile to be launched from the ground. It is a Army system..Also now Tinian island is being rebuilt as an airbase Interesting idea about using some retired Ticos as a missile defense system.
DeleteRE: Using retired Tico's for air or missile defense.
DeleteWhen I went to college, they were still training us to not claim ideas that we found elsewhere as our own. So I do have to confess that I did not originally think up the idea of using Tico's in this way. I've referenced one article (from 2021!) in The War Zone below which might actually be where I read about it. Or maybe not.
The article envisions less rehab than I think most of us are imagining. It basically calls for the Tico to be moored at Guam and used as a stationary missile defense asset, rather than operating independently at sea. There is a potential that some of the oldest AEGIS radars (which are analog) might be replaced with an offboard radar plus a launch on remote capability. So the Tico in that case would basically be a missile barge.
Here's the War Zone article:
https://www.twz.com/41819/decommissioned-navy-cruisers-could-be-the-answer-to-guams-missile-defense-needs
"I did not originally think up the idea of using Tico's in this way"
DeleteDon't worry about it. This idea has been out in the public domain for many, many years. I have no idea where I first read about it but it was years/decades? ago.
USNI August 12 reporting that the chief engineer Rear Adm Pete Small of NAVSEA wants to bring design of the DDG(X) and SSN(X) back in house. BuShips was disbanded back in 1966 and all the relevant BuShips design knowhow has long gone or am I missing something. Have seen it claimed that with Constellation 20,000 change notes were issued after production was authorized which does not fill you with confidence in NAVSEA or Rear Adm. Pete Small.
ReplyDeleteI would very much like to see design responsibility brought back to the Navy. Given their track record, I, like you, have little confidence that they would do it well.
DeleteThe way to start would be to begin not by designing a ship - they have no hope or expertise to do that - but to simply learn to develop rock solid CONOPS BEFORE CONSTRUCTION STARTS and then let industry do the actual blueprint design work. Once we've mastered the CONOPS/requirements stage we can begin bringing in and developing actual ship design expertise. So ... baby steps.
This means that since 1966 the industry was able to design and produce some very good designs. The end of the cold war, the Burkes, the early retirement of some classes probably not only crippled the fleet mix but damaged the industrial capability itself.
Delete"industry was able to design and produce some very good designs."
DeleteI'd be careful about that statement. Industry has a very mixed record and the successes all came long ago. The Spruance class was the first industry-designed ship and a success as was the initial Burke (though now obsolete). More recently, the LCS (both variants), Zumwalt, Ford, America, San Antonio, Constellation (to be fair, not entirely US industry's design), MLP/AFSB, have been varying degrees of failures if not outright disasters. Industry has not produced a good design in quite awhile. To be fair, the Navy has a huge hand in the design disasters with nonsensical requirements and constant change orders.
Isn't a lesson of the episode described in this post that there is no daylight between the Navy and "Industry"? The Navy is probably the best example of regulatory capture one can imagine.
DeleteHere you can find some information regarding what Turkey did with the Perry Class https://www.twz.com/sea/project-genesis-how-turkey-resurrected-its-secondhand-oliver-hazard-perry-class-frigates
ReplyDeleteI hadn't seen that. Good link. Thanks!
DeleteThere seems to have been a few comments disappeared. Is that my browser? Some sort of Google thing. I see them but when I return they’re gone. I’m looking at this on an iPhone btw.
ReplyDeleteComments don't disappear. Occasionally, a comment may be deleted for violating the Comment Policy page requirements.
DeleteThere is also a glitch in the blogging software where comments occasionally get put mistakenly into the spam folder (automatically by the software). Even after seeming to be here immediately after you type them. CNO has been pretty good about checking the spam folder from time to time and moving them back. He’s said he hasn’t been able to find out why this happens.
DeleteThis blog is free but the down side of that is that I, the blog operator, have almost no control over the workings of the blog. For me, the simplicity of the blog and the free nature of it more than make up for the occasional glitches. It just means I have to keep a close eye on the spam folder and redirect the legitimate comments. No big deal. Happy to do it.
DeleteNo ads and I never have to ask readers for contributions!
DeleteThat Perry class remake would have been a good idea, we had the ships and just needed to use a little bit of creativity.
ReplyDeleteSince the horse is out of the barn on that, I would think the Buckley class type of DE would be a good platform to start with.
Lutefisk
The Perry was 453 ft long x 45 ft wide. The Buckley was 306 ft x 36 ft. That's a LOT smaller. That means you need a very careful, well defined, focused CONOPS in order to ensure it's an effective platform.
DeleteGiven the significantly smaller size of the Buckley, what Perry capabilities are you willing to give up to fit the Buckley?
Too many people become enamored of a particular class and don't think through the CONOPS and capabilities. What is the CONOPS and what would you put on the ship and what would you leave off? Aviation is a major consideration, for example.
I'm an old Tin Can Sailor and served on a Gearing Class Destroyer that was commissioned in 1945. It was half way across the Pacific when WW2 ended and was at the Surrender. I went onboard in 1969 so she was 24 years old when I was on her for 3.5 years. She went to Vietnam twice, the last with me in 1972. She was finally given to the Greek Navy in 1977 and served till 1991 then they decommissioned her and she became an artificial reef with 4 other Cans. That's a life of 46 years. Surly we can do better than 15-20 years!
ReplyDelete