Upgraded Littoral Perrys

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.
 

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.
 
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]
 

• 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

 
Taiwan
 

• 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

 
 
Spain
 

• 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

 
 
Pakistan
 

• 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

 
 
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.
 

 
_____________________________

 
[1]Wikipedia, “Adelaid-class frigate”, retrieved 12-Apr-2025
 
[2]Defense Industry Daily website, “Australia’s Hazard(ous) Frigate Upgrades: Done at Last”,
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/australias-hazardous-frigate-upgrade-04586/

What’s A CNO To Do?

We have become an apologist society.  We excuse and rationalize every failure, often doing so even before the attempt is made.  For example, in past criticisms of CNOs (Chief of Naval Operations), I’ve encountered the apologists who say that the CNO can’t really do anything so I shouldn’t blame them.  ‘The System’ is at fault, not the individual. 
 
Nonsense!
 
From a comment I made a while ago to a reader who was apologizing for a specific CNO’s lack of accomplishments, comes this (note, I won’t identify the reader as I have no wish to embarrass them):
 
 
"is our current system such that even the best qualified CNO will be limited as to how much change they can affect?"
 
My answer … Of course not! A properly motivated and directed (meaning focused on the proper priorities) CNO could turn the Navy around in a heartbeat. Here's a few day one items that could be implemented with no input from Congress or anyone else:
 
1. Eliminate the use of waivers. Period. No exceptions. That, alone, would immensely improve training, safety, new ship completion, ship quality, and readiness by forcing actions to be completed instead of waived.
2. Mandate the elimination of rust on ships.
3. Move sailors from shore billets to sea to fill the at sea gaps.
4. Mandate that dry dock work be COMPLETED prior to leaving dock regardless of the consequences to subsequent scheduling.
5. Eliminate minimal manning and bring crews back up to full strength.
6. Reinstitute onboard maintenance capabilities (machine shops and trade skills).
7. Eliminate most crew comforts.
8. Enforce training standards and demand that individuals and ships fail when warranted.
9. Refuse delivery of incomplete, non-functional ships from industry.
10. Mandate physical fitness standards and separate all non-complying sailors.
11. Set ONE, identical standard of physical fitness for males and females.
12. Eliminate 80% of ship's paperwork and return the focus to combat training.
13. Stop building Fords.
14. End the obsession with unmanned.
15. Eliminate the zero-defect mentality.
16. Reinstitute old fashioned liberty.
 
Day two items that might require some input from others:
 
1. Fire 80% of flag officers
2. End deployments and say no to the Combatant Commadners incessant requests.
3. Obtain legislative regulatory relief or waiver on "non-green" corrosion prevention coatings.
 
I could go on endlessly but you get the idea. All it takes is a Trump-like CNO who has a clear, combat-focused mentality and has the courage to act.
 

A Realistic Exercise?

As you know, ComNavOps has often criticized Navy exercises as being absurdly unrealistic but does anyone do it better?  Well, the French have conducted  what they feel is a realistic combat exercise, Polaris 25, involving air, sea, and land forces.  How realistic was it?
 
Before we go any further, note that the details of the exercise were few and sketchy for obvious reasons.  Still, we’ll do the best we can with what we have to work with.
 
The French claim it was realistic and unscripted in terms of the actions of the participants.
 

… the POLARIS exercises seek to make naval combat as realistic as possible, … where almost any move is permitted within the constraints previously indicated.[1]
 
The two forces were ‘free’ in their tactical choices. The exercise therefore unfolded according to the decisions made.[2]

The exercise included electronic warfare, cyber, social, and other domains to an unknown degree.[2]
 
Okay, that sounds good but what public relations blurb doesn’t?  Let’s look closer.
 
The French blue force consisted of,
 

• 5 frigates
• 5 LHDs
• ATL2 Maritime Patrol Aircraft
• Rafales Marine from the French Navy and the French Air and Space Force
• Special forces from the French Navy
• Helicopters and infantry from the French Army

 
The opposing red force consisted of,
 

• 6 ships reinforced by a French Suffren-class submarine

 
 
Hmm … does that sound like equal, balanced forces offering realistic capabilities and fostering a realistic free play exercise or does it begin to sound like a fairly one-sided, pre-ordained setpiece?  Let’s keep going.
 

If a ship was hit, its damaged systems remained out of service until the end of the exercise, or until it was repaired if possible. Similarly, if a vessel was sunk, it was permanently out of the exercise.[2]
 
In the scenario, ships sailed with their theoretical ammunition levels and other logistics. There were no “magic” reloads. The ship had to withdraw to reload with food or ammunition, either by refueling at sea or by reaching support points.[2]

Okay, that’s outstanding, if they actually held to that.
 

Aquitaine Class FREMM

 
Results
 
Little was offered publicly in the way of results but let’s look at what we do have.
 

During the second phase – phase of the naval combat, the officers suggested that a great deal of damage had been caused on both sides with water leaks, loss of communications, etc. More importantly, “several ships were sunk or torpedoed”,[1]

Given the extremely limited number of ships in the exercise, if several ships were sunk, what was left to carry out the mission/exercise?  This is where one begins to wonder about the realism of the exercise.  Were sunken ships really removed from the exercise or did they continue on?
 
What did losing several ships teach the French?  What was the major lesson learned?
 

… firepower is everything. When lethal weapons are used, which was the case for both forces, the damage is rapid and significant.[1]

Firepower is important??!!  Really?  You needed an exercise to tell you that?  If so, you’ve forgotten everything about warfare and naval combat … which, like the US Navy, you probably have.  Sad.
 
The landing portion of the exercise was decidedly unrealistic.
 

It should be pointed out that the coastal threats were relatively low, with only a few ‘red force’ air defence units in the way.[1]

So … no opposed landing.  That’s optimistic in the extreme and offers no potential for lessons learned.  At that point, it’s just an administrative unloading of troops.
 
More on the landing portion.
 

… the LHDs simulated the landing of US Marine units with their HIMARS on islands off the landing zone in order to create a A2/AD area and secure the operation … [1][emphasis added]

So, simulated HIMARS operations?  So much for realism.
 
And,
 

Another first was that the image stream captured by the S-100 could be transmitted directly to land units disembarking, enabling them to adapt their manoeuvres.[1]

So, unhindered broad bandwidth streaming data?  I guess electronic and cyber warfare wasn’t included in the realism, after all?
 
 
Conclusion
 
Well, without more actual information it’s impossible to draw much in the way of valid conclusions but it sounds like aspects of the exercise were conducted with more realism than US Navy exercises (admittedly, a pretty low bar) but there are suggestions that they did not hold to the degree of realism they claimed.
 
The finding that firepower is paramount was absurdly hilarious.  What has this entire blog emphasized?  For that matter, what did WWII emphasize?  Do we really have to conduct exercises to learn the patently obvious?
 
All in all, it sounds like a better exercise than the US Navy conducts but still far short of being realistic and useful.
 
 
 
_________________________________

 
[1]Naval News website, “POLARIS 25 – Feedback on the French Navy’s largest exercise – Part 2”, Martin Manaranche, 4-Aug-2025,
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/08/polaris-25-feedback-on-the-french-navys-largest-exercise-part-2/
 
[2]Naval News website, “POLARIS 25 – Feedback on the French Navy’s largest exercise – Part 1”, Martin Manaranche, 16-Jul-2025,
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/07/polaris-25-feedback-on-the-french-navys-largest-exercise-part-1/

The Thousand Ship Navy

Do you remember the Thousand Ship Navy concept?[2]  To refresh your memory,
 

In the fall of 2005, Admiral Michael G. Mullen, the U.S. Navy’s Chief of Naval Operations, challenged the world’s maritime nations to raise what he called a “thousand-ship navy” to provide for the security of the maritime domain in the twenty-first century. Speaking at the Seventeenth International Seapower Symposium at the Naval War College, in Newport, Rhode Island, Admiral Mullen candidly admitted to the assembled chiefs of navy and their representatives from seventy-five countries that “the United States Navy cannot, by itself, preserve the freedom and security of the entire maritime domain. It must count on assistance from like-minded nations interested in using the sea for lawful purposes and precluding its use for others that threaten national, regional, or global security.”  He had voiced the idea a month earlier in an address to students at the College, but he now elaborated the concept:
 
Because today’s challenges are global in nature, we must be collective in our response. We are bound together in our dependence on the seas and in our need for security of this vast commons. This is a requisite for national security, global stability, and economic prosperity. As navies, we have successfully learned how to leverage the advantages of the sea . . . advantages such as mobility, access, and sovereignty. . . . We must now leverage these same advantages of our profession to close seams, reduce vulnerabilities, and ensure the security of the domain, we collectively, are responsible for. As we combine our advantages, I envision a 1,000-ship Navy—a fleet-in-being, if you will, made up of the best capabilities of all freedom-loving navies of the world.[1]

Consider this excerpt from Mullen’s speech:
 

“…leverage the advantages of the sea . . . advantages such as mobility, access, and sovereignty. . . . We must now leverage these same advantages of our profession to close seams, reduce vulnerabilities, and ensure the security of the domain …

What a bunch of verbal garbage!  No wonder this concept didn’t go anywhere or amount to anything.  Mullen’s Thousand Ship Navy proposal was just vague fantasy for the purposes of public relations.  It was tantamount to calling for world peace – a fine sentiment that is totally divorced from reality or action.
 
Okay, so is this post just a quick shot at Mullen and we’re done?  No!  While Mullen had nothing worthwhile to offer, the idea of an international, thousand ship navy has enormous potential though not in any way that Mullen would ever have imagined.  Let’s examine a better Thousand Ship Navy.
 
Consider the following truths:
 

• Reality is that the US Navy is the biggest and only truly significant friendly naval force in the world.
• Reality is that the US Navy, through its own incompetence and mismanagement, has glaring gaps and weaknesses in its force structure.

 
Now, let’s lean back in our chairs, close our eyes, and think fairy dust thoughts:
 

• Wouldn’t it be nice if we didn’t have those gaps and weaknesses? 
  
• Wouldn’t it be nice if those gaps and weaknesses could be magically filled without us having to spend any money or resources?

 
Opening our eyes, we realize that those things can’t happen, right?  I mean, the only way we could fill those gaps and weaknesses without spending money or resources would be if someone else built the missing assets and gave them to us and that’s not going to happen.  It can’t happen … could it?
 
Well … what if other navies around the world focused their efforts and force structures on the assets we’re missing.  What if they built the minesweepers and SSKs, among other needs, that could fill the gaps and weaknesses in our Navy and we could call on those assets as needed?
 
Think about it.  As an example, when the global war with China comes, and it will, will the UK’s one carrier with a couple dozen short-legged F-35Bs make any difference?  Not much.  However, a couple of squadrons of highly effective mine countermeasure ships would be invaluable to the war effort.
 
Will some country’s couple of underarmed frigates make any difference?  No, but large numbers of small ASW corvettes would be a big help.
 
And so on.
 
The idea is that other countries would partner with the US to fill the gaps and weaknesses in our Navy.
 
Of course, this is easier said than done.  Consider the following challenges.
 
Command and Control – This is a challenge in peace and in war.  Who commands these fill-in assets?  No country wants to give up command and yet a single, central command, the US, is necessary.

Agendas – Every country has their own geopolitical agendas and, often, those don’t perfectly align with the US.  A fill-in force can’t be subject to the whims of each individual country.  A NATO-like imperative is needed that would compel every participating country to actively contribute their eligible assets to meeting certain defined needs such as mines in international waters, war with China (with the US required to formally declare war on China).  It is the defined nature of the compelling threats that allows countries to still pursue their own agendas outside the bounds of the defined threats and ensure that the assets are available in the face of the defined threats.  What can’t happen is, for example, a Spanish frigate pulling out of a task force because their country doesn’t perfectly agree with the task force’s mission.  If the mission is a response to a defined threat then the assets are in, pure and simple.

Force Structure – Which country would build which assets?  That can’t be left up to the individual countries.  The individual contributions must come from analysis of the US Navy’s needs and, ultimately, be subject to US dictation.  Otherwise, each country will build whatever suits them and the US gaps won’t be filled other than haphazardly, if at all.

Reciprocity – In return for, say, building mine warfare ships instead of frigates, participating countries must be supported by the US Navy for any legitimate defense needs.  In other words, the US becomes the participating country’s navy against defined threats.
 
 
Discussion
 
Ideally, this shouldn’t be necessary.  The US Navy is big enough and well funded enough that it should be able to build its own complete naval force without any gaps or weaknesses.  However, until we clean house and fire every flag officer, that won’t happen.  We’ll continue to obsolete Burkes for the next two hundred years and bigger carriers as our air wings shrink ever smaller.  This NATO-ish concept at least provides a work around to the Navy’s abject stupidity for the foreseeable future.
 
The key to making this work is a set of very specific, well defined, major international threats that would trigger the combining of assets.  This precludes, as an example, other countries being forced to go along with, say, a US strike on an aspirin factory in the middle of nowhere for political messaging purposes.
 
It should be made crystal clear that any country that opts not to participate is on their own if they find themselves threatened by an enemy.  Participate and share or stand alone.  A simple choice.
 
In order for this concept to work, it has to be divorced from any of the political maneuverings of the type that prioritized the F-35 as an international jobs program rather than a lean, focused production program.  Ship types can’t be assigned based on politics or jobs or whatever.  Of course, the individual countries can build their assigned vessels any way they like but the assignments have to be based strictly on naval combat needs.
 
Finally, note that none of the above precludes any country from still building their own ships of whatever type as long as they meet their assigned gap-filling quota.
 
 
 
___________________________

 
[1]https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?httpsredir=1&article=2029&context=nwc-review
 
[2]USNI Proceedings, “The 1,000 Ship Navy: Global Maritime Network”, Vice Admiral John G. Morgan Jr., USN, and Rear Admiral Charles W. Martoglio, USN, November 2005, Proceedings Vol. 131/11/1,233
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2005/november/1000-ship-navy-global-maritime-network

Large, Slow, And Non-Stealthy Is No Way To Go Through Life

There are many naval observers who espouse the idea of balloons of some type (aerostats, for example) as a means of providing long range surveillance.  ComNavOps has scoffed at those ideas as being devoid of realistic usefulness and, worse, a detriment to surrounding forces due to being easily detected.  Well, here’s further evidence of the impracticality of such aerostats.  Israel, who famously implemented the Sky Dew aerostat system amid much fanfare and proclamations of miraculous capabilities, is now leaning towards abandoning the entire concept due to unaffordable repair costs, questionable usefulness, and demonstrated vulnerabilities following a Hezbollah suicide drone strike that hit the balloon and rendered it inoperable (see, “You Had One Job”).
 

Israeli defense officials are reevaluating the future of the military’s Sky Dew project, a high-altitude balloon system designed for aerial threat detection, following a series of setbacks including weather damage and an attack by the Hezbollah terror group.[1]
 
In light of these repeated setbacks, defense officials are now seriously considering terminating the project. The vulnerability of the system, its high costs, and the excessive time required for repairs have all factored into this revaluation of a program that has already consumed millions in defense spending.[1]

It’s not just enemy actions that threaten the aerostat;  weather is also a threat.
 

… severe weather had rendered the system inoperable months earlier.  After a protracted repair process, the balloon was redeployed in January [2024] … [1]

Setting aside the actual performance failure of Sky Dew in failing to detect a drone which was its exact intended function, the aerostat has been found to be vulnerable to weather and highly susceptible to enemy attack.  Is this surprising?  No!  Any large, slow (non-mobile, in this case), non-stealthy object is easily detected and simply waiting for the enemy to get around to it on their ‘items to destroy at leisure’ checklist.
 
So, what does this mean for us?
 
This is yet another example demonstrating that large, slow, and non-stealthy aircraft such as AWACS, E-2 Hawkeye, P-8 Poseidon, all large non-stealthy UAVs (Predator, Global Hawk, Reaper and the like), etc. are simply not survivable on the modern battlefield.  It doesn’t matter whether it’s a balloon tethered to a ship or a P-8 Poseidon lumbering around looking for things, large, slow, and non-stealthy is simply not viable.
 
 
 
_______________________________

 
[1]JNS website, “Israel weighs shutting down multi-million-dollar ‘Sky Dew’ project”, Lilach Shoval, 29-Aug-2024,
https://www.jns.org/israel-weighs-shutting-down-multi-million-dollar-sky-dew-project/

UK’s Commercial Mine Countermeasures Ship

The UK’s Royal Navy just commissioned a former commercial offshore support vessel (OSV) into the fleet as HMS Stirling Castle, a mine countermeasures (MCM) mothership. 

The ship – previously named MV Island Crown – was acquired from the commercial market for £39.8 million at the start of 2023 to provide a UK host platform for autonomous MCM payloads … [1]

So, for the sum of around $51M(US), the Royal Navy acquired a mine countermeasures ship.  Of course, there had to have been additional expenses in converting it from its commercial role to a naval MCM ship although one cannot imagine the scope of work or the cost would be too significant since the roles are not all that different.  Compare that cost to the cost of a new, purpose built MCM ship and the Royal Navy likely saved something on the order of $300M.

 

HMS Stirling Castle

The salient question, though, is how well suited is the vessel for its new role?  The ship’s duties are described as:

 

Stirling Castle…will now take her place on front-line duties, carrying high-tech equipment, including autonomous surface and underwater vehicles, for specialist mine hunting operations, primarily in UK waters.[1]

This is not a terribly demanding role and consists primarily of launching and recovering unmanned MCM assets, not too dissimilar from its previous role of loading and unloading supplies.  Is the ship exquisitely optimized for the role?  Of course not but is it adequate?  Almost certainly … and for a substantial savings.

 

This is exactly the kind of pragmatic, responsible action that the US Navy should be engaged in.  At the moment, we have no viable MCM ships.  The LCS remains a joke both in terms of its non-existent capabilities and inadequate numbers.  Wouldn’t some US Navy $50M MCM motherships look pretty good about now?

 
 
 
_______________________________

 
[1]Naval News website, “UK Royal Navy commissions HMS Stirling Castle as first MHC mother ship”, Richard Scott, 25-Jul-2025,
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/07/uk-royal-navy-commissions-hms-stirling-castle-as-first-mhc-mother-ship/

Satellite Imagery Dispersal

There is a significant faction of military/naval observers who have the mistaken belief that satellites can see every vessel sailing on the ocean and that the satellites have some sort of direct link to the firing controls on ships and aircraft thus rendering every ship a kill waiting to happen.  This is nonsense, as ComNavOps has repeatedly pointed out.  The resolution of satellite imagery precludes that kind of omnipotent detection and tracking.  If you have sufficient resolution then you give up breadth of field.  If you have breadth of field then you give up resolution.
 
All this is compounded by the fact that satellite imagery is in high demand and the raw image must be processed and analyzed.  After that, it has to be dispersed to the hundreds of offices wanting access to it.  In the case of fire control, you have to add in layers of command (bureaucracy) before any useful detection/tracking imagery can reach a ship or aircraft where it can be put to actual firing use. 
 
The entire process takes hours or days.  We simply don’t have the kind of instantaneous, raw image-to-the-missile-launch-button that so many imagine.
 
Many of you still doubt that reality.  Well, here’s more proof. 
 

The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) is working with US Combatant Commands (COCOMS) to operationally test an early version of its Joint Regional Edge Node (J-REN) system designed to speed satellite-based intelligence to the battlefield, according to NGA officials.
 
NGA began development of J-REN — a modernization of NGA’s current information technology “pipe” to more rapidly fulfil commanders’ requests for urgent access to remote sensing imagery and analysis — just last year.[1]

The lack of timeliness of satellite imagery has been a known and on-going issue for many years and even recent advances have been insufficient.
 

The ever-increasing calls from COCOMS for more timely imagery and analysis from remote sensing satellites has been the subject of a tug-of-war between NGA and the Space Force — an issue the two agencies have been struggling to work out for more than a year.
 
The concept is to avoid clogging up limited communications bandwidth with overly-dense data packages, while still ensuring that military operators have good enough information to work with …[1]

There you have it.  If satellites were the omnipotent, all-seeing miracles with direct links to firing controls, this entire effort wouldn’t even be happening, would it?  The blindingly obvious conclusion is that the image-to-fire-control process is a slow one, as ComNavOps has repeatedly stated.
 
 
_________________________________

 
[1]Breaking Defense website, “NGA field testing new processor to speed imagery to US regional commands”, Theresa Hitchens, 18-Apr-2025,
https://breakingdefense.com/2025/04/nga-field-testing-new-processor-to-speed-imagery-to-us-regional-commands/