FFG-7 an the Mk13. in The United States Navy Forum

RSS
Email

0 Points

FFG-7 an the Mk13.

Author	Comment
jlyons97		#21	[-]
Posts: 4118 Mar 3 08 10:12 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	seasick wrote: One of the issues is the fact that the Perry does not have a 3D radar like a SPS-48 or SPS-52, that would put a fairly heavy load on the Mk92/STIR fire control system, probably more than it is capable of. The STIR would most likely have to lock on to the target in order to provide the SM-2MR with course information. I think it would be better to fit a Mk29 launcher and and adapt the 'egg' for NATO Sea Sparrow, if a more powerful AAW should be required. Neither the '48 or the '52 are not fire control radars, or at least they were not when I was around them. Not an expert on the STIR, but if used for the SM missile would need a CWI radar. This was done with a gun control radar, the SPG 53 in the Mk68 GFCS, installed on the four DDGs of the DDG-31 class about 40 years ago. The class had only one SPG 51 radar compared to two in the other DDGs, the gunnery radar providing the ability to simultaneously engage two target. The gunnery set was a better missile guidance system than the SPG 51, according to a FT warrrant officer I served with on DDG-34.
	Remove this ad
g lof2		#22	[-]
Posts: 375 Mar 3 08 10:31 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	While the Perrys are now nothing more than OPV, there was a possiblity of keep them as useful vessels when the mK13 were decommissioned. The navy had orginally planned to mount RAM launcher inplace of the Mk13. While not as effective in long range airdefence as the Standard, it would have greatly improve they missile defence, allowing them to operated in low to medium threat zone This with the addition of a quad or two of Harpoon and the Perrys would be very useful indeed. The other possible upgrade would be to replace the Mk13 with sixteen Mk48 for Sea Sparrow. This could be easily done given that the Mk-92 has already been proven in this configuration in several countries. Yes some electrol would have been changed, but most of it was done by box switching. The current practice of total dependents on the LAMPs for defences as well as offense stems from the Rumsfelds Lightweight Mafia, which look as ships as basically nothing more than platforms to operated aircraft from. This is a big reason why the LCS is so poorly armed. Hopefully the Navy will be allow to correct these deficiency in the next two prototypes. Both contenders have proposed export versions that correct this problem so it is not an impossible problem to solve.
taschoene		#23	[-]
Posts: 4829 Mar 3 08 11:01 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	jlyons97 wrote: seasick wrote: One of the issues is the fact that the Perry does not have a 3D radar like a SPS-48 or SPS-52, that would put a fairly heavy load on the Mk92/STIR fire control system, probably more than it is capable of. The STIR would most likely have to lock on to the target in order to provide the SM-2MR with course information. I think it would be better to fit a Mk29 launcher and and adapt the 'egg' for NATO Sea Sparrow, if a more powerful AAW should be required. Neither the '48 or the '52 are not fire control radars, No, but they feed elevation data into the combat system. Without a 3-D air search set, the fire control illuminators have to first search for the target in elevation and then track it. The Canadian TRUMP DDGs do this, but it's not an ideal system. In the TRUMPs, I think SM2 was meant mainly as a counter-surveillance weapon where this approach and its consequent lower ROF would be acceptable, but to use SM2 as an anti-missile system such laborious elevation searching would not be acceptable. Also, people have sort of glossed oer the real issue behind the USN's removal of the Mk13 -- economics. Removing the launchers cut several billets from each ship (and the corresponding shore rotations as well); removing the Mk 13 from the inventory cut an entire line of logistics and training. The cost savings are not huge, but every little bit adds up -- it's probably in the tens of millions per year. I'm riding 100 miles to fight blood cancer: Please give to the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society (http://pages.teamintraining.org/nca/seagull10/tschoene).
drunknsubmrnr		#24	[-]
Posts: 2942 Mar 3 08 11:13 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	"In the TRUMPs, I think SM2 was meant mainly as a counter-surveillance weapon where this approach and its consequent lower ROF would be acceptable, but to use SM2 as an anti-missile system such laborious elevation searching would not be acceptable." That depends on which particular mode you're using, how far away the target is, and whether you're engaging a datalinked track with 3D information. And of course on whether the STIRs feel like working that day. Acquisition and tracking times range from really quick to pretty slow. Average isn't too bad, as long as you don't have more than 2 or 3 inbound. Kevin
Codymig29		#25	[-]
Posts: 1870 Mar 4 08 1:01 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Why would the STIR not be capible of guiding an SM-2 to the target? As I understand it, the SM-2 builds on the already existing seaker ability of the SM-1 missle, with the data track, engine upgrades, and upgrades to the seeker. At the end of the day, why can't a SM-2 just follow the target illuminator to the target like the SM-1MRs did. Sure that leaves the rof for the whole system really low. But it would be no worse than the SM-1MRs, and the navy could standarize everything on the SM-2MRs.
seasick	Not that simple.	#26	[-]
Posts: 9664 Mar 4 08 1:47 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The SM-2MR looks like the SM-1MR that's about it. Otherwise its not worth spending the money to get it to work. The Perry's fire controls and radars are not up to defending against a modern anti-ship missile. The Perry's AAW system was designed in the 1970s to shoot down Soviet anti-ship missiles approaching a transatlantic convoy at medium or high altitude or a strike aircraft flying in to drop bombs. Its really a small area defense system (with an emphasis on small), half a step above the TAS Mk23/NATO Sea Sparrow on the Spruance class. Besides the SM-1MR being incapable the Mk92/STIR is also not up to intercepting the current generation anti-ship missiles being produced by China, Russia, and a few others. So what would be needed would be to fit a 3D radar it would have to be a SPS-52 the SPS-48 is to heavy, an SPG-51C in place of the STIR, a SPQ-9A would be needed for low altitude detection, all new UYK-43 and UYK-44 computers. By the time you put it all on the ship it will sink from being over weight. Last Edited By: seasick Mar 4 08 3:38 AM. Edited 1 times.
drunknsubmrnr		#27	[-]
Posts: 2942 Mar 4 08 2:26 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	"At the end of the day, why can't a SM-2 just follow the target illuminator to the target like the SM-1MRs did." It can. However, you need a WDS to communicate to the missile before launch. Without that, the missile will not function. Kevin
Codymig29		#28	[-]
Posts: 1870 Mar 4 08 4:14 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	What kind of information does the WDS need to tell the missle in order for it to fuction? Is it the same stuff the SM-1 had to say, just a diffrent format?
seasick		#29	[-]
Posts: 9664 Mar 4 08 7:09 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Is it the same stuff the SM-1 had to say, just a diffrent format? More like another language from another planet. Its a different animal. The missile isn't the only problem. The Mk92/STIR fire control system has a very limited capablity against modern anti-ship missiles. The modern missiles are by far much harder to shoot down than the SS-N-2 STYX that it was originally designed to shoot down. With the short remaining life span of the Perry hulls it is not worth the money to do so. Also when they are sent into a high threat area they are usually with a Flight 1 Arleigh Burke DDG providing ASW and helecoptors while the AB provides AAW and ASuW protection. With the end of WBush administration comming I believe the next administration will whack the LCS and build a more conventional frigate. The LCS can then join the SES, Rumsfeld's equelly bad idea from his tenure as Ford's Secretary of Defense in CatX. Last Edited By: seasick Mar 4 08 7:31 AM. Edited 1 times.
	Remove this ad
g lof2	SM-1 and SM-2	#30	[-]
Posts: 375 Mar 4 08 8:20 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Yes there is quit a differnence between SM-1 amd modern SM-2, and while early SM-2 were design to operated in an SM-1 simulation, I not sure that newer version can operated that way. As for LCS, Seasick, the only possible reason for canceling that program is politics. Yes they went way over budget, but that beacuse of how the Navy and OSD manage it, not because of any flaw in the designs produced by the builders. I do expect that both builders want a chance to correct their designs in order to better compeat with the other, but the result should be a much better ships than building more Flight 0 prototypes. Of course they might not get a chance to because of the politicians geting involded, but that what happen when you get lawyer making engineering decissions.
emc		#31	[-]
Posts: 6743 Mar 4 08 9:32 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	g lof2 wrote: Yes there is quit a differnence between SM-1 amd modern SM-2, and while early SM-2 were design to operated in an SM-1 simulation, I not sure that newer version can operated that way. As for LCS, Seasick, the only possible reason for canceling that program is politics. Yes they went way over budget, but that beacuse of how the Navy and OSD manage it, not because of any flaw in the designs produced by the builders. I do expect that both builders want a chance to correct their designs in order to better compeat with the other, but the result should be a much better ships than building more Flight 0 prototypes. Of course they might not get a chance to because of the politicians geting involded, but that what happen when you get lawyer making engineering decissions. You can't help but get politicians involved; politics get involved when you've got two guys trying to decide where to have lunch, let alone who to spend a few billion dollars. I've been in the aerospace industry too long to have automatic respect for the military's program managers, who can very from very good to not competent. Incidentally, that has little to do with "demanding;" the UTTAS program was very demanding and very well run (I think that the Army couldn't have lost picking either the H-60 or the H-61). I suspect that the problem with the LCS program centered around the simple fact that it was being imposed by OSD, with little feedback from the people who would actually have to figure out how to use them.
caioduilio	and today?	#32	[-]
Posts: 170 Dec 2 08 12:42 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	nine months after last post, what's the situation for USN Perry FFs? Still sent in the Gulf armed only with a 76/62, a Phalanx, some ASW light torpedos and a couple of SH60? Or maybe with a fake front gun as previously shown in this thread ? No further plan to install a RAM launcher?
bgile		#33	[-]
Posts: 3569 Dec 2 08 1:08 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	They would be fine on pirate patrol. Really good, actually.
AegisFC		#34	[-]
Posts: 710 Dec 2 08 8:06 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	caioduilio wrote: nine months after last post, what's the situation for USN Perry FFs? Still sent in the Gulf armed only with a 76/62, a Phalanx, some ASW light torpedos and a couple of SH60? Or maybe with a fake front gun as previously shown in this thread ? No further plan to install a RAM launcher? That fake gun was only installed for some war games (JTFX) and gets transferred from ship to ship to break up its profile, I've seen it on Frigates and DDG's a couple years ago. No RAM launcher will be installed, just NULKA.
Gunnersmate04	Mk-46 Scarecrow Mount	#35	[-]
Posts: 3405 Dec 3 08 5:34 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The GM's are just making them bigger now, similar to a 8 inch gun......fear, fear and panic in the hearts of bad guys everywhere!!! RAM should be installed, if a Perry got attacked, similar to the attack on STARK, She has no way of defending herself (shooting down plane before it can launch an attack) besides the CIWS after the vampire was launched. RAM is a obvious and solid option.
seasick		#36	[-]
Posts: 9664 Dec 4 08 6:30 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The RAM is available, if shooting starts they could be fit. But most of the Perrys are on anti-pirate patrol in the Caribbean sea or in the eastern Pacific ocean. Southern Command in other words, Fourth Fleet now.
g lof2		#37	[-]
Posts: 375 Dec 4 08 8:31 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Is mounting the Bushmaster on the Mk-13 base cpmmpn practice now, and is stringer still carried?
caioduilio		#38	[-]
Posts: 170 Dec 4 08 11:52 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	AFAIK Spruance DDs had been equipped in the 90s with a RAM launcher each. They would been perfect for the bow of those FFG sent in the Gulf or nearby... Where are they now? On storage, on some LHA/LSD/AOE or scrapped?
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

FFG-7 an the Mk13.