OH Perry Class, how much second hand?

NickNZ
31st May 2010, 06:44
The Americans sold a fair few of these single screw frigates off.
Should the RN have bought some? I can't believe they were expensive to buy, and they certainly look good. Just a couple of small mods here and there, and they would have saved the MoD a fortune.

Stevo
31st May 2010, 10:49
I've never been a fan of these ships, cheap gap fillers and a single screw is not the most ideal arrangement but you can't argue with ships that survived an Exocet and mine hit. These ships have been good exports as well although second hand they were almost given away.

wigger
31st May 2010, 11:51
Most of them are knackered now by all accounts, and stripped of most of their major weapons systems as they became obsolete, a bit like the old T42s.

NickNZ
31st May 2010, 20:25
Most of them are knackered now by all accounts, and stripped of most of there major weapons systems as they became obsolete, a bit like the old T42s.

And the new T45s?

wigger
31st May 2010, 21:12
You can't really compare them with a T45 Nick, the OHP's do actually have a CIWS!:D

NickNZ
1st June 2010, 07:27
You're right, and they have something else in common. Neither has a working missile system!

Hawkeye
1st June 2010, 20:06
It was the same with the Knox Class Frigates. The USA built a lot of them, as did Spain (7 if my memory serves me correctly). They too were single screwed, and many of them went on to serve in other navies.

Abbeywood.
7th June 2010, 16:38
You are quite right'Hawkeye' There were about 46 of them built, with a further ten cancelled
They were/are steam turbine powered on a single screw.
Oddly the class leader 'Knox' was commissioned as DD 1052 while the remainder were all DE's, (1053-1097). however all were reclassified as FF's during 1975.
The Spanish buildings, 7 in number, were guided missile versions and as such were classified as DEG 7-11.

Hawkeye
7th June 2010, 20:24
You are quite right'Hawkeye' There were about 46 of them built, with a further ten cancelled
They were/are steam turbine powered on a single screw.
Oddly the class leader 'Knox' was commissioned as DD 1052 while the remainder were all DE's, (1053-1097). however all were reclassified as FF's during 1975.
The Spanish buildings, 7 in number, were guided missile versions and as such were classified as DEG 7-11.

That#s something I didn't know about. All my referance books never mention the Knox commissioned as a DD.

Klaatu83
7th June 2010, 20:41
The Perry class frigates were designed as convoy escorts. It's a function that doesn't come high on the list of the U.S. Navy's operational priorities. They seem generally to prefer to leave that sort of thing to NATO. I sailed during both Gulf Wars, did two tours in Diego Garcia on preposition ships, and spent five years in the Military Sealift Command; and through all that there was only one occasion when I was ever involved in a practice convoy, and even that was carried out without any Navy participation.

U.S. Navy officers also seem to dislike the fact that the Perry's only have a single screw. They seem to have an idea that single-screw ships are difficult to handle. I was sailing for the Military Sealift Command at the time the Perrys first came out. During that period I had occasion to attend a Navy OOD course, at which I was the only non-Navy officer present. There was a lot of talk about how difficult those ships were on account of their single-screw. When I mentioned that all our ships were single screw and that fact never seemed to bother anybody; one of them asked me, "Don't single screw ships always tend to turn to port?" "Yes", I replied, "I suppose they do. That's why they have rudder". Another asked me, "What happens if the engine breaks down?" I told him that the engineers fix it, either that of we wait for a tow.

Abbeywood.
8th June 2010, 06:29
That#s something I didn't know about. All my referance books never mention the Knox commissioned as a DD.

Hawkeye, I quoted from a reference book 'US Warships since 1945', by Paul H. Silverstone, and published by Ian Allan Ltd in 1986.
Like yourself, I too found that odd and, perchance, it may well be a misprint.
I have just browsed thru' the lists in 'Janes' (1985-86), and therein, all the class were classified as DE's, until 30th June 1975, when they were then re-designated as Frigates (FF's) while retaining their original hull numbers.

Something else I have noticed is that 'Silverstones book refers to 7 ships of the type, as being built under licence in Spain, However according to 'Janes', 85-86, there were only 5 ships built and there is no reference to any cancellations, neither is there any mention of DEG classification
F71, Balaeres; F72, Andalucia; F73, Cataluna; F74, Asturias; F75, Extremadura

Satanic Mechanic
8th June 2010, 07:14
The Americans sold a fair few of these single screw frigates off.
Should the RN have bought some? I can't believe they were expensive to buy, and they certainly look good. Just a couple of small mods here and there, and they would have saved the MoD a fortune.


Nick - would you please stop trying to put me and my mates out of a job and just let the Government build new ships (Thumb)

wigger
8th June 2010, 14:43
Sorry SM, not trying to wind you up but..... going down Nick's route.
I always thought some of the older paid off Ticonderoga's would have made nice air defence platforms for the RN, instead of the older T42s. Vastly more capable, and still fine ships today! I think the USN already paid off the first few of the class, maybe chuck in a few of the older Arleigh Burkes as well!:D
Craig

chadburn
8th June 2010, 15:17
The RN are not "keen" on single screw Surface Warships, which is why if I remember correctly non were sent to the Falklands in 1982.

Hawkeye
9th June 2010, 01:59
The RN are not "keen" on single screw Surface Warships, which is why if I remember correctly non were sent to the Falklands in 1982.

Three Tribal class frigates were being prepared to go south when the war ended. Didn't they have a single screw?

Hawkeye
9th June 2010, 02:01
Sorry SM, not trying to wind you up but..... going down Nick's route.
I always thought some of the older paid off Ticonderoga's would have made nice air defence platforms for the RN, instead of the older T42s. Vastly more capable, and still fine ships today! I think the USN already paid off the first few of the class, maybe chuck in a few of the older Arleigh Burkes as well!:D
Craig

The first five Ticonderoga class have been paid off. I think of them (Valley Forge) has already been expended as a target ship. So she'll won't be sold to anyone.

Hawkeye
9th June 2010, 02:07
Hawkeye, I quoted from a reference book 'US Warships since 1945', by Paul H. Silverstone, and published by Ian Allan Ltd in 1986.
Like yourself, I too found that odd and, perchance, it may well be a misprint.
I have just browsed thru' the lists in 'Janes' (1985-86), and therein, all the class were classified as DE's, until 30th June 1975, when they were then re-designated as Frigates (FF's) while retaining their original hull numbers.

Something else I have noticed is that 'Silverstones book refers to 7 ships of the type, as being built under licence in Spain, However according to 'Janes', 85-86, there were only 5 ships built and there is no reference to any cancellations, neither is there any mention of DEG classification
F71, Balaeres; F72, Andalucia; F73, Cataluna; F74, Asturias; F75, Extremadura

I have the same book. And as the ship is in the DE list, I too, assume it to be a misprint. I had never noticed it until you mentioned it.
It also says about the DEG's going to Spain. It also quotes 5.
In the Naval Institute Guide to the Ships & Aircraft of the US Fleet, it mentions the cancelled ships. And the five ships going to Spain as DEG. I have just looked back at my previous message. Although I stated 7 ships, I only put in DEG Numbers for 5.

Don Matheson
9th June 2010, 02:18
Surely you guys are not comparing the OHP class with the Ticonderoga! Bit of chalk and cheese there apart from the twin shafts and twin engine rooms not forgetting the twin boiler rooms.
One thing overlooked when people discuss the OPHs are their thruster, a diesel powered unit which lowers a propeller below the hull. I believe HMAS Sydney or one of the other Australian frigates steamed for around 1000 miles in the Pacific following a major failure of her main plant. Was told this by one of the engineers on the Sydney so feel I should believe it.
As to the Royal Navy buying them, dont you think we are better off with our own.

Don

Abbeywood.
9th June 2010, 06:51
Surely you guys are not comparing the OHP class with the Ticonderoga! Bit of chalk and cheese there apart from the twin shafts and twin engine rooms not forgetting the twin boiler rooms.
One thing overlooked when people discuss the OPHs are their thruster, a diesel powered unit which lowers a propeller below the hull. I believe HMAS Sydney or one of the other Australian frigates steamed for around 1000 miles in the Pacific following a major failure of her main plant. Was told this by one of the engineers on the Sydney so feel I should believe it.
As to the Royal Navy buying them, dont you think we are better off with our own.

Don

Morning DM
Actually Hawkeye, and myself were refering to the 'Knox' class destroyer-Escorts. Dont know how the 'Ticonderoga's crept in. ?

Hawkeye, have re-read Silverstone and it must be old age creeping in as, yes there definitely are only 5 Spanish 'knox' types mentioned. Obviously misled by the given DEG numbers i.e 7 - 11. Sorry.

Don Matheson
9th June 2010, 15:17
Abbeywood, I think the Ticonderoga sneeked in on post 11 and again on 13. I was enjoying the posts on the OHPs and then on the Knox class which are a pretty similar vessel just separated by age.
I was surprised when the much larger Ticonderoga appeared, so if I have added to the confusion I can only apologise.
Thought the use of OHPs was a great idea as despite having to enlarge the class for bigger helicopters they were a handy little ship. Was quite shocked to see one without a missile system and learning that the missiles were scrapped. Seemed to leave them without much for a frisate to do.

Don

NickNZ
10th June 2010, 07:40
I've always thoughtthe Ticonderoga's looked like mighty warships (especially in this day and age), and I think the point is well made, that the Yanks got rid of a few a lot earlier than the RN would, unless you consider the early T23s, T22s, and U Class subs.
Apologies for seeming to want SM to get laid off. I think it is VERY important that UK continue to have the ability to build wrships.
We just need vessels now, and the OHP's (and Ticonderoga's) are possibly a quick fix, cheap option. And the shipyards would certainly have some work to do, upgrading to RN standards.
After all, we do buy American helicopters, and build them here, better. Look at the Apache, Sea King, and the Chinook (though that is built Stateside.

chadburn
10th June 2010, 18:33
Three Tribal class frigates were being prepared to go south when the war ended. Didn't they have a single screw?

They did indeed have a single screw Hawkeye, the unexpected losses that we had of Warships down there meant going to the bottom of the list of ships available if the War had gone on any longer.

Abbeywood.
11th June 2010, 06:10
This 'Ticonderoga' class ships were originally ordered as Guided-missile Destroyers, (DDG's), based loosely on the 'Spuance' hull/machinery arrangements, however the T's had larger superstructures and carried heavier armaments.
'Ticonderoga' was ordered as DDG 47, (Laid down; 21st January 1980), the only one of the class to be given a DDG classification number before they were all re-classified as CG's, (Guided-missile Cruisers), on 1st January 1980, ('Janes', 1985-86).
There were at least 27 ships of the class projected, though how many were actually built remains unknown to this person, as my references have sadly fallen behind.
As for the suggested possibility of them being integrated into the RN, I would think that to be a non-starter, as they are as near-as-damn, thirty years old, and the costs of upgrading/modernisation to RN standards would surely be prohibtive, which is a pity, as they are/were pretty effective ships.

NickNZ
11th June 2010, 06:50
Does age matter, if the equipment is up to date, and fatigue is not an issue, and the ships are still well found, doesn't mean they have to go to the scrapheap. Look at what the South Americans, andAsians do with our cast offs.
By the way 27 Ticonderoga Class were builtm, and the youngest is about 14 years old (Port Royal)

Ron Stringer
11th June 2010, 11:03
Does age matter, if the equipment is up to date, and fatigue is not an issue, and the ships are still well found, doesn't mean they have to go to the scrapheap. Look at what the South Americans, andAsians do with our cast offs.

Don't know what they do with them, but I know what they don't do with them - they don't use them in action. (Jester)

wigger
11th June 2010, 11:50
I lost track of this thread over the last couple of days.:D As Nick had started the thread about buying ex US, I just thought it was worth mentioning that the US has far more capable ships than the OHP's doing nothing. Although as Hawkeye points out, those older Tico's may be all going soon, if not already.
When you look at what the chilean Navy has achieved with the Type 22's it bought from the RN, it just shows that foreign equipment can be refitted to suit a new navies needs. But lets face it, we are never going to buy any other countries cast off's.

I did read a rumour many years ago that the RFA had there eyes on 2 partially completed US Henry J Kaiser class oilers. Just another rumour probably but maybe somebody somewhere in a position of influence might occaisionally think along the same lines as us mortals!:D

NickNZ
12th June 2010, 04:29
No chance of that! They are all up to their eyeballs in tax payer funded credit card fun.

For those of you who are unaware, a NZ politician has just had his (government issue) credit card bill made public. Something like $6000 (GBP 3000) on Porno movies. His excuse? "I'm just a red blooded male". Though that statement was later amended by the spin doctors.

Stevo
12th June 2010, 12:46
The Tribals Ghurkha, Tartar and Zulu were recommissioned as replacements for losses in the Falklands but there was nothing to suggest they were going to be sent south.

chadburn
12th June 2010, 13:00
Wigger, the two oiler's were part of the deal that Able had? along with the ships for scrapping (now underway) he was after the two double hulled oiler's to complete hopefully for onward sale to HMG. However since the delay in the contract being carried out due to "nimby's" there has been no mention recently as to whether they are still part of that initial contract. At the Able yard he not only scraps vessel's but undertakes repair's, presently it's "jackup rig's" Ensco series.

wigger
12th June 2010, 18:38
Aha! Thanks for the info Chadburn!

Kind regards
Craig

Abbeywood.
15th June 2010, 14:16
Felicitations all,
As the general theme of this thread is about these Frigates I thought that I would 'bone up' a bit on the class and I have managed to locate the fate or where-abouts of 52 of them but I am stuck on the following four ships.
1. FFG-7 Oliver Hazard Perry: 2. FFG-10 Duncan: 3.FFG-31 Stark, and FFG-34 Aubrey Fitch.
As they are all of the early types, the possibility arises that they mave have met their ends. Info' most welcome.
There are currently 30 of the class on the US Navy Active List - I think !

Abbeywood.
16th June 2010, 06:03
, Further to my previous deliberations about the OHP's
I have since discovered the fates of the four ships in question,and as suggested. they have all passed along the road to Gillette.
O.H.Perry,(FFG-7), was de-commissioned in 1997, stricken from the 'Lists in 1999, and scrapped during 2005.
Duncan,(FFG-10), was de-commissioned 1994, stricken in 1998 and sold to the Turkish Navy in 1999, to be cannibalised for spares.
Stark,(FFG-31), de-com', 1999: stricken, 1999: scrapped 2006.
Aubrey Fitch,(FFG-34), de-com',1997: stricken, 1999: scrapped, 2004.
Altogether 32 not 30, ships remain on the US Navy lists, though most, if not all, appear to be 'laid- up' and, I suppose, awaiting disposal.
A premature thanks for any info' that may be in the 'pipe-line'.
Buenas Dias, all.

NickNZ
16th June 2010, 09:26
I have just checked, as you make an interesting comment. 21 OH Perry Class are cuurrently listed as being part of the active fleet, and 9 are laid up in reserve, though I cannot (at the moment) tell you which are in which status. I got this information from www.bluejacket.com, as the Offical US Navy website list of active ships has not been updated since February 2009 !!
The last built, USS Ingraham is less than 11 years old, and they seem to still used widely, as the gallery pages on this site show.

Abbeywood.
16th June 2010, 12:56
Greetings, NickNZ
There seems to be much confusion over the number of these ships still in service and I have just consulted another site that gives 37 ships. Who are we to believe ?
Google in 'USS Duncan, FFG-10', go to the bottom of the page, below the
'pics', and the white line, then click on 'Back to Frigate Lists' will offer a list of all the class but unfortunately cant find a date.
I'll go through the ships in the DANFS/ wiki' pages when I get a moment or four.
Have a good day, Abbeywood.

Hawkeye
16th June 2010, 14:00
Hi Abbeywood
Another site to try is the Hazegray one. There is a link on the left of the screen which takes you to Navsource. It's an excellant site.
Regards
Karl

Abbeywood.
17th June 2010, 06:48
As my Grand Finale on this thread I offer the following.
As of June 2010, FFG-8, 28, 29, 32, 33, 36-43, 45-61 are all in active service although FFG's 38, 42, and 56, are active with the Naval Reserve Force, and not the US Navy, as such.
FFG-8 is to be withdrawn on the 10/8/10 for sale and transfer to the Pakistan Navy as 'Alamgheer', or perhaps that should be 'Alamghir'.
Two ships; No's 12, and 14 are laid up at Everett,WA, pending foreign sale. They have both previously been offered to Portugal,(2006) and Turkey,(2008)
Three of the class, (7, 31, and 34) have been scrapped while FFG-10 has been sold Turkey for cannibalisation/spares for eight others of the class sold to the Turkish Navy, (No's 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 27, and 30).
No's 17, 18, 35, and 44 were direct builds for the Royal Australian Navy.
No's 9 and 11 are now operating with the Polish Navy, while 22, 23, 25 and 26 are part of the Navy of Egypt.
Finally, FFG-24 is the flagship of the Royal Bahrain Naval Service.
Amen, - maybe. !
regards to all, Pete'

paullad1984
26th June 2010, 21:09
[QUOTE=NickNZ;433208]Does age matter, if the equipment is up to date, and fatigue is not an issue, and the ships are still well found, doesn't mean they have to go to the scrapheap. Look at what the South Americans, andAsians do with our cast offs.

Look what the Phillipines have done with the BRP Rajah Humabon, formerly the USS Atherton, laid down in 1943 and still going, shes had a fair few refits and has been re-engined, but shes still going!

NickNZ
27th June 2010, 03:15
Thta is the crux of my raising this question.
At a time when the MoD & the RN in particular (the Naval spin doctors come 3rd out of 3 for promoting the Service) seems under great pressure, why persist in selling ships, in exchange for hugely expensive, underarmed, under developed, unproven vessels.
If a ship is looked after (not wrapped in cotton wool) and maintained properly, I would expect it to last a lot longer than the RN keeps most of its ships. And if it must seek replacements; why not look at buying good, well maintained, foreign ships. It is a darn sight cheaper, and quicker than designing, building and commissioning new ships, which may, or may not (4 recent diesel subs) be fit fo purpose.

Davesdream
18th July 2010, 04:27
I would not count the tico class out just yet. Most the ships in service are now going through a refit to upgrade the Phased array radars to deal with the new bread of missiles.

Look here for the information on the upgrade:

http://defense-update.com/newscast/0307/news/010307_bmd.htm

Well worth the look.

Regards
Dave

NickNZ
17th September 2010, 09:23
I would not count the tico class out just yet. Most the ships in service are now going through a refit to upgrade the Phased array radars to deal with the new bread of missiles.

Look here for the information on the upgrade:

http://defense-update.com/newscast/0307/news/010307_bmd.htm

Well worth the look.

Regards
Dave

Unfortunately, I don't think the Americans would consider selling any of the Ticonderoga Class. They will keep them going for as long as possible, the upgrades have improved their lifespan, and anyone that sees one coming, either over the horizon, or on radar (what is the value of stealth?) will run away v quickly. They are impressive bits of machinery, though they have always struck me as looking top heavy.

Davesdream
24th October 2010, 22:19
They do indeed appear to be top heavy. But with the use of dissimiliar metals other than steel allow the naval engineers to create some high super structures with little to no effect on the riding arm of the ship, mainly the roll from port to starboard aspect.

Regards
Dave

Davesdream
6th April 2012, 17:59
It would seem the Perry Class was built along the same lines as the Knox Class as stated already in a previous post. But the main propulsion was gas Turbine on the Perry Class.

The other item and the reason for the removal of the forward missile system was in the intrusion of water into magazine area below the launcher itself.

The link provided is to Perry Class.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/06idx.htm

Worth a look!

Regards

jamesgpobog
6th April 2012, 19:57
I unrep-ed several Knox class ships in the Tonkin Gulf in 1972. I don't remember if it was within the class or if it was the similar Garcia class, but there were a couple different propulsion plants used, gas turbine and 1200psi pressure fired steam plants. I remember you could hear the gas turbines spooling up, and the steam plants wouldn't have that turbine whine, but man, the stack would really start to blow. I have a vivid memory of one of the ships showing off after the unrep, they really wound up and the wake of the ship went from a 8-10 knot flat, gentle disturbance to a full boil pile of water several feet taller than the fantail. The stern just sat down about 3-4 feet and the thing looked like it was leaping out of the water. It was amazing to watch.

Davesdream
7th April 2012, 03:57
I would agree with your statement on un rip's. I too served on a Coast Guard Cutter of the Hamilton Class for some years. It was always a thrill to hear the gas turbine spin-up when it came to do an emergency break way, then to see the roster tail off of the stern and vibrations with the screws turning at flank speed.

Regards