Talk:Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate/Archive 1

Missiles
Guess the US navy is going to remove the SM1 missiles. Pretty much make these ships useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.174.220 (talk • contribs) 02:45, September 20, 2003 (UTC)


 * Not at all. They've never fired a missile in anger. Their great strength has always been the LAMPS-3 helo, equipped with anti-ship missiles. Bbpen 20:59, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Kind of takes the G out of FFG. I wonder if I was the last one to toss birds off the Elrod before it lost it's launcher?  Tossed 3 plus one dud jet in 2000.  Sad to see it go. Out180 05:42, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Include Australian Upgrade Program
Should I Include some info on Australian ships here or perhaps start a topic called the Adelaide class frigate. I propose something along the lines, Introduction, FIG 7s in US Service - Including baptism of fire, FIG 7s in Australian Service, FIG 7s in Spanish Service & FIG 7s in Taiwanese Service,Then transfers and new operators. Finnally the ships list. Would need some help filling details of other country's (Other than Australia) history(how/why they got OHPs), plans for them etc. --B Robert Harrow 29 June 2005 22:48 (UTC)

Air Defence, What Air Defence
So now the farthest that an Oliver Hazard Perry can defend itself against air attack is the max range of the puny Phalanx (maybe a thousand yards effective range) or a mile if they carry Stingers.

Can you say "Sitting Duck".

Have they actually removed the launchers and magazine ? I guess that gives them more casualty space - they'll need it...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.34.68.14 (talk • contribs) 22:23, June 16, 2005


 * maybe they rename them the missle sponge class-theman50554 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.159.88.139 (talk • contribs) 15:52, October 26, 2005


 * That's a pretty ignorant statement if you look at the jobs FFGs are doing around the globe, VBSS, MIO, CSG/ESG, along with Force Protection at a scale the Coast Guard would like to have....maybe they'll rename the class "Workhorse".


 * I'd rather have a Phalanx whizzing heavy rounds at an incoming any day......the track record of the SM-1 was anything other than stellar.


 * Sure didn't do much to stop that Exocet, now did it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.31.187 (talk • contribs) 04:24, November 30, 2005


 * Sea skimming missiles, such as the Exocet, are within the design parameters of the SM-1 missile and the MK-92 fire control system. The operator is the weakest link, although the fire control system does not give as clear a picture of in incoming missile as, for instance, the Aegis system does.  For quick reaction shots, such as against an Exocet, range is not as important as automated detection and tracking.  The horizon limits detection range to under 20 miles.  A point defense missile system may well be an upgrade over the MK-92 fire control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.40.120 (talk • contribs) 20:42, December 20, 2005


 * Sure didn't do much to stop that Exocet, now did it? I was never under the impression that the SM-1 was designed to take out Exocet's and their brethren. I had just transferred to shore duty from two years on the USS Rentz (FFG-46) when the Stark was hit. But I remember vividly that the Phalanx system (we referred to it primarily as CIWS or "C-wizz") was always considered our primary defensive weapon. The SM-1's were pretty much long range offensive weapons. Our exercises with the SM-1s were always high altitude hits (think of taking out a Tupolev Tu-95 "Bear"). Stark had a working Phalanx system, they just weren't in a heightened state of readiness. After being hit their damage control was abso-effing-lutely heroic. Once the fire control radar was locked on, the SM-1 NEVER missed. Without SM-1's, FIG-7s aren't that much more vulnerable. However, losing the Harpoon ability by taking out the launcher means less ability to take out over the horizon targets (the best defense being a good offense?). -- Quartermaster (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Shipmates on the beach
Image:Navy2.jpg --Rlhoward59 04:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"Baptism by fire"?!
A rather POV choice of heading! Nick Cooper 22:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd call the language more "colorful" than POV. "Baptism" is used metaphorically, and they were fired upon. -- Quartermaster (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan
Added Pakistan's request for six units. Reference Janes. - Koxinga CDF 11:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

MK13 Missile Launcher.
American frigates no longer have the MK13 missile launcher. I helped take the last one off of the USS Klakring back in 2004. Thought the page should be updated to show that the project has been completed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NotLoggedIn (talk • contribs) 14:03, May 22, 2007


 * I've been able to (finally) find and include in the article an authoritative source on the removal of the Mk13's from the OHP Figs. I still haven't found anything stating that project was completed, but wouldn't object to someone changing the grammar to imply that. I also replaced the picture of the McCluskey with it's Mk13 removed with one from the Rodney M. Davis which shows the removal with more clarity. Having served on one of these "Chevy Vegas of the Seven Seas" the photo reminds makes me think of a gelding or a eunuch. It's painful to see the removal of what was more than just a phallic "symbol." --Quartermaster (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I choose to add here, rather than under 'Air Defence, What Air Defence'. look at the picture of a ship with the Mk13 removed. I suspect nothing has bene done to make that volume usage to the crew, remove some, avoid maintenance, leave heavier items. I thought I heard at one point there was a idea at one point (near 2001) for 2 DDG-51 Burke's built, decommission 3 FFGs. The DDGs have so much more capability, not much more operational expense - less cost than the capability increase. Plus giving up the launcher allowed No more support or money for SM1 missiles. Sadly without the missile launcher and layout, yes they vastly look underarmed, question value. But listen to the US Navy, to conduct missions they need to keep some around.

(Wfoj2 (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC))
 * Why exactly would the Perrys have been unable to use SM2 missiles in the Mk13 launchers? Dimensionally they would've fit. Or for that matter why not just load them with Harpoons only? As it stands there's barely any point in having the ships at all; with no missiles onboard, the Navy might as well decommission and scrap them now rather than wasting money operating useless ships. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 07:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why Perrys have been unable to use SM2 missiles in the Mk13 launchers?-I thought I heard the minor growth weight of the SM2 exceeded the launchers capability. I also thought when the Australians upgraded their FFGs, they did upgrade the launcher to handle SM2. - NO Idea, wonder ir Turkey did similar with their FFGs. What about the more recently decom'd US FFG going to FMS - Wfoj3 (talk) 12:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Which seems to be the intention, as the US Navy didn't even bother reclassifying them as non-missile frigates (FF). With a severely reduced subsurface threat level, the US Navy probably no longer needs a dedicated surface ASW platform. IMHO, the ships are off to the mothball in less than a decade. Some will be distributed to various allies. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them ended up as practice targets as well. 78.177.205.254 (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

H.R. 3912
According to the H.R. 3912 two ships of this class (USS George Philip (FFG-12) and USS Sides (FFG-14)) will be transferred to the Turkish Navy. xeryus 14:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Having trained on a couple of cruises on the Philip, I find this to be just personally jarring. May the Turks sail her well. -- Quartermaster (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Logical rearrangement rationale
I just did some major/minor restructuring and here's why. The major reason is just for a little more editorial clarity. Very little content has been changed (I've cleaned up the section on Turkish upgrades to be more encyclopedic and less a plug for the various systems).

First, I moved the "Baptism under fire" section to follow the major "Ships" section. It made editorial sense to me that after the general description, the narrative of subsequent use of FFG's flowed naturally. This could be an expanded section re-titled to something like "FFG's in action" where we could add all significant engagements and actions (may not be many, but a more general section might be warranted). Second, I see the "Upgrades" section as kind of auxiliary information, hence, it follows the "Baptism" section. Within the "Upgrades" section I moved the US upgrades to the top because the majority of Figs are US ships and it is the prototype. The Australian upgrades are similar to the Turkish ones so it made sense to put them together. I think the Australians were chronologically first to engage in their upgrade program, but I could be wrong. -- Quartermaster (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and changed the Baptism under fire section to Notable combat actions. -- Quartermaster (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Preceded by:/ NEED Succeeded by:
I propose that Succeeded by be added, and stated to be the LCS (Littorial Combat Ship). Some logic: You have DDX and CGX in planning near building plans. The LCS is physically smaller than a DD-693, or DDG-51 or DDX. I will admit it is smaller than a FFG-7. It will have some minesweeping capability so it might also eventually additionaly succeed the MCMs. There is nothing near a FFG in size in the US Navy planning to my knowledge. It's size is near the modern corvettes that some other navies operate.(Wfoj2 (talk) 02:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)).
 * The succeeded by field is for the next class of the same type. Since the US Navy hasn't seen fit to designate the LCS as a guided missile frigate, the succeeded field should not be used. -MBK004 02:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * UPGRADING US NAVY FRIGATES —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.39.178.223 (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The US Navy has 22 FF Oliver H. Perry frigates with neither SAM nor SSM missiles.

And now it´is spending too much money building the new LCS ships, with neither SAM (RAM missiles are only for self-defense) nor SSM (NLOS-LS missiles have only 40 Km range, not enough against true SSM-armed ships) But Australia has upgraded its Perry (Adelaide) frigates with SM-2 (and so, they still can fire HARPOONs from its Mk13) and an 8 cell Mk41 VLS (with 32 ESSM) Why the US Navy can´t do the same? Perry frigates can be upgraded spending less money, in less time, becoming very interesting ships. Why don´t they do it? Do you know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.39.178.223 (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The Perry Class is first and foremost an anti-submarine platform, equipped with a powerful towed array and the Seahawk. Now that the subsurface threat to the US Navy is reduced drastically, the need for a dedicated anti-submarine frigate has apparently vanished. Other surface combatant duties (missile strike, air defense) are better handled by AEGIS-equipped ships. Upgrading the Perry Class with the AEGIS system would be too costly, but without AEGIS the full potential of SM-2 can not be realized. Apparently, maintaining the stock of older SM-1s proved too costly as well. However, I do agree it's pointless to remove the launchers completely (no other weapon on the Perry has a 360-degree firing arc. Well, except the helo) unless the ships are already slanted for decommissioning, which I believe is the intention of the Navy anyway. 78.177.205.254 (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Quantity
"Fifty-five ships were built in the United States: 51 for the United States Navy and four for the Royal Australian Navy (RAN). In addition, eight were built in the Republic of China (Taiwan), six in Spain, and two in Australia for their navies."

That's 71 total and 51 for the USN and confirmed by the table. 75.69.0.58 (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Caribbean and South America Deployment
http://www.defense.gov//news/newsarticle.aspx?id=119571 The day could also soon arrive, Kelly said, when Southcom “has no assigned DOD surface assets to conduct detention and monitoring operations,” citing a January memo from the chief of naval operations that warned sequestration will compel the Navy to stop all deployments to the Caribbean and South America.

He's clearly talking about the Flotilla of Frigates, Gelding (FFG), because that's all they're used for these days, but would it be OR to quote him here as to the future of the ships? Hcobb (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be OR. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Transfer of FFG-38 and FFG-41 to Mexico
Widespread rumors of the Mexican Navy accepting the two OHP vessels were spread by many enthusiast sites and blogs. Whoever is doing this is either not very bright/observant or determined, or both. In reality, The USS Curts (FFG-38) is currently undergoing hull refurbishment in the USA for storage and the USS McClusky (FFG-41) has yet to be decommissioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.40.156 (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Not the last frigate
Although there's talk of there being no more frigates in US service, it should be remembered that USS Constitution is a frigate, even if she's no longer militarily relevant... Le Deluge (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The last frigate needs some adjective grammar. Typically, last refers to last-in (water) or last built (FY 1984 contract; Ingraham), not last-out (of active/reserve service; Simpson), or last stricken or sunk. Also, the U.S. Navy has not "built" ships for quite some while; (remember the "shuttering" of armories by SECDEF McNamara).  1st line: "class is a class" - perhaps replace with "The Oliver Hazard Perry class guided missile frigates were a classification of USN ships of named after Commodore...".  Maybe a clarification on who classifies a Nation's commissioned navy ships, (such as the similar Adelaide class).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.242.196 (talk) 03:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

typo?
leaving the U.S. Navy without a frigate class of ships in over 70 years Insert 'for the first time'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.157.244 (talk • contribs) 15:52, April 9, 2015‎

Seahorsepower and so on
shp = horsepower (1 to 1 as far as I know?!)

31 MW = 31,000 kilowatt = 41,571.685 and not 41,000 "shp" like in the article. I mean 571.685 horsepower are enough to power a mid-size patroal boat or in terms of diesel (which is used I guess, or Kerosene in the turbines), it is enough for more than 2 standard busses in Berlin,

usually they got close to 300 "PS" (100 German "Pferdestärke" are 98,632 horsepower). A bus with over 100 passenger capacity and empty weight of 16 to 18 tonnes usually has up to 285 PS, smaller busses sometimes even only a bit over 200 PS if they have less than 40 sitting places and only 1 place for wheelchair/buggy, means smaller bus. The new ones are very much more effective anyway. Fuel consmption, motor power... like with cars... fuel demand went down by over 50% since the 1990's for same cars, just now the new generations of the car...

Greetings Kilon22 (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * SHP stands for Shaft horsepower. Llammakey (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Succeeded by Freedom and Independence classes
Are they really the 'successors'? I know little about naval ship classes but aren't the Freedom and Independence classes littoral combat ships designed for near shore ops and not high seas guided missile frigates? Wouldn't the proposed FFG(X) ship be the intended successor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.26.162 (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Differences between the flights
This section is terribly oversimplified. FFG-9, for instance, carried RAST for 10 years. Upon receiving its 4100 ton conversion, RAST was removed, and the aft capstan was placed a step below the flight deck. 107.191.163.159 (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)