We got a lot of good service out of the Perry's, but let's not get carried away, and remember what they really were.
First of all, remember this was a "low capability" ship designed to be cheap and plentiful. Besides sheer numbers, much of their capability came from the 2 helicopters aboard, especially as their original modest primary armament became outmoded and was removed.
Second, their aluminum superstructure had to be designed out of their successors due to the extreme fire hazard. We have been extremely fortunate that it never happened to a Perry, but the disaster of the USS Belknap aluminum superstructure fire could have happened to any Perry.
Third, I have to comment on all the "tough" and "survivable" comments going around. These ships were NOT designed to take a hit! All the surviving was done despite, not because, of their design. Let's be honest, better made warships would have taken Exocet and mine damage with less casualties.
The Perry's were a success because we needed a lot of ships to cover a lot of jobs on a lot of oceans. Just having them supporting more capable warships was useful, but the lives of the brave sailors on board were more at risk than on other ships.
I agree a littoral (coastal) type ship cannot, by definition, do the job of a full-up sea-going ship. It's a misnomer to call the 3,000 ton displacement LCS a "frigate".
In a way the LCS distills the lessons of the aluminum superstructure frigate ships down to its essence- despite being smaller, each LCS carries 2 helicopters, and the copters bring a huge amount of ASW and other capabilities to an otherwise "low capability" surface ship.
