Originally Posted By: bigj_16
A few fun facts. The Perry class Frigates were originally conceptualized as a Coast Guard Cutter! They were a great ASW platform, but what put them in disfavor was their Mk 13 one armed bandit missile launcher. It could only carry SM-1 missiles in the magazine, and the Navy stopped using SM-1's in 2003. Some had Mk 38 Bushmasters installed over the launcher space, but the launcher removal sounded their death knell. There were other weapons ideas floated, but most of the Perry class Frigates had been worked over pretty well. The Hawes is scheduled for scrapping, which means if they bring a few back, it might make it. Some of the others are scheduled to be a reef, or for sale to another country. For what they were, the Perry class frigates were good little ships. They did a lot of interdiction work, and a lot of other multi mission duties, that freed up the Aegis ships for the bigger stuff.
Exactly. The OHP Class of Frigates was part of CNO Zumwalt's hi/lo fleet mix. The DDGs were the high end: expensive, capable, ships. The FFGs were the low end: inexpensive, but numerous and useful. Capable against a low end threat. Hi/lo makes sense. F-15 and F-16. F-14 and F/A-18.
In the modern implementation of USN surface ships, the Arleigh-Burke is the high end and it's awesome. A supremely capable combatant.
But the low end is an abject failure. The LCS (Littoral Combat Ship) is expensive, has severe operating limitations, fails on many mission fronts, and has hurt the USN combat capability. There has been legitimate talk of bringing OHP-class FFGs out of mothballs. A retrofit and overhaul would still be cheaper than a new LCS, and the ship would offer far more capability than the LCS.
"Want of Frigates" is the current state of the US Navy. Nelson knew how much that mattered over 200 hundreds years ago, but CNOs like ADM Greenert simply forgot the lesson and became enamored of high-tech, new design that fails on nearly every count: cost, capability, range, effectiveness. His vision, " a networked, agile, stealthy surface combatant capable of defeating anti-access and asymmetric threats in the littorals." sounds like a bunch of buzzwords strung together in a powerpoint sales pitch. The LCS has delivered none of the elements envisioned at the time of its approval. The CNO famously chose to pick BOTH designs in the contest (like picking BOTH the YF-16 and the YF-17 in the USAF lightweight fighter competition....what's the point of a competition, then?) driving up the cost of procurement, spare parts, training and inventory.
Now, confronted with the huge price over-runs, the lack of capability, the silliness of TWO ships in a class that was envisioned to have a maximum of 50 ships total, the USN has had to select just one design, and build more capability into it...changing it from LCS - to, well, a Frigate!
Last summer, the USN asked for an RFI (phase one of procurement) on a new frigate...FFG(x).
"Want of Frigates" indeed...