Talk:Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale
High rated as High-importance on the assessment scale

Contents

[edit] Missiles

Guess the US navy is going to remove the SM1 missiles. Pretty much make these ships useless.

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Shipmates on the beach

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

[edit] "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)

[edit] Pakistan

Added Pakistan's request for six units. Reference Janes.

Koxinga CDF 11:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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

[edit] H.R. 3912

According to the H.R. 3912 [1] 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)

[edit] 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)