Why? The way I see it, you cut the number of hulls, cut the crews required, dispose of ageing 50+ year old ships that will increasingly have maintenance problems, and buy two new, small LPDs like the one Swerve suggested, that carry more in less hulls and are easier to maintain. How is that more expensive?
Peruvian navy help
- Thread starter ROCK45
- Start date
IrishHitman
New Member
The CG-47 cruisers have an all-round capability that Peru appears to want, but buying them alone wouldn't achieve much. As I've said, you would need corvettes or destroyers to compliment them. They aren't invincible, afterall.
Which would make it impossible to do with a budget of 3.3billion.
As for the Meko family, I don't think they have the capabilities that Peru are looking for. The A200 would just provide what they already have, whereas true missile corvettes/destroyers would give Peru a large advantage.
As for LPDs, after looking up about the Makassar-class, they do seem to fit Peru's needs.
Again, the problem is pricing and priorities...
Last edited:
I was thinking in terms of adding to Peru's fleet, a few Maestrales with similar systems of the Lupos along with a few new submarines would be a good investment.
If we are thinking in terms of replacing the current fleet, the new Italian/French FREMMs would be a good replacement of the Lupos. Of course new Mekos would fit too. But these would consume all of the $3 billion budget.
A wonderful surprise would be to replace the cruiser with an LHD type, there are a number of designs available. Peru has the manpower, use the crew of the cruiser. Such as the French Mistrals, or the Spanish Juan Carlos I. Maybe the South Korean one would be better, along with a few of their small LPDs. This would improve significantly their expeditionary warfare capabilities, and still leave some funds left, possibly $1.5 billion, to spend on a few new corvettes and submarines, or a few new frigates only. However, doing this would force the other South American navies to do the same.
If we are thinking in terms of replacing the current fleet, the new Italian/French FREMMs would be a good replacement of the Lupos. Of course new Mekos would fit too. But these would consume all of the $3 billion budget.
A wonderful surprise would be to replace the cruiser with an LHD type, there are a number of designs available. Peru has the manpower, use the crew of the cruiser. Such as the French Mistrals, or the Spanish Juan Carlos I. Maybe the South Korean one would be better, along with a few of their small LPDs. This would improve significantly their expeditionary warfare capabilities, and still leave some funds left, possibly $1.5 billion, to spend on a few new corvettes and submarines, or a few new frigates only. However, doing this would force the other South American navies to do the same.
Well, that question would be mostly about what you pack in/on them.
Meko A200 AAW: 40-cell VLS (32 SM2-IIIA, 32 ESSM); 8 Harpoon, 2 RAM launchers (42 RIM-116), 127mm gun, 2x Mk32, 2x MLG27; APAR+SMART-L or SPY-1F radar suite; medium ASW helicopter.
Meko A200 ASW: 16-cell VLS (32 ESSM, 8 ASROC); 8x Harpoon, 2x RAM launchers (42 RIM-116), 127mm gun, 2x Mk32, 2x MLG27; 2x medium ASW helicopter.
CG-47 (non-VLS): 2x Mk26 launcher (68 SM2, 20 ASROC), 8x Harpoon, 2x 127mm gun, 2x Mk32, 2x Phalanx; 2x medium ASW helicopter.
CG-52 (VLS): 122-cell VLS (eg 98 SM2, 24 ASROC), 8x Harpoon, 2x 127mm gun, 2x Mk32, 2x Phalanx; 2x medium ASW helicopter.
However, what should be taken into account is that even US cruisers never sail with a full missile complement.
For most duties, having 3-4 times the number of decent-quality frigates is worth quite a bit more than having only two cruisers (of which usually only one would be operational too).
Especially when you consider that both neighboring nations operate rather decent sub fleets. A single cruiser, even with some light missile corvettes around it, is relatively easy prey for a pack of 2-3 Type 209.
Meko A200 AAW: 40-cell VLS (32 SM2-IIIA, 32 ESSM); 8 Harpoon, 2 RAM launchers (42 RIM-116), 127mm gun, 2x Mk32, 2x MLG27; APAR+SMART-L or SPY-1F radar suite; medium ASW helicopter.
Meko A200 ASW: 16-cell VLS (32 ESSM, 8 ASROC); 8x Harpoon, 2x RAM launchers (42 RIM-116), 127mm gun, 2x Mk32, 2x MLG27; 2x medium ASW helicopter.
CG-47 (non-VLS): 2x Mk26 launcher (68 SM2, 20 ASROC), 8x Harpoon, 2x 127mm gun, 2x Mk32, 2x Phalanx; 2x medium ASW helicopter.
CG-52 (VLS): 122-cell VLS (eg 98 SM2, 24 ASROC), 8x Harpoon, 2x 127mm gun, 2x Mk32, 2x Phalanx; 2x medium ASW helicopter.
However, what should be taken into account is that even US cruisers never sail with a full missile complement.
For most duties, having 3-4 times the number of decent-quality frigates is worth quite a bit more than having only two cruisers (of which usually only one would be operational too).
Especially when you consider that both neighboring nations operate rather decent sub fleets. A single cruiser, even with some light missile corvettes around it, is relatively easy prey for a pack of 2-3 Type 209.
IrishHitman
New Member
I did say that the CG-47 is not a viable option because it would need to be complimented by other vessels. They alone would be easy prey for wolfpack-tactics of submarines or a concentrated aerial assault.
They would make up a very nice core, however.
Together with current and future frigates in service with the Navy, it would considerably increase the capabilities of their navy. The Peruvians really need to rid themselves of that old Dutch cruiser that currently serves.
But, as I've said, the CG-47 is pretty much out of reach for the Peruvians for political and financial reasons. The versions of MEKO you've suggested above would be appropriate, but Peru has a tradition of buying Italian for some reason, hence my suggestion of the Horizon and FREMM. A larger number of these can do effectively the same job, apart from land attack perhaps...
Furthermore, just because the US cruisers don't sail with a full missile compliment doesn't mean the Peruvian Navy wouldn't.
Last edited:
For used ships, how about considering the JMSDF.
The (3) Tachikaze DDG's constructed in the 70's/80's are being decommissioned now. The Hatsuyuki DD's may be available in the next few years. The Japanese Navy have always kept their ships in immaculate condition. I've seen this firsthand as I've been aboard their ships in WESTPAC.
Tachikaze DDG
Standard Displacement 3,850ton
Length: 143m
Width: 14.3m
Depth: 9.0m
Draft: 4.6m
Mitsubishi steam turbine x2; 2 shafts propulsion Horsepower 60,000ps
Maximum Speed 32kt
Gun 5-inch 54cal single mount rapid fire gun (Mk42) x2
20mm Close-In Weapons System (CWIS) x2
AAW / ASUW SAM standard (guided) missile launcher x1 (Tartar SM-1 (MR) / SSM Harpoon)
ASW ASROC launcher x1
Torpedo Type 68 Triple torpedo tubes x2
Fire Control MFCS Mk74
Missile Director Radar SPG-51C
Air Search Radar OPS-11
SPS-52B
Surface Search Radar OPS-18-1
Bow Sonar
Hatsuyuki DD
Displacement 2,950ton
Length: 130m
Width: 13.6m
Depth: 8.5m
Draft: 4.2m
Main Engine Gas turbine x4 (Kawasaki Rolls Royce Tine RM1C x2 for cruising / Olympus TM3B x2 for high speed only);COGOG, 2 shafts propulsion
Horsepower 45,000ps
Maximum Speed 30kt
Gun 76mm 62cal rapid fire gun x1
20mm Close-In Weapons System (CIWS) x2
AAW AM Sea Sparrow
ASUW SSM Harpoon
ASW ASROC launcher x1
Torpedo Type 68 Triple torpedo tubes x2
Air Search Radar OPS-14-B
Surface Search Radar OPS-18-1
Sonar OQS-4 hull
EW NOLR-6B/C, OLT-3
SH-60J anti-submarine helicopter x1
The (3) Tachikaze DDG's constructed in the 70's/80's are being decommissioned now. The Hatsuyuki DD's may be available in the next few years. The Japanese Navy have always kept their ships in immaculate condition. I've seen this firsthand as I've been aboard their ships in WESTPAC.
Tachikaze DDG
Standard Displacement 3,850ton
Length: 143m
Width: 14.3m
Depth: 9.0m
Draft: 4.6m
Mitsubishi steam turbine x2; 2 shafts propulsion Horsepower 60,000ps
Maximum Speed 32kt
Gun 5-inch 54cal single mount rapid fire gun (Mk42) x2
20mm Close-In Weapons System (CWIS) x2
AAW / ASUW SAM standard (guided) missile launcher x1 (Tartar SM-1 (MR) / SSM Harpoon)
ASW ASROC launcher x1
Torpedo Type 68 Triple torpedo tubes x2
Fire Control MFCS Mk74
Missile Director Radar SPG-51C
Air Search Radar OPS-11
SPS-52B
Surface Search Radar OPS-18-1
Bow Sonar
Hatsuyuki DD
Displacement 2,950ton
Length: 130m
Width: 13.6m
Depth: 8.5m
Draft: 4.2m
Main Engine Gas turbine x4 (Kawasaki Rolls Royce Tine RM1C x2 for cruising / Olympus TM3B x2 for high speed only);COGOG, 2 shafts propulsion
Horsepower 45,000ps
Maximum Speed 30kt
Gun 76mm 62cal rapid fire gun x1
20mm Close-In Weapons System (CIWS) x2
AAW AM Sea Sparrow
ASUW SSM Harpoon
ASW ASROC launcher x1
Torpedo Type 68 Triple torpedo tubes x2
Air Search Radar OPS-14-B
Surface Search Radar OPS-18-1
Sonar OQS-4 hull
EW NOLR-6B/C, OLT-3
SH-60J anti-submarine helicopter x1
Well, not only...
Sources of Peruvian Navy ships in the past 50 years:
Netherlands - de Ruyter CLs, Friesland/Holland DDs
British - Daring DDs, Crown Colony CLs
Italian - frigates
French - corvettes
German - submarines
US - auxiliaries, LSTs, Fletcher DDs, Cannon DEs
Salty Dog: interesting suggestion, especially when one considers the role the Japanese minority plays and played in Peruvian politics
The only problem with the Japanese is they don't and won't sell abroad. Since the Italians and French, along with the Greeks are building frigates to replace frigates, their old frigates may become available, of 1980s vintage. The British and the Dutch have already downsized and sold a few Karel Doormans and Type 23s already, I doubt either will downsize or sell any more, well, not in the near future. Don't forget Pakistan and Brazil will attempt to grab any Type 22s or newer discards. Plus the US OHPerrys have had their Mk13 SM-1 SAM systems decapitated. There is a lot of competition for good used frigates.
With $3.3 billion dollars, I would purchase new, possibly either FREMMs or VLS Sigma corvettes, or small frigates much like Morocco. I believe the FREMMs run around $400 million each, and the Sigmas around $300 million each. A combination of both types would fit inside the budget, plus maybe leave some funds to buy a few Type 209 submarines or several South Korean LPDs. Say 3 FREMMs, and 5 Sigmas; 3 subs, or 3 LPDs.
With $3.3 billion dollars, I would purchase new, possibly either FREMMs or VLS Sigma corvettes, or small frigates much like Morocco. I believe the FREMMs run around $400 million each, and the Sigmas around $300 million each. A combination of both types would fit inside the budget, plus maybe leave some funds to buy a few Type 209 submarines or several South Korean LPDs. Say 3 FREMMs, and 5 Sigmas; 3 subs, or 3 LPDs.
Last edited:
IrishHitman
New Member
I meant for frigates. Furthermore, both the FREMM and Horizon are joint French-Italian projects (originally the British had input as well).Well, not only...
Sources of Peruvian Navy ships in the past 50 years:
Netherlands - de Ruyter CLs, Friesland/Holland DDs
British - Daring DDs, Crown Colony CLs
Italian - frigates
French - corvettes
German - submarines
US - auxiliaries, LSTs, Fletcher DDs, Cannon DEs
Salty Dog: interesting suggestion, especially when one considers the role the Japanese minority plays and played in Peruvian politics
Doesn't that describe the Makassar class? Commercial standard ships, designed & built by a commercial transport yard, with standard commercial diesel engines, at a commercial price.
The dock & heli deck make them useful for amphibious landings, but they're expected to spend most of their lives as transports not constrained by a need for port facilities, & on disaster relief duties. One can see why Indonesia wants such ships (& I think the Philippines would also find them extremely valuable), but I think they could also be useful for Peru, though the go-anywhere ability is of less importance than for an archipelagic country.
If you don't want the armament, etc., you could get 'em cheaper.
http://www.tni.mil.id/news.php?q=dtl&id=113012006114246
I'm not saying exactly these ships, but my point is that you can get transport ships with a dock, hangar & heli-deck for modest prices, if you don't insist on having them built to Western warship standards, by a Western warship yard, with Western warship communications, etc. - and this is an example.
SF300 uses a CODAG powerplant consisting of LM500 gtu plus 2 MTU 16V 396 TB94 diesel. The LM500 is basically a TF34 engine without its fan, similar in design and materials to the proven GE LM2500 marine gas turbine. The Italian Mosaic 2.4 missile corvette with ESSM would have a CODAG plant too, likely with a FIAT licensebuilt LM2500. Most german frigates and MEKO frigate use LM2500 in combination with 2 MTU 2OV 956 TB92. The Brazilian Inhauma class uses LM2500 in combination with 2 MTU 16V 396 TB94. I'm sure that's an area where common logistics can easily be achieved. As for weapons and systems ...
Well, you cannot really seperate the Stanflex ship concept from its CMS. The ship's C3I system, produced by Saab Systems and Terma Elektronik, is a variant of the 9LV Mk3. A variant is used on the ANZAC class MEKO200 ships. The Royal Danish Navy has instituted an upgrade programme for the Flyvefisken C3I system. The new system is called C-FLEX; Danish companies Terma and Systematic are responsible for the software element and Maersk Data Defence (formerly Infocom) for the consoles. The Absalon class flexible support ships also have a Terma C-Flex Combat management and Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence system (C4I) too. So, an easily scalable CMS for use in modular ships. I'm sure that Orrizonte Sistemi Navali S.p.A. would gladly accomodate a client by using this CMS is any of its ship solutions. After all, the company provides for the design of turn-key military naval solutions, including the definition and the integration of the relevant Combat System.
So, why then are we not seeing the many navies that have FACs/FPBs deploy MRD drones? Uhm .... because that's not as easy as you make it sound? Face it, SF300 has 2 advantages over other FACs when it comes to MCM roles: a) its made of non-magnetic FRP (Fibre-Reinforced Plastic) sandwich with a cellular core between outer and inner FRP laminates and b) its flexible modular design and CMS allow for the use not only of drines for sweeping but also for the use of a submersible. With the mother ship at safe distance the surface drones will transmit a detailed sonar picture, and when a contact is classified as a probable mine the submersible will be sent to make a positive identification and place a remote-controlled disposal charge. That's mine hunting. I'ld like so see a FAC do that.
BS. If you use ESSM with a radar like the Thales APAR, there is no need for directors whatsoever. Mosaic 2.4 missile corvette would use a light variant of EMPAR (called Kronos). With e.g. Thales SeaPar it might well dispense with missile directors for ESSM.
So, what other South American navy has an area air defense capability in their navy? The only one I can think of is Chili. With its 2 ex-Dutch L-frigates (Standard SM1MR). I think you find that there isn't much range difference between ESSM and Standard SM1MR. Simply not as much a requirement in this part of the world.
Answered by other users already
Exactly. But oilers don't make for flexible operations. You need multistore ships. Not necessarily big ones. See New Zealand navy, which got a small AOR from South Korea (Endeavour). Oilers are very limited.
Upgrade and replace when necessary but do not expand fleet size. Possibly acquire sub-launched antiship missile capability.
Last edited:
Because most navies either have dedicated minehunters/sweepers, or no money/technology for minesweeping drones.
MRDs/MSDs are typically employed by
Most western (and Russian) FACs were made from (non-magnetic) wood actually, or FRP in newer systems. There's only a narrow number of FACs employing aluminium or steel hulls.
ATLAS Seafox-C minehunting drones can be employed from virtually any platform. The US employs them from helicopters based out of a LHA, for example. A number of nations employ them from frigates/destroyers and similar, non-mine-warfare ships.
Technically, also Argentine (single remaining Type 42). And Brazil in theory, with their carrier (of course not with the current Skyhawks).
What odds do you give on their Sea Dart missiles working?
Yes. Something like the Aegir-10, , if you want a smallish replenishment ship, is better.Tatra said:
5%? Ie. about one out of the entire magazine.
Well, anyway, the question with AAW isn't so much what others have. The question is what the Peruvian Navy itself needs.
Theater AAW would be useful in forward thrusts and gaining air superiority including above coastal areas both against Ecuador and Chile.
Well, anyway, the question with AAW isn't so much what others have. The question is what the Peruvian Navy itself needs.
Theater AAW would be useful in forward thrusts and gaining air superiority including above coastal areas both against Ecuador and Chile.
Exactly. Which means for a navy like Peru's - with no MCM ships - that replacing FACs with newer ones that can also be used in an MCM role is smart.
Oh really? Wood? Here's some minor types.
Combattante / Type 148 class and derivatives > steel
Visby > plastic sandwich
Skjold > composite
VT (Super) Vita > steel plus aluminium
Fearless > steel
Shaldag, super-dvora > aluminium alloy
Halter Marine Ambassador Mk III FAC > alloy
VT Province/Ramadan> steel/aluminium
Which nations exactly do that? And weren't we talking about FAC's earliers, not frigates/destroyers?
Argentine Sea Dart have not been a functional capability since 1982. A carrier is not an AAW ship in the sense we are talking about here.
Last edited:
Anyway, the point was that SF300 gives flexibility, which is why it is a nice combination with other, larger modular ships. The point was not that Peru needed MCM per se, but that capability is a nice side-benefit. (You wait untill you can't get in or out of port because some sub laid some mines in the approaches....) Flexibility also mean the ship can be put to other role, and can be used with reduced crew for patrol in peacetime.
Someone here took offense to my putting forward the Mosaic and the SF300 as prospective ships for the Peruvian navy - and everything else I put forward for that matter - for no good reason. Let's not have a discussion about the future of a navy when it is not really open to variety of proposals. You don't have to like my proposal, but mine is as good as any and I'm not waisting more time on this thread argueing with people who claim most western FACs are made of wood.
Good bye
Last edited:
Albatros/Gepard -> wood
Komar -> wood
PT -> wood
almost all MTB -> wood
Numbers over the past 100 years heavily favour wood. Steel in bignumbers was used on e.g. the Osa and Hegu classes. A couple classes of 4-8 ships have no impact on the overall numbers really.
In modern ships of this role, steel has less than a 50% market share.