• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Adams vs County

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
2,426
Reaction score
1,070
In another thread the RN's County class destroyer was compared in size and role with the Coontz class in the USN. This is correct.
However, by 1962 the USN was deploying the Adams class destroyer in numbers and by 1965 the Adams had been ordered by Australia and West Germany. Italy built its own very similar destroyers.
The RN never built an analogue of the Adams. Arguably it didnt need to as the Countys were better and more capable.
However, both the RAN and RN looked at converting Darings to carry Tartar. The USN did do this with the Shermans.
Tartar Darings would have been very useful ships like the Adams and Shermans. Shame we couldnt afford them.
 

Volkodav

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
260
Reaction score
185
There's a paper by an ex Chief of the RAN into the selection of service of the Adams and how it changed the RAN.
https://www.navy.gov.au/media-room/...arles-f-adams-class-guided-missile-destroyers

It covers a lot of history, including the selection of Tartar, the Tartar County the RAN initially wanted (that was basically a Tartar armed super Daring), and even mention of the authors opinion that the Belknap class DLGs would have been better value for money and may even have had a lower through life cost than the Adams Class considering the extensive upgrades they required because they weren't designed or equipped for the role the RAN intended, i.e. a more DLG role.

The RAN needed a DLG or CG, the RN even recognised this and recommended Australia buy the County as is, or wait for the Escort Cruiser, the USN recognised this and concentrated funding on building and upgrading larger, more capable DLGs (later CGs) rather than the Adams class DDGs which were considered too small and too tight. The NTU program alone would have made the Belknaps (or even the Leahys) a better proposition. Ironically even the Counties would have been easier to upgrade than the Adams, due to their greater internal volume and displacement.
 

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
2,426
Reaction score
1,070
Actually after I posted this thread I realised that the larger Coontz class was closer to the County in size and capability.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,025
Reaction score
995
Interestingly, the Farragut/Coontz class was also notoriously tight and suffered from excessive topweight. That's the reason usually given for the deletion of the ASROC reload magazine from all but the lead ship. Bigger hull, obviously, but also a much, much bigger missile system. Most of the Farraguts never even got NTU, though that was as much a timing issue as anything. By they time they were due for the NTU upgrade, they were already on the verge of retirement.
 
Last edited:

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
709
Reaction score
332
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
Well, County have advantages over Farragut/Coontz in therms of:

* Better seakeeping ability.
* Much more powerful artillery armament.
* Full helicopter facilities.
* Short-range point defense SAM (yes, Sea Cat wasn't exactly impressive, but much better than nothing)
* Generally better performance of Sea Slug over early Terrier models.

Farragut/Coontz have the advantages:

* Better range.
* Much better anti-submarine armament due to ASROC.
* Two fire control channels on SAM
* Arguably more capable radar equipment.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,025
Reaction score
995
Well, County have advantages over Farragut/Coontz in therms of:

* Better seakeeping ability.
* Much more powerful artillery armament.
* Full helicopter facilities.
* Short-range point defense SAM (yes, Sea Cat wasn't exactly impressive, but much better than nothing)
* Generally better performance of Sea Slug over early Terrier models.

Farragut/Coontz have the advantages:

* Better range.
* Much better anti-submarine armament due to ASROC.
* Two fire control channels on SAM
* Arguably more capable radar equipment.
Don't forget that the County also had a helicopter, which neither Farragut nor Adams had. Nor did any USN AAW specialist ship until the 1970s. (I'm not counting the DEGs as AAW specialist ships).

If the RAN had ordered a Farragut-type ship c. 1961, it would probably have been somewhat different than the US versions, if only because the USN had already stopped production of that design moved on the double-ended Leahy. At minimum, I assume they would have tried to fit Ikara in lieu of ASROC, or more likely simply reverted to a second 5-inch gun (which could later be replaced with antiship missiles and possibly a CIWS).
 

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
2,426
Reaction score
1,070
The speed of USN developments in this period is illustrated by your answer. By the time the UK is developing the T82 to follow the Countys
the US has abandoned Typhon and moved to a combination of DXGNs (California and Virginia) and DX(Spruance). Leahy and Belknap classes plus Truxtun all in service.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,025
Reaction score
995

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
2,426
Reaction score
1,070
The County packs a lot in, especially when it adds 4 Exocets (Otomat or Harpoon were not available in the early 70s). Seaslug Mk 2 should have been better.
The US admired the elegant cruiser lines of the Countys compared with its ships.
The book on Spruance Electronic Greyhounds goes into this.
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
709
Reaction score
332
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
The County packs a lot in, especially when it adds 4 Exocets (Otomat or Harpoon were not available in the early 70s). Seaslug Mk 2 should have been better.
Esentially they were more cruisers, than destroyers - designed to support as much functions as possible.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,025
Reaction score
995
The County packs a lot in, especially when it adds 4 Exocets (Otomat or Harpoon were not available in the early 70s). Seaslug Mk 2 should have been better.
Esentially they were more cruisers, than destroyers - designed to support as much functions as possible.
That sort of raises a question to me. How did the RN (and RAN, I guess) anticipate using the air defense missile ships? Were they supposed to be stationed near formation center to provide an umbrella over the whole task force, or were they posted out at the perimeter? USN doctrine seems to have been that the DLGs would be out in the screen, which meant they also had to have the same ASW capacity (SQS-23 and ASROC) as the non-AAW escorts. Were the Counties meant to have ASW capabilities comparable to their non-AAW contemporaries?
 

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
2,426
Reaction score
1,070
The Countys were used both as Task Group escorts for Carriers or Amphibious Warfare groups. But they were also capable enough to form a Surface Action Group.
 
Top