The RN buys the Kidds after the Iranian revolution

apparition13

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 27, 2017
Messages
275
Reaction score
451
Over on the What if Iran never had a revolution? thread Pioneer mentioned that at one point Iran was looking at buying a pair of Invincibles. If that is the case, then the 4 Kidd DDGs they cancelled would have likely been the AAW escorts for the carriers. Which got me wondering - what if, after the revolution and the Iranian cancellation of the Kidds, the RN had stepped in and bought them? Presumably RN officers would know about the Invincible approach, and the Kidd purchase, and would have put two and two together. Someone may have thought that sounded like a capital idea, why can't we do that, oh, hang on, the Iranians cancelled their order and the ships are now potentially available.... Someone mentions it to Thatcher, she calls Ronnie, casts Imperio on Parliament, and the Kidds are RN ships.

Here's the fun part, the four commission in March, August, and October of 81, and then the last on 12 March 1982 less than a month before the Falklands war. At least three, and possibly all four, sail with the fleet to the Falklands. That means ASROC, 8 LAMPS helicopters, and potentially over 200 SM2 missiles with the best pre-Aegis sensors and fire-control systems around. How much of a difference would they make to events in the South Atlantic?

As for after the war, how might experience with the Kidd's shape future RN requirements and acquisitions? What impact might lessons from the Kidd's have on USN plans going forward?

I think their effectiveness would be hampered by the lack of E-2s to provide long range early warning, and I don't believe that generation of SM2s were useful against Exocet type sea-skimmers, but even at wave-top height I don't think Skyhawks would stand much of a chance once they clear the radar horizon. They might also be able to take out the Etandards before launch, depending on how far away they were when they launched. In any case, their AAW capability would have been dramatically enhanced by the Kidds.

Out of curiosity, what might they have been named?

________________________________

See, this is the problem with this section of the site. Someone proposes an alt-history, and rather than engage with the scenario the idea gets dogpiled on as unrealistic and never gonna happen. Well yeah, that's why it's alt-history. The point is to discuss the scenario and see where playing around with the idea leads, what ideas get sparked by the discussion.
 
Last edited:

bobtdwarf

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
204
Reaction score
395
They would have to support a totally alien logistics train: RN was built around SeaDart not SM. So that is going to be nail in this particular coffin.

Now if you could get the Aussie's to buy them, which IIRC was looked into at some point, they already have a logistics train built around US gear it would be a lot easier. They would probably be named after the Perth's they replace.
 

Kat Tsun

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jun 16, 2013
Messages
307
Reaction score
267
It would kill indigenous British naval missiles I guess. No PAAMS or Sea Ceptor only SARH SM-2 and ESSM Blk 1.
 

Opportunistic Minnow

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
368
Reaction score
560
They would have to support a totally alien logistics train: RN was built around SeaDart not SM.
Absolutely right and worse than that, wrong calibre guns, wrong gas turbines, wrong radars, wrong electrical system, hell, probably wrong screws for the light fixtures! What would get cut to pay to support these wonderful orphans? An RN Kidd would have to go to a US yard everytime for the tiniest little defect. No thank you.

Now if you could get the Aussie's to buy them, which IIRC was looked into at some point, they already have a logistics train built around US gear it would be a lot easier.
This.
 

Kat Tsun

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jun 16, 2013
Messages
307
Reaction score
267
It would kill indigenous British naval missiles I guess. No PAAMS or Sea Ceptor only SARH SM-2 and ESSM Blk 1.
Why?

Do you really need to ask? How many indigenous missiles does Canada or Australia have left? If someone actually takes Kidds seriously and buys them, the UK isn't buying just four of them. It would try to replace the Type 42s with them.

It's a rather silly suggestion I think since it was never considered by anyone in the MoD.

It might be worth it if Canada or Australia operated helicopter carriers like Invincible, since they are the prime export customers of US Navy equipment. Perhaps Canada buys the Sea Control Ship or Australia buys an Invincible, those would need escorts. But it's not a British option in any world except one where the UK abandons indigenous missile development.
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
2,044
Reaction score
1,771
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
It would require RN to spend a lot on training personnel and maintenance of unfamiliar, non-standard electronics and weapon systems. Also, it would require to import SM-1/2MR missiles from USA, because Royal Navy did not use it.

But the most problem would be with personnel. One "Kidd"-class destroyer required 363 sailors and officers. One Type 42-class destroyer - 277 sailors and officers.

I.e. four "Kidd"-class ships would require 1452 men - as many as five Type 42-class destroyers. The Royal Navy simply do not have such manpower reserves in 1980s.
 

Kat Tsun

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jun 16, 2013
Messages
307
Reaction score
267
But it's not a British option in any world except one where the UK abandons indigenous missile development.
Exactly.

Sorry, I thought you were genuine in your question and not being rhetorical.

It would require RN to spend a lot on training personnel and maintenance of unfamiliar, non-standard electronics and weapon systems. Also, it would require to import SM-1/2MR missiles from USA, because Royal Navy did not use it.

But the most problem would be with personnel. One "Kidd"-class destroyer required 363 sailors and officers. One Type 42-class destroyer - 277 sailors and officers.

I.e. four "Kidd"-class ships would require 1452 men - as many as five Type 42-class destroyers. The Royal Navy simply do not have such manpower reserves in 1980s.

It would probably buy like 4 or 6 Kidds and they would be the Type 45s, as the Type 42s are rapidly killed off in their Batch 3 run. There might not even be a 3rd batch if only to save manpower. Then I guess the Darings are just Burkes or something come the 2000s. Would be pretty ballsy to drop hang the entire British shipbuilding and naval missile industries like that though.

Today on Bottom Cabinet: Maggie goes all in on the Special Relationship, the entire Hawker-Siddeley workforce flatlines, Ronnie Raygun forgets where he put his keys again, and the Royal Navy blows its fiscal wad all over the Shah's super ships.
 
Last edited:

pathology_doc

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
1,088
Reaction score
483
Absolutely right and worse than that, wrong calibre guns, wrong gas turbines, wrong radars, wrong electrical system, hell, probably wrong screws for the light fixtures! What would get cut to pay to support these wonderful orphans?
The same things that got cut to fit an afterburning Spey into the F-4? :p

More seriously, I think you're right. It's more than just the missile systems; it's potentially every damn thing on or about the ship. The Americans had to get around the problem of British vs. American tooling to build something as (relatively) simple as the Packard Merlin engine; you can only imagine the difficulties here.

World War 2-era fighters are trivially easy to cross-operate by comparison.
 

apparition13

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 27, 2017
Messages
275
Reaction score
451
They would have to support a totally alien logistics train: RN was built around SeaDart not SM. So that is going to be nail in this particular coffin.
How did SeaDart work out again? Would SM2 do better?
It would kill indigenous British naval missiles I guess. No PAAMS or Sea Ceptor only SARH SM-2 and ESSM Blk 1.
Like Phantom killed off Tornado and Typhoon? Why would it kill off rather than influence the next generation of Euro-missiles? Or actually, HOW would it influence the next generation of Euro-missiles? Because 1980 Kidds aren't AEGIS or NTU, and I doubt Sylver was made without any regard to the SM family.
It would require RN to spend a lot on training personnel and maintenance of unfamiliar, non-standard electronics and weapon systems. Also, it would require to import SM-1/2MR missiles from USA, because Royal Navy did not use it.

But the most problem would be with personnel. One "Kidd"-class destroyer required 363 sailors and officers. One Type 42-class destroyer - 277 sailors and officers.

I.e. four "Kidd"-class ships would require 1452 men - as many as five Type 42-class destroyers. The Royal Navy simply do not have such manpower reserves in 1980s.
It would require the Iranian Navy to do the same. I presume the RN can also adapt to new kit. Assume they do. What happens during the Falklands war with 3-4 Kidds along for the ride? For bonus points if you're concerned about manpower, what gets left behind to make room for them?
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,845
Reaction score
3,534
I briefly had an AU idea the other week that Regan throws in AEGIS when he offers the F-117 to the UK and in theory the RN could have built an Anglo-Burkesque destroyer.

But the whole idea makes no sense - it kills not only missile development but naval radar development too and BAe, GEC and Marconi are gonna be pissed off people.*
Even if the Yanks took some ALARMs or something in return its a tiny return on what would be a massive abdication of British capabilities.

Buying off the shelf ships from the US for the RN is never a good idea and never has been a good idea which is why its never happened and looks like (for the foreseeable future) will never happen. Logistically it makes zero sense unless you're going to eventually change the entire fleet.

*Caveat is yes of course they might develop a new SAM or something to fit in the Mk 41 VLS but having brought into the SM-2 family there is no need to. Brimstone shows what can happen with good cooperation (US rocket, UK seeker) but its probably not a sustainable model to keep tinkering with US designs forever.
 

bobtdwarf

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
204
Reaction score
395
They would have to support a totally alien logistics train: RN was built around SeaDart not SM. So that is going to be nail in this particular coffin.
How did SeaDart work out again? Would SM2 do better?
It would kill indigenous British naval missiles I guess. No PAAMS or Sea Ceptor only SARH SM-2 and ESSM Blk 1.
Like Phantom killed off Tornado and Typhoon? Why would it kill off rather than influence the next generation of Euro-missiles? Or actually, HOW would it influence the next generation of Euro-missiles? Because 1980 Kidds aren't AEGIS or NTU, and I doubt Sylver was made without any regard to the SM family.
It would require RN to spend a lot on training personnel and maintenance of unfamiliar, non-standard electronics and weapon systems. Also, it would require to import SM-1/2MR missiles from USA, because Royal Navy did not use it.

But the most problem would be with personnel. One "Kidd"-class destroyer required 363 sailors and officers. One Type 42-class destroyer - 277 sailors and officers.

I.e. four "Kidd"-class ships would require 1452 men - as many as five Type 42-class destroyers. The Royal Navy simply do not have such manpower reserves in 1980s.
It would require the Iranian Navy to do the same. I presume the RN can also adapt to new kit. Assume they do. What happens during the Falklands war with 3-4 Kidds along for the ride? For bonus points if you're concerned about manpower, what gets left behind to make room for them?
SeaDart performed just fine, but you are missing the point: The sunk costs in building the RN's integrated defense around it, and those are the killers. SeaDarts actual performance in combat is as good, if not better than SM of the era.

Which is why I recommended the Australians, their integrated defense was already built around tartar/SM.. so all their stuff talked to each other and enhanced each other.
 

Kat Tsun

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jun 16, 2013
Messages
307
Reaction score
267
They would have to support a totally alien logistics train: RN was built around SeaDart not SM. So that is going to be nail in this particular coffin.
How did SeaDart work out again? Would SM2 do better?

No. They're both crummy against crossing targets and about as good as either against high altitude bombers and missiles. SM2 is rather sluggish for a rocket.

It would kill indigenous British naval missiles I guess. No PAAMS or Sea Ceptor only SARH SM-2 and ESSM Blk 1.
Like Phantom killed off Tornado and Typhoon?

You have it backwards: Tornado and Typhoon killed Phantom.

Why would it kill off rather than influence the next generation of Euro-missiles?

Because the "Europeans" (France and Italy) already used, broadly, Standard and the Tartar/Terriers? They knew they wanted something better and that's how PAAMS gets started in the first place...

Or actually, HOW would it influence the next generation of Euro-missiles?

France and Italy would make PAAMS and the UK wouldn't get Sea Viper.

It's an open question whether it would go for ESSM or develop CAMM given it actually built ASRAAM though.

Because 1980 Kidds aren't AEGIS or NTU, and I doubt Sylver was made without any regard to the SM family.

I don't see what that has to do with anything. If the UK is buying American destroyers, of all things, in the late 1970's and early 1980's when it has perfectly good and arguably better destroyers in the form of the Type 42s, it's obviously not going to be buying Sylver in 10 years, it's probably going to be buying Burkes.

Which means it's going to be using Standards until the end of time.
 

apparition13

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 27, 2017
Messages
275
Reaction score
451
What happens during the Falklands war with 3-4 Kidds along for the ride?
Whatever you want to happen since this scenario is being railroaded.....I'm tempted to say they run out of fuel and drift aimlessly as I'm not sure if anyone can RAS (UNREP if you prefer?) them.
I'm pretty sure NATO navies can replenish each other, I doubt that would be an issue.

As for railroading, that would be "tell me how awesome the Kidds would be and how they would totally show up the RN ships". "What do you think would happen" can include "they sucked in the Falklands and the USN had to completely re-evealuate their ship designs". Maybe the aluminum superstructures burned, or disproved the idea that they would burn with a missile hit. Maybe they didn't have the seakeeping to handle the rough waters around the Falklands, maybe they weren't as comfortable as RN ships but handled the seas well enough to be operational. Maybe their decade newer sensors and second generation missiles proved superior, maybe they showed the problems in a brand new system that hadn't had the kinks worked out yet, kinks that could be critical failures in combat. "What do you think would happen" =/= "tell me what you think I want to hear", especially since I wouldn't ask an open ended question if I didn't want to hear a variety of responses.

Y'all took "what if Mars and Venus were habitable" more seriously than "what if the RN opportunistically bought some ships that the Iranians may have meant to use to escort Invicibles?". As scenarios go, I don't think "ship that may have been meant to escort this type of carrier actually escorting one of these carriers in combat when the timing just barely works" is that big of a stretch. I think the Mars and Venus scenrio is ludicrous, so I didn't post in it since I have nothing to contribute toward exploring the scenario.
They would have to support a totally alien logistics train: RN was built around SeaDart not SM. So that is going to be nail in this particular coffin.
How did SeaDart work out again? Would SM2 do better?

No. They're both crummy against crossing targets and about as good as either against high altitude bombers and missiles. SM2 is rather sluggish for a rocket.
If that's the case, then guess what, combat use in the Falklands will reveal how SeaDart mod 0 and SM2 compare.
It would kill indigenous British naval missiles I guess. No PAAMS or Sea Ceptor only SARH SM-2 and ESSM Blk 1.
Like Phantom killed off Tornado and Typhoon?

You have it backwards: Tornado and Typhoon killed Phantom.
Exactly. Phantom wasn't the death knell for European fighter development, was it?
Why would it kill off rather than influence the next generation of Euro-missiles?

Because the "Europeans" (France and Italy) already used, broadly, Standard and the Tartar/Terriers? They knew they wanted something better and that's how PAAMS gets started in the first place...
So Standard didn't kill off European naval missile development, and may in fact have influenced it, if only to improve on it. "Once you go American you never go back" doesn't seem to be holding up in practice, does it?
Or actually, HOW would it influence the next generation of Euro-missiles?

France and Italy would make PAAMS and the UK wouldn't get Sea Viper.
Why not? If France and Italy go with PAAMS after using Standard, why wouldn't the RN do the same thing?
It's an open question whether it would go for ESSM or develop CAMM given it actually built ASRAAM though.
The Kidds don't have Sea Sparrow or VLS, they aren't ESSM compatible. The Mk-26 branch is a dead end as far as ESSM is concerned. And since exactly zero Mk-26 ships were refitted with Mk-41, there's no possible lock in to Mk-41 either.
Because 1980 Kidds aren't AEGIS or NTU, and I doubt Sylver was made without any regard to the SM family.

I don't see what that has to do with anything. If the UK is buying American destroyers, of all things, in the late 1970's and early 1980's when it has perfectly good and arguably better destroyers in the form of the Type 42s, it's obviously not going to be buying Sylver in 10 years, it's probably going to be buying Burkes.

Which means it's going to be using Standards until the end of time.
If Phantom didn't kill off Tornado and Typhoon, and Standard didn't kill off PAAMS, why would a couple of Kidds kill off RN destroyer development? Wouldn't it just be more grist for the (engineering) mill? "Our ships do this better, their ships do that better, the next generation should take the best from both", rather than some hypnotic trance that locks you in to US designs. And since the evaluation is based on actual combat experience, I'd think that would lead to improved designs on both sides of the Atlantic as strengths and weaknesses of both design philosophies would be exposed. Coventry sank and Sheffield was KIA. I suspect a Kidd hull, given it's around twice the displacement wouldn't sink, but we might find out for sure if the aluminum superstructure would melt to slag or not (and I suspect molten aluminum rain might hamper damage control efforts). That would be useful information. "It didn't sink but it's KIA because the superstructure melted" would be useful information. "Hey look, it didn't melt, and it was stayed more or less operational in spite of the hit (like the Roberts OHP sort of managed after hitting in mine in the Persian Gulf)" would also be useful information.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,876
Reaction score
8,844
I think the problem is that alt-history scenarios need to be realistic to be sensibly discussed.

For example this scenario I think is really "What if the RN had Kidd destroyers in the Falklands?"

You can imagine a scenario whereby the RN decides a different path post-war with US equipment more generally which results in this situation.

By making a very specific (and unlikely) scenario where the RN takes some spare Kidd destroyers after the Iranian revolution, you got a lot of people objecting to the specific scenario of how the Kidds are acquired and not addressing what I think you wanted to explore, namely whether the Kidds would have performed better in the Falklands than the real-world RN ships.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,132
Reaction score
2,902
Now if you could get the Aussie's to buy them, which IIRC was looked into at some point, they already have a logistics train built around US gear it would be a lot easier. They would probably be named after the Perth's they replace.

Did the RAN look at the Kidds before the USN took them over in the 1970s? I know for certain that the RAN considered them around 1997 (they eventually went to Taiwan instead).
 

1635yankee

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
98
Reaction score
105
It would kill indigenous British naval missiles I guess. No PAAMS or Sea Ceptor only SARH SM-2 and ESSM Blk 1.
Why?

Do you really need to ask? How many indigenous missiles does Canada or Australia have left? If someone actually takes Kidds seriously and buys them, the UK isn't buying just four of them. It would try to replace the Type 42s with them.

It's likely that neither Australia nor Canada would consider developing indigenous naval surface to air missiles in any case. Neither Japan nor Germany, with considerably larger economies tried. On the other hand, Italy, which used Tartar, Terrier, and, later, SM-1, and France, which used Tarter, did develop replacements for SM-1, for the FREMM frigates.
 

bobtdwarf

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
204
Reaction score
395
Now if you could get the Aussie's to buy them, which IIRC was looked into at some point, they already have a logistics train built around US gear it would be a lot easier. They would probably be named after the Perth's they replace.

Did the RAN look at the Kidds before the USN took them over in the 1970s? I know for certain that the RAN considered them around 1997 (they eventually went to Taiwan instead).
I don't know either.. but they would have been a good buy; could have flogged the Perth's off to Taiwan while they still had some useful miles on them.
 

Volkodav

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
486
Reaction score
668
A more interesting proposition is what if Iran actually orders the Invincibles and the SeaHarrier and they are in production at the time of the revolution?
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,932
Reaction score
1,697
A more interesting proposition is what if Iran actually orders the Invincibles and the SeaHarrier and they are in production at the time of the revolution?
If they are not delivered then, they might be available to the RN by the time of the Falklands War. This might either expedite sale of Hermes or the spare Invincible might be offered to Australia.
 

Opportunistic Minnow

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
368
Reaction score
560
What happens during the Falklands war with 3-4 Kidds along for the ride?
they run out of fuel and drift aimlessly as I'm not sure if anyone can RAS (UNREP if you prefer?) them.
I'm pretty sure NATO navies can replenish each other, I doubt that would be an issue.
Well, that settles the class name issue. The Scrounger class, LOL. So, which NATO navy would provide RAS assets in the Falklands TO?! That would be uncharacteristically direct to say the least! A fleet oiler is a tad bigger than a few Shrikes, 9Limas and some sat passes (I'll neglect to mention the infamous, amazing Exocet kill codes #noimnotserious!). I'm sure the Soviets would love it!

Despite some peripheral (and quite grudging from all accounts) support, the Falklands was hardly a multi-national effort. Red Dusters and White Ensigns only. So unless poor Olna gets some aftermarket mods at the rush the RN will either have to buy a pair of Wichita or similar or the Kidds are only going to the Falklands as breakwaters!

So that's 4 Kidds, 2 Wichitas, some spare LM2500s, 5inch ammo, SMs and for free, some riots in Wallsend, Woolston and Birkenhead. This deal is getting worse all the time!

The best case for this scenario is the UK re-sells them to the RoC with some Lynxes thrown in. Everyone should have Lynx!
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,932
Reaction score
1,697
The time for the RN to jump onto Standard is the time to acquire Aegis and in turn that implies a Type 43 with Aegis. Which is something actually looked at.
Because I just don't see them buying a Ticonderoga class ship.

The argument for Standard would be being made during the Sea Dart mkII studies.
What it won't do is win over the Tripartite studies for local area defence SAM systems earlier.

The most effective means to win over with Standard is either by reducing the price or opening the system to UK content. Such as a UK sourced seeker on the missile. Or alternative UK sourced radars....
 

Volkodav

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
486
Reaction score
668
If I recall correctly there were contingency plans to transfer an Iwo Jima Class LPH to the Rn in the event of the loss or casualty of one of the carriers, perhaps the Kidds could have been offered in a similar hot transfer manner. They would have made more sense than a steam powered FFG, DDG or DLG/CG as the RN was scrounging to find enough steam qualified rates to get both LPDs crewed and lack of such qualified stokers was also one of the reasons Tiger was not recommissioned.
 

Opportunistic Minnow

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
368
Reaction score
560
The time for the RN to jump onto Standard....
The only way I can see Standard in RN service is licence production in the UK. It is just too fundamental an asset to leave to the vagaries and fates! Essentially, I envision a naval equivalent of the Sparrow/Skyflash relationship. Even then, I'm sceptical. By the Standard era, there is simply too much establishment to just sweep away so callously. Even the 3T era is too late to change IMO. To get US anti-air armament on RN ships you need to fundamentally alter the immediate post-war US-UK cooperative development environment and for me, that falls over with Tube Alloys, of all things.

US armaments maybe one thing but you are never, ever going to get US-built war canoes as the main surface combatant of the Royal Navy. Not before the apocalypse anyhow. British shipyards have suffered culls, certainly but cutting them out altogether? Westminster is not so brave as to try it! As I have said before, the defence establishment votes too!

If I recall correctly there were contingency plans to transfer an Iwo Jima Class LPH to the Rn in the event of the loss or casualty of one of the carriers, perhaps the Kidds could have been offered in a similar hot transfer manner.
A very nice platitude from Mr Reagan but not very realistic IMO. It would take longer than Lusty to work up. As for the Kidds, why? The RN wanted for Harrier platforms but wasn't nearly as deficient in escorts. Far better to send some SpruCans/Perrys to take over the RN's (predominantly ASW) NATO commitments, freeing 42s, Amazons and Leanders to come south.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,932
Reaction score
1,697
The only way I can see Standard in RN service is licence production in the UK. It is just too fundamental an asset to leave to the vagaries and fates! Essentially, I envision a naval equivalent of the Sparrow/Skyflash relationship. Even then, I'm sceptical. By the Standard era, there is simply too much establishment to just sweep away so callously. Even the 3T era is too late to change IMO. To get US anti-air armament on RN ships you need to fundamentally alter the immediate post-war US-UK cooperative development environment and for me, that falls over with Tube Alloys, of all things.

US armaments maybe one thing but you are never, ever going to get US-built war canoes as the main surface combatant of the Royal Navy. Not before the apocalypse anyhow. British shipyards have suffered culls, certainly but cutting them out altogether? Westminster is not so brave as to try it! As I have said before, the defence establishment votes too!
Essentially yes.
As I have put forward on many occasions.

Even when the USN drives the creation of Tartar, at RN urging. They manage to prioritise different performances and the RN can never justify straight out import to itself let alone the Treasury.
Q-band Tartar built under licence, is the only way forward there, and probably the only way towards Standard.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,845
Reaction score
3,534
There is of course another killer to this AH of buying the Kidds - precisely the time they come up for grabs Nott is slashing the RN and earmarking swathes of it for the scrap merchant - even the relatively new Invincible is up for grabs to Australia. Manpower is being cut too.
So the idea that Nott would suddenly say "ta mate we'll take these four destroyers" is rather unlikely.
Its equally unlikely that the USN which tried to stop Britain getting out of the CVA racket and now trying to ditch the reinforcement of NORTHAG in Norway role is going to be particularly eager to give away the Kidds that add relatively little to a planned 2-carrier CVS force bobbing about in the GIUK gap for eternity. Congress would rather boost the USN over its allies - the 600-ship fleet isn't then in motion but growth is growth until the Ticos come on stream and AEGIS has its bugs worked out.
They cost $510 million each for the USN to buy them. The GBP/USD exchange rate in 1979 was around 2.0 to 2.3, 1980 was 2.3 to 2.4 so it doesn't work out a cheap option for the UK either.

But let's play along and say the offer was made and for some reason was accepted, its likely the RN and MoD begins drawing up a list of mods they want - probably certain safety equipment to conform with UK standards, RAS equipment, new British ESM/EW equipment, some way to datalink into the current ADAWS system used across the fleet, STWS torpedo tubes, possible switch of 5in for 4.5in mounts etc. That probably adds up to a tidy sum but would also mean dock time at Ingalls to complete all this work but work up the crews.
The USN acquired commissioned these ships in 1981-82 as they completed but were taking on ships with stock US systems. Mods and training for the RN would take longer, probably well into 1982-83 its not likely they would be available for the Falklands. Even unmod ships would be pushing it given the US commissioning dates: Kidd 27/6/81, Callaghan 29/8/81, Scott 24/10/81 and Chandler 13/3/82.

And there is another factor, the US was an unwilling ally in some respects, they wanted to preserve the image of doing little overtly to aid the British over the Falklands (and until quite late on seemed to be diplomatically favouring Argentina in some respects). Aid was given but it was behind-the-scenes deniable covert stuff. AIM-9Ls were given but unless a Mirage went home with an Lima head stuck up its tailpipe it was plausibly deniable.
I'm not that Washington would have been pleased for two or even all four brand-new US-built US-armed Kidds to be steaming around the exclusion zone.

I'm not sure the Kidds received their Phalanx until after 1982 so in the Falkands they would have no close-in weapons other than the 5in guns - which doesn't sound too helpful.
 

1635yankee

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
98
Reaction score
105
....the US was an unwilling ally in some respects....
Come on now, they kindly let us use Wideawake. It's not like that was British territory you know....
At least according to some reports, there was quite a bit of disagreement in the Reagan White House about whether the US should remain strictly neutral or even support Galtieri, who had been "helpful" in Kirkpatrick's pro-dictator crusades in Latin America.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,845
Reaction score
3,534
Come on now, they kindly let us use Wideawake. It's not like that was British territory you know....
Air Marshal Ron Dick, who was at that British Air Attaché in Washington briefly recounts how he secured access to Wideawake in an RAF Historical Association journal here (p.30-32 in particular).
He foresaw no problems that they would say no and indeed he had none, he secured agreement on April 4 and they offered to supply the fuel too.
The situation was complicated, Weinberger and Reagan were pro-UK and indeed a lot was done weeks before the public offer of aid and sanctions on Argentina on April 30. But there were others who wanted to keep in with Latin America. It's not likely they would have rejected all calls for aid - there were just to many other Cold War links to say 'no' to London's requests.

My point is that a couple of Kidds blasting Argentine aircraft out of the sky would be an obvious symbol of US aid. Much in the same way a squadron of renavalised Buccs flying off a US carrier would have been a no-no.

As for combat performance, on paper the Kidds were formidable ships for the era. Performance relies on Standard performance (not that we need to re-run the Standard Vs Sea Dart saga on the Falklands Carrier topic), the only deficits that might hamper performance are any difficulties with not being fully datalinked into the British network, possible unfamiliarity with US ESM/EW kit if still installed and not replaced by British kit (could be critical, I think some British jammers were optimised against Exocet before sailing, that might not be the case with US kit optimised for Soviet radars) and the lack of any close-in weapons at all (I guess a couple of Oerlikons would be bolted on but that's not really a solution). Oh and you might need to stick a SCOT dish somewhere too.

Probably has better search radar capability though, and is a double-ender (deeper magazines than Type 42) and can engage at least 3 targets simultaneously. Plus the multiplicity of radar emissions makes EW harder for the Argentines.
Another drawback might have been the two 5in guns - not for logistics but because it might have been tempting to use them close inshore for gunfire support and that might have been deadly given they lack anything like Sea Wolf or even modern 40mm AA to deal with pop-up targets.
 

lordroel

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 1, 2020
Messages
250
Reaction score
200
They would have to support a totally alien logistics train: RN was built around SeaDart not SM. So that is going to be nail in this particular coffin.

Now if you could get the Aussie's to buy them, which IIRC was looked into at some point, they already have a logistics train built around US gear it would be a lot easier. They would probably be named after the Perth's they replace.
Could the Kidds not be refitted to fit RN needs, remove some American weapons for British once, you know Britanize it.
 

CV12Hornet

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jan 8, 2021
Messages
152
Reaction score
306
Could the Kidds not be refitted to fit RN needs, remove some American weapons for British once, you know Britanize it.
You'd need to change not only the weapons, but the electronics, and the electrical system, and a thousand and one other sundry things. It's what I like to call "major ship surgery" and would probably take as much time and money as just building new ships.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,932
Reaction score
1,697
Could the Kidds not be refitted to fit RN needs, remove some American weapons for British once, you know Britanize it.
Where do you stop Anglicising it?
The generators?
The voltage?
The radios?
The computers?

I mean once you open that can of worms, it's going to be hard to stop until they become the most expensive rebuild since HMS Victorious.
 

lordroel

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 1, 2020
Messages
250
Reaction score
200
Could the Kidds not be refitted to fit RN needs, remove some American weapons for British once, you know Britanize it.
Where do you stop Anglicising it?
The generators?
The voltage?
The radios?
The computers?

I mean once you open that can of worms, it's going to be hard to stop until they become the most expensive rebuild since HMS Victorious.
I was thinking mostly the weapons used, have the:

2× 5-inch (127mm) 54 calibre Mark 45 dual purpose guns replace with the 4.5-inch Mark 8 naval guns.

And so on with a British counterpart if possible.
 

EwenS

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
327
Reaction score
563
Come on now, they kindly let us use Wideawake. It's not like that was British territory you know....
Air Marshal Ron Dick, who was at that British Air Attaché in Washington briefly recounts how he secured access to Wideawake in an RAF Historical Association journal here (p.30-32 in particular).
He foresaw no problems that they would say no and indeed he had none, he secured agreement on April 4 and they offered to supply the fuel too.
The situation was complicated, Weinberger and Reagan were pro-UK and indeed a lot was done weeks before the public offer of aid and sanctions on Argentina on April 30. But there were others who wanted to keep in with Latin America. It's not likely they would have rejected all calls for aid - there were just to many other Cold War links to say 'no' to London's requests.

My point is that a couple of Kidds blasting Argentine aircraft out of the sky would be an obvious symbol of US aid. Much in the same way a squadron of renavalised Buccs flying off a US carrier would have been a no-no.

As for combat performance, on paper the Kidds were formidable ships for the era. Performance relies on Standard performance (not that we need to re-run the Standard Vs Sea Dart saga on the Falklands Carrier topic), the only deficits that might hamper performance are any difficulties with not being fully datalinked into the British network, possible unfamiliarity with US ESM/EW kit if still installed and not replaced by British kit (could be critical, I think some British jammers were optimised against Exocet before sailing, that might not be the case with US kit optimised for Soviet radars) and the lack of any close-in weapons at all (I guess a couple of Oerlikons would be bolted on but that's not really a solution). Oh and you might need to stick a SCOT dish somewhere too.

Probably has better search radar capability though, and is a double-ender (deeper magazines than Type 42) and can engage at least 3 targets simultaneously. Plus the multiplicity of radar emissions makes EW harder for the Argentines.
Another drawback might have been the two 5in guns - not for logistics but because it might have been tempting to use them close inshore for gunfire support and that might have been deadly given they lack anything like Sea Wolf or even modern 40mm AA to deal with pop-up targets.
I don't believe that there was ever any question of the US denying the UK use of Wideawake. Back in 1962, in an exchange of diplomatic notes amending the original lease and subsequent agreements in relation to Ascension Island and Wideawake Airfield, someone was bright enough to include a statement that the USA would grant such

"...logistic, administration or operating facilities at the Airfield ....considered by the Government of the United Kingdom to be necessary in connection with its use by United Kingdom military aircraft...."

The UK invoked that provision immediately following the Argentinian invasion. That would no doubt have been at Foreign Office / State Dept level. So the ground work had probably been laid before Ron Dick turned up at the Pentagon on Monday 5 April 1982. It has subsequently been further amended to include civilian aircraft.

However, it was not simply a case of turn up and find everything that was needed on Ascension. Ascension lacked:-

Fuel storage - the existing tank farm had to be expanded and new pipelines laid to the offshore tanker mooring. AIUI a US tanker lay offshore transferring fuel ashore as tank space became available ashore. The fuel itself was drawn from NATO stocks. This work was carried out by RE and RAOC personnel

Fresh water - a new desalination plant was sourced from the USA and installed by the RE with help from the US supplier.
Sewage - a new plant had to be installed to cope with the vast increase in people on the island (1,000 max before the invasion)

Accomodation - derelict Cable & Wireless buildings were refurbished. The USAF flew in 14 C-141 loads of portable living accomodation with 31 x 12 man living modules. These were erected by US and British personnel in 5 days. And still most personnel were accomodated in tents.

Communications - 30 Signals Regt arrived on the first weekend to expand the existing Cable & Wireless communications facilities. And 2 Postal Regt arrived to handle an eventual 20,000 mail bags by June. New roads had to be built by the RE as the existing ones couldn't cope with the vastly increased traffic.

Laundry, feeding and NAAFI facilities all had to be brought to the island from Britain to cope with the influx of personnel.

The personnel numbers on the Island had to be monitored and it was virtually a one in, one out policy that had to be adopted.

"Logistics in the Falklands War" by Kenneth L Privratsky is well worth a read.
 

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
832
Reaction score
1,502
The Kidds don't have Sea Sparrow or VLS, they aren't ESSM compatible. The Mk-26 branch is a dead end as far as ESSM is concerned. And since exactly zero Mk-26 ships were refitted with Mk-41, there's no possible lock in to Mk-41 either.
Actually, the Mk41 was designed so you could, with minimal modifications, drop it into where the Mk26 was mounted. There were even plans in place to replace the Mk26 equipped Ticonderogas with Mk41, but the end of the Cold War killed those plans. You could do the same with the Kidds. You could put a strike-length Mk41 forward with a tactical length Mk41 aft.
 
Top