The RN buys the Kidds after the Iranian revolution

[TomS]

I doubt that they'd replace the 280's but imagine this , the 280'were considered to be some finest asw destroyers in NATO.
A task group combining the Kidd's and 280's would be a pretty potent force.

It would mean the TRUMP update that turned the Iroquois into air defense ships would not happen. Maybe a more modest version to install Sea Sparrow VLS instead of the wonky mechanical launcher.

Probably also means that the Halifaxes get delayed and/or reduced in numbers.

 

[GK Dundas]

The TRUMP programme was a mixed bag . It provided a much needed air cover for the fleet .
But overstressed the hull and even more topweight made a class already notorious for poor seakeeping even more prone to it.
There's an infamous pic of one of the class after the refit during stability tests and it went horribly wrong

 

[Apophenia]

I doubt that they'd replace the 280's but imagine this , the 280'were considered to be some finest asw destroyers in NATO.
A task group combining the Kidd's and 280's would be a pretty potent force.

It would ... but Maritime Command would be adding multi-purpose destroyers on top of ASW DDHs.

As Chief Maritime Doctrine and Operations, VAdm Woods' first question would be: "Where do the additional 272 officers and ratings come from?"

@TomS - You're probably right about the FFHs being delayed but the Kidds would give Canada early experience with GE LM2500s.

 

[TomS]

It would ... but Maritime Command would be adding multi-purpose destroyers on top of ASW DDHs.

As Chief Maritime Doctrine and Operations, VAdm Woods' first question would be: "Where do the additional 272 officers and ratings come from?"

Presumably at the expense of at least four (maybe six) destroyers/frigates. Probably the Mackenzies retire instead of getting the DELEX modernizations, and maybe a couple of the oldest St Laurents or Improved Restigouches go into reserve.

 

[GK Dundas]

Presumably at the expense of at least four (maybe six) destroyers/frigates. Probably the Mackenzies retire instead of getting the DELEX modernizations, and maybe a couple of the oldest St Laurents or Improved Restigouches go into reserve.

That would be the most likely way they would go .
Quite frankly the DELEX programme really wasn't worth the money except for the fact there really weren't any other options...

 

[Apophenia]

Yep. That works. If you're dumping DELEX, it probably makes most sense to ditch the older St. Laurent class retire. But if prefer to retire all of the Mackenzies (and the two Annapolis class) and you've still got the numbers.

Maritime Command would have to start crash course to convert engine room crews over from 'steamers' to LM2500s. That wouldn't be feasible for all crew members but the required crew numbers for MGTs are much smaller anyway.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Maritime Command would have to start crash course to convert engine room crews over from 'steamers' to LM2500s. That wouldn't be feasible for all crew members but the required crew numbers for MGTs are much smaller anyway.

US has the training schools already, not hard to send a few Canucks there for a class section.

Depending on how different the LM2500s are to anything in the Canadian air inventory, you might be able to steal a couple senior dudes (E7 and above equivalents) from the RCAF.

 

[CV12Hornet]

Depending on how different the LM2500s are to anything in the Canadian air inventory, you might be able to steal a couple senior dudes (E7 and above equivalents) from the RCAF.

LM2500s are marinized CF6s, one of the early high-bypass turbofans. There isn't anything in that category in RCAF service - a couple of low-bypass airliner turbofans, but nothing high-bypass or as advanced as the CF6.

Frankly, they'd have better luck plucking guys from the airlines - they have guys who've directly worked on the CF6.

 

[GK Dundas]

The Kidds might have also had an effect on both recruitment and retention. As I recall at the time.we.were hemorrhaging people . Yeah , nothing ever changes.
I could see a lot of showing the flag cruises.
Speaking of which I wonder what sort of Flag facilities the Kidds would have been able to provide ?

 

[Apophenia]

... There isn't anything in that category in RCAF service - a couple of low-bypass airliner turbofans, but nothing high-bypass or as advanced as the CF6...

Yup. The CC-150 Polaris are powered by CF6-80s ... but those Airbus don't enter service until 1992.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Frankly, they'd have better luck plucking guys from the airlines - they have guys who've directly worked on the CF6.

For officers, sure. Harder to directly recruit a person to E7 from the civilian side.

Might be easier to borrow some USN gas turbine chiefs for a few years till the RCN can get their own trained up.

 

[CV12Hornet]

For officers, sure. Harder to directly recruit a person to E7 from the civilian side.

Might be easier to borrow some USN gas turbine chiefs for a few years till the RCN can get their own trained up.

The Iroquois-class is gas turbine powered. Granted, they're Pratt & Whitney FT4As, which are essentially marinized J75s, but it should be similar enough in operation to be able to use their crews as cadre.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The Iroquois-class is gas turbine powered. Granted, they're Pratt & Whitney FT4As, which are essentially marinized J75s, but it should be similar enough in operation to be able to use their crews as cadre.

The trick is that normally, you let the E1-E6 work the engines, and the E7+up do other things (mostly paperwork, or stand other watches). But when there's something wrong with the engines, that's when the E7+up work on the engines...

I don't know enough about the two engines to say if their "how to fix if broken" steps are similar enough.

 

[CV12Hornet]

The trick is that normally, you let the E1-E6 work the engines, and the E7+up do other things (mostly paperwork, or stand other watches). But when there's something wrong with the engines, that's when the E7+up work on the engines...

I don't know enough about the two engines to say if their "how to fix if broken" steps are similar enough.

Oh, that's easy. With gas turbines, the "how to fix if broken" steps mostly constitute "get back to port and haul the whole assembly out for repair"; one of the big tradeoffs between gas turbines and other marine propulsion systems is that they require much less at-sea maintenance in exchange for more depot maintenance, for the exact reason that the usual method to do serious repairs is to haul out the whole engine assembly pierside and then fix it.

 

[GK Dundas]

I suspect the transition wouldn't actually be that difficult. Aside from some cultural differences in the two Navies.

 

[lordroel]

Yes, they could, but it would be a HUGE undertaking.

You'd need to start with the electrical system. USN uses 110VAC, UKRN uses 220VAC. Now you can put in the British radars and weapons. Or else you get the fustercluck that is the Vanguard class, which has 220V in the engine room and forward compartment, and 110V in the American-designed missile compartment.

Well seems Taiwan uses them as they are, despite being able to mount some of their own hardware on them, so i think you are right, why fix when it works and might cost to much.

 

[uk 75]

I like the idea of the four Kidds beefing up the Canadian fleet. They would fit so well sparing the Iroquois TRUMP conversion.
The RAN already had three Adams class modified to their requirements.
Though if Invincible had become HMAS Australia...

 

[BlackBat242]

Australia should have ordered a 4th Perth class DDG in February 1964 when HMAS Voyager's RN loaner OOW Lt. David Price ran her in front of HMAS Melbourne (on the 10th) - instead of keeping the loaner RN DD HMS Duchess (stationed in the Far East, the 4-year loan was accepted on 24 Feb. 64, and she arrived in Sydney on 19 April 64).

The first two (Perth & Hobart) had been ordered in Jan. 62, and were laid down in Sept. and Oct. 62 - the 3rd (Brisbane) was ordered June 63 and laid down in Feb. 65 - a 4th ordered in Feb. or March 64 could have been laid down about the same time as the 3rd had been.

As Perth & Hobart were commissioned in July & Dec. 65 respectively, and Brisbane in Dec. 67, the 4th (probably Adelaide, as the others were also named for earlier light cruisers of the RAN) should commission in time to return Duchess to the RN on schedule (historically, the loan was extended in Oct. 67 to April 72, and she was purchased outright in Aug. 72).

 

[GK Dundas]

At one point I know that the RCN was considering what was described as an almost emergency purchase of a couple of Charlie Adams.
Because both the carrier and for that matter the Fleet had no form of air defence.
However the decision stalled restarted stalled and then finally collapsed.
By which time the Americans had stopped building them and the whole point became moot.

 

[BlackBat242]

At one point I know that the RCN was considering what was described as an almost emergency purchase of a couple of Charlie Adams.
Because both the carrier and for that matter the Fleet had no form of air defence.
However the decision stalled restarted stalled and then finally collapsed.
By which time the Americans had stopped building them and the whole point became moot.

The Perths WERE Charles F. Adams class DDGs - the main difference was the large deckhouse amidships that formed the magazine for the two Ikara launchers that replaced the ASROC box launcher & magazine that the CFAs had in that place.

All 3 Perths were laid down (at Defoe Shipbuilding, Bay City Michigan) after the last USN CFA was laid down... but they were not the last of the type to be built.

West Germany bought 3 modified CFAs as the Lütjens class - they were laid down in March & April 1966 and August 1967 (all at Bath Iron Works, completing in Mar. 69 - May 70).

 

[uk 75]

Australia, France, Germany, Italy and Japan all operated Tartar armed destroyers (either Adams type or similar (Kersaint, Impavido and Amatsukaze).
The Netherlands and Spain joined them with rather different designs (Tromp and Witt. Knox and Perry for Spain).
Canada cancelled its Tartar armed destroyer. The RN looked at Tartar armed Darings. France replaced the Kersaint with two Tartar armed frigates in the 80s.
I use Tartar to cover later Standard for ease of reference.
The Kidd class were anomalies even in the USN where the cheaper Perry class frigates had replaced the Adams class as the single arm Tartar equipped escort.
The early T42 with single arm Seadart was pretty much an RN Perry.
No navy operated Terrier on ships smaller than a cruiser (Italy, Netherlands and US). France and UK built light cruiser/destroyer leaders to carry Masurca and Seaslug as their Terrier equivalents.
The US and RN went on to build cruisers with Tartar (California, Virginia, Ticonderoga) and Seadart (Invincible) as the range of the missiles increased.
Kidds were a product of the Shah of Iran's weapons buying spree and only really suited a navy which operated large numbers of Spruance class. Only the US could afford these ships.

 

[TomS]

No navy operated Terrier on ships smaller than a cruiser (Italy, Netherlands and US).

The Coontz class were pretty marginal cruisers (DLGs) and in fact became DDGs in the great reclassification. They were about the same size as the County class ships.

 

[uk 75]

oops I forgot the Coontz class. They served much longer than the Countys because Terrier could evolve into Seaslug.