The RN buys the Kidds after the Iranian revolution

[Deleted member 2278]

What about splitting the class up and selling them as flotilla leaders for nations that bought a few OHPs (or derivatives)? Spain, Egypt and Turkey etc. At least there would be some commonality to be had. I'm struggling to think of anyone who could home all four other than the aforementioned RAN & RoCN. Japan??

 

[SSgtC]

What about splitting the class up and selling them as flotilla leaders for nations that bought a few OHPs (or derivatives)? Spain, Egypt and Turkey etc. At least there would be some commonality to be had. I'm struggling to think of anyone who could home all four other than the aforementioned RAN & RoCN. Japan??

S Korea, maybe?

 

[Deleted member 2278]

What about splitting the class up and selling them as flotilla leaders for nations that bought a few OHPs (or derivatives)? Spain, Egypt and Turkey etc. At least there would be some commonality to be had. I'm struggling to think of anyone who could home all four other than the aforementioned RAN & RoCN. Japan??

S Korea, maybe?

I did think about mentioning them with Japan but I'm at serious risk of decrying exporting warships to nations with sizeable domestic shipbuilding capability and then suggesting exporting warships to nations with sizeable domestic shipbuilding capability! I want to home the Kidds but I'm stuck!

Maybe one each to Turkey, Greece (for balance) Pakistan and a defanged West German training vessel?

 

[uk 75]

I am puzzled by two things about this thread.
1. Why should the USN pass on the chance to get a class of ships which it wanted when it first asked for Spruances.
2. Taiwan now has some decent warships. The Kidds belong there.

 

[Volkodav]

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.

Different classes with in a single fleet have their own logistics tails. Employing multiple common systems across multiple classes, let alone across different types of ship is a pretty recent occurrence. While efforts were made there were always significant differences and even with the RN retiring ships at quite young ages compared to many navies there were still quite often multiple generations of multiple systems in service.

 

[Volkodav]

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.

When offered to Australia it was speculated that three would be upgraded with Mk-41 and the fourth used for parts and training (an upgraded Mk-13 Adams class DDG, USS Goldsborough, had been acquired in the 90s for this purpose in support of the Perth class during the 1990s).

The irony is the acquisition of the Kidds didn't go ahead because the extra manning required would have forced the early retirement of the eldest pair of FFGs, as well as concerns over the cost and that the planned upgrade of the FFGs would likely have to be cancelled. As it was the FFGUP has a very troubled program that only delivered four instead of six upgraded ships, of significantly lower capability that the USN configuration Kidds (let alone the proposed RAN config).

It wouldn't have been simple but the RN would have well and truly been able to integrate the Kidds into their ORBAT as replacements for the Counties and Bristol, potentially as an interim option, pending the arrival of a revitalized Type 43.

 

[fishpond]

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.

When offered to Australia it was speculated that three would be upgraded with Mk-41 and the fourth used for parts and training (an upgraded Mk-13 Adams class DDG, USS Goldsborough, had been acquired in the 90s for this purpose in support of the Perth class during the 1990s).

The irony is the acquisition of the Kidds didn't go ahead because the extra manning required would have forced the early retirement of the eldest pair of FFGs, as well as concerns over the cost and that the planned upgrade of the FFGs would likely have to be cancelled. As it was the FFGUP has a very troubled program that only delivered four instead of six upgraded ships, of significantly lower capability that the USN configuration Kidds (let alone the proposed RAN config).

It wouldn't have been simple but the RN would have well and truly been able to integrate the Kidds into their ORBAT as replacements for the Counties and Bristol, potentially as an interim option, pending the arrival of a revitalized Type 43.

You might find it interesting that about 1950 the USN offered Terrier, the ancestor of the Standard series, to the Royal Navy. The British officer who received the offer was very impressed. The offer was rejected because it would have killed the nascent UK guided missile industry; Sea Slug was preferred on industrial grounds. Incidentally, about 1956 a similar offer was made to France, which was then developing Masurca. In its inital form, Masurca was apparently a gross dud. The French rejected the U.S. offer on much the same industrial grounds as the British, but then redesigned Masurca as, in effect, Terrier on steroids (look at its configuration and also at its guidance). Incidentally, I think the British naval officer was then-LCDR Hill-Norton, but this is from memory.

I certainly agree that the weight of logistics plus industry made British adoption of Standard in the Kidds virtually impossible (must always insert 'virtually' in case it turns out that they almost tried it).

 

[zen]

One does need to reccal several factors there.
1. The process that led to Sea Slug was such that by 1950, this was expected to enter service soon and in substantial numbers. In fact this was also 'Thunderbird' at this time.

2. That Sea Slug was actually more compact and fitted in smaller designs of ship, compared to Terrier.
In fact at that time, the projected size of the missile was smaller than it's final form. Mostly down to the efficiency of liquid fuel.

3. That UK standards of performance criteria were more exacting and that the RN knew this.
US standards rated a SAM's success included down to if it caused the attacker to stop attacking and go away......even if that was unrelated to the missiles use.

5. This being 1950 and just 5 years after being shut out of the previously joint effort on atomic weapons, and the humiliations of finance. The question over the reliability of US supply was not trivial or only about industrial capacity.

 

[uk 75]

The RN in this period had an effective combination of T42 (Seadart) and T22(Seawolf) ships coming on stream. It would have made far more sense for the UK and NATO to buy more of these ships than to "import" four Kidds with all the extra costs and difficulties attached.
Strangely enough a navy which could have made good use of them was the Marine Nationale. Four Kidds with Standard could have replaced the ageing Kersaints with Tartar and served until the arrival of France's Horizon class ships in the 21st C. The two air defence ships under construction could have been completed as standard Leygues class to give France more ASW ships.
Italy might also have found the ships a useful replacement for its Impavido and Ardito class ships until its Horizons arrived.
West Germany was looking to upgrade its three Adams class destroyers in this period. Replacing them or the obsolete Hamburg class destroyers would have upped NATO's North Sea and Baltic capabilities considerably.
However, as I argued above, the USN with its need to provide ships for Gonzo station in the Indian Ocean with tropical capability needed them more. So of course does Taiwan.

 

[TomS]

When offered to Australia it was speculated that three would be upgraded with Mk-41 and the fourth used for parts and training (an upgraded Mk-13 Adams class DDG, USS Goldsborough, had been acquired in the 90s for this purpose in support of the Perth class during the 1990s).

The Mk 41 upgrade would have been interesting/challenging. The forward Mk 26 was only 24 rounds and would have likely been replaced with a 29/32-cell VLS. The after Mk 26 was 44 rounds and could possibly have been replaced by a 45/48-cell VLS. Both of these would have weighed more than the Mk 26 they replaced, raising some stability issues. And the Kidds had already used most of their growth margin getting NTU.

The aft Mk 26 has another problem. It sat right on top of the #3 generator room. With Mk 41 being deeper than Mk 26, there are only a couple of options.

1. Tactical-length VLS, which was not actually certified, AFAICT. So, an extra cost.
2. A raised deckhouse aft of the flight deck to house the extra depth. Which means more weight high in the ship.
3. Just a 29/32-cell VLS aft, offset to port to clear the machinery room. Interesting weight and balance issue.
4. Relocate the generator. There was probably room in one of the AMR spaces, but it's a lot of work.

To the folks about to point out that the Ticos fit 64-cell VLS in both locations, they did, but they had a bunch of internal arrangement changes and structural mods including thicker hull plating, cross-flooding ducts, and ballast to preserve stability.

 

[SSgtC]

When offered to Australia it was speculated that three would be upgraded with Mk-41 and the fourth used for parts and training (an upgraded Mk-13 Adams class DDG, USS Goldsborough, had been acquired in the 90s for this purpose in support of the Perth class during the 1990s).

The Mk 41 upgrade would have been interesting/challenging. The forward Mk 26 was only 24 rounds and would have likely been replaced with a 29/32-cell VLS. The after Mk 26 was 44 rounds and could possibly have been replaced by a 45/48-cell VLS. Both of these would have weighed more than the Mk 26 they replaced, raising some stability issues. And the Kidds had already used most of their growth margin getting NTU.

The aft Mk 26 has another problem. It sat right on top of the #3 generator room. With Mk 41 being deeper than Mk 26, there are only a couple of options.

1. Tactical-length VLS, which was not actually certified, AFAICT. So, an extra cost.
2. A raised deckhouse aft of the flight deck to house the extra depth. Which means more weight high in the ship.
3. Just a 29/32-cell VLS aft, offset to port to clear the machinery room. Interesting weight and balance issue.
4. Relocate the generator. There was probably room in one of the AMR spaces, but it's a lot of work.

To the folks about to point out that the Ticos fit 64-cell VLS in both locations, they did, but they had a bunch of internal arrangement changes and structural mods including thicker hull plating, cross-flooding ducts, and ballast to preserve stability.

Forward you're completely correct. It would have been a 32 cell VLS. At the most. There just wasn't enough space forward for anything bigger. The aft launcher would almost certainly have gotten a 64 cell VLS. And it would also have been a tactical length cell. AIUI what we now consider a shortened version of the Mk41 is actually the originally planned length. The "standard" strike-length Mk41 was a relatively late addition to the program and is in fact a lengthened "tactical" Mk41. So there shouldn't be any issues with that.

 

[TomS]

Forward you're completely correct. It would have been a 32 cell VLS. At the most. There just wasn't enough space forward for anything bigger. The aft launcher would almost certainly have gotten a 64 cell VLS. And it would also have been a tactical length cell. AIUI what we now consider a shortened version of the Mk41 is actually the originally planned length. The "standard" strike-length Mk41 was a relatively late addition to the program and is in fact a lengthened "tactical" Mk41. So there shouldn't be any issues with that.

Weirdly, the actual DD-963s had room for 61/64 cells forward, but some of the extra air defense systems must have encroached on that space for the Kidds.

The decision to switch to the Tomahawk-length tube was made before any production standard MK 41s were built. While there "shouldn't" be any problems with the Tactical version, AFAICT no customer has ever bought and installed it. So there's still some work to be done for testing.

The weight of a big Mk 41 could be a real issue. A 64-cell Tactical Mk 41 loaded out with SM-2 Block III weighs about 451,200 lbs (slightly more if any of the cells have VLA or ESSM quadpacks). A Mk 26 Mod 1 with 44 missiles weighs about 264,900 lbs. That works out to 186,300 pounds (~84.5 tons) of extra weight right at the main deck. That's not trivial.

 

[Volkodav]

One does need to reccal several factors there.
1. The process that led to Sea Slug was such that by 1950, this was expected to enter service soon and in substantial numbers. In fact this was also 'Thunderbird' at this time.

2. That Sea Slug was actually more compact and fitted in smaller designs of ship, compared to Terrier.
In fact at that time, the projected size of the missile was smaller than it's final form. Mostly down to the efficiency of liquid fuel.

3. That UK standards of performance criteria were more exacting and that the RN knew this.
US standards rated a SAM's success included down to if it caused the attacker to stop attacking and go away......even if that was unrelated to the missiles use.

5. This being 1950 and just 5 years after being shut out of the previously joint effort on atomic weapons, and the humiliations of finance. The question over the reliability of US supply was not trivial or only about industrial capacity.

Often the biggest obstacle to the US success in international relations was the Hawkish representatives and electoral pork barreling. Bright people would set up deals and then for the sake of local jobs (read votes) those deals would be flushed down the toilet.

 

[Volkodav]

Does anyone know what length Mk-41 was used in the Adelaide Frigate FFGUP? I had always assumed it was the point defence length but the conversations here suggest it must have been strike length.

 

[SSgtC]

Does anyone know what length Mk-41 was used in the Adelaide Frigate FFGUP? I had always assumed it was the point defence length but the conversations here suggest it must have been strike length.

The Aussie OHPs? IIRC, those are self-defense length cells with quad packed ESSMs. Unlike the other modifications that have been discussed in this thread, the Adelaide class retained their Mk13 single arm launcher to employ SM-2 and Harpoon

 

[TomS]

Does anyone know what length Mk-41 was used in the Adelaide Frigate FFGUP? I had always assumed it was the point defence length but the conversations here suggest it must have been strike length.

The Aussie OHPs? IIRC, those are self-defense length cells with quad packed ESSMs. Unlike the other modifications that have been discussed in this thread, the Adelaide class retained their Mk13 single arm launcher to employ SM-2 and Harpoon

But they also had to mount several feet of VLS above the weather deck in a really awkward deckhouse. The Self-Defense version is meant to be very small, why leave so much of it sticking up above deck?

I'm open to correction if someone can point me to an authoritative source, but the only online sources I can find that talk about ships having anything but Strike Length VLS seem to be unofficial fan sites. I'd have expected LM to put out a press release touting their "first ever sale of the Tactical-Length VLS" or "our successful delivery of the Self-Defense Mk 41" or some such. But no, they literally never talk about the length of sold versions, just the Mod numbers, which are totally opaque.

 

[isayyo2]

Weirdly, the actual DD-963s had room for 61/64 cells forward, but some of the extra air defense systems must have encroached on that space for the Kidds.

Ah this thread reminds me of fun times on the Model Warship Forum...

I believe the secret to the Spruance's VLS success was the reinforced space once dedicated to the Mk 71 Gun and its 500 round magazine. The Kidd/DXG may have had the ability to have the 24 round Mk 26 and a Mk 71 fore, but that could have just been when the Kidd's were still paper designs.

 

[SSgtC]

Does anyone know what length Mk-41 was used in the Adelaide Frigate FFGUP? I had always assumed it was the point defence length but the conversations here suggest it must have been strike length.

The Aussie OHPs? IIRC, those are self-defense length cells with quad packed ESSMs. Unlike the other modifications that have been discussed in this thread, the Adelaide class retained their Mk13 single arm launcher to employ SM-2 and Harpoon

But they also had to mount several feet of VLS above the weather deck in a really awkward deckhouse. The Self-Defense version is meant to be very small, why leave so much of it sticking up above deck?

I'm open to correction if someone can point me to an authoritative source, but the only online sources I can find that talk about ships having anything but Strike Length VLS seem to be unofficial fan sites. I'd have expected LM to put out a press release touting their "first ever sale of the Tactical-Length VLS" or "our successful delivery of the Self-Defense Mk 41" or some such. But no, they literally never talk about the length of sold versions, just the Mod numbers, which are totally opaque.

The FFG-7 class just doesn't have the depth needed to install anything but the self-defense version of the Mk41. Well, you might be able to squeeze a tactical length one in where the Mk13 is, but then you'd lose Harpoon capability (AFAIK, no vertical launch version of the Harpoon was ever developed). And given where the Mk41 was installed on these ships (very far forward) they're in a very shallow area of the hull and the Australians were pretty much forced to mount it partially above deck

 

[TomS]

The FFG-7 class just doesn't have the depth needed to install anything but the self-defense version of the Mk41. Well, you might be able to squeeze a tactical length one in where the Mk13 is, but then you'd lose Harpoon capability (AFAIK, no vertical launch version of the Harpoon was ever developed). And given where the Mk41 was installed on these ships (very far forward) they're in a very shallow area of the hull and the Australians were pretty much forced to mount it partially above deck

There are two full decks there above the sonar equipment room. The keel is straight until very near the bow.



Source: https://vdocuments.mx/theffg-7-class-design-impact-by-insurv-trials.html

 

[SSgtC]

The FFG-7 class just doesn't have the depth needed to install anything but the self-defense version of the Mk41. Well, you might be able to squeeze a tactical length one in where the Mk13 is, but then you'd lose Harpoon capability (AFAIK, no vertical launch version of the Harpoon was ever developed). And given where the Mk41 was installed on these ships (very far forward) they're in a very shallow area of the hull and the Australians were pretty much forced to mount it partially above deck

There are two full decks there above the sonar equipment room. The keel is straight until very near the bow.

Source: https://vdocuments.mx/theffg-7-class-design-impact-by-insurv-trials.html

Except that there's equipment there that's kind of needed. It's not just a matter of will it fit, it's a case of what are you having to remove to make the room for it? As has been pointed out previously, the FFG-7s don't have a lot of unused space or available weight to install things like the Mk41.

 

[Yellow Palace]

There are two full decks there above the sonar equipment room. The keel is straight until very near the bow.

It's not just a question of depth, but of beam. VLSes are notoriously box-shaped, and the bows of ships are equally notoriously more-or-less wedge shaped. If you've got a VLS that needs a certain width for itself, plus services and structure, and the hull flares inside that width at 2 Deck level, then there's only one deck that's actually useful.

The Type 42s got a fairly boxy magazine well forward, but had a hullform designed around said magazine and their seakeeping suffered for it. A VLS will be at least as boxy, and the FFG-7 class wasn't designed for it. It might be possible, but that's not the way to bet.

 

[TomS]

Not to belabor the point, but my recollection was that one reason the FFG upgrade was so troubled was the difficulty in rearranging the other spaces where the VLS went in. But I'm sure it's far enough aft that there is enough beam to fit a single module (less than 9 feet/3 meters wide) even two decks down.

That said, I won't flog this dead horse any longer. Like I said, I'm open to seeing some sort of authoritative source (not just for the FFGs, but for the acquisition of Tactical or Self-Defense Mk 41 at all). At this point, we're pretty much all working on our own impressions and estimates/guesses here.

 

[SSgtC]

Not to belabor the point, but my recollection was that one reason the FFG upgrade was so troubled was the difficulty in rearranging the other spaces where the VLS went in. But I'm sure it's far enough aft that there is enough beam to fit a single module (less than 9 feet/3 meters wide) even two decks down.

That said, I won't flog this dead horse any longer. Like I said, I'm open to seeing some sort of authoritative source (not just for the FFGs, but for the acquisition of Tactical or Self-Defense Mk 41 at all). At this point, we're pretty much all working on our own impressions and estimates/guesses here.

Here's the thing, even the self defense length Mk41 is nearly 17.5' in height. The tactical length is just under 19' with the strike length being roughly 25' tall. So there really isn't the room to mount anything bigger in that location.

 

[TomS]

Not to belabor the point, but my recollection was that one reason the FFG upgrade was so troubled was the difficulty in rearranging the other spaces where the VLS went in. But I'm sure it's far enough aft that there is enough beam to fit a single module (less than 9 feet/3 meters wide) even two decks down.

That said, I won't flog this dead horse any longer. Like I said, I'm open to seeing some sort of authoritative source (not just for the FFGs, but for the acquisition of Tactical or Self-Defense Mk 41 at all). At this point, we're pretty much all working on our own impressions and estimates/guesses here.

Here's the thing, even the self defense length Mk41 is nearly 17.5' in height. The tactical length is just under 19' with the strike length being roughly 25' tall. So there really isn't the room to mount anything bigger in that location.

OK, I'm back to eat some crow. Finally (!) found a solid reference to a Mk 41 sale that was not Strike Length. (Edit: And it's actually just a proposed sale that didn't happen, since Chile opted for Sea Ceptor. But it proves this was an option available without extra development work, so someone probably bought it earlier.)

Chile – Evolved Seasparrow Missiles (ESSMs) | Defense Security Cooperation Agency

www.dsca.mil

Major Defense Equipment (MDE):
Thirty-thirty (33) Evolved Seasparrow Missiles (ESSMs)
Six (6) Evolved Seasparrow Telemetry Missiles
Three (3) MK 41 Vertical Launching Systems (VLS), tactical version, baseline VII

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Weirdly, the actual DD-963s had room for 61/64 cells forward, but some of the extra air defense systems must have encroached on that space for the Kidds.

Ah this thread reminds me of fun times on the Model Warship Forum...

I believe the secret to the Spruance's VLS success was the reinforced space once dedicated to the Mk 71 Gun and its 500 round magazine. The Kidd/DXG may have had the ability to have the 24 round Mk 26 and a Mk 71 fore, but that could have just been when the Kidd's were still paper designs.

Looks like there's plenty of room for both (weight considerations however, would rule that out)



The below images are of CG-47 and CG-52, but since the Spruances had a Mk 41 in the same position I am assuming internal arrangements around that area must have been fairly similar.




The ASROC launcher loaded vertically, which enabled it to be removed and replaced with a Mk 26 (or as it turned out, a Mk 41).

 

[Volkodav]

My understanding, and I will have to a deep dive into some references to confirm, is that the Spruances, Kidds and Virginias were all arranged to accommodate the 8" MCLWG, thus the space provided for the Mk-26 was reduced. All Spruances were built to be upgraded to DDGs if required, with the ASROC space being sufficient for the 24 round MK-26. The installation of a 61 cell Mk-41 in many of the Spruances demonstrates that, once the MCLWG requirement was dropped, the space set aside for such could be used to increase the space available for the Mk26 magazine or the Mk-41.

Futher more the forward Mk-26 in the Kidds and Virginias, was, although capable of handling Standard and (probably / actually) did, was intended primarily as an ASROC launcher, the ships being single ended DDG/DLNG/CGN, as opposed the the Ticonderogas that were always double ended DDG/CG.

That said I acknowledge that what was planned or postulated can and does change once steel is cut and the arrangements of the Kidds may have differed more significantly to the Spruance's than a USN spec DDG version would have, due to their origin as an export build with a lot of bling.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

I was under the impression that the Mk 26 was designed to be a module, which could be easily replaced (as was the case) with the what became the Mk 41 (albeit depending on whether the VLS tubes were strike length or not).

The ready-use magazine for the Mk 71 is essentially a drum directly under the mounting, so I don't understand why it would take up any volume intended for the Mk 26. The lift for striking down ammunition into the magazine is directly aft of the gun mounting, and appears to be in the same place regardless of whether it is a Spruance or a Ticonderoga, and regardless if the mounting is a Mk 45 or Mk 71. The magazine is in turn, is forward of this lift, and directly under the gun mounting it serves.

The 44-missile Mk 26 Mod 5 and the 61-cell Mk 41 (although this would also be true with 64-cell Mk 41) both appear to take more or less the same amount of length within a compartment.

 

[Wondera1234]

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).

If Australia went the route of DDl you would have had the US tech in a more capable vessel than the Oliver Hazzard frigate and a production line that would have been capable of doing the same job as the Anzac ffg.

 

[Wondera1234]

If Australia went the route of DDl you would have had the US tech in a more capable vessel than the Oliver Hazzard frigate and a production line that would have been capable of doing the same job as the Anzac ffg.

Absolutely the DDL would have supplanted the Need for Anzac cost wise they would have been better as the need to put a new vessel into production would have not been their . The mk 13 launcher could have been changed to the mk41 without much effort.

 

[Scott Kenny]

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?

None, they'd still be in sea trials, not ready to deploy yet. First one might be able to be pushed into readiness early, but I'm not betting on it.

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?

Assuming that the Kidds were able to take part in the Falklands, an even greater emphasis on intercepting sea skimming missiles, and defensive SAMs able to engage crossing targets.

Out of curiosity, what might they have been named?

Majestic, Endymion, Pomone, and Tenedos. The four RN frigates that captured USS President in 1814.

 

[uk 75]

The Spruance class were originally supposed to be available in ASW and AA versions. They correspond in development to the RN T22 and T42 to meet the same requirement.
If Litton had persuaded British Shipbuilders to adopt the design and Rolls Royce had got involved too I suspect 16 to 24 Spruance UK variants would have cost the same as the T22/42 but would have required more crews (so get rid of the Leanders earlier).
Given the size of the Spruance some UK weapons could have been fitted. The US 5 inch gun might have been better than the UK 4.5" . Seawolf even in the daft six box launcher could have replaced BPDMS and the ASROC pepperbox. The flight deck and hangar could cope with two Lynx.
Dropping Seadart and its magazine into the space taken up by Standard would also have been ok.
The main problems would have been electrical and electronic.

 

[Yellow Palace]

If Litton had persuaded British Shipbuilders to adopt the design and Rolls Royce had got involved too I suspect 16 to 24 Spruance UK variants would have cost the same as the T22/42 but would have required more crews (so get rid of the Leanders earlier).

By the time you'd Anglicised it there wouldn't be much SPRUANCE left. You'd be looking at

• Replacing the combat systems with British ones, as you've noted.
• Replacing the machinery with British - certainly Speys replacing the LM2500s, probably Paxman diesel generators, and likely British auxiliary machinery as well
• Revising the accomodation to meet British standards. The obvious one is that no US Navy ship has a wine and beer store, but there are others!
• At a minimum revalidating the design to Royal Navy structural and stability standards, which might also entail redesign depending on what's found.

That's not a cheap exercise. It's likely to be cheaper than starting new (which would really be a Type 43), but it's not as simple as just buying the plans.

 

[TomS]

Replacing the machinery with British - certainly Speys replacing the LM2500s, probably Paxman diesel generators, and likely British auxiliary machinery as well

Which might well mean replacing the main reduction gearing as well. Which is a job and a half....

 

[Yellow Palace]

Which might well mean replacing the main reduction gearing as well. Which is a job and a half....

Even if you didn't need to fundamentally change the design, there's a good chance you'd politically need to have it made in the UK. At which point you'd need to redo all the manufacturing drawings to use British rather than US standards....

 

[uk 75]

I'm still at the bit about the wine and beer store... But seriously thanks for the useful info and detail.
The evolution of the Spruance and the T22/42 pretty much took place at the same time.
However, the Spruances were just part of a complete carrier battle group with nuclear cruisers initially as their planned partners.
T22 and T42 were designed for the harsh conditions of the N Atlantic working with an ASW Command Cruiser to clear the route.
Given the parlous state of the UK and its economy the ships and their crews were highly regarded by NATO.
Sticking Seadart launchers on a Kidd is more for Shipbucket.

 

[Scott Kenny]

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.

The USN did completely re-evaluate their ship designs post-Falklands. Aluminum superstructures were seen as either fire hazards or structural hazards under a missile hit, so the Burkes got all steel superstructures.

If the Kidds did make it down to the Falklands (unlikely), they would have shown all sorts of problems with their new systems.

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.

Some Sprucans were refitted from Mk26 to Mk41.

Could the Kidds not be refitted to fit RN needs, remove some American weapons for British once, you know Britanize it.

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.

 

[uk 75]

The Navy that could have used the Kidds (perhaps two on each coast) was the Canadian Armed Forces (I think it was called that in 1981).
It would have replaced the four Iroquois class destroyers with much better armed ships.

 

[TomS]

The USN did completely re-evaluate their ship designs post-Falklands. Aluminum superstructures were seen as either fire hazards or structural hazards under a missile hit, so the Burkes got all steel superstructures.

That decision is actually older than the Falklands. (And FWIW, the oft-cited story about Sheffield's "burning/melting aluminum superstructure" is bogus, because the T42 deckhouses were steel.)

It was the 1975 Belknap collision and fire that led to the USN's decision to reduce the use of aluminum. (She basically burned/melted to the main deck, but she was also drenched in aviation fuel from the collision, which severed a fuel line on Kennedy) The Spruances were just too far along to alter for steel and the Ticos too tight. And even so, the Burkes actually do have aluminum stacks and masts, though the rest of the superstructure is steel.

 

[apparition13]

Some Sprucans were refitted from Mk26 to Mk41.

Some Spruances had ASROC replaced with Mk-41. No Mk-26 ships, that's the Virginias, Kidds, and the first 5 Ticos, had their GMLS replaced with VLS.

 

[GK Dundas]

The Navy that could have used the Kidds (perhaps two on each coast) was the Canadian Armed Forces (I think it was called that in 1981).
It would have replaced the four Iroquois class destroyers with much better armed ships.

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.