fishjay

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
5 January 2009
Messages
23
Reaction score
11
I have finished some simple drawings of US destroyer designs from the 1960s and 1970s. The drawings are based on sketches and artist renderings found in Norman Friedman's book "US Destroyers An Illustrated Design History". I find the nuclear frigate design (Typhoon) very interesting.

Fishjay
 

Attachments

  • codag-dd.jpg
    codag-dd.jpg
    167.8 KB · Views: 893
  • dg-aegis1972.jpg
    dg-aegis1972.jpg
    280.8 KB · Views: 863
  • typhoon.jpg
    typhoon.jpg
    208.3 KB · Views: 867
Fishjay

Love the drawings. They make a nice addition to my copy of the Friedman book. Much appreciated.
Look forward to seeing others like the pre-Spruance DX designs or some of the cruisers in his other book. Thanks again

UK 75
 
Looks like a Mk71 or its 175mm predecessor on the DDs bow?
 
I always got a good laugh at the "warships should look warlike" complaint.

It kinda makes sense, but just sounds pentulant regarding a class of excellent destroyers in the most powerful Navy on the planet. I mean, if your stick is the biggest and everyone knows it, there's no point putting on war paint.

As I say regarding NASA SLS and ULA Vulcan illustrations, adding stripes to your rocket does not make it go faster.
 
Looks like a Mk71 or its 175mm predecessor on the DDs bow?

No. It's an early drawing for Mk45. The gunhouse changed shape considerably between the early designs and the final version.

This CODAG DD was one of several designs for the Project Sea Hawk surface ship ASW program (not to be confused with the later helicopter). Armament for these ships eventually settled on one 5in/54 gun, Sea Mauler or a twin 3in/50 gun aft, a DASH drone helo hanger, an improved ASROC launcher, and both heavyweight and lightweight torpedo tubes. The sensors ate up a lot of space, with SQS-35 VDS and a very large twin-dome bottom bounce sonar based on SQS-26 (think SQQ-23 PAIR but with the much larger SQS-26 system.) The result, on roughly 4200 tons, would have been really tight and hard to upgrade when DASH was replaced by LAMPS and Sea Mauler with BPDMS.

Edit: I found a contemporary paper that refers to this a Project Sea Hawk rather than Seahawk.
 
Last edited:
Based on data on the Land Based Mauler Launcher and drawings, that missile system would be quite large, around as big as a twin Mark 11 used for the Tartars and Standards. (required space on deck wise) though taller because of the integrated radar.
 
Based on data on the Land Based Mauler Launcher and drawings, that missile system would be quite large, around as big as a twin Mark 11 used for the Tartars and Standards. (required space on deck wise) though taller because of the integrated radar.

Well, yes, but Mark 11 is actually quite compact (similar in footprint to Mark 13). Where Sea Mauler comes out well ahead (I believe) is that it has little or no deck penetration, so it doesn't need a ton of space below decks like the Tartar launchers. A reload magazine would likey be carried but would not need to be immediately below the launcher.

That said, Mk11/13 was considered for Project Sea Hawk. Either possibly could have replaced both Sea Mauler and ASROC (Friedman states that these launchers could be adapted to handle ASROC, though they never actually were). This would also provide an antiship capability through Tartar (and later Harpoon). Bit adding a couple of channels of fire would also add a bunch of weight and expense in a ship that was already going to be very expensive.

Edit:. I don't think it's been mentioned that Project Sea Hawk started as an ASW sensor technology program but ultimately devolved into a fast ASW destroyer. They were looking at a 25-knot sonar search speed, and at least 35 knot top speed, which just wasn't feasible with the technology of the day.
 
Last edited:
Edit: I found a contemporary paper that refers to this a Project Sea Hawk rather than Seahawk.

I've seen reports from the era that use one or the other. Mostly the latter usage though.


Originally intended to incorporate ASW cruisers and the like as well?
 
Last edited:
Originally intended to incorporate ASW cruisers and the like as well?

No, originally intended to develop new advanced sensor capabilities: conformal hull sonar, integrated hull and variable depth sonar, increased sonar search speed, periscope detection capabilities,
all-ship sensor integration, etc.
 
Does anybody know about this destroyer design of 1963-64? Its displacement of 21,000 t was undeniably larger than any destroyers of its era, even surpassing Long Beach's by a considerable margin.
 

Attachments

  • 1963-64 21000t Destroyer.png
    1963-64 21000t Destroyer.png
    171.7 KB · Views: 206
I can all but guarantee that the logic was something like:
  1. A nuclear powered ship can run at full power until the food and ammunition runs out.
  2. Therefore a task group with nuclear powered ships must be able to sustain full power for some large number of days
  3. Therefore the future destroyer must have enough fuel to run at full power for that period
  4. Therefore the future destroyer must resemble an abnormally fast tanker with some missiles on top.
This kind of logic is usually used by someone with an axe to grind. In this case, most likely either 'the Navy needs nuclear destroyers!' or 'this is no way to run a fleet, look how ridiculous the destroyers are!'
 
I can all but guarantee that the logic was something like:
  1. A nuclear powered ship can run at full power until the food and ammunition runs out.
  2. Therefore a task group with nuclear powered ships must be able to sustain full power for some large number of days
  3. Therefore the future destroyer must have enough fuel to run at full power for that period
  4. Therefore the future destroyer must resemble an abnormally fast tanker with some missiles on top.
This kind of logic is usually used by someone with an axe to grind. In this case, most likely either 'the Navy needs nuclear destroyers!' or 'this is no way to run a fleet, look how ridiculous the destroyers are!'
In this case, the intention was the complete opposite, namely that larger conventional destroyers were still very cost-competitive with nuclear-powered designs.

The question remains to be asked, when referring to destroyers, are they describing DLGs/DLGNs, or DDGs/DDGNs? Typhon DLG and DLGN designs were already breaking the 10,000 ton displacement mark around this time, some as high as 13,000 tons, so 21,000 tons is not as extreme as it sounds, or are they describing DDG and DDGN designs, which were certainly studied.in this period, and if so, single ended or double-ended. The DDGs drawn up as part of the preliminary studies of austere DLG and DDG designs that led the Belknap were double-ended Tartar ships, as was the later DDGN. However DDGs FY66 and FY67 were single-ended Tartar ships.
 
My only thought is the 21000 ton variant might be using the Nimitz reactor? Some of the CGN(X) studies with carrier reactors came in around there iirc, at least based on what I've been told.
 
My only thought is the 21000 ton variant might be using the Nimitz reactor? Some of the CGN(X) studies with carrier reactors came in around there iirc, at least based on what I've been told.
I think there’s some crossed wires: the snippet posted by Sgt Miller mentioned NON-nuclear designs as alternatives to nuclear ones.
 
Well, yes, but Mark 11 is actually quite compact (similar in footprint to Mark 13). Where Sea Mauler comes out well ahead (I believe) is that it has little or no deck penetration, so it doesn't need a ton of space below decks like the Tartar launchers. A reload magazine would likey be carried but would not need to be immediately below the launcher.

That said, Mk11/13 was considered for Project Sea Hawk. Either possibly could have replaced both Sea Mauler and ASROC (Friedman states that these launchers could be adapted to handle ASROC, though they never actually were). This would also provide an antiship capability through Tartar (and later Harpoon). Bit adding a couple of channels of fire would also add a bunch of weight and expense in a ship that was already going to be very expensive.

Edit:. I don't think it's been mentioned that Project Sea Hawk started as an ASW sensor technology program but ultimately devolved into a fast ASW destroyer. They were looking at a 25-knot sonar search speed, and at least 35 knot top speed, which just wasn't feasible with the technology of the day.
hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

Yeah, you're not going to hear anything at 25 knots. flow noise around the hull alone will make you deaf.

Does anybody know about this destroyer design of 1963-64? Its displacement of 21,000 t was undeniably larger than any destroyers of its era, even surpassing Long Beach's by a considerable margin.
No, haven't heard anything about a DDG or DLG that big. It must have been given absolutely huge fuel tanks to keep up with the nuclear escorts. I'm thinking something about like a SpruCan, just 3x the displacement and all due to fuel.
 
Yeah, you're not going to hear anything at 25 knots. flow noise around the hull alone will make you deaf.
It's possible they were thinking about an active sonar search. Charging around the ocean at 25 knots pinging continuously is certainly a
way to look for submarines. Probably one dreamt up by an admiral who wanted to refight the Battle of the Atlantic, only faster.
 
It's possible they were thinking about an active sonar search. Charging around the ocean at 25 knots pinging continuously is certainly a
way to look for submarines. Probably one dreamt up by an admiral who wanted to refight the Battle of the Atlantic, only faster.
They'd have to be. And even then, you're going to need immensely loud active to be able to hear the returns at 25 knots...
 
They'd have to be. And even then, you're going to need immensely loud active to be able to hear the returns at 25 knots...
Hey, it was the 1960s - 'immensely loud' was practically mandatory, and all problems could be solved by just adding more power.
 
My question be what will they arm it with?

21k tons is bigger then any of the missile cruiser and in the 60s mean that arm launchers be used.

An Asroc pepper box be a go-figure of course.

But what of the missile launchers. Pretty sure a Mk26 is still in the early stages of paper crafting, so it be the older T launchers.

And what guns, if any their put on it...

Be a whole lot of ship for not much capability...

Unless its has a hell of a flight deck.
 
I think something like a Steam or Gas Turbine driven version of this:
Tonnage wise it is pretty close with 18.280tons standard displacement


de9xcxu-98ccb67b-d1b8-4c36-9aa3-6322850c5cbd.png
 
I think something like a Steam or Gas Turbine driven version of this:
Tonnage wise it is pretty close with 18.280tons standard displacement


de9xcxu-98ccb67b-d1b8-4c36-9aa3-6322850c5cbd.png
Unlikely given that 6 years separate them, they're referred to as "destroyer designs" and this is a Long Beach preliminary.

The greater hull size is likely entirely driven by increased endurance, in terms of fuel, stores and self-maintenance. Given they are a simple cost and endurance comparison with nuclear powered ships, I doubt they have anymore in the way of combat systems, which are a major cost-driver so I expect that they have identical destroyer combat systems.

Given these were drawn up in 1964, they're not going to have the SCANFAR of designs from 1958-59, nor are they going to have Typhon (which was cancelled in 1963). The dates suggest that they are being compared to the late 1963 DDGN design or the near identical (in terms of armament) but slightly later California-class DLGNs. The date of design also slightly postdates that of DDG FY66 (drawn up March 1963) and predates the design of DDG FY67/FY68 (the design process of which started in January 1965 and ended in June 1967).

In other words I think these designs are, at best, double-ended Tartar ships, like the 1963 DDGN and California, at worst they are single-ended Tartar ships like DDG FY66 and FY67.

Multiple powerplants were probably investigated, so along the likes of Project Seahawk, DDG FY66, DDG FY67 and Project DX/Spruance, I wouldn't be surprised if a vast number of powerplant options were investigated, such as steam (with 600psi or 1200psi boilers, with and without pressure-firing), CODAD, COSAG, COGAG, COGAG-E (with electric motors), COSAG (again with all of the different types of boiler mentioned above) and possibly even COGAS (which was investigated for the Spruance-class).
 
Last edited:
My question be what will they arm it with?

21k tons is bigger then any of the missile cruiser and in the 60s mean that arm launchers be used.

An Asroc pepper box be a go-figure of course.

But what of the missile launchers. Pretty sure a Mk26 is still in the early stages of paper crafting, so it be the older T launchers.

And what guns, if any their put on it...

Be a whole lot of ship for not much capability...

Unless its has a hell of a flight deck.
If it was designed early in the 1960s (or late 1950s), 5"/54 Mk42 port and starboard so it has some guns. Talos and Tartar SAMs. ASROCs in the box launcher, because the Tartar Mk11/Mk13 can't handle it. Regulus cruise missiles (which really should have stayed in service, at least on surface ships).

Helo deck and hangar big enough for 2x Sea Kings.
 
If it was designed early in the 1960s (or late 1950s), 5"/54 Mk42 port and starboard so it has some guns. Talos and Tartar SAMs. ASROCs in the box launcher, because the Tartar Mk11/Mk13 can't handle it. Regulus cruise missiles (which really should have stayed in service, at least on surface ships).

Helo deck and hangar big enough for 2x Sea Kings.
Talos is too early for this ship, the last Talos ships ordered before the collapse of the late 50s early 60s shipbuilding program was FY59, and those were ships pushed back from FY58. The last serious discussion for Talos cruisers (a Long Beach-derivative and an additional three improved ships of the Albany-class) is FY60. Of course Talos is a cruiser system, and the ships we are talking about are described as destroyers. Typhon is also dead by this point, so there is no point in operating Terrier-sized missiles.

These destroyer designs were from 1964, and I doubt they were detailed designs seriously expected to be built, more simple calculations to as part of a cost/benefit analysis of nuclear powered destroyers. Even then, to make the comparison easier, they will likely have the same combat systems, and given what we know about contemporary nuclear surface combatant design, that means at most a double-ended Tartar system.

Very much like the conventional Scheme 60 and CVAL/CVAXL/CVAXL designs (in fact these DDG studies might be from the same CNA study as CVAXL et al), in many cases bigger than contemporary nuclear carriers, the main drivers in size being the attempt to make them comparable to nuclear ships in operational endurance.
 
Last edited:
Talos is too early for this ship, the last Talos ships ordered before the collapse of the late 50s early 60s shipbuilding program was FY59, and those were ships pushed back from FY58. The last serious discussion for Talos cruisers (a Long Beach-derivative and an additional three improved ships of the Albany-class) is FY60. Of course Talos is a cruiser system, and the ships we are talking about are described as destroyers. Typhon is also dead by this point, so there is no point in operating Terrier-sized missiles.

These destroyer designs were from 1964, and I doubt they were detailed designs seriously expected to be built, more simple calculations to as part of a cost/benefit analysis of nuclear powered destroyers. Even then, to make the comparison easier, they will likely have the same combat systems, and given what we know about contemporary nuclear surface combatant design, that means at most a double-ended Tartar system.

Very much like the conventional Scheme 60 and CVAL/CVAXL/CVAXL designs (in fact these DDG studies might be from the same CNA study as CVAXL et al), in many cases bigger than contemporary nuclear carriers, the main drivers in size being the attempt to make them comparable to nuclear ships in operational endurance.
I see, that is indeed the most likely course of history. I hoped to see some schematics/designs because the idea of such an oversized, extremely long-endurance destroyer fascinates me. Reminds me of the current days' concept behind the German F126 long-endurance frigate, which caused it to bloat to over 10,000 tons. Insane for a frigate.

And if I'm not mistaken, CVAL/CVAXL/CVAXXL were the conventional version of Nimitz(?)
 
The three Ts missile systems (Talos, Terrier and Tartar) and the Typhon system which used enhanced versions of Talos and Tartar showed the virtue of the US approach.
When Typhon proved too complicated the USN focussed on getting the most out of the three systems it had.
This led to Standard MR replacing Tartar and Standard ER replacing Terrier. The AEGIS system then used these airframes in both arm and VL launch modes.
Contrast this with the UK which produced the Seaslug ( incapable of being updated) and the Seadart which met a similar fate.
 
The three Ts missile systems (Talos, Terrier and Tartar) and the Typhon system which used enhanced versions of Talos and Tartar showed the virtue of the US approach.
When Typhon proved too complicated the USN focussed on getting the most out of the three systems it had.
Typhon-LR was an entirely clean sheet missile design using the Terrier Mk 10 GMLS, hence it was smaller missile than Talos. It was not an enhanced version of Talos, although it was referred to early in development as Super-Talos.
 
The three Ts missile systems (Talos, Terrier and Tartar) and the Typhon system which used enhanced versions of Talos and Tartar showed the virtue of the US approach.
When Typhon proved too complicated the USN focussed on getting the most out of the three systems it had.
This led to Standard MR replacing Tartar and Standard ER replacing Terrier. The AEGIS system then used these airframes in both arm and VL launch modes.
Contrast this with the UK which produced the Seaslug ( incapable of being updated) and the Seadart which met a similar fate.
I think that the problem with Seadart was not enough units sold. It was a solid design, basically a baby Talos. But because there were very few ships equipped with it, there wasn't enough sunk costs pushing for further development to get everything they could out of it (what happened when Typhon failed).
 
I see, that is indeed the most likely course of history. I hoped to see some schematics/designs because the idea of such an oversized, extremely long-endurance destroyer fascinates me. Reminds me of the current days' concept behind the German F126 long-endurance frigate, which caused it to bloat to over 10,000 tons. Insane for a frigate.

And if I'm not mistaken, CVAL/CVAXL/CVAXXL were the conventional version of Nimitz(?)
There is no such thing as a conventional-powered version of a nuclear-powered ship, and neither vice-versa. Not only are internal compartmentalisation and many other constructionnal requirements completely different, but hull-shapes are too. Hull shapes for a nuclear-powered ship can be optimised for maximum speed because even if they are not the most efficient at cruise speed, there is enough power available for free to compensate. Hull shapes for a conventional-powered ship are a compromise between maximum speed and cruise speed efficiency, in order to get the best range at cruise speed. Same applies to some extent to other sets of requirements (internal and bunkerage volumes, sea-keeping, stability, etc.). So the other, non-propulsion, systems may be identical, external appearance may look similar, but one needs to design and built two completely different hulls.
 
Last edited:
There is no such thing as a conventional-powered version of a nuclear-powered ship, and neither vice-versa. Not only are internal compartmentalisation and many other constructionnal requirements completely different, but hull-shapes are too. Hull shapes for a nuclear-powered ship can be optimised for maximum speed because even if they are not the most efficient at cruise speed, there is enough power available for free to compensate. Hull shapes for a conventional-powered ship are a compromise between maximum speed and cruise speed efficiency, in order to get the best range at cruise speed. Same applies to some extent to other sets of requirements (internal and bunkerage volumes, sea-keeping, stability, etc.). So the other, non-propulsion, systems may be identical, external appearance may look similar, but one needs to design and built two completely different hulls.
While all this is true, looking at ships functionally (and not as a detailed design) we can make comparisions between for example DXG and DXGN (AA converted Spruance and Virginia) which have a very different design in almost every way, but systems and capability wise are very close except for those aspects related to propulsion. Yes the role changes with the propulsion....... but we can imagine a Nimitz flight deck on an conventional powered hull with Nimitz radar systems and an Nimitz airwing and even if the resulting ship under that flight deck will be much different, we can compare right? (although the word alternative or comparison would fit better then calling it a version, that much is true)
 
CVAL/CVAXL/CVAXXL weren't related to Nimitz, I would need to check but I think they were drawn up around 1963, which would make them contemporary with the competing conventional and nuclear designs for JFK.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom