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

US destroyer/frigate designs of the 60s & 70s

fishjay

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
23
Reaction score
4
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

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
2,206
Reaction score
824
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
 

Antonio

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,440
Reaction score
143
Love the drawings too, thanks for sharing
 

isayyo2

Lurker alert
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
7
Reaction score
9
Looks like a Mk71 or its 175mm predecessor on the DDs bow?
 

chimeric oncogene

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
May 23, 2019
Messages
99
Reaction score
45
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.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,757
Reaction score
654
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:

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,053
Reaction score
524
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.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,757
Reaction score
654
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:

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,141
Reaction score
1,425
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:

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,757
Reaction score
654
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.
 
Top