This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
Manningham
an
159
avy ps III
'•''M
S K
avy, and Lieutenant Pat Tierney,
Commander R. E. Hammond,
154
T 1
i, leutcnant
'cutenant Commander Stephen R. Olson, Navy
tal ASW & Ocean Acoustic B"recasting 146
l(-utenant Commander Alden B. Chace, U-S. ktq
r. avy. and Lieutenant George V.
C ThU'Sc ^ ,
^ • ine Concept and Design 148
aPtain John D. Beecher, U.S, Navy ^ he \t ,
,avys Newest Ship: FFG-7 130 th Hrnrnan<^er Stephen J. Duich, U.S. Navy ^AMPShip Team
Ptain A. M. Osborne, U.S. Navy
Ca,
tainerized Weapons . . . and Merchant 3rshiPs 133 y ^rman Polmar the p-
Irst Step Toward SWO ■cation 137
nt Commander Charles P. Vion,
131
^eal Opp()rtunjty to Modernize
"ntents:
A Real Opportunity to Modernize
By Captain A. M. Osborne, U. S. Navy, formerly attached to the OpNav Fleet Modernization Program Office, and now Head of the Amphibious and Auxiliary Branch of the Ship Acquisition Division, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Surface Warfare)
The 23-ship Charles F. Adams (DDG-2) class of guided-missile destroyers is about to undergo a major conversion designed to extend its service life for another 15 years.
The DDG has long been touted by those who have manned one as the most versatile, compact warship in the U. S. Navy. She carries two five-inch guns, the Tartar missile system, a good medium-range sonar, ASROC and torpedo ASW armament, and is/was, by design specification, capable of speeds in excess of 32 knots. With her initial design package, the DDG is a fully capable antiair warfare and antisubmarine warfare ship, packing the most punch of any destroyer-sized unit in the U.S. fleet.
But the DDG has an Achilles’ heel. The 1,200-pound engineering plant has proven to be a problem no matter how much money and talent have been spent to keep it running efficiently. Even though a significant amount of engineering redundancy- was designed into the DDG, her commanding officers continue to be plagued with crippling breakdowns that are apparently beyond the capability of the fleet sailor to repair in a reasonable time.
There are other problems associated with the DDG. Although the class was designed with a most significant offensive and defensive capability, subsequent modifications have resulted in increased displacement and accompanying reduced speed and range. The increased displacement and conversion to distillate fuel have decreased the DDG’s range to an almost unacceptable low point.
Modernizations over the last 14-18 years also have resulted in increased manpower requirements. Each new capability in communications, command and control, and weaponry has resulted in a concurrent increase in each ship’s manning allowance. When aggravated by the requirement to embark a squadron commander and his staff, the already insufficient berthing accommodations become a real headache for the overworked and overtaxed executive officer, who rapidly runs out of available space for even jury-rigged bunks.
Why not solve the DDG’s myriad problems in one innovative approach?
Why not build an entirely new engineering module for the DDG and replace the aging and difficult to maintain 1,200-pound steam system with
an entirely new gas turbine system?
The innovative approach would look something like this:
► Design and build an engineering module that could be fitted to the existing DDG hull.
► Cut away the existing hull structure containing the present steam plant and scrap it.
► Replace the hull section with the new plant.
► Design, build, and install controllable pitch screws and system controls.
Sound farfetched? Perhaps, but recall the Tang-class submarines that were enlarged and otherwise modified to accommodate larger diesel engines in the late 1950s.
The results were significantly improved operating characteristics. If the state of the art permitted cutting the pressure hull of a submarine to insert an enlarged section, there should be no problem cutting a relatively thinskinned destroyer hull.
Just consider what such a modernization would do for the Navy.
► Not only would the Navy be increasing the offensive capability of the DDG with the planned conversion, but the desirable characteristics of speed and endurance would not only be retained but very likely would increase over original design specifications.
► The 15-year life extension of the engineering plant could actually be realized.
► The manpower requirement for engineers to operate and maintain the plant would be significantly reduced, if our experience with the Spruance class is a reliable measure of manning requirements for the gas-turbine propulsion plant system.
► The acknowledged advantages of gas turbines would be realized in an undeniably capable ship.
► More rapid acceleration, rapid engine warm-up, and responsive engine change capabilities would be realized. ► The most attractive feature of the system could well be its cost. To thoroughly overhaul and replace comp0' nents of the existing engineering plant may run as much as it would to purchase a replacement engineering plant like the known, proven system that is being tested in the Spruance class and which will be featured in the Olivet Hazard Perry class. If the modular concept is accepted, the replacement module can be prefabricated prior to induction into the ship and moved into place as a unit as soon as the old hull section is removed. Preliminary checkout of the propulsion system may be feasible even before the ship ever enters the shipyard.
Sound incredible, or maybe even ridiculous? Perhaps, but one thing >s certain. The present plan for rebuilding the 1,200-pound plant that has caused so much difficulty is also questionable.
Do Navy planners really feel capable of accomplishing a 15-year life extension of the existing steam plant? Are we ready to accept greatly reduced speed and endurance? Should we sacrifice crew comfort and accept inadequate numbers of personnel to operate and maintain the modernized DDG? Or, should the Navy be innovative?
The proposed DDG modernization outlined here may be a pipe dream’ But it is worth a cost and feasibility study. It may be that we can indeed thoroughly modernize one of the best ships we’ve ever built!