Destroyers today have come a long way in the seventy years since the 420-ton USS Bainbridge (DD-1) joined the Atlantic Fleet as its first torpedo boat destroyer. The missions and tasks of her successors have grown both in diversity and complexity so that the original mission—torpedo boat destroyer—has long since been buried under additional roles. These include fleet and merchant escort, antiair and antisubmarine defense, support of amphibious operations, shore bombardment, electronic intelligence gathering, surface interdiction, patrol and command, to name just a few. Thus, operational diversity has been combined with the technical complexity necessary for these tasks to stretch the destroyer into almost any definition and configuration desired. Today, the only characteristics which seem to be common to its varying interpretations in the world’s navies are large size and high cost.
In the United States three basic destroyer types have been evolved since the end of World War II. These are the Frigates, a term used in this country and France for super destroyers; the Destroyers, known also as Fleet Escorts, which implies fleet speed and defensive capability; and the Destroyer Escorts, or Ocean Escorts, as they are known officially in this country. Originally these ships were designed as ASW escorts to merchant convoys. But their tasks are now being expanded to include escort of selected fleet logistic and amphibious ships and participation in ASW task groups.
In reviewing these three basic types and comparing them with their foreign counterparts, it is important to remember that varying national objectives, as well as sharply differing operating environments, have a significant effect on each nation’s interpretation of just what a destroyer is and does. Finally, the destroyer, while it performs many tasks, cannot be considered in isolation, for it supports or is supported by many other types of vehicles.
The United States has worldwide responsibilities, particularly to Europe and the Far East, which require unusually long endurance in her naval ships. Also, much of the costly sophistication found in U. S. destroyers—primarily in communications, electronic warfare, sensors, and intership command and control—stems mainly from the demands of the fast carrier task forces which they must escort. This is a role increasingly rare in the world’s navies today as the carrier and her aircraft grow in cost and complexity and the number of navies able to afford them diminishes. At present, only France, the United States, and, fleetingly, Great Britain must possess high-performance, all-weather surface escorts for the carriers, capable of providing effective electronically inter-related antiair and antisubmarine defense for the carriers as they move into position to provide a credible military presence or, ultimately, to strike. Thus, it is difficult to say there is a “best” destroyer among the world’s navies or that a given set of destroyer characteristics may be equally applicable to, say, the United States and the Soviet Union. However, the design trends are important, for they may permit a better understanding of the characteristics chosen or about to be chosen in an environment of limited funds and incomplete understanding of what technological advancements the most likely opponent may make in the future.
Today the primary threat to the navies of the NATO nations is the nuclear submarine, and Russia is moving with surprising speed from her first to her second generation of such submarines. As a result, antisubmarine sensor technology is extremely important. If the new Soviet submarine classes are significantly quieter than those previous designs, then there must be more reliance on active detection by our forces, which can mean even larger sonars than we now have, with greater power generation requirements coupled with lower sonar frequencies. Both characteristics mean larger destroyer size.
American experience in Vietnam, however, has emphasized destroyer roles other than ASW. One is shore bombardment; where improvements in 5”/54 ammunition were required and the importance of our gun armament was reemphasized. SAR (search and rescue) duties pointed up the importance of the destroyer-helicopter combination and required that destroyer stern layouts and support equipment be modified to permit extended helicopter operations. Vietnam brought home as well the importance of electronic warfare, both in intelligence gathering and ship defense, with a resulting increase in destroyer EW electronic equipment. Halfway around the world, the 1967 Egyptian-Israeli conflict resulted in the sinking of the Israeli destroyer Elath by Egyptian launched, Russian-built Styx missiles. This threat had been known in the West for years but until that dramatic demonstration in 1967, had gotten little more than lip service. Now electronic warfare equipment and techniques, Chafroc, and our own version of a surface-to-surface missile, Harpoon, are under accelerated development, thus influencing future destroyer designs.
Finally, the increasing Russian naval presence in the relatively restricted waters of the Mediterranean and the Baltic reintroduces the possibility of sudden, close, surface-to-surface engagements, which long had been thought to be a practical impossibility. Unfortunately, U. S. gun and surface torpedo developments during the past fifteen years have been modest, with only the new lightweight Mk 45 5”/54 emerging. While this gun meets its objective of low manning and low weight, it also has the remarkably low rate of fire of 20 rounds per minute, as well as limited elevation—65°. The Italians, however, have concurrently developed a somewhat heavier 5”/54 which is just as automatic as ours, but fires 50 rounds per minute. The Canadians and Australians have chosen this gun, developed by Oto Malera, over the Mk 45, suggesting that perhaps the U. S. position needs reexamination. Our DD-963 and DLGN-38 classes will use the Mk 45 because that really is the only new gun available in the United States. As these examples show, destroyer design is affected by a combination of experience and technical advancement as well as the roles which must be played.
Frigates, or Large Destroyers
United States—I
The United States after World War II ended up with hundreds of destroyers largely outdated by the rapid development of the submarine and shipborne electronics. Thus the first postwar combatant designs to emerge, in the late forties when financial and political support for the Navy were very low, were new destroyer designs: the two ships of the Norfolk (CLK-1) design, and the four of what was ultimately to be the 4,700-ton Mitscher (DL-2) class. The CLK-2 was a casualty of budget economies but the CLK-1 continued, to become the 7,300-ton Norfolk, redesignated DL-1 and designed for sustained ASW operations in the North Atlantic. Both classes were considerably larger than any previous U. S. or foreign destroyer, with much greater freeboard and bow length than their wartime predecessors. Both carried two of the new Mk 42 5”/54s, the ASW Weapon Alpha with its greatly extended range and, after some delay, the Westinghouse developed 3”/70. The last were in automated twin mounts capable of 90 rounds per minute per water-cooled barrel. The Mitschers carried as well the new SPS 8 height-finding radar. These five ships were the first of the new U. S. frigate type and the only all-gun frigates ever built. They were destined to be heavily involved with surface ship weapon and sensor developments including ASROC, surveillance and fire-control radars, and the SQS 26 sonar. Though the Norfolk and two of the Mitschers are now inactive, two ships survive with the active fleet as the DDG-35 (Mitscher) and DDG-36 (John S. McCain), having just completed an extensive conversion which added Tartar, the SPS 48 radar, and ASROC, while retaining their two 5”/54 guns. These are now considered to be good DDGs, which shows how definitions drift with time.
The next class of frigates to emerge was the Coontz (DLG-9) class of ten ships. Intended as an all-gun improvement of the DL-2, this 1956 design was modified during the award period to incorporate a Mk 10 twin Terrier installation aft. These ships were the first to mount ASROC and, at 5,800 tons, had grown appreciably over their predecessors, as emphasized by their tall stacks and towering radar platforms. The Coontz class is currently undergoing extensive modification to missile fire control and ASROC systems as well as undergoing improvements to their sensors. All are being fitted with Naval Tactical Data Systems (NTDS), the first of which was installed on an experimental basis in the King (DLG-10) and Mahan (DLG-11) in 1962.
The late fifties was the era of new carrier task force concepts, inspired by the growing Russian air threat, increasingly capable of nuclear weapon delivery. This required new task force formations, generally with much greater ship separation, and more effective missile defense. From this concern came a series of missile ships, both converted and new, to defend the fast carrier task forces, which were seeing the steady introduction of the new Forrestal-class carriers as well as the return of Essex- and Midway-class carriers after extensive modernization. Thus the next class of frigates, the Leahy (DLG-16) class, was wholly devoted to air warfare, these being double-ended Terrier ships, not only two twin 3”/50 gun mounts. They were, however, possessed of considerably greater endurance than the previous classes. This specialized design emphasized the increasingly limited choice of operating characteristics possible even on a deisgn [sic] which had grown to 7,800 tons. Although excellent for the use intended, once the missile problems were solved, the Leahys have not been particularly appropriate ships for Vietnam-type operations where they have been limited to antiair escort, SAR, and PIRAZ (Positive Identification Radar Advisory Zone—electronic surveillance) type operations. These nine ships which began entering service in 1962 are currently undergoing major modernization costing nearly half their original price. It provides NTDS, solves the missile problems, and augments the limited helicopter support facility.
United Kingdom
During the late fifties the first comparable foreign designs were beginning to reach operational status in several of the world’s navies. The British, who in the early fifties had officially bid farewell to the destroyer with the last of their all-gun Daring class, really a late World War II design, also needed carrier escorts large enough to have a surface-to-air missile capability. This requirement resulted in the 5,200-ton ships of the “County” class which were designed around the British-developed Sea Slug missile and its cumbersome launcher. Looking nothing like any previous British destroyer, eight have been built over a ten-year period.
These ships were the first of this size anywhere to have combined steam and gas turbine powerplants (COSAG), the result of British propulsion research during the fifties. Combining the fast-start capability of the new gas turbine with the more economical and established steam plant, it has not been without problems but nonetheless has proven to be an excellent intermediate propulsion system leading to the less complex all-gas turbine (COGAG/COGOG) concept. This last the Royal Navy has been able to accept with far less soul-searching than the U. S. did on the DD-963 program, primarily because of its more gradual introduction into that service. The “Counties” carry their Sea Slug launcher aft, controlled by a single director and balanced with two twin 4.5” gun mounts forward. The “County” class also includes the very successful short-range surface-to-air Seacat missile system which England has exported to several of the world’s smaller navies—really a missile replacement for the old 40-mm. AA gun.
The “Counties” started going operational in 1962. They are a design well thought out by a country which could not afford many mistakes. CIC is buried deep in the ship and major consideration has been given to operation in unfavorable nuclear and biological conditions. They most closely approach the U. S. Coontz class in design concept and are about the same size. They have, however, significantly more gun power and have a hangar to shelter an SH-3 Sea King helicopter, which the Coontz does not. The “Counties” try to fulfill the frigate missions and tasks and generally succeed, the Royal Navy employing them much as cruisers in showing the flag when task force requirements permit. They are the first British ships with Action Data Automation (ADA), the British version of NTDS, which makes them well suited to their primary task of carrier escort. The lack of this equipment was another Coontz-class deficiency, until recently. The “Counties” main problem has been their relatively high unit investment, and with the impending demise of the British carrier force, only one ship of a successor design, the Bristol, will be built and she largely for political reasons. The Bristol will be a more powerful COSAG ship with the new Sea Dart missile system, an air breather, equivalent in performance to the American Extended Standard missile. She has a single Mk 8 4.5” automated gun and Ikara, the Australian-developed long-range ASW weapon system which, unlike the U. S. ASROC, permits guidance after launch.
France
During the late fifties France also developed a single class of ship which is comparable in size and purpose to the U. S. frigates. This is the two-ship Suffren class of 5,200 tons. While these ships became operational much later than the comparable British and U. S. classes described above, their design dates from the same time period. Emphasizing elaborate surveillance electronics—largest covered rotating three-dimensional radar afloat today—bow-mounted and VDS sonars, and the Malafon and Masurca ASW and AAW missile systems, all French-developed, these are impressive fleet escorts. Learning a lesson in propulsion exhaust control from the recently completed helicopter training cruiser Jeanne d’Arc, which had to have her funnel raised several meters, the Suffrens mount an impressively high single funnel just aft of the huge dome-covered 3D radar, the latter feeding SENIT, the French version of NTDS. Both of these ships have been justified in French Navy planning as AAW/ASW escorts for the new carriers Foch and Clemenceau. But since there will be no more French carriers, no further ships of this type are planned. The strictly ASW-oriented Type 67 destroyers, now building, are comparable in size and performance to the Suffren class and will probably emphasize the ASW role in the French carrier task forces. They are described under Destroyers.
Soviet Union
The only other nation which has undertaken the construction of DLG-type ships has been the Soviet Union which, alone of the four nations covered here, has no true carrier capability to justify their existence—at least for the present. The 4,750-ton “Kashin” class, appearing in 1962, represented a completely new approach in warship design which broke all precedent. These ships were gas turbine propelled, double-ended missile ships with twin Goa launchers, really a junior Russian version of the USS Leahy, but with important differences. Their bridges are rudimentary, just surface navigational positions, apparently with all important command and control functions buried within the hull. Furthermore, all important radar sensors are independently mounted on individual masts or pylons. These facts, coupled with periscopes abreast the bridge (as on other modern Soviet designs), lead to the conclusion that the “Kashins” are designed to operate in an unfavorable nuclear or biological environment with minimal manning above the main deck.
The all-gas-turbine installation, while rumored to have given trouble and tending to whine, makes these the first all-gas-propulsion destroyers in the world. They have shown the Sixth Fleet impressive acceleration capability. The success of the class is indicated by its steady increase in numbers, now up to some 16 ships, and the Soviets’ heavy use of it as a show ship. Now with the appearance of larger Soviet naval ships, such as the Moskva-class helicopter cruiser, this essentially defensive class of fleet escort makes more sense than she once did.
United States—II
As these foreign developments were taking place, however, the fourth generation of conventionally powered U. S. frigate was making its appearance. This was the nine-ship Belknap class (DLG-26) of 8,150 tons. In these ships the after missile installation was replaced by a single 5”/54 gun combined with the first designed-in DASH helicopter facility, including hangar. The Terrier launcher, located forward, was modified to handle ASROC as well, thus serving both AAW and ASW functions. This allows magazine loading flexibility and saves critical space topside. However, it is best in a multiple installation, since, if the launcher is down, all capability is lost. For the first time, NTDS was designed-in, a major advance, and, also for the first time, the bow-mounted SQS 26 sonar with its low frequency and long range was installed in a DLG. Thus the Belknaps have some of just about everything the U. S. Navy has developed for destroyers. In true destroyer fashion, these ships can perform any mission they are called upon to do. The question arises, however, if the individual size and investment justify the risk of using these ships in such tasks as shore bombardment or offensive ASW. The Belknaps really are fleet escorts which act best as command ships; thus they have assumed many of the functions of the cruiser. Ironically, growth for the sake of flexibility has contributed to the DLG’s demise. There will be no more conventionally powered U. S. frigates beyond the Belknap class.
With the success of nuclear propulsion in submarines during the mid-fifties, it was inevitable that the United States should explore the advantages of this form of power in her high-performance combat vessels. As a result, three nuclear-powered surface vessels were authorized in the late fifties: a carrier, the Enterprise (CVAN-65); a cruiser, the Long Beach (CGN-9); a frigate, the Bainbridge (DLGN-25), the last the smallest of the three at 8,600 tons. Basically a Leahy-class frigate with nuclear power (which accounts for most of the 800-ton growth), the Bainbridge has the same armament and sensors, in much the same arrangement. Operational in 1961 after a painful gestation period in a strike-ridden yard, she ushered in a new era of operating potential which could not be equalled by her conventionally powered, often troubled, high-pressure steam counterparts. Important reasons for the fewer propulsion problems can be laid not only to the less demanding lower steam temperatures and pressures compared to her oil-fired sisters, but also to the rigid quality control exercised in the production of the nuclear steam generation system though, unfortunately, at considerable cost.
As a result, despite her good record, successors to the Bainbridge have been slow in coming, the Truxtun (DLGN-35) commissioning five years later. Basically a Belknap-class frigate with the armament reversed (gun forward, missiles aft) but with the same basic weapons and sensors and the designed-in NTDS, she is a big (9,200-ton), impressive, and expensive ship. After a further five-year hiatus during which a third nuclear frigate was authorized then cancelled upon the demise of its expensive Typhon missile system, the two-ship 10,150-ton California class (DLGN-36) was authorized in Fiscal Year 1967. Now under construction after some administrative and congressional backing and filling, these ships attempt to remedy the deficiencies of the Belknap/Truxtun design by providing two 5”/54 guns and two Standard missile-launching systems with both improved low altitude AAW and surface-to-surface capability. The result, unfortunately, is further growth and these ships are cruisers in size and nearly the equivalent of conventional carriers in price. The Navy conducted an extensive in-house effort to integrate the electronics on these ships which include the new Mk 86 gun fire control and Tartar D missile control systems.
The final U. S. frigate class, which has undergone both Navy in-house concept formulation, where characteristics are established against requirements, and contract definition, where the design is expanded to contractual plans and specifications, is the DLGN-38 class of which there will be at least five. These are refinements of the DLGN-36 design with important changes. They include the new Mk 45 5”/54 lightweight guns and two of the new Mk 26 missile launching systems. The Mk 26 will be capable of handling Standard (AAW), ASROC (ASW), and perhaps Harpoon (SSW). The AAW functions will be controlled initially by Tartar D, but this will ultimately be replaced by the slowly developing Aegis weapon control system. There will also be the new digital Mk 116 underwater fire control system for ASW weapon delivery against multiple threats, combined with third generation NTDS. This should provide an impressive combat capability once all the programming problems are ironed out. There will be a helicopter hangar in the hull aft, the first since the Worcester- and Des Moines-class cruisers which were completed soon after World War II. The Navy would like more than twenty of these ships but currently is limited to just the five, procured at the rate of one per year.
FRIGATES
UNITED STATES
Class Name
Norfolk
Mitscher
Coontz
Leahy
Bainbridge
Belknap
Truxtun
California
Class Desig.
Class No.
DL-1
DL-2
DLG-9
DLG-16
DLGN-25
DLG-26
DLGN-35
DLGN-36
DLGN-38
Yr.
Operational
53
53-54
60-62
62-64
63
64-67
67
72-73
74
No. in Class
1
4
10
9
1
9
1
2
5 +
Displace-
ment
7,300
4,730
5,800
7,800
8,580
7,930
9,200
10,150
10,000
Length, OA
540
493
512
533
565
547
564
596
586
Beam
54.2
50
52.5
54.9
57.9
54.8
58
61
Draft
26
26
25
24.5
29
28.8
31
Power
80,000
80,000
85,000
85,000
60,000
85,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
Type
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
2 Reactors
Steam
2 Reactors
2 Reactors
2 Reactors
Screws
2
2
2
2
2
' 2
2
2
2
Speed
Endurance
32
35
34
34
30 +
34
30 +
30 +
30 +
Comple-
ment
411
336
375
396
450
418
500
500 +
500 +
Armament:
Guns
8—3”/70
2—5”/54
4—3”/70
1—5”/54
4—3”/50
4—3”/50
1—5”/54
2—3”/50
1—5”/54
2-5”/54
2—5”/54
Missile
launchers
None
None
1 Mk 10 (Terrier)
2 Mk 10 (Terrier)
2 Mk 10 (Terrier)
1 Mk 10 (Terrier & Asroc)
1 Mk 10 (Terrier & Asroc)
2 Mk 13 (Standard)
2 MK 26 (Standard & Asroc)
ASW
Asroc
2 Mk 32TT
4 Mk 32TT
Dash
Asroc
2 Mk 32TT
Asroc
2 Mk 32TT
Asroc
2 Mk 32TT
Helo
facilities
Dash
2 Mk 32TT
Helo
facilities
Dash
2 Mk 32TT
2 Mk 25TT
Asroc
2 Mk 32TT
Helo
facilities
Only the United States, so far, has felt that the advantages of nuclear power are sufficient to install it in its major surface combatants. This is in contrast to nuclear submarine construction where four nations have made the commitment and three more (Italy, The Netherlands, and Japan) are likely to when their finances and politics permit. If the Soviets are truly interested in effective naval forces which have the least possible dependence on conventional logistic support, they too may develop a nuclear-powered surface navy. There is no evidence of this at present.
[FRIGATES (cont.)]
UNITED KINGDOM
FRANCE
SOVIET UNION
Class Name
Class Desig.
“County”
Bristol
Type 82
Suffren
“Kashin”
“Kynda”
“Kresta”
All generally described in their
original configuration at time
they became operational
Class No.
COSAG = Combined steam and gas
turbine
Yr.
Operational
62-70
71
67-70
62-65
62-65
67-?
No. in Class
8
1
2
10
4
5 +
CODAG = Combined diesel and gas
turbine
Displace-
ment
6,200
6,750
5,700
5,200
6,000
7,000
CODOG = Combined diesel or gas
turbine
Length, OA
521
507
518.4
476
486
492
Beam
54
55
50.8
51
51
59.1
COGAG = Combined gas turbine
and gas turbine
Draft
20
22.5
19
16
Power
60,000
74,600
72,500
100,000
85,000
100,000
CP = Controllable pitch
Type
COSAG
COSAG
Steam
COGAG
Steam
Steam
Screws
2
2
2
2
2
2
Speed
32.5
32
34
35
35
34
Endurance
5000 @ 18
5000 @ 18
Comple-
ment
471
433
446
390
390
500
Armament:
Guns
4—4[.]5”
2—20mm
1—4.5”
2—3.9”
2—30mm
4—3”
5—TT
4—3”
6—TT
4—57mm
10—TT
Missile
launchers
1 Seaslug
1 Seadart
Masurca
2 GOA
2 Shaddock
Quads
1 GOA
2 Shaddock
Twins
2 GOA
ASW
Helo
facilities
Ikara
Limbo
Malafon
4—TT
2—12 bbl
rocket
launchers
2-6 bbl
rocket launchers
2—12 bbl
rocket
launchers
2—12 bbl
rocket
launchers
2-6 bbl rocket
launchers
Soviet Union II
Russia has brought forth one new class of large frigate type of destroyer or DLG. This is the “Kresta” class of 1964, which like the Belknap/Truxtuns, has a little of everything—though in the case of the Russian ships this includes surface-to-surface Shaddock missiles with a reported range of 400 miles. This 7,000-ton design has the new 57-mm. mount with its modern fire control equipment, the Goa surface-to-air missile launchers fore and aft, and impressive air surveillance and electronic warfare equipment. It is the first Soviet destroyer type with a helo hanger located aft in what must be a very wet landing area on the extreme end of the low stern. These ships are variously reported as all gas turbine or combined gas and diesel propelled. Actually conventional steam propulsion is most likely. They have a split stack exhaust similar to that on the DH-1052s, with large air search radar (Big Net) on top.
In June 1970 a modified version of the “Kresta” class was photographed as it transited from the Mediterranean. This new class variant has a much more sharply raked stem than its predecessor, apparently due to its bow mounted sonar, and carries the impressive 3D radar and missile fire control, systems first observed in the Moskva-class helicopter carriers. In addition, the new “Krestas” mount eight smaller missile containers, four abreast each side of the bridge replacing the similarly located two pairs of larger Shaddock missile tubes. The stack height has been increased significantly.
Brief mention should be made of the 6,000-ton “Kynda” class which first appeared in 1962. These destroyer-sized cruisers were the first Russian ships to take the Shaddock missile to sea, these being in two quadruple launchers which are trainable, a feature not included on the “Krestas.” Prominently mounted at either end of the ship, they are serviced by large magazines which permit them to carry a total of sixteen missiles. A Goa SAM launcher is installed near the bow, and there are two twin 76-mm. gun mounts aft. The “Kyndas” also were the first ships to appear with the new ASW rocket launchers. Propulsion in this class may include both steam and gas driven components, since the two stacks are quite different in appearance. There may even be main propulsion diesels which would provide the endurance these ships have displayed in their stays with the Sixth Fleet or deployments to Cuba. In any case, they are designed around a significant offensive missile capability which removes them from the standard destroyer role.
In summary, except for the “Kynda” and “Kresta” classes, frigates justify their existence by supporting task forces of high value. This means supplying impressive command and control facilities, as well as effective antiair and antisubmarine capability, all of which results in an impressive price.
With the exception of the United States and the Soviet Union, no nation is continuing with the development of the frigate type.
Destroyers
United States—I
Officially, the destroyer must do everything the frigate can, but with less emphasis on command functions. The first postwar American interpretation of this general requirement was the 4,050-ton Forrest Sherman class of 18 ships, built during the fifties. These were, perhaps, the best looking destroyers ever built by the United States. They were conventional in layout, with three of the then new 5”/54 rapid-fire guns, two aft and one forward, controlled by the new Mk 68 director supplemented by a wartime Mk 56. To improve seakeeping, the Shermans have a longer bow with much greater freeboard than their predecessors. Unlike all previous destroyer classes, they mounted no standard torpedo tubes, and they were the last all-gun destroyers the United States was to build. As such, they are fast disappearing as they undergo conversion: four to DDGs with a Mk 13 Tartar aft and one 5”/54 forward, probably the ugliest destroyers the United States has ever created; and eight to ASW configuration, with an ASROC and updated electronics at the expense of one 5-inch gun.
The Charles F. Adams (DDG-2) class, which followed, has been the best all-round postwar destroyer the United States has produced. At 4,500 tons, these ships are an expansion of the Forrest Sherman design, sacrificing the Number 3 5-inch mount for the new Mk 11 Tartar missile system and its associated guidance and acquisition radars. Improvements within the Adams class include installing the single arm Mk 13 launcher beginning with DDG-15 and the bow-mounted, rather than the kee-mounted [sic], SQS 23 starting with DDG-20. This sonar provides target information to the new ASROC system located between the stacks. All have had Tacan added to aid in air control. The DDG-2s do not have NTDS, helicopter facilities, the SQS 26 sonar, or the standard of accommodation now required in all U. S. destroyer designs. They are in fact a good, low freeboard design with little growth capability remaining, although a compact version of NTDS may ultimately be installed. Six near sisters, three German and three Australian, combine with the 23 U. S. ships to make this one of the largest destroyer classes created in the last 20 years. The Germans have squeezed a modified form of NTDS into theirs while the Australians, have substituted their excellent Ikara ASW system for the U. S. ASROC.
France
Destroyers were relatively slow in coming to the world’s postwar fleets. England, as mentioned before, gave them up. France, however, her surface fleet largely destroyed by war, undertook the construction of the eighteen vessels of the Surcouf class, similar in size, layout, and performance to the Forrest Shermans but with three twin mount, rather than three single mount, 5-inch guns. Completed during the fifties, these ships have since undergone extended modification and modernization. Four now have a U. S. Mk 13 Tartar launcher aft, while six are in the process of conversion to ASW escorts with the Malafon antisubmarine rocket-launched torpedo, and new French hull-borne and variable depth sonars of greater power. Helicopters can be operated from these D’Estrées conversions.
Soviet Union
The only other nation to pursue conventional destroyer development immediately after World War II was Russia which, as part of its push for a large postwar navy, went all the way. It launched the 75-ship, 3,500-ton Skory class. These ships, a logical development from previous Russian destroyer designs, had four 5.1” single-purpose guns in twin mounts, divided machinery spaces, and high speed, coupled with conventional good looks. By far the largest single destroyer program anywhere of the postwar period, these ships are roughly the equivalent to the U. S. Gearing class of World War II, and the majority of those remaining are believed to be in reserve or in reduced status. Although there has been some modest updating of electronics, none has undergone major modernization equivalent to the FRAM destroyer program in the United States. Russia has given or sold over a dozen to nations of Europe, Asia, and Africa, where they serve largely in a patrol or prestige capacity.
In 1953, the Soviets followed the Skorys with the experimental single prototype, the 4,300-ton Nastoichivyi, its first flush deck destroyer which was apparently unsuccessful for it was never put into production. This ship was followed by the 25-ship “Kotlin” class of the late fifties, the first true Soviet postwar design to reach operational status. Although they have the separated machinery spaces of the Skorys, they break with the past in having sharply raked bows and flush-deck hulls. The “Kotlins” have dual-purpose, stabilized 5.1-inch mounts fore and aft, with individual radar directors supplementing the very German-looking stabilized optical director. The displacement of these low, good looking ships is around 4,000 tons. Modifications to this class have been extensive, indicating the Soviet belief that the class is good enough to retain in effective status. Several have been converted to Goa DDGs with a single launcher aft. ASW helicopter platforms have been added on the stern and ASW capabilities generally have been updated, the Russians relying on their multi-barrel ASW rocket launchers which, presumably, are directed by keel-mounted sonar.
The “Kotlins” have been followed by the six “Kildins,” which basically have the same hull but smaller stacks, indicating possibly higher steam conditions. In these ships the after conventional armament has been replaced with a 150-mile, air-breathing Strela surface-to-surface missile installation, the first of its kind.
Expanding on the Strela destroyer concept, the Russians produced around ten of the larger (4,600-ton) “Krupny” class, with two Strela launchers, one at each end. The “Krupnys” are less capable, earlier versions of the “Kyndas” and, like them, are difficult to classify as destroyers. These ships complete the Soviet shift from conventional gun armament to large, more complex surface-to-surface missile systems. The “Krupnys” and “Kildins” represent a unique Russian ship type which is not found elsewhere in the world and which has given the West considerable pause. Apparently, the Soviets themselves have had second thoughts, for several of the Strela ships have been modified to DDGs with a single Goa installation aft, thus assuming an essentially defensive role.
All of these Russian destroyer classes have conventional steam propulsion, coupled with relatively high power. Their ASW armament consists of a keel-mounted sonar directing the now standard multi-barrel ASW rocket launchers. Recently this has been augmented by the ability to support ASW helicopters aft. It is significant that there have been no new general-purpose Soviet destroyers for some years, the Soviets proceeding to their third generation of postwar ships, that of the “Kynda,” “Kashin,” and “Kresta” classes, all previously discussed, all of which carry their own air defense missiles.
Italy
Starting practically from scratch, Italy began new destroyer construction under the aegis of NATO and with U. S. help on the 3,800-ton Impetuoso class of 1950. These ships mount four U. S. 5”/38 in twin mounts controlled by a U. S. Mk 37 director. They have been followed by the two Impavidos, which are a slightly expanded design with a U. S. Mk 13 Tartar launcher and its associated directors aft, in place of the after 5-inch mount. Entering service in the sixties, they carry four single OTO Malera 3”/62 AA guns amidships, and an Italian main battery director. Like the U. S. Coontz class, they were modified to their present missile configuration after an all-gun design was substantially complete.
Italy’s fifth and sixth postwar destroyers, the two of the Audace class, are under construction. These good- looking ships will carry the new OTO Malera rapid-fire 5”/54 in two single mounts forward, four 3”/63 guns amidships, and Standard missile aft, as well as a complete manned helicopter facility, including hangar. Their antisubmarine equipment includes an Edo-built sonar comparable to the SQS 23 directing the Mk 32 torpedo launchers and the ASW helicopter. From an over-all design standpoint, the new Audace class is one of the best, really a steam-powered version of the American DX, with Standard missiles. All of this is accomplished on 4,400 tons.
Financially strapped, the Italian Navy has contributed little in the way of destroyer numbers but her designs and, increasingly, her technology are contributing to the destroyer state of the art. The Italians have led the way in automated propulsion, coupled with the ability to seal their newer destroyers for 48 hours against a contaminated environment. Thus, their machinery can be remotely operated while the crew continues work, using filtered, pressurized air as the ship passes through a nuclear fallout zone. In addition, all recent Italian ships mounting helicopters have active fin stabilization, either Denny Brown or Sperry.
Germany
Germany, the other major European loser in World War II, has completed only four postwar destroyers of their own design, these being the 4,300-ton ships of the Hamburg class. Since the Germans were not then allowed to consider surface-to-air missiles, the Hamburgs are built around the French 100-mm. automated gun, the only one available at the time. Impressive for their well-thought-out detail, excellent construction, and elaborate electronics, these ships bear little resemblance to their wartime predecessors. In their NATO-oriented role they will operate in the restricted waters of the Baltic exits and the North Sea, where good air cover will not always be available. This may place undue reliance on their four-gun 100-mm. main battery. Ultimately, one or more of these guns may be replaced by some form of surface-to-air missile installation.
Germany, as mentioned before, has acquired three modified Charles F. Adams class DDGs as part of a balance of payments agreement with the United States. These provide a Standard missile capability so that air defense may be interrelated between ships by the new command and control system, SATIR, which the German Navy is developing slowly. This means that ultimately the new 380-ton, high-speed missile boats currently planned would be effectively tied to the present force, thus providing a unified combat system of great potential spread through several hulls. U. S. industry is potentially involved from an equipment and management standpoint.
United Kingdom
England, like Russia, has developed new destroyer designs which are hard to classify as true destroyers. During the long postwar period she relied on updated conversions, largely electronically oriented, of her wartime destroyer force and on the many general-purpose frigates (British definition) built during the past twenty years to perform her destroyer tasks. Currently, however, England is building four new 3,500-ton ships of the Type 42 class which represent the most modern in Western destroyer technology. These ships have all-gas-turbine propulsion (COGOG), the new Mk 8 4.5”-gun, and the Sea Dart, a second generation medium-range missile. ASW activities will be handled by a manned helicopter in the form of the new Anglo-French WG 13, really a European LAMPS vehicle. Ship performance will be high, providing fleet speeds. The first ship should enter service in 1973, a year before the American DD-963. Like their bigger sisters, these ships will have Action Data Automation, the British equivalent to NTDS.
DESTROYERS
UNITED STATES
UNITED KINGDOM
FRANCE
Class Name
Sherman
Adams
Decatur
Mitscher
Spruance
Daring
Sheffield
Surcouf
La Galissonniere
Class Desig.
Type 42
T47-53
T56
T-67
Class No.
DD 931
DDG 2
DDG 31
DDG 35
DD 963
Yr.
Operational
56-59
60-64
67-68
68-69
73-?
52-55
72-?
56-58
62
73
No. in Class
18
23
4
2
30-?
8
4 +
17
1
2 +
Displace-
ment
4,050
4,500
4,050
5,100
7,180
3,600
3,500 +
3,850
3,910
5,580
Length, OA
418
437
418
493
560
390
421
436
467
Beam
45
47
45
50
54
43
42.6
41.7
50.2
Draft
20
20
20
26
18
18
18
Power*
70,000
70,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
54,000
54,400
63,000
63,000
57,300
Type
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
COGAG
Steam
COGOG
Steam
Steam
Steam
Propeller
2
2
2
2
2—CP
2
2—CP
2–CP
2
2
Speed
33
32
32
35
30 +
31.5
30 +
34
34.5
30
Endurance
4,400@20
5000@18
4900@18
5000@18
Comple-
ment
333
354
335
370
260
297
270
293
333
300
Armament:
Guns
3—5”/54
4—3”/50
2—5”/54
1—5”/54
2—5”/54
2—5”/54
6—4.5”
6—40mm
5—21”TT
1—4.5”
6—5”
6—57mm
6—21.7TT
2—3.9”
3—3.9”
Torpedos
Missile
launchers
None
1—Mk 11
or Mk 13 (Tartar)
1—Mk 13
(Tartar)
1—Mk 13
(Tartar)
Sea
Sparrow
None
Sea Dart
None
None
None
ASW
2—Mk
32TT
ASROC
2—Mk
32 TT
ASROC
2—Mk
32TT
ASROC
2—Mk
32TT
ASROC
Mk 32TT
Helo.
facilities
2 Manned
Helos.
1 Squid
Helo.
facilities
WG 13
Helo.
6TT
Malafon
Helo.
facilities
1 Helo.
6TT
Malafon
Helo.
facilities
2 WG 13
A/S rocket
launcher
* Power is maximum available in any one mode of operation.
Sweden
Two other European nations have completed significant postwar destroyer designs, although only one is pursuing the development of destroyers at present. The former, Sweden, built eight destroyers of three classes for herself, plus two for export to Colombia. With completion of the last of the four ships of the 2,600-ton Östergötland class in 1959, however, Sweden turned to a different form of naval defense which emphasizes small, fast surface and underwater defense vessels, namely torpedo gunboats and small submarines. The 3 Swedish Navy has no plans for any new destroyers, although it continually updates the ones it has, having installed a surface-to-surface missile, the SAAB Rb08, on the Halland and Smaland. This interesting missile is a Swedish derivative of the French CT 20 target drone, presumably with a range of about 20 miles. In addition, the four-ship Östergötland class now carries the British Sea Cat surface-to-air point defense missile. The two earliest ships, Oland and Uppland, single stack designs completed right after World War II, are really enlarged extensions of prewar Swedish destroyer designs.
The Netherlands
The Netherlands completed twelve destroyers of two nearly identical classes during the mid-fifties which are outstanding examples of 3,000-ton conventional de stroyer design prior to the introduction of shipboard missiles and elaborate underwater weapons and sensors. Each of these ships, like those of Sweden, has four Bofors 4.7” guns in two twin mounts, Bofors ASW mortars, and Dutch surveillance and fire control systems. After a ten-year hiatus during which they lost their last direct holdings in Southeast Asia, the Dutch are now building two NATO-oriented 5,400-ton ships which they describe as DLGs but which are a bit hard to classify. They are closest to the British Type 42, having the same power plant—COGOG gas turbine. Their armament will be typical of the modern European destroyer, with a Bofors twin 4.7-inch mount forward and a Mk 13 Standard launcher aft over an ASW helicopter hangar. These ships are building slowly and may change in detail by 1975, their scheduled operational date.
[DESTROYERS (cont.)]
NETHERLANDS
WEST GERMANY
ITALY
JAPAN
Class Name
Holland
Friesland
Hamburg
Lütjens
Indomito
lmpavido
Audace
Akizuki
Takatsuki
Class Desig.
D808
D812
DLG
D181
D185
D558
D570
161
164
DDH
Class No.
Yr.
Operational
55-56
56-58
74-75
64-68
69-70
58
63-64
72-73
60
68-69
72-?
No. in Class
4
8
2
4
3
2
2
2
2
4
1 +
Displace-
ment
2,765
3,070
5,400
4,330
4,500
3,800
3,940
4,400
2,890
4,000
6,000
Length, OA
371
381
453
440
440
418.7
429.5
446.4
387.2
446.2
497
Beam
37.5
38.5
48.5
44
47
43.5
44.7
46.7
39.4
44
57.4
Draft
16.8
17
15
17
15
17.5
14.8
15
13
14.5
16.75
Power
45,000
60,000
54,400
68,000
70,000
65,000
70,000
73,000
45,000
60,000
70,000
Type
Steam
Steam
COGOG
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Screws
2
2
2—CP
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Speed
32-40
36-42
30
35.8
36
34
33
33
32
32
32
Endurance
4,000@18
920@35
8,000@20
3400@20
3300@20
Comple-
ment
247
284
310
282
337
350
344
376
330
270
Armament:
Guns
4—4.7”
4—4.7”
2—4.7”
4—3.9”
2—5”/54
4—5"/38 16—40mm
2—5”/54 4—3”/62
2—5”/54 4—3”/62
3—5”/54
4—3"/50
4—21”TT
2—5”/54
2-5”/54
Missile
launchers
None
None
1 Mk 13
(Tartar or
Standard)
None
1 Mk 13
(Standard)
None
1 Mk 13
(Tartar)
1 Mk 13
(Standard)
None
None
None
ASW
2-4 bbl
D/C
Mortars
Helo.
facilities
WG-13
2-4 bbl
D/C
mortars
ASROC
2—Mk
32TT
1-3 bbl
mortar
2—Mk
32TT
2—Mk
32 TT
2 Mk
32TT
Helo.
facilities +
2 Helos.
1 Wep “A”
Hedgehog
ASROC
Dash
ASROC
Helo.
facilities
3-SH3
Helos.
2—Mk
32TT
The Dutch, in contrast to the Germans’ coastal viewpoint, are constructing a small, modern deep-water navy, much like the Canadians. Their emphasis is on ASW task groups for the protection of shipping in the Eastern Atlantic, with the immediate development of increased antiair capability a matter of major concern. Like the Canadians, the Dutch consider the helicopter an increasingly important extension of each ship’s capability. At least one additional AOR is planned (at present there is only the Poolster) to provide extended logistic support at sea for the Dutch task groups. The latter will be drawn from the 20 constantly updated frigates and destroyers now authorized.
Japan
The Japanese, who are located in the world’s largest ocean and who are increasing their international economic presence at an impressive rate, remain one of the countries with continued interest in conventional destroyers. In methodical Japanese fashion, all first-class destroyers, those discussed here, have been identified with bow numbers from 161 on. There are seven such ships so far, the first completed in 1960 and the last ten years later. Of the three basic designs, one, the Amatsukaze, has the Mk 13 Tartar launcher aft, the remaining six being conventional all-gun destroyers. The two Akizuki-class ships completed in 1960 are Japan’s first true postwar destroyers. Built under the Military Aid Program (U. S. numbers DD-960 and 961), they displace 2,900 tons. Each mounts three surplus 5”/54 guns from the Midway class and four U. S. 3”/50s in twin mounts.
The four latest ships of the 4,000-ton Takatsuki-class are very similar in armament layout to the U. S. DE-1040. These flush-decked ships are true destroyers, however, for they have the improved Mk 42 5”/54s, divided machinery spaces, twin screws, and nearly twice the DE-1040 horsepower—60,000 vs 35,000. Detail on these ships is well thought out and, with their straightforward uncluttered lines, they are impressive. The Japanese have stayed with strictly conventional steam propulsion and gun armament. Aside from the Amatsukaze, there are no surface-to-air missile installations. In contrast to the United States, which is discontinuing the system, the Japanese continue to operate successfully the U. S. Dash unmanned helicopter torpedo delivery system from five of these ships. A Japanese development of the U. S. SQS 23 sonar provides target information.
It would appear, however, with the completion of the Takatsuki class, that future Japanese destroyer designs may change. Japan has been struggling for some years with the development of a destroyer able to carry three ASW helicopters the size of the SH 3. This design, authorized in the 1968 budget, has now been finalized and will result in a DDH of at least 5,600 tons. These ships, therefore, may be built only in limited numbers. This could leave a continuing requirement for a more moderately-sized ship if large numbers are required. Perhaps recognizing the advantages of gas turbine power and surface-to-air missiles, Japan may then upgrade her next interpretation of the 100 series destroyer to provide whatever fleet escorts she may require. The new DDH, however, will be an interesting ship with the after third devoted to helicopter operations.
DESTROYERS [cont.]
JAPAN
SWEDEN
SOVIET UNION
Class Name
Amatsukaze
Halland
Östergötland
Skoryi
“Kotlin”
“Kotlin”
“Kildin”
“Krupnyi”
“Kanin”
Class Desig.
DDG
DDG
Class No.
163
J18
J20
Yr.
Operational
65
55-56
58-59
52-56
56-58
61-67
59-60
61-63
68
No. in Class
1
2
4
75
19
5
4
8
2
Displace-
ment
4,000
3,200
2,600
3,100
3,885
3,885
4,000
4,560
4,600
Length, OA
4298
397.2
380
394
418.3
418.3
418.3
456
456
Beam
44
41.3
36.8
39.4
42.4
42.4
42.4
49
49
Draft
13.8
14.8
12
15
15
15
15
18.1
18.1
Power
60,000
58,000
40,000
70,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
Type
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Propeller
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Speed
33
35
35
36
36
36
36
34
34
Endurance
3000 @ 20
2200 @ 20
4000 @ 15
Comple-
ment
290
290
244
260
285
285
300
Armament:
Guns
4—3”/50
4—4.7”
2—57mm
6 40mm
8—21”TT
4—4.7”
7—40mm
6—21”TT
4—5.1”
2—3.3”
8—37mm
10—21”TT
4—5.1”
16—47mm
10—21”TT
2—5.1”
4—57mm
5—21”TT
16—57mm
6TT
16—57mm
6TT
8—57mm
10 TT
Missile
launchers
1 Mk 13
(Tartar)
1 SS
launcher
1 Seacat
None
None
1 GOA
1 STRELA
2 STRELA
1 GOA
ASW
2-Hedge-hogs
DASH
2—4 bbl
mortars
1—4 bbl
mortar
4 DC
Throwers
80 mines
6 DC
Throwers
80 mines
2—12 bbl
Rocket
launcher
2—16 bbl
rocket
launchers
2—16 bbl
Rocket
launchers
3—12 bbl
Rocket
launchers
Besides Japan, Canada is building ships in this category, and the Italians have small cruisers of the same general type. All three make a major commitment to aviation: helicopters, at first, but perhaps ultimately VTOL. It is a promising direction in which to go if airborne ASW continues to increase in effectiveness, if extended offshore operations are required, or if ASW carriers are not available. With her DDHs, Japan’s ASW-oriented Navy continues to build at a steadily increasing pace in order to meet its growing responsibilities as the American naval presence decreases and the Russian Pacific Fleet continues to grow. The only concern may be that the Japanese Navy’s growth is too slow to provide a modern, balanced force of appropriate size and age on a timely basis. Japan must patrol the Sea of Japan as well as an area to the south of the many islands bounded by Asia, the Philippines, and the Marianas chain, an area much larger than the Mediterranean. Ultimately, this means a far larger naval force than the one she has now. Japan faces problems across two very different bodies of water much like England. Unlike England, which is part of NATO, she faces them largely alone.
United States II
In the United States, new destroyer construction paused during the late sixties. While there were DDG-2 class modifications and the Forrest Sherman and McCain conversions, most effort was devoted to making the missile systems on the existing ships more effective. New destroyer designs were developed by the Navy for the FY 67 and 68 construction programs, including the first with gas turbine propulsion, but these foundered under pressure from DOD and Congress, the latter substituting DLGNs (DLGN-36 and 37). These ships would have displaced around 7,500 tons and, as expanded versions of the DDG-2, would have carried ASROC mounted forward, the new lightweight 5"/54 gun, and the Standard missile, but no enclosed helicopter facility. This marked size increase over the DDG-2 was occasioned partially by the growth in electronics (CIC, Tartar D missile control system, the advanced volume scanning SPS 48 radar, and the much larger SQS 26 sonar) and improved accommodation allowance for a large crew. In addition, the steam version went to a larger, lower pressure and lower temperature steam plant which, combined with increased clearances, greatly increased machinery space size. The net result was a spiraling in size and cost to that approximating the DLG-26 class.
In 1968, with the 127 FRAM conversions nearing the end of their already extended useful lives, industry was called in to participate in the design of a new destroyer class, the operational characteristics of which had been determined by extended internal study within the Navy. The resulting DD-963 contract, awarded to Litton in June 1970, provides for the construction of thirty 7,100-ton destroyers under closely controlled conditions at one yard so that maximum production economies can be realized. Even so, the resulting ship at $83.4 million a copy will be the largest destroyer built to date for any navy. It will also be the first U. S. destroyer ever designed by industry. It includes many features new to the U. S. Navy, such as two of the new 5”/54 lightweight guns controlled by the new Mk 86 digital fire control system. Its combat system will be digitally integrated around the new AN/UYK 7 computers, another necessary first, and it will have an all gas turbine propulsion system (COGAG) driving two controllable pitch propellers, the latter the most powerful built anywhere to date. ASW systems contribute appreciably to the ship’s size. These will be the first U. S. destroyers with both the bow-mounted SQS 26 and the SQS 35 Independent Variable Depth Sonar (IVDS), the latter selectively installed. The Mk 116 underwater fire control system will direct ASROC, Mk 32 torpedo tubes, and the helicopters.
There will be two manned helicopters (LAMPS vehicles), once that program is firmed, and Sea Sparrow Point Defense. Of interest for the long haul, considering the U. S. Navy experience with the DLG classes, is the DD-963’s design for ready modification and conversion, a Navy requirement right from the start. Thus, advanced weapons and sensors can be added and obsolescent ones removed much more cheaply in terms of both time and cost than with currently operational designs. Ultimately, the ships are to be capable of conversion to DDGs with the installation of the new Mk 26 Standard/ASROC combined launcher, now under development, and Tartar D missile fire control. All in all, their design will provide a large, flexible ship for the seventies and eighties. The first ship, the Spruance (DD-963), is scheduled for completion in 1974.
Destroyer Escorts
Finally, there is the destroyer escort, ocean escort, junior destroyer, or frigate, the last a term used by many navies for this type of smaller escort ship. Most popular in terms of numbers and concerned mainly with ASW, these ships represent less unit investment than full-sized destroyers, a point that makes them attractive to any navy. To date over 400 have been added to the world’s fleets since the end of World War II. By U. S. definition, the mission of this type is to screen support forces and convoys, while operating offensively against submarines. The destroyer escort seldom has an air defense capability other than for self-protection (point defense), and has only limited command facilities.
United States—I
During the early fifties, the United States, England, France, and Russia all produced moderate sized destroyer escorts of less than 2,000 tons, incorporating each nation’s interpretation of the lessons of World War II, combined with the latest in antisubmarine technology and hull seaworthiness. The United States, starting with the 1,980-ton Dealey (DE-1006) class, has progressed from that conventional class of 13 ships armed with Weapon Alpha, to the four diesel-powered ships of the 1,930-[ton] Claude Jones (DE-1033) class, designed for mass production, to complete the first generation of U. S. postwar escort ships. The diesels, incidentally, appeared to offer an attractive alternate propulsion source in the event large numbers of escorts were needed coincident with other steam-driven ships during an emergency. This, however, assumed low power and lax self noise requirements—possible before the days of the SQS 26 sonar.
However, the two ships of the Bronstein (DE-1037) class, developed in the late fifties, followed the beat of a different drummer. These ships initiated the marked growth in destroyer escort size which has characterized all U. S. and foreign ocean escorts attempting to combine the latest in weapons and sensors with extended ASW operations at sea. The driven 2,650-ton Bronsteins returned to steam and were expanded to incorporate hull stabilization, the SQS 26 sonar, a DASH hangar, and ASROC. These ships, largely transitional in nature, were followed in the early sixties by the ten of the 3,400-ton Garcia (DE-1040) class and their six close, missile-armed sisters, a U. S. first, the Brooke (DEG-1) class. Here the gun armament was increased in caliber for the first time since World War II to include two of the plentiful 5”/38 single mounts. In the Brookes the after 5-inch gun was replaced with the limited capacity Mk 22 Tartar missile system designed as a one-for-one replacement for the 5”/38. The increase in ship size in these two classes necessitated an increase in ship power from the standard 20,000 to 35,000 SHP, half that in the twin-screw DDGS, but still, as has been the case on all postwar U. S. DEs, driving a single propeller. The DE-1040 boilers were of a new compact, supercharged design requiring distillate fuel to operate. After some teething problems, primarily with the boilers, these ships have proven useful additions to the Fleet. They are the near equal of the FRAM ships, particularly in a seaway, and thus have undertaken most destroyer tasks off Vietnam.
The DE-1040 ASW equipment includes the improved SQS-AXR sonar, ASROC, Mk 32 torpedo launchers, and improved DASH facilities. The stern-mounted Mk 25 ASW torpedo tubes have been removed and, except in a few ships, the DASH hangar is no longer used although LAMPS may eventually restore it to its original function. Ultimately some form of surface-to-air missile system should be mounted in all of this class. The Bradley (DE-1041) had a prototype Sea Sparrow installation. The Garcias have been followed by the 4,100-ton Knox (DE-1052) and the almost identical Hewes (DE-1078) classes. Together, the last two classes add up to 46 ships which just now are reaching the Fleet. Having their genesis when the ASW problem was at its height, block obsolescence of the World War II destroyers was a fact, and new destroyer construction was prohibited by DOD and Congress, these ships are an expansion of the DE-1040 design. They carry a single 5”/54 and return to conventional boilers, which is the primary reason for their increased size. Ultimately, they will mount the SQS 35 IVDS to complement their bow-mounted SQS 26 CX, the latter being the latest and best in the series. The new Independent Variable Depth Sonar is the first U. S. Variable Depth Sonar not to share a portion of its electronics with the basic hull-mounted sonars that are on board.
These ships await the development of LAMPS and ultimately may see the installation of a missile system on the main deck aft, similar to that in the five of this class being built in Spain. The Knoxs are replacing the tired FRAM destroyers, not necessarily by design, but because there is no alternative. They handle this replacement with a better hull, fewer men, and more space. Fortunately their performance is better than their designed 27 knots.
It should be pointed out, however, that in all of the two-boiler DEs, the higher fleet escort speeds, say above 22 knots, require the entire plant to be lit off. The older four-boiler destroyers can often handle corresponding speed requirements with a maximum of three, thus providing a reserve if one boiler is down or in need of repair. This is important in sustained carrier support operations, for example, for continuous full plant employment not only involves heavy use of equipment but also of the people who must man it.
United Kingdom
The Royal Navy has pursued its frigate (destroyer escort) program with good results during the past twenty years, turning out 68 ships in the process. The 2,650-ton Type 12 was initially designed as one of a family of diesel-powered antisubmarine (A/S), antiaircraft (A/A), and aircraft direction (A/D) ships based on World War II experience. The final Type 12 design was born when steam was substituted for diesel to provide greater performance. The 15 Type 12 ships of the Rothesay and Whitby classes, with their ASW Limbo rocket projectors and one 4.5-inch twin mount, have since developed into the improved 2,800-ton Leander class of 26 ships, designed to perform a more general independent patrol mission than their U. S. DE counterparts.
Thirty-seven of these ships have been built for four nations, including six for The Netherlands, three for India, and two for New Zealand. These fine, seaworthy ships have most of the characteristics of a true destroyer: guns, sensors (including VDS), manned ASW helicopter weapon delivery, and Sea Cat missiles. As true destroyers, however, they are moderately deficient in power (30,000 SHP), speed (30 knots), and propulsion compartmentation. The last two of the Leander class are still under construction even as plans are under way to modernize the rest of them with Ikara and new missile systems.
The late fifties also saw the development of the 2,700-ton Type 81, or “Tribal” class, which became operational in the early sixties. These seven ships were noteworthy for having COSAG propulsion, with one-third the power found in the “Country” [sic] class DLGs, driving a single screw. The “Tribals” were England’s first ships with designed-in A/S helicopter facilities and were laid out along the lines of the British post World War II destroyer conversions. They have not been repeated, but many of their characteristics have been incorporated in the later Leander-class ships.
As mentioned above, the Type 12s were originally conceived shortly after World War II as one of three diesel-powered escort designs. The other two specialized escort types (A/D and A/A) retained their original diesel propulsion, although neither has been repeated since many of their characteristics have also been absorbed in the general-purpose Leanders. These two classes are the four 2,520-ton diesel-powered, Type 41 Leopards. completed in 1958 as antiaircraft (A/A) escorts with the heaviest armament of any of the Royal Navy frigates—four 4.5-inch in two twin mounts. They have long endurance, but a complicated, 8-unit power plant which at first gave some trouble. In addition, four nearly identical Type 61 s, the Salisbury class, were completed at the same time. These ships are radar pickets (A/D), with elaborate electronic surveillance and air control equipment which has been progressively updated. The Type 41 and 61 ships were the Royal Navy’s first and only postwar diesel-powered escorts. Much as in the diesel-powered Claude Jones class in the United States, diesel technology at the time did not provide sufficient power for the propulsion weight and space available.
The 12 remaining ships built in Britain, the 1,456-ton Type 14, or Blackwood class, were small, lightly built and lightly crewed single-shaft ASW frigates completed between 1955 and 1958, the smallest of their type in the Free World. They were armed with two Limbo antisubmarine mortars and a pair of 40-mm. guns. One, the Exmouth, has been converted to COGOG propulsion, with one Olympus and two Proteus engines, really a prototype for the future Type 21 and 42 series. Three of the others, though fairly new, are already slated for disposal.
Taking a completely new approach, England has now embarked on the 2,500-ton Type 21, or Amazon class. An industry-developed design springing from the Vosper Mk 5-Mk 7 small destroyer series, this class will be as unique to the Royal Navy as the DD-963 is to the United States. These high-performance vessels will have gas turbine (COGOG) propulsion with controllable-pitch propellers, standard now with the new British destroyer classes. There will be Sea Cat missiles aft and the ASW problem will be handled by a WG 13 helicopter carried in a hangar. Hopefully, the Type 21s will provide more effectiveness per hull with their modern combat systems and propulsion than do the Leanders. Certainly, the Amazons will provide a more effective ship than the earlier designs, tuned less to England’s former worldwide interests and more to her European/NATO commitments. Small size, minimum reaction time, and rapid acceleration plus increasing dependence on the helicopter summarize the current British designs. The even newer, 3,00Q-ton Type 22 presumably will also follow this trend. This will be the first design to mount the new Sea Wolf short-range surface-to-air point defense missile system advertised as having an anti-missile capability, a major advance. Neither Types 21, 22, or 42 will carry Limbo. Torpedoes, instead, will be delivered either by helicopter or by Ikara, in the case of the larger classes.
The Netherlands
The Netherlands, with her commitments to protect offshore shipping, has turned increasingly to the frigate, or ocean escort, as she has updated her naval forces. Thus, the last of the World War II destroyers have been replaced by six Dutch-built modifications of the British Leander class. These ships have Dutch (HSA) electronics and fire-control equipment as well as U. S. (Edo) developed hull-mounted and variable-depth sonars. The last of the six was completed in 1968.
Four new 3,000-ton general-purpose frigates—this time of all-Dutch design—are now being developed to replace the four middle-aged Holland-class destroyers mentioned previously. Designed primarily for ASW and “crisis control,” they will have guns and a basic point defense missile system, probably NATO Sea Sparrow. These ships will be completed by 1975, with eight more advanced replacements for the Friesland class planned for 1975-80.
France
France has followed her 18 Le Corse- and Le Normand-class DEs, very similar to the U. S. Dealeys in size but slightly faster and mounting French weapons and sensors, with the nine 2,100-ton Commandant Riviere class. These 26.5-knot, diesel-driven ships have been designed largely for independent operation in a variety of roles much like the British Leanders. They are smaller and slower than the British ships and can support a helicopter only by removing one of their three 100-mm. mounts. France has sold four additional ships of this design to Portugal, but French interest in the class has waned as the need for these long endurance ships has diminished. As a result, two of the nine have been fitted with experimental propulsion plants which will aid in defining the new designs to follow.
This, the 3,600-ton Aconit which was developed in the late sixties is a very different ship from her predecessors, much more heavily ASW-oriented, and larger as a result. Because her mission is not patrol but fleet ASW defense, she is comparable in size and characteristics to the U. S. Garcia class. The Aconit will have both large bow-mounted and variable-depth sonars, a long-range ASW missile system (Malafon), a medium-range ASW mortar, two ASW torpedo tubes, and ASW helicopters. She has a single shaft, steam propulsion, and a maximum speed of 26.5 knots.
The Aconit class has been cut from five ships to one, as, with very limited funding, France searches for the proper solution to her ASW problems. The latest answer is the higher-performance Type 67, two of which were laid down in 1970 and which will be completed about the time the first DD-963 commissions. Like the DD-963, these ships really are ASW destroyers in performance, armament, and size. They are twin-shaft ships carrying Malafon and a pair of WG 13 helicopters, having thus grown to an impressive 5,600 tons. Their range will be less than that of the DD-963, but, at 30 knots, their speed will be about the same. Unlike any other Western ship so far discussed, they will be armed with a surface-to-surface missile, the 23-mile “Exocet” MM-38. French destroyer escort development stops with the Type 67, with nothing further planned for this category in the seventies.
France is developing a family of Avisos or corvettes, Types A69, A70 and AR70, for coastal surveillance, ASW and protection. These 1250 to 1350-ton vessels may replace the then 20 year old E50 and E52 class ships. They do not appear to be true destroyer escorts with the possible exception of the 30 knot AR70 ships. Designed primarily for coastal protection duties, they lie somewhere between the Japanese 200 series ASW ships and the Russian Petya and Mirka classes, the CODOG AR70s resembling the latter two in particular.
Italy
Italy has developed several interesting escort designs, all providing increasing accommodation for the helicopter which has been growing in size.
That country’s first true postwar escorts were the four 2,200-ton ships of the Gentauro class, operational in 1957, the first two being funded by the United States (with American numbers for funding purposes—DE-1020 and -1031). These ships were steam-driven and carried two unique 76-mm. twin mounts with the barrels vertically superposed. This arrangement has since been replaced with three guns in conventional single mounts. The four diesel-driven, 1,650-ton Bergaminis followed in the early sixties, and represented a major advance with the first shipboard helicopter facilities, stabilization, automation, and complete Nuclear, Biological, Chemical Warfare (NBC) control. These qualities have become standard on all subsequent designs. The Bergamini class carry the Italian 1,000-yard ASW mortar and, originally, they had three 76-mm. guns. Currently the after mount is being suppressed to make room for an expanded helicopter landing area and hangar which will accommodate the larger helicopters which are now reaching the fleet.
DESTROYER ESCORTS
UNITED STATES
UNITED KINGDOM
Class Name
Dealey
Jones
Bronstein
Garcia
Brooke
Knox
Blackwood
Rothesay
Leander
Leopard
Class Desig.
Type 14
Type 12
Type 12
Type 41
Class No.
DE1006
DE1033
DE1037
DE1040
DEG 1
DE1052
Yr.
Operation.
54-57
59-60
63
64-68
66-68
69-73
56-58
56-61
63-72
57-59
No. in Class
13
4
2
10
6
46
10
15
26
4
Displace-
ment
1,914
1,750
2,650
3,400
3,426
4,100
1,456
2,600
2,860
2,520
Length, OA
314.5
310
371.5
414.5
414.5
438
310
370
372
340
Beam
36.8
37
40.5
44.2
44.2
46.7
33
41
43
40
Draft
13.6
18
23
24
24
24.8
15.5
17.3
18
16
Power*
20,000
9,200
20,000
35,000
35,000
35,000
15,000
30,000
30,000
12,380
Type
Steam
Diesel
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Diesel
Screws
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Speed
25
22
24½
27
27
27
27.8
30
30
25
Endurance
7500@16
Comple-
ment
170
175
220
241
248
220
140
235
263
205
Armament:
Guns
4—3”/50
2—3”/50
3—3”/50
2—5”/38
1—5”/38
1—5”/54
2—40mm
2—4.5”
1—40mm
2—4.5”
4—4.5”
1—40mm
Missile
Launcher
None
None
None
None
1 Mk 22
(Tartar)
None
None
1 Seacat
1 Seacat
None
ASW
2 Mk 32TT
Wep “A”
2 Mk 32TT
ASROC
2 Mk 32TT
Helo.
facilities
Dash
ASROC
2 Mk 32TT
Helo.
facilities
Dash
2 Mk 25TT
ASROC
2 Mk 32TT
2 Mk 25TT
Helo.
facilities
Dash
ASROC
Mk 32TT
Mk 25TT
Helo.
facilities
Dash
2 Limbo
2 Limbo
1 Limbo
Helo.
1 Wasp
Helo.
1 Squid
* Power is maximum available in any one mode of operation.
From the Bergaminis, it is a large jump to the two 2,700-ton ships of the Alpino class. These ships, completed in 1968, are CODAG (diesel and gas) powered, really Italy’s first operational gas-turbine design, and are capable of 28 knots. Nearly the entire after one-half of the ship is devoted to helicopter operations, four of the six 3-inch guns being waist mounted as a result. The Italian Navy is presently stopped at this outstanding design, largely for financial reasons.
Germany
The German Navy has developed only one group of postwar escorts. This is the 2,500-ton Koln class of six ships completed in the early sixties. They are powered by CODOG (diesel or gas) propulsion systems and are capable of 30 knots. The Kölns are comparable to the Italian Alpinos except that they, like all other German naval combatants, make no allowance for basing helicopters on board. German naval doctrine provides for operations sufficiently close inshore in the Baltic and North Sea so that all naval helicopters (currently the SH 3) can be, and are, shore based. The Kölns are low freeboard, massive superstructure ships, a characteristic they share with the other modern German ships. They are reported to have suffered from structural weakness, a deficiency which is now being corrected.
During the last half of the sixties, the German Navy began the design of a successor to the Köln class which eventually became the four-ship Frigate 70 class of more than 3,500 tons. These ships were to have Standard missile aft, four new Italian 76-mm. guns forward, and CODOG propulsion. However, when the cost of these specialized ships exceeded 400 million marks each, they were cancelled upon the recommendation of the Navy itself. Currently, a more general purpose 3,000-ton design is planned, hopefully at considerably less cost.
[DESTROYER ESCORTS (cont.)]
UNITED KINGDOM
DENMARK
FRANCE
GERMANY
ITALY
Class Name
Salisbury
“Tribal”
Amazon
Peder Skram
Le Corse
Com. Riviere
Köln
Fr-70
Bergamini
Centauro
Class Desig
Type 61
Type 81
Type 21
Type 22
Class No.
F-352
E50 & E52
E 56
F-220
F-593
F-552
Yr.
Operation.
57-60
61-64
72-?
?
66-67
55-60
62-65
62-64
early 70s
61-62
57-58
No. in Class
4
7
4 building
?
2
18
9
6
4
4
4
Displacemt.
2,350
2,700
2,650
3,000
2,720
1,790
1,950
2,550
3,500
1,650
2,200
Length, OA
340
360
384
396.5
325.5
338
360.9
426.5
308.4
338.4
Beam
40
42.3
39.5
33.8
37.8
36.1
44.9
37.4
39.5
Draft
16
17.5
54,400
54,400
11.8
11.2
12.5
11.2
13.1
10.2
12.6
Power
12,380
20,000
62,600
44,000
20,000
16,000
26,000
15,000
22,000
Type
Diesel
COSAG
COGOG
COGOG
CODAG
Steam
Diesel
CODOG
CODAG
Diesel
Steam
Screws
2
1
2—CP
2—CP
2
2
2
2—CP
2—CP
2
2
Speed
25
28
40
30 +
28
28
25.4
30
30
26
26
Endurance
7500@16
4500@12
4500@15
920@30
4000@10
2500@20
Comple-
ment
207
253
170
200
198
214
210
250
160
255
Armament:
Guns
2—4.5”
2—40mm
2—4.5”
1—4.5”
2—20mm
4—40mm
6—57mm
2—20mm
3—3.9”
2—30mm
2—3.9”
6—40mm
4—3”/62
3—3”/62
3—3”/62
Missile
Launcher
None
2 Seacat
1 Seacat
1 Sea Wolf
Sea Sparrow
None
None
None
1 Mk 13
(Standard)
None
None
ASW
1 Squid
1 Limbo
Helo
facilities
1 Wasp
Helo.
Helo
facilities
1 WG 13
Helo.
Limbo
(Advanced)
Helo
facilities
1—WG 13
Helo.
Depth
Chgs.
Terne
6 bbl
mortar
12 ASW
TT
2 DC
mortar
1 DC rack
1-4 bbl
mortar
6 ASW TT
2—4 bbl
Mortars
4 ASW TT
4 TT
1 Mortar
Helo
facilities
2 Mk 32TT
1 3bbl
mortar
2 Mk
32TT
Soviet Union
Russia once again has produced its own unique solution to the destroyer escort problem. After eight or so of the 2,000-ton “Kola” class, really a small destroyer which looks much like the World War II German Elbing-class torpedo boat, the Soviets switched to the 1,600-ton “Rigas” of the early 1950s, and built 63 ships to this design, examples of which are now in the navies of at least six nations. In the late fifties, however, this class was discontinued in favor of the very different 1,200-ton “Mirka” and “Petya” classes which became operational in the early sixties. These ships are the smallest of the ocean escorts considered here, and are reminiscent of the torpedo boats of old for they are good performers and are numerous—over fifty having been built. They are also unusual in that they carry conventional torpedoes for use against surface ships.
They are combined diesel and gas-turbine ships, uniquely arranged in the case of the “Mirkas” with the gas turbines on the main deck aft. The Soviets have employed the ships of these two classes (actually, four subgroups, “Mirka” I and II and “Petya” I and II) extensively in the relatively restricted waters of the Mediterranean, the Baltic, and the Sea of Japan, as the U. S. Sixth and Seventh Fleets can attest.
Japan
Japan strikes a conservative middle course in destroyer escort design. The first eighteen ships of the postwar “100” series (101-118) fall into two basic classes: the conventional, 2,500-ton, high-performance ships of the late fifties—the nearly identical Harukaze, Ayanami, and Murasame classes; and the more specialized ASW-oriented, diesel-powered 26-knot Yamagumo class ships of the sixties. The latter displace close to 3,000 tons and carry an advanced version of the SQS 23 bow-mounted sonar. In addition they carry either DASH or ASROC for long-range torpedo delivery. The DASH ships are particularly handsome with their sharply raked bows, flush-deck hulls, and single stacks. All of these ships are believed to be in the process of acquiring VDS.
DESTROYER ESCORTS [(cont.)]
ITALY
JAPAN
SOVIET UNION
Class Name
Alpino
Harukaze
Murasame
Ayanami
Yamagumo
“Kola”
“Riga”
“Petya”
“Mirka”
Class Desig.
“Wind”
“Rain”
“Wave”
“Cloud”
Class No.
F-580
101
107
103
113
Yr.
Operational
68
56
59
58-60
66-70
54-58
56-58
61-64
65-?
No. in Class
2
2
3
7
6
10
50
35
22
Displace-
ment
2,700
2,340
2,500
2,500
2,900
2,000
1,600
1,200
1,200
Length, OA
352
358.5
354.3
357.6
374
321
299
262
262
Beam
43
34.5
36
35.1
38.7
33
31.2
32
29.5
Draft
12.7
12.0
12.2
12
12.7
11.2
11.4
9.8
9.1
Power
31,800
30,000
30,000
35,000
26,500
30,000
25,000
14,000
14,000
Type
CODAG
Steam
Steam
Steam
Diesel
Steam
Steam
CODOG
CODOG
Propeller
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Speed
28
30
30
32
27
31
28
30
30
Endurance
4200@18
6000@18
Comple-
ment
254
240
250
230
210
190
150
Armament:
Guns
6—3”/62
3—5”/38
8—40mm
3—5”/54
4—3”/50
6—3”/50
4—3”/50
4—3.9”
4—37mm
3—21”TT
3—3.9”
4—37mm
3—21”TT
4—3”
10—21”TT
4—3”
5—21”TT
Missile
launchers
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
ASW
1 Mortar
Mk 32TT
Helo.
facilities
2—A/B 204
Helos.
Torpedos
Depth
Chgs.
2 Hedgehog
Torpedos
Depth
Chgs.
1 Hedgehog
2 Hedgehog
Torpedos
Depth
Chgs.
ASROC
or DASH
2 Mk 32TT
1—4 bbl
mortar
DC
DC
Rocket
launchers
2—12 bbl
Rocket
launchers
4—12 bbl
Rocket
launchers
It would appear that many of the tasks for which the Yamagumo class was designed can be handled by the similar appearing and greatly improved escorts of the “200” series, the 1,470-ton diesel-powered Chikugo (DE-215) class of four ships, with bow-mounted and VDS sonars and ASROC. Thus the next “100” series destroyer escort class may be a true small destroyer with missile armament and better performance. Japan had already built seven ships of three classes in the “200” series of escorts. Six of the seven are diesel-powered. The seventh, the 1,350-ton, steam-driven Akebono, was the first important postwar all-Japanese warship to be completed, in 1956, along with two diesel-powered near sisters of the Ikazuchi (Thunder) class. The four ships of the 1,700-ton Isuzu (River) class, operational in the early sixties, have 3-inch guns in enclosed twin mounts, increased freeboard, and a Bofors ASW mortar mounted forward of the bridge, a standard fixture on many subsequent Japanese classes. All of the diesel-powered ships are capable of 25 knots, but the Akebono makes 28.
The Japanese Navy’s approach is cautiously conservative, taking full advantage of proven U. S. and European developments. There have been no startling innovations or unique class designs. Like most navies, Japan’s has placed far less postwar emphasis on surface-to-surface combat characteristics in her ships. As one result, the torpedo, for which she achieved justified fame during World War II, has progressively disappeared, except in the small 12.75-inch ASW form.
Canada
Finally there is Canada, the smallest maritime power to produce a sustained series of its own destroyer escorts. All 24 ships are ASW-oriented, influenced by Canada’s continuing commitment in this field to NATO and North American defense.
Canada began developing her own destroyer escort designs shortly after the conclusion of World War II. Early British Type 12 concepts influenced the basic hull design common to the 20 ships built during the fifties, which, however, remain distinctively Canadian. The seven St. Laurents and two Annapolis class ships have been modified, the latter during construction, to helicopter-carrying DDHs. These ships, which carry one 20,000-pound SH 3A Sea King and have a permanent hangar located between twin stacks, were a significant first when they became operational in 1963. The SH 3 is the largest and most capable helicopter operated from a ship of this size anywhere in the world. Four DDEs of the seven-ship Restigouche class are undergoing midlife modernization programs to include VDS and ASROC, the latter a new weapon for Canada. The four MacKenzies of the early sixties remain basically unchanged, with single stacks and both British and American twin 3-inch guns.
After several design studies, Canada has now settled on the four ships of the new DDH-280 (Iroquois) class, presently under construction. This class, which will be completed about the same time as the American DD-963, is loaded with innovations. These include 27-knot COGOG plants based on the Pratt and Whitney FT 4 and FT 12 gas turbines—really the Free World’s first such plant, a Canadian version of Sea Sparrow, a single new OTO Malera 5”/54 gun, a hangar for two SH 3 helicopters, the outstanding feature of the DDH-280 design. They will also have the Limbo ASW mortar, which the British have discarded. The Iroquois will have their own form of digital command and control, and a new Canadian VDS, the last an area in which the Canadians have been world leaders. The resulting ship displaces 4,050 tons, justifying to an extent the similar American DE-1052 size, since both perform much the same mission with the same endurance and speed. In the case of the Canadian ship, however, there are a number of added features such as manned helicopters and an air-defense missile system. The unit price of these ships approaches 70 million dollars. Like the Dutch, the Canadians operate their escorts in ASW groups of two to four ships, but with less emphasis on AAW and more on the helicopter. Each group is normally supported by one of the new Canadian AORs which, among other things, can provide spare helicopters. The DDH-280s will augment this task group concept with their improved command facilities. The Canadians believe strongly in the helicopter, not only for ASW, but as an extension of other destroyer capabilities as well. Primarily because of the helicopter, all Canadian escorts have some form of stabilization.
Canada has applied the resources of a relatively small power to attacking the ASW problem as she sees it. The results have been outstanding.
Analysis of Other Navies
One conclusion to be drawn from this review is that the optimum destroyer is inextricably combined with each nation’s national commitments and objectives. True, there is the influence of technology, melded with financial limitations, but the result is still always nationally oriented. Only a few nations have the desire or the technical base and resources to compete in the destroyer design field. Specifically, these are the United States, the USSR, England, and France, with Germany, Japan, and Italy showing more reliance on other countries’ developments while providing specific contributions of their own, primarily in total ship design interpretations. Canada, the Netherlands, and perhaps Australia, are providing narrower, specialized contributions largely in the subsystems areas. All other countries rely largely on the results produced by these leaders. Thus, England has developed new destroyer designs for the seventies with advanced propulsion systems which largely are automated, as well as her own ASW and AAW sensors and weapons. She has adopted for these ships the Australian-developed Ikara ASW delivery system. In command and control there are the British ADA and CAAIS systems, which appear excellent. British naval design, as always, is conservative and functional. The result is a series of very capable ships in three categories ranging from 2,500 to 5,700 tons, generally at a unit cost well under $50 million. All seem deficient in the way of conventional armament for use against enemy ships, although a joint Anglo-French version of the latter’s surface-to-surface Exocet missile is in the process of development. All are well suited to work the shallow waters surrounding the European land mass, with their specialized sonars, responsive propulsion systems, electronic ties, and effective air defense. This success in practical cost effectiveness is emphasized in the commercial market place where the British have sold these ships or their variants to Argentina, Brazil, Iran, and probably South Africa.
Similarly, France has developed her own technology on which she bases her design alternatives. She has become more task-force-oriented in the waters adjacent to France, and her designs now reflect her proper concern for existence in an ever-more sophisticated hostile environment. She, too, ties these forces together with her own brand of electronic digital control, Senit, based in part on U. S. Univac components. Her latest destroyers are similar in general performance and characteristics to the British Type 42, being in the 5,000-ton range, although France has been slower in moving toward gas-turbine propulsion, possibly because she has built fewer ships.
Italy has contributed new conventional armament, the OTO Malera 3-inch and 5-inch guns, and has explored her own brand of gas-turbine propulsion in advancing the destroyer state of the art. She has relied, in part, on foreign components, using Univac computers to develop her command and control systems. Naval missiles and selected AAW and ASW sensors have been of foreign origin in the past, but Italy now has developed her own weapon control system, ARGO, as well as Selenia-produced radars. Italian naval design, as always, is original and pleasing to the eye, as evidenced by the Alpino and Audace designs, which are advanced in automation, stabilization, and NBC control. Italy commits more ship to the helicopter than any of the other NATO nations and may ultimately go all gas turbine in her future destroyers, which now range from 2,800 to 4,000 tons. The Audaces carry the heaviest conventional armament of any destroyers currently being delivered to any European NATO country—two 5”/54 caliber guns.
Germany has borrowed from everyone—the Dutch, French, Swiss, Swedish, British, and Americans— provide the components needed in assembling her own distinctive destroyers of the Hamburg and Köln classes.
For the seventies her now cancelled Frigate 70 would have been CODAG-propelled and around 3,500 tons with light armament and lots of electronics, including a combined American-German command and control system. Now totally new designs, useful under a greater range of circumstances, and, hopefully, costing considerably less, must be developed.
Japan, on the other side of the world, is sharing the Canadian and Italian interest in heavy shipboard helicopters and reasonably large (5”/54) gun armament as she is pressed to accept increasing naval responsibility in areas adjacent to two other growing powers—Russia and China. Propulsion progress and sophisticated electronics have been very modest, for the Japanese rely largely on U. S. equipment and its derivatives. Defensive missile systems have not made their appearance to any degree, a serious deficiency which must shortly be remedied.
From a design standpoint, the Japanese ships have efficient, conventional good looks. In size, they range from 3,000 to 4,000 tons with the new DDH approaching 6,000 tons. Their main limitation is that they are too few in number.
Russia, after a pause during the fifties followed by a marked shift away from conventional destroyer design, has evolved her own sensors and armament, and, presumably, her own command and control systems. Much of the resulting hardware is unique, such as the surface- to-surface missile systems and the complex guidance radars which control the surface-to-air Goa missiles. Soviet ships are often without precedent in arrangement in the past decade, with four-stack destroyers (“Kashin” class), forests of individual masts (also “Kashin” class), and periscopes (“Kynda” class on). Russia was the first country to commit herself to complete gas turbine propulsion but has been much slower than most in developing a substantial ship-borne helicopter capability. This capability now appears to be here, as evidenced in all the latest ship classes. Russian gun armament has been limited to the 76 and 57-millimeter guns on all of her new destroyer designs, which makes their use problematical for other than close-in defense. This implies a surface-to-surface capability for the Goa missile, which may or may not exist. The use of torpedoes remains an important part of Russian tactical doctrine, and all important surface combatant ships, regardless of size or age, carry them.
The newest Soviet destroyer designs range all the way from 1,200 to 7,000 tons, with some fairly big gaps in the middle. Like the United States, the Soviet Union appears to be moving toward increasingly larger ships, each with better defense capability than her predecessor, as the Russians develop their oceangoing fleets. The very capable “Krestas” are quite close to the USS Belknaps in size.
Analysis of the U. S. Navy
The United States, with greater resources than any other nation, has pursued a policy of conventional design with increasing emphasis on AAW and ASW capability. The Tartar, Terrier, and now Standard missiles have been refined into what should be the world’s best antiair systems, with the Sea Sparrow point defense in its various versions providing close-in defense. Air defense guidance systems now include Tartar D, which is a digital version of previous analog systems; and, still to come, Aegis, the complex electronically-scanned, computer-driven system capable of handling many targets at once. When developed. Aegis will provide the Navy’s first true antimissile capability, a tremendous advance, perhaps justifying the DLGN-38 class. More conventionally, the Mk 86 system is designed to direct all gun systems, tracking more than one target simultaneously and ultimately being able to handle missile control as well. All of this is to be directed by the third generation NTDS system with small, fast computers and flexible displays.
Electronic warfare systems, a must in defense, also tie into the computer-driven command and control system, as it strives for reduced reaction times. Shortstop, and its junior-sized derivatives, currently under development, may turn out to be the first really effective electronic warfare systems available to DLGNs and DDs for use against a determined and sophisticated enemy.
In conventional gun armament, unfortunately only the lightweight 5-inch gun has been created, along with some refinements to the standard Mk 42 5”/54. New 5-inch guns, more suited to today’s operational requirements, have been proposed and may be developed. Phalanx is now under development and this close-in, radar-controlled, rapid-fire gun shows great promise. Along with most of the free world, the U. S. Navy has been slow in developing an inexpensive, flexible surface-to-surface missile system. Long viewed as the inevitable successor to the heavy caliber gun, it offers in-flight control and active target seeking ability. The abortive Sea Lance project of the mid sixties, derived from the U. S. Army’s Lance missile development, was designed to meet the requirement for an inexpensive bombardment missile. Also, the three “Ts”, plus the Standard surface-to-air missiles, are available with surface-to-surface capability. All, unfortunately, deliver a given payload at much greater cost than the heavy caliber gun. Greatly improved accuracy is the main redeeming feature. Internationally, France now has the Exocet, first test fired in the fall of 1970 and very popular with NATO. The Israelis have the Gabriel missile, and the Norwegians have the Penguin. All are substantially horizon-limited or less in range. There is nothing in the Free World arsenal equivalent to Russia’s 400-mile Shaddock or 150-mile Strela missiles which really are one-way aircraft covering the Russian carrier deficiency. Prodded by events of the past four years, the U. S. Navy now has Harpoon under development for the mid-seventies—the Navy’s first designed for the purpose, surface-to-surface missile, hopefully inexpensive, with a large conventional payload and compatible with the new Mk 26 missile magazine and launcher. All of the escort classes may ultimately carry this type of weapon in some form.
The SQS 26 is the most elaborate shipborne sonar the Free World has, and only the United States has it, along with the SQS 35, our most sophisticated variable depth sonar to date. The longer ranges provided by these systems are required to meet the submarine threat at greater standoff distances. If they are to prove useful, the new shipborne ASW systems, such as LAMPS, will require comparable, reliable, long range weapon delivery capability. ASW weapons have been advanced to the point where ASROC can deliver a nuclear bomb or a conventional torpedo four or five miles away. ASROC reloading is being improved and the ASROC missile ultimately will be housed with Standard, and possibly Harpoon, in the new Mk 26 combined launcher, now under development.
Recent American propulsion developments have been modest, the United States staying largely with the high pressure, high temperature steam systems inaugurated in the early fifties with the DL-1 and -2 classes. Now, however, gas-turbine propulsion will come with a rush in the DD-963 and of course nuclear propulsion with its great advantages in range, performance, and independence of operation, is always available to ships of 7,000 tons or more. Propulsion automation and ship stabilization are being increasingly employed—perhaps more slowly than elsewhere—but the technology is available. Thus, the United States has an impressive technical foundation on which to build her destroyer designs. The problem then becomes one of matching the right combination of naval technology, wrapped in the proper design, to the operational requirements—all at the right price.
The United States is almost unique in having a major commitment to the fast carrier task force which has seen continued and heavy use throughout the world, particularly with the Seventh Fleet in the Far East and the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean. By the late seventies, there should be 4 nuclear-powered carriers and 11 with conventional power, requiring, according to Congressional testimony, 16 AAW-oriented nuclear escorts (4 per CVAN), 44 conventionally-powered AAW escorts (4 per CVA), and 22 ASW destroyers (2 per CVA). Since there are sufficient modern hulls in commission for the conventionally-powered AAW requirement only, additional DLGNs and DDs are needed if the above force levels are to be met. Thus, at least 11 of the new 10,000-ton DLGN-38 class may be built. There is little question but that this class is required to meet the nuclear carrier fleet escort requirement, especially as they acquire the new Aegis missile control system to direct their Mk 26 AAW/ASW combined missile launchers against increasingly sophisticated airborne threats. If, by 1980, there are to be sixteen nuclear escorts for the four nuclear-powered carriers, they will be needed at a greater rate than one per year. At close to $200 million a copy, this may require considerable readjustment to other Navy programs, for the major question is one of total cost and the Navy may be faced with fewer escorts per carrier or fewer carriers to escort as possible alternatives. A third alternative would be a considerably less expensive ship but, when the power plant cost is so high, this seems impossible to achieve regardless of what compromises are made to the combat system.
In any case, the DLGNs have grown to be sophisticated and essential escorts far from the original concept of small size and large numbers. They have grown to the point where they have become attractive targets in their own right and require their own ASW protection, really beyond what they can furnish themselves on a timely basis. The latter could be destroyers, helicopters, or both; and the helicopters could be supported by the destroyers, by the carriers, or by special helicopter support ships.
The conventional destroyer requirement provides a greater choice of alternatives. Certainly at least the thirty DD 963s are needed, for by the late seventies this would mean a conventional destroyer force of only 44 ASW- oriented ships (including the 14 DD-931 class ships), with an additional 29 usable DDGs. Of these, only the 30 DD-963 ships would have the long range, deep-water SQS 26 sonar and electronic command and control. These ships would then allow the destroyer escorts, by then totaling 65 ships, to be employed in antisubmarine screens for underway replenishment groups or military convoys. The DD-963 is attractive because of its ready conversion potential even to a DDG configuration. Whether the resulting ship must be of 7,100 tons and must cost $84 million is difficult to say. Presumably, the best talent this country had to offer in this area, both in and out of government, was brought to bear in developing the design. It would appear that this class will never exist in numbers beyond the now planned thirty, for specific justification of each ship will be required and such justification can be difficult when dealing with many of the destroyers’ more ephemeral missions. Also, the DD-963 faces the danger of early termination if an attractive alternative is found.
That alternative could be a 4,000-ton ship costing around $50 million. Such a ship might have just two main second-generation gas turbines which promise much greater efficiency. Thus an acceptance of reduced range, plus increased fuel consumption efficiency, could serve to reduce tankage, and as a result, ship size, markedly. The combat suite, over 50 per cent of the destroyer’s total cost, might be reduced to the basic Mk 26 combined launcher, which is able to handle ASROC, Standard, and Harpoon missiles, with control by Tartar D and the Mk 116 under-water, fire-control system. Alternatively, this hull might be filled with an advanced shore bombardment gun suite directed by the Mk 86. Such a ship would still cost fifty per cent more than the British Mk 42 and each configuration would be specialized, rather than having complete destroyer operational flexibility. However, with the currently developing electronic ties which allow real time decisions and reactions in all units so united, what one really has is the desired maximum destroyer capability distributed in more than one hull. The specialized components, however, could be used in shore bombardment, fleet defense, or ASW, without undue unit cost.
To achieve this end, or any other significantly different from that currently being realized, the operational side of the Navy will have to provide more stringent control over the technical growth of each design. The Ships Characteristics Board, within the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, or its successor, must become the strong coordinator of OPNAV desires and the technical bureaus’ developed response. The technical project office within the Material Command developing the design cannot be headed by the same man who must give design approval at the CNO level. Cost, as militarily debilitating as it is, must be recognized as a finite constraint early in the design’s evolution, not during contract definition. There is a limit to how much military value a single ship can have, but increasingly there appears to be no limit to a ship’s cost. If this trend cannot be sufficiently deflected, there is considerable question as to how long the surface Navy can last.
It has been held that production economies through total package and multi-year procurements would provide the desired cost reduction as many identical destroyers of the same class were built by a single yard geared for the job. There have been savings, of course, all theoretical to date, since neither FDL, LHA, nor DD-963 class ships are currently in service. But the potential production economies have been disappointing in their overall degree of success. The DD-963 turned out to be close to $100 million a copy instead of the hoped-for $32 million, and the DE-1052s are at least 10 million over their original $30 million estimate, largely due to late design changes. One way of emphasizing cost growth, of course, is the accumulation of all costs under a single identifiable heading for the first time. This is particularly true in the case of the DD-963 program.
Thus, industry has contributed to resolving the cost problem by addressing economy of production. Now the Navy must review and streamline the requirements-design process so that it is able to discipline the definition of the desired design. This must be in recognizable form at an early stage, providing just what is wanted, and no more. This means strong central control at the CNO level, for no significantly different destroyer design will ever be achieved by committee action from the technical bureaus.
In conclusion, all of the U. S. destroyer designs seem too big, and size cannot be disassociated from cost despite arguments to the contrary. This growth is emphasized when the U. S. ships are compared with their foreign counterparts. However, the United States with its worldwide responsibilities, must send her ships farther, provide better accommodation, and install more equipment in them, which may justify the difference. Yet, the Russians, with the same objectives, have not moved as far toward large size, though they are moving in that direction. Analysis of future war situations suggests that many small ships would ensure survival of an effective fighting capability in any major exchange. Technology suggests just the opposite—that a nation must build bigger, more expensive, and therefore fewer, ships to house the latest offensive and defensive weapons systems. The U. S. Navy has moved strongly down the latter path.
[signed] Richard F. Cross, III