Joined: May 4th, 2018, 9:23 pm

June 3rd, 2018, 7:20 pm #21

Phoenix04 wrote: How hard would it have been to add a Kidd class sensor fit to the Spruance class?  A Mk41 VLS fit with search and fire control radars would be rather handy.
Probably not too difficult. It's a matter of upgrading the AN/SPS-40 to an AN/SPS-48, and swapping AN/SPS-65 for the Sea Sparrow for two AN/SPG-51 radars for Standard. The Kidds fit that on what is basically a standard Spruance superstructure.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 13th, 2014, 12:26 am

July 26th, 2018, 9:16 pm #22

Phoenix04 wrote: How hard would it have been to add a Kidd class sensor fit to the Spruance class?  A Mk41 VLS fit with search and fire control radars would be rather handy.
Not too difficult.  Assuming Norman Friedman was correct, the Spruance/Kidd designs were outgrowths of the DX/DXG programs, which eventually called for the DD/DX ship (Spruance) to include in its design room for both modernization and AAW conversion:
  • Modernization would provide space/weight for Harpoon (2 quad canisters; fitted), CIWS (2 Phalanx; fitted), replacement of the forward Mk 45 5"/54 gun with the Mk 71 8"/55 MCLWG (planned for & developed; never fitted), & replacement of the ASROC box launcher with a Mk 26 Mod 0 for ASROC (still using 24 rounds, but giving it potentially a faster firing rate & potential for a dual salvo, as well as the potential to store additional SM-2 MR rounds for the escort group; never fitted)
  • AAW Conversion was conceived for a possible situation where the USN would have needed more DDG hulls very quickly; would have included the Modernization upgrades, replaced the Sea Sparrow BPDMS/IPDMS with a Mk 26 Mod 1 launcher (44 SM-2 MRs in addition to what was in the forward magazine), replaced the SPS-40B with the SPS-48 (moving from a 2D air search to a 3D air search), an improved GFCS (assuming this meant the SPG-60/SPQ-9 combination), & CW illuminators (assumption being that 2 SPG-62s would be fitted); aside from the 8" gun, this essentially would turn a Spruance into the equivalent of a Virginia CGN (although with better helicopter facilities).
Note that the Kidd DDGs are essentially that "AAW Conversion", but with the slightly modified A/C systems for Gulf of Arabia deployments.  Replace the Mk 26 launchers with VLS (just like the Spruances did), & at the least you'd have 90-96 cells on a Kidd (30-40% increase in magazine), if not 122-128 cells (80-88% increase).
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 6th, 2014, 9:49 pm

August 7th, 2018, 7:23 pm #23

Kidd, Sprudance & Tico are variants on the same hull, so generally speaking any of them could be converted into any other. No reason you couldn't put a VLS on KIdd at least forward. IIRC there's a clearance issue with the shafting aft that prevented installing VLS aft on Spruance; I'd expect the same on Kidd. 

As with anything though it's a question of time and money. Another factor would be all the various services required for new/additional gear. Cooling, power, cable runs, etc etc. 
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 13th, 2014, 12:26 am

August 8th, 2018, 2:57 pm #24

sdmuleman wrote: Kidd, Sprudance & Tico are variants on the same hull, so generally speaking any of them could be converted into any other. No reason you couldn't put a VLS on KIdd at least forward. IIRC there's a clearance issue with the shafting aft that prevented installing VLS aft on Spruance; I'd expect the same on Kidd. 

As with anything though it's a question of time and money. Another factor would be all the various services required for new/additional gear. Cooling, power, cable runs, etc etc. 
How much of a clearance issue?  The Mk 26 magazine was designed to take missiles up to 200"/5.08m long, & the Mk 41's total height is 266"/6.76m (Tactical) to 303"/7.70m (Strike).  66-103"/1.68-2.62m may seem like a lot of extra space, but I'm guessing that the below-deck portions of the launcher were larger than the supported missile size -- the Mk 13/26 launchers (which used the SM-1/-2 MR & Harpoon) would have had similar magazine vertical sizes, but extended 230-240"/5.84-6.10m below the deck, which cuts the gap from them to a Mk 41 down to maybe 25-60"/0.64-1.52m).  Would it have been possible to extend the Mk 41's cells so that more of the cells projected above the main deck (maybe with an extra protective ridge/lip around the edges)?
Quote
Like
Share