World Affairs Board - View Single Post

rickusn · 11-26-2005, 13:37 PM

Just a bunch of stuff Ive been looking at for years. And just trying to put it all together in a small format.

And trying to solicit some feedback on my observations and conclusions.

Cerainly cost containment was an issue as the cost of the AAW DDG's and DLG's extravagant. Also the Vietnam War was eating up tons of money.

Some of the criticisms of the Knox as compared to the WWII destroyers they were ostensibly replacing and other shortcomings:

Large size

Slow speed: 27knts vs 35knts

Very wet forward

Underarmed:

Only one 5" gun

Due to the cost and the relative ineffectiveness of the Tartar AAW missle system there was no AAW missle installation until a Sea Sparrow launcher was backfitted from 1971 to 1975 in 31 of of the 46 built..

Non-redundant propulsion system:

Only two boilers, one turbine and one shaft compared to double that on a typical destroyer

OTOH with a large low-frequency bow-mounted sona, VDS and later Towed array sonars, a small manned LAMPS I ASW helo made possible by the large hanger space originally provided for the failed DASH remote-control Drone ASw Helo, an ASROC with provison for reloads and a Prairie-Masker bubbler system for reducing radiated noise made them excellent ASW platforms.

The OHP class was similarly vilified over the years although not all the criticisms were identical. Plus w/o LAMPS III helos or a towed sonar array in the first 1/2 of the class of 51, because of only having a hull-mounted medium-frequency sonar, no ASROC and noisier they were not nearly as effective at ASW. They also were considered quite expensive at the time of construction also taking into account their initial capabilities.

The Spruance class destroyers to were criticised. For being too large and under-armed for the cost.

But all three classes did yeoman work from the time they were introduced into service.

I hope this explains things a bit.

11-26-2005, 13:37 PM	#3 (permalink)
rickusn *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-09-03 Posts: 1,317	Just a bunch of stuff Ive been looking at for years. And just trying to put it all together in a small format. And trying to solicit some feedback on my observations and conclusions. Cerainly cost containment was an issue as the cost of the AAW DDG's and DLG's extravagant. Also the Vietnam War was eating up tons of money. Some of the criticisms of the Knox as compared to the WWII destroyers they were ostensibly replacing and other shortcomings: Large size Slow speed: 27knts vs 35knts Very wet forward Underarmed: Only one 5" gun Due to the cost and the relative ineffectiveness of the Tartar AAW missle system there was no AAW missle installation until a Sea Sparrow launcher was backfitted from 1971 to 1975 in 31 of of the 46 built.. Non-redundant propulsion system: Only two boilers, one turbine and one shaft compared to double that on a typical destroyer OTOH with a large low-frequency bow-mounted sona, VDS and later Towed array sonars, a small manned LAMPS I ASW helo made possible by the large hanger space originally provided for the failed DASH remote-control Drone ASw Helo, an ASROC with provison for reloads and a Prairie-Masker bubbler system for reducing radiated noise made them excellent ASW platforms. The OHP class was similarly vilified over the years although not all the criticisms were identical. Plus w/o LAMPS III helos or a towed sonar array in the first 1/2 of the class of 51, because of only having a hull-mounted medium-frequency sonar, no ASROC and noisier they were not nearly as effective at ASW. They also were considered quite expensive at the time of construction also taking into account their initial capabilities. The Spruance class destroyers to were criticised. For being too large and under-armed for the cost. But all three classes did yeoman work from the time they were introduced into service. I hope this explains things a bit. Last edited by rickusn : 11-26-2005 at 13:45 PM.