Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Destroyers - Fletcher Class

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by blidgepump View Post
    When a Fletcher-DD was returned to service after a time in Fleet reserve it was often undated. Common update may include.... Two Hedgehog anti-submarine (ASW) launchers and two torpedo carriages for the Mark 32 torpedo were added, with one 21 inch (533 mm) quintuple torpedo tube mount removed. Also, four 40 mm Bofors twin mounts were often replaced by two quadruple mounts. The forward pole mast is usually the giveaway at a distance of an update when it was replaced by a tripod mast to accommodate improved radar and electronics systems.
    Correct me if I am wrong but The fletchers although the prime Destroyer of WW2 were not suited for upgrades to todays warfare. Hhe hulls could not take the additional weight of the upgrades more did they have the needed real-estate to accept major modern upgrades. They were extremely effective for the mission they were intended for and served the USA well, they were and are beautiful well proportioned ships, none of those ships owed us anything..we owed them....therefore I submit not many Fletchers were returned to service. Although a few saw service in the Korean War and performed admirably. Many of them went to FMS Sales (Foreign Military Sales), a few went to reserves such as the Pineapple fleet out of Pearl
    And few reserve contingents on the East and West Coast. to be truthful I do not believe there is a class of ship currently in the navy inventory now or in the past that has the following the fletchers have. Perhaps the for stackers run a close second.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Boilermaker9 View Post
      Correct me if I am wrong but The fletchers although the prime Destroyer of WW2 were not suited for upgrades to todays warfare. Hhe hulls could not take the additional weight of the upgrades more did they have the needed real-estate to accept major modern upgrades. They were extremely effective for the mission they were intended for and served the USA well, they were and are beautiful well proportioned ships, none of those ships owed us anything..we owed them....therefore I submit not many Fletchers were returned to service. Although a few saw service in the Korean War and performed admirably. Many of them went to FMS Sales (Foreign Military Sales), a few went to reserves such as the Pineapple fleet out of Pearl
      And few reserve contingents on the East and West Coast. to be truthful I do not believe there is a class of ship currently in the navy inventory now or in the past that has the following the fletchers have. Perhaps the for stackers run a close second.
      While the Fletchers did not get the FRAM-style upgrades that the Gearing and Sumners did, a quick search shows that a significant number of them sailed for the USN well in the 60s and a few into 1970. So no, it was not cost effective to upgrade them as too many compromises would have had to be made, but they did soldier on for a good long while.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JCT View Post
        While the Fletchers did not get the FRAM-style upgrades that the Gearing and Sumners did, a quick search shows that a significant number of them sailed for the USN well in the 60s and a few into 1970. So no, it was not cost effective to upgrade them as too many compromises would have had to be made, but they did soldier on for a good long while.
        Yes they did JTC but most were relegated to reserve duty as the Gearings and Summers and finely the 1200 pounders took over the prime missions and shoved the remaining fletchers to the back waters. They were a fine ship tried and proven served U S well for a long time!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Boilermaker9 View Post
          Yes they did JTC but most were relegated to reserve duty as the Gearings and Summers and finely the 1200 pounders took over the prime missions and shoved the remaining fletchers to the back waters. They were a fine ship tried and proven served U S well for a long time!
          I'll gladly take the correction! I only did a superficial search and did not see anything about Fletcher FRAM conversions.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JCT View Post
            I'll gladly take the correction! I only did a superficial search and did not see anything about Fletcher FRAM conversions.
            FRAM 1 Fletchers upgraded them to DEs. Most of these were sold to foreign countries.

            3 Fletchers received FRAM 2 upgrades Radford, Jenkins and Nicholas

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JCT View Post
              I'll gladly take the correction! I only did a superficial search and did not see anything about Fletcher FRAM conversions.
              No correction intended just an expansion of your theme which is absolutely true JTC, just polite conversation. One thing I have learned on this board is thhat all who participate have something”to bring to the table”. This by itself makes it interesting and fun. The fletchers in my opinion are the beginning of the modern destroyer. Even though I am not a fan of gas turbines!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                FRAM 1 Fletchers upgraded them to DEs. Most of these were sold to foreign countries.

                3 Fletchers received FRAM 2 upgrades Radford, Jenkins and Nicholas
                I forgot about the DDE conversions. But I understand that intailed the removal of guns and install of hedg hogs and other anti sub weapons. Weren’t the fram upgrades to expensive and they decided to Fram the 692-710 instead?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Boilermaker9 View Post
                  I forgot about the DDE conversions. But I understand that intailed the removal of guns and install of hedg hogs and other anti sub weapons.
                  Yes FRAM 1. Hedgehogs, triple torpedo tubes (removal of the 5 tube sets) hedge hogs, tripod mast, better sonar and sometimes weapon alpha. I think about 35 Fletchers were done that way for the US Navy

                  Weren’t the fram upgrades to expensive and they decided to Fram the 692-710 instead?
                  Less about cost, more about "room to grow" and the fact that during the war Fletchers got very little yard time. They had been rode hard and were wore out

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                    Less about cost, more about "room to grow" and the fact that during the war Fletchers got very little yard time. They had been rode hard and were wore out
                    Sort of like what is happening today.....

                    Comment


                    • They had been rode hard and were wore out
                      This is kind of an ambiguous comment that I would dispute - Of the 175 FLETCHERS built, 50 were transferred in the 50s/60s to foreign countries, several of which served into the early 2000s. 18 FLETCHERs were designated as DDE's in the 1950s and this group included the 3 FRAMed DDs mentioned in the earlier post. 82 FLETCHERs were designated as "Fleet" destroyers and were given the ASW treatment of tripod mast, Hedgehog Launcher additions, Mk. 32 triple Torpedo Tubes, (3) 3"-50 RF Mounts and Mk. 56 GFCS as well as various other SONAR/RADAR upgrades which took place in the 50s/60s/ early 70s. My particular ship, DD-566 was decommed in 1969 and then in 1974 was used in a series of at-sea weapons tests (utilizing two huge outboard remote controlled motors on the stern) to prove the first version of the Phalanx Block 1 CWIS system. It was a success. She finally was put back into storage in 1984 having survived these live-fire missile attacks.

                      During my time aboard (1966-68, the common practice was that upon return from a Westpac (or Med cruise), the ship usually had a 3-6 month homeport schedule and then went into the yards for a 6 mo. overhaul before returning to the fleet and further operations. Many of my boot camp associates wound up on FLETCHERs either in San Diego or Long Beach and most of these ships outperformed the newer DDs in speed, endurance (not breaking down at sea during ops), and gunfire support. I recall several of the HULL class DD's we operated with couldn't maintain station with the carrier during flight ops but we were always chugging along at 30+ knots. Says something for the simplicity of design and construction, etc.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by bbvet View Post
                        I recall several of the HULL class DD's we operated with couldn't maintain station with the carrier during flight ops but we were always chugging along at 30+ knots. Says something for the simplicity of design and construction, etc.
                        Wish we had a Like button!

                        Comment


                        • The 600 psi plants had the reputation as being more reliable as the newer destroyers had 1200 psi systems, which were more "advanced" in design" but had a host of teething problems when they reached the fleet in the mid fifties The auto loading 5/54 guns while having some advantages were just not as reliable as the proven 5/38s on the Fletchers and Sumner/Gearings.

                          As a matter of course during flight operations escorting Destroyers rarely needed to go 30+ knots. At the time typical stationing speed was 25kts. Going over 30 knots routinely would have been a real PITA. Normally all destroyers (Vietnam era) ran two boilers which produced almost as much speed (27/28 knots) and a lot more flexibility especially for sustained operations (weeks) never mind the fuel problem. Occasionally Carriers required 30 knot speeds to launch aircraft in low true wind conditions and or strike aircraft which were loaded at max ordnance loads. Often when running in low wind conditions, the carriers would steam at high speeds and then slow drastically between cycles. Going really slow was almost as much problem for the 600 pounder escorts as that was a lot of high energy (superheated) steam to get rid of and it was not practical to secure the manually controlled superheaters.

                          Normally on a plane guard destroyer we would cheat on our stationing and move in closer astern at the start of Flight OPs so that as the Carrier slowly moved ahead we would just be a little out of Station when the launch/recovery cycle was complete. This technique became more problematic if the Carrier was chasing the wind or larger strikes were being launched. Lots of fun on the bridge though!

                          All in all the 600 plants pioneered in the late thirties and standardized with the Fletchers and Sumners was resilient albeit with manning challenges. The 5/38s and Mark 37 fire control systems did yeoman work during Naval Gunfire support operations off Vietnam and were the work horse of the NGFS destroyer operation. Having between four to six guns also gave our destroyers more redundancy.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                            FRAM 1 Fletchers upgraded them to DEs. Most of these were sold to foreign countries.

                            3 Fletchers received FRAM 2 upgrades Radford, Jenkins and Nicholas
                            There were no FRAM 1 Fletchers (or Sumner’s for that matter). FRAM 1’s were exclusively Gearing (or Carpender) class. The only FRAM Fletchers were the before mentioned 3 FRAM 2’s.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by FlankDestroyer View Post
                              The 600 psi plants had the reputation as being more reliable as the newer destroyers had 1200 psi systems, which were more "advanced" in design" but had a host of teething problems when they reached the fleet in the mid fifties The auto loading 5/54 guns while having some advantages were just not as reliable as the proven 5/38s on the Fletchers and Sumner/Gearings.

                              As a matter of course during flight operations escorting Destroyers rarely needed to go 30+ knots. At the time typical stationing speed was 25kts. Going over 30 knots routinely would have been a real PITA. Normally all destroyers (Vietnam era) ran two boilers which produced almost as much speed (27/28 knots) and a lot more flexibility especially for sustained operations (weeks) never mind the fuel problem. Occasionally Carriers required 30 knot speeds to launch aircraft in low true wind conditions and or strike aircraft which were loaded at max ordnance loads. Often when running in low wind conditions, the carriers would steam at high speeds and then slow drastically between cycles. Going really slow was almost as much problem for the 600 pounder escorts as that was a lot of high energy (superheated) steam to get rid of and it was not practical to secure the manually controlled superheaters.

                              Normally on a plane guard destroyer we would cheat on our stationing and move in closer astern at the start of Flight OPs so that as the Carrier slowly moved ahead we would just be a little out of Station when the launch/recovery cycle was complete. This technique became more problematic if the Carrier was chasing the wind or larger strikes were being launched. Lots of fun on the bridge though!

                              All in all the 600 plants pioneered in the late thirties and standardized with the Fletchers and Sumners was resilient albeit with manning challenges. The 5/38s and Mark 37 fire control systems did yeoman work during Naval Gunfire support operations off Vietnam and were the work horse of the NGFS destroyer operation. Having between four to six guns also gave our destroyers more redundancy.
                              The 600 psi plant was very reliable and durable as indicated by Flank Destroyer. a rudimentary nuts and bolts plant. The same type plant was found on most, if not all capital ships built during the war. Iowa Battle Ships, Essex carriers, most of the cruisers. One class of ship and as far as I know the only class is DE. Those ships had D type or Diesel Engines. Now the qualifier is "built during the war." Of course there were variations in size and shp, but the overall plant design and operation were the same. Most piping joints were mechanical as opposed to weld, there was minimal automation used mostly during gq, they were very labor intensive plants witch by the very design did not lend itself to automation. In fact automation on the M type boiler was tried on the USS NORTHAMPTON. The tests were unsuccessful, boiler control technology for a divided furnace boiler was just not practical. Boiler control of the period was developed for the single furnace boiler. Bailey Controls had been in existence since the early 20th century and used with success in the merchants and shore side plants. All steam merchant ships of the period were either scotch boilers, header boilers, or D and A type which were low pressure single furnace boilers where all steam generated was either saturated or superheated.
                              if the superheated merchant needed aux steam the required steam was run back through a de-superheater to bring the temp down, then out to the ship.
                              The Navy in those days preferred hands on and did not trust Boiler Controls. My opinion is that the controls f the day were very sensitive and probably not survived a battle therefore causing more problems than already existed in battle. As Flank Destroyer indicated Boiler Controls came in to their own in the 1200 pounders. The growing pains of the high pressure and the Boiler Controls were simultaneous, and very expensive there was a huge learning curve both in operation and maintenance, however in the late 70s early 80s these plants became reliable and proved durable. These D type 1200psi boilers were on all capital ships of that period, until they were displaced by the gas turbine!

                              Two images below are
                              BB64 B&W Boiler. Which at Full power evaporated 219,000lbs ph (# per hour) 212,000shp
                              DD450 B&W Boiler. Which at full power evaporated 122,000lbs ph (#per hour) 60,000shp
                              As can be seen the design is the same in both ships. In Fact I believe B &W won the contract for most if not all the capital ship boilers except the DE
                              Many of the parts or appurtenances for these boilers were the same universal I guess you would say
                              Easy way to tell the difference is count the number of burner holes. The 64 has total of 9 burners where the 445 has 7.
                              I apologize to the group I still do not have the knack of attaching photos!
                              Attached Files
                              Last edited by Boilermaker9; 23 Sep 18,, 21:29.

                              Comment


                              • Homeward bound.....

                                I believed this is a photo of a Fletcher Class-DD with a "Homeward bound pennant".
                                The past few months of reading I've been keeping my eyes peeled for a Fletcher with such a pennant.
                                Note the Japanese flags flying from the main mast...
                                Attached Files

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X