Quote:
"Kidd conversion to all the Sprucans" was impossible. The DD 963s were designed with the margin either for an air defense upgrade, which is the design that the Kidds were built to, or for an undersea combat upgrade that 30 of 31 Sprucans underwent. The ships could not support both, which is why the Kidds did not receive a towed array sonar and LAMPS mark III.
Wholly, completely and demonstrably FALSE. The Spruance class grew out of the DX/DXG program.
"Although DX had roughly the armament of a DE, it had to be convertible to a DDG, which was, as we have seen, very nearly a frigate."
Friedman, pg 376
(note: At this time (1967-68) frigates were what were to become CG in 1975 - such as the Belknap and Leahy classes.)
"No DXGs were ordered, partly in view of the greater efficiency of the DLGNs. The 30 destroyers ordered were considered potential DDGs in view of their inherent capacity for modernization and conversion"
""The basic design provides for both modernization and an AAW conversion (i.e. to DDG)."
Freidman, pg 377
Ref: Freidman, Norman. U.S. Destroyers, An Illustrated Design History, USNI, 2004.
The KIdd class were DXG, or DDG versions of the Spruance class. The only reason they lacked LAMPS III and SQR-19 is that they were initially ordered by the Shah of Iran. When they were ordered, LAMPS III did not exist, and the relatively shallow waters of the Persian Gulf meant a towed array sonar was not worth the cost. USS Kidd's gym was where the SQR-19 would have been - easy enough to move.
The Kidd's quite easily could have had the upgrade to get LAMPS III and had the SQR-19 added. They never were refit for this because those systems made more sense to be refit into the primarily ASW platform - Spruance.
The Spruance class were essentially 'under' built to keep the costs down, and because the perception at the time that the DLG/DLGNs (CG/CGNs) were sufficient for the AAW job. Remember, this was the Vietnam wind-down time - congress didn't want to spend allot on any new defense program. They were initially intended to replace the FRAM destroyers (WWII Gearings and Sumners), and so their lack of AAW was not seen as a huge loss, as the ships they were replacing didn't have any real AAW capacity anyway. The Adams class DDGs were relatively new at this point as well, so it was easier to get funding the hulls 'on the cheap' from congress.
The flexibility inherent to Reuven Leopold’s design meant that is was used for the basis of the Ticonderoga class as well. Do you suggest that adding massive deckhouses and the commensurate equipment for Aegis is LESS of a design requirement?!?!? There were 62 of the Spruance hull design built - 31 Spruance, 4 Kidd, and 27 Ticonderoga. The design consistently proved itself capable of modification, and a Spruance to a Kidd would have been very simple.
As a veteran of Spruance, Kidd and Ticonderoga class ships, as a qualified Surface Warfare specialist, and as a Navy Chief, my statement stands. The Spruance class ALWAYS had the capability to be refit into KIDDs.
Know your facts before challenging mine.
V/r
CTIC(SW)