Spruance DD/Arleigh Burke DDG in British service?

seadude · January 11, 2015, 05:01:29 PM

Not sure if this topic belongs here or in the Alternative History forum. Mods/Admins may move it if necessary.

Got curious on the following tonight: What if the British navy had Spruance class DD's and/or Arleigh Burke class DDG's in service? What would they be like? What systems and capabilities would they have?

lenny100 · January 11, 2015, 05:32:19 PM

Ithink you find our new type 45 destroyers are a uk Flight IIA Arleigh Burke with beter avation systems on the back end but a lot less anti aircraft missiles only 48 to a AB 96. The flight deck of the Type 45 is large enough to accommodate aircraft up to the size of a Chinook helicopter It has hangar space for either one AW101 Merlin or two Westland Lynx helicopters.

proditor · January 11, 2015, 05:42:59 PM

Ya know what would be neat on the Spruance end of the idea? The Grumman design for an air capable version.

seadude · January 11, 2015, 06:30:38 PM

I've already ordered tonight another 1/700 Arleigh Burke kit and two 1/700 HMS Daring kits. In following months, I'm going to take parts from the Daring kit and see what I can do for a British version of the Arleigh Burke.

Captain Canada · January 11, 2015, 06:33:37 PM

Oh I like the look of that air capable one !

lenny100 · January 11, 2015, 06:45:22 PM

the type 45 mini carrier

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UXV_Combatant

proditor · January 12, 2015, 03:27:56 AM

Quote from: Captain Canada on January 11, 2015, 06:33:37 PM
Oh I like the look of that air capable one !

Yeah, me too! The superstructure is intimidating honestly, but it also looks like the love child of an Invincible and a Spruance.

DarrenP · January 12, 2015, 07:32:59 AM

Always wondered if the Kidd class would have been a goo replacement for the RAN's Charles f adams class destroyers

seadude · January 12, 2015, 10:18:09 AM

The Sprucan carrier is nice, but would only be able to carry small copters or maybe Harriers. Probably relegated to mostly an anti-sub role for that ship.

But I'm willing to see what I can do with a Burke DDG. Swap out the U.S. 5" gun for a British main gun. Replace the Phalanx CIWS with Goalkeeper CIWS. Keep VLS as is. Replace SH-60 copters with British/European copters. Keep the triple torpedo tubes. Not sure if going to keep or remove Harpoon launchers. Any other structural or sensor/radar changes I should make?

lenny100 · January 12, 2015, 10:52:19 AM

the RN i belive no longer has the goalkeeper at sea the type 45 use the phalanx systems removed from the type 42, and the type 23 has no ciws, the kyrten 4.5 is a good gun now they got rid of the hydralics systems and gone eletrical, we removed torpedo tubes years ago we noe use a lanch system that uses tubes that are reloaded internaly, no uperdeck crews, and faster to reload as stingrays are held in racks next to the tubes, the samson radar from the type 45 has a better range than most systems so stay with the fit they have, the helicopters are undergoing changes at the moment with the retirmant of the lynx in the next year , to be replaced by the wildcat, which although loks like a stelthed lynx is a new helicopter, and the new merlin mk 2 is now entering service, and now the royal navy owns all the merlins as the armys, and the raf merlins have been transferd and upgraded with a sea kit to allow them to better operate from sea platforms.

PR19_Kit · January 12, 2015, 11:46:15 AM

Quote from: lenny100 on January 12, 2015, 10:52:19 AM
...... the kyrten 4.5 is a good gun now they got rid of the hydralics systems and gone electrical.......

How DARE you!

I'll have you know that some of the hydraulic development on the Mk 8 Mod 0 turret was down to me! They used the same pump on there as we used on the APT tilt system and we'd solved some of its problems when the manufacturers didn't give a damn, and we passed on the info to the Navy.

Mind you, it always seemed daft to have the gun's elevation to be electric and the training to be hydraulic. 100% one method would have been much more sensible, either would have done really.

lenny100 · January 12, 2015, 02:50:29 PM

so your to blame for the many hours upside down looking for the next leaking joint or motor, who ever drew up the plans forgot to include expansion joints and ruber mounts, to take the shock of when the big tube goes bang

PR19_Kit · January 12, 2015, 03:47:20 PM

I think that stuff's down to Vickers. I sorted out the CPSV valve on the pump, which had an irritating habit of going to full swash when commanded to stall. That meant the training motor ended up with full flow when it actually didn't need any at all.

On the APT that meant a full tilt failure, but on the Mk 8 turret the darn thing just whizzed round like a spinning top apparently. Not too good for accurate aiming......

Old Wombat · January 12, 2015, 11:47:35 PM

Quote from: PR19_Kit on January 12, 2015, 03:47:20 PM
I think that stuff's down to Vickers. I sorted out the CPSV valve on the pump, which had an irritating habit of going to full swash when commanded to stall. That meant the training motor ended up with full flow when it actually didn't need any at all.

On the APT that meant a full tilt failure, but on the Mk 8 turret the darn thing just whizzed round like a spinning top apparently. Not too good for accurate aiming......

Would be fun to watch, though.

If you weren't the one expected to do the maintenance. Wot? Me, Chief?

Captain Canada · January 13, 2015, 08:45:40 AM

The type 45 carrier is very nice as well ! I could see building one.