Evolution of US Navy Destroyers - A Complete Guide 

Good sir I’d like to say your content is genuinely some of the best military content I’ve ever seen on RU-vid

My favorite class of destroyer is either the Fletcher class or Gearing class destroyers.

1 hour ago?!

Thanks GOD!

@@badhrihari1705 Perks of being a RU-vid creator X-D

So weird looking 😂

Fishing boat

Zumwalt, Ford and F-35 are everything wrong with military procurement. SMH

I kinda like the futuristic style but it really fucking bothers me it's a called a "destroyer" with a tonnage than rivals freaking battlecruisers.

Well because we're in technology where ships can no longer hide to radar so stealth is pretty much overused Wither Ships or Jets all contain stealth

We have been making 4 short (1-min) videos and 1 long video, almost every week :-)

@@NotWhatYouThink I love the short vids, but the longer ones (10min +) are really great.

@@NotWhatYouThink yes but it's rare :( 28 minutes the others are only 5 to 10 minutes

@@NotWhatYouThink but 28 mins is very cool!

The videos with #sorts are the 1 minute ones

They're *angular* representations of pride and power. Every bit you shave off the RCS makes the ship a bit more survivable. That's nothing to scoff at in the age of supersonic sea-skimming missiles

I mean, it's not all that different than tank designs after WW2. Everyone realized "Oh, hey, tanks seem to bounce more rounds with sloped/angled armor" and now every nation's tanks look a lot more similar than they used to.

@@piranhaplantX I don't know if I agree about similarity, but I do agree regarding the general trend of changes. There's an incredible amount of diversity within modern ship designs. Even three ships developed as part of the same program - the Alvaro de Bazan, De Zeven Provincien, and Sachsen class - look NOTHING alike. Combat system, radars, weapons systems, design philosophy, priorities, funding issues - all these things combine to create radically different designs even starting from similar places (again, T45 and Horizon class come from the same program originally and look nothing alike, and are armed very dissimilarly outside VLS). Edit: T45 and Horizon was a terrible choice of example, lmao. Disregard that - look at the Gorshkov class and the Type 45, both developed by second tier powers to fulfill the area AAW mission, but look and are configured nothing alike.

Modern ships are ugly

@@Boxttell11 ding ding your opinion is wrong

Which was incorrect. We should have said 20mm, not 200mm.

@@NotWhatYouThink *200cm

@The light Drake i know, I was making a joke

@@Fred_the_1996 *200m

@@Boxttell11 200hm

And Cruisers

And battleships

@@arya0794 From naval strength measurements into massive coral reefs...

And submarines

and battlecruisers. there's even a modern entry!

Means a lot coming from you, Ed 😊

Were all destroyers called tin cans or just the destroyer escorts. They are a bit before my time. lol

The Gearings are amazing ships.

@@ycplum7062 all dds are tin cans the entire hull type because literally all of them had the like 13mm of plate needed to support her displacement and nothing more for armor

The Gearing were a fine tin can DD-863 was the one I served on.

"Star Destroyers" 🚀

It'll destroy an entire fleet just by itself

but if the destroyers are that big, just think of how big the damn cruisers and carriers will be...

@@moore2077 Carriers will remain the same probably, just look better. Battleships are significantly smaller than modern super carriers still

@@zopoua.992 yes i think this too, the gerald r ford is probally the biggest carriers they will make

The 1910s Battle of Jutland was almost the *last* clash of capital ships. They didn't know *when* things would "never be the same again" but they knew things were changing as early as 1910. "The writing was on the wall". Battle lines just weren't how Navy tactics worked and binoculars and ballons were already really popular information gathering sources. They understood radio in both World Wars. In the 1800s, you might suggest that they would be surprised to be told "even modern warships will not fight the same way; having more guns won't really be the biggest thing." In the 1800s the progress of Artillery still hadn't achieved the feat the Paris Gun would, so in 1800 they would have wanted V2 rockets maybe *before* stopping to consider that what they really wanted was radar specifically and radio technologies in general. You get as far back as the 1700s though and you already see the *brightest* most forward thinking individuals with knowledge of expensive disasters involving ostentatious warships having a bad run in with the weather, and you already see the *first* little inklings of people thinking there might be a deep, fundamental flaw in the practicality of how the world runs navies for hundreds of years (1200-1700 being 500 years) The people of the 1700s would not have dreamed of warfare by satellites and computers. They would think such knowledge to be too beyond human ability and would not think heaven had wars inside heaven. They would think that would be how gods and faeries meddle with Man. They *would* have predicted the Sinking of Titanic though: they were perfectly aware of dramatic literary irony and took divine punishment of hubris quite seriously as well. They would have guessed many things many years ago, but not everything and not quite all the way back.

Almost like tanks and even aircraft today. It comes full circle to infantry again.

@@jeff2758 aircraft’s less impacted due to drones, but you are right we are to the end of tanks

Not really, there are still a lot of examples of ships sinking other ships since ww2. Aircraft and submarines will do most of the work sure, but the occasional ship to ship battle will still happen. Otherwise what's the point of missiles and training for this scenario

They had to dredge the Kennebec River deeper to allow passage of the Zumwalt compared to the Burke Class. Both ships built at Bath Iron Works in Bath, Maine

Yeah I'm quite fond of them myself seeing as I served on one.

I loved the look of Arlie Burke class even before the LAST SHIP series. But as a civilian, I had no idea how capable it was until I was educated from watching a tv drama 😁

I spent 5 years on a Spruance (DD-969 USS Peterson) and in 93 we crossed the Atlantic with the Arleigh Burke and a few other boats. The AB had to pull into Rota Spain immediately after crossing to get one of the main engines replaced as it had broke down during the crossing. We started calling the new ships, Already Broke. All ribbing aside though, they are very fine ships and I have many shipmates who have and still are serving on them.

It's Arleigh Burke.

An actual modern battleship from WW1- 25,000 tonnes

Hence i love old ships like the clemson swarm Also they look so dammn good that its outa the question

@@ThereItIs_ 57,000 at full load

@@jakegrant5698 I think it was due to the Washington Agreement.

@@jaredgarbo3679 you think what was due to the Washington naval treaty?

Don't forget wrecking a big drydock, too.

I served in the US Navy from 1974 to 1995, West coast/Alaska sailor. I remember the USS Turner Joy, I believe it was a (D.E.) Destroyer Escort. Back before they were re-named F.F. or F.F.G. But I don't think I ever saw a ship named the USS Turner. Probably before my time I suppose.

​@bobd9193 USS Turner was an old flush deck 4-stacker that thru the end of WWII had a fascinating role as an experimental platform for developing radar and CIC technologies and she even pioneered some underway refueling and replenishment procedures. Unfortunately the Turner/Moosehead was scrapped in '47 (she would have been a fascinating destroyer/experimental platform display for the technological advancements that helped win the war)!

Not just NATO, he should probably cover the IJN DDs that sparked the DD technological revolution of the 1930s too.

Should do a video on how the US Navy needs to ask the Royal Navy to turn off the Type 45's radar, just so the US Destroyers can get some training in.

@@steweygrrr yeah id like to see that, the atagos kongos, mayas, and the Korean ones like the Sending the great

@@halzan7467 kinda mentioned in this interwar destroyer design video from Drach ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0rlLlsYQ6lQ.html

Blob

Kidd class was best!

Arleigh burke for me

agreed

It's been called the perfect warship at the right time. All the other destroyers at the time had bad tradeoffs of speed, armor or weaponry, the Fletcher got it all right.

Love the fletcher class! Great ships with an interesting history.

Yay

And... Kidd Class?

It does fit the name more

Well one would think a destroyer is meant to destroy things

Zumwalt is too expensive. US should make a smaller and cheaper zumwalt just like B-2 and B-21.

I always wondered why the navy is adamant on them being destroyers despite having roughly the same size and mission as cruisers. I served on a flight 2, pretty large ships. We classify some other navy’s destroyers as cruisers based on their size, like the new Chinese one. Something I was just always curious about

Yes

We have been making 1 long video almost every week since January. Sounds like you will be doing some binge-watching X-D

@@NotWhatYouThink oh, I see.

@@NotWhatYouThink That’s news for me, guess I too have some binge watching to do!

@@NotWhatYouThink :)

😂😂😂🤣

I can’t wait for the cyber airplane

Cybership

Yeah l am really confused

Me too, 1985-90

Now that’s a name found in conspiracy. Byrd and the Hollow Earth, which is increasingly making its rounds in media to normalize the idea.

Hope you enjoyed it!

keyword: Showing. Since the guns don't have any ammo. Zumwalt: This ship could be yours if your country feels $1 million per gunshot is worth it... People of the Past: We REALLY hate our neighbors. We'll take it.

⌛ That's a violation of the Temporal Prime Directive 🌀⏳

going back in time without taking zumwalt class or anything is cool enough

The Zumwalt class, designed by engineers who grew up playing with transformers rather than studying. Admiral Zumwalt was an arse-hole, the ship named after him is the material expelled by your Zumwalt

Sam, you seem to be knowledgeable in regards to the existing ships. May I ask if you could critique my FFG(x) design with a point of view of what it is lacking??

@@louisdifrancesco1474 Existing ships?? I only know what I read or see in videos. As an old school sailor I think most ships are under gunned and under manned. The LCS and the Zumwalt's are a good example, if a battle occurs with a major naval power and they are getting closer to our ships, those 2 I mentioned better use their speed to run. The FFG's in todays world are basically the same as the DE's in the 60's, primarily escort duty and ASW work. There is much talk today about what our ships must face in an all out war. They need more weapons for anti-ship fighting and I don't know the assignments of crew in todays ships but I mentioned the LCS and Z's, they have such small crews and even the Burkes, they are almost the same size as the DLG's I served on and their crew is more the 100 people smaller. In battle when a ship takes a hit is it able to keep fighting while it is kept from sinking and/or repaired. As far as your FFG(x) design,m weapons and manpower, very expensive items. Like I said, I'm old school. In my early years in the Navy I was trained by WWII veterans.

@@geraldtodd6633 Hi Sam Thanks for the reply, BUT I did NOT get your opinion to my proposal. Pls tell me about guns and other equipment with your critical eye of past difficulties. For guns, compared to current LCS/FFG's I have 4 with over lapping fields (not counting the secondary guns). Compared to my twin's DD of WWII, my design has 3 times more rounds and are automated for loading. That crew reduction is robots vs human. Robots can be blown away during battle and not require medical care/support. However, that gun is still out of service, & that is a second reason to incur the expense of 4 vs 1 or 2 forward mounts. BUT I cannot see my blind spots, so, pls give me your opinion so I can improve my design or argument.

@@louisdifrancesco1474 Well, I am not aware of your FFG(x) design. You say you have 4 guns, not counting the secondary battery. That is more guns than any FFG today. Are the 4 guns 2", 3", or 5"? These are the standard USA gun sizes nowadays. You said your main gun ammo loadout is 3 times of a WWII dd. If your design is comparable to a modern day FFG it is so much larger than a WWII DD and can probably carry a lot more ammo. When you say robots are you referring to automated loading systems for weapons? I still know nothing about your design

@@geraldtodd6633 I am sorry Sam, here is the design USS Constellation FFG(x) Proposal (Hydrofoil Sailing Ship) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-uJ7GJDjLmy0.html Length is 300ft width is 155ft height is 150ft It looks like a large tube with steeply sloped sides and several hanager/elevator hatches and more amphibious ramps/hatches. It has both GE LM2500 turbines from the Arleigh Burke Destroyers as well as kite sails that hang at 700-3000ft elevation. The kite sails have generators at the end of each airfoil to delivery power to the RADAR sets, DEW, Railgun, Sensor Systems, and mutual fire support armaments on the sail. The Hull has 4 Mk 45 - 5"/54 with -15degree to +85degree vertical and 250degree traverse. 1,500rounds at each mount. There are 64 secondary gun systems located along the 4 corners as well. There are vertical launch tubes for 16 UGM-133 Trident D ICBM's and/or 128 VLS standard tubes. However, the exhaust ports go straight down to the sea instead of making a U-Turn. On the 2 flight/hanger decks, there is room for 36 F/A-18 Hornets plus 2 C-130 Hercules. There are extra GE LM2500 turbines that power electrical generators for RADAR, DEW, LASER, supercomputer electronics, and electric motors for waterjet pumps. These waterjet pumps exhaust at either/or the 4 corners of the hull or from the struts. The hydrofoils range in sizes to allow lifting the max load of 24KT DWT verse empty 6KT comprised of 5ft thick armour belt/hull structure at speed ranging from 5mph to 150mph. The hydrofoils slide up the 130ft long struts to allow 100ft keel to sea level clearance. That should remove any surface effects of waves up to sea state 10. Stability is mandatory for aircraft launch/recovery. The SPY(x) RADAR arrays have increased from 14ft on Arleigh Burke Destroyers to a min of 20ft with expandability to 80ft. The design shows 2 arrays of 20ft on each side to create a VLA "astronomical" Radio Telescope type of system with a full supercomputer to analyze the return, and if possible create return signals that cancel out the ship's present. The lower 3 decks are housing amphibious invasion force of 48 M-1 Abrams tanks and 300 HHMWV as a placeholder for the exact loadout of a Marine Expediation Unit (MEU). The passenger/berthing space is tight barracks holding 3,000 Marines/Army. This is different then ship crew/aviator crew berthing deck that is 2 person private staterooms with head/shower holding 600 personnel. The CIC & etc deck is ~35,000ft for the supercomputer, drone control, galley, etc. Sleeping is on its own deck from the activities deck to support around the clock operations of 5 shifts air duty crews/aircraft and 5 shifts ship crews. I imagine 10 FFG(x) form a loose flotilla with 20 aircraft amongst them. I expect 20 (flotilla) Air Strike Groups that are 400-700miles apart spread along the Asia - Africa coast. The air patrols are flying from one flotilla to the next flotilla, stay over their shift, then fly the next shift to either forward or backwards on this 20 Air Strike Group chain. I figure 3 FFG(x) focus on aircraft housing, 3 FFG(x) focus on replenishment (fuel, armaments, consumables, etc), 3 FFG(x) focus on repair/servicing over a shift period, and 1 FFG(x) that is Command & Control.

you can afford to build 375 WWI destroyers (modified price for inflation) for the price of one modern destroyer.

Heavy cruisers.

no no no no no. they are light cruisers

@@maxlm07 no no no, battleships

@@newspaperbin6763 yes

The tonnage is growing into the realm occupied by the heaviest surface combatants generally produced. Excluding the final extreme tonnages.

We misspoke! It is 20mm, not 200mm.

@@NotWhatYouThink I knew just have tooo much time on my hands. 20 mm still good round one of the CIWS’s uses that size not sure if it’s the same round from WW-2 We had M-14’s, M1911’s & unknown shotgun(s) on my submarines first boat 6 - 21” forward torpedo tubes Mk-14’s, Mk-37’s & Astor Disaster(*) I can neither confirm or deny and second boat same small arms but 4 midships torpedo tubes Mk-48’s, mines, Harpoon & Tomahawks

Oerlikons are 20mm aa guns

@@AgentDearestZ I know/knew that but he slipped in the VERY RARE 200mm models the different 5”era killed me (and hopefully the enemy as well) there were 3 different 5” finally settling on the 5”-38 I don’t know if ammunition is different sure would hate to have a bunch of 5” ammunition but it wouldn’t fit the weapon we have fortunately most American torpedoes are 21” although we started working on a larger model to go after deep diving Russian boats and I believe those larger tubes are only on the Seawolfs (not SSN-575)

@@AgentDearestZ I knew but I didn’t say 200mm they had the Freudian slip

Yess - and they where BEAUTIFUL

DDG-23, 1985-90

DDG-18 USS SEMMES 1971-1974

Thank you very much! A lot of time went into researching and gathering the footage, so we are happy to hear people like you appreciate the quality of the content ... and thanks for the sub! 😉

We typically do 4 shorts and 1 long every week. Check out our previous longs if you haven’t already 😊

@@NotWhatYouThink I have!! I'd really enjoy a video similar to this one breaking down US Cruiser development too!

Couldn't agree more. But then I'm partial. I served aboard USS Cochrane DDG 21 from November 1981 to May 1984, first in the engineering plant making those 1200 psi boilers work their magic, and then as gunnery officer.

@@1958zed I served as CIC officer on a Gearing class FRAM I destroyer. Never served on an Adams class. Loved operating with them though especially when they poured on the coal and showed a large bow wake and high rooster tail.

no

Sadly I have to disagree zumwalt is IMO ugly

@@abstracz1027 imo it looks awesome,

​@@refineddoggo6657 it's so ugly that no mother would even want to love it.

Not IMO it was Gold Plated and unarmed

So besides being enormously useless, they're also just enormous.

Thanks Matt! We have a few long videos posted over the past two months. Check them out also if you haven’t already ☺️

@@NotWhatYouThink I've been going through ALL the videos and found a few more long ones!! ALL your vids are AWESOME!!! A DEEP Dive into the Missouri Class...Including the USS Iowa explosion... Would be an INCREDIBLE learning experience!!! Please consider it! And again, Thank you SO much for ALL your vids!! I'm always EXCITED to see them in my video que!!! #NWYTROCKS!!!

From destroyers to aircraft carriers??

I hated the class but I it grew in me not my fav at all but still a nice looking shop the zumwalt can kiss my ask however any class before the zumwalt is gorgeous

It’s a synthesised voice

You're not, if only they kept battleships and the look of ww2 era warships in modern day and added friggates, it would've been good

@@chbryann6743 So... aesthetics over effectiveness?

Wow, how long you served there?

@@Player-257 Standard 24 months or

@@francisewing1718 I served on a Spruance destroyer for over 4 years. They were quit versatile in the 80's and 90's.

Large light cruiser

"Not-as-big-as-medium-size-cruisers-but-bigger-than-light-cruisers cruiser"

Reclassify it as "combat cruiser"

@@royellwilkinson6177 Yeah I was leaning more towards large light cruiser considering the lack of armour. A equivalent ship to compare the Zumwalts to would be the late Worcester class large light cruisers, launched in 1948 if memory serves.

@@royellwilkinson6177 I was leaning more towards large light cruisers too. Due to the lack of armour. A good class of ship to compare the zumwalts to would be the worcester class of large light cruisers, launched in 1948 if memory serves.

Might prepare us for when we all start working for them in 5 years.

Thanks Michael!