Author Topic: USS Kidd/Cirus I  (Read 8218 times)

Offline Geoff

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
USS Kidd/Cirus I
« on: August 12, 2013, 03:02:50 AM »
The IIN had ordered the Kidd class as anti-aircraft ships but the order was cancelled in '79 with the Iranian revolution. Wif they had been delivered???

Offline Geoff

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Re: USS Kidd/Cirus I
« Reply #1 on: August 24, 2013, 02:20:07 AM »
Well that raised a storm of interest lol. I picked up a 1/350 Kidd today, it's pay day. So I have to figure out enough changes to be different, but still spook the "experten"

Offline finsrin

  • The Dr Frankenstein of the modelling world...when not hiding from SBA
  • Finds part glues it on, finds part glues it on....
Re: USS Kidd/Cirus I
« Reply #2 on: August 24, 2013, 02:41:18 AM »
Good for inverting hull to get late 1800s kind of look where bow slants rearward.
Have a kit cut up to do a gun boat that way.

Offline Jeffry Fontaine

  • Unaffiliated Independent Subversive...and the last person to go for a trip on a Mexicana dH Comet 4
  • Global Moderator
  • His stash is able to be seen from space...
Re: USS Kidd/Cirus I
« Reply #3 on: August 24, 2013, 03:35:26 AM »
The IIN had ordered the Kidd class as anti-aircraft ships but the order was cancelled in '79 with the Iranian revolution. Wif they had been delivered???
Well that raised a storm of interest lol. I picked up a 1/350 Kidd today, it's pay day. So I have to figure out enough changes to be different, but still spook the "experten"

Does the kit provide the parts for the VLS or is it just the twin arm missile launchers that come in this kit?  That would be a quick deviation from the original configuration. 

How about turning it into a modern APD with landing craft or at least additional davits for more RHIB along the deck edge.  Another option might be to craft a launching ramp with a door at the stern for these same boats. 
"Every day we hear about new studies 'revealing' what should have been obvious to sentient beings for generations; 'Research shows wolverines don't like to be teased" -- Jonah Goldberg

Offline Geoff

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Re: USS Kidd/Cirus I
« Reply #4 on: August 24, 2013, 05:55:58 AM »
It has the twin arm launchers. The APD idea is a good one, I could take off the aft turret and make a boat bay. I was wondering whether to do it as a IIN ship as delivered in 1980, or later with a different fit from the tanker war period.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: USS Kidd/Cirus I
« Reply #5 on: August 24, 2013, 06:07:01 AM »
Well, the first one was supposed to be named the "Kouroush".  I wonder if it would have been renamed after the revolution?
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: USS Kidd/Cirus I
« Reply #6 on: August 24, 2013, 06:09:20 AM »
I also used the Kidd class as the basis for the “Bismarck Sea” class in the Greater Australia story:

All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Geoff

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Re: USS Kidd/Cirus I
« Reply #7 on: August 24, 2013, 06:09:49 AM »
Another class of ship were renamed after mountains IIRC.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: USS Kidd/Cirus I
« Reply #8 on: August 24, 2013, 06:15:29 AM »
Given the Kidd class were based upon the hull design of the Spruance class, I wonder if one could also develop a Iranian equivalent to the DDV-X Air-capable Spruance:



Maybe have this acquired by the Shah also along with Harriers?
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Cliffy B

  • Ship Whiffer Extraordinaire...master of Beyond Visual Range Modelling
  • Its ZOTT!!!
    • My Artwork
Re: USS Kidd/Cirus I
« Reply #9 on: August 24, 2013, 09:15:04 PM »
My friend came up with this idea for an upgraded Spruance and borrowed heavily from the Kidds.  Might give you some ideas.

http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery/misc/whatif/ddg963-350-dw/dw-index.html
"Radials growl, inlines purr, jets blow!"  -Anonymous

"Helos don't fly.  They vibrate so violently that the ground rejects them."  -Tom Clancy

"If all else fails, call in an air strike."  -Anonymous

Offline Geoff

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Re: USS Kidd/Cirus I
« Reply #10 on: August 25, 2013, 11:45:21 PM »
Thanks that's very useful. I was thinking that the IIN (The Shah's navy) would use them as delivered for a while and then if no revolution, upgrade with western equipment similar to the article you gave the link to.

For the APD idea I have one of the very cheap semi-scale Spruance kits from Kittech. It's about /1550th or so I think. I was wondering about this for the post revoltion IRIN in the Gulf War where they might upgrade with Chinese or Russian (or even French) systems. Which has been done to another class of ship. The kit has parts to do Spruance or Kidd, so mix and match will work.
 I don't think the Iranians would have gone to the trouble of adding a boat well. I was thinking of a simpler conversion where the landing craft are on davits along the side of the ship. That would mean loosing some of the anti- aircraft capability I think due to needing accommodation for the marines. Would they want to do that in the Gulf war when the Iraqies had such strong airpower, and the ship would def be going into harms way around the islands and the Shat Al Arab?

Sorry ships are not my strong point so if this is confused or daft - that's why!
« Last Edit: August 25, 2013, 11:47:41 PM by Geoff »

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: USS Kidd/Cirus I
« Reply #11 on: August 26, 2013, 12:28:48 AM »
Given the Kidd class were based upon the hull design of the Spruance class, I wonder if one could also develop a Iranian equivalent to the DDV-X Air-capable Spruance:

I wonder how a post-revolution DDV-X would have been.

It'd probably have been a priority target for the USN during subsequent clashes.

I know Iran has 114mm DP guns in service with their light frigates, but have they reverse-engineered it?
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: USS Kidd/Cirus I
« Reply #12 on: April 19, 2014, 01:51:22 AM »
How did I miss the thread, it crosses so many ideas I have been toying with, i.e upgraded Sprucans, Kidds and APDs in the RAN.

Basically my idea was when the US was offering gear at cheap or give away prices DEFMIN Robert Ray and PM Paul Keating jumped at the chance and bought all four Kidds to replace the aging Perth Class DDGs and 12 Spruance Class DDs with 6 to replace the in need of upgrade FFG-7s, 4 to be converted into APDs to beef up the RANs amphibious capability and 2 for spare parts.  The FFGs were retained in service as the new ships were upgraded and then transferred and sold to friendly nations.

Australian shipbuilding basically set up an industry rebuilding and modernising Kidds and Spruances over a 20 year period from the delivery of the first ships in 1995 until the decade of their planned retirement through to 2025

The Kidds were upgraded with 2 x 64 cell VLS 
The DD Spruances were converted to DDGs and the Mk25 NSS launcher removed to make space for an extended flight deck an increased size hanger.
APD aft 5" removed and superstructure aft of second funnel completely rebuilt with expanded aviation facilities, stern ramp for launching and recovering amphibious craft, as well as a large mission deck under the flight deck.

Second round of upgrades from 2010 saw installation of CEAFAR, Vampir, SM-6, ESSM, VLASROC and TLACM or provision for on all ships.

ANZACs were still built but purely as PFs with no plans made for ANZAC WIP or ASMD.  They were followed by a class of 15 locally designed and developed Corvettes to replace the RANs Patrol Boats, 3 locally designed AORs and 3 locally constructed San Antonio Class LPDs to replace the heavy lift ship and the heavy landing ships to support the APDs.  This build program took through to 2015 when the RAN began a program to replace the APDs with 3 America Class LHDs, the Kidds and Spruances with 6 indigenous DDGs and 3 30000ton DDHs

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: USS Kidd/Cirus I
« Reply #13 on: April 19, 2014, 03:08:31 AM »
Hmmm…Kidd class updated with Mk 26 missile launchers replaced with Mk41 VLS and new radars etc...
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: USS Kidd/Cirus I
« Reply #14 on: April 19, 2014, 09:52:15 AM »
Hmmm…Kidd class updated with Mk 26 missile launchers replaced with Mk41 VLS and new radars etc...

I have several 1/700 Dragon kits including Chandler, Radford and Spruance, as well as a couple of Ticonderogas, always have my eyes open for any more going cheap; always good for the weapons sprues as well as figuring heavily in my alt RAN ramblings.  In real life Ticos were an option post 2000 but by that point the government was set on building AEGIS Frigates( re-classed as Air Warfare Destroyers) and had been through the aversion therapy associated with the poorly executed Newport LST procurement. 

The Kidds would have been a god send as their purchase and modernisation costs would have been less than the cost of the FFG upgrade.  In real life one of the reasons given for not going through with the buy was that crewing shortages would have forced the early retirement of two of the six FFGs in addition to the 3 DDGs being replaced, ironically due to problems with the FFGUP the oldest two FFGs were dropped from the modernisation and retired early anyway and the DDGs were retired without replacement.  Since 1996 the then new government appeared determined to upgrade the ANZAC PFs into air warfare destroyers rather than buy appropriate ships for the role. now almost 20 years later one of them can now be rated as a capable GP frigate but with questionable stability, lots of ballast and subsequently seriously degraded platform performance. 

Over the last 15 years the RAN has traded 3 DDG, 6 FFG and a planned total of 8 PFs (17 ships, 9 of them mid to high end), for 4 FFGs (being replaced with 3 DDGs) and 8 PFs (being upgraded) (12 ships, dropping to 11, only 4 dropping to 3 high end and 8 ungraded to mid range).  The Kidd buy would have completely changed this, buying additional Spruances would have rejuvenated the RAN and given Australia breathing space to sort out the now critical boarder protection, amphibious and support forces before then turning back to what to replace the Ex-USN ships with in the 2020s.

Ah what could have been! (and still can be in my imagination)

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: USS Kidd/Cirus I
« Reply #15 on: October 01, 2014, 03:18:23 AM »
Changed my mind on the Kidd build, what I am now thinking is defence became a big political issue in Australia in the mid 70s following Indonesia's bloody annexation of East Timor in 1975.

Basically the Australian Federal Election, following the dismissal of the Whitlam Government on the 11 November 1975, was held on 13 December, with Indonesia invading Timor on 7 December and the Balibo Five (Australian, New Zealand and UK journalists) being killed by the Indonesian military on 16 December.  What happened in reality is neither the invasion or the murder had much political impact in Australia at the time as both parties put relations with Indonesia above any violations that may have occurred in the annexation.  Now if the date for the election was stretched out to say mid January 1976 then the murder of the journalists could have made the invasion an election issue, forcing the caretaker government to take action against Indonesia and souring relations between the two countries going forward.   This souring of the relationship with our closest neighbour in turn would have made defence, or more to the point low defence spending and hence reduced capability, a political issue which it had not been since the early 60s when opposition pressure (and some genuine fear) basically forced the order of new strike aircraft (the F-111) after much dilly dallying, the retention of the fixed wing FAA and the expansion and re-equipment of the army. 

So now in 1976 the new government reviews the previous governments selection of the Oliver Hazard Perry Class FFG over the (on paper) more capable Type 42 Destroyer as a replacement for the cancelled indigenous DDL project that had been intended to eventually build up to ten destroyers to replace the RANs Daring Class (and maybe the Battle Class) Destroyers and River Class Destroyer Escorts.  The previous government had announced their intention to order two OHPs despite the design being rated as inferior and incapable of meeting requirements as the preferred Type 42 was not available with the preferred Tartar Missile system.  In the real world the new government approved the selection of the OHP and confirmed the order for two of them, this was followed by an order for another pair and then the local build of a third pair some time later.  In my imaginary world the review, in the light of our worsening strategic situation and the fact defence is now an issue, both designs are found to be unsatisfactory, the requirements are reviewed and a new project is started looking for a more capable destroyer as opposed to a frigate to replace the already decommissioned Battle Class Destroyers as well as the in service Daring Class Destroyers for a total of five ships to bring destroyer numbers up to eight.

The designs considered for this new project were the improved Batch III Type 42 about to be ordered for the RN, the Dutch Tromp Class FFG, the Italian Audace Class DDG and the US DDG-47.  Notional designs were not considered as what is now called a MOTS solution was desired.  The Batch III Type 42 while improved still was not entirely satisfactory and still lacked the desired Tartar system, the Audace was steam powered and no longer in production while the DDG-47 was highly developmental, not expected to be available until the mid 80s and hideously expensive.  This left the Tromp as the best solution, requiring only a minor redesign to replace the twin 120mm with the preferred US Mk-45 5" gun.  Australia was about to place an order for a pair of Tromps when Ingalls ship building made an unsolicited offer of the Spruance DDG design as ordered by Iran.  Examining the new contender the RAN was extremely impressed with the capability on offer and recommended its selection to the government.

While the design satisfied all the requirements laid out by the RAN there was the issue of build and delivery with an Australian order to be tagged on the end of the USN Spruance program and also after the Iranian order.  This actually made local construction the faster and preferred option rather than the overseas off the shelf buy that had been intended.  At this point, none of the other designs were available in the desired timeframe either, which led to the FFG-7 being reconsidered but eliminated again when compared to the DDG-993 Class.  Accordingly in October 1976 an order was placed for five DDGs with an option for another five, to be constructed at the redeveloped Cockatoo Island shipyard.  Experts were brought in from Ingalls to assist in the design and construction of the redeveloped and expanded shipyard which would now be joined to the mainland by a massive hardstand built on reclaimed land.  Block fabrication started in the existing building halls, shipbuilders travelled to the US to work at Ingalls to gain experience with building the design and designers also travelled to the US to work on the detail design of the Australian version of the ship.

The Australian version of the DDG-993 was very similar to the Iranian ships but with an expanded hanger for two Wessex or Sea King ASW helicopters, 44 missile Mk-26 launchers forward and aft (i.e. no provision for the 8" MCLWG), an additional pair of SPG-51 fire control radars, provision for the (in development) canister launched Super Ikara, provision for up to sixteen canister launched harpoon and up to four Phalanx CIWS.  The first ship was laid down in 1978 and commissioned in 1982, subsequent vessels were laid down at twelve month intervals with completion through to commissioning reducing progressively from 48 months for the first to 30 months for the fifth ship which resulted in the government taking up the option for the additional five ships.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: USS Kidd/Cirus I
« Reply #16 on: October 02, 2014, 04:57:00 AM »
The “Bismarck Sea” class I used in Greater Australia were somewhat similar to this.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2014, 05:03:17 AM by GTX_Admin »
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.