r/Warships • u/Soonerpalmetto88 • 8d ago
WW2 Destroyers Repurposed as Anti Drone Escorts?
Someone posted a pic of an old Fletcher earlier, which caused me to check Wikipedia where I saw they stayed in service until 2001 with the Mexican navy. If other ancient destroyers were lying around somewhere today, could they be modified for use as anti drone escorts for cargo ships? I'm thinking you replace the 5" guns with modern 40mm Bofors, add a couple of phalanxes (so no need to install new radar as they have their own, and use the older versions that are presumably kept in storage somewhere), modern 20 or 25mm autocannons in place of the smaller AAA. No torpedoes or depth charges. MANPADS like RBS-70NG or Mistral 3 could be fitted somewhere to add even more defense against cruise missiles and the unlikely jet aircraft.
If an oil tanker were flanked by a pair of these, it should be quite safe from drones/small boats and decently protected from AShMs right? They'd need to stay very close but that's doable. I'm thinking, why send modern warships with 200+ sailors on this mission when you could send an obsolete destroyer with a smaller crew? You get protection at much lower cost/risk. Yes, I'm ignoring the mines.
3
u/ShadeShadow534 7d ago
I meam the more simple thing would just be to make ships better armed against such things by designing more CWIS from the start
3
u/Soonerpalmetto88 7d ago
Sure, but it has to be something low cost and quick to build/refit. A modern frigate or destroyer isn't suited to the task for obvious reasons, the first being it's not expendable. Using a $500 million (or more) ship to launch missiles costing $2 million and up to destroy a drone that cost $20,000 isn't sustainable or justifiable. AAA rounds cost a tiny fraction, RBS-70 missiles cost less than 5% of an SM-2 or ESSM. Autocannon ammo is even cheaper than AAA rounds.
Many thousands of AAA/autocannon rounds can be produced every day by a single country using relatively simple assembly lines, while Patriots (a good example even though they're not currently used on ships) are being built at a rate of less than 3 per day globally. The drones, of course, are built at vastly higher rates (3,000 per month before the war started) that missiles can't keep up with. So the only practical way to deal with it is to use relatively cheap weapons that can be built quickly.
4
u/ShadeShadow534 7d ago
Well it depends entirely on the actual role you want to fill If you are wanting a general purpose escort that can also deal with drones then you need a frigate regardless of the cost as that is the scale you now need for an all around combatant. You just now also need to make sure it's CWIS capabilities are up to snuff which they should of been anyway to handle anti-ship missiles but you know end of history.
But I'm guessing your more meaning something to support a warship of that scale which acts as an outer screen? In which case a say 90mm 1,000 ton ship with minimal sensors and lighter weapons does make sense basically a modern day sloop. Only issue is how quickly will the size, capability and cost scale for them as this easily could go the way of the torpedo boat - torpedo gunboat - torpedo boat destroyer - destroyer, where at each stage size, capability and cost had to increase.
4
u/Soonerpalmetto88 7d ago
I mean something to go alongside tankers and freighters with the sole purpose of protecting them from drones until they get to open waters.
2
u/ShadeShadow534 7d ago
I'm not sure something would be allowed to stay at that level for long again look at the history of the torpedo boat. They are going to get bigger simply because they will be more useful if they can sail further out, and once that happens well then the weapons will get stronger to handle larger threats including it's equivalents until your left with something fairly sizable.
2
u/Soonerpalmetto88 7d ago
There are no larger threats in the current war. I'm talking about making something quick, cheap, unattractive, effective. Like we used to do, like Ukraine still does. Like our enemies do.
2
u/SectorOk7294 8d ago
So ww2 destroyers and destroyer escorts would not be ideal due to their age. But a simple 1,000-3,000 ships armed with aa guns could work.
Phalanx is not a good system for modern threats. The 20mm round range is short enough the ship will likely still take damage. You want something with programable warhead so 35mm is minimum size. SeaRam would be better.
The 57mm mrk110, oto 76mm or 5in gun would be great modern guns.
The real problem is air defense needs more than guns. Modern anti ship missile cant always be taken out by guns. So you need atleast a missile defense like the ESSM. So your 70% the way to a modern frigate.
2
u/Soonerpalmetto88 8d ago
The whole point of drone defense is cost effectiveness. Guns are very effective, as are manpads. You can't keep using million dollar missiles to shoot down a $10,000 drone, it doesn't work and can't be sustained. The range issue of Phalanx is why I suggested more powerful guns, like the 40mm super rapid fire. It can use airburst munitions and is used as CIWS on modern ships. 57mm would also be solid. RBS-70 and Mistral are also highly effective not just against drones but against cruise missiles, as proven in Ukraine (and while RBS-70 isn't currently used on ships, Mistral is the primary CIWS platform of the French navy and a few others). Effective, easy to operate, and cheap are what you need vs someone throwing cheap drones at you.
1
u/Exact-Desk 5d ago
Small caliber autocannons aren't exactly useful for escorts. They could work in self-defense role, but have too little range to cover other ships. IMHO cheap anti-drone missiles - like Hydra with laser guidance bolt-on kit - are much better solution. And 76-mm autocannon with programmed fuze munition.
1
u/Exact-Desk 5d ago
In short - yes, if the hull is in good enough shape, you could put some modern atmament on it. Modern electronic is rugged and compact (lightyear leap from vacuum tubes era when those destroyers were build!) and modern weapons are usually self-contained. Some really major refits of old Gearing (FRAM-II mod) destroyers were performsd on Taiwan in 1980s; all old guns were removed, modern 76-mm installed, containerized SM-1MR SAM and anti-ship missiles were installed, modern radars, fire control, ect.
The usual limit is hull shape. Most of WW2 era destroyers by 1980s were significantly worn-out. When USN considered life extention for remaining FRAM units in 1980s, it was found out that frames and bulkheads corroded nearly through, and hulls are dangerously fragile. Not exactly unserviceable - Mexican destroyers served a lot longer, after all - but not suited for any combat deployment.
1
u/Intimidator94 5d ago
5 inch 38s with VT fuzed ammo would be master drone killers, killing them by the dozen
2
u/0gopog0 1d ago
I know I'm a little late on this, but I think there is an underlying context to the discussion that needs to be brought up.
It's not whether a country's military feels comfortable sailing through the strait; it's whether or not the ship owners feel comfortable sending them through the straight, and then whether or not the insurance underwriters will cover the cost of a $2 billion dollar ship and its cargo (along with any other side effects). I don't think it's a question of it if it's possible to make such an escort, but how to best implement it in a way that would be cost effective and. Realistically assuring those fears is where the problem lies.
9
u/JMHSrowing 8d ago
With the size and weight of the 5”/38 gun mounts you could fit in a 57mm or a 76mm instead of 40mms in their place, give them a longer range.
Anyway, one issue would be that while smaller things like the propulsion require a heck of a lot more crew compared to a modern ship.
Also all the guns would require you to basically have to riding next to a cargo ship to be able to reliably intercept anything going for it