_-_19-N-14753.jpg) USSFarragut in 1935 | |
| Class overview | |
|---|---|
| Name | Farragut class |
| Builders |
|
| Operators |  United States Navy |
| Preceded by | Clemson class |
| Succeeded by | Porter class |
| Built | 1932–1935 |
| In commission | 1934–1945 |
| Completed | 8 |
| Lost | 3 |
| Retired | 5 |
| General characteristics | |
| Type | Destroyer |
| Displacement |
|
| Length | 341 ft 3 in (104.01 m) |
| Beam | 34 ft 3 in (10.44 m) |
| Draft | 16 ft 2 in (4.93 m) |
| Installed power |
|
| Propulsion | 2 shafts |
| Speed | 37 knots (69 km/h; 43 mph) |
| Range | 5,980 nautical miles (11,070 km; 6,880 mi) at 12 kn (22 km/h; 14 mph) |
| Complement |
|
| Sensors & processing systems | |
| Armament |
|
TheFarragut-class destroyers were a class of eight 1,365-tondestroyers in theUnited States Navy and the first US destroyers of post-World War I design. Their construction, along with thePorter class, was authorized byCongress on 29 April 1916, but funding was delayed considerably. Limited to 1,500 tonsstandard displacement by the provisions of theLondon Naval Treaty of 1930, the ships were laid down beginning in 1932 and were completed by 1935. After 12 years since the last of the previous class of American destroyers (theClemson class) was commissioned, theFarraguts were commissioned in 1934 and 1935.
These ships were slightly larger than their predecessors, faster, and they had only twostacks, versus the four stacks common to all the earlier classes. The class was the first of six classes of 1,500-ton destroyers built in the 1930s to modernize the United States Navy, and all eightFarraguts saw extensive front-line service duringWorld War II.[3] None were lost in battle, although only five survived the war. After numerous incremental improvements, the 1,500-tonners were succeeded by the 2,100-tonFletcher class, which was not subject to treaty restrictions.
TheFarraguts were a considerable improvement from previous destroyers, taking advantage of technological advances during the 12-year gap in destroyer production. The impact of aircraft on naval warfare was reflected in their heavy dual-purpose main gun armament. They also had greatly improved machinery and greater fuel capacity that extended their range to 5,980nautical miles (11,070 km; 6,880 mi) as opposed to theClemsons' 4,900 nautical miles (9,100 km; 5,600 mi).[4][5] Their larger size and improved habitability soon earned them the nickname of "goldplaters" from the crews of older destroyers.[6]
The list of desired improvements compiled from the operational experience of the earlierWickes andClemson classes was both long and comprehensive. Both classes had pointedsterns that deeply dug into the water, greatly increasing turning diameter.[7][8] This was addressed with thetransom stern design of theFarragut class. The previous classes wereflush deck designs; while providing good hull strength, this proved to be wet in high seas.[7][8] This was addressed with the raised forecastle employed on theFarragut class. Cruising range on both theWickes andClemson classes had been a constant affliction of commanders; theClemsons had been built with wing tanks giving better range, but at the cost of having high mounted fuel oil on both sides—a decidedly vulnerable feature in a ship without an armored belt such as a destroyer.[9] TheFarragut class corrected this range deficiency by having a design range of 5,980 nautical miles (11,070 km; 6,880 mi) as opposed to theClemson's 4,900 nautical miles (9,100 km; 5,600 mi).[9][5] Steady improvements to both boilers and steam turbines in the years between theClemson andFarragut designs allowed this improved range, along with greater speed and a reduction from 4 to 2 stacks.
The success of the efforts become clear with the testimony of Rear AdmiralEmory S. Land, head of theBureau of Construction and Repair, to theGeneral Board, comparing theFarragut class to theWickes andClemson classes. Those advantages were:
This had all been accomplished on a displacement rise of only 22%.[10]
TheFarragut-class destroyers were considered unstable in heavy weather and in turns. This was compounded by war-time modifications that made them even more top-heavy. Two of the destroyers,Hull andMonaghan, sank as a result of theDecember 1944 typhoon. One of the survivors stated
"The only thing I could complain about is ever since we left [Seattle] the ship seemed top heavy. I was on there for two years. Ever since we left [the shipyard] in October 1944, she seemed to roll worse than she ever did. Even in the calmest weather and even when anchored, she seemed to roll lots more than she used to."
A court of inquiry after the loss concluded that [the] basic stability of theFarragut-class ships "is materially less than other destroyers."[11]
TheFarragut-class propulsion plant was considerably improved over theClemson-class. Steam pressure and temperature were raised from 300 psi (2,100 kPa)saturated steam to 400 psi (2,800 kPa) steamsuperheated to 648 °F (342 °C). Superheated steam increased the efficiency of the turbines, improving the ships' range.[1] This was the first use of superheaters in a US destroyer.Economizers were also fitted; these used boiler exhaust gas to preheat thefeedwater before it entered the boiler; these increased the ships' range by requiring less fuel to boil the water to steam.[12] TheFarragut's turbines were Parsons-typereaction turbines manufactured byBethlehem Steel. Each main turbine was divided into a high-pressure and a low-pressure turbine feeding into a common reduction gear to drive a shaft,[13] in a similar manner to the machinery illustrated below and at the following reference.[14] This general arrangement became standard for most subsequent steam-powered surface ships of the US Navy. Single-reduction gearing (as in theClemsons) was used on theFarraguts; theMahans and later classes had double-reduction gearing, which reduced the required size of the (then faster spinning) turbines still further.[12]
All ships were present at theattack on Pearl Harbor, whereMonaghan sank aJapanesemidget submarine.[3] Three of the class were lost in the war:Worden ran aground inAlaskan waters in January 1943 and became a total loss, whileHull andMonaghan were lost inTyphoon Cobra in December 1944. The remaining five ships survived World War II; they were broken up for scrap shortly after the end of the war.
| Ship Name | Hull no. | Builder | Laid Down | Launched | Commissioned | Decommissioned | Fate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Farragut | DD-348 | Fore River Shipbuilding | 20 September 1932 | 15 March 1934 | 18 June 1934 | 23 October 1945 | Scrapped 1947 |
| Dewey | DD-349 | Bath Iron Works | 16 December 1932 | 28 July 1934 | 4 October 1934 | 19 October 1945 | Scrapped 1946 |
| Hull | DD-350 | Brooklyn Navy Yard | 7 March 1933 | 31 January 1934 | 11 January 1935 | — | Lost inTyphoon Cobra, 17 December 1944 |
| Macdonough | DD-351 | Boston Navy Yard | 15 May 1933 | 22 August 1934 | 15 March 1935 | 22 October 1945 | Scrapped 1946 |
| Worden | DD-352 | Puget Sound Navy Yard | 29 December 1932 | 27 October 1934 | 15 January 1935 | — | Grounded nearAmchitka,Alaska, 12 January 1943 |
| Dale | DD-353 | Brooklyn Navy Yard | 10 February 1934 | 23 January 1935 | 17 June 1935 | 16 October 1945 | Scrapped 1946 |
| Monaghan | DD-354 | Boston Navy Yard | 21 November 1933 | 9 January 1935 | 19 April 1935 | — | Lost in Typhoon Cobra, 17 December 1944 |
| Aylwin | DD-355 | Philadelphia Navy Yard | 23 September 1933 | 10 July 1934 | 1 March 1935 | 16 October 1945 | Scrapped 1946 |
This article incorporates text from thepublic domainDictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships.
