Hubbry Logo
Fleet Rehabilitation and ModernizationFleet Rehabilitation and ModernizationMain
Open search
Fleet Rehabilitation and Modernization
Community hub
Fleet Rehabilitation and Modernization
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Fleet Rehabilitation and Modernization
Fleet Rehabilitation and Modernization
Fleet Rehabilitation and Modernization
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
USS George K. MacKenzie, after her FRAM I conversion.

The Fleet Rehabilitation and Modernization (FRAM) program of the United States Navy extended the lives of World War II-era destroyers by shifting their mission from a surface attack role to that of a submarine hunter. The FRAM program also covered cruisers, aircraft carriers, submarines, amphibious ships, and auxiliaries.[1] The United States Coast Guard also used this term in the 1980s for the modernization of its Hamilton-class cutters.

Background

[edit]

The program was started by Admiral Arleigh Burke as a response to estimates that the Soviet Navy would have a force of about 300 modern fast-attack submarines by 1957. The U.S. Navy was unable to produce quickly enough the destroyer escorts (redesignated as frigates after 1975) and other antisubmarine warfare ships to counter this threat, given its other priorities in new antiaircraft warfare frigates (redesignated as cruisers after 1975) and aircraft carriers, so Admiral Burke instead looked for ways to modify the existing World War II destroyer, which were rapidly becoming outdated anyway.[2]

Burke oversaw preparation of a report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees entitled "The Aging Fleet." The idea that became FRAM was only one of six recommendations of a special committee to address the poor material conditions of ships built during World War II. Those recommendations were, in order of preference:

  1. Build new ships,
  2. Give more time to maintenance,
  3. Accomplish more extensive overhauls,
  4. Provide more money for maintenance,
  5. Institute better training for maintenance personnel, or
  6. Create a large-scale modernization and rehabilitation program to fill the gap until new ships can be built.

United States Secretary of the Navy Thomas S. Gates embraced the last recommendation in a meeting with United States Secretary of Defense Neil Hosler McElroy on 11 November 1958.[1]

A comparable program for the Royal Navy had provided modifications to 33 British War Emergency Programme destroyers, which were converted during 1949–1956 into 23 Type 15 first-rate antisubmarine warfare frigates and 10 Type 16 limited conversions, pending the construction of new Type 12 and Type 14 frigates.

FRAM destroyers

[edit]
Sarsfield (top) as delivered and Rowan (bottom) after FRAM I.

Among the destroyers, conversion of the Gearing and Allen M. Sumner classes took precedence over the Fletcher and Benson classes. Destroyer conversions relied on experience with Fletcher-class destroyers modernized for transfer to Spain and Germany in 1957. The first two destroyers began FRAM in Boston, Massachusetts and Long Beach, California shipyards in March 1959.[1]

In Navy slang, the modified destroyers were called "FRAM cans", "can" being a contraction of "tin can", the slang term for a destroyer or smaller destroyer escort.

In order to provide the ships with a credible antisubmarine weapon, the FRAM I upgrade for the Gearing class centered on the addition of AN/SQS-23 sonar and two new weapon systems, the ASROC rocket-assisted torpedo launcher with a range of one to five miles (not in FRAM II upgrades), and the DASH antisubmarine helicopter with a range of up to 22 miles (35 km).[1] Both were armed with the new Mark 44 torpedo, which was also carried in the torpedo tubes of the warships. The ASROC could also launch a nuclear depth charge.

There were three different sets of FRAM upgrades. During refitting in the early 1950s, FRAM I Fletcher-class destroyers gave up the No. 2, 3 and 4 5-inch/38 caliber gun mounts, leaving only the two mounts on the main deck. A trainable Mark 15 Hedgehog mount took the place of the No. 2 gun mount, connected to a new, enlarged sonar suite. All topside 21-inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes were removed and replaced with two tubes mounted in the after deckhouse. One twin 3-inch/50 caliber gun mount was placed aft, atop the after deckhouse. There were variations such as Boyd, which had the 5-inch/38 mounts 3 and 4 removed in exchange for two twin 3-inch/50 caliber gun mounts above the after deckhouse connected to a computer controlled aft director. FRAM II changes saw the replacement of the Hedgehog mount with a Mark 108 Weapon Alpha ASW rocket launcher, the addition of two new triple Mark 32 torpedo tubes for the 12.75-inch (324 mm) Mk.44 torpedo[3] and the removal of the 3 in guns for the DASH hangar and flight deck. The only Fletcher-class destroyers to receive the FRAM II upgrade were Radford, Jenkins and Nicholas.[4]

Nicholas, a Fletcher-class destroyer, after her FRAM II upgrade.

Ships from the Gearing class were completely torn down and rebuilt from the hull up, including new engines, a much larger combat information center, and new sonar and radar systems. The 21-inch torpedo tubes between the funnels were removed, and the 8-round ASROC launcher (FRAM I only) placed there instead. All 3-inch/50 cal gun mounts were removed, and the after superstructure was used for the DASH's hangar and flight deck, with two new triple Mark 32 torpedo tubes for the 12.75-inch Mk.44 torpedo[3] placed just behind the rear funnel. This modernization was designed to extend the life of the destroyer by at least eight years. Eventually, all but three Gearings received FRAM I or FRAM II conversions.[2]

FRAM II

[edit]
Bryce Canyon with FRAM II-modernised Lyman K. Swenson, Collett and Blue. Shelton, closest to camera, received FRAM I (note the ASROC launcher on the mid-deck).

Ships in the Allen M. Sumner class received only armament modifications under FRAM II, and not all ships of the class received the FRAM upgrades. Although the rear deck was also converted as a flight deck for the DASH, the new 12.75-inch triple torpedo tubes were placed where the older 21-inch ones had been, and ASROC was not installed. Typically, all three 5-inch/38 twin mounts were retained. Additionally, two new 21-inch torpedo tubes for the Mark 37 ASW homing torpedo and variable depth sonar (VDS) were added. The converted Allen M. Sumners were designed for another five years of service.[2]

Sixteen Gearings were also converted under FRAM II. These included six radar picket destroyers (DDRs) and six escort destroyers (DDEs) that retained their specialized equipment (radar or trainable Hedgehog), as well as four former DDRs that were converted to near-twins of the Allen M. Sumner-class FRAM II destroyers. No Gearing FRAM IIs received ASROC. The retained DDRs kept all six 5-inch guns, and photographs show their DASH hangar was smaller than on other ships, plus the landing pad had no markings, so they may not have received the DASH.

All classes came in for FRAM II refits starting about 1959, being rotated out of service in order to keep as many ships at sea as possible. The upgrades were complete by 1965, and most of the ships involved continued to serve actively until the late 1960s.

FRAM destroyer summary

[edit]

A total of 95 Gearings and 33 Allen M. Sumners received FRAM modifications 1960–1965. Many of the ships provided significant gunfire support in the Vietnam War. DASH was withdrawn from ASW service beginning in 1969 due to poor reliability.[5] Lacking ASROC, the Allen M. Sumners were left without a standoff ASW capability, and were decommissioned 1970–1973, with most being transferred to foreign navies. The Gearings lasted somewhat longer in US service, with most decommissioned and transferred to foreign navies 1973–1980. The FRAM destroyers were replaced as ASW ships by the Knox-class frigates (destroyer escorts prior to 1975), which were commissioned 1969–1974, and the Spruance-class destroyers, which were commissioned 1975–1983. Both of the replacement classes had the same ASW armament as a Gearing FRAM I destroyer, with the addition of more and faster ASROC reloads, improved sonar, and a piloted helicopter, typically the Kaman SH-2 Seasprite.

Some ships of the Allen M. Sumner (from 1965) and Gearing classes (from 1973) served in the Naval Reserve Force (NRF), remaining in commission with a partial active crew to provide training for Naval reservists. The last FRAM destroyer in US naval service was William C. Lawe, a Gearing FRAM I, decommissioned and stricken 1 October 1983 and expended as a target 14 July 1999.[6][7]

FRAM II Carriers

[edit]

The Essex-class aircraft carriers modified for ASW service received the SCB 144 upgrade in 1960–1964 as part of the FRAM II program. They received a bow-mounted AN/SQS-23 sonar, as well as improved displays in the Combat Information Center.[8]

References

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Fleet Rehabilitation and Modernization

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Fleet Rehabilitation and Modernization (FRAM) was a major program undertaken by the in the late and early to extend the operational lives of aging World War II-era warships, particularly destroyers, through comprehensive overhauls and technological upgrades that enhanced their capabilities against emerging threats such as Soviet submarines. Initiated on November 11, 1958, by Secretary of Defense and formalized the following day by Admiral Arleigh A. Burke, the FRAM program addressed the Navy's "block obsolescence" crisis, where hundreds of vessels built during were becoming outdated amid defense budget constraints under the Eisenhower administration. The effort was driven by the need to counter the rapid expansion of the Soviet submarine fleet, which had grown to over 300 fast-attack by 1957, while buying time for the construction of newer ships. The program targeted primarily destroyer classes, including the Gearing, Sumner, and Fletcher types, as well as destroyer escorts and tenders, with some extensions to Essex-class aircraft carriers; in total, approximately 350 ships underwent modernization at a cost of $1.5 to $2 billion. Implementation occurred in two main variants: FRAM I, a full structural reconstruction for longer-hulled classes like the Gearing, which added helicopter hangars for the Drone Anti-Submarine (DASH) system, the Anti-Submarine (ASROC) launcher with a 1-5 mile range, advanced sonars such as the SQS-23, and updated radars, extending service life by about 8 years; and FRAM II, a less extensive upgrade for shorter-hulled classes like the Sumner, focusing on similar anti-submarine weaponry but with a 5-year life extension. For specific classes like the Gearing and Carpenter destroyers, the upgrades aimed to boost combat effectiveness through these enhancements, though by the late , further retention was deemed impractical due to escalating maintenance costs and the vessels' advanced age. Overall, FRAM represented the Navy's first large-scale post-World War II fleet modernization initiative, transforming obsolete gun-heavy destroyers into versatile platforms that served as force multipliers during the early , with many refitted ships remaining active into the 1970s and contributing to naval readiness without the immediate need for full fleet replacement.

Historical Context

Post-World War II Challenges

Following the end of , the U.S. Navy faced the challenge of an aging fleet predominantly composed of vessels constructed during the war years. The Fletcher-class destroyers, numbering 175 ships commissioned between 1942 and 1944, formed the backbone of the destroyer force, serving as versatile escorts in both surface and antisubmarine roles. Complementing these were 58 Allen M. Sumner-class destroyers and 98 Gearing-class destroyers, the latter a lengthened variant of the Sumner design, with 45 commissioned before the war's conclusion in 1945. These wartime builds, while effective against Axis threats, rapidly approached obsolescence as their hulls and systems fatigued from intensive Pacific operations, necessitating evaluations for extended service life amid shifting strategic priorities. Economic constraints severely limited the Navy's ability to maintain or replace this fleet in the immediate postwar period. Demobilization efforts reduced the defense budget dramatically, with fiscal year 1946 funding dropping from a requested $6.325 billion to an approved $4.224 billion, prioritizing domestic reconstruction over military expansion. These cuts reflected broader fiscal austerity under President Truman, which shrank naval personnel from over 3 million in 1945 to about 500,000 by 1947, straining ship maintenance and operational readiness. The 1949 "" exemplified these tensions, as naval leaders publicly protested the cancellation of the supercarrier and budget reallocations favoring the Air Force's strategic bombers over carrier-based aviation, ultimately underscoring the critical need for versatile, multi-role surface ships capable of adapting to emerging threats. In response to these pressures, the pursued widespread decommissions and mothballing to preserve hulls for potential future use while conserving resources. Active destroyer numbers plummeted from 377 in August 1945 to 145 by mid-1946, with further reductions stabilizing at 137 active by June 1950. By that year, planning documents outlined placing 258 s in reserve fleets, such as those at Bremerton and , where ships were dehumidified and preserved in inactive status to mitigate deterioration. This reserve strategy, however, proved challenging due to insufficient funding for upkeep, leading to corrosion and delayed reactivation efforts evident during the buildup. As the intensified with Soviet submarine development, the initiated ad-hoc upgrades in the early 1950s to enhance select vessels' capabilities without comprehensive overhauls. Several Gearing-class destroyers, for instance, underwent conversions to (DDR) configurations, installing advanced surface-search radars like the SPS-6 and improved arrays to extend early-warning networks against aerial and subsurface threats. These piecemeal modifications, including dome reinforcements and basic integrations, served as precursors to more systematic modernization, buying time for the aging fleet while budgets remained constrained.

Evolution of Naval Threats

The early marked a significant expansion of the Soviet Navy's capabilities, driven by the need to challenge Western naval dominance in open oceans. Following , the rapidly modernized its fleet, incorporating designs influenced by captured German technology. The Whiskey-class submarines, diesel-electric vessels capable of extended submerged operations, began entering service in 1950, with over 230 units constructed between 1951 and 1958, forming the backbone of the Soviet undersea threat during this period. This buildup transformed the Soviet submarine force from a coastal defense asset into a formidable instrument for projecting power, particularly in the Atlantic and Pacific theaters. The (1950-1953) exposed critical vulnerabilities in U.S. surface ship operations to potential attacks, underscoring the evolving undersea dangers. U.S. naval supply lines to Korea were recognized as highly susceptible to interdiction by enemy , prompting heightened (ASW) efforts to safeguard convoys and amphibious forces. Destroyers like the (DD-886) screened carrier task forces off the Korean coast against the threat of North Korean and potential Soviet , though no confirmed sinkings occurred. These operations highlighted the limitations of World War II-era escorts in detecting and engaging modern diesel , which could operate quietly for prolonged periods. By the mid-1950s, the accelerated its development of and guided missile technologies, further intensifying the naval threat to the West. The Soviets launched their first nuclear-powered submarine, the K-3 Leninsky Komsomol, in 1957 and commissioned it in 1958, followed by the K-19 in 1959, which introduced capabilities and extended endurance for strategic patrols. Concurrently, the integration of cruise missiles, such as early variants of the , into submarine platforms began in the late 1950s, enabling strikes against surface ships and coastal targets from standoff ranges. These advancements shifted the focus from conventional torpedo attacks to nuclear-armed, long-range threats, compelling the U.S. Navy to prioritize ASW enhancements. This evolving Soviet undersea posture prompted a strategic reorientation in U.S. naval planning, moving away from Pacific-oriented surface engagements reminiscent of toward Atlantic-focused convoy protection against submerged adversaries. The emphasis on (SLOC) defense in the North Atlantic became central, as Soviet submarines posed the primary risk to resupply routes in a potential European conflict. The U.S. Navy's aging -era fleet, comprising many pre-1945 hulls, amplified the urgency of adapting to these submerged threats by the late 1950s.

Program Development

Origins and Objectives

The Fleet Rehabilitation and Modernization (FRAM) program originated from a formal proposal in 1958 by Admiral , , who advocated for it as a cost-effective means to update existing ships rather than pursuing expensive new construction amid the Navy's postwar fleet constraints. The concept had emerged as early as March 1958, driven by broader strategic concerns over Soviet advances, particularly the expansion of their capabilities, and the need to counter block in II-era vessels. The program's core objectives centered on extending the operational life of aging destroyers by 8 to 10 years, substantially improving their (ASW) capabilities through advanced sensors and weaponry, and incorporating modern systems to adapt to evolving threats—all while avoiding the fiscal and temporal burdens of complete fleet replacement. By addressing "block obsolescence" in World War II-era hulls, FRAM sought to bridge the gap until next-generation vessels entered service, ensuring sustained naval projection without compromising immediate effectiveness. FRAM differentiated between two modernization tiers to balance thoroughness and efficiency: FRAM I entailed comprehensive overhauls, projecting an 8-year extension with extensive structural and systems upgrades, while FRAM II offered more limited modifications for a 5-year extension, targeting less demanding operational roles. Initial cost projections placed FRAM I conversions at approximately $12-15 million per ship, far below the $50 million-plus required for new builds, enabling the program to modernize around 300 vessels within a $1.5-2 billion overall budget.

Planning and Approval Process

The Fleet Rehabilitation and Modernization (FRAM) program's planning phase began on 11 November 1958 in the office of Secretary of Defense , where the initiative was formally initiated to address the aging destroyer fleet. The following day, on 12 November 1958, Arleigh A. Burke certified the program, with development led by a dedicated team under the oversight of the (BuShips), aiming primarily to extend the useful life of II-era ships by 8-10 years through targeted upgrades. The effort was spearheaded by Captain Eli Vinock, with input from the Blewett Committee and a planning group of 12 officers established on 15 November 1958. By March 1959, dedicated design teams for FRAM Mark I and Mark II were established under BuShips, with key involvement from industry contractors such as ; Commander Carl B. Ihli served as the FRAM project officer for BuShips, coordinating the technical and logistical aspects of the designs. Initial funding for the program was secured by reprogramming existing maintenance funds, marking a significant commitment to modernizing the fleet amid pressures. This funding enabled the transition from conceptual planning to procurement and design finalization, with BuShips promulgating detailed schedules and requirements by mid-1959. Technical specifications were finalized in 1960, establishing standardized upgrade packages tailored to major destroyer classes including the Fletcher, Sumner, and Gearing; these packages emphasized modular enhancements such as helicopter landing facilities, the ASROC antisubmarine rocket system, towed sonar arrays, and the SQS-23 bow sonar to improve capabilities without requiring full hull redesigns. A major challenge during was determining which vessels to select for conversion, balancing the reactivation of ships from the against those already in active service to minimize operational disruptions. Early feasibility studies from 1957 conversions of Fletcher-class destroyers for allied navies of and informed these decisions, ultimately favoring Gearing- and Sumner-class ships over older Fletcher- and Benson-class vessels due to their structural suitability for extensive modifications. This selective approach ensured efficient resource allocation while addressing the Navy's urgent need for enhanced fleet readiness.

Destroyer Modernization Programs

FRAM I for Destroyers

The FRAM I program primarily targeted Gearing-class destroyers, with 78 ships undergoing extensive modernization between 1960 and 1965 to adapt these veterans for contemporary roles. This variant of the Fleet Rehabilitation and Modernization initiative aimed to extend the operational life of the vessels by about eight years through comprehensive rehabilitation of hull, machinery, and weapons systems. Conversions took place at major U.S. Navy shipyards, such as Boston Naval Shipyard and , transforming the ships into more versatile platforms capable of integrating emerging drone technology and missile systems. Major structural alterations focused on enhancing stability and operational flexibility, including a rebuilt to support new and the of an aft helicopter landing deck and enclosed hangar for the QH-50C Drone Anti-Submarine Helicopter (). The DASH hangar allowed for the storage and launch of up to two unmanned helicopters, each capable of deploying anti-submarine torpedoes, marking a significant shift toward remote ASW operations. These changes increased the ships' displacement to approximately 3,479 tons at full load while maintaining the original beam of 40 feet 10 inches, ensuring compatibility with existing dock facilities. Propulsion upgrades involved overhauling the existing engineering plant rather than wholesale replacement, retaining four boilers and two geared steam turbines delivering 60,000 shaft horsepower to two shafts. This modernization improved reliability and , enabling sustained speeds of 32 knots and an extended range of 4,500 nautical miles at 20 knots, better suited for escort duties. Armament enhancements emphasized ASW capabilities, with the installation of an eight-cell Mk 16 ASROC launcher amidships for rocket-assisted torpedoes or depth charges, and two triple Mk 32 torpedo tubes aft armed with Mk 44 or Mk 46 homing torpedoes. To accommodate these additions and reduce topweight, obsolete World War II-era 20 mm and 40 mm anti-aircraft guns were removed, along with one twin 5-inch/38-caliber gun mount, leaving typically two forward 5-inch mounts for surface and air defense. Sonar systems were upgraded to the SQS-23 bow-mounted array, complemented by variable depth sonar (VDS) for improved submarine detection.

FRAM II for Destroyers

The FRAM II program represented a more streamlined and cost-effective approach to modernizing World War II-era destroyers compared to the extensive structural overhauls of FRAM I, focusing on rapid upgrades to extend service life amid evolving (ASW) threats from Soviet submarines. Primarily targeting the Sumner-class and Gearing-class destroyers, the initiative converted over 50 ships between 1962 and 1969, with 33 Sumner-class vessels and 16 Gearing-class examples receiving the modifications to enhance their ASW capabilities without major hull alterations. This broader application allowed the to sustain a larger portion of its destroyer fleet efficiently during the buildup. Key modifications under FRAM II emphasized ASW enhancements while preserving the original hull width, avoiding the beam expansions seen in FRAM I conversions. A smaller was added aft to support the Drone Anti-Submarine () system, but without a full enclosed , limiting it to a compact platform for drone operations rather than manned helicopters. systems were enhanced with variable depth sonar (VDS) for improved underwater detection, allowing better tracking of submerged threats by bypassing interference. Weapons integration focused on bolstering both ASW and surface capabilities, with improved mounts for enhanced fire control. These upgrades retained the destroyers' core armament configuration, including multiple twin 5-inch mounts, while adding Mark 32 tubes for antisubmarine torpedoes. Unlike FRAM I, these ships did not receive the ASROC launcher, relying instead on tubes and for ASW. The program's efficiency was evident in its reduced scope: each conversion cost between $6 million and $8 million and took 6 to 9 months to complete, significantly less than the and higher expenses of FRAM I, enabling quicker return to service.

Key Technological Upgrades in Destroyers

The Fleet Rehabilitation and Modernization (FRAM) program introduced several critical technological upgrades to U.S. destroyers, primarily targeting enhancements in (ASW), sensor capabilities, fire control, and engineering efficiency to counter evolving threats from Soviet submarines and aircraft. These modifications, applied mainly to Gearing- and Sumner-class vessels under FRAM I and II variants, focused on integrating standoff weapons, advanced detection systems, and automated processes to extend service life while improving operational effectiveness. A pivotal innovation was the Drone Anti-Submarine Helicopter (DASH) system, which enabled destroyers to deploy unmanned QH-50C drones for standoff ASW operations. The QH-50C, a lightweight with a rotor diameter of 20 feet and a of 2,285 pounds, could carry up to two Mk 44 homing torpedoes or one B57 nuclear , extending the ship's attack range beyond hull-mounted weapons. Controlled via radio link from the parent vessel, the drone achieved a combat radius of approximately 30 nautical miles at a cruising speed of 80 knots, allowing safe deployment against submerged threats while minimizing risk to the crew. First operational on USS Buck (DD-761) in 1963, the system was installed on over 160 destroyers, though reliability issues led to its phase-out by 1969. Sensor advancements centered on the integration of variable-depth sonar (VDS) systems, which complemented existing hull-mounted sonars like the AN/SQS-23 to enhance detection in layered environments. Deployed from the , the VDS allowed operators to lower the to optimal depths, bypassing interference and improving passive and active ranging against quiet Soviet submarines. In FRAM I upgrades for Gearing-class ships, this addition provided a significant boost to ASW surveillance, enabling earlier threat identification during escorts and independent patrols. Fire control systems saw refinements with the retention and integration of the Mark 56 Gun Fire Control System (GFCS) for the remaining 5-inch/38-caliber guns, enhancing anti-air warfare (AAW) precision. Comprising the AN/SPG-35 radar tracker and Mark 42 ballistic computer, the Mk 56 provided automated gun elevation, train, and fuze-setting orders, effective against high-speed subsonic aircraft at intermediate ranges. In FRAM-modified destroyers, this system was coupled to forward and aft mounts, incorporating taller radar antennas for better line-of-sight acquisition and integration with improved search radars like SPS-10, thereby bolstering surface combatants' layered defense without full missile overhauls. Engineering upgrades emphasized machinery rehabilitation and partial to sustain reliability and reduce operational demands. Boilers and turbines underwent complete overhaul, with automated combustion controls introduced to streamline and monitoring, contributing to overall crew efficiencies in the engineering department. While original power plants delivered 60,000 shaft horsepower (SHP), these modifications focused on maintenance improvements rather than raw output increases, ensuring sustained performance for ASW missions. Such , alongside habitability enhancements like , supported modest reductions in manning requirements compared to pre-FRAM configurations.

Carrier Modernization Programs

FRAM Applications to Carriers

The Fleet Rehabilitation and Modernization (FRAM) program, initially formulated for destroyers to counter evolving submarine threats, was extended to aircraft carriers through SCB-144 as part of FRAM II in the early 1960s. This applied specifically to 8 ASW-configured Essex-class CVS carriers: USS Essex (CVS-9), Yorktown (CVS-10), Intrepid (CVS-11), Hornet (CVS-12), Randolph (CVS-15), Wasp (CVS-18), Bennington (CVS-20), and Kearsarge (CVS-33). These upgrades built on prior aviation-focused modifications from SCB-27 and SCB-125 programs, emphasizing anti-submarine warfare (ASW) enhancements such as bow-mounted SQS-23 sonar and improved combat information centers (CIC) to support CVS roles. The efforts aimed to extend each ship's by about five years, enabling continued ASW operations in carrier task forces while accommodating . Funding for the program allocated approximately $50 million per ship, with approvals secured starting in 1961 as part of Ship Characteristics Board (SCB) initiatives, including SCB-144 for ASW-oriented configurations. This supported essential overhauls without full conversions, balancing cost-effectiveness with operational relevance. Implementation proceeded in phases, with modernizations beginning in 1961 (e.g., Randolph) and all 8 carriers completing upgrades by 1965 to bolster fleet ASW readiness. Key retained elements included steam catapults for aircraft launches, while prior additions like hurricane bows enhanced and resistance to heavy weather, ensuring the carriers' viability for extended Pacific and Atlantic deployments.

Specific Modifications for Essex-Class Carriers

While the broader Essex-class modernizations under SCB-27 (1947–1955) and SCB-125 (1954–1959) provided foundational aviation upgrades to 24 surviving ships (with 14 receiving SCB-125), FRAM II via SCB-144 added ASW-specific enhancements to the 8 CVS carriers noted above. These changes addressed limitations in the original World War II-era design, focusing on ASW reinforcements atop structural improvements that extended service life into the Cold War era. Flight deck alterations from SCB-125 formed the core of prior upgrades, with the installation of a 10.5-degree angled deck on ships that had not previously received it under earlier SCB-27 conversions. This configuration, inspired by British innovations, permitted simultaneous launches and recoveries, reducing collision risks during high-tempo operations. The deck was further reinforced with additional steel plating to withstand the stresses of jet landings, specifically accommodating like the A-4 Skyhawk with its higher gross weights and faster approach speeds. These enhancements improved operational efficiency and safety, allowing the carriers to support modern tactics. FRAM II retained these features without major changes. Hangar and elevator expansions from SCB-125 significantly increased the carriers' capacity to handle larger air wings, typically accommodating over 50 including jets and helicopters. Below-deck hangar spaces were enlarged by optimizing internal layouts and removing obsolete fittings, providing more room for and storage of modern ordnance. New hydraulic elevators, repositioned for better workflow—including one shifted to the starboard deck edge—were rated for loads up to approximately 46,000 pounds (20.9 metric tons), enabling the rapid movement of heavier between decks without compromising structural integrity. These modifications ensured the Essex-class could sustain sustained flight operations with a mix of attack and support planes; FRAM II did not alter these. Propulsion and hull modifications from SCB-125 emphasized seaworthiness to counter the stresses imposed by post-war operations in rough oceans. Keels were strengthened, and bilge keels were improved to reduce rolling and enhance stability, allowing the carriers to maintain their designed 33-knot maximum speed even in heavy seas. Additional hull bulges were added amidships for increased and beam, mitigating the effects of added topweight from new while preserving maneuverability. The incorporation of a "hurricane" bow further aided wave penetration, reducing structural fatigue during high-speed transits. These hull-centric changes collectively extended the vessels' operational reliability in diverse maritime environments and were retained under FRAM II. Electronics upgrades under FRAM II integrated advanced ASW sensors and control systems to support anti-submarine operations alongside . The AN/SPS-10 surface search radar was installed or upgraded on several Essex-class ships, providing enhanced detection for low-altitude threats and aiding in by tracking approaching . Complementing this, carrier-controlled approach (CCA) systems were integrated, utilizing radar-guided precision landing aids like the mirror landing system to enable safe operations in low visibility, thereby reducing accident rates during night or inclement weather recoveries. FRAM II added SQS-23 and CIC improvements for ASW. These electronic enhancements aligned the carriers with contemporary naval standards for integrated warfare and aviation support.

Implementation and Outcomes

Timeline and Ships Involved

The Fleet Rehabilitation and Modernization (FRAM) program commenced its conversions in 1960, with initial FRAM II work beginning earlier that year; the first FRAM I conversions for long-hulled Gearing-class destroyers, such as USS Keppler (DD-765), were completed in 1961 following extensive modernization to extend . The program gained momentum during the peak conversion period from 1962 to 1964, when numerous destroyers received FRAM I and II upgrades, including the Gearing-class USS Hanson (DD-832) completed in December 1964 at the San Francisco Bay Naval Shipyard, and the Gearing-class USS McKean (DD-784) finished in November 1964 at . Carrier modernizations under FRAM proceeded from the early 1960s to 1966, initiating with Essex-class carriers such as USS Intrepid (CV-11), which entered the New York Naval Shipyard for FRAM work in April 1965 and had overhaul approximately 75% complete by September 1965 as the final such job at that facility before its closure. The effort included a partial FRAM application to the Forrestal-class USS Ranger (CV-61) in 1964 at Mare Island Naval Shipyard, enhancing its capabilities amid escalating Cold War demands. Overall, FRAM encompassed 131 destroyers across variants I (79 Gearing-class) and II (16 Gearing-class, 33 Sumner-class, 3 Fletcher-class), alongside 17 carriers primarily from class, marking a comprehensive effort to revitalize the fleet; the final FRAM II destroyer, Gearing-class USS (DD-849), was modernized and completed in May 1964 at Boston Naval Shipyard, with service extending into the late 1960s. This chronological rollout, approved following initial planning in 1958–1959, ensured phased implementation without disrupting operational readiness.

Operational Impact and Legacy

The Fleet Rehabilitation and Modernization (FRAM) program significantly enhanced the operational capabilities of U.S. Navy destroyers during the , enabling them to fulfill critical roles in (NGFS) and (ASW) screening for carrier task groups. Upgraded and Sumner-class destroyers, equipped with modernized 5-inch gun mounts and ASW systems like ASROC, conducted extensive shore bombardment missions along the Vietnamese coast, firing millions of rounds to support ground forces and disrupt enemy supply lines. For instance, ships such as USS Bausell (DD-845), a FRAM II-modified , participated in multiple deployments providing NGFS off the region and ASW protection for carriers until the war's conclusion in 1975. These contributions were vital in maintaining naval superiority in contested waters, with FRAM upgrades allowing older hulls to operate effectively alongside newer vessels in high-intensity environments. While the FRAM initiative delivered substantial operational value, its cost-benefit analysis revealed both efficiencies and challenges, particularly with integrated systems like the . By extending the service life of World War II-era destroyers for an additional 8-10 years at roughly half the cost of constructing new ships, FRAM preserved fleet readiness during budget constraints in the , avoiding the need for accelerated new-build programs amid demands. However, the DASH component, intended to bolster ASW through unmanned QH-50 helicopters launched from decks, suffered from reliability issues, resulting in over 400 drone losses out of 744 produced by the late due to electronic failures and inadequate feedback systems; this contributed to the program's cancellation in January 1971 and phased removal from FRAM ships by the early 1970s. Despite these setbacks, the overall approach demonstrated the viability of mid-life overhauls for cost-effective force sustainment. The legacy of FRAM extended beyond immediate wartime utility, shaping U.S. fleet composition and modernization paradigms into the and beyond. By rehabilitating approximately 131 destroyers (79 FRAM I + 52 FRAM II) and supporting carrier upgrades among ~350 total ships, FRAM bridged the gap during the transition to an all-nuclear-powered carrier fleet, facilitating the decommissioning of Essex-class carriers and the introduction of Nimitz-class vessels starting in the mid- without compromising operational tempo. This strategy influenced subsequent upgrade efforts, such as the New Threat Upgrade (NTU) program applied to Spruance-class destroyers in the , which adopted modular system enhancements to counter evolving Soviet threats, echoing FRAM's emphasis on cost-effective technological integration. A wave of decommissioning followed as newer classes like Knox-class frigates replaced FRAM ships; most upgraded destroyers retired between 1970 and 1980, with the planning to decommission 20 in fiscal year 1980 alone amid shifting priorities toward advanced ASW platforms. Notable preservations include (DD-886), a Gearing-class FRAM I ship decommissioned in October 1982 and now maintained as a museum in , symbolizing the program's enduring historical significance.

References

  1. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1984/august/old-navy-fram-fixes-fleet
  2. https://www.gyrodynehelicopters.com/fram.htm
  3. https://www.gao.gov/assets/lcd-80-76.pdf
  4. https://destroyerhistory.org/fletcherclass/
  5. https://destroyerhistory.org/sumner-gearingclass/sumnerclass/
  6. https://destroyerhistory.org/sumner-gearingclass/gearingclass/
  7. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA227251.pdf
  8. https://www.history.navy.mil/about-us/leadership/director/directors-corner/h-grams/h-gram-078/h-078-1.html
  9. https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/us-ship-force-levels.html
  10. https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/v/vesole.html
  11. https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/b/bausell-i.html
  12. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA392080.pdf
  13. https://historyhub.history.gov/military-records/navy-marine-corps-and-coast-guard-records/b/navy-marine-coast-guard-blog/posts/cold-war-submarine-records-part-i-1946-58---post-war-to-guppys
  14. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1950v07/d464
  15. https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/o/orleck.html
  16. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA279727.pdf
  17. https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/servlets/purl/20752557
  18. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-PREX3-PURL-gpo121363/pdf/GOVPUB-PREX3-PURL-gpo121363.pdf
  19. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA248966.pdf
  20. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA487974.pdf
  21. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA421957.pdf
  22. https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/people/chiefs-of-naval-operations/admiral-arleigh-a--burke.html
  23. https://www.navsource.org/archives/05/helpers/fram.htm
  24. https://www.seaforces.org/marint/Hellenic-Navy/Destroyer/Themistoklis-Gearing-class.htm
  25. https://navsource.net/archives/05/helpers/fram.htm
  26. https://www.gyrodynehelicopters.com/fram_program.htm
  27. https://www.gyrodynehelicopters.com/gearing_class.htm
  28. https://naval-encyclopedia.com/ww2/us/gearing-class-destroyers.php
  29. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2018/august/uavs-fire-scout-there-was-dash
  30. https://www.gyrodynehelicopters.com/qh-50c1.htm
  31. https://naval-encyclopedia.com/cold-war/us/destroyers.php
  32. https://eugeneleeslover.com/USNAVY/CHAPTER-26-E.html
  33. https://www.seaforces.org/usnships/cv/Essex-class.htm
  34. https://naval-encyclopedia.com/cold-war/us/essex-class.php
  35. https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/annual_reports/1969_DoD_AR.pdf
  36. https://www.worldnavalships.com/forums/thread.php?threadid=13926
  37. https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/OnlineLibrary/photos/usnshtp/cv/scb125cl.htm
  38. http://skyhawk.org/article/carrier-scb
  39. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cv-9.htm
  40. https://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/11.ancient/karte075.en.html
  41. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1975/september/pictorial-essex-more-ship-more-class
  42. https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/m/mckean-ii.html
  43. https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/i/intrepid-iv.html
  44. https://www.navsource.net/archives/02/11.htm
  45. https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nhhc-series/nh-series/USN-1108000.html
  46. https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2012/september/last-gunfights
  47. https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/1999/december/unmanned-helicopter
  48. https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/communities/naval-aviation/1970-1979.html
  49. https://jaxnavalmuseum.org/uss-orleck-dd-886/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.