Been a long old wait but really looking forward to seeing the thing on trials. And if someone can catch an image with the RN, RAN and RCN variants, line abreast, I'd probably pull a muscle reaching for my wallet to buy a print. Definitely a "shut up and take my money" moment.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Agreed!!!
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
,
Last edited:
SolarisKenzo
Well-Known Member
Aster 30 B1 for the royal navy.
Contract signed between OCCAR director (Italian Admiral Bisceglia) and Eva Bruxmeier (Managing director)
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Nice video and the discussion on the propulsion system is very informative.
Also note what it says about T45 & T83 -
"It is expected that the last Type 45 destroyer will transition out of service in 2038. The Future Air Dominance System, which is still at the programme pre-concept phase, but is likely to include the Type 83, will replace the Type 45 in line with its out of service dates.”
"It is expected that the last Type 45 destroyer will transition out of service in 2038. The Future Air Dominance System, which is still at the programme pre-concept phase, but is likely to include the Type 83, will replace the Type 45 in line with its out of service dates.”
Good find. The time frame given strengthens the assumption many made of the Type 32 being a batch 2 Type 31.
Positive that fleet numbers still look set to rise after the previous rumours to the contrary. Early days yet though.
The T8x designation is interesting - suggests it will be a big ship - significantly bigger than a T26.
Regards,
Massive
That's a bit of a reach because how do we know what the serials of RN type numbers relate to. Are they sequential? Or are the numbers chosen by another method? What are the relationships between the Types 26, 31, and 45 class numbers?
The ASW were teens now twenties, the 40 series were AD, the GP were 80s and air direction were 60s. Type 12, 14, 15, 21, 22, 23 ASW, Type 41, 42, 45 air defence, Type 81, 82 GP
My recollection was the Type 82 was intended to be a large guided missile destroyer which would act as an area defence and ASW escort for the CVA-01 class aircraft carriers. Four were planned but only HMS Bristol was built (after the carrier program was cancelled). Essentially a larger general purpose Type 42 with the necessary space and command and control facilities to act as a flagship.
T
All the Type numbered designs were escorts. This is covered in books by Brown and Friedman about post WWII RN warship development.
Type 82 was evolved as a general purpose escort from the Type 12 hull form. Once Ikara, and Seadart were incorporated into the design it grew to the size of the County Class DLG. Seadart had originally been intended to be a much smaller system than it became, a UK equivalent to the Tartar that could be fitted to frigate sized ships.
All the Type numbered designs were escorts. This is covered in books by Brown and Friedman about post WWII RN warship development.
Last edited:
The Type 42 was the minimum platform required to ship Seadart and it's numbering followed from the Leopard Class Type 41 AA frigate.
The Type 82 was a carrier escort but deemed to be GP with her Seadart and Ikara and it's numbering followed the Type 81 Tribal class GP frigate, which was originally ordered as a sloop.
T82 would have been an orphan - but four orphans instead of one - if built as planned. Bristol was the last steamship built for the RN, & I think we ended up with a unique supporting infrastructure for one ship. It could have been four.
Could have kept everything else, dropped the steam plant, & doubled the GTs. Same power, but using less space, weight, & manpower. Might have saved problems later. The first T42s had no margin for anything, IIRC, & a poor hull shape because of being shrunk, & that's why Batch 3 was bigger.
I've often wondered if there was any real justification for not continuing with the County hull form, slightly shortened. Different internally, of course: no steam plant (more compact & lighter GTs, perhaps 4 Olympus), no massive Sea Slug magazine & handling space, considerably fewer but more comfortably housed crew - & still there should have been room for Type 42's armament, good seakeeping, perhaps better protection, & margins for growth. Ah well. It didn't happen.
Could have kept everything else, dropped the steam plant, & doubled the GTs. Same power, but using less space, weight, & manpower. Might have saved problems later. The first T42s had no margin for anything, IIRC, & a poor hull shape because of being shrunk, & that's why Batch 3 was bigger.
I've often wondered if there was any real justification for not continuing with the County hull form, slightly shortened. Different internally, of course: no steam plant (more compact & lighter GTs, perhaps 4 Olympus), no massive Sea Slug magazine & handling space, considerably fewer but more comfortably housed crew - & still there should have been room for Type 42's armament, good seakeeping, perhaps better protection, & margins for growth. Ah well. It didn't happen.
The County Class were impressive ships certainly to this raw Midshipman who drooled over HMS Kent when in company with her in 1968, veritable Gin Palaces.
The RAN showed keen interest in them in the late 1950s but with Seaslug being replaced by Tartar and fitted with Ikara.
The following old article by Dave Shackleton, ex neighbour, one class ahead of me in both initial training and UK PWO courses, explains the RAN’s rationale for going ahead with the USN CFA class in lieu.
The Adams-class guided-missile destroyers and the RAN | The Strategist
From its origins in 1901 until the late 1950s, through its deep association with the Royal Navy, the Royal Australian Navy became unmistakably British in outlook, practices and culture. It was a relationship of great ...
www.aspistrategist.org.au
I have wondered if Australia's involvment with the development testing of Seaslug at Woomera coloured view of the system. There were plans for the light cruiser Hobart to be converted to a CLG in the 50s, likely with Seaslug, that went nowhere.The County Class were impressive ships certainly to this raw Midshipman who drooled over HMS Kent when in company with her in 1968, veritable Gin Palaces.
The RAN showed keen interest in them in the late 1950s but with Seaslug being replaced by Tartar and fitted with Ikara.
The following old article by Dave Shackleton, ex neighbour, one class ahead of me in both initial training and UK PWO courses, explains the RAN’s rationale for going ahead with the USN CFA class in lieu.
The Adams-class guided-missile destroyers and the RAN | The Strategist
From its origins in 1901 until the late 1950s, through its deep association with the Royal Navy, the Royal Australian Navy became unmistakably British in outlook, practices and culture. It was a relationship of great ...
Tartar was attractive because it was designed with a launcher able to replace a Mk-38 twin 5" mount and it below deck arrangements. Technically it could also do the same for the Mk-6 4.5" twin and it was assumed could have been fitted to the RANs Daring and maybe even Battle class destroyers in midlife upgrades. It's not as simple as swapping guns for missiles but the compact Tartar system was definately a simpler prospect for such than Seaslug, Terrier, or Talos.
If I recall correctly Dr Shackleton's thesis (the article is based on this paper) also suggested the USN Belknap Class DLG may have been, though more expensive, better value for money, than the CFA DDG. This was because of the USNs development of the class through a series of incremental upgrades, capped off with the NTU program that delivered a massive capability improvement far beyond what we were able to achieve with the DDGs.
The RAN, wanted a smaller, steam only destroyer based on the County, basically a DDG version of the Daring, with Tartar, and a helicopter (or two), while retaining two twin 4.5" gun mounts and possibly shipping Ikara, all on the same displacement as a CFA. A bit of a stretch.
The UK responded that they didn't have the capacity to develop such a design and suggested Australia procure either the baseline County, or alternatively wait for the Escort Cruiser, which more closely fit the RAN requirement (except for displacement.
The Escort Cruiser continued to evolve, eventually becoming the complement to what became the Type 82, to escort the CVA01 carriers. When the carriers were cancelled the escort cruiser concept grew (through multiple iterations, concepts, stops and starts) into what became the Invincible class Through Deck Cruisers, later acknowledged to be carriers. There was even a version based on the Type 82 with a large hangar and helideck with Seadart moved forward in place of Ikara.
I wonder what would have happened if the UK had developed a version of the County to meet RAN requirements. Perhaps merging it with their Escort Cruiser requirement, instead of trying to design a Leander based air defence frigate, that grew into the Type 82.
Tartar was originally developed in part due to a UK request for a point defence missile based on the interceptor stage of the Terrier missile, and the Seadart missile launcher and magazine was conceptually similar, if not actually based upon, the USN Mk-11 GMLS of the original Tartar system.
A 1960s version of AUKUS could have had some very interesting progeny.