The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Volkodav]

Thinking on it further I remember that Tartar was mentioned in relation to the RNs cancelled guided missile cruisers. It was intended that once it was available a pair of launcher (presumably Mk11s) would have been fitted to the cruisers in place of some or all of the four twin 3" mounts. This would have been similar to the manner is which Tartar was used as a secondary system on the Albanys.

Tartar was also, from memory of stuff I read years ago, mentioned in terns of updated or upgraded Darings and a GP frigate / sloop. The believe RAN looked at upgrading their Darings with Tartar (and / or Ikara) but canned it for cost reasons.

My thinking is that had the RN adopted Tartar during the 60s for any of these applications then it would have been available in the 70s which could have seen the RN going to the Falklands with something equivalent or superior to the Amazons, think FFG-7 equivalent or even the RANs still born DDL (which as Abe has stated was based on the Amazon).

Tartar would have been a good system to upgrade the Tigers in a more affordable and sensible modernisation, replacing the forward twin 3" but ideal would have been building the 4 CGs instead of the Counties and then building a class of Tartar armed super Darings to make up numbers, followed by Tartar FFGs in the 70s.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Thinking on it further I remember that Tartar was mentioned in relation to the RNs cancelled guided missile cruisers. It was intended that once it was available a pair of launcher (presumably Mk11s) would have been fitted to the cruisers in place of some or all of the four twin 3" mounts. This would have been similar to the manner is which Tartar was used as a secondary system on the Albanys.

The RN looked at Tartar in the late 50s but after Sea Dart was underway weren’t interested in it. There were some proposals for a compact Sea Dart launcher which could occupy roughly the same space as a Tartar launcher but with a few less missiles. The big reason Sea Dart magazines required a lot more room than Tartar was the different standards required by the RN. The missiles had to be lower down in the ship and in a single ring. All good measures for survivability but requiring a much more voluminous arrangement. If you rebuilt a Tartar Mk 13 launcher for Sea Dart you could probably fit around 30-35 missiles in the same can (have to crunch the numbers to find out exactly how many).

My thinking is that had the RN adopted Tartar during the 60s for any of these applications then it would have been available in the 70s which could have seen the RN going to the Falklands with something equivalent or superior to the Amazons, think FFG-7 equivalent or even the RANs still born DDL (which as Abe has stated was based on the Amazon).

DDL wasn’t based on the Amzaon. But the Amazon was originally designed as a joint RN/RAN ship. With the RAN version armed with American weapons including the Mk 45 127mm, Sea Sparrow and a Huey helo. The RAN later abandoned the Amazon and launched the DDL project. The final DDL design used the same engine room (CODOG: Olympus and Tyne) arrangement as pioneered on the Amazon. The RAN provided some of the funding to develop this engine room despite never using it.

 

[1805]

Strange compared to destroyers, identical compared to aircraft carriers. Those people that designed that ship actually knew what they were doing…



Both design concepts are impossible. Which is they there were never built and why the Type 42 was built and the Type 43 nearly built.

It isn’t so strange that the RN wasn’t boosted and provided with what it really needed as a sea control force after the Falklands. Because it had been Government policy before the Falklands to convert the RN into an all-ASW, NATO role Navy. Which was why they were decommissioning all those carriers, amphibs and support ships before the war. The result of the Falklands was a stalemate. The RN was able to retain the light carriers, Sea Harrier and amphibs and some support capability but only with upgrades and marginal improvements. They didn’t get what the war indicated they needed: a fleet carrier, the P.1216 fighter, fixed wing AEW, a new AAW destroyer and an LHD (aka Commando Carrier).

Well it was not a helicopter handling approach adopted before or since, also from the limited info I have seen I am not sure if a hanger was included (some mention a hanger other just a platform), it seems to have been used because of retention of trainable launchers rather than VLS, the beam/length ratio was going in the wrong direction (as was the T22/T42)...... maybe they did know what they were doing but if so it was well hidden.

The 3rd option of a new build or maybe a broad beam T22 would have been better. Interesting the T45's (7.23) is nearer the Burkes (7.75)...hey what did VT...know about destroyer design anyway....they only invented the concept...

I think the RN got most of what it could expect post the Falklands, Sea King AEW, more Harriers numbers, the upgrade to radar equipped FA2 and a commitment to replace the carrier and assault fleet.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Well it was not a helicopter handling approach adopted before or since, also from the limited info I have seen I am not sure if a hanger was included,

Actually it required exactly the same helicopter landing flight path as used by the RN on all their frigates and destroyers and there was a hangar and a pretty big one too.

it seems to have been used because of retention of trainable launchers rather than VLS, the beam/length ratio was going in the wrong direction (as was the T22/T42)...... maybe they did know what they were doing but if so it was well hidden.

Well since you could fire Sea Dart Mk 1 from a VLS it wasn’t a major design driver. Also fiting VLS would not have solved the primary design driver which was fitting all the 909 ‘Desert Can’ fire control radars the requirement for the ship needed. The port and starboard offset stacks were a very innovative design solution which saved a huge amount of length for the ship. Even if it required a perfectly safe and effective amidships flight deck which freaks out people who don’t know much about the details. As to stability it was expected to be the most stable ship in the RN.

You really shouldn’t be forming such strong positions on something while knowing very little about it.

 

[1805]

Well since you could fire Sea Dart Mk 1 from a VLS it wasn’t a major design driver. Also fiting VLS would not have solved the primary design driver which was fitting all the 909 ‘Desert Can’ fire control radars the requirement for the ship needed. QUOTE]

Do you mean "couldn't fire Sea Dart Mk 1 from a VLS" My point being they might have been better trying to work through a VLS version, rather than a double ended design. They knew of the concept, having tested a VL Sea Wolf in the late 60s, and the Russians hand started to fit in the 70s.

 

[Volkodav]

The closer you can get to the centre of a ship the more stable it is actually making it easier to land. If you look at the Spruances you can see the helicopter facilities are quite far forward, this was not only to free up space for weapons aft.

 

[ASSAIL]

Just so we all know what has been discussed
Shipbucket.com • View topic - Type 43 Destroyer

Centre hanger makes a lot of sense plus you can see the aforementioned problem with the 4 x guidance radars
Cheers

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Do you mean "couldn't fire Sea Dart Mk 1 from a VLS" My point being they might have been better trying to work through a VLS version, rather than a double ended design. They knew of the concept, having tested a VL Sea Wolf in the late 60s, and the Russians hand started to fit in the 70s.

You can’t fire Sea Dart Mk 1 from a VLS no matter what. It has nothing with being able to launch a rocket vertically or have directional control in the boost stage. It had everything to do with the missile guidance system.

Even if Type 43 had been designed for the cancelled Sea Dart Mk 2 (which could be fired from a VLS even though one was never built for it) and with a hypothetical VLS there would still be significant advantages to maintaining the double ended design.

Just so we all know what has been discussed
Shipbucket.com • View topic - Type 43 Destroyer

Centre hanger makes a lot of sense plus you can see the aforementioned problem with the 4 x guidance radars
Cheers

Also discussed here:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2549.0.html

 

[Volkodav]

So how many type 43s were planned, what were they intended replace? Perhaps more to the point what if anything was built instead of them?

 

[kev 99]

So how many type 43s were planned, what were they intended replace? Perhaps more to the point what if anything was built instead of them?

Don't know how many were intended but:

"the big ship was approved by the releveant committees but Whitehall lost its nerve over the high unit cost (about £200m), and out of committee and without studies the Type 44 was conveived." - D K Brown (Rebuilding The Royal Navy)

The Type 44 was basically the small version of Type 43 which was crap and everyone knew it, this was cancelled in the Knott review, which according to Brown was one of the few sensible decisions taken.

 

[1805]

You can’t fire Sea Dart Mk 1 from a VLS no matter what. It has nothing with being able to launch a rocket vertically or have directional control in the boost stage. It had everything to do with the missile guidance system.

Even if Type 43 had been designed for the cancelled Sea Dart Mk 2 (which could be fired from a VLS even though one was never built for it) and with a hypothetical VLS there would still be significant advantages to maintaining the double ended design.



Also discussed here:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2549.0.html

I am a big fan of the Iroquois Class, one of the best, if not the best of the big heavy twin helicopter frigates of the 70/80s, moving the flight deck as central as possible was a key element, the beam/length ratio was also far more sensible c8.5 v a fairly extreme 9.7 on the proposed Type 43.

I was not being specific about VL Sea Dart on Mk 1, but it should have been the focus of a design that would have served alongside the Type 23.

My comment on "lucky escape" was not solely down to the helicopter arrangement.

I would have liked to seen 4 heavy destroyers c6000t instead of the Batch 3 T22, and then a further 4 improved versions late 90s, dovetailed into 4 T45s in 00s. A rolling programme creating a drumbeat production.

Better still would also have been a uniform Sea Dart fleet, with a cut down system and VLS on the Type 23 (designed in from the start). If the low level coverage was not sufficient by then, this could have been handled by a Goalkeeper & 76mm combo.

If we had adopted the Guardian land based SAM based Sea Dart, we would have had a greater focus of resource and time on improving a single system.

 

[Volkodav]

Its actually too bad there wasn't a batch III County with many of the systems introduced by the Type 82 built instead of it. Sea Dart (possibly double ended) Olympus, Ikara.
As I understand it the CVA01 was meant to be escorted by a helicopter cruiser that evolved into the Invincible, the Type 82 and the Type 19; there was simply no need for the Type 82 to carry its own helicopters. The cancellation of the strike carriers changed things and made helos on escorts far more desirable , I know the timing doesn't work but a batch III county would have been more useful and capable than Bristol or the Sheffields.

 

[1805]

Its actually too bad there wasn't a batch III County with many of the systems introduced by the Type 82 built instead of it. Sea Dart (possibly double ended) Olympus, Ikara.
As I understand it the CVA01 was meant to be escorted by a helicopter cruiser that evolved into the Invincible, the Type 82 and the Type 19; there was simply no need for the Type 82 to carry its own helicopters. The cancellation of the strike carriers changed things and made helos on escorts far more desirable , I know the timing doesn't work but a batch III county would have been more useful and capable than Bristol or the Sheffields.

I think it would have been a lot better to have refitted the Counties along the lines of the Tigers, much cheap as they were already well suited to removal of Sea Slug (great name!), with a bigger hanger, then Sea Dart instead of Exocet forward. The Counties had such short RN service. The Tiger conversions were not great and crew hunger.

 

[kev 99]

I think it would have been a lot better to have refitted the Counties along the lines of the Tigers, much cheap as they were already well suited to removal of Sea Slug (great name!), with a bigger hanger, then Sea Dart instead of Exocet forward. The Counties had such short RN service. The Tiger conversions were not great and crew hunger.

I can see space on a rebuilt hanger complex for the rear mounted 902, I can't see much available for the forward mounted one.

Even if it could be done I'm far from convinced how economical it would be.

 

[1805]

I can see space on a rebuilt hanger complex for the rear mounted 902, I can't see much available for the forward mounted one.

You might be right, and it would have been expensive remove both twin, which would also lose a lot of capability. But they would have made fine ASW cruisers with twin Sea Kings. One of the issues with the need for so many Exocet conversions was once we had lost the CVA01 & Buccs the RN didn't have anyway to sink ships....

 

[Volkodav]

I can see space on a rebuilt hanger complex for the rear mounted 902, I can't see much available for the forward mounted one.

Is that a gun director above the bridge? Put the 909 there and fit a smaller lighter FCR higher up.

I was actually thinking more along the lines of evolving the County to be the Sea Dart ship instead of developing the Bristol.

 

[kev 99]

Is that a gun director above the bridge? Put the 909 there and fit a smaller lighter FCR higher up.

I was actually thinking more along the lines of evolving the County to be the Sea Dart ship instead of developing the Bristol.

I think it is, but I reckon the 909s are probably a bit on the big and heavy side to just fit to a superstructure that wasn't designed for it.

I'm sure a Sea Dart compatible Batch III could have been built, I'm pretty sure it would have been quite an expensive ship though.

You might be right, and it would have been expensive remove both twin, which would also lose a lot of capability.

If you want the Sea Dart launcher in B postion then you need the Sea Dart magazine to take up the same amount of space as the MK Vi magazine, as I understand it the magazines on the Countys were quite small.

If you wanted to rebuild Counties as Sea Dart carriers it might make more sense to put them in the place of Sea Slug at the Stern.

 

[StevoJH]

I think it is, but I reckon the 902s are probably a bit on the big and heavy side to just fit to a superstructure that wasn't designed for it.



If you want the Sea Dart launcher in B postion then you need the Sea Dart magazine to take up the same amount of space as the MK Vi magazine, as I understand it the magazines on the Countys were quite small.

If you wanted to rebuild Counties as Sea Dart carriers it might make more sense to put them in the place of Sea Slug at the Stern.

If you can fit the Directors in, and if there is enough space at the rear (may have to raise the deck to the level of the flight deck) for the Sea Dart Magazine, make it double ended.

Hopefully you can save enough space from losing the Sea Slug magazine that you can rearrange the rear end of the superstructure to enlarge the helicopter facilities.

Especially if the Batch 3's are completely GT powered.

Of course then you have a County class destroyer in name only.

 

[kev 99]

If you can fit the Directors in, and if there is enough space at the rear (may have to raise the deck to the level of the flight deck) for the Sea Dart Magazine, make it double ended.

Hopefully you can save enough space from losing the Sea Slug magazine that you can rearrange the rear end of the superstructure to enlarge the helicopter facilities.

Especially if the Batch 3's are completely GT powered.

Of course then you have a County class destroyer in name only.

Yeah exactly, they were big ships anyway (158m long!), and had a crew of ~470, that's nearly a hundred more than Bristol! The cost would have been prohibitive.

 

[StevoJH]

The County class are a generation older than Bristol in terms of equipment and Automation.

Remember that Bristol has Gas Turbines for propulsion as well as steam. Going purely for gas turbines would probably give significant crewing reductions.

Same for switching from Sea Slug to Sea Dart, not to mention if the Mk.VI gun(s) are switched for a Mk.8 gun.