The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Volkodav]

Move the hanger and flight deck aft and drop both a deck with the Sea Dart positioned between the hanger and aft funnel(s), that way the magazine can be in the space used by the old Sea Slug magazine. The aft funnel could be split port and starboard and a horizontal magazine for Ikara (thanks Abe) worked in between them to feed the Sea Dart launcher, with a pair of 909s sited above. If the ship has a CODOG, COGOG or COGAG arrangement instead of COSAG the forward funnel could be dispensed with or split port starboard as well. If COSAG is retained then a MACK could be substituted. a second Sea Dart installed in B position and the remaining Mk6 4.5" replaced with a Mk8.

A factor in the crewing of the Counties verses the Bristol was the Sea Slug, Sea Dart, even with two launchers would lead to a reduction in man power; going all GT and losing the steam plant would permit a further saving. (was typing this when you replied Stevo, whoops)

A batch III County could be designed to operate a pair of Sea Kings verses a single Wessex and could probably also have a couple of 30 or 35mm gun mounts covering each beam to counter small boats and low flying aircraft, as per Abes discussions on the DDL. It would be too early for Sea Wolf and with two Sea Darts would need Sea Wolf.

 

[1805]

Following the discussion here, I think we would probably have come to the same conclusion the RN did; fine ships though they were, technology was moving to fast. Their service was short, but I guess you have to think of it in a similar way to the 1860-80s when ships remained current for very limited periods.

I always thought Bristol was a development of the Counties?

 

[StobieWan]

Following the discussion here, I think we would probably have come to the same conclusion the RN did; fine ships though they were, technology was moving to fast. Their service was short, but I guess you have to think of it in a similar way to the 1860-80s when ships remained current for very limited periods.

I always thought Bristol was a development of the Counties?

Different missile system, radar, engineering plant. ..nah - type 82 was conceived as an enlarged Leander (I kid you not)

 

[deepsixteen]

Different missile system, radar, engineering plant. ..nah - type 82 was conceived as an enlarged Leander (I kid you not)

Hi

Really? Seemed almost identical as far as propulsion displacement dimension and basic internal layout, Iron decks etc. to me.

Deepsixteen

 

[Volkodav]

It was a shame they didn't develop it in a different direction, I.e. Expanding and improving the helicopter facilities, going for a double ended arrangement and perhaps even a COGOG or COGAG propulsion arrangement.

 

[Volkodav]

Different missile system, radar, engineering plant. ..nah - type 82 was conceived as an enlarged Leander (I kid you not)

I actually remember reading that some where now you mention it. It was seen as a follow on to the Type 81 Sloop, more of a large GP frigate than a destroyer.

 

[StobieWan]

Hi

Really? Seemed almost identical as far as propulsion displacement dimension and basic internal layout, Iron decks etc. to me.

Deepsixteen

Never been around one so you've got a huge advantage on me there, but that's what Vanguard to Trident seems to be saying - if in fact they're very similar I may be misreading the text and taking the statement in the wrong sense.

 

[StobieWan]

It was a shame they didn't develop it in a different direction, I.e. Expanding and improving the helicopter facilities, going for a double ended arrangement and perhaps even a COGOG or COGAG propulsion arrangement.

I think all of that was covered by the Type 43 design - Bristol was sort of a half way house between the counties and 42's technologically - Sea Dart but COSAG, 43 was pretty much what you're describing with a double end, large hangar. I think limiting the Type 82 to a single ship was probably for the best as GT's were starting to live up to their early promise and running the full class of them would have been expensive in terms of man power.

I do wonder how closely the suggestion of buying the five spare Tico's was considered in the 80's and if they'd have been a useful addition to the RN.

 

[1805]

Different missile system, radar, engineering plant. ..nah - type 82 was conceived as an enlarged Leander (I kid you not)

Engineering and design wise they were a development of the Counties, continuing the switch to GTs. But yes in concept she was to be a GP escort, very similar to the likes of the USS Coontz or USS Belknap.

The Type classification can be confusing, I think the original idea was: 10s ASW, 40s AW, 60s AD and 80 GP. But the Leanders although GP (due to radar) were never give an 80s Type, although the Tribals were (81).

I think with the exit of the CVA-01 the RN should have gone the whole way and moved to a single class merging the Type 42s and 22s, such a ship would have been very similar to the USN Perrys.

Should the Type 21 been more of an OPV (I don't think the term existed at the time, the concept seem to come from our experiences in the Cod Wars...off topic but saw an amazing documentary on them a while back, I was only young at the time...but can you imagine a frigate captain being ordered to ram his ship into a gunboat!

 

[kev 99]

I think with the exit of the CVA-01 the RN should have gone the whole way and moved to a single class merging the Type 42s and 22s, such a ship would have been very similar to the USN Perrys.

D K Brown doesn briefly touch on this in 'Rebuilding' he basically says that trying to do everything that a Type 22 and 42 could do in 1 hull would have resulted in a much larger ship than either of them (and a OHP class).

 

[StobieWan]

Why was that though ? The OHP's aren't huge and they're packing a SM1 launcher which effectively is an area defence weapon - are the magazine arrangements for Sea Dart very large or is there something else ?

 

[kev 99]

Why was that though ? The OHP's aren't huge and they're packing a SM1 launcher which effectively is an area defence weapon - are the magazine arrangements for Sea Dart very large or is there something else ?

I reckon Sea Dart and the twin 909s almost certainly took up more space than the Standard.

Brown suggests that the equipment in the 22 was pretty space intensive as well which is the reason for the growth from batch 1 to 2.

 

[1805]

I reckon Sea Dart and the twin 909s almost certainly took up more space than the Standard.

Brown suggests that the equipment in the 22 was pretty space intensive as well which is the reason for the growth from batch 1 to 2.

I think your right the original system was much heavier than the Standard system, I think the 965 was probably the biggest issue, the Double set of the Type 42 looks huge. But later, when the concept was probably not on the agenda, with the 1022 and a more compact launcher or VLS then maybe. If Sea Dart been given a better DP capability, we could have dropped Exocet/Harpoon.

 

[StobieWan]

I think your right the original system was much heavier than the Standard system, I think the 965 was probably the biggest issue, the Double set of the Type 42 looks huge. But later, when the concept was probably not on the agenda, with the 1022 and a more compact launcher or VLS then maybe. If Sea Dart been given a better DP capability, we could have dropped Exocet/Harpoon.

Sea Dart is a semi active missile so it'd be line of sight all the way - no way to say, cue a launch from a helicopter over the horizon or whatever. The SM2's got used that way against gun boats etc in the Gulf but I don't think you could do away with a genuine anti shipping missile.

 

[1805]

Sea Dart is a semi active missile so it'd be line of sight all the way - no way to say, cue a launch from a helicopter over the horizon or whatever. The SM2's got used that way against gun boats etc in the Gulf but I don't think you could do away with a genuine anti shipping missile.

I think originally the Exocet's in the RN was seen as our major/only strike weapon with the exit of the carrier based Buccs. Later with the CVH/Harrier Sea Eagle and the Lynx/Skua, they and then of Harpoon were seen a bit like ASW 12.75 TT, a last ditch defence.

As I understand it Sea Darts anti ship capability was pretty basic, just relying on the kinetic energy. I think this could have been developed at modest cost to include an alternative fuse option, great if they could have added a terminal sea skimming phase.

 

[1805]

It is possible to see clear line of sight between the Counties (ok they never had an effective missile system), Type 82 and Type 45 (although classed as AWD I hope will end up with a pretty GP capability). The Type 42 was quite different concept, an attempt at provide mass availability of area defence.

Another point in judging Type 82/Bristol was they was never intended to be fitted with the old 965. Would the Falklands have been different if 4 x Type 82s and maybe 4 x refitted Counties all with a Sea Dart/Broomstick, or for that matter even Type 42s with Broomstick.

The Dutch Tromp's advanced 3D systems was pretty much Broomstick and they are about the same size while carrying a heavier twin 4.7", Sparrow, Goalkeeper and Harpoon!

Could a Sea Dart/Broomstick combo Type 82 have been the RNs Arleigh Burke...which in the first batch also didn't have hanger either?

Also Ikara was probably better than ASROC at the time.

 

[StobieWan]

I think originally the Exocet's in the RN was seen as our major/only strike weapon with the exit of the carrier based Buccs. Later with the CVH/Harrier Sea Eagle and the Lynx/Skua, they and then of Harpoon were seen a bit like ASW 12.75 TT, a last ditch defence.

As I understand it Sea Darts anti ship capability was pretty basic, just relying on the kinetic energy. I think this could have been developed at modest cost to include an alternative fuse option, great if they could have added a terminal sea skimming phase.

Sea Dart in later blocks had a proximity fuse with a backup IR fuse, similar to later blocks of SM2 - but the warhead wouldn't detonate if the missile was below 10 meters I believe.

You couldn't fire the thing further than the horizon against a surface target, which means you're firing one of a total of 22 missiles against a target that's well within range of the 4.5 inch gun and any heavier cannon available.

I don't believe there's any real possibility of getting anything like a sea skimming profile out of the missile unless you totally rework it - sea skimmers generally have an active radar in the nose, to locate the target. Sea Dart relies on illumination from one of the directors on launching ship. The later blocks could fly a ballistic path to somewhere near the target and then start looking for trade but they still needed illumination.

 

[Fast Mover]

Hello all. I was surprised to read the 10m minimum altitude figure you posted StobieWan. I'm in no way disputing it and I have no better information myself but it lead me to think about what a T42 would have done in the instance of a late pick up of a sea skimming anti-ship missile, which no doubt would be below 10m. Would the Sea Dart be useless against such a threat and the ship therefore reliant on its CIWS due to the 10m limitation?

I was also curious to read that the final handful of T42 deployments were with a non operational Sea Dart system - which included some time spent in the South Atlantic I believe. I would assume that the likelihood of an air attack on a British ship down south is low but it disconcerts me ever so slightly that deployments are made with such glaring gaps in a ships capability (even if it is in the extreme twilight of a class' career).

Apologies if any of this is a repeat - I haven't yet had time to look at many of the previous 9737 posts!

 

[StobieWan]

Apologies - I've just had a double check and it's listed as 30 meters although I note one of the FI kills was much lower, at 10-15 meters - I guess if it *hit* you then the warhead would be a bit superfluous...

Wiser heads than I can advise but I get the impression Sea Dart was never intended to face sea skimmers and certainly in the Falklands, it served to deny high altitude to the attackers. There is of course one kill against a Silkworm missile so I'm guessing the old girl could do the business when it counted.

 

[1805]

Sea Dart in later blocks had a proximity fuse with a backup IR fuse, similar to later blocks of SM2 - but the warhead wouldn't detonate if the missile was below 10 meters I believe.

You couldn't fire the thing further than the horizon against a surface target, which means you're firing one of a total of 22 missiles against a target that's well within range of the 4.5 inch gun and any heavier cannon available.

I don't believe there's any real possibility of getting anything like a sea skimming profile out of the missile unless you totally rework it - sea skimmers generally have an active radar in the nose, to locate the target. Sea Dart relies on illumination from one of the directors on launching ship. The later blocks could fly a ballistic path to somewhere near the target and then start looking for trade but they still needed illumination.

I think the SSM capability on RN ships is pretty secondary, and certainly once we were back in the carrier game with Harriers/Sea Eagle. 22 rounds is actually quite good, when you compare with the total missile expenditure in the Falklands, distorted by Sea Cats fired off in the hope of hitting something.

I am not sure the 4.5" should have been retained after the Falklands, it was probably the time to split (if not even earlier at the time of the Mk 8 development) to a 127/76mm or better still a 155/76mm mix.



.