GW series of British Missile Cruisers

[Tzoli]

That file basically closes at GW.96A

I've suspected as such. probably an error on the author's side.
I'm now working on GW.25 A,B,C,D (D - unofficial designation on my side for the all gun armed variant proposed if the Sea Slug development was a failure)

 

[starviking]

I would like to know your opinions on these two texts on design GW 25B:

From Friedman's "British Cruisers Two World Wars and After
and from D. K. Brown's "Rebuilding the Royal Navy: Warship Design Since 1945"

From Frieadman's book I suggest on GW 25B the missile launcher was somehow merged with the twin 6inch turret but he does not states the design carried two missile launchers while Brown's book describes them having two launchers but not in what kind of arrangement.

From the Friedman quote, I read that he does not see how the launcher (presumably in 'B' position) and the gun in 'A' position can be fitted at the fore end. I do not read it as a combination 6-inch turret and missile launcher.

Notes:
GW 25 - 2x2 6inch (probably all forward) 2x2 Sea Slug (probably all aft), 2x2 3inch, 4x2 40mm Bofors
GW 25A - 1x2 6inch 2x2 Sea Slug (evenly spread forward and aft), 2x2 3inch, 4x2 40mm Bofors
GW 25B - 1x2 6inch 2x2 Sea Slug (evenly spread forward and aft), 2x2 3inch, 4x2 40mm Bofors
GW 25C - 2x2 6inch (all forward) 1x2 Sea Slug (aft), 2x2 3inch, 4x2 40mm Bofors
GW 25D? - 3x2 6inch (evenly spread 2 forward, 1 aft) 2x2 3inch, 4x2 40mm Bofors

Given that Friedman suggests GW 25A had a 6-inch in 'A' and a missile launcher in 'B', there might be a possibility that GW 25 replicates that fore and aft. That is only if Friedman did not have access to plans for GW 25, if he did the text would make that clear. It is not clear that there are any 3-inch. That also applies for GW 25C.


Combining Friedman and Brown, it seems clear that GW 25B did not have a 6-inch forward - only a launcher and 2x3-inch forward.

Also one missile direction radar for two launchers (4 missiles) seems to be quite inadequate maybe the A and B designs were single launchers???

I've never come across any source that refers to a single seaslug launcher. That doesn't mean they weren't investigated. However, seaslug-designed ships do seem to have gone through design steps where the directors vacillated between 2 and 1, presumably for topweight issues. That might be the case here.

 

[starviking]

No answer

Well another question, regarding the launcher and the radars:
Launchers:
On the test ship HMS Girdle Ness the triple launcher were tested for the Sea Slug, but the twin was installed on the County class destroyers. Do anybody know if the triple or even single launchers were considered for the GWS cruiser series?
Radars:
These tracking radars could track 1 or multiple missiles or 1 or multiple targets? As there were variants of the GWS with 1 radar and 1 launcher (probably twin)

I have never come across a reference to using the triple on the GWS series. I have read about Girdle Ness's magazine system being deemed inadequate for heavy seas - a hoist was used to move missiles from the magazines to the ready spaces.


Looking at the data on the 901 - I think they could only guide to one target, but The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapons Systems, 1997-1998 states that two missiles could be guided at once.

On the topic of Girdle Ness, the article on her trials career in Warship 2007 is available through Google Books https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=dytTKHJ0_mUC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[Tzoli]

Thanks, since then I aquired data on the GW series and all of the Sea Slug equipped ones had twin launchers.
GW.25 is basically the same as GW.25C just almost twice the missile stoarge as C with both havign two missile direction radars.
GW.25A have 3 radars, 2 launchers and one twin 6 inch
GW.25B have 4 radars, 2 launchers and no 6inch guns
all of them had the original 2 twin 3" and 4 twin 40mm Bofors guns as well

As for the A version with both turret and missile launcher forward. Could it be the launcher is loaded vertically like the soviet and US launchers?
Or at a higher elevation say 45° instead of around 15°?

 

[Tzoli]

There is a site which had all kind of photos of wooden models of the British 1950-60's weapon systems including the slealsug launchers 6inch Mark N5 turrets and such but hell if I can find it again

 

[phil gollin]

.

Edited out

 

[Tzoli]

Thanks! I've only had a sketch drawing of the GW25C side view. Your version will help me correct a few things which I've wrongly deducted from the side drawing I've found here:
https://books.google.hu/books?id=PyDOAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA32&dq=royal+navy+GW25C+%22missile+cruiser%22&hl=hu&sa=X&ei=NutuVcXUO4G1Uf78gYgM&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=GW25C&f=false
(note small horizontal area between the deck and the aft direction radar) and I thought the forward gun turrets were way further away from each other and the bridge

 

[phil gollin]

.


The thing to remember is that these "designs" were NOT full designs, but superior studies. They worked on updating previous work so that every so often a pause was required to make sure that the ancillaries, living spaces, etc...... caught up with the modifications (this was the main reason such draft designs always seemed to "grow" between the decision to go to detail design and that design maturing).

 

[Tzoli]

.


The thing to remember is that these "designs" were NOT full designs, but superior studies. They worked on updating previous work so that every so often a pause was required to make sure that the ancillaries, living spaces, etc...... caught up with the modifications (this was the main reason such draft designs always seemed to "grow" between the decision to go to detail design and that design maturing).

I see.
I've found 3 weird designs among the GW line. The GW.78A/B/C versions. they are very wide, long and have 30K+ displacement with only 4-2-4x1 Bristol 1-3/4th missile launchers (Later Bloodhound Mark II) with 40-20-100 missiles.
Also there seems to be some sort of small Ballistic ship of the GW.65-68 series of mostly slow speed and 6-6-4-6 missiles (SRBM - Short Range Ballistic Missile I assume)

 

[starviking]

Thanks, since then I aquired data on the GW series and all of the Sea Slug equipped ones had twin launchers.

I saw there was data kindly posted by Phil. Sadly, I missed it :'(


However, I can look forward to seeing your work on the data! ;D

As for the A version with both turret and missile launcher forward. Could it be the launcher is loaded vertically like the soviet and US launchers?
Or at a higher elevation say 45° instead of around 15°?

From the plans of Girdle Ness, on page 14 of the Google Books link I posted, it certainly seems that the launcher was loaded at about 60 degrees.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

From the plans of Girdle Ness, on page 14 of the Google Books link I posted, it certainly seems that the launcher was loaded at about 60 degrees.

Some of the various Sea Slug equipped ships have horizontal loading of the launcher and some low angle and some medium angle. One thing about this solution, having a loading table that aligns the missile to the launcher, is it allows for variation in the angle needed to load the missile which may be caused by positioning the launcher onto the ship. However the two or three rail Sea Slug launchers as built could not support a very high angle (over ~45 degrees) or vertical arrangement for loading. They would need a new launcher designed for that allowing the missile to rise up through or to either side of the rotating ring of the launcher. As built in two or three rail versions the Sea Slug launcher had a large solid cradle that limited maximum elevation. See the attached picture of a scale model of the launcher.

 

[phil gollin]

I see.
I've found 3 weird designs among the GW line. The GW.78A/B/C versions. they are very wide, long and have 30K+ displacement with only 4-2-4x1 Bristol 1-3/4th missile launchers (Later Bloodhound Mark II) with 40-20-100 missiles.
Also there seems to be some sort of small Ballistic ship of the GW.65-68 series of mostly slow speed and 6-6-4-6 missiles (SRBM - Short Range Ballistic Missile I assume)

.


NONE of those designs are covered in the Ships Cover, which is about the G.W.Cruisers. Whether they have been weeded out or are in another Ships Cover (open or closed) I cannot say.


.

 

[Tzoli]

And here they are:
I've not included GW.25 as it was the same as the GW.25C but with 84 missiles instead of 48

 

[starviking]

I see.
I've found 3 weird designs among the GW line. The GW.78A/B/C versions. they are very wide, long and have 30K+ displacement with only 4-2-4x1 Bristol 1-3/4th missile launchers (Later Bloodhound Mark II) with 40-20-100 missiles.
Also there seems to be some sort of small Ballistic ship of the GW.65-68 series of mostly slow speed and 6-6-4-6 missiles (SRBM - Short Range Ballistic Missile I assume)

The GW.78 could be the light fleet carriers converted to combined missile/missile depot ships, or an evolved design based on the concept. The former were promoted by Mountbatten.


The GW.65-68s fit with comments in Eric Grove's From Vanguard to Trident. The RN were looking at taking ballistic missiles to sea long before Polaris.


If I could see the original plans I could comment better :'(


On the subject of plans, your new plans are wonderful! I love the outfit of 25A, but as an old traditionalist 25C has to be my favourite.

 

[Tzoli]

I see.
I've found 3 weird designs among the GW line. The GW.78A/B/C versions. they are very wide, long and have 30K+ displacement with only 4-2-4x1 Bristol 1-3/4th missile launchers (Later Bloodhound Mark II) with 40-20-100 missiles.
Also there seems to be some sort of small Ballistic ship of the GW.65-68 series of mostly slow speed and 6-6-4-6 missiles (SRBM - Short Range Ballistic Missile I assume)

The GW.78 could be the light fleet carriers converted to combined missile/missile depot ships, or an evolved design based on the concept. The former were promoted by Mountbatten.


The GW.65-68s fit with comments in Eric Grove's From Vanguard to Trident. The RN were looking at taking ballistic missiles to sea long before Polaris.


If I could see the original plans I could comment better :'(


On the subject of plans, your new plans are wonderful! I love the outfit of 25A, but as an old traditionalist 25C has to be my favourite.

Thanks, though I still need to fix some errors which is hard to notice if somebody is a bit tired

As for GW.65-68, I wonder if they would use US Short Range Ballistic Missiles, or there were similar program in the RN at that time?

 

[phil gollin]

.


The reason I photographed the file was because of the information in there about possible conversions of Majestic, Formidable and Implacable (as well as lesser info on Vanguard, KGV and Fiji).


I still think that slow mass-production (I know that doesn't really make sense) of a modified light fleet design with missiles instead of aircraft would have made sense.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

.


The reason I photographed the file was because of the information in there about possible conversions of Majestic, Formidable and Implacable (as well as lesser info on Vanguard, KGV and Fiji).


I still think that slow mass-production (I know that doesn't really make sense) of a modified light fleet design with missiles instead of aircraft would have made sense.

Converting the 1936, 1937 and 1938 program WWII fleet carriers is probably a better idea (HM Ships Illustrious, Formidable, Victorious, Indomitable, Implacable and Indefatigable) because they are effectively unusable after the 1940s as aircraft carriers due to their height challenged hangars. However the 1942 and 1943 program light fleet carriers were built with tall enough hangars to operate almost all post war aircraft and helicopters. The fleet carriers converted into GW cruisers would also, compared to a light fleet carrier, have the benefit of fleet speed (30-32 knots), large gun batteries (16x113mm guns) and have armoured hangars that could be used to store large batteries of Sea Slug missiles and the required CIC/AIO. Such refits would be much easier than the HMS Victorious refit because as GW cruisers they would not need a new type of boilers (no steam catapults to power) or new flight decks and hangars. They would just need a thorough refit (reboilering), a new electrical system and the installation of the missiles, fire control, radars, a new superstructure on the flight deck to improve accommodation, moving boats and close in defences from the sides to the flight deck, etc. Like the light fleet carrier Sea Slug conversion the large internal volume and large deck space would make any such conversion a lot easier than a typical new for old upgrade and provide plenty of surplus space for additional capability like helicopters, flag command facilities and so on.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Converting the 1936, 1937 and 1938 program WWII fleet carriers is probably a better idea (HM Ships Illustrious, Formidable, Victorious, Indomitable, Implacable and Indefatigable) because they are effectively unusable after the 1940s as aircraft carriers due to their height challenged hangars. However the 1942 and 1943 program light fleet carriers were built with tall enough hangars to operate almost all post war aircraft and helicopters. The fleet carriers converted into GW cruisers would also, compared to a light fleet carrier, have the benefit of fleet speed (30-32 knots), large gun batteries (16x113mm guns) and have armoured hangars that could be used to store large batteries of Sea Slug missiles and the required CIC/AIO. Such refits would be much easier than the HMS Victorious refit because as GW cruisers they would not need a new type of boilers (no steam catapults to power) or new flight decks and hangars. They would just need a thorough refit (reboilering), a new electrical system and the installation of the missiles, fire control, radars, a new superstructure on the flight deck to improve accommodation, moving boats and close in defences from the sides to the flight deck, etc. Like the light fleet carrier Sea Slug conversion the large internal volume and large deck space would make any such conversion a lot easier than a typical new for old upgrade and provide plenty of surplus space for additional capability like helicopters, flag command facilities and so on.

The armoured carriers were actually considered more useful as strike carriers than the light fleet carriers (when they weren't suffering excessive ill-effects from their wartime careers), they were bigger- more heavily built, could take more aircraft, more defensive armament and were faster. They were not unusable as carriers, in fact a couple of the ships received significant modernisation immediately post-war and the 16ft hangars were perfectly adequate through to the mid/late-50s. The reconstruction of Victorious was complicated due to appalling project management (things kept getting added after work started- the angled deck, Type 984 and new boilers were all added during the reconstruction). Reboilering would have probably been necessary with or without steam cats in order to extend the ships life anyway (Victorious' boilers would have expired in 1964 without replacement).

Arjen,

There are two separate mountings here, the MkVI was the sextuple 40mm/L60 mounting and was mounted on Vanguard and a number of post-war carriers. The Mk12 designation was supposedly the designation of the sextuple mounting for the 40mm/L70 that was cancelled in 1957. Before it went offline the Vickers photographic archive had some great pictures of the MkVI mounting, the best I can find now is in this image of Eagle:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/HMS_Eagle_(R05)_MOD_45139760.jpg

The mountings can be seen as follows, one aft of the island on the flight deck and two just below the flight deck towards the forward end of the hull. There is a fourth just in front of the Island and at this time there was a further pair on the other side of the ship just below the flight deck and aft of the island. Each was controlled through RPC by its own director.

I just received my copy of Warship 2015 and contains an article on RN post-war weapons which confirms that the sextuple bofors L70 mount would have been identical to the L60 as it was intended to upgrade rather than replace the mount. It would have use new "N4" barrels and 9-clip auto-feeder (for 36 rounds per barrel) and would have carried a Mod 1 designation.

For anyone interested the book also has drawings of the early DACR proposals and some of the 5" mounting designs. There is also a piece on Seaslug that I have not read yet.

 

[Tzoli]

Arjen,

There are two separate mountings here, the MkVI was the sextuple 40mm/L60 mounting and was mounted on Vanguard and a number of post-war carriers. The Mk12 designation was supposedly the designation of the sextuple mounting for the 40mm/L70 that was cancelled in 1957. Before it went offline the Vickers photographic archive had some great pictures of the MkVI mounting, the best I can find now is in this image of Eagle:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/HMS_Eagle_(R05)_MOD_45139760.jpg

The mountings can be seen as follows, one aft of the island on the flight deck and two just below the flight deck towards the forward end of the hull. There is a fourth just in front of the Island and at this time there was a further pair on the other side of the ship just below the flight deck and aft of the island. Each was controlled through RPC by its own director.

I just received my copy of Warship 2015 and contains an article on RN post-war weapons which confirms that the sextuple bofors L70 mount would have been identical to the L60 as it was intended to upgrade rather than replace the mount. It would have use new "N4" barrels and 9-clip auto-feeder (for 36 rounds per barrel) and would have carried a Mod 1 designation.

For anyone interested the book also has drawings of the early DACR proposals and some of the 5" mounting designs. There is also a piece on Seaslug that I have not read yet.

I could use those drawings because very few designs incorporate the sextuple Bofors guns.

 

[uk 75]

The closest ship I can think of to the Bloodhound carrying cruisers was the one off Russian cruiser fitted with Sa 2 GUIDELINE


http://www.hazegray.org/features/russia/cru09.jpg


I would love to see what a Bloodhound ship would have looked like

 

[Tzoli]

The Bloodhound is indeed a large missile, mostly vertically because of the thrusters:

The Blue Envoy (or Bristol 1-3/4th missile) is almost like an aircraft with wide wings:

I'm not so sure what kind of launcher could be fitted for these weapons.

 

[Tzoli]

Side note:
Edited the GW.25 drawing as I've forget to include the unofficial version of an all gunned armament which the designers proposed in case the Sea Slug missile program result in a failure. The DNC did not pursue this line as they trusted in the missile.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Reboilering would have probably been necessary with or without steam cats in order to extend the ships life anyway (Victorious' boilers would have expired in 1964 without replacement).

Victorious wasn’t just reboilered. This was the initial plan but during the upgrade it was realised that the legacy boiler design could not provide enough steam for the turbines and catapults so new design boilers had to be fitted. Which was a far more complex job that just replacing the old boilers with new versions of the old type.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Victorious wasn’t just reboilered. This was the initial plan but during the upgrade it was realised that the legacy boiler design could not provide enough steam for the turbines and catapults so new design boilers had to be fitted. Which was a far more complex job that just replacing the old boilers with new versions of the old type.

The complexity was driven by the fact the reconstruction was well underway (some of the armoured deck was already in place) and recently constructed parts of the vessel had to be dismantled to get the boilers and their auxiliary machinery out. Other complexity issues being the need for complete rewiring to support the Type 984 and added generating capacity, all of which would have been required in a conversion to take Seaslug.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The complexity was driven by the fact the reconstruction was well underway (some of the armoured deck was already in place) and recently constructed parts of the vessel had to be dismantled to get the boilers and their auxiliary machinery out.

Yes that’s true. But what added salt to those wounds was the decision to reboiler was based on that of a plain reboilering. Replacing old boilers of type X with new boilers of Type Z. This added further delays and cost as a new engineering solution had to be prepared and a lot more equipment in the engine rooms replaced to accommodate the new type of boilers.

This did happen. It’s recorded. The original point I made stands. Any conversion of the fleet carriers to guided missile cruiser (or would they be called guided missile carrier?) would not require a new type of boilers to replace the old ones because they don’t have steam catapults. Whether this reboilering was well planned or not would not effect this issue.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Of the cost drivers that took the project from a £5.4 million estimate in August 1950 to a £30 total project cost at completion the additional £400,000 (£650,000 approved versus an actual cost estimate of £607,000- its unclear whether the £43,000 margin was used) for new boilers and auxiliary machinery required over the £250,000 initially estimated for just reboilering its not the most significant. For comparison, the electronic equipment installed in Victorious (and the similarly equipment in Hermes), cost over £1 million. Most of that would have been desired in a Seaslug conversion too.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Nobody ever said it didn't happen, but of the cost drivers that took the project from a £5.4 million estimate in August 1950 to a £30 total project cost at completion the additional £400,000 (£650,000 approved versus an actual cost estimate of £607,000- its unclear whether the £43,000 margin was used) for new boilers and auxiliary machinery required over the £250,000 initially estimated for just reboilering its not the most significant. For comparison, the electronic equipment installed in Victorious (and the similarly equipment in Hermes), cost over £1 million. Most of that would have been desired in a Seaslug conversion too.

The point was that to upgrade the WWII fleet carriers as modern strike carriers basic reboilering was not enough. They needed more modern, more powerful boilers to operate their new catapults. Which is different and a lot more expensive in cost and time than just replacing the old boilers with new ones. So therefore to rebuild them as GW ships you could just do a basic reboilering (like for like) to give them additional reliable life. Which you couldn't do if you were rebuilding them as strike carriers.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I could use those drawings because very few designs incorporate the sextuple Bofors guns.

Bam. (see attachment)


From Friedman's "Naval AA Guns" book that was published a few years ago. Looking up this picture I read a bit more text and it mentions the RN's plans for the 40mm L70 Direct Action (DA) as in the fuse (contact) guns (as opposed to the larger calibre VT prox fused guns). Friedman says that the plan was for a Mk 10 single 40mm L70 based on the new Mk 9 single 40mm L60 gun, Mk 11 twin (based on the WWII 'utility' Mk 5 twin) and Mk 12 sextuple (based on the octuple Pom Pom replacing Mk 6 sextuple). These mounts were not conversions of the existing mounts as this had been tried with the Mk 5 and Mk 6 and failed. The new L70 guns were much wider and had other differences that made conversion unsuccessful. However the old mounts were to be disassembled and the incompatible parts (the gun carriages, mostly) replaced with new, compatible parts and rebuilt with L70 guns as the new Mk 10/11/12 series DA mounts. The new mounts were to have a Type 6 gyro sight fitted giving effective local control to 2,000-3,000 yards. They would need director control to achieve effective fire out to their effective range of 5,000 yards. The single Mk 10 40mm L70 gun was abandoned in 1954 and the Mk 8 and Mk 9 40mm L60 guns were to be fitted in the fleet in their place.

 

[Tzoli]

Hmm maybe it could help a little. Does it an open mount or a fully enclosed turret?

I've read a bit in Friedman's cruiser book and he mentions two interesting weapons from 1947:
A quad 3inch gun and
a 16 (yes 16!!!) barrelled 40mm Bofors gun to fight high speed aircraft and missiles!

 

[Tzoli]

I think these new cruisers would wield their weapons in turrets because some anti nuclear defence were to be integrated in the design and a blast would made such open mounting unusable. The 1960 cruisers (the small/medium/large cruisers) as well as many of Vickers export designs feature fully turreted weapons 40mm and above.

 

[Tzoli]

But I think why does it soo difficult to find drawings (top, side etc) about the Bofors and pom-pom guns???

 

[JFC Fuller]

The point was that to upgrade the WWII fleet carriers as modern strike carriers basic reboilering was not enough. They needed more modern, more powerful boilers to operate their new catapults. Which is different and a lot more expensive in cost and time than just replacing the old boilers with new ones. So therefore to rebuild them as GW ships you could just do a basic reboilering (like for like) to give them additional reliable life. Which you couldn't do if you were rebuilding them as strike carriers.

More expensive and complicated certainly, just not that big of an issue. The difference between the boiler upgrade and the simple replacement was at most £400,000 (and probably less) which is only 1.33% of the total Victorious project cost.

@Tzoli the mountings would have looked practically identical to the original Mk.6s which can be seen on Vanguard, Eagle, Ark Royal and a number of the light fleets as well as a single mounting on Victorious post-reconstruction.

Vaguely interesting fact, at some point late in 1945 a policy decision was taken not to replace the Octuple pom-pom on existing ships with the Sextuple bfoors (I have yet to find a reason why but I suspect cost) which is probably why Illustrious reappeared in 1946 with lots of new bofors guns in single mountings but retaining her octuple pom-pom mountings.

You can see a sextuple bofors mounting directly in-front of the bridge on this picture of Albion:

http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/great_britain/photos/aircraft_carriers/albion_r07/albion_r07_mike_newton_b.jpg

I think these new cruisers would wield their weapons in turrets because some anti nuclear defence were to be integrated in the design and a blast would made such open mounting unusable. The 1960 cruisers (the small/medium/large cruisers) as well as many of Vickers export designs feature fully turreted weapons 40mm and above.

This is just a brain-dump. All sorts of ideas were considered for DACR, that I am aware of there were at least two that have been identified thus far:

1) 34mm guns in mountings not unlike the limbo mortar
2) A twin 57mm mounting identified by Smurf: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,10124.msg194147.html#msg194147

However, the documents kindly provided by Phil only refer to twin bofors mounts for the cruiser designs, Friedman says these were L70s and that makes sense give the presence of MRS3 as the director for them. I have never seen any evidence to suggest the RN seriously looked at a fully enclosed twin bofors mount (thats not to say they didn't just I have never seen any evidence that they did) which suggests they were probably open mounts.

The mountings shown on the 1960 cruiser designs are entirely speculative, they are even referred to as "New DA close-range weapon" and in 1948 (when the 1960 designs were drawn) they weren't expected to appear until 1957 so were obviously speculative at this time.

 

[Tzoli]

I think these new cruisers would wield their weapons in turrets because some anti nuclear defence were to be integrated in the design and a blast would made such open mounting unusable. The 1960 cruisers (the small/medium/large cruisers) as well as many of Vickers export designs feature fully turreted weapons 40mm and above.

This is just a brain-dump. All sorts of ideas were considered for DACR, that I am aware of there were at least two that have been identified thus far:

1) 34mm guns in mountings not unlike the limbo mortar
2) A twin 57mm mounting identified by Smurf: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,10124.msg194147.html#msg194147

However, the documents kindly provided by Phil only refer to twin bofors mounts for the cruiser designs, Friedman says these were L70s and that makes sense give the presence of MRS3 as the director for them. I have never seen any evidence to suggest the RN seriously looked at a fully enclosed twin bofors mount (thats not to say they didn't just I have never seen any evidence that they did) which suggests they were probably open mounts.

The mountings shown on the 1960 cruiser designs are entirely speculative, they are even referred to as "New DA close-range weapon" and in 1948 (when the 1960 designs were drawn) they weren't expected to appear until 1957 so were obviously speculative at this time.

The 1960 cruisers while indeed started their design life in 1948-49, abandoned in 1953/54 but the ideas and weapon systems later incorporated in the GW series and other cruiser designs (CR series for example)

On the heavy cruiser design for Venezuela, the 40mm Bofors mounts looks like fully enclosed:

And it's CAG variant:

Though the immediate postwar proposals and export looks like to carry fully enclosed bofors mounts, they just looks like fully enclosed they have plates on the sides so they partly protect the crew from splinter and shockwaves.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I think these new cruisers would wield their weapons in turrets because some anti nuclear defence were to be integrated in the design and a blast would made such open mounting unusable. The 1960 cruisers (the small/medium/large cruisers) as well as many of Vickers export designs feature fully turreted weapons 40mm and above.

If you look closely at the John Roberts drawings in DK Brown's "Rebuilding the Royal Navy" the Mk 11 twin 40mm L70 looks as if it has a roof of some sort over the mounting. Though this is probably more likely the British developed automatic feeder for the 40mm L70 that would hold six or nine four round clips in a tray and automatically load each clip within 0.124 seconds. The Mk 6 was open to the top but could easily support a roof in the Mk 12 rebuild especially as the local control position is separated from the open gun loading bay.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Here's another picture of the Mk 6 sextuple gun as mounted on HMS Vanguard. Its easy to confuse these guns with twin 40mm because four of the guns are staggered so far back their muzzle's hardly appear outside the mounting.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I would love to see what a Bloodhound ship would have looked like

The 1950s proposals would have been pretty much the same as the Sea Slug ships. The idea was that the same magazine used for the Sea Slugs could be converted to carry the Red Shoes (Thunderbird) or the Blue Envoy when they were available. The Thunderbirds were stored with fins removed and the Blue Envoys mostly intact with folding verticals and wing tips removed. Apart from the new directors and launcher the main difference was in the numbers of missiles available. Thunderbirds (using semi active homing) worked out to be around the same number as Sea Slugs (~60) but only around 20 Blue Envoys could be carried in the same space.

I saw there was data kindly posted by Phil. Sadly, I missed it

That file from the archive is basically replicated point for point (including the large study characteristics tables) in Norman Friedman’s “The Postwar Naval Revolution”. Get a copy of that book (only $14 second hand at http://www.abebooks.com) and you get the data.

The armoured carriers were actually considered more useful as strike carriers than the light fleet carriers (when they weren't suffering excessive ill-effects from their wartime careers), they were bigger- more heavily built, could take more aircraft, more defensive armament and were faster.

Reading Friedman’s “The Postwar Naval Revolution” it’s clear that the Royal Navy spent a lot more time thinking about converting the WWII fleet carriers to guided weapons ships than the light fleet carriers. I think the later is more known because they got a sketch drawing in “Vanguard to Trident”. But when the RN looked (1949-51) at converting the light fleet carriers they found they would have been too slow to be fleet escorts and they would have had significant top heavy problems as a Sea Slug ship. The solution was to cut off the top deck which as a strength deck would have required an immense rebuild and redesign, stick the missiles deep in the hull and fit an entire new propulsion system. Which would have been a "horrendous" costing rebuild so the idea was shelved. Though a lot of the design work was reused in a purpose built fleet escort.

However conversion of the fleet carriers was seriously looked at on two occasions. Firstly to convert HMS Formidable at the same time as the light fleet carrier study and then later the two Implacables after the strike carrier conversion was abandoned. The only design problem with converting these ships was being careful to limit any new cutouts in the armoured flight deck as this was a strength deck. Formidable was rejected for conversion (1951) because of her poor state and also concerns that her high freeboard would make her too unmanoeuvrable as a fleet escort.

In 1953 the RN revisited conversion to missile ships after being impressed by the American efforts. Conversion studies looked at the KGV and Vanguard battleships and the two Implacable fleet carriers. The later were preferred as being far more suitable to the end requirement and easier to convert. Three different degrees of conversion were looked at. Apart from fitting the new systems the ships would have needed a new electrical system and rebuilding of the deteriorated hull bottom and bulkheads. The big problem with conversion of the Implacables was the lack of the new equipment (radars, guns, missiles, etc) which would have to come at the expense of new build ships. Even then it was estimated that all the components needed would mean the ships wouldn't be ready until 1963 and it would just be easier to use this stuff in a new build ship. The converted Implacable was to have 200-250 Sea Slugs firing from two launchers, four twin 3” L70 automatic guns and three Whirlwind AS helicopters. This was clearly the closest the RN came to converting any WWII ship to a guided missile ship.


EDIT: attached a lores version of Friedman's sketches of the 1951 carrier conversions.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Re: Double ended missile ships in the RN

Note to the mods: perhaps this thread should be combined with the "GW series of RN cruisers" thread. Same topic.


done

 

[Tzoli]

I would love to see what a Bloodhound ship would have looked like

The 1950s proposals would have been pretty much the same as the Sea Slug ships. The idea was that the same magazine used for the Sea Slugs could be converted to carry the Red Shoes (Thunderbird) or the Blue Envoy when they were available. The Thunderbirds were stored with fins removed and the Blue Envoys mostly intact with folding verticals and wing tips removed. Apart from the new directors and launcher the main difference was in the numbers of missiles available. Thunderbirds (using semi active homing) worked out to be around the same number as Sea Slugs (~60) but only around 20 Blue Envoys could be carried in the same space.

So a launcher very similar to the actual Sea Slug just as a "single arm" or single lettuce?
I though something like the RSC-51 launcher but larger.

RSC-51:

RSD-58:

 

[Abraham Gubler]

So a launcher very similar to the actual Sea Slug just as a "single arm" or single lettuce?
I though something like the RSC-51 launcher but larger.

Nope. Because the Red Shoes (Thunderbird) and Blue Envoy missiles would both be as incompatible as the Sea Slug was with a single rail type launcher. All three missiles (and the Bloodhound) used wrap around boosters rather than a stacked booster. Which meant the (four) boosters went in the space between the wings and fins. So unlike an unboosted missile (RSC-51 or Tartar) or a stacked booster missile (Terrier, Talos, Sea Dart) there is no usable space on the missile body for attachment points. So the missile has to be supported either on top of a cradle or inside a box (the later being better for naval use as it provides more support).


The naval Red Shoes would actually look and be sized very similar to the Sea Slug and could use the same launcher but with a different two missile cradle sized to it. The four boosters would probably lose their wings to fit inside the magazine and the launcher and so therefore be moved forward of the CG in an attempt to stabilise them (like Sea Slug). Blue Envoy would have the same problem but without the easy solution because the boosters are as long as the missile. But each booster could always be replaced by shorter twin boosters fitted side by side on each corner and mounted forward of the CG to try and achieve the same effect. Blue Envoy is also much wider thanks to its wings so would probably only fit a single missile per reconfigured Sea Slug launcher.

 

[JFC Fuller]

The RN looked at converting virtually all of the youngish ships it had, that were plausibly big enough, into Seaslug ships. The answer on every occasion was that the demands of a Seaslug ship in terms of electrical power and magazine volume conflicted far too much with the layout and equipment fit of the existing ships. Thus none of these studies (including of Fiji class cruisers) was especially serious.

The Illustrious class were preferred even over the Colossus class as strike carriers but ultimately got dropped for two reasons:

1) The RN had far more carriers than it actually needed, by the mid-50s the active fleet had just two strike carriers and two light fleets configured for trade protection- this was a manpower/money issue not a ship availability one

2) Such was the effort required to turn a 1945 or even a 1950 carrier into a 1955 one that it would be more productive to just build a new ship- which didn't happen in the 1950s because of No.1

In terms of launchers, there is no evidence that I have yet found that the question was seriously asked.