GW series of British Missile Cruisers

[starviking]

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.

I was going by the profile plan view of Girdle Ness. I checked YouTube to see if there were any good videos of the launcher in action, and found some of launches at high elevation. There's such a launch near the start of this Pathe Video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K36n3MVi4z4e]

 

[starviking]

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.

It's on my to-get list, and that info has pushed it to the top. Cheers!

 

[Tzoli]

For me the linked video here is corrupted so I post the direct link instead:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K36n3MVi4z4

 

[starviking]

For me the linked video here is corrupted so I post the direct link instead:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K36n3MVi4z4

Cheers! I tried to edit the link, but my old tablet wouldn't oblige me :'(

 

[Tzoli]

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.

It's on my to-get list, and that info has pushed it to the top. Cheers!

Just found the book via pdf and while it does include many the GW designs like in that table it is far from full, many designs left out, only 24 were in it from GW.1 to GW.76

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I was going by the profile plan view of Girdle Ness. I checked YouTube to see if there were any good videos of the launcher in action, and found some of launches at high elevation. There's such a launch near the start of this Pathe Video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K36n3MVi4z4e]

Thanks for that. I see from the video they built a solution to the natural limit in elevation which was to tilt back the launcher's cradle. So the axis of the pivot for the launching rack (or box) is displaced from above the rotation turntable to well behind it. So allowing a vertical alignment of the launcher. No reason then that the launcher couldn't be located right above the loading table room. Except it would require a higher roof for the loading room (to accommodate 20 foot long Sea Slug missiles standing on their tails) and more powerful ramming to lift the missile vertically into the launcher.

 

[Petrus]

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.

In Warship 2015 there is an article on RN postwar weapons systems that covers secret projects as well. Here you've got a photo of a mock-up of a "Limbo-like" DACR mounting along with a photo of a mock-up (or prototype) of twin 40mm L70 mounting (it sports rails overhead that would have been used to mount a 'roof').

You may find Warship 2015 for your review at https://books.google.pl/books?id=Zpo_CQAAQBAJ&pg=PA145&lpg=PA145&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false

Regards,
Piotr

 

[Tzoli]

The Twin 40mm Mark 5 Bofors gun is very similar to the mount on the sketch drawings, and such to my drawing. I can make some fixes now that I've seen it. And indeed a canvas can be put on it, though that would not protect from blast effects in my opinion. Or maybe even some steel plates instead of canvas?

 

[JFC Fuller]

Tzoli,

The frame is almost certainly for a canvas cover. That mounting had an actual feed tray system rather than the manually loaded clips of the original L60 mounting, you can actually see it in the photo. That means the metal box placed over the gun breeches on the L60 mounting wouldn't cover the entire feed system thus a canvas cover for the entire mounting would be the logical solution. It is to keep the weather and spray out of the gun and mounting rather than blast or shrapnel.

 

[Tzoli]

can I find somewhere an accurate technical drawing of the Bofors Mark 5 Twin 40mm AA gun?

Other:
As I've posted the GW.25 variants (A,B,C and the semi official D) the base GW.25 had 2x2 Sea Slug and 2x2 6 inch guns. I wonder if the missile launchers aft how are arranged? Superfiring position? The 2nd launcher on top of the 1st loading house? Or side by side, maybe angled outwards?

 

[Hood]

I have a query regarding one of the drawings from 'Postwar Naval Revolution' that Abraham Gubler posted here: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,8124.msg249606.html#msg249606

Attachment CG 1-55 shows, what I believe may be GW36 based on descriptions in Friedman's other works, including the design date of January 1955.

My question is, what is the little ramp structure aft of the amidships missile elevator? It appears to have a blast screen aft of it around the base of the mainmast. It's not a fixed torpedo structure so I wondered if its a dedicated fixed-elevation launcher for Blue Slug?
Nothing like it appears in any of the other GW drawings I've seen.

My assumption would be that Blue Slug missiles would be stowed in the centre portion of the tube magazine with Sea Slugs towards each end for the twin launchers for and aft. The centre elevator would also serve for dockside loading of the magazine.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Missiles of this era needed to transit a checkout room for testing and finning before being fired or discarded. Blue Slug would need to go through checkout too and a third launching location would need such a room. The ramp/shield like squiggle is probably a poor rendition of the ship's crane which would explain the co-location with the elevator as this would be where missiles would be loaded aboard.

 

[Tzoli]

Yes cranes, port and starboard and the elevator is on the centre just behind the funnel and between the two cranes The drawer painted over so this awkward looking lines appeared.

 

[Hood]

Thanks guys, looking at it again it is obviously a semi-drawn crane. It seems an unique feature, none of the other GW-series (of the plans I've seen reproduced) have 3 missile elevators.

 

[starviking]

Thanks guys, looking at it again it is obviously a semi-drawn crane. It seems an unique feature, none of the other GW-series (of the plans I've seen reproduced) have 3 missile elevators.

It has to be for resupply, the only question being is it dockside only or RAS?

 

[Volkodav]

Just found this topic, very informative, thankyou. I have been interested in the topic of Britain's proposed missile cruisers since buying a copy of Friedmans Post War Naval Revolution back in the 80s (the first of many of his books I now have). One thing I didn't pick up any mention of in here was the reference in Post War Naval Revolution to Tartar being flagged as a replacement for two twin 3" as point defence missile. I would assume this would be replacing the midriff pair with Mk-11 GMLS, similar to the outfit on the Albany class CGs, although if it was a refit, rather than build, option it could easily have been a Mk-13 or 22 GMLS.

Does anyone have any further information on this?

Also I recall reading there were studies on the impact of replacing Seaslug with Talos as well as Terrier and the various British projects mentioned here.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Thanks guys, looking at it again it is obviously a semi-drawn crane. It seems an unique feature, none of the other GW-series (of the plans I've seen reproduced) have 3 missile elevators.

It has to be for resupply, the only question being is it dockside only or RAS?

Based on the doctrine of the day, I think we can safely assume it was RAS compatible.

 

[Hood]

Also I recall reading there were studies on the impact of replacing Seaslug with Talos as well as Terrier and the various British projects mentioned here.

Yes, in May 1955 the DNC did a quick study of replacing Sea Slug with Talos in GW52A. This became GW61. As Talos was bigger the magazine was lengthened to 150ft and the uptakes had to pass through it. A foot of metacentric height was lost, an alternative with Talos replacing the two 6in turrets forward lost 0.75ft of GM. So this effectively stopped work on that line. As Friedman notes, Talos in size and performance was almost equivalent to the Blue Envoy which had its GW cruiser version sketched out in July 1955.

 

[Tzoli]

A version of GW.51 was to be equipped with a twin Talos launcher but sacrificing anything else having only 4 twin 40mm guns next to the missile launcher armament.
This was proposed in 1955-05-21
GW.61 was a 1 and 3/4th missile equipped one with 8 single launchers with 32 missiles, 2 twin 3" and 2 twin 40mm

 

[Hood]

Tzoli,

That's not what Friedman says in 'British Cruisers'.
The 1 3/4 stage armed ships were initially GW59 and later studies were GW75, GW77-81.

Admittedly, its hard tying down exactly Friedman's comments on the GW series, they don't necessarily mesh with 'Postwar Naval Revolution'. Most of his GW drawings of the sketch designs lack the GW numbers and are referred to by the month of their design. Brown & Moore put some designations to the designs.

 

[Tzoli]

phil gollin an earlier commenter provided me accurate documents (photos of admirality papers) that contains all data on this designs from GW.1 to GW.80 in table format.
I do have Friedman's book and he made a mistake in some designs which carry the 5,25inch gun, in reality those designs would had carried the 5" Mark N2 (or N1) gun
I've been told not give forward these documents so I only show you these two designs:

Legends:

According to these documents the 1 3/4 stage armed designs were:
GW.59
GW.61-63
GW.70-78 including 78A/B/C
and GW.81 or maybe GW.80 and GW.79

GW.59,61,62,63 had 8x1 launchers with 28/32/32/32 missiles accordingly though the document only states R.F in brackets for the missile storage so I'm 100% sure these are that kind of missiles

For the 70 series the missiles stated were the Bristol 1 3/4th
70,71 had 6 single launchers 24/54 missiles respectively
72,73 had 5 single launchers 2 forward 3 aft, 41/81 missiles respectively
74,75 had 4 single launchers 2 forward 2 aft, 52 missiles both
76 had either 1 single or 1 twin (I'm not sure) launcher, 17 missiles
77,78A had 4 single launchers 2 forward 2 aft, 48/40 missiles respectively
78B had 2 single aft launchers, 20 missiles
78C had 4 single launchers 2 forward 2 aft, 100 missiles

For GW.80 nothing is written only that it would carry 2 single launchers, 40.000shp 2 shafts, 692ft long and 93ft wide

 

[Hood]

Thanks Tzoli, this clears up the confusion and once again indicates that Friedman should not be considered gospel on these matters.

 

[covert_shores]

It's possible that Friedman simply saw contributory original sources. I know from looking at admiralty documents (not these specific designs of course) that details often differ between documents even within a single bundle. That doesn't mean that they are wrong, simply that there were varying opinions and that details changed over time. Great to see original docs being shared though, cheers!

 

[phil gollin]

I met Norman Friedman at the Brass Foundry whilst he was researching his cruiser book - he was mainly looking at the Constructors' work books.

He certainly knew that the missile ships ships cover was there because I discussed it with him.

 

[Volkodav]

I have read that the Sea Slug fire control system, in particular the Type 901 fire control radar, was a limiting factor in how many missile ships could be built during the 60s. It was either going to be four cruisers with two 901s each or eight destroyers/DLGs even the proposed escort cruisers were planned for later in the decade, into the early 70s, with the first two meant to be instead of the ninth and tenth Counties, which tends to support the bottleneck proposition.

Building the Counties instead of the cruisers makes sense but I can't help but imagine how different the RN would have been had the only difference been the RN managed to get their cruisers. I wonder what other changes this would have driven, for instance would there have been a need for the Invincibles to have had such extensive command facilities or would they have been simpler helicopter carriers, would the RN have adopted Tartar to make up missile escort number in the 60s?

 

[Tzoli]

I've decided to post the photos my friend made some years ago about the GW series of missile warships documents, it's not all the documts from the archives just the few my friend made. The most interesting is the complete table showing all the designs from GW.1 to GW.80
You guys can find it here:

GW Missile Warships - Google Drive

drive.google.com

Also who knows which radar or director is this drawing showing:
http://www.and-kin2008.narod.ru/pr61/5.JPG

 

[Hood]

Also who knows which radar or director is this drawing showing:

It is the 4R90 Yatagan ('Peel Group') for the M-1 Volna (SA-N-1 'Goa').

 

[Tzoli]

Thanks!
Should had thought that such weird looking radar would be of Russian origin!

 

[Tzoli]

The Counties had only a Single Type 901 Missile director/Illuminator radar though by deleting the helipad a second could fit in. Does this means it could only trace a single aircraft for the twin Seaslug launcher?

 

[Tzoli]

Does anybody intend to visit the Royal Navy archives at Brass Foundry?
Apparently there should been at least sketch drawings of the GW designs.
For example WOrkbook 839/3 should contain the GW.1-6 series and drawings had these numbers:
D.N.C. 5/6030, 6031, 6033, 6034, 6035, 6036 and so on. (more you could find in the google drive link I've posted earlier)

 

[zen]

The Counties had only a Single Type 901 Missile director/Illuminator radar though by deleting the helipad a second could fit in. Does this means it could only trace a single aircraft for the twin Seaslug launcher?

No it would be above and forward of the first director.
Helicopter took the Limbo spot and the hanger cost little.

 

[Tzoli]

The Counties had only a Single Type 901 Missile director/Illuminator radar though by deleting the helipad a second could fit in. Does this means it could only trace a single aircraft for the twin Seaslug launcher?

No it would be above and forward of the first director.
Helicopter took the Limbo spot and the hanger cost little.

Erm what?
I meant a second Type 901 radar/director not launcher

 

[zen]

The Counties had only a Single Type 901 Missile director/Illuminator radar though by deleting the helipad a second could fit in. Does this means it could only trace a single aircraft for the twin Seaslug launcher?

No it would be above and forward of the first director.
Helicopter took the Limbo spot and the hanger cost little.

Erm what?
I meant a second Type 901 radar/director not launcher

That's what I said, the second would be forward (towards the bow) of the first. Not sternward

 

[Tzoli]

Probably my question is in vain, but do anybody have drawings of the Type 982 and 983 radar duo? Or drawings of the ships they got equipped on? HMS Girdleness, Ark Royal, Eagle and Centaur?

 

[Tzoli]

The British NIGS DDG/DDGN debate on the other thread given me the energy to start drawing again the GW series of missile ship designs.

Here is the current state of GW-1, the slow escort design:

I will try to squeeze in the second Type 901 radar on top of the hanger. Or just delete the hanger and only giving this design a helideck so only helicopter support and not full helicopter service capability.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Looks intriguing.

 

[Petrus]

The British NIGS DDG/DDGN debate on the other thread given me the energy to start drawing again the GW series of missile ship designs.

Here is the current state of GW-1, the slow escort design:

I will try to squeeze in the second Type 901 radar on top of the hanger. Or just delete the hanger and only giving this design a helideck so only helicopter support and not full helicopter service capability.

In "Postwar Naval Revolution" by Norman Friedman you will find sketches of several guided weapons ship project (page 130). GW1 is not depicted, but there is a sketch of GW14 or 14A (convoy escort). It may serve as an example of the British designers' style.
I would doubt there was a helicopter pad or hangar in the early GW ship projects, but GW 14/14A had two 901s.
Piotr

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

The British NIGS DDG/DDGN debate on the other thread given me the energy to start drawing again the GW series of missile ship designs.

Here is the current state of GW-1, the slow escort design:

I will try to squeeze in the second Type 901 radar on top of the hanger. Or just delete the hanger and only giving this design a helideck so only helicopter support and not full helicopter service capability.

Given that the design dates from 1953 I doubt it would have any helicopter capability. None of the sketches for slightly later designs in Norman Friedman's Postwar Naval Revolution have facilities for helicopters, nor do the 1951 Fleet Carrier conversions.

 

[Tzoli]

Yes that is why I written that I either delete the Hanger or squeeze in the 2nd Type 901 on top.
GW14 was indeed larger than GW1 but it has twice the shp but still not have as large engine as the WW2 era destroyers but I could imagine two funnels on it.
GW 1 had only 15.000shp which would mean 2 boilers and 2 turbine rooms hence only a single funnel and more deck space.
I might have the book "Postwar Naval Revolution" and will try to search for it, but the earliest sketch I have currently is GW24:

 

[Hood]

Also worthwhile looking at these drawings that I drew in Shipbucket scale from the surviving real plans republished in various sources back in 2015.
http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=6281&p=148058#p148058


Adding a helicopter to GW1 is highly speculative, given the 1953 design date I'm not sure it would of had any helicopters, at best an Ultralight but these were seen as anti-aircraft convoy escorts. Saying that, the lack of any listed anti-submarine armament or sonars on the data sheet is rather puzzling, even for a self-defence armament.

And again, speculative reconstructions based off limited data really belong in the artwork sections and not project threads.