Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Alternative: in 1960s, after accessing the data from multiple local wars around the world, Swedish government became concerned that their bet on "mosquito fleet" of small fast units might not be the best idea. Motor torpedo boats and fast attack crafts were extremely vulnerable to airstrikes - they could not protect themselves efficiently, and their small size and mobility means little against even smaller and much faster planes. Large warships, on the other hand, demonstrated relatively good resistance to air attacks.
Discussion about "Marinplan 60" being too restrictive and - maybe - a small number of air defense ships being a good idea started. Swedish admirals, of course, did not heistate to make the matter both public and political - and eventually won. In 1968, Swedish government approved appropriation of up to four air defense destroyers (both to support small units, and to provide air defense to naval facilities), under certain conditions:
A - ships must be equipped with area air defense system (obviously imported, since Sweden did not have their own SAM of this type);
B - ships must be build domestically and equipped with domestically-produced weapons and systems (with the obvious exception of SAM) - Swedish government agreed to spend money on new destroyers, but at very least wanted most of the money to stay in Sweden;
C - ships must be no bigger than Halland-class destroyers, to be able to use Musko naval base underground docking facilities;
-----------------------------------------------
So, how could the 1970s Swedish missile destroyer looks like?
There aren't exactly big choise for SAM system available in late 1960s. It's clearly either American RIM-24 Tartar (Mk-13/Mk-22 GMLS) or British GWS.30 Sea Dart.
- the RIM-24 Tartar is more compact & easier to install, but obtaining it might not be simple; Sweden was a bit reluctant to buy major weapon system from USA, fearing that it might be viewed as neutrality violation. Also, there were a big question, would US agree to sell Tartar missiles to non-aligned country in 1960-1970s?
- the GWS.30 Sea Dart is more bulky, harder to install, but obtaining it would likely be much easier. Sweden brought a lot of weapons from UK - including Bristol Bloodhound SAM - and Britain was obviously quite interested in Sea Dart sale;
So in general I consider Sea Dart to be more... politically correct solution) As well as likely cheaper one.
To accomodate the Sea Dart GWS.30 on relatively small ship, some sacrifices must be made. Most obvious would be the artillery. Traditionally, Sweden destroyers were armed with a pair of dual 120-mm Bofors L/50 mounts. My suggestion for 1970s destroyers - to replace them with Bofors 120-mm/46 TAK single-barrel water-cooled mounts instead. It's two times lighter than dual mount (28 tons for TAK 120 instead of 68 tons for L/50), while having comparable rate of fire (75-80 rpm instead of 2 x 42-45 rmp).
(a problem might arise with Type 909 radars - they must be placed low enough so the ship would be able to fit into Musko naval base tunnel height, which is about 40 meters)
Quite obviously, a brand-new Rb 08 anti-ship missile stays also. It was specifically designed for destroyer-size ships, and (according to available data) actually have much more range than was credited with (Swedish navy hold missiles only fueled for about 80-90 km range, since they want to avoid accusations about producing "offensive weapons", but fully fueled Rb 08 could fly at least twice as far). It's possible that a Rb 08B version, with a new monopulse seeker from Rb 04E air-launched missile would be produced (or likely refitted from available stock).
Most likely, the secondary armament would stay, too - like the 357-mm Bofors anti-submarine mortar (albeit to reduce weight, the two-barrel version may be used instead of four-barrel), and 57-mm L/70 Bofors autocannons. Doubt about torpedo tubes, though. The 21-inch ones are rather heavy, and Sweden AFAIK did not have lightweight anti-sub torpedoes in 1960s (I might be mistaken there).
Discussion about "Marinplan 60" being too restrictive and - maybe - a small number of air defense ships being a good idea started. Swedish admirals, of course, did not heistate to make the matter both public and political - and eventually won. In 1968, Swedish government approved appropriation of up to four air defense destroyers (both to support small units, and to provide air defense to naval facilities), under certain conditions:
A - ships must be equipped with area air defense system (obviously imported, since Sweden did not have their own SAM of this type);
B - ships must be build domestically and equipped with domestically-produced weapons and systems (with the obvious exception of SAM) - Swedish government agreed to spend money on new destroyers, but at very least wanted most of the money to stay in Sweden;
C - ships must be no bigger than Halland-class destroyers, to be able to use Musko naval base underground docking facilities;
-----------------------------------------------
So, how could the 1970s Swedish missile destroyer looks like?
There aren't exactly big choise for SAM system available in late 1960s. It's clearly either American RIM-24 Tartar (Mk-13/Mk-22 GMLS) or British GWS.30 Sea Dart.
- the RIM-24 Tartar is more compact & easier to install, but obtaining it might not be simple; Sweden was a bit reluctant to buy major weapon system from USA, fearing that it might be viewed as neutrality violation. Also, there were a big question, would US agree to sell Tartar missiles to non-aligned country in 1960-1970s?
- the GWS.30 Sea Dart is more bulky, harder to install, but obtaining it would likely be much easier. Sweden brought a lot of weapons from UK - including Bristol Bloodhound SAM - and Britain was obviously quite interested in Sea Dart sale;
So in general I consider Sea Dart to be more... politically correct solution) As well as likely cheaper one.
To accomodate the Sea Dart GWS.30 on relatively small ship, some sacrifices must be made. Most obvious would be the artillery. Traditionally, Sweden destroyers were armed with a pair of dual 120-mm Bofors L/50 mounts. My suggestion for 1970s destroyers - to replace them with Bofors 120-mm/46 TAK single-barrel water-cooled mounts instead. It's two times lighter than dual mount (28 tons for TAK 120 instead of 68 tons for L/50), while having comparable rate of fire (75-80 rpm instead of 2 x 42-45 rmp).
(a problem might arise with Type 909 radars - they must be placed low enough so the ship would be able to fit into Musko naval base tunnel height, which is about 40 meters)
Quite obviously, a brand-new Rb 08 anti-ship missile stays also. It was specifically designed for destroyer-size ships, and (according to available data) actually have much more range than was credited with (Swedish navy hold missiles only fueled for about 80-90 km range, since they want to avoid accusations about producing "offensive weapons", but fully fueled Rb 08 could fly at least twice as far). It's possible that a Rb 08B version, with a new monopulse seeker from Rb 04E air-launched missile would be produced (or likely refitted from available stock).
Most likely, the secondary armament would stay, too - like the 357-mm Bofors anti-submarine mortar (albeit to reduce weight, the two-barrel version may be used instead of four-barrel), and 57-mm L/70 Bofors autocannons. Doubt about torpedo tubes, though. The 21-inch ones are rather heavy, and Sweden AFAIK did not have lightweight anti-sub torpedoes in 1960s (I might be mistaken there).
