uk 75

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
27 September 2006
Messages
5,801
Reaction score
5,742
I am at it again. Looking through some old books I found an artist's impression of a 1960 Canadian design for a frigate carrying a Tartar system aft. It was described as a Tribal class frigate, so presumably was an early design for the Iroquois ships.

It is a smart looking ship and very futuristic with a ball radar and sleek lines. Does anyone have more info/drawings?

UK 75
 
Thanks a lot for that one. I have been searching for it for some time. Before I heard about that Iroquois version I tried my hand on a completely fictional version myself:

http://p216.ezboard.com/fwarships1discussionboardsfrm11.showMessage?topicID=843.topic

All the best.
 
I am at it again. Looking through some old books I found an artist's impression of a 1960 Canadian design for a frigate carrying a Tartar system aft. It was described as a Tribal class frigate, so presumably was an early design for the Iroquois ships.

It is a smart looking ship and very futuristic with a ball radar and sleek lines. Does anyone have more info/drawings?

UK 75
Sleek lines were the norm in Canadian naval ships of the era, which was due to the expected operational area being the Atlantic.
 
I am at it again. Looking through some old books I found an artist's impression of a 1960 Canadian design for a frigate carrying a Tartar system aft. It was described as a Tribal class frigate, so presumably was an early design for the Iroquois ships.

It is a smart looking ship and very futuristic with a ball radar and sleek lines. Does anyone have more info/drawings?

Going waaay back, it was the General Purpose Frigate which was also referred to as the 'Tribal class frigate'. But this GPF was not an early design for that 'other' Tribal class (aka Iroquois DDH or DDH 280). Your "early design" was the 'Guided Missile Destroyer' - briefly considered in the Summer of 1964. By then, the General Purpose Frigate project had already been cancelled (on 10 Oct 1963).

Despite its 'frigate' designation, the GPF was to be bigger than the Annapolis class destroyers - the final iteration of the St. Laurent DEs. A rough size comparison chart follows (apologies for the funky formatting):

Vessel Class ---- Annapolis -- GPF ----- DDH 280 -- Halifax FFH
Displacement ---- 2,900 t --- 3,300 t --- 3,800 t ---- 4,770 t
Length (o/a) ------ 366 ft --- 398 ft --- 423.4 ft ---- 440 ft
Beam/Breadth ----- 42 ft ---- 46.0 ft --- 48.2 ft ----- 53.9 ft
Draught -------- 13.5/23.5 ft - 13.9 ft ---14.6/37.9 -- 16.1 ft

On the General Purpose Frigate, the Tartars' Mk 22 GMLS mount was set aft - just forward of the hoist (in the March 1962 iteration) and just in front of the helicopter landing pad (for the Sept 1963 development).

Inclusion of the RIM-24 Tartar Missile System raised US equipment acquisitions costs for the GPF programme to more than $100M (over $970M in 2024 CAD). Beyond that, the Tartar's AN-SPQ-51 directors were viewed as being 'shock limited'. So, no big surprise that the General Purpose Frigate project got dumped.

BTW, for closer-in defence, the GPF was also to have 2 x RIM-46A Sea Mauler mounts above the bridge. By the time that the DDH 280 was designed, medium-range missiles had been abandoned altogether and the close-in Sea Maulers had been replaced by Sea Sparrows.

I'm attaching a couple of cleaned-up drawings of the General Purpose Frigate proposal - originally dated March 1962 and September 1963. Note that, on the 1962 sketch, the radar is not show enclosed (as per the artwork in reply #2). By 1963, an AN/SPS-48 radar was mounted at mast-top and enclosed by a drum-shaped shroud.
 

Attachments

  • RCN-GPF-March-1962.jpg
    RCN-GPF-March-1962.jpg
    55.2 KB · Views: 177
  • RCN-GPF-Sept-1963.jpg
    RCN-GPF-Sept-1963.jpg
    57 KB · Views: 199
Last edited:
Going waaay back, it was the General Purpose Frigate which was also referred to as the 'Tribal class frigate'. But this GPF was not an early design for that 'other' Tribal class (aka Iroquois DDH or DDH 280). Your "early design" was the 'Guided Missile Destroyer' - briefly considered in the Summer of 1964. By then, the General Purpose Frigate project had already been cancelled (on 10 Oct 1963).

Despite its 'frigate' designation, the GPF was to be bigger than the Annapolis class destroyers - the final iteration of the St. Laurent DEs. A rough size comparison chart follows (apologies for the funky formatting):

Vessel Class ---- Annapolis GPF DDH 280 Halifax FFH
Displacement ---- 2,900 t --- 3,300 t --- 3,800 t --- 4,770 t
Length (o/a) ---- 366 ft --- 398 ft ---- 423.4 ft --- 440 ft
Beam/Breadth ----- 42 ft ---- 46.0 ft --- 48.2 ft ---- 53.9 ft
Draught -------- 13.5/23.5 ft - 13.9 ft ---14.6/37.9 - 16.1 ft

On the General Purpose Frigate, the Tartars' Mk 22 GMLS mount was set aft - just forward of the hoist (in the March 1962 iteration) and just in front of the helicopter landing pad (for the Sept 1963 development).

Inclusion of the RIM-24 Tartar Missile System raised US equipment acquisitions costs for the GPF programme to more than $100M (over $970M in 2024 CAD). Beyond that, the Tartar's AN-SPQ-51 directors were viewed as being 'shock limited'. So, no big surprise that the General Purpose Frigate project got dumped.

BTW, for closer-in defence, the GPF was also to have 2 x RIM-46A Sea Mauler mounts above the bridge. By the time that the DDH 280 was designed, medium-range missiles had been abandoned altogether and the close-in Sea Maulers had been replaced by Sea Sparrows.

I'm attaching a couple of cleaned-up drawings of the General Purpose Frigate proposal - originally dated March 1962 and September 1963. Note that, on the 1962 sketch, the radar is not show enclosed (as per the artwork in reply #2). By 1963, an AN/SPS-48 radar was mounted at mast-top and enclosed by a drum-shaped shroud.
Do you have also a sketch and /or more details of the summer 1964 guided missile destroyer you mentioned?
 
Do you have also a sketch and /or more details of the summer 1964 guided missile destroyer you mentioned?

A sketch, yes. But that 'Guided Missile Destroyer' was kind of an on-again/off-again thing. In 1958, the Naval Policy Coordinating Committee issued a Staff Paper on the Operational Requirements for a Guided Missile Destroyer. The RCN had pretty much decided to move on as many as 8 x DDGs when it was decided to create a class of 4 x DE-sized General Purpose Frigates (as yet another variation on the St. Laurent destroyers). Confused yet?

The smaller GPFs were, eventually, to be complimented 'heliporters'. The latter were to be ASW destroyers with
helicopter decks - such a deck having been trialled aboard HMCS Buckingham (FFE 314, a Prestonian class Ocean Escort frigate) in Oct-Dec 1956. The need to provide a large enough flying deck and hangarage for the larger ASW helicopters anticipated, pretty much explains the size increase leading to the DDH 280.

Attached is a poor-quality drawing of the 'Guided Missile Destroyer'. This is Sketch C but Sketch A and B can be found on pp.476-477 of The Annapolis Riddle: Advocacy, Ship Design and the Canadian Navy’s Force Structure Crisis, 1957-1965, a 2008 PhD thesis by Richard Oliver Mayne.

-- https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ose-frigate-cancelled-1963.15034/#post-430669
 

Attachments

  • RCN-GMD-July-1964.jpg
    RCN-GMD-July-1964.jpg
    47.3 KB · Views: 138
Attached is a poor-quality drawing of the 'Guided Missile Destroyer'. This is Sketch C but Sketch A and B can be found on pp.476-477 of The Annapolis Riddle: Advocacy, Ship Design and the Canadian Navy’s Force Structure Crisis, 1957-1965, a 2008 PhD thesis by Richard Oliver Mayne.

-- https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ose-frigate-cancelled-1963.15034/#post-430669

So where is the bridge for ship control in this sketch. Is it in that midships mast structure? Kind of looks like there might be a 360-degree bridge wrapped around it under the actual masts. Quite a novel concept, if so.
 
Going waaay back, it was the General Purpose Frigate which was also referred to as the 'Tribal class frigate'. But this GPF was not an early design for that 'other' Tribal class (aka Iroquois DDH or DDH 280). Your "early design" was the 'Guided Missile Destroyer' - briefly considered in the Summer of 1964. By then, the General Purpose Frigate project had already been cancelled (on 10 Oct 1963).

Despite its 'frigate' designation, the GPF was to be bigger than the Annapolis class destroyers - the final iteration of the St. Laurent DEs. A rough size comparison chart follows (apologies for the funky formatting):

Vessel Class ---- Annapolis -- GPF ----- DDH 280 -- Halifax FFH
Displacement ---- 2,900 t --- 3,300 t --- 3,800 t ---- 4,770 t
Length (o/a) ------ 366 ft --- 398 ft --- 423.4 ft ---- 440 ft
Beam/Breadth ----- 42 ft ---- 46.0 ft --- 48.2 ft ----- 53.9 ft
Draught -------- 13.5/23.5 ft - 13.9 ft ---14.6/37.9 -- 16.1 ft

On the General Purpose Frigate, the Tartars' Mk 22 GMLS mount was set aft - just forward of the hoist (in the March 1962 iteration) and just in front of the helicopter landing pad (for the Sept 1963 development).

Inclusion of the RIM-24 Tartar Missile System raised US equipment acquisitions costs for the GPF programme to more than $100M (over $970M in 2024 CAD). Beyond that, the Tartar's AN-SPQ-51 directors were viewed as being 'shock limited'. So, no big surprise that the General Purpose Frigate project got dumped.

BTW, for closer-in defence, the GPF was also to have 2 x RIM-46A Sea Mauler mounts above the bridge. By the time that the DDH 280 was designed, medium-range missiles had been abandoned altogether and the close-in Sea Maulers had been replaced by Sea Sparrows.

I'm attaching a couple of cleaned-up drawings of the General Purpose Frigate proposal - originally dated March 1962 and September 1963. Note that, on the 1962 sketch, the radar is not show enclosed (as per the artwork in reply #2). By 1963, an AN/SPS-48 radar was mounted at mast-top and enclosed by a drum-shaped shroud.
Going waaay back, it was the General Purpose Frigate which was also referred to as the 'Tribal class frigate'. But this GPF was not an early design for that 'other' Tribal class (aka Iroquois DDH or DDH 280). Your "early design" was the 'Guided Missile Destroyer' - briefly considered in the Summer of 1964. By then, the General Purpose Frigate project had already been cancelled (on 10 Oct 1963).

Despite its 'frigate' designation, the GPF was to be bigger than the Annapolis class destroyers - the final iteration of the St. Laurent DEs. A rough size comparison chart follows (apologies for the funky formatting):

Vessel Class ---- Annapolis -- GPF ----- DDH 280 -- Halifax FFH
Displacement ---- 2,900 t --- 3,300 t --- 3,800 t ---- 4,770 t
Length (o/a) ------ 366 ft --- 398 ft --- 423.4 ft ---- 440 ft
Beam/Breadth ----- 42 ft ---- 46.0 ft --- 48.2 ft ----- 53.9 ft
Draught -------- 13.5/23.5 ft - 13.9 ft ---14.6/37.9 -- 16.1 ft

On the General Purpose Frigate, the Tartars' Mk 22 GMLS mount was set aft - just forward of the hoist (in the March 1962 iteration) and just in front of the helicopter landing pad (for the Sept 1963 development).

Inclusion of the RIM-24 Tartar Missile System raised US equipment acquisitions costs for the GPF programme to more than $100M (over $970M in 2024 CAD). Beyond that, the Tartar's AN-SPQ-51 directors were viewed as being 'shock limited'. So, no big surprise that the General Purpose Frigate project got dumped.

BTW, for closer-in defence, the GPF was also to have 2 x RIM-46A Sea Mauler mounts above the bridge. By the time that the DDH 280 was designed, medium-range missiles had been abandoned altogether and the close-in Sea Maulers had been replaced by Sea Sparrows.

I'm attaching a couple of cleaned-up drawings of the General Purpose Frigate proposal - originally dated March 1962 and September 1963. Note that, on the 1962 sketch, the radar is not show enclosed (as per the artwork in reply #2). By 1963, an AN/SPS-48 radar was mounted at mast-top and enclosed by a drum-shaped shroud.
Why is there another set of missiles on the quarterdeck?
 
I have no actual details on the three General Purpose Frigate sketches. They were so short-lived, probably no-one thought such details worth commenting on at the time. The 'heliporter' concept dictated moving on briskly towards the DDH 280 and RCN planners were happy to do so.
 
I have no actual details on the three General Purpose Frigate sketches. They were so short-lived, probably no-one thought such details worth commenting on at the time. The 'heliporter' concept dictated moving on briskly towards the DDH 280 and RCN planners were happy to do so.
I like the one with the torpedoes on the bow, it looks like angry eyes
 
The need to provide a large enough flying deck and hangarage for the larger ASW helicopters anticipated, pretty much explains the size increase leading to the DDH 280.
Yeah, Sea Kings are not small aircraft... There's a reason the USAF version is called the Jolly Green Giant!
 
I like the one with the torpedoes on the bow, it looks like angry eyes
Sorry if this is not technical, I was more into seeking the artistic side of the ships and their feel. They reminded me of whaleback ships in the past and are very beautiful in my eyes
 
Sorry if this is not technical, I was more into seeking the artistic side of the ships and their feel. They reminded me of whaleback ships in the past and are very beautiful in my eyes
Nothing wrong with aesthetic appreciation.
 
It plays more of a role in ship design than a lot of engineers are comfortable admitting. I believe @RP1 teaches Style as one of the five Ss of ship design, but it's not always recognised in discussions or recorded formally.

There was some of that in the design of the Spruance class, apparently, specifically taking some design cues from the Iroquois class (and then losing a lot of them as functional issues like IR signature became more important than pretty looking stack caps).

Not so much with the FFG-7, obviously.
 
It plays more of a role in ship design than a lot of engineers are comfortable admitting. I believe @RP1 teaches Style as one of the five Ss of ship design, but it's not always recognised in discussions or recorded formally.
Hi,
Sadly in my experience that hasn't really been all that true, as for the most part "style" has really seemed to be the distant "second or third cousin" of other desin factors. Hopefully not getting too far off track here, but for the most part what little styling ending up in the designs that I have worked on have more or less been trying to do something with what's left over after addressing most other concerns, than anything else :(
 
Hi,
Sadly in my experience that hasn't really been all that true, as for the most part "style" has really seemed to be the distant "second or third cousin" of other desin factors. Hopefully not getting too far off track here, but for the most part what little styling ending up in the designs that I have worked on have more or less been trying to do something with what's left over after addressing most other concerns, than anything else :(
It certainly varies. My present employer has a distinct house style, for example. I know for a fact that the Type 26 frigate takes visual cues from the Type 22 - I was in the room for some of it - but it wasn't recorded that way.

In a way, a decision not to consider styling is a style choice. Nobody's ever going to accuse an ore carrier of being anything other than functional. But quite apart from the economics, a streamlined superstructure and a smooth longitudinal sheer line would just look wrong on one!
 
Much appreciate the additional info and drawings Apophenia!


Regards
Pioneer
 
Last edited:
I'm feeling a bit dense, but which drawing are you looking at?

That puzzled me too. Because of the quotes, I assumed that ILikeTanks was referring to the General Purpose Frigate sketches.

Confusingly, "another set of missiles on the quarterdeck" are not shown in either sketch. In both, the Tartar Mk 22 GMLS mount is one on the quarterdeck (as described in reply #5).

On the March 1962 iteration of the GPF, directly aft of the superstructure are a hydraulic hoist; then the Tartar Mk 22 GMLS mount; then a larger, retractable hoist; then the Limbo A/S Mk.10 mortar; then an unspecified decoy launcher (almost certainly Corvus chaff); then the well for AN/SQS 501 VDS (labelled in the drawing with an RN Type 162 designation) with a smaller hoist set to port.

The September 1963 iteration shows slightly less detail. Aft of the superstructure are the Tartar GMLS; a helicopter well (for below-deck hangarage of sorts); then Limbo; then a somewhat lengthened VDS well.

As for "another set of missiles", there was only the RIM-46A Sea Maulers above the bridge - twin mounts in March 1962, a singleton in Sept 1963. There were no other missiles proposed or considered for the GPF that I am aware of.
 
The 'heliporter' concept dictated moving on briskly towards the DDH 280 and RCN planners were happy to do so.
Iroquois were not heliporters. The heliporter concepts were centered on the idea that in order to prosecute contacts two helicopters would need to be airborne at all times. For a two week or shorter mission, like escorting REFORGER convoys, 8 Sea Kings would be needed. For longer timeframes 15 would be, since some would be down for repairs. This lead to a number of designs with 8 helicopters aboard, and some with more, including one based on a converted Iwo Jima class that would roughly correspond to a Hyuga class in today's world. There were also a few with 6.

DDH 280 was the fall back when those designs were judged too expensive.

The whole story is in "The Anapolis Riddle", it's an excellent read. This is a direct link to the pdf. It will start to download if you click on it.

https://qspace.library.queensu.ca/b...d_O_finalsubmission_200804_PhD.pdf?sequence=1

By the way, the images in post 5 are of the GPF design. "The Anapolis Riddle" includes deck by deck illustrations, and one of the things that is interesting is that there is an elevator and below decks hangar for a helicopter. Worth checking out.
 
Iroquois were not heliporters...

... By the way, the images in post 5 are of the GPF design. "The Anapolis Riddle" includes deck by deck illustrations, and one of the things that is interesting is that there is an elevator and below decks hangar for a helicopter. Worth checking out.

Thanks for the 'heliporter' clarification.

Yes, the images in reply #5 were identified as General Purpose Frigate sketches. The below-decks hangar for the Sept 1963 GPF sketch was noted in reply #23.
 
The heliporters with six or even eight Sea Kings on roughly the same displacements as the Harunas (with three helicopters) are interesting. I get the feeling no one talked to maintainers about how much space they actually needed to access the aircraft or move them around.
 
In his book Tony German mentions the Heliporter was being sold to Cabinet as using a modified and enlarged St Laurent hull.
At this point the number of Sea Kings had reached Fourteen. And the reality was it was going to be roughly the size of an escort Carrier.
There's was no way that it would ever be able to use a modified frigate hull.
 
Back
Top Bottom