Early Canadian St Laurent design

[ILikeTanks]

https://navalandmilitarymuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/CFB-Esquimalt-Museum-Crowsnest-Volume02-Number-03-Jan-1949.pdf

 

[riggerrob]

Is this the impression?

That painting looks like the front end of a DDH 280 (Iroquois) and the aft end of a steamer.
By the time I served onboard HMCS Iroquois, she had a hangar wide enough for a pair of Sea King helicopters and had a Limbo mortar buried in the quarter-deck. That was the standard configuration.

 

[JFC Fuller]

View attachment 701245

https://navalandmilitarymuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/CFB-Esquimalt-Museum-Crowsnest-Volume02-Number-03-Jan-1949.pdf

Thanks for posting this, I've attached a larger version of the image from the link. The Destroyer Escorts of the Canadian 1949-50 programme were the first three ships of the St Laurent class, so logically this should be a representation of that ship type. There are many similarities, the basic layout (single funnel, presence of two single bofors mountings, etc.) there are also some notable differences:

1. The main gun armament, the aft turret is clearly larger than the one forward and has noticeably long barrels. It reminds me of the cylinder like representations of turrets shown on the '1960 cruiser' designs the Royal navy produced in 1949, which makes me wonder if its meant to be the 3"/70 Mark.6 as it was then being drawn.

2. The forward superstructure is reminiscent of the early Royal Navy Type 15 destroyer conversions, very low with a mounting on top of it, rather than forward of it. The mounting itself is interesting, clearly different from the aft main-gun mounting. Could be a twin bofors or an anti-torpedo weapon like RULER.

3. There may be torpedo tubes amidships, aft of the funnel. This wouldn't necessarily be surprising, could be for something like the unsuccessful British Bidder (Mk.20) torpedo. Tubes for this were planned for, and fitted to a few, British ships in the early 1950s.

 

[Apophenia]

I'm not sure this artwork represents preliminary work on the St. Laurent class DDE. Instead, I would argue that the ship portrayed is more likely to be a very early take on a 'utility' escort - that is, what became the still-born Vancouver class frigate of 1953-55.

The Vancouver class was a replacement for the RCN's Prestonian class frigate. As with most frigates, its main driver was cost and speed of production - amidst growing concerns over the cost of the St. Laurents and how long it took to complete each hull. [1] That time-urgency was based on a Naval Staff assumption of Soviet war-moves by 1955-56. As a result, RAdm Roger Bidwell, CBS, CD - Commander of what later becomes MARLANT - called for the Vancouver class to be capable of coastal convoy escort and of working in consort with DDEs on trans-oceanic ops. So, by late 1953, the Vancouver class escort frigate was being seen as a companion to the St. Laurent class then still pending.

As planned, the Vancouver class was simpler and lighter (by 660 tons) but more capable than the Prestonian class. The result was a 1,700 ton vessel with a 315 feet (96 m) l.o.a with a top speed of 24 knots and an endurance of 2,400 nm. Initially, main gun armament was to be a forward-mounted 4-inch gun (presumably surplus QF 4-inch XVIs salvaged from those mothballed River class hulls not upgraded in the Prestonian programme.) But that 'recycled' ordnance was later replaced in planning by a licensed US 3-inch L/50 piece. The Vancouver class would also have been armed with 4 x QF 40 mm Bofors L/60s; 2 x Limbo; and 4 x Mk.32 SVTT torpedo tubes. Complement was to be 82 less than a St. Laurent.

By December 1953, Cabinet approved a Naval Board procurement proposal for 13 x Vancouver class (10 x RCN + 3 x NATO under the Canadian Mutal Aid Programme). Predictably, staff then pulled a volte-face and scuppered the frigate project.

For those interested in more on the Vancouver class frigate. See: Peter T. Haydon's The Non-Utility of “Utility” Warships. [2] That article is really a hachet job on the project - especially laughable on the reasons for its cancellation [3] - but there are still some details worth gleaning.

___________________________________

[1] Estimates were than a completed Vancouver class frigate would cost CAD 12.5M (2023 CAD 139.64M). For comparison, each fully-equipped St. Laurent destroyer was estimated as costing 1955 CAD 21.0M (2023 CAD 234.6M).

[2] Canadian Naval Review, Volume 3, Number 1 (Spring 2007); pp 22-25
-- https://www.navalreview.ca/wp-content/uploads/CNR_pdf_full/cnr_vol3_1.pdf

[3] Haydon cites a 'comprehensive report' issued in 'May 1955' by a committee that didn't even exist until a year later. Fatal flaws of the Vancouver class were said to be a lack of endurance (50 nm less than the St. Laurent); low ASW capability (because it was 4 kts slower than the St. Laurent?); and inadequate ASW sensor fit.

For the record, the sonar sets selected for the Vancouver class were identical to those planned for the St. Laurent DDEs. These were:

- Type 162 side-looking + bottom-scanning sonar; aka SQS 501 'Tracer'/'Sounder'
- Type 170 narrow-beam attack sonar (for Limbo; aka SQS 502 'Attacker'
- Type 177 medium-range sonar (20,000 yds); aka SQS 503 'Hunter'/'Searcher'
- SQS 10 (US AN/SQS-10) search and attack sonar; aka 'Scanner'

 

[Hood]

I would agree with JFC - fore to aft twin Bofors, 2 single Bofors, four fixed torpedo tubes (presumably 21in as most RN homing torpedoes were 21in at this time, it's certainly not Bidder), 3in/50 or /70, twin Limbo.

A very interesting find.

I'm not sure that it is the Vancouver, given the context of the image. The image is connected to the award of the contract to Canadian Vickers in June 1949 for the first St Laurent due for commissioning in 1955. Design work began at that time, so given that the newsletter was published in December 1949 its almost certain that this is Canadian Vickers' first sketch design for the class. The two Canadian architects German and Milne were led by Rowland Baker who was seconded from the Admiralty's DNC. Baker had been seconded in 1948. The Type 15 design wasn't presented until March 1949 so it looks like convergent design solutions, perhaps Baker getting the latest on the Type 15 conversion to feed into the St Laurent.

 

[Apophenia]

I didn't mean to suggest that the image represent the Vancouver class, rather that it was a first stab at that 'utility' escort concept. What ever was in the works then was displaced by the interim Prestonians. My supposition was largely based on how low-profile the illustrated hull was.

That said, I'd happily concede that this hull appears to be quite a bit longer than what Canadian Vickers arrived at with their final Vancouver class concept. And those big honkin' guns at the rear are a poser ...

 

[ILikeTanks]

Is this the impression?

That painting looks like the front end of a DDH 280 (Iroquois) and the aft end of a steamer.
By the time I served onboard HMCS Iroquois, she had a hangar wide enough for a pair of Sea King helicopters and had a Limbo mortar buried in the quarter-deck. That was the standard configuration.

Keep in mind that Beartrap was not operational in 1949 and after it became operational, they refitted everything, removing the aft turret and one mortar for the helipad. At first even St-Laurents have no helicopter.

 

[ILikeTanks]

Is this the impression?

That painting looks like the front end of a DDH 280 (Iroquois) and the aft end of a steamer.
By the time I served onboard HMCS Iroquois, she had a hangar wide enough for a pair of Sea King helicopters and had a Limbo mortar buried in the quarter-deck. That was the standard configuration.

Yes, it is the impression. I find that image during research by accident. I was originally finding historical allegorical personification artwork of the RCN to research art. I succeded in finding a few personification artworks and had learned about their conventions/style. Robert W.Chambers, Halifax Mail. I was doing this just to make sure the recreated personification artworks I'll soon make about the RCN ships would be accurate historically to the original. I encountered a preliminary design by accident and even I do not know much. I am more on artistic side when research history.

 

[ILikeTanks]

Someone else put that image into a new thread, and it was a nice drawing. Thank you for analyzing it.