Early CF.299 Destroyer Proposals (previously mistaken for RN Type 19 frigate)

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
18 March 2008
Reaction score
The following webpage has quite a bit of information about alternate designs for the RN’s Type 19 CVA-01 escort frigate. The designs explore difference ASW configurations with ASROC, Ikara and Malafon.



  • IMG_0057-w Ikara-Seadart-a.jpg
    IMG_0057-w Ikara-Seadart-a.jpg
    192.5 KB · Views: 887
  • IMG_0058-w Seadart-Asroc-a.jpg
    IMG_0058-w Seadart-Asroc-a.jpg
    179.9 KB · Views: 755
  • IMG_0059-w Malafon-Seadart-a.jpg
    IMG_0059-w Malafon-Seadart-a.jpg
    203.3 KB · Views: 713
  • IMG_0060-w Ikara-Seadart-a.jpg
    IMG_0060-w Ikara-Seadart-a.jpg
    183.9 KB · Views: 676
  • IMG_0061-w Asroc-Seadart-a.jpg
    IMG_0061-w Asroc-Seadart-a.jpg
    187.7 KB · Views: 654
  • RN_1962_FFG.png
    256.6 KB · Views: 277
Re: RN Type 19 frigate

This is a fascinating addition to the information available
in Brown and Moore and Friedman's books.
It makes one wonder how many more drawings of options
for RN warships are out there.
The Leander origins of the later Type 82 design are clear to see,
as are the options considered for ASW.
Many thanks
UK 75
Re: RN Type 19 frigate

I don't believe that these concept relate to the Type 19 - this was intended to be firstly a high speed (40knot) escort intended to counter small surface combatants as faced in the Indonesian confrontation, then it was recast as a low end escort a requirement which was ultimately filled by the Type 21. The specification for the Type 19 requied equipment the same as the Type 12.

These are more likely studies which lead to the Type 82 as stated by UK75 or part of the Type 17 studies.

What is the source of the images.

Re: RN Type 19 frigate

The source is the web link provided in the initial post.
Re: RN Type 19 frigate

I too don't think these are related to Type 19.

Friedman in 'British Destroyers and Frigates' makes no mention of them, ASROC was never favoured as a weapon, Malafon too is unlikely as a British weapon.

The twin Sea Dart/ Ikara launcher makes perfect sense but I've heard about such a mount or ever seen a diagram of one. I would think dimensionally and weight would vary for each missile and having twin magazine systems seems wasteful of space. Maybe these were just preliminary drawings, closer to the Type 17 level?

The search radar seems unlike any other and is too small to be 'Broomstick'.
Re: RN Type 19 frigate

The last one on the actual site page (Fig 6-7)


with a combined Sea Dart/Ikara launcher is an interesting one.
Re: RN Type 19 frigate

These ships are not the Type-19 Frigate. They are preliminary designs leading up to the Type-82. CF.299 refers not to the Hull but to the Sea Dart system. In no way are these related to the Type 19.
Re: RN Type 19 frigate

sealordlawrence said:
These ships are not the Type-19 Frigate. They are preliminary designs leading up to the Type-82. CF.299 refers not to the Hull but to the Sea Dart system. In no way are these related to the Type 19.

The drawings do seem to be based on a Type 12/Leander hull, which essentially was the starting point for the Type 82, which subsequently ballooned into a 7,700 ton monster. In a way, the original thinking behind the Type 82 was meant to yield an affordable AAW combatant, akin to the eventual Type 42 in concept, with the Y100 plant of course.
Re: RN Type 19 frigate

From the February 1962 date on the drawings I guess that they
correspond to the Series 53 studies for a CF299 (Seadart) carrying frigate
to be as close to the Leander (Type 12) as possible.

Until 1963 it was hoped that the CF299 would be like the US Tartar/Standard and able to replace a 4.5" gun mounting without any exptra weight/space penalty. Like Seawolf (originally intended to be a straight swap for Seacat), Seadart grew, so that by 1963 studies were for a destroyer size vessel.

The RN had been looking at an ASW missile to replace its helicopters. ASROC was the favoured system, though Malafon was an alternative. Ikara emerged as the favourite system and was chosen in early 1963. As ever it required more space and weight than the US systems but saved on precious foreign currency and offered better capabilities (steerable missile).

Not described, but shown on the drawings, is the small SSM launcher for the SS11/SS12 missile which was a substitute for the 4.5" gun. As Seadart and Seacat offered a limited SSM capability this option was never taken up.

The twin CF299/Ikara launcher is not mentioned in published sources. It is worth noting that the US Belknap DLGs were being fitted with a combined Terrier/ASROC launcher in 1962. This might have seemed a worthwhile option with ASROC, but as the drawing shows, IKARA and CF299 required different magazines, and the launcher did not offer much of a saving.

The twin CF299 fit with three guidance radars and an early ball as opposed to Kojak surveillance radar also appears in the artwork for CVA 01 (see the Addndum page of Jane's 1963-4), and was probably also intended for the helicopter escort carrier/cruiser postponed in 1963.

It is a real shame that these drawings and a description did not make it into the Brown/Moore and Freidman books, but it is nice to have them now.

UK 75
Re: RN Type 19 frigate

From Peter Parkinson on Warships1


My first intro to seadart came when I was onboard Kent and we were off Aberporth and was asked to jam this secret radar. We jammed it by a special technique and I was initially in the rattle for completely jamming a radar the was supposed to be unjammable. What I remember was just how powerful this radar was and we asked Aberporth what was the range of this radar and they told us it was 212000 yards but they still would not tell us what it was. Later that day two Lieutenants came down from the bridge with a Janes fighting ships and in the addendum at the back was this new seadart radar 909.

The ADIMP 8 update was to control up to 8 seadarts in flight at any time and I suspect people have put 2 and 2 together with the autopilot rumours. I think someone wrote the new seeker which was developed by Marconi at Stanmore gave enough weight and space available for an autopilot.

The radar which contolled seadart was 992 which by plot extraction gave range and bearing in the form of a digital target report to the ADAWS command system and onto the JZ display system whic initially had a 26 inch flat display, a 12 inch LPD and a 12 inch tote display. Bristol had 21 displays and the T42S had 19 to start with. 965 radar could be used as well as air detector as a rough height finder when a target flew through the lobes.

Bristols launcher was a larger one than the T42s and goes back to the days of a combined launcher for Ikara and Seadart. One of the Leander replacement drawings had a double ended design with two combined seadart/ikara launchers fitted fore and aft.

The micro switch problem in the Falkklands was fixed by a quick sqirt of WD40 and then covered with a plastic bag held on with an elastic band.

I initially thought that 909 was an IC and transistor design but I have been told it was initially a valve design. I still find that this was is a bit weird when the ADAWS systems was IC and transistor and all developed at the same time.

Plessey radar on the Isle of Wight got a second production run for 909 radars as MOD thought Marconi was charging too much and was too slow. Plessey instituted over a hundred mods over the Marconi design and this about 1980. About this time some of the remaing valve equipments were change on one foe one unit basis with a transistor and IC unit. and the equipment had an M added eg 184 became 184M

The great problem with all RN missiles was the annual firing allowance which was always too low to develop a system properly. for e.g. Kent was only allowed to fire three seaslug missiles a commission and something like three seacats a year. Contrast this with a Tiger firing hundreds of rounds of six and three inch ammo every week. You are in no doubt which system is going to keep you alive in a war.

All the RN missile systems took expert maintenance, repair and adjustment to keep operational and to do that the RN had its core of artificers and mechanician who used to work hundreds of hours every month at sea and in harbour to keep these complex systems working.

The moving targets over land problem with search and fire contols radars with ships moving at sea as opposed to a land based radar which is not moving. This was improved by the use of more frequency stable magnetrons and the use of what was called a coherent receiver and true digital filters that could be software driven gave warships the ability to see air targets over land. The use of travelling wave tube transmitters improves this further. Foreign navies got this equipment years before the RN had it. I am used to seeing cars drive down the roads on radars that I have worked yet if you got within fory miles of land with the old RNs 993/4 radar the picture was completely blotted out with sidelobe clutter from the RNs crap AKD aerial a quarter cheese. ASWE and MOD were told about the problem years before the Falklands but did nothing. ASWEs argument was it worked ok on top of Portsdown hill and on good day a 993 at ASWE could see France but could not see a jumbo jet thiry miles away.
Re: RN Type 19 frigate

An interesting design.
And from my perspective, a very well balanced armament for a British ship of the time.
Especial for what appears to be a reasonable size/weight design.

Re: RN Type 19 frigate

This thread is of interest in the light of more recent
discussion of the NIGs ship and whether a frigate
could have carried Seadart on a small hull.

Looking at the references on the drawings which
go from 6.1 through to 6.7 (6.4 is missing for some
reason) this seems to have been a pretty detailed
exercise. It would be nice to know more about the
background to it.

UK 75
Re: RN Type 19 frigate

sealordlawrence said:
It gets incredibly tiring reading posts about RN ships from the post war time frame with people desperately trying to fit weapons systems into hulls without considering the sensors and combat management system.

Then maybe you should read the source data:


They are the CF.299 Frigate which is quoted on some documents as "A bigger and better Leander" it is probably the Type 19, a proposed Gas Turbine Frigate with a speed of over 40 knots.

And look at the pictures. The CF.299 designs are equipped with the various search, track and illumination radars and the combat data system required to operate Sea Dart. Being as they are drawings prepared by the MoD they are hardly the product of some enthusiast wanting to know why the world hasn't built a 500 tone air defence missile ship.
Re: RN Type 19 frigate

1) They are not Type 19 derivatives, they have been mis-labelled, note the previous consensus in this thread.

2) Anyone with an interest in this period knows that the RN undertook studies for even the most unlikely requirements irrelevant of how likely they were to even enter service

Similar threads

Top Bottom