Rearming the County class missile ships

[uk 75]

This alt obviously requires a bigger UK Defence budget but 8 County class ships were in service by the early 70s.
Replacing the forward 4.5" guns with one or two Mk8 or Exocet (later Harpoon) and one Mk8 should be relatively easy.
The Seadart mounting on Bristol T82 could have been adapted to the Countys. The main casualty would be the Wessex help.
Arguably 8 new build T42 were a better use of scarce resources but 8 Countys.would have been tougher ships with more Seadart rounds
The other part of the package should then have been double ended Seadart ships. Rather than the overblown T43 these should have just carried two Seadart systems with Harpoon amidships and Phalanx/Goalkeeper point defence.
The RN were too keen on giving every ship a helo. Air Defence ships had more important roles.

 

[pathology_doc]

Replacing the forward 4.5" guns with one or two Mk8 or Exocet (later Harpoon) and one Mk8 should be relatively easy.

Some of the County class DID get four Exocet in place of B turret. Fitting a Mk8 gun might run into space-distribution issues regarding what's under the actual deck mount (magazines, hydraulics etc), and how well (or not) the Exocets behind it clear the mount.

The RN were too keen on giving every ship a helo.

The Royal Navy still saw itself as having something of a worldwide role when these ships were designed, and as such, giving them all their own air capability was seen as a vital aspect of the design. US air-defence cruisers and destroyers (for example) had the benefit of operating in a fleet with a VERY large organic aviation component, both at sea and shore-based. The British simply couldn't afford to specialize to that degree.

The Seadart mounting on Bristol T82 could have been adapted to the Countys.

The County-class destroyers were pretty much built around the Seaslug system, a linear magazine that loaded missiles almost horizontally onto the laucher, which consequently needed only enough space underneath it for the training gear. Sea Dart's magazine is beneath the launcher, which might cause issues with positioning of existing County-class gear such as steering, engine shafts etc., or even having enough depth in the hull at that point.

IIRC, County-class upgrades beyond what was actually done are usually considered in terms of evolutionary steps in the missile (moving to SARH illumination instead of beam riding), but this also forces a complete rework of the fire control system and radar set, since it's designed to steer a beam-rider within Seaslug's manoeuvre parameters rather than illuminate for a SARH missile. By the time you do all this, it's probably cheaper to design and build a new ship. And probably a new missile too.

 

[uk 75]

Good points
A horizontally loaded Seadart was a possibility which would have then had a large magazine space.

 

[PMN1]

Good points
A horizontally loaded Seadart was a possibility which would have then had a large magazine space.

Any information on that?

 

[PMN1]

I would have thought the only place a Sea Dart launcher could go is in place of the two turrets, assuming you want a helicopter, although could you push the hanger and flight deck back and have something like the Italian Audace class?

 

[BlackBat242]

You could have moved the flight deck aft over the (removed) Sea Slug location, then moved the hangar aft to where the flight deck used to be.

That would leave a bit of depth where the hangar used to be for part of the Sea Dart below-decks stuff - the rest could be in a deckhouse attached to the front of the hangar.

 

[uk 75]

I still think the cleanest conversion would have been to alter the aft part of the County to be similar to that of Bristol.
The loss of 8 Wessex helos given the arrival of Seaking and Lynx would not have been a great loss.

Royal navy british guided missile destroyers vector image on VectorStock

Naval forces. Set of silhouettes of modern combat ships. Vector image for illustration. Download a free preview or high-quality Adobe Illustrator (ai), EPS, PDF vectors and high-res JPEG and PNG images.

www.vectorstock.com

 

[GK Dundas]

I have seen on line a cutaway view of a County with seadart launcher and 22 round magazine shoehorned into the B position in place of either gun mount or exocet mountings.
I have been searching without success so far to find yet again , frustrating to say the least.

 

[Hood]

Musing this the other day I thought about a what-if late 70s conversion using a fictional Sea Flash (a Sky Flash Sea Sparrow analogue) with a Mk 29 8-round launcher replacing Sea Slug, with a horizontal loader for another 8 or 16 rounds. Replace 'B' turret with Exocet as historical. Gives you something not that far off a Spruance in capability (though without ASROC and still stuck with Wessex).

I suppose another cheap and cheerful (but not fiscally cheap) replacement would be Sea Wolf replacing the Sea Slug launcher and 'B' turret with decent radars and fire-control replacing the 1950s kit. Or doing a Chilean conversion with a big hangar with a Sea Wolf on top (like Type 22).

 

[Dilandu]

The Seadart mounting on Bristol T82 could have been adapted to the Countys.

Tehcnically possible, but it would require a rather major upgrade with a lot of internal rearrangement.

You can't just remove the "Sea Slug" and install "Sea Dart" in its place. The "Sea Dart" is designed to be stored vertically, and there isn't much space beneath "Sea Slug" launcher:



Essentially the only way you could fit the "Sea Dart" on the stern of "County" is to get rid of helicopter deck and use space beneath to accomodate "Sea Dart" magazines. Part of its space would be from "Sea Slug" ready-round magazine, so it wouldn't be as problematic. But - you would lose the hangar and helicopter capabilities completely. There is no way helicopter would be able to land with "Sea Dart" launcher towering here.


So to avoid major function loss, you would basically need to rebuild the entire stern of the ship. I.e.:

* Remove the old hangar & stuck the "Sea Dart" launcher assembly in its place, with below-deck magazines.
* Lengthen the flight deck into the stern (in place of old "Sea Slug" launcher)
* Put the new hangar on place of old flight deck.

The end result, I suspect, would be something like this:



(sorry for extremely crude picture, I have no time to do more than very basic alteration for shipbucket's drawing)

 

[Pirate Pete]

Hood, you beat me to it…
I was going to suggest, either the (reputed) type of conversion of Devonshire fir the Egyptian Navy (remove Seaslug and fit hangar for Lynx helicopters)…or, and here we dive into the realms of ‘what if’…
Replace ‘B’ turret with a six-round Seawolf launcher, fit full sized hangar for Wessex/Sea King size helicopters (ala Chile). Place SSM’s - Exocet or Harpoon (although that was later) either in the ships waist on on superstructure (like the later Type 22’s). Whether or not it’s worth replacing the forward twin Mk.VI 4.5 turret with a single Mk.8, I’m not do sure. Throw in a couple of sets of triple A/S torpedo tubes and you, potentially, have a very capable Anti-Submarine Fleet Escort or A/S Flotilla Leader.

 

[Dilandu]

Replace ‘B’ turret with a six-round Seawolf launcher, fit full sized hangar for Wessex/Sea King size helicopters (ala Chile). Place SSM’s - Exocet or Harpoon (although that was later) either in the ships waist on on superstructure (like the later Type 22’s). Whether or not it’s worth replacing the forward twin Mk.VI 4.5 turret with a single Mk.8, I’m not do sure. Throw in a couple of sets of triple A/S torpedo tubes and you, potentially, have a very capable Anti-Submarine Fleet Escort or A/S Flotilla Leader.

Basically you are suggesting rebuilding them from air defense/multi-purpose destroyers into dedicated anti-submarine units.

 

[Pirate Pete]

Replace ‘B’ turret with a six-round Seawolf launcher, fit full sized hangar for Wessex/Sea King size helicopters (ala Chile). Place SSM’s - Exocet or Harpoon (although that was later) either in the ships waist on on superstructure (like the later Type 22’s). Whether or not it’s worth replacing the forward twin Mk.VI 4.5 turret with a single Mk.8, I’m not do sure. Throw in a couple of sets of triple A/S torpedo tubes and you, potentially, have a very capable Anti-Submarine Fleet Escort or A/S Flotilla Leader.

Basically you are suggesting rebuilding them from air defense/multi-purpose destroyers into dedicated anti-submarine units.

That’s correct.
Bearing in mind Britains part in N.A.T.O. by this sort of time was centred around Anti-Submarine operations, it would make some sense. The old Seaslug magazine tunnel would also lend itself to use for an extensive sonar operations room…

 

[Dilandu]

That’s correct.
Bearing in mind Britains part in N.A.T.O. by this sort of time was centred around Anti-Submarine operations, it would make some sense. The old Seaslug magazine tunnel would also lend itself to use for an extensive sonar operations room…

Hm. Good argument. Albeit in that case I would suggest to retain both bow turrets - to have firepower for amphibious support (additional function to help justify the refit).

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

Dilando’s assessment is correct for a replacement of the Sea Slug with Sea Dart. Sea Dart was designed to stand upright for prolonged periods of pitch and roll;- Changing that to horizontal may be more problematic than people appreciate (2/3 of the missile mass was in the booster which was attached via shear pins…. Horizontal storage means these are massively cyclical loading in bending…. Not nice)

A better option maybe to replace the Exocet with Sea Dart where the lower deck space, formally a gun magazine, would be more accommodating. Then install Exocets in place of the Sea Slug launcher, say two pointing starboard and two pointing port. This free up a large volume within the ship which creates all kinds of opportunities.

 

[Dilandu]

A better option maybe to replace the Exocet with Sea Dart where the lower deck space, formally a gun magazine, would be more accommodating. Then install Exocets in place of the Sea Slug launcher, say two pointing starboard and two pointing port.

Hm... Probably doable, but may require removal of both bow turrets. I'm not sure "Sea Dart" launcher & magazine assembly would survive well the rapid-fire of dual 4.5-inch turret.

 

[uk 75]

Even more radical would be to remove the helo, guns and Exocet and go for a double ended Seadart ship without the cosr of building 8 Type 43 .
The RN would get a force of decent AAW ships.
There is plenty of space on the helo and gun decks for Seadart launchers and magazines and room on the ample superstructure for radars.
Add a couple of Phalanx.

 

[Dilandu]

Even more radical would be to remove the helo, guns and Exocet and go for a double ended Seadart ship without the cosr of building 8 Type 43

The cost would be prohibitive, I'm afraid. And Royal Navy most likely could not afford single-purpose anti-air destroyers in 1980s.

 

[zen]

Just to ask.
Why wasn't a horizontal Sea Dart magazine possible?

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

With all that extra space, I was thinking more replace the Sea Cat with Sea Wolf.

Just to ask.
Why wasn't a horizontal Sea Dart magazine possible?

Sea Dart was designed to stand upright for prolonged periods of pitch and roll;- Changing that to horizontal may be more problematic than people appreciate (2/3 of the missile mass was in the booster which was attached via shear pins…. Horizontal storage means these are massively cyclical loading in bending…. Not nice). Yes there maybe some clever support, etc but the whole thing would need to be requalifed for horizontal endurance…. Expensive.

As for grim reality;- Agree with Dilandu Too costly. Please correct if wrong but HMS Victorious refit was in everyone’s recent memory;- it took longer, and was more expensive than a new build, and you inherently had a “tried”hull.

 

[Dilandu]

Sea Dart was designed to stand upright for prolonged periods of pitch and roll;- Changing that to horizontal may be more problematic than people appreciate (2/3 of the missile mass was in the booster which was attached via shear pins…. Horizontal storage means these are massively cyclical loading in bending…. Not nice)

May it be theoretically possible to put the "Sea Dart" round in some kind of external support frame, that would make horizontal storage possible? Of course, it would require money and additional development, but... well, if we could produce such a frame, we could just put "Sea Dart" into "Seaslug" magazines, without the need to rebuild half of the ship. After all, "Sea Dart" missile is quite smaller than "Seaslug" one.

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

May it be theoretically possible to put the "Sea Dart" round in some kind of external support frame, that would make horizontal storage possible? Of course, it would require money and additional development, but... well, if we could produce such a frame, we could just put "Sea Dart" into "Seaslug" magazines, without the need to rebuild half of the ship. After all, "Sea Dart" missile is quite smaller than "Seaslug" one.

Sure all possible;- “You pays your money and takes your choice”

 

[Dilandu]

Sure all possible;- “You pays your money and takes your choice”

Well, I was thinking more in terms "how to avoid costly rebuild")

 

[BlackBat242]

The Seadart mounting on Bristol T82 could have been adapted to the Countys.

Tehcnically possible, but it would require a rather major upgrade with a lot of internal rearrangement.

You can't just remove the "Sea Slug" and install "Sea Dart" in its place. The "Sea Dart" is designed to be stored vertically, and there isn't much space beneath "Sea Slug" launcher:

View attachment 696968

Essentially the only way you could fit the "Sea Dart" on the stern of "County" is to get rid of helicopter deck and use space beneath to accomodate "Sea Dart" magazines. Part of its space would be from "Sea Slug" ready-round magazine, so it wouldn't be as problematic. But - you would lose the hangar and helicopter capabilities completely. There is no way helicopter would be able to land with "Sea Dart" launcher towering here.

View attachment 696970
So to avoid major function loss, you would basically need to rebuild the entire stern of the ship. I.e.:

* Remove the old hangar & stuck the "Sea Dart" launcher assembly in its place, with below-deck magazines.
* Lengthen the flight deck into the stern (in place of old "Sea Slug" launcher)
* Put the new hangar on place of old flight deck.

The end result, I suspect, would be something like this:

View attachment 696974

(sorry for extremely crude picture, I have no time to do more than very basic alteration for shipbucket's drawing)

So... exactly what I proposed 4 posts before yours.

 

[Dilandu]

So... exactly what I proposed 4 posts before yours.

My point was, that this would a rather costly refit.

 

[zen]

May it be theoretically possible to put the "Sea Dart" round in some kind of external support frame, that would make horizontal storage possible? Of course, it would require money and additional development, but... well, if we could produce such a frame, we could just put "Sea Dart" into "Seaslug" magazines, without the need to rebuild half of the ship. After all, "Sea Dart" missile is quite smaller than "Seaslug" one

It would seem doable, I thought Sea Slug itself sat inside a crate.

Alternatively, at least one early test article of the ramjet was accelerated by wrap around boosters......

Requalification is expensive when such is only being applied to one or two ships. But eight....

 

[uk 75]

It is worth comparing the service life of the US Coontz class single ended Terrier ships with the County class. The US got much more use of them because their weapons systems were easier to upgrade. France got a similarly long life out of its two Suffren class.
The RN seems to build ships which become obsolete faster than those in other navies.
The Batch 1 and 2 T22 were stuck with Exocet and slow reload Seawolf. T42 were fitted with Seadart which did not evolve.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

These are the refits the County class had in the "Real World" according to https://www.naval-history.net/xGW-RNOrganisation1947-2013.htm

Batch 1​

10.68-05.71 - Devonshire​

06.69-07.72 - Kent​

01.70-09.73 - Hampshire [in care & maintenance 01.70-11.71]​

12.72-12.75 - London​

Batch 2​

01.73-09.73 - Norfolk [to Exocet]​

09.73-06.74 - Glamorgan [to Exocet]​

12.73-10.74 - Antrim [to Exocet]​

07.75-06.76 - Fife [to Exocet]​

09.77-09.80 - Glamorgan​

05.80-03.83 - Fife​

00.86-06.86 - Fife [to the Dartmouth Training Ship]​

The only improvements to the ships' weaponry, sensors or electronics, that I know of (there may be others that I don't know about) were:

• The Batch I ships had their GWS-21 Sea Cat (with Type 262 tracking radar) was replaced by GWS-22 (with Type 903 tracking radar) and Type 992 radar replaced by the Type 992Q during their long refits.
• All 4 Batch 2 ships had one twin 4.5in gun turret replaced by 4 Exocets.
• Antrim, Fife & Glamorgan received STWS-1 in the 1980s (Glamorgan in her 1980-83 refit & the others after the Falklands War) and my guess is that Norfolk would have had it fitted had she not been sold to Chile in 1982.

E.g. the during their "Real World" long refits, the Batch 1 ships didn't have their:

• GWS-1 Seaslug Mk 1 upgraded to GWS-2 Seaslug Mk 2 including having the Type 901 radar replaced by the Type 901M.
• Type 965 radar with its "Single-Bedstead" AKE-1 aerial replaced by the Type 965 with its "Double-Bedstead" with its AKE-2 aerial.
• Comprehensive Display System (CDS) replaced by ADAWS-1 which the Batch 2 ships were completed with or ADAWS-2 which Bristol was completed with.

The Batch 1 ships should have had the above upgrades during their "Real World" long refits had the money been available.

I think Glamorgan & Fife should have received the following modifications as part of the late 1970s & early 1980s refits and that Norfolk & Antrim should have been similarly refitted to the same standard if they aren't sold to Chile in 1982 & 1984 respectively in this "version of history".

• ADAWS-1 (which used Ferranti Poseidon computers) replaced by a variant of the ADAWS-6 (using Ferranti FM1600 computers) that Invincible & Illustrious were completed with.
• Type 965 radar replaced by the Type 1022 radar.
• Type 184 sonar replaced by the Type 2016 sonar.
• 8 Harpoon missiles replaced the 4 Exocet missiles.

The improvements to the sensors and electronics for the Batch 1 ships in the 1970s and Batch 2 ships in the 1980s may be more important than the improvements to the weaponry.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The RN seems to build ships which become obsolete faster than those in other navies.
The Batch 1 and 2 T22 were stuck with Exocet and slow reload Seawolf. T42 were fitted with Seadart which did not evolve.

Much of that was due to a lack of money (e.g. cancellation of GWS.31 Sea Dart in the 1981 Defence Review and my guess is that's why the early Type 22s didn't have their Exocets replaced by Harpoon) rather than limitations in the systems.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Replacing the forward 4.5" guns with one or two Mk8 or Exocet (later Harpoon) and one Mk8 should be relatively easy.

Some of the County class DID get four Exocet in place of B turret. Fitting a Mk8 gun might run into space-distribution issues regarding what's under the actual deck mount (magazines, hydraulics etc), and how well (or not) the Exocets behind it clear the mount.

Two out of four "Exocet" Counties (Antrim & Glamorgan) served in the Falklands War (Fife was refitting & Norfolk sailed for Chile as Captain Prat on 17.02.82).

I suspect that "B" 4.5" Mk 6 turret would have been of greater utility than the 4 Exocet missiles that replaced it as it would have doubled the ships' NGFS capability and improved their AA capability.

Is my suspicion correct?

 

[Dilandu]

It is worth comparing the service life of the US Coontz class single ended Terrier ships with the County class. The US got much more use of them because their weapons systems were easier to upgrade. France got a similarly long life out of its two Suffren class.
The RN seems to build ships which become obsolete faster than those in other navies.
The Batch 1 and 2 T22 were stuck with Exocet and slow reload Seawolf. T42 were fitted with Seadart which did not evolve.

Seems that the fatal mistake of British was to make "Seaslug" SAM an integral part of ship's hull. They could not just replace it without major reconstruction.

 

[Dilandu]

I suspect that "B" 4.5" Mk 6 turret would have been of greater utility than the 4 Exocet missiles that replaced it as it would have doubled the ships' NGFS capability and improved their AA capability.

Is my suspicion correct?

Well, according to Littlewars, the re-activation of HMS "Kent" was considered mainly because she have both her turrets intact, and could be very useful for coastal bombardment (but RN could not crew her, so...)

 

[PMN1]

Dilandu's Sea Dart conversion does look good, hell i'd even forgoe the integral helicopter as per Type 82 if it came down to it.....we know it was a mistake but to be able to get extra Sea Darts to sea...

The magazine size on the 42 and 82 is well documented , how extendable was that magazine?

 

[Volkodav]

You could have moved the flight deck aft over the (removed) Sea Slug location, then moved the hangar aft to where the flight deck used to be.

That would leave a bit of depth where the hangar used to be for part of the Sea Dart below-decks stuff - the rest could be in a deckhouse attached to the front of the hangar.

My thinking exactly.

There was the RAN request for a Tartar County (more a Super Daring in all likelihood) that would likely have needed such a configuration.

Dilandus illustration is great, but I would envision the flight deck and hanger in a new build would be a deck lower for top weight reasons, i.e. more like that of the Burkes, Tromps, Adace.

A 70s build could have had space and weight for Light Weight Seawolf with its twin launcher. It could have been arranged port and starboard forward of the bridge and on the hangar corners.

New build in the 70s Mk8 4.5", otherwise stick with the Mk6 for a 60s build.

Export versions with Mk-13 GMLS and later Mk-26.

 

[zen]

we know it was a mistake but to be able to get extra Sea Darts to sea..

This is a good point. Getting as much AAW capability afloat was a priority and subject to much effort.

 

[uk 75]

The main case against the Countys was their large crew compared with a T42. The newer ships were also all gas turbine.
One could argue that if T42s had been built in the greater numbers planned origonally sooner the Countys were dispsable by 1980.
Hence my enthusiasm for a double ended Seadart conversion .

 

[pathology_doc]

Hence my enthusiasm for a double ended Seadart conversion .

Where is the 4.5 inch gun going to go? You know, the one that the Batch 3 Broadswords were redesigned to accommodate because the RN forgot (and had to rediscover the hard way) how useful they could be.

 

[uk 75]

Hence my enthusiasm for a double ended Seadart conversion .

Where is the 4.5 inch gun going to go? You know, the one that the Batch 3 Broadswords were redesigned to accommodate because the RN forgot (and had to rediscover the hard way) how useful they could be.

As I wrote above the ships would lose the gun and helo.
However, their role as area air defence ships means that they would always be.part of a task group including gun armed T21s.
Apart from the Falklands the RN has not used gunnery much. This is a bit of a distraction from the two main roles of surface ships (air defence and anti submarine warfare).
For the same reason, Exocet and Harpoon would not be fitted

 

[Hood]

The improvements to the sensors and electronics for the Batch 1 ships in the 1970s and Batch 2 ships in the 1980s may be more important than the improvements to the weaponry.

Yes I agree with this 110%.

The truth is that the Counties were marginal as air defence assets by 1970, indeed most of the Batch 1 ships had been decommissioned by 1982. Cancelling the Batch 1 refits to Batch 2 standard in the late 1960s to save money (plus it was a lengthy refit) was probably a mistake in hindsight but by 1967 Sea Dart was clearly the future. Yes Type 42 as completed with Type 965 and Type 992Q offered little sensor improvement but Sea Dart was an altogether more capable system than Sea Slug.

Fitting Sea Dart into County seems a persistent fantasy as AEGIS-equipped Iowas into the 21st century. I very much doubt that it could be done whatever structural chicanery is proposed. Very few warships have been rebuilt for completely different systems and the result would be a complete rebuild - for example you might as well strip out the 1950s Metrovick gas turbines and steam plant if you really want to extend the hull life.
Even relatively normal refits by 1974 were costing between £5-8M (running costs by 1981 were £7M annually!) so a rebuild would be highly expensive and would take money away from the T42 and T22 programmes and I know which I'd rather have. Even my idea of fitting Sea Wolf alone would be highly expensive (just like the Leander conversions proved to be).

But it would seem that if Sea Slug cannot be replaced by an area-defence weapon then the logical solution would be to make her a multi-role ship with 4.5in Mk.6, Exocet, A/S torps, Sea Wolf and Sea King or pair of Lynx. If nothing else they might well boast to be the only warships in the world with a full-length air-conditioned bowling alley aboard!

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Parts of Post 39.

Cancelling the Batch 1 refits to Batch 2 standard in the late 1960s to save money (plus it was a lengthy refit) was probably a mistake in hindsight but by 1967 Sea Dart was clearly the future.

The ironic thing is that all 4 Batch 1 ships had long refits (1968-75) in the "Real World" anyway and 2 out of 4 Batch 2 ships had long refits 1977-83 in the "Real World" anyway. (See Post 28.) Fitting better weapons, sensors & electronics wouldn't have kept them out of service for longer, but it would have increased the cost.

Yes Type 42 as completed with Type 965 and Type 992Q offered little sensor improvement but Sea Dart was an altogether more capable system than Sea Slug.

Is it true that the most effective Sea Dart armed ships in the Falklands War were Invincible and Exeter which was because they had the Type 1022 radar instead of Type 965?

Fitting Sea Dart into County seems a persistent fantasy as AEGIS-equipped Iowas into the 21st century. I very much doubt that it could be done whatever structural chicanery is proposed. Very few warships have been rebuilt for completely different systems and the result would be a complete rebuild - for example you might as well strip out the 1950s Metrovick gas turbines and steam plant if you really want to extend the hull life.

My persistent "County Fantasy" is.

• COGAG (instead of COSAG) with eight 7,500shp G.6 gas turbines or four 15,000shp Olympus gas turbines.
• The magazine accommodates 60 rounds instead of 30-40 that would be a mix of Ikara and Seaslug.
• The ships would either be a bit larger so two Type 901 radars could be carried or a lightweight tracing radar (Type 902?) would be developed so the Real-County could have 2 tracking radars.
• The RN "Does a Standard" in which it develops a GWS.3 Seaslug Mk 3 instead of GWS.30 Sea Dart which comes in two versions.
  • An equivalent to Standard MR that can be fitted to ships of Type 42 size.
  • An equivalent to Standard ER that would be fitted to the County class Batch 3 (built instead of Type 82) and the Batch 1 ships during their "Real World" refits of 1968-75.
• County Batch 3 (and the refitted Batch 1) would also receive ADAWS.2 and six tubes for lightweight anti-submarine torpedoes.
• Then "all other things being equal" Fife, Glamorgan & ALT-Bristol (the sole Batch 3) would have had their Type 965s replaced by Type 1022 radars, Type 184s replaced by Type 2016 sonars and have STWS fitted. Fife & Glamorgan would have their ADAWS.1 replaced by a version of the ADAWS.6 fitted to Invincible & Illustrious and ALT-Bristol would have its ADAWS.2 replaced by a version of the ADAWS.10 fitted to Ark Royal.

Even relatively normal refits by 1974 were costing between £5-8M (running costs by 1981 were £7M annually!) so a rebuild would be highly expensive and would take money away from the T42 and T22 programmes and I know which I'd rather have. Even my idea of fitting Sea Wolf alone would be highly expensive (just like the Leander conversions proved to be).

To be fair the early demise of the County class was as much due to the ongoing cuts to the Royal Navy (c.80 in 1965, c.70 in 1974, c.60 in 1981 and c.50 in 1990) as much as the cost of maintaining & operating them. However, I agree that the money would have been better spent on more Type 22s & 42s and as I wrote in another thread I think the money spent on modernising the Leanders would have been better spent on more new ships too.