Rearming the County class missile ships

[uk 75]

In hindsight the RN were wrong to believe that a small ship like the T42 batch 1 and 2 would save money. Something like the batch 3 but with more rounds in the magazine was the design that should have been adopted.
Such ships would have allowed the County class to leave service by 1980 and save a lot of money.
Double ended ships were already obsolete by the 80s so on reflection both my County Mod and T43 were dead ends. A VLS Seadart should have been developed or a successor system.

 

[pathology_doc]

However, their role as area air defence ships means that they would always be.part of a task group including gun armed T21s.

Best laid plans...

• 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.

Are you assuming that improvements in propellant technology would allow an unboosted Sea Slug to attain meaningful range and height performance? Or are you also considering a massive change to the missile with a switch to ultra-low-aspect-ratio wings and tail control? In the latter case, you end up with a missile in which the boosters, not the wings, control the maximum overall diameter.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

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.

Are you assuming that improvements in propellant technology would allow an unboosted Sea Slug to attain meaningful range and height performance? Or are you also considering a massive change to the missile with a switch to ultra-low-aspect-ratio wings and tail control? In the latter case, you end up with a missile in which the boosters, not the wings, control the maximum overall diameter.

I assumed it was a fantasy, which is why I called it my "County Fantasy" and had given it no thought beyond the following.

• GWS.3 Seaslug Mk 3 MR (analogous to Standard SM-1 MR) the basic missile which was small enough to be fired from the ALT-Type 42, ALT-Type 82, ALT-CVA.01 and ALT-Invincible class.
• GWS.3 Seaslug Mk 3 ER (analogous to Standard SM-1 ER) the basic missile missile plus booster or boosters that was compatible with the magazine and launcher on the Real-County class.
• By accident or design the GMLS Mks 11 & 13 for Tatar could be made to fire the Standard MR missile and by accident or design the GMLS Mk 10 for Terrier could be made to fire the Standard ER (which was Standard MR plus a booster). The fantasy is that the British are able to work the same trick and design a new missile that can be fired from the magazine & launcher on the Real-County class.
• It also turned out that the GLMS Mk 10 could be made to fire ASROC and the GLMS Mks 11 & 13 could be made to fire Harpoon. The additional trick that you didn't spot is that Ikara can be fired from the Real-County's Seaslug magazine & launcher, which I fully expect to be 100% fantasy.

The amount of thought I gave to the fine details of the design or for that matter nearly all of the broad details of the design was zilch. If the idea doesn't stand scrutiny, fair enough, because it was only a fantasy, which brings me back to the first sentence of this reply.

 

[zen]

It would it help if say.....Sea Slug was smaller....

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/a-smaller-sea-slug.34844/

With a different launcher.....

The Dock Museum | Collections

collections.dockmuseum.org.uk

 

[pathology_doc]

By accident or design the GMLS Mks 11 & 13 for Tartar could be made to fire the Standard MR missile and by accident or design the GMLS Mk 10 for Terrier could be made to fire the Standard ER (which was Standard MR plus a booster).

By design. Tartar evolved as a point-defence version of Terrier without the requirement for manual fitting of fins, and Standard was, if you like, a semi-clean sheet of paper design intended to retain compatibility with the same ships and launchers while improving performance and reliability. Terrier started out as a beam rider, while Tartar was SARH from the start and then Terrier followed not long before both were replaced by a common missile either with (ER) or without (MR) the booster.

The additional trick that you didn't spot is that Ikara can be fired from the Real-County's Seaslug magazine & launcher, which I fully expect to be 100% fantasy.

The two missiles are completely different in shape, so I'd say you're almost certainly right here.

The problem isn't building a better Seaslug; the problem is making it compatible with both the Counties (and their existing launchers) and with smaller platforms. Does anyone have pictures of the two missiles next to each other/to the same scale, preferably with Seaslug devoid of its boosters?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

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.

This is my complimentary "Fantasy Type 81 General-Purpose Fast-Frigate".

• COGAG (instead of COSAG) with four 7,500shp G.6 gas turbines driving two shafts instead of one.
  • or
• COGOG (instead of COSAG) with two 15,000shp Olympus and two Tynes rated at 4,250shp driving two shafts instead of one.
  • Olympus and Tyne first ran as an aero engines in 1950 and April 1955 respectively. Therefore, I think having marine versions of them ready for 1960 is plausible.
• The larger hull required for the more powerful machinery also allowed.
  • Four 4.5in guns in two twin 4.5" Mk 6 turrets in A & Y positions in place of the "Real World's" Two 4.5in guns in two single Mk V mountings in A &Y positions.
  • Two Sea Cat, Single Limbo and fitted for (but not with) six fixed 21" torpedo tubes for anti-submarine torpedoes, which is the same as the "Real World".
  • The Type 965 radar had an AKE-2 aerial instead of the "Real World's" AKE-1.
  • Fitted for (but not with) the small ship version of ADA.
  • A proper hangar and flight deck for the Wasp helicopter.
• 42 would be built for the RN instead of the 7 Real-Type 81s, 9 Rothesay class and 26 Leanders. Another 4 may have been built for the RN instead of converting 4 Battle class destroyers to Fleet Pickets.
• They would be modernised as follows. (Any similarity with my proposed Leander modernisation is completely deliberate.)
  • Replace the existing Sea Cat systems with @uk 75's Sea Cat 2.
  • Fit six torpedo tubes for lightweight anti-submarine torpedoes in two triple trainable mountings.
  • Fit ADAWS or CAAIS (both using Ferranti FM1600 computers).
  • Extend the hangar and flight deck so one Lynx can be operated.
    • This will require the removal of the Single Limbo, but the Type 199 VDS could be retained if it was wanted.
    • Ships that survive long enough may have the Type 199 replaced by a Type 2031 Towed Array Sonar.
  • Keep both 4.5" Mk 6 gun turrets.
  • The ships built instead of Leander Batch 3 may have had their Type 965 AKE-2 radar replaced by the Type 1022 and Type 184 sonar replaced by the Type 2016. I want them to be fitted to all 42 ALT-Type 81s, but they won't be available when the ships built instead of the Real-Type 81s, Rothesay class & Leander class Batch 1 & 2 were modernised.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

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’…

Is it true that there was a proposal to convert Kent or London into a minelayer, with the mines accommodated in the former Seaslug magazine?

 

[zen]

The thing is.....Sea Cat isn't really that good for anything above subsonic speeds.
Hence why Popsy A was passed over for Popsy B.

Supersonic speed for MCLOS isn't good enough, you have to use ACLOS, and this really drives the shipside systems in Sea Wolf.
Granted if you move over to SARH you put more of the guidance problem on the missiles electronics. But that means a bigger missile.

Hence Orange Nell.

 

[uk 75]

We need to know more about Seacat 2

 

[Hood]

Sea Cat 2 was a private venture, at least a mockup was made for exhibition purposes. It was supersonic, meant to be compatible with current Sea Cat launchers.
No idea what homing it used, not sure if it used the same GWS-22 system or something new. It doesn't seem to have been considered officially - perhaps because of Confessor already being worked on and perhaps because in the late 1960s Sea Cat 1 didn't seem too lame - after all it was selling well and nobody had actually tried shooting down an aircraft/missile from a ship for real (except Eilat and we know how that turned out...).

Would Sea Cat 2 really have been backwards compatible? We will never know. All we do know is that Confessor was meant to be a lightweight system and ended up a complicated tonnage hog when Sea Wolf appeared - though it did its business very effectively.
I still dream of a UK Sea Flash based on Sky Flash - or even more ambitious having NATO Sea Sparrow being the Sea Flash - but realistically with Sea Wolf around its never going to happen.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The additional trick that you didn't spot is that Ikara can be fired from the Real-County's Seaslug magazine & launcher, which I fully expect to be 100% fantasy.

The two missiles are completely different in shape, so I'd say you're almost certainly right here.

The problem isn't building a better Seaslug; the problem is making it compatible with both the Counties (and their existing launchers) and with smaller platforms.

The same argument could be applied to Ikara. That is, design it to be compatible with the Real-County's Seaslug magazine and launcher, in the first place.

As long as there isn't a significant decrease in performance over the Real-Ikara.

• It would be in Australia's commercial interest, because it would increase the number of Ikaras that it could sell to the UK.
• It would be in Australia's military interest because it would make the County (preferably one of the all GT versions proposed in Post 40 and armed with the better Seaslug) more attractive to the RAN. The main argument against it would be that it would have had a much larger crew than the Perth class.

If a better Seaslug was built instead of Sea Dart, and Ikara was designed to be compatible with the Real-County's Seaslug magazine & launcher, it may have been better to build more Counties (Batch 3) instead of at least the first 4 Type 82s that were planned. Especially, all the Counties had all GT machinery as proposed in Post 40.

 

[uk 75]

Interesting idea though the thought of handling Seaslug and Ikara rounds in the same space and with the same launcher, especially with nuclear rounds, could drive one to drink.
The three RAN Adams class destroyers were a much better buy. Though until Standard MR appeared they might not have been so effective at air defence.
The Type 82 could have been improved with a more reliable power plant and had four been ordered the design might then have been improved.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of Post 40.

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.

Does anyone know anything about the Type 902 radar?

The only reference I've found it is on @SeaslugMk2's website. (http://www.littlewars.org.uk.) The page on proposed Seaslug ships mentions a substantially "pruned-down" version of the Seaslug-armed Convoy Escort, which had one Type 901/902 radar with the possibility of two "lightweight" versions "in ... system development".

As far as I know.

• There were Type 903 & 904 radars for the MRS.3 & MRS.4 fire control systems and some versions of Sea Cat.
• A Type 905 radar for the MRS.5 digital fire control system (MRS.3 & 4 were analogue) both of which were victims of the 1949 Defence Cuts. However, the whole sentence may be a false memory.
• There must have been Types 906 & 907 (because there were Types 908 to 912) but I know nothing about them.
• There was a Type 908 radar for the MRS.8 fire control system, but that may be another false memory.
• Which takes us onto Type 909 for Sea Dart, Types 910 & 911 for Sea Wolf and Type 912 for the GWS.24 version of Sea Cat.

Is that more or less correct?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Interesting idea though the thought of handling Seaslug and Ikara rounds in the same space and with the same launcher, especially with nuclear rounds, could drive one to drink.

What inspired the idea was that the contemporary Mk 10 GMLS which could fire ASROC as well as Terrier & Standard ER. I think a County that could fire an A/S stand-off weapon as well as area defence SAMs would be a useful bit of kit.

Also this is the "better Seaslug Mk 3" that is developed instead of Sea Dart which may be safer than Seaslug Mks 1 & 2. Nuclear Ikara rounds may be a non-issue because Seaslugs with nuclear warheads were planned for a time. If a County was carrying some of them, would having some nuclear ALT-Ikaras aboard as well significantly increase the risk.

The three RAN Adams class destroyers were a much better buy. Though until Standard MR appeared they might not have been so effective at air defence.

I agree, but mainly on personnel grounds. According to my copy of Conway's 1947-95 the County class had a crew of 440-471 (which aught to be less with all GT machinery) and a Perth had a crew of 333-350. The Adams also had 2 tracking radars instead of one, but it didn't carry a helicopter.

The Type 82 could have been improved with a more reliable power plant and had four been ordered the design might then have been improved.

That's against the spirit of your thread, which is to make a better County class and if it can be made good enough it makes sense to keep building them instead of the Type 82.

That being written, I think the Type 82 should have had all GT machinery (probably 4 Olympus rated at 15,000shp) but I also think the County should have had all GT machinery too (probably 8 G.6 rated at 7,500shp). I don't see more than one Type 82 being built so it won't be improved. Though to be fair I think it unlikely that more than one Batch 3 County would have been built either, but it will have the advantage of being one of a class of nine instead of being a one-off, so it stands more chance of being improved.

I think Type 82's main advantages over the County class were two tracking radars instead of one and the Type 988 radar which would have been a massive improvement over the Type 965. Except, that the Type 988 didn't happen and Bristol was completed with the same Type 965 AKE-2 radar as the Batch 2 Counties (and so were the first 6 Type 42s). Bristol was stuck with that radar until it was replaced by a Type 1022 in her 1984-86 refit.

The Type 82s advantages would have been further eroded by the Batch 3 County which would have had 2 tracking radars, possibly the mysterious Type 902. It would have had ADAWS.2 like the Type 82 (so no improvement there) and it would have had full facilities for a Wessex-size helicopter which Type 82 didn't.

 

[uk 75]

Thank you for so much useful contribution.
I do tend to trash my own threads but don't mind if it provides more info. My threads are designed to tease out data rather than win an argument.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

As far as I know the County class couldn't be fitted with the Type 988 radar and because of hindsight we know that the Type 988 radar won't happen anyway. Therefore, a replacement for the Type 965 needs to be developed PDQ. It has to be light enough to be fitted to all ships that have the Type 965 AKE-2 and preferably the AKE-1 as well.

The Type 965's eventual replacement in the "Real World" was the Type 1022 which was developed from the Dutch LW 08 radar.

The first ships completed with Type 1022 were Invincible completed 11.07.80 and the Type 42 Batch 2 Exeter completed on 19.09.80. The first ship completed with the LW 08 were was the Dutch frigate Kortanaer on 26.10.78. (All dates are according to Conway's 1947-95.)

How quickly can the Type 1022 or a radar with its performance be put into service? Ideally, it should be ready to be fitted to the Batch 1 Counties during their "Real World" long refits, the Leanders in the refits that are done instead of the "Ikara" modernisations and the Batch 3 County built instead of Bristol. So were talking about 1971 as London completed her long-refit in May 1971.

 

[zen]

As per my suggestion, of achieving the Smaller Seaslug and if taken with the alternative twin arm launcher concepts
This permits a ship the size of the County to carry another 25-33% more missiles.
Consequently.
The System is more attractive to the Army and achievable earlier than Thunderbird......In fact Thunderbird started out a lsnc based Seaslug.
Arguably then with Army/RAF adoption, the push to a mkIII with SARH seems inevitable.

The smaller cheaper Escort concept can carry a reasonable loadout.
The ability to retrofit onto dome existing vessels is eased a design problem.
As it would for the new Cruiser effort.

Equally for a County ship, the scope is there for additional weapon options.
Such as:-
Nuclear Armed Seaslug.
Blue Slug Anti-ship Missile.
An ASW torpedo carrier system. Although that might be Ikara in controls. It would require a different shape of carrier Missile.

Potentially a target drone and through a Anti-ship version of the Torpedo carrier an alternative to Blue Slug.

The use of the alternative twin arm launchers is more flexible for different missile shapes and potentially this could just carry on through evolution with the Missile.
This could include tandem arrangements.

This would make the transition to a Frigate version possible and feed into the evolution of a Type 82.

 

[BlackBat242]

The same argument could be applied to Ikara. That is, design it to be compatible with the Real-County's Seaslug magazine and launcher, in the first place.

As long as there isn't a significant decrease in performance over the Real-Ikara.

• It would be in Australia's commercial interest, because it would increase the number of Ikaras that it could sell to the UK.
• It would be in Australia's military interest because it would make the County (preferably one of the all GT versions proposed in Post 40 and armed with the better Seaslug) more attractive to the RAN. The main argument against it would be that it would have had a much larger crew than the Perth class.

The RAN had chosen a Tartar-equipped version of the Counties (with Ikara) historically... it was the UK that kiboshed the deal, citing "lack of available design resources to produce a non-standard design".

The RAN did not want Sea Slug-equipped DDGs, so they turned to the US.

 

[Hood]

Does anyone know anything about the Type 902 radar?

Type 902 was a separate wide-beam 'gathering' set for Sea Slug which would have worked with Type 901. It's deletion meant that Type 901 had to be fitted with the complicated MDS.1 launch computer to keep the missile within the 901 beam.

• There must have been Types 906 & 907 (because there were Types 908 to 912) but I know nothing about them.
• There was a Type 908 radar for the MRS.8 fire control system, but that may be another false memory.

Type 904 was for MRS.4. MRS.4 was cancelled but Type 904 was later re-issued for the GWS.22 Sea Cat director despite the GWS.22 radar and director effectively being identical to Type 903/MRS.3!

Type 906 is a 'missing allocation' - in his Post-War Fire Control article in Warship 2014 Peter Marland offered a theory that it may have been intended for the Coastal Forces System Mk.1 (CFS.1) which would have used either a variant of AGLT or AI Mk.9B. This was

Type 907 was allocated to Small Ship Gunnery System Mk.1 (SGS.1), it was a ranging radar. This project was cancelled in 1954 in favour of TOM.

Type 908 was the radar for TOM (Tachymetric One-Man Director) which was developed 1954-57 but abandoned in favour of the optical STD (Simple Tachymetric Director). (MRS.8 used the Type 262 in a CRBDD director)

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The same argument could be applied to Ikara. That is, design it to be compatible with the Real-County's Seaslug magazine and launcher, in the first place.

As long as there isn't a significant decrease in performance over the Real-Ikara.

• It would be in Australia's commercial interest, because it would increase the number of Ikaras that it could sell to the UK.
• It would be in Australia's military interest because it would make the County (preferably one of the all GT versions proposed in Post 40 and armed with the better Seaslug) more attractive to the RAN. The main argument against it would be that it would have had a much larger crew than the Perth class.

The RAN had chosen a Tartar-equipped version of the Counties (with Ikara) historically... it was the UK that kiboshed the deal, citing "lack of available design resources to produce a non-standard design".

The RAN did not want Sea Slug-equipped DDGs, so they turned to the US.

I know. I've read Friedman's book too.

This is alternative history, so having the RAN buy a County able to fire a better Seaslug (see below) and an ALT-Ikara missile compatible with the Seaslug magazine & launcher, is something that is allowed to be discussed.

If they had bought ALT-Counties armed with the Standard ER analogue of the GWS.3 Seaslug (that I proposed be developed instead of Sea Dart) the proposed Light Destroyer (DDL) might have been armed with the Standard MR analogue of GWS.3 (that I proposed be developed instead of Sea Dart) in place of the Standard MR it was intended to have.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of Post 59.

Type 902 was a separate wide-beam 'gathering' set for Sea Slug which would have worked with Type 901. It's deletion meant that Type 901 had to be fitted with the complicated MDS.1 launch computer to keep the missile within the 901 beam.

Type 904 was for MRS.4. MRS.4 was cancelled but Type 904 was later re-issued for the GWS.22 Sea Cat director despite the GWS.22 radar and director effectively being identical to Type 903/MRS.3!

Type 906 is a 'missing allocation' - in his Post-War Fire Control article in Warship 2014 Peter Marland offered a theory that it may have been intended for the Coastal Forces System Mk.1 (CFS.1) which would have used either a variant of AGLT or AI Mk.9B. This was

Type 907 was allocated to Small Ship Gunnery System Mk.1 (SGS.1), it was a ranging radar. This project was cancelled in 1954 in favour of TOM.

Type 908 was the radar for TOM (Tachymetric One-Man Director) which was developed 1954-57 but abandoned in favour of the optical STD (Simple Tachymetric Director). (MRS.8 used the Type 262 in a CRBDD director)

Thank you.

You didn't mention Type 905 & MRS.5. Was I right about them or had I confused them with Type 904 & MRS.4?

If a GWS.3 Seaslug had been developed instead of Sea Dart, its fire control radars would probably have taken the Type 909 designation used by the Sea Dart radars in the "Real World" instead of Type 902 which is what I had previously thought.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of Post 39.

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%.

For what it's worth one of the inspirations for my statement was that (as far as I know) the performance of Sea Dart (particularly at low level) improved considerably when the Type 965 AKE-2 radars were replaced by Type 1022.

The other inspirations were that NTDS and the SPS-48 radar improved the effectiveness of the 3-T missiles just as much (if not more) than the "get well" programmes of the 1960s.

Based on the above I suspect that replacing CDS with ADAWS.1 on the Batch 2 County improved the effectiveness of Seaslug just as much (if not more) than the upgrade from Seaslung Mk 1 to Seaslug Mk 2. Similarly, The Type 988 radar (along with ADAWS.2) would have made more of a difference to the increase in Type 82's anti-aircraft capability over the the Batch 2 County than having Sea Dart (with two fire control radars) instead of Seaslg Mk 2 (with one fire control radar).

 

[Hood]

You didn't mention Type 905 & MRS.5. Was I right about them or had I confused them with Type 904 & MRS.4?

Yes you were correct with Type 905 and MRS.5. Experimental set only though as MRS.5 was later cancelled too.

As to search radars (I think you asked earlier if any work was done), yes there was research work on new surveillance radars in the late 1960s and some prototyping done by ASWE (I think some have been mentioned on this forum before). But a lot of the work was theoretical stuff (even some novel 360 degree circular arrays) and nothing came of it. I guess Type 988 was syphoning off a lot of money, effort and willpower. It's a shame because I think an SPS-48 type set could have entered service in the 1970s otherwise (you only have to look at Marconi's land-based radars to see what was possible).

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

You didn't mention Type 905 & MRS.5. Was I right about them or had I confused them with Type 904 & MRS.4?

Yes you were correct with Type 905 and MRS.5. Experimental set only though as MRS.5 was later cancelled too.

I believe that there as a digital version of CDS which was even better than the analogue version, but in common with Type 905 & MRS.5 it was a casualty of the 1949 defence cuts.

Is that correct too?

As to search radars (I think you asked earlier if any work was done), yes there was research work on new surveillance radars in the late 1960s and some prototyping done by ASWE (I think some have been mentioned on this forum before). But a lot of the work was theoretical stuff (even some novel 360 degree circular arrays) and nothing came of it. I guess Type 988 was syphoning off a lot of money, effort and willpower. It's a shame because I think an SPS-48 type set could have entered service in the 1970s otherwise (you only have to look at Marconi's land-based radars to see what was possible).

How early in the 1970s?

Ideally, it has to be ready to be fitted to the County class Batch 1 during their "Real World" long refits. The first was Devonshire from October 1968 to May 1971.

 

[BlackBat242]

The same argument could be applied to Ikara. That is, design it to be compatible with the Real-County's Seaslug magazine and launcher, in the first place.

As long as there isn't a significant decrease in performance over the Real-Ikara.

• It would be in Australia's commercial interest, because it would increase the number of Ikaras that it could sell to the UK.
• It would be in Australia's military interest because it would make the County (preferably one of the all GT versions proposed in Post 40 and armed with the better Seaslug) more attractive to the RAN. The main argument against it would be that it would have had a much larger crew than the Perth class.

The RAN had chosen a Tartar-equipped version of the Counties (with Ikara) historically... it was the UK that kiboshed the deal, citing "lack of available design resources to produce a non-standard design".

The RAN did not want Sea Slug-equipped DDGs, so they turned to the US.

I know. I've read Friedman's book too.

This is alternative history, so having the RAN buy a County able to fire a better Seaslug (see below) and an ALT-Ikara missile compatible with the Seaslug magazine & launcher, is something that is allowed to be discussed.

If they had bought ALT-Counties armed with the Standard ER analogue of the GWS.3 Seaslug (that I proposed be developed instead of Sea Dart) the proposed Light Destroyer (DDL) might have been armed with the Standard MR analogue of GWS.3 (that I proposed be developed instead of Sea Dart) in place of the Standard MR it was intended to have.

My point was that no one needs to convince the RAN to buy Counties... or to "make them more attractive to the RAN" - it is the UK that needs to be convinced to allow the RAN to buy them!

 

[zen]

ASWRE C-band effort of the early 60’s would resolve this effort. Which weve touched on elsewhere in these scenarios.
Likely by the late 60's to early 70's.
A C-band array was developed
I think there's a Type No, that might be related Type 966? There is a file.....

Edited in additional point.
By using a Mk48 analogue such as the ASWRE C-band 3D radar. The need for the relatively large snd expensive Type 909 TIR can be avoided and a smaller, lighter, and potentially cheaper TIR set used.

Had there been such a effort for the ASWRE C-band and combined with Smaller Seaslug and either one of the alternative twin arm launchers or a single arm development of such...
Then Type 82 gets a little more affordable as would the larger Type 42.

It would get really interesting if say the Torpedo Carrier Missile was part of that AH

 

[Volkodav]

The same argument could be applied to Ikara. That is, design it to be compatible with the Real-County's Seaslug magazine and launcher, in the first place.

As long as there isn't a significant decrease in performance over the Real-Ikara.

• It would be in Australia's commercial interest, because it would increase the number of Ikaras that it could sell to the UK.
• It would be in Australia's military interest because it would make the County (preferably one of the all GT versions proposed in Post 40 and armed with the better Seaslug) more attractive to the RAN. The main argument against it would be that it would have had a much larger crew than the Perth class.

The RAN had chosen a Tartar-equipped version of the Counties (with Ikara) historically... it was the UK that kiboshed the deal, citing "lack of available design resources to produce a non-standard design".

The RAN did not want Sea Slug-equipped DDGs, so they turned to the US.

Sea Power Series: The Impact of the Charles F. Adams Class Guided Missile Destroyers on the Royal Australian Navy | Royal Australian Navy

Royal Australian Navy

www.navy.gov.au

The details are in this excellent paper.

 

[Hood]

I believe that there as a digital version of CDS which was even better than the analogue version, but in common with Type 905 & MRS.5 it was a casualty of the 1949 defence cuts.

MRS.5 was digital. Elliots Automation was the contractor. They built a Type 905 demonstrator, it was an I-band 250kW monopulse set and after MRS.5 was cancelled in March 1950 was used in research trials connected with 'glint'.
MRS.5 had a fair bit of novel kit; the first optical shaft encoders, the Elliot 152 computer with a glass PCB with plated through-holes and printed film resistors.
The director itself was to be unmanned but no prototype was built. Basically Elliots was given a free hand and a fresh sheet to come up with something new. In hindsight its a shame that it wasn't followed up, but there was a bewildering array of projects all going at the same time (much like GW and aircraft, just too much going on).

It would get really interesting if say the Torpedo Carrier Missile was part of thst AH

Here is a potted history of stand-off ASW missiles for the RN that might be of interest.

In 1959-60 two private ventures were assessed by AUWE.
- Armstrong Siddeley teamed with Marconi with Project 525, a 9ft long rocket booster with a 6ft span wing and a turbojet sustain to propel a lightweight torpedo to 55,000yd. Originally offered with 2x box launchers with reload rails then a trainable launcher for 18x missiles was designed (weight of the launcher 18,000lb).
- Napier Air-Flight A/S Weapon Vehicle - aka Seahorse - 9ft 1in long rocket booster with 6ft 1in span wing, rocket sustainer, 1x UK MK.44 torpedo either nose-mounted or underslung, 20,000yd range. Offered with a single-rail or twin-rail launcher for 20x missiles (launcher weight 42,000lb).
AUWE favoured Project 525 but preferred the Napier launcher...

1959 GAF begins work on Ikara.

1960 Naval Staff Targets AW.110(T) and AW.111(T) issued for a stand-off weapon. Weapons evaluated: current MATCH (Wasp heli), DASH, Ikara, Malafon and ASROC. Ikara favoured - USW.158/62 issued to cover development.
Admiralty/Ministry of Aviation working party recommends commonality with CF.299 system and ADAWS.
Also pitched for NBMR.5 with potential buyers being Canada, Netherlands and Italy.

USW.368 (later renumbed NSR.7668) issued for a system capable of destroying a 40kt sub (later 35kt) at 2,000ft depth at 20,000yd. Only weapons capable are US Mk.46 torpedo and WE.177A. Four Ikara variants offered:
A - Mk.44 or Mk.46 with standard Murawa motor
B - A with WE.177A capability added
C- additional rocket propellant (22,300-24,700yd)
D - for future NAST.7511 torpedo (Stingray), new rocket motor (25-26,000yd)
B is selected. Paired with MATCH.

Commonality with sea Dart never got that far. In terms of the launcher, the plan was to use the same components in the new Ikara launcher to reduce maintenance costs rather than to use the whole Sea Dart launcher itself. Use of 909 was a big advantage - but only for ships with Sea Dart. For other ships the cost of 909 could not be justified and they would still end up using both systems.

 

[Volkodav]

On the RAN Counties, the RAN wanted a complete redesign and the RN responded that with the concurrent work underway there was no capacity to do this work. Industry on the other hand were more receptive, while the RN said they were happy to approve the construction of RN baseline Counties for the RAN, but also recommended the Escort Cruiser as a suitable option for the RAN. The US came in with a very attractive finance option that also helped them get over the line.

It actually turned out the RN was correct, the RAN wanted the smallest ship possible, too small in fact to meet its own requirements, the RN suggested that they needed a larger ship for the required helicopters as well as command and control capability. The County or Belknap would have been a better fit and the Escort Cruiser the best fit.

 

[starviking]

<SNIP>

My point was that no one needs to convince the RAN to buy Counties... or to "make them more attractive to the RAN" - it is the UK that needs to be convinced to allow the RAN to buy them!

But the fact is that technically speaking, the RAN was asking for pie-in-the-sky.

Friedman has them asking for a “County” with Tartar, three Wessexes, two 4.5in mountings, twin Seacats, VDS, and all-steam propulsion(!)

 

[Volkodav]

<SNIP>

My point was that no one needs to convince the RAN to buy Counties... or to "make them more attractive to the RAN" - it is the UK that needs to be convinced to allow the RAN to buy them!

But the fact is that technically speaking, the RAN was asking for pie-in-the-sky.

Friedman has them asking for a “County” with Tartar, three Wessexes, two 4.5in mountings, twin Seacats, VDS, and all-steam propulsion(!)

On about 3500 to 4000 tons as well. They wanted a violation of every principle of naval architecture and some laws of physics.

I wasn't actually the RANs fault, they had very limited experience (almost none to be honest) in developing requirements or designing warships. Even these days the political classes, finance, contracts and project management types, with no practical technical experience have more say than the experts. They honestly believed smaller is cheaper to buy or build, that modified existing designs are less risky, that upgrades and modernisations are better value than new builds.

Part of the problem was they had, since their formation, relied on the RN to tell them what they needed. There was an assumption the RAN would maintain a suitable number of suitable ships to fill the RNs needs, initially as part of Empire then as part of SEATO and the Five Power Defence Arrangements. The move away from the UK to the US sphere of influence saw access to US equipment, but not the associated know how and depth of experience that had been part of the relationship with the UK.

The acquisition of the US designed and built CFAs was the driver for the RAN to develop and evolve their engineering capability. The level of this capability has ebbed and flowed over decades in line with political will and competence / understanding of its value.

The irony is developing and building a Tartar version of the Daring would have been within Australia's capability (with appropriate UK industry support), had there been the political will and sufficient funding. Building CFA DDGs let alone DLGs or Counties would have been too much of a stretch. I suppose in this was a Tartar Daring or Super Daring as envisioned by the RAN made sense, it's the multiple Wessex and limited displacement that was the killer.

In terms of a rearmed Counties, Australia lacked the expertise to go it alone, the RN said they didn't have the capacity, industry said they did. The only way this could have happened was if the RN had decided they needed a Tartar County.

A Tartar County is one of my favourite what ifs, but I realise it is unrealistic. In reality, even had the RN decided they needed it, the fact Tartar was a more compact system would have resulted in it being fitted to a smaller ship in a (probably failed) attempt to save money.

One thought that does come to mind is if the RN had adopted Tartar as a point defence missile instead of Seacat. I imagine a Mk-22 launcher with 16 missiles replacing the B 4.5" twin, Seacat of course deleted, freeing some space and weight for the rest of the Tartar system. This would free up Seaslug development to concentrate of the high-altitude mission, with Tartar looking to self-defence and anti-surface roles.

 

[zen]

I believe that there as a digital version of CDS which was even better than the analogue version, but in common with Type 905 & MRS.5 it was a casualty of the 1949 defence cuts.

MRS.5 was digital. Elliots Automation was the contractor. They built a Type 905 demonstrator, it was an I-band 250kW monopulse set and after MRS.5 was cancelled in March 1950 was used in research trials connected with 'glint'.
MRS.5 had a fair bit of novel kit; the first optical shaft encoders, the Elliot 152 computer with a glass PCB with plated through-holes and printed film resistors.
The director itself was to be unmanned but no prototype was built. Basically Elliots was given a free hand and a fresh sheet to come up with something new. In hindsight its a shame that it wasn't followed up, but there was a bewildering array of projects all going at the same time (much like GW and aircraft, just too much going on).

It would get really interesting if say the Torpedo Carrier Missile was part of thst AH

Here is a potted history of stand-off ASW missiles for the RN that might be of interest.

In 1959-60 two private ventures were assessed by AUWE.
- Armstrong Siddeley teamed with Marconi with Project 525, a 9ft long rocket booster with a 6ft span wing and a turbojet sustain to propel a lightweight torpedo to 55,000yd. Originally offered with 2x box launchers with reload rails then a trainable launcher for 18x missiles was designed (weight of the launcher 18,000lb).
- Napier Air-Flight A/S Weapon Vehicle - aka Seahorse - 9ft 1in long rocket booster with 6ft 1in span wing, rocket sustainer, 1x UK MK.44 torpedo either nose-mounted or underslung, 20,000yd range. Offered with a single-rail or twin-rail launcher for 20x missiles (launcher weight 42,000lb).
AUWE favoured Project 525 but preferred the Napier launcher...

1959 GAF begins work on Ikara.

1960 Naval Staff Targets AW.110(T) and AW.111(T) issued for a stand-off weapon. Weapons evaluated: current MATCH (Wasp heli), DASH, Ikara, Malafon and ASROC. Ikara favoured - USW.158/62 issued to cover development.
Admiralty/Ministry of Aviation working party recommends commonality with CF.299 system and ADAWS.
Also pitched for NBMR.5 with potential buyers being Canada, Netherlands and Italy.

USW.368 (later renumbed NSR.7668) issued for a system capable of destroying a 40kt sub (later 35kt) at 2,000ft depth at 20,000yd. Only weapons capable are US Mk.46 torpedo and WE.177A. Four Ikara variants offered:
A - Mk.44 or Mk.46 with standard Murawa motor
B - A with WE.177A capability added
C- additional rocket propellant (22,300-24,700yd)
D - for future NAST.7511 torpedo (Stingray), new rocket motor (25-26,000yd)
B is selected. Paired with MATCH.

Commonality with sea Dart never got that far. In terms of the launcher, the plan was to use the same components in the new Ikara launcher to reduce maintenance costs rather than to use the whole Sea Dart launcher itself. Use of 909 was a big advantage - but only for ships with Sea Dart. For other ships the cost of 909 could not be justified and they would still end up using both systems.

Elliott programmable computer efforts really ought to have yielded more. It's somewhat sad that the self defence SAM efforts didn't utilise the Type 905. Which should be more than capable of tracking shells.

Had a Torpedo carrier system been intigrate-able to the Seaslug magazine and launcher. It would have helped a lot.
Even if Smaller Seaslug at 15ft long, a system ought to be fit-able.