• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

RN 1962: Escort Cruiser versus Type 82 with helo

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
2,663
Reaction score
1,253
In Friedman's book on British Destroyers and Frigates there is an interesting account of how the Royal Navy looked at the competing virtues of two ships which are described but never illustrated.

The first is a 10,000 ton escort cruiser armed with Seadart launchers front and aft and with a sponson mounted Ikara asw launcher (similar to that originally planned for CVA 01). The second is a 6,000 ton destroyer design derived from the Type 82 (Bristol) armed with a single Seadart launcher forw'd and a helicopter pad aft. Both were expected to carry Chinook size helos (later Seakings).

The RN preferred the Escort Cruiser and would have ordered them for delivery at the end of the 60s if Polaris costs and design staff shortages had not led to a postponement and the conversion of the Tiger class cruisers to helicopter carriers for replacement at the end of the 70s.

In 1966 the Escort Cruiser was still planned to join the fleet in the late 70s. The RN again looked at the Type 82 to provide a cheaper alternative. By 1967 the CVA 01 had been cancelled and the Escort Cruiser became a Command Cruiser (described publicly as an enlarged Type 82) and Type 82 was replaced with the smaller Type 42.

Given the fiasco of the Tiger conversions it is perhaps not surprising that the RN has still not published whatever drawings were done of the 1962 Seadart ships. The old fashioned looking Seaslug ships always shown and the later 1966 Working party ships are completely different designs. Maybe one day the drawings will surface.

UK 75
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,017
Reaction score
714
Considering the era we cannot be sure the drawings survive at all. They may have been destroyed on orders or later on in a clearout.

Its like those CV studies done from 53 onwards besides the CVA-01 studies where did the rest go?
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
1,214
According the Friedman's British Carrier Aviation he takes the narrative from Honnor and Andrews 'HMS Invincible: The First of a new Genus of Aircraft Carrying Ships' RINA paper and from Groves 'Vanguard to Trident' that in 1966 the helicopter-missile cruiser was under development at 6,000 tons. After 1966 two designs were followed, a 12,500 ton cruiser with a flight deck aft (probably a Type 82 development) and a 17,500 ton through-deck cruiser via a Staff Requirement, the First Sea Lord favoured the 12,500 ton cruiser but when Sir Michael Le Fanu became First Sea Lord in 1968 he favoured the a through-deck ship for VTOL operations. Naval Staff Target 7079 brought the Study 21 (a cruiser with aft flight deck) and Study 22 a Seadart armed through-deck cruiser (a picture I've drawn some time ago based on a plan and the orginal drawing).

As for the Type 82 design only six Sea King could be carried aft but for the planned nine needed for ASW operations a hull hangar was needed. By 1970 the design was 17,500 tons and through-deck.
 

Attachments

  • Invincible Alt.PNG
    Invincible Alt.PNG
    26.5 KB · Views: 979
  • Escort.PNG
    Escort.PNG
    8.4 KB · Views: 1,687

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
2,663
Reaction score
1,253
Hood

Thanks for the excellent summary and illustrations of the evolution of the CAH post 1966.

I would still love to see the Escort Cruiser design that nearly got ordered in 1963 (but for Polaris apparently). I do not know where they intended to fit the 2 Seadart launchers and Ikara ASW mentioned in Brown/Moore.

UK 75
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,849
Reaction score
812
uk 75 said:
Hood

Thanks for the excellent summary and illustrations of the evolution of the CAH post 1966.

I would still love to see the Escort Cruiser design that nearly got ordered in 1963 (but for Polaris apparently). I do not know where they intended to fit the 2 Seadart launchers and Ikara ASW mentioned in Brown/Moore.

UK 75

At a guess these ships would have looked very similar to the Type-43 design that is illustrated in Vanguard to Trident but with the Ikara system mounted amidships in place of the helo on the Type-43. Does anyone have anymore information about the sponson mounted Ikara proposal, for either these ships or the CVA-01? I am most intrigued by it.

I have always liked Bristol and i regard her as a powerful design for her intended role, however I do think she was hamstrung (for her size) by the cancellation of the Type-988. What is often forgotten is that allot of effort was put into giving the Type-82 all round guidance for its Ikara system so whilst moving the Sea Dart launcher forward and putting a helo hangar aft in it place would have produced a sensible and powerful destroyer it would have wasted allot of design work!

You have really intrigued my with talk of what is basically a missile cruiser minus helos, two twin Sea dart launchers and Ikara is a mighty load out. Is there any information around as to how many Type-909 directors were planned?

Thanks in advance sealordlawrence.
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
2,663
Reaction score
1,253
Brown/Moore's Rebuilding the Royal Navy goes into the 1962-3 Cruiser helicopter carrier programme in some detail, but is frustratingly vague about the ships that were about to be ordered (as opposed to the design
studies which led up to them). I may have misread the text, but my reading
is that the version to be ordered was to have Seadart and Ikara.

What makes this ship interesting is that it was on the verge of being
ordered, and would have been if Skybolt had not been cancelled for the
RAF in 1962, forcing the RN to bring forward its order for Polaris.

Originally, the RN seems to have hoped to get its cruisers and carriers
paid for before ordering Polaris-type subs in the late 60s early 70s. The Skybolt decision was thus a mixed blessing.

UK 75
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,849
Reaction score
812
uk 75 said:
Brown/Moore's Rebuilding the Royal Navy goes into the 1962-3 Cruiser helicopter carrier programme in some detail, but is frustratingly vague about the ships that were about to be ordered (as opposed to the design
studies which led up to them). I may have misread the text, but my reading
is that the version to be ordered was to have Seadart and Ikara.

What makes this ship interesting is that it was on the verge of being
ordered, and would have been if Skybolt had not been cancelled for the
RAF in 1962, forcing the RN to bring forward its order for Polaris.

Originally, the RN seems to have hoped to get its cruisers and carriers
paid for before ordering Polaris-type subs in the late 60s early 70s. The Skybolt decision was thus a mixed blessing.

UK 75

This cruiser is really intriguing me. From a doctrinal (and potentially a design one to) perspective it seems like an enlarged Bristol. this is confusing given that Bristol's make up was at least partly inspired by the idea that they would never be detached from a carrier and thus an organic ASW air component. These ships would appear not to have a helicopter and yet their size and cruiser designation would imply that they are intended for independent operations. I find this surprising given the aviation orientated conversions of the Tiger class and the heavy ASW helicopter component of the Invincibles. Add to that the very aggressive manner in which the RN pursued ASW helicopters and these vessels seem like very potent enigmas.
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
2,663
Reaction score
1,253
Until the Polaris decision cancelled the missile equipped helicopter cruiser (the Tiger class
were to be converted as substitutes until the ships could be reinstated in the 70s), the
RN planned to operate the following as a Task Group

CVA 01 (equipped with Seadart and Ikara)

CH (equipped with Seadart and Ikara)

Type 82 (equipped with Seadart, Ikara and Limbo)

Escort frigate/destroyer (small ASW helo, Limbo)

Until the CH was cancelled the CVA 01 and Type 82 were not intended to carry
large ASW helos. This only became necessary with the substitution of the
Tiger class conversions with their limited helo load (2-4 depending on size). The
displaced ASW helos had to be found room on the CVA 01.

Later the Ikara was removed from CVA 01 and left only on the Type 82 and
a planned later escort ship design.

We really need to know what the ship agreed to in 1962/3 was supposed
to look like. Hope someone can find something put there somewhere.

UK 75
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,849
Reaction score
812
That is essentially it, we need to know what those ships looked like and how many helos they were planned to take. To me that actually looks like a pretty sensible force structure. I know the missile load out for the CVA-01 is often criticised but the fact is that these ships were intended operate in dangerous waters and the missile systems/armour would have likely improved their survivability?

What was the planned operational style of the Escort Cruiser? Were they intended to operate with the strike carriers providing their helicopter based ASW capability or were they meant as the centre pieces of independent ASW groups like the Japanese DDH's?
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,849
Reaction score
812
Ok, I have just been looking at the excellent CVA-01 page on the equally excellent Navy Matters site, and it has an illustration of the Sea Slug armed escort cruiser. The Sea Dart version apparently evolved from it, thus I suspect that this version would have had a very Invincible style island with a Sea Dart launcher at either end and the Ikara on a sponson?
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
2,663
Reaction score
1,253
The narrative in Brown/Moore supports the idea that the planned
cruiser was a derivative of the illustrated Seaslug ship.

However, it is hard to see how two launchers and four directors
for Seadart plus a launcher and director for Ikara can be worked
into this design. Unless of course, one looks at the early angle
deck version of CVA 01 shown in Brown/Moore and illustrated on
Richard Beedall's excellent site by an MOD artists impression.

Using this design as a basis and modifying the standard view of
the large Seaslug cruiser helo carrier we can produce a ship
resembling a cut size CVA 01, with two Seadart launchers
either side of the aft flight deck and a side sponson for
Ikara as on original CVA01 drawings. There would be no
gun or seacat armament, but an elongated CVA01 style
superstructure with Macks and enough room for radars.

Now all we need is for someone to find this sketch at the NAO or
Bath to confirm the theory. In view of how close the ships were
to being ordered in 1962, there must be something out there.

UK 75
 

Volkodav

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
286
Reaction score
219
Sorry for the thread necromancy.

Brown mentioned that the UK recommended the Escort Cruiser to Australia when they came shopping for a cut and shut steam powered County class DLG in the early 60s. They were too busy to design the pointless, smaller, steam powered, Tartar armed, Wessex equipped destroyer Australia wanted, looked at the actually Australian requirement and suggested the escort cruiser could fill both their area air defence and helicopter carrier roles concurrently.

Ah what could have been, there were proposals to convert both the RANs Battle and Daring class destroyers into Tartar (and possibly Ikara) DDGs (the Modified Leander class cruiser was also proposed for guided missile conversion) in addition to buying three new ships; with that many converted DDGs in service already waiting for a trio of escort cruisers would have seen a very very different RAN, especially after Sea harrier became available. Just a though, these plans to upgrade three to five (or possibly even six) existing ships with guided missile may have been part of the reason (apart from cost) that the new ships were to be built overseas.
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,849
Reaction score
812
Escort cruisers, the name changed by country, were popular as a concept across the west in the late 1950s through the 1960s. The Canadians developed a concept they called the Heliporter (though never built it), the Italians actually built three ships over two separate classes and the RN developed the escort cruiser concept. The attraction, despite the borderline unhinged rantings of David Hobbes, was that they allowed navies to get ASW helicopters to sea in large numbers quickly- and in supportable packages that provided a perceived capability in terms of station-keeping/platform availability for ASW helicopters at sea. For those navies that had operated carriers the combination of guided missile systems and ASW helicopters offered an affordable (if not ideal) replacement for ex-RN light fleet carriers with fast-jets and Trackers/Gannets which is why they were pursued. There were a series of NATO studies/exercises through the 1960s that called into question the benefit of a light ASW carrier versus additional helicopter equipped destroyers and maritime patrol aircraft due to emerging technology (notably sonobuoys as well ASW helicopters with dipping sonar).

The RAN actually had a slightly different operational environment that goes some way to explaining why HMAS Melbourne lasted so long, they never faced a submarine or air threat as sophisticated as that in the North Atlantic but the Indonesian scenario did call for some specific anti-surface and strike capabilities. For much the same reason the Australian DDL project churned out a design notably different in key areas to those coming out of NATO countries.
 

M. A. Rozon

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Messages
81
Reaction score
10
JFC Fuller said:
Escort cruisers, the name changed by country, were popular as a concept across the west in the late 1950s through the 1960s. The Canadians developed a concept they called the Heliporter (though never built it)......................................

I've never heard of this. Do you have any details and drawings? Where could these details be found?

Bigger Guns, MORE POWER!

B)
 

Tzoli

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
721
I think he refers to the DDH or helicopter destroyers. I've never heard of any cruiser sized Canadian warship project. (Even the Canadian modified Queen Elizabeth class Battleships were too British)
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,296
Reaction score
1,261
This thesis can shed some light on the RCN Heliporter (especially page 78):

https://qspace.library.queensu.ca/bitstream/1974/8298/1/Mayne_Richard_O_finalsubmission_200804_PhD.pdf

Fraser-Harris was anxious. He had a unique opportunity to shape the RCN’s
future force structure, and, perhaps because of that, one officer who accompanied him
remembered “being forced to wait while [Fraser-Harris] (in somewhat unusual fashion)
paid a nervous trip to the washroom in preparation for his ordeal.”101 Despite these
jitters, Fraser-Harris did a good job with the General Purpose Frigate. However, he went
too far with the Heliporter. The current plans to convert the St. Laurent class into DDHs
would place a small number of helicopters into a large number of ships, and as a result
Fraser-Harris argued that the RCN actually needed a “helicopter carrier” to support these
smaller units. By lengthening a Restigouche hull to 420 feet, he explained further, this
platform could not only carry nine Sea King helicopters, but also could act as a mother
ship with proper maintenance facilities “for other aircraft in the escort force.” Yet in
proposing such a ship, Fraser-Harris revealed that he actually wanted the Heliporter to be
a small flattop aircraft carrier rather than a helicopter-carrying frigate.
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,849
Reaction score
812
Tzoli said:
I think he refers to the DDH or helicopter destroyers. I've never heard of any cruiser sized Canadian warship project.

Most of these designs started out destroyer sized and then grew, including the RN Helicopter Cruiser concept. The link/document TomS posted has sketches of several of the Canadian concepts.
 

M. A. Rozon

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Messages
81
Reaction score
10
JFC Fuller said:
Tzoli said:
I think he refers to the DDH or helicopter destroyers. I've never heard of any cruiser sized Canadian warship project.

Most of these designs started out destroyer sized and then grew, including the RN Helicopter Cruiser concept. The link/document TomS posted has sketches of several of the Canadian concepts.

Thank you! I don't recall reading this thesis before. It answers the question nicely.

Thanks again.

Bigger Guns, MORE POWER!

B)
 

M. A. Rozon

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Messages
81
Reaction score
10
TomS said:
This thesis can shed some light on the RCN Heliporter (especially page 78):

https://qspace.library.queensu.ca/bitstream/1974/8298/1/Mayne_Richard_O_finalsubmission_200804_PhD.pdf

Fraser-Harris was anxious. He had a unique opportunity to shape the RCN’s
future force structure, and, perhaps because of that, one officer who accompanied him
remembered “being forced to wait while [Fraser-Harris] (in somewhat unusual fashion)
paid a nervous trip to the washroom in preparation for his ordeal.”101 Despite these
jitters, Fraser-Harris did a good job with the General Purpose Frigate. However, he went
too far with the Heliporter. The current plans to convert the St. Laurent class into DDHs
would place a small number of helicopters into a large number of ships, and as a result
Fraser-Harris argued that the RCN actually needed a “helicopter carrier” to support these
smaller units. By lengthening a Restigouche hull to 420 feet, he explained further, this
platform could not only carry nine Sea King helicopters, but also could act as a mother
ship with proper maintenance facilities “for other aircraft in the escort force.” Yet in
proposing such a ship, Fraser-Harris revealed that he actually wanted the Heliporter to be
a small flattop aircraft carrier rather than a helicopter-carrying frigate.

Sorry for the double post; I quoted the wrong post.

Thanks again. That's answers my question nicely.

Bigger Guns, MORE POWER!

B)
 

Similar threads

Top