RN Escorts 1965 to 1975: Options?

[uk 75]

Thank you to the various contributors for entering into the spirit of what is almost an
online seminar on this subject. I apologise again if my initial thoughts were a bit extreme, but they served to provoke some useful info and comments.

On a minor point, I included the 5 Norwegian frigates because they seem to have a decent enough
anti-air capability (especially when compared with the overloaded Oslo class ships they replace). However good Type 45s prove to be (hence my comparison with the Type 22 Seawolf ships which were also ahead of their contemporaries) a handful is still a handful.

I have given the RN the benefit of the doubt in that it has always had to plan for a spectrum of threats and the force that went to the Falklands in 1982 was the outcome of the previous thirty years of construction.

My reason for comparison with the US Navy is perhaps best illustrated by the Adams class destroyers.
Australia and Germany bought small numbers of these US designed and built ships. Unlike the County class which entered service in the same period, the Adams class remained valid up until the end of the Cold war. One reason seems to me the better design of US launcher systems:

The Seaslug launcher was a botched compromise and worked only for a Seaslug type missile. The Tartar launcher on the Adams could be adapated if necessary to handle new SAMs in the same family and even the Harpoon missile.

Japan loves the ASROC launcher (pepperbox 8 round) so much that some of its ships still carry it. If RN ships had had a similarly flexible weapon/launcher combination instead of the bizarre Ikara or bulky Exocet boxes?

The Knox class frigate is so adaptable that Spain is able to order a SAM equipped version.

I appreciate the US has more money, but isnt some of the UK experience down to a pig-headed desire to build odd looking weapons. Seacat for example is based on an anti-tank missile. How does anyone really expect this weapon to perform after about 1962 against any likely air threat?

I steer clear of electronics, because this is a really specialised area and I know that contributors are much better read on this.

Enjoying the Seminar so far and thanks again!

UK 75

 

[JFC Fuller]

None of those ships compares to a Type 45. Type 45 is the most modern warship afloat today in pretty much every metric. The inclusion of the Norwegian ships is just strange, they are closer to a T23 in role and capability than they are a T45.

LOL! Obviously not an expert in AEGIS systems... The Norwegian Nansen class is far and away above the capability of a Type 23. While the smaller array (SPY-1F) and missiles (ESSM) means the Nansen lacks the capability for a long range AAW shot very few frigate/destroyer COs would use their SM2s or Aster 30s at a range above the ESSM anyway. In terms of its ability to contribute to the air defence of a task group the Nansen would not be allocated a foot print much smaller than a Type 45 and would be capable of handling it in the worst of air threats probably better (thanks to the greater capability of AEGIS and deeper missile magazine). Once again the 'I've never been in a CIC of a contemporary major warship at sea in the middle of an air battle exercise' opinion fails to understand true capability. As to the modernity of the Type 45 it is already falling behind the latest AEGIS ships which have far more advanced computer processors running their systems.

Lol, I am obviously more of an expert than you, comparing a frigate with 8 VLS cells and a frigate sized radar with the most advanced warship currently afloat. lol, deeper missile magazine.

 

[Hood]

Had Orange Nell not been cancelled and had it worked (a big if) then the RN would have had a supersonic point-defence missile in the 1960s. By the 1970s it would have been obsolete but by then hopefully Sea Wolf would be ready. That would make a useful anti-missile defence shield around whatever ships your escorting in this scenario.
I still think the supersonic Sea Cat 2 would have been the best deal for the early 1970s. There is no real alternative to Sea Dart.

I've never liked Ikara, yes its capable and has range but its big and bulky and attempts to have Sea Dart and Ikara foundered due to the weight and size of both systems as much as the cost of having both aboard a single ship. I think perhaps something like a combination of 381 and 382 would have been best, the helicopter aft of 381 with Sea Dart forward and an ASROC squeezed in elsewhere and the removal of Limbo would be a fair compromise. VDS is needed and while 391 and 392 are smaller they lack VDS and are generally inferior. Its perhaps a mix of two of these and two smaller ASW frigates with MATCH, 4.5in and Sea Cat for general patrol use overseas. Maybe also a Limbo too with VDS if the budget can stretch that far.

 

[zen]

No provocation at all, I was merely looking for clarification and you overreacted.

And you think thats not a provokative statement?

We are talking at best something in the order 1000tons difference here, which results in vast improvements in habitability, stability, endurance, survivability, maintainability and capacity to accept upgrades. For derisory increases in purchase and running costs.

If one jumps to much larger vessels, then yes, you get less of them. However there is the benefit of economies of scale here. In theory what requires two small ships to perform can be done by one much larger vessel, where the actual running costs must be compared between two ships having say crews of 500 if taken together, and one larger vessel with a crew of 350.
Each smaller vessel might induvidualy burn less fuel, but taken together burns more than the single larger vessel. Said larger vessel will go further for the same fuel as two smaller.

So in fact you might assume say a 90 ship frigate, sloop and destroyer mix, but can probably reduce this to 45 vessels of just two types. One a larger more capable ship, the other a much smaller and simpler ship.

Then there is the whole personnel training and qualification costs. If you have 90 crews for 90 ships, you need 90 officers competant to command them, and 90 engineers able to command the maintanence of the vessel, 90 cooks, and so on.
So 22,500 personnel (250 per ship for 90) is more than 15,750 (350 per ship for 45). But the actual savings are even larger, due to fewer command trained staff.

This gets more extreme when we go into CVs. Four CVs of 3,500 make 14,000, but if you have three Cvs of 4,000 crew, you make 12,000 and each of these larger Cvs does more, carries more. While two of 5,000 each does even more.

You fight a war with the best you have, or you risk loosing. The more assets you loose the less you have to fight with and since WWII industrial wars of production have effectively ended, you fight with what you have at the time. So it had better be good enough.

Now, depending on hull shape and form you can get different power requirements but there must be a point at which the extra versatility from having a larger hull is outweighed by the increased running costs.

Certainly there is a trade off, depending on what your comparing.

 

[JFC Fuller]

On a minor point, I included the 5 Norwegian frigates because they seem to have a decent enough
anti-air capability (especially when compared with the overloaded Oslo class ships they replace). However good Type 45s prove to be (hence my comparison with the Type 22 Seawolf ships which were also ahead of their contemporaries) a handful is still a handful.

And still AAW destroyers than any other European navy has.

I have given the RN the benefit of the doubt in that it has always had to plan for a spectrum of threats and the force that went to the Falklands in 1982 was the outcome of the previous thirty years of construction.

Dont forget that the RN won, and by a considerable margin. Some of the ships did show eaknesses drived from cost cutting but ultimately a navy can only build to its resources and that is what the RN did and continues to do. Ambitions must be matched with those resources.

My reason for comparison with the US Navy is perhaps best illustrated by the Adams class destroyers.
Australia and Germany bought small numbers of these US designed and built ships. Unlike the County class which entered service in the same period, the Adams class remained valid up until the end of the Cold war. One reason seems to me the better design of US launcher systems:

The Seaslug launcher was a botched compromise and worked only for a Seaslug type missile. The Tartar launcher on the Adams could be adapated if necessary to handle new SAMs in the same family and even the Harpoon missile.

Sea slug and its launcher configuration certainly had its flaws, but design suffers more widely, the first 4 ships never receive the proposed upgrade to Batch II standard (ADAWS and the Mk2 missile), and as far as we can tell the missile itself received very little development after the 1960s, a lot could have been done but just never was. This is not uncommon, the Mk2 Sea Dart system was cancelled as was the Type 1030 STIR and the CACS system seems to have been a failure.

Japan loves the ASROC launcher (pepperbox 8 round) so much that some of its ships still carry it. If RN ships had had a similarly flexible weapon/launcher combination instead of the bizarre Ikara or bulky Exocet boxes?

Dont forget that launcher space, whilst important, is less important than internal space for things such as magazines and finding information on the sizes of those can be difficult. The number of torpedos carried in the Type 23 magazine is technically classified. Ultimately it is that internal space that counts. Ikara was actually a very good system, especially the one the RN operated but again suffered from a lack of development. Apparently it was originally planned to develop a twin launcher for both Ikara and Sea Dart and there are claims floating around the internet that the size of the launcher used by Bristol was a result of this.

The Knox class frigate is so adaptable that Spain is able to order a SAM equipped version

The Knox class also displaces roughly 1000 tons more than a Leander (some 30%!). And the Leander class did not prove inflexible, the RN ultimately rebuilding them with Ikara or a combined Sea Wolf/Exocet fit.

I appreciate the US has more money, but isnt some of the UK experience down to a pig-headed desire to build odd looking weapons. Seacat for example is based on an anti-tank missile. How does anyone really expect this weapon to perform after about 1962 against any likely air threat?

The advantage of Sea Cat was its incredibly small footprint, however you are right and it was not especially useful in the latter part of its career (though it did apparently deflect and Exocet). The UK took a long time acquiring a replacement and ignore the private venture Mk2 variant. The light weight Sea Wolf launcher based on the Sea Cat launcher was also cancelled.

I think the moral of the story is money, the RN built small ship due to a lack of it and a need to keep numbers up, however systems were frequently held back by a lack of investment. It is very easy to say that the RN lacked capability due to a lack of spending but it is probably more appropriate to say that it was actually well equipped for the money that it had.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Had Orange Nell not been cancelled and had it worked (a big if) then the RN would have had a supersonic point-defence missile in the 1960s. By the 1970s it would have been obsolete but by then hopefully Sea Wolf would be ready. That would make a useful anti-missile defence shield around whatever ships your escorting in this scenario.
I still think the supersonic Sea Cat 2 would have been the best deal for the early 1970s. There is no real alternative to Sea Dart.

Absolutely Orange Nell could have resulted in something useful though I get the feeling that actually the SIGS/Sea Dart programme was really the end result of the Orange Nell studies. Both were designed around the 4.5 inch gun mounting (originally) IIRC. Sead
Darts size just kept increasing so that it wont fit on a Leander Hull.

I've never liked Ikara, yes its capable and has range but its big and bulky and attempts to have Sea Dart and Ikara foundered due to the weight and size of both systems as much as the cost of having both aboard a single ship. I think perhaps something like a combination of 381 and 382 would have been best, the helicopter aft of 381 with Sea Dart forward and an ASROC squeezed in elsewhere and the removal of Limbo would be a fair compromise. VDS is needed and while 391 and 392 are smaller they lack VDS and are generally inferior. Its perhaps a mix of two of these and two smaller ASW frigates with MATCH, 4.5in and Sea Cat for general patrol use overseas. Maybe also a Limbo too with VDS if the budget can stretch that far.

The bulk issue with Ikara has more to do with the sizes of ships it was being installed n, realistically I think it was too large (in the mounting and magazine form chosen) for the Leanders though they did of course make it work. Some sort of box launcher or perhaps lighter launcher as used by the Australians may have been appropriate but the RN certainly had their reasons for going with the configuration they used.

 

[JFC Fuller]

And you think thats not a provokative statement?

Not at all.

We are talking at best something in the order 1000tons difference here, which results in vast improvements in habitability, stability, endurance, survivability, maintainability and capacity to accept upgrades. For derisory increases in purchase and running costs.

If one jumps to much larger vessels, then yes, you get less of them. However there is the benefit of economies of scale here. In theory what requires two small ships to perform can be done by one much larger vessel, where the actual running costs must be compared between two ships having say crews of 500 if taken together, and one larger vessel with a crew of 350.
Each smaller vessel might induvidualy burn less fuel, but taken together burns more than the single larger vessel. Said larger vessel will go further for the same fuel as two smaller.

So in fact you might assume say a 90 ship frigate, sloop and destroyer mix, but can probably reduce this to 45 vessels of just two types. One a larger more capable ship, the other a much smaller and simpler ship.

Then there is the whole personnel training and qualification costs. If you have 90 crews for 90 ships, you need 90 officers competant to command them, and 90 engineers able to command the maintanence of the vessel, 90 cooks, and so on.
So 22,500 personnel (250 per ship for 90) is more than 15,750 (350 per ship for 45). But the actual savings are even larger, due to fewer command trained staff.

This gets more extreme when we go into CVs. Four CVs of 3,500 make 14,000, but if you have three Cvs of 4,000 crew, you make 12,000 and each of these larger Cvs does more, carries more. While two of 5,000 each does even more.

You fight a war with the best you have, or you risk loosing. The more assets you loose the less you have to fight with and since WWII industrial wars of production have effectively ended, you fight with what you have at the time. So it had better be good enough.

Exactly, fleet procurement is a trade off, however much money you have there is always a limit. But you must then engage in a circular process of working out how many ships you can get for your money and what capability those ships have, you must continually match these thought to your strategic requirements and ultimately (as the UK did) you are likely to have to reconsider your strategic requirements to match the amount of money you have. A decision taken by the RN was to procure larger numbers of smaller ships, it was actually planned at one stage to procure 26 Type 42s.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Lol, I am obviously more of an expert than you, comparing a frigate with 8 VLS cells and a frigate sized radar with the most advanced warship currently afloat. lol, deeper missile magazine.

You’re just the gift that keeps giving. The Nansen class was designed for 16 VLS each holding four ESSM. That’s 4 x 16 = 64. The Type 45 on the other hand can only carry 48 Aster 15/30 missiles. 64 is generally assumed to be a bigger number than 48.

Now I must admit I didn’t know they had only stuck in a single module of VLS on the Nansen but it would take a few hours to fit another eight cells if Norway ever deployed their ships in the face of a serious air threat. As for calling SPY-1F “frigate sized” that is pretty arbitrary and has little to do with its ability to track and scan air space.

The Type 45 is so advanced it’s not even cleared for actual use… But to call it the most advanced ship in service is just an arbitrary assumption based on its launch date. The latest AEGIS Capability Baseline 2008 (BL7.1CR2) was only accepted in2009 but the Type 45 CMS was accepted in 2005… and 80% of its software came from the Type 23! There is no way it is as capable as AEGIS.

 

[zen]

I rather think one of the issues here is the move to SeaSlug, instead of the more potent Green Flax (Thunderbird II). I alwasy feel the Counties where good ships, rather held back by the missile system they had.

IF we assume the CVs are not cancelled, then there is the qestion over the retention of steam propulsion in the RN. Dropping the CVs made a move to an all-GT fleet possible, if for a number of reasons a far slower process than perhaps desired.
Keeping steam, means it makes sense to keep it on more than the CVs.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I've never liked Ikara, yes its capable and has range but its big and bulky and attempts to have Sea Dart and Ikara foundered due to the weight and size of both systems as much as the cost of having both aboard a single ship.

Capability comes with a price. Ikara was a far more capable ASW weapon than ASROC because the missile was guided to the target allowing for engagement of an evading submarine. ASROC was effectively useless unless the submarine was dead in the water or oblivious to a nearby ASW threat. Of course with the advent of ASW helicopters that could be talked onto target Ikara losses its unique accuracy. But for a system that could be used 24-7, in almost any weather and with much less warning time than a helo its volumetric demands compared to a helicopter hangar, flight deck and other needs is quite reasonable.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Lol, I am obviously more of an expert than you, comparing a frigate with 8 VLS cells and a frigate sized radar with the most advanced warship currently afloat. lol, deeper missile magazine.

You’re just the gift that keeps giving. The Nansen class was designed for 16 VLS each holding four ESSM. That’s 4 x 16 = 64. The Type 45 on the other hand can only carry 48 Aster 15/30 missiles. 64 is generally assumed to be a bigger number than 48.

Now I must admit I didn’t know they had only stuck in a single module of VLS on the Nansen but it would take a few hours to fit another eight cells if Norway ever deployed their ships in the face of a serious air threat. As for calling SPY-1F “frigate sized” that is pretty arbitrary and has little to do with its ability to track and scan air space.

The Type 45 is so advanced it’s not even cleared for actual use… But to call it the most advanced ship in service is just an arbitrary assumption based on its launch date. The latest AEGIS Capability Baseline 2008 (BL7.1CR2) was only accepted in2009 but the Type 45 CMS was accepted in 2005… and 80% of its software came from the Type 23! There is no way it is as capable as AEGIS.

Lol, you really know very little about this. Guess you have never seen CMS-1 then or spoken to a Norwegian naval officer, and that is before we even get to the fact that you are comparing the Sampson/S1850M combination to SPY-1/F, you are the troll that keeps trolling.

 

[JFC Fuller]

I rather think one of the issues here is the move to SeaSlug, instead of the more potent Green Flax (Thunderbird II). I alwasy feel the Counties where good ships, rather held back by the missile system they had.

Absolutely, not even replacing Sea Slug, just continuing to develop it would have helped some.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Lol, you really know very little about this. Guess you have never seen CMS-1 then or spoken to a Norwegian naval officer,

Actually I have to both. Though the Norwegian didn’t know anything about AEGIS but I don’t think the US Navy is going to run out and replace their AEGIS ships with second hand Type 23s anytime soon…

and that is before we even get to the fact that you are comparing the Sampson/S1850M combination to SPY-1/F,

I am? Only in a single post a while ago. The last several posts have been refuting your statement that Type 45 is the most advanced ship in the world. It isn’t. As for the Sampson/S1850M vs SPY-1F if you actually bother to read what I say you will notice:

While the smaller array (SPY-1F) and missiles (ESSM) means the Nansen lacks the capability for a long range AAW shot very few frigate/destroyer COs would use their SM2s or Aster 30s at a range above the ESSM anyway. In terms of its ability to contribute to the air defence of a task group the Nansen would be allocated a foot print not much smaller than a Type 45 and would be capable of handling it in the worst of air threats probably better

I guess you shouldn’t have edited your post to add in this point. Since like so many you’ve made it is wrong.

you are the troll that keeps trolling.

Only one person in this thread is living under a bridge and screaming at the kids trying to cross and that is you Mr Lawrence.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Actually I have to both. Though the Norwegian didn’t know anything about AEGIS but I don’t think the US Navy is going to run out and replace their AEGIS ships with second hand Type 23s anytime soon…

Firstly SPY-1F and SPY-1D are very different systems, the fact that you chose to lump the two together shows how little you actually understand this subject. Last time I spoke to Norwegian naval officers they actually bemoaned the frigate Aegis system. To my surprise they actually expressed preference Herakles having recently recieved a presentation about it.

I am? Only in a single post a while ago. The last several posts have been refuting your statement that Type 45 is the most advanced ship in the world. It isn’t. As for the Sampson/S1850M vs SPY-1F if you actually bother to read what I say you will notice:

Type 45 is the most advanced ship in the world, most advanced radar fit, most advanced propusion plant etc. It will lose that mantel when DDG1000 takes to the water but for now that is what it is. I never mentioned capability, the two are quite different.

I guess you shouldn’t have edited your post to add in this point. Since like so many you’ve made it is wrong.

I am absolutely right, you have come here with the sole intention of trolling, it is unfortunate beacause this could have been a useful thread but your aggression and desire to trash it has taken it to the brink. A real shame.

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

Did my laptop suddenly become a portal to an alternative universe? ???

 

[JFC Fuller]

Did my laptop suddenly become a portal to an alternative universe? ???

It is a shame that this thread has been trashed, I wont reply to Abraham again in the hope of salvaging it.

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

Did my laptop suddenly become a portal to an alternative universe? ???

It is a shame that this thread has been trashed, I wont reply to Abraham again in the hope of salvaging it.

You guys were the least likely to start a flame war from my experience.

 

[zen]

A decision taken by the RN was to procure larger numbers of smaller ships, it was actually planned at one stage to procure 26 Type 42s

Thats not a real number, its a planning and accounting number for warships based on the then estimate of costs for the most complex type comparable.

 

[JFC Fuller]

A decision taken by the RN was to procure larger numbers of smaller ships, it was actually planned at one stage to procure 26 Type 42s

Thats not a real number, its a planning and accounting number for warships based on the then estimate of costs for the most complex type comparable.

That was the number in the long term costings as of November 1972 (along with 3 light carriers and 21 Type 21/22), it is as real as the number 4 (or the number 2 for that matter) for the CVA-01 programme. Obviously it does not represent ships ordered but it does show the long term plan. As of 1975 the long term plan still contained 25 Type 42s + HMS Bristol.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Did my laptop suddenly become a portal to an alternative universe? ???

It is a shame that this thread has been trashed, I wont reply to Abraham again in the hope of salvaging it.

You guys were the least likely to start a flame war from my experience.

For my part I will offer my apologies and endeavor to ignore any further off-topic remarks by Abraham.

 

[JFC Fuller]

There is a genuine interesting question to all this, at one point there definitely seems to have been proposals for a launcher capable of firing both Ikara and Sea Dart. The Australians apparently developed a surface to surface version of Ikara under project womba to their staff target 11/70. If such a twin launcher could have been developed (and how on earth it could I do not know) it does raise the possibility of one type of launcher being able to launch all 3 weapons system required by the ship.

Further to the internet mumblings about the Bristol launcher being large and heavy for this reason rebuilding the royal navy carries a curious statement about it in its Type 42 discussions. One of the picture nots talks about how the Type 42 design of 1968 still used the "twin barrel GWS-30 launcher as developed for the Type-82", I must admit that I am not sure what this actually means.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Some details, including designations, of the different Sea Dart Launchers.

http://www.flightglobal.com:80/pdfarchive/view/1973/1973%20-%202661.html?tracked=1

 

[PMN1]

There is a genuine interesting question to all this, at one point there definitely seems to have been proposals for a launcher capable of firing both Ikara and Sea Dart. The Australians apparently developed a surface to surface version of Ikara under project womba to their staff target 11/70. If such a twin launcher could have been developed (and how on earth it could I do not know) it does raise the possibility of one type of launcher being able to launch all 3 weapons system required by the ship.

Which does beg the question (after seeing the post on Warships1), why separate launchers?

 

[JFC Fuller]

Which does beg the question (after seeing the post on Warships1), why separate launchers?

I can only assume that the missile shapes, sizes and storage requirement were just not reconcilable. Sea Dart was stored vertically and Ikara horizontally.

 

[zen]

DK Brown & George Moore
Rebuilding the Royal Navy
Published 2003
ISBN 1 59114 705 0

Page105, Margin note 21

"Some reports say it was intended that upto 26 Type 22s would be built. This is a misinterpretationof normal and correct financial planning. It was normal to insert figures into a 10-year spending plan for so many frigates per periode, and for financial planning it was assumed that they would be of the latest desgin"

 

[JFC Fuller]

DK Brown & George Moore
Rebuilding the Royal Navy
Published 2003
ISBN 1 59114 705 0

Page105, Margin note 21

"Some reports say it was intended that upto 26 Type 22s would be built. This is a misinterpretationof normal and correct financial planning. It was normal to insert figures into a 10-year spending plan for so many frigates per periode, and for financial planning it was assumed that they would be of the latest desgin"

As I said, the same as the additional CVA-01 units, the escort cruisers, etc. The long term plans were representative of proposed procurement and thus fleet structure. The ships were never ordered, never came close to being ordered, the money never approved but at the time the long term plan was created they were expected to be built. Indeed they may never of been of the Type 22 design when it came to construction but in the absence of a new design they are the vessels that would have been built.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Firstly SPY-1F and SPY-1D are very different systems, the fact that you chose to lump the two together shows how little you actually understand this subject. Last time I spoke to Norwegian naval officers they actually bemoaned the frigate Aegis system. To my surprise they actually expressed preference Herakles having recently recieved a presentation about it.

I never chose to lump SPY-1F and SPY-1D together that is another one of your many revision attempts to rewrite the opinions of others to fit your limited viewpoint. My points have been: SPY-1F is a far better radar that that fitted to the Type 23 and competitive to that fitted to the Type 45 and superior in many areas if not maximum detection range. The AEGIS combat system (which is different to SPY-1A/B/D/F/etc, but of course you know that?) even in the ‘lightweight’ version fitted to the Nansen is superior to anything in the Type 23 and Type 45. That the Norwegians don’t like it – assuming your hearsay is correct – has more to do with problems with the delivery and acceptance of the Nansen class. That ‘Norske sailor X’ says he would prefer Herakles based on a presento speaks volumes for his credibility. He should consider a career in defence journalism!

Type 45 is the most advanced ship in the world, most advanced radar fit, most advanced propusion plant etc. It will lose that mantel when DDG1000 takes to the water but for now that is what it is. I never mentioned capability, the two are quite different.

LOL, you keep up the mantra. So it has the most advanced combat system? Even though it was signed off three years before the latest AEGIS combat system? Must have Tardis technology to move forward in time those three years.

I am absolutely right, you have come here with the sole intention of trolling, it is unfortunate beacause this could have been a useful thread but your aggression and desire to trash it has taken it to the brink. A real shame.

You must be off your rocker to be so certain and so dismissive of others. I have done nothing but make innocent contributions to UK75’s question and defended well established facts from your ultra nationalist, knowledge poor attacks. That you insist on presenting all this as if you are some innocent party when you rewrite others opinions, insult and bait them is the worst kind of conduct. Most of us come to this place with a reasonable expectation of fair play. Things may get heated in dispute but your sort of conduct is unacceptable.

But of course your ego has been severely dented. You made all sorts of very intellectually weak statements and were called out on them. Like your infamous 7,000 tonnes of steel per ship comment. That you attempted to cover this up by transferring your crimes onto others is inexcusable.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Which does beg the question (after seeing the post on Warships1), why separate launchers?

How about a real answer? The Ikara missile magazine – built to aerospace industries standards by CAC – was developed well before Sea Dart. If the British wanted a common launcher they could have directed Vickers to do so for Sea Dart. But they didn’t. The Ikara missile was of a small aircraft shape with wings and a tail so required different sorts of handling and launching than the more common tube with fins shaped missiles. But this is not insurmountable. Horizontal storage was a requirement for the torpedos Ikara carried and not an issue for the actual missile. Again a system could be developed for both and was –at least in concept. (see attach image)

By the time the Type 42s were being built the need for Ikara was limited because they could launch and recover ASW helicopters in extreme weather and were practiced in keeping constant helo coverage over an ASW task force. Under such conditions the helo provided everything Ikara could and more. So the need for Ikara being shot through their Sea Dart launchers was much lower.

The Womba surface to surface missile was not based on Ikara but used its launchers. It was to be based on the GAF Turana target drone developed for a ship launched gunfire practise requirement.

Developed from the Ikara anti-submarine missile, the Turana was intended to provide a parachute recoverable pilotless target for use in gunnery and missile defence training by the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) with a small gas turbine Microturbo 022-01 jet engine with a booster rocket for launch from a warship’s Ikara missile launcher. Prototypes were built in the late 1960s by the Government Aircraft Factory (GAF). In 1971, the RAN ordered twelve Turana targets at a cost of $1.183 million from GAF despite the fact that trials had not yet been completed. Turana Technical Evaluation Trials were conducted by HMAS Swan (III) in February 1978. Failures exposed during this period involved redesign work costing an additional $3.40 million. The Turana project was subsequently cancelled by the federal government in September 1979.

 

[JFC Fuller]

As I said earlier Abraham (post 55 and 59), I will not respond to any more of your trolling in the hope that this thread can be saved. The fact that you persist with it speaks volumes about your character.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Sorry to have been distracted by the “Sea Lord’s” ranting but back to the original question.

There is quite a long gap between the commissioning of the last Leanders in the early 1970s and the arrival of the first Type 22 at the end of the decade. In comparison, the US Navy were able to move rather more quickly with its Perry and Spruance programmes.

The PFG (Perry) and DX/DXG (Spurance) programs had their conception in the 1960s. In the case of Spurance the RFP was in Feb 68, with concept definition contracts in Jul 68 and a production contract awarded in Jun 70. Spurance also used OTS mission systems so was not tied to a missile or sensor program. The RN had a much more laboured specification and contracting approach.

By the end of the 70s the County class and the Leanders were obsolete ships, lacking effective new systems, except where expensive conversions (Exocet and Ikara, and in the 80s, Seawolf) improved their abilities somewhat. The USN was able to fit Harpoon and new helicopters, as well as point defence missiles, to its Knox class escorts and DLG/DLGN ships were also upgraded relatively easily.

The US Navy worked very much in line with spiral evolution of systems. The Mk 13 GMLS was designed to fit the same structural footprint as the Mk 42 127mm gun turret. Tartar became SM-1 which became SM-2, which became SM-3 and SM-6. AEGIS is up to Baseline 7 each being a totally different generation of design and equipment. The RN on the other hand never followed this kind of approach or when it wanted to had the next spiral cancelled and eventually had to start afresh.

At a time when the RN is once again asking the taxpayer for big ticket ship construction programmes, following on from the dismal Type 45 experience ( 2 ships in service(just) when Japan, Germany, Spain, Norway and others have all introduced similar ships with much less fuss and cost. Is a task force equipped with a selection of Type 42 and 23/22 ships shepherded by one or two Type 45s able to do anything worthwhile in the absence of the huge US Navy?

No one in their right mind would order the Type 45 when they could get an AEGIS destroyer. As per the actions of the RoKN and RAN rejecting the Type 45 combat system very early on in their AAW DDG processes. Of course there are other issues like spending government money in country and maintaining an export industry to those many buyers out there who aren’t in their right mind. So for the RN they have to pay a premium and suffer reduced capability and higher delivery risk to reduce the UK’s current account deficit, welfare bill and to have a product to sell to the Saudis so the princes get their kickbacks.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Abraham, I can not believe that you have taken the original question and twisted in order to continue trolling, truly shocking.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

As I said earlier Abraham (post 55 and 59), I will not respond to any more of your trolling in the hope that this thread can be saved. The fact that you persist with it speaks volumes about your character.

Good! I don’t want to read your dumb revisions, why did you even bother to write this post? (Rhetorical question don’t answer, please don’t answer!)

But what you call ‘persisting in trolling’ I call setting the record straight over your completely unfair assertions about what I and others have written. So, so much for your character judgements, which is just another one of your 180 degree revision attempts. Whatever I say you have to turn it around and say it back no matter the lack of the logical consistency.

The only way to save this thread is for you to go and have a cup of tea and take out your frustrations over the decline and fall of the RN on someone else. The rest of us can conduct actual analysis on these events based on facts and a critical assessment of the RN’s equipment failings alongside HM Govt’s financial mismanagement.

 

[JFC Fuller]

As I said earlier Abraham (post 55 and 59), I will not respond to any more of your trolling in the hope that this thread can be saved. The fact that you persist with it speaks volumes about your character.

Good! I don’t want to read your dumb revisions, why did you even bother to write this post? (Rhetorical question don’t answer, please don’t answer!)

But what you call ‘persisting in trolling’ I call setting the record straight over your completely unfair assertions about what I and others have written. So, so much for your character judgements, which is just another one of your 180 degree revision attempts. Whatever I say you have to turn it around and say it back no matter the lack of the logical consistency.

The only way to save this thread is for you to go and have a cup of tea and take out your frustrations over the decline and fall of the RN on someone else. The rest of us can conduct actual analysis on these events based on facts and a critical assessment of the RN’s equipment failings alongside HM Govt’s financial mismanagement.

Still trolling and now spewing insults as well.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Abraham, I can not believe that you have taken the original question and twisted in order to continue trolling, truly shocking.

Still trolling and now spewing insults as well.

LOL, so much for your oft repeated pledge of no more responses.

As I said earlier Abraham (post 55 and 59), I will not respond to any more of your trolling in the hope that this thread can be saved. The fact that you persist with it speaks volumes about your character.

I guess those three posts were just another form of your particular vicious form of internet trolling. I guess since I pointed this out you will have to make another response.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Abraham, I can not believe that you have taken the original question and twisted in order to continue trolling, truly shocking.

Still trolling and now spewing insults as well.

LOL, so much for your oft repeated pledge of no more responses.

As I said earlier Abraham (post 55 and 59), I will not respond to any more of your trolling in the hope that this thread can be saved. The fact that you persist with it speaks volumes about your character.

I guess those three posts were just another form of your particular vicious form of internet trolling. I guess since I pointed this out you will have to make another response.

No trolling on my part at all, your endless off topic ranting however....

 

[zen]

Well enough of that, lets take a look at back at the orriginal post.

Should the RN have carried on building Leander class frigates as long as they did?

Its something of a contraversy I think, but the general rule is the more you build of a type, the cheaper it gets.

Delays in designing the replacement Type 22 meant that the Type 21 had to be brought in as an interim type (or were they just replacements for other elderly frigates).

This ignores the real history, of Type19 etc al.

There is quite a long gap between the commissioning of the last Leanders in the early 1970s and the arrival of the first Type 22 at the end of the decade. In comparison, the US Navy were able to move rather more quickly with its Perry and Spruance programmes.

Consider the times.

Air defence escorts also offer a picture of delay and waiting for new kit. The last two County class (Antrim and Norfolk) would not have been ordered if the Type 82s had not been delayed. As it was, HMS Bristol never really entered service, because of various mishaps. The first Type 42, HMS Sheffield, did not arrive until the mid-70s, some 5 years after the last County.

Counties where good ships, let down by their missile system.

At a time when the RN is once again asking the taxpayer for big ticket ship construction programmes, following on from the dismal Type 45 experience ( 2 ships in service(just) when Japan, Germany, Spain, Norway and others have all introduced similar ships with much less fuss and cost.

There is such a history there thats being ignored, that suggestng it was as simple as that is stretching the truth to breaking point. All I will say is Project Horizon, and leave it at that.

Is a task force equipped with a selection of Type 42 and 23/22 ships shepherded by one or two Type 45s able to do anything worthwhile in the absence of the huge US Navy?

Of course it is, what an strange question. Be a little more specific here please.

Liam Fox must be asking similar questions to John Nott in 1981. Next time the RN may not face an opponent armed with non-fuzing bombs and a handful of missiles supplied by a friendly country.

Which is implying what pray tell? RN even in its much reduced state today its if anything more potent now than it was in 1982.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Zen,

I think you have pretty much covered it perfectly.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I pose a question based on a line in one of the usual source books (I think it is "Rebuilding the Royal Navy"). Should the RN have carried on building Leander class frigates as long as they did? Delays in designing the replacement Type 22 meant that the Type 21 had to be brought in as an interim type (or were they just replacements for other elderly frigates).

Perhaps the real answer to your question in finding an alternative to the 10 Broad Beamed Leanders (Batch 3+ laid down 1967-69) is in the 1962 frigate concept designs mating the Leander hull to the Sea Dart system.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5525.0

This ship design could have been built in the timeframe as the Broad Beamed Leander and provided more capability except in naval gunfire support. And for the later the Limbo system could easily be replaced with a Mk 8 113mm gun if by the time design was finalised (~67) Limbo was seen as waste of space. Which would probably save a lot of cost compared to the expensive SS-12 anti boat missile.

I would still think the Type 21s would be built between the “Sea Dart Leander” and the Types 42/22 because they would be a lot cheaper and also utilize gas turbines. You would need to design a new hull if you wanted to combine the mission systems of the Sea Dart Leander with gas turbine propulsion.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Interestingly both parties in this argument decided to report each other at about the same time.

Topic locked for pruning.