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

RN Nuclear NIGS ship

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,926
Reaction score
635
Good read here

ESAR built 1960.

So it's possible with funding that an S-band array could be built by the mid 60's and definitely by the late 60's to early 70's.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,024
Reaction score
995
Sure. But as described, ESAR seems to be a PESA, with a central waveform generator/transmitter and phase shifters. My sense is that until the late 80s at earliest we'd be talking about PESAs regardless of frequency (and generally not X-band). AESAs, where each array element is a discrete transmit/receive module, are generally a product of the 1990s.
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,926
Reaction score
635
So you might right on ESAR but my reading suggests active arrays were always in their sights and while MIMC obviously made things a lot easier, early AESA efforts long predate the 80's.
What is clear is components materials technology held back X-band until the 70's.

All that said the description of NIGS/985 radar suggests multiple emitters rather than a single emitter. Simply by power output.
UK radar didn't lack for powerful emitter as earlier efforts show.

However if it is a PESA this doesn't change the process by which, had it continued, it would be of enormous benefit to the UK.
 
Last edited:

Flying Sorcerer

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
91
Reaction score
22
Because I lack a good quality drawing of the County class, I had to use some other means.
Now here is what I have in mind for the start of the drawing, to where to put the missile launchers:
View attachment 626147
By the angle of the lines the NIGS ship would be 17-18m wide and slightly longer say around 2-6m longer eg 161-165m overall

moving the launchers closer to each other would give a helideck on the fantail but the bridge and radar superstructures (I assume some sort of pyramidal similar to the current very ugly Daring or Type 45) would be quite close to each other. I assume Nuclear propulsion otherwise tall macks or a single large funnel are required
Attractive ships. A nieghbour of ours was a harbour pilot and he got me on HMS Kent and HMS London when they were in Vancouver on a port visit back in the 60s.
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
635
A good high resolution detailed drawing or plans of the Counties would be good to get to hold of...
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
635
Any ideas for Gun armament if any? Or short range defence? Like CIWS (40mm/70 Bofors m/58, or Itaian OTO-Breda Compact) or SeaCat SAM?
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,648
Reaction score
1,787
The 3"/70 Mk.6 AA gun that I mentioned earlier in the thread was quite well regarded, I believe. Seacat 2 would have also been very useful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zen

A Tentative Fleet Plan

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Apr 9, 2018
Messages
126
Reaction score
173
Any ideas for Gun armament if any? Or short range defence? Like CIWS (40mm/70 Bofors m/58, or Itaian OTO-Breda Compact) or SeaCat SAM?
The designs in Friedman have 4.5 inch guns (depending on the design study, either Mk5 Single Mountings or MkVI twin mountings), Seacat, Bidder and Limbo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zen

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
635
I've found this in Norman Friedman's "British Destroyers and Frigates WW2 and After"
page 193-194:
The Next-Generation Missile
Sea Dart was not directly related to Seaslug because the originally planned second-generation missile was a separate project. In the mid-1950's it had been a navalised version of the land based Blue Envoy, the 'Stage 1 3/4' missile. Blue Envoy was cancelled in the 1957 defence review, on the ground that by the time it was ready the main threat against the United Kingdom would be ballistic missiles, not bombers. It was understood that this argument did not apply to the fleet: the new follow-on to Sleaslug was the New Guided Missile System (NIGS). By 1955 there was a proposal for a higher-capacity fire control system analogous to the US Typhon, which ultimately evolved into the current Aegis. This idea probably helped inspire proposals for an electronically-scanned radar, the abortive Type 985.
[ADM 220/2179]

By September 1959 NIGS was envisaged as a semi-active homer using a 0,64-ton dart with a 0,83ton booster, fired from a twin launcher, presumably comparable in size to the projected long range version of the US Typhon, as then understood. By early 1960 it was credited with a range of 150nm. The missile was so much smaller then Seaslug that i seemed a much smaller ship could carry it. No such missile ever entered development, but as of 1959 it seemed to be very significant future possibility. Typhon may have been a NIGS alternative; a British constructor's notebook shows calculations for a Typhon installation in a 'County' class hull, with 64 or 80 missiles.
[Notebook 1073/3 includes calculations involving the characteristic Typhon tower with its SPG-59 radar.]

In June 1959 DNC ordered a sketch design of a NIGS frigate to see how big the ship would be. There was no tentative Staff Requirement. Although the designers began with a Type 12 hull, the end result was about the size of a 'County'. It would have been underpowered (for the usual 28kts deep and dirty) with a Type 12 powerplant. The missile system would have used for four surveillance radars, four guidance radars, and four illuminators, serving a twin launcher with 48 NIGS missiles. In addition there would have been a 4,5in gun aft (ultimately omitted) and two quadruple Seacats (GWS 21). The ASW battery would have been a lightweight helicopter (twelve torpedoes) directed on the basis of a Type 184 sonar. An early estimate was a 4.750 tons deep (424ft x 54ft x 15ft).A July 1959 attempt to boost speed to 28kts would have used a missile destroyer powerplant (60.000 SHP) in a 6.160-tonhull (440ft x 54ft x 41ft 6in depth).

An alternative Study 1B used typical Seaslug missile stowage: twin magazine conveyors (14 missiles each) and twin loaders (8 missiles each) for 2-ton missiles. Other armament would be a single Mk 5 gun (4,5in) and two Seacats, plus Limbo and 12 fixed torpedo tubes for Bidders. Study 1C omitted the gun. Study 1D added a missile battery aft, so the ship would have 40 missiles at each end. This ship would have displaced about 7.400 tons (470ft x 59ft), which was roughly comparable to (but shorter than) contemporary US double-ended missile ships (Leahy class). There was also ships with 64 missiles.
[Constructors' notebooks mentioned: Scheme 2, 'County' class conversion with 64 missiles; Scheme 3, 80 missiles; Scheme 5, two twin launchers, two twin 4,5in guns, 20-missile horizontal loader and 16-missile vertical loader plus 204 rounds stowage; Scheme 6, twin launchers with no guns; Scheme 7, variant of Scheme 6; Scheme 8, variant of Scheme 5; Scheme 10, two twin launchers with twin 6-missile loaders and 14-missile conveyors aft, twin 6-missile loaders forward, and no guns (also given as a 10-missile vertical drum forward and twin 10-missile loaders aft); Scheme 11, two twin launchers, twin 18-missile loaders, twin 18-missile conveyors, and two twin 4,5in guns; Scheme 12, one twin launcher aft (48 missiles) and two twin 4,5in guns forward. Scheme 13 was nuclear powered with two twin launchers (24 missiles each) displacing 7.700 tons (535ft x 60ft x 17,4ft 29,5kts deep and dirty), roughly equivalent to the contemporary USS Bainbridge, but with fewer missiles. Scheme 14 used conventional steam (7.386 tons, 535ft x 60ft x 17ft, 3.500nm at 20kts). Scheme 15 used a CONAS (nuclear/steam) plant (7.950 tons 550ft x 60ft x 17,4ft). Scheme 16 was all-nuclear (8.500 tons 560ft x 60ft x 18,1ft). Scheme 17 had a steam / gas turbine plant as in 'County']
There were several alternative launcher schemes: a Seaslug-type 13-missile horizontal loader or twin 10-missile horizontal loaders or a 16-missile vertical loader (as in Sea Dart) or twin 12-missile loaders or a 10-missile vertical drum loader; or magazines for 47 or 24 missiles or twin 18-missile conveyor stowage. The system might provide nuclear warhead stowage for up to 25% of the total. Nothing came of these studies because as early as November 1958 the Fleet Requirements Committee decided that the frigate-sized missile, SIGS (which became Sea Dart) was more urgent, as the future surface fleet would consist main of frigates, many of which would have to operated on detached service.

In addition to new missiles, First Sea Lord was intersted in nuclear powerplants, presumably inspired by the US nuclear 'frigate' (DLGN, Bainbridge) project. The US D1G nuclear powerplant was tried both in 'County' hull and in a fresh double-ended design. A preliminary drawing (about 1961) showed a 530ft long ship (48ft hull depth including a double bottom) displacing 8.250 tons, and probably capable of 28,5kts deep and dirty. There was also a CONAS (nuclear-steam) (note Friedman here written CONAD which implies Combined Nuclear And Diesel but in the brackets he states Nuclear Steam so I assume he originally meant CONAS)
study for the Director General of Engineering (successor to E-in-C) using a 20.000 SHP reactor plus a 20.000 SHP pressure-fired boiler; another study considered 30.000 SHP nuclear and 30.000 SHP pressure-fired plants. It is not clear how serious these studies were, but the nuclear theme returned several times later.

For NIGS, nuclear power was important as a way of providing the enormous electrical power that a very large radar system might require. This idea had originated in the United States in the context of the Typhon system, and references to it occur in the design notebook of W. J. Holt, a senior British constructor.
 
Last edited:

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
2,426
Reaction score
1,070
Tzoli Thank you for reproducing all this. My Friedman's are buried in boxes at the moment.
The important detail for me is as early as November 1958 the FRC decided that SIG was more urgent. This is very similar to what was happening in the USN where the early enthusiasm for the big cruisers and TALOS was turning to interest in Frigate/Destroyer Leaders initially with TYPHON and in the 60s with STANDARD
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
635
For me all the large number of at least 16 schemes plus the small frigate sized early proposals. There should be many papers in the archives and most likely a few hull drawings as well!
 

Hood

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,785
Reaction score
1,058
Friedman's passage throws up more questions than answers in some regards and led us up some blind alleys when this thread was begun.
We haven't seen the June 1959 sketch he mentions but this part of the description makes no sense from what we've seen in the Kew files. He describes the system as;
"The missile system would have used for four surveillance radars, four guidance radars, and four illuminators, serving a twin launcher with 48 NIGS missiles"
He seems to have doubled the fire-control radars from 4 to 8! On this based 12 radars would be needed for a single-launcher arrangement!
So something seems off from his description.

I am still puzzling over the four 5kW illuminators. From JFC's description on page 6, it seems likely that all four would be mounted together. As others have pointed out this seems rather cramped, both for conflicting arcs (assuming some are side-by-side if not 'stepped') and if they are mounted above the main search radar block it would be a complicated structure with perhaps potential for interference. Is it possible the illuminator block would be placed aft away from the main search radar?
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,926
Reaction score
635
So here's something that doesn't tally with shown NIGS missile on this thread.
"The missile was so much smaller then Seaslug that i seemed a much smaller ship could carry it".
As the shown weapon is huge, substantially larger in l dimensions bar the missile's diameter (a legacy hangover from Sea Slug I suspect).

However when one looks at Typhon-LR and ponders the integrated Bristol ramjet missile, then this does seem very possible.
It furthermore seems possible when one considers what JCF Fuller has found concerning at 9" dish seeker for NIGS.

It's possible that the ultimate NIGS evolution could end up looking not that different from Sea Dart, save for a larger booster. Internally it would be a ramjet optimised for higher speeds however.
It's equally possible it looks like SIGS-16, save for the booster and the higher temperature materials.
In each case the Dart would be notably smaller than Sea Slug and the complete missile would still be shorter than the 20ft long Sea Slug.
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,926
Reaction score
635
Friedman's passage throws up more questions than answers in some regards and led us up some blind alleys when this thread was begun.
We haven't seen the June 1959 sketch he mentions but this part of the description makes no sense from what we've seen in the Kew files. He describes the system as;
"The missile system would have used for four surveillance radars, four guidance radars, and four illuminators, serving a twin launcher with 48 NIGS missiles"
He seems to have doubled the fire-control radars from 4 to 8! On this based 12 radars would be needed for a single-launcher arrangement!
So something seems off from his description.

I am still puzzling over the four 5kW illuminators. From JFC's description on page 6, it seems likely that all four would be mounted together. As others have pointed out this seems rather cramped, both for conflicting arcs (assuming some are side-by-side if not 'stepped') and if they are mounted above the main search radar block it would be a complicated structure with perhaps potential for interference. Is it possible the illuminator block would be placed aft away from the main search radar?
So one option is that like Type 85 Firelight and Type 87 Scorpion, these are combination mountings of TIR and a height finding set, possibly with separate ECM assessment equipment as well.
However another thought is he's describing separate Target Tracking sets and Missile Tracking sets. Essential for the ranges involved.

Of course opting for a Burke style 45 degrees off ships longitudinal axis arrangement for the 985 arrays would keep the TTR and MTR sets out of the 985's view.
 

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
2,426
Reaction score
1,070
For my part the Cruiser (Mountbatten's favoured ship) versus the Frigate debate in the RN is the fascinating one. There were even attempts at a small helicopter ship, presumably also on a Type 12 hull. How much of a saving was made by going down the small as opposed to large hull route, given the size and weight of modern weapons, is dubious. The Batch 3 Type 22s were almost like light cruisers..
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
635
A very first basic drawing to show how large the missile and launchers together with the 20ft x 20ft radars on the largest Nuclear hull (8.500tons 560ft x 60ft or 170,7m x 18,3m) Not sure if we need 8 radar panels but that is what Friedman implies and what you guys thinking of.
 
Last edited:

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
635
Friedman's passage throws up more questions than answers in some regards and led us up some blind alleys when this thread was begun.
We haven't seen the June 1959 sketch he mentions but this part of the description makes no sense from what we've seen in the Kew files. He describes the system as;
"The missile system would have used for four surveillance radars, four guidance radars, and four illuminators, serving a twin launcher with 48 NIGS missiles"
He seems to have doubled the fire-control radars from 4 to 8! On this based 12 radars would be needed for a single-launcher arrangement!
So something seems off from his description.

I am still puzzling over the four 5kW illuminators. From JFC's description on page 6, it seems likely that all four would be mounted together. As others have pointed out this seems rather cramped, both for conflicting arcs (assuming some are side-by-side if not 'stepped') and if they are mounted above the main search radar block it would be a complicated structure with perhaps potential for interference. Is it possible the illuminator block would be placed aft away from the main search radar?
I think Frieadman meant that for a single ended ship aka one twin launcher you need 4-4-4 radars (surveillance, illumination, guidance) so for a double ended two twin launchers version you need 8-8-8 though I don't know why you need 8 surveillance radars???
Contemporary USN missile ships had 1-1 illumination and guidance per arm eg 2-2 for a twin arm, and only like 1-2 surveillance for the entire ship? I'm not good at radars though....
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,926
Reaction score
635
A very first basic drawing to show how large the missile and launchers together with the 20ft x 20ft radars on the largest Nuclear hull (8.500tons 560ft x 60ft or 170,7m x 18,3m) Not sure if we need 8 radar panels but that is what Friedman implies and what you guys thinking of.
I don't think you need to double the 985 sets.
But it's clear that the system needs a target tracking and illumination set and a separate missile tracking set for each engagement.
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,926
Reaction score
635
How much of a saving was made by going down the small as opposed to large hull route, given the size and weight of modern weapons, is dubious. The Batch 3 Type 22s were almost like light cruisers..
Well when we look at the comparison between a Cruiser with twin Sea Dart Systems and the Type 82 DDG, it seems that for 50% more cost per ship you get more than twice (200%) more capability.
One might say that constrained ship size results in constrained ship life and constrained ship utility.
 

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
2,426
Reaction score
1,070
I do think the US experience with TALOS is helpful to designing essentially an RN equivalent. Apart from the converted flagships like LITTLE ROCK US ships had either TARTAR or TERRIER as well. This probably contributed to RN going for SIGS on a single sam-type ship.
The three ALBANY ships were also used as fleet flagships and Task Force protection.
The RN had only at most three such Task Forces to protect So a NIGS ship would be like a fleet carrier in role and cost.
I tend to see the 1957 cruiser entering service in the late 50s replacing the three TIGER and BELFAST . Assuming a faster development time for Seaslug. NIGS would then have replaced the fit in the early 60s. However, this would have meant no County class.
If SIGS had also worked as originally hoped, Type 12 Leanders with the system would have arrived around 1966.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zen

Hood

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,785
Reaction score
1,058
I think Frieadman meant that for a single ended ship aka one twin launcher you need 4-4-4 radars (surveillance, illumination, guidance) so for a double ended two twin launchers version you need 8-8-8 though I don't know why you need 8 surveillance radars???
Contemporary USN missile ships had 1-1 illumination and guidance per arm eg 2-2 for a twin arm, and only like 1-2 surveillance for the entire ship? I'm not good at radars though....
No I think Friedman meant the system regardless of launchers needed 4 surveillance and 4 illumination and 4 guidance.
From what has been found in the official files only 4 (minimum 3) illumination sets have been mentioned. I think Friedman was confused (and Friedman is not unknown to make some errors during his research)
So I would on this basis say the NIGS system had 4 surveillance and 4 illumination sets.

To come to Zen's point on the size, I feel the same way. NIGS is not especially smaller than Seaslug. Yes the magazine is more space effective in allowing you to cram in far more missiles per square foot than even the Sea Slug vertical stowage arrangements, but once you take into account the radars and generators etc. it would be a far more bulky and heavier system overall. So its no wonder it didn't fit on a Type 12 hull! Given how much was stripped off the County as the design progressed its a wonder how those early sketches Friedman refers too have ASW armament and helicopters as well as NIGS (admittedly a single-end ship).

Your point about the Type 85 and 87 sets is true, but not sure how that squares with the 5kW power limit, feels a bit low if is twin-dish set.
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,926
Reaction score
635
3 channels of fire....No.
3 separate targets to be track-able simultaneously at 3 significantly separate bearings. Yes.

However 3 illuminators because of the ranges does allow more than three missiles in flight.
However if we talk of seperate missile tracking radars, this again limits engagement to 3 simultaneously.

A key question would be how many command guidance datalinks....?

As this could permit a far higher staggering of engagements. Switching illuminator onto a target free up not just a MTR but also the datalink for another target.

Again consider the jump in engagement range for Sea Dart 39nm to 80nm and how little seems to change on the guidance sets shipboard. Could this be a lingering legacy of NIGS and ADAWS?
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
635
Now the question is.
What and how many radars I should put on my drawing?
As suggested 4x Type 985. The British SCANFAR
1x MRS for the Gun if I decided it will stay, but looks like there is enough space.
I intend to put 2-4 Seacats so that is 2-4 more radars though not sure which. MRS?
Others?
 
  • Like
Reactions: zen

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,926
Reaction score
635
For a Cruiser separate gun radar seems reasonable.

But Sea Cat?
Probably not.
SIGS maybe or PT.428 or Mauler seems more logical.
 

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
2,426
Reaction score
1,070
Depends on how what-if vs fantasy fleet you want to go
Seacat in its early version is closest to reality
PT428 and other paper weapons can only really appear in mid 60s
SIGS if still TARTAR clone with single launcher and small drum possile in mid 60s
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,250
Reaction score
736
Timelines and process are causing chaos here. The section from Friedman quoted earlier in the thread appears to be drawn almost entirely from constructors notebooks and what dates he includes suggest that most of these rough concepts come from 1959. I suspect they reflect what were two ongoing areas of study at the time but that they are in no way representative of the final NIGS configuration, from about 1961, which is what I described in post 227. The two areas of study:

NIGS: The minutes, and a few random bits of correspondence, from the NIGS working group are contained in AVIA 65/949. From reading that file it seems to me that multiple missile configurations (labelled as NIG.XX, XX being numbers) were looked at on the way to arriving at the twin-ramjet version shown in the diagrams posted earlier in the thread. It is my contention that the different configurations described by Friedman are likely the result of this study process and ship designed were simply responding to different missile and radar/guidance configurations as they were proposed before the final configuration was settled.

Nuclear Propulsion: In 1958 a very detailed study was undertaken into nuclear propulsion for surface ships, this involved looking at a range of configurations (CONAG, CONAS, etc) with the county class as a reference point. This culminated in a very detailed drawing showing a layout for a 75,000 SHP CONAG plant. However, the one bit that wasn't detailed was the reactors which are shown as empty squares with the desired SHP for each typed inside them. The study group chose the county class independently, they were not pursuing a specific requirement, and the Admiralty seems to have had no intention of designing a reactor. The various propulsion arrangements mentioned by Friedman may have come from this study, but again, the final NIGS report is clear that the intention was to use the standard County class machinery.

To be absolutely clear, the final NIGS report describes the system I outlined in post 227 and was proposing that it would be installed in a Hampshire class hull as shown in the diagrams in this thread. That hull would have had the same machinery as the Sea Slug county class and no gun armament. Purely my speculation, but based on the inclusion of Sea Cat on the County class alone I would assume some sort of close range weapon.

With regard to the radar, I have managed to do a bit more digging. The first proposal for a Frequency Scanning Radar is made by ASRE in 1957 and was for a 30ft x 30ft rotating array with a peak transmitter power of 2.5MW. The NIGS arrays were fixed and there would have been four per ship. Based on an ASWE report from 1961, they would have actually been 20ft wide and 15ft high (I was wrong again) with 88 phase changers, 88 frequency scanners and a feed line with 88 outputs. They would have been able to handle a peak power input of 2.5MW. R&D work seems to slow down with abandonment of NIGS but does not completely stop, in 1963 a report is commissioned from someone at Leeds University to look at high power ferromagnetic phase shifters. Later, in 1968 a large (6ft x 6ft based on photos) stacked phase shifting planar array is built and used to test mechanical and electrically controlled ferrite phase shifters. My radar knowledge is weak but the concept seems to have moved on and is now described as Phase Scanning. A peak power upto 4MW is referenced for this design.
 
Last edited:

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
2,426
Reaction score
1,070
JFC I think the problem is that if you go with NIGS on a County, perhaps on Norfolk and Antrim first, using the 1961 frame you end up at best with a highly expensive limited ability ship. Norfolk lets say starts trials some time in the second half of the 60s.
However, that does seem the closest to what was planned before NIGS is replaced by SIGS
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
635
Erm.... Seacat was a base equipm
For a Cruiser separate gun radar seems reasonable.

But Sea Cat?
Probably not.
SIGS maybe or PT.428 or Mauler seems more logical.
Erm.... Seacat was a basic weapon for the Counties so it's logical that this design too would carry it.
I'm not for fantasy designs as I've posted there are multiple schemes draw up for the NIGS warship.
SeaMauler would be quite a tall system to mount.
Also what is PT.428?

But I'm askign for radars. Weapons system I'm sure what to put on.
What I'm asking of what the RN used for tracking, illumination and surveillance at that time, 1960's.
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,250
Reaction score
736
But I'm askign for radars. Weapons system I'm sure what to put on.
What I'm asking of what the RN used for tracking, illumination and surveillance at that time, 1960's.
Perhaps this has got lost in the thread. The final radar configuration for NIGS would have had a surveillance radar with 4 fixed arrays, each 20ft wide and 15ft high, this radar would have incorporated the tracking function too. With the surveillance radar providing the tracking function and a large SARH dish in the nose of the missile the illuminators would have been simple 6ft mechanically pointed dishes. There would have been four illuminators.

The ASWE approach to a SIGS radar, prior to the decision to adopt the Broomstick/Type 988 was similar in that they wanted to incorporate the tracking function in the surveillance radar in order to make the missile control radars as light and simple as possible. The inability of the Type 988 to perform the tracking function, combined with the choice of J-band for homing, is why the Type 909 ended up as a tracker-illuminator rather than just an illuminator. ASWE wanted to use C-band for the surveillance radar as they felt S-band was getting crowded at sea and having the fleet with a mix of S and C-band systems would complicate enemy jamming.
 
Last edited:

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
635
Okay but I would had helped with a complete radar set. I will stay with the Counties then:
1x Type 977/978,
1x Type 965,
1x Type 277/278,
1x Type 992/993,
2-4+1 Type 903 or 904 / MRS for the Seacats and Gun control
4x Type 985
4x 1,8m (6ft) dish for illumination? 4x for the two twin launchers or 4 per side? I imagine a small scale Type 277P:
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,926
Reaction score
635
SCANFAR ended up separating search/warning from tracking sets.

So how could the British effort avoid this?

Well that might be the use of separate computers, allowing parallel processing of tracks, and while processing speed would dictate how much can be done per computer and much can be combined for a unified display.
But such things are ultimately a function of memory.
And memory, back then is the major expense.

We forget now just how restrictive the cost of memory was, even disc space for virtual memory.

Such matters dictate how many tracks can be held.

There would be a balance between cost of the system and performance.
The parallel RAF system being land based and handling defence of the UK would be justified in having major resources poured into it.

If my memory (ha!) and reading are right, then Marconi sets ended up being FBR developments. Instead of full PESA with Scanning beam(s), they relied on illuminating wide areas and handling the mass return 'picture'. All being done at once might sound complex, but it's just a series of wedged shaped beams all giving returns on a screen and then sweeping around the sky mechanically.

If my reading is correct, this is also how the fixed SLAR derived AEW option was supposed to work.

And it's the picture that ultimately is what's wanted.

This takes is back to the picture, the view of what's in the sky and where. Processing this and then displaying it, evaluating the tracks and deciding what to intercept is the ultimate objective of the system.

So ultimately for PESA and AESA while they be the longterm future, be not necessarily the most affordable or even important system to develop.
Rather the system to handle the tracks of the returns from the radar.

Which means that NIGS's future would end up ditching the expensive and complex arrays, as such and rely on simpler, lighter fixed versions of what became the likes of STAR and the Martello series.
 
Last edited:

DWG

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
686
Reaction score
399
I knew the Russians should have good quality scans!
Amused to note the Polish(?) language one appears to get everything right except the flags, the red and white saltires should be overlaid red over white, not side by side.
 

A Tentative Fleet Plan

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Apr 9, 2018
Messages
126
Reaction score
173
Okay but I would had helped with a complete radar set. I will stay with the Counties then:
1x Type 977/978,
1x Type 965,
1x Type 277/278,
1x Type 992/993,
2-4+1 Type 903 or 904 / MRS for the Seacats and Gun control
4x Type 985
4x 1,8m (6ft) dish for illumination? 4x for the two twin launchers or 4 per side? I imagine a small scale Type 277P:
A NIGS armed design woul not need the Type 965 for long-range air search or the Type 278 for height-finding as the Type 985 could do the job of both. For the illuminator dish, I would go for a scaled-down Type 909 radar.
 
Last edited:

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,926
Reaction score
635
So what would certainly remain is the ECM and receiver aerials, and EW jammers.
You'll still have UHF, VHF and a number of other aerials.
Surface search might remain separate.
There would be datalink transmitters.

The Illuminators might be more like the main Type 86 Firelight dish. Fairly simple in appearance.
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
635
To me this looks like a smaller Ticonderoga on a County hull as I'm working on the drawing:


Question how would effect the tracking of the radars if I put the Type 985 diagonally 45 degrees from the axes similar to Arleigh Burke and not on the axes as in Long Beach?
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,250
Reaction score
736
Hi Tzoli,

I really like that drawing and, along with now knowing the arrays were only 15ft tall, its got me thinking. I would suggest the following changes based on the timeframe and the archive material:

1) Move the two aft facing arrays to a block aft, approximately where you have the aft Sea Cat launcher and director
2) As you said, angle the arrays at 45 degrees from the centreline, as in the later Aegis ships (should improve interference issues with masts and radars)
3) Make the masts for the directors into MACKs (combined exhausts and masts) to reflect the fact this would have been a COSAG ship
4) Delete the forward Sea Cat launchers and directors - the counties only had the two aft
5) The archive material is clear that no gun was planned but I like the idea of a hull stretch to accommodate a 4.5" Mk.8 forward, these ships were not going to complete until 1970 so the later Mk.8, as used in HMS Bristol, seems more likely
 
Top