RN Type 19 Frigate

uk 75

uk 75

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
27 September 2006
Messages
5,744
Reaction score
5,618
Another 60s RN mystery ship is the Type 19 frigate.

Although the published sources go into great detail about the
development of the ship and even give an indication of the
numbers to be built, the only drawings in Brown/Moore are
of ships derived from the Type 19 design in the 1966 Working
Party papers.

Since this ship would have been the primary RN frigate to replace
the Leander class on the production line in plans up until 1965/6
it is odd that so little exists about the design in plan or sketch
form.

UK 75
 
uk 75 said:
Another 60s RN mystery ship is the Type 19 frigate.

Although the published sources go into great detail about the
development of the ship and even give an indication of the
numbers to be built, the only drawings in Brown/Moore are
of ships derived from the Type 19 design in the 1966 Working
Party papers.

Since this ship would have been the primary RN frigate to replace
the Leander class on the production line in plans up until 1965/6
it is odd that so little exists about the design in plan or sketch
form.

UK 75
Click to expand...

I've never seen a drawing of the actual Type 19, which was a very odd design with 4(!) Olympus turbines for a 40 knot flank speed, but there were two studies of a ship with the same hull in "Rebuilding the Royal Navy." Studies 387 and 389 are supposed to be Type 19 variants with half of the propulsion plant, which still gives a perfectly adequate 28-30 knot top speed.

From what I've gathered, the Type 19 was very conventional in appearance, and even seemed to be based on the "common hull frigate" design of the Type 12 and Type 41/61.
 
I'm equally intrigued by the Type 19.

The only images I've seen are the identical one featured in Brown and in Friedmans British Destroyer and Frigates which is on the more "conventional" Frigate with a CODOG powerplant of two Olympus and Ventura Diesel.

I have previously tried to find images of the High Speed version of the design without success.

I have speculated that the downtake and uptake structure would have been quite impressive, and could even have been twin uptakes, such as on the Kashin's which have roughly equal power.

With regard to the more conventional version of the Type 19, I have wondered why it was not proceeded with it seems to be a well thought out design. I guess that the attempt to reduce cost by adopting a commercially derived design - what became the Type 21 - killed it. Although I would be interested to see a comparison of the cost of the Type 21 with the cost of the Type 19 taking into account money already spent, and would the Type 19 have found oversea's buyers?
 
There are three reasons why the Type 19 went nowhere, at least in the ridiculously fast concept being discussed here.

1) No final design had been drafted when the massive doctrinal shift came with the withdrawal from East of Suez/Carrier cancellation: Even if such a design had existed the fleet structure that the ship was to be part of was dead.

1) The massive propulsive plant made it far more expensive than a Leander

2) It lacked a worthwhile armament and sensor suite for the new fleet structure that called for a well balanced force of high quality frigates rather than the multi-layered CVA-01 generation fleet model.

Escort cruiser, CVA-01, Type-17, Type-19 and Type-82 all die with the realisation of two inextricably linked truth's. UK presence East of Suez in the face of a seemingly existential threat to survival of the homeland in home waters was unaffordable, as was the fleet to maintain it. Thus the fleet was redesigned as a dedicated North Atlantic ASW/ASuW force to support NATO operations in the European theatre.
 
The kind publication of MOD artwork of the Type 44 destroyer leads me to wonder whether any similar artwork exists of the 1960s design for the Type 19 Frigate. This and the final 1962/3 design for the Escort Cruiser (Helicopter) are as mysterious as the Type 44. We have speculative drawings but nothing original like the Type 44 and 43 paintings. It is tantalizing to think that they may be lurking somewhere waiting to be revealed.
 
Putting this here because although the original ships were not Type 19, this thread is the only one we have about Type 19.

Doing some research I came across an interesting document calculating requirements for the number of Wasps required for 1st April 1976, the document was written on 19 March 1965, i.e. before the Type 19 was recast and before the Labour defence review of 1966.

Among the numbers required 50 were allocated to frigates (notably none were allocated to destroyers). The document breaks down the likely frigate force (with the caveat those equipped with Wasp) of 1976:
24 Leanders
6 Rothesays
6 Type 81s
13 Type 19
1 Minimum Escort

Freidman mentions at one point a requirement for ten Type 19 but here we have 13 and the Minimum Escort is I guess the A/s Corvette that was being studied at this time.
 
Interesting info, what was the source?

One point, I cannot see the superstitious RN adopting a T13.
 
The source is a handwritten document in file ADM 327/1 WASP HAS I Follow On Order
The document is entitled Wasp HAS I – Estimated Airframe Requirements as at 1st April, 1976. The document was written by L. G. Painting (unfortunately no job title, but I'm sure I've seen his name elsewhere I need to have a dig), dated 19th March 1963.

It is of course a snapshot, as we know the escort mix was churning all the time, the Minimum Escort in this list would really come to life until later in 1963 when DS363 was drawn up (though that design had no helicopter, neither did the Jan 63 Second Rate Escort design) and in 1964 the Ikara Frigate (Type 17) was being studied and that did have MATCH. D.K. Brown in Rebuilding the Royal Navy confirms the desire to procure 13 Type 19, but both Brown and Friedman seem very sketchy on dates of exactly when work began on Type 19. They seem to imply a late 1963-64 date but obviously by March 1963 some characteristics and likely force structure was already known.

Another document in the file indicates 5 Wasps were initially assigned for Terra Nova but that before cancellation there was a plan for the ship to carry the Whirlwind HAR.Mk.9 instead.
 
As I understood it the Type 19 started as a result of the naval staff wanting a high speed frigate because of the Indonesian confrontation. Hence the design with the 4 shafts and 4 Olympus, of which I have never seen an image. It then evolved into the more mature design with 2 shafts a 2 Olympus and Paxman Valetta's, armed with a 4.5" gun, SS10 (I think), Seacat (with provision for Sinner/Sea Wolf) and a match helicopter. Images of this version are in Friedmans Destroyers and Frigates and Browns Rebuilding the Royal Navy.
 
JohnR said:
Interesting info, what was the source?

One point, I cannot see the superstitious RN adopting a T13.
Click to expand...

I think that is a typo, the number of of ships planned (13) being swapped with the designation number (19).
 
I've never read about the ASW connection before, just the Indonesian link.

I would dearly love to see a sketch of the high powered variant though.

Regards.
 
JohnR said:
I've never read about the ASW connection before, just the Indonesian link.

I would dearly love to see a sketch of the high powered variant though.
Click to expand...

I think it looked basically the same as the medium powered variant in DK Brown. The extra turbines would fit in the same engine room and the exhaust would fill up the entire stack instead of having that RHIB between the two funnels.

High speed was rightly seen as the only way to keep a much faster FAC within the weapons arcs of the maritime interdiction frigate/corvette (maritime interdiction is wha the RAN called this boat bashing mission) until the advent of the shipboard helicopter that did more than just drop a torpedo where told or pick up the mailbags. The same situation applies for hunting submarines. Once the helicopter could base the boats (with AS12 in the RN) and/or deploy a ASW sensor speed in the ship was no longer needed.

Of interest when the RAN was looking at what become the Type 21 for their GPE requirement they wanted high speed (>35 knots) to bash boats. All the Type 21 needed to meet this speed requirement was a stronger hull. The two Olympus turbines could provide the torque needed for such high speeds but with the light hull as originally designed this speed could not be maintained without dangerous structural strain.
 
That was the thing with the T21 pretty but flimsy.

I do think that one modification that could have been made to either of the conceptual T19 or the actual T21 for boat bashing would have been to replace the relatively slow firing Mk8 with the OTO 76. What are your opinions gentlemen?
 
JohnR said:
That was the thing with the T21 pretty but flimsy.

I do think that one modification that could have been made to either of the conceptual T19 or the actual T21 for boat bashing would have been to replace the relatively slow firing Mk8 with the OTO 76. What are your opinions gentlemen?
Click to expand...

The RAN ships were to have twin rapid fire Hispano 30mms for this job. The RN was looking at guided weapons like the SS12 missile. And of course there was the CFS Mk 2 3.3" (84mm, ie 20 pounder) gun that was developed for this role onboard MTGs in the 1950s. Which later re-emerged as a similar turret but with the 105mm L7 gun.

The OTO-Gun was a new arrival on the scene around this time (1960s) and of course an ideal weapon for the job. Bofors developed an accurate stablised gun developed from their coastal 75mm weapon but firing the very similar USN 76mm L50 anti-air shell. This was a much lower velocity 76mm than the L62 ordnance used by the OTO-Gun. The RN had planed a single barrel version of their 76mm L70 AA gun in the 1940s but it was never fully funded. Would have been an OTO-Gun for the 1950s.
 
Adopting the OTO would have been a bit if a disaster for the Falklands, given the amount of time the T21s spent on the gun line. The smaller gun wouldn't have done nearly so well for NGFS.
 
TomS said:
Adopting the OTO would have been a bit if a disaster for the Falklands, given the amount of time the T21s spent on the gun line. The smaller gun wouldn't have done nearly so well for NGFS.
Click to expand...

I doubt that. Most of the NGS missions were just supression and harrassment. Which is putting lots of splinters into the air above the Argentine positions to force their troops into their foxholes and make them generally feel uncomfortable. The 76mm OTO-Gun can actually fire this type of mission better than the 113mm Mk 8. Plus it would massacre the Argentine anti shipping strike fighters as they tried to pull away after dropping their bombs.
 
I'd have to go back and look at the geography and actual firing distances in the Falklands, but the OTO only has about half the ballistic range as the Mk 8. That's going to limit its effectiveness in NGFS considerably.
 
TomS said:
I'd have to go back and look at the geography and actual firing distances in the Falklands, but the OTO only has about half the ballistic range as the Mk 8. That's going to limit its effectiveness in NGFS considerably.
Click to expand...

The Oto 76mm was not a more effective NGS weapon than the 4.5" Mk.8. In fact the RN specifically approved the 4.5" Mk.8 over the 76mm on the Type 23 in 1983 in large part due to the excellent performance of that weapon in the NGS role during the Falklands. That NGS role also consisted of more than just harassment and suppression; RN ships had been training to provide direct NGS support to RM landings and assaults for years and that is just what they did during that conflict.
 
For NGFS the RN would have been better served by a 5" L62, just as they wanted for the 'Cruiser-Destroyer' concept of the 1950s, though I have a sneeking suspicion they had eyes on Green Mace (aiming for a 144mm gun) at the start.

For the anti-FAC role, the CFS 3.3" was said to be a good weapon in the 50's, and curiously later on the 105mm L62 from a Centurion Tank was felt to be a good first shot first kill weapon for the Castles and if the whole turret was lifted for the job, a lot cheaper.

However in anti-FAC and AAA the 3" L70 had lots of potential if only we'd produced a single version to compliment the twin and frankly a single would be more applicable in place of twin 40mm L70 Bofors across a wider range of platforms.

But then if we're really into irony, the RN turns to the 4.7" as the Army turns to the 4.5" and then the Army likes the 120mm (4.7") and the RN turns to the 4.5" because it has no suitable mounting for future 4.7" guns.
Meanwhile the Swedes develop 120mm L45 and later 120mm L55 DP guns sort of rubbing it in....as do the Russians in similar calibres.

This carries on with the Navy wanting a 5" L62 and eyeing up the 144mm AAA, but sticks for cost reasons with the 4.5" and 6" (152mm) only to abandon the latter becauase just like the 3" they never fund a single mount.
And then just to continue the joke, the Army focuses on 155mm and the Navy opts to follow the herd and go for 5" (127mm) but only after decades of using 4.5".

I'm sure you notice how I missed out the whole 3.7" gun here.....better than the German 88 but the mounting didn't like horizontal firing.
Never mind we built a 4" 102mm testbed for Green Mace only to drop and it and then rule out Vickers 4" naval mount as too heavy and crucially...too slow.
 
TomS said:
I'd have to go back and look at the geography and actual firing distances in the Falklands, but the OTO only has about half the ballistic range as the Mk 8. That's going to limit its effectiveness in NGFS considerably.
Click to expand...

The OTO gun can shoot NGS to 10 NM and the Mk 8 to 12 NM booth with conventional ammunition. So the difference is minimal.
 
An anecdote, I know, but The Boss (DJ Andrews, worked with DK Brown) has it drilled into him from his days in MoD that 76mm is the minimum acceptable for NGFS, with anything more being an improvement. The point of this tale is that the concept designers at least saw 76mm as acceptable. What little discussion we have had on it indicates that they were more worried about the height of trajectory (and steepness of descent), which allows firing over fjords, than the absolute range.

RP1
 
Thanks to this board we found the official image of the Type 44. I like to think that someone out there
will come across a sketch or something to show us a bit more about the Type 19
 
uk 75 said:
Thanks to this board we found the official image of the Type 44. I like to think that someone out there
will come across a sketch or something to show us a bit more about the Type 19
Click to expand...

"Rebuilding the Royal Navy" page 93 top left corner. Just fill in the gap between the two funnels for one big wide funnel and there is the Type 19.
 
Chaps
The reason I am being fussy is that drawings in books are often not the full story.
For example, we did not see the accurate final drawings of CVA01 until the excellent article in WATRSHIP.
I am still waiting to find what the 1962 Seadart Escort Cruiser actually would have looked like.
Type 19 was the original next frigate of the RN, so I find it hard to believe that the drawing of a later iteration
from a 1966 report is the only source.
 
Friedman describes DS387 as "effectively a derivative of the earlier Type 19". However in these matters I back D.K. Brown over Friedman and the difference is probably very small.
 
The drawing of the Type 44 in Brown/Moore and Friedman was nothing like the artwork that finally emerged here.
Equally neither sources explained that the final drawings of CVA01 were in fact very different. So I am looking forward one day
to seeing the original artwork/sketches for the Type 19 and for the 1962 Escort Cruiser
 
uk 75 said:
The drawing of the Type 44 in Brown/Moore and Friedman was nothing like the artwork that finally emerged here.
Equally neither sources explained that the final drawings of CVA01 were in fact very different. So I am looking forward one day
to seeing the original artwork/sketches for the Type 19 and for the 1962 Escort Cruiser
Click to expand...

Very true, however looking back at Friedman's British Carrier Aviation I noticed there were two ling drawings of CVA-01, one was one of his own typical internal layout sketches and another with a side and top view drawn by someone else and very similar to the one in Chesneau's Aircraft Carriers book of the same vintage.
Looking at Friedman's sketch it obviously matches the final design as shown in Ian Sturton's Warship 2014 article, it has the sloped forward face on the island and other matching details. The other drawing, which was reproduced elsewhere, was probably a mix of interpretations of the official painting and the earlier 1963 design and is badly inaccurate. So there's no doubt the final design was probably known about and Friedman must have copied the drawing for his book but it was not illustrated more widely (30 year rule?) nor accurately labelled by Friedman. So the truth is sometimes hidden in plain sight.
However, the early Type 19 design is intriguing, I suspect it was similar to the later designs but equally it may have been quite different in details if not in general layout.

I would think official paintings of projects were quite rare, I know of the Cruiser-Destroyer painting but few others have surfaced until the CVA-01 and few after that. I suspect only those nearing ordering were painted in those days.
 
Even the painting of the cruiser destroyer is wrong, the forward torpedo tubes are way too far forward.
 
Hood said:
I would think official paintings of projects were quite rare, I know of the Cruiser-Destroyer painting but few others have surfaced until the CVA-01 and few after that. I suspect only those nearing ordering were painted in those days.
Click to expand...

You're probably right, but Hobbs' British Strike Fleet identifies an official RN artist on the early CVA-01 Artwork, and that was 2 years before ordering, but on the other hand - it was THE main naval project of that time. On the other hand, we know there was a job position associated with official paintings, so who know what else they produced?
 
After the recent discussion and conclusions about the type 82 helo I thought I would ask if anyone had found any new info about the Type 19 beyond the coverage in Friedman and Brown/Moore?
 
Rather than start a further thread, I wondered if anyone had any additional information (other than Brown and Friedman) on the Anglo/Dutch cooperative design that preceded the Type 22 and the Standard Class frigates?

Regards.
 
It has been some years now since we looked atthe evolution of British frigate design.
For those new to this subject, the starting point is Brown and Moore Rebuilding the Royal Navy and Norman Friedmans British Destroyers and Frigates.
However, some members here do use the National Archives.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom