Royal Navy decides to abandon carriers earlier- options?

uk 75 said:
I think the RAF might have tried to emulate the Soviet long range approach of using aircraft like the Bear for both ASW, missile delivery and targeting.
Click to expand...
Consideration was given to the idea of using Valiants carrying Green Cheese to counter the Sverdlovs.
 
CNH said:
uk 75 said:
I think the RAF might have tried to emulate the Soviet long range approach of using aircraft like the Bear for both ASW, missile delivery and targeting.
Click to expand...
Consideration was given to the idea of using Valiants carrying Green Cheese to counter the Sverdlovs.
Click to expand...

I have that vision of Prince Valiant fighting a very angry bear by throwing some glowing rotten cheese in its face...

en.wikipedia.org

Prince Valiant - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
It does seem that airpower would always be the answer to commerce raiders once you have long range maritime patrol aircraft and the carrier is in it’s ascendecy. Relying on a classic gun duel is akin to the Yamoto suicide dash, bit also reflects the RNs weird desire as late as 1945 and after WW2 to still build battleships. I accept there are conditions where that capability is needed, but it is niche and not the existential justification that is needed for such scales of resource.
 
Archibald said:
Consideration was given to the idea of using Valiants carrying Green Cheese to counter the Sverdlovs.


I have that vision of Prince Valiant fighting a very angry bear by throwing some glowing rotten cheese in its face...

en.wikipedia.org

Prince Valiant - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
I think you must be related to the Secretary of State for Air Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, V.C.
 
CNH said:
Archibald said:
Consideration was given to the idea of using Valiants carrying Green Cheese to counter the Sverdlovs.


I have that vision of Prince Valiant fighting a very angry bear by throwing some glowing rotten cheese in its face...

en.wikipedia.org

Prince Valiant - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
I think you must be related to the Secretary of State for Air Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, V.C.
Click to expand...

Dare to explain ? this flew above my head (and understanding)
 
Archibald said:
Dare to explain ? this flew above my head (and understanding)
Click to expand...
"At a recent Air Ministry meeting the Secretary of State for Air Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, V.C. made a statement to the effect that he disliked the code name "Green Cheese” and expressed the wish that it could be changed.
2. It is appreciated that code names for these projects are selected and allocated by the Ministry of Supply and this particular one has been in use for a considerable time. However, in spite of the possible difficulties involved it is requested that due consideration may be given to the Secretary of State for Air's wishes.
3. Should you agree to change the code name for this weapon it is further requested that the alternative names be submitted for approval so as to prevent a re-occurrence of the present situation."

NA AIR 2/17030. Group Captain RHE Emson, Deputy Director of Operational Requirements. 22 June 1954.

A wonderful example of British Civil Service reticence.
 
Last edited:
Nice.
What a scope for future development that would have given.
 
Well, by the end of the 50s, commerce raiders were out of date. Nuclear subs, on the other hand ...
 
Exactly, to which the answer is also SSNs.

Interestingly again though the Soviets didn’t have a commerce raiding strategy for its nuke boats as it hadn’t with Sverdlovs.

Is there an element of judging others by our own standards? After all as an Island dependent on seaborne trade are we seeing everything through the prism of what we fear? And of course our history in using seapower so effectively to attack others.

The Soviets as a continental power to whom seaborne trade was never on the same scale as land/domestic (not to say it wasn’t desired hence time immeorial push for warm water port), didn’t have that fear and thus that awareness of the opportunity and our fear?
 
Well, the Royal Navy took the threat of Russian nuclear submarines very seriously, hence the Type 12 frigates and the Leander class, designed specifically for sub hunting and defence of convoys from America to Europe.
 
I think the Type 12s were spec’d to hunt fast battery subs, prior to SSNs - PostWar Naval Revolution covers this in detail iirc.

The Leanders were basically obsolete at build weren’t they? Only the rebuilds gave them sensors and weapons that could hunt SSNs surely? Leanders really could have had the T82 designator as a GP ship successor to Tribals.
 
And that’s the point the RN viewed Soviet ships through what it feared/itself would use them for. It doesn’t seem to have appreciated their actual intended use?
 
So why where the Soviets building nuclear subs [ignoring the strategic missile ones]?
 
Not for commerce raiding!

Wiki really??

Why do you think they spent a fortune rebuilding them in the 70s? their armament was hoppedsly outdated, having tried since the start of the 60s to get something much better, aka actual Type 82.
 
The Leander was a general purpose frigate, it was designed to do everything. It did have to reply on weapons systems and sensors around at the time of its inception and the following generation of systems were hardly simple bolt-on upgrades which hampered refitting these ships to keep them updates.

Limbo was retained for close-in ASW work, evaluations had shown that if MATCH failed (Wasp guided by the ship's sonar and vectored by radar) failed to neutralise the target with a Mk.44 or a WE.177A then Limbo was still useful (the Bidder homing torpedo having been abandoned by then). There was even talk of fitting Terne to the Type 42 for the same reason.
Ikara was the MATCH replacement for the SSN era but it was a bulky system. Ikara could react 30 seconds faster than a Wasp (of course it was much faster to the target too, Wasp took 8 minutes from sonar detection, scramble, take-off, fly to the point and drop the weapon) and offered a good reattack capability. But MATCH was fully evaluated against RN SSNs to determine its effectiveness. Actually a Wessex proved more accurate as it had dipping sonar to get a direct fix. Lynx was hoped to fix that but in the end Lynx never got a sonar in RN service. Of course MATCH and Ikara were only as effective as the homing torpedo used and in this regard until the Mk.46 arrived MATCH was hampered by the Mk.44s poor performance.
 
Does it matter? In the end the threats to the UK had to be taken seriously. Even if the potential enemy hadn't figured out the weak points yet. You cannot take the risk.
 
You need to look up what commerce raiding was!

The Soviets also prioritised SSNs for bastion defence.

Leander with Limbo is not going to cut it with SSNs - hence Ikara. Building so many was a sign that the RN couldn’t get the weapons it wanted to sea - missiles (SAM, SSM & ASW), the obsolete comment isn’t mine - it’s in pretty much every book I’ve seen of the period. Hence why they sought to rearm all of them in the 70s.
 
Sorry to quote wiki yet again, but please do tell me if you feel this is incorrect:

'Commerce raiding (French: guerre de course, "war of the chase"; German: Handelskrieg, "trade war") is a form of naval warfare used to destroy or disrupt logistics of the enemy on the open sea by attacking its merchant shipping, rather than engaging its combatants or enforcing a blockade against them.[1] '

Reference [1] is:
Norman Friedman (2001). Seapower as Strategy: Navies and National Interests. Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1-55750-291-9.

It could be that Friedman doesn't know what he's talking about, but, on the other hand ...

It's extraordinary that the UK managed to sell so many obsolete frigates to such countries as India, New Zealand, Chile, the Nederlands, Pakistan, Ecuador and Indonesia.
The poor suckers, buying all these obsolete warships.
 
For my two penneth I would have put Seakings on Leanders like the Canadians did on their frigates. They could then have avoided the 8 single role Ikara conversions.
Seawolf and Exocet were too much for the Leanders. The conversions were costly and lengthy. Exocet was never used in action but I cant help thinking 8 T21s and 4 Countys were sufficient for the threat. Seawolf needed a better and lighter launcher.
An over the horizon missile to replace Buccaneer came in the form of Harpoon.
 
From your original post:

'For interdiction of NATO convoys in Atlantic in wartime'
 
Check how your definition uses the word “combatants”.

Convoys by definition have combatants.

Read up on Graf Spee and Kormoran to understand wait commerce raiding means. Hell look up Francis Drake!

You prove the point with your list of nations - only the Netherlands could be considered a first rate navy wanting to hunt newer SSKs and SSNs and they put their own kit and system on. The rest just wanted a fighty looking gray thing. Leander’s hull wasn’t overly obsolete, but the weapons and systems were.

The reconstructions are hard in my view to justify or criticise - ferociously expensive (and specialised) yet new construction was already maxxed in terms of what would be acquired, and the Leanders were near useless for hot war yet not even half life.

Without the distraction of carriers and trying for all purpose T82 the RN may have been more able to go down the Sea Dart and Ikara versions of DS381?, an earlier T42/22 combo. Thus Leanders would have ceased at 10-15 ships which is far more appropriate.
 
uk 75 said:
For my two penneth I would have put Seakings on Leanders like the Canadians did on their frigates. They could then have avoided the 8 single role Ikara conversions.
Seawolf and Exocet were too much for the Leanders. The conversions were costly and lengthy. Exocet was never used in action but I cant help thinking 8 T21s and 4 Countys were sufficient for the threat. Seawolf needed a better and lighter launcher.
An over the horizon missile to replace Buccaneer came in the form of Harpoon.
Click to expand...
The Canadians seem to have got it quite right with their approach, although the helicopter bit has gone quite badly awry for some time...

T21s didnt get Exocet for some time? needing strengthening?

The RN had a baked in small ship small helo, big ship big helo thing that it still hasn’t shifted from.
 
Purpletrouble said:
Convoys by definition have combatants.
Click to expand...

So the U boats in the Atlantic weren't commerce raiders? What were they?
And the Graf Spee didn't attack convoys because at the stage of the war, convoys hadn't started. However, you could look at the career of The Scharnhorst and Gneisenau
You prove the point with your list of nations - only the Netherlands could be considered a first rate navy wanting to hunt newer SSKs and SSNs and they put their own kit and system on. The rest just wanted a fighty looking gray thing. Leander’s hull wasn’t overly obsolete, but the weapons and systems were.
Click to expand...

'a fighty looking gray thing'
You realise how ridiculous that sounds?
.
[/QUOTE]
 
The armament of most NATO frigates until the arrival of Harpoon and Sea Sparrow is pretty much like a Leander. A gun and a helicopter with some primitive AA.
The T82 saga and the lengthy gestation of T22 are covered at length in other threads.
The impact of getting rid of carriers was eased by retaining Ark Royal until 1979 and using Hermes/Bulwark to carry ASW Sea Kings. But the necessary surface to surface missile fit to tackle Karas, Krestas and Krivaks takes a long time to arrive. But there were also SSNs to torpedo them.
Seadart and Seaslug destroyers could cope with the 70s Soviet air threat as this was mainly directed at the big US carriers.
 
CNH said:
'a fighty looking gray thing'
You realise how ridiculous that sounds?
.
Click to expand...
Ridiculous is certainly a word that has occurred to me a few times from your posts. Policies also frequently could be described thus.

Fact is, all they basically wanted was a ship. The RAN, a tier up and wanting (want however often being far from what achieved) an effective ship had to modify the weapons.

Dilandu sums it up well, perhaps try listening?

Suggesting Graf Spee would have gone after convoys is illiterate - the entire concept was vanish in the depths of the Ocean, pick off enough lone ships to tie up vast numbers of warships forcing them to escort (expensive in warships and is less effective for supply than a flow of ships, port efficiency for instance). Even with something of the capability of Tirpitz a direct assault on a convoy although feared, wasn’t pushed to happen.

Ref Sea Slug, I read Brown and the language is both precise and vague - based on experience of MoD with things that don’t work I strongly suspect Sea Slug didn’t. In ’82 it wasn’t even positioned or used in the anti-snooper role.

Overall, bin carriers earlier and the RN likely gets a much better surface fleet than sole T82, excess Leanders and T21s. Plus more SSNs as the infra to build 2 a year would likely have survived post R class priority.
 
Dilandu said:
CNH said:
So the U boats in the Atlantic weren't commerce raiders? What were they?
Click to expand...

When they hunted individual merchant ships, they were commerce raiders. When they attacked convoys, they were warships commencing the interdiction operation.
Click to expand...

I admire your capacity to make meaningless distinctions.
 
Purpletrouble said:
CNH said:
'a fighty looking gray thing'
You realise how ridiculous that sounds?
.
Click to expand...
Ridiculous is certainly a word that has occurred to me a few times from your posts. Policies also frequently could be described thus.

Fact is, all they basically wanted was a ship. The RAN, a tier up and wanting (want however often being far from what achieved) an effective ship had to modify the weapons.

Dilandu sums it up well, perhaps try listening?

Suggesting Graf Spee would have gone after convoys is illiterate - the entire concept was vanish in the depths of the Ocean, pick off enough lone ships to tie up vast numbers of warships forcing them to escort (expensive in warships and is less effective for supply than a flow of ships, port efficiency for instance). Even with something of the capability of Tirpitz a direct assault on a convoy although feared, wasn’t pushed to happen.

Ref Sea Slug, I read Brown and the language is both precise and vague - based on experience of MoD with things that don’t work I strongly suspect Sea Slug didn’t. In ’82 it wasn’t even positioned or used in the anti-snooper role.

Overall, bin carriers earlier and the RN likely gets a much better surface fleet than sole T82, excess Leanders and T21s. Plus more SSNs as the infra to build 2 a year would likely have survived post R class priority.
Click to expand...

'Fact is, all they basically wanted was a ship.'
"We need a ship to look good. Let's buy this ancient obsolete British frigate."
I admire your imaginative scenarioes.

'Suggesting Graf Spee would have gone after convoys is illiterate'
Well, it would have been extremely difficult, given the lack of convoys in 1939. Bismarck, Prinz Eugen, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau set out with the express intention of attacking convoys. Tirpitz was based in Norway with the express intention of going after the Arctic convoys.

'Ref Sea Slug, I read Brown and the language is both precise and vague - based on experience of MoD with things that don’t work I strongly suspect Sea Slug didn’t. In ’82 it wasn’t even positioned or used in the anti-snooper role.'
Sea Slug development began in the 1940s. Are you surprised it was regarded as obsolete in the 1980s?
 
To me;
Commerce raiding - lone ship hunting alone with minimal support (at most in pairs), some use of camouflage or deception, hit and run
Commerce interdiction - a fleet acting in concert (e.g. U-boat wolfpacks, Allied North Sea blockade in WW1) with substantial support from other assets with the objective of destruction or diversion to other destinations - I would strongly put the Northern Fleet SSNs and SSGNs in this category

Leander was a late 1950s design not much worse than its contemporaries. Sure it did not age well due to the vintage of its weapons but the same was true of any warship designed circa 1957-65. The fact was it was flexible enough to cope with upgrading. I would agree the efforts spent in the late 70s to fit VDS, Sea Wolf and Exocet were not worth it, but the Ikara conversions were worthwhile I think - just a shame is was such a bulky system. Enough has been said about British SAMs that I need not comment further.
 
CNH said:
Purpletrouble said:
CNH said:
'a fighty looking gray thing'
You realise how ridiculous that sounds?
.
Click to expand...
Ridiculous is certainly a word that has occurred to me a few times from your posts. Policies also frequently could be described thus.

Fact is, all they basically wanted was a ship. The RAN, a tier up and wanting (want however often being far from what achieved) an effective ship had to modify the weapons.

Dilandu sums it up well, perhaps try listening?

Suggesting Graf Spee would have gone after convoys is illiterate - the entire concept was vanish in the depths of the Ocean, pick off enough lone ships to tie up vast numbers of warships forcing them to escort (expensive in warships and is less effective for supply than a flow of ships, port efficiency for instance). Even with something of the capability of Tirpitz a direct assault on a convoy although feared, wasn’t pushed to happen.

Ref Sea Slug, I read Brown and the language is both precise and vague - based on experience of MoD with things that don’t work I strongly suspect Sea Slug didn’t. In ’82 it wasn’t even positioned or used in the anti-snooper role.

Overall, bin carriers earlier and the RN likely gets a much better surface fleet than sole T82, excess Leanders and T21s. Plus more SSNs as the infra to build 2 a year would likely have survived post R class priority.
Click to expand...

'Fact is, all they basically wanted was a ship.'
"We need a ship to look good. Let's buy this ancient obsolete British frigate."
I admire your imaginative scenarioes.

'Suggesting Graf Spee would have gone after convoys is illiterate'
Well, it would have been extremely difficult, given the lack of convoys in 1939. Bismarck, Prinz Eugen, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau set out with the express intention of attacking convoys. Tirpitz was based in Norway with the express intention of going after the Arctic convoys.

'Ref Sea Slug, I read Brown and the language is both precise and vague - based on experience of MoD with things that don’t work I strongly suspect Sea Slug didn’t. In ’82 it wasn’t even positioned or used in the anti-snooper role.'
Sea Slug development began in the 1940s. Are you surprised it was regarded as obsolete in the 1980s?
Click to expand...

Actually.
Admiral Scheer DID go after at least one convoy, which resulted in the lost of the AMC Rawalpindi.

As said, early in the war the convoy system had not been introduced. It did not take long for the convoy system to be established (certainly no dithering and pointless arguments as in WW1). As a result, Commerce Raiders, be they the 'Pocket Battleships', Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, Bismarck or later Tirpitz (remember convoy PQ.17?!) did at the very least attempt to attack convoys. The one big No, No, when attacking a convoy was the avoidance of a heavy escort. This was why some of the Revenge class Capital Ships were used for convoy work. They may not have had a good time in a fight with Bismarck or Tirpitz, but they did offer a level of 'fleet in being' protection to convoys in general.
Remember, the Battle of North Cape when Scharnhorst was sunk - The cruiser screen was enough to deter the pressing home of the initial attack if only due to mis-identification of the escorting vessels, and of course, Duke of York was then able to engage and we know the result.
 
Hood said:
To me;
Commerce raiding - lone ship hunting alone with minimal support (at most in pairs), some use of camouflage or deception, hit and run
Commerce interdiction - a fleet acting in concert (e.g. U-boat wolfpacks, Allied North Sea blockade in WW1) with substantial support from other assets with the objective of destruction or diversion to other destinations - I would strongly put the Northern Fleet SSNs and SSGNs in this category

Leander was a late 1950s design not much worse than its contemporaries. Sure it did not age well due to the vintage of its weapons but the same was true of any warship designed circa 1957-65. The fact was it was flexible enough to cope with upgrading. I would agree the efforts spent in the late 70s to fit VDS, Sea Wolf and Exocet were not worth it, but the Ikara conversions were worthwhile I think - just a shame is was such a bulky system. Enough has been said about British SAMs that I need not comment further.
Click to expand...
The worst part of the RN Leander upgrades is not adopting the RAN Ikara configuration that literally fitted the system in the space previously occupied by Limbo. I understand the reason the UK system was as bulky as it was , was to facilitate the carriage of nuclear payloads for the system and to provide precise aiming (as to why this was necessary for a guided delivery system I do not know). Use the RAN Ikara installation and either keep the 4.5" or have Ikara and Exocet with an additional Seacat, maybe even go Harpoon and a 76mm gun.
 
The early 60s Cold War film "The Bedford Incident" gives a clue as to why the RN wanted a nuclear ASW system. It shows a NATO destroyer using ASROC to kill a Soviet sub.
The RN would probably have been happy with ASROC but Ikara was what they were given.
By the mid 80s the combination of ASW helos and RN SSNs with the new Type 22s made the IkaraLeanders obsolete but for a decade these strange ships were the RN's prime surface subkillers.
The USN planned on using Talos against Soviet surface ships in the Mediterranean. Blue Slug on Countys would have had a similar role.
 
Volkodav said:
The worst part of the RN Leander upgrades is not adopting the RAN Ikara configuration that literally fitted the system in the space previously occupied by Limbo. I understand the reason the UK system was as bulky as it was , was to facilitate the carriage of nuclear payloads for the system and to provide precise aiming (as to why this was necessary for a guided delivery system I do not know). Use the RAN Ikara installation and either keep the 4.5" or have Ikara and Exocet with an additional Seacat, maybe even go Harpoon and a 76mm gun.
Click to expand...

The need for 'deep' stowage for the WE.177A warheads was one reason, but the other was that the Australian magazine used on their Type 12 conversions did not meet RN standards for safety. It a booster rocket accidently ignited on any of the first row of missiles, the missile immediately behind would be right in the exhaust and would set off a chain reaction. The Type 82 (and CVA) magazines were perhaps the safest if not exactly space efficient. The Leander magazine of course was slightly more of a compromise. Maybe the RN should have taken the risk? Adding WE.177A to Ikara just added headaches.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom