Royal Navy Destroyers and Frigates post 1966

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
4,240
Reaction score
3,518
The Royal Navy began the 1960s with two excellent classes of destroyer (County DLG).and frigate (Type 12 Leander) on order.
In 1966 the replacement of these ships with the T42 and T22 was set in hand.. In addition the T21 gp frigate was ordered to replace other frigate classes.
So not a lot of scope for an alternate line up. Or maybe?
The RN also had gun armed Daring and C class ships as well as Fleet picket ships in service.
The earlier Type 12 Whitby and Rothesay classes served alongside the Leanders (with the Rothesays getting Wasp helos).
The Tribal class frigates were mainly intended for East of Suez and looked somewhat out of place from 1970.
Salisbury and Leopard class Air Defence frigates also stayed in service together with ASW 2d rate ships.
Apart from Seaslug on the County DLG the only guided weapon on most of these ships was the basic Seacat SAM.
The lineup did not change much until the 80s except for 8 T21 and 3 T42 plus one T82 trials ship. The first four T22 arrived for the 80s.
Shuffling the deck of old and new ships kept RN escort numbers up until the end of the Cold War.
With hindsight the T42 and T22 should have arrived sooner and in greater numbers.
Many of the ships that remained in service in the 70s and 80s were not up to the task of confronting the growing Soviet Navy.
The Falklands ahowed that something like AEGIS was needed for the RN and work on a successor to the T42 dragged on until the T45 finally arrived in the 21st Century long after the Cold War had ended.
The USN with its greater resources was able to introduce the Spruance ASW destroyer, the Perry patrol frigate, the Ticonderoga and Burke AEGIS ships.
A bigger hull for the T42 and T22 ships would have been one useful change allowing better wquipment and weapons fits such as Phalanx CIWS and Harpoon SSM on all units.
Fewer better armed ships earlier would have been a better use of scarce resources. It did not help that Press and Politicians were obsessed with numbers of units.
The purchase of the Ghanaian frigate that became HMS Mermaid showed the challenges faced by the RN.
Of course the peacetime RN had other duties ranging from fishery protection (The Cod War).to training. The underarmed older units served well in those roles.
 
Last edited:

Tony Williams

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
695
Reaction score
479
Website
www.quarryhs.co.uk
The Royal Navy began the 1960s with two excellent classes of destroyer (County DLG).and frigate (Type 12 Leander) on order.
In 1966 the replacement of these ships with the T42 and T22 was set in hand.. In addition the T21 gp frigate was ordered to replace other frigate classes.
So not a lot of scope for an alternate line up. Or maybe?
The RN also had gun armed Daring and C class ships as well as Fleet picket ships in service.
The earlier Type 12 Whitby and Rothesay classes served alongside the Leanders (with the Rothesays getting Wasp helos).
The Tribal class frigates were mainly intended for East of Suez and looked somewhat out of place from 1970.
Salisbury and Leopard class Air Defence frigates also stayed in service together with ASW 2d rate ships.
Apart from Seaslug on the County DLG the only guided weapon on most of these ships was the basic Seacat SAM.
The lineup did not change much until the 80s except for 8 T21 and 3 T42 plus one T82 trials ship. The first four T22 arrived for the 80s.
Shuffling the deck of old and new ships kept RN escort numbers up until the end of the Cold War.
With hindsight the T42 and T22 should have arrived sooner and in greater numbers.
Many of the ships that remained in service in the 70s and 80s were not up to the task of confronting the growing Soviet Navy.
The Falklands ahowed that something like AEGIS was needed for the RN and work on a successor to the T42 dragged on until the T45 finally arrived in the 21st Century long after the Cold War had ended.
The USN with its greater resources was able to introduce the Spruance ASW destroyer, the Perry patrol frigate, the Ticonderoga and Burke AEGIS ships.
A bigger hull for the T42 and T22 ships would have been one useful change allowing better wquipment and weapons fits such as Phalanx CIWS and Harpoon SSM on all units.
Fewer better armed ships earlier would have been a better use of scarce resources. It did not help that Press and Politicians were obsessed with numbers of units.
The purchase of the Ghanaian frigate that became HMS Mermaid showed the challenges faced by the RN.
Of course the peacetime RN had other duties ranging from fishery protection (The Cod War).to training. The underarmed older units served well in those roles.
This is my take on the subject: An Alternative RN for the 1970s - and Beyond
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
638
Reaction score
880
This is the third paragraph from Page One of Mr Williams essay.
It must be emphasised that this is not intended to be critical of the decisions made at the time; they were influenced by countless political, financial and practical considerations and I have no reason to doubt that those responsible made the best decisions they could, in the light of the information then available.
For what it's worth I think that statement should be applied to more than a few alternative history topics.
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
638
Reaction score
880
Mr Williams mentions the Marine Olympus and Spey gas turbines in his essay.

A total of 71 Olympus turbines were fitted to 33 Royal Navy warships. It sold well on the export market with another 119 turbines fitted to 65 foreign warships for a grand total of 190 turbines on 98 ships. However, some of them were built under licence.

These include 28 Royal Navy warships and 34 foreign warships fitted with a pair of Marine Tyne gas turbines for a total of 62 ships with 124 Tynes.

I'm going to do a separate post about the Marine Spey gas turbine. The 8 Type 22s that were fitted with a pair of Speys also had a pair of Tynes. That increased the number of ships with Tyne engines to 70 and the total number of engines to 140.

Marine Gas Turbines Olympus.png

The list of ship classes is from the Wikipedia entry on the Marine Olympus gas turbine. That is except for the two Argentine Type 42s that weren't in the list. The number of ships per class is by me.

Please contact me by PM if there are any mistakes and I will make the necessary corrections.
 
Last edited:

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
638
Reaction score
880
A total of 48 Marine Spey gas turbines were fitted to 24 Royal Navy warships. As noted in my previous post 8 of them also had 2 Marine Tyne gas turbines.

The Spey also did well on the export market with 136 fitted to 56 ships. Although many of them were built under licence that does create a grand total of 184 ships fitted to 80 ships.

The Wikipedia entry on the Hatakaze-class destroyer says that each ship of this class also had a pair of Olympus gas turbines which isn't mentioned in Wikipedia's entry on the Marine Olympus. That increases the grand total to 194 turbines fitted to 100 ships.

Marine Gas Turbines Spey.png

The list of ship classes is from the Wikipedia entry on the Marine Spey gas turbine. The number of ships per class is from the Wikipedia entries on each of the classes.

Please contact me by PM if there are any mistakes and I will make the necessary corrections.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
3,364
Reaction score
2,118
So not a lot of scope for an alternate line up. Or maybe?
No quite massive scope really.
But it all depends on what you are willing to countenance in changes and at what points in time.

The CF.299 Frigate for example.
The ASW Type 17.
The various collaborative options.
Even a tripartite alliance with the French and Dutch.

The failure to develop a common successor to Thunderbird for Navy and Army.

The potential reaches back too into the 50's.
A smaller Seaslug for example.

Even nuclear powered options.
Type 42 and Sea Dart were known to be flawed from the late 60's.
Nott cutting the mkII wasn't the problem. It was the failure to fund either NIGS or the ASWRE C-band system back in the early 60’s that fundamentally hampered the concept.

NAAWS and NF-90 lured the RN into a massive waste of time, money and resources to ultimately end the much vaunted international collaboration of Horizon. Only for the Type 45 to be saddled with legacy elements from that decades long sojourn into the lotus eaters den.
 
Last edited:

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
638
Reaction score
880
Some background information from my copy of Jane's Fighting Ships 1986-87

Personnel (including Royal Marines) at 1st January 1986
68,200 Regulars​
32,521 Reserves​

Of which​
60,600 RN male and female regulars​
29,100 RN male and female reservists​
7,600 Royal Marines regulars​
3,421 Royal Marines reservists​

Merchant Marine
According to the Lloyd's Register of Merchant Shipping: 2,378 vessels of 14,343,512 tons, gross.​

Strength of the Fleet
  • This table in the book shows 3 A/S Carriers, 15 destroyers, 39 frigates and one LPD as active plus one LPD in reserve. However, the table below that I constructed from the text only shows 38 active frigates.
  • 8 frigates are shown as being under construction.
  • No aircraft carriers, destroyers or frigates were in reserve.
  • However, the cruiser Tiger and the frigates Berwick, Falmouth and Yarmouth were on the Disposal List.
  • The Deletions List goes back to 1983 (so it doesn't show the deletion of Blake) but it does show Bulwark being broken up at Cairn Ryan in 1984 and Hermes being sold to India in 1986.
  • It doesn't provide a list of ships that were on Harbour Service although there was at least one frigate serving in that role.
This is the relevant information from the sections about the individual ship classes.

JFS 1986-87 RN Surface Warships.png
Jane's calls the Invincibles Light Aircraft Carriers, which is why I've used CVL in the above table. The crew of 954 is 670 ship's company and 284 air group. That's considerably less than earlier editions of Jane's which were saying 1,000 plus air group and the 1,200 from Modern Combat Ships: 2 'Invincible' class by Paul Beaver that I've been using in other threads. According to him it was 1,000 ship's company and 200 air group.

Intrepid was the active LPH. Fearless went into reserve in mid-1985. They had been rotating as training ship for the Britannia Royal Naval College at Dartmouth since 1972. However, that role was now being performed by the County class destroyer Fife.

Jane's didn't say when she relieved Fearless and Intrepid. However, Leo Marriott wrote in Royal Navy Destroyers Since 1945 that Fife had completed a refit at Portsmouth in June 1986 and had been converted to a cadet training ship, The Seaslug system had been removed and extra accommodation provided in the former magazine and in a deckhouse on the quarterdeck to replace the missile launcher. Jane's says none of that, but does say that she re-commissioned in March 1983 after a lengthy refit similar to the one that Glamorgan (the other surviving County) had 1978-80.

The number of active frigates in my table is one less than the number in the Strength of the Fleet table. The table in Jane's is the one that's wrong.

23 out of 26 Leanders built for the Royal Navy remained. Dido an Ikara Leander and Bacchante an unconverted Broad Beam ship were transferred to the RNZN 1982-83 but not in that order. 23 + 2 = 25. The missing 26th ship was Ajax an Ikara Leander which isn't mentioned anywhere in the book, not even the index. However, according to her entry in Wikipedia she decommissioned on 31st May 1985 and replaced HMS Salisbury as a static training ship at Devonport.

Juno is listed as one of the 4 ships in the Exocet Group (Batch 2) but see Training note is printed beside her name. The Training note says that her Batch 2 conversion was halted and that she was converted to a training ship at Rosyth instead and relieved Torquay (a Rothesay) in April 1985. Torquay was the Navigation Training Ship according to British Warships and Auxiliaries 1981.

The 3 Type 22 Batch 2 frigates that were under construction would complete 1987-88, the 4 Type 22 Batch 3s would complete 1988-90 and Norfolk the sole Type 23 would be completed in 1990.

Another 15 Type 23 frigates would be ordered in 5 groups of 3 ships. The first in September 1986, the second in July 1988, the third in December 1989, the fourth in January 1992 and finally the fifth in February 1996. They were completed between 1991 and 2002.

Edit: 31.05.22

Please contact me by PM if you spot any silly mistakes and I will make the corrections. It makes the thread tidier if I'm informed by PM..
 
Last edited:

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
638
Reaction score
880
Should the Fearless class be showing 1,100 personnel, seeing that one in in Reserve?
No, it shouldn't.

It's a quirk of the formatting of the Excel spreadsheet. It was do it like that or have a separate section for ships in reserve, which I thought it would make it too complex. I didn't it the way I did it because I thought it was the least worst option and I still think so.

Including Fearless increases the total crew of the active ships from 16,991 to 17,541 and distorts the actual total by a "massive" 3%.

And if I had amended it to 550 someone would ask, "Why is the total 550 when it's two ships with a crew of 550?" Shouldn't it be 1,100?"
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
3,269
Reaction score
4,508
I suppose the only feasible what-if of this time period is the Type 17 Ikara destroyer.
That implies a common hull with Type 42 and that probably would require a few changes given that the T42 ended up with the Sea Dart forward and a helicopter hangar added.
Pros means no Leander conversions so saves rebuild money but probably takes hulls and money away from T42, so we might get 6 of each rather than 12 T42s in 3 batches.
One possible route to more T17 hulls is sacrificing Type 22 by having a T17 Batch 2 with the T22 sonar outfit added.

That opens a speculative 90s refit with Sea Wolf VLS replacing the Ikara system to create a T23-esque capability.
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
638
Reaction score
880
More Background Information

These are the ships in Post 7 arranged in descending order of crew size.

JFS 1986-87 RN Surface Warships - Crews.png

I was surprised that the Type 42 Batch 3 had a much larger crew (19%) than the earlier Batches. As far as I know it had the same machinery, same electronics, and apart from a larger Sea Dart magazine (according to some sources) the same armament.

Except for the unconverted ships, the crews of the various versions of the Leander class are significantly larger than the Batch 22 Batch 1, about the same size as Type 42 Batches 1 & 2 and not much less than Type 22 Batches 2 & 3.

The most extreme example was "Sea Wolf" Leander whose crew was 36 (16%) more than Type 22 Batch 1 and 13 (5%) less than Type 22 Batches 2 and 3. However, the Type 22s were better armed. E.g. Batch 1 had facilities for two Lynx size helicopters instead of one and two Sea Wolf launchers & two Type 910 guidance radars v one of each. I'm guessing that some of the difference was gas turbine v steam turbine machinery.

Although the Type 21 has a much smaller crew than Types 22 and 42 it was also a lot less capable, but on the other hand it was supposed to be a cheap to build and cheap to operate design.
 
Last edited:

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
3,364
Reaction score
2,118
Apart from Seaslug on the County DLG the only guided weapon on most of these ships was the basic Seacat SAM.
Whereas it could have been that Popsy or Mopsy or Orange Nell might have emerged to equip them.

As might Small Seaslug and one of the alternative launchers emerged.

And furthermore.
Blue Slug Anti-ship Missile
Seaslug MkIII

Or of course the USN relents on Q-band Tartar.
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
638
Reaction score
880
Lemming! Do you see that cliff? It's time to do your duty...

37 destroyers and frigates were ordered between 1968 and 1985. They were laid down between 1969 and 1986. They were completed between 1974 and 1990. The 37 ships were ordered at the rate of about 2 per year and consisted of 8 Type 21 frigates, 14 Type 22 frigates, one Type 23 frigate and 14 Type 42 destroyers. 29 out of 37 had been completed by the time Jane's Fighting Ships 1986-87 was published and 4 were lost in the Falklands War which left 25 available in 1986.

I'm not a fan of the Type 21s. I think 8 Type 42 Batch 1 should have been built instead. That is in spite of a Type 42 costing about twice as much to build and being more expensive to operate than a Type 21 on account of the much larger crew.

20 Leander class were modernised over the same period. They were begun between 1970 and 1980. They were completed between 1973 and 1984. So they were done at the rate of about 2 ships a year. 75% of the modernisations were done at Devonport.

I'm not a fan of them either. They were expensive and because I'm a believer in the theory that "Steel is cheap and air is free" new ships carrying the same payload would not have been significantly more expensive to build and would have been cheaper to run due to having smaller crews. The latter was in part because the new ships would have had gas turbine machinery instead of steam turbines, which might have resulted in higher availability rates due to shorter refits. Finally, because they were new ships instead of rebuilt existing ships their service lives would have been longer.

Therefore, in the following table no Leanders were modernised, but 57 frigates and destroyers were ordered 1968-85, laid down 1969-86 and completed 1974-90 which is an average of about 3 ships per year. That is:
  • 20 Type 42 Batch 1 were ordered instead of the first 6 Leander modernisations, the 8 Type 21s and the 6 Type 42 Batch 1 ordered in the real world.
  • 22 Type 22 Batch 1 were ordered instead of the second 14 Leander modernisations, the 4 Type 22 Batch 1 ordered in the real world and the 4 Type 42 Batch 2.
  • 10 Type 22 Batch 2 were ordered instead of the 6 Type 22 Batch 2 ordered in the real world and the 4 Type 42 Batch 3.
  • The number of Type 22 Batch 3 and Type 23 frigates ordered in this period wad unaltered. That is 4 Type 23 Batch 3 and one Type 23.
That makes a total of 36 Type 22, one Type 23 and 20 Type 42 instead of 8 Type 21, 14 Type 22, one Type 23, 14 Type 42 Leander modernisations. 49 out of 57 had been completed by the time Jane's Fighting Ships 1986-87 was published and 4 Type 42s were lost in the Falklands War which left 45 ships available in 1986.

JFS 1986-87 RN Surface Warships ALT-1.png

That's the same number of ships as "the real world" but it requires slightly fewer men (176).

If there are any silly mistakes in the table please send a PM rather than posting a message in this thread and I will make the necessary corrections.
 
Last edited:

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
3,364
Reaction score
2,118
Development of AAW version of Type 22 hull, the Type 44, would assist merger of Type 22 Batch II and Type 42 Batch II.

And obviously a further Type 44 Batch II.

But Type 42 was not ideal for GP and would benefit had the SAM system been different. Especially the magazine.

Options here are.
Q-band Tartar
Lightweight Small Seaslug mkIII
Extended Range Orange Nell
Boosted PT.428

Of these the most complete by time of decisions is either Q-band Tartar or Lightweight Small Seaslug.
The latter on one of the alternative launcher designs is as potentially flexible as Tartar if not more so.
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
638
Reaction score
880
Lemming Number Two! Your time is up!

This is a list of the 20 Type 42 Batch 1 destroyers that were built instead of the first 6 Leander modernisations, the 8 Type 21 frigates and the 6 Type 42 Batch 1 destroyers that were built in the "real world".

Type 42 Destroyers.png

The Naming of the Ships
  • The 6 ships built instead of the Type 42s built in the "real world" have the same names as the "real world" ships.
  • The 8 ships built instead of the Type 21 frigates have been given the names of the 8 Type 42 Batch 2 and 3 destroyers that aren't built in "this version of history."
  • The 6 ships built instead of the Leander modernisations were named as follows:
    • Birkenhead and Chester take the names of World War One Town class cruisers.
    • Carlisle takes the name of a C class cruiser built in World War One.
    • Aberdeen is so called because there weren't enough Scottish towns in the list and it takes the name of an Grimsby class sloop built between the World Wars.
    • Leeds is so called because I'm from Yorkshire.
    • Middlesbrough is so called because I'm from Teesside. The last Royal Navy ship with a connection to my part of the world (that I know of) was the World War One minesweeper Saltburn. Her claim to fame was her contribution to the development of British naval radar.
  • There should have been at least one ship named after a Northern Irish town, but the names of the two largest towns were in use. That is the World War II Town class cruiser Belfast and the Rothesay class frigate Londonderry.
  • Perhaps there should have been a second ship named after a Welsh town. The names I considered were Carnarvon which had been used by an Edwardian armoured cruiser and Swansea which had been used by a Canadian River class frigate in World War Two.
The Shipyards
  • The 6 ships built instead of the Type 42s built in the "real world" have been built in the same yards as the "real world" ships. Cardiff was begun at Vickers, Barrow and completed by Swan Hunter in both "versions of history".
  • The 8 ships built instead of the Type 21s have been built in the same yards that the Type 21s were built in.
  • The 6 ships built in place of the first 6 Leander modernisations have been built at Devonport which is the Royal Dockyard that carried out the modernisations. The last frigate built at Royal Dockyard in the "real world" was the Scylla a Batch 3 Leander that was completed in 1968 and by coincidence was built at Devonport.
The Dates
  • The ordering, laying down and completion dates for the 6 ships that were built in the "real world" are the same as the "real world".
  • The ordering and laying down dates for the 8 ships built instead of the Type 21s are the same as for the Type 21s and I have added one year to the projected and actual completion dates.
  • I don't know the ordering dates for the first 6 Leander modernisations so I have used the nearest ordering date for the Type 21s and 42s that was before the modernisation was begun. If anyone knows what they are, please inform me by PM and I will make the necessary corrections.
  • The laying down dates for the 6 ships built instead of the modernised Leanders are the dates that the refits began. The completion dates are an average of the other 14 ships which was 5.3 years or 64 months. (NB that calculation includes the year that I have added to the building time of the 8 ships built instead of the Type 21s.)
  • I know that some ships were laid down before they were ordered. It's what the reference books say. If anyone has different information please inform me by PM so that I can make the necessary corrections.
  • 1970s editions of Jane's Fighting Ships indicate that Sheffield the first Type 42 was to have been completed in 3½ years (42 months) and Amazon the first Type 21 was to have been built in 2½ years (30 months). They also say that 8 Type 21s were to have been completed by the end of 1977 and that the first 6 Type 42s were to have been completed by the end of 1977.
    • That's why the projected date of all the ships in the list is 42 months after they have been laid down.
    • Is also why I have added one year to the completion date of the 8 ships built instead of the Type 21s.
    • The average building times allow for the 8 Type 42s built instead of the 8 Type 21s taking one year longer to build.
  • According to Norman Friedman in British Destroyers and Frigates - The Second World War and After attributes the long building times for the Type 42s to the British electronics industry which he says was concentrating on its export contracts.
  • However, Cardiff the ship that took the longest to build, was completed at Swan Hunter because Vickers concentrated on other work, that is Invincible and the nuclear submarines that it was building.
The Costs

These are the actual costs of the 6 Leander modernisations, 8 Type 21s and 6 Type 42s in the "real world". The ships built in place of the modernised Leanders and 8 Type 21s would cost more.

For what it's worth my copy of Jane's Fighting Ships 1969-70 quotes £7-8 million for a Type 21 and £17 million for a Type 42 so the costs for 8 of the ships in the list are less than half of what they would actually have been. It doesn't have an estimated cost for the Leander refits which is not surprising because it doesn't mention them.

However, I think that there might be some cost reduction due to economies of scale and I think that the operational advantages would more than cancel out the higher building cost.
  • An example of the possible economies of scale is that 26 Sea Dart systems were built instead of 20. That is:
    • 3 for the Invincibles, one for Bristol, 14 for the British Type 42s and 2 for the pair of Argentine ships built in the "real world".
    • 3 for the Invincibles, one for Bristol, 20 for the British Type 42s and 2 for the pair of Argentine ships built in "this version of history".
  • Another one is that 20 extra sets of Olympus-Tyne machinery are built for the 14 Type 22s and 6 Type 42s that are built instead of modernising 20 Leander class frigates.
For what it's worth the National Debt of the United Kingdom rose from £34,193.9 million at 31st March 1968 to £93,358 million at 31st March 1980. Meanwhile, the amount of money spent on servicing it (Consolidated Fund only) rose from £668.5 million in the 1967-68 financial year to 4,143.2 million in the 1979-80 financial year.

And HM Treasury will get some of the extra money that it spent back in taxes.

Therefore, I think the extra money required is trivial in the scheme of things.

As @Tony Williams wrote in the article he attached to Post 2 the rampant inflation of the era makes it nigh on impossible to compare the costs of the different classes of ship. Amongst other things it makes my average cost of class figure meaningless.

Another thing that I should mention in relation to the costs is that Birkenhead (ex-Cleopatra) was the first "Exocet" refit and the other 5 were "Ikara" refits.

The Designs

I wanted to have the 20 Type 42s built with the Batch 1 payload (armament, sensors and other electronics) and the Batch 3 platform (hull and machinery). However, the Type 42 Batch 3 has a larger crew and that would reduce the number of ships that the Royal Navy could man by 20%. Therefore, all 20 ships are "real world" Type 42 Batch 1s.

Finally

As @Tony Williams wrote in the document attached to Post 2.
It must be emphasised that this is not intended to be critical of the decisions made at the time; they were influenced by countless political, financial and practical considerations and I have no reason to doubt that those responsible made the best decisions they could, in the light of the information then available.

Mistakes

And if you see any silly mistakes, please tell me via PM so I can make the corrections and not by posting a message on this thread, because posting them here makes the thread look messy.
 
Last edited:

Volkodav

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
554
Reaction score
801
How about the Broad Beam Type 21 with Seawolf? Larger, better armed, more survivable and arguably more effective than the Leander conversions, while being cheaper than the Type 22 or Type 42.

The other possibility, a derivative of the modified Type 21 Australia was interested in, larger, more durable hull, US systems and weapons. Possibly developed as an alternative to the Leander conversions with the aim of being an export model. Maybe different versions with alternate British, US/Dutch and say Italian systems options, to make them even more exportable.
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
638
Reaction score
880
26 Sea Dart sets may tip the balance on Mk II, but it would be a minimum development version for compatibility with existing systems.

In my Sea Dart Success thread w examined the potential for the missile.
It will be 20 sets after deleting the 4 ships sunk in the Falklands (which I should have included in my post) and the 2 Argentine ships because GWS.31 won't be for sale to Argentina after 1982 even if they wanted to buy it..

However, GWS.31 was cancelled before the Falklands War and there were only 16 Sea Dart equipped ships left in the RN after the summer of 1982.

But your comment has made me think that your Point of Departure is wrong. It shouldn't be the Knott defence review of 1981. It should be the Mason defence review of 1974-75. At that point in our timeline 10 Sea Dart systems were on order for Invincible, Bristol, 6 British and 2 Argentine Type 42s. In my timeline it will be 24 made up of Invincible, Bristol, 20 British Type 42s and the 2 Argentine ships.

That might lead to Land Dart being ordered to replace Bloodhound in the RAF and Thunderbird in the British Army. In which case GWS.31 stands a much better chance of surviving the 1981 Defence Review. (In defence of John Knott the British economy was in its deepest recession since the Depression of the 1930s.)

Type 42 might pick up some more export orders.

As far as I know the RAN wanted to buy Type 42s when the Light Destroyer was cancelled and was forced to buy American Patrol Frigates which didn't meet its requirements while Type 42 did. It's possible that Harold Wilson or Jim Callaghan would offer 4 of the extra Type 42s to Australia and order 4 Type 42 Batch 2 to replace them if the offer was accepted. The Australians built 2 Patrol Frigates in their own yards "in the real world" and plans for 4 more were cancelled. They'd built 2-6 Type 42s in their own yards in "this timeline".

That adds 6-10 extra Sea Dart systems to the total for a total of 32-38.

And if the Dutch keep to their plan to buy Sea Dart that adds another 4. If they know in the late 1960s that the British are buying it in greater numbers that might encourage them to buy it because it would increase the amount of logistical support that was available.

That might be a factor in persuading the Australian Government to buy Type 42s instead of Patrol Frigates, but the latter also meant standardisation with their Adams class destroyers and two different area defence SAMs might be too much for a small navy like the RAN.
 
Last edited:

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
638
Reaction score
880
How about the Broad Beam Type 21 with Seawolf? Larger, better armed, more survivable and arguably more effective than the Leander conversions, while being cheaper than the Type 22 or Type 42.
I wanted to do a spreadsheet for 12 Type 82s and as many Type 21s as possible with the personnel available in 1986, but won't now because what I've done so far has taken far too much time.

Type 21 as built was in my opinion "cheap and nasty" rather than "cheap and cheerful" and the problem with improving it is that its sole advantage of being cheap to build and operate is eroded.

As a believer in the theory that "steel is cheap and air is free" adding systems like Sea Wolf significantly increases the building and operating costs to the point where it's better to go the whole hog and buy Type 22.

Building Type 21s instead of Type 42s is a non-starter in my opinion because the RN needs ships armed with area defence SAMs. I think Friedman said that in the 1970s the RN wanted one out of three "frigoyers" to be armed with Sea Dart which incidentally is what it would have had if the Knott Review had gone through as planned - 42 operational destroyers and frigates - of which one would be Bristol and 14 would be the Type 42s.

I think the only scenario where the RN builds more Type 21 type frigates is one where it keeps its strike carriers. That is on the theory that the frigates could get away with a lighter anti-aircraft armament.

I also remember from Friedman that the MoD originally planned to buy 3 Type 21s and increased the total to 8 because it wasn't possible to buy more Type 42s at the time. Which if true invalidates a lot of what I've written on this thread. On the other hand it does suggest that HM Treasury was willing to pay the extra cost of the Type 42 in 1971.
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
638
Reaction score
880
I think Types 21, 22 and 42 are proof of the "steel is cheap and air is free" theory.

They've all got the same machinery so the cost of that is the same. The hulls are of similar size, i.e. 2,750 tons, 4,000 tons and 3,500 tons standard displacement according to the relevant Modern Combat Ships books. (Although I admit that saying a Type 21 is similar in size to Types 22 and 42 is a liberal interpretation of the word similar.) I think they have broadly the same "platform cost".

What made the difference is the "payload" - the cost of the weapons, radars, sonar, data processing systems like ADAWS and CAAIS and if they are included in the total helicopters and their stores (which would include homing torpedoes).

Type 21 for example is effectively a Type 42 Batch 1 without Sea Dart, CAAIS instead of ADAWS and no Type 965 radar. So the difference between the £7-8 million for a Type 21 and £17 million for a Type 42 in 1969 must have been the cost of those systems.

On the subject of CAAIS I think that the early Type 21s weren't completed with it and had it fitted later. If I'm correct that would account for some of the difference between the cost of the first and last ships in the table. Similarly the early ships weren't completed with Exocet and torpedo tubes. That would account for some of the increase in cost as well. Plus the early Type 42s weren't completed with torpedo tubes either if I remember correctly and if correct that would account for some of increase in cost.

If I'm correct about the early Type 21s not having CAAIS that would also account for some of the difference between the cost of a Type 21 and a Type 42 at 1969 prices. The cost of fitting it later would remove some of its cost advantage over the Type 42.

A broad-beam Type 21 armed with Sea Wolf, built instead of the Type 22 Batch 1 would also need the upgraded CAAIS that Type 22 had and a Type 2016 sonar instead of Type 184. That would reduce the difference between the two ships so it might be better to just buy Type 22s, which also have two Sea Wolfs instead of one and facilities for a second Lynx size helicopter.

Broad-beamed Type 21 probably requires a larger crew to work the extra weapons, upgraded sensor and better electronics. That may accounts for the difference between a Type 21 and a Type 22 Batch 1 - 175 v 224. However, I think some of the smaller crew of a Type 21 was that there weren't enough men to operate all of its weapons at the same time, which might only be acceptable to the RN for a small proportion of its ships. You'd also need more accommodation for the bigger crew which might push the size of the ship up which would reduce that difference between a Type 21 and a Type 22 too.
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
4,240
Reaction score
3,518
The ship that the RN really needed in large quantities for its prime North Atlantic NATO ASW was the Type 22.
Unfortunately its key point defence SAM the Seawolf took so long to develop that the first ships were not ready until the 80s.
The Seadart and Ikara were developed with the help of the sole T82 to be built.
I am no fan of Ikara and would have bought more Seaking ASW helos instead. Canada showed that these could operate from frigate sized ships.
A double ended T82 with Seadart at both ends would have made the bigger hull worthwhile.
The T22 should have been built earlier with Seaking embarked and 4 Seacats as interim PDMS.
A mix of these two classes would have given the RN fewer hulls but more capable ships
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
638
Reaction score
880
The T22 should have been built earlier with Sea King embarked and 4 Sea Cats as interim PDMS.
Broadsword the first Type 22 was ordered on 8th February 1974, laid down on 7th February 1975, launched on 12th May 1976, completed on 24th January 1979 and commissioned on 3rd May 1979.

I think early 1970s editions of Jane's were saying that the first Type 22 orders were expected in 1973. If I've remembered correctly the delay of one year was probably because of the recession precipitated by the Oil Crisis.

There's no chance of improving on that because the RCNC didn't have the capacity to design what became Type 22 and Type 42 at the same time which is one of the reasons why we got Type 21. Unless you don't design the Type 42 and buy more Type 82s and Type 21.

Leo Marriott on Page 100 of Royal Navy Frigates 1945-1983 says that the last 4 Type 21s were to have been completed with Sea Wolf instead of Sea Cat but it wasn't fitted due to cost, top weight and stability problems. As they last 4 Type 21s were completed 1977-78 it looks like the earliest that we could get a Sea Wolf equipped Type 22 was 1977.

An earlier Type 22 might have to be fitted with the Type 184 sonar instead of Type 2016 and possibly a less powerful version of CAAIS too.
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
638
Reaction score
880
The Sea Dart and Ikara were developed with the help of the sole T82 to be built'
I am no fan of Ikara and would have bought more Sea King ASW helos instead. Canada showed that these could operate from frigate sized ships.
A double ended T82 with Sea Dart at both ends would have made the bigger hull worthwhile.
Redesigning the Type 82 after the Point of Departure is going to take time so Bristol will have to be built "as is" or be cancelled.

However, while we're at it redesign Type 82 to have all gas turbine machinery (COGOG or COGAG) rather than the mixed steam turbine and gas turbine (COSAG) machinery of the actual Type 82. If it uses the earlier Marine Spey suggested by @Tony Williams what we're getting looks suspiciously like Type 43.

One of the problems with that is a large destroyer with two Sea King helicopters is that it might threaten what became the Invincible class. Large hull, 2 Sea Darts, flagship facilities and two large helicopters. Dennis Healey and Lord Carrington might think that 6 to 9 ALT-Type 82s were a better investment than 3 Through-Deck Cruisers. The MoD (Navy) would have to persuade them that the ant-shadower capability that Invincible with Sea Harriers had and ALT-Type 82 didn't was indispensable.
 
Last edited:

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
638
Reaction score
880
I am no fan of Ikara and would have bought more Sea King ASW helos instead. Canada showed that these could operate from frigate sized ships.
Neither am I unless it can be given greater range with no loss of accuracy and no increase in cost.

However, I think that one of the reasons for fitting Ikara to the Leanders was that they had already been bought and paid for as long-lead items for projected Type 82s. Which if correct is another point against my proposal to build 2 Type 22s and 6 Type 42s instead of 8 of the Leander modernisations.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
3,364
Reaction score
2,118
But your comment has made me think that your Point of Departure is wrong.
I didn't give you a PoD. But I do agree that the mkII GWS.31 might have succeeded Bloodhound and it might have kept the Dutch onboard if ordered in sufficient quantity.

But the trend in thinking would make a Thunderbird successor more a extended range Sea Wolf-like missile. At sea that became SAM.72 and XPX.430.
On land it became GAST.1210 and various Sea Wolf concepts with bigger boosters didn't.
Sadly without the scaled up Sea Wolf of XPX.430, GAST.1210 wasn't achievable.

But irony of ironies, a major cost system like Broomstick was in fact not the ideal 3D radar element and ASWRE C-band efforts were much more on the right vein.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
3,364
Reaction score
2,118
In cost/capability the Cruiser was actually cheaper vis-a-vis Type 82.
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
638
Reaction score
880
To continue my anti-Type 21 rant.

The crew figures that I've been using come from Jane's Fighting Ships 1986-87. It says 175 for a Type 21.

However, Capt. John Lippiett, RN in Modern Combat Ships 5 Type 21 first published in 1990 wrote on Page 67 that...
When Amazon first sailed with a ship's company of 170, the Royal Navy had never seen such a diminutive crew for the size of ship, and the results were perhaps predictable: the workload for those onboard increased considerably, and duties were sometimes taken on at lower rate than had previously been the case. These seeming disadvantages were countered by increased delegation, improved job satisfaction, and much better living conditions.
But I'm quoting it because of the next sentence which is...
The initial number in the complement has gradually crept up over the years, and is now just under 200.
That reduces the manning advantages that the Type 21 had over the Type 22 and 42.

However, to be fair the other books in the Modern Combat Ships series sometimes say the crews are not the same as Jane's and the differences aren't always in favour of my argument. E.g. Volume 4 about the Type 22 says Batch I: 235 (varies); Batch II: 265 (HMS Brave) and Batch III: 286.
 
Last edited:

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
638
Reaction score
880
But your comment has made me think that your Point of Departure is wrong.
I didn't give you a PoD.
Sea Dart Mk II was cancelled as part of the 1981 Defence Review and you wrote.
26 Sea Dart sets may tip the balance on Mk II, but it would be a minimum development version for compatibility with existing systems.

In my Sea Dart Success thread w examined the potential for the missile.
I took the above as shorthand for it may tip the balance on Mk II surviving the 1981 Defence Review so that's the POD.

If you took offence, none was meant.
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
638
Reaction score
880
Lemming Number Three! You should know the form by now!

This is a list of the 18 Type 22 Batch 1 frigates destroyers that were built instead of the middle 10 Leander modernisations, the 4 Type 22 Batch 1 frigates and the 4 Type 42 Batch 2 destroyers that were built in the "real world".

Note that it was 22 Type 22 in Post 13, but the dates of the last 4 Leander modernisations didn't fit so the Type 22s built in their place are now Batch 2 ships instead of Batch 1s.

Type 22 Batch 1 Frigates.png

The Naming of the Ships
  • The 4 ships built instead of the Type 22s built in the "real world" have the same names as the "real world" ships.
  • The 4 ships built instead of the Type 42s been given the names of 4 of the Type 21 frigates that aren't built in "this version of history."
  • The 10 ships built instead of the Leander modernisations include 8 that have been given the names of the Daring class destroyers built after the end of World War Two and 2 ships have been named after interwar E class destroyers.
The Shipyards
  • The 4 ships built instead of the Type 22s built in the "real world" have been built in the same yards as the "real world" ships.
  • The 4 ships built instead of the Type 42s have been built in the same yards that the Type 42s were built in.
  • The 10 ships built in place of the middle 10 Leander modernisations have been built at the same dockyards that carried out the modernisations of the Leanders they have been built in stead of.
    • The last warship built at Devonport in the "real world" was the frigate Scylla completed in 1968.
    • The last warship built at Chatham in the "real world" was the Canadian submarine Okanagan completed in 1968.
    • The last warship built at Portsmouth in the "real world" was the frigate Andromeda completed in 1967.
The Dates
  • The ordering, laying down and completion dates for the 4 ships that were built in the "real world" are the same as the "real world".
  • The ordering, laying down and completion dates for the 4 ships built instead of the Type 42s are the same as the "real world".
  • I don't know the ordering dates for the 10 Leander modernisations so I have used the nearest ordering date for the Type 22s and 42s that was before the modernisation was begun. That is, with the exception of the two ships built instead of modernising Arethusa (Ikara) and Phoebe (Exocet) which were ordered on the same date as Invincible. If anyone knows what they are, please inform me by PM and I will make the necessary corrections.
  • The laying down dates for the 10 ships built instead of the modernised Leanders are the dates that the refits began. The 4 Type 22s and 4 Type 42s were built in an average of 4 years and 4 months so I have used that as the building time for these ships.
  • I don't know what the projected building time was. I have kept it in for the sake of standardisation with the table in Post 16. I chose 4 years because the 4 Type 22s were built in an average of 4 years and one month.
The Costs

These are the actual costs of the 10 Leander modernisations, 4 Type 22s and 4 Type 42s in the "real world". The ships built in place of the modernised Leanders would cost more.

However, I think that there might be some cost reduction due to economies of scale and I think that the operational advantages would more than cancel out the higher building cost.

In addition to the examples of possible economies of scale that I gave in Post 16 a lot more Sea Wolf systems are built in "this version of history". In the "real world" there were 14 Type 22s and 5 Sea Wolf Leanders with 19 Type 967/968 radars, 33 Type 910 radars and 33 sets of launchers. In this timeline its 36 Type 22s and no Sea Wolf Leanders with 36 Type 967/968 radars, 72 Type 910 radars and 72 sets of launchers.

In Post 16 I told of how the National Debt of the United Kingdom rose from £34,193.9 million at 31st March 1968 to £93,358 million at 31st March 1980. Meanwhile, the amount of money spent on servicing it (Consolidated Fund only) rose from £668.5 million in the 1967-68 financial year to 4,143.2 million in the 1979-80 financial year.

The last ship on the list to be completed was Active (ex-Nottingham) on 8th April 1983. The National Debt had increased to £133,333 million at 31st March 1983 and the amount of money spent on servicing it (Consolidated Fund only) in the 1982-83 financial year was £5,392.7 million.

And HM Treasury will get some of the extra money that it spent back in taxes.

Therefore, I think the extra money required is trivial in the scheme of things.

As @Tony Williams wrote in the article he attached to Post 2 the rampant inflation of the era makes it nigh on impossible to compare the costs of the different classes of ship. Amongst other things it makes my average cost of class figure meaningless.

Another thing that I should mention in relation to the costs is that the 10 Leander modernisations replaced by 10 Type 22 frigates consisted of the final 3 "Ikara" refits, the last 6 "Exocet" refits and the first "Sea Wolf" refit.

The Designs

The only thing that I don't like about the Type 22 Batch 1 is that it doesn't have a 4.5" gun. Although I think one could have been added with an acceptable increase in the cost it might also mean a bigger crew and that will upset my crew calculations.

Building 4 fewer Type 22 Batch 1 and 4 more Type 22 Batch 2 increases the total crew in the table in Post 13 by 196 with the result that instead of being 176 less than the "real world" total, it is 20 more.

Mistakes

And if you see any silly mistakes, please tell me via PM so I can make the corrections and not by posting a message on this thread, because posting them here makes the thread look messy.

That's all I've got for you today. Go away now!
 
Last edited:

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
3,364
Reaction score
2,118
36 complete Sea Wolf Systems comprising 72 six round launchers?
60 rounds per system?
2,160 rounds....
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
4,240
Reaction score
3,518
The Type 21 numbers (8 ).match the number of Leanders converted to carry Ikara and so no longer available as General Purpose frigates.
In service the T21 became very effective Leander GP replacements and 7 served in the Falklands.
Unlike the Leanders they could carry both 4 Exocet SSM and a 4.5 gun as well as a Lynx helo.
The fragility of ships in the Falklands forgets that in the North Atlantic where war was expected to be fought the big Soviet anti ship missiles would sink anything short of a recommissioned New Jersey BB.
The really expensive Seawolf Leanders are built to remedy the shortfall in Seawolf numbers caused by the slow progress of getting T22 into service.
My T82 design removed the Ikara and simply has Seadart at both ends. I would not fit a helo to these ships as my Seakings would go on T22 frigates and RFA (possibly CVS but I would give these up to get more T82/T22.
T42 for me is too little ship for too much money. One Seadart only, no Exocet and no Seaking.
By cancelling Ikara and going with Seaking equipped T22 I am bringing forward what the RN does in the 80s anyway.
Double Seadart T82 mirrors the US Leahy and Beknap designs which are the best pre AEGIS platforms.
Zen and I disagree on UK weapons systems so I leave them to him. Frankly I would have used the money saved on Ikara to fit T82 with Tartar launchers able to ship Standard and Harpoon later.
By 1982 I would have the following Escorts in service:
T82 with Tartar x2 six and two building.
T22 with Seawolf x2
Seaking (maybe Exocet) four and four building.
T22 interim with
Seacat x4 and Seaking four.
I would have bought Otomat rather than Exocet and then Harpoon by 1984.
The Leanders would have remained as GP frigates with guns and Seacats and Lynx replacing Wasp (Lynx would serve on some T22 instead of Seaking where ASW not so crucial eg Armilla patrol or West Indies guardship).
So tweny later Leanders remain in 1982. These are instead of the mixed GP frigates (T21, Leander, Rothesay, Tribal) we actually had.
These are replaced in the late 1980s by T22 and T23. The twin 4.5 gun thus remains the RN main gun as my T82 and T22 are pure missile ships.
A Falklands Task Force would have had four T82 four T22 and twelve Leander
My CVS for what its worth would have been Hermes and Bulwark with Ski jump and Sea Harrier. I would not have needed the Invincibles with my T22 shipping Seaking as well as Hermes and Bulwark.
I would bave replaced them with something more like HMS Ocean since my Seadarts are on T82 and the successor to these UKAEGIS looking very like the Burke clasx would take over in the 90s.
 
Last edited:

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
638
Reaction score
880
Lemming Number Four! Report for duty!

This is a list of the 14 Type 22 Batch frigates destroyers that were built instead of the last 4 Leander modernisations, the 6 Type 22 Batch 2 frigates and the 4 Type 42 Batch 3 destroyers that were built in the "real world". The list also includes the 4 Type 22 Batch 3 ships that were built in both "versions of history".

Note that it was 22 Type 22 in Post 13, but the dates of the last 4 Leander modernisations didn't fit so the Type 22s built in their place are now Batch 2 ships instead of Batch 1s.

Type 22 Batch 2 & 3 Frigates.png

The Naming of the Ships
  • The 10 ships built instead of the Type 22s built in the "real world" have the same names as the "real world" ships.
  • The 4 ships built instead of the Type 42s been given the names of 4 of the Type 21 frigates that aren't built in "this version of history."
  • The 4 ships built instead of the Leander modernisations have been named after interwar E class destroyers.
The Shipyards
  • The 10 ships built instead of the Type 22s built in the "real world" have been built in the same yards as the "real world" ships.
  • The 4 ships built instead of the Type 42s have been built in the same yards that the Type 42s were built in.
  • The 4 ships built in place of the last 4 Leander modernisations have been built at the same dockyards that carried out the modernisations of the Leanders they have been built in stead of.
    • The last warship built at Devonport in the "real world" was the frigate Scylla completed in 1968.
    • The last warship built at Chatham in the "real world" was the Canadian submarine Okanagan completed in 1968.
The Dates
  • The ordering, laying down and completion dates for the 6 ships that were built in the "real world" are the same as the "real world".
  • The ordering, laying down and completion dates for the 4 ships built instead of the Type 42s are the same as the "real world".
  • I don't know the ordering dates for the 4 Leander modernisations so I have used the nearest ordering date for the Type 22s and 42s that was before the modernisation was begun. If anyone knows what they are, please inform me by PM and I will make the necessary corrections.
  • I know that one ship was laid down before it was ordered, but that's what the reference books say.
  • The reason why 8 ships were ordered on 25th April 1979 was that the Labour Government lead by James Callaghan was trying to buy votes to help itself win the 1979 General Election. It lost a vote of no confidence on 28th March 1979, which meant a general election had to be held. The Conservative Party under Margaret Thatcher won said general election, which was held on 3rd May 1979. In the "real world" the Government ordered the first pair of Type 22 Batch 2s and the last pair of Type 42 Batch 3s. I've added the 4 ships that were built instead of the final quartet of Leander modernisations and made all 8 ships Type 22 Batch 2 frigates.
  • The laying down dates for the 4 ships built instead of the modernised Leanders are the dates that the refits began. The 6 Type 22s built in the "real world" were completed in an average of 4 years and 4 months so I have used that as the building time for these ships.
  • I don't know what the projected building time was. I have kept it in for the sake of standardisation with the table in Post 16. I chose 4 years because that was what I'd used for the projected building time for the Type 22 Batch 1 ships in the list in Post 30.
The Costs

These are the actual costs of the 4 Leander modernisations, 10 Type 22s and 4 Type 42s in the "real world". All of the Leander modernisations were "Sea Wolf" refits.

The average costs for the ships built in the real world were:
  • £72,224,750 for a "Sea Wolf" Leander
  • £153,000,000 for a Type 22 Batch 2
  • £152,368,500 for a Type 22 Batch 3
  • £120,025,000 for a Type 42 Batch 3
Inflation hasn't distorted these costs as badly as the averages in Posts 16 and 30. Therefore, I think it can be safely said that the 4 Type 22 Batch 2s built instead of the 4 Leander modernisations would cost around £75 million more per ship and that the 4 Type 22 Batch 2s built instead of the 4 Type 42s would cost around £30 million more per ship. That is a grand total of £420 million, but I'm going to be prudent and round it up to £450 million.

However, I think that there might be some cost reduction due to economies of scale and I think that the operational advantages would more than cancel out the higher building cost. I have speculated on what some of them might have been in Posts 16 and 30.

In the earlier posts I told of how the National Debt of the United Kingdom rose from:
  • £34,193.9 million at 31st March 1968 to
  • £93,358.0 million at 31st March 1980 and
  • £133,333 million at 31st March 1983
Meanwhile, the amount of money spent on servicing it (Consolidated Fund only) rose from:
  • £668.5 million in the 1967-68 financial year to
  • £4,143.2 million in the 1979-80 financial year and
  • £5,392.7 million in the 1982-83 financial year.
The National Debt at 31st March 1990 was £185,578 million and the amount of money spent on servicing it (Consolidated Fund only) in the 1989-90 financial year was £11,343.3 million.

HM Treasury will get some of the extra £450 million that it spent back in taxes.

Therefore, I think that an extra £450 million on the National Debt is trivial in the scheme of things.

The Designs

The only thing that I don't like about the Type 22 Batch 2 is that it doesn't have a 4.5" gun. Although the Batch 3 was able to incorporate one in the Batch 2 hull, with no increase in the size of the crew, the Batch 2 ships built in "this version of history" were built to the same design as the "real world" ships.

In the "real world" the pair of Batch 2 ships had the same Olympus-Tyne COGOG power plant as the Type 21s, Type 22 Batch 1 and Type 42. Brave the fifth ship had 2 Speys and 2 Tynes in a COGOG arrangement while the remaining Batch 2 and all of the Batch 3 ships had 2 Speys and 2 Tynes in a COGAG arrangement. All of the 8 extra Batch 2 ships have the Olympus-Tyne COGOG power plant.

Building 4 fewer Type 22 Batch 1 and 4 more Type 22 Batch 2 increases the total crew in the table in Post 13 by 196 with the result that instead of being 176 less than the "real world" total, it is 20 more.

Mistakes

And if you see any silly mistakes, please tell me via PM so I can make the corrections and not by posting a message on this thread, because posting them here makes the thread look messy.

Afterword

It must be emphasised that this is not intended to be critical of the decisions made at the time; they were influenced by countless political, financial and practical considerations and I have no reason to doubt that those responsible made the best decisions they could, in the light of the information then available.
@Tony Williams from the essay that he attached to Post 2.
 
Last edited:

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
638
Reaction score
880
Lemming Number Five please!

This is the table in Post 13 revised to account for the changes in the numbers of Type 22 Batch 1 and Type 22 Batch 2 frigates.

JFS 1986-87 RN Surface Warships ALT-1 Mk 2.png

The earlier version of the table required 176 fewer men that the "real world" total of 17,541 shown in the table in Post 7. This version requires 20 more men the "real world" total of 17,541 shown in the table in Post 7.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
3,364
Reaction score
2,118
Slightly incoherent result of trawling my book.
1966 Authorised Frigate and Destroyer force 68 = 24 fully efficient ships.
1971 3.5 ships short due to cut in maximum away (from port) time.

1974 review cut 9 Frigates and Destroyers planned for 1975-84.
Frigate and Destroyer force set at 65

DEFE 24/687 Long Term Structure of the Fleet report May 1975.
2.5 ships built per year
life 28 years 2 modernisations
Limits surface Fleet to 70.
New ship design every 3 years
New submarine design every 7
60 availability for surface ships at 15 days notice
17 TAS shops = 10 available

1975 Conclusions
37 Sea Dart systems needed 29 planned
A twin set ship (Type 43)

1975 existing plan for 1990.
26 missile armed destroyers
15 Type 42 + 10 modified + Type 82

39 Frigates of 8 Type 21, 7 Type 22 and 24 Leanders.

1978 plan
Armed Fort Victoria class allows cut of 23 Frigates.

5 TAS Type 22 and 5 Type 42 per CV

11 Planned Type 42s would be switched to Type 22s for little change in cost.
19 total Type 42s remaining in the plan with 3 Type 43s entering service 1989 and 5 in service 1990.

CAAIS was a failure.

Type 43 could allow a reduction in AAW ship numbers but ironically the potential in a modernised Sea Dart GWS.31 would allow a smaller ship. Especially if using VLS, but possible even with twin arm launcher.
Out of which emerges Type 44 using the Type 22 hull, and propulsion setup.

Alternative to Sea Dart mkII is a new SAM. SAM.72 resolved by XPX.430.
 
Last edited:

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
638
Reaction score
880
Does anyone know what the crews for Type 42 Batch 4, Type 43 and Type 44 were? I want to work out how many could have been manned with the personnel that was available?
 

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
681
Lemming Number Two! Your time is up!

This is a list of the 20 Type 42 Batch 1 destroyers that were built instead of the first 6 Leander modernisations, the 8 Type 21 frigates and the 6 Type 42 Batch 1 destroyers that were built in the "real world".

The Naming of the Ships

  • There should have been at least one ship named after a Northern Irish town, but the names of the two largest towns were in use. That is the World War II Town class cruiser Belfast and the Rothesay class frigate Londonderry.
One option for a Northern Irish-linked name could be Armagh, which was a cathedral city at the time, and had apparently been considered for use in the Type-61 frigate class.
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
638
Reaction score
880
Link to Post 35.
I've got some notes that I plan to upload later that give more detail on the above.

In the meantime the actual total of destroyers and frigates (henceforth known as "frigoyers") in service was about 80 in the middle 1960s and that's the Point of Departure according to the title of this thread.

The East of Suez withdrawal reduced the total to about 70 in the middle 1970s which the Mason defence review reduced to about 60 by cutting most of the remaining out of NATO area frigoyers.

The Knott defence review reduced it to 42 plus 8 ships in reserve. However, is successor Michael Heseltine found the personnel to keep all 50 in service by "streamlining" as it was called in news reports of the time.

The Options for Change defence review published under Tom King's tenure cut the total to 40. I have heard that Alan Clark one of the junior ministers wanted a cut to 32 and he did get his way because it was cut to 35 and then to 32 later in the 1990s.

They were the actual situation or the approved strength, not the "wish lists" of the top brass.

I'm including ships undergoing long refits in ships in commission which also includes trials & training ships. It doesn't include ships in reserve or on harbour service.

I've not heard of CAAIS being a failure before. I'm not saying that it's wrong, only that it's new to me. Do you have a source for this and why was it a failure? The one that I've heard of being a failure was one of the marks of CACS that was the successor to CAAIS. It was either the one planned for Type 22 Batch 2, Type 22 Batch 3 or Type 23. Is that what you are referring to?
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
3,269
Reaction score
4,508
My chunky Type 21 based off the Niteroi-class:

A modernised twin 3in/70 with GRP mount, boxed Ikara/Woomba and Lynx gives a decent all-round capability. Sea Cat sucks but is cheap and by the 90s replaced by CIWS offering better close-in kill capability and Harpoons. Has a cheap air-search radar too to boost the picket role.

But then in my AU RN the Type 81 might not exist so general purpose needs are greater. But saying that, for me the real T21 was too general purpose and too vague, before they shoe horned Exocet onto them its hard to see what combat value they had - little better than the export ships Vospers were pushing out for places like Nigeria.
ASW capability was OK but lightweight torpedoes and a Type 184M-directed dumb Wasp/Lynx dropping more lightweight torpedoes was not brilliant.
I suppose the idea was they would serve much like the Rivers do today, limited crew size, air con and cruising around the Gulf/Far East and occasionally duffing up some pirate ruffians or rum smugglers and showing big White Ensigns around the world.
For that a 175-man crew seems sufficient, but a diesel powerplant and slightly less speed might have been more economical.

Type 42s and 22s makes a nice combo and cutting out Type 21s and relegating gun-armed Leanders to flag showing doesn't sound like a bad idea.
I would still be tempted to do a modest Leander upgrade on the Broad Beam ships: remove Limbo, updated hull sonar, Lynx hangar, retain the 4.5in mount, Sea Cat is awkward to replace and can see it staying for want of anything better (the Exocet conversions with 3 quad Sea Cats seemed pointless to me).
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
3,364
Reaction score
2,118
Quite right CACS was the failure leading to DNA1. Memory failure.

Type 42 batch I compliment 312
Type 43 compliment 348
At a cost of £200 million (Nott cancellation)
However I cannot find a Type 44 figure.

While it would be slightly wrong to assume 1 Type 43 = 2 Type 42 for operational reasons.
It would be reasonable to assume 1 Type 43 = 1.5 Type 42.
Or 24 Type 43 deliver capability of 36 Type 42s.
But in their favour is the extra capability of a full Sea Wolf System.

Type 44 seems conceived 'out of committee' and D.K.Brown seems to think it offered little.
 
Top