Royal Navy Destroyers and Frigates post 1966

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
561
Reaction score
762
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.
Is the Type 42 Batch I a typo for Batch IV? If it is not I think you're quoting the total accommodation and not the crew which I've got as 253 from several sources.

From what I remember Brown thought that one Type 43 was better than two-and-a-bit Type 42s or Type 44s in AD capability. But I was skimming through my Friedman earlier on to see if he had any crews for the proposed ships and he thought that Type 44 was the best.

This might be an example of the Vroomfondel and Majikthise principle. All you have to do is violently disagree with each other and you'll be on the gravy train for life.

While I'm at it Friedman said there was no evidence to support the story that the Type 42 had it's length reduced and that the magazine capacity of the Batch 3 was the same as the earlier batches, i.e. 22 missiles.
 
Last edited:

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
4,176
Reaction score
3,432
The T42 always seemed to me to be an expensive way of having a Perry class frigate. The Australians seemed to have no problem with the Perry.
22 Seadart missiles reflects how short the T42 lifespan was expected to be in the North Atlantic against Shaddock and co.
If you want area ships the T82 hull with better engines and Seadart only (no gun no helos) gives you a decent ship.. Phalanx can then be added.
I think Seadart is probably better than pre AEGIS standard so I would save dollars and stick with it. There is enough room for some Harpoon tubes later too.
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
4,176
Reaction score
3,432
The Royal Navy seemed to make a real meal of fitting 4 Exocet SSM to its ships.
The 4 late County had to lose a valuable twin 4.5 gun. The Leander conversions followed this pattern and still had topweight issues.
The T22 could not ship a gun until the Batch 3 ships got Harpoon instead.
Only the much criticised T21 could get both. Perhaps that is why they were so over used (though acceleration and comfort for crew also factored).
Compared with other Western ships the RN used real space hogging missile fits for Seaslug, Ikara, Seadart, Exocet and Seawolf. Only poor old Seacat seemed to be reasonably compact if pretty useless at shooting things down.
As I have commented many times before even as a kid I was struck by the simplicity and style of US launchers.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
3,296
Reaction score
2,011
To be fair RN got obsessive over safety of storage.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
3,166
Reaction score
4,243
Sea Dart magazine numbers are interesting.

April 1961 post-Leander 'CF 299' Frigate with 40x SIGS missiles + Sea Cat & Limbo and 2x MATCH, Leander steam powerplant.
Then came DS 51A, a modified Type 14 hull with 32x Sea Dart + Bofors A/S rockets.

ORC Sketch Staff Requirements early 1962 written for a combined Sea Dart/Ikara destroyer with 38x Sea Dart with 2x TIR + 20x Ikara. DS 53 refined this to 38x Sea Dart + 10 additional (presumably nuclear) warheads with 24x Ikara & 4x nuclear depth bombs and the resulting Type 82 kept to 38x Sea Dart.

In 1964 the DS 336 escort (3,510 tons, 420x 44ft) was part of a series of studies and had 20x Sea Dart with 1x Type 909 and only Type 992P for air-search - this was rejected as insufficient for fleet defence (the similar DS 347 (3,020 tons, 385 x 44ft) had Sea Mauler). DS 345 (3,420 tons, 395 x 47ft) had a full 38x Sea Dart with 2x Type 909 and Type 992P; Friedman says "It was not really wanted, but it was included for completeness."
In March/April 1964 the early DS 365/Type 17 A/S frigate design was compared against a developed Type 41 hull design being developed for the Dutch with Sea Dart & Ikara & gun but Friedman gives no details on this design.
Equally frustratingly, Friedman doesn't state how many Sea Darts were carried on DS 382 - the AA version of the definitive DS 381/Type 17 - but it must have been more than 26 given the later cut (see below). Again 992P was the only search set. Friedman states there is no direct lineage between DS 381 and what became Type 42. It displaced 4,500 tons, powerplant was 4x Rushton AO16 diesels.

The 1966 Future Fleet Working Party continued work on Type 17 and the AAW version - now DS 391. Both were trimmed and redesigned to save money, 3,500 tons, 390 x 45ft, £10.25M for the AAW ship. DS 391 had the Sea Dart moved forward with a single-rail launcher and the magazine cut to 26x missiles and 1x Type 909. Limbo was removed.
Further cuts on DS 389 (2,500 tons, 360 x 40ft, £9.75M) saw the 4.5in gun go, the 26x Sea Dart moving moved aft again. 1x 40mm Bofors was the only gun. The main radar was a projected Type 965 replacement. The powerplant was now Olypmus-Tyne as they were small enough for COGAG.

1966 work begins on Type 42 to succeed the Sea Slug ships built on the design work done for the AAW Type 17 variant. Unit cost was to be £12M. The Sea Dart system was further shrunk to 22x missiles. Type 965 was fitted and despite original thoughts to save money, 2x Type 909 were fitted. Olympus-Tyne were retained, designed for 4 years between refits. The cost of the austere 1x Type 909 version came in at £11M in October 1967 (plus no provision for Bexley jammers, no extra torpedoes and no observer for the Lynx). Friedman states at this point the length was cut to 392ft - which he notes was still more than the original 385ft sketch designs) - "Probably to make it difficult to add new and expensive features." The result was a wet forecastle. The 22x missile magazine was retained. The crew accommodation was cut from 306 with space for 315 to 273 with space for 306 and later still 280 (20 officers, 260 ratings), though by the 1980s he notes they had 312 (24 officers, 229 ratings).
The second Type 909 brought cost to under £13.5M but the planned EW system could not be fitted at that cost.

In 1975 work began on a Type 42 redesign, it was found the ship was too short. Here Friedman contradicts himself that there was no indication that the Type 42 had been shortened in the design phase from the preferred 434ft. This seems a curious statement as the Batch I ships were 392ft (WL) long! And when he states that 392ft was longer than the initially planned 385ft!!
Even so in 1976 the planned Batch III would have a 434ft long hull with the 22x missile magazine but space was provided to extend this to 37x missiles. This was never done. Given the nascent Batch IV was to have GWS 30 (to NST 6503) we can perhaps speculate whether the magazine extension might have been done then.

In 1976 as work began on NST 6503 to upgrade Sea Dart as GWS 30 with the Type 1030 STIR, NST 6505 was issued for GWS 31 with potentially mid-course guidance, VLS, height-finding radar and an anti-radar Sea Dart. By 1978 some this had been toned down but Sea Dart would be upgraded and Type 909M retained. It was cancelled in 1981 in the Defence Review.
In 1976 work began on the Type 43 ship (DDG-19) - Sea Dart forward, Sea Wolf aft, cellular weapons stations, Spey SM1A. Option 10 had NST 6503 modernised Sea Dart & STIR with a larger magazine but no 4.5in gun. Option 22 kept the gun and added Sea Wolf. Both had a stretched hull.
Type 42 could have NST 6503 too but adding Sea Wolf meant losing the gun.
By 1978 Type 43 had gained a second Sea Dart aft and 2x more Type 909M. 4x Sea Wolf and 2x Type 910 were also fitted. I haven't seen any specific reference to the number of missiles but plans seem to show a Type 42-sized magazine so total capacity of the larger double-ender ship was presumably 44x Sea Darts.

Type 44 seems to have been an NST 6505 GWS 31 Sea Dart plus Sea Wolf plonked into a Type 22 hull. Again it looks like the 22x missile magazine was retained - though D.K. Brown doubts it would have fit into a Type 22 hull. The argument being that GWS 31 was superior enough to GWS 30 to allow a reduction to one Sea Dart launcher.

So from 1961-81 the ideal Sea Dart loadout declined from 40 to 22. Once Type 42 had been trimmed in 1966 to 22 missiles the T42 magazine dictated all future Sea Dart designs - there was no revival of the 38-round T82 magazine.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
3,296
Reaction score
2,011
The numbers are more interesting because they don't follow a digital progression.
Which is very curious.
32 and 48 make sense in each round is ascribed a digital identity in the magazine system.
Even if 10 are nuclear armed, this is just additional information in the rounds file identity.

But 20, 22, and 37?
Though if one added two training rounds into the system to make 24......
And although it's not a perfect solution, 24+4 makes sense.
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
561
Reaction score
762
Link to Post 7.
Link to Post 13.
Link to Post 16.
Post to Post 30.
Link to Post 33.
Link to Post 34.
In the above I suggested building 36 Type 22s and 20 Type 42s in place of the 8 Type 21, 14 Type 22 and 14 Type 22 built in the "real world" and the 20 Leander modernisations.

I also wrote that the Type 22 Batch 1 and 2 would be built to their "real world" designs because I didn't want to increase the building cost and increase the size of the crew.

I've changed my mind.

The 18 Type 22 Batch 1 and 14 Type 22 Batch 2 are now armed with one 4.5" Mk 8 gun (like the Batch 3) even if it does increase the cost and the size of the crew. They'll also be armed with 8 Harpoons (like the Batch 3) instead of 4 Exocets. In common with the Batch 3 the gun will be mounted in "A" position and the missiles will be mounted in the forward superstructure behind the bridge.

Type 22 Batches 2 and 3 had the same size crew (according to Jane's Fighting Ships 1986-87) in spite the latter having a heavier armament (two twin 30mm as well as the 4.5" gun) so I think that my version of the Batch 2 will have the same size crew as the real version.

According to its Wikipedia article development of Harpoon began in 1965 and the first deliveries were in 1977. I don't like to use Wikipedia as a source, but on this occasion it's probably accurate enough to conclude that Type 22 can be designed to carry 8 Harpoons instead of 4 Exocets. However, some of the Batch 1 ships might "fitted for but not with" the Harpoons when they were completed and have the missiles installed during refits.

Fitting Type 22 Batches 1 and 2 with the 4.5" gun increases the number built for Types 22 and 42 in my timeline from 24 to 56 which might reduce the unit costs for the weapon through economies of scale.
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
561
Reaction score
762
Although I'm no fan of the Leander modernisations I think the Dutch did a much better job with the Van Spejiks.

After modernisation they were armed with one 76mm OTO-Melara gun, 8 Harpoons, 2 Sea Cat launchers, 6 AS torpedo tubes and carried a Lynx helicopter. Their electronics included SEAWCO 4 (which was their equivalent to ADAWS & CAAIS), a compact VDS and a LW-03 air surveillance radar (which was their equivalent to the British Type 1022).

Most impressively of all the crew was reduced to 180 (according to Jane's Fighting Ships 1986-87) which compares very favourably to the British ships which according to the same source were:
  • 235 Broad-Beam
  • 248 Exocet
  • 257 Ikara
  • 260 Sea Wolf
Jane's doesn't give full dates of the refits but they seem to have been done between 1976 and 1983 with each refit taking between 2 and 3 years. That was at about the same time that the last 8 British Leander modernisations were taking place (3 Exocet and 5 Sea Wolf) which according to my figures took an average of 3.7 years to complete.

Jane's doesn't say how much the refits cost either. So we can't make cost comparisons with the British Leander modernisations, but they were probably much cheaper to run on account of the considerably smaller crews.

A British equivalent would have one 4.5" Mk 8 gun, 8 Harpoons, 2 Sea Cat launchers, 6 AS torpedo tubes, a Lynx helicopter, ADAWS or CAAIS, a towed-array sonar replacing the Type 199 VDS and a Type 1022 radar. However, some of these systems might require more people to operate them so the crew might not be reduced to 180.

However, I still think a new platform (hull and machinery) carrying the same payload (weapons, sensors, et al) would be a better investment in the short, medium and long terms.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
3,166
Reaction score
4,243
The numbers are more interesting because they don't follow a digital progression.
Which is very curious.
32 and 48 make sense in each round is ascribed a digital identity in the magazine system.
Even if 10 are nuclear armed, this is just additional information in the rounds file identity.

But 20, 22, and 37?
Though if one added two training rounds into the system to make 24......
And although it's not a perfect solution, 24+4 makes sense.

I'm attaching a magazine layout which was discussed in a Sea Dart SSM thread with the proposal for an anti-ship version for Type 42.
The magazine seems to have:
18 in conveyor racks
2 ready use
So the full stated capacity of 22 seems to include two missiles on the launcher rails (unless there is space for 2 more not shown in this diagram).

Type 82 as far as I can make out had racks 9 missiles long which = 36 plus two ready-use makes 38

The Batch III lengthening allowed room for 15 more missiles - so presumably the three 6-missile racks would have been stretched to 11 missiles long which would make the arrangement longer than the Type 82 magazine (but importantly keep the same width) (22+15 = 37 and explaining the odd number given the three racks).
 

Attachments

  • Sea Dart SSM Type 42 Mag.png
    Sea Dart SSM Type 42 Mag.png
    1 MB · Views: 19

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
561
Reaction score
762
36 complete Sea Wolf Systems comprising 72 six round launchers?
60 rounds per system?
2,160 rounds....
In the "real world" it was 14 complete systems for the 14 Type 22s and 5 half-systems for the 5 Leander modernisations. Was that a total of 33 six-round launchers at 60 per system = 990 rounds?

I'm currently working on about 45 Type 23 and 15 Type 43 instead of Types 21, 22, 42, 81 and the Leander modernisations. How many rounds and target indicator radars does that produce?
 

EwenS

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
415
Reaction score
696
Although I'm no fan of the Leander modernisations I think the Dutch did a much better job with the Van Spejiks.

After modernisation they were armed with one 76mm OTO-Melara gun, 8 Harpoons, 2 Sea Cat launchers, 6 AS torpedo tubes and carried a Lynx helicopter. Their electronics included SEAWCO 4 (which was their equivalent to ADAWS & CAAIS), a compact VDS and a LW-03 air surveillance radar (which was their equivalent to the British Type 1022).

Most impressively of all the crew was reduced to 180 (according to Jane's Fighting Ships 1986-87) which compares very favourably to the British ships which according to the same source were:
  • 235 Broad-Beam
  • 248 Exocet
  • 257 Ikara
  • 260 Sea Wolf
Jane's doesn't give full dates of the refits but they seem to have been done between 1976 and 1983 with each refit taking between 2 and 3 years. That was at about the same time that the last 8 British Leander modernisations were taking place (3 Exocet and 5 Sea Wolf) which according to my figures took an average of 3.7 years to complete.

Jane's doesn't say how much the refits cost either. So we can't make cost comparisons with the British Leander modernisations, but they were probably much cheaper to run on account of the considerably smaller crews.

A British equivalent would have one 4.5" Mk 8 gun, 8 Harpoons, 2 Sea Cat launchers, 6 AS torpedo tubes, a Lynx helicopter, ADAWS or CAAIS, a towed-array sonar replacing the Type 199 VDS and a Type 1022 radar. However, some of these systems might require more people to operate them so the crew might not be reduced to 180.

However, I still think a new platform (hull and machinery) carrying the same payload (weapons, sensors, et al) would be a better investment in the short, medium and long terms.
Dutch mid-life update dates.
Van Speijk - late 1976 to 3/1/79
Van Galen - 15/7/77 - 30/11/79
Van Nes - 31/3/78 - 28/11/80
Tjerk Hiddes - 15/12/78 - 7/8/81
Evertsen - 18/7/79 - 26/11/82 had been due to complete 12/81
Isaac Sweers - 1/7/80 - 28/10/83 had been due to complete 8/82

At least 8 months of the delays with the last pair was due to lack of civilian labour in the naval dockyards.

“Leander class frigates” by Richard Osborne and David Sowdon published by the World Ship Society in 1990

Although fitted for 8 Harpoon generally only 2 were carried due to budget constraints. Complement is given as reducing from 254 to 190. Lack of money prevented replacement of SeaCat.

11 Feb 1986 4 sold to Indonesia with transfers between 1/10/86 and 31/10/87. July 1989 sale of last pair announced with transfers in Nov 1989 and Nov 1990.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
3,166
Reaction score
4,243
I'm currently working on about 45 Type 23 and 15 Type 43 instead of Types 21, 22, 42, 81 and the Leander modernisations. How many rounds and target indicator radars does that produce?
Hope you are making some of those Type 23s the proposed lengthened version with Goalkeeper and extra Sea Wolf VL aft?
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
561
Reaction score
762
I'm currently working on about 45 Type 23 and 15 Type 43 instead of Types 21, 22, 42, 81 and the Leander modernisations. How many rounds and target indicator radars does that produce?
Hope you are making some of those Type 23s the proposed lengthened version with Goalkeeper and extra Sea Wolf VL aft?
No. Because I haven't heard of it before.

Do you know what the projected crew of that was? The main reason for an earlier Type 23 is that it has a similar capability to the Type 22 but a much smaller crew. Although the standard Type 23 has 32 Sea Wolf rounds instead of 60 is that offset by it being a VL system and both ships have 2 target indicator radars.

While I'm at it does anyone know what the maximum possible output of a Marine Spey in shaft horse power? I'm not sure that a one-to-one on the Invincible class will be possible. That means more engines to provide the required power or developing Marine Olympus anyway or a Marine Conway or Marine RB.211. I don't want to do any of them because of 1. the extra R&D cost and 2. it destroys the standardisation with the "frigoyer" force that the Invincible class enjoyed in the real world.

My calculation was approx. 3,240 Sea Wolf rounds. That is approx. 1,440 for the approx. 45 Type 23s and 1,800 for the 15 Type 43s.

The Type 43s will have a pair of Type 82 style magazines which if your calculations are correct will produce a total of 1,140 Sea Dart rounds including ready-use and the missiles on the launchers. The comparative total for the "real world" total of 14 Type 42 and one Type 81 was 346 rounds which increases to 426 rounds if the Batch 3s have an extra 15 rounds.
 
Last edited:

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,341
Reaction score
1,253
I'm attaching a magazine layout which was discussed in a Sea Dart SSM thread with the proposal for an anti-ship version for Type 42.
The magazine seems to have:
18 in conveyor racks
2 ready use
So the full stated capacity of 22 seems to include two missiles on the launcher rails (unless there is space for 2 more not shown in this diagram).

Type 82 as far as I can make out had racks 9 missiles long which = 36 plus two ready-use makes 38

The Batch III lengthening allowed room for 15 more missiles - so presumably the three 6-missile racks would have been stretched to 11 missiles long which would make the arrangement longer than the Type 82 magazine (but importantly keep the same width) (22+15 = 37 and explaining the odd number given the three racks).

Type 42 was designed to accommodate either of two different Sea Dart systems:

1. The Type 82 (GWS.30 Mod.0) four lane system but with a reduced number of rows
2. The lightweight Sea Dart system (GWS.30 Mod.1), which only had three lanes

In order to accommodate 22 missiles, two of which were stored in the missile hoists (presumably this was the staff requirement), the magazine space was designed to be long enough to hold 20 in a three lane configuration (the 7-6-7 configuration shown in the diagram Hood posted above) and wide enough for a four lane configuration. Therefore the magazine space could hold 26 missiles (7-6-6-7) with the four lane system, presumably this could also hold two missiles in the hoists for a total load out of 28 Sea Darts. Every missile was a "ready round" as the system fed continuously to the hoists. No check room facilities were included in the Type 42 Sea Dart arrangement.

My hypothesis is that the distance between the launching rails was reduced in the lightweight launcher, this in turn reduced the width between the hoists. As these were fed by the outer lanes in the magazine it also forced those lanes closer together to the point that only one lane could be accommodated between the two outer lanes. In the two attached images, one of the launcher on Bristol and one of the launcher on a Type 42, the launch rails and loading hatches appear much further apart on the GWS30 Mod 0 (Type 82) system.

This all seems rather unsatisfactory, the Type 42 having been designed with the magazine volume for 28 Sea Darts was built with a 22 missile system instead, with the resultant compromises in hull form discussed here. More Sea Darts would not have required any additional personnel either.

Friedman's point about the Batch III having space for an additional 15 missiles deserves further investigation. I find it hard to believe, though stranger things have happened, that Manchester, York, Gloucester and Edinburgh were completed with empty space in their magazine compartments sufficient for five additional rows of Sea Darts. Such a space would have been at least 11ft long, perhaps the idea was rejected and the space repurposed during the design phase. It does hint at the inherent flexibility of the Sea Dart magazine though, add rows for more missiles and subtract rows for less. For instance, a four row system in a 12-11-11-12 arrangement (Friedman's 15 extra missiles suggests 12-11-12 in the three lane system) would provide 48 missiles with two in the hoists.
 

Attachments

  • GWS30_Mod 0 Launcher.jpg
    GWS30_Mod 0 Launcher.jpg
    44.4 KB · Views: 16
  • GWS30_Mod 1 Launcher.jpg
    GWS30_Mod 1 Launcher.jpg
    1.6 MB · Views: 16
Last edited:

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
3,296
Reaction score
2,011
If MkII a.k.a GWS.31 is funded it is logical to fund VLS and remove the cost/weight/maintenance burden of the twin arm launcher.
This could raise the VLS magazine up in the hull, which ought to make for a finer hullform.
Albeit might effect stability margins, however the magazine is mostly empty space.

This also opens a greater flexibility in the design of the Type 43 and a revised Type 42 or incorporation into a Type 44.
This also allows older Type 42s to be sold off or scrapped as mkI Sea Dart stocks are run down.

However to fully exploit such potential may require a higher definition 3D radar (ASWRE's revenge), which does allow for lighter TIR sets.
 

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,397
Reaction score
630
The T42 always seemed to me to be an expensive way of having a Perry class frigate. The Australians seemed to have no problem with the Perry.
22 Seadart missiles reflects how short the T42 lifespan was expected to be in the North Atlantic against Shaddock and co.
If you want area ships the T82 hull with better engines and Seadart only (no gun no helos) gives you a decent ship.. Phalanx can then be added.
I think Seadart is probably better than pre AEGIS standard so I would save dollars and stick with it. There is enough room for some Harpoon tubes later too.
It has to be borne in mind that the Perry for the RAN was the consolation prize - what they wanted was their made-in and designed-in Australia DDL. This was based on the T42 hull and machinery, though the article in Warship 2017 mentions the hull lengthened to ”avoid congestion in the machinery spaces”.
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
561
Reaction score
762
The T42 always seemed to me to be an expensive way of having a Perry class frigate. The Australians seemed to have no problem with the Perry.
22 Seadart missiles reflects how short the T42 lifespan was expected to be in the North Atlantic against Shaddock and co.
If you want area ships the T82 hull with better engines and Seadart only (no gun no helos) gives you a decent ship.. Phalanx can then be added.
I think Seadart is probably better than pre AEGIS standard so I would save dollars and stick with it. There is enough room for some Harpoon tubes later too.
It has to be borne in mind that the Perry for the RAN was the consolation prize - what they wanted was their made-in and designed-in Australia DDL. This was based on the T42 hull and machinery, though the article in Warship 2017 mentions the hull lengthened to ”avoid congestion in the machinery spaces”.
Is it true that the RAN's second choice was Type 42? However, the Australian Government made them buy Perry's because they were cheaper and the USA offered earlier deliveries by selling ships that had been ordered for the USN. I've also claimed that the Perry didn't meet the RAN's requirements while Type 42 did. Are those statements true too?
 
Last edited:

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
561
Reaction score
762
Re the statements about RN warships being under-armed for their size.

Does the extra size significantly increase the building and operating costs? I write that as a believer in the "steel is cheap and air is free" theory.

Does the extra size confer any advantages? E.g. stability, seaworthiness, deck space, habitability, ability to absorb punishment?

This is an accusation that has been levelled at British warships since the the age-of-sail and as far as I know has nearly always been unfair.

E.g. William White's warships may have been larger than foreign warships and carried a smaller armament for their size. They also had greater loads (not load outs) of ammunition, were more seaworthy, (which if that also made them steadier gun platforms so the guns might have been more accurate), could work their guns in harsher weather conditions, had higher maximum speeds in realistic sea conditions, greater endurance (bigger coal bunkers) and the extra size allowed them to absorb more punishment. As far as I know the differences between his warships and their contemporaries was because they were designed to meet different requirements.

As far as I know the only time when this accusation was accurate was 1920-45 when the RN was tardy over the introduction of welding, high-pressure boilers, AC electrics and PVC wiring and most of those decisions were for reasons that seemed good at the time.

I was one of the people who was taken in by the "short-fat frigate". (Which was due to watching a TVS documentary that I saw when on holiday in Christchurch in 1983.) That turned out to be a load of "dingoes kidneys". Though so was John Moore the then editor of Jane's Fighting Ships if his editorials are anything to go by.

A few years earlier there was a series on BBC1 called Seapower presented by Lord Hill-Norton who had been First Sea Lord and Chief of the Defence Staff. (It's on Youtube. I discovered it when I was doing my fact checking.)

One of the things he said was that admirals of the age-of-sail calculated how powerful a warship was by counting its guns and modern admirals calculate how powerful a warship is by counting the aerials. The larger hulls might hide electronics that make the armament more effective.

I also have a vague memory of him being on a post-Falklands edition of Panorama the BBC's flagship current affairs programme defending things like aluminium superstructures and the Type 965 radar.

I shall close by repeating @Tony Williams statement from the essay that he 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.
 
Last edited:

EwenS

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
415
Reaction score
696
As far as I know the only time when this accusation was accurate was 1920-45 when the RN was tardy over the introduction of welding,......
I don’t believe that one can be laid at the door of the RN. Most of the U.K. shipbuilding industry was slow to adopt welding inter-war because it meant spending money on new investment when the orders, both merchant and naval, were not there to justify it. And of course they didn’t want to upset the existing workforce filled with riveters (putting in a rivet needed 4 men). That remained a problem for the yards well into WW2 if not longer. H&W were still using riveting in ships until the 1960s.

Cammell Laird were an exception. They built the world’s first all welded ship in 1920 (MV Fullager). The US didn’t achieve that until 1930 (MV Carolinian).

CL were responsible for building the cruiser Achilles (laid down 6/31, completed 10/33) which was the first ship for the RN that had a significant amount of welded structure. They were also responsible for the Ark Royal completed Dec 1938. I’ve read of various figures for the welded content (75% or entire forward part of the ship for example).

The first all welded ship for the RN was the Halcyon class minesweeper Seagull built in the Devonport Royal Dockyard (laid down 2/37, completed 5/38).

But when rearmament started in earnest, and even more so when war broke out, yards were allowed to use whatever methods they were most comfortable with in order to maximise output. That even applied to the various standard merchant designs. But there were major efforts in WW2 to get industry to change and the use of welding in ships for the RN grew dramatically.
 
Last edited:

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
3,166
Reaction score
4,243
Friedman's point about the Batch III having space for an additional 15 missiles deserves further investigation. I find it hard to believe, though stranger things have happened, that Manchester, York, Gloucester and Edinburgh were completed with empty space in their magazine compartments sufficient for five additional rows of Sea Darts.
My hypothesis was that this was looked at in 1976 when the original study was made to lengthen the hull but not actually ever done.
I am doubtful because immediately aft of the Sea Dart magazine were the Type 184M sonar spaces. Friedman mentions that DGS proposed moving the sonar dome forward to within 105ft of the fore perpendicular to reduce self-noise interference. Presumably this would have also allowed the magazine to be extended aft. Photographs of the Batch 3 hull seem hard to find to confirm whether or this was actually done -model makers seem to have assumed the same sonar location as the earlier batches.
If the sonar wasn't moved then it the magazine length would have remained unchanged.
 
Last edited:

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,397
Reaction score
630
Re the comments about RN warships being under armed for their size.
The T42 always seemed to me to be an expensive way of having a Perry class frigate. The Australians seemed to have no problem with the Perry.
22 Seadart missiles reflects how short the T42 lifespan was expected to be in the North Atlantic against Shaddock and co.
If you want area ships the T82 hull with better engines and Seadart only (no gun no helos) gives you a decent ship.. Phalanx can then be added.
I think Seadart is probably better than pre AEGIS standard so I would save dollars and stick with it. There is enough room for some Harpoon tubes later too.
It has to be borne in mind that the Perry for the RAN was the consolation prize - what they wanted was their made-in and designed-in Australia DDL. This was based on the T42 hull and machinery, though the article in Warship 2017 mentions the hull lengthened to ”avoid congestion in the machinery spaces”.
Is it true that the RAN's second choice was Type 42? However, the Australian Government made them buy Perry's because they were cheaper and the USA offered earlier deliveries by selling ships that had been ordered for the USN. I've also claimed that the Perry didn't meet the RAN's requirements while Type 42 did. Are those statements true too?
There’s no definitive statements in the Warship 2017 article, but as the DDL programme faced opposition due to rising costs the T42 was mentioned as close to meeting the DDL requirement, but also introducing logistics and personnel problems due to equipment used and crewing needs. That was from the Navy Minster, so it could be politicking rather than the opinions of the RAN.
 

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,397
Reaction score
630
Re the statements about RN warships being under-armed for their size.

I shall close by repeating @Tony Williams statement from the essay that he 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.
I recall reading in one of my myriad books about complaints to the naval constructors from RN captains about the poor comparison of their vessels to export ones. The constructors indicated that the export vessels had sacrificed electronics, ammunition, fuel, and accommodations to achieve their weapons fit, i.e. they were all teeth and no backbone.
 

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,397
Reaction score
630
While I'm at it Friedman said there was no evidence to support the story that the Type 42 had it's length reduced and that the magazine capacity of the Batch 3 was the same as the earlier batches, i.e. 22 missiles.
Brown & Moore’s Rebuilding the Royal Navy states that the T42 displacement limit of 3500 tons affected the length. This was from M K Purvis, ‘Post War RN Frigate and Guided Missile Destroyer Design 1944-1969’, Trans RINA (1974)
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
561
Reaction score
762
While I'm at it Friedman said there was no evidence to support the story that the Type 42 had it's length reduced and that the magazine capacity of the Batch 3 was the same as the earlier batches, i.e. 22 missiles.
Brown & Moore’s Rebuilding the Royal Navy states that the T42 displacement limit of 3500 tons affected the length. This was from M K Purvis, ‘Post War RN Frigate and Guided Missile Destroyer Design 1944-1969’, Trans RINA (1974)
Fair enough.

And @Hood wrote in Post 45 that Freidman contradicts himself on the subject. That was something that I missed when I skimmed through my copy.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
3,296
Reaction score
2,011
Plow on!

In my own take.
Smaller Seaslug is mated with an alternative rail based launcher. Allowing County class to carry more SAMs and be more adaptable.

MkIII with SARH is funded and doesn't fall into the NIGS spiral.

Type 82 fields with ASWRE C-band (Type 966?) with lighter TIR sets and a 2 computer array for ADAWS. Armed of course with Seaslug MkIII.
This replaces Thunderbird for the Army.

PT.428 is funded instead of squandering cash on Mauler or Blue Water.
Unboosted is a high end Rapier/Sea Cat II. Drawing in the Dutch.

Boosted is funded to fulfil GAST.1210 and System C. Drawing the French in.

Avons or Sapphires or Gyron Juniors form the basis of an all-GT solution in the early 60's. allowing reduction in crew, increase in availability and a certain commonality with aircraft and power generation GTs.

Legacy NATO 105/L60 gun gets automated as per mk8. A L70 is put into development with the French.
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
4,176
Reaction score
3,432
My approach to the restructuring of the RN after 1966 is to buy the best possible design for the role.

Area Air Defence. A T82 with double ended Seadart seems the best answer to this using capabilities available in 1966. A one for one replacement of 8 County should be possible by 1982.

Anti Submarine Warfare. T22 is the solution to this problem but it needs to be in service sooner and with Seaking not Lynx. Seawolf is one reason for delay. A VLS version instead of the awful six missile box would be nice. Initial ships could have 4 Seacat then 2 Phalanx if VLS tube Seawolf is delayed.

General Purpose. Leander class frigates were ideal GP ships and by 1982 all older designs could have been disposed of.
The twin 4.5" gun might be replaceable with a Mk8 or US 5" if funds permit. Lynx can replace Wasp.

For the 90s I would again bite the bullet.

AAD. The T82 should be replaced from 1990 by 8 T84 using a VLS system tied to AEGIS giving something similar to the current Spanish AEGIS ships and able to launch Harpoon and Tomahawk as well.
ASW/GP.

GP The Leanders need replacing in the GP role by 1985. Batch 2 T22 should get guns (Mk8 or US5"). Four interim ships that had Otomat/Seacat will need updating.

ASW/GP The T22 can be replaced as in our timeline by T23. Apart from possibly using the US5" gun the real world ships can be ordered and eventually replace the T22.

The main advantage of the simplified RN lineup for the 70s.and 80s is that expensive conversions are avoided and older vessels give way to newer ones.

I have used the Leander to replace the Rothesay, Tribal, Salisbury, Leopard etc rather than tie them up in costly dockyyard conversions.

Doing this requires:
Cancelling Ikara in favour of Seaking.
Not ordering Exocet and using T22 as the main SSM ship with Otomat then Harpoon.
Building 4 T22 sooner instead of converting Leanders.
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
561
Reaction score
762
General Purpose. Leander class frigates were ideal GP ships and by 1982 all older designs could have been disposed of. The twin 4.5" gun might be replaceable with a Mk8 or US 5" if funds permit. Lynx can replace Wasp.
Post 48 is about the modernisations of the Dutch Leanders and my suggestions for a British equivalent which is along the lines of the above.

However, the weight and manpower savings from replacing the 4.5"Mk 6 with the Mk 8 might not be worth the cost of doing it.

I've got stuck writing my opus about building nothing but Type 23s and 43s, which was in part inspired by your double ended Type 82, so I'll write what I planned to do after finishing that.

The first 4.5" Mk 8 guns went into service on the VT Mk 5 frigates that were built for Iran and completed 1971-72.

Some of the things I have proposed and will propose later involve making changes before 1966. So I'm also going to suggest starting the development of the 4.5" Mk 8 gun early enough for the 10 Broad Beamed Leanders (laid down 1965-70 and completed 1968-73) to be fitted with the weapon. HMNZS Canterbury and the 2 Leanders built by Yarrow for Chile would have it too.

All 26 Leanders were to have had six fixed 21" tubes for A/S torpedoes. None were fitted due to the failure of the torpedo. That still happens in this timeline, but the Broad-Beamed Leanders were fitted with a pair of triple light weight AS torpedo mountings (STWS-0?) while they were under construction. At the same time the Limbo wasn't fitted (in part to offset some of the cost of the other changes) while the hangar and flight deck were made large enough to take a Lynx-size helicopter. I think Friedman wrote that the Leander class was designed for two Sea Cats, but one one was fitted. If that's correct the Broad Beam ships were completed with two Sea Cats rather than one in this timeline.

That produces 10 ships armed with one 4.5" Mk 8 gun, six lightweight AS torpedo tubes, two Sea Cat launchers and facilities for a Lynx-size helicopter in 1973.

The other change that I want to make is to complete them with the small ship version of ADA. Friedman said that the Batch 2 and 3 Leanders were "fitted for but not with" ADA because it was too expensive. I'm not going to fit it in this timeline either because I want to minimise the difference in cost between these ships and the real ones.

Subsequent changes would be limited to fitting CAAIS and 8 Harpoons when they become available.
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
4,176
Reaction score
3,432
Wikipedia is a useful first call for research but should always be fact checked. The entry for the Type 21 frigate is worth a read:
The only real advantage of the T21 was that it allowed the RN to get used to Gas Turbines earlier than the T22 and T42.
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
4,176
Reaction score
3,432
The Type 43 is over armed.
If you remove the Seawolf and Seaking helo and leave it with twin Seadart launchers, 8 Harpoon and 2 Phalanx CIWS you get a better version of my double-ended T82.
Seawolf makes sense to protect the T22 and T23 as they hunt Sov subs in the N Atlantic
Area Defence ships operating with a CV/CVS or Amphibious Group are better off with Phalanx.
Similarly the Seaking is better on the CV/CVS/LPH/LPD or the RFA operating with the Task Group.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
3,166
Reaction score
4,243
My hypothesis was that this was looked at in 1976 when the original study was made to lengthen the hull but not actually ever done.

I am doubtful because immediately aft of the Sea Dart magazine were the Type 184M sonar spaces. Friedman mentions that DGS proposed moving the sonar dome forward to within 105ft of the fore perpendicular to reduce self-noise interference. Presumably this would have also allowed the magazine to be extended aft. Photographs of the Batch 3 hull seem hard to find to confirm whether or this was actually done -model makers seem to have assumed the same sonar location as the earlier batches.
If the sonar wasn't moved then it the magazine length would have remained unchanged.
As you were - I realised after writing this that the magazine is actually ahead of the launcher and not aft of it so the sonar position doesn't matter.

However I am still confused by Friedman's quote from the DGS about moving the sonar within 105ft of the fore perpendicular. By my estimations, on the Batch 1-2 ships the sonar was already about 95-100ft aft of the fore perpendicular, so pretty close to the desired 105ft. On the Batch 3, if the sonar is in the same position as the previous ships, its more like 150ft aft. Perhaps Friedman has made a typo and "105" should be "150"?

Certainly moving the sonar into the fore hull extension would probably have prevented a forward extension of the magazine so its no surprise if the sonar remained in the same location.
 

Volkodav

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
538
Reaction score
752
How about the RN permits the adaption of the County Class to the Australian requirements, with the exception they convince the RAN that their proposed displacement is too low for the volume required by their specified systems and it would be cheaper sticking with the County hull, rather than designing a new one.

This means when CVA 01 is cancelled, the Type 82 limited to a single hull, and the Escort cruisers fade away, the RN has a ready alternative in the form of the RAN DDG with Tartar, Ikara and two Wessex helicopters. A single or double ended design with one or two Mk 13 (or Mk22 for that matter), two, three or four fire control channels, large hangar and flight deck (to permit the operation of Seakings) could have been built as alternatives to the Tiger conversions.

It would be seen as an expedient, interim option, using the design work done on the RAN versions, to supplement Sea Slug and get extra Helos and Ikara to sea in the early to mid 70s. Maybe a switch to Olympus or Spey could have been made either retaining the steam plant, or going Tynes in a COGOG or COGAG arrangement, reducing complexity, increasing reliability and maintainability allowing a reduction in crew size.
 

Volkodav

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
538
Reaction score
752
I could be mistaken but I am sure I have read that the DDL had more in common with the Type 21 than the Type 42, the similarities in appearance between the DDL and Type 42 being mainly cosmetic. The DDL had its origins in a modern day sloop, influenced to a degree by the various Vosper export designs, the design evolved to carry a helicopter then to include Tartar / Standard MR to provide an adequate level of self defence to the now larger and more capable design. While inspired by the Vosper Thornycroft designs and Australia did, I believe, provide funding towards the Type 21 development, the detail design was undertaken by YARD.

There has been speculation over the years that the DDL was potentially better balanced and more survivable than either the FFG-7, Type 42 or Type 21. It strikes be that it was, in many ways, the enhanced Type 21, with US systems, that the RAN had desired, this could have been an interesting option for the RN.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
3,166
Reaction score
4,243
It is surprising that the County hull form seems to have abandoned pretty quickly.
With early SIGS/Sea Dart studies using modified Type 12 and Type 14 hulls to create a large frigate (small destroyer), it is odd that a County hull was not used for the Type 82 studies. Maybe it was too compromised by its Daring/Super Daring origins?

Ignoring all the Sea Slug gubbins you have a fairly large and spacious hull, ample machinery spaces etc. I would think if you took the basic outer hull you could fit in everything in.

County
LWL 505ft; LOA 520ft 6in; beam 54ft; draft 16.16ft (deep); STD 5,268 tons; 60,000shp = 31.5kt (deep & clean)
Weights: hull 2,700 tons; machinery 1,065; armament 835; equipment 478; other 190; fuel 392; diesel 327; avcat 61, RFW 61. Deep load 6,076 tons.

Bristol
LWL 490ft; LOA 507ft; beam 55ft; draft 16ft 7in (deep); STD 6,300 tons; 74,000shp = 30kt (deep & clean)
Weights: hull 3,630 tons; machinery 1,040; armament 536; equipment 429; fuel 1,071, RFW 34. Deep load 6,750 tons.


Yes Type 21 grew directly out of the joint DDL effort.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
3,296
Reaction score
2,011
Bear in mind they had had expectations of fitting Tartar-like SAM System to Tribals. Which were effectively half a County in propulsion.
Tribals ended up a lot less in numbers due to licensing costs for US supplied elements. Dollars were precious and contracts were ruthless.

I suspect the studies that tried to put Tartar into a Leander hull were about still attempting as much commonality as possible.

Ultimately Type 82 incorporated a lot of new design.

And arguably yes revised County could have done it.

What can shift this is if Seaslug is smaller and the launcher more amenable to alternative configurations.
 

Siberia

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
60
Reaction score
32
Apologies for what may seem like a very basic question but how many Seacat reloads did the Type 12 frigates carry? Most on-line sources merely list the launchers without mentioning magazine capacity. I'm trying to figure something out but it only works or not depending on the answer.


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 problem is that you can also go too far the other way and have highly advanced ships but not enough of them to carry out all the duties required – witness the Type 45s.
 
Top