Royal Navy Escort Cruiser 1962

[uk 75]

JFC

I am sorry that I somehow overlooked this highly important posting but it links nicely with your latest posting on the NIGS ship thread.

1962 seems to have been a fascinating year in re-designing the RN's big surface projects. CVA -01 went from two CF 299 aft to one. Your material shows that the same happens to the Escort Cruiser design by 1963. The artists impression/sketch would be fantastic, but its absence explains why Friedman and Brown/Moore cannot do more than they have done.

By 1966 the SH3 Seaking is established as the Wessex ASW replacement. The saga of the ASW Chinook has I think been addressed on another thread.

Your posting on the NIGS thread explains the interest in a developed Type 82 as an ASW/Command platform.

The P1154 ship is a fascinating interlude but once the RN gets its Phantoms VSTOL does not re-emerge until the 1966 Working Party (or does it?).

This must have been a fascinating time to be working on RN ships, it is a shame that we do not have more personal records or memoirs to draw on.

 

[Hood]

An interesting set of jigsaw pieces.

The fact no formal Staff Requirement had been raised for the escort cruiser by early 1963 is interesting. I assume the separate NIGS cruiser you mention on the other thread, was also purely informal. Were the Admiralty trying to test the waters and get their designs ready for the day when the Treasury might release the purse strings or were these simply investigations of what they might do or a method to strengthen the carrier case? The P.1154 conclusions are interesting, in effect stating nothing but a proper carrier would be ideal for operating P.1154. Studies like these, even without an 'official' design behind it, might be persuasive to a politician, in effect pre-empting the shift to smaller vessels so the Admiralty can say, 'oh we looked at that and it doesn't work' and then pulling out this to prove it.

An ASW escort carrier with two Sea Dart launchers aft would be an odd choice unless an offset deck was being used, the later design referred to in the P.1154 seems to imply a through-deck design too with 3 aircraft on deck. But it seems like the design was quite flexible at this stage. Thoughts about including a 4.5in gun are interesting too, perhaps allied with the 'impressive' appearance of the ship mentioned in Photo 1 that would imply some kind flagship role, the Counties being designed to be impressive on foreign stations.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Hood,

The more I trawl through the archives the less convinced I become of conspiratorial efforts at carrier justification. The RN was so interested in Escort Cruisers that it made a presentation on them to the Minister of Defence alongside one about nuclear submarines, and they ultimately converted the Tiger class (all three were meant to be converted but the Lion was cancelled to keep Ark Royal in service); they were very much a serious prospect despite the shifting internal debate through 1962-3. The same is true of NIGS, the construction programme discussed by the Cabinet Defence Committee in the late 1950s makes it clear that the original plan was for DLG 07-10 to be NIGS ships but these vessels were later deferred never to be seen again (aside from the last two County's built as Batch II ships).

The RN study of flying P.1154 off ships other than carriers seems sincere in its conclusions and its logic is difficult to argue with, the ships are not suitable for large fast-jets and would be detracted from their intended roles of helicopter operation.

 

[Hood]

Just been looking at Friedman's narrative of the Escort Cruiser in 'British Cruisers'. He seems to outline pretty the much the same argument you do, that the Admiralty wanted Escort Cruisers, somewhat countering his conspiratorial musings in 'British Carrier Aviation' when he probably hadn't seen these sources. He makes no mention to the P.1154 study and implies the RN was actively interested in V/STOL from these ships (possibly the bigger helicopter carrier that pre-dated the Escort Cruiser). The amount of design work done since April 1960 indicates commitment behind the effort. Deferring the DLG 7-10 until 1970 and building Escort Cruisers makes sense, the Escort Cruiser was of much higher need and NIGS wouldn't realistically be ready until then. Given the multiple obstacles to progress Friedman lists its doubtful whether construction was ever realistic given the other needs of the RN. The Tiger conversions were the only realistic option to realise the basic idea.

The P.1154 study is interesting because it was done fairly early in the P.1154 programme. Obviously the interest was there, the conclusions are valid, probably the only realistic outcome. The Escort Cruisers were justified as ASW and SAM platforms, the rationale for placing aircraft that should be on the carrier on the escort was completely missing. The conclusions therefore back the original premise of the ships, leave the decks of carriers for fighters and strike aircraft and leave the escorts to do the ASW work (and leave Commando carriers to do their job). It hints at the desire to seek long-range protection when acting independently of carriers, a role a NIGS Cruiser might have fulfilled in the longer-term or the role the carrier was already performing for the Escort Cruiser and Commando carrier. The rationales for both ships are reliant on each other, the Admiralty didn't want to muddy the waters either way. Was there any equivalent study of P.1127?

 

[JFC Fuller]

Here is the ship plan of the 1962 RN frigate with forward and aft launchers for both Sea Dart and Ikara. I will update this in the original thread as well.

I have now found the file these images are from and as I suggested previously they actually prove that the idea of a dual launcher was rejected in early 1962. These were not even proper ship designs, rather they were illustrations produced to support a report into how the RN could install both stand-off ASW missiles and CF.299 into a single 3,000 ton hull (the culmination of this, HMS Bristol, was later described as being 6,500 tons to the treasury) to meet the requirements for a new frigate. The working party ultimately concluded the following:

The working party has concluded that though an integrated common launcher system for A/S G.W and S.A.G.W is possible for the IKARA weapon (and might be with ASROC) the possible operational advantages are likely to be outweighed by the increase in space, duplication of equipment and wiring, increased weight and cost, and the increase in operating personnel. It is recommended that in the new frigate and within the stated Terms of Reference the A/S and A.A. handling and launching systems should accordingly be fitted as separate self-contained systems.

It is considered that though technically feasible there is not a good case for using the CF.299 launcher for IKARA in view of its greater complexity and cost and its complication of the loading arrangements.

In the multiple and large Ikara files in the National archives I have found no further reference to a dual launcher and no evidence of any further design, analysis or consideration of it. This early 1962 report seems to have been the beginning and end of the idea. However, what is clear is that there were, initially at least, plans for separate Ikara and CF.299 launcher designs for aircraft carriers and for frigates so it seems reasonable to think that the aircraft carrier versions of each launcher would have been in the 1962 escort cruiser design. The December 1962 decision to use the destroyer version of the CF.299 launcher in CVA-01 instead of a dedicated carrier version, which was cancelled, is possibly also the reason why the 1963 escort cruiser only had one CF.299 launcher too.

Consideration was also given to using the CF.299 tracking radar with Ikara but that was also rejected. And also pertinent to this thread; the treasury suggested that the Type 82 class (once its size and cost became apparent) should be regarded as cruisers whilst the Navy appears to have had its own internal debate about calling them frigates destroyers or whether to use the blanket term "escorts". All rather amusing for a design that started out as a 3,000 ton Leander follow-on.


For follow up posts, please use this thread :
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,30148.msg326181.html#new

 

[PMN1]

I've seen the illustraions of a combined launcher, has anyone ever seen any drawings as to how the combined launcher could work?

 

[JFC Fuller]

I've seen the illustraions of a combined launcher, has anyone ever seen any drawings as to how the combined launcher could work?

Yes. The basic concept was that the Ikara assembly and loading room would be directly behind the CF.299 launcher and would load onto one of its rails; there were two variations:

1) The assembly room was mounted so the Ikara could be run out on a straight rail onto the CF.299 rail whilst it was horizontal. This was rejected because the top-weight and space issues associated with having the Ikara magazine high enough to achieve this were regarded as unacceptable.

2) To get round the problem with the above it was proposed to mount the Ikara magazine one deck lower and load Ikara onto the CF.299 rail when it was at a 30 degree angle. However, this required a pivoted loader in the assembly room and more complicated flash doors. In turn this required more power (to load the missile uphill) and more space.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

1) The assembly room was mounted so the Ikara could be run out on a straight rail onto the CF.299 rail whilst it was horizontal. This was rejected because the top-weight and space issues associated with having the Ikara magazine high enough to achieve this were regarded as unacceptable.

Was this consideration in relation to the Leander based CF.299 escort still then under consideration?

The original Australian concept for the Ikara was that the magazine, check out space, launcher, 20 missiles, etc. could all be accommodated in the space and weight footprint of a single Limbo AS mortar. Though the RN introduced Ikara to a different standard at a later date. Sticking Limbo/Ikara above main deck on a Leander was something no one in their right mind would do.

Thanks for finding this stuff in the archive.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Abraham,

I may have misunderstood your first question, please let me know if that is the case. The idea of using the CF.299 launcher, including both proposals, for Ikara was rejected in early 1962- for a variety reasons. The recommendation of the study group tasked with working out how Ikara should be deployed was that the Australian launcher, or a variation of it using British components, should be adopted for frigate designs. The RN study group did however want to change the magazine arrangement. They regarded having two rows of missiles, one behind the other, as a hazard in the event of an accidental ignition of a rocket motor and as making the magazine too long which would increase ship tonnage. The study group also wanted the control system console isolated from the assembly room behind armoured glass.

In the drawings attached to the file, the RN magazine design and assembly room fits almost exactly within the footprint of a double limbo configuration though the launcher falls outside it.

 

[uk 75]

JFC and Abraham

Fascinating stuff for which I am very grateful as I cannot for family reasons get to the NAO myself.

The combined Ikara/CF 299 launcher in 1962 is interesting in the light of the US development of a combined Terrier/Asroc launcher, which I think was also adopted on the Italian Navy's Vittorio Veneto.
The Vittorio Veneto is the closest thing to the Escort Cruiser in the same timescale.
Brown/Moore has a good page about the Escort Cruiser in which it explains how the RN was pretty much set to order it in 1962 but had to stop it because of the cost/design work needed for Polaris. The ship was left in the long term programme to replace the Tiger class conversions.
Vittorio Veneto (and its sister ship Trieste/Italia which was cancelled) shows what the RN could have had by the early 70s (just in time to operate Sea Kings when the carriers were phased out).

Even the USN did not develop a Tartar/Asroc launcher, though the Harpoon could be fired later on.
I think that's right, maybe they did and it was never taken up. The USN envisaged separate ASW and Air Defence ships much like the RN did in the 60s. However, it ended up with the ASW ships whereas the RN ended up with the Air Defence ships. The evolution of the Spruance and the Type 42 takes place in much the same time frame.

Because of its ample number of carriers the US Navy does not develop a helicopter cruiser in this period. Again I have not seen any US paper projects. I wonder how closely they were involved in the development of Veneto.

Please do not take the above musings amiss, I do not have your technical skills

UK 75

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I may have misunderstood your first question, please let me know if that is the case.

I was just referring to the top weight issue in the list of problems with the combined launcher. The CF.299 frigate drawings we have shown the combined launcher (double ended) version with the Ikara magazines above the main deck. I was wondering if the archive paper work specifically referred to the top weight issue being a problem with this design concept. Being that the hulls were just based on the Leander and quite lightweight (~3,000 tonnes).

The RN study group did however want to change the magazine arrangement. They regarded having two rows of missiles, one behind the other, as a hazard in the event of an accidental ignition of a rocket motor and as making the magazine too long which would increase ship tonnage.

This is interesting because the RAN put quite a bit of attention into designing an explosion resistant magazine. You can even watch one of the trials on Youtube in which all 20 Ikaras are detonated to test the structure (I linked to this years ago somewhere on this forum). I can see but the RN being very sceptical of the RAN’s magazine arrangement because the design was by CAC (aircraft company) and used aircraft standard hydraulics. While the RAN had no significant trouble with the Ikara launcher it would have all seemed very un Navy like in the early 1960s.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The combined Ikara/CF 299 launcher in 1962 is interesting in the light of the US development of a combined Terrier/Asroc launcher, which I think was also adopted on the Italian Navy's Vittorio Veneto.

It was much easier for the USN to build combined launchers for Terrier and ASROC because they both shared roughly the same outer mould line. Unfortunately Ikara was a very different shape to Sea Dart or other anti-aircraft missiles (well all other missiles) so could not easily use the same launchers. The only significant modification ASROC needed was a longer launcher rail to stabilise the unguided rocket at launch. Of course you get what you pay for and ASROC was a far inferior weapon to ikara.

 

[uk 75]

Thanks Abraham Point taken.

I do love the Vittorio though as she is the only helicopter cruiser built with macks. If you compare her with the side view of Study 23 on Richard Beedall's site you will see what I mean.

A Royal Navy version could have replaced the Terrier forward with Seadart or even with NIGS, there seems to be plenty of room. Helicopter capacity would be less than the Invincibles but comparable with the Tiger class. 2 ships ordered in the early 60s could have replaced the Tiger and Blake by the early 70s on a one for one basis. The lead ship could have been the Seadart trials ship instead of the Type 82s. CH01 and CH02 would have allowed the RN to ease into the 70s with its 8 Countys and new Destroyer/Frigate programme to follow.

I assume one of two options for the carriers. Either the programme as planned with CVA 01 entering service to join Eagle. This would give the UK a powerful contribution to NATO in the 70s but be hideously expensive.
The second option would have been to develop a proper successor to Hermes and Bulwark. Such a ship would have been attractive to other navies and geared to the same airgroup as carried on Hermes and Invincible but with a catapult option.

CH01 and CH02 would serve until the end of the Cold War (like the Veneto).

 

[JFC Fuller]

Abraham

The first proposal put the entire magazine above the main deck so the loading rails were actually two decks above the main deck- this was criticised for requiring too much top weight and volume. My reading is that this was not just a problem due to the ship size but a fundamental problem with the concept.

In an effort to rectify this the study group sunk the magazine one deck so the bottom row of Ikaras was on deck 2 whilst the loading rails were on the main deck. This was criticised because of the added complexity required to get the missile on to the launch rails a 30 degree angle and provide flash doors for the Ikara magazine.

In short, neither solution was considered satisfactory and the weaknesses were compounded by the extra expense it would add to the ship.

As for flash protection, the RN was persistently neurotic about this- it seen more than enough of its ships explode and tended to take it very seriously.

 

[starviking]

However, what is clear is that there were, initially at least, plans for separate Ikara and CF.299 launcher designs for aircraft carriers and for frigates so it seems reasonable to think that the aircraft carrier versions of each launcher would have been in the 1962 escort cruiser design. The December 1962 decision to use the destroyer version of the CF.299 launcher in CVA-01 instead of a dedicated carrier version, which was cancelled, is possibly also the reason why the 1963 escort cruiser only had one CF.299 launcher too.

I wonder what the requirements differences between the in the carrier launchers and frigate one were?

And also pertinent to this thread; the treasury suggested that the Type 82 class (once its size and cost became apparent) should be regarded as cruisers whilst the Navy appears to have had its own internal debate about calling them frigates destroyers or whether to use the blanket term "escorts". All rather amusing for a design that started out as a 3,000 ton Leander follow-on.

Ah, the Treasury, always trying to stiff the Armed Services! Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have gotten a Ford Zephyr as his "Limousine".

 

[JFC Fuller]

Starviking,

I dont know the difference between the Ikara variants but I have found a reference to the carrier version of the CF.299 launcher having the launcher arms 10ft lower than the frigate version.

Given the price difference between a Leander and a Type 82 the Treasury were entirely justified in their concern.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Another reference to the escort cruiser courtesy of the Type 988 files:

At one point it was planned that two Type 988s would be required in mid 1967 for EC-03 & 04 and one in January 1968 to equip EC-05. After that an additional two would be required for retrofitting to EC-01 & 02. This however was dependent on it being possible to adapt the Type 988 to Seaslug MkII.

 

[Hood]

Perhaps not strictly relevant to the topic, but with all the discussion about Ikara launchers and magazines here is a deck plan I came across of the RAN Type 2 Ikara refits showing how well it all fitted into the Limbo layout.

http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/3919/8g9.png

 

[Brickmuppet]

Looks like a better arrangement than the UK's Ikara Leander, It was still a general purpose ship.

 

[starviking]

Starviking,

I dont know the difference between the Ikara variants but I have found a reference to the carrier version of the CF.299 launcher having the launcher arms 10ft lower than the frigate version.

I assume the carrier version needed less height as it was clear of the spray?

Given the price difference between a Leander and a Type 82 the Treasury were entirely justified in their concern.

Sure, but I think even in those days a cruiser meant something larger and more powerful. They'd also previously accepted the designation of the Counties as destroyers. If they'd been pushing for the CF.299 frigate to be called a destroyer I'd have no argument with them.

 

[uk 75]

I was not sure whether to start a new thread or resurrect this one.

I was just wondering if anyone visiting Kew has found any more about RN cruiser plans after 1962 and before 1966.