• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

SIGS Alternative

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
2,317
Reaction score
954
The Falklands were mercifully a one off. Have the RN used main guns at all since the Indonesian Confrontation in the early 60s. A 30mm cannon is adequate for non-war jobs. A 4.5 in gun takes the same space/weight as a missile system or helo.
Apart from the curious Belknap class, US ships and all NATO ones (except for the three Italian helo cruisers and double enders in USN) had aft SAMs for seakeeping reasons.
Ikara for RN was supposed to be needed to kill Russian subs. Seakings and our SSNs made it obsolete.
The Dutch were right
 

Purpletrouble

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2019
Messages
292
Reaction score
205
A one-off?

By which you mean we used them a lot in the only actual shooting war we fought in as a combined arms task force in your period ? The only time we combat landed troops?

I’d say that rather verifies the concept!

Plus Gulf, Sierra Leone.
I’ll bet illum has been used many, many times.

Your criteria kind of includes most of them!!! Kidds, Leahys, Belknaps (the CGN was Truxton), Ticos - including notably the ones with helos where the benefit is clearly worthwhile. I get the idea, but I don’t think it’s worth driving the design.
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,798
Reaction score
550
Ok - but with 9nm how does the RN provide the area coverage if it has Orange Nell ? - the RN still needs S.Dart equivalent, and in reality was struggling to get that done, plus bring S.Slug fully into service (i.e. make it work...) and had what became S.Wolf as a development activity. Is there really capacity for a 3rd system? If it replaces S.Wolf, are we really able to bring an equivalent into service a decade and a half earlier, and wont it lack in capability vs. S.Wolf (which was good, but not always) by the 1980s?
Let's pull this out and focus back on SIGS and Orange Nell....

What this system is aimed at is Local Area Defence. Not Area Defence out to say 30nm (Sea Slug mkII) or 60nm (these figures emerge from 1950's fighter interception studies and seem quite relevent to later defence of the Fleet).

And what needs to be born in mind is by 1965 the Tripartate group was meeting to discuss a Self Defence and Local Area Defence SAM system. The French are the ones insisting this is a high performance system for true Local Area Defence against crossing targets.
This ends up defined as System C.
Which I raised as a Alternative History thread.

This would be able to intercept any target at 7km that would be passing within 4km of the ship, such as crossing targets
What this brings home is the failure of SIGS to deliver local area defence to achieve much longer ranged interceptions that make it much more a Sea Slug successor, and as we've discussed possibly bluring the boundry between SIGS and NIGS.
It's certainly one of the original options for local area defence and ruled out by the group as too large, too heavy and too expensive.....

Think about that date 1965, Type 82 is becoming a fixed design and being ordered in this year.....by '66 the RN will be in chaos as it tries to rethink what it needs, concluding a expensive Type 82 is just not worth it bar proving the onboard systems....but what if it had been cheaper?

What the UK chose was System B, a.k.a PX430 which became Sea Wolf and really built on the earlier PT.428 as it did to fill in the void being created by the cancellation of Sea Mauler. For all it's flaws it's a system that won exports and is considering a success despite it's poor performance in the Falklands War.

What the Dutch wanted was System A, a Sea Rapier or more accurately Sea Cat mkII and probably they too had planed on Sea Mauler.
What the Italians actually developed was Indigo......and offer a Sea Indigo system compatible with Sea Killer.

What is implied by a statement in Friedman's book is that SIGS guidance system began as a 14" diamter polyrod +7" dish system and was claimed to be as good as a 20" conventional dish......or to put it another way as good as Bloodhound or Thunderbird, but in a smaller package.

I'll go further on that and suggest 14" diameter is close to Sea Slug, meaning this guidance system might well have started life as a next generation Sea Slug development. As 11" is the diameter of the smallest nuclear warhead.....

Jones Report suggested a Lightweight SAM system for dealing with a Mach 2.3 bomber or "supersonic U2", could be a battery of 24 missiles as a system weighing in at 200,000lb (compared to Thunderbird II's 12 missiles as a system at 1,600,000lb) or HAWK's 36 missiles as a system at 630,000lb). They are thinking PT.428 or Mauler....and despite Sea Dart being 'it' for current UK SAGW, and the only game in town, objections are being thrown up.....

What the Head of GW wrote on Cf.299 in '64 was "if targets above 50 to 60,000ft are to be take seriously, then the present CF.299 is not really applicable and would require a number of modifications to the missile". HSD advised this would really be a new missile. They were not impressed with Land Dart's ECCM capability either.
As was CF.299 was marginally better than Stage 1 and a half missiles, a.k.a the mighty Thunderbird mkII.

What the process of Land Dart reveals is that really a smaller missile is needed and was discussed as an alternative to Mauler (which was cancelled). Army wanted HAWK as it's alternative, not Land Dart using the Sea Dart missile.
In the end they got Rapier, but what they wanted is much more like the earlier PT.428 system. For enagements unboosted to 5nm and boosted to 'probably' 10nm.....and a outer range of 20nm......

But back to the RN, there's a reason why SAM.72 emerges by 1972, and it's that a unified missile without separate boosters and with a much shorter minimum range is desired. XPX430, a scaled up Sea Wolf missile seems the basis for achieving this. I suspect with the original VLS concept.....They look at liquid motors to achieve this.

so I've also set up a Sea Dart Success Alternative History thread to both explore that, and show how little it has had.

So back to Orange Nell.....
If we field ON as a missile of under 650lb, and able to deliver Local Area Defence out to say 10nm or so by 1964 then the RN is much better placed to evolve this to meed the 1965 Tripartate requirements as emphasised by the MN.
This means keeping that group together and because it's already paid for, the costs of export or license to the French and Dutch along with collaborative evolution of the system, makes it highly attractive.
Essentialy the French opt for it instead of Tartar, and the Dutch instead of Sea Sparrow BPDMS.
And with that the Germans will follow......possibly the Italians too....

Because the French will walk out if it's not meeting their requirements.
Because the Dutch want it to be cheap as Tartar.......which is why they ditched Sea Dart.

Because it's already entering service by this time, despite it's size and weight, it's much more in the Arny's consideration of a lighter and more acceptable successor to Thunderbird mkI and frankly achievable in reasonable timescale with a future to reach the higher performance increasingly desired. Essentially increasingly faster and more sophisticated versions would extend out the envelope until it meets the later requirements.

What might start out using valves is certainly going to be transistorised, and the seeker gain increasing fidelity through the 60's and 70's. By which time a successor......SAM.72 potential winner is likely to use the missile's envelop (size and weight etc...) to achieve a Standard-like upgrade over the earlier missile system.
Not competing with Standard as such though.....rather complimenting it and being a sort of earlier SEa Wolf, cum Sea Sparrow......of the two it's potential is closer to Sea Sparrow.

What is clear is improvements in rocket motors will extend speed and energy of the missile. From supersonic targets to mach 2+ targets, and from targets upto 10,000ft, to 60,000ft.....
What is clear is such improvements would drive a materials update of the fuselage to cope with the heating aspects and the potential need to exploit manoeuvring at higher speeds.

What this means for Type 82 is, it's much more a natural successor to Type 81, a local area defence frigate/destroyer, not a psuedo-cruiser like the County's.

And ON is the best basis to both sustain UK GW SAMs and yet bring in other European members, along with winning exports.
Sea Dart failed bar Argentina, Sea Wolf gained more success, and this could take some Sea Sparrow orders.
 
Last edited:

Purpletrouble

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2019
Messages
292
Reaction score
205
Very interesting zen and I see your point on things evolving. I still kind of think something this capable was beyond getting into service that quick. Look at the “ASWE” equivalent starting of what became Sampson - MESAR (?) was being tested in the 80s, yes progress slowed but have we any other equivalents of this kind of “flash to bang” for what is inevitably complex radar and associated systems?

The flaw in this (otherwise neat) plan seems to require however the RN accepting c1960 that it wouldn’t have an area system in development to succeed Sea Slug. ON can’t compete with Sea Dart until your later evolutions.

Why would it do this when the US is going full ahead on developing the 3 Ts, Terrier in particular, and is planning Typhon? When the threat is getting faster and further

Without CF299/Sea Dart, and still very much in a fleet era vs high alt standoff aircraft, what does the RN do? Buy Terrier? kind of late for that?

Or is ON additional? In which case cost and industrial capacity seem the problem. Of the two the RN would go for CF299 as it did in reality?

How does ON cope ECCM wise btw?

In your idea, is SAM72 (real?) an ON evolution or new? Is this the LRSAM coming after? I do note very few “Project70” things seemed to ever appear!

Or is ON additional? In which case cost and industrial capacity seem the problem. Of the two the RN would go for CF299 as it did in reality?

A DLG / FF(G) split to me seems baked in from the late 50s as the future, with lack of crystal ball fair enough for what they did, but trying to combine them really didn’t work until we get to T45, whilst existence of T42 was probably a killer for T43 (how can you argue lots new AAW ships when building a load, and a small class
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,798
Reaction score
550
So the logical answer to area defense is a Sea Slug with SARH and Command Guidance. Which is feasible to fit into the missile.
What you don't get is a 150nm range system, rather a 60nm and maybe a 90nm system later.
Which means a COGAG County type DDG.
Or to put this another way constraining things so they don't get out of hand .
NIGS did get out of hand and met an inevitable fate.
 

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
2,317
Reaction score
954
One of the difficulties of trying to put alternatives to actual projects is the pollution of hindsight.
The big one in this case is the difference beween the size and capability of systems which entered service with those planned originally.
Seadart starts life as an attempt to replace the 4.5" gun on a Type 12 style frigate but grows into a successor to Seaslug which really requires the later stretched Type 42 or a Type 82 sized ship to be really effective.
Seawolf grows in size and scope as the threat increases and technology improves like Seadart. Originally planned as a Seacat replacement it takes up the same space as the original CF299 Seadart.
Given this, I cannot see Orange Nell or its derivatives being any easier to develop. It looks pretty Seasluggish in drawings.
 
Last edited:

Hood

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,712
Reaction score
934
The truth is we don't know enough about Orange Nell.
Yes it got an MoS codename and feasibility studies were made, including the generic sketches of what it might have looked like based on the technology then available.
But it never made it to the hardware stage and even got to the stage of even making it onto a ship general arrangement sketch drawing as a 'to be confirmed' block, let alone any current or planned ship actually specified for it.

I don't doubt that it was a feasible project and arguably should have had greater priority, but in the mass of GW projects it slipped down the list and dropped off. Somebody somewhere in the MoS, Admiralty or Treasury (or all 3!) didn't feel the need to pick up the feasibility studies and run with the programme. I suspect that it was touted as a point-defence weapon effectively killed it, especially when Shorts rocked up with the cheap n cheerful Sea Cat as a Bofors replacement. Someone then should have either; a) pointed out Orange Nell's superior fire-control and ability to hit transonic/low-supersonic targets and b) pointed out that with a bigger booster range could be increased. Orange Nell was a concept, it could have been melded into any type of medium-range missile. They missed the boat until SIGS came along, perhaps better described as Orange Nell+, not quite the longer-range Sea Dart that emerged.

Arguably NIGS was too long-range and ON/SIGS too short-ranged, they made a good pair but only if you had both. Dropping NIGS meant SIGS had to grow.
 

Purpletrouble

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2019
Messages
292
Reaction score
205
So the logical answer to area defense is a Sea Slug with SARH and Command Guidance. Which is feasible to fit into the missile.
What you don't get is a 150nm range system, rather a 60nm and maybe a 90nm system later.
Which means a COGAG County type DDG.
Or to put this another way constraining things so they don't get out of hand .
NIGS did get out of hand and met an inevitable fate.
Surely no-one was going to run with Sea Slug at this point, it’s a 1940s concept - not the basis of the 60s/70s next gen. With Blue Envoy the RN had never seen Sea Slug as a long term weapon and after that came NIGS. Yes OTT, but they’d have to be desperate to drop back to major investment in an already very dated system that had for a long time been planned to be superseded - I personally have my doubts Sea Slug ever worked, and the RN decision makers would have known. They opted for SS2 to improve (fix?) it but I get a sense that got overtaken and dropped - their obvious intent was new systems of very different nature. With area defence such an important thing, accepting SS Mk3 seems extremely unlikely?

ON has a whiff of brochureware about it - is there anything comparable that did arrive?

To be honest Sea Dart seems excellent concept to me, boosted ramjet SARH. I’m still interested if a Sea Dart XR as per SM1R/ER is feasible.

It does feel Aster is a step back in some ways, compare Meteor to AMRAAM and the ramjet seems a very superior method?
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,352
Reaction score
648
Sea Cat and Orange Nell are very different systems, the former being intended to replace a twin bofors mounting and the associated director. As stated elsewhere here the latter was intended to replace the 4.5" Mk.6 and the 3" Mk.6. Popsy, Orange Nell, SIGS and the ultimate Sea Dart are all the same story, evolutions of the same requirement (direct rewrites in some cases), the requirement evolves, though not significantly, and it is broadly similar to Tartar.

I suspect the specific Orange Nell studies went nowhere because the resources to pursue it weren't available. It does not seem to be coincidence to me that SIGS work doesn't really get going until development of Seaslug development is almost complete.

There is not much use in getting hung up on high level comparison between British system X and Foreign system Y, headline range figures are not particularly useful. The metric was kill probability against a given target type at a given range. As an example of how this manifests a twin arm launch allowed for two missiles to be fired against one target very rapidly, thus increasing kill probability. Sea Dart, largely due to the application of the ramjet, untilametly achieved superior performance to Seaslug but this just emphasises the pace of missile technology development in the 1950s and 1960s.
 

Purpletrouble

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2019
Messages
292
Reaction score
205
Which I agree that capacity wasn’t there to do it, and it seems the RN’s priority was a longer range system as Sea Dart became.

As a what-if, it seems to need more resources - in which case it could have partnered NIGS (also reliant on more resources) as an inner layer system.

The requirements always seem wrong to me - I get the “drop in place of X” desire - but trying to confine a future system around say a gun turret, seems daft since they are such different natures (common aspects I agree) and very different capability. It seems very cart before horse.

My smart (i)phone is much bigger than any earlier phone I had (and much worse battery life) - they didn’t try to “drop in” revolutionary smart functionality to the old shape/life as a constraining requirement - they went new and remade the item and usage around what the new concept needed technically to deliver its benefits.

None of these weapon system constraints ever survived the process, but they did make it a lot harder and expensive.
 

Hood

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,712
Reaction score
934
I have always been suspicious of the claims of "replacement for x-inch gun" because its not always clear what is implied. For the ship designer the understanding seems to be that the space and weight requirements would be generally the same as the equivalent gun mount. For others it was in terms of similar capability and role, although neither the 4.5in or 3in guns were of comparable effectiveness against missiles or fast aircraft, even with radar fire-control they were effectively barrage weapons.

When they tried to fit Sea Slug into a Crown Colony cruiser or SIGS into a Leander the fallacy of those statements became clear. The volume and weight requirements were quite different. The Americans seem to have had some success with their Tartar in making a more reasonable like-for-like replacement that actually fitted. I doubt the Soviets did with their early massive systems.

Sea Cat and Orange Nell were indeed very different weapons, but I'm not sure that the Treasury would have seen it in that light, they would have pointed at Sea Cat whilst gripping the petty cash tin tightly.
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,352
Reaction score
648
No need to be suspicious, they are stated in multiple requirements documents, its primarily around ship fitting with the overall system performance being required to be superior to the preceding gun system, hardly surprising really given that new ships continued to be built with the legacy gun systems. In the late 1940s and early 1950s the guns and missiles were intended to be used against the same targets, the missiles were [hoped] to provide a higher kill probability at greater ranges. The reasons are a bit more complicated but at its core I suspect institutional unfamiliarity with missile systems; consider that Seaslug development overlaps with the final work on battleship main armament - the entire RN institutional knowledge base and structure was built around gun systems, that included the design infrastructure and also the requirements development. That said, in a whole system context missiles were initially evolutionary, as specific examples Seaslug's Type 901 illuminator radar was originally intended for the LRS.1 long range AA Director and MRS.3 was used to control Sea Cat as well as guns. The US did the same thing, Tartar was seen as a one for one replacement of 5"/38 mountings.
 

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
2,317
Reaction score
954
This is a very interesting thread and everyone has brought useful information with their posts.
The County destroyers and Seaslug/Seacat were a major leap for the RN. They were nothing like anything else it had in service.
To understand that, you have only to look at an early 60s Janes Fighting Ships ( or my childhood friend, the Hippo Book of Warships).
In comparison, the beautiful Leanders had evolved from the Rothesay and Whitby classes and their main armament was a conventional twin gun turret.
Even the new Type 81 Tribals were only radical in propulsion. Their armament was little changed from wartime vessels.
That the RN was able to embark on developing new missile systems when the Countys were barely in service surely helps to explain the saga of NIGS and SIGS.
After all, at the same time the much better resourced USN had serious problems with the reliability of its T family and had to cancel the over ambitious Typhon and Sea Mauler programmes.
Contemporary refererences and comparisons are important.
 
Last edited:

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,798
Reaction score
550
How does ON deliver it's performance?

It comes down to the narrow beam achievable in Q-band. Much narrower for a given dish than G-band (Tartar).

What makes ON able to fit SARH guidance inside? It's the 10-12" diameter of the missiles looked at.
Way easier than Mauler's 5" in ..... I think X-band.

What limits does Q-band impose....? Well we can certainly get out to 20km and ought to manage 30km. But the latter is about as much as we can likely hope to get then.
So not much better really than SIGS/NMBR.11

Why would you develop SARH and Command Guidance to Sea Slug? Well it seems NIGS started out as just that!

And how do you get a SARH homing system into the Sea Slug missile?
Well.....not a lot of room in the nose for a conventional dish. But you can run the cables for interferometer aerials along the sides of it's fusilage back to the avionics bay.
 

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
2,317
Reaction score
954
I think there is a disconnect between the technical discussion about a possible alternate world development of the paper Orange Nell from the real world and any background to make it happen.
If I understand right the aim of this thread is to explore the technical possibilities of ON.
In that sense I suppose it is probably unnecessary to go into wider aspects of the system and is carrying ships, since these do tend to take you back to the evolution from Seaslug to Seadart which has been covered in great depths in various threads on this site.
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,798
Reaction score
550
Oh Sea Slug worked, we have some live fire exercises and tables to actually look at performance. Hitting (and I mean physical contact) with a supersonic target at meduim-to-high altitudes at near 29nm is quite impressive and a testament to the engineering and design of the system.

But what a shift to SARH and Command Guidance offers is near Standard levels of performance. Or more accurately Thunderbird MkII levels of performance.
And this can be done using a lighter (and more modern and cheaper would you believe) TIR set, than that huge monster that was the Type 901.
This potentially means a mkIII Sea Slug is almost a new missile and offers potential savings in weight to give a second TIR set on a County.
As improvements in rocket motors and warheads continue a mkIV is almost certain under such conditions.
 

Purpletrouble

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2019
Messages
292
Reaction score
205
I agree they certainly had a culture and requirements for “drop in”, I just think it was daft to constrain new types of systems like that.

A bit like the move from broadside weapons to turreted. I know that too took time - but it should have been obvious that missiles were not going to be like guns. The lack of a “Fisher” post war seems a real loss - but then the formalisation of 2 year postings has meant no individual ever stays around very long, and so vs leadership we just get management - all so everyone can have a go.

it shows to me a real lack of vision and understanding of what was happening. We see the same in the RN’s obsession with making things smaller displacement or length wise, but in the process making getting it to work require expensive designing and maintenance.
 

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
2,317
Reaction score
954
It is interesting to compare the US Adams class destroyers (bought by W Germany and Australia) with RN ships of the same era. The Adams were very useful ships and it is sad that the RN had nothing as modern for a long time.
 

Purpletrouble

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2019
Messages
292
Reaction score
205
I’d take a T42 over a CFA any day. Better AAW and above all, the helo offers huge capability and flexibility. Plus all GT so better availability and lower crew requirement.
 

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
2,317
Reaction score
954
I’d take a T42 over a CFA any day. Better AAW and above all, the helo offers huge capability and flexibility. Plus all GT so better availability and lower crew requirement.
Sorry, unfair comparison. The Adams class were all in service by 1967 and were 4500 t 437ft long compared with 6200t 600ft for the County Batch 1s. 26 were built plus 3 each for W Germany and Australia. The first T42 was not in service till 1974.
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,798
Reaction score
550
Assuming resources for ON increasingly become available from '56 onwards, it's not unreasonable to envision it IOC by '64 if not earlier.

First ships likely considered for the weapon would be Type 81, and County class. Followed by Leander, and then Type 82.
 

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
2,317
Reaction score
954
I forgot to add the second part of my comparison.
By the end of the 70s the Batch 1 T42s are in service in numbers.
The only other missile ships in their class (O H Perry and Ardito with 2 Dutch AD Koertenaer) all carry single launchers for the probably inferior Standard SM.
By the end of the 80s we have 12 T42s. No W European has this number or capability of ship.
But more importantly we have the Seawolf equipped T22. Nothing like them is in any NATO navy. The US has to use the much larger Sptuances.
All in all I would not trade Seadart for either Orange Nell or Tartar equipped ships. And Seawolf of course for all its faults.
 

Purpletrouble

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2019
Messages
292
Reaction score
205
Sorry, unfair comparison. The Adams class were all in service by 1967 and were 4500 t 437ft long compared with 6200t 600ft for the County Batch 1s. 26 were built plus 3 each for W Germany and Australia. The first T42 was not in service till 1974.
Yes that is a fair point and ruins my point!

Although a County had a helo and 2nd gun / SSMs plus a short range missile system - so a lot more. The RN didn’t really have a CFA equivalent until the T42s much as it seems to have wanted one - but gor stuck as it couldn’t have that and the larger DLG/CG with the USN having both fleets.
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,798
Reaction score
550
However had the split been kept between ASW and AAW, then 'a Type 42' could have been built much earlier instead of the Type 82. As various sketch designs showed after Type 82 spiralled out of hand.
 

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
2,317
Reaction score
954
I think the nub of the problem is that we have a paper system which never existed (Orange Nell) versus Tartar which, despite its limitations existed. The RN liked neither option and chose to develop CF299. I cant see this system being deliverable before the early seventies whatever ship carries it.
So its pretty hard to change what actually happened.
If you stay with the paper system options you might as well go the whole hog and give the RN CVA01-3, double ended T82s because they look cool, and T 22s in 1969 instead of 1979. This is why alt stuff is fun but silly.
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,352
Reaction score
648
Assuming resources for ON increasingly become available from '56 onwards, it's not unreasonable to envision it IOC by '64 if not earlier.

First ships likely considered for the weapon would be Type 81, and County class. Followed by Leander, and then Type 82.
We already know which ships would have had Orange Nell. It would have replaced the 4.5" Mk.6 on First Rate ASW Frigates, Type 12/Leander, cutting into production as soon as the system was ready with the ship design naturally evolving. This was the requirement and it was the original planning for SIGS around 1960/61. I don't see the Type 81 having the volume for such a system.

Friedman's reference to it being considered as a secondary battery for Seaslug ships is fun. The only way I see it being viable is if the 4.5" Mk.6 turrets, shell rooms and powder rooms are replaced with the launcher and magazine and their MRS3 director replaced with the Orange Nell illuminator. It would have provided a second channel of GW fire without having to redesign the aft deck house and sacrifice the helicopter. If combined with the twin arm launcher considered for Seaslug it would have resulted in a very modern looking ship, especially if Type 984 could be squeezed on top. This could potentially have been done for the Batch II ships.

As Orange Nell would have been earlier but less capable than Sea Dart it is also fun to speculate that it would have resulted in full development of NIGS. With a continued need for long range and Orange Nell development wrapping up earlier it would have been developed from the mid-60s through to the early 1970s, not far of its planned schedule in 1959/60 anyway. It would have provided the long range capability and follow on for Seaslug.

Isn't alternative History fun, broad assumptions about timing, random massive investment allocations, all very interesting. Lock-down may have been going on too long.
 
Last edited:

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,798
Reaction score
550
Oh I agree that once they try to fit it to Type 81 things are going to prove that heady optimism is no substitute for lots of space and weight margins.

I also agree that a County with ON up front would make an interesting and impressive ship. Could the weight margins be there for Type 984?......would the space be there for it's electronics?!

If it did this sort of shoots down Type 82 as we know it.

As for making NIGS more likely.....I suspect that is a shade more fantasy......though not impossible.....
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,798
Reaction score
550
A thought.....

Could this notional County MkII retain a 4.5" gun? Could it in fact become the mk8?
In effect a number of new systems trialled on this MkII County that otherwise ended up on the Type 82.....
 

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
2,317
Reaction score
954
The batch 2 of 4 Countys and especially the last two.(Norfolk and Antrim) could be altered to fit your scheme.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zen

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,798
Reaction score
550
The batch 2 of 4 Countys and especially the last two.(Norfolk and Antrim) could be altered to fit your scheme.
And it might be simpler to run out a Batch III.....
 

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
2,317
Reaction score
954
There were 2 more units planned, so could be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zen

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,798
Reaction score
550
Which could lead into the NIGS ship studies.......
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,352
Reaction score
648
We have covered this elsewhere, the Long Term Estimates in 1958/59 had 16 DLGs with later units planned to take NIGS when that system was ready.
 

Purpletrouble

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2019
Messages
292
Reaction score
205
Except last 2 Counties were never that committed to, vice cruiser plans and only appeared

So deciding earlier to invest in development of weapon systems for the
We have covered this elsewhere, the Long Term Estimates in 1958/59 had 16 DLGs with later units planned to take NIGS when that system was ready.
Iirc the last Counties were in lieu of cruisers and awaiting the next missile ship - so spending to invest in SS3 for them seems unlikely given their uncertain/stopgap nature?

I agree with above - for ON to proceed means the longer range capability (SS successor in role albeit more capable) is being dealt with already, ie. NIGS. That would always be the priority I feel.
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,798
Reaction score
550
Certainly it's possible for NIGS to evolve into something more compact than Bloodhound or Thunderbird and meet projected threats.
 
Top