Swap UK with France during the Falklands War.

I went through similar "brain bleeding" trying to guess the Clems crew complement. Most sources says 1850 men. I wanted to compare that to Essex and Victorious and Hermes.
 
Archibald said:
I went through similar "brain bleeding" trying to guess the Clems crew complement. Most sources says 1850 men. I wanted to compare that to Essex and Victorious and Hermes.
Click to expand...
Clemenceau and Foch

Their crews varied over time.

According to the notes I made from the copies of Jane's on Internet Archive and at one of my local libraries it was:
  • 2,700 in the early 1960s;
  • 2,150 in the late 1960s, which according to Jane's were "officially revised figures"
  • 2,239 (179 officers and 2,060 men) in the middle 1970s.
  • 1,228 (65 officers, 1,163 men) according to Jane's 1976-77 and 1977-78.
At the time were discussing it was:
  • 1,338 (64 officers, 1,274 men) when operating as a fixed-wing aircraft carrier.
  • 984 (45 officers, 939 men) when operating as a helicopter carrier.
That's according to Jane's 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81. I think the copy of Jane's 1982-83 on Internet Archive says the same.

Jordan also says 1,338.

Hermes and Victorious

As I wrote in an earlier post Hermes had a crew of 2,100 as a fixed-wing aircraft carrier. That's according to every edition of Jane's for the period 1959-71 that I've been able to look at.

Victorious had a crew of 2,200 according to editions of Jane's from the early 1960s and 2,400 according to editions of Jane's from the late 1960s. I haven't been able to see what the middle 1960's editions say.

Essex class CVA from P.359 of Jane's 1968-69
Complement: 2,000 (100 officers, approx 1,900 enlisted men) plus approx 1,500 assigned to attack air wig for a total of 3,500 per ship.
Click to expand...

Essex class CVS from P.360 of Jane's 1968-69
Complement: 1,517 (87 officers, approx 1,430 enlisted men) plus approx 800 assigned to ASW air group for a total of 2,300 per ship.
Click to expand...

Essex class LPH from P.419 of Jane's 1968-69
Complement: approx 1,000 Troops: approx 1,500.
Click to expand...

Essex class AVT from P.458 of Jane's 1968-69
As aircraft carriers their designed wartime complement was 3,448 (360 officers; 3,088 enlisted men); peacetime complement was 1,500 to 2,000 depending upon role.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
NOMISYRRUC said:
Link to Post 287 which included a table showing the armaments of Argentine and French warships.
Click to expand...
NOMISYRRUC said:
Link to Post 297 which was "An Analysis of the British and French Warships Armed with Surface-to-Air Missiles in April 1982".
Click to expand...

We've Analysed The SAM's Of British And French Warships - Now It's Time To Analyse Their Guns

This Is The Table From Post 287
Most Of The Information Is From Jane's 1982-83

Argentine and French from JFS1982-83.png ​

All the 100mm guns on the French ships are in single mountings and all the 57mm guns on French ships are in twin mountings.

Of the 23 British destroyers and frigates that fought in the war:
  • 5 were armed with two 4.5" guns in one twin mounting. (2 County class, one Leander class and 2 Rothesay class)
  • 12 were armed with one 4.5" gun in a single mounting. (6 Type 21, 5 Type 42 and one Type 82)
  • 6 didn't have any guns. (2 Type 22 and 4 Leander class)
On the other side of "La Manche"
  • 17 out of 20 cruiser and destroyer size warships available in April 1982 had one or two single 100 mm guns and the rest had six 57mm in 3 twin mountings.
  • The 9 E59 class light frigates carried had two single 100 mm guns.
  • The 12-15 A69 class corvettes that were available in April 1982 were armed with one 100 mm gun.
  • Not in the list are Clemenceau and Foch which were armed with eight 100mm guns and Jeanne d'Arc which had four.
I'm assuming that the 100mm gun wasn't as good as the British 4.5" in the shore bombardment role and was a much better AA weapon. I'm also assuming that the British and French fire controls systems were of equal quality. Are my assumptions correct?

If my assumptions are correct the MN "had the edge" over the RN in close range AA defence in both qualitative and quantitative terms.
 
Part of Post 289
starviking said:
As for Centaur rebuilds to Hermes standards, I think that’s been covered recently in another thread - Hermes virtually went through a full reconstruction during it’s long journey from laying-down to launch, so a Centaur upgrade to Hermes standard would be a massive enterprise.
Click to expand...
I didn't suggest that in Post 287 which was the post you were replying to. However, this is the link to the reconstruction that was proposed in another thread.
BlackBat242 said:
Link to Post 131 on Page 4 of the thread "Larger British light fleet carriers?"
Click to expand...

The suggestion I made (in Post 277) was that the Argentines would have upgraded Centaur to operate Buccaneers.

However, that doesn't necessarily require refitting the ship to "Full Hermes" standard. The ship might have been able to operate Buccaneers in the first place and if it wasn't the modifications required to make Centaur "Buccaneer Capable" might not be as extensive (and therefore as expensive) as a "Full Hermes" refit or the refit proposed by @BlackBat242.

I intend to write another post to explain why I think so.
 
NOMISYRRUC said:
Part of Post 289
starviking said:
As for Centaur rebuilds to Hermes standards, I think that’s been covered recently in another thread - Hermes virtually went through a full reconstruction during it’s long journey from laying-down to launch, so a Centaur upgrade to Hermes standard would be a massive enterprise.
Click to expand...
I didn't suggest that in Post 287 which was the post you were replying to. However, this is the link to the reconstruction that was proposed in another thread.
BlackBat242 said:
Link to Post 131 on Page 4 of the thread "Larger British light fleet carriers?"
Click to expand...

The suggestion I made (in Post 277) was that the Argentines would have upgraded Centaur to operate Buccaneers.

However, that doesn't necessarily require refitting the ship to "Full Hermes" standard. The ship might have been able to operate Buccaneers in the first place and if it wasn't the modifications required to make Centaur "Buccaneer Capable" might not be as extensive (and therefore as expensive) as a "Full Hermes" refit or the refit proposed by @BlackBat242.

I intend to write another post to explain why I think so.
Click to expand...

This is Part One of What is Intended to be a Two-Part Response​

These are the dimensions of the Centaur class aircraft carriers according to Jane's 1962-63.

Aircraft Carrier Dimensions from Jane's 1962-63 Centaur class only.png ​

Externally...
  • Centaur and Hermes have the same p.p. length and waterline beam.
  • The difference between the overall beam is because:
    • Centaur centre line lifts and a 5½ degree angled flight deck.
    • Hermes had one centre line lift aft, one deck edge lift forward and a 6½ degree angled flight deck.
  • The lifts were of the same size and capacity.
    • Centaur:
      • Forward 54ft long x 44ft wide, 37,000lb.
      • Aft 54ft long x 44ft wide, 40,000lb.
    • Hermes:
      • Side-lift forward 54ft long x 34ft wide.
      • Centreline aft 54ft long x 44ft wide.
      • Both 40,000lb.
The other important external difference was the steam catapults. According to Hobbs the capacities of the BS.4 steam catapults fitted to British warships were.

BS.4 Steam Catapults according to Hobbs.png ​

However, Hermes was completed with a pair of 151ft stroke BS.4s. The port unit had its stroke increased to 175ft during its 1964-66 refit. As noted in the comments Hobbs didn't say what the performance of Ark Royals BS.4 catapults was and I've assumed that they were the same as the 151ft BS.4s fitted to Hermes.

Internally:
  • According to Hobbs, Hermes had a much bigger hangar than Centaur:
    • Centaur: 274 x 62 x 17½ feet (area 16,988 square feet and volume 297,290 square feet). Plus a 55 x 52 x 17½ foot extension forward of the forward lift (area 3,410 square feet and volume 56,675 cubic feet). The combined length of the two hangars was 329 feet.
    • Hermes: 356 x 62 x 17½ feet (area 22,072 square feet and volume 386,260 square feet). No extension.
  • Hermes had superior electrical and electronic systems.
    • Centaur had a 220 Volt Direct Current electrical system.
    • Hermes had 440 Volts three-phase AC at 60 Hertz.
    • Centaur had radars Type 960 (one), 982 (two) and 983 (one) until her 1963 refit when the Types 960 and one Type 982 were replaced by a Type 965 with an AKE-1 aerial.
    • Hermes had a Type 984 3-D radar backed up by a Comprehensive Display System (CDS) and Direct Plot Transmission (DPT).
  • Both ships had the same machinery.
Hermes was refitted 1964-66. According to Marriott on Page 95 of Royal Navy Aircraft Carriers 1945-1990:
  • All the 40mm guns were removed and replaced by 2 quadruple Sea Cat launchers and directors, which were installed aft on sponsons to port and starboard;
  • The flight deck was widened on the port side aft in order to increase parking area and also outboard of the island to provide an access way for vehicles;
  • The Type 293Q radar on the lattice mast was replaced by the more up-to-date Type 993, and a DLPS was fitted instead of the original mirror landing sight;
  • Finally, flight deck equipment was uprated to cope with Buccaneer strike aircraft which were replacing the Scimitars in front-line service.
Costs:
  • £10,500,000 Centaur (1953) according to Marriott (P.94). "Centaur cost £10,434,000 excluding guns, aircraft and equipment," according to Jane's 1954-55 and 1955-56.
  • £37,500,000 Hermes (1959) according to Marriott (P.101) and £10,000 for the 1964-66 refit (P.96). However, this isn't a like-for-like comparison because it does include armament, aircraft and equipment. Her actual cost in 1959 was approximately £18 million (Source: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1959/nov/25/hms-hermes)
In the next part I'll discuss whether Centaur & Hermes could have operated Buccaneers in their 1958 & 1959 conditions and speculate upon what need to be done to Centaur to make her "Buccaneer Capable" if she wasn't.
 
Last edited:
The particulars for the BS4 from “Farnborough and the Fleet Air Arm”

1953 - first installation 40,000lb at 78 knots
Upgraded to 50,000lb at 94 knots
Upgraded to 50,000lb at 105 knots.
No dates given for the upgrades.

Ark Royal’s cats were 151ft stroke.
Ark completed in Feb 1955 as the first carrier fitted with all 3 new inventions: steam catapults, angled deck and optical landing sight. She was followed by USS Forrestal in Sept and HMAS Melbourne in Oct 1955.
 
Already mentioned many times
Clems BS-5: 171 ft, 17 tons to 105 kt (from memory).
 
0.5 inch = 1.27 cm
1 inch = 2.54 cm (rounded to 2.55)
2 inch = 5.1 cm
100 mm = 10 cm
4 inch = 11.2 cm
4.5 inch = 12.9 cm, rounded: 130 mm

No surprise british naval guns are more efficients...

EDIT: imperial units, how I hate you. With such a name, you are the metric system's Darth Vader.
 
Last edited:
NOMISYRRUC said:
I'm assuming that the 100mm gun wasn't as good as the British 4.5" in the shore bombardment role and was a much better AA weapon.
Click to expand...
Depends on the target set I imagine.

The British 4.5” shell is 50% heavier than the French 100mm. In theory that should make it more effective against fortifications and well dug trenches.

On the other hand, the French 100mm has 3x the rate of fire as a single 4.5” and 2x are the rate of fire as a twin 4.5”. And the French ships that would have been tasked with shore bombardment all had 2x 100mm, so effectively 4x to 6x the RoF of a British ship. So for unprotected area targets such as Stanley airfield the 100mm should have been far superior to the 4.5”.
 
H_K said:
NOMISYRRUC said:
I'm assuming that the 100mm gun wasn't as good as the British 4.5" in the shore bombardment role and was a much better AA weapon.
Click to expand...
Depends on the target set I imagine.

The British 4.5” shell is 50% heavier than the French 100mm. In theory that should make it more effective against fortifications and well dug trenches.

On the other hand, the French 100mm has 3x the rate of fire as a single 4.5” and 2x are the rate of fire as a twin 4.5”. And the French ships that would have been tasked with shore bombardment all had 2x 100mm, so effectively 4x to 6x the RoF of a British ship. So for unprotected area targets such as Stanley airfield the 100mm should have been far superior to the 4.5”.
Click to expand...

Do you know if the MN used proximity fused ammunition for shore bombardment?

I ask the question because I remember listening to a BBC Radio play made to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the Falklands in which the RN was using proximity fuses for shore bombardment.

The play was written from the point of view of two Argentine conscripts who were captured at San Carlos or Goose Green. If I remember correctly they were part of a party of prisoners that was ordered to move some captured ammunition and they set off a booby trap set by their own officers that killed them.

Do you agree with my assumption the the 100mm was the better AA weapon?

That brings me onto a point that I forgot to make in previous posts about gun armaments. The MN might be regretting that they had removed the third 100mm gun from their E59 avisios/light frigates and replaced it with four MM39 Exocets. These are the ships that are most likely to be escorting the amphibious group, auxiliaries and providing close support for the landings. The two-gun FLE60s and C67s probably couldn't be spared from the carrier group. That leaves the E59s and the T47AS, T53 and T56 destroyers.

The A69s only carry one gun, but I think they're shallower draught vessels than the other ships, which if true might allow them to "get up close and personal" so the fewer guns might be offset by closer proximity to the targets and possibly better communications with the troops ashore.

Any thoughts?
 
Last edited:
The other factor is how reliable the 100mm is firing for prolonged periods.
The 4.5in Mk 8 seemed to be prone to breaking during the bombardment missions.
 
Post 365
NOMISYRRUC said:
NOMISYRRUC said:
Part of Post 289
starviking said:
As for Centaur rebuilds to Hermes standards, I think that’s been covered recently in another thread - Hermes virtually went through a full reconstruction during it’s long journey from laying-down to launch, so a Centaur upgrade to Hermes standard would be a massive enterprise.
Click to expand...
I didn't suggest that in Post 287 which was the post you were replying to. However, this is the link to the reconstruction that was proposed in another thread.
BlackBat242 said:
Link to Post 131 on Page 4 of the thread "Larger British light fleet carriers?"
Click to expand...

The suggestion I made (in Post 277) was that the Argentines would have upgraded Centaur to operate Buccaneers.

However, that doesn't necessarily require refitting the ship to "Full Hermes" standard. The ship might have been able to operate Buccaneers in the first place and if it wasn't the modifications required to make Centaur "Buccaneer Capable" might not be as extensive (and therefore as expensive) as a "Full Hermes" refit or the refit proposed by @BlackBat242.

I intend to write another post to explain why I think so.
Click to expand...

This is Part One of What is Intended to be a Two-Part Response​

These are the dimensions of the Centaur class aircraft carriers according to Jane's 1962-63.

Externally...
  • Centaur and Hermes have the same p.p. length and waterline beam.
  • The difference between the overall beam is because:
    • Centaur centre line lifts and a 5½ degree angled flight deck.
    • Hermes had one centre line lift aft, one deck edge lift forward and a 6½ degree angled flight deck.
  • The lifts were of the same size and capacity.
    • Centaur:
      • Forward 54ft long x 44ft wide, 37,000lb.
      • Aft 54ft long x 44ft wide, 40,000lb.
    • Hermes:
      • Side-lift forward 54ft long x 34ft wide.
      • Centreline aft 54ft long x 44ft wide.
      • Both 40,000lb.
The other important external difference was the steam catapults. According to Hobbs the capacities of the BS.4 steam catapults fitted to British warships were.

However, Hermes was completed with a pair of 151ft stroke BS.4s. The port unit had its stroke increased to 175ft during its 1964-66 refit. As noted in the comments Hobbs didn't say what the performance of Ark Royals BS.4 catapults was and I've assumed that they were the same as the 151ft BS.4s fitted to Hermes.

Internally:
  • According to Hobbs, Hermes had a much bigger hangar than Centaur:
    • Centaur: 274 x 62 x 17½ feet (area 16,988 square feet and volume 297,290 square feet). Plus a 55 x 52 x 17½ foot extension forward of the forward lift (area 3,410 square feet and volume 56,675 cubic feet). The combined length of the two hangars was 329 feet.
    • Hermes: 356 x 62 x 17½ feet (area 22,072 square feet and volume 386,260 square feet). No extension.
  • Hermes had superior electrical and electronic systems.
    • Centaur had a 220 Volt Direct Current electrical system.
    • Hermes had 440 Volts three-phase AC at 60 Hertz.
    • Centaur had radars Type 960 (one), 982 (two) and 983 (one) until her 1963 refit when the Types 960 and one Type 982 were replaced by a Type 965 with an AKE-1 aerial.
    • Hermes had a Type 984 3-D radar backed up by a Comprehensive Display System (CDS) and Direct Plot Transmission (DPT).
  • Both ships had the same machinery.
Hermes was refitted 1964-66. According to Marriott on Page 95 of Royal Navy Aircraft Carriers 1945-1990:
  • All the 40mm guns were removed and replaced by 2 quadruple Sea Cat launchers and directors, which were installed aft on sponsons to port and starboard;
  • The flight deck was widened on the port side aft in order to increase parking area and also outboard of the island to provide an access way for vehicles;
  • The Type 293Q radar on the lattice mast was replaced by the more up-to-date Type 993, and a DLPS was fitted instead of the original mirror landing sight;
  • Finally, flight deck equipment was uprated to cope with Buccaneer strike aircraft which were replacing the Scimitars in front-line service.
Costs:
  • £10,500,000 Centaur (1953) according to Marriott (P.94). "Centaur cost £10,434,000 excluding guns, aircraft and equipment," according to Jane's 1954-55 and 1955-56.
  • £37,500,000 Hermes (1959) according to Marriott (P.101) and £10,000 for the 1964-66 refit (P.96). However, this isn't a like-for-like comparison because it does include armament, aircraft and equipment. Her actual cost in 1959 was approximately £18 million (Source: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1959/nov/25/hms-hermes)
In the next part I'll discuss whether Centaur & Hermes could have operated Buccaneers in their 1958 & 1959 conditions and speculate upon what need to be done to Centaur to make her "Buccaneer Capable" if she wasn't.
Click to expand...

This is Part Two of What is will now be a Three-Part Response​

156 Buccaneers were ordered for the Fleet Air Arm and 144 were built.
  • 20 prototypes and pre-production aircraft with De Havilland Gyron Junior engines.
  • 40 Buccaneer S. Mk 1 with De Havilland Gyron Junior engines.
  • 84 Buccaneer S. Mk 2 with Rolls Royce Spey engines out of 96 that were ordered.
In the Royal Navy first-line squadrons are usually given "number plates" in the series 800-899 and second-line squadrons are usually given "number plates" in the series 700-799.

This a timeline of the Fleet Air Arm's Buccaneer and Scimitar squadrons with "number plates" in the series 800-899

Buccaneer and Scimitar Squadrons 1957-72.png ​

Of the four 800 series Buccaneer squadrons that were formed:
  1. 801 reformed on the Buccaneer S.1 in July 1962 and after a short spell on Ark Royal (from February to March 1963) was on Victorious from August 1963 until the squadron disbanded in July 1965. The squadron re-formed on Buccaneer S.2s in October 1965. The squadron was aboard Victorious from May 1966 until mid-1968 when it transferred to Hermes and was that ship's Buccaneer squadron until it disbanded in July 1970.
  2. 809 reformed on the Buccaneer S.1 in January 1963 as the Buccaneer Operational Flying Training Squadron. It was downgraded to second-line status as 736 Squadron in March 1965. The squadron proper never operated from an aircraft carrier. However, a detachments were aboard Victorious in 1963 and Ark Royal in 1964. It reformed again in January 1966 with 6 Buccaneer S.2 (later increased to 8). The squadron served on Hermes until mid-1968 and after a spell ashore was Ark Royal's Buccaneer squadron from 1970 until it disbanded in December 1978.
  3. 800 reformed on the Buccaneer S.1 in March 1964 for service in Eagle. It embarked in December 1964. The squadron re-equipped with the Buccaneer S.2 in late 1966. It continued to serve aboard Eagle until it disbanded in February 1972. (The associated but separate 800B Squadron existed from September 1964 to August 1966 and operated Scimitars from Eagle in the air-to-air refuelling role.)
  4. 803 reformed on the Buccaneer S.2 in July 1967 as the Buccaneer Headquarters Squadron and disbanded in December 1969. The squadron proper never served aboard an aircraft carrier. However a detachment of 4 aircraft served aboard Hermes from August 1968 to April 1969.
Marriott wrote that Centaur couldn't operate Buccaneers and Hermes couldn't operate them until after her 1964-66 refit, but I'm not sure that this was true. I think that the more likely explanation is that there weren't enough Buccaneers to go around until 1966 by which time Centaur had been paid off and Hermes had been refitted.

The first squadron to embark a Buccaneer S.1 squadron was Victorious (in August 1963) which had 145ft stroke steam catapults that were shorter than Hermes' (both 151ft 1959-66) and not much longer than Centaur. According to the table in Post 365 the steam catapults in Hermes were were just as powerful as those in Victorious and Centaur's were 80% as powerful. As far as I know the arrester gear of all three ships in 1958-59 was just as powerful and their flight decks were stressed to take aircraft of the same weights.

According to Lewis in British Naval Aircraft since 1912 the loaded weight of both marks of Buccaneer was about 45,000lb and the loaded weight of a Scimitar was 34,200lb.

So I think that my claim that Hermes could have operated Buccaneers in her 1959-64 configuration is correct.

However, it looks like I'm wrong about Centaur. If Hobbs data was right her steam catapults weren't powerful enough to launch a Buccaneer. On the other hand it seems strange that Centaur a ship with machinery that was as powerful as her half-sister's wasn't given catapults as powerful as Hermes' during during her 1956-58 refit. Plus Buccaneer was under development at the time of the refit and it seems strange that they weren't made powerful enough to operate that aircraft.

Part three will be about the modifications that may be needed to make Centaur "Buccaneer Capable" if I'm wrong. I'll also discuss how long the modifications might take and how much they might cost.
 
Last edited:
Archibald said:
0.5 inch = 1.27 cm
1 inch = 2.54 cm (rounded to 2.55)
2 inch = 5.1 cm
100 mm = 10 cm
4 inch = 11.2 cm
4.5 inch = 12.9 cm, rounded: 130 mm

No surprise british naval guns are more efficients...

EDIT: imperial units, how I hate you. With such a name, you are the metric system's Darth Vader.
Click to expand...
And yet Imperial is a very human system. A foot a thumb width, a stride....a cup, etc....
Metric doesn't match close to anything human.

It's why I made my fictional Empire use natively defined Cubits (Ell) and have the metric equivalent 450mm. A quick of the average native limb length ratio.
 
Nah, Imperial is the Darth Vader system, or Palpatin. It's all in the name.
 
From Hobbs "The British Carrier Strike Fleet After 1945"

" ...The [Buccaneer] S1 certainly proved to be underpowered in service and even with catapult launch its maximum all-up weight was restricted, especially in the high temperatures encountered in the Far East. The problem was alleviated in Eagle by embarking a specialised Scimitar tanker unit, 800B NAS, which allowed armed Buccaneer S1 to be launched with weapons but a low fuel state and then 'filled up' once safely airborne. Victorious lacked the space to embark a tamnker unit and had to achieve a compromise between fuel and weapons with a number of Buccaneers fitted as tankers; the Commander Far East Fleet (COMFEF), urged the Admiralty to hasten the type's clearance to carry 500lb bombs as a more practical weapon than the 1,000lb bomb. The S2 entered operational service with 801 NAS in Victorious in 1966 and proved to be the outstanding strike aircraft of its generation."

Elsewhere the Gyron Junior thrust was described as "marginal when all the services were running".

There were 14 pre-production S1 followed by 40 production aircraft. The production aircraft first flew between 23 Jan 1962 and Dec 1963.

A pre-production S1 XK526 underwent a delayed conversion with the Spey engines between Nov 1962 and April 1963. The final 10 S1 on order were reworked on the production line to S2 standard a number of these then joined the S2 test programme. Service entry of the S2 was 9 April 1965 with 736B the IFTU and then Nov 1965 with 801.

The next S2 contract was dated 5 May 1964 for 20, with follow on orders for 17 (25 Oct 1965), 30 (12 April 1966)and finally 15 (27 June 1967) with the latter to be Martel equipped.
 
Archibald said:
Admittedly, MASURCA was SARH when Sea Slug stuck with beam riding until the end. Which guidance was the best / more practical, I have no idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masurca

en.wikipedia.org

Seaslug (missile) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

They were quite similar, including a weight of 4000 pounds, no less.
Click to expand...
What will it take to convince you that comparing MASCURA & the FLE60 class to Seaslug & the County class is exactly like comparing apples to pears? That is there's no comparison!

The correct analogues to MASCURA and the FLE60 class are Terrier (upon which MASCURA was based) and the Guided Missile Frigates (DLG) that the USN built in the 1960s & re-designated Guided Missile Destroyers (DDG) or Guided Missile Cruisers (CG) in 1975.

E.g. The Belknap class, FLE60 and County class Batch 2 which were completed at about the same time.
  • Magazine capacities.
    • Belknap had a magazine capacity of 60 missiles which were a mix Terrier (later replaced by Standard ER) and ASROC.
    • FLE 60 carried 48 MASCURA missiles of equal performance to Terrier and 13 Malafon anti-submarine missiles for a grand total of 61.
    • The Counties could only carry 30 to 36 depending on the source.
  • Air surveillance radar.
    • Belknap had SPS-48.
    • FLE60 had DBRI-23.
    • Both of which were far superior to the Type 965 AKE-2 on the Batch 2 County.
  • Guidance radars.
    • Belknap two (SPS-55).
    • FLE60 two (DRBR-51 respectively).
    • The County only carried one (designate Type 901).
  • The only things that I can say in defence of Seaslug are that it had a faster reaction time than 1960s Terrier and that one of the reasons for the low magazine capacity relative to MASURCA and Terrier was that the missiles were fully assembled for a faster rate of fire. However, the American rate of fire wasn't much slower in practice because they discovered that final assembly was relatively quick and easy. Or I think that's what Friedman wrote in The Postwar Naval Revolution. I haven't got the book out and checked.
 
Last edited:
Archibald said:
Admittedly, MASURCA was SARH when Sea Slug stuck with beam riding until the end. Which guidance was the best / more practical, I have no idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masurca

en.wikipedia.org

Seaslug (missile) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

They were quite similar, including a weight of 4000 pounds, no less.
Click to expand...
What are its dimensions and weights in comparison to late 1960s Terrier and Standard ER missiles? I suspect that the missiles are rather similar and the boosters are different.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom