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

Tartar/Standard: The RN's missed opportunity

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
115
Reaction score
171
Lemming! See that cliff! Do your duty!

Earlier this year Alternatehistory.com had a thread named WI: County Class Destroyers with RIM-24 Tartar? and this was Post Number 101. It was my proposal for a large guided missile destroyer armed with Terrier (Batch 1) and Standard SM-1/ER (Batch 2) with all gas turbine propulsion that was built instead of the real world County class and Type 82.
Alternative County class Guided Missile Destroyer
Version 2.0
Replacing Post 86 on Page 5

Eight ships were built in both timelines as follows:

County Class Destroyers.png

However, they weren't the same as the OTL ships.
  • The TTL version had eight Metrovick G.6 gas turbines producing 60,000shp arranged in two units of four which is why it was called Combined Gas and Gas (COGAG).
  • Seaslug was replaced by Terrier in the first four ships (Batch 1) and Standard SM-1/ER in the last four ships (Batch 2).
  • The GMLS Mk 10 launcher was fed by three 20-round magazine rings holding a mix of 60 SAMs and ASROCs - double the number that the OTL ships carried.
  • Two SPG-55 target indicator radars were fitted instead of one Type 901 so it could engage two targets at a time.
  • One SPS-39 radar was fitted to the Batch 1 ships instead of a Type 965 with the AKE-1 aerial.
  • One SPS-48 radar was fitted to the Batch 2 ships instead of a Type 965 with the AKE-2 aerial.
  • The arrangement of the hangar and flight was better than the OTL ships, which allowed two Wasp or one Sea King size helicopters to be accommodated, but the ships usually operated one Wessex helicopter.
  • Six 21" torpedo tubes for British 21" anti-submarine torpedoes in single fixed mountings were planned for the OTL ships, but they were not fitted.
  • The TTL ships were fitted with six 12.75" torpedo tubes for American Mk 44 anti-submarine torpedoes in two triple Mk 32 mountings.
The rest of the armament was the same as OTL. That is four 4.5" guns in two Mk 6 turrets and two Sea Cat launchers.

In common with OTL they were fitted with the Type 184 sonar. Batch 1 ships had the Comprehensive Display System and the Batch 2 ships had ADAWS Mk 1.

The TTL County might have required a larger hull to accommodate the changes to the armament and machinery, but steel is cheap and air is free, so the increase in the cost of each ship would have been negligible. The operating cost might have been less because the all gas turbine machinery of the TTL ships might have allowed the ships to have smaller crews.

In both timelines the RN wanted each strike carrier to be escorted by four guided missile destroyers. The number of strike carriers was to be reduced from five at the beginning of the 1960s to three in the 1970s. Therefore, there was a requirement for 12 GMDs in the 1970s. In common with OTL a Type 82 GMD was designed, but it was armed with Standard SM-1/MR and had all gas turbine machinery. However, it was decided to build a third quartet of Counties because it was armed with the longer range Standard SM-1/ER.

The Defence White Paper of February 1966 resulted in a radical change of plan. The new class of aircraft carriers was cancelled and the existing ships were to be withdrawn by 1975. Therefore, the plan to build four County class Batch 3 was abandoned because there was now no need for large guided missile destroyers because there would be no aircraft carriers for them to escort.

According to Naval-history.net 3 out of 4 Batch 1 ships had long refits between 1968 and 1973 as follows:

County Class Destroyer Refits.png

ITTL the long-lead items ordered for DLG.10 to DLG.12 were used to upgrade these ships to Batch 3 standard. That is Standard SM-2/ER replaced Terrier, SPS-48 replaced the SPS-39 and ADAWS Mk 2 replaced the CDS.

In Version 1.0 (Post 86 on Page 5) DLG.09 was HMS Gloucestershire the sole County class Batch 3 instead of the OTL Type 82 destroyer HMS Bristol. However, I have since decided that DLG.09 would not be built at all. Instead Swan Hunter would build a Type 81 frigate in place of Bristol and the HMS London would be refitted to Batch 3 standard with the Standard SM-2/ER system, SPS-48 radar and ADAWS Mk 2 that had already been ordered as long-lead items for DLG.09.

Between February 1966 and the end of 1974 the MoD (Navy) planned that each ship would remain in service for 20 years. All eight ships were to be fitted with STWS anti-submarine torpedo tubes. The Batch 2 ships would also be refitted to fire SM-2 missiles, the Type 184 sonar would be replaced by Type 2016 and ADWAS would be updated.

Then the Yom Kippur War and the Oil Crisis happened which led to the Mason Defence Review of 1974-75 which amongst other things cut the number of "frigoyers" from about 70 to about 60.

This was bad news for the County class. The TTL ships were more capable than the OTL ships because their main armament had been kept up to date and they could engage twice as many targets at a time, but they were still expensive to run on account of their large crews. Furthermore, 14 Type 42 GMDs were under construction and more were planned. The "Post-Mason" fleet was to have about 60 "frigoyers" and a third of them would be guided missile ships. Therefore, the new plan was to pay off the Counties as soon as enough Type 42s were available.

IOTL the fates of the nine large guided missile destroyers were as follows:
  • Hampshire (Batch 1) was paid off in April 1976. She was towed from Chatham to Briton Ferry to be broken up on 25th April 1979.
  • Devonshire (Batch 1) was paid off on 28th July 1978 at Portsmouth and placed on Disposal List. Her proposed sale to Egypt was cancelled in 1979. She laid up at Portsmouth to await disposal in 1982 and was expended as target ship in 1985.
  • London (Batch 1) fired the last broadside in the R.N. in December 1981 while on passage to Portsmouth to pay off for disposal. In January 1982 she was sold to Pakistan and renamed "Babur."
  • Kent (Batch 1) was damaged by fire on 29th November 1976 whilst refitting at Portsmouth and in October 1978 arrived at Wallsend-on-Tyne for refit. She relieved Fife as Harbour Training Ship at Portsmouth in July 1980 and served as a live asset for artificer and mechanic training supporting HMS Collingwood and HMS Sultan, her machinery largely in serviceable condition (Wikipaedia). Reactivation for service in the Falklands War was seriously considered because her four 4.5" guns would have been useful for shore bombardment (source: the Little Wars website). She would be converted to fire Seaslug Mk 2 missiles as part of the re-activation which would have taken between 1 and 2 weeks. "In the event the re-activation was not proceeded with as the Navy couldn't provide a crew, so HMS Kent never joined the Task Force." According to Wikipeadia she also became a harbour training ship for the Sea Cadet Corps in 1984 and was paid off from this in 1987 to become a training hulk at Portsmouth until stricken in 1993, though she lingered on, tied up to the same pier at Portsmouth Naval Base until 1996.
  • Norfolk (Batch 2) was paid off in 1981 to become the Dartmouth Training Ship (Wikipaedia). However, if this was the plan it wasn't carried out because the ship sailed for Chile with UK/Chilean crew on 17th February 1982 and was renamed "Capitán Prat".
  • Antrim (Batch 2) was paid off in 1984, sold to Chile on 22nd June 1984 and renamed "Almirante Cochrane".
  • Glamorgan (Batch 2) was paid off in September 1986, sold to Chile and renamed "Admiral Latorre".
  • Fife (Batch 2) was the Harbour Training Ship at Portsmouth from November 1979 to July 1980 when she was relieved by Kent. She didn't take part in the Falklands War because she was refitting. (Wikipaedia says from October 1980 to December 1982.) She was converted into a cadet training ship in a refit that was completed in June 1986. However, she did not serve in this role for long because she was paid off June 1987 and sold to Chile as "Blanco Encalada".
  • Bristol (the sole Type 82) was completed without much of the ECM & ESM equipment that was standard in British warships of the time. Her steam plant destroyed in a serious fire in November 1974 which was not repaired until her first major refit in 1976-77. She was finally brought up to operational status in her second major refit which lasted from 1979 to the end of 1980. The Limbo mortar was removed and UAA-1 ESM equipment fitted. The Type 1022 radar was fitted and the Ikara was removed in her next major refit which was from July 1984 to early 1986. She relieved Fife as Dartmouth training ship in September 1987 and served in that role until 1991 when she was paid off in paid off and refitted to replace Kent as Harbour Training & accommodation ship at Portsmouth.
The fates of the eight guided missile ships built ITTL would be similar. However, the Batch 2 ships would have been discarded first because they fired the Standard SM-1 missile and the Batch 1 ships fired the SM-2.
 
Last edited:

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,373
Reaction score
1,091
Errr why would we develop ADAWS in this scenario?
Wouldn't this just be at best licencing of NTDS?
Why would we equip with Sea Cat?
Why not US 5" guns?

I mean why bother with anything on this ship that is of British design?
Because certainly component compatibility is not a trivial issue back then.

Since this is a scenario were the UK gives up on domestic SAMs and domestic naval radar. Why would it bother with a domestic combat data system or indeed domestic anything?
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
115
Reaction score
171
Errr why would we develop ADAWS in this scenario?
Wouldn't this just be at best licencing of NTDS?
Why would we equip with Sea Cat?
Why not US 5" guns?

I mean why bother with anything on this ship that is of British design?
Because certainly component compatibility is not a trivial issue back then.

Since this is a scenario were the UK gives up on domestic SAMs and domestic naval radar. Why would it bother with a domestic combat data system or indeed domestic anything?
Sorry I wrote...
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
115
Reaction score
171
Errr why would we develop ADAWS in this scenario?
Wouldn't this just be at best licencing of NTDS?
Yes, if you can show that it was cheaper and/or significantly better than ADA and ADAWS Mk 1.
Why would we equip with Sea Cat?
I'm not aware of any US substitutes being available at the time. However, I'm prepared to be proved wrong on this point.
Why not US 5" guns?
They did think of doing that in World War II and the French designed & produced their own 5in guns that were compatible with US ammunition. So that madness has an element of method in it.
I mean why bother with anything on this ship that is of British design?
Because certainly component compatibility is not a trivial issue back then.
You've answered you own question. The Terrier system and its associated radars are particular to the Alternative Guided Missile Destroyer. The other equipment was used by many other British warships of the period.
Since this is a scenario were the UK gives up on domestic SAMs and domestic naval radar. Why would it bother with a domestic combat data system or indeed domestic anything?
There's still some domestic SAM activity... Rapier, Blowpipe, Javelin & Starstreak spring immediately to mind. The only domestic naval radar that this kills are Type 901 and Type 909.

Edit: and I forgot about Sea Cat & Sea Wolf which would still happen.
 
Last edited:

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
115
Reaction score
171
Why would it bother with a domestic combat data system or indeed domestic anything?
Indeed...
  • Like not bothering with a domestic strategic nuclear weapons delivery system, i.e. cancelling Blue Streak (which was based on purchased American technology) & Blue Steel Mk 2 in favour of Skybolt, Polaris & Trident.
  • Like not bothering with a domestic tactical nuclear missile system, i.e. cancelling Blue Water in favour of the American Sergeant & Lance.
  • Like not bothering with a domestic tactical bomber, i.e. cancelling TSR.2 in favour of the F-111K and what became (via AFVG & UKVG) the multi-national Tornado.
  • Like not bothering with a domestic naval fighter, i.e. cancelling P.1154RN in favour of the American F-4K.
  • Like not bothering with a domestic tactical fighter for the RAF, i.e. cancelling P.1154RAF in favour of the American F-4M, multi-national Jaguar and admittedly the British Harrier, but then buying the American AV-8B instead of developing a domestic Harrier replacement.
  • Like not bothering with a domestic tactical transport, i.e. cancelling the HS.681 in favour of the Hercules.
  • Like not bothering with a domestic strategic transport to replace the Britannias in favour of the abortive plan to buy Lockheed Galaxies.
  • Like not bothering with a range of domestically designed & built helicopters for HM Forces in favour of a mix of French (Gazelle & Puma), American designs built under licence (Sea King & its predecessors), directly purchased American helicopters (Chinooks) and one domestic design (Lynx).
  • Like not bothering with a domestic AEW radar in favour of an American radar (APS-20 on Skyraider, the Neptunes in Vanguard Flight, Gannet AEW Mk 3 & Shackleton AEW Mk 2) and then bothering to have one (Nimrod AEW) and not bothering to have one again by cancelling Nimrod AEW and buying Boeing Sentries.
  • Like nearly not bothering to replace the Shackleton with a domestic aircraft in favour of the American Orion or Franco-German Atlantique but eventually buying the Nimrod.
The UK didn't have the financial & scientific resources to develop all the military equipment it wanted "in house" and after the Sandys defence review reduced the quantities of "stuff" that HM Forces required the production "cost per unit" of a lot of military equipment increased too. So more had to be purchased from abroad and more had to be developed via multi-national programmes to make the R&D affordable.
 
Last edited:

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
115
Reaction score
171
Errr why would we develop ADAWS in this scenario? Wouldn't this just be at best licencing of NTDS?....
...Why would it bother with a domestic combat data system...?
Using your reasoning...
  1. The Dutch should have fitted NTDS to De Zeven Provincien when it was re-armed with Terrier 1962-64 and the Standard MR armed Tromp class instead of fitting their own SEAWCO system.
  2. The French should have fitted NTDS to the 4 Scourf class destroyers that were re-armed with Tatar 1962-66 instead of their own SENIT system.
  3. The Germans should have fitted NTDS to the 3 Adams class destroyers that they bought from the USA instead of their own SATIR system.
  4. The Italians should have fitted NTDS to Guiseppe Garibaldi when it was re-armed with Terrier 1957-62; the Terrier/Standard ER armed helicopter cruisers of the Doria & Vento classes; and the destroyers of the Impavido & Audace classes instead of their own SADOC system.
Except they didn't build NTDS under licence and did bother with domestic combat data systems.

Though the French might have been better off not bothering with Mascura because it was only fitted to 3 ships in favour of buying Terrier/Standard ER. However, @Archibald is probably better qualified to make a judgement on that matter than me.

That's a grand total of 5 Terrier/Standard ER and 13 Tatar/Standard MR systems built for European navies in the 1960s & 1970s.*

That's important because (in common with Westland's arrangement with Sikorsky) the licencing agreement would have included the right to sell 3-T missiles to certain countries like Europe and the Commonwealth (less Canada). That would have increased the number of Terrier/Standard ER systems built in the UK from 9 (including Girdle Ness) to up to 14 and the number of Tatar/Standard MR systems built in the UK from 20 to as many as 36 if the 3 Australian Adams class destroyers are included.

*It would have been 8 Terrier/Standard ER systems if the Dutch had re-armed De Ruyter with it as was originally planned; the Italians had built the fourth helicopter cruiser and had re-armed Abruzzi with it like her sister, but I don't know if that was ever planned. Similarly it would have been 20 Tatar/Standard MR systems had the Germans acquired 8 Adams class destroyers as originally planned and the Italians had re-armed the Impetuoso class destroyers with the missile system which was planned for a time.
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
115
Reaction score
171
...or indeed domestic anything?
Jobs, the balance of payments and maintaining as much independence as your nation's scientific & industrial bases will allow without damaging the fourth arm of defence, finance.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,784
Reaction score
4,007
However, @Archibald is probably better qualified to make a judgement on that matter than me.

SAMs are not my area of knowledge nor naval matters. from what I can say about the MASURCA: it was huge, cumbersome. Very much like Sea slug and (somewhat) Talos.



MASURCA made the Suffren expensives because it drove their tonnage upwards. A solution was found with the few cruisers that survived past 1955: Colbert and Jeanne d'Arc (De Grasse was too old). And then the Crusaders and Force de frappe threw these plans into chaos.

"Le fauteuil de Colbert" is an interesting blog but the author at times blur the real world and his opinions / daydreaming.
Quick Google search "Masurca" brought some results


croiseurs lance-engins C60 : la cible était de six unités mais seuls les Suffren (1967 - 2001) et Duquesne (1970 - 2007) sont lancés

Six Suffrens were to be build but only two saw service.
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
115
Reaction score
171
Lemming Number Two it's time to do your duty....

This was also in the Alternative History thread WI: County Class Destroyers with RIM-24 Tartar? and is Post Number 113. It's about an all-gas-turbine fast frigate that was built instead of the Rothesay, Tribal & Leander classes.
Alternative Type 81 General Purpose Frigate
Version 2.0
This happens in the same timeline as Post 101 on Page 6 and replaces the relevant portions of Post 88 on Page 5.

The Design

6 Type 12 Whitby class, 12 Type 14, 4 Type 41 and 4 Type 61 frigates were still built for the Royal Navy and British shipyards still built 2 Type 12, 3 Type 14 and 3 Type 41 frigates for the Indian Navy.

However, the Admiralty decided that the follow-on class would be a fast general purpose frigate that would form the outer ring of fast carrier task forces. The result was the Alternative Type 81.

The ALT-Type 81 was an enlargement of the OTL design with more powerful machinery. That is it had 4 Metrovick G.6 gas turbines producing 30,000shp instead of the OTL COSAG plant of boilers producing 12,500shp and one 7,500 G.6 (for a total of 20,000ship). The ALT-Type 81 had 2 shafts instead of one and the maximum speed was at least 28 knots instead of the OTL-Type 81's maximum speed of 25 knots.

The armament was:
  • Two 4.5" guns in one Mk 6 twin turret in A position (instead single Mk 5 mountings in A and Y positions).
  • Two Sea Cat SAM systems as OTL.
  • One Limbo AS mortar as OTL.
  • Facilities for one Manned Torpedo Carrying Helicopter (MATCH) as OTL. However, concentrating the 4.5" guns forward made space for a conventional hangar and flight deck aft. The ships originally operated Westland Wasp helicopters, but the TTL hangar and flight deck might be large enough to operate a Westland Lynx without further modification.
  • The OTL Type 81 design included six 21" torpedo tubes in single fixed mountings for anti-submarine torpedoes. However, the tubes weren't fitted because the Mk 20 torpedo was a failure.
  • The TTL Type 81 design included six 12.75" torpedo tubes in two triple Mk 32 mountings for American Mk 44 anti-submarine torpedoes, which as the same type of torpedo that the Westland Wasp carried IOTL.
The OTL and TTL ships were fitted with the Type 965 long-range air search radar. The OTL ships were fitted with the AKE-1 aerial while the larger hull of the TTL version allowed them to be fitted with the heavier AKE-2 "Double Bedstead" aerial. The first 24 ships were fitted with the Type 177 sonar and the second 26 the Type 184. Some of the ships were also fitted with the Type 199 variable depth sonar.

The Ships

A total of 51 Type 81 frigates were built for the Royal Navy ITTL as follows:
  • 42 were built instead of the 7 Tribal, 9 Rothesay and 26 Leander class frigates that were built IOTL.
  • The other 8 were built instead of instead of the 4 Battle class conversions to radar pickets. (8 Battle class conversions were planned IOTL.)
  • One instead of the sole Type 82 destroyer HMS Bristol. The OTL ship was laid down on 15th November 1967, launched on 30th June 1969 and completed on 31st March 1973. The TTL ship would be laid down on the same date, but may not take as long to build.
The first ship (FGP.01) was laid down at Yarrow on 6th November 1956, launched on 9th December 1957 and completed on 23rd April 1960. She was built instead of the OTL HMS Rothesay (FSA.07).

The last ship (FGP.52) was ordered in the 1967-68 Estimates, laid down on 1st May 1970, launched on 10th December 1971 and completed on 10th February 1973. She was built instead of the OTL HMS Ariadne (FSA.42).

IOTL Yarrow built one Tribal, 2 Rothesays and 7 Leanders for a total of 10. ITTL the Firm also built 2 of the 8 ALT-Type 81s built instead of the Battle class radar pickets which meant that it built 12 out of the 51 ALT-Type 81 frigates built for the Royal Navy ITTL.

IOTL the first 7 Leanders, first 6 Tribals and all 9 Rothesays were completed with 40mm guns where the Sea Cat launcher should have been. These ships were refitted with the SAM at a later date as the equipment became available. The 22 corresponding ALT-Type 81 frigates of TTL were completed without their Sea Cat systems and they had to be installed at a later date as the equipment became available. (For completeness, the 4 Battle class fleet pickets were fitted with one Sea Cat system as part of their conversion and the 8 ALT Type 81s that were built in their place ITTL would be completed with their Sea Cat systems.)

The 4 converted Battles had shorter careers than planned because of their age, large crews and the size of the "frigoyer" force being reduced from 80 ships to 70 as part of the "East of Suez" withdrawal. The ALT-County class and ALT-Type 81 had smaller crews than the ships they were built instead of because their all gas turbine machinery need fewer men. Therefore, the 8 ALT Type 81s built instead of the Battle class conversions aught to remain in service until the second half of the 1970s because more ships can be kept in commission with the same number of men.

Modernisation

As already related the 22 ships that were completed without their Sea Cat systems had them fitted in refits as the equipment became available. The 24 ships that were completed with the Type 177 sonar had it replaced with the Type 184 by 1972. For example the 9 ships built instead of the Rothesay class received them in their 1966 to 1972 refits.

IOTL the 16 Leanders built to Batch 2 and 3 standard were to have been completed with SINS and the small-ship version of ADAWS Mk 1, but they were deleted for cost reasons. However, these systems were fitted to the 16 ALT-Type 81s that were built in their place ITTL and they were was also fitted to the ALT-Type 81 built instead of Bristol.

The 34 earlier ALT-Type 81s (that were built instead of the Rothesays, Tribals, Battle class radar pickets and the Batch 1 Leanders) had SINS and the small-ship version of ADAWS Mk 1 installed in refits before the end of 1972. Where applicable, this was done as part of the refit in which Sea Cat and/or the Type 184 sonar were installed.

For example the 9 ships built instead of the Rothesay class had their SINS, ADAWS Mk 1, Type 184 sonar and Sea Cats installed in two-year refits between 1966 and 1972. The OTL version of the refit included installing a hangar and flight deck for one Lynx helicopter in place of one of the Limbo mortars. That part of the refit was not required for the 9 ALT Type 81s that were built in their place because were completed with a hangar and flight deck that was big enough for one Wasp and the money saved went some of the way towards paying for the TTL improvements.

IOTL 20 out of 26 Leanders were modernised as follows:
  • 8 "Ikara refits" that were completed between 1972 and 1978. Ikara, a second Sea Cat system and ADWAS Mk 5 were fitted, but the twin 4.5" gun turret and Type 965 radar had to be removed to provide the space and weight. Some sources say that the Ikara was fitted because the MoD had purchased them as long-lead items for cancelled Type 82 destroyers. If that's true, the ADAWS Mk 5 systems fitted to the Ikara Leanders may have been ordered as ADAWS Mk 2 systems for the cancelled destroyers.
  • 7 "Exocet refits" that were completed between 1975 and 1981. 4 Exocet SSMs, 2 Sea Cat systems (for a total of 3), two triple 12.75" STWS Mk 1 torpedo mountings for American Mk 46 torpedoes and CAAIS were fitted and the hangar and flight deck were made large enough to operate a Westland Lynx. However, the 4.5" gun turret and the Limbo mortar had to be removed to provide the required weight and space, but the Type 965 radar was retained.
  • 5 "Sea Wolf refits" that were completed between 1981 and 1984. This was similar to the "Exocet refit." The differences were that one Sea Wolf was fitted in place of the 3 Sea Cat systems, the existing Type 184 sonar was replaced by the Type 2016 and the Type 965 had to be removed (as well as the 4.5" gun turret and Limbo mortar) to provide the space and weight. Sea Wolf could have been fitted to some of the ships that were modernised to "Exocet" standard because they were completed after HMS Broadsword the first Type 22 frigate. However, this could not be done because their hulls weren't big enough. The 5 ships that were modernised to "Sea Wolf" standard were "broad beamed" Leanders that had an extra 2 feet of beam.
Plans to modernise HMS Juno "Exocet" standard and the other five "broad beam" ships to "Sea Wolf" standard were abandoned because the Knott Defence Review of 1981 said that there would be no more mid-life refits. IMHO this was one of his few correct decisions because the cost of a Sea Wolf Leander modernisation was over half the cost of a new Type 22 frigate which was more heavily armed (2 Sea Wolves and 2 Lynx helicopters instead of one of each) had a similar size crew and would last longer.

None of the 27 ALT-Type 81s built instead of the Leander class and HMS Bristol ITTL were modernised, because I think that new ships would have been a more cost effective use for the money spent on the 20 Leander modernisations that were carried out IOTL. Furthermore, the ALT-Type 81s already had most of the improvements incorporated into the modernised Leanders of OTL.
  • They didn't need CAAIS or ADAWS Mk 5 because they already had the small-ship version of ADAWS Mk 1.
  • They didn't need Ikara or STWS because they already had two sets of Mk 32 torpedo tubes. (No Ikara systems were available ITTL because none were ordered as long-lead items for the TTL version of Type 82 because it was decided to build more ALT County class destroyers instead.)
  • The hangar and flight deck did not require enlarging because they were already big enough to operate a Lynx.
  • There was no need to fit extra Sea Cats to the 16 ships built instead of the Batch 1 and Batch 2 Leanders because they already had two Sea Cat systems.
  • Fitting the Type 2016 sonar and Sea Wolf to the 11 ships built instead of the 10 Batch 3 Leanders and Bristol was rejected because the remaining life of the ships did not justify the expenditure.
All that was left was the four Exocet SSMs fitted to the 12 Leanders that had the "Exocet" and "Sea Wolf" refits IOTL.

The money saved on modernising the 20 Leanders IOTL was used to build 8 ALT Type 42 destroyers instead of the 8 Type 21 frigates of OTL and more Type 22 frigates. I want 12 extra Type 22s as substitutes for the 7 "Exocet" and 5 "Sea Wolf" Leander modernisations. However, I think that between 6 and 8 is more realistic.

Alternative Type 81 General Purpose Frigates built for Foreign and Commonwealth Navies

The more observant readers will have noticed that the 51st Type 81 was FGP.52 not FGP.51. This was because FGP.03 was purchased by New Zealand on 22nd February 1957 and was commissioned into the RNZN as HMZNS Otago. She was the first of 4 Type 81 frigates that were purchased for the RNZN ITTL instead of the 2 Rothesays and 2 Leanders bought IOTL. British shipyards also built 2 Type 81s for Chile and 3 for South Africa instead of the 2 Leanders and 3 Rothesays that these countries bought IOTL.

These export orders increased the number of Type 81s built in British yards from 51 to 60. This also increased the number of Type 81s built by Yarrow from 12 to 17 because this yard built 5 of the 9 ships that were built for export.

ITTL India built 6 ALT-Type 81s in the own yards instead of the Leanders that they built IOTL. The Netherlands also built 6 ALT-Type 81s in their own yards instead of the 6 Leanders that they built IOTL. Spain tried to buy a licence to build Leanders IOTL and ITTL they tried to buy a licence to build the ALT-Type 81. The British Government rejected both offers and the Spanish built modified American Knox class destroyer-escorts under licence instead.

Alternative Australian Yarra class General Purpose Frigate

In August 1950 the Commonwealth of Australia announced plans to build 6 Type 12 frigates in their own yards (3 at Cockatoo and 3 at Williamstown). IOTL the first pair of ships wasn't laid down until 1957, launched 1959-59 and completed in 1961. The second pair was laid down in 1959, launched in 1961 and completed 1963-64. The third pair was cancelled in 1956.

4 modified ALT-Type 81 frigates were built ITTL because the delay allowed the Australians to re-order the shipsto this design before they were laid down. They differed from the British ships because they had the Dutch LW-02 radar instead of Type 965 and a launcher for 24 Ikara ASW missiles instead of the helicopter facilities.

Alternative Australian Perth class Guided Missile Destroyer

IOTL the RAN bought American-built Charles F. Adams class destroyers armed with Tatar and Ikara in place of ASROC. However, the RAN did evaluate several designs produced by the British DNC's Department which included Tatar armed variants of the County class destroyer and Daring class destroyers rearmed with Tatar.

ITTL the RAN would have liked to buy the Terrier armed County, but the crew was too large and they decided to buy a development of the Yarra class frigate armed with the Tatar missile.

The ship was had a Mk 13 launcher fed by a 40-round magazine and 2 SPG-51 radars, one twin 4.5" Mk 6 gun turret, 2 sets of Mk 32 torpedo tubes and an Ikara launcher. They might have been completed with the British ADAWS Mk 1 instead of the American NTDS. The hull had to be longer and beamier to accommodate the 40-round magazine and SPG-51 radars. The longer and beamier hull in turn necessitated the fitting of more powerful G.6 gas turbines rated at 10,000shp instead of the normal 7,500shp to attain the required maximum speed.

I want a total of 6 ALT-Perth class destroyers to be built ITTL instead of the 3 Adams class destroyers bought from the USA and 2 Swan class frigates that were built in Australia IOTL. 2 were ordered in January 1962 instead of the first 2 Perths of OTL. 2 were ordered in January 1963 instead of the third OTL Perth. And the last 2 were ordered in 1965 instead of the 2 Swan class frigates. 3 were built at Cockatoo and 3 were built at Williamstown. The 6 ships were laid down 1962-68, launched 1963-70 and completed 1965-71.

However, Australia might only be rich enough to afford 4 ALT-Perths, which would consist of 3 ships built instead of the 3 Adams class destroyers and one built instead of the Swan class. I that case 2 would be built at Cockatoo and 2 at Williamston.
Except...

When I posted this on the Alternative History website someone objected to the Alternative Perth class being built in Australia. He said that 1960s Australia didn't have the capability to build such sophisticated ships and that's why the Australian Adams were built in the USA instead of Australia. Since then I've also learned more about how the RAN came to buy what it bought in the 1960s. Therefore, it would actually have been 3 or 4 Alternative Perth class built in the UK and 2 Alternative Type 81 frigates modified to suit the needs of the RAN built in Australia instead of the Swan class.

That brings me on to the German Adams class destroyers. Bernard Ireland wrote on Page 40 of Navies of the West that they were the successor to a staff requirement for eight 6,000ton derivatives of the Hamburg class propelled by Olympus gas turbines and armed with the Tatar SAM system and that they were even provisionally allocated with traditional light cruiser names, which he listed. This was replaced by a plan to buy 8 Adams class destroyers modified to suit German requirements to avoid the cost of designing a new ship; 3 were to be US-built and the remainder to be built in German yards under licence. He wrote that in the event the final five were cancelled in 1968.

Therefore, It's probable that the Germans would order 3 Alternative Perth class modified to suit their requirements from British yards in 1964 (and a licence to build another 5 in their own yards) rather than the 3 Adams that they bought in the real world.

Although a Tartar armed destroyer propelled by Olympus gas turbines sounds suspiciously like the Australian Light Destroyer, Dutch Tromp class destroyer, Dutch L class frigate and a Tatar armed version of the British Type 42 destroyer.
 
Last edited:

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
115
Reaction score
171
Come in Lemming Number Three your time is up....

This was also in the Alternative History thread WI: County Class Destroyers with RIM-24 Tartar? and is Post Number 117. It's about the this version of history Type 82 which had all gas turbine propulsion & Standard MR instead of COSAG & Sea Dart. This was rejected in favour of the Standard ER armed Type 83 destroyer which was in turn rejected in favour of a Batch 3 version of the Alternative County class which has been described in Post 41 of this thread.
Alternative Type 82 and Type 83 Guided Missile Destroyers
Version 2.0
This happens in the same timeline as Posts 101 and 113 on Page 6.
It replaces the relevant portions of Post 88 on Page 5.

The Need

The Royal Navy had 5 strike carriers in 1960 (Ark Royal, Centaur, Eagle, Hermes and Victorious) and the plan was to build a quintet of 53,000 ton ships to replace them in the 1970s. The new design was CVA.01 and the TTL version had a Mk 13 launcher for Standard SM-1 missiles instead of the OTL version's Sea Dart launcher and 2 SPG-51 radars instead of 2 Type 909s.

This produced a requirement for 20 guided missile destroyers (5 CVA.01 each escorted by 4 GMDs = 20 GMDs). The current plan (which was implemented) was to build 8 ALT-County class so 12 ships of a follow on design were needed. The results were the ALT-Type 82 and ALT-Type 83.

Type 82


The ALT-Type 82 was an all gas turbine version of the OTL Type 82 with Standard SM-1/MR in place of the Sea Dart system.

The OTL-Type 82 was a significant improvement on the OTL-County because it was armed with a more effective missile, had two target indicator radars instead of one, held 40 rounds in its magazines instead of 30, had the Type 988 radar instead of the Type 965 and ADAWS Mk 2 instead of ADAWS Mk 1.

However, the ALT-Type 82 compared poorly to the ALT-County class:
  • The ALT-Type 82 had a smaller crew than the ALT-County, but this was one if its few advantages over the preceding design.
  • The ALT-Type 82 had the Type 988 radar, which could not be fitted to the ALT-County class. However, the ALT-County Batch 1 had the SPS-39 and the ALT-County Batch 2 had the SPS-48. They were much better than the Type 965 radars fitted to the OTL-County class.
  • The ALT-Type 82 had ADAWS Mk 2 instead of the CDS in the ALT-County Batch 1 and ADAWS Mk 1 in ALT-County Batch 2. However, ADAWS Mk 2 could be fitted to both batches of ALT-County.
  • The ALT-Type 82 had 2 SPG-51 target indicator radars that enabled it to engage 2 targets at a time, but so could the ALT-County because it had 2 SPG-55 target indicator radars.
  • The ALT-Type 82 carried 72 missiles (40 SM-1 and 32 Ikara) which was more than the mix of 60 SM-1 and ASROC missiles carried by the ALT-County, but:
    • The SM-1 missiles that the ALT-Type 82 fired were no more accurate than the SM-1 missiles fired by the ALT-County's.
    • The ALT-Type 82's magazines held 40 SM-1 missiles but the ALT-County's magazines could hold up to 60 SM-1 missiles (they were normally held 48 SM-1s and 12 ASROCs).
    • The ALT-Type 82's magazines held the MR version of the SM-1, but the ALT-County's held the longer range ER version.
    • The ALT-Type 82's Ikara missiles were more accurate and had a longer range than the ALT-County's ASROCs. Furthermore, the ALT-Type 82's magazines held 32 Ikaras against the ALT-County's normal load of 12 ASROCs. However, the ALT-County's helicopter facilities (for 2 Wasp or one Sea King size machine) more than compensated for these deficiencies.
    • The ALT-Type 82s remaining armament of one 4.5" Mk 8 gun and one Limbo mortar was inferior to the ALT-County's four 4.5" guns in 2 twin Mk 6 turrets, six 12.75" torpedo tubes and 2 Sea Cat systems.
Therefore, it was decided that the ALT-County class would be succeeded by ALT-Type 83.

Type 83

In common with the ALT-Type 82 this was a ship with all gas turbine machinery, one 4.5" Mk 8 gun, a Type 988 radar and ADAWS Mk 2. However, the similarities ended there, because the ALT-Type 83 had:
  • 2 Mk 26 launchers fed by 44-round magazines. The magazines held a mix of 88 SM-1/ER and ASROC missiles.
  • 4 SPG-51 radars that enabled it to engage 4 targets at a time. This was double what the ALT-County and ALT-Type 82 could do.
  • Six 12.75" torpedo tubes in two triple Mk 32 mountings.
  • 4 Sea Cat systems, but the ship was large enough for them to be replaced by 4 Sea Wolf systems.
  • Facilities for 2 Sea King size helicopters.
Any similarity with the later Type 43 destroyer of OTL is completely intentional. However, the ALT-Type 83 wasn't built either.

Between 1960 and 1965 the plan to maintain the force of 5 strike carriers until 1980 was replaced by a plan for 3 strike carriers from 1975. This in turn reduced the requirement to build 20 guided missile destroyers by 1980 to one for 12 GMDs to be completed by 1975. The old plan had been for 8 ALT-County class and 12 ALT-Type 83. The new plan was for 12 ALT-County class instead of 8 ALT-County class and 4 ALT-Type 83 because a class of 4 GMDs was thought to be too small. Long-lead items for 4 ALT-County class Batch 3 were ordered before the end of 1965.

However, the new plan did not last for long. The 1966 Defence Review abolished the requirement for large guided missile destroyers because there would be no strike carriers for them to escort. Therefore, the plan to build the ALT-County class Batch 3 was abandoned. Some of the already ordered long-lead items were used to refit the 4 ALT-County class Batch 1 ships to Batch 3 standard. An extra ALT-Type 81 frigate was built by Swan Hunter instead of the sole OTL-Type 82 destroyer HMS Bristol.
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
115
Reaction score
171
Please will the next Lemming report to the cliff...

This is Post 89 from the Alternative History thread WI: County Class Destroyers with RIM-24 Tartar?
Alternative Type 42 Destroyer

The TTL version of Type 42 had the Batch 3 hull and machinery. A Mk 13 launcher and magazine for 40 Standard SM-1 MR missiles was fitted in place of the Sea Dart launcher and magazine. The Type 909 target indicator radars were replaced by two SPG-51s and the Type 965P was replaced by the SPS-48, but the TTL version of Batch 3 might still be fitted with the Type 1022.

The first ship HMS Sheffield was ordered from Vickers, Barrow on 14th November 1968, but the second ship HMS Cockermouth ordered from Vosper-Thornycroft on 26th March 1969 instead of Amazon was the first to be laid down (6th November 1969 v 15th January 1970). She was also the first to be completed (11th May 1974 v 28th February 1975). Another pair of Type 42s was ordered from Vosper's on 11th May 1970 in place of Antelope and Ambuscade. A total of 10 Type 42s were ordered in 1971 instead of 5 because extras ships were ordered from Yarrow in place of the last 5 Type 21s. Some of the money needed to build 14 Type 42s instead of 8 Type 21s and 6 Type 42s was found by not rearming 8 Type 81 frigates with Ikara.

4 Type 42 Batch 2 were ordered 1977-76 with ADAWS Mk 7 instead of ADAWS Mk 4 and they might have had Type 1022 instead of the SPS-48 radar. 4 Type 42 Batch 3 were ordered 1978-79 with the Type 2016 sonar in place of the Type 184. That brought the total built ITTL to 22 against a requirement for 22.

ITTL the MoD (Navy) wanted to give the ships the New Threat Upgrade in the 1980s, but (in common with GWS.31 Sea Dart IOTL) it was cancelled in the 1981 Defence Review.

All other things being equal the Argentine Government would have ordered a pair of Type 42s on 18th May 1970. However, the US Government might veto the sale of the Standard missile and SPS-48 radar. This would still happen if they were built under licence in the UK because the agreement would include the right to veto sales to nations that it didn't want to own an area defence SAM.

The Australian Light Destroyer Project

The OTL DDL was similar to Type 42 because the hull was of similar dimensions, the same Olympus-Tyne COGOG machinery and facilities for 2 Lynx size helicopters instead of one. The difference was the payload of weapons and sensors: Mk 13 launcher and 40-round magazine for Standard MR missiles at the forward end of the hangar, instead of the Sea Dart launcher and magazine in B position; one SPG-51 fire control radar instead of two Type 909s; a SPS-48 air search radar instead of Type 965; a single 5" gun instead of a single 4.5" gun; American Mk 32 torpedo tubes instead of STWS; American sonars and finally NTDS instead of ADAWS. Plus the DDL's entry in Conway's says it would also have had pair of twin 35mm AA guns.

ITTL the similarity would be even greater. Type 42 had Standard MR instead of Sea Dart (but the launcher was still in B position), 2 SPS-51 radars and one SPS-48, while the DDL would have a British single 4.5" gun.

The Light Destroyer was still cancelled in August 1973. ITTL the Australian Government evaluated the American Patrol Frigate and a Standard MR armed Type 42. According to the DDL's Wikipaedia entry the Type 42 was the only ship that met the requirement, but there were serious concerns over whether it could be redesigned to take Standard MR. As a result 2 Patrol Frigates were ordered in April 1974. In late 1975 a new government considered reviving the DDL but it was decided that the design was no longer viable and a firm order for 2 Patrol Frigates was placed in February 1976.

The Light Destroyer was still cancelled in 1973, but the TTL version of Type 42 was the clearly superior to the Patrol Frigate because it was already armed with the Standard MR missile. Thus the intention to order 2 Type 42s from British shipyards was announced in April 1974 and the firm order was placed in February 1976. A third ship was ordered from the UK in November 1977 and a fourth in April 1980. Plans to build 6 Type 42s at Williamstown (which would have built the Light Destroyers) were announced in September 1980 and 2 were ordered in 1983 but the other 4 ships weren't built.
However, since writing it I have discovered that over the course of the 1970s the number of Type 42 destroyers that were required fell from 26 in 1972 to 19 at the start of the 1980s.

For example the November 1972 Long Term Costings (i.e. through 1983) included 30 Sea Dart armed ships (3 Invincibles, Bristol and 26 Type 42s) plus 8 Type 21s and 21 Type 22s.

The Mason Defence Review of 1974-75 reduced the fleet from 68 destroyers & frigates (although I counted 75) to 65 and the May 1975 Report of the Fleet Requirements Committee said that by 1990 it would be made up of:
  • 26 Guided Missile Destroyers (Bristol, 15 Basic Type 42 & 10 Modified Type 42) and;
  • 39 frigates (24 Leanders, 8 Type 21 & 7 Type 22).
Norman Friedman who I'm getting this information from says that by late 1978 the Maritime Tactical School & DOAE now agreed that there should be 5 Type 42 & 5 towed-array Type 22 or each light carrier, which meant 17 ships of each type. He continued by writing that...

Under current plans, there would be enough guided missile destroyers to meet the Task Group requirement by 1983-84, the total then rising to 22, which would provide air cover for other formations. To put the new Type 2031 towed array to see as soon as possible, it would be installed on an interim basis on board 4 Rothesay class frigates during major refits in 1981-82. The mass production programme would include as many Type 22s as possible (on construction) and also 5 Batch III Leanders. To gain sufficient towed array Type 22s, 11 Type 42 hulls in the 1978 long-term costing would be shifted to Type 22s. This would have little effect, because they two types cost about the same. (Re the costs the November 1972 Long Term Costings said £20.4 million for a Type 22 and £19.9 million for a Type 42.) He also wrote that the Batch I Type 22 wasn't suitable for the towed array and because the Type 21 lacked sufficient margin for towed array installation, they would be retired early (at 13 years between 1987 and 1991), without major refits.

The 1980-90 plan proposed at this time showed a final total of 16 Type 22s, 19 Type 42s & 5 Type 43s in 1990. He also wrote that 12 Batch II (and later) Type 22s and 5 converted Batch III Leanders would provide the desired 17 towed arrays using the production system, Type 2031Z. Presumably further Type 22s or a successor would replace the Batch III Leanders as they were retired, as the Revised Long-Term Costings envisaged at least 14 such ships.

While this was going on the UK was suffering its worst economic crisis since the 1930s which forced the Knott Defence Review of 1981. According to Friedman...
  • Type 44 was abandoned and at least 2 projected Type 42s were abandoned.
  • Nott was willing to retain 2 aircraft carriers (and thus escorts) more for out-of-area operations than for strike fleet support, but that did not require expensive high-end anti-aircraft capability.
  • In effect the retained carriers were a sop to the Royal Navy.
  • The Type 22 frigate programme was stopped in favour of the low-end Type 23.
  • All mid-life modernisations were abandoned. That killed the project to place towed arrays on the last 5 Batch III Leanders.
  • The amphibious force would be abandoned (the Norwegian mission was already being questioned)
After considering destroyer/frigate figures as low as 30, Nott announced a reduction from 65 (of which 59 were declared to NATO) to 42 (plus 8 at long notice Operational Reserve) over a period of 4 years. Nott was forced to retreat somewhat as he lost influence with the Prime Minister and he felt compelled to order another Type 22 frigate [which increased the number ordered so far from 7 to 8] in February 1982.
 
Last edited:

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,257
Reaction score
2,118
Interesting choices.

TTL County: why go for an all-gas turbine powerplant? The gas turbines were only included to boost the top speed (instant response); the YARD powerplants were largely fixed output and so were often not optimal to meet all the speed requirements, it took a bit of time to get the hull coefficent right to get the speed on the available horsepower. Also steam was far more economical for cruising, while you could decouple some gas turbines in your design, you are still going to burn more fuel so you either need larger fuel tanks (and displacement) or shorter range, also complicates refuelling carrier task groups as you need two separate types of fuel in bulk for the carrier and the escorts.
Any non-Sea Slug is going to be vastly different to the OTL County in design, dimensions, layout and capability. Practically a new ship.

TTL Type 81: sounds more like a gas-powered Leander than a Type 81, nothing wrong in ditching the Tribals, in my view more Leanders would have been preferable. Again, the gas turbine was there for boost, quick getaway from harbour in nuclear-strike days, quieter so improves stealth against enemy submarines but again the 5,000nm range needed steam to make it practical. Until the Olympus-Tyne pair arrives on the scene, the all-gas turbine powerplant is just too thirsty to make it viable, the Metrovick turbines were first generation jets and optimised for boost and not cruise. Even the USN didn't go all-gas until the Spurances of the mid-1970s, you need the right turbines otherwise it doesn't work.

TTL Type 82: T82 was never intended to be fast, which is why steam won out and getting a speed over 30kts was too expensive and all-gas was rejected as premature with the turbines then in use (reliability was unclear then). Getting 74,000shp from an Olympus-Tyne set-up is hard without a lot of turbines!
Why the flip-flop from ASROC to Ikara? If the RN already had ASROC then Ikara would be a dead duck I think.

TTL Type 42: seems reasonable in most respects.

Generally I see no reason why ADAWS would not be developed in this timeline, it owed far more to CDS and ADA fitted to the carriers in origin. The Type 965 was an off-the-shelf Marconi solution, so using US-radars is not far-fetched in the absence of anything better - but there should be no excuse for not developing a British successor radar to go with ADAWS.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,373
Reaction score
1,091
Firstly.....bless you NOMISYRRUC for actually coming out and saying we should do something. I'd buy you pint for that alone.

But.....ADAWS originates during Type 985 and NIGS. Driven by the need to handle massive amounts of data produced by such staring PESA radars.
Part of the later Dutch complaint about it was this legacy, making it overkill for Type 988. Hence their own CMS.

But why would the UK bother? In this AH it's given up post Type 984....assuming it ever puts Type 984 into service in this timeline.
And with the US plowing ahead towards Typhon.........the future would look set with more new US radar and a powerful CMS to go with these new missiles.
So why bother with NIGS?
Why bother with Type 985?
And in turn no need for ADAWS.......at least as it came about OTL.
 
Last edited:

Hobbes

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 9, 2008
Messages
993
Reaction score
468
Errr why would we develop ADAWS in this scenario?
Wouldn't this just be at best licencing of NTDS?
Why would we equip with Sea Cat?
Why not US 5" guns?

I mean why bother with anything on this ship that is of British design?
Because certainly component compatibility is not a trivial issue back then.

Since this is a scenario were the UK gives up on domestic SAMs and domestic naval radar. Why would it bother with a domestic combat data system or indeed domestic anything?

In TTL, instead of trying to develop all components of a modern warship on a shoestring budget, the UK chose to concentrate its limited funding in a smaller number of areas, increasing its chances of keeping up with the competition in those areas. Like a number of nations did in OTL.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,373
Reaction score
1,091
Errr why would we develop ADAWS in this scenario?
Wouldn't this just be at best licencing of NTDS?
Why would we equip with Sea Cat?
Why not US 5" guns?

I mean why bother with anything on this ship that is of British design?
Because certainly component compatibility is not a trivial issue back then.

Since this is a scenario were the UK gives up on domestic SAMs and domestic naval radar. Why would it bother with a domestic combat data system or indeed domestic anything?

In TTL, instead of trying to develop all components of a modern warship on a shoestring budget, the UK chose to concentrate its limited funding in a smaller number of areas, increasing its chances of keeping up with the competition in those areas. Like a number of nations did in OTL.
Certainly in computers the UK had a head start over everyone, and in OTL did achieve quite a few things in this area.
So assuming the automation argument for AIO is successful and that Type 984 coupled with CDS on Posidons goes forward......then the argument would be for next generation radar, computer and CMS....ideally with the datalink technology developed but never fitted to Lightnings for the carriers AIO automation.

But this is coupled with radar developments and US radar could derail this through license issues, access to standards, compatibility etc....
Perhaps if the RN was opting for
SCANFAR there might be scope...?

And the UK would be better served if it carried on with it's own radar efforts.

Ideally this would continue instead of Typhon radar AN/SPG-59, and avoid the luneburg lense, and comprises associated with this multifunction radar system.
In this NIGS would be Typhon missiles, and US launchers but UK radar and CMS....

That would justify ADA to ADAWS development. Even if it ends up as just ASWRE C-band 3D radar and ADAWS coupled with Standard missiles.....which could alter the Dutch outcome.....
thus no large heavy power hungry Type 909 Desertcar TIR, but instead a smaller, lighter, less power hungry set for TIR.

Why would the UK develope Sea Wolf and Rapier, which owe much to PT.428. When Mauler OTL was chosen? Wouldn't Sea Sparrow BPDMS be chosen instead following USN lead and just opting for a license?
Or perhaps Sea Dragon instead?

Because funding Sea Wolf means it's radars and computer system, which are different from USN systems.
Is the USN buying it?
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,222
Reaction score
2,013
A lot of interesting information and ideas in this thread.
If one accepts that Seaslug is equivalent to Terrier and Masurca the 4 plus 4 Countys compare favourably with Netherlands' single Terrier cruiser, Italy's three and France's two Masurca destroyers and one cruiser.
The RN's decision to replace the light-cruiser/destroyer leader size County with the frigate sized T42 was right faced with crewing and budget limits.
Would a single Terrier/Standard launcher have been better than the twin CF299/Seadart? The two arm Tartar launcher?
The RN deployed 12 T42 by far the largest number of area defence ships of any Western navy apart from the USN. More were planned and 2 lost in action.
Seadart was probably as good as Standard.
Since the US adopted vertical launch systems for Standard and phased out the single arm launchers on its Perry class in the 90s, the T42s' Seadart systems were obsoloscent by the 90s.
A T42 replacement design kept changing. The T43/44 were already behind AEGIS and gave way to NF90 the ill fated NATO frigate replacement.
At this point the UK had to give up its national naval area air defence system.
Whether PAAMS has been a better path than Standard VLS, the Seadart era had given the UK a capable system.
Seacat had the great virtue of simplicity and lightness in the Point Defence role. Looking back, the obvious replacement should have been a Vulcan Phalanx CIWS on the vessels which shipped Seacat.
Seawolf evolved along with the T22 ASW frigate which had to operate in the N Atlantic in the face of Soviet missiles. It moved on to the T23. No US system offered a similar capability.
All in all the UK didnt do so badly. My question as to whether Tartar would have been a better choice? Perhaps
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,373
Reaction score
1,091
UK had some input into FAMS that led to PAAMS, and certainly favoured launch on INS with midcourse datalink guidance update and Terminal ARH.
This was much more flexible and scale-able than launch on INS with timeshare of TIR illumination for Terminal SARH or IR homing.
The only bottleneck was number of datalink addresses rather than TIR sets.

This is why there was a GWS.27 concept with AESA tracking and ARH homing. A missed opportunity I suspect.

And the UK favoured it's own MFR, Samson. Over US and other European efforts.
 

Zoo Tycoon

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
551
Reaction score
753
Would a single Terrier/Standard launcher have been better than the twin CF299/Seadart? The two arm Tartar launcher?
Seadart was probably as good as Standard.
Since the US adopted vertical launch systems for Standard and phased out the single arm launchers on its Perry class in the 90s, the T42s' Seadart systems were obsoloscent by the 90s.
Whether PAAMS has been a better path than Standard VLS, the Seadart era had given the UK a capable system.

Sea Dart mod 0 was significantly better than Tartar, and probably gave a higher SSKP than the early Standard. Sea Dart Mod 2 was not obsolete in the 90’s but it had run out of development potential pretty quickly there after, whereas Standard would just keep moving on and on. The end of the line for Sea Dart really commenced with the cancellation of Sea Dart 2 which I understand was swapped in favour of buying Sea Harriers in 78-9 together with a very modest and cheap upgrade;- the Mod1.

Sea Dart 2 was to have been a serious upgrade and would have kept the U.K. in the navy medium/long range SAM business well into the naughties. Had Sea Dart been evolved on again I’m sure it would have offered VLS, phase array radar, extended range, multi simultaneous engagement etc.

The whole thread really reflects the strategic move to have an independent industry or be reliant on another country even if friendly. The basic problem is defence budgets have shrunk while systems have just got more an more expensive. Was this predictable 40-50 years ago ? No not to the extent it’s happened.

Anyway we now have PAMMS curtesy of our European friends together with a very high degree of systems support and upgrade independence. Our industries are integrated so providing quite a degree of quid pro quo. Could this partnership have been successful with the US, probably, but ITAR generally kills any onward export revenue.

(Aster really needs a ducted rocket booster in the next upgrade)

I would invite prediction of future, say the next 40-50 years based on the past.
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
115
Reaction score
171
Why not US 5" guns?
As I wrote in Post 44 the Royal Navy thought about using the American 5in 38 calibre gun in World War II and the 5" guns that the French introduced in the 1950s were designed to use US ammunition. I have what may be a false memory that a 5" gun was wanted for the Modified W class destroyer buy they decided to modify an existing 4.7" coast defence gun because it could be put into production faster.

And the modern Royal Navy agrees with you because the Type 26 frigate will be armed with an American 5" Mk 45 gun.

Which gives me an idea...

Which is that the Royal Navy should have adopted the American 5" Mk 45 instead of developing the 4.5" Mk 8. They entered service in 1971 and only 71 were built over a period of about 40 years including 49 for RN ships and 22 for ships built for other navies.

Or they should have at least developed a 5" gun that could use US ammunition instead of the 4.5" Mk 8. That is like the French did in the 1950s with their 127mm/54 Model 1948 and the Italians did with their 127mm/54 gun that entered service in the early 1970s.

The NATO armies standardised their artillery calibres. Why shouldn't the NATO navies?
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
115
Reaction score
171
TTL Type 82: T82 was never intended to be fast, which is why steam won out and getting a speed over 30kts was too expensive and all-gas was rejected as premature with the turbines then in use (reliability was unclear then). Getting 74,000shp from an Olympus-Tyne set-up is hard without a lot of turbines!
I didn't write that the ALT-Type 82 would have Olympus-Tyne only that it had all-gas-turbine production.

My intention was that it would have 4 Olympus engines in a Combined Gas And Gas (COGAG) configuration like Invincible. The Standard ER armed Type 83 would have had 4 Olympus engines in a COGAG configuration as well.
Why the flip-flop from ASROC to Ikara? If the RN already had ASROC then Ikara would be a dead duck I think.
Because the real Type 82 had Ikara.

However, now you mention it the ALT-Type 82 should have had an 8-round launcher fed by a 24-round magazine which I think (because I haven't checked) the Spruance class had.
 

Volkodav

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
368
Reaction score
377
I always get a bit confused in trying to compare UK naval guided weapons with their US counterparts but will have a go here.
Seaslug is closer to Terrier than Tartar or Talos. If you take the Terrier twin launcher
and its horizontal assembly magazine and put them on a County with supporting radar systems they take up about the same space. The problem comes with evolution. Standard ER is a better weapon system than Seaslug 2 and the US Coontz/Leahy/Belknap classes built around the same time as the Countys are in service longer with more capable weapons.
Tartar on the single arm launcher used on the Adams, Brooke and Perry classes has no British analogue. CF299/Seadart is closest to the twin arm Tartar fit on the early Adams class. A single armed Seadart launcher was proposed but never adopted.
Whereas the US still uses the Tartar/Terrier evolved Standard system with its AEGIS ships Seadart stopped evolving in the 80s and the UK now has a French missile in this role.
Seaslug/County was too far along to be abandoned in favour of Terrier.
Talos/Blue Envoy required the sort of big cruiser which the RN had abandoned in 1957.
In the early 60s France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands plus Australia, Japan and (nearly) Canada all adopted Tartar. Only the UK despite the apalling record described by Alertken was pig headed enough to build CF299/Seadart.
This might not have mattered if a Seadart derivative was now in service on T45. But instead France, who still uses Tartar/Standard on 2 warships today, beat the UK with PAAMS. So much for Zen's national independent capability.
A similar fate met Seawolf with its ghastly 6 box launcher which proved so heavy it had to replace a 4.5" turret on T12s and early T22s. The final 4 T22s with guns were larger than some destroyers!
Needless to say noone chose Seawolf over Sea Sparrow except those like Brazil and Chile who bought ex RN ships.
Sensible licence built partnership with the US would have allowed more ships to be built and better export prospects.
Sadly we also got lumbered with Ikara and Exocet. When we did get Harpoon instead it was too late to arm the T12s and T21s and early T22s.. T42s with Tartar/Standard could have added Harpoons to their magazines.
Many nations are very happy with Exocet and Ikara out performs ASROC being a long range guided weapon rather than an unguided rocket.

The RN Ikara system was regrettably over complex to permit the use of nuclear depth charges that never ended up being carried. The RAN configuration for Ikara simply slotted into the space previously occupied by Limbo in the RAN Type 12s. Ikara could be easily and inexpensively fitted to any ship with Limbo with zero impact on any other capability.
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
115
Reaction score
171
Generally I see no reason why ADAWS would not be developed in this timeline, it owed far more to CDS and ADA fitted to the carriers in origin.
Neither do I because several other countries that bought Tatar and Terrier developed their own combat data systems instead of buying NTDS.

On that subject does anyone know whether the Canadian General Purpose Frigate would have had NTDS or a Canadian system?
The Type 965 was an off-the-shelf Marconi solution, so using US-radars is not far-fetched in the absence of anything better - but there should be no excuse for not developing a British successor radar to go with ADAWS.
But.....ADAWS originates during Type 985 and NIGS. Driven by the need to handle massive amounts of data produced by such staring PESA radars.
Part of the later Dutch complaint about it was this legacy, making it overkill for Type 988. Hence their own CMS.

But why would the UK bother? In this AH it's given up post Type 984....assuming it ever puts Type 984 into service in this timeline.
And with the US plowing ahead towards Typhon.........the future would look set with more new US radar and a powerful CMS to go with these new missiles.
So why bother with NIGS?
Why bother with Type 985?
And in turn no need for ADAWS.......at least as it came about OTL.
@zen The Dutch did buy Standard MR but still developed a 3-D radar of their own (the SPS-01) instead of buying SPS-48 for the Tromp class and a whole suit of air search, tracking & guidance radars for the L-Type frigates.

Both of you. Would the following work?

In the real world the Admiralty/MoD (Navy) decided to develop Sea Dart to succeed Seaslug but didn't develop a successor to Type 984 because it decided to buy the Dutch Type 988 instead as a quid-pro-quo for the Dutch buying Sea Dart. (Am I correct so far?) Then for reasons that I suspect both of you know better than me the Dutch didn't buy Sea Dart and the British didn't buy Type 988. Therefore, the 6 Type 42 Batch 1 destroyers had to make do with Type 965P because nothing better was available. The later Type 42s and the Invincible class had the Type 1022 which as far as I know was developed from a Dutch radar (or at lease used its antenna).

What if the Admiralty/MoD (Navy) decides to continue building Tatar/Terrier/Standard under licence along with their SPG-51 & SPG-55 target indication radars instead of developing Sea Dart? The money and scientific resources that went into developing Sea Dart in the real world would instead be put into the Type 985 radar to follow on from Type 984.

There would be no need to buy Type 988 to temp the Dutch into buying Sea Dart because there is no Sea Dart and the licencing agreement with the US for the 3-T missile and Standard says that all European countries that want to buy them have to buy them from Britain and not the USA. So UK Limited gets the work by default.

@zen would that remove your objection to developing ADA and ADAWS in a situation where the British build the 3-T missiles and Standard under licence?
 

Volkodav

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
368
Reaction score
377
Lemming Number Two it's time to do your duty....

This was also in the Alternative History thread WI: County Class Destroyers with RIM-24 Tartar? and is Post Number 113. It's about an all-gas-turbine fast frigate that was built instead of the Rothesay, Tribal & Leander classes.
Alternative Type 81 General Purpose Frigate
Version 2.0
This happens in the same timeline as Post 101 on Page 6 and replaces the relevant portions of Post 88 on Page 5.

The Design

6 Type 12 Whitby class, 12 Type 14, 4 Type 41 and 4 Type 61 frigates were still built for the Royal Navy and British shipyards still built 2 Type 12, 3 Type 14 and 3 Type 41 frigates for the Indian Navy.

However, the Admiralty decided that the follow-on class would be a fast general purpose frigate that would form the outer ring of fast carrier task forces. The result was the Alternative Type 81.

The ALT-Type 81 was an enlargement of the OTL design with more powerful machinery. That is it had 4 Metrovick G.6 gas turbines producing 30,000shp instead of the OTL COSAG plant of boilers producing 12,500shp and one 7,500 G.6 (for a total of 20,000ship). The ALT-Type 81 had 2 shafts instead of one and the maximum speed was at least 28 knots instead of the OTL-Type 81's maximum speed of 25 knots.

The armament was:
  • Two 4.5" guns in one Mk 6 twin turret in A position (instead single Mk 5 mountings in A and Y positions).
  • Two Sea Cat SAM systems as OTL.
  • One Limbo AS mortar as OTL.
  • Facilities for one Manned Torpedo Carrying Helicopter (MATCH) as OTL. However, concentrating the 4.5" guns forward made space for a conventional hangar and flight deck aft. The ships originally operated Westland Wasp helicopters, but the TTL hangar and flight deck might be large enough to operate a Westland Lynx without further modification.
  • The OTL Type 81 design included six 21" torpedo tubes in single fixed mountings for anti-submarine torpedoes. However, the tubes weren't fitted because the Mk 20 torpedo was a failure.
  • The TTL Type 81 design included six 12.75" torpedo tubes in two triple Mk 32 mountings for American Mk 44 anti-submarine torpedoes, which as the same type of torpedo that the Westland Wasp carried IOTL.
The OTL and TTL ships were fitted with the Type 965 long-range air search radar. The OTL ships were fitted with the AKE-1 aerial while the larger hull of the TTL version allowed them to be fitted with the heavier AKE-2 "Double Bedstead" aerial. The first 24 ships were fitted with the Type 177 sonar and the second 26 the Type 184. Some of the ships were also fitted with the Type 199 variable depth sonar.

The Ships

A total of 51 Type 81 frigates were built for the Royal Navy ITTL as follows:
  • 42 were built instead of the 7 Tribal, 9 Rothesay and 26 Leander class frigates that were built IOTL.
  • The other 8 were built instead of instead of the 4 Battle class conversions to radar pickets. (8 Battle class conversions were planned IOTL.)
  • One instead of the sole Type 82 destroyer HMS Bristol. The OTL ship was laid down on 15th November 1967, launched on 30th June 1969 and completed on 31st March 1973. The TTL ship would be laid down on the same date, but may not take as long to build.
The first ship (FGP.01) was laid down at Yarrow on 6th November 1956, launched on 9th December 1957 and completed on 23rd April 1960. She was built instead of the OTL HMS Rothesay (FSA.07).

The last ship (FGP.52) was ordered in the 1967-68 Estimates, laid down on 1st May 1970, launched on 10th December 1971 and completed on 10th February 1973. She was built instead of the OTL HMS Ariadne (FSA.42).

IOTL Yarrow built one Tribal, 2 Rothesays and 7 Leanders for a total of 10. ITTL the Firm also built 2 of the 8 ALT-Type 81s built instead of the Battle class radar pickets which meant that it built 12 out of the 51 ALT-Type 81 frigates built for the Royal Navy ITTL.

IOTL the first 7 Leanders, first 6 Tribals and all 9 Rothesays were completed with 40mm guns where the Sea Cat launcher should have been. These ships were refitted with the SAM at a later date as the equipment became available. The 22 corresponding ALT-Type 81 frigates of TTL were completed without their Sea Cat systems and they had to be installed at a later date as the equipment became available. (For completeness, the 4 Battle class fleet pickets were fitted with one Sea Cat system as part of their conversion and the 8 ALT Type 81s that were built in their place ITTL would be completed with their Sea Cat systems.)

The 4 converted Battles had shorter careers than planned because of their age, large crews and the size of the "frigoyer" force being reduced from 80 ships to 70 as part of the "East of Suez" withdrawal. The ALT-County class and ALT-Type 81 had smaller crews than the ships they were built instead of because their all gas turbine machinery need fewer men. Therefore, the 8 ALT Type 81s built instead of the Battle class conversions aught to remain in service until the second half of the 1970s because more ships can be kept in commission with the same number of men.

Modernisation

As already related the 22 ships that were completed without their Sea Cat systems had them fitted in refits as the equipment became available. The 24 ships that were completed with the Type 177 sonar had it replaced with the Type 184 by 1972. For example the 9 ships built instead of the Rothesay class received them in their 1966 to 1972 refits.

IOTL the 16 Leanders built to Batch 2 and 3 standard were to have been completed with SINS and the small-ship version of ADAWS Mk 1, but they were deleted for cost reasons. However, these systems were fitted to the 16 ALT-Type 81s that were built in their place ITTL and they were was also fitted to the ALT-Type 81 built instead of Bristol.

The 34 earlier ALT-Type 81s (that were built instead of the Rothesays, Tribals, Battle class radar pickets and the Batch 1 Leanders) had SINS and the small-ship version of ADAWS Mk 1 installed in refits before the end of 1972. Where applicable, this was done as part of the refit in which Sea Cat and/or the Type 184 sonar were installed.

For example the 9 ships built instead of the Rothesay class had their SINS, ADAWS Mk 1, Type 184 sonar and Sea Cats installed in two-year refits between 1966 and 1972. The OTL version of the refit included installing a hangar and flight deck for one Lynx helicopter in place of one of the Limbo mortars. That part of the refit was not required for the 9 ALT Type 81s that were built in their place because were completed with a hangar and flight deck that was big enough for one Wasp and the money saved went some of the way towards paying for the TTL improvements.

IOTL 20 out of 26 Leanders were modernised as follows:
  • 8 "Ikara refits" that were completed between 1972 and 1978. Ikara, a second Sea Cat system and ADWAS Mk 5 were fitted, but the twin 4.5" gun turret and Type 965 radar had to be removed to provide the space and weight. Some sources say that the Ikara was fitted because the MoD had purchased them as long-lead items for cancelled Type 82 destroyers. If that's true, the ADAWS Mk 5 systems fitted to the Ikara Leanders may have been ordered as ADAWS Mk 2 systems for the cancelled destroyers.
  • 7 "Exocet refits" that were completed between 1975 and 1981. 4 Exocet SSMs, 2 Sea Cat systems (for a total of 3), two triple 12.75" STWS Mk 1 torpedo mountings for American Mk 46 torpedoes and CAAIS were fitted and the hangar and flight deck were made large enough to operate a Westland Lynx. However, the 4.5" gun turret and the Limbo mortar had to be removed to provide the required weight and space, but the Type 965 radar was retained.
  • 5 "Sea Wolf refits" that were completed between 1981 and 1984. This was similar to the "Exocet refit." The differences were that one Sea Wolf was fitted in place of the 3 Sea Cat systems, the existing Type 184 sonar was replaced by the Type 2016 and the Type 965 had to be removed (as well as the 4.5" gun turret and Limbo mortar) to provide the space and weight. Sea Wolf could have been fitted to some of the ships that were modernised to "Exocet" standard because they were completed after HMS Broadsword the first Type 22 frigate. However, this could not be done because their hulls weren't big enough. The 5 ships that were modernised to "Sea Wolf" standard were "broad beamed" Leanders that had an extra 2 feet of beam.
Plans to modernise HMS Juno "Exocet" standard and the other five "broad beam" ships to "Sea Wolf" standard were abandoned because the Knott Defence Review of 1981 said that there would be no more mid-life refits. IMHO this was one of his few correct decisions because the cost of a Sea Wolf Leander modernisation was over half the cost of a new Type 22 frigate which was more heavily armed (2 Sea Wolves and 2 Lynx helicopters instead of one of each) had a similar size crew and would last longer.

None of the 27 ALT-Type 81s built instead of the Leander class and HMS Bristol ITTL were modernised, because I think that new ships would have been a more cost effective use for the money spent on the 20 Leander modernisations that were carried out IOTL. Furthermore, the ALT-Type 81s already had most of the improvements incorporated into the modernised Leanders of OTL.
  • They didn't need CAAIS or ADAWS Mk 5 because they already had the small-ship version of ADAWS Mk 1.
  • They didn't need Ikara or STWS because they already had two sets of Mk 32 torpedo tubes. (No Ikara systems were available ITTL because none were ordered as long-lead items for the TTL version of Type 82 because it was decided to build more ALT County class destroyers instead.)
  • The hangar and flight deck did not require enlarging because they were already big enough to operate a Lynx.
  • There was no need to fit extra Sea Cats to the 16 ships built instead of the Batch 1 and Batch 2 Leanders because they already had two Sea Cat systems.
  • Fitting the Type 2016 sonar and Sea Wolf to the 11 ships built instead of the 10 Batch 3 Leanders and Bristol was rejected because the remaining life of the ships did not justify the expenditure.
All that was left was the four Exocet SSMs fitted to the 12 Leanders that had the "Exocet" and "Sea Wolf" refits IOTL.

The money saved on modernising the 20 Leanders IOTL was used to build 8 ALT Type 42 destroyers instead of the 8 Type 21 frigates of OTL and more Type 22 frigates. I want 12 extra Type 22s as substitutes for the 7 "Exocet" and 5 "Sea Wolf" Leander modernisations. However, I think that between 6 and 8 is more realistic.

Alternative Type 81 General Purpose Frigates built for Foreign and Commonwealth Navies

The more observant readers will have noticed that the 51st Type 81 was FGP.52 not FGP.51. This was because FGP.03 was purchased by New Zealand on 22nd February 1957 and was commissioned into the RNZN as HMZNS Otago. She was the first of 4 Type 81 frigates that were purchased for the RNZN ITTL instead of the 2 Rothesays and 2 Leanders bought IOTL. British shipyards also built 2 Type 81s for Chile and 3 for South Africa instead of the 2 Leanders and 3 Rothesays that these countries bought IOTL.

These export orders increased the number of Type 81s built in British yards from 51 to 60. This also increased the number of Type 81s built by Yarrow from 12 to 17 because this yard built 5 of the 9 ships that were built for export.

ITTL India built 6 ALT-Type 81s in the own yards instead of the Leanders that they built IOTL. The Netherlands also built 6 ALT-Type 81s in their own yards instead of the 6 Leanders that they built IOTL. Spain tried to buy a licence to build Leanders IOTL and ITTL they tried to buy a licence to build the ALT-Type 81. The British Government rejected both offers and the Spanish built modified American Knox class destroyer-escorts under licence instead.

Alternative Australian Yarra class General Purpose Frigate

In August 1950 the Commonwealth of Australia announced plans to build 6 Type 12 frigates in their own yards (3 at Cockatoo and 3 at Williamstown). IOTL the first pair of ships wasn't laid down until 1957, launched 1959-59 and completed in 1961. The second pair was laid down in 1959, launched in 1961 and completed 1963-64. The third pair was cancelled in 1956.

4 modified ALT-Type 81 frigates were built ITTL because the delay allowed the Australians to re-order the shipsto this design before they were laid down. They differed from the British ships because they had the Dutch LW-02 radar instead of Type 965 and a launcher for 24 Ikara ASW missiles instead of the helicopter facilities.

Alternative Australian Perth class Guided Missile Destroyer

IOTL the RAN bought American-built Charles F. Adams class destroyers armed with Tatar and Ikara in place of ASROC. However, the RAN did evaluate several designs produced by the British DNC's Department which included Tatar armed variants of the County class destroyer and Daring class destroyers rearmed with Tatar.

ITTL the RAN would have liked to buy the Terrier armed County, but the crew was too large and they decided to buy a development of the Yarra class frigate armed with the Tatar missile.

The ship was had a Mk 13 launcher fed by a 40-round magazine and 2 SPG-51 radars, one twin 4.5" Mk 6 gun turret, 2 sets of Mk 32 torpedo tubes and an Ikara launcher. They might have been completed with the British ADAWS Mk 1 instead of the American NTDS. The hull had to be longer and beamier to accommodate the 40-round magazine and SPG-51 radars. The longer and beamier hull in turn necessitated the fitting of more powerful G.6 gas turbines rated at 10,000shp instead of the normal 7,500shp to attain the required maximum speed.

I want a total of 6 ALT-Perth class destroyers to be built ITTL instead of the 3 Adams class destroyers bought from the USA and 2 Swan class frigates that were built in Australia IOTL. 2 were ordered in January 1962 instead of the first 2 Perths of OTL. 2 were ordered in January 1963 instead of the third OTL Perth. And the last 2 were ordered in 1965 instead of the 2 Swan class frigates. 3 were built at Cockatoo and 3 were built at Williamstown. The 6 ships were laid down 1962-68, launched 1963-70 and completed 1965-71.

However, Australia might only be rich enough to afford 4 ALT-Perths, which would consist of 3 ships built instead of the 3 Adams class destroyers and one built instead of the Swan class. I that case 2 would be built at Cockatoo and 2 at Williamston.
Except...

When I posted this on the Alternative History website someone objected to the Alternative Perth class being built in Australia. He said that 1960s Australia didn't have the capability to build such sophisticated ships and that's why the Australian Adams were built in the USA instead of Australia. Since then I've also learned more about how the RAN came to buy what it bought in the 1960s. Therefore, it would actually have been 3 or 4 Alternative Perth class built in the UK and 2 Alternative Type 81 frigates modified to suit the needs of the RAN built in Australia instead of the Swan class.

That brings me on to the German Adams class destroyers. Bernard Ireland wrote on Page 40 of Navies of the West that they were the successor to a staff requirement for eight 6,000ton derivatives of the Hamburg class propelled by Olympus gas turbines and armed with the Tatar SAM system and that they were even provisionally allocated with traditional light cruiser names, which he listed. This was replaced by a plan to buy 8 Adams class destroyers modified to suit German requirements to avoid the cost of designing a new ship; 3 were to be US-built and the remainder to be built in German yards under licence. He wrote that in the event the final five were cancelled in 1968.

Therefore, It's probable that the Germans would order 3 Alternative Perth class modified to suit their requirements from British yards in 1964 (and a licence to build another 5 in their own yards) rather than the 3 Adams that they bought in the real world.

Although a Tartar armed destroyer propelled by Olympus gas turbines sounds suspiciously like the Australian Light Destroyer, Dutch Tromp class destroyer, Dutch L class frigate and a Tatar armed version of the British Type 42 destroyer.
Australia had the capability to build destroyers locally, the government of the day chose not to.

The was a cost overhead and the US also offered very attractive finance for the Perths but in the 50s Australia managed to build three Darings, four Type 12s (commissioned early 60s) as well as rebuild four war built destroyers into Type 15s. Failing to order local construction for the DDGs started the boom and bust cycle of shipbuilding in Australia that has persisted ever since.
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
115
Reaction score
171
Tartar on the single arm launcher used on the Adams, Brooke and Perry classes has no British analogue. CF299/Seadart is closest to the twin arm Tartar fit on the early Adams class. A single armed Seadart launcher was proposed but never adopted.
It's not the number of arms that your missile launchers have. It's the number of targets that you can engage.

As far as I know (until Aegis & the New Threat Upgrade) that was governed by the number of target indicator radars that a ship can carry. The Adams class might have had a single arm launcher, but it had 2 SPG-51 radar and the Brooke class only had one SPG-51 which is why the former could engage 2 targets at a time and the latter one in spite of both ships having single arm launchers.

That's one of the reasons why I think a Terrier armed large guided missile destroyer would have been better than the real world County class. I think it would have had 2 SPG-55 target indicator radars instead of the County's single Type 901. One of the reasons why Types 42 & 82 were a big improvement over the County is that they had 2 target indicator radars.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,257
Reaction score
2,118
I didn't write that the ALT-Type 82 would have Olympus-Tyne only that it had all-gas-turbine production.

My intention was that it would have 4 Olympus engines in a Combined Gas And Gas (COGAG) configuration like Invincible. The Standard ER armed Type 83 would have had 4 Olympus engines in a COGAG configuration as well.

That's fair, I was making an assumption based on the usual Olympus main turbine and Tyne cruising turbine setup.
Notionally a four Olympus TM1A set-up would give you 60,000shp, though the Invincibles with four TM3B made 94,000shp. Type 42 had two TM3B for 50,000shp and two Tyne RM1C for 9,700shp giving 59,700shp.
When Bristol was built only the TM1A was available and the resulting 39,700shp would be far too low in power so I agree a four Olympus set makes more sense but range will fall.

Was the T82 too large, I think it even surprised the Admirals how big the 'missile Leander' concept quickly ramped up to, but its worth remembering the Leahy and Belknaps had a slightly larger dimensions and full load tonnage for roughly the same kind of role and armament (single-ended SAM and ASW, 1x gun) and being all-steam made 32kts.
Saying that T82 could have been better optimised as an overall package perhaps.

However, now you mention it the ALT-Type 82 should have had an 8-round launcher fed by a 24-round magazine which I think (because I haven't checked) the Spruance class had.
You are correct, the Spruances did have a 24-round magazine (or at least 16 and 8 in the box).

The RN Ikara system was regrettably over complex to permit the use of nuclear depth charges that never ended up being carried. The RAN configuration for Ikara simply slotted into the space previously occupied by Limbo in the RAN Type 12s. Ikara could be easily and inexpensively fitted to any ship with Limbo with zero impact on any other capability.
Yes and no. For several reasons the RN felt the RAN's magazine layout compromised some of the Admiralty's safety standards and they preferred a deep magazine when stowing nuclear rounds.
But in theory there was nothing stopping the use of the RAN layout, which I believe the Brazilian Niteroi-class had.
Any missile that required partial assembly before launch was always going to need a bigger magazine footprint. ASROC had less range but it was compact. Having folding wings from the start might have been a big improvement.

What if the Admiralty/MoD (Navy) decides to continue building Tatar/Terrier/Standard under licence along with their SPG-51 & SPG-55 target indication radars instead of developing Sea Dart? The money and scientific resources that went into developing Sea Dart in the real world would instead be put into the Type 985 radar to follow on from Type 984.
It is shame that ASWE's work in this field was allowed to stagnate in this area and perhaps it was lack of funds that meant Sea Dart didn't get the search-radar it really needed.
For example in 1963 they were working on a study using within-pulse electronic scanning over 360° using a cylindrical array. This was building on work from electronically scanned sonars using a cylindrical array and multipurpose signal processing (the Type 2001?). The wavelength is quoted as metre-length, I don't think this ended up with any concrete work. In 1968 they were working on a C-band frequency scanned array of slotted rigid waveguides giving a pencil beam 1.8° wide. Other antennas were tested too and in my mind, there is no reason why this work could not have produced a single-rotating array 3-D radar equivalent to the SPS-52 or even the D/E-band SPS-48.
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
115
Reaction score
171
Australia had the capability to build destroyers locally...
I'm well aware of that and said as much to the person that objected to me having the Tatar armed version of the ALT-Type 81 built in Australia.

I also pointed out to him that the Australians had built 4 standard ALT-Type 81s instead of their first 4 Type 12s in the scenario.

This is a link to the page on Alternatehistory.com where we discussed whether the Tatar armed ALT-Type 81 should have been built in Australia or the UK.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,373
Reaction score
1,091
Generally I see no reason why ADAWS would not be developed in this timeline, it owed far more to CDS and ADA fitted to the carriers in origin.
Neither do I because several other countries that bought Tatar and Terrier developed their own combat data systems instead of buying NTDS.

On that subject does anyone know whether the Canadian General Purpose Frigate would have had NTDS or a Canadian system?
The Type 965 was an off-the-shelf Marconi solution, so using US-radars is not far-fetched in the absence of anything better - but there should be no excuse for not developing a British successor radar to go with ADAWS.
But.....ADAWS originates during Type 985 and NIGS. Driven by the need to handle massive amounts of data produced by such staring PESA radars.
Part of the later Dutch complaint about it was this legacy, making it overkill for Type 988. Hence their own CMS.

But why would the UK bother? In this AH it's given up post Type 984....assuming it ever puts Type 984 into service in this timeline.
And with the US plowing ahead towards Typhon.........the future would look set with more new US radar and a powerful CMS to go with these new missiles.
So why bother with NIGS?
Why bother with Type 985?
And in turn no need for ADAWS.......at least as it came about OTL.
@zen The Dutch did buy Standard MR but still developed a 3-D radar of their own (the SPS-01) instead of buying SPS-48 for the Tromp class and a whole suit of air search, tracking & guidance radars for the L-Type frigates.

Both of you. Would the following work?

In the real world the Admiralty/MoD (Navy) decided to develop Sea Dart to succeed Seaslug but didn't develop a successor to Type 984 because it decided to buy the Dutch Type 988 instead as a quid-pro-quo for the Dutch buying Sea Dart. (Am I correct so far?) Then for reasons that I suspect both of you know better than me the Dutch didn't buy Sea Dart and the British didn't buy Type 988. Therefore, the 6 Type 42 Batch 1 destroyers had to make do with Type 965P because nothing better was available. The later Type 42s and the Invincible class had the Type 1022 which as far as I know was developed from a Dutch radar (or at lease used its antenna).

What if the Admiralty/MoD (Navy) decides to continue building Tatar/Terrier/Standard under licence along with their SPG-51 & SPG-55 target indication radars instead of developing Sea Dart? The money and scientific resources that went into developing Sea Dart in the real world would instead be put into the Type 985 radar to follow on from Type 984.

There would be no need to buy Type 988 to temp the Dutch into buying Sea Dart because there is no Sea Dart and the licencing agreement with the US for the 3-T missile and Standard says that all European countries that want to buy them have to buy them from Britain and not the USA. So UK Limited gets the work by default.

@zen would that remove your objection to developing ADA and ADAWS in a situation where the British build the 3-T missiles and Standard under licence?
No in the real world....
It started as two separate efforts.
Seaslug mkIII which led to NIGS and died around 1962...
This included efforts on a successor to the Tyoe 984, which seems to be a set of PESA radars.
With a forey into AN/SPG-59 like concept that may be called Trackwell....
At the end of NIGS the concept included a missile seeker of 9.5" diameter...and Presumably command guidance.

Meanwhile the saga that started with Popsy A, had run to NMBR.11, to which SIGS resulted.
And with this the process that led to Type 965 was driving ideas for Small Ships Surveillance Radar that led to ASWRE C-band concept.
As scaling down NIGS was clearly not going to be small and light enough.

SIGS undergoes a sort of stretching to take advantage of the intigrated ramjet missile. Sea Dart exceeds requirements. Presumably this is the moment that the RN focus on SIGS as the solution not just to self defence but area defence. Thinking they can festoon the fleet with this system.

ASWRE C-band helps with this process, cheaper and lighter than NIGS/985 but accurate enough for simple TIR sets.

With the demise of ASWRE C-band and the adoption of Type 988, an alternative solution to TIR is required. Leading to Decca getting a contract to develop a tracking set into Type 909.

ADAWS at one point required 5 computers to run. Almost certainly a hierarchical structure with one computer per radar face.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,373
Reaction score
1,091
Type 901 is big and heavy and power hungry for logical reasons.

Firstly to provide a narrow enough beam for guidance to 15nm and later 30nm. A large dish is required.
Secondly a complex system to keep that beam narrow and of use. Involving rotating components.
Thirdly anti-icing system to keep the radar optimal regardless of the environment.
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
115
Reaction score
171
I didn't write that the ALT-Type 82 would have Olympus-Tyne only that it had all-gas-turbine production.

My intention was that it would have 4 Olympus engines in a Combined Gas And Gas (COGAG) configuration like Invincible. The Standard ER armed Type 83 would have had 4 Olympus engines in a COGAG configuration as well.
That's fair, I was making an assumption based on the usual Olympus main turbine and Tyne cruising turbine setup.
Notionally a four Olympus TM1A set-up would give you 60,000shp, though the Invincibles with four TM3B made 94,000shp. Type 42 had two TM3B for 50,000shp and two Tyne RM1C for 9,700shp giving 59,700shp.
When Bristol was built only the TM1A was available and the resulting 39,700shp would be far too low in power so I agree a four Olympus set makes more sense but range will fall.
According to my copy of Jane's Fighting Ships 1986-87 the 2 steam turbines produced 30,000shp and the 2 Marine Olympus TM1A produced 30,000shp for a total of 60,000shp. That's where I got the idea for 4 Olympus in the COGAG configuration.

I'm somewhat confused because first your agreeing by saying that four TM1A could produce 60,000shp and then that TM1A could only produce 39,700shp. Is that for 2 Olympus & 2 Tynes in COGAG?

According to Marriott on Page 122 of Royal Navy Frigates 1945-1983 the Olympus fitted to Exmouth in 1966 had to be de-rated to 15,000shp because the hull of the Type 14 was not capable of absorbing more. So that suggests that more powerful Olympus engines could have been provided for the ALT-Type 82 had a more powerful engine been required.

The Type 21 had two Olympus rated at 25,000shp each and 2 Tynes at 4,250shp which in the COGAG configuration would produce 58,500shp and the first Type 81 was completed 14 months after Bristol.

Jane's All the Worlds Aircraft 1963-64 & 1965-66 says that the most powerful version of the Tyne was the RTy.20 rated at 6,100ehp (5,665shp). 1965-66 says that versions of up to 7,630ehp were currently projected. 1963-64 says that RTy.22 rated at 7,075ehp & RTy.32 rated at 8,400ehp were projected and that development of the Tyne up to the 10,000ehp class was envisaged. What would those ehp ratings be in shp?

However, as neither the ALT-Type 82 or the Type 83 (which would also have 4 Olympus in the COGAG configuration) were built in my timeline, it's a non-issue.
Was the T82 too large, I think it even surprised the Admirals how big the 'missile Leander' concept quickly ramped up to, but its worth remembering the Leahy and Belknaps had a slightly larger dimensions and full load tonnage for roughly the same kind of role and armament (single-ended SAM and ASW, 1x gun) and being all-steam made 32kts.
Saying that T82 could have been better optimised as an overall package perhaps.
I simply don't know. However, we're well into the eras where ships were volume critical, rather than weight critical and where the payload (weapons, sensors & electronic equipment) cost a lot more than the platform (hull & machinery) hence me often quoting Hobbs addage that steel is cheap and air is free. So I think being too large led to a significant increase in the cost.
 
Last edited:

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
115
Reaction score
171
In a word, tough.

Because in my timeline the UK gives up the technology to produce naval area defence SAMs by abandoning Seaslug in the 1950s and not developing Sea Dart at all. Instead it gets a licence to build 3-T (and later Standard) systems.

However, the money saved by giving up that technology was spent maintaining a technology that was given up in the real world. Have you any suggestions?
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
115
Reaction score
171
A side question about the Type 984.

I can't remember where I read it, but I recall that Hermes & Victorious had Type 984 while Eagle had Type 984M. The difference being that Type 984M had transistors (and possibly early integrated circuits) instead of valves that made it lighter and more reliable. Is that correct?

I have read that when the SCANFAR radars on Enterprise & Long Beach had their valves replaced by solid-state components there was a significant reduction in their weight, but I don't know if their reliability improved.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,373
Reaction score
1,091
In a word, tough.

Because in my timeline the UK gives up the technology to produce naval area defence SAMs by abandoning Seaslug in the 1950s and not developing Sea Dart at all. Instead it gets a licence to build 3-T (and later Standard) systems.

However, the money saved by giving up that technology was spent maintaining a technology that was given up in the real world. Have you any suggestions?
Well tough indeed!
Because the USN goes down the route of super Talos leading to Typhon and AN/SPG-59.
Then SCANFAR.
In the aftermath Typhon MR technology became Standard.

So we'd have the RN planning on Typhon equipped warships concurrent with the USN.
And then scrabbling to catch up with Standard.
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
115
Reaction score
171
Probably means no SIGS until a decade or so later, but Tartar could have been upgraded, the RN might have just stuck with building SM-1s instead as a successor and from there SM-2, maybe even leading one day to Mrs Thatcher saying "Dear Mr Reagan, could you please chuck in AEGIS with your Trident D5 offer" and a Burke analogue as a Type 43 (British Atago-class anyone?).
In the scenario I'm proposing there might not have been projects for Type 43 and Type 44 destroyers due to the larger number of Type 42s that were built.

However, both of them would have had AEGIS had they been designed.

Unfortunately, neither would have been built and the NFR-90, Project Horizon & Type 45 saga would still have happened with the caveat that the TTL Type 45 might have had the current versions of AEGIS & Standard instead of what they actually have.
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,222
Reaction score
2,013
I would like to have got the T42s into service sooner and in greater numbers, with or without Tartar instead of Seadart.
The Countys were too big for the RN and should have retired sooner, or stopped being built after the first four.
Once CVA01 goes in 1966, the Command Cruiser becomes the centre of the ASW task group needed by NATO SACLANT.
The RN should have given up older units like the Leanders to get more T22s and T42s.
Spain and Norway have shown that an evolved T42/22 could have taken a smaller AEGIS system.
I hate T43. Compared with a Tico or a Burke it looks as old fashioned as a County compared with a Coontz.
Could Seadart have evolved into an AEGIS/Standard rival.
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
115
Reaction score
171
Well tough indeed!
Because the USN goes down the route of super Talos leading to Typhon and AN/SPG-59.
Then SCANFAR.
In the aftermath Typhon MR technology became Standard.

So we'd have the RN planning on Typhon equipped warships concurrent with the USN.
And then scrabbling to catch up with Standard.
That's not going to effect the ALT-Batch 1 Counties of the Tatar armed version of ALT-Type 81.

AIUI one reason why the 100-odd guided missile ships in the USN's September 1956 programme were reduced to about 55 was a combination of cost overruns, the new missile systems were very unreliable, the cost of Polaris and finally Typhon. Why should we continue building these ships when much better ones will be available in a few years time?

Therefore, if the RN does follow the USN route of Super Talos/Typhon and the AN/SPG-59 radar (and I agree with your reasoning) they may well terminate the ALT-County class at the 4 Batch I ships because there's no point in building more because a much better ship was expected to be available in a few years time.

That would mean Glamorgan & Fife wouldn't be ordered in the 1961-62 Estimates & built 1962-64. However, I think they will still be built because the admirals will want as many guided missile ships as soon as possible even if they can get much better ships if they wait a few years.

So CVA.01, ALT-Type 82 & Type 83 will initially be designed around Typhon & SPG-59. However, the cancellation of Typhon in November 1963 will lead to them being redesigned around Standard & SPS-48.

In the real world & my timeline the final pair of Counties were ordered in 1964-65 & built 1966-70. After giving fair consideration to what you have written (indeed because of what you have written) I think that will still happen because having to redesign the ALT-Type 82 & Type 83 in the wake of the cancellation of Typhon means that the ALT-County is the only design that can be put into production. It also reinforces my idea that 4 ALT-Batch 3 Counties would have been planned instead of 4 ALT-Type 82 or 4 ALT-Type 83 to provide the required force of 12 guided missile destroyers.

CVA.01 is still cancelled in February 1966 leading to the ALT-Type 42 and as this is well after the cancellation of Typhon I don't see it being influenced by it.
In the aftermath Typhon MR technology became Standard.
Is that true? I'm nowhere near as knowledgeable about this subject so you could well be right.

However, my understanding is that when Typhon was cancelled in November 1963 it was replaced by the Advanced Surface Missile System (ASMS) which became AEGIS.

While Standard was the result of the get well programs that cured the poor reliability of the early Tatar & Terrier and that these programs began before Typhon was cancelled.
 
Last edited:

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,373
Reaction score
1,091
How about......
ASWRE working on license and technology transfer for Typhon and their own version of the CMS, realises this is headed towards disaster.
Their view is PESA flat plate arrays run by Digital Computers is the way forward even if it's far off.

Obviously ignored by the USN but the RN takes this seriously and focuses on a C-band version of SPS-48 as a suitable interim system. Good enough for Frigates and Destroyers and scale-able for carriers.
 

Anderman

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
183
Reaction score
35
I didn't write that the ALT-Type 82 would have Olympus-Tyne only that it had all-gas-turbine production.

My intention was that it would have 4 Olympus engines in a Combined Gas And Gas (COGAG) configuration like Invincible. The Standard ER armed Type 83 would have had 4 Olympus engines in a COGAG configuration as well.
That's fair, I was making an assumption based on the usual Olympus main turbine and Tyne cruising turbine setup.
Notionally a four Olympus TM1A set-up would give you 60,000shp, though the Invincibles with four TM3B made 94,000shp. Type 42 had two TM3B for 50,000shp and two Tyne RM1C for 9,700shp giving 59,700shp.
When Bristol was built only the TM1A was available and the resulting 39,700shp would be far too low in power so I agree a four Olympus set makes more sense but range will fall.
According to my copy of Jane's Fighting Ships 1986-87 the 2 steam turbines produced 30,000shp and the 2 Marine Olympus TM1A produced 30,000shp for a total of 60,000shp. That's where I got the idea for 4 Olympus in the COGAG configuration.

I'm somewhat confused because first your agreeing by saying that four TM1A could produce 60,000shp and then that TM1A could only produce 39,700shp. Is that for 2 Olympus & 2 Tynes in COGAG?

According to Marriott on Page 122 of Royal Navy Frigates 1945-1983 the Olympus fitted to Exmouth in 1966 had to be de-rated to 15,000shp because the hull of the Type 14 was not capable of absorbing more. So that suggests that more powerful Olympus engines could have been provided for the ALT-Type 82 had a more powerful engine been required.

The Type 21 had two Olympus rated at 25,000shp each and 2 Tynes at 4,250shp which in the COGAG configuration would produce 58,500shp and the first Type 81 was completed 14 months after Bristol.

Jane's All the Worlds Aircraft 1963-64 & 1965-66 says that the most powerful version of the Tyne was the RTy220 rated at 6,100ehp (5,665shp). 1965-66 says that versions of up to 7,630ehp were currently projected. 1963-64 says that RTy.22 rated at 7,075ehp & RTy.32 rated at 8,400ehp were projected and that development of the Tyne up to the 10,000ehp class was envisaged. What would those ehp ratings be in shp?

However, as neither the ALT-Type 82 or the Type 83 (which would also have 4 Olympus in the COGAG configuration) were built in my timeline, it's a non-issue.
Was the T82 too large, I think it even surprised the Admirals how big the 'missile Leander' concept quickly ramped up to, but its worth remembering the Leahy and Belknaps had a slightly larger dimensions and full load tonnage for roughly the same kind of role and armament (single-ended SAM and ASW, 1x gun) and being all-steam made 32kts.
Saying that T82 could have been better optimised as an overall package perhaps.
I simply don't know. However, we're well into the eras where ships were volume critical, rather than weight critical and where the payload (weapons, sensors & electronic equipment) cost a lot more than the platform (hull & machinery) hence me often quoting Hobbs addage that steel is cheap and air is free. So I think being too large led to a significant increase in the cost

The Type 21 had a COGOG arregment with a Tyne or Olympous on the same shaft. If you want run a Tyne and a Olympous at the same time the gearbox becomes compicated and expensiv because of different power output. That´s the reason why almost everytime in a COGAG arregment you see turbines with the same output like Olympous and Olympous for the brits or LM2500 and LM2500 or the americans.
 
Top