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

Tartar/Standard: The RN's missed opportunity

SeaslugMk2

'Curator' of the Seaslug website.
Joined
Nov 10, 2012
Messages
85
Reaction score
180
Website
www.littlewars.org
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.
I'm not sure what you mean about the 901 being 'power hungry'. It managed to produce one of the narrowest beams of any radar* by using a dielectric lens (so no dish required at all) composed (as far as I can tell) of brass discs in a plastic matrix. The 'complex' rotating components were rotary waveguide joints of quite elegant design and low losses. Finally the anti-icing system used ammonia and so had virtually no electric demand.

* fine enough to be able to see two targets as being individual with just an 18 minute of arc separation.

SRJ.
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
115
Reaction score
171
The Type 21 had a COGOG arrangement with a Tyne or Olympus on the same shaft. If you want run a Tyne and a Olympus at the same time the gearbox becomes complicated and expensive because of different power output. That´s the reason why almost every time in a COGAG arrangement you see turbines with the same output like Olympus and Olympus for the Brits or LM2500 and LM2500 or the Americans.
Thanks for that. (Though to be pedantic I knew that Type 21 was COGOG which is why I specifically said COGAG for an alternative Type 82 power plant.)

It reinforces my idea that a large destroyer with all gas turbine propulsion would have had four Olympus engines in GOGAG rather than two Olympuses & two Tynes in COGAG (which is what @Hood mistakenly thought that I meant).

The most powerful "normal" Tyne engine that I know of was the RTy.20 rated at 6,100ehp (5,665shp) and 5,665shp is 93% of 6,100shp. On that basis the Tynes in the 10,000ehp class that were envisaged would be producing in the region of 9,300shp.

Would a Type 82-size destroyer with two Olympuses producing 50,000shp (like the contemporary Type 21) and two Tynes producing 18,600shp in COGOG work? That is would the maximum speed on the Olympus engines be around 30 knots and 18 knots on the Tynes. This is what the reference books I have say that were the maximum speeds for Types 21, 22 & 42 on these engines.
 

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.
I'm not sure what you mean about the 901 being 'power hungry'. It managed to produce one of the narrowest beams of any radar* by using a dielectric lens (so no dish required at all) composed (as far as I can tell) of brass discs in a plastic matrix. The 'complex' rotating components were rotary waveguide joints of quite elegant design and low losses. Finally the anti-icing system used ammonia and so had virtually no electric demand.

* fine enough to be able to see two targets as being individual with just an 18 minute of arc separation.

SRJ.
Yes I read all that in a description of the system and was suitably impressed.

However a marinised Type 86 Firelight set for Thunderbird II a.k.a Green Flax is surely lighter, smaller and has a greater potential guidance range.
 
Last edited:

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
115
Reaction score
171
I'm not sure what you mean about the 901 being 'power hungry'. It managed to produce one of the narrowest beams of any radar* by using a dielectric lens (so no dish required at all) composed (as far as I can tell) of brass discs in a plastic matrix. The 'complex' rotating components were rotary waveguide joints of quite elegant design and low losses. Finally the anti-icing system used ammonia and so had virtually no electric demand.

* fine enough to be able to see two targets as being individual with just an 18 minute of arc separation.

SRJ.
Does that mean that the County class could engage two targets with one director?

That makes a lot of difference to me as the main reason why I think Terrier would be better than Seaslug is that it could engage two targets at a time because two TIRs could be fitted. Which to me cancels out the advantages of Seaslug, which, as far as I know, were that it was more accurate than contemporary versions of Terrier and had shorter reaction times.

PS I think your Seaslug website is fantastic!
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
115
Reaction score
171
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.
Is it true that longer-range and more accurate versions of ASROC and SUBROC could have been developed? However, the USN preferred to replace them with a new missile and all the replacement missile projects such as Sea Lance were cancelled?
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
115
Reaction score
171
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.
I did acknowledge most of your observations and criticisms in my posts about the Alternative Counties and Alternative Type 81s.

The main reason why I brought the change to all-gas turbine propulsion forward by a decade was because gas turbine ships have smaller crews than steam turbine ships and the RN's biggest problem since the end of World War II has been recruiting and retaining enough sailors. I thought that being able to put more ships to sea with the same number of men would outweigh the disadvantages by a considerable margin.

The secondary reason was that gas turbine warships have higher availability rates than ships with steam turbines. So it could put the same number of ships to sea out of a smaller total. Or it could put a greater percentage of its real world number of ships to sea.

Tertiary reasons were that I thought that gas turbines might be cheaper to buy and maintain than steam turbines. In the real world the 8 Counties and 7 Tribals had a grand total of 39 G.6 gas turbines (32 in the Counties and 7 in the Tribals). In this version of history it would be 268 for the Royal Navy (64 in 8 ALT-Counties and 204 in 51 ALT-Type 81s) plus another 100 in the 25 ALT-Type 81s that were built for other navies at the same time (2 Chile, 10 RAN, 6 RNLN, 4 RNZN and 3 SAN). Economies of scale might come into play.

My understanding was that gas turbines were no more thirsty than steam turbines. However, if that isn't true I don't mind building the ALT-Counties and ALT-Type 81s with larger hulls to accommodate larger fuel tanks because it won't significantly increase the cost (steel is cheap & air is free) and that makes it easier to fit the extra weapons and sensors such as the second target indicator radar in the ALT-County. If push comes to shove the extra fuel costs can be paid for via the reduced manning costs.

This is a quote from Leo Marriott's Royal Navy Frigates 1945-83, Appendix 3 RN Gas Turbine Development, Page 122.
The advantages of the gas turbine as a warship propulsion plant are numerous. They are slightly more economic on fuel than an equivalent steam plant and are easy to control, replying almost simultaneously to changes of power settings. This in turn leads to less engine room staff required on watch, a factor which is also helped by the fact that a complete engine module can be easily removed and replaced which means that an on-board maintenance is reduced. The fact that major overhauls can be carried out while ashore while another engine is installed in the ship means that the amount of time a ship needs to spend in dockyard hands is sharply reduced. In fact, as was shown in the Falkland Islands, large ships such as the carrier Invincible can actually carry out an engine change while at sea. Of course this is not possible in a small ship such as a frigate but it does illustrate the advantages of the modular concept of the gas turbine. The Type 42 destroyer HMS Southampton changed one of the Tyne units while under anchor alongside the repair ship Stena Seaspread in the relative calm of San Carlos Water, showing that with limited facilities this sort of work can be carried out when required.
Although I did this with the Royal Navy in mind the smaller crews and greater availability rates would have helped the RAN, RNLN, RNZN and SAN as well.

Smaller crews are the main why I find a gas turbine powered version of CVA.01 attractive. I also thought that having six Olympus engines instead of the steam turbines would reduce the building and maintenance costs through standardisation with the Olympus engines on the frigates and destroyers built in the 1970s.

I take your points about ALT-County being a considerably different ship than the real County. With hindsight I'd have given the class and individual ships different names to make this clearer.

It's a six-and-two-threes whether the ALT-Type 81 is a Super Type 81 with all GT engines or a GT-Leander. If I'd called it GT-Leander some people would be saying it was more like a Super Type 81 than a GT-Leander. I called it a ALT-Type 81 because it was designed instead of the real Type 81.

I'm not sure that complicated refuelling of carrier task groups would have been a significant problem. As far as I know that must have happened in the 1970s in the real world when gas turbine powered ships appeared in large numbers and the RN still had Ark Royal, Bulwark, Hermes, Tiger and Blake. As far as I know the RN and RFA coped with this complication in the 1970s in the real world and I see no reason why they could not have coped with the same problem in the 1960s.

I also thought that it might be a non-problem because as far as I know gas turbines and steam turbines used the same grade of fuel. That's one of the reasons why the RN liked gas turbine powered aircraft. The lower flash point of gas turbine fuel (I can't remember if it was AVCAT, AVTAG or AVTUR) allowed it to be stored in normal fuel bunkers while AVGAS needed to be stored in special tanks to minimise the risk of fuel explosions. Or it might have been the other way around, i.e. the boilers generating the steam for the turbines could burn AVCAT, AVTAG and/or AVTUR.

However, if I'm wrong won't the RFA's tankers be carrying large quantities of gas turbine fuel anyway? The aircraft carriers need to be replenished with bunker fuel for their steam turbine engines, but they also have to be replenished with fuel for their gas turbine powered aircraft.

Which come to think of it is another good reason for a gas turbine powered CVA.01. That is its engines and aircraft would be using the same type of fuel. Or was that not true for the Olympus engines on the Invincible class and is not true for the Trent engines on the Queen Elizabeth class?
 
Last edited:

SeaslugMk2

'Curator' of the Seaslug website.
Joined
Nov 10, 2012
Messages
85
Reaction score
180
Website
www.littlewars.org
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.
I'm not sure what you mean about the 901 being 'power hungry'. It managed to produce one of the narrowest beams of any radar* by using a dielectric lens (so no dish required at all) composed (as far as I can tell) of brass discs in a plastic matrix. The 'complex' rotating components were rotary waveguide joints of quite elegant design and low losses. Finally the anti-icing system used ammonia and so had virtually no electric demand.

* fine enough to be able to see two targets as being individual with just an 18 minute of arc separation.

SRJ.
Yes I read all that in a description of the system and was suitably impressed.

However a marinised Type 86 Firelight set for Thunderbird II a.k.a Green Flax is surely lighter, smaller and has a greater potential guidance range.
That may be the case, but how much weight would be added to marinise it (and the missile)? The whole Seaslug system had to be operational in some seriously bad sea conditions; I'll try and find the specs for you.

SRJ.
 

SeaslugMk2

'Curator' of the Seaslug website.
Joined
Nov 10, 2012
Messages
85
Reaction score
180
Website
www.littlewars.org
I'm not sure what you mean about the 901 being 'power hungry'. It managed to produce one of the narrowest beams of any radar* by using a dielectric lens (so no dish required at all) composed (as far as I can tell) of brass discs in a plastic matrix. The 'complex' rotating components were rotary waveguide joints of quite elegant design and low losses. Finally the anti-icing system used ammonia and so had virtually no electric demand.

* fine enough to be able to see two targets as being individual with just an 18 minute of arc separation.

SRJ.
Does that mean that the County class could engage two targets with one director?

That makes a lot of difference to me as the main reason why I think Terrier would be better than Seaslug is that it could engage two targets at a time because two TIRs could be fitted. Which to me cancels out the advantages of Seaslug, which, as far as I know, were that it was more accurate than contemporary versions of Terrier and had shorter reaction times.

PS I think your Seaslug website is fantastic!
No, a Type 901 could only engage one target at a time. There is a file on the usefulness of a second director, I'll see what notes I've got on it. The original escort ship proposal had four directors and four 3-barrel launchers, the Project 502 team were expecting a 40% success rate with the missile!

SRJ.

PS: I'm glad you like my site!
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,257
Reaction score
2,118
The main reason why I brought the change to all-gas turbine propulsion forward by a decade was because gas turbine ships have smaller crews than steam turbine ships and the RN's biggest problem since the end of World War II has been recruiting and retaining enough sailors. I thought that being able to put more ships to sea with the same number of men would outweigh the disadvantages by a considerable margin.
This is true and is a laudable aim, especially post-National Service. Probably less of a driver when the Counties were designed - they soon inflated with some cruiser features for Admiral Staffs etc., teak decks and all sorts of oddments.
With experience of course it was found that centralised engine control was possible, even from the bridge.

Tertiary reasons were that I thought that gas turbines might be cheaper to buy and maintain than steam turbines. In the real world the 8 Counties and 7 Tribals had a grand total of 39 G.6 gas turbines (32 in the Counties and 7 in the Tribals). In this version of history it would be 268 for the Royal Navy (64 in 8 ALT-Counties and 204 in 51 ALT-Type 81s) plus another 100 in the 25 ALT-Type 81s that were built for other navies at the same time (2 Chile, 10 RAN, 6 RNLN, 4 RNZN and 3 SAN). Economies of scale might come into play.

My understanding was that gas turbines were no more thirsty than steam turbines. However, if that isn't true I don't mind building the ALT-Counties and ALT-Type 81s with larger hulls to accommodate larger fuel tanks because it won't significantly increase the cost (steel is cheap & air is free) and that makes it easier to fit the extra weapons and sensors such as the second target indicator radar in the ALT-County. If push comes to shove the extra fuel costs can be paid for via the reduced manning costs.

Gas turbines cost about 10% more than equivalent steam plants, but were cheaper to operate so made back this initial capital cost.
Fuel economy improved with development and indeed did outstrip that of steam plants.
It was the experience aboard the Tribals that gave rise to 'repair by replacement' for repairs, it was found to be possible and easier. The later Olympus-powered ships had 6m2 uptakes and downtakes for sufficient airflow which allowed easy access to lift out the entire engine. I don't think this was possible (at least via the funnel) on the Tribals and Counties.

Its worth remembering that the fuel used enabled water-displacement for the bunkers, but did need very good filtration systems.
I'm not sure that complicated refuelling of carrier task groups would have been a significant problem. As far as I know that must have happened in the 1970s in the real world when gas turbine powered ships appeared in large numbers and the RN still had Ark Royal, Bulwark, Hermes, Tiger and Blake. As far as I know the RN and RFA coped with this complication in the 1970s in the real world and I see no reason why they could not have coped with the same problem in the 1960s.

I also thought that it might be a non-problem because as far as I know gas turbines and steam turbines used the same grade of fuel. That's one of the reasons why the RN liked gas turbine powered aircraft. The lower flash point of gas turbine fuel (I can't remember if it was AVCAT, AVTAG or AVTUR) allowed it to be stored in normal fuel bunkers while AVGAS needed to be stored in special tanks to minimise the risk of fuel explosions. Or it might have been the other way around, i.e. the boilers generating the steam for the turbines could burn AVCAT, AVTAG and/or AVTUR.
I have probably over-stated the problem, as you say that was overcome anyway in time, but the age of steam was in no way over (its surprising how many ships during the Falklands War were steam-powered for example).

The most powerful "normal" Tyne engine that I know of was the RTy.20 rated at 6,100ehp (5,665shp) and 5,665shp is 93% of 6,100shp. On that basis the Tynes in the 10,000ehp class that were envisaged would be producing in the region of 9,300shp.
Ironically the advice from the aviation industry was to ignore the Tyne due to its very mixed performance on aircraft. But the Marine Tyne actually proved to be far more reliable!
I wouldn't read too much into the aviation ratings, the Marine Tynes had a new free-turbine section and different materials to prevent corrosion and of course their output was geared differently.
Exmouth had the Proteus (another dubious engine in aircraft), for me the Spey was the real game changer in terms of power and economy.

Smaller crews are the main why I find a gas turbine powered version of CVA.01 attractive. I also thought that having six Olympus engines instead of the steam turbines would reduce the building and maintenance costs through standardisation with the Olympus engines on the frigates and destroyers built in the 1970s.
CVA-01 was planned for a fairly modern high-efficiency steam plant (1000psi, 482C superheat, 135,000shp output) with self-contained compartments and 'repair by replacement' principles too. I don't know what the manning requirements for the engineering spaces were, but this would have been a fairly advanced set-up.
In some ways its surprising Olympus wasn't fitted to boost the speed, instant acceleration for example when launching and minimising the impact of steam-loss with heavy catapult use. An all-gas ship would still need a donkey boiler of course. I think again, the design period is slightly too early for the conservative thinking of the time to sanction a radical idea like this - no navy had ever built any COSAG carrier then, let alone COGAG.

The Tribals and Counties provided a lot of experience, as did the conversion of HMS Exmouth, into refining the uptake and downtake design and developing the strengths of gas turbine power. The Navy (and Treasury) was conservative when it came to an all-turbine ship. It must be remembered that the RN were advanced enough to outpace US and Soviet use of naval gas turbines, but I agree that some go-ahead thinking given the relatively few problems in the Tribals and Counties should have pushed things.
I think perhaps timing was an issue given the need to get experience, perhaps the Batch 2 Counties should have been all-gas, there was a fair gap between them and the T82 though, so an all-gas T82 would be later than the 'Kashin' despite the RN's initial lead.
Actually a better scenario for this thread might be a Tartar-equipped COSAG Batch 1, COGAG Batch 2 and a further improved Batch 3 instead of T82 (maybe Ikara replacing the 4.5in mounts for example, C-band NSR radar).
 
Last edited:

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,373
Reaction score
1,091
Another thought...

If the UK continues with Sea Cat, it seems logical and inevitable that successor systems would be worked on.
In the circumstances of licensing Tartar and Terrier SAM systems, the potential for a 'barging with the US on the PT.428 system instead of Mauler might be forthcoming.

While PT.428 seems to some doomed, the basis of this is if anything more sound for the era than Mauler. Relying on Besm Riding rather than SARH for such a short range SAM System.

The flipside of this is other such bargains were reneged on by the US. Due to domestic politics. So it's unlikely to actually come to fruition.
That said not diverting funds to Blue Water or Mauler ought to see the UK committed.
This replaces in AH Rapier and Sea Wolf.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,257
Reaction score
2,118
I still like the supersonic Sea Cat 2 project, but I don't necessarily think relying on existing Sea Cat directors would have been feasible and manually loading a four-round launcher seems less than optimal. Building a bigger 6 or 8-round launcher and automatic loading from below decks (or even a twin-rail launcher like Osa-M) would have restricted launcher placement and increased weight aboard the ship.
Notionally a simple upgrade using existing Sea Cat infrastructure looks good for Shorts sales reps but not sure it really would have been that simple.

PT.428 is probably better than Mauler or Sea Sparrow and miles better than any Sea Cat upgrade. Would the US buy it? Probably not, but it might have been a going project with less competing UK demands. The only snag is it keeps BAC Stevenage super-busy (PT.428 and Blue Water) but HSD losing Sea Dart makes them rather under-employed, ignoring the Martel effort, maybe scope for a new AAM?
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
115
Reaction score
171
Smaller crews are the main why I find a gas turbine powered version of CVA.01 attractive. I also thought that having six Olympus engines instead of the steam turbines would reduce the building and maintenance costs through standardisation with the Olympus engines on the frigates and destroyers built in the 1970s.
CVA-01 was planned for a fairly modern high-efficiency steam plant (1000psi, 482C superheat, 135,000shp output) with self-contained compartments and 'repair by replacement' principles too. I don't know what the manning requirements for the engineering spaces were, but this would have been a fairly advanced set-up.
In some ways its surprising Olympus wasn't fitted to boost the speed, instant acceleration for example when launching and minimising the impact of steam-loss with heavy catapult use. An all-gas ship would still need a donkey boiler of course. I think again, the design period is slightly too early for the conservative thinking of the time to sanction a radical idea like this - no navy had ever built any COSAG carrier then, let alone COGAG.
Above is a link to the thread on Alternatehistory.com where the GT powered CVA.01 was proposed.

In the thread CVA.01 was still cancelled in February 1966 but it was revived in 1970 by the Heath Government and two ships were built instead of the three Invincibles of the real world.

The CVA.01 cancelled in 1966 was the real world version with the advanced steam plant. However, it was redesigned around six Olympus GTs driving 3 shafts between 1970-73 following its reinstatement by the Heath Government in 1970.

So two ships with six Olympus GTs driving three shafts were built instead of three ships with four Olympus GTs driving two shafts. Therefore the total was twelve Olympus GTs & six shafts in both versions of history.

There was a great deal of discussion in the thread over whether CVA.01 could be redesigned to take GT machinery. This discussion included the size of the intakes & outtakes for the huge amounts of air the Olympus GTs would require and whether they would significantly reduce the amount of space for other things such as the size of the hangar.

There was also a lot of discussion about how the steam for the catapults would be generated. This included whether the time required to maintain the donkey boilers would reduce the ships availability rates and reduce their service lives.
 
Last edited:

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,373
Reaction score
1,091
I still like the supersonic Sea Cat 2 project, but I don't necessarily think relying on existing Sea Cat directors would have been feasible and manually loading a four-round launcher seems less than optimal. Building a bigger 6 or 8-round launcher and automatic loading from below decks (or even a twin-rail launcher like Osa-M) would have restricted launcher placement and increased weight aboard the ship.
Notionally a simple upgrade using existing Sea Cat infrastructure looks good for Shorts sales reps but not sure it really would have been that simple.

PT.428 is probably better than Mauler or Sea Sparrow and miles better than any Sea Cat upgrade. Would the US buy it? Probably not, but it might have been a going project with less competing UK demands. The only snag is it keeps BAC Stevenage super-busy (PT.428 and Blue Water) but HSD losing Sea Dart makes them rather under-employed, ignoring the Martel effort, maybe scope for a new AAM?
Good points.
A new AAM was on the cards, and we now know thanks to JFCFuller that there were studies, which led to Family series from HSD and the Forbat AAM.
This all meshing with the new AI effort and left to the A4 seeker(A5? Books all in storage).

My contention is a more rational missile policy means Blue Water isn't likely to proceed as such. Though to rocket motor technology might.
But PT.428 as Zuckerman stated was at least a system likely to be used outside of WWIII.

It's possible the US will still stubbornly fund Mauler. But as it hits problems and they cancel, PT.428 is well on it's way to service for the UK.....a reciprocal licensing deal over SAMs could be forthcoming here?
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,257
Reaction score
2,118
I don't want to derail the thread away from the topic in hand, but regarding CVA-01, the amount of steam required was quite large and should not be underestimated.
The BS.4 needed 1,000lb of steam at 500psi for less than 2 seconds per launch. With a launch rate of once every 30 seconds, each catapult would require 120,000lb/hr. They needed dry steam accumulators of around 2,385 cu ft (smaller if wet accumulators were used).
The BS.6 planned for CVA-01 had 2.5x the energy release, so the steam requirements would be much greater (I don't have exact lb/hr figures, 300,000lb perhaps if linear scaling is appropriate for estimating?). Wet accumulators would be used (which in themselves generated some steam). During launch operations the speed would fall from 30-28kt to 25kt, and as I say, we're talking about a 1000psi high-pressure boiler setup.

A 6 sq metre uptake and 6 m2 downtake for each Olympus would require a total of 72sq m for a sextuple setup. Plus 40 m3 for salt spray eliminators. Any obstructions or kinks causing back pressure in the air system would lose at least 100shp plus you would have 500C hot gas in those macks (the Broomstick gonna be toasty warm). That hot air might make the air pretty bumpy aft of the ship too, I'm also presuming its higher velocity hot air compared to normal boiler efflux when it exits the funnel/mack.

So I can see a fair few reasons why they kept it simple and just went with steam. In a carrier you need steam as a vital component so might as well use as much of it as you can. Even using a Rolls-Royce submarine nuclear core probably makes more sense than all-gas turbine in any AU where the Chancellor of the Exchequer is sitting in a bathtub of fifty quid notes.
 
Last edited:

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,222
Reaction score
2,013
One of the advantages of these Alt history threads is the amount of "real world" information that contributors bring in.
If you re-read them, as I often do, the wide range of expertise we have on this site becomes apparent.
Some random thoughts based on what I have read so far.
The RN unlike other European navies could not easily adopt foreign weapon systems. Ikara was turned from a simple Limbo replacing launcher to an elaborate hull piercing gazebo that displaced a gun turret.
Exocet met the same fate on the Countys and Leanders. The T21s were allowed to keep their guns and Exocet.
Harpoon should have displaced Exocet sooner and on more ships. Though Exocets different attack profile may have led to its retention.
Given the problems in building new ships in the 70s CVA01 or a similar design may have been too much to cope with.
The T42s need Exmouth T82 anf T21 experience so they cant arrive much before 1972.
Trying to redesign Countys for Terrier/Standard might have produced a Blake class style abortion.
Seadart and T42 evolve together so Tartar would have needed a different ship.
PT428 and Blue Water could have been built and introduced into service but at what cost? and with what technical risks.
Honest John/Lance were almost free.
PT428 would have needed even more space than Seawolf.
The best one on one replacement for Seacat would have been NATO SeaSparrow then Vulcan/Phalanx.
 

Volkodav

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
368
Reaction score
377
One of the advantages of these Alt history threads is the amount of "real world" information that contributors bring in.
If you re-read them, as I often do, the wide range of expertise we have on this site becomes apparent.
Some random thoughts based on what I have read so far.
The RN unlike other European navies could not easily adopt foreign weapon systems. Ikara was turned from a simple Limbo replacing launcher to an elaborate hull piercing gazebo that displaced a gun turret.
Exocet met the same fate on the Countys and Leanders. The T21s were allowed to keep their guns and Exocet.
Harpoon should have displaced Exocet sooner and on more ships. Though Exocets different attack profile may have led to its retention.
Given the problems in building new ships in the 70s CVA01 or a similar design may have been too much to cope with.
The T42s need Exmouth T82 anf T21 experience so they cant arrive much before 1972.
Trying to redesign Countys for Terrier/Standard might have produced a Blake class style abortion.
Seadart and T42 evolve together so Tartar would have needed a different ship.
PT428 and Blue Water could have been built and introduced into service but at what cost? and with what technical risks.
Honest John/Lance were almost free.
PT428 would have needed even more space than Seawolf.
The best one on one replacement for Seacat would have been NATO SeaSparrow then Vulcan/Phalanx.
You seem to have a real bee in your bonnet about Ikara. Again, just because the RN developed and deployed a hull penetrating magazine, assembly, hoist and precision launch system doesn't change the fact that the RAN deployed a much simpler more compact system that quite literally fit in the same space as a Limbo mortar and its magazine. i.e. the RAN config could have been easily and cheaply retro fitted to any RN ship with Limbo.

Even the twin launcher set up on the Perth / Adams class DDGs used by the RAN consisted on a deckhouse and port / starboard launchers that replaced the USN ASROC.

Writing off the entire system because the RN decided to specify arrangements that took far more space, weight, volume and length than were necessary just doesn't make sense. It would be like saying the 25mm Bushmaster cannon is a waste because the USN decided to install a single example in place of the supressed Mk 13 launcher in the last remaining OHP FFGs before retirement.
 

T. A. Gardner

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 18, 2021
Messages
114
Reaction score
215
What I see overall, is the RN SAM program was never really oriented to the big picture. That is, the RN wanted a SAM but rather than run a solid, coherent, program to develop one, worked off of a combination of quick and dirty (Seaslug) and US experience at the time (Seadart). Seaslug built off of other British SAM programs of the late 40's and early 50's while Seadart relied on what the US was doing with Talos.

In the US at the same time, the USN had a massive and very well organized program to develop fleet defense SAMs going on from late 1944 with Project Bumblebee. Bumblebee included extensive trials and research into fire controls, missile guidance and flight controls (the CTV--Control Test Vehicles subsonic--and STV--Supersonic Test Vehicles portions of the program).

1621577503875.png
A CTV missile being readied for launch at Topsail Island test range North Carolina circa 1947 -48

The STV program occurred mostly at China Lake California and led to Terrier. It also led to the discovery of how effective tail control surfaces were and then to Terrier. Terrier was originally envisioned as a compact missile for use on destroyers while Terrier was an alternative to Talos.

The whole Bumblebee program was massive in scope and size and ran from about late 1944 to 1955 resulting in the family of first generation SAM's the USN used.

The work Allegany Ballistics Labs did on solid fuel booster propellant configuration played a critical role in not just these missile's effectiveness, but carried over to many other programs using solid fuel or solid fuel boosters like Nike.

Starting at Cape May New Jersey, then Topsail Island, the USN fired hundreds of supersonic ramjet test vehicles (variously Burner Test Vehicles (BTV), Ramjet Test Vehicles (RTV), and Cobra ramjets to develop the propulsion system Talos would eventually use. Even before WW 2 ended testing had launches of ramjet vehicles exceeding Mach up to about 1.5 and hitting flight ranges in excess of ten miles. Take that German SAM testing... :p

RN SAM development from the mid-50's took a que from the USN and all the existing development work already available. That kept design and development costs down considerably.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,373
Reaction score
1,091
Don't think I agree with that.
Sort of doesn't take domestic UK effort into account really.

A bit too US centric that.

Which is not to deny US information didn't feed into UK SAM efforts.
 
Top