Vosper Thorneycroft Mk 10 frigate variants

[uk 75]

The Brazilian "Niteroi" class frigates started life as the Vosper Thorneycroft
Mark 10 design in the late 1960s.
Many years ago I was looking at a Vosper brochure and it contained a small
artwork of a version of this ship armed with Seadart instead of the forward
4.5" gun. I have never been able to find a copy of this or the design it came from.
I assume it was Vosper's candidate for the Argentinian contract won by the Type 42.
The Mark 10 seems to have been a capable platform and could have carried Seawolf for example with ease. Did the Royal Navy ever look at this design seriously? The published sources are silent on the subject, but may be someone with Vosper connections can help. The Brazilian Ikara variant is very similar to the requirement for an Ikara ASW ship eventually met by the Leander conversions.

An RN programme replacing the Type 82s, 21s, 42s,22s even, with a family derived from the Mark 10 could have been a British Spruance. I expect though that various technical aspects of the design were not up to snuff for the RN (they seem to have been adequate for the Brazilians).

UK 75

 

[JFC Fuller]

The Brazilian "Niteroi" class frigates started life as the Vosper Thorneycroft
Mark 10 design in the late 1960s.
Many years ago I was looking at a Vosper brochure and it contained a small
artwork of a version of this ship armed with Seadart instead of the forward
4.5" gun. I have never been able to find a copy of this or the design it came from.
I assume it was Vosper's candidate for the Argentinian contract won by the Type 42.
The Mark 10 seems to have been a capable platform and could have carried Seawolf for example with ease. Did the Royal Navy ever look at this design seriously? The published sources are silent on the subject, but may be someone with Vosper connections can help. The Brazilian Ikara variant is very similar to the requirement for an Ikara ASW ship eventually met by the Leander conversions.

An RN programme replacing the Type 82s, 21s, 42s,22s even, with a family derived from the Mark 10 could have been a British Spruance. I expect though that various technical aspects of the design were not up to snuff for the RN (they seem to have been adequate for the Brazilians).

UK 75

The RN expected its ships to crash up and down in the north Atlantic and and stay there, Brazil did not.
The RN is an institution with centuries of continued existence during which every generation has gained hard won battle experience, the Brazilian Navy does not compare.

The high standards of the RN are the product of its history and entirely understandable and justifiable.

The Type 22s came out the size they did for a reason, that was the size required for their capabilities.

 

[TomS]

Rebuilding the Royal Navy by DK Brown and George Moore discusses the RN's efforts to develop a common-hulled escort for the requirements that led to Type 42 and Type 22. There seem to have been real reasons that the two could not be build on a common platform, mostly to do with the desire to absolutely minimize the size of the Sea Dart destroyer. (Given the minimal hull size, the Type 42 was fuller forward to accomodate the Sea Dart magazine, resulting in less than ideal seakeeping, which was essential for the Type 22.)

Developing a "British Spruance" would require the RN to accept the notion that it made sense to design ships with large growth margins and build the hulls with unused volume rather than shrinking the design to the minimum practical. That ran completely against the grain of the RN (and more importantly Treasury) philosophy of the era.

 

[RP1]

That ran completely against the grain of the RN (and more importantly Treasury) philosophy of the era.

I seem to recall DKB mentioning the provision of such expansion space in an earlier design having to be disguised under the name "Marine Band Space" - which worked just fine until the Admiralty Board saw it and decided that it should, in fact, be filled with Marines. Reference is "A Century of Naval Construction", I think?

I can confirm that, from certain UK designers at least, there was a certain amount of jealousy at the inclusion of specifically labeled growth space in the Spruance class...

RP1

 

[uk 75]

I did not wish to dismiss the RN too lightly or the excellent accounts in Brown/Moore which you have all kindly rehearsed. Apart from hoping to tease out some artwork of Mark 10 version with Seadart or other systems (the Shipbucket clan have not covered this class) I genuinely think the Mark 10 was a missed opportunity.

I accept of course all the points about the operating requirements that led to the Type 22. However, the Mark 10 is more a contemporary of the Types 42 and 21, developed as they were in the late 60s.

Are the Mark 10s really more fragile than the 21s or even the 42s?

Given the cramped nature of the early Type 42s would a Mark 10 hull have
been so much worse?

Wouldn't a single modern hull capable of taking various combinations of Exocets, Ikara, Seadart and later Seawolf have been more use to the RN than the 21s and the Leander conversions and even the early 42s.

A family of ships based on the Mark 10 could have been produced in the 70s and given time for the Type 22 to evolve into the later version of the ship rather than the early ships (oh yes aren't they in the poor old Brazilian Navy).

Would still love to see those artworks.

UK 75

 

[Pirate Pete]

I recall seeing an "artists impression" of the Mk.10 with the Seadart mounted forward in the 1970's. I cannot remember exactelly what the publication was, but "Navy International" or "Maritime Defence" come to mind, neither of which I think are now being published.
If I can get to my local reference library (and I remember) I'll try to locate it.

 

[JFC Fuller]

I did not wish to dismiss the RN too lightly or the excellent accounts in Brown/Moore which you have all kindly rehearsed. Apart from hoping to tease out some artwork of Mark 10 version with Seadart or other systems (the Shipbucket clan have not covered this class) I genuinely think the Mark 10 was a missed opportunity.

I accept of course all the points about the operating requirements that led to the Type 22. However, the Mark 10 is more a contemporary of the Types 42 and 21, developed as they were in the late 60s.

Are the Mark 10s really more fragile than the 21s or even the 42s?

Given the cramped nature of the early Type 42s would a Mark 10 hull have
been so much worse?

Wouldn't a single modern hull capable of taking various combinations of Exocets, Ikara, Seadart and later Seawolf have been more use to the RN than the 21s and the Leander conversions and even the early 42s.

A family of ships based on the Mark 10 could have been produced in the 70s and given time for the Type 22 to evolve into the later version of the ship rather than the early ships (oh yes aren't they in the poor old Brazilian Navy).

Would still love to see those artworks.

UK 75

The Type 21 was inspired by the Vosper designs (Although the design heritage follows the Type 29 lineage) the end result was a ship that was too small and structurally unsound.

The Mark 10 was the same, too small. The larger Type 42s were also too small, the only class of of post war RN major surface combattant that could be argued as not being too small is the Type-22.

 

[uk 75]

Sealord

I think we agree that the Type 22 (I only really like the Batch 3)
was the ship the RN actually wanted as its FFGH.

I am intrigued to know more about the Type 29. I thought the
Type 21 was simply hatched out of the 1966-7 fiasco as an
export frigate. Its predecessor was the Type 19 presumably.

The Mark 10 Seadart drawing possibly features the single armed
version of the missile, as I think it only has one director. The RN
seemed initially to want a low end Seadart frigate.

The model for the ship I suspect was the US Brooke single Tartar
ship. The RN seems to have followed US practice closely. The Macks (Mast-stacks) on early 60s drawings follow the Leahy/Worden design. I imagine
that somewhere there is a drawing or notes for a UK Leahy with Seadart(CF299 as it was then) at both ends. Equally there must be a UK Bainbridge drawing (nuclear powered).

UK &%

 

[JFC Fuller]

Sealord

I think we agree that the Type 22 (I only really like the Batch 3)
was the ship the RN actually wanted as its FFGH.

I am intrigued to know more about the Type 29. I thought the
Type 21 was simply hatched out of the 1966-7 fiasco as an
export frigate. Its predecessor was the Type 19 presumably.

The Mark 10 Seadart drawing possibly features the single armed
version of the missile, as I think it only has one director. The RN
seemed initially to want a low end Seadart frigate.

The model for the ship I suspect was the US Brooke single Tartar
ship. The RN seems to have followed US practice closely. The Macks (Mast-stacks) on early 60s drawings follow the Leahy/Worden design. I imagine
that somewhere there is a drawing or notes for a UK Leahy with Seadart(CF299 as it was then) at both ends. Equally there must be a UK Bainbridge drawing (nuclear powered).

UK &%

Sorry my mistake, Type-21 was of Type-19 lineage. The problem with low end sea dart frigates was that they were useless, just with the ASW frigates you end up back with the capability/size/cost spiral.

Even the early Batches of the Type 22 were good vessels with lost of development potential as the Romanians have already proved and the Chileans are about to do. Remember in RN service they were planned as ASW platforms able to defend themselves against Soviet AShM's and not as true general purpose ships.

Dont associate UK practice with the USN, in many ways the UK and the Dutch were far more innovative in naval technology in this period than the USN. The RN designs are very much the product of independent design and thought processes.

For Sea Dart, the number of launchers is not tied to the number of directors as such, you can have a twin launch with only one director. I have posted a piece at the never were warships forum about how RN AAW ships may have developed had certain plans not been cancelled in the early 80s that you may find interesting.

 

[JohnR]

Sealord

The RN seems to have followed US practice closely. The Macks (Mast-stacks) on early 60s drawings follow the Leahy/Worden design. I imagine
that somewhere there is a drawing or notes for a UK Leahy with Seadart(CF299 as it was then) at both ends. Equally there must be a UK Bainbridge drawing (nuclear powered).

UK &%

Hardly, the Macks were first used by the RN - WWII era Weapons, Daring and G Class Destroyers, some "1960" Cruiser designs and the Cruiser/Destroyer of the 1950's.

The Leahy layout would not have been possible with Seadart - the systems deep magazine, would have precluded the aft missile location - the magazine would have at the least interfered with shaft runs and may have caused a large lump in the bottom.

DK Brown in his "Rebuilding the Royal Navy" confirmed that studies of Nuclear Power versions of designs were studied, he mentions the Type 82 and 43 specifically.

 

[uk 75]

Sealord and John R

Many thanks for the additional info. I must track down the Never were
warships forum.

I think the relationship between the US, RN and KNLM must have been
pretty close in the late 50s to the mid 60s. The Dutch were allowed to
have Terrier ER for their old cruisers (one only installed) and worked closely
with the US on teardrop hull submarines, even planning nuclear submarines.

I tend to see Seadart as the UK alternative to Tartar/Standard. We were
short of Dollars and it made more sense to spend them on things we could
not develop in the UK. The Dutch rejected Seadart in favour of Tartar/Standard.

The missile that might have occasioned a UK Leahy type ship was the
longer range Seaslug successor described in much detail in "Hypersonics
Ramjets etc". It would have had similar storage to the US Terriers because
of the size and assembly of some of the missiles proposed.

My comment on the Mack was made because of the clear similarities between
those on the CVA 01 and helicopter cruisers to the US enclosed mast mack. The Italians used a similar design on their contemporary Vittorio Veneto cruiser.

I agree with the point about the low-end ships being unsatisfactory, but we did end up buying 8 Type 21s with pretty feeble armament. I still think 8 Mark 10 hulls would have been a better buy and offered a greater range of
options for fitting weapons. It would also have allowed some of the older RN frigates to be sold earlier. Even in the poor circumstances of the 70s I think we could have even managed to get 12 Mark 10 hulls instead of the last Leanders and the Type 21s. As with the Type 21 procurement this would not have influenced Type 22 development, though it might have led to a cheaper version of the Type 42. This would then have allowed a better Air Defense ship to be purchased in the 80s (UKAegis even).

UK 75

 

[JFC Fuller]

The Mark-10 would not have offered anything that the Type-21 did not.

 

[JohnR]

Historically the plan was for later Type 21's to be of a broader beam design which would have allowed the fitting of Sea Wolf. If I recall correctly it was to have had twin arm launchers in the four "corners" of the superstructure. This would have provided a much more able ship.

There was a further development of the design which again iirc was proposed for Pakistan in the late 70's or early 80's, again it was a broad beamed design and features VLS Sea Wolf and was referred to as the "Command Frigate".

In the second edition of Leo Marriots British Frigates there is an image of a proposed development of the type 41 frigate, the design shown feature Mk6 guns and the egg of a Dutch FC system. I've often wondered if this formed the basis of the frigate built for Thailand with two Mk8's.

 

[uk 75]

Sealord

The usual sources all agree that the Type 21s were overloaded
and that a plan to fit them with Seawolf had to be abandoned.
The Mark 10s would appear to have the extra margin needed.

I agree though that the Type 21 was designed to meet a specific
RN patrol frigate requirement rather than the more exacting GP frigate
requirement. Thus Mark 10 was a non-starter for the RN as it fell between
the two stools. I still think that the RN needed to be more flexible in its
thinking. This could have led to better ships in service rather than waiting
for more ideal versions, which were either late (Type 22) or never came.

UK 75

 

[uk 75]

Since this thread I have managed to take a look at the
picture of the Seadart equipped Mark 10 in a brochure
produced by Vospers in the early 1970s. It clearly shows
a single arm launcher and one dome director.
I imagine this picture was done either as part of a bid for the
Argentine AAW destroyer contract won by Type 42 or as part
of the Brazilian bid. So not for the RN at all.
Does anyone know more about this ship?
UK 75

 

[M. A. Rozon]

Any chance of getting a look at that brochure?

:

B)

 

[TinWing]

Since this thread I have managed to take a look at the
picture of the Seadart equipped Mark 10 in a brochure
produced by Vospers in the early 1970s. It clearly shows
a single arm launcher and one dome director.
I imagine this picture was done either as part of a bid for the
Argentine AAW destroyer contract won by Type 42 or as part
of the Brazilian bid. So not for the RN at all.
Does anyone know more about this ship?
UK 75

It isn't unreasonable to believe that Brazil might have been interested in an AAW derivative of the Niteroi class. Indeed, as late as the end of the 1980s, the Brazilians were still projecting a pair of indigenously constructed AAW frigates, although I've never seen any details and the entire project seemed improbable due to the lack of funding....


In any event, I think we'd all be very grateful for any brochure scans.

 

[uk 75]

Sorry lads, I was pipped to the post by the person who had just bought
the brochure and did not have a phonecam handy. The brochure went
for a cool 60 Pounds!

UK 75