Early CF.299 Destroyer Proposals (previously mistaken for RN Type 19 frigate)

The following webpage has quite a bit of information about alternate designs for the RN’s Type 19 CVA-01 escort frigate. The designs explore difference ASW configurations with ASROC, Ikara and Malafon.

http://middle-watch.com/outtakes.htm

Re: RN Type 19 frigate

This is a fascinating addition to the information available
in Brown and Moore and Friedman's books.
It makes one wonder how many more drawings of options
for RN warships are out there.
The Leander origins of the later Type 82 design are clear to see,
as are the options considered for ASW.
Many thanks
UK 75

Re: RN Type 19 frigate

I don't believe that these concept relate to the Type 19 - this was intended to be firstly a high speed (40knot) escort intended to counter small surface combatants as faced in the Indonesian confrontation, then it was recast as a low end escort a requirement which was ultimately filled by the Type 21. The specification for the Type 19 requied equipment the same as the Type 12.

These are more likely studies which lead to the Type 82 as stated by UK75 or part of the Type 17 studies.

What is the source of the images.

Regards

Re: RN Type 19 frigate

The source is the web link provided in the initial post.

Re: RN Type 19 frigate

I too don't think these are related to Type 19.

Friedman in 'British Destroyers and Frigates' makes no mention of them, ASROC was never favoured as a weapon, Malafon too is unlikely as a British weapon.

The twin Sea Dart/ Ikara launcher makes perfect sense but I've heard about such a mount or ever seen a diagram of one. I would think dimensionally and weight would vary for each missile and having twin magazine systems seems wasteful of space. Maybe these were just preliminary drawings, closer to the Type 17 level?

The search radar seems unlike any other and is too small to be 'Broomstick'.

Re: RN Type 19 frigate

The last one on the actual site page (Fig 6-7)

http://middle-watch.com/outtakes.htm

with a combined Sea Dart/Ikara launcher is an interesting one.

Re: RN Type 19 frigate

These ships are not the Type-19 Frigate. They are preliminary designs leading up to the Type-82. CF.299 refers not to the Hull but to the Sea Dart system. In no way are these related to the Type 19.

Re: RN Type 19 frigate

sealordlawrence said:

These ships are not the Type-19 Frigate. They are preliminary designs leading up to the Type-82. CF.299 refers not to the Hull but to the Sea Dart system. In no way are these related to the Type 19.

Click to expand...

The drawings do seem to be based on a Type 12/Leander hull, which essentially was the starting point for the Type 82, which subsequently ballooned into a 7,700 ton monster. In a way, the original thinking behind the Type 82 was meant to yield an affordable AAW combatant, akin to the eventual Type 42 in concept, with the Y100 plant of course.

Re: RN Type 19 frigate

From the February 1962 date on the drawings I guess that they
correspond to the Series 53 studies for a CF299 (Seadart) carrying frigate
to be as close to the Leander (Type 12) as possible.

Until 1963 it was hoped that the CF299 would be like the US Tartar/Standard and able to replace a 4.5" gun mounting without any exptra weight/space penalty. Like Seawolf (originally intended to be a straight swap for Seacat), Seadart grew, so that by 1963 studies were for a destroyer size vessel.

The RN had been looking at an ASW missile to replace its helicopters. ASROC was the favoured system, though Malafon was an alternative. Ikara emerged as the favourite system and was chosen in early 1963. As ever it required more space and weight than the US systems but saved on precious foreign currency and offered better capabilities (steerable missile).

Not described, but shown on the drawings, is the small SSM launcher for the SS11/SS12 missile which was a substitute for the 4.5" gun. As Seadart and Seacat offered a limited SSM capability this option was never taken up.

The twin CF299/Ikara launcher is not mentioned in published sources. It is worth noting that the US Belknap DLGs were being fitted with a combined Terrier/ASROC launcher in 1962. This might have seemed a worthwhile option with ASROC, but as the drawing shows, IKARA and CF299 required different magazines, and the launcher did not offer much of a saving.

The twin CF299 fit with three guidance radars and an early ball as opposed to Kojak surveillance radar also appears in the artwork for CVA 01 (see the Addndum page of Jane's 1963-4), and was probably also intended for the helicopter escort carrier/cruiser postponed in 1963.

It is a real shame that these drawings and a description did not make it into the Brown/Moore and Freidman books, but it is nice to have them now.

UK 75

Re: RN Type 19 frigate

From Peter Parkinson on Warships1

http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/9268/master/1/?page=2

My first intro to seadart came when I was onboard Kent and we were off Aberporth and was asked to jam this secret radar. We jammed it by a special technique and I was initially in the rattle for completely jamming a radar the was supposed to be unjammable. What I remember was just how powerful this radar was and we asked Aberporth what was the range of this radar and they told us it was 212000 yards but they still would not tell us what it was. Later that day two Lieutenants came down from the bridge with a Janes fighting ships and in the addendum at the back was this new seadart radar 909.

The ADIMP 8 update was to control up to 8 seadarts in flight at any time and I suspect people have put 2 and 2 together with the autopilot rumours. I think someone wrote the new seeker which was developed by Marconi at Stanmore gave enough weight and space available for an autopilot.

The radar which contolled seadart was 992 which by plot extraction gave range and bearing in the form of a digital target report to the ADAWS command system and onto the JZ display system whic initially had a 26 inch flat display, a 12 inch LPD and a 12 inch tote display. Bristol had 21 displays and the T42S had 19 to start with. 965 radar could be used as well as air detector as a rough height finder when a target flew through the lobes.

Bristols launcher was a larger one than the T42s and goes back to the days of a combined launcher for Ikara and Seadart. One of the Leander replacement drawings had a double ended design with two combined seadart/ikara launchers fitted fore and aft.

The micro switch problem in the Falkklands was fixed by a quick sqirt of WD40 and then covered with a plastic bag held on with an elastic band.

I initially thought that 909 was an IC and transistor design but I have been told it was initially a valve design. I still find that this was is a bit weird when the ADAWS systems was IC and transistor and all developed at the same time.

Plessey radar on the Isle of Wight got a second production run for 909 radars as MOD thought Marconi was charging too much and was too slow. Plessey instituted over a hundred mods over the Marconi design and this about 1980. About this time some of the remaing valve equipments were change on one foe one unit basis with a transistor and IC unit. and the equipment had an M added eg 184 became 184M

The great problem with all RN missiles was the annual firing allowance which was always too low to develop a system properly. for e.g. Kent was only allowed to fire three seaslug missiles a commission and something like three seacats a year. Contrast this with a Tiger firing hundreds of rounds of six and three inch ammo every week. You are in no doubt which system is going to keep you alive in a war.

All the RN missile systems took expert maintenance, repair and adjustment to keep operational and to do that the RN had its core of artificers and mechanician who used to work hundreds of hours every month at sea and in harbour to keep these complex systems working.

The moving targets over land problem with search and fire contols radars with ships moving at sea as opposed to a land based radar which is not moving. This was improved by the use of more frequency stable magnetrons and the use of what was called a coherent receiver and true digital filters that could be software driven gave warships the ability to see air targets over land. The use of travelling wave tube transmitters improves this further. Foreign navies got this equipment years before the RN had it. I am used to seeing cars drive down the roads on radars that I have worked yet if you got within fory miles of land with the old RNs 993/4 radar the picture was completely blotted out with sidelobe clutter from the RNs crap AKD aerial a quarter cheese. ASWE and MOD were told about the problem years before the Falklands but did nothing. ASWEs argument was it worked ok on top of Portsdown hill and on good day a 993 at ASWE could see France but could not see a jumbo jet thiry miles away.

Re: RN Type 19 frigate

An interesting design.
And from my perspective, a very well balanced armament for a British ship of the time.
Especial for what appears to be a reasonable size/weight design.

Regards
Pioneer

Re: RN Type 19 frigate

This thread is of interest in the light of more recent
discussion of the NIGs ship and whether a frigate
could have carried Seadart on a small hull.

Looking at the references on the drawings which
go from 6.1 through to 6.7 (6.4 is missing for some
reason) this seems to have been a pretty detailed
exercise. It would be nice to know more about the
background to it.

UK 75

Re: RN Type 19 frigate

sealordlawrence said:

It gets incredibly tiring reading posts about RN ships from the post war time frame with people desperately trying to fit weapons systems into hulls without considering the sensors and combat management system.

Click to expand...

Then maybe you should read the source data:

http://middle-watch.com/outtakes.htm

They are the CF.299 Frigate which is quoted on some documents as "A bigger and better Leander" it is probably the Type 19, a proposed Gas Turbine Frigate with a speed of over 40 knots.

Click to expand...

And look at the pictures. The CF.299 designs are equipped with the various search, track and illumination radars and the combat data system required to operate Sea Dart. Being as they are drawings prepared by the MoD they are hardly the product of some enthusiast wanting to know why the world hasn't built a 500 tone air defence missile ship.

They are not Type 19 derivatives, they have been mis-labelled, note the previous consensus in this thread.

Hood said:

Re: RN Type 19 frigate

I too don't think these are related to Type 19.

Friedman in 'British Destroyers and Frigates' makes no mention of them, ASROC was never favoured as a weapon, Malafon too is unlikely as a British weapon.

The twin Sea Dart/ Ikara launcher makes perfect sense but I've heard about such a mount or ever seen a diagram of one. I would think dimensionally and weight would vary for each missile and having twin magazine systems seems wasteful of space. Maybe these were just preliminary drawings, closer to the Type 17 level?

The search radar seems unlike any other and is too small to be 'Broomstick'.

Click to expand...

If "Malafon is unlikely as a British weapon", then why do all those designs have a SS-12M octuple launcher?

BROF said:

If "Malafon is unlikely as a British weapon", then why do all those designs have a SS-12M octuple launcher?

Click to expand...

SS.11 was considered as a replacement for guns in early Type 82 preliminary designs. That it was also already in service with the Fleet Air Arm didn't hurt.

Don't think it's an octuple mount, Nord proposed a 12-missile trainable mount, which I assume is what is being used here.

SS12 / AS12. SS11= ATGW.

BROF said:

SS12 / AS12. SS11= ATGW.

Click to expand...

Friedman says SS.11 was considered for Type 82. IIRC, the Nord mount could handle both SS.11 and SS.12.

Friedman is obviously wrong. What use could a 6000 t vessel have of a 3 km-range, 29 kg anti-tank missile with a 6,9 kg anti-armour hollow charge? Sink soviet amphibious tanks? The naval SSM was the SS.12M (15 km range, 103 kg, 29 kg HE head).

BROF said:

Friedman is obviously wrong. What use could a 6000 t cruiser have of a 3 km-range, 29 kg anti-tank missile with a 6,9 kg anti-armour hollow charge? Sink soviet amphibious tanks? The naval SSM was the SS.12M (15 km range, 103 kg, 29 kg HE head).

Click to expand...

Friedman does note that SS.11 would be used 'to deal with small craft but useless against anything larger'. It disappeared from the requirement when the lightweight 4.5-inch gun was introduced.

I'd guess the thinking was that a 6.9 kg warhead was an adequate substitute for a shell with a 3 kg bursting charge.

BROF said:

Friedman is obviously wrong. What use could a 6000 t cruiser have of a 3 km-range, 29 kg anti-tank missile with a 6,9 kg anti-armour hollow charge? Sink soviet amphibious tanks? The naval SSM was the SS.12M (15 km range, 103 kg, 29 kg HE head).

Click to expand...

Junk busting is a definite possibility within the Confrontation timeframe.

DWG said:

Junk busting is a definite possibility within the Confrontation timeframe.

Click to expand...

SS.12 was definitely seen as a FPB or counter-FPB weapon on this era (before it became clear that Exocet class missiles could be fitted and create the FAC-M). It was basically seen as a Bofors alternative once 40mm became clearly unsat for AAW.

BROF said:

Friedman is obviously wrong. What use could a 6000 t cruiser have of a 3 km-range, 29 kg anti-tank missile with a 6,9 kg anti-armour hollow charge? Sink soviet amphibious tanks? The naval SSM was the SS.12M (15 km range, 103 kg, 29 kg HE head).

Click to expand...

At the time it was 3500 ton frigate. It grew to become a destroyer later.

It was never a cruiser though. No unitised machinery, no armour protection, destroyer standards of self-maintenance and stores.

SS.11 was an anti-tank infantry missile. SS.12 / AS.12 were surface/air launched SSM, three times as big. Those project schemes show SS.12M.

DWG said:

Junk busting is a definite possibility within the Confrontation timeframe.

Click to expand...

You don't go within 3 km of an armed junk. A dashka is enough to rake your bridge and kill. A hollow-charge is useless against a wooden structure.

BROF said:

Those project schemes show SS.12M.

Click to expand...

In Rebuilding the Royal Navy, Brown says 'SS 11 or SS 12'. Friedman says 'SS-11' specifically, while also describing SS.12 (not AS.12) being procured for helicopter use. The drawings at the top of the thread don't show enough detail to clearly identify the SSM carried, and I've not been able to find any pictures showing the SS.12 launcher to compare.

SS.12 is clearly a better weapon, but I'm not sure we can be certain it was what the Royal Navy had in mind.

So far as Malafon goes, I'm not surprised that it was considered, but as far as I know the only evidence we have that it was is these drawings of uncertain provenance. Actually finding the file they originated from would be very useful. The credit on the now-defunct website is to Brian Burnell, who is occassionally active here, though this was at least 16 years ago.

Yellow Palace said:

Actually finding the file they originated from would be very useful.

Click to expand...

This thread got chopped up a bit by the moderators so the post that explains what these drawings were for was left in another thread, but I have pasted it below for completeness:

I have now found the file these images are from and as I suggested previously they actually prove that the idea of a dual launcher was rejected in early 1962. These were not even proper ship designs, rather they were illustrations produced to support a report into how the RN could install both stand-off ASW missiles and CF.299 into a single 3,000 ton hull (the culmination of this, HMS Bristol, was later described as being 6,500 tons to the treasury) to meet the requirements for a new frigate. The working party ultimately concluded the following:

"The working party has concluded that though an integrated common launcher system for A/S G.W and S.A.G.W is possible for the IKARA weapon (and might be with ASROC) the possible operational advantages are likely to be outweighed by the increase in space, duplication of equipment and wiring, increased weight and cost, and the increase in operating personnel. It is recommended that in the new frigate and within the stated Terms of Reference the A/S and A.A. handling and launching systems should accordingly be fitted as separate self-contained systems.

It is considered that though technically feasible there is not a good case for using the CF.299 launcher for IKARA in view of its greater complexity and cost and its complication of the loading arrangements."

In the multiple and large Ikara files in the National archives I have found no further reference to a dual launcher and no evidence of any further design, analysis or consideration of it. This early 1962 report seems to have been the beginning and end of the idea. However, what is clear is that there were, initially at least, plans for separate Ikara and CF.299 launcher designs for aircraft carriers and for frigates so it seems reasonable to think that the aircraft carrier versions of each launcher would have been in the 1962 escort cruiser design. The December 1962 decision to use the destroyer version of the CF.299 launcher in CVA-01 instead of a dedicated carrier version, which was cancelled, is possibly also the reason why the 1963 escort cruiser only had one CF.299 launcher too.

Consideration was also given to using the CF.299 tracking radar with Ikara but that was also rejected. And also pertinent to this thread; the treasury suggested that the Type 82 class (once its size and cost became apparent) should be regarded as cruisers whilst the Navy appears to have had its own internal debate about calling them frigates destroyers or whether to use the blanket term "escorts". All rather amusing for a design that started out as a 3,000 ton Leander follow-on.

Click to expand...

BROF said:

You don't go within 3 km of an armed junk. A dashka is enough to rake your bridge and kill. A hollow-charge is useless against a wooden structure.

Click to expand...

The HE part of that HEAT will still turn that junk into toothpicks.

JFC Fuller said:

This thread got chopped up a bit by the moderators so the post that explains what these drawings were for was left in another thread, but I have pasted it below for completeness:

Click to expand...

I knew we'd discussed the combined launcher to death before, was a bit surprised it wasn't in this thread!

BROF said:

You don't go within 3 km of an armed junk. A dashka is enough to rake your bridge and kill. A hollow-charge is useless against a wooden structure.

Click to expand...

Small craft are notoriously bad gun platforms. Reliably hitting a ship from 3km with a hand-laid machine gun isn't a given, and specifically hitting the bridge is a real challenge.

Good news that SS.12M a) had a range of more than 5 km and b) had three warhead options, including both blast-frag for use on soft targets and a semi-armor-piecing warhead for antiship use as well as the HEAT round. SAP was probably the default for naval use.

BROF said:

You don't go within 3 km of an armed junk. A dashka is enough to rake your bridge and kill. A hollow-charge is useless against a wooden structure.

Click to expand...

As already noted, it was being mooted as a Bofors alternative. Bofors hits at 3km will also be something of a rarity. The operational requirement we're discussing was to run down junks being used for gun-running, right down to the small-enough-to-stick-on-a-trailer range, cf Indonesian prahus.