GW series of British Missile Cruisers

uk 75

uk 75

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
27 September 2006
Messages
6,075
Reaction score
6,190
Until the Type 22 frigate the Royal Navy did not follow the USN
in building ships with surface to air missile systems at both ends
like the Leahy and Belknap classes.

There seem to have been plans to do so, including by converting
the County class destroyers to have Seaslug launchers at both ends.
I assume that the need to have a gun mounting for fire-support and
limited non-hot war work always stymied these plans.

One for the excellent shipbucket artists, but I think a double SAM
equipped County or Type 82 would have looked very 60s. It is a
shame that there is no artwork anywhere.

UK 75
 
Re: Double ended missile ships in the RN

The last design here

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

is a double ended design with a combined Sea Dart/Ikara launcher at both ends, not sure how 'real' the design is.
 
Re: Double ended missile ships in the RN

PMN1 said:
The last design here

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

is a double ended design with a combined Sea Dart/Ikara launcher at both ends, not sure how 'real' the design is.
Click to expand...

I would suggest that the positioning of the Ikara Magazines in the superstructure would go agains the RN's practice of deep magazine, I would also be interested to see the effect on ships stability of having them so high up.
 
Re: Double ended missile ships in the RN

uk 75 said:
One for the excellent shipbucket artists, but I think a double SAM
equipped County or Type 82 would have looked very 60s. It is a
shame that there is no artwork anywhere.

UK 75
Click to expand...

So you havn't seen this then:

http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Alternate%20Universe/Cold%20War%20AU%20by%20Tornado/GB%20DDG%20Type%2082%20Bristol%203a%20AU.gif

Or a personal favourite of mine; but not quite the period you are after but it is a double ender:

http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Alternate%20Universe/GB%20DDG%20Type%2044%20Cornwall%201%20AU.gif

Regards.
 
Re: Double ended missile ships in the RN

sealordlawrence said:
Just fantasies,

A shame because far more interesting possibilities exist.
Click to expand...
The Type 43 would have been... interesting

http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Alternate%20Universe/GB%20DDG%20Type%2043%202%20AU.gif

(and that's in the wrong section, it should be Never Build)
 
Re: Double ended missile ships in the RN

JohnR said:
I would suggest that the positioning of the Ikara Magazines in the superstructure would go agains the RN's practice of deep magazine, I would also be interested to see the effect on ships stability of having them so high up.
Click to expand...

All Ikara magazines are positioned on level with the launcher because the missile was loaded horizontally. Ikara magazines were very different to most other missile launcher magazines including their high pressure hydraulics. Because the magazines were designed by an aircraft company: Australia’s CAC.


There is no effect on these ship’s stability by having Ikara magazines at main deck level. This is because they were designed from scratch as such. The Leander class ships converted to Ikara carriers had a stacked magazine with the assembly room and launcher above it. This Ikara arrangement created all sorts of operating problems but no apprant stability issues.
 
After the Second World War and in the early years of the Cold War the Royal Navy conducted multiple series of design studies to develop an effective missile cruiser which could carry the GWS.1 Sea Slug SAM and able to hold it's ground against the Soviet Navy's Sverdlov class cruisers. The GW (Guided Weapon) series of studies started in 1954 based on the earlier CR series of cruiser designs and finally culminated in the GW.96 and GW.96A designs of 1956 and 1957 when the project was terminated. During these years multiple variants were created ranging from gun armament of 3inch, 4,5inch, 5 inch, 5,25inch and 6inch guns all in twin turrets and a wide variety of missiles including the British GWS.1 Sea Slug and Navalised Bloodhound Mk.II to the US RIM-8 Talos and RIM-24 Tartar systems.
Other designs not related directly to these series included the Swiss Oerlikon-Contraves RSA/RSB/RSC missiles. Radar sets are too frequently changed among the various designs to see which is the most effective and also to keep cost and displacement lower.
The final 1957 GW.96A variant was a slight modification of the 1956 GW.96 having slightly thinner deck armour (25mm instead of 38mm) and an all 3inch QF Mark N1 AA armament instead of the mixed 2 3inch and 2 40mm Bofors guns.

Data on the design:
Dimensions: 209,4 x 24,38 x 6,71meters
Displacement: 16.528tons (15.762tons on GW96A) standard, 18.450 maximum
Engines: 110.000shp 4 shafts
Maximum Speed: 59km/h (32knots)
Range: 8.300km at 37km/h (4.500nm at 20knots)
Armour: 38mm Belt, 38mm Deck (25mm Deck on GW96A)
Sensors:
1x Type 984 3D Radar
1x Type 992 Air Search Radar
1x Type 978 Navigation Radar
1x Telemetry Aerial
2x Type 901 Fire-Control Radar for Slea Slug Missiles
6x Type 903 / MRS 3 Gunnery Control Radar (one for each gun turret)
Armaments:
2x2 152mm Guns (6inch) (QF Mark N5)
2x2 76mm AA Guns (3inch) (QF Mark N1) (4x2 on GW96A)
2x2 40mm Bofors AA Guns (QF Mark 5 or Mark N1) (Null on GW96A)
1x2 SAM (GWS.1 Sea Slug)

Here I present you my drawing (which was based heavily on Norman Friedman's sketch) of the last two design of the series:
design_gw96___gw96a_missile_cruiser_by_tzoli-d8oyclb.png

hms_bellerophon_by_tzoli-d8qfygl.png
 
Following my nice drawing of the Royal Navy's last Guided Weapons (GW) cruiser design, I've created the design line's previous versions. On GW 93,94 and 95 the designers went for a standard displacement of 16.000tons and a double ended layout with 4 twin 3inch and 4 or 6 twin 4,5inch guns. The first two (GW93, GW94) had no 4,5inch guns while GW95 had 4. Apart from slight change in length and armament these versions would carry 64 (first two) or 68 (last one) missiles altogether. All three of the designs were ready by 1956 May 30th.

Data on the design:
Dimensions: 185,93 x 23,77 x 6,71meters (GW93)
Dimensions: 192,02 x 24,08 x 6,71meters (GW95)
Displacement: 15.848tons (16.529tons on GW95) standard
Engines: 110.000shp 4 shafts
Maximum Speed: 59km/h (32knots)
Range: 8.300km at 37km/h (4.500nm at 20knots)
Armour: 38mm Belt, 38mm Deck
Sensors:
1x Type 984 3D Radar
1x Type 992 Air Search Radar
1x Type 978 Navigation Radar
1x Telemetry Aerial
2x Type 901 Fire-Control Radar for Slea Slug Missiles (one for each launcher)
6x Type 903 / MRS 3 Gunnery Control Radar (one for each gun turret)
Armaments:
4x2 114mm DP-AA Guns (4,5inch) (QF Mark 5) (only on GW95)
4x2 76mm AA Guns (3inch) (QF Mark N1) (Only on GW93 and 94)
2x2 40mm Bofors AA Guns (QF Mark 5 or N1)
2x2 SAM (GWS.1 Sea Slug)

As there were no sketch for me to work on I deducted that double ended meant two missile launchers, one on each end of the ship. Though it is a possibility that the double ended design meant for the main armament. Sketches of these studies can be found at the National Maritime Museum of Greenwich, England but I don't have the means to get there and search through the documents and make copes of these sketches, hence I could only use the very models and sketch drawings posted in various naval books. If somebody could get a hold on these drawings and associated Admiralty papers in the museum and scan them that would be great, and a possible source for a small book about these ships.

Here is my drawing based on the text describing it:
design_gw93___gw95_missile_cruiser_by_tzoli-d8rrfdt.png
 
covert_shores said:
Is there a reason SeaCat SAMs weren't included?
Click to expand...


The RN cruisers were designed in the late 1950s before the Sea Cat was conceived and designed. Their close in defence was to be a planned 40mm L70 gun which was later replaced by the Sea Cat.
 
Indeed the GWS.20 series Sea Cat was designed and introduced much later after these designs cancelled. But knowing how the RN ships got refitted through their service time it is quite possible that the 40mm Bofors gun got replaced by the Sea Cat SAM with a possible another 1-2 pair later added with the necessary radar equipment, and an even later refit could show removal of the 2nd 152mm/6inch twin turret and placing Exocet/Otomat/Harpoon Anti ship missile launchers in it's place. Though there are not enough place for Helicopter platform without a Tiger like serious rework of the aft part of the ship or just a simple helideck added. But these ships mission was fleet defence from both air and surface targets and not ASW work (there were early designs with Squid launcher but it was abandoned or merged into the county DDG design)
 
Seeing these excellent drawings of the proposed GW cruiser (have you seen the artwork on the SHIPBUCKET site of these ships?) I looked again at my old copy of Friedman's British Carriers and found the references to the proposals to fit a 1 and 3 quarters missile system on one side of a new carrier in 1956 in an attempt to get a long range missile to sea to please Lord Mountbatten.
The need for a long range missile ship (similar to the contemporary TALOS cruisers in the USN) then morphed into the NIGS ship which is covered in another thread.
There are so many drawings that would be nice to have in this area.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
The RN cruisers were designed in the late 1950s before the Sea Cat was conceived and designed. Their close in defence was to be a planned 40mm L70 gun which was later replaced by the Sea Cat.
Click to expand...

On closer reading that is not strictly true. Cruiser design GW96A (the last in the series) dates to January 1957. Sea Cat was first proposed in 1955 and the SX-A5 test vehicle first fired in 1956, its true that the official public development contract for Sea Cat itself wasn't issued until March 1958 but the RN seems to have designed the Rothesay class (first ships laid down November 1956) with Sea Cat in mind and the designers of the County class received a data sheet for the weapon on the 7th December 1956; about when GW96A was being developed.

I suspect the real reason why Sea Cat wasn't on the late cruiser designs is that next to an MRS3 controlled sextuple 40mm/L70, let alone a twin 3"/70, Sea Cat seemed less capable. It certainly seems to have been emphasised as a twin bofors replacement rather than for anything bigger. It's noteworthy that the Tigers didn't get Sea Cat until the removal of two of the twin 3"/70 mounts was forced by the needs of their conversion to helicopter cruisers.
 
The admiralty papers of the time should contain sketches on these designs which can be found in the National Maritime Museum of Greenwich, UK. It would be great to get hold of these sketches so I can create accurate drawings because even Friedman's "British Cruisers: Two World Wars and After" mentions most designs but with small bits of info while having only one sketch despite the design studies started in 1954 with GW.24!
 
Next 3 is the previous designs to the above mentioned ones.
On the GW 90 variant the designers wanted to further decrease the ship's displacement and keep it at 16.000tons (deep) and so they made the hull shorter but to provide sufficient accommodations for the crew and missile armament one twin 6inch turret was sacrificed.
The following study of GW 91 the designers took into account the previous meeting's discussions that the ship of 16.000tons was too small and could easily reach 18.000tons of displacement or more. The designers used methods and ideas from the County DDG design line meaning reduced staff requirements and thus smaller crew, but the absolute minimum displacement of this design was 17.000tons. To improve arrangements the GW 85 design was used as a basis but the middle 3inch twin turrets moved aft to reduce bending movement but this caused blast problems with missile guidance radars also aft. To solve this problem, on the next proposal of GW 92 the designers interchanged the aft missile launcher with the 2nd main turret, hence creating a more regular layout ship. The earlist of these designs showed up in April 23rd of 1956.

Data on the designs:
Dimensions: 185,93 x 24,08 x 6,55meters (GW90)
Dimensions: 196,60 x 24,08 x 6,55meters (GW91 and GW92)
Displacement: 15.932tons (17.000tons on GW91 and GW92) standard
Engines: 110.000shp 4 shafts
Maximum Speed: 59km/h (32knots)
Range: 8.300km at 37km/h (4.500nm at 20knots)
Armour: 38mm Belt, 38mm Deck
Sensors:
1x Type 984 3D Radar
1x Type 992 Air Search Radar
1x Type 978 Navigation Radar
1x Telemetry Aerial
2x Type 901 Fire-Control Radar for Slea Slug Missiles (one for each launcher)
6x Type 903 / MRS 3 Gunnery Control Radar (one for each gun turret, 5 on GW90)
Armaments:
2x2 152mm Guns (6inch) (QF Mark N5) (1x2 on GW90)
2x2 76mm AA Guns (3inch) (QF Mark N1)
2x2 40mm Bofors AA Guns (QF Mark 5 or Mark N1)
1x2 SAM (GWS.1 Sea Slug)

design_gw90___gw91___gw92_missile_cruiser_by_tzoli-d8t8xi1.png
 
Re: Double ended missile ships in the RN

Here are a few RNC designs for Sea Slug equipped ships that were presented to the Admiralty between 1951 and 1957. The images and captions are from Norman Friedman's "The Post War Revolution in Naval Warfare".
 

Attachments

  • CVG_51.jpg
    CVG_51.jpg
    257.7 KB · Views: 858
  • CG-DDG_11-54.jpg
    CG-DDG_11-54.jpg
    436.5 KB · Views: 713
  • CGE_11-54.jpg
    CGE_11-54.jpg
    111.3 KB · Views: 671
  • CG_1-55.jpg
    CG_1-55.jpg
    115.3 KB · Views: 618
  • CG_5-55.jpg
    CG_5-55.jpg
    311.4 KB · Views: 553
  • CG_8-55.jpg
    CG_8-55.jpg
    115.7 KB · Views: 302
  • CG_1-57.jpg
    CG_1-57.jpg
    165.6 KB · Views: 340
I like your artwork Tzoli, it has a good look to it. You might want to check out this post with a range of sketch designs for RN Sea Slug ships from the 1950s.


http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,8124.msg249606.html#msg249606
 
Re: Double ended missile ships in the RN

The last few drawings are indeed part of the GW series of missile cruisers. Do you know which design is which?
As there are multiple 4,5, 5 and 6inch designs existed. Some were equipped with Terrier SAM others with the navalised Bloodhound missile.
 
Re: Double ended missile ships in the RN

covert_shores said:
I thought double ended went out of fashion with the Nelson Class :)
Click to expand...

That is All forward not Double ended.
Double ended missile ships had launchers on both ends of the ship. Nelson style could be considered as the Soviet Kirov class BCGN
 
Very nice work Tzoli!


It provides a much-needed visual reference to the final chapter of Friedman's British Cruisers.
 
Re: Double ended missile ships in the RN

Abraham Gubler said:
Here are a few RNC designs for Sea Slug equipped ships that were presented to the Admiralty between 1951 and 1957. The images and captions are from Norman Friedman's "The Post War Revolution in Naval Warfare".
Click to expand...


Hi Abraham,


do you have any information on the purpose of the midships lift in some of the illustrated designs? Are they to strike-down missiles resupplied at sea, or to carry boosters/missiles from deep-stowage?
 
Re: Double ended missile ships in the RN

starviking said:
Abraham Gubler said:
Here are a few RNC designs for Sea Slug equipped ships that were presented to the Admiralty between 1951 and 1957. The images and captions are from Norman Friedman's "The Post War Revolution in Naval Warfare".
Click to expand...


Hi Abraham,


do you have any information on the purpose of the midships lift in some of the illustrated designs? Are they to strike-down missiles resupplied at sea, or to carry boosters/missiles from deep-stowage?
Click to expand...


The Sea Slug was initially designed to have a very different magazine to the one fitted to the County class destroyers. This magazine was much larger as it was to be installed on these cruiser hulls. The magazine was two decks high and missiles (with their boosters attached) were stored horizontally, three high and three wide. So each compartment (or column) had nine missiles with each one in a line (or row) across multiple compartments. So if the magazine had four compartments there would be space for 36 missiles. Each row could present a missile forward into the two deck high compartment marked as the lift space. The lift was actually more like a dolly hoist and quite small and most of this space was used as a checkout room for the missile. The room's operators would then send a dud missile into a discard compartment or towards the launcher. The lift didn't actually lift the ready missile to the launcher. The missile went forward into a tilting bucket at the level. The bucket would then tilt to about 45 degrees so the missile could be rammed up a deck to the launcher. Those designs that had a second lift space forward of the magazine (the other side of the launcher) were just large enough, or needed to have, a second checkout and magazine shuffling space. I'm not sure exactly why they needed this space but it could include strike down from amidships RAST, a nuclear warhead version checkout space or just to service a very large magazine and avoid a long tedious shuffling process to get to those missiles at the back of deck.
 
starviking said:
Very nice work Tzoli!


It provides a much-needed visual reference to the final chapter of Friedman's British Cruisers.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I will try to create more, but without any actual sketches (or more like access to them) the various hull and weapon elements were placed according to my deduction and the very little info Friadman posted in that book.
As there were no naval version of the Stage 13/4 (Blue Envoy, later Bloodhound Mk.II) missile but some designs played with the idea of quipping them I'm not sure how the single launcher will look like.
 
Re: Double ended missile ships in the RN

Abraham Gubler said:
Here are a few RNC designs for Sea Slug equipped ships that were presented to the Admiralty between 1951 and 1957. The images and captions are from Norman Friedman's "The Post War Revolution in Naval Warfare".
Click to expand...

Okay, According to my database and Frieadman's book the cruiser drawings are:

Drawing a: GW25C missile cruiser

Drawing b: GW26 or GW29 missile cruiser/destroyer (Both designs are very similar having the same dimensions armament and similarly close to 11K displacement)

Drawing c: GW28 slow missile cruiser/destroyer

Drawing e: GW24 missile destroyer (scaled-up Daring) though there seems to be a bit inconcsistency here that the drawing legends says 3x2 40mm Bofors but Friedman says either one or two twin 76mm (3inch) guns or two twin 40mm Bofors or the combination of these (1x2 76mm, 1-2x2 40mm)


The second drawing after these (the one with 2 missile launchers and no main gun armament) seems to be GW 36A which is the all missile version of the 2x2 133mm (5,25inch) 1x2 Sea Slug equipped GW 36.


Next Trio:

First one is GW 52 but Friedman says 2x2 76mm and 2x2 40mm instead of 4x2 40mm and 14.500tons

Second and third ones are unknown but probably one of the GW 53-57 series though Frieadman does not include data on these

Next is correct as Gw 60

Last one is actually the last of the series GW 96A
 
I would like to know your opinions on these two texts on design GW 25B:

From Friedman's "British Cruisers Two World Wars and After
riAXXjI.png


and from D. K. Brown's "Rebuilding the Royal Navy: Warship Design Since 1945"
Sj8YETq.png


From Frieadman's book I suggest on GW 25B the missile launcher was somehow merged with the twin 6inch turret but he does not states the design carried two missile launchers while Brown's book describes them having two launchers but not in what kind of arrangement.

Notes:
GW 25 - 2x2 6inch (probably all forward) 2x2 Sea Slug (probably all aft), 2x2 3inch, 4x2 40mm Bofors
GW 25A - 1x2 6inch 2x2 Sea Slug (evenly spread forward and aft), 2x2 3inch, 4x2 40mm Bofors
GW 25B - 2x2 Sea Slug (evenly spread forward and aft), 2x2 3inch, 4x2 40mm Bofors
GW 25C - 2x2 6inch (all forward) 1x2 Sea Slug (aft), 2x2 3inch, 4x2 40mm Bofors
GW 25D? - 3x2 6inch (evenly spread 2 forward, 1 aft) 2x2 3inch, 4x2 40mm Bofors

Also one missile direction radar for two launchers (4 missiles) seems to be quite inadequate maybe the A and B designs were single launchers???
 
JFC Fuller said:
I suspect the real reason why Sea Cat wasn't on the late cruiser designs is that next to an MRS3 controlled sextuple 40mm/L70, let alone a twin 3"/70, Sea Cat seemed less capable. It certainly seems to have been emphasised as a twin bofors replacement rather than for anything bigger. It's noteworthy that the Tigers didn't get Sea Cat until the removal of two of the twin 3"/70 mounts was forced by the needs of their conversion to helicopter cruisers.
Click to expand...

Do you have any photo or drawing how would this 6 barrelled (Mark 12) 40mm Bofors gun looked like?
3x2 barrels next to each other or vertically? or 2x3 or 1x4,1x2 one on top of each other? Or a Gatling gun arrangement like the Phalanx CIWS?
 
Tzoli said:
Do you have any photo or drawing how would this 6 barrelled (Mark 12) 40mm Bofors gun looked like?
3x2 barrels next to each other or vertically? or 2x3 or 1x4,1x2 one on top of each other? Or a Gatling gun arrangement like the Phalanx CIWS?
Click to expand...
The designation that keeps popping up for the UK 6 barreled 40mm Bofors mounting is the Mark VI mounting. Used on Vanguard, Eagle, Centaur and Victorious.
I have found one image here: http://fhsw.wikia.com/wiki/40_mm_Bofors_M1936
 

Attachments

  • Bofors_Mk_VI.jpg
    Bofors_Mk_VI.jpg
    342.6 KB · Views: 555
Arjen,

There are two separate mountings here, the MkVI was the sextuple 40mm/L60 mounting and was mounted on Vanguard and a number of post-war carriers. The Mk12 designation was supposedly the designation of the sextuple mounting for the 40mm/L70 that was cancelled in 1957. Before it went offline the Vickers photographic archive had some great pictures of the MkVI mounting, the best I can find now is in this image of Eagle:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/HMS_Eagle_(R05)_MOD_45139760.jpg

The mountings can be seen as follows, one aft of the island on the flight deck and two just below the flight deck towards the forward end of the hull. There is a fourth just in front of the Island and at this time there was a further pair on the other side of the ship just below the flight deck and aft of the island. Each was controlled through RPC by its own director.
 
JFC Fuller, thanks for the explanation. I'll have another look in my books, some other image might be lurking there.
 
Aside from the Bofors guns, what do you guys think about the GW 25 variants I've asked a few posts back?
 
No answer :(

Well another question, regarding the launcher and the radars:
Launchers:
On the test ship HMS Girdle Ness the triple launcher were tested for the Sea Slug, but the twin was installed on the County class destroyers. Do anybody know if the triple or even single launchers were considered for the GWS cruiser series?
Radars:
These tracking radars could track 1 or multiple missiles or 1 or multiple targets? As there were variants of the GWS with 1 radar and 1 launcher (probably twin)
 
Tzoli said:
No answer :(
Click to expand...


Hi Tzoli,


When I get time to work on a reply, I intend to give my views on the GW25 questions. Thngs have been busy... :'(
 
Thank you!!!
I can work with these! (Though the accompanying sketches would be awesome) It even shows the pre GW.25 series to GW.1 which I suspected to exist but not a single mention in books!
 
.


The images are from the "Ships Cover" covering G W Cruisers. I can't understand why Friedmann started at GW.25 - presumably because all the previous designs were really just thoughts and conjecture.


There are A FEW drawings in the Ships Cover - but they are, in general, VAST (up to 4ft-plus long) - so are hard, if not impossible to photograph.


The file, essentially ends the page after the last type-written one I posted - basically, too expensive, too big - lets look at something affordable.


Whilst the GW1 to GW95-odd series info is interesting just to see just HOW DETAILED the choices were, I found the pre-GW1 info MUCH MORE INTERESTING. Some of this is covered in the Warship article(s) on Girdleness, most not.


So, if and when I have time, which would you want ? More sketches/partial drawings of the GW 1 to 95 series, or more info on pre GW1 designs ?


.
 
phil gollin said:
.


The images are from the "Ships Cover" covering G W Cruisers. I can't understand why Friedmann started at GW.25 - presumably because all the previous designs were really just thoughts and conjecture.


There are A FEW drawings in the Ships Cover - but they are, in general, VAST (up to 4ft-plus long) - so are hard, if not impossible to photograph.


The file, essentially ends the page after the last type-written one I posted - basically, too expensive, too big - lets look at something affordable.


Whilst the GW1 to GW95-odd series info is interesting just to see just HOW DETAILED the choices were, I found the pre-GW1 info MUCH MORE INTERESTING. Some of this is covered in the Warship article(s) on Girdleness, most not.


So, if and when I have time, which would you want ? More sketches/partial drawings of the GW 1 to 95 series, or more info on pre GW1 designs ?


.
Click to expand...

Friadman covers the pre GW series of cruisers to some extent.
There are the 1960 cruisers (meaning the technologies onboard would be ready by 1960):
Sketch I - Large Cruiser design
Sketch II - Large Cruiser design with a missile launcher (Sea Slug probably)
Sketch III - Small Cruiser design
Sketch IV - Medium Cruiser design
Sketch V - Medium Cruiser design

There are 17 CR series of cruisers:
CR 1 - Large Cruiser design (Sketch VI?)
CR 2 - New Armoured Cruiser and
CR 3 to CR 17 - New Design Armoured Cruisers
But these are non missile armed vessels

There is the Vickers Design 1957B which was to use the Swiss Oerlikon RSC-51 missiles.



How detailed are the drawings you talking about? But according to the size you describe quite detailed, I thought they are smaller sketch like ones showing the weapon placement and hull/superstructure variations.
 
They are slightly less detailed than yours (I had thought that you had seen them) - one of the reasons I hadn't posted any of this before.


I believe that they were really there so that Staff could have an idea of the basic layout, including bearing arcs for weapons and director and bridge.


Just basic line drawings.
 
phil gollin said:
They are slightly less detailed than yours (I had thought that you had seen them) - one of the reasons I hadn't posted any of this before.


I believe that they were really there so that Staff could have an idea of the basic layout, including bearing arcs for weapons and director and bridge.


Just basic line drawings.
Click to expand...

I've never seen them just some crude side views in the above mentioned books, and a detailed drawing of the GW96A.


Question. One book mentions one last design: GW 97 did you found any mention on this or just the author incorrectly assigned this design to GW 96A?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom