An alternative Royal Navy for the 1970s

[zen]

Hmmmm....This is reaching closer to my Sea Dart success thread, but.....

It's an option such a launcher is produced. Perhaps for Typhon aimed at Frigate sized ships.

However another option might be if say the UK had developed a rotary launcher for Sea Slug. Granted the actual launcher itself would need to be rebuilt, but the rotary magazine would have cells large enough to take any later weapon, and with 20ft of length to play with, that's about 3 decks.

 

[zen]

Additional.

Vicker offered a simple solution using the 105mm army gun during the process that lead to HMS Bristol's mk8.

 

[JohnR]

I thought that proposal was related to the Castle class OPV?

Regards.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Hmmmm....This is reaching closer to my Sea Dart success thread, but.....

It's an option such a launcher is produced. Perhaps for Typhon aimed at Frigate sized ships.

However another option might be if say the UK had developed a rotary launcher for Sea Slug. Granted the actual launcher itself would need to be rebuilt, but the rotary magazine would have cells large enough to take any later weapon, and with 20ft of length to play with, that's about 3 decks.

A Typhoon sized vertically aligned launcher would probably need new fins for the Typhoon as the horizontal launchers used detachable fins. But this is not such a big problem as the advent of the VLS saw these big fins disappear from the boosted Standard, aTerrier replacement. Such a launcher could load and fire SM2 blk 4, SM3, TLAM, ASROC and Sea Lance (plus Sea Dart, Exocet and Otomat for the export market) so would be more flexible than the Mk 26.

A Mk 13 style launcher for Sea Slug is quite improbable. It could not include a checkout space unless a new room was placed between the magazine and the launcher. Also the high height and width of the Sea Slug with its wrap around boosters means the magazine ring would not support many units.

Having typed that you could make a neat launcher somewhat like a Terrier launcher orientated vertically. That is two side by side ring magazines (seperated laterally by bulkheads) each holding 8 Sea Slugs vertically. The missile is pulled from the magaine fore or aft through a door into the ready room. There it is checked out (it is aĺlready finned) and either discarded laterally or loaded vertically through the roof into the trainable launcher. Another pair or magazines could be located opposite the ready room. Providing 32 missiles in magazines, all ready to go with no assembly needed, located in five seperate spaces allowing a ship structure without large open spaces.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I thought that proposal was related to the Castle class OPV?

Regards.

The OPV gun used the 105mm L7 tank gun and in concept was descended from the CFS Mk 2 3.3" (84mm, 20 lbs) gun.

The Mk 8 4.5" (113mm) gun used the technology of the 105mm Abbott field gun/howitzer and its Mk 2 ammo repackaged into the 4.5" calibre and a naval mount. The option to just keep the ordnance and shell as is (it would need a new cartridge and propellant design for naval use) would save a lot of money and provide Army-Navy commonality in artillery consumables (shells and barrels, and the Abbott tech was also reused in the towed Light Gun L118). The lighter shell could also potentially be used in a faster firing mounting like the Vickers Type N or French 100mm mount. Thougb I doubt it as the RN stressed high reliability for the Mk 8 gun with moderate ROF for sole use as a surface warfare, NGS weapon (not AA).

 

[JFC Fuller]

The 4.5" Mk.8 was always intended as an AA weapon in addition to an NGS weapon.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The 4.5" Mk.8 was always intended as an AA weapon in addition to an NGS weapon.

The sentance in Warships 2015 I was referring too is quite clunky. It sayal the Mk 8 spec "called for Surface (SU) and Naval Fires, but the AA capability was dropped in the 1990s." Certainly the Mk 8 and FCS could engage air targets as delivered. However it was clearly not a major design requirement judging by the low ROF and low angle elevation of the gun.

 

[zen]

Hmmmm....This is reaching closer to my Sea Dart success thread, but.....

It's an option such a launcher is produced. Perhaps for Typhon aimed at Frigate sized ships.

However another option might be if say the UK had developed a rotary launcher for Sea Slug. Granted the actual launcher itself would need to be rebuilt, but the rotary magazine would have cells large enough to take any later weapon, and with 20ft of length to play with, that's about 3 decks.

A Typhoon sized vertically aligned launcher would probably need new fins for the Typhoon as the horizontal launchers used detachable fins. But this is not such a big problem as the advent of the VLS saw these big fins disappear from the boosted Standard, aTerrier replacement. Such a launcher could load and fire SM2 blk 4, SM3, TLAM, ASROC and Sea Lance (plus Sea Dart, Exocet and Otomat for the export market) so would be more flexible than the Mk 26.

A Mk 13 style launcher for Sea Slug is quite improbable. It could not include a checkout space unless a new room was placed between the magazine and the launcher. Also the high height and width of the Sea Slug with its wrap around boosters means the magazine ring would not support many units.

Having typed that you could make a neat launcher somewhat like a Terrier launcher orientated vertically. That is two side by side ring magazines (seperated laterally by bulkheads) each holding 8 Sea Slugs vertically. The missile is pulled from the magaine fore or aft through a door into the ready room. There it is checked out (it is aĺlready finned) and either discarded laterally or loaded vertically through the roof into the trainable launcher. Another pair or magazines could be located opposite the ready room. Providing 32 missiles in magazines, all ready to go with no assembly needed, located in five seperate spaces allowing a ship structure without large open spaces.

Rather like that idea, and having magazines able to handle 20ft long weapons , with span of 4.7ft and over 2,300lb each would allow quite a flexible space for new weaponry.

 

[uk 75]

I have often wondered what would have happened if the RN had emulated the Italian Navy in the 60s to 70s with the COUNTY ships designed to carry the ASTER Terrier Asroc launcher forward and 4 Sea Kings aft and a DARING class with guns forward and Tartar aft. The SHEFFIELD class would have been like the Dutch TROMP class or the cancelled Aussie DDLs. The Type 22s on the other hand would have Seawolf but T21s NATO BDPMS Sea Sparrow.

 

[Volkodav]

I have often wondered what would have happened if the RN had emulated the Italian Navy in the 60s to 70s with the COUNTY ships designed to carry the ASTER Terrier Asroc launcher forward and 4 Sea Kings aft and a DARING class with guns forward and Tartar aft. The SHEFFIELD class would have been like the Dutch TROMP class or the cancelled Aussie DDLs. The Type 22s on the other hand would have Seawolf but T21s NATO BDPMS Sea Sparrow.

One of the possibilities is if the RN had built the missile cruisers instead of the Counties the plan for the type was to replace two of the four Mk6 3" twins with Tartar, meaning a 70s upgrade for the type could have seen the suppression of Seaslug in favour of a large heli deck and hanger combined with the replacement of Tartar with Standard SM1. The other factor with the choice of the GW cruiser over the DLG is hull numbers meaning that if more than four GW ships were required either the Escort Cruiser would have to proceed, or a DDG / FFG would have to be built or converted. Apparently Tartar conversions of both the Daring and Battle classes were considered for Australia but why not the RN too? Alternatively a Tartar armed Super Daring or Type 12 M could have proceeded.

 

[Weaver]

Reading all this with interest. For anybody wondering about Tony's original article, the link in his original post is broken, but here's the new link to it:

http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/AltRN.pdf

 

[Purpletrouble]

Firstly the RN has to decide if it wants carriers and why. In real life, tying them to an overseas policy that proved rather ephemeral, easily changeable and was never going to be intrinsic in the way that NATO was, was a major mistake. Whether or not the RAF moved Australia - the key point is why did the RN's justification for such vastly expensive and budget distorting assets centre on Australia? I like Australia I really do, and I even like Australians, but in all honesty it is not, never has been and never will be, the centrepiece of major parts of our defence budget. I know in the 60s we were trying to relive the 20s/30s with the Far East thing, but India had gone, didn't want our number, and we hadn't be able to do it even when we were much larger and wealthier.

However, given UK carriers were only just survivable (were they even that?) East of Suez against 2nd/3rd rate opposition perhaps explains why they didn't seriously try them against the Russians in the way the USN did. Which of course has survived attempts to gut it the way the UK didn't.

Assuming one can come up with a cogent argument for Brit carriers and that they are fundamental to NATO in the same way as BAOR / Strike Command - and elsewhere is just a massive benefit in flexibility - then things rather change for the better.

Granted, with Polaris/SSNs that's 3 large projects, at a time when the Army was on, what, 0 large projects (FV432?) and the RAF down to 1 (TSR2).

But in terms of surface ships,
1) Go all GT with the T82 generation, i.e. whatever you build after County/Leander. This will restore (more likely merely sustain) your active fleet of hulls just due to availability, and also ease your manning crisis (thus helping keep the carriers - a major concern for 2SL at the time and he commented as being a lot easier when they were chopped!)
2) Don't build a cruiser. You're already struggling for hull numbers due to carrier/subs, County DLGs show the way to have a bit of everything and that the Cruiser-Destroyer category has merged, as you know full well from 10 years earlier with the 5" cruiser-destroyer project you should have built instead of completing Tigers and which would have segway'd nicely into Sea Slug armed ships with flexibility of what was armed with what when, rather than waiting until the early 60s for the first ones to complete.
3) Don't build any more Leanders. Stop at 16 or 18 or 20 or whatever, not 26. they are completely obsolete, but will provide your Tier 2 capability for the best part of 2 decades as you need.
4) 2 types is about the most you can consider simultaneously, both for building infra and design capacity.
5) One needs your best SAM system.
6) One needs your best ASW systems.
7) Don't bother with a cheapo gunboat T19/21. you are a 1st rate Navy that expects all ships to go in harm's way. Whenever you do that (purposely 2nd rate ships) they get sunk and people die. It's never worked before, and doesn't work now (LCS and probably T31). Make the argument to NATO if you need to that you are smaller but much better - after all even the real T42/T22 fleet vs T12/14/15/16/41/61/81 is a huge leap across the board. No-one else stumps up properly anyway. Plus as per (3) you've got Leanders.
8) So, an all GT T82 with Sea Dart, gun and helo, fit SSMs as they become available.
10) (and), A (large) Leander successor with ASW helos and SSMs.
11) Try to resist the idea of rebuilding the Leanders and just flog them off/use them for other tasks. There should be lots of interest.

If all else fails, copy the Dutch. They consistently built excellent ships.

 

[jpphoopha]

The possibility of this argument is only entertained when the gyrodyne is given range performance it doesn’t have. What is possible today with the JHX demonstrator is only realistic thanks to 50 years of gas turbine, gearing, flight controls and aero structure developments. With 1950-80s technology VTOL airlifters just aren’t competitive because they can’t carry the payload and the fuel to make them useful.

In its day, the Rotodyne was greatly superior to any other form of VTOL transport, and if it had "taken off" and become an established technology, then today it would also be benefiting from 50 years of technical development.

A factor which gets overlooked all too often when discussing Rotodyne, IMHO. The Rotodyne of today would be comparable or superior to the V-22 of today.

The Rotodyne of 1962 is superior to the MV-22 of today.