AngloDutch Naval Cooperation for NATO

[uk 75]

There is an article about this in the new WARSHIP 2019 anthology
But it has also been well covered on individual projects here.
The Dutch started off with a light fleet carrier and Leander frigates from the UK but already two home built cruisers and their own successful submarine programme. More recently a Dutch design was the basis for BAY class landing ships.
The Dutch gave up their fixed wing carrier a bit like the RN in the 60s
If the RN had gone ahead with the 1952 carrier design, this might have been of interest to the Dutch.
The Type 82 and Tromp class DLGs were only built in small numbers and had to be supplemented by cheaper designs: Type 42 and Kortenaer AAW.
The Kortenaer(sorryshouldhavecheckedspelling) and the Type 22 and then the Karel Doorman and Type 23were
built for similar roles but different specs
This continued with later designs.
The Germans went with the Dutch at first but now build their own designs.
The Canadians who needed similar ships also went for national designs.
The NATO attempt at a common frigate NFR90 morphed into an AirDefence ship which pleased noone.
Could we all have done better?

 

[zen]

There is an article about this in the new WARSHIP 2019 anthology
But it has also been well covered on individual projects here.
The Dutch started off with a light fleet carrier and Leander frigates from the UK but already two home built cruisers and their own successful submarine programme. More recently a Dutch design was the basis for BAY class landing ships.
The Dutch gave up their fixed wing carrier a bit like the RN in the 60s
If the RN had gone ahead with the 1952 carrier design, this might have been of interest to the Dutch.
The Type 82 and Tromp class DLGs were only built in small numbers and had to be supplemented by cheaper designs: Type 42 and Kortenaer AAW.
The Kortenaer(sorryshouldhavecheckedspelling) and the Type 22 and then the Karel Doorman and Type 23were
built for similar roles but different specs
This continued with later designs.
The Germans went with the Dutch at first but now build their own designs.
The Canadians who needed similar ships also went for national designs.
The NATO attempt at a common frigate NFR90 morphed into an AirDefence ship which pleased noone.
Could we all have done better?

Yes.

Certainly there was scope during the 60's if the Dutch bought Sea Dart.
But earlier in the 50's had the RN actually built it's Swedish 4.7"(120mm) Destroyers or Cruisers.
And later had the Dutch opted for Sea Wolf.
ADAWS was originally aimed at coping with the Type 985 data (hence it's complexity) while DAISY was only design to cope with the reduced capability Broomstick.

Plenty of scope for a common program with common procurement of systems.

 

[Arjen]

As I read it, DAISY was developed because the originally specified NTDS couldn't cope with the increased data volume that came with the Dutch navy's adoption of Tartar instead of Sea Dart, and ADA's incompatibility with Tartar.
I must admit to some confusion here about the type 985 (?) radar. I do know about the type 984 as fitted to UK carriers which was too big to be fitted to frigate-sized shops, hence Broomstick.

 

[zen]

Type 985 was a four faced PESA or AESA system, too ambitious for the time. A hierarchical computer system of five computers was needed, one for each face and one to combine the data.
ADA was the basis for ADAWS and that stage was being defined by the huge amount of data such a system would generate.

Hence the UK interest in the Dutch FMICW using just two main sets back to back.

 

[Arjen]

Thank you. The Dutch eventually found out two Ferranti sets were not up to the task, a third would likely have been needed for integrating radar, Sea Dart and ADA.

 

[Hood]

I flicked through the Warship 2019 article on Anglo-Dutch Naval Cooperation, it looked interesting but largely covers aspects that we know well.
The problems from the rift when the Dutch faield to buy Sea Dart were never really healed successfully. The Dutch in hindsight had sound reasons for their choice. Radar cooperation was hampered as ASWRE favoured S-band while the Dutch wanted L-band but Broomstick offered a relatively cheap interim type until they had perfected their favoured S-band system. Frigate cooperation with the sale of the Leander design was a high point but of course the successor design soon drifted off due to costs and different requirements for hull sizes that saw the Type 22 and Kortenaer diverge.

 

[uk 75]

Thanks for this Hood
The debate Seadart vs Standard has been well elsewhere on this site.So I wont add to the above.
But the UK designed systems apart from Lynx did not meet Dutch requirements.