Lists of Unbuilt Royal Navy and British Export Ships

[Tzoli]

World of Warships has a 1943 RN Battle Cruiser design with 16inch guns (3*3). There is usually some element of reality to these, even if it is a bit tenuous sometimes. I cannot find any such design and it is not on your list. Can we therefore conclude it is purely an imagined ship?



(Edited by moderator to remove huge quote of Tzoli's list)

I presume you mean the Duncan?
Wows hypothetical designs are pure fiction even those which are based on real proposals, so I would not count that game as any realible source of information.

 

[Anci3nt]

World of Warships has a 1943 RN Battle Cruiser design with 16inch guns (3*3). There is usually some element of reality to these, even if it is a bit tenuous sometimes. I cannot find any such design and it is not on your list. Can we therefore conclude it is purely an imagined ship?



(Edited by moderator to remove huge quote of Tzoli's list)

I presume you mean the Duncan?
Wows hypothetical designs are pure fiction even those which are based on real proposals, so I would not count that game as any realible source of information.

Hawke, Duncan does in fact seen to look like the G3 they claim. The specs are obviously tailored to game tiers etc. The positive for WOWS is that it did get me interested and I now have books on the topic!

 

[Toryu]

Is there any image of the Vickers design 655 or 754 for Spain?

 

[Tzoli]

Official drawings of such export designs are very rare

 

[Toryu]

I have seen some of countries like Portugal or Greece. But as much as I search for Spaniards, I can't find anything, except for some cruiser or destroyer.

 

[Stealth_Phoenix]

This list is insane Tzoli, I can't imagine how long this took you to compile. Do you by chance have a list of proposed auxiliary ships? I've been down the long winding rabbit hole of the CVA-01. I wanna go back and start reading about all the supporting projects (OR.346, P.139, Type 83, etc). I feel like I remember reading about a new class of replenishment oilers being considered, but now that I'm trying to find it, I can't seem to figure out where I read about it.

 

[Antonio]

Is there any image of the Vickers design 655 or 754 for Spain?

Were that design numbers allocated to Battleships?

 

[Tzoli]

This list is insane Tzoli, I can't imagine how long this took you to compile. Do you by chance have a list of proposed auxiliary ships? I've been down the long winding rabbit hole of the CVA-01. I wanna go back and start reading about all the supporting projects (OR.346, P.139, Type 83, etc). I feel like I remember reading about a new class of replenishment oilers being considered, but now that I'm trying to find it, I can't seem to figure out where I read about it.

No I don't count them as warships. My excel table is big as it is without them 7.450 lines... All the world warship classes from corvettes to battleships.

 

[Toryu]

Is there any image of the Vickers design 655 or 754 for Spain?

Were that design numbers allocated to Battleships?

Yeah. Of the 655 design there are two versions. One with 381mm guns and the other with 343mm.

 

[Username666]

Surprisingly, there is no design related to Illustrious-class aircraft carrier.

I personally assumed that there were quite a lot designs related to Illustrious-class aircraft carrier.

 

[The Skipper]

You asked I've provided, my list of the never-were warship designs of the Royal Navy including the export proposals.

This is most impressive, Tzoli.

 

[00-PureEvil-00]

This is my list, if you require data on a specic design just ask.

That's a lot...
Do you have more info about Vickers Design 1056 destroyer for Siam? I looked through my copies of both Friedman books on British destroyers, and found no mentions of it...
Also, I am curious about the 1937 heavy cruiser proposals for Chile (although I suspect they were something York-like to counter the 25 de Mayos), and 1940 torpedo cruiser design (british Kitakami?)

 

[alexi]

Just in case, you can download Tzoli's excel database to see those never-were warship plans, it's super helpful.

 

[COLDOWN]

Add:
- Vickers 1058, 1937 heavy cruiser for Brazil (& similar for Chile), ~10,000 6x8".
- Vickers 1059, 1937 heavy cruiser for Brazil (& similar for Chile), ~10,000 6x8".

S: "Cruisers for Brazil" in Warship 2010.

 

[Tzoli]

Vickers Design 1056 for Siam/Thailand from 1938:
Dimensions: 106,68(pp) x 11,43 x 3,67m
Displacement: 2.000tons (Standard), 2.327tons (full load)
Armament:
2x1 120mm (Likely QF Mark IX or XI)
2x1 76mm (Likely QF HA Mk IV)
2x1 533mm TT

The design seems to be too large for such a light armament. Might be armoured which would contribute much of the weight.
I've found it in Friedman's British Cruiser book page 197.

DNC Design for Chile from 1937:
Dimensions: 158,49(pp) x 17,68 x 5,18m
Engines: 58km/h, 15.700km (31,5knots, 8.500nm) 72.000shp, 4shafts
Displacement: 8.900tons (Standard),
Armour: Belt: 102mm over Machinery, 127mm over Magazines, Deck: 51mm over Machinery, 76mm over Magazines
Armament:
2x3 203mm(Likely Mark VIII or maybe IX)
4x2 120mm (Likely QF Mark XI)
2x4 40mm/39 QF Mk VIII
2x4 12,7mm MG Mk III
2x4 533mm TT
3x Seaplanes

Vickers Design for Chile from 1937:
Dimensions: 158,49(pp) x 17,68 x 5,18m
Engines: 59km/h, 14.800km (32knots, 8.000nm) 72.000shp, 4shafts
Displacement: 8.400tons (Standard),
Armour: Belt: 76mm, Deck: 51mm over Machinery, 76mm over Magazines
Armament:
3x2 203mm(Likely Mark VIII or maybe IX)
4x2 102mm (Likely QF Mark XVI)
2x4 40mm/39 QF Mk VIII
2x4 12,7mm MG Mk III
2x3 533mm TT
3x Seaplanes

1940 Torpedo Cruiser design (Torpedo cruiser only in name, more like regular light cruiser)
Dimensions: 121,92(pp) x 14,33 x 4,4m
Engines: 65km/h (35knots) 120.000shp, 2shafts
Displacement: 4.965tons (Standard),
Armour: Belt: 25mm
Armament:
Guns unknown
1x4 40mm/39 QF Mk VIII
6x1 533mm TT (Bow)

 

[NavyVetTom]

@Tzoli, @uk_75, @starviking I hope you can help me. I recall seeing a proposed design ( I think in the TNA, Kew), for a 'mothership' that would carry anti-air defence systems in order to protect a fleet of anti-submarine frigates. I think it was an idea to protect the GIUK gap, affording the frigates the focus on subs, whilst the larger support ship could provide a protective umbrella against air threats. If any of you have any information regarding such a project, I'd be very grateful. I've told my colleagues about it and now they're asking for some evidence that such a design was considered and subsequently binned by the RN (It might prevent them considering it again!). All help gratefully received. Thank you. Tom

 

[Toryu]

Vickers design 742

 

[Toryu]

Armstrong. Design 702 for Portugal.

 

[Toryu]

Battleship design 793

 

[fishpond]

Tzoli, your lists are wonderful. I know about the 1952 British carrier design, but you include, I think, 1953-55 versions. Do you have any details?

 

[fishpond]

kTzoli, I should have added a query about the early versions of the Queen Elizabeth battleship design. I would have expected an N series (because the earlier ship was Design M), but I have never seen N-3, am curious about it. But there also ought to be Designs O and P (with variants). None of this is in the QE Cover, which starts with the R series and, incidentally, shows that the Churchill's account of the design is hooey, because the early version(s) are coal-burners, yet have the same characteristics as the later oil-burners. Have you characteristics of N-3? Of the missing letters? Many thanks in advance.

 

[Tzoli]

According to Freidman the early preliminary versions of the Queen Elizabeth class battleships were lost or transported to an unknown place hence the lack of design history of the class.

It seems that many or all of the papers surrounding the conception of
the Queen Elizabeth class were destroyed, probably as early as 1914. It is
striking, for example, that the Cover begins after all the important
decisions had been taken (other Covers begin at a much earlier stage). The
massive computerised collection of Churchill papers offers little insight
into the decisions involved and it is striking that in his extensive document
collection Churchill’s son Randolph was reduced to relating the story as
told in his family. Wholesale record destruction suggests that the path to
the Queen Elizabeth design was tortuous and that it involved compromises
which seemed at the time (not later, when the ships had been more than
vindicated) less than attractive. What follows

As for the QE preliminary designs:

The Queen Elizabeth Cover begins with Designs RIII, R’III and RIV,
submitted on 15 June 1912. Each was designed to carry eight 15in guns
and sixteen 6in and to make 26 knots (the speed given in Watts’ covering
memo; the Legend showed 25 knots). RIII had the same armour as Iron
Duke, except that the belt was thicker at the waterline (13in rather than
12in), the conning tower was 12in rather than 11in thick, the upper parts of
the barbettes 11in rather than 10in, the turret walls 12in rather than 11in
and their roofs 5in rather than 3in and 4in thick. This ship would have
displaced 27,000 tons. R’III added torpedo bulkheads through the length
of the machinery spaces. They were 1½in thick abreast the boiler rooms,
where they had coal outside them, and 2in thick abreast the engine rooms,
as in Bellerophon, Collingwood and Neptune. To compensate for the
added weight, the belt at the waterline was kept at 12in, as in the Iron
Duke, except abreast the engine rooms (13in). Side armour from main to
upper deck was reduced from 8–6in to a uniform thickness of 6in and
barbette, conning tower and turret armour was kept to Iron Duke
thicknesses. If torpedo net defence was given up, the 120 tons saved could
go into thickening the torpedo bulkhead to 2in abreast the boiler rooms
and 2½in abreast engine rooms. R’III was expected to cost about £30,000
less than RIII. In RIV, ‘X’ turret was shifted forward, from just abaft the
engine rooms to just forward of them. The result was analogous to the
arrangement adopted in Tiger. This ship would be 15ft longer and 300 tons
heavier than RIII and about £30,000 more expensive.

At a 15 June meeting the Board of Admiralty decided to adopt R’III
‘with the reservation that the question of carrying oil fuel only was to be
decided at a subsequent Board Meeting’.9 This design received the Board
Stamp on 16 June. On 20 June Controller ordered the detailed design to be
‘hastened to its completion’. The extra five knots were quite expensive:
75,000 SHP rather than 29,000 SHP, twenty-four rather than eighteen
boilers. Four, rather than two (as in Iron Duke) of the 6in guns could fire
right aft, from a position under the quarterdeck. The torpedo bulkhead of
R’III (now uniformly 2in thick) survived, but so did the increases in
armour thickness associated with RIII. These altered thicknesses appear in
the Legend associated with the Board Stamp.

By the time Watts submitted the usual initial design drawings, it had
been decided that the ships would burn only oil fuel (the memo involved
is not in the Cover). This decision had clearly been taken very soon after
the original approval, because the version of the design which received the
Board Stamp was all-oil burning. Watts’ successor later estimated the cost
of converting the design from coal- to oil-burning so late in the process.10
‘A far reaching change of this sort can hardly be made at short notice and
in a design of which the determining particulars have already been
approved by the Board without some effect on the resulting ship, bearing
in mind that this was the first case in which oil fuel had to be carried under
a considerable load and that the structure in the absence of experiments has
necessarily to be increased in weight to provide adequate strength. This
increase of strength is estimated to have involved three hundred tons.’ It
was known quite early that the ship would be overweight.

As for the designs I have these data:

Design NIII or N3
Dimensions: Unknown
Displacement: Unknown
Engines: Unknown
Speed: Unknown
Armour: Unknown
Armaments:
5x2 15"/42 BL Mark I Cannons
Unknown number 4"/50 BL Mk VII Guns

Design RIII or R3
Dimensions: Unknown
Displacement: 27.000tons (standard)
Engines: 75.000shp Parsons Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Speed: 48km/h (26knots)
Armour: 38mm Deck, 330mm Belt, 25mm Slopes
Armaments:
4x2 15"/42 BL Mark I Cannons
16x1 6"/50 BL Mk XII Guns

Design RIII' or R3'
Dimensions: Unknown
Displacement: 27.000tons (standard)
Engines: 75.000shp Parsons Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Speed: 48km/h (26knots)
Armour: 38mm Deck, 330mm Machinery, 305mm Magazine Belt, 25mm Slopes
Armaments:
4x2 15"/42 BL Mark I Cannons
16x1 6"/50 BL Mk XII Guns

Design RIV or R4
Dimensions: Unknown
Displacement: Unknown
Engines: 75.000shp Parsons Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Speed: 48km/h (26knots)
Armour: 38mm Deck, 305mm Belt, 25mm Slopes
Armaments:
4x2 15"/42 BL Mark I Cannons
16x1 6"/50 BL Mk XII Guns

 

[Tzoli]

I currently have no access to the British carrier book, but I have data on the 1952 and 1953 designs:

Design 1952
Dimensions: 248,41(wl) x 265,17(oa) x 35,05 x 10,05m
Displacement: 52.000tons (Full Load)
Engines: 200.000shp Parsons Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Speed: 56km/h (30knots)
Armour: 51mm Deck, 51mm Belt,
Armaments:
8x2 3"/70 QF Mk N1 Guns
Around 53x aircraft (Likely 33x Supermarine Scimitar, 12x Blackburn Buccneer and 8x Fairey Gannet

Design 1953
Dimensions: 248,41(wl) x 265,17(oa)x 35,36 x 10,21m
Displacement: 53.150tons (Full Load)
Engines: 205.000shp Parsons Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Speed: 59km/h (32knots)
Armour: 51mm Deck, 89mm Belt,
Armaments:
6x2 3"/70 QF Mk N1 Guns
Around 53x aircraft (Likely 33x Supermarine Scimitar, 12x Blackburn Buccneer and 8x Fairey Gannet

 

[Tzoli]

The 1953 design sketch drawing:

A 1953 concept design for an aircraft carrier capable of operating conventional wheeled aircraft and helicopters. The deck was angled to starboard rather than port to reduce the finals turn from a port, left-hand circuit from 190 to 170 degrees, making line-up with the deck potentially easier. The island is on the port side and there are two catapults forward and one on the starboard side aft. The hangar is open-sided with side-lifts to port.

Alternative layout:

An alternative 1953 concept design for an aircraft carrier with a starboard angle as shown in the previous drawing but fitted with a ‘rubber deck’ capable of recovering fighters without undercarriages. Note the transverse platform intended to move aircraft away from where they came to rest on the mat on to the side lift.

A different design:

A more radical 1953 concept design for a ‘straight-deck’ aircraft carrier capable of launching aircraft from a ‘second deck’ in the open hangar. Note the transverse rolling mat intended to clear aircraft after landing on the upper deck on to the side lifts, and the inclined catapults intended to achieve the same effect as the later ‘ski-jump’. These design studies were never taken forward but showed more imagination than most other designs before or since. Of course,
not all the ideas would have been practical; the ‘rubber deck’ certainly was not, and the noise of jet aircraft running in the hangar would have been horrendous.

4th Variant:

A 1953 concept design for an aircraft carrier with an angle to starboard capable of launching aircraft out of the hangar using the two inclined catapults. A third catapult is on the flight deck, starboard side aft.

 

[JFC Fuller]

I currently have no access to the British carrier book, but I have data on the 1952 and 1953 designs:

Design 1952
Dimensions: 248,41 (I think oa) x 35,05 x 10,05m
Displacement: 52.000tons (Full Load)
Engines: 200.000shp Parsons Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Speed: 56km/h (30knots)
Armour: 51mm Deck, 51mm Belt,
Armaments:
8x2 3"/70 QF Mk N1 Guns
Around 53x aircraft (Likely 33x Supermarine Scimitar, 12x Blackburn Buccneer and 8x Fairey Gannet

Design 1953
Dimensions: 248,41 (I think oa) x 35,36 x 10,21m
Displacement: 53.150tons (Full Load)
Engines: 205.000shp Parsons Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Speed: 59km/h (32knots)
Armour: 51mm Deck, 89mm Belt,
Armaments:
6x2 3"/70 QF Mk N1 Guns
Around 53x aircraft (Likely 33x Supermarine Scimitar, 12x Blackburn Buccneer and 8x Fairey Gannet

The 248.41m would be the waterline length of 815ft, the flight deck was 870ft. Note that the flight-deck length on the concepts in your following post is also 870ft. It was concluded that this was the largest carrier that could be accommodated without the construction of a new dry dock.

The 1952 versus 1953 specifications look like snapshots of the evolving staff requirements for the same ship, what we now call the 1952 carrier, with the 1953 set being closer to what would have been built.

The sketches in your following post are drawings from a report that evaluated potential approaches to further reducing flight-deck congestion. They aren’t part of a formal design intended for construction.

 

[Tzoli]

Thanks I've saved these data long ago. FIxed it.
The texts and the drawings are from this book:
British Aircraft Carriers: Design, Development & Service Histories - David Hobbs

 

[zen]

These are rather revealing of their thought processes and it's nice to see what has previously only been a written description.

My thanks for putting up these pictures.

 

[Regg]

Armstrong Export Design 639 for Portugal - 1910

Hello!
This project is of interest. How similar is it to the Douro (I) type proposed to Portugal by the Yarrow company?

 

[Regg]

Vickers Export Design 933 for Portugal - 1921

Light Cruisers:
...
Vickers Export Design 614 for Portugal - 1913
...
Vickers Export Design 750 for Portugal - 1916
Vickers Export Design 751 for Portugal - 1916
Vickers Export Design 817A for Portugal - 1916
Danae Preliminary - 1916

I apologize, but can I see these cruiser projects?

 

[Tzoli]

Hello!
This project is of interest. How similar is it to the Douro (I) type proposed to Portugal by the Yarrow company?

Armstrong Design 639:
Dimensions: 73,15 (pp) x 7,32m
Displacement: 780tons (Standard)
Engines: 12.000shp Parsons Steam Turbines, 2 shafts
Speed: 50km/h (27knots)
Armaments:
unknown

Later I can provide the Armstrong paper showing mostly costs I think

Vickers Export Design 933
Dimensions: 94,5m (pp)
Displacement: 2.000tons (Standard)
Engines: unknown
Speed: unknown
Armour: None or unknown
Armaments:
4x1 6" guns likely Vickers Mark U (6"/50)
2x1 3" AA likely QF HA Mk I (3"/45)
2x2 21" Torpedo Tubes



Vickers Export Design 614
Dimensions: 92,96 (pp) x 11,44 x 6,86m
Displacement: 2.500tons (Standard)
Engines: unknown
Speed: 37km/h (20knots)
Armour: None or unknown
Armaments:
4x1 6" guns likely Vickers Mark S (6"/50)
6x1 4" guns likely Vickers Mark K (4"/45)
4x1 3" AA likely QF HA Mk I (3"/45)
4x3 21" Torpedo Tubes

Vickers Export Design 750
Dimensions: 140,2 (pp) x 13,41 x 4,42m
Displacement: 4.930tons (Standard)
Engines: 45.000shp, Parson Steam Turbines, 2 shafts
Speed: 37km/h (20knots)
Armour: 25mm Deck, 76mm Machinery, 38mm Magazines Belt
Armaments:
6x1 6" guns likely Vickers Mark T (6"/50)
2x1 3" guns likely QF Mk I (3"/50)
4x1 3" AA likely QF HA Mk I (3"/45)
2x1 40mm AA likely QF Mk II (40mm/39)
2x2 21" Torpedo Tubes

Vickers Export Design 751
No exact data but likely same as above


Vickers Export Design 817A
Dimensions: 137,16(pp) x 146,3 (oa) x 13,41 x 4,5m
Displacement: 4.8200tons (Standard)
Engines: 45.000shp, Parson Steam Turbines, 2 shafts
Speed: 37km/h (20knots)
Armour: 25mm Deck, 76mm Machinery, 38mm Magazines Belt
Armaments:
6x1 6" guns likely Vickers Mark T (6"/50)
2x1 3" guns likely QF Mk I (3"/50)
4x1 3" AA likely QF HA Mk I (3"/45)
2x1 40mm AA likely QF Mk II (40mm/39)
2x2 21" Torpedo Tubes


Danae Preliminary Design
Dimensions: 135,64(pp) x 146,56 (oa) x 13,87 x 4,34m
Displacement: 4.650tons (Standard)
Engines: 40.000shp, Parson Steam Turbines, 2 shafts
Speed: 54km/h (29knots)
Armour: 25mm Deck, 76mm Machinery, 51mm Magazines Belt
Armaments:
6x1 6"/45 BL Mk XII guns
2x1 3"/45 QF HA Mk I AA guns
1x1 40mm/39 QF Mk II AA guns
4x2 21" Torpedo Tubes




Footnotes:

 

[Regg]

Armstrong Design 639:
Dimensions: 73,15 (pp) x 7,32m
Displacement: 780tons (Standard)...

Olá!
This project almost corresponds to the naval program of 1911 (Pereira da Silva). It's a shame there are no images.

 

[Regg]

Vickers Export Design 933...
Vickers Export Design 614...
Vickers Export Design 750...
Vickers Export Design 751...
Vickers Export Design 817A...

All these projects are more like not ordinary cruisers, but cruisers intended for colonial service.
Thank!

 

[Tzoli]

Here is the only info on the Armstrong Design 639:

 

[Tzoli]

All these projects are more like not ordinary cruisers, but cruisers intended for colonial service.
Thank!

Remember we are talking about WW1 and pre ww1 era light and protected cruisers. 4.000tons were quite normal for those vessels.

 

[Cjc]

Armstrong. Design 702 for Portugal.

Do we know how big those guns were supposed to be? I can hardly read that picture so I am unsure if that information is already on there or not.

Edit: never mind I found out this was gust a Orion copy so 13.5 inch guns.

 

[GK Dundas]

I believe it was the Yarrow type 24 frigate design was a golden opportunity that was sadly didn't get chance perhaps one of my favourite never were ship designs.

 

[Toryu]

Do we know how big those guns were supposed to be? I can hardly read that picture so I am unsure if that information is already on there or not.

Edit: never mind I found out this was gust a Orion copy so 13.5 inch guns.

12.in

 

[SugarLad]

Could you please post information on the Vickers Export Design 767 for the Netherlands?

 

[Tzoli]

Vickers Export Design 767 Light Cruiser - 1920
Dimensions: 138,68 (wl) x 14,48 x 4,42m
Displacement: 5.150tons (Standard)
Engines: 40.000shp, Parson Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Speed: 54km/h (29knots)
Armour: 0mm Deck, 76mm Machinery, 51mm Magazines Belt
Armaments:
5x2 6" guns likely Vickers Mark T (6"/50)
4x1 4" AA likely Vickers Mk L or QF Mk IV (4"/45 or /40)
4x3 21" Torpedo Tubes

 

[Roodbaard1958!]

Vickers Export Design 767 Light Cruiser - 1920
Dimensions: 138,68 (wl) x 14,48 x 4,42m
Displacement: 5.150tons (Standard)
Engines: 40.000shp, Parson Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Speed: 54km/h (29knots)
Armour: 0mm Deck, 76mm Machinery, 51mm Magazines Belt
Armaments:
5x2 6" guns likely Vickers Mark T (6"/50)
4x1 4" AA likely Vickers Mk L or QF Mk IV (4"/45 or /40)
4x3 21" Torpedo Tubes

View attachment 713020

Tzoli, Im curious which source you used for the Dutch Vickers design 767 of 1920 and are there more details or correspondance with the Dutch authorities?
The Java was launched in 1921 and commissioned in 1925, her sister ship Sumatra in 1920, commissioned in 1926 and the building of the Celebes even stopped and cancelled. The necessary budget was in 1919 only authorized if the Celebes was stopped. So there would be no chance to build another cruiser despite earlier plans.