Making more of the Daring class

[uk 75]

I have always been struck by the fact that France made much better use of the Surcouf class, their equivalents of the RN Daring class

Surcouf T47 class Destroyer French Navy Marine Nationale

surcouf class type t47 destroyer french navy marine nationale tartar sam

www.seaforces.org

Daring-class destroyer (1949) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

4 Tartar or Ikara equipped Darings anyone?

 

[zen]

Q-band Tartar yes, G-Band Tartar no.

 

[CNH]

What more could you make of them?

 

[uk 75]

What more could you make of them?

Well, the French updated theirs with various weapons as shown in the above.. Perhaps the RN could have done the same.

 

[Dilandu]

Q-band Tartar yes, G-Band Tartar no.

Hm, what about Sea Slug? Was it possible to refit Daring to carry a simplified variant (without the long dispersed magazine of County-class)?

 

[EwenS]

Well half of them, the DC group, would have needed a totally new electrical system to be of any use.

The RN did look at modernising them up until 1960 when they decided not to. Friedman has a couple of the proposals for them as fast Leanders. These retained both 4.5” forward, rebuilt super structures and masts, helicopter platform aft for Wasp, Limbo AS mortar, Seacat and VDS on the stern.

Ultimately the cost of the refit of a Daring was seen to be at least as much, if not more than a new Type 12 frigate with the manpower costs annually much greater.

It doesn’t look like any thought was given to putting Seaslug onto them. The Counties were seen as their replacement in the AD role.

 

[zen]

Q-band Tartar yes, G-Band Tartar no.

Hm, what about Sea Slug? Was it possible to refit Daring to carry a simplified variant (without the long dispersed magazine of County-class)?

It's the expensive, large, heavy and slow to build Type 901 guidance radar that's the problem.
Whereas the SARH options are lighter and cheaper.
So Earlier Brakemine with Blue Cedar maybe.
Arguably had Smaller Sea Slug been achieved, the desire to ramp up production of Type 901 would help.

Popsy, Mopsy and Orange Nell.
And Q-band Tartar.

 

[uk 75]

SURCOUF destroyers (1955 - 1957)

Interesting account of what France did with its Daring equivalent.
and the later but similar T53s

Duperre T53 class Destroyer French Navy Marine Nationale

duperre class type t53 t56 destroyer french navy marine nationale exocet ssm malafon

www.seaforces.org

 

[pathology_doc]

IIRC the South American navies that bought Darings put SSMs and gun CIWS on them.

Tartar replacing the aft 4.5" mount probably would have been a good fit, but that leads into the question (which I know has been discussed here) of whether the UK could or should have bought it in the first place.

 

[uk 75]

I think a leased Tartar fit similar to the French ships would have been welcomed by NATO at a time when the UK was short of modern escorts. They would have served from.1965 to 1975 (the Type 42s replacing them)
A Daring rather than HMS Bristol could have served as an Ikara trials ship. The Type 42 Seadart launcher could also have been trialed on a Daring. If a platform was needed for the propulsion systems for T22 and T42 HMS Exmouth could have been joined by a Daring. No Type 82s built.

 

[PMN1]

How many Tatar missiles could a Daring carry, presumably in place of the after turret.

 

[Pirate Pete]

There are a couple of illustrations on Shipbucket of the 'proposed' Royal Navy Daring modernisations..
Thanks to the creators on Shipbucket..

 

[Volkodav]

How many Tatar missiles could a Daring carry, presumably in place of the after turret.

42, 40, or 16 depending on whether the Mk11, 13 or 22 launcher was adopted.

Replacing the aft turret is the obvious choice but I have wondered if a 16 missile Mk 22 could replace B turret as fore and aft turrets were considered important in COIN ops in SEA. RAN Ikara installation was designed to replace a single Limbo and its magazine so would be a no brainer.

 

[Pioneer]

Someone was kind enough to post me this Shipbucket profile on another forum.
I'd love to see the "RAN Ikara installation was designed to replace a single Limbo and its magazine..." you denote Volkodav!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Kanga]

Someone was kind enough to post me this Shipbucket profile on another forum.
I'd love to see the "RAN Ikara installation was designed to replace a single Limbo and its magazine..." you denote Volkodav!

Regards
Pioneer

That's a nice looking design but I'm not sure how practical it was. The Mark 13 launcher weighed 85 tons loaded, the 4.5 inch twin turret weighed 45 - that's a pretty big difference. Since we're being hypothetical, I wonder about an alternate launcher that only included the outer ring of 24 missiles rather then the inner ring of 16 as in the Mk 22. It would be a bit lighter and you could field, say, 20 Standards and 4 Harpoons for a worthwhile load-out.

 

[Pioneer]

That's a nice looking design but I'm not sure how practical it was. The Mark 13 launcher weighed 85 tons loaded, the 4.5 inch twin turret weighed 45 - that's a pretty big difference. Since we're being hypothetical, I wonder about an alternate launcher that only included the outer ring of 24 missiles rather then the inner ring of 16 as in the Mk 22. It would be a bit lighter and you could field, say, 20 Standards and 4 Harpoons for a worthwhile load-out.

That's an interesting and valid point Kanga.
Given the time frame and the threat, I'm thinking 16-round Tatar (or even better 24-round) launch wouldn't be anything to scoff at!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I misread the title of this thread as "Making More Daring class" when I first saw it and thought @uk 75 meant all 16 ships ordered for the RN and all 4 ships ordered for the RAN were built.

That may well have happened in @Temeraire's timeline where Vanguard and the KGVs survive into the 1980s. They might have been modernised along the lines proposed IOTL as shown by @Pirate Pete in Post 12. However, I think it's more likely that they'd build new ships of that type instead of the Rothesay and Leander classes because (as @EwenS wrote in Post 6) they'd cost at least as much, if not more than a new ship. Or the richer UK of this TL might be able to afford both, i.e. rebuild the 16 existing ships and build more "Daring Mk 2s" instead of the Rothesay & Leander classes and possibly the Type 81s too.

 

[Siberia]

Replacing the aft turret is the obvious choice but I have wondered if a 16 missile Mk 22 could replace B turret as fore and aft turrets were considered important in COIN ops in SEA.

Would that mean you'd have to install at least one extra fire control radar foreword? Going to be expensive in top-weight and electrical draw.

That said I have in the past wondered about a Mark 22 GMLS as a kind of universal launcher for the Royal Navy. Surface-to-air missiles, could fire Harpoon so anti-ship missiles of one kind or another is sorted, and considering the size of Harpoon might an in-line version of Ikara be possible on a roughly similar size package? The Navy did like having access to Ikara to be able to switch warheads which might be a problem though.

 

[pathology_doc]

It would be a bit lighter and you could field, say, 20 Standards and 4 Harpoons for a worthwhile load-out.

Per Wikipedia, Harpoon only entered service in 1977, at which time the hypothetical Standard-mount Darings might be passing out of service, hulls and machinery worn out and/or lacking space, weight and stability margins for further refits.

 

[Scott Kenny]

That's a nice looking design but I'm not sure how practical it was. The Mark 13 launcher weighed 85 tons loaded, the 4.5 inch twin turret weighed 45 - that's a pretty big difference.

That's a pretty important point. You'd almost certainly have to use the Mk22 GML instead of the Mk13. Even if that does take you down to 16 missiles.

Since we're being hypothetical, I wonder about an alternate launcher that only included the outer ring of 24 missiles rather then the inner ring of 16 as in the Mk 22. It would be a bit lighter and you could field, say, 20 Standards and 4 Harpoons for a worthwhile load-out.

No Harpoons until the late 1970s, but it's not like a Standard isn't a wicked AShM by itself. Standard has the overall weight and filler weight of a 14"/L45 battleship cannon shell, while striking at probably double the velocity. Tartar is 1200lbs and has a 130lb continuous-rod warhead, so it's more akin to a 12" shell.

 

[Rule of cool]

Keep in mind that the Darings are a smallish part of larger navies, as such they don't need to be all things to all men. Also the British are withdrawing from EoS by 1975 from 1966, and by 1971 from 1968, so needs less ships unless some other course of action is taken.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Keep in mind that the Darings are a smallish part of larger navies, as such they don't need to be all things to all men. Also the British are withdrawing from EoS by 1975 from 1966, and by 1971 from 1968, so needs less ships unless some other course of action is taken.

And would need some type of AA missile, especially if operating in areas where SS-N-2/Silkworm missiles abound. Just to protect themselves from Silkworm "coastal artillery".

Sticking a 16-round Mk22 launcher in place of B turret would probably be ideal.

Would that mean you'd have to install at least one extra fire control radar foreword? Going to be expensive in top-weight and electrical draw.

No, you could stick the illuminating radar wherever. Tartar were SARH, not beam-riding, so the illuminator doesn't have to be super close to the launcher.

But yes it still would have needed electrical power when engaging.

 

[Rule of cool]

And would need some type of AA missile, especially if operating in areas where SS-N-2/Silkworm missiles abound. Just to protect themselves from Silkworm "coastal artillery".

When did these missiles proliferate? IIUC the first SS-N-2 Styx missile sunk the Eliat in 1967, and the Israelis learned how to decoy them with chaff and ECM.

I'd think replacing one turret with AShMs and maybe a Sea Cat launcher or two would be sufficient to keep Darings in service until the early 80s.

That said the very expensive refit replacing firebox bricks/tiles schedule of ~12/6/4/3/+/+/+ means these ships are very poor value for money after 22-25 years, taking the RNs ships to 1975 or so at reasonable cost.

 

[Scott Kenny]

When did these missiles proliferate? IIUC the first SS-N-2 Styx missile sunk the Eliat in 1967, and the Israelis learned how to decoy them with chaff and ECM.

I'd think replacing one turret with AShMs and maybe a Sea Cat launcher or two would be sufficient to keep Darings in service until the early 80s.

Seacat replaced Bofors L60s, and was replaced by Bofors L70s.

That should tell you all you need to know about how effective it was:

Marginal against a 500kt target. Ineffective against anything faster.

That said the very expensive refit replacing firebox bricks/tiles schedule of ~12/6/4/3/+/+/+ means these ships are very poor value for money after 22-25 years, taking the RNs ships to 1975 or so at reasonable cost.

Yeah, I'm thinking about all you could get out of them would be 25 years, maybe 28 if you were lucky and got a really good batch of firebricks at the last refit.

So they'd have a Mk22 launcher with 16x Tartar missiles "as an interim fit" until the UK could develop something equivalent, because you could do that in 1960-62. And maybe that'd allow other ships to have something like Sea Dart that can attach to a Mk22 or probably a Mk13 if designed for a launcher instead of refitted, or better yet a Mk26 launcher. Because it's Sea Dart that is the lost opportunity of the UK guided missile development. Since RIM-67 is not the same guts as the -66 (different rocket motors at least), I think it could have been possible to field Sea Darts instead of ER Standards.

Sadly, Sea Sparrow would be the better option for self defense against antiship missiles, but wasn't really deployed until 1975. Not worth refitting with that little life left in them.

 

[Siberia]

Per Wikipedia, Harpoon only entered service in 1977…

Apologies I wasn't very clear; Harpoon was only introduced in 1977 – the West, with a few notable exceptions like the Swedes, not looking at anti-ship missiles for a fair while – so I was referencing it more as showing capability to carry an AShM than specifically Harpoon.

An enlarged Type 12 with an extra section inserted between the bridge and the gun to fit a Mark 22 GMLS would theoretically allow it to carry 4 AShM and 12 proper SAMs. Of course it's not as simple as cut and shut – you'd have to potentially look at the beam, draught, speed/propulsion, adding the missile systems etc. that past a certain point it becomes a new ship, but as a general idea I thought it was interesting.

 

[zen]

By contrast Orange Nell in a rotary drum magazine of 36 missiles.... if it had been funded.

 

[Scott Kenny]

By contrast Orange Nell in a rotary drum magazine of 36 missiles.... if it had been funded.

I suspect it wouldn't have ended up with 36 missiles in practice.