Modifying King George V class after 1945

[uk 75]

I noted with interest JFC Fuller's comment about the new Friedman British Battleships book that material exists in the National Archives about proposed modifications to the remaining King George V class battleships between 1945 and their withdrawal in the 50s.
I have browsed the new Friedman book in Waterstones and will probably buy a copy in due course, but as my main interest is in the postwar Royal Navy it does not help me much.
If JFC or anyone who has used the NATO material could give a short description of what sort of projects were considered (missile ships or helicopter ships?) I would be very grateful.

 

[Tzoli]

It is known that Vanguard and the remaining KGV's to be armed with missiles, with that time frame GWS.1 Seaslug and later the replacement of Bofors mounts with quad GWS.20 Seacat launchers.

Though there are 3 weird GW missile ship designs which could or could not the conversion projects of these ships:
GW.78A:
Deign date: 1956
Dimensions: 225,55m x 48,15m x 8,84m
Displacement: 34.000tons standard
Engine Power: 135.000shp, 3 shafts
Maximum Speed: 57km/h (31knots)
Range: 9.200km at 37km/h (5.000nm at 20knots)
Armour: Unknown
Crew: 2.400
Armaments:
4x1 Bristol 1,3/4 (40 missiles) (Predecessor of the Bloodhound Mk.II)
4x2 76m Guns

GW.78B:
Deign date: 1956
Dimensions: 231,34m x 48,15m x9,44m
Displacement: 36.000tons standard
Engine Power: 135.000shp, 3 shafts
Maximum Speed: 57km/h (31knots)
Range: 9.200km at 37km/h (5.000nm at 20knots)
Armour: Unknown
Crew: 2.400
Armaments:
2x1 Bristol 1,3/4 (20 missiles) (Predecessor of the Bloodhound Mk.II)
4x2 76m Guns

GW.78C:
Deign date: 1956
Dimensions: 225,85m x 48,15m x 8,84m
Displacement: 34.000tons standard
Engine Power: 135.000shp, 3 shafts
Maximum Speed: 57km/h (31knots)
Range: 9.200km at 37km/h (5.000nm at 20knots)
Armour: Unknown
Crew: 2.400
Armaments:
4x1 Bristol 1,3/4 (100 missiles) (Predecessor of the Bloodhound Mk.II)
4x2 76m Guns

 

[Hood]

I very much doubt the GW.78 series were KGV conversions.
The dimensions (especially the beam) do not match and the KGVs were not 3-shaft ships. In addition, by 1956 all were destined for the scrap merchant.

Given the experience of the DNC designers since 1951 in designing ships to fit Sea Slug and Blue Envoy and associated radars and electronic equipment I am sure they would have ruled out rebuilding nearly 30 year old ships. The size of these missiles alone would have driven the size of the of these ships to quite large proportions for the magazines etc. The last conversion I'm aware of was the Fiji conversion which was shown to be impractical and shelved by 1954.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Without getting into weird and wholly impractical rebuilds to take Sea Slug there were a range of modifications considered for the KGV class between 1945 and 1948 that I am aware of, much of this was an extension of the modernisation work that had been done on various ships in the latter stages of the war, notably Anson. Where this work was undertaken on one or more ship I will highlight it.

Main armament:

RPC: I have found one reference that suggests work was underway on RPC for the main armament
New Shells: Work was underway on new shell designs for 14" guns (and 15" and 16") through to about 1948
Fire Control: Addition of Type 931 splash spotting radar for ranging fall of shot and as a backup to Type 274

Secondary Armament:

RPC: RPC for the 5.25 inch guns (undertaken on Anson)
Fire Control: Mk.VI Directors in place of HACS Mk.V (undertaken on Anson), LRS1 drawn into post-war gunnery modernisation plans

Tertiary armament:

Guns: Replacement of all existing weapons (Oerlikons, Pom-Poms and US Bofors) with UK Bofors. Octuple pom-pom to be replaced with Sextuple bofors, STAAG mountings on forward twin and aft quad 14" turret roofs, all other weapons replaced with a combination of single and twin Bofors mountings
Fire Control: Replacement of existing pom-pom directors and Mk.51 sights (for the US quad bofors being deleted) with Close Range Blind Fire Directors, Simple Tachymetric Directors and (un-numbered) MRS directors

I assume there would have been some desire to improve the air warning radar fit further (perhaps along the lines of Vanguard) but I have yet to find any evidence.

 

[CNH]

There's a short memo in ADM 1/26924 which says:

'A ship launched Ballistic Weapon might well be half the size of a land-based weapon for the same warhead weight, if the range to the target could be halved by taking the launching platform halfway to that target.
…
DGD considers that the suggestion for using a submersible launching platform is probably in the realms of fantasy, even beyond the next 20 years, but furtherance of this project with a Naval application may well imply the preservation of the K. G. V hulls for many years to come.

23 November 1953.'

Interesting comment about the submersible!

 

[starviking]

There's a short memo in ADM 1/26924 which says:

'A ship launched Ballistic Weapon might well be half the size of a land-based weapon for the same warhead weight, if the range to the target could be halved by taking the launching platform halfway to that target.
…
DGD considers that the suggestion for using a submersible launching platform is probably in the realms of fantasy, even beyond the next 20 years, but furtherance of this project with a Naval application may well imply the preservation of the K. G. V hulls for many years to come.

23 November 1953.'

Interesting comment about the submersible!

Indeed. If I recall correctly the sub ballistic missile was seen as a promising future technology in Vanguard to Trident. Can't recall the general time that was stated - mid 50s perhaps?

Also, Tzoli noted the following on the GW Series of British Cruisers thread:

there seems to be some sort of small Ballistic ship of the GW.65-68 series of mostly slow speed and 6-6-4-6 missiles (SRBM - Short Range Ballistic Missile I assume)

Ref: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,8124.msg251202.html#msg251202

So new and old ships were considered for the ballistic missile role.

 

[Tzoli]

These are the data on the GW.65/66/67/68 series of small ballistic missile ship designs:

GW.65:
Deign date: 1955
Dimensions: 209,1m x 22,55m x 5,71m
Displacement: 14.700tons standard
Engine Power: 105.000shp, 4 shafts
Maximum Speed: 61km/h (33knots)
Range: 8.300km at 37km/h (4.500nm at 20knots)
Armour: 38mm Belt and 38mm Deck
Armaments:
6x1 S.R.B.R. (Probably PGM-11 Redstone???)
4x2 40mm AA Guns

GW.66:
Deign date: 1955
Dimensions: 173,73m x 22,55m x 5,81m
Displacement: 12.592tons standard
Engine Power: 60.000shp, 2 shafts
Maximum Speed: 53km/h (28,75knots)
Range: 8.300km at 37km/h (4.500nm at 20knots)
Armour: 38mm Belt and 38mm Deck
Armaments:
6x1 S.R.B.R. (Probably PGM-11 Redstone???)
4x2 40mm AA Guns

GW.67:
Deign date: 1955
Dimensions: 167,64m x 21,67m x 7,31m
Displacement: 18.800tons standard
Engine Power: 15.000shp, 1 shaft
Maximum Speed: 31km/h (17knots)
Range: 12.700km at 31km/h (4.850nm at 17knots)
Armour: 38mm Belt and 38mm Deck
Armaments:
4x1 S.R.B.R. (Probably PGM-11 Redstone???)
1x2 102mm Guns
4x2 40mm AA Guns

GW.68:
Deign date: 1955
Dimensions: 190,5m x 26,21m x unknown, maybe the same as GW.67?
Displacement: unknown, maybe the same as GW.67?
Engine Power: 12.500shp, 1 shaft
Maximum Speed: 28km/h (15knots)
Range: unknown, maybe the same as GW.67?
Armour: unknown, maybe the same as GW.67?
Armaments:
6x1 S.R.B.R. (Probably PGM-11 Redstone???)
4x2 40mm AA Guns

 

[phil gollin]

.

At various times the KGVs were looked at for possible conversion to "G.W. Ships" (Guided Weapons Ships), but they all failed on the basis of cost versus the relatively small number of missiles to be carried.

More effort was expended on looking at aircraft carriers (especially the Implacables) and Vanguard. It was thought (1954) that for a KGV the removal of Y-turret would allow a splinter protected magazine of approx. 90-100 missiles, with a twin launcher and two sets of guidance radars.

.

 

[uk 75]

Many thanks everyone, some great material here.

The Shipbucket folk could do some good drawings

 

[JFC Fuller]

In addition to what I wrote here, back in 2015, I have come across another three additional proposed post-war Royal Navy battleship modifications in UK archives. These all date to 1948, as late as December in some cases, the decision that there would be no further modernisation of the battleships until guided weapons were available was made the following year.

1. Replacement, in both the King George V class and Vanguard, of the 5.25" twin turrets with 3"/70 twin turrets to be coupled with;
2. An eight channel T.I.U.III system with Type 992 gun direction radar. This implies one (probably MRS.3) director for each of eight 3"/70 mountings.
3. A list of required production Type 982/983 air direction radars states that one of each was required for an existing, but unidentified, battleship

The third item is particularly interesting. A document from 1951 states that battleships would have five ship-to-air V-UHF radio channels, this suggests that they were to be providing a significant amount of air direction capability - equivalent, if not superior, to the staff requirement for the Type 62 air direction destroyer conversions. Combined with the secondary armament modernisation, battleships so configured would have been able to make a substantive contribution to the air defence of a task group, in addition to their anti-surface role, in the mid-late 1950s. The same document also shows that battleships were the only ship type to be equipped with a high-power high-frequency radio transmitter at the time, all other types making do with medium-power sets.

 

[Tzoli]

That is indeed interesting and a considerable increase in AA firepower!
That last section means a large air/fighter direction radar?

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

1. An eight channel T.I.U.III system with Type 992 gun direction radar. This implies one director for each of eight 3"/70 mountings.

Eight-channel T.I.U.III implies could direct up to 24 directors and mountings between 8 different targets. Number of directors depends on the available arcs, some contemporary cruiser designs had more directors than mountings, but the ideal was a one-to-one ratio.

 

[Tzoli]

Am I remember correctly that TIU is Target Identication Unit?

 

[JFC Fuller]

That is indeed interesting and a considerable increase in AA firepower!
That last section means a large air/fighter direction radar?

It means one each of the Type 982 air and surface warning and Type 983 height finder radars, see attached images for the aerials. The Type 982 initially used the AQS aerial but this was replaced with the AKR aerial in 1952-53. I have no idea which aerial would have been under consideration in 1948, either way rearranged masts would have been necessary to carry the Type 982/982 combination in addition to Type 960. These would have provided precision tracking, with the Type 960 providing long range warning.

 

[Hood]

Vanguard had a dedicated director for each 40mm sextuple mount so there would be precedence for this. I wonder if the KGVs would get a a pair or four of these alongside the 3in L/70s?

I've had a quick mental calculation with the aid of a plan drawing and I reckon all those radars fit quite easily with some rearrangement on the aft superstructure blockhouse for the 982/983 pairing without sacrificing the aft main DCT.
I think in 1948 it would be the AQS that would be considered, AKR was a little later I think.

 

[Tzoli]

Yes, those are CRBFDs (Close Range Blind Fire Director), the 3" guns require the MRS (Medium Range System)

 

[SeaslugMk2]

In some of the TNA files I’ve gone through, putting Seaslug on a battleship was discussed It was dropped as a single battleship would end up with most of the missile production, as opposed to 4 destroyers.

SRJ

 

[Scott Kenny]

Vanguard had a dedicated director for each 40mm sextuple mount so there would be precedence for this. I wonder if the KGVs would get a a pair or four of these alongside the 3in L/70s?

I'd doubt that. 3"/75mm was the smallest shell you could stuff a proximity fuze into in the 1940s-50s.

It's why the US intended to replace all their Bofors 40mm with 3" L/50s, 2 for 1 (twin 3" mount replacing quad Bofors, single 3" mount replacing twin Bofors). Unfortunately, the USN 3"/50 mount ended up heavier than anticipated, so much so that it ended up being a 2-for-3 swap... 2x 3"/50 mounts replacing 3x Bofors mounts.

If the RN kept Bofors mounts, I'd expect them to be replaced with Seacat in the 1960s.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

The 3"/70 was a much heavier and more complex mounting than the US 3"/50, hence why it was expected to replace the 5.25" mountings with them, not the 40mm mountings.

Whether or not the ships would still have retained some 40mm Bofors, or better still, have them upgraded to the L70, probably depends on how much internal volume is available in the superstructure for MRS fire control computers, plus associated personnel (for both mountings and directors) and ammunition. Many contemporary or slightly later cruiser designs had both 3"/70 mountings and L70s, so it's not beyond the realms of possibility.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The 3"/70 was a much heavier and more complex mounting than the US 3"/50, hence why it was expected to replace the 5.25" mountings with them, not the 40mm mountings.

Whether or not the ships would still have retained some 40mm Bofors, or better still, have them upgraded to the L70, probably depends on how much internal volume is available in the superstructure for MRS fire control computers, plus associated personnel (for both mountings and directors) and ammunition. Many contemporary or slightly later cruiser designs had both 3"/70 mountings and L70s, so it's not beyond the realms of possibility.

Agreed there, just that even the L70 Bofors is sub-optimal against kamikaze/cruise missile threats.

 

[Dilandu]

Whether or not the ships would still have retained some 40mm Bofors, or better still, have them upgraded to the L70, probably depends on how much internal volume is available in the superstructure for MRS fire control computers, plus associated personnel (for both mountings and directors) and ammunition. Many contemporary or slightly later cruiser designs had both 3"/70 mountings and L70s, so it's not beyond the realms of possibility.

I'm not sure British industry could handle the production of many more 3"/70 Mark-6 mounts. If I recall correctly - I may be mistaken here, I admit - Canadian initially wanted two 3"/70 Mark-6 mounts on their Restigouche class destroyer escorts (late 1950s), but were forced to replace the rear one with less capable US 3"/50 Mk-33, because Mark-6 could not be produced fast enouhg in sufficient quantites.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Agreed there, just that even the L70 Bofors is sub-optimal against kamikaze/cruise missile threats.

DACR was intended to deal with a threat like Blue Boar, when the threat was downgraded to a missile like Loon, L70 Bofors was deemed to be sufficient.