RN keeps the split, no Type 82

[zen]

It's in the name. What if the RN had not tried to merge AAW and ASW into one type and kept the division?

Type 42 might look more like Bristol or the Dutch Tromp.
Type 17 ASW?

Post CVA-01 this split is returned too. Would they ditch the pre-66 vessel orders or continue?

 

[uk 75]

zen

There have been some interesting designs on the Shipbucket site of what the RN might have built instead of the Type 82s and 42s.

The main problem seems to be that the UK has no equivalent of TARTAR, or BPDMS Sea Sparrow. Thus we go from Seacat armed frigates
in a massive leap from the Leanders and Type 21s to the Type 22s, which takes a decade to deliver.

Seadart takes a long time to gestate, and the delay in delivering Type 42s was probably a blessing, but it did mean that in the 70s the RN
had only one trials Seadart ship and its Seaslug DLGs until the first 42 arrives. Other NATO navies were able to use Tartar, as did the Aussies.

With hindsight IKARA was a deadend, we should have followed the Canadians and put our Seakings on frigates from the 60s on.

A Royal Navy NATO frigate for the 70s would have carried either Tartar for AD or a big Seaking aft. Fwd would have been a decent gun system-perhaps
an improved twin gun 4.5 instead of the single 4.5.

 

[zen]

Well strictly speaking the RN wanted Tartar...or more accurately a UK version of Tartar with Q-band guidance and eventually got Sea Dart. That of courser after it had wanted Popsy and Mopsy later on (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,26709.0.html ), from which it feels Tartar benefited.

Meanwhile it could have had Green Flax ( http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,26354.0.html ) instead of Sea Slug.
Would have been very interesting had a vertical rotary launcher system been developed for the Sea Slug or Thunderbird II, as it leave the RN very free as to what weapons could succeed them in such a launcher.

Would have been useful to have had a trials ship for Sea Dart rather than wait for Bristol. Potentially this along with landbased efforts could have speed the program along. Would've been VERY useful to have had Land Dart replace Bloodhound.

Ikara as far as the RN (and RAN) felt, was a better system than ASROC. MATCH however was cheaper.

As for PDMS, it wanted Orange Nell, could have had PT.428 (on the other sword http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,26661.0.html ), would have accepted Sea Mauler, ruled out Rapier and got Sea Wolf.

Probably could have had Flopsy (Sea Fireflash) and made do.

Speaking of beam riders.....The key to improving their performance is to seperate target tracking from missile guidance and bring the two together by computer algorithm. Making for more efficient flightpaths.

 

[JohnR]

Why was Rapier ruled out by the navy? Admittedly it is not as capable as Sea Wolf, but it's performance is superior to Sea Cat and given it's weight could have been used to replace Sea Cat on ships unable to take Sea Wolf.

Given that it is generally accepted that the T42's were overloaded and cramped and that it carried a small missile load, what size would an 'ideal' Sea Dart ship be if carrying the same Sea Dart load as a T82.

Regards.

 

[zen]

I think in terms of Rapier verses Sea Wolf, the answer is the Sea Wolf system uses a computer and radars to guide the missile to impact the target, whereas early versions of Rapier used a human guiding the weapon (this all from memory so maybe wrong).

In terms of a Type 42......we'd really be looking at a Batch III vessel to give roughly the same capability as Bristol and apparently the Batch III's have a magazine that could take upto 37 rounds.

 

[Volkodav]

On the idea of a dedicated trials ship for Sea Dart, how about one of the Tiger Class Cruisers? They were of dubious value as gun cruisers, with one of them laid up from 1962, why not take that ship and fit a prototype Sea Dart system to it, launcher and magazine in B position if possible, or otherwise replacing one of the Mk26 6" mounts. Being a cruiser there should have been sufficient space and weight for the rest of the system.

Who knows, if it worked perhaps the other two hulls could have been converted as well. Maybe Ikara could have been trialed on the same hull in some sort of midship arrangement replacing the beam 3" mounts. While I'm at it, if all three were converted in the late 60s, early 70s, hey could have also received Seacat and one of them could have been a trials ship for Sea Wolf. By 1982 all three could have had Sea Dart, Sea Wolf, Ikara and possibly even an aft flight deck and hangar for a pair of Seakings, while retaining the forward Mk26.

 

[Archibald]

France got Tartar on its old destroyers from the 50's - type 47 and type 53 - and loved the system so much, they were handpicked and recycled on the Cassard frigates in the 80's... that are still in service nowadays (AFAIK)

 

[uk 75]

The RN did pretty much keep a split between ASW and AAW assets

ASW: Type 12s with Match and Ikara then
Type 22s and Type 23s with Match
AAW: Countys and then T42s and then T45

The ships and their systems were as good and in some cases better than alternatives as built by other NATO navies. T82 was a one off

 

[Grey Havoc]

The Seacat 2 missile would have opened up a fair few possibilities if it had been allowed to proceed.