RN Nuclear NIGS ship

JFC Fuller said:
With reference to the diagrams above, looking at the internal profile diagram of a Batch II County in Friedman's British Destroyers and Frigates I am convinced that they actually show the NIGS magazines and missile handling equipment arranged in a County class hull, not just a generic ship layout. Therefore I think we have the entire lower part, upper deck down, of the proposed County class installation. It is worth noting that such is the size of the missile the launchers are vertically located on the same deck as B turret and the helicopter deck on the original County class. I also remain convinced that the diagram shows a helicopter hangar and landing pad directly behind the aft magazine. If we think about the need for the radar to be sited as high as possible this would have been an ungainly looking ship if the arrays were to be as large as we believe.
Click to expand...

I must admit when I re-looked at these diagrams the other day I had the strong impression that the ship elements looked too realistic to be just a generic ship. So I would share your opinion that the base might be the County.
I have drawn the NIGS magazines in shipbucket so I will have a play around with the County class to see if these elements do indeed match up and how such a rebuilding might look. I suspect the NIGS arrays would all be in the forward superstructure block.
http://shipbucket.com/wiki/images/f/fb/Royal_Navy_Weapons_Parts.png
 
Last edited:
A silly question I know but as HMS Antrim was one of the final 2 Countys and might have been built as one of the NIGS, how might such a big missile have coped with low flying Argentine attackers as opposed to high flying Soviet jets or missiles?
 
It wouldn't really, it's objective is big high and fast bombers with big fast stand off missiles.
In essence it's the sort of system that forces the enemy to fly down low in the first place.
 
Missile homing: The missiles were to use mid-course command guidance with semi-active terminal homing via a nine inch dish mounted in the nose. The nuclear armed version of the missile would use command guidance only. Missile tracking was to be provided by the NSR.
Click to expand...

9 inches?
That's a reduction on the earlier 14 inches diameter and you don't need a 14 inch diameter missile to house that...
Did the missile shrink?
SARH range reduced, could mean a higher precision was possible with command guidance?
Or a change in frequency might reduce dish area requirements?
Or perhaps there was a return to a more reasonable range requirement on the missile? Driving a virtuous spiral in size, weight etc...?
Could that be because the 50nm range version of NSR SSR was being explored?
 
Regarding the hull, wouldn't it be better to use the hulls designed for the GW series of missile warships (rangign from firgate size to cruiser size) and of the Crusier what I've seen are basically a Tiger class hull shape? Or simply a somewhat enlarged County (Which was GW54A and GW54B for the two batches)?
 
This is just speculation but.....
Why was it stated that a missile of 14" with rods and a 7" dish had the capability of a 20" dish?
Because it was originally intended for a mkiii Sea Slug. Why?
Because they wanted, needed SARH for ranges over 30nm.
And having put all that effort into systems to handle Sea Sea Slug it was better to upgrade the system to SARH.

Admiralty had a series of interception ranges desired against a supersonic bomber. 15nm, 30nm, 60nm, and 90nm.
It's the RAF who want Blue Envoy style 150nm.....
My guess is they started with 60nm but the threat demanded 90nm..... then government said this makes for a Bloodhound successor, work with the Army and RAF, or you lose funding.
But they want 150nm.
This means big missiles and ramjet propulsion.
But getting out, even to 90nm means command guidance. INS being expensive and you'd need to update anyway.
And getting out to 150nm means signal reflection is too low a power for the rod element of the guidance to work effectively. Leaving just the 7" dish, and it's not good enough.

So they ask the question how close can you get a Command Guided missile to the target before you need to switch over to SARH?

Answer is close enough that a 9"dish will do......

But having Centred on the 14" missile .....

It's all a mess. Conflicting needs and technology.


This would be partially proven by the date of the 9" seeker dish.
 
I have done a very crude estimation to see if indeed the launcher drawings matched a conversion of a County class hull.
The attached is a crude mashup of my scaled NIGS launcher and magazine to a cross section of the County hull with the deck lines and features shown matched up as close as possible to the plans.

What is surprising is perhaps the height of the NIGS launchers, they are quite high but perhaps not impossibly so for topweight concerns.
The forward launcher means the removal of the B turret (I suspect A would go too) and the complete replacement of the forward superstructure and bridge. Of course the plan drawing only shows us the forward angled face for the search radar. I suspect there would be one block holding all four arrays. I think that would fit but the aft array would be rather blocked by the forward funnel which I suspect would be removed, perhaps to be put into a midships mack to hold the usual surface search and navigation sets. Also, where would the bridge go? Below the angled radar block - which would be very low and probably poor views given the NIGS launcher right in front of it, especially given the missile blast problems - or on top of the search radars which would be very high indeed - effectively at foremast level!
The aft launcher replaces the Type 901 guidance block but seems to leave the Wessex hangar intact, probably for conversion into other accomodation or control spaces. Quite possibly Sea Cat could be retained where it is too.
The big unknown is where the illuminator/guidance sets would go. I propose two on top of the bridge block and two on the former hangar.
It feels just about do-able but given the unknowns on the bridge, aft array and illuminator locations there are some mysteries to be worked out. But it does seem highly likely the plans at Kew are indeed based on a County rather than a notional design.
 

Attachments

  • County NIGS.png
    County NIGS.png
    226.9 KB · Views: 150
@zen, my reference to a 14" dish was pure speculation on my part, I have only seen reference to the 9" dish in the NIGS report, my speculation was incorrect. The term Small Ship Surveillance Radar (SSSR) is not, in my opinion, coincidental to the early name for the CF.299 programme being Small Ship Guided Weapon. Despite having been wrong before I will speculate again, a single transmitter FSR/NSR using (assuming we are correct about the square footage of the arrays) 14 - 14ft 6" arrays to provide a half sized system for frigates might have been an attractive prospect for ASRE in terms of maximising return on R&D spend and providing system and component commonality across the fleet.

@Hood, The NIGS report is clear that there would be no gun armament on the proposed Hampshire class variant, so A and B turret would go. The launcher is indeed massive, it's reminiscent of Mk.30 Mod 0 Sea Dart launcher used on Bristol, by contrast the later launchers used on the Type 42s and Invincibles were shorter and lighter so there may have been scope to reduce the size and weight in development.

@Tzoli, My own view is the County class hull would have been found to be too small and had the programme proceeded the ships would have grown significantly, see my earlier point about the size/displacement growth in the Type 82 design process (from 3,000 tons to 6,000 tons and basically County class size). With regard to designation, I have found no evidence that one was given but I would guess that GWS.3 would be most likely as NIGS was initially seen as a follow-on to Sea Slug. The large gaps you refer to are the result of the RN assigning certain sequences of numbers to certain classes of missiles - e.g. all the short range systems were in the twenties.
 
Last edited:
Hood said:
I have done a very crude estimation to see if indeed the launcher drawings matched a conversion of a County class hull.
The attached is a crude mashup of my scaled NIGS launcher and magazine to a cross section of the County hull with the deck lines and features shown matched up as close as possible to the plans.

What is surprising is perhaps the height of the NIGS launchers, they are quite high but perhaps not impossibly so for topweight concerns.
The forward launcher means the removal of the B turret (I suspect A would go too) and the complete replacement of the forward superstructure and bridge. Of course the plan drawing only shows us the forward angled face for the search radar. I suspect there would be one block holding all four arrays. I think that would fit but the aft array would be rather blocked by the forward funnel which I suspect would be removed, perhaps to be put into a midships mack to hold the usual surface search and navigation sets. Also, where would the bridge go? Below the angled radar block - which would be very low and probably poor views given the NIGS launcher right in front of it, especially given the missile blast problems - or on top of the search radars which would be very high indeed - effectively at foremast level!
The aft launcher replaces the Type 901 guidance block but seems to leave the Wessex hangar intact, probably for conversion into other accomodation or control spaces. Quite possibly Sea Cat could be retained where it is too.
The big unknown is where the illuminator/guidance sets would go. I propose two on top of the bridge block and two on the former hangar.
It feels just about do-able but given the unknowns on the bridge, aft array and illuminator locations there are some mysteries to be worked out. But it does seem highly likely the plans at Kew are indeed based on a County rather than a notional design.
Click to expand...
IF they pulled the Sea Slug, likely considering this is the replacement, you could use the space for hangers and the like...

Has there been a missile ship with the radars INFRONT of the missile launchers? Cause I can see that being used, have the radars set up like the guns are on first Ticos and USN nuke cruisers. Missiles, even the older ones did not need to fire straight at the target, you had some give. So I can see a repeat of the Nelson class BBs, radars forward, with the missiles behind them firing over.

But as shown by KGVs, the RN does like its 0-0 ability direct fire over the bow...
 
JFC Fuller said:
@zen, my reference to a 14" dish was pure speculation on my part, I have only seen reference to the 9" dish in the NIGS report, my speculation was incorrect. The term Small Ship Surveillance Radar (SSSR) is not, in my opinion, coincidental to the early name for the CF.299 programme being Small Ship Guided Weapon. Despite having been wrong before I will speculate again, a single transmitter FSR/NSR using (assuming we are correct about the square footage of the arrays) 14 - 14ft 6" arrays to provide a half sized system for frigates might have been an attractive prospect for ASRE in terms of maximising return on R&D spend and providing system and component commonality across the fleet.
Click to expand...
@JFC Fuller
I wasn't suggesting you had really, rather I'm suggesting once they moved to such Blue Envoy like range, the very basis of the rod and dish system fell apart. Command guidance obviated the need for a 20" dish or the combined 14" separated rods and 7" dish systems.
And the result is only a need for a 9" dish, not even using the potential 14" of NIGS missile diameter available.
Possibly that 9" dish might even relate to efforts to fit SARH seekers to Red Top.....? Meaning they reused it.

However my main contention is that this combination of rods around a 14" diameter and a 7"dish is originally developed to fit into a version of Sea Slug. The small dish and rods are claimed to deliver the capability of a 20" dish. The lack of space in the nose of Sea Slug is the answer to why such a small dish. All of this being cabled back past the warhead to the avionics bay.
This would deliver Green Flax like capability but reuse the Sea Slug missiles, handling gear and even the Type 901 director. Which considering the power of the reflection needed for interferometer based guidance is ideal.
This in turn partially answers why they carried on with Sea Slug.

I think you are on to something with SSR. That the reduced NIGS setup with a limit of roughly 50nm (likely on a 1sqm target) is a stepping stone to becoming SIGS. The very range drop in radar making the giant NIGS missiles pointless. Wasn't Bristol's RP.25 aimed at a 50nm range?
But a tracking range of 50nm is implying a missile of 30nm-ish range.....is this the origin of SIGS?
Starting to think this is a very complex period and some quite precise dating of things is needed to help clarify matters.
Have to say perseverance with a 14ft rotating AESA radar would have been worth it in the long run.
But I think the area for a 62.5nm range has got to be at least 25% less of that for the full NIGS 400sqft that gives 125nm range assuming output is constant.
So 300sqft or about a square of 17.5ft each side.
While 50nm is probably needing 262sqft or 16.2ft by 16.2ft

NIGS probably explains the shift in focus on Escort Cruisers.

I think Sea Dart's guidance system being evolved was a consequence of it's origins as Sea Slug mkiii. Repackaged as 'new and unrelated'.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm....if you slim the missile diameter down to 9"-10", then assuming a nice long ogival shape the drag would be substantially less than the 14" missile.
Implying less thrust is needed and less fuel as well.
This would reduce the weight of the dart and implies the booster can be smaller.

Then again what is the available diameter in the inlet shock cone of say a 20" diameter ramjet?
 
After KGV they learned the lesson that such low freeboard nose would make the forward turrets wet, hence they consequently rasied the sheer of the Lion Designs akin to Vanguard and thus forgoe with the fire forward at 0 degrees.
 
Question is does the hull of the County could hold an extra 2-3000tons of displacement? It does have high freeboard but I don't know how stable or how much top weight issues post ww2 designed and built ships have/had. Modern systems are volume specific rather weight specific and the abolishment of hull armour too reduces displacement considerably
 
The Escort Cruiser was intended (before Polaris work postponed the orders) to replace the 9th and 10th Countys I think I read somewhere. Between 3 and 6 ships. Although the 1962 version finally settled on Seadart and Ikara as armament, it would have provided a large and stable platform for at least one NIGS launcher.
Accounts of the RN looking at a British version of Bainbridge would also provide a nuclear NIGS follow on to the Countys. At the end of the 50s nuclear powered ships were expected to replace conventional ones. This soon evaporated but it does coincide with NIGS.
 
Ok now miracles of miracles having time on the PC, I'm mucking about with Shipbucket style drawings on a County. Definitely going for a Tico style split pairs of 985 arrays, and assuming the TIR is 6ft I'm using a rough Type 85 Firelight sketch as place holders. This certainly makes it easier to fit within the length. Still leave enough space for a Sea King helicopter hanger at the back.
 
Last edited:
Um . . . pardon my ignorance but exactly does NIGS mean? Was there any plan to convert Vanguard into a missile ship or was she on her way to the breakers by then?
 
Flying Sorcerer said:
Um . . . pardon my ignorance but exactly does NIGS mean? Was there any plan to convert Vanguard into a missile ship or was she on her way to the breakers by then?
Click to expand...
New Integrated Guided-weapon System I think.
No Vanguard was too expensive to run. That's why so much effort first on Cruiser-Destroyers, then Guided Weapon Cruisers.
 
Hood said:
I have done a very crude estimation to see if indeed the launcher drawings matched a conversion of a County class hull.
The attached is a crude mashup of my scaled NIGS launcher and magazine to a cross section of the County hull with the deck lines and features shown matched up as close as possible to the plans.

What is surprising is perhaps the height of the NIGS launchers, they are quite high but perhaps not impossibly so for topweight concerns.
The forward launcher means the removal of the B turret (I suspect A would go too) and the complete replacement of the forward superstructure and bridge. Of course the plan drawing only shows us the forward angled face for the search radar. I suspect there would be one block holding all four arrays. I think that would fit but the aft array would be rather blocked by the forward funnel which I suspect would be removed, perhaps to be put into a midships mack to hold the usual surface search and navigation sets. Also, where would the bridge go? Below the angled radar block - which would be very low and probably poor views given the NIGS launcher right in front of it, especially given the missile blast problems - or on top of the search radars which would be very high indeed - effectively at foremast level!
The aft launcher replaces the Type 901 guidance block but seems to leave the Wessex hangar intact, probably for conversion into other accomodation or control spaces. Quite possibly Sea Cat could be retained where it is too.
The big unknown is where the illuminator/guidance sets would go. I propose two on top of the bridge block and two on the former hangar.
It feels just about do-able but given the unknowns on the bridge, aft array and illuminator locations there are some mysteries to be worked out. But it does seem highly likely the plans at Kew are indeed based on a County rather than a notional design.
Click to expand...

That screams vertical launch......
 
Tzoli said:
Check the official sketch drawings here:
The hull width around the aft magazine is about double that of the missile magazine eg around 54 feet or 16,5 meters and the hull line shows it going wider at the middle.
The countys was max 16m wide so this would be certainly a larger ship, County shaped maybe but wider and longer
Click to expand...

I don't agree. The two aft magazine options have a width of 27ft and 34ft, scaling the remaining beam it works out to the 54ft beam, the max beam being just ahead of the the right-hand end of the plans. I don't think there is any doubt now that that this is a County hull.

One major issues though is that the missiles are badly exposed, the majority of the missile (except for the launch boosters) are above the upper deck inside the deckhouse. The 'Special' (i.e. nuclear) missiles are stowed at the outer end of the deckhouse facing more and aft, so even more exposed to splinter damage. The Counties were not armoured but the internal tube at least gave some splinter protection. Unless the deckhouses were built of thick plating (unlikely given the topweight) then the missiles were highly vulnerable. If anything this would perhaps have made a new ship more appealing to try and keep the magazines completely below decks.

Given the limited growth of the County hull I don't think there is any doubt (as JFC Fuller said too) that this was an initial study using the County as a baseline to compare against Seaslug. Don't forget a lot of design work and calculations had gone into the County since its inception with a wide variety of layouts and hullforms and equipment changes. Had NIGS become a programme, its likely that the next batch of studies would have been larger and optimised for the new system.
 
Hood said:
Had NIGS become a programme, its likely that the next batch of studies would have been larger and optimised for the new system.
Click to expand...

A proper nuclear powered cruiser in other words.
 
Last edited:
Because I lack a good quality drawing of the County class, I had to use some other means.
Now here is what I have in mind for the start of the drawing, to where to put the missile launchers:
1581263566176.png
By the angle of the lines the NIGS ship would be 17-18m wide and slightly longer say around 2-6m longer eg 161-165m overall

moving the launchers closer to each other would give a helideck on the fantail but the bridge and radar superstructures (I assume some sort of pyramidal similar to the current very ugly Daring or Type 45) would be quite close to each other. I assume Nuclear propulsion otherwise tall macks or a single large funnel are required
 
I think the bridge/ 985 superstructure is a bit more like a Tico or Arleigh Burke
 
The problem in trying to realise NIGS is that it pushes the RN to a US style TALOS platform in a timeframe when TALOS and then TYPHON were already being given up in favour of smaller faster reacting missiles like Seadart and Standard.
As has been said the platform for NIGS was the Seaslug cruiser of 1957 NIGS would have replaced Sea and Blue Slug launchers at both ends. Except that Seaslug was not ready for service in 1957 nor NIGS to replace it in 1961. Move the weapon development times to their US analogues and NIGS plus cruiser make sense.
 
You can allways have Orange Nell at one end, although that was closer to a point defense system.
 
uk 75 said:
The problem in trying to realise NIGS is that it pushes the RN to a US style TALOS platform in a timeframe when TALOS and then TYPHON were already being given up in favour of smaller faster reacting missiles like Seadart and Standard.
As has been said the platform for NIGS was the Seaslug cruiser of 1957 NIGS would have replaced Sea and Blue Slug launchers at both ends. Except that Seaslug was not ready for service in 1957 nor NIGS to replace it in 1961. Move the weapon development times to their US analogues and NIGS plus cruiser make sense.
Click to expand...

Like the GW93 and 95 I've posted here?
 
zen said:
I think the bridge/ 985 superstructure is a bit more like a Tico or Arleigh Burke
Click to expand...
Absent any real drawings, I imagine something akin to a Type 43 disposition of illuminators with the main arrays split fore and aft makes best use of available centreline space. All four NSR arrays in one deckhouse would seriously constrain space for the necessary masts and stacks; I think that splitting the arrays two forward/two aft with centreline illuminators is the lowest risk way of using the available space.
 
Finishing my drawing of the NIGS Launcher and comparing it with the Sea Slug one, size wise not much difference.
The NIGS twin arm is somewhat taller but minimally not as wide and a little shorter.
Sidenote:
Does anybody has good drawings of the GWS.1 Sea Slug missile though most importantly it's cage like launcher?
 
No we're talking about AESA here, so the parallels are Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke.
So not like Type 43.
Though the stacked TIR sets are relevant. Not a given that Decca would win that contract.

Tico has two arrays synced by a single source with waveguideds of equal length. But the two sources for each pair of arrays is kept in sync by electric clocks. Apparently this was expensive and difficult to get working.

AB has all four arrays kept in sync by waveguided of equal length to a single source. AB design resolves a number of issues I suspect.

SCANFAR equipped ships are a reasonable example for how things might be arranged.

The boxy superstructure might be made out of aluminium to keep topweightweight down.

However the sacrifice of big guns and a backup alternative VSR set is clear.
The funnels could be move back a bit and at worse the machinery and boilers reversed in position to assist that.

County hull form could be preserved, but above the waterline and necessary freeboard is frankly going to need a lot of changes.
 
zen said:
So not like Type 43.
Click to expand...
Like T43 in terms of illuminator layout, not so much in other respects.

Whether to go for all four NSR arrays in a single deckhouse, or split two forward/two aft, depends largely on whether the surveillance radar people or the massed ranks of everyone else in the design team (potentially including the illuminator people) win the inevitable bunfight.
 
food-drink-bun_fight-cake-restaurant-buns-rioting-gth0023_low.jpg
 
RLBH said:
zen said:
So not like Type 43.
Click to expand...
Like T43 in terms of illuminator layout, not so much in other respects.

Whether to go for all four NSR arrays in a single deckhouse, or split two forward/two aft, depends largely on whether the surveillance radar people or the massed ranks of everyone else in the design team (potentially including the illuminator people) win the inevitable bunfight.
Click to expand...
Actually is this another aspect of why NIGS was abandoned?

Not only a bun fight but crusty old Admirals asking what happens when an array gets knocked out?
Treasury asking how much this will cost and other Admirals asking if what might be a 10 year wait for operational systems is worth it, when Sea Slug needs replacement much sooner.
And then there's the Tartar and Orange Nell crowd going on about the dangers of close range threats.

While DAW is banging on about one range, RAF is banging on about Blue Envoy.

And the radar people are arguing which approach is best.
The missile buys are arguing over the missile.
And in come the computing experts throwing their hands and saying you need 5 computers to run 985!!!!!
 
Somewhere I thought it's come up on this thread.
My take was a computer per array and then one to merge the picture.
 
Question about the radar technology here. I've seen some folks say it was an AESA, but JCF Fuller's post of 1 February mentions that it would have one or two transmitters, which implies PESA to me. That would be more in keeping with the technology of the day; phase shifters and a big TWT transmitter buried in the deckhouse. Sure there were AESAs of a sort in the 1960s but it wasn't really viable technology until the 1980s.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom