RN Nuclear NIGS ship

Tzoli said:
Okay but I would had helped with a complete radar set. I will stay with the Counties then:
1x Type 977/978,
1x Type 965,
1x Type 277/278,
1x Type 992/993,
2-4+1 Type 903 or 904 / MRS for the Seacats and Gun control
4x Type 985
4x 1,8m (6ft) dish for illumination? 4x for the two twin launchers or 4 per side? I imagine a small scale Type 277P:
Click to expand...
A NIGS armed design woul not need the Type 965 for long-range air search or the Type 278 for height-finding as the Type 985 could do the job of both. For the illuminator dish, I would go for a scaled-down Type 909 radar.
 
Last edited:
So what would certainly remain is the ECM and receiver aerials, and EW jammers.
You'll still have UHF, VHF and a number of other aerials.
Surface search might remain separate.
There would be datalink transmitters.

The Illuminators might be more like the main Type 86 Firelight dish. Fairly simple in appearance.
 
To me this looks like a smaller Ticonderoga on a County hull as I'm working on the drawing:
ddqhf1l-da193dca-4daa-4a29-870d-70bbef09e44d.png


Question how would effect the tracking of the radars if I put the Type 985 diagonally 45 degrees from the axes similar to Arleigh Burke and not on the axes as in Long Beach?
 
Hi Tzoli,

I really like that drawing and, along with now knowing the arrays were only 15ft tall, its got me thinking. I would suggest the following changes based on the timeframe and the archive material:

1) Move the two aft facing arrays to a block aft, approximately where you have the aft Sea Cat launcher and director
2) As you said, angle the arrays at 45 degrees from the centreline, as in the later Aegis ships (should improve interference issues with masts and radars)
3) Make the masts for the directors into MACKs (combined exhausts and masts) to reflect the fact this would have been a COSAG ship
4) Delete the forward Sea Cat launchers and directors - the counties only had the two aft
5) The archive material is clear that no gun was planned but I like the idea of a hull stretch to accommodate a 4.5" Mk.8 forward, these ships were not going to complete until 1970 so the later Mk.8, as used in HMS Bristol, seems more likely
 
Fuller I'm making the full Nuclear version Scheme 16, hence the lack of funnels and longer hull. If the last scheme 17 with County powerplant has the same hull as 16 that could too not cause problems.
The circles atop the masts should represent the illuminators as I don't know how many to put (4 altogether or 4 per launcher)
Deleting the gun is no problem it could save up sensor space above the bridge and the RN did built an all missile ship class the Batch I and II Broadswords / Type 22's
 
I hate cluttering project threads with speculative what-ifs so I have made a new thread here.

May I suggest everyone uses this new thread to avoid misleading conflicts with what is real and what is not here. After all this thread is already quite muddled.
 
Hood said:
I hate cluttering project threads with speculative what-ifs so I have made a new thread here.

May I suggest everyone uses this new thread to avoid misleading conflicts with what is real and what is not here. After all this thread is already quite muddled.
Click to expand...


Well done
 
I have some basic understanding of the different methods a missile lead to the target, via manually aimed like cable or laser or guided with radars either beam riding or with illumination but why not the large Surface and Naval based AA missiles had Infra-Red homing for the terminal approach? The AIM-9 Sidewinder was very successful in this regard. So why not put an IR sensor to a missile and use only the radars to reach the approx target area? Wouldn't this result in fewer radar usage on ships?
 
Last edited:
How do you know the IR sensor is locking on the right target?

SARH means you illuminate the desired target.
 
The lastest marks of the RIM66s Standard 2s do have an IR seeker on a wing...

But i imagine that in the past, call it up to mid-80s , there wasn't enough space for both. The electrics were extremely bulky and for the infrared seekers you needed a cooler to cool the sensor down to get the best results. Thats alot to pack into a missile thats barely 14 inches a round.

It wasn't unit the last ten years that electronics got both small enough and more importantly reliable enough to do both.

Add in the usual bureaucratic inertia and the militaries habitual ways of shying away from the newest stuff for mainline use until its proven... It only now that they just looking into it.
 
IR missiles of the early era typically could not lock on after launch -- they had narrow fields of view and limited sensitivity. Most needed to engage targets from the rear, where they could see hot exhaust gasses.

There is also the issue that many of the first generation of long-range SAMs had a nuclear warhead option, and nuclear warheads as a matter of doctrine had to be under positive control during flight. That was incompatible with an IR seeker.
 
Aircraft mounted missiles, yes they are small but not land and ship launched ones!
 
Tzoli said:
Aircraft mounted missiles, yes they are small but not land and ship launched ones!
Click to expand...
The problem is that of limited sensitivity and target discrimination. With an illuminator you have positive control over which target gets hit even after the missile leaves the rail. With IR, if a missile can even pick up a target at dozens of miles, you give up control the moment the missile flies.
Remember, these were early electronics, if they had a command channel it was often only for a basic self-destruct.
 
zen said:
So here's something that doesn't tally with shown NIGS missile on this thread.
"The missile was so much smaller then Seaslug that i seemed a much smaller ship could carry it".
As the shown weapon is huge, substantially larger in l dimensions bar the missile's diameter (a legacy hangover from Sea Slug I suspect).
Click to expand...

Friedman might had indeed made an error there mixing the NIGS with SIGS, or he had seen more data about the missiles development as evident of the at least 18 (by numbering at least 20) schemes for the ships to carry this missile. The only way to be sure is to search in the original documents. I assume these schemes were collected in a table format similarly to the GW series. What Friedman mentioned as a much smaller Sea Slug might be either a very early version (Note that when the development of Sea Slug began it was envisioned as a basis on one on one replacement in 1945/46 for the 4,5" Mark V turret, and we know the twin launcher grow to as large as the twin 6" Mark N5 or almost as large as the triple Mark XXIII) or some other firm too proposed a missile design.
 
Here is my interpretation of the Scheme 16 NIGS DDGN design:
www.deviantart.com

RN Nuclear NIGS Missile Ship Scheme 16 by Tzoli on DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com www.deviantart.com
ddqhf1l-7cada0ff-6bb3-4547-bbdb-a9a1c49af21d.png


The design had the following characteristics:
Dimensions: 170.69m (oa) x 18,29 x 5,67m
Displacement: 8500tons (standard)
Engines: 60.000shp, Westinghouse D1G or Rolls-Royce PWR1 Nuclear Reactors, 2 shafts
Range: Unlimited
Speed: Unknown probably around 59km/h (32knots)
Armaments:
2x2 NIGS SAM
3x4 GWS.21 Seacat SAM
2x1 40mm/56 QF Mk VIII AA Guns
2x Westland Wessex Helicopters
Sensors:
3x Type 903 Fire-control Radar, one for each MRS.3 director
1x Type 978 Surface Search / Navigation radar
4x Type 985 Tracking and Search radars
4x NIGS Illuminator Radars
1x Type 992 Air/Surface Search Radar
 
Last edited:
Thinking on the illuminators, given the trends and technology of the period, this still seems likely to have a cassigrain 'lense' much like the Type 909 and a host of other dishes of this time. Open lattice types, while light and offering less wind resistance are also more prone to damage and corrosion. Which is always a pressing matter at sea.
So likelyhood is the illuminators are both more like a Type 909 in appearance and like them covered with a dielectric dome or sphere.
Which protects them, makes for consistent sail effect and masks the direction they are pointing at.
 
Looks great! Might be interesting another day to see a version from the late 70s/early 80s, with Seacat 2 for example.
 
Well we only know the dish's size and nothing other. A different artist might had different ideas.
Wonder how a GW.96 CG follow on would had looked like with these kinds of armaments.
 
I agree Tzoli and if o haven't said before I have the utmost admiration for your work.

I'll say the placement of the illuminators is absolutely causing me a headache on a County hull and propulsion setup.
Macks do seem to solve this but I'm pretty sure I'm getting this wrong at the moment.
So I'm headed down a similar route to yours
 
Looks good.
There are a couple of things that catch my eye as not quite fitting the style of the DNC constructors of the time, but overall its a good indication of what could have been achieved.
I think a 40mm and Sea Cat mix is unlikely given the time period, Sea Cat was meant to replace the 40mm so its unlikely they would have both.

Still working on my redrawn ship, progress is slow but I will share my thoughts soon.
 
Well originally the Counties had 20mm Oerlikons so I've made an upgrade to that caliber, and yes the Seacats was a replacement of the Bofors but on an 1-on-1 basis for the quad and sextuple mounts (not sure if twins too were included). Also having a short range gun for last ditch defense as well as anti patrol-boat anti-piracy measures are a good idea in my opinion. (The all-missile Broadswords too had these kind of armaments so does the Type 12 Leanders)
 
Hood said:
I hate cluttering project threads with speculative what-ifs so I have made a new thread here.

May I suggest everyone uses this new thread to avoid misleading conflicts with what is real and what is not here. After all this thread is already quite muddled.
Click to expand...
I think this thread needs to be tidied up a bit. Tzolis excellent work should be together with Hood's but the thread needs to be easier to find
 
Radars are not my strong point and I admit to not really understanding the discussion about them.
But I keep coming back to Long Beach which was the only new-build surface warship built with the TALOS, itself the only real analogue to NIGS.
I think this effort by Hood some years ago on Shipbucket is the closest to what a NIGS would have look like. The bridge should be above the radar block.
If 4 Luneburg lens style reflector dishes or whatever had been used they would still have had to be mounted under the bridge.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20200304-165559-143.png
    Screenshot_20200304-165559-143.png
    80.3 KB · Views: 216
The description of the Type 985 says they are canted back 25 degrees from vertical. So not like SCANFAR, closer to later Aegis and Skywatch, or MAR and the Soviet equivalent.
One should not presume that the UK will make the same mistakes as the US. Rather it will make it's own mistakes instead.

And there seems no suggestion that Type 985 is using Luneburg Lenses. So that is not applicable.
This is partly because Type 985 is not trying to do everything unlike SPG-59, which is attempting to search, track and illuminate targets.
SCANFAR cut out the illuminators and that is done by other sets.
SCANFAR cut out the Luneburg Lense too.
So they used a set of arrays instead.
Then they split Search from Tracking into separate arrays.
Search being 2D so just giving range and angle.
Tracking being 3D, so giving range, angle and azimuth. Say 20 degrees portside, 15 degrees above the horizon and 150nm which can be calculated for height.

Search is just sweeping the sky for contacts.
Say Contact X at 200nm, at 20 degrees portside of the ship.

Tracking means having a both a regular beam on the selected target and holding it's data in the system.
Say Contact X at 100nm, currently 90 degrees starboardside, at 30,000ft, velocity -500kts relative (so it's going away), course 15 degrees westward of the system.
This can be done every so many seconds.
Illumination is pretty descriptive, the beam doesn't leave the target until destruction or a miss.

Tracking and Illumination Radar combines Tracking with Illumination.

Type 985 is aiming at both Search Tracking, leaving illumination to other sets.
 
zen said:
The description of the Type 985 says they are canted back 25 degrees from vertical. So not like SCANFAR, closer to later Aegis and Skywatch, or MAR and the Soviet equivalent.
One should not presume that the UK will make the same mistakes as the US. Rather it will make it's own mistakes instead.

And there seems no suggestion that Type 985 is using Luneburg Lenses. So that is not applicable.
This is partly because Type 985 is not trying to do everything unlike SPG-59, which is attempting to search, track and illuminate targets.
SCANFAR cut out the illuminators and that is done by other sets.
SCANFAR cut out the Luneburg Lense too.
So they used a set of arrays instead.
Then they split Search from Tracking into separate arrays.
Search being 2D so just giving range and angle.
Tracking being 3D, so giving range, angle and azimuth. Say 20 degrees portside, 15 degrees above the horizon and 150nm which can be calculated for height.

Search is just sweeping the sky for contacts.
Say Contact X at 200nm, at 20 degrees portside of the ship.

Tracking means having a both a regular beam on the selected target and holding it's data in the system.
Say Contact X at 100nm, currently 90 degrees starboardside, at 30,000ft, velocity -500kts relative (so it's going away), course 15 degrees westward of the system.
This can be done every so many seconds.
Illumination is pretty descriptive, the beam doesn't leave the target until destruction or a miss.

Tracking and Illumination Radar combines Tracking with Illumination.

Type 985 is aiming at both Search Tracking, leaving illumination to other sets.
Click to expand...
Thank you for this comprehensive answer.
Just to be clear, there would be four rectangular arrays canted at 25- to the vertical. However if you have to mount a bridge over them you would still need a blockhouse with them attached. So the only things canted would be the arrays. Not expressing this very well, but the pyramid wastes valuable space.
 
I attach a photo of the AEGIS cg showing how big the bridge cum radar is. Not quite as blocky as Long Beach but not a pyramid
 

Attachments

  • 640px-US_Navy_031109-N-9769P-076_Guided_missile_cruiser_USS_Lake_Champlain_(CG_57)_steams_in_t...jpg
    640px-US_Navy_031109-N-9769P-076_Guided_missile_cruiser_USS_Lake_Champlain_(CG_57)_steams_in_t...jpg
    63.9 KB · Views: 204
uk 75 said:
zen said:
The description of the Type 985 says they are canted back 25 degrees from vertical. So not like SCANFAR, closer to later Aegis and Skywatch, or MAR and the Soviet equivalent.
One should not presume that the UK will make the same mistakes as the US. Rather it will make it's own mistakes instead.

And there seems no suggestion that Type 985 is using Luneburg Lenses. So that is not applicable.
This is partly because Type 985 is not trying to do everything unlike SPG-59, which is attempting to search, track and illuminate targets.
SCANFAR cut out the illuminators and that is done by other sets.
SCANFAR cut out the Luneburg Lense too.
So they used a set of arrays instead.
Then they split Search from Tracking into separate arrays.
Search being 2D so just giving range and angle.
Tracking being 3D, so giving range, angle and azimuth. Say 20 degrees portside, 15 degrees above the horizon and 150nm which can be calculated for height.

Search is just sweeping the sky for contacts.
Say Contact X at 200nm, at 20 degrees portside of the ship.

Tracking means having a both a regular beam on the selected target and holding it's data in the system.
Say Contact X at 100nm, currently 90 degrees starboardside, at 30,000ft, velocity -500kts relative (so it's going away), course 15 degrees westward of the system.
This can be done every so many seconds.
Illumination is pretty descriptive, the beam doesn't leave the target until destruction or a miss.

Tracking and Illumination Radar combines Tracking with Illumination.

Type 985 is aiming at both Search Tracking, leaving illumination to other sets.
Click to expand...
Thank you for this comprehensive answer.
Just to be clear, there would be four rectangular arrays canted at 25- to the vertical. However if you have to mount a bridge over them you would still need a blockhouse with them attached. So the only things canted would be the arrays. Not expressing this very well, but the pyramid wastes valuable space.
Click to expand...
Oh I agree and that's what I did, trying to cut down on the 25 degree sloping surfaces as much as possible.
However because of the weight of the arrays and equal length waveguides that would occupy at lot of the volume, there wouldn't be much inside them bar conduits, stairs and maybe a lift.
The AIO would be deep inside the ship, likely below the high freeboard.
 
and the radar's size was 6 x 4,5m or 20x15feet
 
Tzoli said:
and the radar's size was 6 x 4,5m or 20x15feet
Click to expand...
15ft high by 20ft wide, but if you cant 15ft by 25 degrees it's less as basic trigonometry and technical drawing would show.
 
Thanks both of you.
I think you have both provided the best artwork we can get on this project, unless any more info shows up. Now about that missing drawing of the final version of the 1962 escort cruiser......
 
By the way what does actually NIGS and SIGS stand for? Because the names I've seen (New Generation Missile System, New Guided Weapon System, Next Generation Guided Missile) neither have I as a starting letter in them.
 
I would like to add one other mystery to the NIGS/Type 985 Combo.

On the official data table of the GW series there is a single design: GW59 from 1955-06-23 which described having 8 single launchers (Not sure if Seaslug or "R.F." Whatever that is??? ) With not the usual Seaslug radar of the Type 901 but rather a single Type 985! Other sets being Type 974 and 992.
Also note designs GW61-63 which too had 8 single launchers for R.F. ??? missiles as well as a single Trackwell radar (Whatever that is too! )

Friedman mentions GW59 in connection with the Stage 1 3/4 missile and GW61 as a Talos version of GW52

Check attachment
 

Attachments

  • 18116091939_43fe502f33_o.jpg
    18116091939_43fe502f33_o.jpg
    660.4 KB · Views: 124
Last edited:
So a single 985 may either suggest a rotating single plate system (not trivial) or a single source for the four face system rather like Arleigh Burke.....
RF..... could this be shorthand for a code named missile?
Trackwell could also be a codename radar.....illuminator?
 
Last edited:
zen said:
So a single 985 may either suggest a rotating single plate system (not trivial) or a single source for the four face system rather like Arleigh Burke.....
Click to expand...
I think that may well be the smoking gun for Type 985 being a single source/four face system rather than one with two sources driving two faces each.

Whatever 'R.F.' was, it's clearly bigger than Sea Slug and seems to be consistently associated with the single launcher and either Type 985 or 'Trackwell' radar. The single launcher and large size is suggestive of the Stage 1 3/4 missile to me, with four single launchers of some kind at either end. Given that GW 59 is a generally smaller, less capable ship than GW 61/62/63, I suspect Type 985 was seen as less capable, and 'Trackwell' the optimised radar for the 'RF' system. Note that despite a smaller powerplant, GW 63 is still more than 4,000 tons larger than GW 59. That's a lot of size for four missiles and a pair of 3" guns.
 
The Stage 1 3/4 might be the one but the continuation of the same table shows Designs GW70-78 (In Friedman to 81) having explicitly Bristol 1 3/4 missiles
see attachment.
 

Attachments

  • 18114709010_62b3b13e6b_o.jpg
    18114709010_62b3b13e6b_o.jpg
    662 KB · Views: 146
So if it's inferior to 984 that suggests the four faced reduced capability option. Stated as no ECM and 50nm range. This might suggest say 44 elements per face and 7.5ft high by 10ft wide arrays. A simpler system but still too complex and much poorer performance.


RF

Rapid Fire?
Reduced Flight?
Rotating Floor?
Ripple Fire?

Or Red Flag?
Red Fletch?
Red Flood?
 
Hang on....
Trackwell is instead of 984 or 985.
It's another search and track radar.......


RF.....
Red Flax......a naval Green Flax? But that would be a Stage 1 and 1/2
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom