Royal Navy frigates in the 70s

[uk 75]

The saga of the Royal Navy's carriers after 1966 has been the main focus of interest here, but the workhorse of the RN then as now was the frigate.
By the 1970s the RN had plans to replace its Type 12 Leander class frigates with the larger all missile armed Type 22.
Leanders were designed around a twin 4.5" gun for surface to surface and the combination of a Wasp helo and Limbo mortar for ASW. Anti aircraft defence was confined to the obsolescent Seacat.
The Type 22 was armed with Exocet SSMs and could carry two of the new Lynx helicopters. It could defend itself against aircraft and missiles with the Seawolf, a state of the art system.
Unfortunately such a change came at a high price. Initially only 4 Batch 1 Type 22s were ordered. They only began to be delivered as the 80s dawned.
The RN had to keep ordering frigates to maintain the UK's shipyards. Initially they kept building Leanders up until the 26th ship. Plans were made to re-equip the early ships with Ikrara ASW and then further ships with Exocet. Seawolf proved so cumbersome that only one launcher could be carried.
To maintain the UK's frigate building capability and allow older.ships to be retired, four Vosper Thorneycroft Type 21 frigates were ordered. With four more following these ships became the newest frigates in the RN until HMS Broadsword commissioned.
The Type 21s were able to carry both a 4.5" gun and 4 Exocets. Though critcised for poor habitability for ratings and their fragility undet fire, seven out of 8 ships went to the Falklands. Two were sunk.
The main weakness of the RN in the 70s was in the ageing Seaslug and Seacat anti-air missiles. Seadart equipped one trials ship- the sole Type 82 but by 1980 only a few of the new Type 42 destroyers had been delivered.
Even with hindsight it is hard to see how this leap (from Leanders to Broadswords) could have been handled better and faster, without more resources.
Sadly history repeated itself after 1991 with the T23 frigates having to serve even longer than the Leanders.

 

[Rule of cool]

An 'problem' for the RN was that Vosper Thorneycroft was going from strength to strength from the 60s, with the Mk3 (Nigeria), Mk5 (Iran), Mk7 (Libya), Mk8 (Type 21), Mk9 (Nigeria) and Mk10 (Brazil). As much as the RN wanted Type 22s they had to admit that they couldn't design and build frigates as cheaply as VT, so the RN reluctantly bit the bullet and bought them.

One possibility with the Type 21 was that at some point in the late 60s the RN and RAN looked to cooperate on the RN frigate requirement and RAN light destroyer project. In about 1969 RAN re-scoped the requirements, the projects diverged and cooperation was cancelled. If the RAN had bought the 4th DDG as recommended by the C-COSC in 1964, perhaps as a replacement for the Voyager, then the requirements may not have diverged and the RN-RAN joint frigate might have been a possibility.

As for Sea Dart ships, the 1st 4 Counties were ordered/built as a batch, as were the next 2 and the final 2. The Bristol and SHeffield appear to have been ordered/built as single ships but the remaining 5 Batch 1 T42s were laid down more or less as a batch in a 25 months period with Swan Hunter and Cammell Laird each building 2 x T42s simultaneously.

I've heard that the final 2 Counties could have been ordered as T82s, but I don't know how realistic this is. However it is certainly possible that T82s could have been ordered in a batch, with 4 ships being laid down all within about a 1 year period, which would get 4 Sea Sart ships into service in about 1973-74, instead of 1973-75-76 and 4 in 78-79.

 

[uk 75]

As ever with UK the weapons fit seems to be the nub.
Both Seawolf and Seadart became more sophisticated than just Seacat replacement and UK Tartar analogue.
This reflected both the limits of UK funding and industry but also the fast changing Soviet threat.
A basic Seacat replacement using the same launcher was available (Seacat 2).
Seawolf and Seacat 2 are roughly the same size.
Faced with new Soviet SSM/ASMs the Type 22 becomes a powerful destroyer sized vessel with 12 ready to fire Seawolf in a sturdy launcher designed to cope with N Atlantic conditions. With electronic and computing technology developing much faster the system had to grow with it.
I suspect if the RN had known this in 1966 Seacat 2 would have been bought as an interim improvement.
Seadart developed in a similar way. The T82 design with its launcher aft would have been better than the T42. But in order to get enough units to sea, the T42 (similar in size to the T22) was in keeping with the original idea of a UK Tartar for frigates. The US went a similar route with the Perry class. But it had the luxury of larger Terrier then Standard ER ships as well.
France, Italy and Netherlands deployed both Tartar and Terrier/Masurca ships but in much smaller numbers than the RN with its Seaslug and Seadart ships.
My two changes to the RN's actual programme would have been buying Seacat 2 and keeping all four T82 planned to escort CVA01.
I might also have looked more closely at a common hull for T42 and T22 with Seadart replacing the helicopter aft and Exocet mounted centrally like the later Harpoons. All ships would have received 4.5" guns.
With Seacat 2 on all ships by 1972 and Type 82s in service by 1975 the early Countys could have been sold earlier and resources put into developing T22/42.
The T21s with Seacat 2 would be good value.
That leaves the controversial Leander conversions. In my view the most useful weapons on these ships were the twin 4.5" guns and the helicopter (Lynx should have been adopted earlier.
The Ikara conversions seem unavoidable. If you want the ASW helicopter as well then the gun has to go.
The Exocet conversions, however, seem too complex. Chile managed to fit Exocet aft and we could then have replaced them later with Harpoon.
Fitting Seawolf is unnecessary if you have Seacat 2. Much better to order additional T22.
In a perfect world T23 would have seen both VL Seawolf and Seadart equipped units entering service in the late 80s.

 

[Rule of cool]

I agree that the Leander - Seawolf conversions are a waste, although the Exocet conversions less so despite their shortcomings.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Link to Post 2.

For what it's worth these are all the destroyers and frigates ordered from 1968 to the end of the Cold War in order date.

​

Amazon the first Type 21 was to have been completed in the summer of 1972 (30 months after she was laid down) and was completed in May 1974 (54 months after she was laid down). Sheffield the first Type 42 was to have been completed in the summer of 1973 (42 months after she was laid down) and was completed in January 1975 (61 months after she was laid down). The average building time of the 8 Type 21s was 51 months and the average building time for the first 6 Type 42s was 61 months.

IIRC (1) from Friedman the delays to Type 21 and the first 6 Type 42s were due to the late delivery of the electronics rather than inefficient shipyards. IIRC (2) from Friedman 3 Type 21s were originally planned and it was increased to 8 ships because the electronics industry couldn't build enough Sea Dart systems.

The estimated costs for Types 21 and 42 circa 1970 were £7-8 million and £17 million respectively according to contemporary editions of Jane's. Unfortunately, it's not easy to do cost comparisons between Types 21 & 42 Batch 1 as completed because of inflation and because later ships were completed with heavier armaments and more advanced electronics. E.g. I know that Amazon wasn't completed with STWS and Exocet and think that it wasn't completed with CAAIS and UAA-1. Similarly, Sheffield wasn't completed with STWS (the first ship was Birmingham) and it didn't have UAA-1 either (the first ship was Newcastle).

Similarly, Type 42 Batch 2 had a Type 1022 radar instead of Type 965P and Type 42 Batch 3 had the Type 2016 sonar instead of Type 184M which would have accounted for some of the cost increase over the earlier batches. Type 42 Batch 3 also had a larger hull than the earlier batches, but as I believe in the theory that steel is cheap and air is free, the extra cost of the larger hull would have been a negligible percentage of the total cost.

 

[Rule of cool]

Even in the troubled 70s and as late as the 80s the RN/Govt was ordering surface ships in batches quite regularly, which IIUC is the most efficient way to do it. I can't help but think that a similar thing was possible with the LPDs and CVAs in the 60s.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Even in the troubled 70s and as late as the 80s the RN/Govt was ordering surface ships in batches quite regularly, which IIUC is the most efficient way to do it. I can't help but think that a similar thing was possible with the LPDs and CVAs in the 60s.

For what it's worth it didn't feel like that at the time and I recall John Moore writing in a 1980s edition of Jane's that British naval procurement was akin to pulling teeth.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Even in the troubled 70s and as late as the 80s the RN/Govt was ordering surface ships in batches quite regularly, which IIUC is the most efficient way to do it. I can't help but think that a similar thing was possible with the LPDs and CVAs in the 60s.

FWIW they did that with the Invincible class and the nuclear submarines IOTL too.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Problem was definitely the UK electronics industry (and missiles, but IIRC the delays and cost increases in the missile systems were due to electronics).

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

One possibility with the Type 21 was that at some point in the late 60s the RN and RAN looked to cooperate on the RN frigate requirement and RAN light destroyer project. In about 1969 RAN re-scoped the requirements, the projects diverged and cooperation was cancelled. If the RAN had bought the 4th DDG as recommended by the C-COSC in 1964, perhaps as a replacement for the Voyager, then the requirements may not have diverged and the RN-RAN joint frigate might have been a possibility.

Are you referring to the General Purpose Escort (GPE) which preceded the Light Destroyer (DDL) project?

FWIW the description of the GPE in Conway's 1947-1995 ls a bit like a Type 21 with CODOG machinery, British & American weapons and British & Dutch electronics. While the description of the DDL in that book looks a lot like Type 42 (that had identical machinery) with American weapons and a mix of American & Dutch electronics.

 

[Rule of cool]

Are you referring to the General Purpose Escort (GPE) which preceded the Light Destroyer (DDL) project?

I've never seen it called anything other than the DDL, but the 1966-69 concepts would be rightly called a GPE and after that DDL would be the right name. IIUC the earliest concepts were armed with a pair of single 5" guns, but then it grew into a Standard SAM and Wessex helicopter by 1972.

 

[MadRat]

5"? Why not 4.5"?

 

[Yellow Palace]

5"? Why not 4.5"?

Because the RAN recognised that it was easier to get logistic support from the US than from the UK. A whole host of UK kit got replaced by US kit in Australian service.

For that matter, the RN also wanted to do the same thing, but that wasn't politically feasible until Type 26 finally got a 5" gun procured.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I'm getting more than a bit of déjà vu from this thread because it feels like were covering topics that have been thoroughly examined in other threads.

I'm going to make this worse by suggesting that a radar in the same class as the Type 1022 has to be developed in time to be fitted to Bristol and Type 42 Batch 1. If the déjà vu is correct (1) this was perfectly feasible and (2) they could have developed a radar that was even better than Type 1022 which could have taken the place of Type 967/968 on Type 22 too and allowed the Type 909 and Type 910 target indicator radars to be smaller, lighter and cheaper.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I've never seen it called anything other than the DDL, but the 1966-69 concepts would be rightly called a GPE and after that DDL would be the right name. IIUC the earliest concepts were armed with a pair of single 5" guns, but then it grew into a Standard SAM and Wessex helicopter by 1972.

These are from the copy of Conway's 1947-1995 on Scribd.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

And while I'm at it.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Meanwhile, the Royal Netherlands Navy produced the Tromp and Jacob van Heemskerck classes which had similar dimensions to the DDL and Type 42 as well as the same machinery as the DDL and Type 42.


The dimensions of the Kortanaer class were 400ft pp, 427ft oa x 47ft x 20ft. The machinery was 2 Olympus and 2 Tynes (CODOG) producing 51,600shp and 9,800shp respectively.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Because the RAN recognised that it was easier to get logistic support from the US than from the UK. A whole host of UK kit got replaced by US kit in Australian service.

For that matter, the RN also wanted to do the same thing, but that wasn't politically feasible until Type 26 finally got a 5" gun procured.

IIRC (1) the RN wanted to buy Tatar/Standard MR but it wasn't allowed to by HM Treasury because it would cost too many Dollars and Sea Dart was developed instead. IIRC (2) the RN thought about buying Terrier/Standard ER instead of Seaslug. However, the balance of payments problem could have been avoided by building them under licence.

I've suggested a Terrier armed County class destroyer using the Mk 10 GMLS several times (here and on alternatehistory.com) because I think it could have carried more missiles (40 or 60 vice 30 depending upon whether a 2 or 3 ring magazine could have been incorporated) and 2 target indicator radars (instead of one) on a similar size hull. However, maybe they could have done the same with the Seaslug armed County class if the hull had been a bit larger.

I've also suggested a Standard MR armed Type 42, which would have made it so close to the DDL that the RN should have built the DDL under licence instead of Type 42. On a slightly larger hull (with the same machinery) you get 16 additional area defence missiles, a second helicopter, two twin 35mm guns and 6 Harpoons. Unfortunately, Conway's didn't say what the sensors were to have been but it looks like it had a much better air surveillance radar than the Type 965P. Finally, a smaller crew of 210 vs 299-312 for a Type 42.

It seems too good to be true.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Although it contradicts some of what I've written so far (e.g. the production capacity for 8 extra Sea Dart systems didn't exist) 8 Type 42s should have been built instead of the 8 Type 21s. The 14 Type 42 Batch 1 ships built ITTL should have the larger hull of the OTL Batch 3 and a better air surveillance radar than the Type 965P. If necessary the Ikara Leander modernisations should be sacrificed to cover the extra cost of building 8 Type 42s instead of 8 Type 21s.

Then build another 8 Type 22s instead of the 4 Type 42 Batch 1s & 4 Type 42 Batch 3s and as many Type 22s as possible with the money spent on the Exocet Leander & Sea Wolf Leander modernisations. ITTL all Type 22s are built with a 4.5in gun.

 

[Rule of cool]

The early 70s Sea Dart had a reaction time of 12 seconds, the Tartar at the same time had a reaction time of 30 seconds. It's not all about pork barreling and foreign exchange, if the Sea Dart was linked to the Type 988 radar as planned then it would have been quite the beast.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The early 70s Sea Dart had a reaction time of 12 seconds, the Tartar at the same time had a reaction time of 30 seconds.

I believe that it was a similar story for Seaslug and Terrier. Except that the former had one TIR and the latter had 2 so maybe it didn't need a faster reaction time as it could engage 2 targets at once.

FWIW British warships have been accused of being under armed for their size since at least the William White era and most of the time that accusation has been unjustified.

It's not all about pork barrelling and foreign exchange, . . .

It's about finding the "sweet spot" between quantity and quality. That is they have to be cheap enough to be built in numbers, but they have to be fit for purpose too.

. . . if the Sea Dart was linked to the Type 988 radar as planned then it would have been quite the beast.

AIUI Sea Dart was pretty good after the Type 965 was replaced by Type 1022 too.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The early 70s Sea Dart had a reaction time of 12 seconds, the Tartar at the same time had a reaction time of 30 seconds. It's not all about pork barrelling and foreign exchange, if the Sea Dart was linked to the Type 988 radar as planned then it would have been quite the beast.

Does anyone know if the Standard MR tied to the "Kojak" radar on the Dutch Tromp class was quite the beast too?

 

[Rule of cool]

Because the RAN recognised that it was easier to get logistic support from the US than from the UK. A whole host of UK kit got replaced by US kit in Australian service.

For that matter, the RN also wanted to do the same thing, but that wasn't politically feasible until Type 26 finally got a 5" gun procured.

That wasn't an overnight decision, while the RAN ordered 2 US DDGs in 1962 and a 3rd in 1963 they also ordered 2 Leanders to be built in Australian shipyards in 1964. I'd say that it wasn't until the RAN was committed to Vietnam while the British withdrew EoS that the decision to go with the US was set in stone.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

That wasn't an overnight decision, while the RAN ordered 2 US DDGs in 1962 and a 3rd in 1963 they also ordered 2 Leanders to be built in Australian shipyards in 1964. I'd say that it wasn't until the RAN was committed to Vietnam while the British withdrew EoS that the decision to go with the US was set in stone.

Plus there were the Oberon class submarines and HMAS Tobruk based on the Sir Lancelot class LSLs.

Does buying Sea Kings from Westland instead of Sikorsky count? However, that could have been part of the licencing deal between Sikorsky and Westland. That could also explain why the RAN bought Westland Wessexes in the 1960s when it could have bought SH-3As or Ds from Sikorsky.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Does buying Sea Kings from Westland instead of Sikorsky count? However, that could have been part of the licencing deal between Sikorsky and Westland. That could also explain why the RAN bought Westland Wessexes in the 1960s when it could have bought SH-3As or Ds from Sikorsky.

I suspect that was part of the licensing deal, that Westland had distribution rights in Aus.

 

[zen]

Even with hindsight it is hard to see how this leap (from Leanders to Broadswords) could have been handled better and faster, without more resources.

It's not that simple.
Because the original plan had Type 81 Tribals as the backbone of the Fleet. But a host of issues and previous parsimony made this virtually impossible.

Leander didn't solve things a such as is sold.
Sea Cat was inadequate, virtually from Day1.
What was needed was Popsy, or Mopsy, or Orange Nell.....or Q-band Tartar.
What was needed was perhaps that Frigate version of Type 984 and later on ASWRE C-band 3D radar.
What arguably helps was Wasp and what might have helped was a decent automatic single main gun.

Again a host of options were explored during the 1960s. But lacking the right systems to achieve the balance between cost, personnel and capability.......
We got delays and cancellations and the 'interim' Type 21.....

 

[starviking]

Sea Cat was inadequate, virtually from Day1.

We got delays and cancellations and the 'interim' Type 21.....

Looking at the leading naval power, from 1963, USN Frigates had:

Bronstein-class (2), 1963 - no air defense missiles.
Garcia-class (10), 1964-68 - no air defense missiles.
Brooke-class (6), 1966-68 - 16 Tartar air defense missiles.
Knox-class (46), 1969-74 - initially no air defense missiles, 8-cell Sea Sparrow refitted to some in the 70s.
OHP-class (51), 1977-89 - 40-round Standard/Harpoon load.

Looking at the USN’s frigate, the Type 21, laid-down between 1969 and 1974, aren’t the worst, and are broadly comparable to the Knox-class.

 

[Rule of cool]

Looking at the leading naval power, from 1963, USN Frigates had:

Bronstein-class (2), 1963 - no air defense missiles.
Garcia-class (10), 1964-68 - no air defense missiles.
Brooke-class (6), 1966-68 - 16 Tartar air defense missiles.
Knox-class (46), 1969-74 - initially no air defense missiles, 8-cell Sea Sparrow refitted to some in the 70s.
OHP-class (51), 1977-89 - 40-round Standard/Harpoon load.

Looking at the USN’s frigate, the Type 21, laid-down between 1969 and 1974, aren’t the worst, and are broadly comparable to the Knox-class.

The Brooke and OHP classes only had a single guidance channel for their Tartar, so could only guide 1 at a time when a destroyer could guide 2.

 

[zen]

And let's remind ourselves Sea Sparrow BPDMS stands for Basic Point Defence Missile System.

It is far removed from later sophisticated Sea Sparrow systems.

 

[H_K]

Even with hindsight it is hard to see how this leap (from Leanders to Broadswords) could have been handled better and faster, without more resources.

The Type 21s should have been designed with enough margins for Lynx and Sea Wolf to be installed later (when they become available in the mid/late 70s). Then scratch the 5 Leander upgrades with Exocet+Seawolf.

Ideally instead of Seacat launchers on the modernized Leanders in the mid-late 70s, adopt a lightweight 4-round Seawolf or SeaCat 2 using the same launcher base.

Anyone know why RN Lynxes never had dipping sonar? Seems like that would improve ASW detection aboard smaller frigates.

 

[BlackBat242]

Are you referring to the General Purpose Escort (GPE) which preceded the Light Destroyer (DDL) project?

FWIW the description of the GPE in Conway's 1947-1995 ls a bit like a Type 21 with CODOG machinery, British & American weapons and British & Dutch electronics. While the description of the DDL in that book looks a lot like Type 42 (that had identical machinery) with American weapons and a mix of American & Dutch electronics.

I've never seen it called anything other than the DDL, but the 1966-69 concepts would be rightly called a GPE and after that DDL would be the right name. IIUC the earliest concepts were armed with a pair of single 5" guns, but then it grew into a Standard SAM and Wessex helicopter by 1972.

One possibility with the Type 21 was that at some point in the late 60s the RN and RAN looked to cooperate on the RN frigate requirement and RAN light destroyer project. In about 1969 RAN re-scoped the requirements, the projects diverged and cooperation was cancelled. If the RAN had bought the 4th DDG as recommended by the C-COSC in 1964, perhaps as a replacement for the Voyager, then the requirements may not have diverged and the RN-RAN joint frigate might have been a possibility.

From Conway's 1947-95, in the RN T-21 entry:

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Although it contradicts some of what I've written so far (e.g. the production capacity for 8 extra Sea Dart systems didn't exist) 8 Type 42s should have been built instead of the 8 Type 21s. The 14 Type 42 Batch 1 ships built ITTL should have the larger hull of the OTL Batch 3 and a better air surveillance radar than the Type 965P. If necessary the Ikara Leander modernisations should be sacrificed to cover the extra cost of building 8 Type 42s instead of 8 Type 21s.

Then build another 8 Type 22s instead of the 4 Type 42 Batch 1s & 4 Type 42 Batch 3s and as many Type 22s as possible with the money spent on the Exocet Leander & Sea Wolf Leander modernisations. ITTL all Type 22s are built with a 4.5in gun.

This is a rather imprecise calculation due to inflation and the later ships of both classes having heavier armaments and more electronics than the first ships of both classes . . .

• The 8 Type 21s were ordered 1969-71, laid down 1969-74, completed 1974-78, had an average building time of 51 months and an average cost of £21.2 million.
• The 6sType 42s were ordered 1968-71, laid down 1970-74, completed 1975-79. had an average building time of 65 months and an average cost of £34.0 million.
• So the first 6 Type 42s took about a year longer to build and their building cost was an average of £12.8 million more.

Therefore it would have cost an extra £102.3 million to build 8 Type 42 Batch 1s instead of the 8 Type 21s and they would have joined the fleet a year later than the 8 Type 21s.

The first of 8 Ikara Leander modernisations was begun in 1970 and the last was completed in 1978 at an average cost of £12.8 million per ship and a total cost of total £102.8 million. That's actually £500,000 more than my estimated cost of building more Type 42s instead of the Type 21s and is because all my calculations are rounded to the nearest £100,000

 

[Rule of cool]

I once saw it written that although the T22 was classed as a frigate it was in fact a sophisticated ASW Destroyer, somewhat akin to the USN Spruance class. I find it hard to argue with this assessment and though the T22s were the designated successor of the Leanders they weren't really like for like as they lacked the 'patrol' aspect of the Leander, which had the 2 x 4.5' guns for 'peacetime' missions that were so important to the RN in the 50s and 60s. By the 70s the RN was an instrument for high-intensity war, the Type 22s would have been useless in the 'Cod Wars' of the 70s, where Britain re-activated a Type 41 and a Type 61 frigate.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Type 22s would have certainly been useful in the Cod Wars, guns weren't needed there, just strong hulls, good seakeeping, high speed and acceleration, and maneuverability (provided by Gas Turbines or Diesels, and controllable-pitch propellers). If Royal Navy captains wanted to get more aggressive, they could burn out the Icelandic Coast Guard's navigation radars with the ship's jamming equipment, drowning out orders issued on their bridges by hovering a helicopter close by overhead, and welding steel rails to parts the frigate to cause greater damage to Icelandic vessels when ramming each other.

Batch 1 with their hull mounted sonars would have been better for this, I expect the exposed and vulnerable bow sonars of the later Batches would preclude any ramming attempts.

Type 41 and 61 were taken out of reserve because their Diesels and CP propellers gave them better acceleration and maneuverability than the steam-powered Leanders, and the fact that that damage from collisions with Icelandic Coast Guard vessels put a significant proportion of the Royal Navy's Frigate force in dock for repairs.

 

[Rule of cool]

That's a big waste of an advanced ASW Destroyer when there are older and far more expendable ships that are far more amenable to being used for ramming. The Type 41 and 61 that were re-activated had already been used up in their designed roles and were in reserve, if they sustained ramming damage the RN wouldn't even bother to fix it.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

That's a big waste of an advanced ASW Destroyer when there are older and far more expendable ships that are far more amenable to being used for ramming. The Type 41 and 61 that were re-activated had already been used up in their designed roles and were in reserve, if they sustained ramming damage the RN wouldn't even bother to fix it.

Type 22s are overly expensive and a bad choice for the Cod Wars role when there are better options available, yes, but not useless, they could perform it if needed.

 

[Rule of cool]

With regard to SAMs, is there a neat trick that could make it all work out? Typhoon and Mauler were too technologically ambitious and I suspect British programmes would be vulnerable to funding cuts; eg. if Seacat 2 was adopted Sea Wolf might be cancelled.

Bear in mind these must be domestic products, simply buying off the shelf is not the primary option for great powers in the period.

 

[Rule of cool]

Type 22s are overly expensive and a bad choice for the Cod Wars role when there are better options available, yes, but not useless, they could perform it if needed.

I'm a big believer that going high-end and then misusing such kit for low-end scenarios is way better than buying low-end kit and losing the once-in-a-generation wars that spring up with depressing regularity. However the point still stands, while the Leanders were state of the art ASW Frigates in their day they retained their ability to operate in 'Limited' wars like the Indonesian Confrontation, where they patrolled for infiltration watercraft and conducted shore bombardments.

A better example of this 'dual role' design concept was the idea of putting the huge Type 984 3D radar in the County class DLGs. Doing this would have required removing at least 1 and possibly both twin 4.5" gun turrets to free up the weight and space, but the RN objected to losing this capability that would be used far more often than the amazing capabilities of the Type 984. I believe the 'solution' was to datalink the Type 984 radar feed from carriers to the DLGs, keep the Type 965 radars and the pair of twin 4.5" gun turrets, therefore being able to do both roles.

However by the 70s this secondary role had been dispensed with entirely, the Type 22s were to fight high-end wars and nothing else. This had been coming for quite a while, apparently there was some talk of the otherwise powerful Type 82 DLG using the same old rebuilt WW2 guns/mountings that the Type 81 GP frigates used, before deciding on the then new Mk 8 gun.

 

[Scott Kenny]

With regard to SAMs, is there a neat trick that could make it all work out? Typhoon and Mauler were too technologically ambitious and I suspect British programmes would be vulnerable to funding cuts; eg. if Seacat 2 was adopted Sea Wolf might be cancelled.

Bear in mind these must be domestic products, simply buying off the shelf is not the primary option for great powers in the period.

The problem is, the UK no longer has the economy to be a Great Power once India gained independence.

 

[H_K]

The problem is, the UK no longer has the economy to be a Great Power once India gained independence

That is neither here nor there and probably not relevant to this SAM discussion.

The real problem IMHO was that the UK developed 2 short range SAM systems (Rapier + Sea Wolf) neither of which was ideal - Rapier being too small and lacking a real warhead, and Sea Wolf not being suited to tube launch or automatic reloading.

The better answer would have been one joint army/navy system with a warhead, tube launch and automatic reloading like Crotale, Roland, or Aspide… ie. a less technologically advanced Mauler.