Sea Dart success?!

[zen]

We know Sea Dart was in the running for the Dutch Navy's new frigate. But in real history they ended up choosing Standard (Tartar System) instead.

What's thee repercussions if this had gone differently and they do choose Sea Dart?

Does the Dutch frigate turn out as described? French 100mm gun, single director Sea Dart, EDO 610 sonar and Type 988 with link 10.

Do we see success with others?
Spain?
Germany?

 

[Hobbes]

The Tromp class main guns were refurbished from earlier destroyers, unlikely they'd have bought new guns instead.
The Tartar/Standard installation included 2 directors, so that'd be a likely fit for the Sea Dart system too, unless topweight problems prevent the second director being placed where it should be (above the first).
It'd be interesting to know whether a British replacement for the Sea Sparrow launcher on the foredeck was talked about.

I did a Shipbucket-style doodle of a Sea Dart Tromp once (purely speculation):

 

[zen]

From what I've read, it would seem originaly around 1964 they intended the fit I've described. Obviously that changed, I suspect several times prior to becoming the fit they actually had.

Here is Mihoshk's effort to render that in shipbucket (found during a bored moment wandering around that site)

 

[Hood]

Worth pointing out here that Mihoshk's drawing features a speculative single-arm Sea Dart launcher.

 

[zen]

Apparently the Dutch intended to fit ikara later on.
Single arm Sea Dart was still around as an idea at the time if my reading is correct.

 

[zen]

Well for the Ikara side of things on a Dutch Frigate design, that's Page 258 of Norman Friedman's book British Frigates and Destroyers WWII and after.

His reference being S G Nooteboom's work Deugdelijke Scheppen: Marinescheepsbouw 1945-1995 page113

Oddly I can't the reference there to a single arm Sea Dart, which I'd thought I'd seen there. Though I also recall something in D.K Browns book, but perhaps that's earlier than '66.

Which is enough detraction from the basis of this thread. Though I'd love to know how many of this earlier Dutch Frigate they planned on building.

Assuming the Dutch do go for Sea Dart,would the RN still pull out of Broomstick, or would we see Bristol completed with it?

If one assumes they do, would we also see this on the 'Through deck Cruiser' as welll?
Or would it remain a single system on just Bristol?

How many Sea Dart ships would the Spanish look at buying?
They had some five Balearas class.

I see Germany had just three Lütjens class DDGs.

So assuming success, in export, we have a grand total of at best 10 more sets of Sea Dart systems, beyond the two sold to Argentina.

But if we are assuming success builds success, who else might buy it and how many?

South Africa is mentioned and Turkey.

Beyond this, if the numbers of greater, does this alter in anyway the potential for landbased versions?
It was after all proposed to replace Bloodhound, and even was the basis of a ABM proposal.

 

[Hood]

I suspect had the Dutch ordered Sea Dart then the UK would have continued with Type 988.
It would not have been fitted to the Escort Cruiser (what I'm assuming you mean by 'Through Deck Cruiser) as that was an anti-submarine optimised cruiser, albeit one with an air-defence capability to add to the overall defence of the task force/ carrier group. With CVA-01 and Type 82 having 988 and ADA with datalinks it seems unlikely another 988-equipped ship would be required (also due to expense).

I doubt the Spanish, nor the Germans, would have brought Sea Dart. First, the clue is in the ship classes you mention; Baleares and Lütjens were both American designs. They were buying a complete integrated package. Sea Dart couldn't be integrated into those ships easily and in the reverse case, the British were not offering a complete weapons system package that included the hull. It was cheaper and easier to buy US and save in design time and money and for logistical reasons too. Even the French brought Tartar.
Given that weight of purchasers, its not too surprising the Dutch went for the cheaper and more plentiful option (though with their own hull). I seriously doubt the Spanish could have afforded any missile-armed destroyers or frigates without US largesse and that almost automatically means 'buy US'.

 

[zen]

Supposedly the Dutch dropped Sea Dart due to a price rise over the expected £25,000 in 1962 to 30,000 in 1966/67.

The claim made in the UK report DEFE69 is that the US underpriced Tartar. RN was shocked that they switched from Sea Dart to Tartar system (Standard)

Type 988 sets rose on cost estimates from £1.475 million in '64 to £2.75 million in '67.

Would be very interesting to know how many Frigates of the type proposed in '64 the Dutch wanted.

Anyway it envisionable in this scenario that Bristol completes with Broomstick and on what will become Invincibles.

Real question is besides the one Type 82 Destroyer and the through-deck cruisers (carrier). What chances are that more than one Type 82 is completed or that the Type 42 design ends up with Type 988?

 

[Hobbes]

His reference being S G Nooteboom's work Deugdelijke Scheppen: Marinescheepsbouw 1945-1995 page113

Thanks for the tip, I've ordered the book. It's "schepen", by the way. (scheppen = shovels)

 

[Arjen]

Supposedly the Dutch dropped Sea Dart due to a price rise over the expected £25,000 in 1962 to 30,000 in 1966/67.

In 'Deugdelijke schepen - Marinescheepsbouw 1945-1995' , Nooteboom writes the bigger size and weight of the Sea Dart installation also played a role. In 1965, The Dutch MoD had chosen Sea Dart, integrated with HSA developed 3D-radar (Project Broomstick) and the UK' s ADA (Action Data Automation). During 1966, negotiations included the UK waiving royalties, the use of UK test ranges and even cooperation on nuclear matters. In the end, cost proved a deciding factor, with the Dutch switching to Tartar (Standard). The UK' s focus in ADA development on its use on carriers, while understandable, didn't help. HSA then developed its own assisted in developing a new data-handling system, DAISY.
<edit > DAISY was developed by the Dutch Navy's Centrum voor Automatisering van Systemen - CAS. CAS was renamed CAMS-Force Vision, and later (2011) merged with other Dutch MoD ICT-units to form Joint Informatie Voorziening Commando - JIVC.</edit>

Would be very interesting to know how many Frigates of the type proposed in '64 the Dutch wanted.

The GW-frigates were always intended as one-for-one replacements for the cruisers De Ruijter and De Zeven Provinciën.
<edit 2> The RIM-2 Terrier-equipped De Zeven Provinciën was originally planned to be kept alongside the two GW-frigates. In 1975, as the frigates became operational, the cruiser was decommissioned for financial reasons. One year later, De Zeven Provinciën was sold to Peru. </edit>

 

[zen]

Thankyou Arjen!
This rather enlightens me on how far this cooperation was going, and in the scenario of this thread opens up some possibilities and quite a few questions.
It does also explain why the likes of a single arm launcher would be of interest (for weight reasons).

One question of many is, since the Netherlands was pursuing this design, did they have ambitions to export it at all?

Back to topic however, and I read the Type 42 design process in the post-66 environment become a very tight one on costs. So it's reasonable to assume if the UK did buy Type 988 Broomstick radar systems, they would be limited to Bristol and the Invincibles.

But couild it have been revisited during the Type 43 process perhaps?

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

You know I just clicked on this thread thinking I'd a Mach 2 seaplane fighter! Doh!

 

[Hobbes]

In the early 1980s, the RNLN was working on the van Heemskerck class, which combined the Standard missile with the Signaal
DA-08, so they did without a 3D radar for a while. Around 1993, they replaced the DA-08 with the SMART-S, a 3D radar much smaller than the Broomstick/SPS-01.

 

[zen]

I doubt the Spanish, nor the Germans, would have brought Sea Dart. First, the clue is in the ship classes you mention; Baleares and Lütjens were both American designs. They were buying a complete integrated package.

Can we say this is true?

In world of Type 82 and of the Tromp class both being Sea Dart ships. Where the Invincible class is building with Sea Dart, and the 'new' design of an austere Type 42 destroyer.

furthermore assuming the Dutch stick with Sea Dart we'll see it on the Jacob van Heemskerk class.

Approach to Spain is 1963-64 listed in the National archieves but not open. ADM 1/28558
Approach to the Germans is in DEFE 69/112

What is interesting to note about both the Tromp, Jacob van Heemskerks, plus the Baleares and Lütjens ships is their use of the single arm Mk13

So perhaps in examining the alternative scenario of Sea Dart being more successful, there should be an exploration of the development of a single arm launcher......

Even in looking at the Type 82 itself, one can see that originally the RN thought that Sea Dart could replace a twin 4.5" mount on a one for one basis.
And on early CVA-01 sketches, two Sea Dart or Tartar launchers are placed either side of the undershoot (ramp), rather than the later stern location.

A single arm launcher would need to be a faster cycling system than a twin. But would be lighter and more compact.
If this was the focus, what differences would one see on the Type 82? Or would one see the 'Frigate' instead?

 

[Hobbes]

Well for the Ikara side of things on a Dutch Frigate design, that's Page 258 of Norman Friedman's book British Frigates and Destroyers WWII and after.

His reference being S G Nooteboom's work Deugdelijke Scheppen: Marinescheepsbouw 1945-1995 page113

Oddly I can't the reference there to a single arm Sea Dart, which I'd thought I'd seen there. Though I also recall something in D.K Browns book, but perhaps that's earlier than '66.

Single arm Sea Dart is mentioned in 'Deugdelijke Schepen', p 113.

It also mentions an early configuration of the power plant using Proteus instead of Tynes, btw.

 

[zen]

Thanks for that!

Curious thoughts now. IF the RN pursues a single arm launcher, it certainly helps to fit the system onto a Frigate, and that size of ship would bring it closer to the Dutch effort too considering they'd both have:-

Type 988 Broomestick 3D surveillance radar.
Type 909 Desertcar TIR.
ADAWS combat system.
Link 10.
Possibly SINS?
Sea Dart (single arm, possibly called Seadaws100)
Olypmus GTs

Ikara

Potentially there is some sort of 'euro-frigate' or at least anglo-dutch frigate that could come of this. After all the RNLN went for Leanders.
In this light, one can see how Germany and Spain could be induced into this.

 

[Hood]

I remember doing a bit of hunting for details about Seadaws some time ago, but nothing really concrete ever came up.
There are a few posts on this forum, but only passing mentions except for a couple of Vickers export designs for Brazil.

My conclusion was that the export designs used a Vickers-designed single-arm launcher which formed the basis of the SEADAWS 100 system for export.

 

[Hobbes]

A quick trawl through 'Deugdelijke schepen' didn't turn up any more technical information on the Sea Dart installation for the Tromp class. There's just a table comparing the 1964 Frigate to the Type 82. One of the entries is the main GW system, this lists a Seadart twin launcher for the Type 82 and a single launcher for the 1964 Frigate.
The table refers to a document I'll try to dig up, but may be available as a paper copy only.

The book does mention Tartar was chosen on cost and weight grounds: the Tartar installation weighed 30 tons less, leading to a 300 ton weight savings for the whole ship.
The RN was interested in Broomstick mainly for its carriers. When the fixed-wing carriers were canceled, RN interest in Broomstick also petered out.
Early on, the RNLN looked into using the American NTDS with Broomstick. They found NTDS didn't provide enough computing power to run the radar. Around 1964 the intent was to use the ADA system, but with the switch from Sea Dart to Tartar that fell through as well and they finally chose the DAISY combat system developed by HSA, with a large fraction of systems programming done by the RNLN themselves.

 

[Arjen]

Nooteboom also writes, that, had the RNLN chosen to go ahead with ADA / Sea Dart, it would have been necessary to use three instead of the originally two planned Ferranti computers on the GW frigates - such were the hardware demands of ADA.

 

[JFC Fuller]

The primary source reference for a single arm Sea Dart launcher is in the Future Fleet Working Party papers from 1965-66 (DEFE 24/234), at least that is where both Friedman and D.K.Browne appear to get it from.

'SEADAWS 100' suggests a scaled-down version of the ADAWS/Sea Dart system (not just the launcher) then being pursued for the RN. If we could confirm that the Dutch specification was (or turned into) a single-arm launcher with a single Type 909 then it is probably a fairly safe assumption that 'SEADAWS 100' was the system for the Dutch and that the RN considered it in some studies as part of the efforts to reduce the cost of the escort fleet prior to CVA-01 cancellation. Can we confirm that the Dutch 1964 frigate only included a single Type 909?

Thank you everybody 'Deugdelijke schepen' sounds like an excellent book, shame there doesn't seem to be an English translation.

 

[Arjen]

The RNLN would have fitted Broomstick in any case, originally integrated with NTDS - then ADA - in the end with DAISY for data handling. I'm not quite sure what missile Broomstick / NTDS was to be used with, but the Broomstick / ADA combination was always intended for use with Sea Dart. When Sea Dart was rejected in favour of Tartar (weight, volume), ADA's incompatibility with Tartar necessitated development of DAISY, as NTDS could not handle the volume of data generated by Broomstick.

 

[Hobbes]

Also, can we confirm that the Dutch 1964 frigate only included a single Type 909?

The book doesn't mention either way.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Thanks Arjen, I was just trying to understand your comment about ADA/Sea Dart needing three computers, as built the ADAWS-2 system in Britsol had two Ferranti 1600 computers according to every source I have seen. However, Ed Hampshire in his book 'From East of Suez to the Eastern Atlantic' also mentions that it was realised that two Ferranti 1600s would be insufficient due to the data demands somewhere between 1964 and 1966, that suggests to me that it was the Type 988/Broomstick that was the driver behind the need for a third computer and therefore a major cost driver in the whole programme.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Hobbes,

Thank you for the reply. It doesn't really matter at this point anyway as my little theory has been proven false by the computer issue though it is still an interesting question worthy of pursuit.

Was the document you were referring to that is referenced in 'Deugdelijke schepen' Dutch or British?

When I get the chance I want to try and chase this down as it appears there were a much wider array of
Sea Dart/ADAWS configurations considered than I ever imagined.

We have now identified four different launcher designs (five if you include the much later box launcher) and two different (broadly, not specifically) ADAWS configurations.

The system installed in the T42s was basically the same (though with some modifications) as that ultimately installed in Bristol albeit with the lighter Mk.30 Mod.2 launcher though it is worth noting that some early Type 42 drawings showed the heavier Mk.30 Mod.0 launcher used in Bristol.

 

[starviking]

We have now identified four different launcher designs (five if you include the much later box launcher) and two different (broadly, not specifically) ADAWS configurations.

Does this include the CVA launcher/magazine mentioned by Hobbs in "British Aircraft Carriers"? I do not have my copy near, but I think he mentions a traversing box magazine. I'm a bit sceptical about it - seems strange to adopt two very different designs for a debuting weapons system - but perhaps the ship layout precluded the Sea Dart layout we are all familiar with.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Starviking,

Yes it does. However if I recall correctly the dedicated carrier version was abandoned as a cost saving measure at about the same time the number of Sea Dart launchers was reduced from two to one in the CVA01 design.

My list of arm launchers is thus as follows:

Mk.30 Mod 0 (as used on Bristol)
Dedicated carrier version
Single arm launcher (apparently for the Dutch and considered in some RN studies)
Mk.30 Mod.2 (as used in all Sea Dart ships except Bristol)

 

[Arjen]

A sketch from the December 1966 'Alle Hens' magazine, the Dutch Navy's monthly.
In 1966, ADA / Sea Dart were still in the running for the Dutch GW frigates.
What appears to be a single launcher is visible on the quarterdeck.
Image found here: http://marineschepen.nl/schepen/tromp.html

 

[Hobbes]

Hobbes,

Thank you for the reply. It doesn't really matter at this point anyway as my little theory has been proven false by the computer issue though it is still an interesting question worthy of pursuit.

Was the document you were referring to that is referenced in 'Deugdelijke schepen' Dutch or British?

When I get the chance I want to try and chase this down as it appears there were a much wider array of
Sea Dart/ADAWS configurations considered than I ever imagined.

Dutch, it's in the archive of the Secretary of the NL Navy. I'll find out if that's available online.

 

[zen]

Firstly thankyou all for the information.
This is most enlightening.

Gives a interesting perspective on ADAWS that 'with' Type 988 it would need a third computer. Which is very curious and speaks of a hierarchical system, perhaps relating to the way twin FICMW sets and the data they gather need to be combined.

As a further aside it rather suggests a very great deal more computing power would've been needed for the 985. One of two factors that would've made it prohibitively expensive.

More thoughts on this added in after a quick conversation with a relative......
I'm now given to understand the Dutch were doing a lot of recruiting of programmers in the mid to late '60's.

Curious thought that, is the single arm Sea Dart the one being mentions as 30tons greater weight than a single arm Tartar system?
Does that relate to the launcher, or perhaps the other elements of the system? Hence the single director?

Anyway......
IF......
If the RN had a single arm system in the pipeline for it's own Sea Dart Frigate (presumably with Type 988), then it's possible the focus would be getting the Frigate system in service as a higher priority than the CV based system. Consequently the Dutch might not pull out.

This would mate with the philosophy of getting as many Sea Dart ships in a force as possible.

 

[Arjen]

More thoughts on this added in after a quick conversation with a relative......
I'm now given to understand the Dutch were doing a lot of recruiting of programmers in the mid to late '60's.

Entirely true. Gaining experience was an important consideration when the decision between continuing with ADA or developing DAISY was being made. Over the following decades, DAISY made its way to the Dutch navy's other frigates and even its submarines,

 

[Hobbes]

Firstly thankyou all for the information.
This is most enlightening.

Gives a interesting perspective on ADAWS that 'with' Type 988 it would need a third computer. Which is very curious and speaks of a hierarchical system, perhaps relating to the way twin FICMW sets and the data they gather need to be combined.

The book indicates the Type 988 was conceived to have automatic tracking from the beginning. NTDS, on the other hand still used manual tracking. The amount of information gathered by the 988 was seen as too much to handle manually; they were aiming for 40 targets to be tracked simultaneously. With an update frequency of 2/3 Hz you can see you'd need more manpower than fits around a plotting board to keep up.

 

[Hobbes]

The 40 tracks was from memory, and turns out to be an understatement. I just checked another source ('radar development in the Netherlands, 100 years since Hulsmeyer') which says the specification was for 100 tracks. Development started in 1962, feasibility studies started in 1957.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Hobbes,

Thanks for the book reference, I have just treated myself to 'Radar Development in the Netherlands', it is a real shame that Nooteboom's work never appears to have been translated as it seems to answer a lot of questions.

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

Without wishing to redirect this thread too much, I would like to seek any information on Sea Darts combat firings in the Falklands. Over some time I've collected firing details from various public sources but l've never seen a definitive account. I have details of no fewer than 31 combat firings by ship, time and/or date and don't believe this list is complete.

One of the reasons for the high number was the existence of a software error which lead to the second missile of a rapidly launched salvo failing to guide. This problem was discovered during firings trial with HMS Bristol in the mid 70's but was still unresolved at the beginning of May 82 but was fixed in a software update released in mid June. Most T42 captains seemed unware of this until the update arrived. (Note - this problem is as described by the Captain of HMS Exeter in his audio memoirs at the IWM) I think this has been a bit embarrassing and so has tended to suppress the release of the combat record.

Any good lead on a good definitive source welcome.

 

[starviking]

Starviking,

Yes it does. However if I recall correctly the dedicated carrier version was abandoned as a cost saving measure at about the same time the number of Sea Dart launchers was reduced from two to three in the CVA01 design.

My list of arm launchers is thus as follows:

Mk.30 Mod 0 (as used on Bristol)
Dedicated carrier version
Single arm launcher (apparently for the Dutch and considered in some RN studies)
Mk.30 Mod.2 (as used in all Sea Dart ships except Bristol)

Thanks JFC! So Hobbs is correct, but not regarding the final design. By the way, when you write "was reduced from two to three in the CVA01 design", do you mean "from two to one" or "from three to two"? I know there was a reduction from two to one, but wondering if an earlier iteration had more launchers.

Do you know if there is any easily accessible information on this dedicated carrier version?

 

[starviking]

Starviking,

I should proof-read my posts more thoroughly, it should read from two to one. To my knowledge there is no easily accessible information on the carrier specific launcher- it is referenced in a few places in the national archives at Kew and in a couple of books but I have never seen any drawings or a really detailed description of it.

Happens to all of us. Regarding the carrier-specific launcher, and the reduction from two to one launcher, could it have been tied to the geometry of the two launcher CVA01? I recall the launchers being at/near the rear port and starboard. Perhaps there was one magazine serving both? Might explain the complicated system alluded to by Hobbs.

 

[Hood]

There is a slightly higher resolution copy of the December 1966 drawing which has been posted here: http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1296&hilit=tromp#p23073

I think the single-am launcher and the fire-control radars point to Tartar rather than a single-arm Sea Dart. The box launcher forwards seems to imply that ASROC by this stage was favoured over the Ikara/Limbo combo in the 1964 Fregat.

This thread has certainly thrown up a lot of new material, the Dutch sources have been overlooked in Britain in most recent histories of these systems it seems.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Whilst the box launcher forward on the 1966 drawing looks very much like the Mk-16 box launcher for Harpoon/ASROC I suspect it is actually meant to represent the Mk.25 Sea Sparrow launcher that was derived from it. For me the giveaway is what appears to be an early representation of the WM25 director mounted just forward of the Broomstick radar above the bridge (just aft of what looks like a surface search radar).

With that said it could well be the case that prior to the decision to integrate a hangar the intention was to install ASROC as the primary ASW weapon (there does appear to be a door in the transom that could be for a towed sonar), but that would leave a stray director.

 

[Arjen]

Very pleasing to see a better scan of the 'Alle Hens' sketch.
<edit> Added the image from @Hood 's shipbucket link because links sometimes die.

 

[Hood]

Thanks Arjen, I was just trying to understand your comment about ADA/Sea Dart needing three computers, as built the ADAWS-2 system in Britsol had two Ferranti 1600 computers according to every source I have seen. However, Ed Hampshire in his book 'From East of Suez to the Eastern Atlantic' also mentions that it was realised that two Ferranti 1600s would be insufficient due to the data demands somewhere between 1964 and 1966, that suggests to me that it was the Type 988/Broomstick that was the driver behind the need for a third computer and therefore a major cost driver in the whole programme.

Re-read Ian Sturton's Warship article on CVA-01 last night, he mentions that ADA on CVA-01 would need three, possibly four, Ferranti 1600s.

Re: the 1966 design, I'm open-minded that it could be Sea Sparrow, but it would be a realtively hefty cut in ASW capability given the specification of Ikara and Limbo only two years previously. A VDS does seem plausible given the stern doors and there might be a hint of A/S TT tubes abeam the after directors on the drawing.