Tiger class cruisers; Love, hate or adore?

[uk 75]

The three Tiger class cruisers arouse strong opinions.
As the only major non-carrier RN warships built after WW2 they mark the transition of the RN from a force built round its battleships' big guns to a missile dominated navy.
The 6" and 3" guns fitted to them were supposed to be a new approach to gunnery. As so often with Britain the promise failed to deliver.
Too small to receive Seaslug and too new to be scrapped as the County class GWDs entered service they became a quick fix to the RN's need to get big ASW helicopters to see.
HMS Blake became the first RN non carrier warship to operate the new Seaking helicopter. Described as a frigate towing a shed she lacked the subtlety of Italy's Terrier equipped helicopter cruisers. HMS Tiger took even longer to convert and HMS Lion was abandoned.
But in the harsh world of the 70s they were all the RN had.

 

[Dilandu]

Well, personally I like their design) It was compact and functional. The main problem was, that British - unlike France or Italy - was still under delusion of being the Great Power in league of USSR and USA, "just having temporary troubles". And therefore was unable to balance its military budget properly, and instead of using what they have, they chased for some kind of "ultimate solution".

P.S. I should point that Colbert small size did not prevent French from installing bulky Masurca SAM, and Italians fitted Terrier SAM into the 1930s Garibaldi. So I doubt that size was the real reason for not putting Seaslug on Tiger's.

 

[Rule of cool]

The only thing I object to was the cost and duration of their helicopter conversions, especially the 2nd one. That cost 20-25% of a new CVA01.

 

[Grey Havoc]

The absence of HMS Tiger and HMS Blake was keenly felt indeed during the Falklands War. Deactivating them, and then cancelling their reactivation was later widely admitted to be a serious mistake.

 

[Dilandu]

The absence of HMS Tiger and HMS Blake was keenly felt indeed during the Falklands War. Deactivating them, and then cancelling their reactivation was later widely admitted to be a serious mistake.

True. Both as helicopter carriers, fire support units and forward deployed radar pickets they would be quite valuable here. While they weren't invulnerable - Exocet shaped charge warheads could likely punch through their armored decks - they would likely be at least as durable as Counties-class destroyer.

 

[Grey Havoc]

On another note:

SHIPS OF THE ROYAL NAVY 1945-1989

Aerial view of Tiger-class light cruiser HMS Blake (C99) with Hawker Harrier overhead. 1969.

www.iwm.org.uk

 

[Dilandu]

The absence of HMS Tiger and HMS Blake was keenly felt indeed during the Falklands War. Deactivating them, and then cancelling their reactivation was later widely admitted to be a serious mistake.

I wonder, if they lagged in active service till 1982, and went to war - what would be done with them afterward? Materially, they were probably good for anotber decade of service (if repaired). Their 6-inch turrets, while troublesome, have a lot of spares - out of six build only two remained operational, after all.

Purely speculationary - the 3-inch may be removed and replaced with "Vulcan-Phalanx", a set of "Exocet" launchers could be installed.

 

[Dilandu]

On another note:

If I recall correctly, they could land & launch Harrier's, but nobody liked to do it - because deck was not big enough and placed low, and there weren't any way for Harrier to took off other than "hover off to the rear end"?

 

[Rule of cool]

Exocet shaped charge warheads

Did the Exocet have a shaped charged warhead? I don't doubt it, the Martel had a Misnay–Schardin plate for armour penetration, close enough to a shaped charge.

 

[Dilandu]

Did the Exocet have a shaped charged warhead? I don't doubt it, the Martel had a Misnay–Schardin plate for armour penetration, close enough to a shaped charge.

Hm, I always assumed it did. At least it looks quite like that:



I assumed that those cavities on the warhead casting are shaped charge (or, to be exact, explosively-formed penetrator) cavities.

 

[uk 75]

Exocet was planned but not fitted.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/1969-plans-to-fit-exocet-details-of-ships.13805/

 

[Dilandu]

Exocet was planned but not fitted.

By the way, were there any proposals to fit Sea Dart on them? Visually, it looks like there is enough space below forward 3-inch turret for magazines.

 

[uk 75]

I think there were too few Seadart sets available even for newly built ships. I suspect one reason they were removed from the three Invincibles was to use them as spares for the T42s. No new T42s were built to replace the two lost in the Falklands.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The only thing I object to was the cost and duration of their helicopter conversions, especially the 2nd one. That cost 20-25% of a new CVA01.

FWIW the cost of Tiger's conversion included the cost of the Wessex helicopters. Blake's cost didn't. The cost of a new CVA.01 didn't include the cost of her aircraft.

 

[EwenS]

I think there were too few Seadart sets available even for newly built ships. I suspect one reason they were removed from the three Invincibles was to use them as spares for the T42s. No new T42s were built to replace the two lost in the Falklands.

At the end of the Falklands War the RN still had 6 Batch 2 & 3 Type 42 under construction (commissioned July 1982 to Dec 1985) plus of course Ark Royal V. So was there really any need for more Sea Dart ships?

AIUI the principal reason for the removal of Sea Dart from the Invincibles was to create space for the enlarged air group and the need for more aircraft weapons to be carried. That happened in the late 1990s. Any reuse as spares for other ships was merely a by-product of that need to repurpose that space.

By then Bristol was a stripped training ship and Birmingham decommissioned in 1999 and was stripped of useable equipment.

 

[Dilandu]

AIUI the principal reason for the removal of Sea Dart from the Invincibles was to create space for the enlarged air group and the need for more aircraft weapons to be carried. That happened in the late 1990s. Any reuse as spares for other ships was merely a by-product of that need to repurpose that space.

Agreed, during Cold War such removal would be too dangerous.

 

[Rule of cool]

FWIW the cost of Tiger's conversion included the cost of the Wessex helicopters. Blake's cost didn't. The cost of a new CVA.01 didn't include the cost of her aircraft.

What a bunch of scammers, any combination of things can be bundled into the price to to prove whatever point that person wants. The CVA01 was bundled with CVA02 and 8 Type 82s to provide a vast cost to justify cancellation, but nothing about what might be spent the Command Helicopter Cruiser and Type 42 classes instead.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Tiger class helicopter conversions were fine, they were an interim capability until the Command Cruisers could be built.

 

[Rule of cool]

Tiger class helicopter conversions were fine, they were an interim capability until the Command Cruisers could be built.

Given the cost and duration of their conversions and subsequent length of service do you consider them value for money, a good capability investment?

 

[1Big Rich]

Years ago on the Warships1/NavWeaps boards (I think in the Boards2Go days), the subject of Tiger in the Falklands came up. A member named Peter Parkinson, a veteran of the class, has this to say:

My answer is that a Tiger class cruiser would not have useful it would have been an absolute asset.
And a Tiger as it was before they built the shed on the back of it.
Forget the unreliability tag I had two years on a Tiger and the guns worked perfectly apart from slowing down the 3 inch to 90 rounds per minute per barrel.
As far as I know they still are the only RN ships capable of shooting down multiple simultaneous AA targets.
At the Subic Bay practice area we were invited to do a surface shoot with a USN Baltimore cruiser against a disused monastry on a hill side.
The USN cruiser fired for nearly an hour with 8 inch shells. All the hillside was covered in explosions and smoke. When the smoke disappeared the monastry was still there.
We fired four sighting rounds from one barrel on A turret. The fourth round hit the target. We then fired 9 more rounds and destroyed the target.
THis was at over 20000 yds range at a speed of 16 knots using the optical sight in A system director and an AFCB 10 in A TS

-Peter Parkinson, 10-12-2000 17:15

Regards,

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Slightly off topic.

As far as I know the plan was to rearm Belfast with a number of twin 6in Mk 26 turrets in the 1950s. They powers that be wanted some twin 3in Mk 6 turrets too, but it couldn't be done for structural reasons and/or the magazines for the existing 4in guns were in the wrong place. Are those statements true? And if they are . . . how many 6in Mk 26 turrets were to have been fitted?

FWIW her actual 1950s refit took 3 or 4 years (1956-59 or 1955-59 as sources differ) and cost £5.5 million (the average cost of a Tiger was £14 million).

With hindsight the refit wasn't worth the time and expense because she was paid off in 1963 and is she had been rearmed too the waste of money would have been greater or in common with Superb IOTL the refit might have been abandoned. IOTL she was in reserve until 1970 (relieving Sheffield as Reserve Fleet HQ Ship, Portsmouth in 1966) and became a museum ship in 1971. Which is the only positive thing about the refit because she'd have been scrapped in the late 1950s as part of the Sandys Defence Review and therefore wouldn't have survived for long enough to become a museum ship. OTOH Sheffield might have been retained until 1970 and become a museum ship in 1971 instead of being scrapped in 1967. She saw more war service than Belfast and her post-war career was just as eventful as Belfast's. So she might have been a better choice.

 

[CV12Hornet]

Slightly off topic.

As far as I know the plan was to rearm Belfast with a number of twin 6in Mk 26 turrets in the 1950s. They powers that be wanted some twin 3in Mk 6 turrets too, but it couldn't be done for structural reasons and/or the magazines for the existing 4in guns were in the wrong place. Are those statements true? And if they are . . . how many 6in Mk 26 turrets were to have been fitted?

Two twin 6", with the 4" guns retained due to a lack of space for the 3" magazines.

 

[Hood]

The helicruiser conversions at least gave them some viable use, expensive though that might have been.
Perhaps in hindsight, losing the two beam 3in/70s to Sea Cats might have been a big loss, the guns might have been more effective at close-range AA defence.
Certainly a barrage of 3in over San Carlos would have had a lot of moral impact on the Argentine pilots, nobody likes flying through accurate flak like that.

As unmodified cruisers they would have been awesome NGFS, but of course that rather limits them for being useful for anything else in peacetime to justify the manning and operating costs. At least the Sea Kings provided some useful rationale to keep them going or its likely they would have vanished much sooner - possibly during the 1966-70 culls.

 

[Dilandu]

Perhaps in hindsight, losing the two beam 3in/70s to Sea Cats might have been a big loss, the guns might have been more effective at close-range AA defence.

They have little choice: enlargement of hangar to carry larger Sea King helicopter blocked 3-inch guns fire arcs to rear. There were simply no points to retain them, with their arcs of fire so limited.

 

[1Big Rich]

The helicruiser conversions at least gave them some viable use, expensive though that might have been.
Perhaps in hindsight, losing the two beam 3in/70s to Sea Cats might have been a big loss, the guns might have been more effective at close-range AA defence.
Certainly a barrage of 3in over San Carlos would have had a lot of moral impact on the Argentine pilots, nobody likes flying through accurate flak like that.

As unmodified cruisers they would have been awesome NGFS, but of course that rather limits them for being useful for anything else in peacetime to justify the manning and operating costs. At least the Sea Kings provided some useful rationale to keep them going or its likely they would have vanished much sooner - possibly during the 1966-70 culls.

I think there's the rub, Hood. Peter Parkinson was of the opinion the 6in mount was fine and reliable as long as it was maintained. Un-modernized and kept in reserve as gunfire support ships, experience in maintaining the 6in twin mounts would be sparse. As ASW cruisers with the hangar and Sea Kings, there would be cadres of experienced ordinance men on top of the 6in and 3in mounts.

Maybe if one were kept in service un-modernized to preserve that kind of institutional knowledge with the other two in reserve. Perhaps even a training role would suffice. They could rotate in the in-service cruiser as well to extend their lives.

Two twin 6", with the 4" guns retained due to a lack of space for the 3" magazines.

Little wonder space was lacking, even slowed to 90 rounds per barrel per minute in the twin 3in, the potential ammo usage must have been incredible.

Regards all,

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Two twin 6", with the 4" guns retained due to a lack of space for the 3" magazines.

In that case I don't understand why rearming her was seriously considered in the first place as the combined rate of fire of the 12 existing 6in guns was about the same as the combined rate of fire of two twin 6in turrets.

 

[Dilandu]

In that case I don't understand why rearming her was seriously considered in the first place as the combined rate of fire of the 12 existing 6in guns was about the same as the combined rate of fire of two twin 6in turrets.

Because her existing turrets weren't dual-purpose. Their max elevation was limited to 45 degrees, so they can't engage high-flying target - while new dual-purpose QF Mark 5 turrets could be elevated up to 80 degrees. Their train rate was also only 7 degrees per second - while QF Mark 5 turrets were able to turn at 40 degrees per second. Finally, the existing guns could only be loaded at -5 to +12.5 angles - while QF Mark 5 turrets could be loaded at any angle.

So to put it simply - two QF Mark 5 turrets were two orders of magnitude more efficient against air targets than four old turrets.

 

[EwenS]

While the 1948 Staff Requirement for cruisers included modernisation of Belfast, Glasgow & Liverpool with 2x6" Mk 26 turrets as well as the Fijis & Swiftsures, it didn't last very long. By the end of 1949 that had been reduced to modernisation of 3 Towns noted.

The other 3 Towns, Newfoundland, Swiftsure & Superb would receive "large repairs", keeping their original main armament.

Plans for Glasgow & Liverpool were cut back to "large repair" in early 1952 then cancelled altogether by the end of the year.

By July1953 plans for Belfast saw her keeping her original turrets.