Tiger class cruisers opinions

[Dilandu]

 

[Pirate Pete]

AS the headline says, Tiger class cruisers; Love, hate or adore....

What has to be accepted about them was the fact that following their suspension at the end of WW2, instead of, like a number of vessels being either sent for scrap or theyr partially completed hulls used in weapons trials, it was decided to keep them in 'cold storage' while new weapons were developed (ie: the new fully automatic 6-in and 3-in guns)...
The 1950's were a period of rapid changes in the development of weapon systems as well as electronics (and don't even start on the aerospace industry!). It was, to paraphrase 'Alice in Wonderland' - Jam Tomorrow, never Jam Today....
By the time the systems had been developed and the reconstruction of their hulls commenced, they seemed to be the only option available for maintaining some level of MODERN cruiser force for the Royal Navy (The big Guided Missile Cruiser had been cancelled, and almost without exception, the rest of the remaining Cruiser Fleet was either pre-war (Southampton's/Belfast) or, heavily used War Construction (Fiji's/Dido's)...
Yes, by the time they were finally completed they were at least obsolescent if not actually obsolete, but, having spend so much time and money completing them it was virtually impossible to dispose of them whether by sale (to whom?, there were plenty of ex-WW2 vessels in the market place, plus, they were fitted with 'modern' technology and Governments are loathe to transfer such things to third Countries), and any thought of disposal by scrapping would be totally unthinkable - don't forget, when they completed the Royal Navy still had a Carrier Fleet and they needed Escorts with the requisite facilities and equipment to accompany them.
I stumbled across these images some time ago, sorry, cannot recall their origin, I think it might have been NMM or even IWM Website...
The first pair are the OFFICIAL impression of the converted ships along with the text from the back of the image. The third is after completion and operating Sea King helicopters....

 

[Archibald]

Reading that thread I realize how much a blessing in disguise was Toulon's scuttling of the french fleet, 1942. Which left only De Grasse as cruiser, plus (admittedly) the two Richelieu battleships.

 

[Siberia]

Had the Thatcher Government followed the Callaghan government's 1977 precedent and sent SSNs south sooner the whole sorry saga could have been avoided.

IIRC both the Foreign Office and the intelligence agencies were telling the government that there wasn't anything to worry about, can't really blame it for not sending a nuclear submarine half way to the other side of the world.

Since the 1960s it had been accepted that without fixed wing carrier aviation an opposed amphibious assault could only be carried out with an Allied force (US in NATO).

I suppose that depends on what you're classing as 'opposed', San Carlos being so lightly defended as to be almost undefended in comparison to Stanley.

 

[Rule of cool]

What about the Tigers as carriers of the Type 984 3D radar? The Counties were mooted to carry this massive unit but it would have required the removal of the 2 gun turrets to provide the weight compensation. The Tigers were bigger and maybe big enough to fit a Type 984 in order to get a couple more of these beauties to sea as part of their helicopter conversion.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

What about the Tigers as carriers of the Type 984 3D radar? The Counties were mooted to carry this massive unit but it would have required the removal of the 2 gun turrets to provide the weight compensation. The Tigers were bigger and maybe big enough to fit a Type 984 in order to get a couple more of these beauties to sea as part of their helicopter conversion.

My guess is that there wasn't the space and weight for it and the CDS. Otherwise they'd have been completed with them IOTL. Maybe @EwenS knows more.

 

[Scott Kenny]

AS the headline says, Tiger class cruisers; Love, hate or adore....

What has to be accepted about them was the fact that following their suspension at the end of WW2, instead of, like a number of vessels being either sent for scrap or theyr partially completed hulls used in weapons trials, it was decided to keep them in 'cold storage' while new weapons were developed (ie: the new fully automatic 6-in and 3-in guns)...

The problem is that the UK had built 8,000 ton cruisers, while the US cruisers had twice the displacement.

The Tigers just weren't big enough for early long range missile systems.

 

[BlackBat242]

The problem is that the UK had built 8,000 ton cruisers, while the US cruisers had twice the displacement.

The Tigers just weren't big enough for early long range missile systems.

Not even those with multiple launchers (Baltimore-class - 13,600 L.tons standard before conversion).

6 Cleveland class CLs (11,744 L.tons standard before conversion) were converted to single-end CLGs - 3 with Talos and 3 with Terrier.

And yes, that is 170% and 147% of the UK cruisers' displacement.
Still, very much bigger.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The problem is that the UK had built 8,000 ton cruisers, while the US cruisers had twice the displacement.

For what it's worth the Fiji class displaced 8,530 tons, the Cleveland class displaced 11,744 tons (Biloxi) and the Baltimore class displaced 14,472 tons (Baltimore). Those are the standard displacements according to "Conway's 1947-1995". Neither of those cruiser classes had anywhere near twice the displacement of a Fiji. That being written, their hulls were considerably larger and that made it easer to install early long range missile systems.

The Tigers just weren't big enough for early long range missile systems."

Link to Post 80 of the thread "RN Tiger class options".

Originally posted in the thread "RN Tiger class options"

From Pages 800 and 801 of Scribd's copy of British Cruisers: Two World Wars and After by Norman Friedman

A Fiji class cruiser converted to a missile ship, as sketched in October 1954. This design can be compared to roughly contemporary US conversions of Cleveland class cruisers. The Fiji would have retained ‘A’ turret. She would also have had three twin Mk 5 Bofors, the type then replacing pompoms on board such ships, and twenty-four Sea Slugs. Deep displacement would have been 10,950 tons (draft 20ft 3in), and her 80,000shp powerplant would have driven her at 30.5kts deep and clean (29.5kts deep and dirty, i.e., six months out of dock, but in temperate waters). Operational endurance would have been 4,900nm at 20kts. She would have had two missile-guidance radars (Type 901), but no big three-dimensional Type 984, leaving her somewhat inadequately equipped. Search radars would have matched those on board a ‘County’ class destroyer: Type 960 for long-range air search, Type 992 for target indication, Type 277Q for limited height-finding, and Type 974 for navigation. The 6in turret would have retained its existing DCT, with its Type 274 radar; the Bofors guns would have had local directors (STDs). Protection would have been that existing before the refit (it is not clear how much extra protection was planned for the missiles). Maximum accommodation at existing standards (not current ones) would be 790. The file does not include any modified designs showing conversion of Swiftsure or Superb or a Tiger. (Norman Friedman)

The illustration shows five twin 40mm but the text says three twin 40mm.

If they could fit Seaslug to a Fiji they could fit it to a Tiger as the hull was the same length as a Fiji and was 2 feet beamier.

That being said Friedman also wrote.

Another possibility of immediate interest was a Fiji (not a Tiger) class conversion, the missile system (with forty-eight missiles) replacing all after armament. The ship would be fitted with a Type 984 radar and full fighter-direction facilities. The ship would retain only her forward triple 6in turret and would have four twin L70 Bofors guns. As in contemporary US plans to convert Cleveland class light cruisers, the entire missile magazine would be built atop the hull as a superstructure. Unfortunately the result was not stable, so the missile magazine had to rethought, the number of missiles halved, and the massive Type 984 replaced by the far less capable Type 982/983 combination and the Type 960 air-search radar. Unfortunately, as long as any protection was provided, the rethought missile stowage saved too little weight, and it represented too much weight too high in the ship. The next step down was to abandon fighter control altogether, replacing the Type 982/983 combination with an even less capable Type 277Q height-finder, the radar eventually installed on board ‘County’ class missile destroyers. Further steps down included a new bridge (because the ship had grossly inadequate AIO facilities), and the replacement of the L70 Bofors by wartime type twin L60s. None of this was particularly attractive, and although stability was recovered, in the end the design showed an unacceptable 3ft 2in trim by the stern.

To summarise the RN wanted:

• Seaslug with 48 missiles.
• One Type 984 radar.
• Full fighter-direction facilities. Which I presume included CDS and DPT, but Friedman didn't say so explicitly.
• One triple 6in turret forward and four twin L70 Bofors gun mountings.

But the RN got:

• 24 Seaslug missiles.
• The Type 277Q height-finder and the Type 960 air-search radar instead of the far more capable Type 984.
• Fighter control was abandoned altogether, which I presume means no CDS and DPT.
• One triple 6in turret forward and three twin L60 Bofors gun mountings.

Furthermore " . . . although stability was recovered, in the end the design showed an unacceptable 3ft 2in trim by the stern." Maybe the trim by the stern in a Tiger would have been less because it had an extra 2 feet of beam.

The above was taken from Post 89 of the thread "RN Tiger class options".

Link to Post 89 of the thread "RN Tiger class options".

Returning to what you wrote about the RN building 8,000 ton cruisers . . .

That was due to the Second London Naval Treaty reducing the maximum size of a cruiser from 10,000 tons to 8,000 tons. This was at the insistence of the British Delegation because it was thought that 8,000 ton cruisers would have been cheaper to build than 10,000 ton cruisers so the large number of cruisers the RN wanted would have been more affordable.

As it turned out the DNC couldn't design a cruiser armed with twelve 6in guns that displaced less than 8,000 tons and I suspect that the amount of money saved was negligible. Maybe this was an early example of the maxim that "steel is cheap and air is free".

It would have been much easier to modernise the Fiji to Tiger classes if they had been built as 10,500 ton ships (like Belfast & Edinburgh) instead of 8,500 ton ships, which I think they would have been if the Second London Naval Treaty hadn't reduced the maximum size of a cruiser from 10,000 tons to 8,000 tons.

A similar "own goal" was scored when the British Delegation had the Second London Naval Treaty reduce the maximum size of an aircraft carrier from 27,000 tons to 23,000 tons. Then the rebuilt Victorious would have been larger with longer steam catapults that may have been able to launch Phantoms with J79 engines.

 

[EwenS]

The problem with Type 984 is that the radar "dustbin" weighed just over 30 tons and needed to be carried high up in the ship so it had a clear view. That does nothing for stability in any ship of moderate size such as a Fiji, Tiger or County.

While the obvious place to put it is atop the bridge, that then raises the question for these cruiser conversions of what happens to the gun directors.

 

[EwenS]

It would have been much easier to modernise the Fiji to Tiger classes if they had been built as 10,500 ton ships (like Belfast & Edinburgh) instead of 8,500 ton ships, which I think they would have been if the Second London Naval Treaty hadn't reduced the maximum size of a cruiser from 10,000 tons to 8,000 tons.

For me the real problem doesn't lie with the decisions relating to the 1936 London Treaty. It lies in the early years of WW2.

The last Didos (6 ships) and original Fijis (2 ships) were ordered on 4 Sept 1939, the day after Britain declared war and in accordance with pre-war plans. After that came a period of great indecision as to what type of cruiser was needed. So there were proposals for new 8" ships (designs from 10,250- 16,500 tons all with 9 guns), new 6" ships (12 guns 11,400-14,000 tons OR 9 guns 7,350-8,650 tons). As Sir Stanley Goodall noted in his diary on 19 Dec 1940

"At Admiralty. No decision on cruiser. Controller told Staff to make up their minds"

On 6 Feb 1941, the First Lord settled the matter by calling for 3 Improved Fijis immediately and 4x8" ships in Autumn 1941. A new 6" design would, at that stage, have resullted in a 6-8 month delay. There were aspects of the Fiji design that showed improvement over a Belfast, like the location of the 4" magazines discussed earlier in this thread.

So Swiftsure, Minotaur (completed as HMCS Ontario) and Bellerophon (completed as Tiger) were ordered in May 1941 and the Programme was to be reviewed in Sept. These were to have a beam of 63ft, 1ft more than a Fiji (Bellerophon was built with a 64ft beam, see below). Optimistically the First Lord stated in Cabinet his intention was that these should be completed in 1943!! While Bellerophon was laid down on 1 Oct 1941, her construction was suspended at John Brown in 1942 due to the priority given firstly to Vanguard & then Indefatigable. That probably allowed her to be built with the 64ft beam.

Over the coming months the Staff finalised their requirements with the 8" cruiser growing to 17,500 tons and a revised 6" design based on Fiji but growing to 10,000 tons. (Standard Displacements). The latter was abandoned in Dec.

In Nov 1941, the promised review due in Sept took place. There was now only production capacity to build 3 new design triple 8" turrets i.e 1 ship. So 3 Improved Fijis were ordered instead of the other 3 heavy cruisers, this being a matter of expediency. Orders were placed on 18 Dec for Defence (renamed Lion postwar), Superb & Tiger (never laid down but the order was carried forward to a later planned design and the name transferred). These and subsequent ships were to have the 64tt beam.

Move forward again to Feb 1942, and with cruiser losses mounting, plans were for another 7 cruisers, it was expedient to concentrate on single type to be produced quickly. So the 8" cruiser was abandoned & all were to be Improved Fijis. Ultimately the light carrier programme meant cancellation of call but two of these - Blake and Hawke with the latter being cancelled in Oct 1945 while on the slip.

So at the end of the war from the 3 separate Programmes, Swiftsure & Ontario from the first were in service, Superb from the second was just a few months from completion. Defence was in the water while Tiger & Blake launched before the end of 1945.

So had there been less indecision in 1940-41 about exactly what type of cruiser was required, it is entirely possible that, while an 8" ship might have been beyond the capacity of the turret industry to supply, a new 6" design could have been readied for ordering in Spring 1941. Something like a cross between a Belfast & a Fiji.

The same kind of dithering was also apparent in 1943/44 when firstly the 5.25" N2 design (8,650 tons, 28 knots) was chosen only for the new First Sea Lord , Cunningham, to change the plans and insist on a 6" cruiser (Neptune class 15,560 tons 32 knots 12x6" & 12x4.5").

 

[EwenS]

A better illustration of the weight growth problem with these ships is the deep load displacement.

Fiji as designed - 10,354 tons (A figure excluding the torpedoes & tubes)
Fiji as built Feb 1940 - 10,724 tons (two sets of triple TT fitted. No catapult or aircraft carried)
Bermuda as built Jul 1942 - 11,041 tons
Newfoundland Dec 1942 - 10,833 tons (3 turret modified ship). As reconstructed 1952 - 11,086 tons.

Swiftsure May 1944 - 11,240 tons
Ontario Apr 1945 - 11,481 tons (fitted with Mk.VI secondary directors)

Superb Oct 1945 - 11,564 tons

Tiger class as redesigned 1954 - 11,900 tons.
Tiger as completed 1959 - 12,058 tons
Tiger as helicopter cruiser - 12,430 tons
Lion as completed - 12,080 tons
Blake as completed - 12,055 tons
Blake as helicopter cruiser - 12,340 tons

Weight growth during WW2 was significant and sacrifices had to be made to accommodate the significantly increased light AA armament being fitted in 1944/45. One odd alteration made to Newfounland after her 1944 US repair & refit, on arrival back in Britain, was to lower the height of the main 6" director on the bridge. Every little helps to improve stability I suppose.

While the Fiji and Improved Fiji's got the 6" Mk.XXIII triple turret, there were wartime plans for later ships to get the Mk.XXIV triple turret with 60 degree elevation to produce an automatic DP main armament. Project lapsed at end of WW2.

 

[EwenS]

The problem is that the UK had built 8,000 ton cruisers, while the US cruisers had twice the displacement.

The Tigers just weren't big enough for early long range missile systems.

The only cruisers the USN built under the 1936 London Treaty rules were the 5" armed Atlanta class. Design was finalised in 1938. First 4 ships laid down Mar-May 1940. 6,600 tons standard displacement 8 twin 5"/38.

They emerged after long studies looking at designs ranging from 3,500 tons to 8,400 tons with 8-16 5" or 4-12 6" plus a secondary 5" armament. There were even designs with a 6" DP armament using a then non-existent turret.

The Atlantas had top weight problems virtually from the start. They couldn't carry the big SK radar aerial, making do with the smaller SC aerial normally found in destroyers. The second batch had to sacrifice two turrets to double the 40mm armament when completed 1943-45.

Friedman in US Cruisers, also has details of a two ship 8,000 ton Cleveland design from 1939 that was not built, the two ships being ordered as 11,130 ton Clevelands in 1940 instead. The 1939 design was length 570ft WL, 59ft beam, 4 boilers, 90,000 ihp for 33.2 knots. Armament 10x6"/47 (5×2), 6x21" TT (2X3), 5 quad 1.1". 4.4" belt and barbette armour, 1.25-5.5" gunhouees, deck 1.25"

Once freed from Treaty restrictions in Sept 1939, the USN was free to build as big as it wanted. Hence the move to 11,130 ton Clevelands & 13,881 ton Baltimores for the July 1940 fleet expansion programme. Add to that their industrial might that allowed more to be built and faster than Britain could ever hope for.

Perhaps the real question should be how did the British achieve so much with the Fiji design?

 

[bobtdwarf]

The problem with Type 984 is that the radar "dustbin" weighed just over 30 tons and needed to be carried high up in the ship so it had a clear view. That does nothing for stability in any ship of moderate size such as a Fiji, Tiger or County.

While the obvious place to put it is atop the bridge, that then raises the question for these cruiser conversions of what happens to the gun directors.

as I understand it the "bin" was 8 tons of rotational mass but the computer was 35 tons

 

[Dilandu]

as I understand it the "bin" was 8 tons of rotational mass but the computer was 35 tons

Hm. I think a Type 984 should be a bit higher on KGV superstructre...

 

[Rule of cool]

There's a lot in the drum of the 984, far more than in contemporary US 3D radar rotating mass.

https://www.shipsnostalgia.com/media/type-984-radar.205416/full

 

[Rule of cool]

For those all for a seaslug conversion, could such a conversion incorporate the Type 984 3D radar? I flippantly suggested it before as part of the helicopter conversion, not because its useful, but because 984s are awesome. However the more I learn about the seaslug the more I think that the 984 would be an asset in a seaslug conversion. Its not happening in the Counties, but a slap up Tiger refit might be able to fit one.

 

[Dilandu]

For those all for a seaslug conversion, could such a conversion incorporate the Type 984 3D radar? I flippantly suggested it before as part of the helicopter conversion, not because its useful, but because 984s are awesome. However the more I learn about the seaslug the more I think that the 984 would be an asset in a seaslug conversion. Its not happening in the Counties, but a slap up Tiger refit might be able to fit one.

Theoretically possible at least. The Seaslug system would be placed lower than helicopter hangar, and affect stability less. Still, Type 984 may demand weight sacrifices, like removal of 3-inch mounts.

 

[uk 75]

As I understand it the 984 was available on three RN carriers (Victorious, Eagle and Hermes) and was due to be replaced in the 79s by Broomstick on CVA01 and T82.

When Broomstick was cancelled and the carriers were phased out by 1972 the RN lost the use of three 984s without replacement.

Although Tiger and Blake offered one option, Hermes could have retainecd its 984 (and a cat capability) to become a CVS rathet than Commando Ship

The RFAa being built for the RN also offered large hulls able to carry a 984.

.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

For those all for a Seaslug conversion, could such a conversion incorporate the Type 984 3D radar? I flippantly suggested it before as part of the helicopter conversion, not because its useful, but because 984s are awesome. However the more I learn about the Seaslug the more I think that the 984 would be an asset in a Seaslug conversion. Its not happening in the Counties, but a slap up Tiger refit might be able to fit one.

I think not. See Post 129.

 

[Archibald]

As I understand it the 984 was available on three RN carriers (Victorious, Eagle and Hermes) and was due to be replaced in the 79s by Broomstick on CVA01 and T82.

When Broomstick was cancelled and the carriers were phased out by 1972 the RN lost the use of three 984s without replacement.

Although Tiger and Blake offered one option, Hermes could have retainecd its 984 (and a cat capability) to become a CVS rathet than Commando Ship

The RFAa being built for the RN also offered large hulls able to carry a 984.

.

Well if anybody needs tons of room for both 984 and Sea Slug, how about Colossus / Majestic light carriers ? more tonnage than any light or heavy cruiser, far more internal volume. And those things (just like Hermes itself) had very long lives: check Minas Gerais, the brazilian carrier.
...
Once again, the Royal Navy deadly trap post WWII was that they had tons of cruiser, battleship and carrier hulls; BUT (hindsight is always 100% of course) those hulls were overtaken by the breakneck pace of missile and jet aircraft development, in merely 25 years: 1945-1970.
-KGV*4
-Vanguard*1
-Tiger*3
-Colossus & Majestic *16
-Centaur *4
-Audacious * 3 (or two, depends from that third hull fate in 1946).
-Illustrious... 2*1*3 (six ships, three sub-classes inside - a nightmare to rebuild to a single homogenous standard, because armored hangars)

The most cumbersome air defense systems (by large and by 1963, say) were Sea Slug and F-4K Phantom. Both were massive, both drove vintage WWII hulls to their "knees". Type 984 radar seems to be similarly large and massive.

Between 1945 and 1965, defense of the fleet went from 40 mm Bofors (L60) to Sea Slug.
Between 1945 and 1965, air defense of the fleet went from Seafire to F-4K.

No surprise WWII hulls couldn't keep the pace, even with thorough rebuilts.

 

[Dilandu]

Between 1945 and 1965, defense of the fleet went from 40 mm Bofors (L60) to Sea Slug.

I'm not sure it's a correct view of things. The major problem of RN was, that in terms of weapon systems they introduced pretty much nothing new from 1945 till 1960 (and even this "new" was a 6-inch DP cannon, a good design, but significantly behind the curve). While USN and Soviet Navy introduced missile armament already by mid-1950s, Royal Navy fell seriously behind in the age of fast technological advancement.

Once again, the Royal Navy deadly trap post WWII was that they had tons of cruiser, battleship and carrier hulls; BUT (hindsight is always 100% of course) those hulls were overtaken by the breakneck pace of missile and jet aircraft development, in merely 25 years: 1945-1970.

Again, not exactly. The RN problem was that it can't decide what exactly to do in the situation of reduced resources and rapid technological development.

 

[Rule of cool]

As I understand it the 984 was available on three RN carriers (Victorious, Eagle and Hermes) and was due to be replaced in the 79s by Broomstick on CVA01 and T82.

When Broomstick was cancelled and the carriers were phased out by 1972 the RN lost the use of three 984s without replacement.

Although Tiger and Blake offered one option, Hermes could have retainecd its 984 (and a cat capability) to become a CVS rathet than Commando Ship

The RFAa being built for the RN also offered large hulls able to carry a 984.

.

Yes that's about it for the 984. There was plan for the Counties to carry it although that would have required the deletion of the 4.5' gun turrets to free up weight and the RN of the 60s thought guns were too useful. That meant the RN only had 3 of these immensely capable 3D radars in the fleet, and I think their proliferation (perhaps on the Tigers) would have been useful.

The Type 988 broomstick, which eventually entered service with the Dutch 4,300t Tromp class as the SPS1, was to have been deployed on CVA01s and Type 82. I've read that it wasn't individually as capable as the 984 but was going to make up for that by being widely deployed. However looking at the antenna I think it looks like a pretty capable beast.

 

[bobtdwarf]

You could put 984 on a modified County hull IF....IF the computer could fit in the missile magazine space. you would then need to fit a lengthened bow for additional volume so that you could fit a SeaDart at the B position and the A position being used for the new 4.5 used on type 82 and 42 ships. Aft you could fit a small Ikara system... Brazil had a frigate with a mount that would be workable on the stern where the sea slug launcher was.

 

[DWG]

Between 1945 and 1965, defense of the fleet went from 40 mm Bofors (L60) to Sea Slug.

40mm was always point defence rather than area defence, so the evolution is 20mm or 2 Pdr Pom Pom or 40mm/60 to DACR to 40mm/70 and 3"/70 and Seacat (via Popsy, Mopsy and Orange Nell), with Sea Dart just starting development

Meanwhile area defence was 4" or 4.7" or 4.5" or 5.25" with limited 6" to 4" or 4.5" or 6" Mk 26 (planned) and Sea Slug (via LOPGAP and Stooge)

It doesn't make much difference to platform size, but there was always a cruiser level area defence element to fleet defence in addition to the frigate/sloop/destroyer one.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Yes that's about it for the 984. There was plan for the Counties to carry it although that would have required the deletion of the 4.5' gun turrets to free up weight and the RN of the 60s thought guns were too useful. That meant the RN only had 3 of these immensely capable 3D radars in the fleet, and I think their proliferation (perhaps on the Tigers) would have been useful.

The Type 988 broomstick, which eventually entered service with the Dutch 4,300t Tromp class as the SPS1, was to have been deployed on CVA01s and Type 82. I've read that it wasn't individually as capable as the 984 but was going to make up for that by being widely deployed. However looking at the antenna I think it looks like a pretty capable beast.

View attachment 747906

You could put 984 on a modified County hull IF....IF the computer could fit in the missile magazine space. you would then need to fit a lengthened bow for additional volume so that you could fit a SeaDart at the B position and the A position being used for the new 4.5 used on type 82 and 42 ships. Aft you could fit a small Ikara system... Brazil had a frigate with a mount that would be workable on the stern where the sea slug launcher was.

Why not enlarge the County from circa 5,400 tons to about 6,000 tons so it could accommodate a Type 984? That would have the advantage of a bigger magazine for the Seaslugs, maybe a second Type 901, a more powerful CDS & better arrangements for the helicopter. Yes it would require more powerful machinery, yes it would require a bigger crew and yes it would be more expensive to build & to run. But the increase in capability would more than justify the increase in cost.

Edit: 14.11.24

The displacement of 5,400 tons is according to Leo Marriott in "Royal Navy Destroyers Since 1945", which on Page 110 says that their standard displacement was 5,440 tons and the full load displacement was 6,200 tons.

Other reference books say differently. E.g. Conway's 1947-1995 says 6,200 tons normal displacement and 6,800 tons full load.

 

[bobtdwarf]

Why not enlarge the County from circa 5,400 tons to about 6,000 tons so it could accommodate a Type 984? That would have the advantage of a bigger magazine for the Seaslugs, maybe a second Type 901, a more powerful CDS & better arrangements for the helicopter. Yes it would require more powerful machinery, yes it would require a bigger crew and yes it would be more expensive to build & to run. But the increase in capability would more than justify the increase in cost.

I am reasonably sure the lengthened bow would get you to about 6000 tons.

If my idea would work it would be possible to retrofit flight 1 and 2 Counties

 

[Rule of cool]

Why not enlarge the County from circa 5,400 tons to about 6,000 tons so it could accommodate a Type 984? That would have the advantage of a bigger magazine for the Seaslugs, maybe a second Type 901, a more powerful CDS & better arrangements for the helicopter. Yes it would require more powerful machinery, yes it would require a bigger crew and yes it would be more expensive to build & to run. But the increase in capability would more than justify the increase in cost.

I am reasonably sure the lengthened bow would get you to about 6000 tons.

If my idea would work it would be possible to retrofit flight 1 and 2 Counties

Since before WW2 the RN has been a bandit for wanting smaller ships in larger numbers. I’m pretty sure that in the era of guns and steam power there a pretty close correlation between ship size and cost, more guns required a bigger hull which required a bigger power-plant which drove up cost when ships were ordered by the flotilla rather than the individual unit. This close link broke with the introduction of all GT ships which coincided with the maturation of missile armament and solid state electronics.



When it comes to the County class being enlarged, they were still gun and steam ships despite their GTs, missiles and electronics. There were initially 10 planned and 4 laid down in the first year of construction. My guess is if they were enlarged from the get-go to accommodate both guns and the Type 984 the increase in cost would mean limiting the planned numbers to something like 7 or 8 instead of 10, which is likely insufficient to undertake the RNs allocated tasks.



How’s this for a plan: from late 1964 a Tiger is converted into a Type 984-Seaslug ship as a testbed for the concept that would emerge with the Type 82 Type 988-Sea Dart, much like the Tiger and Blake were converted as testbeds for the command-helicopter cruiser concept? If that means swapping out all the 3” guns to make weight then so be it.

 

[Dilandu]

How’s this for a plan: from late 1964 a Tiger is converted into a Type 984-Seaslug ship as a testbed for the concept that would emerge with the Type 82 Type 988-Sea Dart, much like the Tiger and Blake were converted as testbeds for the command-helicopter cruiser concept? If that means swapping out all the 3” guns to make weight then so be it.

I think, more reasonable proposal would be to start earlier, not later. Say, after Suez Crisis, Royal Navy, realizing its vulnerability to modern weapon, launched a crash program to "get Seaslug to sea as fast as possible". One of the Tiger-class cruisers under construction - say, "Lion" - therefore is reconsidered as Seaslug-carrying carrier escort ship. In 1957 they are still in reasonably low state of construction, so the swap of rear turret for a Seaslug system could be made fast.

 

[GK Dundas]

I fell in love with the Tigers about the time of the Falklands war. Add to that my rather weird obsession with building alternate 1960's RN fleets.
I came up with an odd idea of a slightly stretched Tiger armed with two sea dart launchers. One in the B position currently occupied by the 3"70 . And could be described as X position currently occupied by I believe the director for for the 6"50 MK 26 turret in what now becomes Y turret ?
I also replaced the funnels with Macks..
I wanted to mount either four MK VII turrets or 4 3"70 mounted midships covering all four quarters.
What can I say, I have an extremely boring job and this is what I do to stay sane ( relatively speaking of course )

 

[Dilandu]

came up with an odd idea of a slightly stretched Tiger armed with two sea dart launchers

Before helicopter conversion or after it?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Why not enlarge the County from circa 5,400 tons to about 6,000 tons so it could accommodate a Type 984? That would have the advantage of a bigger magazine for the Seaslugs, maybe a second Type 901, a more powerful CDS & better arrangements for the helicopter. Yes it would require more powerful machinery, yes it would require a bigger crew and yes it would be more expensive to build & to run. But the increase in capability would more than justify the increase in cost.

Because Treasury did not believe that steel was cheap and air is free.

 

[Rule of cool]

Because Treasury did not believe that steel was cheap and air is free.

How true was that mantra at the time? I think it has firm limits now, with 60 years of power-plant development.

 

[Scott Kenny]

How true was that mantra at the time? I think it has firm limits now, with 60 years of power-plant development.

Given the complaints about accessibility of equipment for maintenance for even the steam ships of the RN, the ships were made smaller than they should have been in terms of maintenance-hours.

If you have to spend 5 hours removing unrelated things to be able to change an air filter on the computer, when it takes 5 minutes to undo the bolts and replace the filter, something is wrong with your design.

 

[Rule of cool]

Given the complaints about accessibility of equipment for maintenance for even the steam ships of the RN, the ships were made smaller than they should have been in terms of maintenance-hours.

If you have to spend 5 hours removing unrelated things to be able to change an air filter on the computer, when it takes 5 minutes to undo the bolts and replace the filter, something is wrong with your design.

Sure, but too add air and steel also means adding engine and fuel to drive the bigger hull through the water. If getting the ship through the water at a reasonable speed and fuel consumption means some uncommon maintenance tasks take too long then so be it.

Personally I think the sicaif mantra is very recent because its only become true recently. When an Olympus can go from 22,000hp to 28,000hp and be COGAG or COGOG with Tynes then its possible to vary the size of a Type 42 or 22.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Sure, but too add air and steel also means adding engine and fuel to drive the bigger hull through the water. If getting the ship through the water at a reasonable speed and fuel consumption means some uncommon maintenance tasks take too long then so be it.

It wasn't just the uncommon maintenance tasks that suffered due to how small the UK ships were. Changing a filter is either a weekly or monthly item. Habitability also greatly suffered due to the small ships, as did the size of their food stores.

For example, the Sumner and Gearing class DDs the USN built in WW2. The difference is a 14ft/4.3m stretch amidships. ~400 tons displacement difference. With exactly the same installed power (60khp), the Gearings are nearly 10% faster than the shorter/lighter Sumners, in addition to having greater cruising range, better habitability, and more spare parts on board.

 

[bobtdwarf]

It wasn't just the uncommon maintenance tasks that suffered due to how small the UK ships were. Changing a filter is either a weekly or monthly item. Habitability also greatly suffered due to the small ships, as did the size of their food stores.

For example, the Sumner and Gearing class DDs the USN built in WW2. The difference is a 14ft/4.3m stretch amidships. ~400 tons displacement difference. With exactly the same installed power (60khp), the Gearings are nearly 10% faster than the shorter/lighter Sumners, in addition to having greater cruising range, better habitability, and more spare parts on board.

improving length to beam ratio solves a lot of problems... maybe not all but a LOT

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Because Treasury did not believe that steel was cheap and air is free.

It's not the bigger hull & more powerful machinery that would have increased the cost significantly. It would have been the Type 984, the second Type 901, the extra Seaslugs in the larger magazine and the bigger CDS.

How true was that mantra at the time? I think it has firm limits now, with 60 years of power-plant development.

I recall reading an introduction to a 1950s edition of Jane's many years ago in which Raymond V Blackman claimed that ships cost twice what they did before World War II because of the extra electronics, which would have been radar, sonar, ECM, ESM and data processing systems et al.

For what it's worth. The average cost of the Tiger class was £14 million per ship. The average costs for the County class were £13.5 million for the Batch 1 and £15.5 million for the Batch 2.

 

[GK Dundas]

Before helicopter conversion or after it?

I envisioned a new build, an enlarged and improved class cruiser. I have a whole back story on what I ended calling the Admiral class named after WW II commanders.

 

[Dilandu]

I envisioned a new build, an enlarged and improved class cruiser. I have a whole back story on what I ended calling the Admiral class named after WW II commanders.

Would be glad to read it!