Type 42 Batch 1 Hull Cut

[BlackBat242]

I recall an article with photographs of the forward Phalanx arrangement but not the publication it was in. If I recall correctly the article stated the light weight seawolf was to have been fitted port and starboard in the old Phalanx position and that the aft 909 was to have been removed to provide space and weight for the seawolf director.

Well, there's one whole and rather small and bad picture of that Phalanx installation online...

Richard Scott tweeted this a couple of days ago ...

View attachment 627442

The Phalanx can just be seen peeping from behind the main gun.

Here's a good shot from 1994:

 

[XRNWEO]

There was no Seadart magazine expansion in the Batch 3's, they had the same magazine as B1-2 and the CVS. The only ship with a larger outfit was Bristol, which had 4 lanes, rather than 3. The Batch 3's did gain some ops room space. Agree the Seawolf plan was for sided lightweight launchers with 4 barrels each, based on the Seacat launcher. You'll find an article on the planned Seawolf configurations in the JNE archive, now hosted by the IMar EST site

 

[JFC Fuller]

In terms Seawolf integration to the Type 42, I found the following in Google Books from a 1984 edition of the African Defence Journal, which I have found to be reliable in the past.

The first step has been to replace the Type 965 with the Type 1022, which is basically a Signaal LW-08 transmitter-receiver with a Marconi antenna and the next step is a proposed replacement of the after Type 909 tracker, with two separate trackers, the 805SD for Sea Dart guidance, and 805SW for tracking Sea Wolf point-defense missiles. The weight of two 805 trackers is less than one Type 909.

My hypothesis is one of the trackers would go on the platform that carried the aft Type 909 and the other immediately aft and below that on the hangar roof. The single centreline 805SW (aka Type 911) could then control two four-barrel Seawolf launchers, one on each beam where Phalanx was ultimately fitted. There are some outstanding questions:

1. Was this the configuration adopted by the RN for the planned Type 42 refits?
2. How did 805SD performance compare with the upgraded Type 909?

805SD and 805SW brochure pages and photo of the lighweight Seawolf trials launcher attached for reference.

See post 21 in this thread for the details on the Sea Dart magazine arrangement.

 

[Hood]

There must be something more lurking in a contemporary defence journal somewhere.
This feels too specific to just be idle speculation. Whether it was an official refit plan or Marconi drumming up 805S-series sales is open to question, but I don't doubt it's genuine.
Presumably the fore 909 would have been replaced with 805SD too?

Jane's Radars and Electronic Systems 93-94 claims the Invincibles and T42 Batch II would receive two 805SW (Type 911). Of course that is a decade later, could be evolving plans.
I've yet to find any data on the 805SD - it's not in the Jane's editions 90-91 or 93-94, nor in the Weapons Systems editions that I've looked at for the early 80s.

Sea Wolf on what became the Phalanx platforms seems the most logical place, though I can't help feeling the missile efflux right next to the gas turbine downtakes might have caused issues.

 

[XRNWEO]

Part of the answer is in the JNE article on the IMar EST website. 'Seawolf Sitrep' by Ly Cdr JR Edwards, file ref V30b1p12a.pdf. GWS26 Mod 2 was intended for the later T42 and CVS. It included a Type 911(3) tracker, the 4 barelled launchers, and Type 996(3) or (4).

I wasn't in that part of MoD, so I can't say when the plans changed. The justification was to put a Seawolf inner layer onto later T42 and CVS, as a post Falklands improvement. I suspect it was overtaken by the move to the 30mm Goalkeeper in the CVS, and T22B3.

Earlier in the thread, you speculated about the T42 Batch 3 hull changes. The only factor you didn't mention was the move over to 2016 sonar, which requiredamuch larger trunk above the hull outfit, and this was responsible for part of the extension. Manchester as the first B3 had an interim 184, but would have had the structural changes to accommodate 2016.

 

[XRNWEO]

PS. The 805SW tracker was of course the 911 tracker in RN service. I suspect the 805SD wouldn't have had the same range as 909, which required a lot of both I band power, and J band illuminator power to reach the maximum extent of the Seadart missile envelope.

 

[Tzoli]

No Data but a photo of the 805SD:

https://themarconifamily.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/132466056/Radar%20Systems%20International%20No.33.pdf

very few info:

https://marconiradarhistory.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/132789144/Naval%20Weapon%20Control%20Systems.pdf

 

[Hood]

Finally got to check the Jane's Weapons Systems for the early 1980s (editions spanning 80-84).
The 804 was developed specifically for the Lightweight Sea Dart system for export and pre-dates the 805SD by a year or so.
Little detail is given on the 805SD, what it does say is that it used standard 800-series modules and Type 909 modules. How the 805SD differs from the 804 is unclear.

Jane's International Defence Review in late 1982 postulated that the Type 42s might sacrifice the aft 909 for the 805SW to provide a Sea Wolf capability.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Hampshire makes no reference to any magazine expansion for the Batch 3s, which I think adds to the evidence that this was not done.
In relation to the unbuilt Batch 4 ships (retaining the longer Batch 3 bow), one option was to fit Sea Wolf and the other was to replace the 4.5in gun with a second Sea Dart launcher and magazine to double the number of missiles.
I wonder if this plan was the origin of the increased magazine myth?

Type 42 variants from 1977, there is no description as to the actual layout or appearance of these options. Note the 34 missile capacity "proposed high density magazine". There is no description of the magazine layout either but high density suggests more missiles in the same space rather than increased magazine dimensions. Having looked at the layout of the 22 round magazine with the lightweight launcher I suspect this could be achieved by packing the missiles closer together to:

1. Provide enough space to restore a fourth row of missiles between the outer rows that fed the missile hoists
2. Add two missiles to each row using the space provided by closer packing, and filling the empty row at the end opposite to the hoists

The result would be 9-8-8-9 configuration. Ed Hampshire mentions a 32 round magazine having been chosen for the ultimate Type 43 design, I had originally assumed this would be a 11-10-11 configuration that simply extended the existing three rows but on reflection it could have been a variant of the proposed high density configuration.

 

[XRNWEO]

You may be combining ideas from several sources. There was plan for GWS31, which was cancelled by James Nott in 1981. This included a major missile upgrade, and one of my previous bosses mentioned a carousel style magazine, using proximity switches, in place of Vickers micro switches. This is anecdotal evidence, and I haven't seen the paper evidence for the magazine options, to replace the linear lanes, by carousel handling.

 

[XRNWEO]

PS. This may well have been the 'high density scheme' mentioned by Hood

 

[BlackBat242]

Type 42 variants from 1977, there is no description as to the actual layout or appearance of these options. Note the 34 missile capacity "proposed high density magazine". There is no description of the magazine layout either but high density suggests more missiles in the same space rather than increased magazine dimensions. Having looked at the layout of the 22 round magazine with the lightweight launcher I suspect this could be achieved by packing the missiles closer together to:

1. Provide enough space to restore a fourth row of missiles between the outer rows that fed the missile hoists
2. Add two missiles to each row using the space provided by closer packing, and filling the empty row at the end opposite to the hoists

The result would be 9-8-8-9 configuration. Ed Hampshire mentions a 32 round magazine having been chosen for the ultimate Type 43 design, I had originally assumed this would be a 11-10-11 configuration that simply extended the existing three rows but on reflection it could have been a variant of the proposed high density configuration.

3. Thus greatly reduce or even eliminate the ability of technicians to move between the rows of missiles to repair either missiles or the rack system if something breaks or comes out of alignment.*

Added the bolded part to complete your thought.

* like maybe as a result of combat damage that doesn't endanger the ship's floatability but has shaken the bow enough to throw complicated machinery like missile conveyors into a state of disarray.

 

[TomS]

3. Thus greatly reduce or even eliminate the ability of technicians to move between the rows of missiles to repair either missiles or the rack system if something breaks or comes out of alignment.*

Added the bolded part to complete your thought.

* like maybe as a result of combat damage that doesn't endanger the ship's floatability but has shaken the bow enough to throw complicated machinery like missile conveyors into a state of disarray.

The USN was content to pack ~40 missiles into an even more compact space in both the Mk 11 and Mk 13 launchers, with essentially zero access to the missiles and not a ton of access to the launcher mechanism itself.

I don't know for certain, but I'd be shocked if Sea Dart wasn't like Tartar/Standard MR, treated as a "round of ammunition" while in the magazine, rather than requiring regular maintenance. Just some go/no-go testing and big stickers reading "no user-serviceable parts inside."

 

[XRNWEO]

There was no missile maintenance within the magazine. As originally built, Bristol had a separate missile test room with test equipment, but this was abandoned, and the later T42 and CVS magazines had no test room or equipment.

 

[XRNWEO]

PS. The Seadart magazines had narrow access (I e. an edge on shuffle) down either side, and in the case of Bristol, also a similar narrow walkway down the centre, between lanes 2 and 3. There wasn't a lot of spare space

 

[Hood]

Type 42 variants from 1977, there is no description as to the actual layout or appearance of these options. Note the 34 missile capacity "proposed high density magazine".

V1G is confusing, 2x Sea Dart launchers and 1x 4.5in Mk.8 and three Type 909. That must have been some hull stretch! Presumably the helicopter facilities would be sacrificed for this?
V3 'New Design Type 42' sounds interesting too, only 1x Sea Dart yet no 4.5in gun either. I wonder if this was the start of the Type 43 process of designing a new hull (could it even have been a Type 22 hull like a proto-Type 44)?

I agree that "high density" and the "22 or 34" option seems to indicate same/similar space with more missiles. Maybe it was a carousel system that XRNWEO mentions? Could you realistically fit in two 17-round carousels in the same space? I think a wider magazine might be needed, but probably shorter.

 

[acelanceloet]

Just pondering aloud here, if the magazine was moved from a linear to a carousel type loadout, Mk 26 style, there are also way less issues with accessing a missile as you in theory could bring them to any location in the magazine for access.

I would have to look up the relevant gunner's mate documents, but if I recall correctly the Mk 13 had all of it's complex parts either directly under and in the launcher and in the central "hub", which had a separate access hatch from the magazine. The actual ready service rings were a simple "rotating rack" with very few moving parts. This was actually one of the main selling points over the Mk 11, which carried 2 more missiles but at the cost of a ton more complexity.
The Mk 26 was a lot more complex beast though, with a ton of moving parts which I suspect would require more maintenance as well, and that would be a lot closer to what this modified carousel type Seadart magazine might be engineered towards. But the Gunners Mate documents for it are available online so we could see how they solved that......

 

[zen]

The suspicion is that like with Ikara, Sea Dart's magazine system was designed to include 'special' rounds, which might need to selected.

 

[Hood]

The suspicion is that like with Ikara, Sea Dart's magazine system was designed to include 'special' rounds, which might need to selected.

Plus the SSM option mixed into the racks as shown elsewhere on this forum.

 

[XRNWEO]

Zen and Hood. I haven't seen any evidence for a real nuclear option for Seadart. Bristol had a check room, able to swop the top of the missile, and early paperwork mentions a SAP warhead for anti ship use, but this didn't materialise, and the check room wasn't repeated in later Type 42 and CVS fits. There is discussion about nuclear heads (and envelope constraints) for Seadart, on the secret forums missile section

 

[XRNWEO]

PS. Both nuclear Seaslug and Ikara got much further before they were cancelled, including preparatory changes to the missile and the ships equipment. See an article in Warship 2015.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Nuclear Ikara was actually introduced into service with the RN. The claim that it wasn't has become one of those irritating myths that just won't die.

 

[XRNWEO]

Grey Havoc. Trust me, it wasn't introduced. I've owned the Ikara systems in both Bristol and Euryalus. In all cases, latent nuclear facilities like the payload ident and arm command remained. But neither version could stow the 600 lb armed missile. The stowage stands only just accommodated a 12.75 inch Mk 46 torpedo armed missile. They were incapable of accepting a 16.5 inch diameter NDB. The only place it would fit was the launcher loading trolley, and this single position would have blocked the load line for conventional rounds to get onto the launcher.

 

[XRNWEO]

Grey Havoc. As a PS, some of the Ikara handbooks showed the NDB variant as a line drawing, and the bomb itself had an internal Ikara wiring option. It's possible that the bomb and the missile airfarme were mated together as a trial fit ashore, prior to it being cancelled, but it was never capable of being deployed at sea.

 

[Grey Havoc]

I've owned the Ikara systems in both Bristol and Euryalus.

Would you be talking about design drawings there?

 

[XRNWEO]

No, I was the ships Weapons Engineer Officer, responsible maintaining and operating Ikara in HMS Bristol, and for all the ships systems (including Ikara) in HMS Euryalus, about two to three years in each. That gave me a firm understanding of how it worked, and it's development.