Type 44 Destroyer

[uk 75]

Apart from a line drawing by DK Moore of the "small Type 43" and the indication that it was the basis for the Type 44 destroyer cancelled as part of the Nott Review in 1980 nothing much has been released about this ship.

Now that we are in 2013 has anything been released under the 30 year rule. In particular it would be interesting to now how it was intended to use the Type 22 hull to accommodate the Seadart and its magazine. The ship in the drawing is singularly uninspiring and one cannot but agree with D K Moore that its cancellation was a good thing.

The development of the Type 43 between 1976 and 1980 has been covered to some extent, but it would be interesting to know what other alternatives were examined. D K Moore mentions that his team looked at fitting AEGIS to the Type 43 and thought it a better solution.

 

[phil gollin]

.


I would be exceptionally pleased to hear otherwise, but the last time I spoke about such matters with the people at the Brass Foundry I was told that once ship design went "computerised" (around Type 42 I THINK - REPEAT "THINK") they were told that it was unlikely that "ships covers" type info would ever become available as it wasn't kept the same way and that as design software changed over the years the "old" files wouldn't be readab;e anyway.


I am sure that the DNC have some paperwork files, but of what sort and detail I have no idea.


IN ADDITION, any ship with nuclear weapons capability (i.e. "special weapons" storage, etc.....) will also have extra restrictions if not total ban ???????


Someone needs to speak to the Brass Foundry or Naval Historical Branch.


Obviously Admiralty working papers will still be available (!)


.

 

[uk 75]

Treated myself to the Haynes manual on the Type 45 last week.
On one page there are drawings (taken I think from SHIPBUCKET) of the evolution of RN destroyers from the Type 82 to the 45.
My special interest was drawn to an impression of the Type 44 which I have not seen on the SHIPBUCKET site and which appears to be a Type 42 armament grafted on to a Type 22 batch adding a Seadart and 4.5 gun to the two Seawolf launchers. I think this is probably just speculation based on published accounts. However, the drawing is interesting.
Anyone else seen this one?

 

[pathology_doc]

It would be an interesting idea, almost an inversion of the idea that was floating around in the 90s to retrofit one batch of Type 42s with Sea Wolf (possibly Sea Wolf VLS). So said Jane's, at least, but I don't think anything ever came of it.

 

[MihoshiK]

This one?

or this one?

And yeah, the drawings were taken from Shipbucket, we were contacted regarding their use, and were quite honored.

 

[uk 75]

JFC and Mihoshik
The Brown/Moore drawing also in Friedman used to be also reproduced in SHIPBUCKET. It can still be found on an earlier thread about the Type 43 destroyer.
I always found it an odd drawing especially the large funnel.

The two drawings that remain on SHIPBUCKET kindly added here by Mihoshik are not the one that appears in the HANES Manual. This drawing which I cannot scan for copyright reasons is much closer to the Type 22 Batch 2 class on hull design but with a more Type 21 style funnel. It looks quite convincing as a hybrid design which I imagine Type 44 was intended to be. Using a single hull form for two classes of ship must have seemed attractive.

 

[pathology_doc]

Using a single hull form for two classes of ship must have seemed attractive.

For all sorts of reasons. If you're on a good thing, stick to it. From my reading of DK Brown's books, commonality not only reduces unit cost, it also gives benefits in speed of construction once the yard has had the experience of building the first hull and it lets a lot of the hydrodynamic calculations for range, speed, endurance, flow noise etc. be carried over across classes, provided the propulsive systems stay the same.


The one analysis you DO have to repeat for radically different weapon and/or sensor fits on the same hull is damage control stability calculations for the flooded condition after a "standard" hull breach, because this is going to change depending on where your large gun and/or missile magazine/launcher/handling volumes are located, which in turn affects where everything else in the hull goes and how the bulkheads are arranged. When I was a kid, I used to draw ship designs with impossible numbers of gun and/or missile launchers scattered everywhere across the hull (usually traced out from E.H.H. Archibald's "The Metal Fighting Ship in the Royal Navy"), but once I'd done some serious reading as an adult and realised how impossible they were because of volume and topweight constraints, my inner nine-year-old wept inconsolably. OTOH he had lots of new stuff to think about, and that was more than adequate compensation. )

 

[RP1]

Hi,


The final drawing was a new one by Mike Ranson (MSR) - there was some discussion with JG via e-mail and it incorporates his memory of the project along with what had previously been produced by 'bucketeers, hence the string of credits.


Regarding the use of common hulls; it can initially be very attractive as pathology_doc points out, but practically problems quickly set in. In the case of the 44 the hull was that of T22 which, being a T12M (below the waterline) had narrow sections forward. Seadart (II) had a big box magazine - hence the bathtub hulls on T42 and T45 (which has a big box in the same location forward). There can thus be issues with conflicting requirements (seakeeping vs volume) and also with costs - if a hull is expensive to produce due to the shape, do you have a cheap but inappropriate hull on, say, an ASW ship, or an expensive and unnecessarily high spec. hull on a patrol ship?


RP1

 

[pathology_doc]

Regarding the use of common hulls; it can initially be very attractive as pathology_doc points out, but practically problems quickly set in.

This is true, and it's very dependent on where you put your weapon systems and what sort of systems you are carrying (remembering that an ASW helicopter, its hangar and pad constitute a weapon system with their own deck space and volume requirements). I wonder if this is the reason why the designers of the Bristol put her Sea Dart GWS aft, because that put the magazine in a boxy area anyway while the gun right forward and the Ikara system behind it were better for hull form.


You can't do that in a Type 42 because integral operations with a carrier always "on tap" were AFAIK not part of the plan in that class and they had to carry their own ASW air assets. The best place for that on frigates and destroyers has always been as far aft as possible (as much for clear approach/landing arcs as anything else), so that pushed the GWS forward with the results we know.


The only redeeming feature of an expensive high-spec hull on a patrol ship is the space and weight it might make available for future developments or upgrades, remembering that the volume of both missiles and the electronics they need have tended to shrink over the years for the same or better performance. Compare Tartar D/Standard SM-1 to the original Terrier that went into Boston and Canberra, while AFAIK current iterations of VLS Standard are superior even to Talos in range/altitude envelope terms (assuming Talos could even keep its ramjet lit at those heights). Hell, I'm pretty sure we've reached the point where whatever VLS iteration of Sea Sparrow we're up to now is better in every way than the original Terrier ever was, and that's a system whose magazine storage at least isn't at all hungry in internal hull volume terms, though grafting it to the superstructure (e.g. one side of the helicopter hangar) the way some frigate designs have done does carry potential topweight and vulnerability issues.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

and that's a system whose magazine storage at least isn't at all hungry in internal hull volume terms, though grafting it to the superstructure (e.g. one side of the helicopter hangar) the way some frigate designs have done does carry potential topweight and vulnerability issues.

The Mk 48 VLS used to launch Sea Sparrow from the Karel Doorman and Halifax class frigates does not have a topweight problem compared to locating Mk 41 VLS in a similar vertical position as on the Anzac class and other MEKO frigates. Because this launcher is far lighter than the Mk 41 VLS because it is speced to only fire the Sea Sparrow missile and doesn’t have the same level of massive 180 degree exhaust tubing. One mark of the Mk 48 (used on the Karel Doorman from my memory) just uses 90 degree exhaust flow so saving a huge amount of weight. Also the cells are smaller (can only support dual packing of ESSM). The missiles and launchers may be more vulnerable to damage themselves but being outside the hull or superstructure they have far less capacity to damage the ship if there is a major fire or hit from a weapon.

 

[pathology_doc]

The Mk 48 VLS used to launch Sea Sparrow from the Karel Doorman and Halifax class frigates does not have a topweight problem compared to locating Mk 41 VLS in a similar vertical position as on the Anzac class and other MEKO frigates. Because this launcher is far lighter than the Mk 41 VLS because it is speced to only fire the Sea Sparrow missile and doesn’t have the same level of massive 180 degree exhaust tubing.

Point taken, and I concede, but it is still located in a position where metacentric height is going to suffer, and is therefore something for a designer to keep a careful eye on, lest their reputation suffer the same ignominious fate as did Sir William White's. I don't know what the metacentric height at standard load is for a modern GW frigate or destroyer, but the mitigating factor is that we now have autostabilisers to dampen or cure the high roll rates, etc. that are intrinsic in large-MCH designs.


For vanity flagships designed as one-offs for third-world dictators who want to pile on every weapon they can, this is IMO a distinct possibility. [/size]Because of course with a guided weapon (particularly a SAM) come its sensors and designators, and most of those sensors and designators want the highest possible place in the ship.

 

[uk 75]

RP1


Thanks for confirming the origins of the drawing of the Type 44 in the HAYNES Manual.


It is the best approximation that I have seen to what this ship might have looked like. Is there any
chance of posting it on Shipbucket or here?


I collect 1/200 and 1/250 model ships and would like to get a model of the Type 44 done using a pair of Type 22 and 42 as basis.

 

[MSR]

Hello folks.

First, thanks for the interest in the drawing. I'm glad Jon was able to get it into the book in time. The original version that was going to print was the first drawing posted by MihoshiK, above, and which has 'original drawing by D.K. Brown' in the credits. However, this drawing was almost entirely speculative on my part, based on a text description in 'Rebuilding the Royal Navy'. I took large parts of another drawing by MihoshiK and simply rearranged things so that I could fit all the equipment onboard which Brown had listed. Because of the arrangement of the Exocets either side of the bridge, some wag on Warships1 labelled it HMS Karapool in reference to the Kara class cruisers!

Anyway, when Jonathan Gates emailed me, in the course of the conversation he showed me an image which dated to 1981, right at the time the design was being proposed. This is the image below, an oil painting which hung on the walls of the old Abbey Wood design offices for many years after (before these offices were demolished and procurement moved to the new facilities in 1999). Jon saved it from the wrecking ball and sent me this picture:



As you can see, it is a completely different design from the speculative efforts, earlier. Having seen this, I couldn't let the original be published, so re-drew the whole thing. Working from this oblique angle was a pain, as you can imagine!

And here's the result:



uk 75: the image looks a little blurred at this resolution on my end - it's linked from my photobucket account. If necessary I can forward the original but, between this and the scan of the painting I reckon there's enough here for a decent model. If you make it, send me pictures!

There are some differences between the painting and the drawing.

Perhaps the first thing you will notice is the reduction in GWS-25 launchers from four to two. Four simply would not work in a 2 forward, 2 aft abreast configuration as shown in the painting because the T22 hull is too narrow, and the units shown in the painting have actually been reduced in size to make them fit! So I reduced the fit to one forward and aft, and checked my logic with Jon who agreed (it's been great to have one of the original designers to bounce ideas off!)

You can clearly see the similarities in the hull form with that of the T22. However, this is no longer a T22 hull. The hull break forward has been altered. The hull between the Seadart and Seawolf launchers has been stretched (scaling the drawing, I realised that the Seawolf missiles would bounce off the Seadart unless fired at an unrealistically high angle, a conclusion supported by Jon), and the position and height of the main gun modified to give good clearance for the Seadart. The flight deck is different and the deck beneath is now fully enclosed. Jon is of the view that the design as built would have featured many more enclosed spaces, such as walkways and the boat decks, because the need for RCS reduction was just being appreciated at the time. But as this was supposed to be a cheap design which was cheap because it was based on an existing hull, its possible that these features were left out to avoid it looking too modern and, therefore, expensive!

Also, you will note that all the topsides are original to the drawing and as close as I could make them to the painting. I think the number of satcom domes on the fore mast was optimistic as, working with scaled components, I simply couldn't find a way of fitting them all in! So that's another minor difference from the painting. Also, I had to redesign the boat decks to make them fit. The artist clearly used some artistic licence when portraying those because a strict interpretation simply didn't fit anywhere!

So, basically, this is an original drawing, a fact reflected in the credit. If any part is wrong or inaccurate, it's my fault, alone!

Cheers
MSR

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Perhaps the first thing you will notice is the reduction in GWS-25 launchers from four to two. Four simply would not work in a 2 forward, 2 aft abreast configuration as shown in the painting because the T22 hull is too narrow, and the units shown in the painting have actually been reduced in size to make them fit!

The launchers in the MOD painting have not been reduced in size to fit but rather the images in the Shipbucket system are out of scale. Shipbucket is not a reliable source for design work because it is by their own intent an artistic system using common drawings with exaggerated scales to make the weapons look bigger. Using actual scale drawing components based on Admiralty drawings will make for a more accurate recreation.

One way to check the scale of the Seawolf launchers is their height. Which is about the same height as the standard hatchway to their rear when mounted on the same deck level. This is the actual height of the real world system so they are in scale. The one thing that looks very out of scale is the main gun. That is if it is an Mk 8 113mm gun. But it looks a lot more like a (OTO) Mk 75 76mm gun. In which case it is in perfect scale.

 

[uk 75]

MSR

First of all. Thank you for providing one of the great missing pieces in a Jigsaw started by the Brown/Moore book on Rebuilding the Royal Navy and the crazy impression of the Type 44 which it introduced.

http://godfreydykes.info/ROYAL_NAVY_SHIPS_THE_UPS_AND_DOWNS_OF_CLASSES_AND_TYPES.htm

The Godfrey Dykes site above has some helpful images. Notably it reproduces the artwork for the Type 43 large destroyer.

Looking at the painting again, I am inclined to agree with Abraham about the Type 44 armament.

Firstly, the main gun is the 76 mm Oto Melara which was also shown on early impressions of the Type 23 and did enter RN service in the Hong Kong Peacock boats. It has a distinctive turret and gun slot as well as a side blister which is not the same as the 4.5.

Secondly, the four Seawolf launchers are common to both the Type 43 and 44 designs. This makes sense as in the absence of the VL or the later proposed lightweight launcher the only way to give the ship effective anti missile point defence was to have two launchers either side. It also avoids problem of the backblast from the Seadart launcher and the blocking field.

This is a splendid day in UK Secret Projects history. SHIPBUCKET has solved an itch which I for oe have been scratching since 2001.

I hope to get the model made using the MOD artwork and a rejig of your drawing.

All the best
Ralph

 

[phil gollin]

.


MSR,


Yes, thanks for that - there would seem to be scope for a new book on RN designs from the mid-70s to 200+, HOWEVER circumscribed by security restrictions.


Is there a full sized Lynx hangar under the rear Sea Dart director, it doesn't seem so - or was there just a basic flight deck ? How ASW orientated was the design ?


Thanks.


.

 

[pathology_doc]

there would seem to be scope for a new book on RN designs from the mid-70s to 200+, HOWEVER circumscribed by security restrictions.

Yes, but with the full book and ALL the secrets typeset, tucked away quietly in the MOD, and ready to roll as soon as the relevant statutes ran out. ;D

 

[RP1]

Hi,


Anyone wanting to write a history of any recent RN projects would do well to learn from Jon Gates' experiences with trying to get the T45 manual published - it was, apparently, somewhat laborious to get things authorised...


Regarding the T44; unless the dimensions have been increased over the T22, comparing it against the actual T22 seems to indicate that the SW launchers are a bit too small on the painting and a bit too big on the SB drawing - but the latter is a bit variable on equipment dimensions as some are spot on and others not so much. Assuming that the small deckhouse between the launchers is the ready use magazine I think this arrangement would have been *possible*, but cramped - the reloading process dictates the upperdeck arrangement in way of the launchers on T22 and a minimum length is needed. Of course, it is possible that the launchers were reloaded whilst trained astern or something odd.


RP1

 

[JohnR]

Interesting that the image seems to show the Type 44 fitted with the back to back Type 1030 radar array and not the single 1031 array as shown on the widely published image of the much larger Type 43.


Regards

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Here's my take on the front end of the Type 44 using Admiralty or DK Brown scaled drawings to provide the components. It all fits fine above the hull. The big problem is the ring Sea Dart magazine just won't fit in with the Type 22 hull lines at this position. The outer edge of the ring scrapes the outer hull mould line at their respective widest and narrowest points. Either the hull would have to lose fineness or a new magazine designed.

 

[RP1]

Hi,


A useful drawing - IIRC DKB mentions the problem with fitting the magazine in.


The upperdeck arrangement for SW is not as simple as that, though. The RU magazine is a locker at the top of a lift. The lcr is not loaded directly from it like ASROC. Instead the launcher is loaded via a trolley and ramp - this dictates a minimum distance behind the lcr to manhandle all this into position.


There are two possibilities I can see; either some new ASROC type indexing loader was to be developed, which I find unlikely, or the launchers would be loaded whilst trained aft, which is awkward as the missile may have to be turned through 180 degrees.


The latter is why I can imagine the number of lcrs being reduced. *Unless* the scenario modelling clearly indicated a significant number of "leakers". Given the limitations of SD/ SDII, that's quite possible.


RP1

 

[uk 75]

The drawing in the Brown/Moore Book taken from an earlier thread on this subject. The drawing is not captioned Type 44 but rather small Type 43. It is very odd compared with the Type 44.

 

[phil gollin]

Yes, but with the full book and ALL the secrets typeset, tucked away quietly in the MOD, and ready to roll as soon as the relevant statutes ran out. ;D

I AGREE and fully support the idea, after all if one considers just nuclear submarine designs it will be decades, if not "forever", before a reasonably full book could be released, and I am sure that that goes for other aspects I know nothing about.


There is a whole generation of designs for which the "people who know" must be retiring and it would be best if the book were written now rather than "then".


Once such a volume is written (and locked up) then a short pamphlet can be released.


.

 

[pathology_doc]

Oh, I agree. Write it now, then release the unclassified version at once and keep the full version until all can be told. Then the ten-year-olds who swoon over the abridged version today (and I know I would have swooned over DK's books at that age) can buy the full version for THEIR ten-year-old kids when the time comes. B)

 

[Abraham Gubler]

It is very odd compared with the Type 44.

I think you'll find its the other way around.

 

[MSR]

Hello, again.

As I said at the end of my last post, any errors are mine and unfortunately, I made some errors in the description of the genesis of the drawing which some of you have already pointed out! I have gone back to my notes and refreshed my memory.

The two questions that need elaboration are the number of GWS25 units, and the depiction of the Mk.8 4.5" main gun in the drawing whereas the painting clearly shows what must be an Oto 76mm.

Regarding Seawolf

I did not reduce the Seawolf launchers to 2 because they wouldn't fit abreast on the hull: I conflated this in my memory with the Seadart ring magazine (which I see RP1 and Abraham Gubler have already mentioned) and its location right up in the fine ends of the bow (which was one of the reasons for lengthening the hull to provide more beam where it was needed, in addition to improving separation between weapon systems).

So, the primary reason for reducing the Seawolf launchers was down to my desire to represent the most likely possible final iteration of the design. (I will expand on this in the next paragraph.) The secondary reason was concerns over exactly how this arrangement would work. I can't remember if it was in conversation with RP1 or with Prof. Gates but the subject of ammo handling for these launchers has come up before and so it contributed to my doubts about their presence in any final design.

Why did I arbitrarily cut the Seawolf launchers? My stated intention throughout this process was to represent what is, on balance and according to available sources (living and dead), the most likely final iteration of the Type 44. This must also include accounting for the budget constraints which led someone to imagine that arbitrarily mandating it be based on the Type 22 would somehow save money.

This was the intellectual climate in which the final design was to be assessed. Add to this Prof. Gates' stories of how some relatively cheap and easy RCS reduction features, such as enclosed boat decks and walkways, received the red pen treatment at an early stage not because they were that expensive, but because they would add pennies to the cost and make it look more expensive. And this during a time in which several detailed studies had been completed into the efficacy of RCS reduction, Prof. Gates had just authored two papers on the subject, and the Kirov class were receiving a lot of attention from Naval Intelligence because of their apparent RCS features.

P.S. phil, this cost-cutting also answers your question: there is no hangar. Just a flight deck.

Thus, in this climate, and taking into account the technical questions of the efficacy of reloading and operating two GWS25 units in that configuration at that location, I elected to ditch 2 of them to create a far more realistic looking, and better laid out, design. I was pleased to find that Jon didn't find any reason to object to my thinking, and that it tallied with his memories of the goal of the cost reduction measures they were implementing during the design process.

In other words, it was highly likely they would have done it themselves had the project continued.

Regarding the Oto 76mm

I wondered about this fairly early on and have found the email in which I asked Jon. I'll quote part of his reply, directly:

Regarding the Oto76, I am afraid that I can't remember the costs. I would guess that economies of scale would make the Oto cheaper and of course it was smaller so easier to accommodate. Although both Oto and Mk8 put down similar total weights of ordnance per minute, the RN preferred the sporadic big bangs of the Mk 8. In the Falklands they realised a Big Bang every so often was a real 'brown trouser job' for the Argies. The Mk8 was also favoured for all the logistic and maintenance reasons that you mention but we had to explore the advantages and disadvantages of the Oto in the T44 concepts.

With reference to my intention of representing the design that would most likely have been built, we must remember the time lines. This design was cancelled in 1981, at which point it featured a 76mm, no hangar, no RCS reduction, apparently no torpedo tubes and a number of other minor features that one might expect. This was all done to save money.

Now recall that the original iteration of the Type 23 featured a 76mm, no hangar, no 'intentional' RCS reduction (that the superstructure was small and compact was because there wasn't much in it), no torpedo tubes and fairly modest sensors. It was originally just a TAS tug and pit stop for the Sea Kings and Merlins that were envisaged to be operating from a nearby CVS.

After the Falklands more money materialised, and design priorities were reassessed. The Type 23 gained a Mk.8 main gun, a hangar, RCS reduction features built into the superstructure, torpedo tubes, a better sensor fit... you see where I'm going with this?

The Oto was included as a cost reduction feature to test the impact of that change on the bottom line, as Jon clearly states in his final sentence. I think it's reasonable that if the Type 44 had continued, the 76mm would have been replaced post-Falklands with the Mk.8 4.5" and so I drew that, instead.

I hope this wall of text was worth the read and that it answers some questions. I'll make sure to check my notes again before answering anymore!

Cheers

 

[uk 75]

MSR
Thank you for your comments. I think it is great that you have done so much work on this subject.

I post again your artists impression with the drawing in Brown Moore. I am really baffled where the huge ungainly funnel on the drawing comes from and also the armament is odd (Exocet?).

The key to the eventual appearance of a Type 44 had it been built may lie in the Type 22s built after the Falklands, especially the Batch 3 with 4.5 gun.

I am not suprised that the Type 44 was ditched in favour of the final batch of Type 42. Vulcan Phalanx also helped.

A great what if subject. Now all I need is the same artwork for the Type 19 frigate and the 1962 Escort Cruiser.

 

[JohnR]

Are there any statistics available for the Type 44, what was the power plant intended to be and what was it's missile load?

Regards.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I post again your artists impression with the drawing in Brown Moore. I am really baffled where the huge ungainly funnel on the drawing comes from and also the armament is odd (Exocet?).

The big funnel is because this ship was to be powered by four Spey turbines. This engine hadn’t gone to sea at the time of design (late 70s) so it would appear the initial designs provided more than needed exhausting. On the same scale as that needed for the Olympus turbine of similar power output. Which is why the Type 43 small version has a very large stack. Exocet was also a required weapon for the Type 43 which is why the two end version has four of them right aft and the single end version has them forward in pairs either side of the 909 director.

The key to the eventual appearance of a Type 44 had it been built may lie in the Type 22s built after the Falklands, especially the Batch 3 with 4.5 gun.

Again it’s the other way around. The Type 44 as painted has the same bow as the Batch 3 Type 22s. Which is effectively a bow sonar front end.

I am not suprised that the Type 44 was ditched in favour of the final batch of Type 42.

This didn’t happen. The Batch 3 Type 42s were ordered in 1978-79. Type 43 was only a sketch design at the time HMS Manchester was ordered. Type 44 wasn’t even on the table.

 

[JFC Fuller]

The big funnel is because this ship was to be powered by four Spey turbines. This engine hadn’t gone to sea at the time of design (late 70s) so it would appear the initial designs provided more than needed exhausting. On the same scale as that needed for the Olympus turbine of similar power output. Which is why the Type 43 small version has a very large stack. Exocet was also a required weapon for the Type 43 which is why the two end version has four of them right aft and the single end version has them forward in pairs either side of the 909 director.

I see no reason to believe that the T44 design would have had the same 4 Spey plant as the T43, as it was based on the T22 hull it would in all probability have had the same plant as either the Batch II T22s or the slightly evolved Batch III plant (two Speys replacing the two Olympus). If you look at a T22 it actually has a near identical stack to that being shown here, it just looks smaller on a T22 because a T22 has significantly more superstructure. Remove the clutter on a T42 and unsurprisingly (it had the same plant) it also has a near identical stack.

This didn’t happen. The Batch 3 Type 42s were ordered in 1978-79. Type 43 was only a sketch design at the time HMS Manchester was ordered. Type 44 wasn’t even on the table.

Type 44 was cancelled for cost reasons, along with Sea Dart MkII, not in favor of a final batch of T42 which had all been ordered before the 1979 election. The reason it was not resuscitated after the Falklands (despite the loss of two ships of the class) was that it was clear Sea Dart was not the answer- and there were some much more promising technologies in the pipeline (especially in radar and CMS). There was however a desire to put Sea Wolf on T42s, which we have discussed elsewhere.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I see no reason to believe that the T44 design would have had the same 4 Spey plant as the T43, as it was based on the T22 hull it would in all probability have had the same plant as either the Batch II T22s or the slightly evolved Batch III plant (two Speys replacing the two Olympus). If you look at a T22 it actually has a near identical stack to that being shown here, it just looks smaller on a T22 because a T22 has significantly more superstructure. Remove the clutter on a T42 and unsurprisingly (it had the same plant) it also has a near identical stack.

Sure but the comment about the big stack was in relation to the Small Type 43 not the Type 44. Friedman refers to this ship as the Type 44 but DK Brown is pretty clear that it is the initial T43 design with the Sea Dart II but was replaced by the double ended larger Type 43. Both versions used four Speys which gave both ships 31.5 knots. Even then the RN wanted more speed.

 

[JFC Fuller]

The small T43 was not really an initial version, both the large and the small were looked at simultaneously, the larger was preferred so was carried forward.

 

[phil gollin]

.


Thanks, MSR


.

 

[uk 75]

I am very grateful to everyone for their comments here. You have really added a considerable amount to the information so far published on the small Type 43 and the eventual Type 44.


I had not grasped before how different the two designs were and how they evolved. This site has again trumped the published sources.

 

[uk 75]

Given how much information we have posted on this ship,does anyone know if a revision to published works on British destroyers is likely some time?

 

[starviking]

Given how much information we have posted on this ship,does anyone know if a revision to published works on British destroyers is likely some time?

Getting an article in Warship 201X might be a better route, given the revision rate of specialist books.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Getting an article in Warship 201X might be a better route, given the revision rate of specialist books.

My thoughts exactly. And there are a few British destroyer/frigate designs from the 60s and 70s that remain mostly blank sheets compared to some of the better known designs like the double ended Type 43. Not just RN concepts but also private ones like the Vickers Type 3009 which lead to the Type 42 and some of the missing mark numbers from Vospers. Warships 2013 had a note with a couple of private designs for export from Fairfields. Who knows what Yarrow, Swan Hunter and others might have been working on?

 

[JFC Fuller]

A few observations:

Sea Wolf Launchers: There may be only 3, not 4. On the Type 22 as built there was only a gangway on the starboard side, the side shown here, the port side hangar wall ran flush with the hull side so there would not be space for a Sea Wolf Launcher there. The aft Sea Wolf Launcher seen in the painting may be positioned in such a way that it can fire across the helideck to provide complete port side coverage along with the port side forward launcher. However;

Size: Adding a Sea Dart system, at least one sized as in the Type 42, to a Type 22 hull without sacrificing anything else will require the addition of around 25ft or more of hull length, if we add that to a Batch III hull we get to a total length of 510ft which is longer than the Type 82 design. The original, and never changed, beam of a Type 22 was 48 ft which is 1ft less than a Type 42 Batch III. That, and the appearance of the Sea Wolf launchers here, they look smaller to me, may suggest that a foot or two of beam was added to this design. In theory, though I think it unlikely, enough beam could have been added to allow a gangway on the port side that could host a fourth Sea Wolf launcher that would remove the need to fire across the helideck.

Sea Dart magazine: Sea Dart magazines consisted of lanes (rows of missiles), not a drum, the system used in the Type 42 and Invincible classes only had three lanes so was not that wide to start with. The position of the launcher on the Type 44 design shown above in B position suggests the entire system may have been raised a deck compared to the Type 42 in order to remove any remaining issues with fitting the magazine space inside the hull???

Radar: Unsurprisingly given multiple authors have stated the Type 44 would have had it, the ship definitely seems to have the Type 1030 STIR, the double backed configuration looks identical to photos of a scale model used for aerodynamic tests that I have seen.

Gun: I concur with others, the gun is probably a 76mm compact, given the likely space considerations forward it would be the logical choice. In addition, about the same time the RN was acquiring that weapon for the Peacock class (so it would have been known in the design department) and much later the Romanians and the Chileans had it installed in their Batch II T22s where there had previously been no gun installed and space was constrained.

 

[Hood]

Some interesting observations.
Given how much the Type 22 Batch III hull differed from the earlier Batches to be effectively a new hull, its not beyond the realms of possibility that the Type 44 would have been loosely based on Type 22 innards with a new outer hull.
Its possible the hangar is smaller than a standard Type 22 for just a single Lynx or Merlin, unlikely but possible.

4 Sea Wolf launchers does feel overkill but given the Type 43 fit I can see why they might have aimed for the same level of self-defence capability.
Playing around with a similar concept in Shipbucket, I found that a Seadart magazine probably would just about fit.

 

[Graham1973]

Has anything further surfaced about this class?

I'm asking for purely selfish reasons. I'm reading an e-book I picked up recently and the author has character state that the ship in it is a Type 44 destroyer.

As there's no clear description of the ship in the book other than it's an older RN unit reactivated as a training ship, I have to assume he has this rather obscure unbuilt class in mind rather than something else.

A clear set of stats dating from around the cancellation would be nice, an artists impression would be even better.