Type 988 radar in the Falklands.

[Rule of cool]

As many may be aware in the mid 60s the British were in a joint project with the Dutch to develop an advanced radar known as the Type 988 Broomstick, which was to be fitted to the Type 82 DLG and CVA01 carrier. When CVA01 was cancelled so too was British participation in the Type 988 project, and the Type 82 and subsequent Type 42 destroyers retained the 50s era Type 965 search and type 992Q Target Indication radars, which were poor at low level and with any background clutter such as from land. It wasn't until the HMS Invincible and HMS Exeter that RN ships received a modern search radar that worked in these adverse conditions.

However the Dutch persevered with the radar and built it as the SPS-01, fitted it to their Tromp class destroyers. This radar is quite a beast, combining the 2D search and 3D target indicator functions that required 2 radars in British ships, and was capable in the adverse conditions of low level and near land.

WI the British, after scaling back the Type 82 and cancelling the CVA01 still went with the Type 988 for their Sea Dart ships, after all their old radars did need replacing? Would the Falklands be much different if all the Sea Dart ships had a highly capable radar system?

The picture shows the 2D and 3d antennas for their search and target indication radars.

 

[zen]

We must add that the genesis of the Invincible class included Type 988.

We can envision Invincible, Bristol and possibly an updated Hermes carrying this system.
But costs drove cheaper, lighter, simpler sets for Type 42.
Broomstick was not cheap, or lightweight or simple.

Arguably this might have differed and obviously had the Dutch stuck with Sea Dart it's possible a AH version of the Type 42 class might have mounted it.

 

[Rule of cool]

We must add that the genesis of the Invincible class included Type 988.

We can envision Invincible, Bristol and possibly an updated Hermes carrying this system.
But costs drove cheaper, lighter, simpler sets for Type 42.
Broomstick was not cheap, or lightweight or simple.

Arguably this might have differed and obviously had the Dutch stuck with Sea Dart it's possible a AH version of the Type 42 class might have mounted it.

My thinking is that once it is decided to replace the Types 984, 965 and 992 with the Type 988 the RN's best bet is to build it in numbers and have the largest radar fleet as possible rather than adopt it for 3-5 ships and spend more money on replacing the Types 965 and 992 with simpler, lighter radars for the Type 42 (that might get cancelled) and introducing 2 supply chains etc. I have no doubt that if required the RN could build a Type 42 equipped with the Type 988, indeed I'd guess that by the time the manufacturers started work on the 5th or so unit it might have some refinements that make it a bit lighter than the first few.

As for the results, apparently the HMS Exeter, with its modern Type 1022 2D radar and modern software performed, well in action. I can't help but wonder if every Sea Dart ship had a highly capable radar set what might be achieved? Could a Type 64 combo lurk west of West Falkland as a missile trap, even if only for a day?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of Post 2.

. . . it's possible a AH version of the Type 42 class might have mounted it.

Maybe the result is an Anglicised Tromp class DDG with Sea Dart (40 round magazine) & 2 Type 909s instead of Standard MR (40 round magazine) & 2 SPG-51s, a 4.5in Mk 8 gun (or a recycled twin 4.5in Mk 6) instead of the recycled twin 120mm, Sea Wolf instead of Sea Sparrow and British sensors & electronics instead of the Dutch ones.

This is a comparison of dimensions according to Conway's 1947-1995.

490ft pp, 507ft oa x 55ft, 6,700 tons normal, 7,700 tons full load - Type 82​

430ft pp, 453ft oa x 49ft, 3,665 tons standard, 4,308 tons full load - Tromp class​

434ft wl, 463ft oa x 49ft, 4,750 tons normal, 5,350 tons full load - Type 42 Batch 3​

393ft wl, 410ft oa x 46ft, 3,850 tons normal, 4,350 tons full load - Type 42 Batches 1 & 2*​

​

According to the same source the Tromp had a similar size crew (306) to the Type 42 (299 to 312) and a considerably smaller crew than the Type 82 (407) despite having a heavier armament and better electronics (due to the SPS-01 radar) than its British equivalents.

If SPS-01/Type 988 was still in production for the above then the Dutch might built another pair of Tromps instead of the Jacob Van Heemskerck class. However, it also means that Argentina probably buys a pair of DDGs with this radar instead of 2 Type 42 Batch 1s.

*The book actually says that the waterline length was 293ft.

 

[zen]

Just to add, in origin, the Tromps had Broomstick, ADAWS, Sea Dart, Limbo, and the French 100mm gun.

As an aside I tend to the view that with the French a NATO standard of 105mm L60 naval DP gun was both possible and potentially a successful product.

But back to the Plot....assuming they stick with Sea Dart and ADAWS......we've got Dutch involvement into the development of all three systems. ADAWS, Type 988, and Sea Dart.
This shifts the balance on the Tripartite SAM issue. Lending weight to the Dutch view a Rapier-like weapon, applicable down to Minesweepers would win out. Killing Sea Wolf as we know it.

But in turn this might drive GAST.1210 forward as the future MSAM.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of Post 3

My thinking is that once it is decided to replace the Types 984, 965 and 992 with the Type 988 the RN's best bet is to build it in numbers and have the largest radar fleet as possible rather than adopt it for 3-5 ships and spend more money on replacing the Types 965 and 992 with simpler, lighter radars for the Type 42 (that might get cancelled) and introducing 2 supply chains etc. I have no doubt that if required the RN could build a Type 42 equipped with the Type 988, indeed I'd guess that by the time the manufacturers started work on the 5th or so unit it might have some refinements that make it a bit lighter than the first few.

FWIW 2 SPS-01/Type 988 radars were built IOTL. If we still have 18 Sea Dart ships built for the RN ITTL and each ship has a Type 988 radar that's a 10-fold increase to 20 radars, which isn't exactly mass production, but might reduce the unit cost.

 

[zen]

Beggars another question: who else would either buy Broomstick or Broomstick equipped ships?

As it was, there was an effort to sell to Germany.

The French had had to buy American OTL after the Suffrens. Could they have opted in?

And of course.....Argentina....oh the irony!

 

[Rule of cool]

I'd forgotten about the Argentinean Type 42s, but given they did very little during the war I doubt them having a much better radar suite would make much difference.

Given the Sheffield's radar was turned off to use the satellite transmitter I doubt a Type 988 would have saved her. Glasgow's Sea Dart and 4.5" gun both failed when she was attacked and damaged, so a Type 988 wouldn'thavemade much difference. However the Coventry could have survived the attack that sank her as her radars couldn't track the A4s at low level with the land in the background.

 

[Rule of cool]

As for Sea Dart on the Tromps, maybe if the British stuck with the Type 988 the Dutch would have stuck with the Sea Dart. However by 1966 Britain was well on the way to a drastic loss of power and therefore value as a partner. With the failure/abandonment of a bunch of British defence projects getting on board with with Britain doesn't look like a good idea.

 

[Hood]

Given the Sheffield's radar was turned off to use the satellite transmitter I doubt a Type 988 would have saved her.

That was because Type 965 interfered with the SCOT wavelength (it also messed with European TV channels too!). So a fault specific to that radar.

If a Broomstick Type 42 was feasible - which implies a lack of the cost-cutting that crimped the equipment fit, hopefully the Type 42s in this scenario would have EW kit too with Type 670 jammers etc.

I suspect Broomstick was never affordable enough for mass use, nor would their necessarily be a need to if there were adequate numbers of larger ships with them. But replacing Type 965 with 1022 should be a priority alongside that if so.

One knock-on will be less need to tinker with Type 1030 STIR etc., that effort could have been put into updating Broomstick and operationalising MESAR.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

That was because Type 965 interfered with the SCOT wavelength (it also messed with European TV channels too!). So a fault specific to that radar.

I thought it was more a case of the sidelobes of the S-Band SCOT SATCOM interfering with the UAA-1 Abbey Hill ESM?

 

[Hood]

I thought it was more a case of the sidelobes of the S-Band SCOT SATCOM interfering with the UAA-1 Abbey Hill ESM?

Yes you are right, got my systems mixed up there!

 

[Rule of cool]

That was because Type 965 interfered with the SCOT wavelength (it also messed with European TV channels too!). So a fault specific to that radar.

If a Broomstick Type 42 was feasible - which implies a lack of the cost-cutting that crimped the equipment fit, hopefully the Type 42s in this scenario would have EW kit too with Type 670 jammers etc.

I suspect Broomstick was never affordable enough for mass use, nor would their necessarily be a need to if there were adequate numbers of larger ships with them. But replacing Type 965 with 1022 should be a priority alongside that if so.

One knock-on will be less need to tinker with Type 1030 STIR etc., that effort could have been put into updating Broomstick and operationalising MESAR.

For the sake of simplicity,(In my mind if the RN isn't under the pump in this period it gets 2 x CVAs and ~4 x Type 82s before switching to the Type 42) and because the Type 988 would be costly, lets presume that there's no difference in the schedule of fitting the other electronics. With the Type 988 there would be no need for the Type 1030, with it's back to back antennas and high data rate, as the 988 would already be doing that. The 1022 is the same, no need for the improved 2D search radar. How much did these development programmes cost, how many 988s do we get for that money?

Would the generally better radar picture 4 or 5 988 equipped ships would create allow the carriers to operate further to the west, giving the Sea Harriers more time on their CAP stations?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of Post 4.

This is a comparison of dimensions according to Conway's 1947-1995.

490ft pp, 507ft oa x 55ft, 6,700 tons normal, 7,700 tons full load - Type 82​

430ft pp, 453ft oa x 49ft, 3,665 tons standard, 4,308 tons full load - Tromp class​

434ft wl, 463ft oa x 49ft, 4,750 tons normal, 5,350 tons full load - Type 42 Batch 3​

393ft wl, 410ft oa x 46ft, 3,850 tons normal, 4,350 tons full load - Type 42 Batches 1 & 2 (the book says the waterline length was 293ft).​

The displacements for the Tromp class and Type 42 Batch 3 are very different despite the two ships having similar dimensions. And in turn the increase displacement of Type 42 Batch 3 over Batches 1 & 2 seems to be considerable greater than the increase in dimensions would suggest.

Furthermore, Tromp's designers were able to fit a lot more armament and what I presume was a much heavier radar into a hull of similar dimensions.

Type 42 Batch 3​

1 x 4.5in Mk 8 gun.​

2 x Phalanx CIWS that replaced 4 x 30mm in two twin mountings.​

1 x twin Sea Dart launcher (22 missiles) with 2 x Type 909 radars.​

6 x 12.75in torpedo tubes in two triple mountings.​

1 x Lynx helicopter.​

Tromp​

2 x 4.7in guns in one twin turret.​

1 x Goalkeeper CIWS​

1 x single Standard MR launcher (40 missiles) with 2 x SPG-51 radars.​

1 x octuple NATO Sea Sparrow launcher (16 missiles) with one WM-25 radar.​

8 Harpoon missiles in two quadruple launchers.​

6 x 12.75in torpedo tubes in two triple mountings.​

1 x Lynx helicopter.​

​

As far as I know SEWACO was just as good (if not better) than ADAWS and as far as I know Dutch radars, sonars, ECM & ESM was just as good (if not better) than their British equivalents.

​

Therefore, what were the Dutch designers doing that the RCNC wasn't doing? And was it's the fault of the RCNC? Did the British ships have any compensating features that this "Top Trumps" comparison doesn't show.

Another Part of Post 4.

According to the same source the Tromp had a similar size crew (306) to the Type 42 (299 to 312) and a considerably smaller crew than the Type 82 (407) despite having a heavier armament and better electronics (due to the SPS-01 radar) than its British equivalents.

Furthermore, the rebuilt Dutch Leander class frigates had smaller crews than rebuilt British Leander class frigates and the Kortanaer class frigates had smaller crews than the contemporary Type 22.

Again, what were the Dutch doing right and the British doing wrong? And did having larger crews have compensating features that this "Top Trumps" comparison doesn't show.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

For the sake of simplicity,(In my mind if the RN isn't under the pump in this period it gets 2 x CVAs and ~4 x Type 82s before switching to the Type 42) and because the Type 988 would be costly, lets presume that there's no difference in the schedule of fitting the other electronics. With the Type 988 there would be no need for the Type 1030, with it's back to back antennas and high data rate, as the 988 would already be doing that. The 1022 is the same, no need for the improved 2D search radar. How much did these development programmes cost, how many 988s do we get for that money?

Would the generally better radar picture 4 or 5 988 equipped ships would create allow the carriers to operate further to the west, giving the Sea Harriers more time on their CAP stations?

Would the carriers be operating Sea Harriers if they were CVAs? And if they were CVAs they'd be operating AEW aircraft.

Or were you referring to a scenario where it was the OTL aircraft carriers supported by 4 or 5 Type 988 ships?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

If the Type 988 radar had been fitted to all British ships that had Sea Dart, would GWS.31 Sea Dart have survived the 1981 Defence Review? IOTL we seem to have a missile (GWS.30 Sea Dart) that was let down by its radar (Type 965) and I get the impression that Type 988 was so good that the situation would have been reversed ITTL.

Also if the Dutch did buy Sea Dart would that have increased the chances of GWS.31 surviving the 1981 Defence Review?

If the Dutch did buy Sea Dart, would they have bought Sea Wolf instead of NATO Sea Sparrow? I'm guessing that if they did they'd want their own fire control radar for it (like they did for Sea Cat) in which case would part of the deal be that the British bought the Dutch radar instead of Type 910? I think there was at least one version of Sea Wolf (called VM40) that used a Dutch radar.

Finally, could Type 988 be used for Sea Wolf in place of the Type 967/968?

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/sea-wolf-and-sea-dart-unbuilt-derivatives-and-cancelled-applications.218/

 

[Rule of cool]

Would the carriers be operating Sea Harriers if they were CVAs? And if they were CVAs they'd be operating AEW aircraft.

Or were you referring to a scenario where it was the OTL aircraft carriers supported by 4 or 5 Type 988 ships?

This is the minimum change scenario, changing Type 965, 992 and 1022 for the Type 988, not a 'Britain doing better' scenario where the Type 42s get the ECM etc. I wanted to explore what an advanced, modern radar would do in the Falklands situation.

My favourite 'Britain does better scenario' most certainly doesn't include Invincible class and Sea Harriers with a fancy radar.

 

[Rule of cool]

If the Type 988 radar had been fitted to all British ships that had Sea Dart, would GWS.31 Sea Dart have survived the 1981 Defence Review? IOTL we seem to have a missile (GWS.30 Sea Dart) that was let down by its radar (Type 965) and I get the impression that Type 988 was so good that the situation would have been reversed ITTL.

I'd say the opposite, the British government knew the Sea Dart was let down by radars so needed to develop the Types 1030 and 1022. With the Type 988 in service they know they're safe to cancel the GWS.31.

Of course this is purely in this minimum change scenario, rather than a more general Britain does better scenario.

 

[datafuser]

At the National Archives in Kew in 2019, I took pictures of a 1975 DOAE study about the effectiveness of the Sea Dart. Here are some of them.

 

[CJGibson]

Daft question from a naval know nowt. RN requirements, including Type 988, I've looked at refer to 'Target Indicator' or 'Target Indication' radars. Are these different from the Army/RAF and their 'Target illumination' radars or are they the same technique i e. targetting for semi-active missiles, with a different label?

Chris

 

[Hood]

Daft question from a naval know nowt. RN requirements, including Type 988, I've looked at refer to 'Target Indicator' or 'Target Indication' radars. Are these different from the Army/RAF and their 'Target illumination' radars or are they the same technique i e. targetting for semi-active missiles, with a different label?

Chris

For the RN a 'Target Indication' radar was essentially a radar to provide information to enable weapon systems (gun or missile) to point towards the target. So Types 293, and Type 277 & 278 for TI Heightfinding fall into that classification.
'Fighter Direction' was a separate classification to control fighter intercepts - essentially Types 982, 982M and 983.
'Gunnery Direction' was for surface targets and covered Type 992, 992Q and 993.
By the 1960s 'Surveillance' meant long-range search.


Sea Dart was to have had its own D-band TI radar under NST.7946 alongside the NSR.7938 Type 1015 long-range radar that was cancelled in 1971 (contenders had been Broomstick, SPS-52, plus designs by EMI, Plessey and Marconi, later choices were modernised 965, SPS-40B, LW-08 and Selenia SPS-68). Surveillance was then added as STIR - becoming Type 1030 and the interim NSR.7938 based on LW-08 became the D-band Type 1022 with the STIR antenna.
The 'Half-STIR' for the Invincibles was Type 1031. Contenders for STIR and Half-STIR were Marconi S617N & S680N, Selenia SPS-68 & RAN-3L, LW-08). Type 1030 & 1031 were cancelled in 1979.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Daft question from a naval know nowt. RN requirements, including Type 988, I've looked at refer to 'Target Indicator' or 'Target Indication' radars. Are these different from the Army/RAF and their 'Target illumination' radars or are they the same technique i e. targetting for semi-active missiles, with a different label?

Chris

Different functions. Target indication sets were about telling directors and illuminators where to look. Radars fed data into Target Indication Units to create a Gunnery Direction System (GDS). Effectively a weapons allocation function. Weapons control itself would be undertaken by a director (e.g. MRS3) or an illuminator (e.g. Type 901).

For the RN a 'Target Indication' radar was essentially a radar to provide information to enable weapon systems (gun or missile) to point towards the target. So Types 293, and Type 277 & 278 for TI Heightfinding fall into that classification.
'Fighter Direction' was a separate classification to control fighter intercepts - essentially Types 982, 982M and 983.
'Gunnery Direction' was for surface targets and covered Type 992, 992Q and 993.
By the 1960s 'Surveillance' meant long-range search.

Type 293 was not a height finder. Types 992, 992Q and 993 had air TI functionality.

 

[Hood]

Type 293 was not a height finder.

I know, that's why I put a comma before the "and", ideally I should have used a full stop I guess!

The point I was making was that 277 & 278 as heightfinders were classified as TI sets while the 981 heightfinder was an FD set (as were the 986 and 987 developments, the 986 using the Type 993's transmitter, receiver and range equipment).

Types 992, 992Q and 993 had air TI functionality.

Very true, were dual-role, which is why they were numbered within the '99x' 'Warning Combined Air & Surface' designation series, despite the 'Gunnery Direction' label originally assigned to them (which in the coming age of missiles made less sense).

 

[CJGibson]

Thankyou for the clarification.

Chris

 

[uk 75]

The German frigate with Dutch Broomstick is featured here

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/west-german-bundesmarine-naval-projects.40314/

The Dutch chose Tartar/Standard over Seadart since Australia (Adams class), France (Kersaint) Germany (Adams class) Italy (Intrepido and Audace) and Japan (Amatsukaze) had all done so and were satisfied.

A UK Type 42 with Broomstick and Tartar/Standard might have been a joint programme with some of the above.

 

[Rule of cool]

While we're on the TI radar, USN Terrier and Tartar ships from the 60s had a 2D search and 3D radar, does the 3D radar act as the Target Indication radar? Further, the Ticonderoga class AGEIS cruisers had an SPS49 2D search radar in addition to their SPY1, does this mean that in it's earliest versions the AGEIS was in effect and Target Indication radar?

 

[Rule of cool]

Daft question from a naval know nowt. RN requirements, including Type 988, I've looked at refer to 'Target Indicator' or 'Target Indication' radars. Are these different from the Army/RAF and their 'Target illumination' radars or are they the same technique i e. targetting for semi-active missiles, with a different label?

Chris

With regards to the Type 988 and Sea Dart the Target Illumination radars were the Type 909, they survived the cancellation of the Type 988. Basically the Type 965 turning at 10 rpm picked up targets at long range, when they got closer the Type 992 turning at 30 rpm tracked them more closely and cued the Type 909s to the highest priority target, when the Type 909 locked onto the target that was within range the semi-active Sea Dart was fired.

The Type 988 would have replaced both the Type 965 and 992 in this scenario, but the 909s would have remained the same.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

While we're on the TI radar, USN Terrier and Tartar ships from the 60s had a 2D search and 3D radar, does the 3D radar act as the Target Indication radar? Further, the Ticonderoga class AGEIS cruisers had an SPS49 2D search radar in addition to their SPY1, does this mean that in it's earliest versions the AGEIS was in effect and Target Indication radar?

3D radar isn't necessary for SAM systems. Once a target is detected and the target tracking radar locked onto it, it really doesn't matter that you know the altitude, just the slant range for firing.

Where 3D radar is necessary is in controlling a CAP. That is, you need it when operating in conjunction with an aircraft carrier. Thus, in the Falklands war, RN ships having 3D radar wasn't going to help much since they had a limited number of aircraft for CAP and were far more reliant on SAMs for taking on raids.

More than ships with 3D radar, what the RN needed in the Falklands was an AEW aircraft of some sort. Even pulling a Fairey AEW 3 Gannet out of some museum and brushing off the dust so-to-speak would have been a better idea. There was at least one still airworthy in the UK in the 80's. They were flying from Hermes in the 60's and 70's so...

 

[Rule of cool]

3D radar isn't necessary for SAM systems. Once a target is detected and the target tracking radar locked onto it, it really doesn't matter that you know the altitude, just the slant range for firing.

Where 3D radar is necessary is in controlling a CAP. That is, you need it when operating in conjunction with an aircraft carrier. Thus, in the Falklands war, RN ships having 3D radar wasn't going to help much since they had a limited number of aircraft for CAP and were far more reliant on SAMs for taking on raids.

More than ships with 3D radar, what the RN needed in the Falklands was an AEW aircraft of some sort. Even pulling a Fairey AEW 3 Gannet out of some museum and brushing off the dust so-to-speak would have been a better idea. There was at least one still airworthy in the UK in the 80's. They were flying from Hermes in the 60's and 70's so...

The use of the ratty old Type 992 shows that 3D radars aren't necessary for SAM systems, but by the mid-late 60s 3D radars are a practical proposition for destroyer size warships and if available are a useful capability. In any case I'm not really interested in the 3D capability of the Type 988 in the Falklands scenario, rather its ability to perform against targets at extremely low level and in a littoral environment with land clutter where the Type 965/992 struggled.

As for AEW, 2 Sea King AEW2 prototypes were flying within 11 weeks, and went south with the Illustrious in July 1982, far faster than anything that could have been achieved with a Gannet. In any case both Gannet and Sea King AEW2 are a far cry from the E2 Hawkeye or E3 Sentry; they really are for Early Warning of low-level threats over a short distance (100 miles across) rather than controlling CAPs and the like.

 

[zen]

So this triggers memories of certain navy folk.
Who remarked that the problem with testing radars on the ridge overlooking Portsmouth was they didn't have to deal with clutter and that dogged actual service operations with a number of radars. Type 984 included.
There was a view the Dutch tested theirs close to the water and had to solve clutter issues because it was impossible to not.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The use of the ratty old Type 992 shows that 3D radars aren't necessary for SAM systems, but by the mid-late 60s 3D radars are a practical proposition for destroyer size warships and if available are a useful capability. In any case I'm not really interested in the 3D capability of the Type 988 in the Falklands scenario, rather its ability to perform against targets at extremely low level and in a littoral environment with land clutter where the Type 965/992 struggled.

It wouldn't matter if you don't have the SAM systems to back it up, which the RN didn't have. Neither Sea Dart or Sea Slug--particularly the latter--were designed to handle low level targets. Sea Wolf was too short ranged to need that sort of capacity, while Seacat was all but worthless.

 

[Rule of cool]

It wouldn't matter if you don't have the SAM systems to back it up, which the RN didn't have. Neither Sea Dart or Sea Slug--particularly the latter--were designed to handle low level targets. Sea Wolf was too short ranged to need that sort of capacity, while Seacat was all but worthless.

Exeter shot down two A4s flying at less than 50' above the sea, Sea Dart's supposed minimum engagement altitude was 100'. Sea Dart may not have been designed to shoot down low altitude targets, but given the opportunity managed it admirably.

 

[Hood]

The use of the ratty old Type 992 shows that 3D radars aren't necessary for SAM systems,

Type 992Q was introduced in 1966, so was 'only' 16 years old at the time (SAMPSON is now 17 years old in comparison).
Capability obviously means more than age as a more capable set lasts longer in service before it becomes obsolete.

 

[zen]

Sea Dart may not have been designed to shoot down low altitude targets, but given the opportunity managed it admirably.

Sea Dart to SIGS to NMBR.11 was always intended to have anti-missile-missile capability.
As such interception out to 20,000yards at low level and 30,000yards at high.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of Post 14.

Furthermore, Tromp's designers were able to fit a lot more armament and what I presume was a much heavier radar into a hull of similar dimensions.

Type 42 Batch 3​

1 x 4.5in Mk 8 gun.​

2 x Phalanx CIWS that replaced 4 x 30mm in two twin mountings.​

1 x twin Sea Dart launcher (22 missiles) with 2 x Type 909 radars.​

6 x 12.75in torpedo tubes in two triple mountings.​

1 x Lynx helicopter.​

Tromp​

2 x 4.7in guns in one twin turret.​

1 x Goalkeeper CIWS​

1 x single Standard MR launcher (40 missiles) with 2 x SPG-51 radars.​

1 x octuple NATO Sea Sparrow launcher (16 missiles) with one WM-25 radar.​

8 Harpoon missiles in two quadruple launchers.​

6 x 12.75in torpedo tubes in two triple mountings.​

1 x Lynx helicopter.​

​

As far as I know SEWACO was just as good (if not better) than ADAWS and as far as I know Dutch radars, sonars, ECM & ESM was just as good (if not better) than their British equivalents.

A fantasy anglicised Tromp class. 14 were built for the RN instead of the OTL Type 42.

2 x 4.5in guns in one Mk 6 mounting (taken from a Daring or 1950s frigate) or 1 x 4.5in Mk 8.​

1 x Goalkeeper CIWS​

1 x twin Sea Dart launcher (40 missiles) with 2 x Type 909 radars.​

1 x sextuple Sea Wolf launcher (?? missiles) with one Type 910 radar or a Dutch radar.​

8 Harpoon missiles in two quadruple launchers.​

6 x 12.75in torpedo tubes in two triple mountings.​

1 x Lynx helicopter.​

One SPS-01/Type 988 radar, but with the possible exception of the Sea Wolf guidance radar the rest of the electronics (radar, sonar, ECM, ESM, AIO, etc) was British, e.g. ADAWS instead of SEWACO.

Was a Type 967/968 radar required for the Sea Wolf or could Type 988 do the job? It's ?? Sea Wolf missiles because I've forgotten the number of reloads a GWS.25 had. How many were there?

An alternative to Sea Wolf is the NATO Sea Sparrow launcher, magazine and fire control system firing modified Sky Flash missiles.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Part of Post 14.

A fantasy anglicised Tromp class. 14 were built for the RN instead of the OTL Type 42.

2 x 4.5in guns in one Mk 6 mounting (taken from a Daring or 1950s frigate) or 1 x 4.5in Mk 8.​

1 x Goalkeeper CIWS​

1 x twin Sea Dart launcher (40 missiles) with 2 x Type 909 radars.​

1 x sextuple Sea Wolf launcher (?? missiles) with one Type 910 radar or a Dutch radar.​

8 Harpoon missiles in two quadruple launchers.​

6 x 12.75in torpedo tubes in two triple mountings.​

1 x Lynx helicopter.​

One SPS-01/Type 988 radar, but with the possible exception of the Sea Wolf guidance radar the rest of the electronics (radar, sonar, ECM, ESM, AIO, etc) was British, e.g. ADAWS instead of SEWACO.

Was a Type 967/968 radar required for the Sea Wolf or could Type 988 do the job? It's ?? Sea Wolf missiles because I've forgotten the number of reloads a GWS.25 had. How many were there?

An alternative to Sea Wolf is the NATO Sea Sparrow launcher, magazine and fire control system firing modified Sky Flash missiles.

The only thing I'd disagree with is bothering with Harpoon. You have a Sea Dart system, and the missiles will do about the same damage to a ship out to about the same range on own ship's sensors, so they are just redundant really.

 

[Rule of cool]

Type 992Q was introduced in 1966, so was 'only' 16 years old at the time (SAMPSON is now 17 years old in comparison).
Capability obviously means more than age as a more capable set lasts longer in service before it becomes obsolete.

Bear with me while I labour a metaphor (similie?).

The vibe I get from radar development in the 50s and 60s is akin to combat aircraft going from subsonic to Mach 2 and multi-role at about the same time. The Types 965, 992 and 984 are akin to subsonic types while NIGS concept, Typhon SPS59 and SCANFAR are akin to early efforts to break this metaphorical sound barrier; difficult to operationalise and expensive.

I see the Type 988 is akin to something like the Phantom or Mirage IIIE; a system developed once the technology, and its possibilities had matured a bit. In contrast the Type 992Q is like updating a Hunter, Canberra or V-bomber, getting the most out of a design that has fundamentally been surpassed.

 

[Rule of cool]

Sea Dart to SIGS to NMBR.11 was always intended to have anti-missile-missile capability.
As such interception out to 20,000yards at low level and 30,000yards at high.

I'd consider a theoretical minimum engagement altitude of 100' to be 'low' anyway! That in practice the Sea Dart shot down 2 planes flying less than half that is impressive.

 

[Rule of cool]

As for the Tromp - Type 42 comparisons, I think that's a misnomer.

The Tromps were designed as flagships for the Dutch ASW sqns and incorporated Command spaces and suitable communications, so in concept they are more akin to the Type 82s than Type 42s.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The only thing I'd disagree with is bothering with Harpoon. You have a Sea Dart system, and the missiles will do about the same damage to a ship out to about the same range on own ship's sensors, so they are just redundant really.

In that case what would you do with the space, weight and money released by deleting the Harpoons? I'm not being sarcastic. I'm curious. If Sea Dart was about as effective an SSM as Harpoon could the Sea Dart magazine be enlarged to take 48 missiles instead of 40?