Author Topic: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers  (Read 20822 times)

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« on: October 22, 2015, 10:04:12 AM »
I know we have a cruiser and destroyer topic but I thought this was different enough to justify its own topic.

This topic is, what if some, all, or even other nuclear powered surface combatant projects, real or imagined, were actually able to go ahead.

From the 60s through to the 80s, maybe even the 90s it was assumed by many that nuclear powered combatants would become quite common place, I even recall an interview with the German officer leading a joint NATO naval task group stating that by the early 2000s must frigates would be nuclear powered.  This was due to a variety of reasons apart from performance and endurance, not the least the increasing cost of fossil fuels, fears that we were approaching peak oil and concerns over the security of imported supplies etc. 

Not sure but I believe there was an assumption the US was going to go big on nuclear power into the 80s and on which would improve technology and reduce costs, making it possible for other nations to follow suit.  This didn't happen, partly because the early 80s plans to increase the size of the planned fleet meant 27 Ticonderoga made more sense than several CGN42s and a lesser number of DDG47s (Ticos).  Rapid improvements in GTs also meant they were a much more economical replacement for oil fired steam plants than nuclear.  Then there was also the development of more capable lower end ships, such as the Oliver Hazard Perry Class FFGs that a nuclear plant would not be an economical option for, as well as the subsequently mass produced Arleigh Burke Class AEGIS Destroyers proving extremely capable and versatile in the post Cold War world.

Idea one, the USNs Virginia class DLGN/CGNs were intended to be a mass produced class of nuclear escorts for the new Nimitz class CVNs, as such a batch / flight of four nuclear powered escorts was ordered for each new CVN.  Initially these would be CGN38 (Virginia Class) then CNG42 (AEGIS evolution of CGN38), then a new type with similarities to the DDG51, followed eventually by a nuclear powered development of the DDG1000.

Idea two, smaller cheaper nuclear power plants are developed making virtually any ship designed around the two LM2500 GT per shaft arrangement developed for the Spruance class destroyers, then used on Spruance derivatives, OHP Class FFGs, Burke Class DDGs, Sea Control Ship (Principe De Asturias) etc.  Once the smaller plant is proven by the USN other navies follow, first the RN building a modified County Class DLG or and Escort Cruiser with a US plant before developing their own for following ships, the Dutch follow this example going US initially then British plants, Italy went US and France went it alone.  Imagine nuclear equivalents of County, Bristol, Escort Cruiser, Invincible, Tromp, Vittorio Veneto, Audace, Giuseppe Garibaldi (carrier), Suffren, Troutville etc.  Perhaps even the JMSDF also goes for US plants for their destroyers.

Idea three, nuclear propulsion is used for a new generation of cruisers to replace the last of the traditional cruisers and guided missile conversions.  Some would be missile ships like Long Beach but others would also have medium calibre guns and others still would make use of refurbished or even new build cruiser guns, i.e. 5.25/5.3/6/8" guns.  Think nuclear powered versions of the proposed RN missile cruisers with two twin 6' forward and seaslug (or similar aft), replacements for USNs missile conversions and gun cruisers, as well as replacements for Euro cruisers Colbert, Giuseppe Garibaldi (converted cruiser), De Zeven Provinciën etc.  These ships are then supplemented and replaced in the 80s and 90s, imagine a double ended stretched RN version of the Virginia with refurbished and upgraded Mk26 automatic twin 6" mounts in A and Y with super firing Seadart in B and X positions to replace the Tigers.

Idea four (where I have been heading all along) with nuclear propulsion so common Australia decides to replace its traditional cruiser force and the high end of their escort force with nuclear powered vessels.  Initially they test the water with three Bainbridge class DLGNs instead of the Perth Class destroyers, then California and/or Virginia class DLGN/CGN to replace the Battle and Daring class destroyers.


Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #1 on: October 22, 2015, 11:41:29 AM »
There's no way the RN would have built a nuclear County. By the time the plants were available it would be the mid to late 1960s: Seaslug was already looking dated by then and the County design was tightly wrapped around it. An RN nuclear cruiser would probably have looked more like HMS Bristol. By that time, the Uk government was already pulling back from global commitments to a purely NATO role, so the long range afforded by nuclear power wouldn't have looked like a good deal for the enormous cost. Of course, in a whiff history, you could change British policy and/or make the country richer.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #2 on: October 22, 2015, 06:10:39 PM »
I know its totally unrealistic looking back through real events which why I acknowledged real events would have to have panned out quite differently for it to have happened, i.e. the prerequisite for all of the above is the US goes for nuclear powered surface combatants in a very big way.  We would need to have perhaps seen instead of a single Bainbridge a class of four or more being ordered then the same for Truxtun and the California before building dozens of Virginias, perhaps even instead of the Spruances.

My suggestion of a County DLGN for the RN was more for a highly modified 9th ship using a fully imported Bainbridge propulsion system to prove the concept, which would then be followed by a very different Bristol class CGN, pretty much in the same way Dreadnought preceded the all British Valiant class. 

The ideal would be with all this extra construction of nuclear power plants economies of scale will drop prices and advance technology meaning that it becomes a serious option for any warship over 5000tons.

Long story short I want to do an anglicised Virginia, an Australian Virginia, possibly an RN 1960s CAGN loosely based on Longbeach and a nuclear powered escort cruiser based on Invincible.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2015, 06:16:05 PM by Volkodav »

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #3 on: October 23, 2015, 02:14:18 AM »
Ah, I'm with you now: the nuclear County is an experimental first step, maybe oversized and too expensive to repeat, analagous to Long Beach, the idea being to get a nuclear ship to sea ASAP and hang the expense, right? In that case you might see the nuclear County being built alongside the COSAG Counties rather than after them, possibly with a CONAS power plant (Leander steam plant plus nuclear) in order to compare and contrast with the COSAG Counties(Leander steam plant plus gas turbines). The follow on nuclear Bristol would have a pure nuclear plant, the proven reliability of it now having made the steam backup redundant.

Since the nuclear County would an oversized, overpriced one-off, you might see it equipped with the ideal County weapon fit rather than the cost-limited compromise seen on the mass-produced COSAG Counties. This might mean:

Triple Sea Slug launcher (as seen on Girdle Ness)

Two Type 901 trackers

A Type 984 radar (as seen on Eagle)

Two helicopters

A limbo mortar (possibly in C-position as in early County drawings.

This is getting quite interesting: I might have a go at it in Shipbucket at some point.

Suggestion: since this ship is a "nuclear County", why not call her HMS Cumberland, since that's a traditional cruiser name*, and it's the county where Britain's most famous/infamous nuclear installation (Windscale/Sellafield) is located?** If there was a second ship, she could be called HMS Wiltshire, since that's the county where the British nuclear weapons research facility at Porton Down is located... >:D

EDIT: My bad: the UK's atomic weapons research establishment is actually at Aldermarston in Berkshire, not Porton Down (which does chem warfare) so any second ship should be called HMS Berkshire.


*The last HMS Cumberland was broken up in 1959, so the name would be conveniently free.

**before somebody jumps on me, the county name was only changed to "Cumbria" in 1974, a little late for this exercise.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2015, 11:56:45 PM by Weaver »
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #4 on: October 23, 2015, 03:20:47 AM »
Friedman's U.S. Cruisers makes the problems very clear, it wasn't so much the size of the nuclear plant
as it was an issue of output in relation to size/weight. Long Beach ended up so long because they
had to lengthen the hull to get the required 30 knot top speed, as a result they ended up with a ship the size
of a Baltimore but with 40,000 fewer horsepower, 80,000 vs. the 120,000 of the Baltimores.
A CONAG power scheme was considered during the Long Beach design process, but would have required
and even bigger hull. 
:-\

To make a nuclear fleet a reality, you'd not only need to make the UK richer, you'd have to do the same with
the US (no Vietnam War?), and make some sort of breakthrough in nuclear engineering to improve the power
output to size ratio.
“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #5 on: October 23, 2015, 04:59:39 AM »
Didn't that improve with subsequent generations of nuclear plant though? IIRC, USS Enterprise had eight reactors that took up whole middle section of the ship, while the Nimitz class only have two, which means they carry way more aviation fuel and weapons.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #6 on: October 23, 2015, 05:46:17 AM »
The 140,000 shp A4W reactors of the Nimitz class are physically much larger than the 35,000 shp A2W's used in
the Enterprise. BTW the C1W plant of the Long Beach used two A2W reactors.

The Nimitz class internal arrangement is very different from that of the Enterprise, while the hull dimensions are only
slightly larger than the preceeding ship (1' increase in beam, 1' increase in depth), the separation of the two large reactors
into separate machinery spaces made a big difference on internal arrangement.

The nuclear carriers chapter in Friedman's U.S. Aircraft Carriers is a good primer on the nuclear carrier development process
and issues.
“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #7 on: October 23, 2015, 09:39:39 AM »
Yes but are the A4Ws four times as big as the A2Ws? From what I've read, Nimitz carries significantly more aviation fuel and weapons than Enterprise, so there is presumably a compactness advantage of some sort to the later reactors.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #8 on: October 23, 2015, 01:29:56 PM »
Yes but are the A4Ws four times as big as the A2Ws? From what I've read, Nimitz carries significantly more aviation fuel and weapons than Enterprise, so there is presumably a compactness advantage of some sort to the later reactors.

Information on plant dimensions is difficut to come buy and anyhow the physical size of the one compared to the other
isn't really a simple ratio, nuclear or otherwise, ship plant aint' like a car or aircraft engine.

Nimitz-class have a larger hull/internal volume than Enterprise, ansd as stated the guts are arranged in a
completely different fashion, increasing magazine capacity, hangar size and av-fuel tankage were all elements involved
in defining the internals.
When speaking ships it is very difficult to make one-to-one comparisons.
“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #9 on: October 23, 2015, 08:30:11 PM »
The 140,000 shp A4W reactors of the Nimitz class are physically much larger than the 35,000 shp A2W's used in
the Enterprise. BTW the C1W plant of the Long Beach used two A2W reactors.

All the books I've got rate the Long Beach plant at 80,000 shp: where did the extra 10,000 shp come from? Maybe the Long Beach's reactors are running at full output while the Enterprise's were "de-rated" in some way?
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #10 on: October 23, 2015, 08:46:30 PM »
Yes but are the A4Ws four times as big as the A2Ws? From what I've read, Nimitz carries significantly more aviation fuel and weapons than Enterprise, so there is presumably a compactness advantage of some sort to the later reactors.

Information on plant dimensions is difficut to come buy and anyhow the physical size of the one compared to the other
isn't really a simple ratio, nuclear or otherwise, ship plant aint' like a car or aircraft engine.

Nimitz-class have a larger hull/internal volume than Enterprise, ansd as stated the guts are arranged in a
completely different fashion, increasing magazine capacity, hangar size and av-fuel tankage were all elements involved
in defining the internals.
When speaking ships it is very difficult to make one-to-one comparisons.

It doesn't matter what the specifics are: if the Nimitz hulls are only slightly bigger than Enterprise but they hold a lot more aircraft fuel and ammo then they must have less of something else, and the obvious candidate is the power-plant. I strongly suspect that 2 x A4Ws are significantly smaller than 8 x A2Ws and all my references either state or imply that.

There must have been progress in between the reactor generations. You can see this by looking at the cruisers. Long Beach needed a 15,500 ton hull to carry 2 x 40,000 shp C1Ws, which is 5.2 shp/ton. Bainbridge only needed 9100 tons to carry 2 x 30,000 shp D2Gs, which is 6.6 shp/ton.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #11 on: October 23, 2015, 09:27:53 PM »
Looking more at the destroyer plants, i.e. D2G on Bainbridge, Truxtun, the California and Virginias, which also served as the basis for the S6G used on the Loa Angeles Class SSNs.  These destroyer plants are covered in Friedman US Destroyers, which sits along side many of his other publications in my bookcase.

The US was very keen to keep destroyers and destroyer leaders (later called frigates, then either cruisers or destroyers depending on size) as small as possible while introducing required new technologies such as new automatic medium calibre guns, guided missiles, stand off ASW weapons and advanced power plants, including nuclear.  The book points out that hulls can be designed more for high speed than for efficiency at cruising speed as for all intents and purposes there is no need to be concerned about fuel burn. 

My premise, however unlikely, is that nuclear surface ship plants proliferate in the same way submarine plants did, in now way are they cheap, nor is it easy, its just more common than in reality and that the additional experience and investment in this type of propulsion makes it more affordable and still more common.  Hulls can be designed for very high cruising speeds, or alternatively the nuclear plants can replace the steam plants in the RN COSAG arrangements for a CONAG system designed for virtually indefinite range at cruising speed but still able to be boosted to much higher speeds for a finite period. 

Just tossing ideas around, for instance I love the concept of nuclear powered commercial vessels (even saw a model of Savana at a museum recently) especially as the current engines are very dirty and doing immense damage to the environment and a path to effective efficient commercial use is successful military employment.  Future option, plug and play 20' ISO container sized mini reactors that could replace similarly sized GTs that could also be used commercially, new reactor types, including much cleaner, safer Thorium reactors.


Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #12 on: October 23, 2015, 10:00:46 PM »
I'm working on a Shipbucket profile of a nuclear County and I've got a rough backstory worked out for RN nuclear vessels. Essentially, they decide after various trials and experiments that the CVA-01s should be nuclear, and that they need a nuclear escort group to get the best out of them, consisting of one ASW helicopter cruiser, two guided missile cruisers and one replenishment ship per carrier. Non-nuclear equivalents of the CGNs are rated as DDGs. The CVHN and the CVAN don't have Sea Dart or Ikara, but the CGNs have two Sea Darts plus two Ikara each.

Nuclear power makes a lot of sense for an Invincible-style CVH for all the same reasons as for a CVA. It keeps weight low in the ship which lets you cantilever the flight deck out more, and it dispenses with the gas turbine uptakes which narrow the hangar and make the island long. All this gets you maybe four more aircraft, which isn't a lot to a Nimitz, but is gold-dust to an Invincible.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #13 on: October 24, 2015, 01:27:58 AM »
The major difference is that the Enterprise propulsion was arranged like a conventional steam powered ship,
with the boilers replaced by reactors, 8 reactors (boilers) + 4 Westinghouse turbine sets; the Nimitzclass
were designed around the nuclear plant, 2 reactors + 4 GE turbine sets.

BTW a 1' increase in hull major beam and a 1' increase in hull depth on a vessel over 1,000 feet long at
the LWL is actually a fairly large increase in volume.
 ;)

The Long Beach used GE turbines rather than the Westinghouse turbines of the Enterprise, the 5,000
shp increase per unit was probably achieved by using a better turbine design.

The thing to bear in mind when dealing with steam powered ship design, nuclear or otherwise, is that the
term 'powerplant' refers to everything involved, primarily the boilers and engines but also includes accessories
that make both work. Actually this applies to just about all steam power, static or mobile.

To take best advantage of the nuclear power option, the ship needs to be designed around it from the start,
conversion of an existing design would lead to endless headaches.
“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #14 on: October 24, 2015, 09:08:53 PM »
Frances Invincible sized PH75 was to have been nuclear powered, I believe in response to the "Oil Shock" in the 1970s, suggesting that a nuclear powered Invincible should not have been difficult. 

More to the point though is if the UK decided, for whatever reason, to persist with gun and missile armed cruisers, escort cruisers (their proposed CGH/CVH), and/or the cruiser/destroyer concept, the upfront cost of nuclear propulsion would not be a significant factor compared to the through life cost of such flexible and capable vessels.  The concept of most of these vessels was quality over quantity, i.e. four or five missile cruisers  instead of eight to ten County class DDG/DLG, an overall smaller number of cruiser destroyers to replace all existing cruisers and destroyers, even the escort cruisers (which started as helicopter cruisers and ended up as full blown helicopter carriers) were intended to replace both the remaining small carriers and the command functions of the modernised WWII gun cruisers. 

These projects were not concurrent but spread over two decades as alternatives to reality of upgrading old cruisers and completing the Tiger Class gun cruisers instead of cruiser destroyers, Counties instead of missile cruisers and Tiger helicopter conversions instead of escort cruisers as an interim to the Invincible.  Money was an issue which is in part why these projects failed to proceed, but in the main it was the belief that the primary role would be to re-fight the Battle of the Atlantic and that gave precedence to frigates, both new construction and conversion of war built tonnage.  As a result new construction of carriers, cruisers and even destroyers, the sort of ships that would most benefit from nuclear power, was put on the back burner which saw them spend large sums on reconstructions and modernisations because they were cheaper upfront, though worse value for money due to being less capable and more expensive through life.

Interestingly the RN also saw nuclear propulsion for submarines as too expensive, instead investing heavily in hydrogen peroxide as an air independent option before Louis Mount Batten and Arleigh Bourke were able to broker the submarine reactor deal for HMS Dreadnought.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #15 on: October 25, 2015, 04:10:38 AM »
HMS Cumberland - Britain's first nuclear warship.

Following the successful development of a reasonably compact and navalised nuclear reactor at the Dounreay research establishment in the late 1950s, a ship to utilise it, HMS Cumberland, was laid down in 1960, commissioning in 1963. The design of the ship differed in a number of ways from the first ever nuclear warship, the USS Long Beach. The US Navy had boldly opted for an all-nuclear powerplant, but the Royal Navy decided to be more conservative, so Cumberland had a CONAS powerplant, a single reactor being paired with the same conventional steam plant as the County class destroyers in production at the same time. The uptakes for the boilers were lead into a "mack" (combined mast and stack: a first for the Royal Navy) in order to make best use of the centreline space freed up by the lack of funnels. Another difference was the adoption of electric, rather than mechanical drive, this being chosen in order to minimise the amount of steam piping in the ship and allow the reactor to be completely isolated should it have a problem.

The comparison with the County class destroyers was key, since one of the principal roles of the new ship was to evaluate nuclear versus conventional propulsion, together with a range of other tactical nad technical concepts. To this end, the ship was equipped with all the same systems as a County, but given the ship's size (more than twice as large) she was given more or larger versions of many of them, one of the arguments of the the nuclear proponents being that the increased size and cost of nuclear ships was compensated for by their increased fighting ability. Partly to reflect this, the ship was rated as a cruiser, and given the pennant number of the previous HMS Cumberland which had been scrapped in 1958, having spent the latter part of her career, appropriately enough, as a trials ship.

As comissioned, Cumberland had two twin 4.5" Mk.6 gun turrets in A and B positions, and a Limbo ASW mortar in a deckhouse in C position. Aft, a triple Seaslug SAM launcher and it's enormous magazine dominated the design. Cumberland's size meant that she could carry two Type 901 fire control radars for this system, so the increased beam was used to carry two hangars for Wessex ASW helicopters on either side of the radars. A pair of Seacat short-range SAM systems sat on the hangar roofs, and the final layer of defence was provided by two 20mm Oerlikon guns just behind the bridge. By contrast, the Counties had a twin Seaslug launcher with only one type 901, a single Wessex housed in a very cramped and awkward hangar and no Limbo mortar. Cumberland also carried the same enormous Type 984 3D radar as was being fitted to some, but not all, of the Royal Navy's carriers at the time, the intention being to analyse whether this unit was more effective when fitted to a carrier or one of it's escorts. Since the reliability of the Type 984 was suspect, a conventional Type 965 air search radar was also fitted.

HMS Cumberland spent much of the 1960s involved in trials and exercises designed to prove the safety and utility of her nuclear power and was judged to be very successful in this role. However some of her technology (notably the Seaslug missile system) was regarded as dated even before she commissioned and since the results of the trials had confirmed the reliability of nuclear power, it was decided that the follow-on nuclear cruisers would be built to a very different design, with all-nuclear power and the much more compact and capable Sea Dart missile system. However it was the end of the road for the British surface ship reactor programme, since the Americans had convinced the UK government of the economies of scale to be had from mass production of their D2G design, so the new Royal Navy cruisers would be based around two of these plants. HMS Cumberland thus remained the sole example of her type.

That left the question of what to do with Cumberland. With the trials phase of her life largly over, she was refitted for fleet duties in the 1970s along the same lines as the second batch of Counties, with improved radar and fire control systems, Exocet missiles in place of the Limbo, and STWS-1 torpedo tubes. Unlike the Counties however, the enormous cost of the ship made it unacceptable to government and public alike that she should be paid off early, and so, despite the obsolescence of her main weapon system, she soldiered on into the 1980s. She deployed to several trouble spots during this period, including Cyprus, the Falkland Islands and Lebanon, but of course, never fired her weapons in anger.

When the last County was sold off the Seaslug system became impossible to support so at that point she was refitted again, this time as a command and ASW cruiser, with an extended flight deck in place of the Seaslug, an enlarged hanger for four Sea king helicopters, and Sea Wolf point-defence SAMs. The original intention was to run her on into the 21st century in this fit, thus getting the forty years of service that was felt to be acceptable given her cost. However a further refit was cancelled in the early 1990s due to post-Cold War defence spending reductions, and cracks were then found in her reactor's primary cooling circuit which would be very expensive to repair, so she was swiftly taken out of service in 1996 and unceremoniously scrapped. However even at the end of her life HMS Cumberland continued to serve, since she was was the first British nuclear ship to be decommissioned and many important lessons were learnt in the process.



The profile shows HMS Cumberland in her original state of fit on her first commission.

Profile created by myself, based on a very good HMS Kent profile by Shipbucket contributor "Hood".
« Last Edit: October 25, 2015, 09:17:46 PM by Weaver »
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #16 on: October 25, 2015, 08:41:08 PM »
Very very nice!  So what is the actually beam and length?

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #17 on: October 25, 2015, 09:16:56 PM »
Very very nice!  So what is the actually beam and length?

Scientifically calculated to look about right..... >:D

It works out at 633 ft OA length (602 ft at the waterline), so the beam would be about 65 ft.

I'm guesstimating the full load displacement to be about 14,000 tons, which is rather more than I thought, so I've amended the backstory slightly.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #18 on: October 25, 2015, 11:54:20 PM »
As Kit has correctly pointed out to me over on WIM, Porton Down is a chemical warfare establishment which I was confusing with the nuclear weapons research facility at Aldermarston in Berkshire. Since Berkshire is also an usused country name, that means any second ship would have been called HMS Berkshire, not HMS Wiltshire.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #19 on: October 26, 2015, 11:34:40 PM »
Very very nice!  So what is the actually beam and length?

Scientifically calculated to look about right..... >:D

It works out at 633 ft OA length (602 ft at the waterline), so the beam would be about 65 ft.

I'm guesstimating the full load displacement to be about 14,000 tons, which is rather more than I thought, so I've amended the backstory slightly.

Was considering carving up a 1/600 Airfix County as a 1/700 nuc county, scales a bit too short for your nice looking profile.  Was thinking basically of cutting the hull down to reduce the freeboard to a more 1/700 looking profile and then raiding the spares box for appropriate 1/700 superstructure sections, fitting armament etc.  The idea of a nuclear power plant was in part to explain the much greater length and beam, your work shows superbly what can be done which has really got me thinking now. 

If anyone ever does an affordable 1/700 county examples may well end up as RAN Counties with Tartar, or devolved into RN Cruiser/Destroyers.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #20 on: October 27, 2015, 02:29:53 AM »
Very very nice!  So what is the actually beam and length?

Scientifically calculated to look about right..... >:D

It works out at 633 ft OA length (602 ft at the waterline), so the beam would be about 65 ft.

I'm guesstimating the full load displacement to be about 14,000 tons, which is rather more than I thought, so I've amended the backstory slightly.

Was considering carving up a 1/600 Airfix County as a 1/700 nuc county, scales a bit too short for your nice looking profile.  Was thinking basically of cutting the hull down to reduce the freeboard to a more 1/700 looking profile and then raiding the spares box for appropriate 1/700 superstructure sections, fitting armament etc.  The idea of a nuclear power plant was in part to explain the much greater length and beam, your work shows superbly what can be done which has really got me thinking now. 

If anyone ever does an affordable 1/700 county examples may well end up as RAN Counties with Tartar, or devolved into RN Cruiser/Destroyers.

Cheers.

You could try using the County superstructure on the Airfix 1/600th Belfast hull. That's 613 ft OA x 63ft so it's still a little short, but it's in the right ball park. I was also a bit extravagant with length on mine. The helo deck and hangars are lengthened relative to a County, and there's a stretch behind the Seaslug launcher too, none of which are strictly neccessary.

You'd need two County kits to get the Type 901s and the helos and a Victorious for the Type 984. The Seaslug launcher in the Airfix County is completely wrong (based on earlier schemes, not the "Forth Bridge" production model) but if you wanted a triple you'd have to scratch it anyway since the launcher on Girdle Ness was a completely different design, NOT just 1.5 x twin ones. There's a Limbo in the 1/600th Leander, or you could just put a closed "tilt hood" over the pit it's mounted in (which is oval and offset to starboard BTW).
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #21 on: October 27, 2015, 07:33:08 AM »
From memory there is a correction kit for the Airfix county available on shapeways, I would check but I lose hours when I visit that site.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #22 on: October 27, 2015, 07:46:20 AM »
Yeah, and they're pretty pricey too. White Ensign Models used to do lovely resin and PE upgrades for the Airifx ships including the County, with a Seaslug launcher and a Type 965 single or double bedstead aerial too. Unfortunately they're gone now, but there was talk of another manufacturer picking up some or all of their range.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #23 on: October 27, 2015, 02:40:21 PM »
White ensign are back but I believe they have only restarted their PE range so far plus their Airstrike range of 1/700 helicopters

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #24 on: October 27, 2015, 07:30:28 PM »
Oh nice one, I didn't know they'd got it back up and running again. :)

The set with the Seaslug launcher is "Ultimate Post-War Royal Navy Pt.1" which would be VERY useful in this sort of exercise. The only things it doesn't have are the Type 902 and 984 radars, but since they're solid "bass drum" shapes, you could probably scratchbuild better ones than the Airfix efforts in 1/600th.

I just had a look at my Airfix County and it's really pretty dire..... ::)
« Last Edit: October 27, 2015, 07:32:59 PM by Weaver »
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #25 on: October 27, 2015, 09:40:50 PM »
Mines not pretty either, its actually the MPC boxing that I never finished, I am not sure but I think I have or had another that I started carving up 20 years ago to make a RAN Tartar version with cut outs in the upper hull for an Ikara on either side (the idea was the forward part of the old Seaslug magazine would become an Ikara magazine) but could never find the 1/600 Rommel I needed for its Mk13, directors and sensors etc.

you've really got me thinking on a 1/700 scalorama now, just carve off the below waterline hull a mill or two above the bootline.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #26 on: October 28, 2015, 06:46:33 AM »
Mines not pretty either, its actually the MPC boxing that I never finished, I am not sure but I think I have or had another that I started carving up 20 years ago to make a RAN Tartar version with cut outs in the upper hull for an Ikara on either side (the idea was the forward part of the old Seaslug magazine would become an Ikara magazine) but could never find the 1/600 Rommel I needed for its Mk13, directors and sensors etc.

you've really got me thinking on a 1/700 scalorama now, just carve off the below waterline hull a mill or two above the bootline.

You appreciate that the Seaslug magazine is two decks below the flight deck right? That'd be a cutout down to quarterdeck level which is very deep. Given the way Mk.13 and Ikara work, I've always thought the best soution for a County would be to fit the Mk.13 in place of one of the gun turrets forwards and Ikara in the rear portion of the Seaslug magazine with the launcher in a zareba on the quarterdeck. The zareba might not be strictly neccessary, but the quarterdeck was very low and Ikara was a bit fragile. Then you can double-up the helo hangar Chilean style and use the rest of the Ikara magazine for increased aircraft supplies.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Cliffy B

  • Ship Whiffer Extraordinaire...master of Beyond Visual Range Modelling
  • Its ZOTT!!!
    • My Artwork
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #27 on: October 28, 2015, 06:50:09 AM »
Always thought the Counties would have been nice candidates for the USN Mk-10 system with Terriers.  Especially considering the ship was based on the USN DDG-37 class which was designed around the same launcher system.
"Radials growl, inlines purr, jets blow!"  -Anonymous

"Helos don't fly.  They vibrate so violently that the ground rejects them."  -Tom Clancy

"If all else fails, call in an air strike."  -Anonymous

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #28 on: October 28, 2015, 09:07:19 AM »
Always thought the Counties would have been nice candidates for the USN Mk-10 system with Terriers.  Especially considering the ship was based on the USN DDG-37 class which was designed around the same launcher system.

The Counties may have done the same job as the Farraguts, but they wern't "based" on them in any technical sense: they evolved out of hybrid "cruiser-destroyer" studies by adding SAMs. The magazines for Terrier and Seaslug were totally different shapes: Terrier had two, three or four 20-round magazine rings below the assembly station which made it deep, while Seaslug had a horizontal "missile hangar" that was all on the same deck level as the assembly station which made it flat and very long.

A Terrier-County would thus have to be a competely different design from the keel up. Mind you, that would be an interesting concept in it's own right: what if the RN gave up on Seaslug and bought Terrier? After all, Tartar was originally developed in response to a request from the RN. The County's full-width 01-deck was a direct response to Seaslug and didn't feature in early versions of the design, so it would probably have a more traditional layout with a long fo'c'sle and a narrower superstructure.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #29 on: October 28, 2015, 09:21:06 PM »
Mines not pretty either, its actually the MPC boxing that I never finished, I am not sure but I think I have or had another that I started carving up 20 years ago to make a RAN Tartar version with cut outs in the upper hull for an Ikara on either side (the idea was the forward part of the old Seaslug magazine would become an Ikara magazine) but could never find the 1/600 Rommel I needed for its Mk13, directors and sensors etc.

you've really got me thinking on a 1/700 scalorama now, just carve off the below waterline hull a mill or two above the bootline.

You appreciate that the Seaslug magazine is two decks below the flight deck right? That'd be a cutout down to quarterdeck level which is very deep. Given the way Mk.13 and Ikara work, I've always thought the best soution for a County would be to fit the Mk.13 in place of one of the gun turrets forwards and Ikara in the rear portion of the Seaslug magazine with the launcher in a zareba on the quarterdeck. The zareba might not be strictly neccessary, but the quarterdeck was very low and Ikara was a bit fragile. Then you can double-up the helo hangar Chilean style and use the rest of the Ikara magazine for increased aircraft supplies.

This was long before I had ever seen a County class layout and if I was doing it now there would be an alternate arrangement, perhaps quarter deck or possibly still midrift but with either a deep magazine accessed by hoists or the magazines built into the superstructure as in the Perth class.

My thinking on a Tartar County would be a completely redesigned aft layout with the Mk13 sunk into the deck roughly where the Type 901 is with the AN/SPG-51s mounted on towers or deck structures where the original hanger was while still leaving space for Seacat or something else in its original location.  The former flight deck and missile ready room etc. below is now where the much lower and larger hanger is and the quarterdeck is the new flight deck. 

Same thinking but scalorama'd from 1/600 to 1/700 you have a wide enough been that if you keep that configuration that you could actually replace each Seacat with a Mk6 3" twin on each beam and replace the Mk6 4.5" in A and B with Mk26 6" twins.  Alternatively, as it was likely to be an early 70s ship, i.e. nuclear trials or follow on ship, it could have had totally new weapons systems, Seadart, but also Oto Melara 127/54 in A and B positions and 76mm at the old Seacat position.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #30 on: October 28, 2015, 09:31:56 PM »
Always thought the Counties would have been nice candidates for the USN Mk-10 system with Terriers.  Especially considering the ship was based on the USN DDG-37 class which was designed around the same launcher system.

The Counties may have done the same job as the Farraguts, but they wern't "based" on them in any technical sense: they evolved out of hybrid "cruiser-destroyer" studies by adding SAMs. The magazines for Terrier and Seaslug were totally different shapes: Terrier had two, three or four 20-round magazine rings below the assembly station which made it deep, while Seaslug had a horizontal "missile hangar" that was all on the same deck level as the assembly station which made it flat and very long.

A Terrier-County would thus have to be a competely different design from the keel up. Mind you, that would be an interesting concept in it's own right: what if the RN gave up on Seaslug and bought Terrier? After all, Tartar was originally developed in response to a request from the RN. The County's full-width 01-deck was a direct response to Seaslug and didn't feature in early versions of the design, so it would probably have a more traditional layout with a long fo'c'sle and a narrower superstructure.

What may actually work is a modified Mk7 for Talos as used on the Galvastons, that was a linier above deck arrangement that fed an aft launcher at the same level.  Similarly there was Mk9 for Terrier on the Providence class while the Mk12 for Talos probably wouldn't work as I believe the magazine was below deck.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #31 on: November 02, 2015, 07:40:37 AM »
HMS Cumberland - Britain's first nuclear warship.

(Revised and updated with more profiles)

Following the successful development of a reasonably compact and navalised nuclear reactor at the Dounreay research establishment in the late 1950s, Britain's first nuclear warship, the guided missile cruiser HMS Cumberland, was laid down in 1960, and commissioned in 1963. The design of the ship differed in a number of ways from the first ever nuclear warship, the USS Long Beach. The US Navy had boldly opted for an all-nuclear power plant, but the Royal Navy decided to be more conservative, so Cumberland had a CONAS (Combined Nuclear And Steam) system, a single reactor being paired with a conventional steam plant of the same design as used in the County class destroyers being produced at the same time. The uptakes for the boilers were lead into a "mack" (combined mast and stack: a first for the Royal Navy) in order to make best use of the centreline space freed up by the lack of funnels. Another difference was the adoption of electric, rather than mechanical drive, this being chosen in order to minimise the amount of steam piping in the ship and allow the reactor to be completely isolated should it have a problem.

The comparison with the County class destroyers was important, since one of the principal roles of the new ship was to evaluate nuclear versus conventional propulsion, together with a range of other tactical and technical concepts. To this end, the ship was equipped with all the same systems as a County, but given the ship's size (more than twice the displacement of a County) she was given more or larger versions of many of them, one of the arguments of the the nuclear proponents being that the increased size and cost of nuclear ships was compensated for by their increased fighting ability. Partly to reflect this, the ship was rated as a cruiser, and given the pennant number of the previous HMS Cumberland which had been scrapped in 1958, having spent the latter part of her career, appropriately enough, as a trials ship.

As first commissioned, Cumberland had two twin 4.5" Mk.6 gun turrets in A and B positions, and a Limbo ASW mortar in a deckhouse in C position. Aft, a triple Seaslug SAM launcher and it's enormous magazine dominated the design. Cumberland's size meant that she could carry two Type 901 fire control radars for this system, so the increased beam was used to carry two hangars for Wessex ASW helicopters on either side of the radars. A pair of Seacat short-range SAM systems sat on the hangar roofs, and the final layer of defence was provided by two 20mm Oerlikon guns just behind the bridge. By contrast, the Counties had a twin Seaslug launcher with only one type 901, a single Wessex housed in a very cramped and awkward hangar and no Limbo mortar. Cumberland also carried the same enormous Type 984 3D radar as was being fitted to some, but not all, of the Royal Navy's carriers at the time, the intention being to analyse whether this unit was more effective when fitted to a carrier or one of it's escorts.



Cumberland as first commisioned. The 'empty' area amidships was for reactor access. The Limbo mortar was concealed within the deck house immediately ahead of the bridge.


HMS Cumberland spent much of the 1960s involved in trials and exercises designed to prove the safety and utility of nuclear power and was judged to be very successful in this role. However some of her technology (notably the Seaslug missile system) was regarded as dated even before she commissioned and since the various trials had confirmed the reliability and safety of nuclear power at sea, it was decided that the next class of cruisers would be built to a very different design, with all-nuclear propulsion and the much more compact and capable Sea Dart missile system. The new ships' power plants would not be British however. The Americans had convinced the UK and NATO governments of the economies of scale to be had from mass production of their D2G design, so the new Royal Navy cruisers would be based around two of these plants leaving the British surface ship reactor programme to devote all it's resources to development of the plants for the new CVAN-01 carriers, for which no appropriate US system existed. HMS Cumberland thus remained the sole example of her type.

That left the question of what to do with Cumberland. With the trials phase of her life largely over, she was refitted for fleet duties in the 1970s along the same lines as the second batch of Counties, with improved radar and fire control systems, Exocet missiles in place of the Limbo mortar, and STWS-1 torpedo tubes. Unlike the Counties however, the enormous cost of the ship made it unacceptable to government and public alike that she should be paid off early, and so, despite the obsolescence of her main weapon system, she soldiered on into the 1980s. She deployed to several trouble spots during this period, including Cyprus, the Falkland Islands and Lebanon, but of course, never fired her weapons in anger.


Cumberland as she appeared following her 1970s refit. Note the AKE-2 aerial for the Type 965 radar and the Exocet launchers on the former Limbo deck house.


When the last County was sold off the Seaslug system became impossible to support and the issue of retiring Cumberland arose again. In truth, the RN would have quite liked to retire her at this point and put the manpower to other use, but again, public opinion and government policy forbade it so another use had to be found for her. After much debate, she was refitted as a command and ASW cruiser. The Knot defence review of 1980 had cancelled plans for a third nuclear carrier and it's escorting helicopter cruiser so the argument was that refitting Cumberland would get more Sea Kings into the fleet. Sea Slug was removed and replaced with an extended flight deck, and the old Type 901 radars and hangars were replaced by an enlarged hanger for three Sea King helicopters (though she rarely operated more than two in practice). Air defence came from Sea Wolf point-defence missile launchers fitted on the hangar roof and in place of B turret, while two Vulcan Phalanx radar-directed gatling guns were fitted amidships. Radars and electronics were also given a comprehensive update.

At the time it was claimed by some commentators (and swiftly thereafter by some newspapers) that this refit was ill-conceived and half-hearted, with critics pointing to the retention of Exocet (when new-builds had moved onto Harpoon), the elderly 4.5” Mk.6 gun turret and the original sonar, and the failure to fit a towed array. In response, the RN countered that updated sonar and a towed array were rejected because the nuclear plant was inherently noisy, the ship's Sea Kings could provide long-range anti-ship fire with Sea Eagle ASMs, and with Sea Wolf and Phalanx providing more than enough air-defence, an updated gun turret would provide little real benefit for it's price.



Cumberland in her final configuration as a helicopter cruiser.


 The original intention was for Cumberland to run on into the 21st century in her new role as a CHN, thus getting the forty years of service that was felt to be acceptable given her cost. However a further refit was cancelled in the early 1990s due to post-Cold War defence spending reductions, and cracks were then found in her reactor's primary cooling circuit which would be very expensive to repair, so she was swiftly taken out of service in 1996 and unceremoniously scrapped. However even at the end of her life HMS Cumberland continued to serve, since she was was the first British nuclear warship to be decommissioned and many important lessons were learnt in the process.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #32 on: November 02, 2015, 11:14:13 AM »
Re the various discussions about County-class weapon layouts, I just threw this quick'n'dirty together from Shipbucket assets to illustrate some of the possibilities and problems.

Health warnings:

1. This is all from Shipbucket, not real plans. I presume it's accurate, but I havn't checked.

2. Some of these magazine systems are very wide or deep and may not fit in a County without reductions in capacity.

3. I've made no attempt to fit appropriate fire control radars or command spaces.

4. I havn't considered any effects on volume available for other ship functions.





« Last Edit: November 02, 2015, 12:43:48 PM by Weaver »
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #33 on: November 02, 2015, 01:25:00 PM »
That's great work, Weaver. From a hull & machinery standpoint, I've always loved the County-class ships. Really, really nice ships. That unique weapon system and associated layout makes them fairly one-trick ponies, though. It made the idea of upgrading or exporting them troublesome and it doesn't do whiffers like us any favors!

You've done more work than I was willing to do to try to address those issues! I know it would have been possible, but the amount of reworking necessary was beyond my capabilities!

Cheers,

Logan

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #34 on: November 02, 2015, 02:40:10 PM »
That's great work, Weaver. From a hull & machinery standpoint, I've always loved the County-class ships. Really, really nice ships. That unique weapon system and associated layout makes them fairly one-trick ponies, though. It made the idea of upgrading or exporting them troublesome and it doesn't do whiffers like us any favors!

You've done more work than I was willing to do to try to address those issues! I know it would have been possible, but the amount of reworking necessary was beyond my capabilities!

Cheers,

Logan

Cheers Logan.

Five of the eight built were exported and the Chilean Navy kept their four in service for longer than the RN had them, so there was clearly potential for getting more use out of the hull. According to the Wiki page they couldn't have operated Sea Kings with a "Chilean Job" conversion because the deck was too narrow. However there's no citation for this, and it sounds pretty unlikely to me, given that the Chileans managed to operate Pumas from them. I suspect this "technical problem" may have been more of a palatable excuse: the reason ususally given is manning. 471 crew was looking a little extravagant by the mid 1970s compared to the 274 it took to run a Type 42.

There wasn't much work in the weapon diagrams to be honest. Shipbucket parts pages now have internal layouts for all those systems so all I did was colour them green, superimpose them and do a bit of editing to make them clear.

The Cumberland profiles were more work. I started with the RW County profile by Hood, then I put it next to a Long Beach profile, primarily for length and depth reference. Next I cut the County up and stretched it lengthways in about half a dozen places. Then all the detail work started to add the extra weapons and sensors and make it all make sense. This was the really tedious bit, with lots of mis-steps, book reading, photo-scrutinising and mind-changing. Finally, once I'd got the topside complete, I split the hull horizontally to deepen it and then tied it all together. The refitted versions were easier of course: I used a late County profile for reference for the 1970s version and Type 22 Batch III and Type 42 Batch III profiles for the 1980s one. Oh, and I had to download TWO Invincible profiles just to get two Sea Kings in the right colours in flying and landed configurations. ;D
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #35 on: November 02, 2015, 09:09:10 PM »
Excellent stuff Weaver.

Been giving this some more thought and came up with a slightly different slant on the path to an affordable class of RN, hence an RAN, DLGN.  Looking to a development path that ends with a British California or Virginia class DLGN/CGN in the 70s/80s for a notional escort group structure of a nuclear powered escort cruiser and either one CG(N) and four DDGs or just four DLGNs.

My assumption is the proposed improved Dido, that Cunningham rejected in the later years of the war because he wanted 6" guns, actually get ordered and built.  Some are completed before the end of the war, others after, to a modified design, while some are further modified to become the RNs first Cruiser/Destroyers. The key improvement of these ships is the adoption of the much improved RP10 MkIII twin 5.25" mount with its higher burst and sustained rates of fire, improved traverse and elevation and fully automatic target tracking capability.

The RN continues evolving this improved Dido/Bellonia type rather than acquiring new destroyers or traditional cruisers, with the only exception being a new type of 20,000 Gun/Missile cruiser, five of which were ordered in the late 1950s and completed through the early 60s, primarily as carrier escorts, fighter control and task force command ships.  Following the cruiser program
is the DLG program with Cruiser/Destroyers being converted to missile ships through retrofitting the Tartar missile system and a new class of Tartar DLGs, followed by a nuclear variant, either a prototype or an entire class, similar in size and capability to the California Class.  Next would be either a Standard or Seadart armed Virginia equivalent.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #36 on: November 02, 2015, 09:30:05 PM »



Cool, really cool, thanks for that Weaver.

It looks like my Tartar idea could have worked, Looking at the arrangements you have done I would probably move the Mk13 further aft than the 901 deck house to provide more space for a pair of SPG-51s between the launcher and aft funnel.  Looking at the depth available under the flight deck, while it may be possible to position the Mk13 at flight deck height, depending what is located between the old magazine and the shafting, but it is also apparent that there is not enough height under the flight deck for my proposed hunger for the transom heli desk.  Possible solution, as the old flight deck is not longer a flight deck, raise it; which would lift the height of the Mk13.

Looking at what you are doing makes me really, really, want to get my old copy of invented working again, I imagine a licence for my old student copy would be stuff all these days.  Then all I will need is a 3D printer :P
« Last Edit: November 03, 2015, 10:15:54 AM by Volkodav »

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #37 on: November 03, 2015, 12:19:21 AM »
For the Tartar-County back end, why not spin the hanger/901 block through 180 deg, slide it further back, and extend the flight deck to the stern? It would look a bit like the Dutch Tromps.

Here's a possible alternative RN missile path. The crunch point for Seaslug comes when the 17,000 ton cruisers that can carry a reasonable number of missiles and trackers are cancelled as being utterly unaffordable. Instead of doing what they did in real life and trying to shoehorn a minimal Seaslug system into a stretched Daring (which is where the County design started from), the RN drops it completely and buys American as an interim step.

They buy eight Mk.10 40-round Terrier launchers for the new-build Counties (which also get two SPG-55 trackers and a sensible hanger) and eight Mk.13 Tartar launchers which are used to upgrade the Darings in a similar style to the French T-47s (I did a profile of this ages ago). Result? Twice as many GW-armed ships with a better "get-well" and upgrade path ahead of them.

The RN also looks longingly at Talos but can't afford anything big enough to carry it, however they keep funding ramjet SAM research (which Bloodhound helps keep alive too), the ultimate goal being a Tartar-sized missile with Terrier's range, i.e. Sea Dart. This could play out one of two ways: either Sea Dart is made slightly smaller in order to fit in a Mk.13 (it's maddeningly close) or the UK builds a Mk.13-inspired launcher that uses the same design but scaled up a bit.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #38 on: November 03, 2015, 06:40:30 AM »
Here's the Tartar Daring. Sorry about the quality: this is from the old days of Shipbucket.

Mk.13 in place of X turret

2 x SPG-51s in place of aft torpedoes and aft Bofors

Aft funnel turned into a mack like the front one to hold a Type 965 AKE-1 aerial (Mountbatten would love that...)

Electronics shelters in place of forward torpedoes

2 x Seacat in place of p&s starboard Bofors

Single Limbo mortar in place of B turret

Twin 3" Mk.6 in place of A-turret




On reflection, I might do this differently now:

Keep the Squid mortar on the quarter deck

Move the Seacats further aft and their directors further forwards

Extend the bridge over B position and make it fully enclosed
« Last Edit: November 03, 2015, 06:46:29 AM by Weaver »
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #39 on: November 03, 2015, 12:04:57 PM »
Here's the Tartar Daring. Sorry about the quality: this is from the old days of Shipbucket.

Mk.13 in place of X turret

2 x SPG-51s in place of aft torpedoes and aft Bofors

Aft funnel turned into a mack like the front one to hold a Type 965 AKE-1 aerial (Mountbatten would love that...)

Electronics shelters in place of forward torpedoes

2 x Seacat in place of p&s starboard Bofors

Single Limbo mortar in place of B turret

Twin 3" Mk.6 in place of A-turret




On reflection, I might do this differently now:

Keep the Squid mortar on the quarter deck

Move the Seacats further aft and their directors further forwards

Extend the bridge over B position and make it fully enclosed


One of the reasons the RAN selected Tartar over Seaslug was there was no way on earth Seaslug could be retro fitted to Australias two Battle and three Daring class destroyers to provide a fleet or eight (with the three Adam / Perth Class) DDGs by the end of the 60s.  The Battles were never modernised (though one was converted to a training ship) and the modernisation of the Darings was cut back significantly for cost reasons, so the Tartar conversions never happened.  The other big thing that happened in the late 60s was Suharto coming to power in Indonesia which dramatically improved Australia strategic situation and permitted a significant reduction in defence spending.

Economics and history aside the Ozmods modernised Vampire with the enclosed bridge and sexier up funnels would be a good start for a whiff, I've been thinking about this one for a while but haven't gotten around to buying the two Vampire kits I'd need (one OOB and one for whiff).

Tartar was actually developed at the behest of the RN as a point defence weapon, the USN planning the Terrier as its primary DDG system, even for Sumner/Gearing conversions, Daring and possibly Battle DDG conversions were definitely on the cards, as were new build FFGs (Leanders with Mk13 in place of the Mk6 4.5" twin), it was even considered for Tribal class Sloops/GP frigates and as a secondary missile for the missile cruisers.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #40 on: November 12, 2015, 11:21:36 PM »
How you'd have got Tartar on a Tribal is beyond me, and putting it on a Leander would be difficult if you wanted more than one tracker. Of course, many of the smaller USN conversions only had one tracker, but they eventually came to the conclusion that the reduced capability was poor value for money.

I've been thinking more about the CVHN to accompany the RN carrier battle groups. I've come to the conclusion that, if it has to use "mass produced" D2G plants, then it has to be significantly smaller than the Invincibles, due to power issues, however that may not be a bad thing. I think it would have to be a pure helo carrier, more like the Principe de Asturias (PdA) than the Giuseppe Garibaldi (GG) (but without the ski-jump of either of course), and displace about 15,000 tons. The nearest real life project would be the French PA75 nuclear helo carrier project.

Here are their stats:

Principe de Asturias

Displacement : 15,912 tons standard, 16,700 tons loaded
Length : 195.9 m (643 ft)
Beam : 24.3 m (80 ft)
Draught : 9.4 m (31 ft)
Propulsion : 2 × LM2500+ gas turbines, one shaft, 46,400shp
Speed : 26 knots
Aircraft carried : 29 max (17 in hangar, 12 in deck park)
Weapons : 4 x CIWS


Giuseppe Garibaldi

Displacement : 10,100 tonnes (standard), 13,850 tonnes (loaded)[2]
Length : 180.2 m (591 ft)
Beam : 33.4 m (110 ft) (NB: I suspect that's flight deck width, not hull waterline)
Draught : 8.2 m (27 ft)
Propulsion : 4 × LM2500 gas turbines, two shafts, 82,000shp
Speed : 30+ knots
Aircraft carried : up to 18
Weapons : 2 x PDMS, 3 x CIWS, 4 x SSM, 2 x 3 ASW TT


I think it's therefore reasonable to posit a CVHN with the following characteristics (all figures approximate):

Displacement : 15,000 tons loaded
Length : 630 ft
Beam : 80 ft
Draught : 30 ft
Propulsion : 2 × D2G reactors, two shafts, 60,000shp
Speed : 28 knots
Aircraft carried : 18 x Sea King
Weapons : 2 x Seawolf, 2 x STWS-1, 4 x 20mm

Having more power for a bigger ship means either 3 or 4 complete standard D2G+turbine power units (bulky) or 3 or 4 D2Gs with two shafts, which means a non-standard turbine/transmission setup. The flight deck would be straight edged, square cornered, overhanging to port a little and would end short of the stern (as per both PdA and GG) and short of the bow (as per Invincible). The small island would be right in the middle of the starboard side, cantilevered outboard enough to balance the weight of the flight deck overhang. There would be two narrow rectangular (folded helo size) inboard lifts fore and aft of it.

Two GWS.25 Seawolf launchers would be fitted on the forecastle and the quarterdeck, beyond the edge of the flight deck and one deck lower than it, with no impact on flight deck ops and perfect "destroyer" arcs of fire. The FC radars would be on the roof of the island. Although I don't generally support heavy armament for an aviation ship, given the ASW mission and the supply of a large number of Mk.44/46/Stingray torpedoes on board anyway for the helos, it seems reasonable to fit the two triple TTs (amidships).

A typical RN CBG would have:

1 x CVAN with 24 x Phantom, 24 x Buccaneer, 6 x Gannet AEW, 2 x Sea King/Wessex plane guard/SAR
1 x CVHN with 18 x Sea King ASW helos
2 x DDGNs, each with 2 x Sea Dart plus Ikara
4-6 FFs : quiet, CODLAG ships with Sea Wolf, Lynx hangar, Sea King sized helo deck , VDS/towed array & gun
1 x nuclear-powered replenishment ship
1 x conventionally powered oiler
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #41 on: November 13, 2015, 12:21:03 AM »
I will try and pull out my copy of Freidmans British Cruisers Two World Wars and After to dig out the details of the Escort Cruisers I have been thinking of.  There were a couple of later ones that had Tartar and later Sea Dart instead of Sea Slug, as well as through decks.

Also with Tartar on the Leanders and Tribals, remember there wasn't just the Mk-11 and 13 launchers, there was also the smaller, single ring Mk-22 as used on the six ship Brook Class DEG (later FFG) version of the Garcia Class DE (FF), the difference between the two was literally the replacement of the aft Mk-30 single barrel 5"/38 gun mount with the Mk-22 GMLS, replacement of the 2D An/SPS-40 radar with a 3D AN/SPS-52 type and the fitment of an AN/SPG-51 FC radar.  A similar arrangement was incorporated by the Spanish on the Baleares Class FFGs.

I will need to check but I believe the Mk-11 and 13 GMLS were originally designed as a drop in replacement for the Mk-30 5"/38, or it may have been the Mk-38 twin, while the RN definitely intended to be able to fit Tartar in place the Vickers Mk-6 3" twin.  Anyway the idea was the bigger destroyers would get Terrier and the smaller ones, as well as the DEGs and conceptional PFs (this was the starting point for what became the FFG-7 OHP), would get Tartar.  As conceived Tartar should have been able to be comparatively easily fitted to any ship that had a Mk-38 5"/38, Mk-42 5"/54, Mk6 4.5", Mk6 3" or larger turret with below deck hoist that had sufficient arcs to warrant a GMLS.  This obviously was before they realised just how heavy, expensive and just how much supporting electronics would be required to do it all properly but it does explain why so many navies were able to retrofit or incorporate Tartar (then Standard) into so many diverse designs, that is precisely what the syatem was designed to do.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #42 on: November 13, 2015, 12:36:10 AM »
Yes I know that Tartar was supposed to be a drop-in replacement for gun turrets and I'm aware of the Mk.22 launcher. However, as you noted, the Brookes (and the Decaturs (?) which had a full Mk-13) only got a single SPG-51, limiting their capability, and the USN eventually came to the conclusion that the capability wasn't worth the cost. Exactly the same problem would have applied to a Tartar-Leander. There's only room for one weapon forward of the bridge and one fire control system on top of it. You'd only have got the same capability as the Brookes.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #43 on: November 13, 2015, 12:36:26 AM »
How you'd have got Tartar on a Tribal is beyond me, and putting it on a Leander would be difficult if you wanted more than one tracker. Of course, many of the smaller USN conversions only had one tracker, but they eventually came to the conclusion that the reduced capability was poor value for money.

I've been thinking more about the CVHN to accompany the RN carrier battle groups. I've come to the conclusion that, if it has to use "mass produced" D2G plants, then it has to be significantly smaller than the Invincibles, due to power issues, however that may not be a bad thing. I think it would have to be a pure helo carrier, more like the Principe de Asturias (PdA) than the Giuseppe Garibaldi (GG) (but without the ski-jump of either of course), and displace about 15,000 tons. The nearest real life project would be the French PA75 nuclear helo carrier project.

Here are their stats:

Principe de Asturias

Displacement : 15,912 tons standard, 16,700 tons loaded
Length : 195.9 m (643 ft)
Beam : 24.3 m (80 ft)
Draught : 9.4 m (31 ft)
Propulsion : 2 × LM2500+ gas turbines, one shaft, 46,400shp
Speed : 26 knots
Aircraft carried : 29 max (17 in hangar, 12 in deck park)
Weapons : 4 x CIWS


Giuseppe Garibaldi

Displacement : 10,100 tonnes (standard), 13,850 tonnes (loaded)[2]
Length : 180.2 m (591 ft)
Beam : 33.4 m (110 ft) (NB: I suspect that's flight deck width, not hull waterline)
Draught : 8.2 m (27 ft)
Propulsion : 4 × LM2500 gas turbines, two shafts, 82,000shp
Speed : 30+ knots
Aircraft carried : up to 18
Weapons : 2 x PDMS, 3 x CIWS, 4 x SSM, 2 x 3 ASW TT


I think it's therefore reasonable to posit a CVHN with the following characteristics (all figures approximate):

Displacement : 15,000 tons loaded
Length : 630 ft
Beam : 80 ft
Draught : 30 ft
Propulsion : 2 × D2G reactors, two shafts, 60,000shp
Speed : 28 knots
Aircraft carried : 18 x Sea King
Weapons : 2 x Seawolf, 2 x STWS-1, 4 x 20mm

Having more power for a bigger ship means either 3 or 4 complete standard D2G+turbine power units (bulky) or 3 or 4 D2Gs with two shafts, which means a non-standard turbine/transmission setup. The flight deck would be straight edged, square cornered, overhanging to port a little and would end short of the stern (as per both PdA and GG) and short of the bow (as per Invincible). The small island would be right in the middle of the starboard side, cantilevered outboard enough to balance the weight of the flight deck overhang. There would be two narrow rectangular (folded helo size) inboard lifts fore and aft of it.

Two GWS.25 Seawolf launchers would be fitted on the forecastle and the quarterdeck, beyond the edge of the flight deck and one deck lower than it, with no impact on flight deck ops and perfect "destroyer" arcs of fire. The FC radars would be on the roof of the island. Although I don't generally support heavy armament for an aviation ship, given the ASW mission and the supply of a large number of Mk.44/46/Stingray torpedoes on board anyway for the helos, it seems reasonable to fit the two triple TTs (amidships).

A typical RN CBG would have:

1 x CVAN with 24 x Phantom, 24 x Buccaneer, 6 x Gannet AEW, 2 x Sea King/Wessex plane guard/SAR
1 x CVHN with 18 x Sea King ASW helos
2 x DDGNs, each with 2 x Sea Dart plus Ikara
4-6 FFs : quiet, CODLAG ships with Sea Wolf, Lynx hangar, Sea King sized helo deck , VDS/towed array & gun
1 x nuclear-powered replenishment ship
1 x conventionally powered oiler


What also comes to mind is the Thai Chakri Naruebet

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/chakrinaruebet/

When this ship was ordered a few professional and amateur defence analysts in Australia had minor melt downs, not because Thailand was ordering the ship, but because the very justification they had for ordering it was precisely what those analysts had been putting forward (and being ignored) as justification for Australia acquiring such a ship.  Twenty years on the ADF, having been caught short in almost every disaster and humanitarian incident in the region during the 80s and 90s is in the process of commissioning two much larger vessels.

Sorry about the rant but such a ship would have been cheaper and more useful than anyone of the ten frigates we built over that time.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #44 on: November 13, 2015, 12:58:46 AM »
Well PdA's laid up and up for sale now if you want to convince the Aus governement to buy her. Or maybe you could persuade NZ to take her (good luck with that... ;))
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #45 on: November 13, 2015, 01:09:14 AM »
Yes I know that Tartar was supposed to be a drop-in replacement for gun turrets and I'm aware of the Mk.22 launcher. However, as you noted, the Brookes (and the Decaturs (?) which had a full Mk-13) only got a single SPG-51, limiting their capability, and the USN eventually came to the conclusion that the capability wasn't worth the cost. Exactly the same problem would have applied to a Tartar-Leander. There's only room for one weapon forward of the bridge and one fire control system on top of it. You'd only have got the same capability as the Brookes.

There was apparently quite a long drawn out debate on whether to have one or two 909s on the Sheffields, while the Counties only had a single 901 and for that matter the Perry's only had a second channel due to the Mk-92 FCS being able to use an evolution the WM25, the Combined Antenna System or CAS (the egg shaped object on top the bridge) and STIR fire control, which could, and in fact was done on one of the Brooks, could have been done on any of the conversions from the late 60s / early 70s.  Interestingly when the RAN FFGs were modernised with SM-2 their lack of a 3D radar (yes their sensor fit was in some ways inferior to the older Brooks) meant that the STIR has to be used as a height finder, dropping the class back to a single FC channel and incapable of using most of the multiple engagement capabilities of SM-2.

It is the WM25 / STIR I envisage for the RAN Battle and Daring upgrades.  Anyway love these discussions as they generate so many ideas even if we occasionally disagree or take different tacks.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #46 on: November 13, 2015, 01:10:59 AM »
Well PdA's laid up and up for sale now if you want to convince the Aus governement to buy her. Or maybe you could persuade NZ to take her (good luck with that... ;))

No point
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canberra-class_landing_helicopter_dock

No space left in Sydney to dock it now we have these.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Nuclear powered Cruisers, Frigates (DLGN) and Destroyers
« Reply #47 on: November 13, 2015, 04:02:21 AM »
Re that debate over 909s on the Type 42, it's very telling that, even though money was extremely tight, the conclusion that two were better than one was so overwhelming that the designers not only mananged to convince the Navy, but the Navy managed to convince the Treasury to pay for it. IIRC, the cost increase was about £0.5-0.75 million on £12 million ships (late 1960s money) but it more or less doubled the capability of the the ship.

I don't see why having to use the STIR as a height finder would preclude it's use as a fire control radar. Such use was common in pre-AEGIS FCS systems: the 2D air search radar would give the bearing, the tracker would slew to it, and then elevate up until it found the target. Since SM-2 only requires illumination in the terminal phase, surely it could be operated in such a way that the STIR did intermittent altitude checks for the mid-course updates and then simply stayed on target for terminal homing?
« Last Edit: November 13, 2015, 05:52:29 AM by Weaver »
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith