Author Topic: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations  (Read 15349 times)

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
ID the radar (?)
« Reply #45 on: July 23, 2016, 01:49:46 PM »
Attached is a Shipbucket graph of HMS Tiger (C20) by Bombhead.

I circled two points of interest that I have.  One at the forward mast and one at the rear.

Is the forward one a radar equipment?  What purpose does it serve?

I know that the rear one is a height finder.  If, say, the rest of this ship's radars were replaced with more-modern sets (for example, the forward Typoe 993 with Type 996 3D) in another refit, could I have dispensed with the height finder?  Or even replace it with another radar meant for monitoring helicopter takeoff and landing?

Thanks in advance.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2016, 01:56:57 PM by dy031101 »
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #46 on: August 06, 2016, 10:35:45 PM »
Just an idea an Australian Suffren Class Frigate instead of the Charles F Adams Class DDGs actually purchased.

My thinking is Australia initially wanted a version of the County Class DLG fitted with Tartar but the UK was unable to provide the resources to do the redesign before examining MOTS and modified MOTS (with helicopter etc.) versions of the CFA DDG.  How about, following the success of the ongoing Mirage program, the ADF approaches France about a Tartar, helicopter equipped version of the Suffren, or perhaps the French could even have approached the RAN of defence minister directly with an unsolicited offer.

Australia is receptive to the idea and an Australian version is developed with a large helicopter hanger sufficient for a single Sea King / Super Frelon, or a pair of smaller machines, Tartar with two fire control channels super firing over the hanger and Ikara instead of Malafon.  There was also a choice of guns, either the two single 100mms as on the French ships, or a single Mk-42 5", Mk-6 4.5" twin or even more modern and lighter Mk-45 5" or Mk8 4.5" with a super firing Sea Sparrow for follow vessels if required.

Australia initially decided on using refurbished Mk-6 4.5" removed from the Daring class during their Tartar conversions but deliberately left space and weight to permit the class to be upgrade with new turrets once available as it was known that a new calibre would be required from the 1970s, either US 5" or the new 4.5" round developed for the RN or possibly even the US 8" MCLWG.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: ID the radar (?)
« Reply #47 on: August 07, 2016, 02:48:19 AM »
Attached is a Shipbucket graph of HMS Tiger (C20) by Bombhead.

I circled two points of interest that I have.  One at the forward mast and one at the rear.

Is the forward one a radar equipment?  What purpose does it serve?

I know that the rear one is a height finder.  If, say, the rest of this ship's radars were replaced with more-modern sets (for example, the forward Typoe 993 with Type 996 3D) in another refit, could I have dispensed with the height finder?  Or even replace it with another radar meant for monitoring helicopter takeoff and landing?

Thanks in advance.


Sorry, only just seen this.

The item circled at the front is a navigation radar, probably Type 975, or maybe Type 1006.

As you say, the rear aerial is a Type 278 height-finder. This was usually fitted in conjunction with a Type 965 long-range air-search radar because the latter had a range far in excess of the fire control radars generally fitted in the same era which could otherwise have done the height-finding role. It wasn't fitted on Type 42 destroyers and the Invincibles because their Type 909 Sea Dart fire-control radars could do the job themselves, and it wasn't fitted on Leanders due to space/weight limitations.

It wouldn't be hard to replace the Type 278 with another radar for monitoring helicopter landings, however it isn't really neccessary, since if you look at photos of the ship, you'll see that the forward Type 975 nav radar is offset to port, giving it a field of view that extends rearwards on that side of the ship for helicopter approach control. This was a common Royal Navy solution since RN practice is for helos to approach low on the port quarter and offsetting the existing nav radar avoids having to have a separate one.

Putting all this together, I'd be inclined to leave the Type 278 in place, unless you intend to refit the ship with much more capable fire-control radars. The 'next generation' replacements for Tiger's radars would be as follows:

Type 965 -> Type 1022
Type 993 -> Type 992Q/994 -> Type 996
Type 278 -> keep or no replacement
Type 975 -> Type 1006/7



"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: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #48 on: August 07, 2016, 03:25:53 AM »
Just an idea an Australian Suffren Class Frigate instead of the Charles F Adams Class DDGs actually purchased.

My thinking is Australia initially wanted a version of the County Class DLG fitted with Tartar but the UK was unable to provide the resources to do the redesign before examining MOTS and modified MOTS (with helicopter etc.) versions of the CFA DDG.  How about, following the success of the ongoing Mirage program, the ADF approaches France about a Tartar, helicopter equipped version of the Suffren, or perhaps the French could even have approached the RAN of defence minister directly with an unsolicited offer.

Australia is receptive to the idea and an Australian version is developed with a large helicopter hanger sufficient for a single Sea King / Super Frelon, or a pair of smaller machines, Tartar with two fire control channels super firing over the hanger and Ikara instead of Malafon.  There was also a choice of guns, either the two single 100mms as on the French ships, or a single Mk-42 5", Mk-6 4.5" twin or even more modern and lighter Mk-45 5" or Mk8 4.5" with a super firing Sea Sparrow for follow vessels if required.

Australia initially decided on using refurbished Mk-6 4.5" removed from the Daring class during their Tartar conversions but deliberately left space and weight to permit the class to be upgrade with new turrets once available as it was known that a new calibre would be required from the 1970s, either US 5" or the new 4.5" round developed for the RN or possibly even the US 8" MCLWG.

A helicopter-carrying Suffren is pretty much a Tourville.

How about a Tourville with a Mk.13 in place of one of the gun turrets*, Ikara in place of Malafon, a taller hangar and a second Tartar FC radar in place of Crotale Navale on the hangar roof?

* Remove the Exocets and move the bridge structure further back to give more room for the Mk.13 in B position. Then re-fit the Exocets between the aft FC radar and the main mast.
"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: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #49 on: August 07, 2016, 10:52:00 AM »
Way too late for the RAN requirement and lack the DRBI23 3D radar.  That said they were fine ships and apparently excellent sea boats that performed admirably in the North Atlantic through their careers.

Even the Suffrens would be pushing it for the RAN requirements as the first pair of Perths (CFAs) were commissioned in 1965 and Brisbane in 1968.  It would only work if for instance the decision had been made to upgrade the Darings and maybe even the Battles as Tartar ships as well, then depending when the ungraded ships entered service they could afford to wait a couple of years for their larger DLGs.  If you look at the French T47 AAW modernisations conducted between 1962 and 65 this should have been possible.

The idea of the Suffrens would be, in addition to their air defence and ASW roles, to provide flag facilities to replace those of the remaining cruisers Australia and Hobart (in real life Hobart was proposed for a missile conversion as well).

This is approaching scenario rather than Sea Ideas and Inspirations.  I found and flagged a stack of Heller ship kits on Amazon and was thinking what to do with them if I worked up the nerve to order them.  We have sold a car recently (Golf VI GTI) so have some cash so who knows ;)

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #50 on: August 07, 2016, 11:07:54 AM »
On the Tigers I recall reading that the RN never really wanted them, or Victorious (and possibly Hermes) for that matter but had them foisted upon them by Churchill after a late night cabinet meeting where they also scrapped plans for the 1952 carrier Mount Batten wanted so badly.  Government apparently thought carriers were obsolete as far back as then so weren't interested in new ones but needed to keep the shipyards busy for electoral reasons hence wasting money on obsolescent ships the RN didn't want. 

Not the only version of events I know but it does lead to an interesting possibility, the sale of all four (or five) ships to Australia before completion so as to free up cash and resources to build the desired and needed new carrier(s) instead of modernising further old ships.

Anyway, this squadron is sold to Australia during the panic over Indonesia's new "Russian" fleet of 1+1 Severdlov class cruisers, 8 Skory class DDs and 10 Whiskey class SS.  The Tigers are converted to Tartar ships, fitting a Mk-13 in A position in place of the Mk6 3" with radars appropriately updated.  They are supplemented by Suffrens and eventually replaced with Invincibles.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #51 on: August 07, 2016, 03:45:30 PM »
Way too late for the RAN requirement and lack the DRBI23 3D radar.  That said they were fine ships and apparently excellent sea boats that performed admirably in the North Atlantic through their careers.


Okay, fair enough: if the DRBI-23 is the deciding factor, then that also provides a rationale for why you're buying French hulls and fitting them with US weapons instead of just buying US ships. Of course the other option would be to buy the ships with their Masurca MQ2 SAM systems in place, since it had a significantly greater range than Tartar (in the latter basic form).

I appreciate that you want some degree of logistic streamlining with guns, but buying the Perths meant introducing the US 5" round anyway, so you might as well keep the 100mm French guns on the Suffrens. The 100mm Mod.68 was a pretty decent gun: probably the best compromise if you wanted both a credible AA capability AND a credible (just) shore bombardment capability in one weapon.

Replacing the Malafon with Ikara is a natural choice (and an improvement too). Would you also want to replace the fixed 550mm ASW torpedo catapults with NATO-style lightweight triple tubes too? If so, that might free up a fair amount of internal volume.

Quote
Even the Suffrens would be pushing it for the RAN requirements as the first pair of Perths (CFAs) were commissioned in 1965 and Brisbane in 1968.  It would only work if for instance the decision had been made to upgrade the Darings and maybe even the Battles as Tartar ships as well, then depending when the ungraded ships entered service they could afford to wait a couple of years for their larger DLGs.  If you look at the French T47 AAW modernisations conducted between 1962 and 65 this should have been possible.


I did a Tartar Daring profile a while back based on exactly that thought process:



« Last Edit: August 07, 2016, 03:52:12 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 Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #52 on: August 07, 2016, 03:58:57 PM »
Anyway, this squadron is sold to Australia during the panic over Indonesia's new "Russian" fleet of 1+1 Severdlov class cruisers, 8 Skory class DDs and 10 Whiskey class SS.  The Tigers are converted to Tartar ships, fitting a Mk-13 in A position in place of the Mk6 3" with radars appropriately updated.  They are supplemented by Suffrens and eventually replaced with Invincibles.

You could probably get the Mk.13 in B position and keep the forward 6" turret. There's loads of deck space there and the 3" Mk.6 turret has a seriously large gun room underneath, so plenty of space for the Mk.13 magazine. The 6" Mk.6 allegedly made the Tigers capable of out-shooting a Severdlov due to it's higher fire rate, although it's dubious reliability might have hamstrung it in practice.
"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: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #53 on: August 07, 2016, 05:10:35 PM »
Anyway, this squadron is sold to Australia during the panic over Indonesia's new "Russian" fleet of 1+1 Severdlov class cruisers, 8 Skory class DDs and 10 Whiskey class SS.  The Tigers are converted to Tartar ships, fitting a Mk-13 in A position in place of the Mk6 3" with radars appropriately updated.  They are supplemented by Suffrens and eventually replaced with Invincibles.

You could probably get the Mk.13 in B position and keep the forward 6" turret. There's loads of deck space there and the 3" Mk.6 turret has a seriously large gun room underneath, so plenty of space for the Mk.13 magazine. The 6" Mk.6 allegedly made the Tigers capable of out-shooting a Severdlov due to it's higher fire rate, although it's dubious reliability might have hamstrung it in practice.

Doh, I meant "B", thanks for that.  I have the Shapeways Lion Conversion for the Revel (Matchbox) Tiger, of which I have two.  Its been a long term plan to replaced the forward 3" twin with a Mk13 and fiddle with the radars a bit. 

Used to work with a bloke who was a Midshipman on one of the tigers in her last commission who told me the issue was aluminium shear pins in the hoist drive chains.  For the last shoot they replaced them with the "wartime" steel pins and the turrets ran faultlessly firing off the full magazine.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2016, 01:06:20 PM by Volkodav »

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #54 on: August 07, 2016, 05:27:23 PM »
Way too late for the RAN requirement and lack the DRBI23 3D radar.  That said they were fine ships and apparently excellent sea boats that performed admirably in the North Atlantic through their careers.


Okay, fair enough: if the DRBI-23 is the deciding factor, then that also provides a rationale for why you're buying French hulls and fitting them with US weapons instead of just buying US ships. Of course the other option would be to buy the ships with their Masurca MQ2 SAM systems in place, since it had a significantly greater range than Tartar (in the latter basic form).

I appreciate that you want some degree of logistic streamlining with guns, but buying the Perths meant introducing the US 5" round anyway, so you might as well keep the 100mm French guns on the Suffrens. The 100mm Mod.68 was a pretty decent gun: probably the best compromise if you wanted both a credible AA capability AND a credible (just) shore bombardment capability in one weapon.

Replacing the Malafon with Ikara is a natural choice (and an improvement too). Would you also want to replace the fixed 550mm ASW torpedo catapults with NATO-style lightweight triple tubes too? If so, that might free up a fair amount of internal volume.

Quote
Even the Suffrens would be pushing it for the RAN requirements as the first pair of Perths (CFAs) were commissioned in 1965 and Brisbane in 1968.  It would only work if for instance the decision had been made to upgrade the Darings and maybe even the Battles as Tartar ships as well, then depending when the ungraded ships entered service they could afford to wait a couple of years for their larger DLGs.  If you look at the French T47 AAW modernisations conducted between 1962 and 65 this should have been possible.


I did a Tartar Daring profile a while back based on exactly that thought process:




The idea I am toying with for the Darings and Battles is replacing B turret due to it being deemed too difficult to fit the Mk-13 aft on the Battles, then once the work was done for them it was easier to adapt that design than to do a new one for the Darings.  They would lose their torpedos with deck houses filling the space, the bridges would be enclosed as per the Vampire / Vendetta MLU and the radars would be replaced with more modern types, including a 3D of some variety.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #55 on: August 07, 2016, 08:37:39 PM »
The idea I am toying with for the Darings and Battles is replacing B turret due to it being deemed too difficult to fit the Mk-13 aft on the Battles, then once the work was done for them it was easier to adapt that design than to do a new one for the Darings.  They would lose their torpedos with deck houses filling the space, the bridges would be enclosed as per the Vampire / Vendetta MLU and the radars would be replaced with more modern types, including a 3D of some variety.

The SPS-39/52 would be a logical choice, and the timeframe's right too.
"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: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #56 on: August 07, 2016, 09:52:08 PM »
Got an Ozmods 1/700 Vampire that I plant to do something with rather than OOB.

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #57 on: August 08, 2016, 03:46:00 AM »
The 'next generation' replacements for Tiger's radars would be as follows:

Type 965 -> Type 1022
Type 993 -> Type 992Q/994 -> Type 996
Type 278 -> keep or no replacement
Type 975 -> Type 1006/7


Thanks again  ;)

Would it be okay for me to assume MRS-3 to remain serviceable beyond mid-1980s?  Would it remain so post-2000s?

(I'm doing an export-type modernisation, hence the AWS-9 instead of the Type 996......)
« Last Edit: August 08, 2016, 06:56:51 AM by dy031101 »
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #58 on: August 08, 2016, 02:44:41 PM »

Would it be okay for me to assume MRS-3 to remain serviceable beyond mid-1980s?  Would it remain so post-2000s?

(I'm doing an export-type modernisation, hence the AWS-9 instead of the Type 996......)


You can keep anything servicable forever if you're prepared to throw enough money at it: look at B-52s, or the main battery directors on the Iowas. However I'd have thought that if you're throwing a lot of money at keeping the ship in service for that long anyway, and you're not limited to RN in-service equipment, you might as well replace the MRS-3 with a COTS radar/EO director from one of the well known firms.
"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: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #59 on: August 24, 2016, 09:49:36 PM »
Been thinking on the RAN as per usual, cruisers, destroyers, the Washington treaty limitations and post WWII plans and needs, as well as how large and capable destroyers and destroyer leaders became during and after WWII through to the DLGs  of the 60s and modern cruiser sized destroyers and frigates. Flyhawks 1/700 Naiad and Aurora have added some incentive for ideas.

What if somehow Australia ended WWII with a substantial number of small light cruisers based on the Arethusa, Dido and Bellona classes in service and building in addition to the frigates and corvettes and instead of the Tribal class destroyers, Hunt Class had been built instead.  Maybe 6" and 5.25" ships could be built at Codoc and 4.5" versions at Williamstown. 

Pre-war heavy and light cruisers plus destroyers were obsolescent and worn out, UK built J,K,N and war emergency destroyers  returned post war and the only modern ships the very cramped Hunts, with no Tribal, Battle or Daring Class built, building or planned, the obvious solution was to adapt the light cruisers.  The end result was the light cruisers were modernised, converted and completed in a variety of configurations including task force leader, carrier GP escort, ASW leader, and DL / large destroyer using the latest directed Bofors, US 3'/50, Limbo, new radars and directors and where applicable sonars (probably the incomplete ships).

Next step was complete the least progressed hulls as cruiser/destroyers (IAW the RN anti Sverdlov concept) and as they started entering service in the late 50s and early 60s the earlier post war completed vessels could begin being converted with Tartar etc. to replace the modernised war built ships.

Finally the design is evolved into a new build DLG during the 60s as an alternative to buying Counties.  Initially with Tartar, later ships were built with Standard and the final Batch with Sea Dart. 

Thirty years of evolution 6", 5.25", 4.5", 5"L54, 3'L50, 3"L70, maybe Mk26 6", Bofors 40mm, maybe Oto Melara 76mm Compato, or Bofors SAK.  Tartar, Standard, maybe Terrier, Mk10, 11, 13, 22, or even 26 GMLS, Sea Dart, Seacat, maybe Seawolf, Limbo, Ikara, Super Ikara, or even ASROC a variety of British and American radars, directors, other sensor and systems.  Sycamore, Whirlwind, Wessex, SeaKing, maybe Sea Sprite.  Lots and lots of possibilities, maybe even a life extension for 1970s built ships seeing them serve into the 90s with NTU and Seahawk.