Author Topic: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations  (Read 45635 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
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #25 on: March 21, 2015, 08:22:58 AM »
I'm pretty certain that the standard CEAMOUNT illuminators don't have the range for BMD. I did estimate their performance once and IIRC they seemed to be scaled for ESSM.

Hum...... how large do you think the panel (one panel because I'm trying to mess around with the trainable version) should be in order to handle the SM-2?

SM-3 has a separating kinetic warhead with IR guidance so the illuminators wouldn't be needed, as long as there is a surveillance / tracking array powerful enough to follow the target - which SPY-1 is more than capable of doing.

Oh okay.

(I was under the impression that the SM-3's IR seeker is an addition rather than replacement to SM-2's semi-active homing.  If it is indeed a replacement then I stand corrected.)
« Last Edit: March 21, 2015, 09:00:41 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 RP1

  • Wait, what?
    • RP1 dot net
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #26 on: March 21, 2015, 08:52:09 AM »
Confusingly:

SM-2 block III has the secondary IR seeker stuck on the side of the missile for improved ECCM, but is otherwise conventional.
SM-3 block "n" has a non-explosive "warhead" upper stage that is really an IR telescope with thrusters and an attitude problem.

Offline RP1

  • Wait, what?
    • RP1 dot net
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #27 on: March 21, 2015, 09:04:12 AM »
Quote
Hum...... how large do you think the panel should be in order to handle the SM-2?

"Depends". A smaller array would be expected to have less power and a wider beam for a given frequency. This puts a limit on range, discrimination between close or low flying targets, greater vulnerability to countermeasures etc. Of course this is range dependent also, so an array sized to support self defence with ESSM may well be able to support SM-2 out to the same range, but could not exploit all SM-2's range envelope.

One would expect the SPY-3 radar fitted to DDG-1000 (well, the x-band bit that actually got fitted) to be able to exploit most or all of SM-2's envelope. In practice the deletion of the S-band search radar component means the remaining arrays have to do more tasks, so the overall capability will be reduced to something closer to ESSM / local area air defence.

RP1

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #28 on: March 21, 2015, 09:44:47 AM »
CEAMOUNT is scaleable and has been designed to be to be increased in size and power.  The AUSPAR system is an evolution of CEAFAR designed with BMD in mind and has been mentioned in relation to the RANs next generation of frigate.

Something interesting I found when I was looking for the Shapeways listing for the CEAFAR mast I found there the other day (I'm panning to order several for some project I have in mind):

An Orange Hobby Batch III Type 22 with CEAFAR
http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery/ff/hms/Type22-700-nk/index.htm

A Pit Road Murasame with CEAFAR
http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery/dd/jmsdf/Murasame-700-nk/

I have been beaten too it but it is one of the neatest upgrade solutions for frigates (or anything to be honest) out there at the moment.

Here's the Shapeways listing

http://www.shapeways.com/product/CU8YYHBJ4/anzac-asmd-mast-1-700?li=search-results-1&optionId=42155647
« Last Edit: March 21, 2015, 09:50:47 AM by Volkodav »

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 #29 on: March 21, 2015, 10:22:56 AM »
CEAMOUNT is scaleable and has been designed to be to be increased in size and power.

My awful sense of scale suggests that I might imagine a trainable array twice the width of one of the fixed arrays on the upgraded Australian ANZAC.  What else do I have to do on illustrations to denote increased power?
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 #30 on: June 28, 2015, 12:27:02 PM »
How about a slightly different USN of the 80s?  Previously the US had conventional and nuclear powered versions of their major combatants, usually frigates (as in DLGs), but in the case of the Californias and Virginias, destroyers.  The Californias were nuclear powered derivatives of the cancelled 1967 DDG, the Virginias were nuclear powered equivalents of the Spruance / Kidd classes and the cancelled CGN-42 class corresponded to the Ticonderoga class CG (initially DDG).  What if they had continued this in the 80s, 90s and through to current times?

The original real world idea was to provide one DLGN / CGN escort per CVN but this was abandoned primarily for cost reasons with the USN concentrating on constructing larger numbers of conventionally powered Ticonderogas and later Arleigh Burkes.  It was a case of priorities where not only numbers were seen as more important than individual capability but other projects were also more important, common sense really, AEGIS is AEGIS, whether its on a Spruance hull or a Virginia.  One way this could have occurred is if Admiral Rickover won his battle against the military industrial complex corruption prevalent in the 70s and 80s instead of being sacked by President Reagan at Navy Secretary John Lehman's instigation.  Quite a dirty affair and worth reading if you're into such things, Electric Boat's general manager P. Takis Veliotis (indicted for fraud and racketeering in 1983) covered up defects with SSN construction then sued the government for the cost of fixing the problems to the tune of almost $700 million in 1981.  Defence contractors, supported by the Secretary of the Navy, were able to continue their corrupt and incompetent practices for years longer than had the Executive backed Rickover in his battle against them.  Assuming common sense and good governance uncharacteristically won out and Rickover was able to hand over the reins to a suitable successor as well as the excesses of industry being reined in a decade or more earlier (I don't know the full history of what happened but I do know things were particularly bad in the 70's and 80's) it is conceivable that a new generation of DLGN / CGNs and perhaps even CAGNs (for the sake of cool whiffs) could have been developed and built.

Anyway back to the platforms, USN build CGN-42 and possibly CSGN (Strike Cruiser) and then go on the develop a nuclear powered version of the DDG-51 and a new CAGN to replace the modernised BBs perhaps using refurbished and updated 8" guns, or even complete turrets from surplus heavy cruisers.  Maybe a nuclear powered equivalent to the Invincible or the RNs Escort cruiser concept to replace the CVS type carriers.

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #31 on: June 28, 2015, 11:48:27 PM »
That sounds plausible.  Your comments about rampant corruption at that time does explain one thing to me, how P&W got a second-source contract for the F404.  They ended up producing the first F404 to ever have a compressor stall and the contract was eventually cancelled as part of the demise of the A-6F (I'm told that P&W's problems with the F404 were one major factor in the A-6F's demise).
« Last Edit: June 29, 2015, 11:55:40 AM by elmayerle »

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #32 on: June 29, 2015, 10:58:00 AM »
Basically once a contract was awarded anyone who complained about performance was seen as a problem, or a dinosaur who didn't understand how modern projects were run.  Apparently insisting welds were completed to standard on submarines was unreasonable.  A compounding issue was the government was also the contractors insurer so even when the contractor was found to be at fault the government had to pay anyway.  ???

Same old story, if it was done properly the first time the cost savings would have resulted in more orders and greater profits.  The Los Angeles class not only had the weld issues but early boats had unknowingly been constructed from the wrong grade steel, greatly restricting their deep dive depth.

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 #33 on: August 19, 2015, 08:56:01 PM »
This site is in Chinese...... not that it matters compared to the pictures.

I wonder what I need to do to cook up a WWII-era evolution of that main gun emplacement concept......
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 #34 on: November 02, 2015, 09:51:12 PM »
Just had an idea on the WWII RN, RCN, RAN Tribal class destroyer.

Previously I suggested a version armed with five twin 4" instead of four twin 4.7" or three twin 4.7" and one twin 4", basically a Tribal AA, similar in concept to the HMS Lance, an L&M class destroyer completed with four twin 4" instead of the designed three twin 4.7". 

At the same time a number of nations already had larger calibres while others were increasing calibre of destroyer guns further, for example the German 5.9".  How about, in addition to the AA Tribal, there was also a scout cruiser Tribal with three or four 5.25", 5.5", or even 6" singles and possibly a 4" twin for AA, i.e. the medium singles in A, B and Y, with either a fourth in X or a 4" twin.  Could be each squadron or flotilla has a mix of Scout and AA Tribals.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #35 on: December 01, 2015, 10:27:08 PM »
Flyhawk's resent release of HMS Naiad and HMS Aurora in 1/700 have inspired some more cruiser ideas. 

Aurora was an Arethusa class light cruiser, what the RN considered to be the smallest cruisers worthwhile building which actually proved to be quite versatile and capable as well as providing the hull and machinery for the Dido Class AA cruisers of which Naiad is an example.

My thinking is these could be used for a purpose designed 4.5" AA cruiser with six (as opposed to four as fitted to two Didos) twin mounts, a batch three fitted with the improved 5.25" mounts developed for the Vanguard, post war upgrades, missile conversions, i.e. Tartar.  Export versions, licence production versions, i.e. an RAN version perhaps acquired instead of the Modified Leanders and maybe in larger numbers (smaller lighter so more were allowed under treaty).

Flyhawk also has the battle cruiser SMS Derfflinger.  My idea, it is saved from being scuttled and then granted to Australia as a war reparations, upgraded and anglicized through the 20s and 30s, going on to serve in WWII.

Online GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #36 on: December 30, 2015, 05:17:30 AM »
Random idea:  Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate (see below):



Converted into something akin to the proposed Spruance class Air Capable Destroyer:




I would probably use the long hulled version.

It would be tight to say the least...but still it might be fun to try. ;)
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

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 #37 on: December 30, 2015, 05:56:54 AM »
What would it be operating though?

The Spruance was much larger and had four weapon stations fore and aft of the superstructure plus a helo deck , so there was a lot of scope for rearranging the latter. The Perry only has one weapon station plus a helo deck and I'll bet that just about everything in it's superstructure is the minimum neccessary for a functioning ship, so can't be easily dumped or rearranged.

Harriers are out of the question. Maybe if you dumped the Mk.13 and 76mm and pushed the superstructure all the way forwards you might get four SH-70s on board, but to what purpose?
"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

Online GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #38 on: December 30, 2015, 06:00:08 AM »
What would it be operating though?


Bah!  Practicality!! :icon_punal:

Maybe some Huey Cobras?
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Dr. YoKai

  • Was in High School when mastadons roamed the plains...
  • A notorious curmudgeon who is partial to...hemp!
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #39 on: December 30, 2015, 09:15:50 AM »


 Suppose the QH-50 had really caught on...by the time the Perry's are available for conversion, you'd
 probably have a dash 60 or 70...

Online GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #40 on: March 25, 2016, 06:07:06 AM »
Not sure exactly what this would be classified as - possibly a guided missile cruiser:




It is a Swedish design from 1947 for a warship that launches guided rockets instead of using normal guns.  I have seen it theorised that the plan was to use what eventually became the Rb04:



Could be an interesting idea to model.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

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 #41 on: May 15, 2016, 11:20:31 PM »
Decided to re-post it here because, despite being called a corvette, it is essentially a bigger and badder missile boat and not primarily a convoy escort (it can do convoy jobs, in fact meant to do so more cheaply than frigates and destroyers).

Model of Republic of China Navy's planned mass-production Tuo Chiang class corvette:
« Last Edit: May 16, 2016, 08:08:14 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 dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Spruance Class What-ifs?
« Reply #42 on: June 01, 2016, 07:21:01 AM »
Browsing through Shipbucket, I found this catching my eyes:

Click HERE!

Reminds me of what Wikipedia says of the Spruance class destroyers...... it is claimed that they could have served into 2019 if updated again and maintained, and that USS Cushing was listed for grant transfer to Turkey before ultimately being allocated to be a target hulk.

If the transfer took place, however, would Turkey have accepted the ship as is?  Or would at least some modifications be carried out to, for example, expand the AAW utility of that Mk.41 launcher?
« Last Edit: April 21, 2019, 02:06:54 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: Spruance Class What-ifs?
« Reply #43 on: June 01, 2016, 01:30:30 PM »
Browsing through Shipbucket, I found this catching my eyes:

Click HERE!

Reminds me of what Wikipedia says of the Spruance class destroyers...... it is claimed that they could have served into 2019 if updated again and maintained, and that USS Cushing was listed for grant transfer to Turkey before ultimately being allocated to be a target hulk.

If the transfer took place, however, would Turkey have accepted the ship as is?  Or would at least some modifications be carried out to, for example, expand the AAW utility of that Mk.41 launcher?


When the four Kidd class DDGs were proposed for transfer to the RAN in the late 90s (there were offered to Australia first, then Greece, before Taiwan bought them)the assumption was at least three of the four would be progressively upgraded to permit them to serve well into the 2010s if not the 2020s as replacements for the retiring Perth (CFA)Class DDGs.  All had already received extensive NTU (New Threat Upgrades) while with the USN making them the most capable non AEGIS combatants in service at the time, improving and refurbishing all ships systems, including accommodation and auxiliaries, as well as significantly more powerful and useful than the very best that could be hoped to be achieved with the ultimately very troubles RAN FFGUP (FFG Upgrade) program.  The ships, as is could have replaced both the both the DDGs and FFGs, not received any additional upgrades or modernisations and still resulted in a significantly more powerful, flexible and capable RAN, at substantially lower cost, through until the ships could be replaced with AWD in the late 2010s early 2020s, so poorly executed was the FFGUP. 

In fact what was being discussed was a rolling upgrade of the ships if acquired.  Initially three would enter service as a direct replacement for the three existing DDGs while the fourth would begin an extensive upgrade instead of the, now unnecessary FFGUP.  Mk-26 GMLSs would be replaced with strike length Mk-41 VLS, ESSM would likely be integrated along with the SM-2 the ships already used and VLASROC and Tomahawk would have been possibilities.  Automation would also have been increased to reduce crewing, i.e. pneumatic starters on GT Generators replaced with electric, improving reliability and reducing maintenance.  The ships were large enough, with sufficient modularity to permit multiple successive upgrades, for instance the ships could easily have received a scaled up area air defence version of the ANZAC ASMD upgrade, i.e. larger longer range CEASCAN radars and CEAMOUNT directors (Dragon kit with Shapeways CEAFAR mast and Mk-41 VLS).

Unfortunately the Australian government was wary of ex USN equipment following the poor standard of a pair of Newport LSTs bought in the 90s, completely missing the fact that the initially surveyed and selected ships had been fine but because of delays in processing the acquisition they went to other navies and the pair the, considerable less experienced, follow up team selected were in nowhere near as good a condition and required very substantial rectification work before they were even considered seaworthy post delivery.  The government was also concerned that manning issues would force the retirement of the eldest pair of the RANs six FFGs to free up sufficient crew for the much larger Kidds, resulting in the RAN reducing major surface combatant numbers even further below the still officially planned 17.  The other major issue was the fear in some quarters that four such capable ships would see a down grading of plans to acquire three new AEGIS destroyers (assumed at that point to be US or locally licence built Flight IIA Arleigh Burke class destroyers) as well as to upgrade the ANZAC class patrol frigates with AEGIS and SPY-1F through the ANZAC WIP (Warfighting Improvement Program).  There was also the industrial side of things where people were becoming increasingly concerned that buying ex USN ships would result in a local shipbuilding blackhole and loss of the skills so expensively (and successfully) built up through the 80s and 90s.

The irony is all of these legitimate concerns ended up occurring without the acquisition of the Kidds for various reasons relating to government policy, economics (an extended boom unbalancing the economy and the labour market), poor planning, lack of vision, faulty and failed procurement, illogical cuts followed by strange procurement choices, cancellation and replacement of projects with inappropriate (cheap but incapable) alternatives.  Failure to promptly replace the Perths with anything at all saw a reduction in the number of hulls and hence sea going billets, further compounding a cost cutting inspired gutting of the RANs engineering capability.  Technical issues saw a cost and schedule blowout on the FFGUP which was reduced from all six ships to only four, further cutting hull numbers and compounded by the fact that the ships never achieved the intended level of capability and were unavailable for years longer than planned.  The procurement of a replacement for the AWDs became a convoluted politically inspired process to reshape defence procurement and project management that didn't even kick off until some years after the urgent need for the ships was demonstrated by operations in East Timor and stated in the delayed Defence White Paper.  So long was the project delayed that the new destroyers became the replacement for the FFGs, not the DDGs, meaning a reduction in actual fleet size from 14 to 12 major combatants and an eventual planned 11, instead of the long required (since the retirement of the carrier Melbourne) 17.  The convoluted process that should have seen three CFA/Perth class DDGs replaced with three Flight IIA Burke AEGIS destroyers (or three Kidd class DDGs as an interim) in the late 90s, early 2000s will see three DDGs and six FFGs replaced with three AEGIS FFGs two decades later.

Fitting AEGIS and SPY-1F to the ANZACs proved impractical and combined with the issues with FFGUP saw a massive reduction in both numbers and capability from the retirement of the Perths that continues today.  The decision to neither build Arleigh Burkes or stretch ANZACs (from my understanding would have been similar in size and capability to the South Korean KDXII) as well as to cancel the missile corvettes intended to replace the fleets in shore patrol boats as well as to convert a commercial tanker into a fleet oiler (that never met capability requirements) and to upgrade/double hull the existing AOR overseas, instead of building the long required two new ships ensured that there would be a ship building blackhole and the loss of strategic capability that would literally cost billions to rebuild.

In an ideal world Australia would have acquired and progressively upgraded all four Kidd Class DDGs in the late 90s.  Three would be hot transfers using the Perth Class crews and the fourth would have served as the prototype for an upgrade for the rest of the class.  Only the newest pair of FFGs would be upgraded, where possible using systems common the upgraded Kidds, while the older ships would continue in service as is until replaced post 2010.  Shipbuilding would be kept going through this time by local construction of patrol boat replacing helicopter equipped missile corvettes (the proposed Transfield OPC), two new AORs, two or three helicopter carriers or LHDs and possibly up to several small LPDs.  ANZAC WIP would not even start with the ship remaining as patrol frigates due to the Kidds and two upgraded and four standard FFGs being available.  As the corvette program winds up the first new AWD would be completed to begin replacing the FFGs with the Kidds finally being replaced around 2020 by something really interesting, possibly a DDG-1000 based AWD or cruiser, or a JMSDF helicopter escort (Hyuga/Izumo)

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 #44 on: June 03, 2016, 12:58:57 AM »
From my perspective (since I was from Taiwan), I can see combat system upgrades and LAMPS Mk.III compatibility done to the Kidd class DDGs; Mk.41 launchers replacing Mk.26 GMLS, maybe; outright combat system replacement (for example, 3D AESA radar)...... likely not.  Since the ROCN plans to build up to four AAW frigates within the next 15 years, I expect them to do just enough to keep the Kidd class DDGs serviceable.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2016, 01:01:50 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 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 ;)