Author Topic: A very subtle alternate RAN  (Read 8247 times)

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
A very subtle alternate RAN
« on: May 30, 2014, 05:52:25 AM »
Basically the RAN opts for British platforms and US combat and weapons systems from the either the early 60s or 70 and sticks with them through to the modern day.  The Type 42 destroyer was assessed along side the FFG-7 which was selected, in this scenario the Type 42 with a Mk-13 and a Mk-45 gets up.  Maybe additional Type 42, the Amazon with Mk-45 and Mk-29 (Sea Sparrow) or the Type 22 with same is selected for the Australian Frigate Program that built an additional pair of FFG-7 in the real world.  Type 23 in selected for the ANZAC Project (they were in the final three designs in real life) but with Mk-41 and VLS NATO Sea Sparrow. Finally the Type 45 is selected to replace the DDGs that would be either Charles F Adams or Modified Tartar Counties.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #1 on: May 30, 2014, 08:33:29 PM »
Ok I have a 1/700 Illustrious, Daring and Sheffield, 1/600 Amazon and County, 1/350 Westminster.

Thinking Sheffield class replacement for DDL instead of FFG-7.  Maybe Mk-13 Standard and Harpoon, or a Mk-26 and canister Harpoons, a Mk-45 or Oto Melara 5" gun, new radars and directors etc.

Daring, SPY3, Mk-41 and Mk-45 Mod4

Westminster as ANZAC class instead of selected MEKO 200ANZ.  Do not have any details but believe the real world ship was to have retained Sea Wolf but gone for a 76mm Oto Melara.  Thinking Mk-41 and NATO Sea Sparrow (to be replaced with quad packed ESSM later) and a 5" gun plus Phalanx.  Maybe a follow on FFG version with 48 cell Mk-41 forward and maybe another pair of 8 cell launchers adjacent to the hanger for SM-2 and ESSM and 5" gun.  Can this be done without a hull stretch?  ASMD upgrades for whichever I build.  A Sea King on the flight deck.

Any ideas or suggestions

Offline Cliffy B

  • Ship Whiffer Extraordinaire...master of Beyond Visual Range Modelling
  • Its ZOTT!!!
    • My Artwork
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #2 on: June 02, 2014, 06:34:15 AM »
You ever heard of the "Super 23" or the "Super Duke"?  Yarrow lengthened the Type 23 and added some more goodies but the RN said no  :(  PM your e-mail and I'll send you some drawings and articles on them.  I found them online some time ago but Google is failing miserably to find them again.

Remember the Cyber Hobby 1/700 Amazon is a 1/600 hull and 1/700 everything else.  Could mix and match with the Airfix kit and/or design a slighter larger FF.  Maybe a Type 24?

Otherwise, I'm liking this A LOT!  I'll add some more Frigate designs I've found in the e-mail.

-Mike
"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 Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #3 on: June 02, 2014, 09:20:33 AM »
Yes Cyber Hobby did a broad beam Amazon hull for us.  I was looking at starting on the Tartar Sheffield but even that will be a month or more off as I am heading interstate for several weeks. 

The Type 23 I am interested in was the version offered up for the Australian Patrol Frigate project that became the ANZACs, it was as I understand it a shortened hull although I could be wrong and it was the standard hull just with less standard equipment.

PM on its way.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #4 on: June 02, 2014, 10:35:43 AM »
A Type 42 with a Mk.13 GMLS and a Mk.45 gun should be perfectly doable, though it would, like any Type 42-based project, be better with the longer batch III hull. Most Standard-armed ships have both trackers in the same arc as the launcher, which might involve some swapping around of masts on a Type 42, but it's not carved in stone: the Jacob Van Heemskerks had Standard control via fore and aft STIR 240 trackers, for example. I suspect though that that requires SM-2 with it's autopilot and datalink update in order to steer the missile into the FOV of the other tracker, but I might be wrong.

The Mk.45 gun should be a straight swap for the 4.5" Mk.8 and would be a sensible move for ammo compatability, since the Mk.8 4.5" ammo isn't even the same as the Mk.6 stuff already in RAN use. The Oto Melara 5" is a better gun than either, but it's much heavier, and the Type 42 probably wouldn't have weight margin for it.

A straight Amazon with Sea Sparrow wouldn't be possible: no weight margin, plus where do you put it? If you put it on the hangar roof, how are you going to get reloads up there, bearing in mind that Sea Sparrow is twice the size and weight of Seacat?

If you want a Vosper Frigate, then a Niteroi-style Mk.10 is a better bet, but it's very different in detail from the Amazon, notably it has an extra superstructure deck, with the helo pad at 01 deck level with a weapon position behind it, which was used for Ikara/Mk.8 gun originally, then for Sea Sparrow after the refit. Using a 1/600th hull with 1/700th bits is something that I've looked at too. It's still not quite big enough for a straight Niteroi copy, but it makes a credible "Mk.9.5". Either way, be sure to plate in that open quarterdeck on the Amazon hull, since that was the source of the problem.

Re Type 22s or Type 23s, I don't see the point in dumping Seawolf for Sea Sparrow on a dogmatic point of using US weapons for their own sake. Sea Wolf is very good, and the Type-22s were pretty much designed around it. The Type 23 was originally intended to have a 76mm compact before the post-Falklands redesign, so that's probably the version offered to the RAN.
"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: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #5 on: June 02, 2014, 06:55:24 PM »
Using a 1/600th hull with 1/700th bits is something that I've looked at too. It's still not quite big enough for a straight Niteroi copy, but it makes a credible "Mk.9.5". Either way, be sure to plate in that open quarterdeck on the Amazon hull, since that was the source of the problem.

Sorry, just realised that's completely wrong... :-[ :-[ :-[

Amazon
Beam : 41.7 ft
Length : 384 ft

Niteroi
Beam : 44.2 ft
Length : 424 ft

Amazon hull scaleorama'd from 1/600th to 1/700th
Beam : 48.65 ft
Length : 448 ft

That means that the scaleorama'd Amazon is actually significantly bigger than the Niteroi and is slightly bigger than a Type 22 Batch I, which is very interesting....

"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: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #6 on: June 03, 2014, 05:24:15 AM »
Pretty much my thoughts on the Type42, a straight swap of systems for a very simple clean build on a batch I hull.  May look at a batch III down the track.

Think I might skip the Type 21 all too hard without an accurate 1/700 hull.

I believe the RAN T23 retained Sae Wolf and optioned either a3" or 5" gun.  It was short listed because the RAN really liked it and wanted it. I think the issue the design had was it didn't fit the systems or industrial models the government were after and it was too high end for a low end PF.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #7 on: June 04, 2014, 01:33:52 AM »
Second thoughts on the Amazon, keep it basic, Sea Cat and Oto Melara 3" with Lynx, a basic light frigate / patrol frigate / sloop.  Midlife update (post Falklands scare) RAM replaces Sea Cat on hanger roof and forward of the bridge.

Batch III T42 based Batch II Adelaide class DDG, Mk26 in place of Sea Dart, including ASROC to replace Ikara..  Batch III Broadsword hull with Mk 45 & Mk 41 built in early 90s as a GP destroyer / cruiser. USN NTU systems.  T23 with Mk 45 & Mk 41 (selected for commonality) replaces River class (T12) DE.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #8 on: June 04, 2014, 08:47:21 AM »
ASROC replaces Ikara?  Heresy!  Heresy, I say!  ASROC was very primitive compared to Ikara as an ASW missile. 

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #9 on: June 04, 2014, 08:50:30 AM »
Second thoughts on the Amazon, keep it basic, Sea Cat and Oto Melara 3" with Lynx, a basic light frigate / patrol frigate / sloop.  Midlife update (post Falklands scare) RAM replaces Sea Cat on hanger roof and forward of the bridge.

That's highly credible. The 76mm adds useful extra AAA firepower and saves a fair bit of weight. There isn't too much room in front of the bridge, but I think it would take a RAM launcher. Since RAM was a bit later in timescale than Phalanx, why not have a two-stage update? Phalanx in place of Seacat immediately post-Falklands (when the RN was fitting a lot of Phalanx guns IRL) and then RAM in place of Exocet later.

Quote
Batch III T42 based Batch II Adelaide class DDG, Mk26 in place of Sea Dart, including ASROC to replace Ikara.. 

I suspect that's doable, but I'm not sure what magazine capacity the Type 42 bulkhead spacing would allow. My suspicion is not more than 44. I've always felt Ikara was superior to ASROC, but the latter's ability to use some of the same launchers as Standard is pretty persuasive on a small platform where it might make the difference between having an ASW missile and not having any.

Quote
Batch III Broadsword hull with Mk 45 & Mk 41 built in early 90s as a GP destroyer / cruiser. USN NTU systems. 

The problem with that is where does the Mk.41 go? Type 22s had almost no "deep" weapon stations: Exocet and Seawolf launchers were surface mounted and the latter's ammo came up from deep magazines via lifts inside the superstructure. You can make A-pos deep (as the Batch IIIs showed) but then you want a Mk.45 gun too, so that would take that position. You might be able to make B-pos deep by re-arranging internal compartments, but the next problem is that it's very close to the bridge windows. X-pos can't be made deep because it's on the hangar roof.


Quote
T23 with Mk 45 & Mk 41 (selected for commonality) replaces River class (T12) DE.

You might get the short (Sea Sparrow only) version of Mk.41 on in place of VLS Seawolf, but anything longer would create space issues again.
"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: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #10 on: June 04, 2014, 12:08:23 PM »
May need to resort to a hull stretch on the Broadsword.

Ikara wouldn't fit on a T42, ASROC or nothing.

Was only thinking NATO Sea Sparrow on the T23 16 cells, ESSM later.  Possibly the same for the T22, dropping SM2 and NTU.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #11 on: June 05, 2014, 04:33:47 AM »
Still puzzled why you want 16 x Sea Sparrow on your Type 23 when you could have 32 x Seawolf....
"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 Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #12 on: June 05, 2014, 09:01:11 AM »
In each case, it appears you're going for the least best weapon system.   ASROC instead of Ikara, Sea Sparrow instead of Sea Wolf.

The Indians are BTW the only Navy which has mixed and matched weapons in this way with western hulls with Russian weapons and like everything the Indians do, it cost them twice as much as if they'd stuck with a single source supplier.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #13 on: June 05, 2014, 10:11:31 AM »
Well you could argue that China's naval systems are a mish-mash of western and Russian systems too, at least in terms of the source they're copied from.

I can understand the point about ASROC though, because it can be fired from launchers that are mainly used for SAMs (Mk.10, Mk.26, Mk.41), so essentially, you get the ASW missile capability for free, without having to use a separate weapons position for it. On a small ship, that might be the difference between having an ASW missile or not having any. Ikara was a much better weapon, but it needed a weapon station of it's own.

There were two attempts to produce an improved Ikara IIRC. One was the standard missile containerised with folding wings, so it could be carried and launched like a Harpoon or Exocet. The other was also containerised, but the missile was completely updated, with a turbojet engine, INS and digital datalink (which meant it didn't need the troublesome tracking radar). Both were dropped for lack of funds, and because the Italian MILAS missile was on the cards, although neither the RN nor the RAN bought MILAS in the end. MILAS is basically an Otomat AShM with it's tracker and half it's fuel replaced by a torpedo.
"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 Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #14 on: June 05, 2014, 12:16:25 PM »
I'd look to building an Ikara launcher that could launch SAMs.  Thing is, Ikara still has unmatched capabilities as an ASW weapon but the ASW threat has sort of gone away since the demise of the fUSSR only to now start returning with the proliferation of advanced submarines in more navies.   ASROC was a pretty simply weapon, which because of it's nature alerted submarines to it's having fired when the rocket body splashed down at the same time as the torpedo, whereas Ikara's carried on well past the target zone and splashed down separately. Ikara could have it's course changed throughout it's flight, constantly being updated whereas ASROC couldn't.   It's biggest problem compared to most modern system is that it has wings.  Hard to fold, hard to store, makes it take up more room and it requires pre-assembly before loading.  Which is why I'd suggest rather than making Ikara fit a different launcher, make the other missiles fit the Ikara launcher...

The Chinese have found the same problem the Indians have - you use mismatched weapons and hulls, you end up with big integration problems, particularly with EM interference and radar issues.   Things that the original designers worked out when they were designing their ships.   I think you'd see the RAN changing over more rapidly to USN systems rather than trying to mix and match.   Tom Frame wrote an excellent little book on the RAN's change over to integrating USN stuff called, "Pacific Partners" where he charts the changes in RAN doctrine and culture.  Well worth finding a copy.  It also explains the reasons why it took a comparatively long time (it wasn't until the 1970s that the changes really took hold, as all the old salts retired).


Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #15 on: June 05, 2014, 06:10:57 PM »
By the time Ikara was in service and a replacement was being considered, the next wave of technology was making traditional launchers obsolete anyway. Ikara doesn't need to be fired from a trainable launcher at all in principle. A solid-state Ikara with folding wings that could be treated as a round of ammunition could be fired from a simple deck container in exactly the same way as Harpoon or Exocet and then steered onto whatever bearing you want. It's not like the speed/reaction requirement is as extreme as a point defence SAM that needs pointing exactly at the target.

In terms of giving a warning, I don't know how good/bad the Aussie electric Ikara launcher was, but apparently, the British hydraulic launcher was so noisy that sub crews knew when an Ikara Leander had a good solution on them because they could hear the hydraulic pumps run up...  :-[

I did some reading on Ikara repalcements last night. The basic Ikara with folding wings and container launch was called Basset and was proposed in 1981. The RAN then approached the Italians to produce a completely new missile using the airframe and mid-couse guidance system of the OTOMAT AShM, but that deal fell through, the Italians going on to develop MILAS on their own. Britain and Australia then developed the Super Ikara with solid-state electronics, folding wings, a turbojet engine and container launch, and this got as far as early flight tests before being cancelled in 1988.

Super Ikara had a flight range of 60 miles, although it was unlikely to be fired at that kind of range in practice, the range being really a reflection of endurance. If the ship lost the contact during flight, the missile could orbit that last datum for a while, giving the ship a chance to re-acquire. Control of the missile could also be handed off to a helicopter, giving a helo with a contact but no weapons left an attack option, or alternatively, allowing it to trade weapons for fuel before take off. I've never seen a pic of Super Ikara, but if it was the the same basic shape as Ikara, then the launch boxes would be short and fat, unlike Harpoon/Exocet, which is another advantage, since it saves deck space and might allow more rounds to be carried.

MILAS does pretty much all the same things as Super Ikara and is probably the best ASW missile in the Western world right no. It doesn't get much attention because only the Italians use it, the French seeming to have gone back on using it despite being involved in it's development. You don't notice it on ships because it uses the same containers as OTOMAT. I see no reason in principle why MILAS shouldn't be adapted to vertical launch.

Re integration of different systems, I think the problem really comes in integrating Russian and Western systems due to their differing standards and philosophies. Integrating Western systems from different countries seems to be much easier, indeed it's rare to find a non-American Western warship that doesn't have some degree of "internationalism" in it's equipment fit. The RN has successfully mixed Canadian sonars, hybrid British/French sonars, American torpedoes, Australian ASW missiles, Italian radars, hybrid British/Dutch radars, American and Dutch CIWS, French and American anti-ship missiles, and Italian guns before now. Mixing and Matching is the rule, rather than the exception.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2014, 06:17:20 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: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #16 on: June 05, 2014, 11:25:37 PM »
My old boss was a lead on the Super Ikara project, what killed it was none of the potential customers had actually planned to fit it to the next generation of escorts.  The MILAS contains more than a little Super Ikara DNA and shows what could have been achieved.  The rocket motor on Nulka is derived from Super Ikara as well, the weapon died but many of its component parts live on.  Can't lay my hands on it but I did have a magazine with a photo of it being launched from its container.  It looked like Ikara but had wings that folded down against the missile body and the container was oval in shape and about as wide and as high as a double stacked Otomat mounted on what looked like the same launcher base.  Basically each Super Ikara would have taken the same space as a pair of Otomats.

The only reason I am not putting Ikara on these ships is because they lacked the space and weight for it and although Super Ikara probably could have been fitted in place of som0e or all ASMs it was never deployed.  My thinking on Sea Sparrow instead of Sea Wolf is nothing against Sea Wolf but rather the RANs preference for the US / NATO system and the development path through ESSM which dramatically increased missile load outs.  The ideal would be a Mk-41 and a notional repackaging of Super Ikara as a VLS weapon, just depends how realistic I want to be.  At the end of the day I want SM-2/3/6 fired out of a Mk-41 for the T42 replacement so it only makes sense to have standardised on Mk-41 and ESSM as well.

What would be interesting is a Type 22 "Command Cruiser" with a strike length VLS forward, point defence length VLS flanking the hanger or funnel, or forward superstructure, with VLASROC (or Super Ikara), quad packed ESSM, Harpoon (or Otomat and MILAS or Super Ikara) RAM and Phalanx / Goalkeeper.  All pure fantasy as I lack the skill to scratch build a T22, or the funds for an Orange Hobby resin copy.

Been thinking on the back story as well.  It goes back to WWII and the legacy escort fleet, 3 Tribal, 5 Q class, 4 Bay (modified River), 8 River and 2 Battle (under construction), 4 Daring (planned). 1 County and 1 Modified Leander were also planned to be retained as combat capable training platforms, both were retired when the government decided to kill off the carrier fleet and made HMAS Sydney available as a training ship.  Four of the Qs were converted to Type 15 frigates and 2 of the Tribals were converted to ASW destroyers, the Rivers and Bays were converted to various roles including hydrographic survey and oceanography or placed in reserve.  One of the Darings was cancelled and the build of the remaining three was drawn out due to the priority given to the frigate conversions and the construction of new Type 12 River Class Frigates (later reclassified as DEs).  My understanding is up to 12 Type 12s were planned with six initially ordered but initially only 4 completed with a final pair following in the early 70s.  These ships passed into and out of reserve and various roles through the 50s, 60s and 70s.  One of the key features of the time was Australia looked to their allies for their defence and as such did not spend near as much on defence as their main allies and continually cut back on numbers and capability then occasionally got a bit of a reality check and tried to catch up for a bit.  My back story is Australia pulls their weight and builds on the legacy fleet.

First all existing destroyers receive the ASW conversions, 8 of the Rivers and Bays are used as regional gunboats / sloops especially for COIN and interdiction through SEA waters and a total of 6 Darings are completed at CODOC forming a Destroyer Flotilla with the 2 Battles.  Both old cruisers as well as Shropshire are retained as combat capable training ships and NGS platforms.  Progressively the Rivers / Bays are relaced with a flotilla of 8 of a variation of the Type 81 Leopard Class frigate built at Williamstown, these are followed by 8 Leanders replacing the ASW destroyers and Type 15s.  Four of the Darings are upgraded with Tartar with the Battles and remaining pair replaced with Batch I Adelaide (CODOC) class DDGs (Tartar T42) before the Tartar Darings are replaced with Batch II Adelaides (Batch III T42 hull).  Amazons (Williamstown) replace the Leopards and T23s (Williamstown) replace the Leanders.

*The following is a stretch but fun anyway

During the late 50s the RN is increasingly concerned that the shortly to be delivered Tigers, Victorious and Hermes would be obsolete when delivered and would absorb resources required to build and operate a needed new generation of carriers and escort cruisers.  At the same time Australia was growing concerned about Indonesia's military expansion and move closer to the USSR with it becoming clear that larger more modern carriers were needed as was a counter to Indonesia's Sverdlov and its planned sister.  While the current and planned fleet was adequate for the previous strategic environment the influx of so much state of the art Soviet equipment tipped the balance against Australia.  As such Australia cancelled Sydneys modernisation and bought the 3 Tiger Class cruisers as well as Hermes and Victorious from the UK with both Melbourne and Sydney being converted into helicopter carriers.  The Tigers are almost immediately modernised with Tartar replacing the 3" mount in B position and upgraded radars as an interim until the completion of a trio of escort cruisers which followed the construction of 3 County class Terrier DLGs, 3 County class Tartar / Ikara DDG carrier escorts at CODOC.  Concern over the escort cruisers ability to adequately defend itself if deployed independently led to the order of 3 Mk-26 GMLS / Standard armed modified Type 82 DLGs (Australian Ikara type installation in place of Limbo, Mk-26 in place of Sea Dart and original Ikara installation).

Stupid number of big ships with large crews is unsustainable so following Indonesia's move back towards the west the RAN starts to rationalise the number and type of surface combatants.  More modern types with smaller crews replace older manpower intensive ships earlier than would have been expected with the County DDG being replaced with a Type 22 GP destroyer and the County DLG being retired without replacement (some argued that the Sea Harrier F/A.2 and Sea King AEW flying from the escort cruisers was a more than adequate replacement).

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #17 on: June 06, 2014, 04:20:39 AM »
It looked like Ikara but had wings that folded down against the missile body and the container was oval in shape and about as wide and as high as a double stacked Otomat mounted on what looked like the same launcher base.  Basically each Super Ikara would have taken the same space as a pair of Otomats.

Wasn't it much shorter though? Standard Ikara was 3.43m long while MILAS is 6m.

Quote
The only reason I am not putting Ikara on these ships is because they lacked the space and weight for it and although Super Ikara probably could have been fitted in place of som0e or all ASMs it was never deployed. 

Fair comment. Most navies forced to choose helos or ASWMs have gone for the versatility and peacetime usefulness of helicopters.

Quote
What would be interesting is a Type 22 "Command Cruiser" with a strike length VLS forward, point defence length VLS flanking the hanger or funnel, or forward superstructure, with VLASROC (or Super Ikara), quad packed ESSM, Harpoon (or Otomat and MILAS or Super Ikara) RAM and Phalanx / Goalkeeper.  All pure fantasy as I lack the skill to scratch build a T22, or the funds for an Orange Hobby resin copy.

The hangar on a Type 22 goes right to the edge of the hull at one side and only has a narrow walkway on the other, so if you wanted Van Speijk style launchers (which are Mk.48, not Mk.41 BTW), you'd have to re-build the hangar block, possibly losing one helo in the process.

I respectfully suggest that this is a case of Irish Directions, i.e. "I wouldn't start from here if I were you". By the time you've hacked a Type 22 about to include weapons whose basic shapes, let alone technologies, it wasn't designed for, you're going to have no "Type 22" left, other than the hull form and the engines, and the Olympus/Tyne or Spey/Spey setup is hardly unique: it's the major western alternative to LM2500s. You'd be better starting with a clean sheet of paper and designing an Olympus/Tyne powered platform that suited your choice of weapons from the off.

If I wanted a new large platform in the mid 1980s, I'd be very much inclined to double up the Type 23's excellent CODLAG system: have two Speys and two electric motors on each shaft, and two banks of diesel gennies on isolated rafts to give reversing, cruising and really quiet ASW ops.

"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: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #18 on: June 06, 2014, 01:29:31 PM »
I am just going of the imagine I saw, I don't know what the length of the missile or it container was. Maybe multiple Gabriel type containers could have been an option.

Fair call on the Type 22, I just like the Batch III so will need to think of another way to wife them into the RAN

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #19 on: June 06, 2014, 06:38:14 PM »
What killed Ikara in the end was the proliferation of small choppers onboard all ships.  You could do what Ikara did, plus a whole lot more with a chopper.  However, that was really until the mid-1970s.  Before then, small ships need an ASW missile launcher, otherwise they had no means to prosecute a contact over the horizon.  The RAN's Daring class showed how you could put an Ikara launcher on a small platform.   It was quite an engineering achievement.

The advantage the RAN's launcher had over the RN's was that it used electric motors, whereas the  RN's used hydraulics.  The electrics were much quieter in operation, whereas the hydraulics were as noisy as all hell (and slower in operation).   The Submarines apparently could hear the hydraulic pumps start up and the launcher train whereas they couldn't hear the electrical ones.

Putting missiles on a launcher is simpler than adding multiple launchers of different types on a ship hull, with all the associated magazines and handling rooms, which is why I'd suggest adapting the Ikara launcher to fire the SAM of choice.   All the system then has to do is gather the missile and guide it and the magazine and handling paths are eased.


Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #20 on: June 06, 2014, 07:07:30 PM »
What killed Ikara in the end was the proliferation of small choppers onboard all ships.  You could do what Ikara did, plus a whole lot more with a chopper.  However, that was really until the mid-1970s.  Before then, small ships need an ASW missile launcher, otherwise they had no means to prosecute a contact over the horizon.  The RAN's Daring class showed how you could put an Ikara launcher on a small platform.   It was quite an engineering achievement.

Ikara wasn't on the Darings, it was on the Rivers and the Perths.

I'd suggest that a helo is not a perfect substitue for an ASW missile, and the fact that navies who can afford both continue to do so (principly the USN and the JMSDF) bears that out.

1. The very versatility that makes a helo so attractive may mean that it's off doing some other mission, with the wrong weapons in the wrong place, when you urgently need it to attack a submarine. The fact that an ASW missile can't do anything else means it's always available for it's primary mission.

2. The helo's reaction time is very variable, even if it is available. If it's on top of the contact then it's very quick indeed, but if it's 10 miles away, or it's just run out of fuel and/or weapons, or it's packed up in the hangar at 2.00am, then it can't compete with an ASW missile.

3. The helo's availability is poorer than an ASW missile. It needs regular maintenance, it breaks down, and it can crash or get shot down. If you fire an Ikara in atrocious weather and it crashes or fails, then you can fire another one. If you launch your one-and-only helo is the same conditions (assuming you can even do that) and it crashes, then you're down to your triple lightweight TTs. Good luck with that...

Don't get me wrong, helos are a good ASW weapon, but they're a different ASW weapon from a missile: helo and missile are actually very complimentary. I think the "triumph" of helos over ASWMs has more to do with priorities in the face of shrinking budgets. The helo is genuinely more versatile and can do useful (and photogenic  ;) ) things in peacetime too.


Quote
The advantage the RAN's launcher had over the RN's was that it used electric motors, whereas the  RN's used hydraulics.  The electrics were much quieter in operation, whereas the hydraulics were as noisy as all hell (and slower in operation).   The Submarines apparently could hear the hydraulic pumps start up and the launcher train whereas they couldn't hear the electrical ones.

The "reason" for the the different RN launcher and magazine arrangements was because they thought they were going to get a nuclear depth bomb payload for it, which never actually materialised. Their lordships didn't like the idea of a nuke fired "in roughly the right direction" from the simple Aussie launcher, so they demanded the pointlessly precise Vickers one, that added no practical benefit and made more noise. An idiotic decision.

The RN magazine setup makes a bit more sense for carrying nukes. The Aussie one was a horizontal "hanger" on the same level as the launcher and assembly room, with little or no practical access to the missiles once they were inside. To carry nukes, the RN insisted that the magazine be below the waterline and that a magazine crew have access to the weapons in it in order to swap a torpedo for a nuke should the need arise. The arrangement on Leanders (and I presume on Bristol) had the missiles stowed vertically on shockproof pedestals in two rows in a deep magazine with access in between them. They were picked up by an overhead grab running on a rail and transfered to a hoist which took them up to the assembly room. 

Quote
Putting missiles on a launcher is simpler than adding multiple launchers of different types on a ship hull, with all the associated magazines and handling rooms, which is why I'd suggest adapting the Ikara launcher to fire the SAM of choice.   All the system then has to do is gather the missile and guide it and the magazine and handling paths are eased.

The Ikara missile is such an odd shape, and the launcher operates in such an odd way, that I can't imagine what other missile could use it without major modifications to either or both. The Ikara launcher wasn't particularly reliable either (maintenance difficulties were cited as one reason for retiring it) and sometimes actually damaged rounds, leading to a particularly tasty safeing job for the armourers. It must be significant that all three attempts to update or replace Ikara have started frim the position of making it containerised.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2014, 07:20:41 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: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #21 on: June 06, 2014, 07:34:54 PM »
I am just going of the imagine I saw, I don't know what the length of the missile or it container was. Maybe multiple Gabriel type containers could have been an option.

Fair call on the Type 22, I just like the Batch III so will need to think of another way to wife them into the RAN

Me too, so stop trying to spoil it!  ;) ;D

Random thought: if you want a RAN frigate with British engines and US weapons, have you looked at other navies' designs? The Dutch Kortenaer pretty much fits the bill, and the RAN was familar with Dutch radars because they were used on the Improved Rivers and the Daring refits. It had Sea Sparrow, Harpoon, triple TTs, a 76mm gun and two Lynx, and you could always replace it's Golkeeper with Phalanx if you wished. Unfortunately, there isn't a model of it that I'm aware of.

An even better design might be the Japanese Hatsuyuki class (and yes, there is/was a 1/700th kit of it). This had a 76mm, ASROC, two Phalanx, Harpoon, Triple TTs, Sea Sparrow and a Sea King all on a 3700 ton hull, and it was powered by Olympus/Tyne. The following Asagiri class was an enlarged version powered by four Speys. The Japanese constitution would probably forbid them from selling you the actual ships, but I bet they'd be able to cooperate on a modified design to be built in Aus. You might even be able to sell them Ikara in return!

A Hatsuyuki modified for Aus would be fairly straight forward:

1. Move the Sea Sparrow launcher to b-pos, on a deckhouse so that it superfires the 76mm.

2. Fit Ikara in X-pos behind the flight deck, with the handling room and magazine under the flight deck.

3. You might be able to save some cash by having a single Phalanx on top of the hangar, depending on the resolution of interference issues with the Ikara tracker.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2014, 07:51:07 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 Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #22 on: June 06, 2014, 08:18:42 PM »
What killed Ikara in the end was the proliferation of small choppers onboard all ships.  You could do what Ikara did, plus a whole lot more with a chopper.  However, that was really until the mid-1970s.  Before then, small ships need an ASW missile launcher, otherwise they had no means to prosecute a contact over the horizon.  The RAN's Daring class showed how you could put an Ikara launcher on a small platform.   It was quite an engineering achievement.


Ikara wasn't on the Darings, it was on the Rivers and the Perths.


My error.

Quote
I'd suggest that a helo is not a perfect substitue for an ASW missile, and the fact that navies who can afford both continue to do so (principly the USN and the JMSDF) bears that out.


I didn't claim it was a perfect substitute, merely one that provided similar utility with added benefits.  I agree with most of your comments but it seems when given a choice between a chopper with one or more torpedoes versus an ASW missile, invariably the chopper has won out.
Quote
Quote
The advantage the RAN's launcher had over the RN's was that it used electric motors, whereas the  RN's used hydraulics.  The electrics were much quieter in operation, whereas the hydraulics were as noisy as all hell (and slower in operation).   The Submarines apparently could hear the hydraulic pumps start up and the launcher train whereas they couldn't hear the electrical ones.


The "reason" for the the different RN launcher and magazine arrangements was because they thought they were going to get a nuclear depth bomb payload for it, which never actually materialised. Their lordships didn't like the idea of a nuke fired "in roughly the right direction" from the simple Aussie launcher, so they demanded the pointlessly precise Vickers one, that added no practical benefit and made more noise. An idiotic decision.


As you point out, an idiotic decision.  While the RAN wanted nukes, it never received them so was never faced with the need to make that sort of decision.

Quote
The RN magazine setup makes a bit more sense for carrying nukes. The Aussie one was a horizontal "hanger" on the same level as the launcher and assembly room, with little or no practical access to the missiles once they were inside. To carry nukes, the RN insisted that the magazine be below the waterline and that a magazine crew have access to the weapons in it in order to swap a torpedo for a nuke should the need arise. The arrangement on Leanders (and I presume on Bristol) had the missiles stowed vertically on shockproof pedestals in two rows in a deep magazine with access in between them. They were picked up by an overhead grab running on a rail and transfered to a hoist which took them up to the assembly room. 


Actually there was AIUI access to the missiles.  Afterall, they had to be removed from their armoured containers and moved to the handling room where they were assembled, where the wings and other bits and bobs were added before it was sent to the launcher.  Again, we are discussing aren't we an alternative RAN, not RN, so what the RAN did with their magazines is as far as I am aware what we need to be discussing, not what the RN did.

Quote
Quote
Putting missiles on a launcher is simpler than adding multiple launchers of different types on a ship hull, with all the associated magazines and handling rooms, which is why I'd suggest adapting the Ikara launcher to fire the SAM of choice.   All the system then has to do is gather the missile and guide it and the magazine and handling paths are eased.


The Ikara missile is such an odd shape, and the launcher operates in such an odd way, that I can't imagine what other missile could use it without major modifications to either or both. The Ikara launcher wasn't particularly reliable either (maintenance difficulties were cited as one reason for retiring it) and sometimes actually damaged rounds, leading to a particularly tasty safeing job for the armourers. It must be significant that all three attempts to update or replace Ikara have started frim the position of making it containerised.


The only "odd way" the launcher operates that I'm aware of is that it loads the missile effectively backwards, pushing the missile tail first into the launcher whereas most other naval launchers push the missile forwards, from the rear.  I've also never heard of larger numbers of accidents with the Ikara where missiles have been damaged in loading onto the launcher.  Again, it may be something peculiar to the RN's version, rather than a general fault with the weapon design itself and how it was deployed on RAN ships.

Loading other missiles would require some form of "universal launcher" arm to be designed.  Loading missiles backwards would not IMHO represent much of a problem, whether it be Ikara or some form of SAM, merely a change in procedures once the universal launcher arm had been created.  Having the magazines and handling rooms grouped around the one launcher would be more efficient that having, as I've pointed out multiple launchers, each requiring their own magazines and handling rooms.

There is, interestingly an Ikara launcher available in 1/72 scale from Fleetscale - http://www.fleetscale.com/store/weapons/147-1-72nd-ikara-missile-system.html


Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #23 on: June 07, 2014, 01:16:34 AM »
Quote
I'd suggest that a helo is not a perfect substitue for an ASW missile, and the fact that navies who can afford both continue to do so (principly the USN and the JMSDF) bears that out.


I didn't claim it was a perfect substitute, merely one that provided similar utility with added benefits.  I agree with most of your comments but it seems when given a choice between a chopper with one or more torpedoes versus an ASW missile, invariably the chopper has won out.


My point is that it doesn't offer similar utility, it offers different utility. If the chopper makes ASW missiles obsolete then why do navies that don't have to choose one or the other elect to keep both?


Quote
Quote
The RN magazine setup makes a bit more sense for carrying nukes. The Aussie one was a horizontal "hanger" on the same level as the launcher and assembly room, with little or no practical access to the missiles once they were inside. To carry nukes, the RN insisted that the magazine be below the waterline and that a magazine crew have access to the weapons in it in order to swap a torpedo for a nuke should the need arise. The arrangement on Leanders (and I presume on Bristol) had the missiles stowed vertically on shockproof pedestals in two rows in a deep magazine with access in between them. They were picked up by an overhead grab running on a rail and transfered to a hoist which took them up to the assembly room. 


Actually there was AIUI access to the missiles.  Afterall, they had to be removed from their armoured containers and moved to the handling room where they were assembled, where the wings and other bits and bobs were added before it was sent to the launcher.  Again, we are discussing aren't we an alternative RAN, not RN, so what the RAN did with their magazines is as far as I am aware what we need to be discussing, not what the RN did.


The missiles wern't stored in armoured containers in the magazine. They just sat on cradles and were picked up by by an overhead travelling crane, which dropped them onto a trolley, which then carried them into the assembly room.

Agreed the thread is about the RAN, but since it's basically the same weapon, the RN way of handling it provides an interesting alternative to consider. In some ship layouts, the "tall & deep" RN layout might be an advantage over the "long and flat" RAN one.


Quote
Quote
The Ikara missile is such an odd shape, and the launcher operates in such an odd way, that I can't imagine what other missile could use it without major modifications to either or both. The Ikara launcher wasn't particularly reliable either (maintenance difficulties were cited as one reason for retiring it) and sometimes actually damaged rounds, leading to a particularly tasty safeing job for the armourers. It must be significant that all three attempts to update or replace Ikara have started frim the position of making it containerised.


The only "odd way" the launcher operates that I'm aware of is that it loads the missile effectively backwards, pushing the missile tail first into the launcher whereas most other naval launchers push the missile forwards, from the rear.  I've also never heard of larger numbers of accidents with the Ikara where missiles have been damaged in loading onto the launcher.  Again, it may be something peculiar to the RN's version, rather than a general fault with the weapon design itself and how it was deployed on RAN ships.


Most naval missiles hang from an overhead launch rail onto which they slide. Ikara was sent to the launcher on a trolly that rode on rails mounted on the deck. It was then picked up by the two rectangular "jaws" that you can see protruding from the triangular shroud that forms the top of the launcher. The two jaws parted to let the missile slide in between them and then closed the grip it. The method of gripping it was that each jaw had two pins which engages with conical holes in the side of the missile. The jaws then parted to let the missile go once it's motor had fired up.

What I've read is that if the missile was slightly misaligned when the launcher grabbed it, either due to malfunction, wear and tear or the action of a heavy sea, then the jaws would drive the pins into the body of the missile, puncturing the rocket motor casing and then jamming so that they couldn't be withdrawn.

This is most definately an "odd" system in that I can't think of any other missile system or launcher that used anything similar, so my comment stands about the difficulty of adapting it to fire other weapons. Since the Ikara missile could be usefully improved by redesigning it, and the launcher was somewhat unsatisfactory, the only way of achieving what you want that I can see is to redesign all of it at the same time, i.e. a brand new launcher, a Mk.2 Ikara with a more conventional loading system, and a new or modified "other weapon" to match. That might have been a useful exercise starting in the 1960s, but by the time Ikara was up for renewal GRP containers and/or VLS had arrived, so those looked like a better bet. 

Diagram of the RAN Ikara system:



"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: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #24 on: June 07, 2014, 01:57:01 AM »
An ASuW missile that fit the Ikara launcher would have been interesting.

It is my understanding the RAN Ikara outfit was designed to fit in the space of a single Limbo and its magazine and therefore was an easy upgrade on any Type 12 frigate.

Revell did a 1/300 Kortenaer and a Bremen in the 80s.  They are interesting but I alos quite like the Tromps, which apparently were considered early on as a possible alternative to the DDL.

I'm basically thinking of a RAN with three escort groups, each based around an escort cruiser, a high end air defence ship and one or two high end GP destroyers with a decent ASW capability.  There will also be two carriers able to swing from CVS to CVA depending on air-group's composition and three combatant flotillas covering border protection and interdiction, ASW and air defence that support the escort groups and carriers as required.  The two Majestics will serve as training ships and transports also providing a embryonic amphibious capability until replaced with a pair of Wasp class LHDs in the mid 90s.

Maybe my Leanders could be replaced in the 80s with Batch III Broadswords, the Amazons with Type 23s in the 90s and the Adelaides with AEGIS Darings in the 2000s with the Broadswords in turn replaced with Type 26 in from the late 2010s.  A continuous build stretching back to WWII, in one yard of eight major combatants a decade creating economies of scale and a highly experienced and competent workforce that actually wins a few export orders as well as supplying qualified and capable trades and professionals to the rest of the economy.

The other yards builds fewer but bigger and more complex ships as well as the AORs and transports the RAN also needs.  The escort cruisers are built there, as are the County variations and the Bristols.  Maybe it could build an escort group including an AOR and a commando carrier a decade.  Maybe both Majestics could be converted to duel role helicopter carriers to swing between ASW and LPH with an escort cruiser being built to form the third group.  Sydney is replaced with an improved escort cruiser in the 70s and Melbourne with a modified Invincible in the 80s.  The Counties are retained and upgraded and Bristols continue to be built and are evolved over the years into a unique Australian design including NTU and Mk-41 for SM-2 powered by four RR Speys that eventually is redesigned around AEGIS.  The Escort Cruiser is eventually replaced with Hyuga type but using RR MT30 GTs.

Interestingly on the Ikara, apparently one of the biggest issues with its retention in the RAN was its primary use was intended to be against submarines identified by the Sea Kings dunking sonar at range.  With the retirement of the carrier the Seakings no longer went to sea in the ASW role and the Ikaras use was reduced to what the DDGs and DEs could identify themselves, which was also in range of the light weight torpedoes which were quicker to fire once a sub was identified.  The Ikara became dead weight.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #25 on: June 07, 2014, 05:06:15 AM »
Interestingly on the Ikara, apparently one of the biggest issues with its retention in the RAN was its primary use was intended to be against submarines identified by the Sea Kings dunking sonar at range.  With the retirement of the carrier the Seakings no longer went to sea in the ASW role and the Ikaras use was reduced to what the DDGs and DEs could identify themselves, which was also in range of the light weight torpedoes which were quicker to fire once a sub was identified.  The Ikara became dead weight.

Well that's a perfect argument for building my proposed modified Hatsuyuki in the 1980s: they can used the Sea Kings and carry Ikara. The first one was delivered to the JMSDF in 1982, just in time for Melbourne's retirement. (Annoyingly, no one's done a shipbucket profile for me to modify...)

The lightweight torpedoes might have been quicker to fire, but they were slower to get to the target and outranged by the sub's heavyweight weapons. This is why ASROC is retained: it has similar range to a submarine torpedo and it's MUCH faster. Containerised Ikara would have round the launch delay problem nicely.... ::)

"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: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #26 on: July 03, 2014, 06:49:46 PM »
Been looking at my Type 23 and thinking of options such as Phalanx port and starboard on an enlarged deck house forward of the funnel (also replacing the 30mm), 21 round RAM launcher on the hanger roof, a 16 cell Mk41 VLS in place of the Seawolf VLS forward, Mk-45 5" replacing the Mk 8 4.5" and 8x Milas ASW missiles in the break between the forward and aft superstructure blocks.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #27 on: August 17, 2014, 11:26:06 PM »
Been reading more Brown and was surprised at the price of the Type 82, 16m Stirling vs 12m for a Sheffield (don't have a pound key) with the price expected to drop for follow on hulls.  Switching from the RAN to the RN for the moment it got me thinking that the RN would have been better off continuing with the more capable Bristol even if it did result in a reduction in hull numbers.  This would especially be the case if the UK had built all 6 planned through deck cruisers or had previously gone for the Escort cruiser design before switching to the Invincible (perhaps improved as a result of lessons learned) with a total of eight carriers covering ASW and Commando roles.  I like the idea of a double ended Batch 2 Type 82 with a hanger and a switch to the RN style Ikara launcher in place of the Limbo.

To support the Bristols and escort cruisers / Invincibles the RN could have gone for a cheaper (still) Type 42 (single 909 etc.) as a replacement for the Tribal class sloops and built additional, improved Type 21 while cancelling the Leander modernisations and selling them.  With the escort cruisers in production the Phantomisation of Ark could have been cancelled as well as the conversion of Hermes into a Commando / ASW carrier, with Ark, Eagle, Hermes and Victorious all being sold from the late 60s through to mid 70s as viable conventional carriers (including one of them to Argentina ;D).  Harriers could have been used from the Escort cruisers from the early 70s resulting in a much more sorted Sea Harrier being available earlier. 

The Counties could be modernised as ASW cruisers with and enlarged flight deck and hanger replacing the Sea Slug director and existing small hanger, RAN style Ikara in a built up quarter deck in place of the Seaslug launcher, Seawolf replacing Seacat with launchers fitted in B position between the Exocets and on the new hangers roof.  The crew would have been reduced significantly by these changes.  Type 22 would still have been developed but due to the ASW capability of the Bristols, Sea King helos from the carriers and Counties they could have been delayed and developed from the start as a more capable GP platform to replace the modernised Counties.  They would have basically been similar to the Batch III but with Ikara in B position and the forward Seawolf launcher deleted in favour of a pair on the hanger roof.

The Falklands still happens with Argentina believing they have the edge with the ex Ark Royal flying Super Etendards and modified Knox class FFGs (Balearles class) but the RN with Sea Harriers flying from 4 Escort Cruisers and 1 Invincible deployed to the South Atlantic.  The result is basically the same except there are more Seadart and Seawolf ships and fewer Seacat, there are also more Seaharriers, Harriers and helicopters embarked making the UKs job easier although it is realised that there is a need for specialist Commando Carriers and larger ships to replace the Escort Cruisers.  The RNs losses are all Type 21, Type 42 and STUFT.

Type 23 follows pretty much as it did in the real world as a replacement for the Type 21 and remaining Leanders, the Type 43 is built as a replacement for the early Bristols, and thee Type 44 as a replacement for the Type 42.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #28 on: August 28, 2014, 09:47:08 PM »
Ok decided what to do with the Type 23. 

The Type 23 is successful for the patrol frigate tender that became the ANZAC class over the actually selected Meko 200.  Instead of a shortened hull the RAN opts for the full size platform identical to that of the RN, but with economies achieved in systems fit, on the basis steel is cheap and air is free.  The basic ship is tailored to suit the RAN spec with the Mk8 4.5" gun replaced with eighter a 3" Oto Melara (licence produced in Australia) or a 5" Mk45 (the Oto Melara 5" being too heavy).  The Seawolf deckhouse is the same as the RNs but only 8 cells are fitted with space and weight remaining for the other 24.  Harpoon is not fitted, nor are torpedoes but space and weight is reserved for both.  As the hanger was large enough the class was able to employ the refurbished RAN FAA Sea Kings as well as the Seahawks, with the Sea Sprites never being ordered.

The sensor suite and combat system is pretty much the same as the real ANZACs.  During the late 2000s HMAS Perth trialled a CAE phased array radar system, this proved a success and formed the core of a mid life enhancement for the class that included replacement of Seawolf with either CAAM or ESSM and the retrofit of an additional 24 cells forward and 12 adjacent to the hanger for CAAM and a 16 cell point defence length Mk41 for 64 quad packed ESSM (which I go for depend on what I can find to fit). Harpoon had been retrofitted earlier as had torpedoes.  The biggest change visually was the tall mast housing the new phased array radar and capped with a Vampir IRST as part of the ASMD upgrade which also upgraded the combat system.  For the ESSM variant I am thinking of deleting Harpoon and fitting RAM on a new structure between the bridge and the VLS deckhouse and another on the hanger roof.  Phalanx 1B would be fitted forward of the funnel port and starboard.  The Upgrade would also include a TAS and upgraded facilities for a Merlin helicopter.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #29 on: December 29, 2014, 11:34:26 PM »
I am getting a little bit frustrated having decided to modify my 1/600 County, Amazon and possibly Suffolk, as there are literally no accessories available to use.  You can get almost anything in 1/700 or 1/350 in the way of weapons, launchers, systems, fittings etc. but not the ships I'm after to modernize.  I have, or can get the ships in 1/600 but not the accessories  :icon_twisted:

Anyway looking at a number of Veteran Models accessories for my Type23 ANZAC and am trying to decide whether to go for the initial for but not with ship or the latter ASMD equivalent. 

Back story is RAN gets their way and the Type 23 is selected as the new patrol frigate, one of the deciding factors is the designs ability to operate the RANs Sea Kings.  There is a lot of for but not with used , for example only eight Sea Wolf and one director are fitted and the Vickers Mk8 has been replaced with a Mk-75 3" gun.  A lot of ballast is used to reserve weight for future upgrades.  The biggest visual difference to the RN version is a new forward deckhouse, containing the Sea Wolf rounds, extends all the way to the bridge.

The new deck house is designed with sufficient depth into the hull to take 32 strike length Mk-41 VLS in place of Sea Wolf.  The gun can be upgraded to a Mk-45 5"/62, there is space for a 21 round RAM launcher forward of the bridge and another on the hanger roof, two Phalanx 1B forward of the funnel p&s, Harpoon (or similar) between the forward superstructure and funnel, a pair of Mk-38 25mm guns aft of the bridge wings and Nukla on the starboard side of the hanger.  A new mast incorporates CEAFAR and Vampir.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #30 on: December 30, 2014, 07:05:50 AM »
White Ensign Models in the UK did a good range of 1/600th resin and etch specifically for the purposes of upgrading the post-war Airfix kits. Unfortunately, they've just gone bust. On the upside, a new guy has apparently bought the rights to all their own-brand products and intends to put them back into production, but where and when is anyone's guess at the moment.

From here: http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,39729.0/highlight,ensign.html

Quote
(Facebook announcement)

From the new owner of WEM resin & PE products:

"I am very pleased to announce that Tom's Modelworks has purchased the inventory and the rights to manufacture White Ensign photo-etch sets, resin kits and accessories. White Ensign has made outstanding products over the years and, being a modeler myself, I am happy to be able to continue to offer them to the modeling community. I am not yet certain how this will operate or exactly when all the WEM products will again be available but I will work to make it sooner rather than later. John Snyder and Dave Carter have graciously been assisting in the transition and I wish to publicly thank them for that.

"Once I am further along with this I will clarify how and where these great products will be available. In the meantime, I ask for your patience.

 Sincerely
 Richard Harden"


WEM's old website is still up, so you can at least see what might be available again one day: https://www.whiteensignmodels.com/c/1600+Scale+Photo+Etch/43/1/

I'm sure they used to do resin Seacats and the like, but they went off the website before they went bust.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2014, 07:11:36 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 Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #31 on: December 30, 2014, 07:27:50 AM »
The other option is Shapeways, who 3D print items to order that users submit for sale. Here's one example of 1/600th naval bits, there may well be more:

http://www.shapeways.com/shops/bogeysbits?section=1%2F600+Scale&s=0

Another one, and this one's Aus as well (I think). Loads more in their shop:

http://www.shapeways.com/model/2060583/1-600-modern-naval-weapons-pack.html?li=shop-results&materialId=61

From the description of the 1/700th equivalent:

[/quote]The pack includes; 2x 64 Cell Mk 41 VLS, 4x 32 Cell Mk 41 VLS, 8x 8 Cell Mk 41 VLS, 4x Phalanx CIWS, 4x SeaRAM, 4x Mk 32 Triple Torpedo Launchers, 4x Mk 29 ESSM 8 Cell Launcher, 8x Mk 141 RGM-84 Harpoon Quad Launchers, 4x Ikara Torpedo Launchers, 6x Nulka Countermeasure Missile Launchers, and 12x Typhoon / Mk 38 Mod 2 Weapon Systems.[/quote]

« Last Edit: December 30, 2014, 07:50:14 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: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #32 on: December 30, 2014, 05:09:47 PM »
Thanks for that, I actually dropped into WEM looking for 1/600 accessories yesterday and saw that they had closed up shop, very sad.  I have only ever placed one order with them but was impressed and was going back to spend some Christmas money when I saw the notice.

I was looking for a Mk-13 GMLS and appropriate directors for my County but some bits for my Amazon would be good too.  After failing to find anything suitable in 1/600 I decided to check out 1/350 accessories for my Type  23, with much more success.

I wonder if the 1/700 Grey Goose SGB will ever be available?

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #33 on: December 31, 2014, 12:45:22 AM »
You could probably scratch a passable Mk.13 in 1/600th. I've been a bit surprised how "approximate" some of the parts in mainstream injection-moulded kits are.
"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: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #34 on: January 08, 2015, 12:17:02 AM »
It just dawned on me what to do with the Batch III Type 22, especially as Orange hobby make an affordable model of Campbelltown, Mk-48VLS either side of the funnel as per Canada's Halifax Class. This could later be upgraded to Mk-57 which increases the number of missiles from eight per launcher to twelve and the former Seawolf launcher foundations could then be used for either Phalanx or RAM. 

Maybe Goalkeeper could be deleted and its position taken by Super Ikara canisters and the Mk-8 would definitely be replaced with a Mk-45.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #35 on: January 11, 2015, 04:31:37 AM »
In the event I ever win lotto I have just discovered Atlantic Models, that does a beautiful but hideously expensive 1/350 resin HMS Glamorgan, also does a Leander, a Type 41 and is currently developing a Type 81 and an Amazon.

http://atlanticmodels.net/kits.html


Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #36 on: January 11, 2015, 04:57:21 AM »
If I decide to start ordering resin ships from OS I should actually be able to cover most of my RAN whiffs from WWII onwards.  This includes my new cunning plan, Australian built County Class cruisers completed during and shortly after WWII. 

The original pair of Counties were identical to the actual Australia and Canberra but, being built at Cockatoo Island, were not completed until the early, for the first, and mid, for the second, 30s.  Then, instead of buying the three Modified Leanders, Australia modifies the County design into a 6" light cruiser with four triple 6" turrets and six to eight twin 4" together with a similar superstructure profile and layout to HMS London, the only County Class cruiser rebuilt pre war.  Australia, Canberra and London are all available from Combrig in 1/700 and possibly 1/350.

During the war construction of the cruisers continues with the final iteration of the County design being completed post war with the latest radars three or for triple 6" and four to eight 4.5" twin BD.  These ships may be converted to missile cruisers but there are also a couple of incomplete hulls that could be completed as missile cruisers or even with the twin Mk26 6" and Mk6 3" as used on the Tigers, the late war ships could also be updated with these.

Post war plans for the RAN initially included cruisers however no suitable ships were available from the UK, local production was proposed but probably unrealistic and the RANs remaining ships had seen hard war service although Australia and Hobart were retained for some time.  I believe the original plan was two cruisers (preferably Tigers) and six destroyers (Battles / Darings) per carrier, in my alternate there would be sufficient new local construction to provide four modern cruisers to support two carriers, plus a fifth (and sixth) to serve as a training ship(s).  These ships would be upgraded extensively during their service, and like there USN equivalents, retired in the 70s and replaced by ...... Escort Cruisers / Modified Invincibles / Modified Bristols / Virginia Class CGNs / Ticonderoga Class CGs / something else TBD.  Maybe half the cruisers are replaced by helicopter / STO/VL carriers and the others by an air warfare platform.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #37 on: January 26, 2015, 03:47:48 AM »
Boredom leads to reading, reading leads to thinking and thinking leads to me boring the rest of you with an update to this thread.  Most of what follows I have known for years but what I am trying to do is lay out the facts and where possible workout the thinking, therefore determine possible alternatives.

RAN post war destroyer plans were for two Group 3 Battle class destroyers an four AC Daring class destroyers.  Two of the three war built Tribal class destroyers were to be converted into ASW destroyers while four of five transferred Q class destroyers were converted to Type 15 ASW frigates.  Twelve Type 12 ASW frigates were planned but only four ordered, another pair, incorporating a number of Leander class features were ordered later as replacements for HMAS Voyager, a Daring class destroyer lost in a collision with the carrier HMAS Melbourne. 

The fourth Daring, HMAS Waterhen, was broken up on the slips following cancellation in 1954, ironically to free up funding for the RAN to maintain a two carrier force, which, as I understand it, had already been done away with by that time.  The intention had also been to retain either one or two of the surviving three cruisers as well as acquiring suitable new ships, this did not occur and even plans to use HMAS Hobart and possibly HMAS Australia as training ships did not occur.  Also during the 1950s the RAN were concerned at the schedule slips on the Darings so attempted, unsuccessfully, to buy two Darings from the RN and even looked at acquiring US built ships.  I am not sure what the planned fleet size was for the late 50s going into the 60s, but I do know in the late 60s the minimum required number of destroyers was set at 23.

The next major evolution for the RAN was the acquisition of guided missiles for air defence.  Options including converting the Modified Leander class light cruiser HMAS Hobart into a missile ship, as well as a smaller, Tartar armed, steam powered version of the County class DLG and the USNs Bronstein class FFG were all considered while the UK offered a standard County, or even an Escort Cruiser design as alternatives.  The selected option, once the preferred Tartar County was ruled out by the RN, was for two, then three US built Charles F Adams class DDGs, with consideration given to a fourth.  Major modifications, including the incorporation of a flight deck and hanger for a Wessex helicopter, were considered but not proceeded with, the only major change being the replacement of ASROC with Ikara. 

From what I have read it appears that the RAN, having had access to the test information on Sea Slug, as many trials had been conducted at Woomera in South Australia, was not at all impressed with the system.  Other factors that may have had an impact on the preference for Tartar were, the RN had originally intended to acquire the system themselves, its compact size, compared to Sea Slug and Terrier, as it had been planned to convert not just the Daring class destroyers, but also the Battle class destroyers into DDGs.  The conversion of these five ships would also have kept local yards busy for most of the 60s, which along with the cost factor usually brought up would explain the decision to build the ships off shore.

Now back to my subtlety different RAN, Waterhen is completed as planned while the RN transferred two AC Darings to the RAN in the late 50s.  Two plus two CFA class DDGs would be ordered from the US, while Australian yards would convert the two Battle class and six Daring class destroyers into Tartar DDGs.  The Battles would land all their torpedoes, Bofors and Squid for a single Mk-13 launcher two directors and a3D radar, while the Darings would also lose their after 4.5" and Limbos but gain Ikara in addition to Tartar.  The cruiser HMAS Hobart may also have been converted into a CLG , possibly as an experimental conversion prior to the destroyer work.

Now with four new and eight converted DDGs, a CLG, four Type 12 and four Type 15 ASW frigates in addition to the two carriers, the RAN is in pretty good shape going into the 70s.  They are only two hulls down on the required 23 destroyers / combatants but the CLG , Type 15s and Battles are at this point getting pretty old while the carriers are really too small to operate a sufficient number of modern aircraft.  This should have been foreseen therefore a solution would have been to acquire Hermes when offered in 1965 for transfer in 1968, but then to have also requested Centaur  but changed this to Victorious after her last commission was cancelled and two have requested two, or maybe all three tiger class cruisers giving the RN the cash they needed to build the first of the planned Escort cruisers.

The carriers would have operated the Trackers and Skyhawks ordered for Melbourne and Sydney plus Sea Vixens that came with the carriers and Tracers ordered with the Trackers.  The Tigers would be converted into CLGs with the Tartar systems removed from Hobart and the Battles, while a new class of destroyers would be built to replace the Type 15s, Battles and older British built Darings.  These new destroyers need not be DDGs but would have modern GT propulsion and helicopters, DDL or Tartar Shefield would be good but an evolved Amazon would do as there were so many missile ships in the fleet already, what I would really like is something like a Spruance.  An enhanced version of whatever was built would then be developed to replace the Darings and Type 12s in the 80s and the CFAs in the 90s.  Maybe instead of eight DD and twelve DDG,there could be ten of each.  Also thinking either Melbourne or Sydney would be retained as a training / reserve carrier and the other converted into an LPH.

There would also be a full flotilla of ten Oberon class submarines acquired, with the last four built locally in the 80s before switching to a new design, based on the USN Barbel class, to progressively replace the Oberons in a continual build of five boats a decade.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #38 on: March 24, 2015, 08:55:51 AM »
The answer to how to do an RAN Type 22
http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery/ff/hms/Type22-700-nk/index.htm

This is obviously someone else's model but very similar to what I have been rambling on about for months. 

Following the previous paragraph these ships would be built in the mid to late 80s, early 90s as a follow on for the Amazons and Sheffields, replacing the Type 12s and possibly the remaining Darings although a second batch of Sheffields would be more appropriate.  The CEAFAR, VLS and RAM would be MLU outfit, wondering whether the original fit should be Sea Wolf (possibly VLS) or NATO Sea Sparrow (Mk29 launcher), would definitely go 76mm or Mk45 5" rather than an additional calibre for the Mk8 4.5".

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #39 on: July 12, 2016, 10:35:03 AM »
Interesting news

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4179

Chile is upgrading their Type 23s with Tactical length Mk-41 and ESSM.  I can't wait to find out more about this and the final configuration they decide on.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: A very subtle alternate RAN
« Reply #40 on: September 05, 2017, 10:24:01 PM »
Warship 2017, which I have just acquired on Kindle, has an article on the cancelled RAN DDL project that has reignited my interest on this topic.

The additional info provided included that the RAN considered the USN Knox class as well as a possible co developed Far East fast Sloop proposed for the RN as options for the DDL requirement before deciding a local project was the way to go.  Overseas designs were reconsiders throughout the development for the DDL, including the Type 42, 21 and 22 from their inception, as well as the Dutch Tromp and the US Patrol Frigate, that evolved into the FFG-7.  All were seen as too large, too expensive, and in the case of the Type 22, too specialised, Type 42 was perceived to be the best fit and the PF the worst.

As the RAN came to realise their requirements were incompatible with the size platform they specified, i.e. short (preferably medium) range SAM, medium calibre gun, two helicopters, ASW torpedos and possibly Exocet and or Ikara, on 1800 tons, they initially investigated developing different variants on a common hull before finally deciding a larger hull was needed.  The variants were intended to be :
- a GP version with two Mk45 5" guns (situated fore and aft), Sea Sparrow, Dutch Radars, two triple torpedo tubes and two helicopters.
- an air defence version with one 5", the helicopter facilities and Sea Sparrow replaced with Standard (probably with a Mk-22 launcher)
- an ASW version with one 5", Ikara, torpedos etc.
It was realised that increasing size and capability, while reducing numbers planned, would be better value for money than multiple specialised vessels.  This led to the DDL that was actually ordered, with its platform based on the Type 42 (with a bit of Amazon in it), mostly US weapon systems and predominantly Dutch sensors.  Mk-22 was initially planned but the extra cost of the larger capacity Mk-13 was negligible so was adopted while space and weight was reserved for Exocet and despite artists impressions at the time, the planned helicopter outfit was two Lynx, not a single Wessex.

In the end the DDL was cancelled due to perceived scope creep and cost increases and the US PF was ordered on the drawing board instead.  Ironically, not only was the FFG-7 less capable than the DDL, it turned out to be more expensive, made worse by the fact they were built over seas and provided no stimulus to the Australian Economy, also resulting in the loss of most of Australia's strategic ship building capability.  The RAN ended up with two ships, that did not meet requirements, instead of three purpose designed vessels, for pretty much the same money.  Yes I know inflation played a part but most of the cost increase on the DDL was due to changing requirements and definitely not scope creep, with the end of the Confrontation the RAN no longer needed a patrol "Sloop" but a proper, multi role, blue water combatant, to have stuck with the original requirements would have been a colossal waste of money.  In hindsight the DDL was not only what the RAN needed but probably closer to what the RN needed in the Falklands.

Now facts aside my take is as follows:
-The RAN needed new combatants to replace war built tonnage
-The confrontation had ended therefore something more than a patrol frigate or sloop was needed.
-Australian yards were familiar with UK designs and building techniques
-The Perth Class DDGs had demonstrated the superiority of US weapons systems
-The Dutch systems used on the Daring upgrades and later River Class DEs had proven very successful
-The RAN was concerned about manpower costs and availability.

Now the Wiff:
-The initial requirement is met by local construction of an improved Type 21 frigate with (Mk-45 5" and Sea Sparrow) to replace the aging Type 15 frigate conversions
-These are followed by an improved Batch I/II Type 42 with Mk-45, Mk-13 etc. to replace the Tribal and Battle Class destroyers
-Improved Batch III Type 42 (Mk-26 GMLS) are then built to replace the Daring class DDG conversions
-Finally the River class DEs/Frigates are replaced with modified Batch III Type 22s with Mk-41 and NATO Sea Sparrow (eventually replaced with quad packed ESSM)

This timeline gets me the British hulls I want so much from the late 70s / early 80s to the mid to late 90s and will slot in quite nicely with some of my other ideas.  The numbers could be anything from three of each type (four being the most likely) to two batches of three or four of each if they are relacing full flotillas of eight ships in each role.  It also tails quite nicely into a modified DDG-51 design replacing the Perth Class DDGs in the late 90s, modified Type 23s replacing the modified Type 21s and either Modified F123/124, F-100, or Type 45 (all with AEGIS of course) replacing the Type 42s.