Author Topic: A very subtle alternate RAN  (Read 15470 times)

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.