HMS Bristol has been retired

[Weaver]

Hmmmm...well if it were up to me, I still think for her size, she could have found room for another Sea Dart launcher, even if they shared a magazine. That would make for a long bow but I've never had an issue with large fineness ratios.

Alternatively, leave the ASW weaponry for the frigates. Since she'd be in company with a carrier, I'm certain space could be found for some Wessex aboard the CV so Bristol could be made a double-ender.

I also maintain that her steam plant was approaching anachronistic by her lay-down date. COGOG would be my preference for commonality with the slightly later  Type 21s & 42s. Exmouth after all tested the Oly FOR Bristol so I don't see why Bristol couldn't emulate her COGOG arrangement (although with Tynes rather than Proteusi).

I don't think any of the above requires hindsight. I also don't think what we got resulted in a bad ship but this wouldn't be a what-if site without a bit of harmless speculation.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't change a thing about post-war RN frigates, but their cruiser policy? Oy.

An improved "Type 84", with 4 x Olympus, 2 x Sea Dart plus Ikara is one of my pet projects...

Yes, Bristol was distinctly short and fat by RN standards so the design could have been usefully stretched. The Counties were 13' longer (on 1' less beam), so there's no berthing/drydocking/practicality issue. The USN's Spruances had the same 55' beam as Bristol but were 56' longer!

The problem with fitting two Sea Dart systems isn't finding space for the launcher (especially if you go from Bristol's drum magazine to the T42's linear one), it's finding space for four fire-control radars. Sea Dart's greatest strength is also one of it's greatest challenges: it's range. In USN terms, Sea Dart is a Tartar-sized missile with the range of a Terrier. The problem is that, being SARH guided, you still need Terrier-size fire control radars to illuminate targets at Terrier ranges. If you're going to exploit the small size to have a smaller ship rather than a bigger magazine, then finding space for these big radars becomes proportionally more difficult.

The problem is compounded for Sea Dart by two other factors. Firstly, the nose intake means it has to have a polyrod radar seeker, with four aerials around the intake. This is inherently less sensitive than a dish aerial, so you need a bigger radar to generate enough energy to make a strong enough echo for the missile to detect. Secondly, the design of the Type 909 tried to eliminate some of the usual difficulties with radars by mounting it's transmitter directly underneath the aerial in a rotating cage hanging in a cabin rather than in a room down in the hull of the ship. Essentially, the choice was to put the rotating joint into the electrical power feed to the transmitter, rather than in the radar waveguides between the transmitter and the aerial. This means that you can't mount two 909s close together on staggered pedestals that minimise topweight: instead, you have to have a tall, staggered superstructure to support the two cabins.

Having Ikara on the escort destroyer acting as 'goalkeeper' for the carrier made a good deal of sense. Ikara doesn't have the range or non-ASW flexibility of a helicopter, but on the other hand, it's instantly available for ASW 24/7. It's never tucked up in the hangar for the night 20 minutes away from launching or in bits all over the hangar floor being maintained, it's never 30 miles away rescuing a yachtsman, chasing patrol boats while carrying the wrong loadout or scurrying home because it's out of weapons and/or fuel, and it's never at the bottom of the sea having been shot down by a guy in a dingy with an AK-47. Helos are a fragile and limited asset, and ships that depend on them for ASW with no backup have a distinct weakness IMHO. It's notable that navies who can afford to have kept ASW missiles like ASROC. The ones who discarded them were those who were forced to choose by budget pressures, and they tended to choose helos because of their versatility and peacetime ability to generate good headlines (drug busts, disaster relief, that damned yachtsman, etc...).

Re steam, three steam-powered Leanders were laid down after Bristol, as were four French frigates (Aconit plus three Tourvilles) and no less than 34 of the USN's Knox class frigates. The last of the Knoxes was laid down in August 1972, nearly five years after Bristol, so I don't think steam was exactly anachronistic by 1967, although the writing was clearly on the wall for it. I do agree though that in a Royal Navy context, another COSAG vessel after the Counties and Tribals seemed excessively cautious. However I suspect the reason lies in the fact that the first Type 82 was ordered back in 1963, when only one County had just commissioned, and the first Tribal had been in service for less than two years. COSAG was the latest thing at the time, and seemed like a reasonable, cautious hedged bet.

[zenrat]

Yup H.M.S. Victory is still a commissioned ship of the fleet *

I recall reading somewhere that one of the reasons she was still commissioned was because the de-commissioning pennant would be so long there'd be nowhere to raise it 

* Often wondered what her captain thought when that famous phone call was made from Maggie Thatcher's office at No 10 in 1982. "Prepare the Fleet for Sea" 

Just as a matter of interest, how does, from the point of view of something like an Exocet, the radar signature of a 104 gun First Rate Ship of the Line compare to that of a Type 42 Guided Missile Destroyer?

[sideshowbob9]

Yeah, I'm aware of the need for illuminators. I don't think it is an insurmountable issue for a vessel that size to find sufficient space and stability for two two-arm launchers and 4 illuminators if you eliminate the Limbo, Ikara and yes, even the 4.5inch ( ) and make her a dedicated SAM-shooter. SAM throw-weight was an area in which the RN was massively deficient.

That can hardly be said for ASW! There was simply no need to fit Bristol with ASW armaments when you have access to the carrier's Wessex (with Sea King not far away), Gannets, myriad frigates and perhaps even a Churchill class to scare the fishies. If any sub is still a threat to the carrier after that, then the USSR has gone all in and nukes are flying (or about to) anyway. Simply put, no-one else is going to contend with that lot! Bristol would be far better utilised shooting down AS-2 leakers (for example) and chucking chaff rockets out like it's November 5th rather than "leaning down" to hear Romeos with the frigates.

Ikara. I'm not at all convinced of the efficacy of Ikara but if you really must have it, I don't see why the Leander Ikara conversions couldn't be brought forward a year or so (or a hypothetical Whitby conversion if you prefer). You could even use the Countys, which are bloody useless IMO until Exocet and even then Leander conversions could handle that too. I also have to say I find your premise, Weaver, that an entire carrier battle group couldn't scrape together an Alert ASW bird to be laughable. I'm sure a Wasp could be scraped up even if every single mysteriously unserviceable Wessex, Whirlwind and Gannet in the fleet was being shoved overboard in frustration!

Regarding Bristol's steam plant, I agree with your saying it was a "cautious hedged bet". Was it "reasonable" though? Given Exmouth? They had a year to play with Exmouth before Bristol's launching. Turunmaa had been around longer than that. Counterpoint is that they would have had to order long-lead items while Exmouth was still in refit but the counter-counterpoint is the very existence of Exmouth's refit means that all-gas-turbine propulsion was a possibility. Tricky. I'm on the fence on that but the difference could be down to a matter of weeks!

[NARSES2]

Yup H.M.S. Victory is still a commissioned ship of the fleet *

I recall reading somewhere that one of the reasons she was still commissioned was because the de-commissioning pennant would be so long there'd be nowhere to raise it 

* Often wondered what her captain thought when that famous phone call was made from Maggie Thatcher's office at No 10 in 1982. "Prepare the Fleet for Sea" 

Just as a matter of interest, how does, from the point of view of something like an Exocet, the radar signature of a 104 gun First Rate Ship of the Line compare to that of a Type 42 Guided Missile Destroyer?

No idea mate 

[Weaver]

Yeah, I'm aware of the need for illuminators. I don't think it is an insurmountable issue for a vessel that size to find sufficient space and stability for two two-arm launchers and 4 illuminators if you eliminate the Limbo, Ikara and yes, even the 4.5inch ( ) and make her a dedicated SAM-shooter. SAM throw-weight was an area in which the RN was massively deficient.

I agree with dropping the 4.5". I don't buy this argument that every warship needs a medium calibre gun. There are some warships (like, y'know, huge expensive air-defence destroyers) that should never be withing gunnery range of a hostile shore. HMS Glamorgan is the relevent Falklands example in my opinion.

I think you'd have more chance of getting twin Sea-Dart plus four 909s on-board if you stretched the hull to about 550 feet and let the displacement go up to around 8000 tons (full load). The hull stretch wouldn't add much cost in itself (steel is cheap and air is free...) and it would vastly increase capability.

That can hardly be said for ASW! There was simply no need to fit Bristol with ASW armaments when you have access to the carrier's Wessex (with Sea King not far away), Gannets, myriad frigates and perhaps even a Churchill class to scare the fishies. If any sub is still a threat to the carrier after that, then the USSR has gone all in and nukes are flying (or about to) anyway. Simply put, no-one else is going to contend with that lot! Bristol would be far better utilised shooting down AS-2 leakers (for example) and chucking chaff rockets out like it's November 5th rather than "leaning down" to hear Romeos with the frigates.

Ikara. I'm not at all convinced of the efficacy of Ikara but if you really must have it, I don't see why the Leander Ikara conversions couldn't be brought forward a year or so (or a hypothetical Whitby conversion if you prefer). You could even use the Countys, which are bloody useless IMO until Exocet and even then Leander conversions could handle that too. I also have to say I find your premise, Weaver, that an entire carrier battle group couldn't scrape together an Alert ASW bird to be laughable. I'm sure a Wasp could be scraped up even if every single mysteriously unserviceable Wessex, Whirlwind and Gannet in the fleet was being shoved overboard in frustration!

The point of the 'goalkeeper' escort is to provide fast-reaction defensive responses to pop-up threats in order to let the group get on with offensive ops. If it has to 'borrow' Sea Kings from the carrier or a Wasp from a frigate, then it's not doing it's job. Furthermore, since the Type 82 wasn't given a helicopter of it's own, leaving it with no anti-submarine weapons at all would reduce it's flexibility and abilty to conduct independent ops to a severe degree. It's one thing to give a ship a bias in favour of a particular mission, but quite another to make it so specialised that it can't do anything else. The primary advantage of an ASW missile is speed of reaction. Even if you have an optimum helo situation, i.e. your own helo, rotors turning, bombed up with ASW weapons and sitting on the deck, the missile is STILL faster and will get it's torpedo on-target before the helo does.

EVERY USN cruiser and destroyer designed for the role envisaged for the Type 82 had ASROC as designed and does so to this day, even if it has very capable helicopters as well. That should tell you something. Ikara had twice the range of ASROC and could be steered in flight while ASROC was ballistic once launched.

I'm not a fan of the Ikara Leander conversions. The ships were too small for the job and the conversion costs were poorly estimated, so, combined with inflation, the cost skyrocketed to close to the price of a new frigate for each one, and they were STILL over-specialised and under spec in some respects. They lost their Type 965 radars to make space for datalink cabinets and they kept the Wasp+ Limbo for some reason instead of getting Lynx+STWS-1 like all the other Leander conversions. At the same time, we were building brand-new, larger, second-rate frigates (the Type 21s) for the 'patrol-and-presence' task formerly done by the Tribals: something that an unmodified (or lightly modified) Leander could easily have done.

For my money, here's what I'd have done with 1970s frigates:

1. Rebuild all 16 narrow-beam Leanders as Exocet conversions. This was the cheapest and easiest of the conversions and the ships would have acted as 'mutipliers' for the more modern ships, providing extra Lynxes, Exocets, 965s and towed arrays (when they became available).

2. Rebuild the 10 broad-beam Leanders along the same lines as the two built for Chile, with the gun turret retained (or replaced by a Mk., four Exocet on the stern in place of the VDS, Lynx and STWS-1. These could then have taken over the 'patrol-and-presence' mission from the Tribals.

3. Build the Type 21s as much bigger and more capable versions, along the lines of the Vosper Mk.10s built for Brazil as the Niteroi class. Mk.8 forward, two Seacats with enough reserve volume to replace them with Seawolf when available, Lynx, STWS-1, and Aussie-style Ikara magazine (since we know by now that we're not getting nukes for it) under the flight deck with the launcher on the quarterdeck.

Regarding Bristol's steam plant, I agree with your saying it was a "cautious hedged bet". Was it "reasonable" though? Given Exmouth? They had a year to play with Exmouth before Bristol's launching. Turunmaa had been around longer than that. Counterpoint is that they would have had to order long-lead items while Exmouth was still in refit but the counter-counterpoint is the very existence of Exmouth's refit means that all-gas-turbine propulsion was a possibility. Tricky. I'm on the fence on that but the difference could be down to a matter of weeks!

Some timeline issues here. Bristol was ordered in 1963, three years before Exmouth was even thought of and only two years after the first ever COSAG warship in the world commissioned (Ashanti - Tribal class). Exmouth was taken in hand for conversion in 1966, before Bristol was laid down in 1967, but she didn't recommission and begin trials until 1968, well after Bristol was started.

Exmouth was done in order to prove an all-gas-turbine engine fit to the Admiralty as much as to the Government, so there is no way they'd have consented to change Bristol's design before getting the results from Exmouth's trials. Furthermore, The Type 82 was tied to the politically contentious CVA-01 programme: nothing would be more likely to make the Treasury raise it's eyebrows and take another look than to turn round to them and say "hey you know that ship we've been telling you is perfect for our needs for the last four years? Well, we want to make some last-minute changes based on trials of a new-fangled idea that havn't actually started yet so we don't know the outcome..."

[sideshowbob9]

No, I do get the goalkeeper concept, I just don't think Bristol should have been one. She would have filled quite the gap in capability as a dedicated Air-Defence vessel and I still think the ASW paraphernalia diluted her capabilities. The RN of that period did not want for ASW platforms, of all stripes. It has been the RN niche for at least my lifetime. I don't really think experience with US (or any other navy's) cruisers are applicable here. Bristol's design case was rather too bespoke but that's IMO.

Your ideas for the Leanders are interesting, if a tad Exocet heavy. Ironically, I prefer the Leanders to have a more diverse range of outfits and capabilities - the polar opposite of my ideas for Bristol. We were never going to get enough Bristols to allow them to be generalists whereas the sheer number of Leanders affords some play, ie. a mix of general-purpose and various specialist vessels.

Regarding the Exmouth, as I said they had Exmouth, refitted, in commission for a year (and a month) before Bristol was launched. It is well within the realms of possibility for Bristol to be stopped and refitted along similar/identical lines to Exmouth prior to her going into the water. The earlier the decision would be made, the less complete Bristol would be and the easier the conversion. The RN has done far more radical things than that! I don't think it likely at all but it is possible. CVA-01 was already cancelled by this point so Bristol was already something of an experimental outlier and as for the Treasury, I believe they might appreciate the manpower savings in erasing the steam plant!

Far more unlikely what-ifs have been suggested than this. Real far.

[Weaver]

No, I do get the goalkeeper concept, I just don't think Bristol should have been one. She would have filled quite the gap in capability as a dedicated Air-Defence vessel and I still think the ASW paraphernalia diluted her capabilities. The RN of that period did not want for ASW platforms, of all stripes. It has been the RN niche for at least my lifetime. I don't really think experience with US (or any other navy's) cruisers are applicable here. Bristol's design case was rather too bespoke but that's IMO.

Well if Bristol wasn't to be a goalkeeper then what was she to be? If, as you seem to want, she was going to be an ultra-focussed area air-defence ship, then what other role could she have performed, except escorting task groups?

Why isn't the USN experience applicable: wern't they escorting carriers with CGs and DDGs, all with ASROC) whilst having plenty of ASW FFs too? The French were escorting carriers and their DDGs (Suffrens) had area-defence SAMs and ASW missiles. The Dutch were fielding ASW groups comprising a DDG plus six FFs and a supply ship. Their DDG (Tromp) had area-defence SAMs and an ASW helo. NOBODY fielded a single-purpose air-defence ship, no matter how short of hulls they were. Were they all wrong?

Your ideas for the Leanders are interesting, if a tad Exocet heavy. Ironically, I prefer the Leanders to have a more diverse range of outfits and capabilities - the polar opposite of my ideas for Bristol. We were never going to get enough Bristols to allow them to be generalists whereas the sheer number of Leanders affords some play, ie. a mix of general-purpose and various specialist vessels.

The Admiralty was very keen to get as many Exocets as possible, given the loss of carrier strike capability that was imminent. Remember that each Exocet ship only had four round and no reloads, so 26 x Leanders plus 8 x T21s (I might not be using the Counties) gives 136 rounds at sea. The real life 'Exocet fleet', as planned, consisted of 8 x Exocet Leanders*, 10 x Seawolf Leanders**, 8 x T21s and 4 x County 'Batch 2s'. That adds up to 120 rounds at sea, so my scheme really only gives a modest increase, equivalent to four ships' worth of missiles.

* 1 x Exocet Leander was never actually converted.
** 5 x Seawolf Leander conversions were cancelled due to skyrocketing costs.

My frigate fleet doesn't lose any capabilities because it still has 8 x Ikara on the 'big T21s', as well as 8 x MORE Lynxes + 10 x more gun turrets than the real life fleet. It just carries that capability spread differently around the available hulls, where it best fits, and where it isn't gonig to have to be shuffled around from one hull to another too much in future.

One of the biggest problems facing the Royal Navy in the 1970s was manning levels. Fielding 16 x SeaDart systems on eight hulls would be WAY more manpower-efficient than fielding 14 systems on 14 hulls, but the ships would HAVE to be generalists because of the inevitably reducing hull numbers.

Regarding the Exmouth, as I said they had Exmouth, refitted, in commission for a year (and a month) before Bristol was launched. It is well within the realms of possibility for Bristol to be stopped and refitted along similar/identical lines to Exmouth prior to her going into the water. The earlier the decision would be made, the less complete Bristol would be and the easier the conversion. The RN has done far more radical things than that! I don't think it likely at all but it is possible. CVA-01 was already cancelled by this point so Bristol was already something of an experimental outlier and as for the Treasury, I believe they might appreciate the manpower savings in erasing the steam plant!

I think you're grossly underestimating the cost, time and difficulty of changing a completed ship from steam to gas turbine. It took two years to convert Exmouth from steam to GT, and that was a much smaller ship and only an experimental fit, not intended for general service use. For a committment to the eight biggest surface warships in the fleet, you'd first have to evaluate the results from Exmouth (which were not unequivocally positive at first) in various committees and make a decision. Then you'd have to do all the design work to fundamentally re-jig Bristol's gearboxes, machinery spaces and uptake/exhaust arrangements, and then you'd have to tear out and scrap the brand new gearboxes, steam turbines, boilers and uptakes before fitting the new gearboxes, GTs, intakes and exhausts.

You're doing all this only ten years after the notoriously wasteful and prolonged, two-steps-forward-and-one-step-back, rebuild of Victorious, which was seared on the memory of admirals, politicians and beaurocrats. I think the Treasury would throw a blue fit, and you'd likely end up with the ship cancelled on the slips. 

If you want a COGOG Bristol, then I'd suggest you have to wind the clock back further to start the what-if, and/or make it more fundamental.

How about this:

Back in the early '60s, RCNC Greenwhich (RN's in-house ship design dept) propose that the SSGW(SeaDart)-carrying follow-on to the COSAG Counties be all-GT. The Admiralty points out that the case for gas-turbines has hardly been proved yet and it'd rather stick to COSAG, but the MoD and the Treasury are intrigued by the potential cost & manning savings. A compromise is reached: two COSAG Type 82s will be ordered, but design work will continue on an all-GT version and the last Tribal will be built with an all-GT powerplant as a trials ship.

However, delays with SSGW development and political wrangles over CVA-01 push the start of Type 82 construction back to 1967. By this time, the results from the all-GT trials with Zulu are in and the design work on the Type 84s has been done, so the Type 82 orders are converted to Type 84 orders. Bristol and her sister-ships are thus completed with COGOG plants.

[sideshowbob9]

^ Eh. I'm not really looking for an extended debate right now. I'm merely saying I would have made Bristol an all-gas-turbine air defence ship and left other roles to other platforms. I haven't changed my mind on that. You disagree with pretty much everything I've said. Cool.

I look forward to the next HMS Bristol.

[Weaver]

^ Eh. I'm not really looking for an extended debate right now. I'm merely saying I would have made Bristol an all-gas-turbine air defence ship and left other roles to other platforms. I haven't changed my mind on that. You disagree with pretty much everything I've said. Cool.

I look forward to the next HMS Bristol.

Not really: I agree with you that a smaller number of double-ended Sea Dart ships would have been better than a large number of single-ended ones, I agree that they shouldn't have had guns, and I agree that they've be better in principle if they were all-GT. I don't think Bristol could have been changed to all-GT after she'd been started in the way you suggest, but I've given you a way of getting to her being all-GT by starting the what-if earlier.

[crudebuteffective]

Im gonna be onboard her next week need any photos?

[PR19_Kit]

You are?

How did you manage that then, and why?

[rickshaw]

You are?

How did you manage that then, and why?

You've heard about how the ship breakers in Pakistan do it - bare hands.  Crudebuteffective is the UK's version of a human ship breaker...   

[crudebuteffective]

I train RN medics and every six weeks we train on the Bristol with a new intact of recruits, we've been given permission to train up till the 20th nov.

When I last asked the current CO he said that it's going as the second sea lord sees it a money blackhole.

Disappointing as despite being almost half a century old the general layout of an RN warship hasn't really changed so they training benefit the recruits get is invaluable as we can't use serving ships on a regular basis and not to the same level.

So next week is the last time we'll train onboard.
But yeah I'll take some photos next week (if these new covid restrictions don't halt training)

[PR19_Kit]

That must be very interesting, nice one.

I like Brian's 'WhatIf' version too though. 

[crudebuteffective]

The old girl, on my final visit

the last surviving fighting ship of the Falkland war

the crew on board seem to believe she has several possible fates.
museum ship, probably unlikely
turned into razor blades,
sunk as a reef, my personal preference,
sold to the yanks and sunk as a target.







The former Seadart magazine, now a lecture theatre, the rails either side of the screen took the missiles up to the launcher (now long gone)



the old turret ring



what's left of the Ops Room