Commonwealth Naval projects

[DarrenP]

Given that Great Britain and Canada were both in NATO and Australian and New Zealand were part of a Joint commonwealth Brigade in the 70's. I wonder what wold have happened if they had stuck more closly militarily together.
  Yes the Type 12/Leander was widely used how about some other Commonwealth Common platforms? Immediate ideas that spring to mind are the County Class Destroyer or the Iorquois Class destroyers. Possibly both tweaked to suit commonwealth requiremants.

[pyro-manic]

Type 23 would be a prime candidate IMO. A good, cheap vessel suitable for a wide variety of roles that could be feasible for any of the Commonwealth countries. Then there's Invincible-class carriers to replace Melbourne and Bonaventure, or later the Ocean-class if the Vinnies are too costly.

[Weaver]

You could see a Commonwealth Iroquois with Mk.8 gun, VLS Seawolf in B-position (it could have been available a lot earlier than it was deployed in real life) and Ikara and triple TTs on the quarterdeck.

[DarrenP]

or the Type22 batch III would also be a good platform.  fitted with a 5in gun and possibly seasparrow or standard. It could take Sh2 or SH60 or Sea Kings.

[jcf]

DHC-MP-100 hydrofoil, a 104-ton improved design based on experience with the FHE-400 Bras D'Or. 

[Silver Fox]

The Tribal-class, as it was then known (Canada switched to US convention of using the name of the lead ship later, then they became Iriquois), would be a good platform for export... but Canada has a disturbing trend of being out of synch with current generations of ship building. The US liked the Iriquois so much many of it's features were incorporated into the Spruances.

The big problem is Canada's quite intentional decision to incorporate compatability with USN forces. The earlier Canadian classes such as Restigouche were based on Leanders... but by the time the Tribals were designed Canada was moving away from it's British Naval roots b

[DarrenP]

There is no reason that the RN/RAN/RNZN couldn't have followed the canadian design and imporved it incorperating different systems like the Mark 8 or the us 127mm gun. Seawolf launcher or VLS, Harpoon or Ikara or a variety of small calibre guns.

[Silver Fox]

It would be interesting to see what an early Tribal (before the TRUMP AAW mod) would look like with different systems. In Canadian service they carried the Sea Sparrow, 127mm gun, triple torpedo tubes and a Limbo Mk10 ASW mortar. Post Trump we have Standard SM-2 in a VLS, 76mm gun, the torps and a Phalanx CIWS. The heavy helicopter facilities create all sorts of possibilities... if you want to follow the British model of the time and use only a Westland Wasp, you have significant room aft for modifications.

It would be interesting to see how other nation's needs/philosophy might modify the design. Wonder how they would have fared in the Falklands?   

[Weaver]

The Wasp was only ever seen as an interim solution, pending the Lynx. The RN eventually adopted the principal (if not always the practice) of using heavy helos (Merlin) on frigates due to the need for long range to prosecute towed-array contacts, so you could see them going for the Iroquois' twin Sea King setup if it was available.

If the design was influenced by the RN from the start, it might have had a COGAG (2 x Olympus plus 2 x Tyne) power plant, which would give a more compact funnel arrangement and the possibility of an light weapon on the back of the hanger (as per TRUMP) from the start.

[DarrenP]

I wonder what the Australian fit would have been as they would have to be more climatically controlled for life in the pacfic as opposed to the North Atlantic. Would they have gone for Dutch radars like their type 12's. Certainly the 5in gun was different for the British and would have brought them into NATO standardisation if they had stuck with it.
I would sugest the British may have stuck with the Seaking but only deployed 1 aircraft per ship though a twin Lynx package would have given much more flexibility.

[Weaver]

In terms of effectiveness, I'd be quite happy to see a history in which the Mk.8 gun isn't built and a 5" chosen instead. I'm not a fan: it's RoF is slow and it doesn't even use the same ammo as the Mk.6.

However, if you want a Commonwealth feel to a 1970s ship, then in the absence of distinctive Aus/NZ/Canadian turrets, it's the only game in town. I supose you could put a 5" barrel in a Mk.8 turret and claim that Vickers unneccessarily re-engineered it, as they did with Ikara.... (I'd be happy to see the RN adopt the simple Aussie launcher for that too, instead of the stupid, noisy Vickers one.... )

Another gun I'd be quite happy to see on a RN ship, maybe in a Mk.8 turret shell, would be the Bofors TAK-120 120mm. it may not have the range or muzzle velocity of the Mk.8, but an 80rpm first burst? Bring it on!  Furthermore, 4.7" (120mm) is even more "traditional" for the RN than 4.5".

[Silver Fox]

The Tribals were equipped with a COGOG powerplant and the original funnel was even more compact than the TRUMP mods, there was room on the hangar roof for a lightweight weapon... but in 1972 there isn't much to choose from that offers any value. In the RW, they should have got a CIWS much earlier... cheap politicos to blame!

If the Aussies updated the airconditioning package Canada would probably have gone the exact same way. Canada has long considered the need to operate it warmer climes.

[DarrenP]

If the class had been being built in larger numbers for Australia and UK I'm sure Canada would have ordered more and possibly New Zealand as well the unit cost would certainly have been smaller with R&D costs spread. You might even have goten some NATO interest.
Agree about the 5in gun yes 4.5 has been more traditional in RN but then till mid WW2 it was 4.7in. Sea Wolf probably would have been available by late 70's in launcher. Could Sea Dart have gone in the "B" position. Ikara would give greater reach than Limbo with Torpedo tubes for close in. CIWS would probaby be single 20mm Oerlikons mounted  either side of the Bridge. Would an Anti ship missile have been mounted? would prefer Harpoon to Exocet (Hmmmm County with harpoon fit interesting thought).
What Radar and Sonar fits?

[Weaver]

The Tribals had three funnels pre-TRUMP: the two V-shaped ones and a third, low one in between the front of the helo hangers. I presume that gas from the latter is the reason why a CIWS couldn't be mounted behind it on the hanger roof. Post-TRUMP, they got a much more boring squared-off combined funnel that's much taller, which allows the gas to clear the Phalanx gun mounted behind it.

A VLS form of Seawolf was first tested in the late 1960s, but they decided to go with the sextuple launcher first, partly because it was simpler and partly because they believed (erroneously) that it would would still be refittable in Seacat installations (the volume of computers needed put paid to that).

For anti-ship missiles, as nationalistic as I am, it's hard to argue with the quad Harpoon setup. With Ikara on the quarterdeck, you could have a couple of Harpoon quads right on the stern in Tico-style, since Ikara ALWAYS launches at 55 deg elevation (another reason for adopting the simple Aussie launcher).

I doubt whether Sea Dart would go in B-position. It might go in A-position, but the real problem would be mounting the Type 909 trackers: they're integral to that rectangular deckhouse you can see mounted crossways in front of the hanger on Type-42s and I don't see where you'd fit them in a Iroquois without re-arranging it so much that it was a new design. It would probably be a better bet to devise a separate Commonwealth DDG design: it could still benefit from common systems like engines, without being compromised by a common hull.

You only get the learning-curve cost/time reductions on a big program if the building takes place at the the same one or two yards. A joint Commonwealth program would almost certainly see each country (except NZ) demanding to build their own ships, so the benefits would be reduced.

[Silver Fox]

Oops!

I missed a trick in my thought process!

I considered the DDH-280's as destroyers... but if the class was continued as frigates? Some 'TRUMP-like' (TRUMPish?) mods done in the 70's. 76mm in 'B' position and a US Mk13 launcher in 'A' position. They give up little ASW capability, perhaps none. They would be better frigates than the US OHP class ships.

Would the Ikara fit in place of the Limbo mortar? Alternately, might a second Mk13 fit? Could Ikara be rail-launched from a Mk13? I never gave much thought to what potential the class had, Canada's Navy might have looked much different if development had been driven by plans for more than just 4 ships.

Perhaps RN examples out of Canadian shipyards in exchange for something (Illustrious?) out of RN yards? With reduced costs due to greater production I can see Canada ordering a second batch to replace some of the oldest 'steamers'.

I have to oinder what effect such a program would have on US plans for the Oliver Hazard Perrys? Bigger, faster, more capable, more survivable... and not much more expensive.

Radar/Sonar fits would probably follow established national patterns. The one thing that might be a standout would be the Variable Depth Sonar tail designed in Canada. Sonar tails were pretty unusual in those days, can't see other users giving up the capability unless they had to.

Hmmm... CF Shar FRS 1 (CF-???), eventually replaced by AV-8B+ with that lovely CF-18 common radar.

Wishful thinking is so much fun!

The weird triple funnel arrangement was due to concerns about exhaust gasses affecting helo operations... by 1973 they knew it wasn't a concern. The lack of a CIWS was really just a case of being cheap. The ships sent to the Gulf in '91 got them fitted fast enough... but in simplified locations to allow rapid fitting. They knew for years that the gasses wouldn't affect a CIWS, they just never got funding to fit them and had to borrow from the equipment on hand for the Halifax frigates in '91! Rather embarrassing really.