Commonwealth Naval projects

[Weaver]

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.

True, although they'd lose the medium gun capability that other users than Canada and the US consider essential.

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.

Ikara wouldn't fit as a straight swap, but I see no reason why you couldn't design it in in that position. Ikara loads horizontally from an adjacent deckhouse, so putting the latter under a flight deck is a good move: you can see jut this thinking in the Brazilian Niterois.

A Mk.13 aft of the flight deck would probably be possible.

Ikara wouldn't launch from a Mk.13: it was oval in section with manually fitted wings. There was a plan for a Mk.II Ikara which would have folding wings and a turbojet and would launch from a fixed box, which would all be much simpler. Oto-Melara were the partners on this study, and when it was cancelled, much of the work went into the Franco-Italian MILAS missile, which is basically an OTOMAT with it's warhead, radar and half it's fuel tank replaced by a torpedo.

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'.

Hmm, that has potential: if you had a DDH, a DDG and a CVV all covered by the same agreement, you might indeed be able to work out some kind of deal where everybody got workshare but with each type being built by one nation's yards, thus allowing the Learning Curve to work.

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.

Doubt it: the FFG-7s (and all previous USN frigates for that matter) were always about numbers over quality in order to do "sea control" tasks like convoy escort and wide-area ASW. The USN had the Spruance and it's derivatives for "fleet" work in support of power-projection missions.

The Commonwealth Iroquois wouldn't be a substitute for all Commonwealth ASW ships because it's too big and expensive. You'd still need a smaller, more numerous "Leanderish" design for economic peacetime patrol and wartime area coverage. One useful model might be to have the Iroquois act as Flotilla Leaders with three or four attached small frigates, each of the latter having towed arrays, Ikara, Seawolf and medium gun on a small hull but with no helo of their own. It might then make more sense to take the medium gun off the Iroquois in favour of an area air-defence capability. 

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.

Well the RN and the Canadian Navy work pretty closely on sonar anyway: the towed arrays fitted to some Leanders were actually Canadian devices given RN "Type" numbers. Auz and NZ would probably want to go their own way, but then they always have, given that their water conditions are WAY different to the North Atlantic.

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.

But the post-TRUMP CIWS fitted for Gulf Ops was fitted where the centre funnel used to be IIRC. Was the back edge of the hanger roof really strong enough to support a CIWS? A lot hangars, particularly big Canadian ones, are pretty lightly built to avoid topweight problems.

I suppose the gas resistance of a CIWS depends on the CIWS design. Phalanx's dome seems to be pretty robust and weatherproof: I wouldn't like to try putting Goalkeeper right behind a low funnel!

[DarrenP]

Goalkeeper need below deck fittings whereas phalanx can be bolted to the deck and wired in so Phalanx would be a better option.
As to Sea Wolf VLS could the front end of the Iorquois be stretched and an arrangement like on the Type 23 made with the gun then sea wolf and finally the Harpoons in front of the bridge. And AFT Ikara and a Towed Array Sonar? Ok there is the danger that the stretched Type42's ran into of stresses on the foward end of the hull causing cracking.

[DarrenP]

Had the inital idea for the RAN, RNZN & RN then when I posted them. I thought for the RCN one to reposition the Harpoons

[DarrenP]

RAN Bunurong Class DDH


RCN Haida Class DDH


RNZN Te Kawerau Class DDH

[Weaver]

Oh well done Darren - nice one (s)!

Makes me realise something else though: if it had VLS Seawolf, then:

a) The VLS array would probably take up all the space from the bridge to the turret,

b) It would need two Type 910 Seawolf tracking arrays fore and aft for 360 deg coverage: the aft one would have to sit where the Phalanx gun is on the post-TRUMP Iroquois.

[DarrenP]

Yes had figured that out as well also the 6 round launcher obscures the forward vision from the Bridge. Though Phalanx could go on the hanger roof abaft the funnel where the satcom dish is. And the Radar will fit. If you took the Ikara off then the Harpoons could go in its position

[Weaver]

Yes had figured that out as well also the 6 round launcher obscures the forward vision from the Bridge. Though Phalanx could go on the hanger roof abaft the funnel where the satcom dish is. And the Radar will fit. If you took the Ikara off then the Harpoons could go in its position

The six-round launcher also needs a ready-use missile store and working access & space for the reloading party (all those doors under a Type-22's bridge). If you had Phalanx abeam the funnel, where the satcom dishes are, then you could have the smaller RN-type satcom dishes on the side of the mast. If the forward Seawolf tracker was above the bridge, then you could have Harpoon behind it, in a similar installation to a Type-22 batch 3.

Something that always puzzled me about Canadian Sea Sparrow: the launchers come out of the sides of the deckhouse thus allowing it to be mounted under a radar or weapon, and yet in the only actual installation of it it's put in B-position, on the centreline, just like a regular launcher, with nothing on it's roof because it would obscure the view from the bridge. My inclination would have been to put it amidships, just forward of the mast, thus freeing up B-position for something that actually needed it.

[Silver Fox]

Great profiles!

That early Sea Sparrow launcher was manpower intensive... maintenance wise. I think it went in the 'B' location simply so it could be serviced... probably why it also only got installed on one class. There was a rumour that the US looked at it for the Iowa class, apparently the weather shield would have protected the missiles from blast effects during main battery firing. Interesting thought.

[DarrenP]

That might work weaver though top weight and obstructing radar arcs might be an issue. Though when you remove the sparrow radar's it does give plenty of room on top of the bridge and main mast space is saved fitting a type 967/8 at the top of the mast. On the Hanger roof then is the issue of getting clearence of the Type 910 over the launcher and again access for the crew and ready missiles to the hangar roof though maybe not a problem with VLS.
Some of the top weight may be saved by cutting the number of Sea Kings to 1 or carrying Lynx instead.

[Silver Fox]

Narrow the hangar and add VLS cells down either side? That would be interesting!

I had wondered about a less drastic TRUMP, without the role conversion from ASW to AAW. Keep the 127mm in the A slot, replace the Sea Sparrow box launcher with a VL Sea Sparrow as fitted to the Halifax frigates. You would need some standoff from the bridge front... but could be a good fit.

Humurous to imagine a 280 DDG with no helo facilities. You get a lot of available displacement to play with and space. Big VLS array aft? CIWS in B and X positions? You would definitely want Ikara then... gotta have some standoff ASW capability!

[DarrenP]

or Sea Dart or Twin Standard Launcher like the Bristol Type 82 destroyer instead of Hangar and a landing spot!

[Silver Fox]

The real shame is a lack of CL-84 tiltwing variants to operate out of those hangars!

Ah! The joys of whiffery, I can dream about such things.

[DarrenP]

RN Iceni Class DDH



RN Brigante Class DDG

[Thorvic]

Love the topic, any chance of the profiles based around the original configuration ?

Dont forget the UK variant would more likley have a plated mast of possible different configuration.

If the Hanger was configured to a Single seaking then you could use the offset side for VLS missiles in a similar fashion to the Karel Doorman class the Dutch had.

Alternately there was also the light weight seawolf launcher which could be installed behind the bridge.

Now who is going to build them ? 

G

[DarrenP]

I do like the original Funnel configuration but it gets in the way of adding systems.
Yes the single hangar/VLS is a good option for all nations. The lightweight 4 round launcher might be an option or maybe a 2 round power loaded system infront of the bridge.
The DDG has no hangar just a landing platform but the space would be taken over by accomidation to replace some lost to the sea dart system/magazine.
Engine plant as sugested tyne/olympus or tyne/spey.