Type 84 Destroyer

[Weaver]

Okay, this is a ROUGH profile, using Shipbucket, of what I intend to build, given half a chance. Basically, it's a super-Type 82 on a Spruance hull. This is NOT a polished, finished, all-railings-in-place profile, rather it's just an "elevation fit-check". Next step is a vertical fit check, but that will require the models and some templates.





Rough spec:

Powerplant: 4 x Olympus

Armament: 1 x twin 3" Mk.8 (hypothetical), 2 x twin Sea Dart SAM launchers, 2 x quad Seacat Mk.2 SAM launchers (to be replaced with VLS Seawolf when available), 2 x single Ikara ASWM launchers, 2 x triple STWS ASW torpedo tubes (not shown).

Sensors: Type 965 long range air-search radar, Type 992Q TI radar, 4 x Type 909 Seadart FC radars, 2 x Type 912 Seacat FC radars (to be replaced with Type 910 Seawolf FC radars when available). Ikara control by SAM radars.

Landing platform only for light helo.

[Cliffy B]

If you're interested in using a Sprucan for the hull these two designs from ship bucket might be useful.  Just seems like the Type 82 superstructure eats up too much of the hull you want to use.  It can be re-arranged for a better, more capable layout.

http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Alternate%20Universe/GB%20DD-963%20SPRUANCE%201%20AU.gif
http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Alternate%20Universe/GB%20DD-963%20SPRUANCE%202%20AU.gif

IF you want to use a Sprucan hull as the basis for this then I'd say keep the engineering/stack, missile launchers, guns, and helo positions where they are.  Their locations best utilize the available space.  Re-design the superstructure to you're liking so that it doesn't look like a Sprucan with RN armament and I think you'd have a much more capable ship.  I'm not trying to rain on your design, just offering my 2 cents on the idea.

[Weaver]

If you're interested in using a Sprucan for the hull these two designs from ship bucket might be useful.  Just seems like the Type 82 superstructure eats up too much of the hull you want to use.  It can be re-arranged for a better, more capable layout.

http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Alternate%20Universe/GB%20DD-963%20SPRUANCE%201%20AU.gif
http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Alternate%20Universe/GB%20DD-963%20SPRUANCE%202%20AU.gif

IF you want to use a Sprucan hull as the basis for this then I'd say keep the engineering/stack, missile launchers, guns, and helo positions where they are.  Their locations best utilize the available space.  Re-design the superstructure to you're liking so that it doesn't look like a Sprucan with RN armament and I think you'd have a much more capable ship.  I'm not trying to rain on your design, just offering my 2 cents on the idea.

That Kidd with RN weapons is unbuildable: Type 909s come on pre-equipped "offices" of a fixed size: you can't just stick the domes on any convenient bit of superstructure or mast. Note also that it doesn't have any ASW missiles. The Kidd class on which it's based has Mk.26 launchers that can fire ASROC, but Sea Dart launchers can't do the same. The Type 82 and Type 84 are both close escorts for carriers that have plenty of helos, so an all-weather, fast-reacting ASW missile like Ikara is more important for them.

It's not readily apparent from the side elevation, but my Type 84 actually does have offset stacks like a Spruance: the space next to them is used for a ships boat (narrow side) and a structure for point defence SAMs (wide side). The SAM "block" holds a Seacat Mk.2 launcher initially, but can be replaced by VLS Seawolf (which could have been developed much earlier). The Type 84's gun turret would actually be in the same position as the Spruance's, and it's aft Sea Dart in the same position as the aft Mk.26 on a Kidd. Essentially, the Spruance's hanger and flight deck are replaced by two 909 offices "superfiring" on the centreline, with an Ikara reload room under the forward one and the launchers next to the aft one. The Spruance's aft gun is then sacrificed to give a helo landing/RAS space.

In any case, the object of the exercise is not to make a Spruance with British weapons, nor to design the "best" possible ship with 20/20 hindsight: it's to make a credible super-Type 82 of early 1970s vintage. The only reason for using the Spruance hull is that it's available and the right size.

[Thorvic]

Hi Weaver

Actually there was talk of a combined Sea Dart/Ikara launcher although the drawing of the design was on a website that has now disappeared  , but some of the other early designs are shown here :-

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5525.0.html

The type 43 had offset funnels so prime case for utilising them on the Type 84 

[Weaver]

Cheers Geoff!   All interesting stuff.

As per that discussion, I can't seen how a combined Ikara/Seadart launcher would have worked either. Not only are the missiles radically different shapes, but the way they move onto the launcher and are held by it is radically different too.

It's interesting that in those designs, the Ikara magazine is shown as the horizontal RAN "hanger" type rather than the "deep vertical" type which the RN eventually adopted in response to it's requirement for a nuclear option. I seem to remember reading that Ikara never actually got nukes in service, but I can't find the info now. My design assumes it was never an option and uses the horizontal magazine off the Perth class (as donated by yourself: cheers!) although it would have room for a deep mag as an option.

Do you know of any drawings of the interior arrangement of the Perths' twin Ikara setup? Did it have two completely separate systems with two assembly rooms and crews, or were they cross-linked? I've got twin sided launchers on the Type 84, but I don't like the idea of the reloads being split left and right, i.e. I'd like each launcher to be capable of firing all the missiles if neccessary.

I've decided that the whole rear superstructure need to go up a deck as per the revised profile below, in the style of the Perths, in order to allow access down the sides of the deck: in the original scheme, you hit a solid wall of Ikara magazine/launcher blast area and 909 office as you walked past the aft funnel...

Another possibility that occurs to me in order to save crew and weight is to offset the aft 909 office and have a single Ikara launcher to one side of it, with asymetric arcs like the installation on the Aussie Leanders. The no.3 909 office would then be turned sideways to compensate, which would allow the complete aft tracker office/decoy deck moulding from the Type 42 kit to be used as the Ikara room roof (it's an almost perfect fit).



Note that Shipbucket's Ikara launcher is WAY overscale.

[Jschmus]

I found a little discussion and some photos about Ikara on the Perth class destroyers here:

http://www.aussiemodeller.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=278

[Thorvic]

I think you'll need to play with the plan view to work out the final layout as that should give you some options in how you configure it as the Spruance hull is fairly broad and with the Ikara'a you could go full width to give you more room. It will probably change slightly as you start assembly and can check out how the parts actually work with each other.

G

[biscuit]

Perth class had 2 seperate mars that which were controlled from a central position...which i can't recall the name of...my action station on HMAS Perth & Brisbane was the stbd mar putting wings on Ikara missles


mick 

[Weaver]

Perth class had 2 seperate mars that which were controlled from a central position...which i can't recall the name of...my action station on HMAS Perth & Brisbane was the stbd mar putting wings on Ikara missles


mick 

Hi Mick - thanks for your input! 

So was it the case that:

a) the missiles were stored behind the assembly room in the same 01 deck structure?

b) half of the rounds could only be fired from the port launcher and half from the starboard one? That is to say, if the port magazine ran out, there was no way to transfer rounds to it from the starboard magazine and vice versa?

[biscuit]

the missiles were stored directly behind the mars on the same deck level, I can't say for certain that the magazines were linked as we didn't go back there very often ....the missiles were stacked horizontaly in the magazines which made it very tight to get around


mick 

[Weaver]

Cheers - useful info! 

[Cliffy B]

I think the helo deck could be raised to the same level as the main deck.  It's a bit too cramped and minor weather would probably prevent flight ops.  You might want to raise it and lengthen the area by about 15' or so.  Would give you a better size deck, allow for safer flight ops, and allow for greater versatility with foreign helos.  You could then add in the hull cutouts for the mooring equipment like on the Type 42s and others giving it a nice British feel.  I think as it stands now it a bit too tight and you'd have a fairly high accident rate.

Just my two cents.

[Weaver]

Actually, the helo deck is only about 2m shorter than a Spruance's and considerably bigger than the one on HMS Bristol, which was sandwiched between a Sea Dart launcher on the same level and the limbo mortar well. I think the latter arrangement had a far greater risk of accidents than the Type 84's. Neither Bristol nor the Type 84 were/are intended to permanently house a helo of their own: the deck is mainly just there for VERTREP ops or for temporarily hosting a helo from another ship. Also, it's intended for Wasps and/or Lynxes, rather than the considerably bigger Seahawks used on a Spruance.

I don't really have the option of lengthening it anyway, since this is a proposal for a real model build using a Spruance hull, rather than just a shipbucket profiling exercise. The Spruance hull was chosen simply because it's cheap, available and approximately the right size, i.e. about 60ft longer than HMS Bristol.