What if: Tiger-class cruiser into missile cruisers

[lordroel]

What if: Tiger-class cruiser into missile cruisers

So have wondered, why not change the Tiger-class cruiser into missile cruisers, according to the the Tiger class Wikipedia page it is mentioned that they could have been turned into anti-aircraft cruisers but with the entry of the guided-missile equipped County-class destroyers this was changed to anti-submarine cruisers.

Part of the Wikipedia page about the the plan design:

mid cancellations of warship due to necessary post-war austerity the three hulls available for finishing, but reconstruction was delayed by both the Korean War and the Suez Crisis. By the time final approval was given to complete them as interim anti-aircraft cruisers in November 1954, the hulls and machinery were out of date. The guided-missile equipped County-class destroyers were ordered less than two years later, in 1956, and entered service only four years after HMS Tiger. The completion of the Tigers was political as was their later retention as anti-submarine helicopters carriers: they maintained a few more large ships and command positions, allowing the institutional structure of the old carrier-and-cruiser Royal Navy to be preserved.

So instead of becoming a anti-aircraft cruisers ore a anti-submarine cruiser, the 3 Tigers could become missile cruisers.

Picture: coming from this good site: WARSHIPS OF THE PAST: Tiger class cruisers of the Royal Navy as the Tiger class ended.

[1bigrich]

Aug 7, 2020 13:11:12 GMT lordroel said:

What if: Tiger-class cruiser into missile cruisers

So have wondered, why not change the Tiger-class cruiser into missile cruisers, according to the the Tiger class Wikipedia page it is mentioned that they could have been turned into anti-aircraft cruisers but with the entry of the guided-missile equipped County-class destroyers this was changed to anti-submarine cruisers.

Part of the Wikipedia page about the the plan design:

mid cancellations of warship due to necessary post-war austerity the three hulls available for finishing, but reconstruction was delayed by both the Korean War and the Suez Crisis. By the time final approval was given to complete them as interim anti-aircraft cruisers in November 1954, the hulls and machinery were out of date. The guided-missile equipped County-class destroyers were ordered less than two years later, in 1956, and entered service only four years after HMS Tiger. The completion of the Tigers was political as was their later retention as anti-submarine helicopters carriers: they maintained a few more large ships and command positions, allowing the institutional structure of the old carrier-and-cruiser Royal Navy to be preserved.

So instead of becoming a anti-aircraft cruisers ore a anti-submarine cruiser, the 3 Tigers could become missile cruisers.

Picture: coming from this good site: WARSHIPS OF THE PAST: Tiger class cruisers of the Royal Navy as the Tiger class ended.

That's a very nice image of Blake.

Personally, I think the helicopter conversion was a waste of resources, they should have stayed gun cruisers.    But the ability to operate four large, ASW helicopter was unique in the West./   Only Vittorio Veneto could similarly operate four Sea Kings (though she frequently operated nine AB 209/212 helicopters, IIRC. 

Personally, I think a missile conversion would wind up another RN financial sink that would be better served by new ships.   The missile would likely be a Sea Slug, and the early "some assembly required" missiles required massive space.  As an aside, I've been aboard Little Rock, preserved as a museum ship.   The Talos assembly area is huge; it's little wonder it was kept above the main deck.

As to keeping them gun ships:  there is a gent on Warships1/NavWeaps named Peter Parkinson.   He was a veteran of HMS Tiger.   In 2000, he posted this about the 6in twin;

Author: Peter Parkinson
Date: 10-12-2000 17:15

My answer is that a Tiger class cruiser would not have useful it would have been an absolute asset.
And a Tiger as it was before they built the shed on the back of it.
Forget the unreliability tag I had two years on a tiger and the guns worked perfectly apart from slowing down the 3 inch to 90 rounds per minute per barrel.
As far as I know they still are the only RN ships capable of shooting down multiple simultaneous AA targets.
At the subic bay practice area we were invited to do a surface shoot with a USN Baltimore cruiser against a disused monastry on a hill side.
The USN cruiser fired for nearly an hour with 8 inch shells. All the hillside was covered in explosions and smoke. When the smoke disappeared the monastry was still there.
We fired four sighting rounds from one barrel on A turret. The fourth round hit the target. We then fired 9 more rounds and destroyed the target.
THis was at over 20000 yds range at a speed of 16 knots using the optical sight in A system director and an AFCB 10 in A TS.

The question was 'would Tiger have been useful in the Falklands?'    I'd note, Port Stanley Airport sits out on a peninsula, and would be very vulnerable to bombardment from the sea.

I admit, I am still fascinated by the concept of 'slowing down' to 90 rounds per minute per barrel for the 3in....

Regards,

[lordroel]

Aug 8, 2020 0:11:36 GMT 1bigrich said:

Aug 7, 2020 13:11:12 GMT lordroel said:

What if: Tiger-class cruiser into missile cruisers

So have wondered, why not change the Tiger-class cruiser into missile cruisers, according to the the Tiger class Wikipedia page it is mentioned that they could have been turned into anti-aircraft cruisers but with the entry of the guided-missile equipped County-class destroyers this was changed to anti-submarine cruisers.

Part of the Wikipedia page about the the plan design:

mid cancellations of warship due to necessary post-war austerity the three hulls available for finishing, but reconstruction was delayed by both the Korean War and the Suez Crisis. By the time final approval was given to complete them as interim anti-aircraft cruisers in November 1954, the hulls and machinery were out of date. The guided-missile equipped County-class destroyers were ordered less than two years later, in 1956, and entered service only four years after HMS Tiger. The completion of the Tigers was political as was their later retention as anti-submarine helicopters carriers: they maintained a few more large ships and command positions, allowing the institutional structure of the old carrier-and-cruiser Royal Navy to be preserved.

So instead of becoming a anti-aircraft cruisers ore a anti-submarine cruiser, the 3 Tigers could become missile cruisers.

Picture: coming from this good site: WARSHIPS OF THE PAST: Tiger class cruisers of the Royal Navy as the Tiger class ended.

That's a very nice image of Blake.

Personally, I think the helicopter conversion was a waste of resources, they should have stayed gun cruisers.    But the ability to operate four large, ASW helicopter was unique in the West./   Only Vittorio Veneto could similarly operate four Sea Kings (though she frequently operated nine AB 209/212 helicopters, IIRC. 

Personally, I think a missile conversion would wind up another RN financial sink that would be better served by new ships.   The missile would likely be a Sea Slug, and the early "some assembly required" missiles required massive space.  As an aside, I've been aboard Little Rock, preserved as a museum ship.   The Talos assembly area is huge; it's little wonder it was kept above the main deck.

As to keeping them gun ships:  there is a gent on Warships1/NavWeaps named Peter Parkinson.   He was a veteran of HMS Tiger.   In 2000, he posted this about the 6in twin;

Author: Peter Parkinson
Date: 10-12-2000 17:15

My answer is that a Tiger class cruiser would not have useful it would have been an absolute asset.
And a Tiger as it was before they built the shed on the back of it.
Forget the unreliability tag I had two years on a tiger and the guns worked perfectly apart from slowing down the 3 inch to 90 rounds per minute per barrel.
As far as I know they still are the only RN ships capable of shooting down multiple simultaneous AA targets.
At the subic bay practice area we were invited to do a surface shoot with a USN Baltimore cruiser against a disused monastry on a hill side.
The USN cruiser fired for nearly an hour with 8 inch shells. All the hillside was covered in explosions and smoke. When the smoke disappeared the monastry was still there.
We fired four sighting rounds from one barrel on A turret. The fourth round hit the target. We then fired 9 more rounds and destroyed the target.
THis was at over 20000 yds range at a speed of 16 knots using the optical sight in A system director and an AFCB 10 in A TS.

The question was 'would Tiger have been useful in the Falklands?'    I'd note, Port Stanley Airport sits out on a peninsula, and would be very vulnerable to bombardment from the sea.

I admit, I am still fascinated by the concept of 'slowing down' to 90 rounds per minute per barrel for the 3in....

Regards,

I think having one Tiger present at the Falklands either as a gun cruiser/helicopter cruiser ore missile cruiser could help a lot, especially if it could have shelled Port Stanley airlifted as you mentioned.

YouTube (Navy Gets 'tiger',1959)



Well i was thinking, after reading the thread on Secret Projects GW series of British Missile Cruisers where they talk about proposed British missile cruiser, whey not convert the Tiger class into a missile cruiser.

I would suggest have the front Vickers 3"/70 Mk6 Twin gun mount removed and instead have RSC-51 in front:



And instead of a helicopter hanger have one single twin missile launcher and a complete weapon system with one fire control set and 30 missiles at the back:

[stevep]

   lordroel ,

  I would tend to agree with 1bigrich.  Not the same level of knowledge he has on the post war navies but the early missiles were huge and heavy and a conversion to carry possibly only a few of them doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

  The gun Tiger does sound very useful, even if the basic hull is getting on by the time its created.  Not just for the bombardment of locations like the Stanley airfield.  If they have that rate of fire and a AA capacity then since, a few Exocet attacks aside the bulk of the Argentinean a/c attacked with old fashioned 'dumb' bombs I could see Tiger being a very effective killer of the enemy airforce.  True it would have been a very elderly ship by 1982 and is likely to have been cut during the period from the withdrawal from 'east of Aden' declared by the Labour government of the late 60's to the sharp cuts starting under Thatcher from 79-82.  However if its still there and in working order it could be very useful.  Plus also in earlier roles such as the confrontation with Indonesia over the latter's attacks on Malaysia.

  Steve

[lordroel]

Aug 8, 2020 10:50:46 GMT stevep said:

   lordroel ,

  I would tend to agree with 1bigrich .  Not the same level of knowledge he has on the post war navies but the early missiles were huge and heavy and a conversion to carry possibly only a few of them doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

  The gun Tiger does sound very useful, even if the basic hull is getting on by the time its created.  Not just for the bombardment of locations like the Stanley airfield.  If they have that rate of fire and a AA capacity then since, a few Exocet attacks aside the bulk of the Argentinean a/c attacked with old fashioned 'dumb' bombs I could see Tiger being a very effective killer of the enemy airforce.  True it would have been a very elderly ship by 1982 and is likely to have been cut during the period from the withdrawal from 'east of Aden' declared by the Labour government of the late 60's to the sharp cuts starting under Thatcher from 79-82.  However if its still there and in working order it could be very useful.  Plus also in earlier roles such as the confrontation with Indonesia over the latter's attacks on Malaysia.

  Steve

If the Falklands war had been a bit longer than we might have seen Blake and Tiger back into service as they where surveyed and determine that both ships where in a very good condition and were put into dry-dock (Blake at Chatham, and Tiger at Portsmouth) and round-the-clock work reactivation work immediately begun. Hover in OTL work stopped in May 1981 when it was determined that the ships would not be completed in time to take part in the war and the work was stopped.

If you look at this picture you can see HMS Blake next to HMS Devonshire with here Seaslug missile system.

[stevep]

Aug 8, 2020 11:09:01 GMT lordroel said:

Aug 8, 2020 10:50:46 GMT stevep said:

   lordroel ,

  I would tend to agree with 1bigrich .  Not the same level of knowledge he has on the post war navies but the early missiles were huge and heavy and a conversion to carry possibly only a few of them doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

  The gun Tiger does sound very useful, even if the basic hull is getting on by the time its created.  Not just for the bombardment of locations like the Stanley airfield.  If they have that rate of fire and a AA capacity then since, a few Exocet attacks aside the bulk of the Argentinean a/c attacked with old fashioned 'dumb' bombs I could see Tiger being a very effective killer of the enemy airforce.  True it would have been a very elderly ship by 1982 and is likely to have been cut during the period from the withdrawal from 'east of Aden' declared by the Labour government of the late 60's to the sharp cuts starting under Thatcher from 79-82.  However if its still there and in working order it could be very useful.  Plus also in earlier roles such as the confrontation with Indonesia over the latter's attacks on Malaysia.

  Steve

If the Falklands war had been a bit longer than we might have seen Blake and Tiger back into service as they where surveyed and determine that both ships where in a very good condition and were put into dry-dock (Blake at Chatham, and Tiger at Portsmouth) and round-the-clock work reactivation work immediately begun. Hover in OTL work stopped in May 1981 when it was determined that the ships would not be completed in time to take part in the war and the work was stopped.

If you look at this picture you can see HMS Blake next to HMS Devonshire with here Seaslug missile system.

  lordroel,

  Many thanks.  I hadn't realised they were still about in 82.

  Steve

[archibald]

But the ability to operate four large, ASW helicopter was unique in the West./ Only Vittorio Veneto could similarly operate four Sea Kings (though she frequently operated nine AB 209/212 helicopters, IIRC.

Jeanne d'Arc, cough, cough.

A big brawl & gun battle with General Belgrano would be awesome...

With all the hate against the big and cumbersome Seaslug, it would be nice for it to get an aircraft kill... imagine, the irony if it killed an Argentinian Canberra early May 1982...

Also think about HMS Antrim and South Georgia. Tiger has much more helicopters for such operation. Would be useful there.

[lordroel]

Aug 8, 2020 11:49:29 GMT archibald said:

A big brawl & gun battle with General Belgrano would be awesome...

Would she not be at the bottom of the sea at this point.

[stevep]

Aug 8, 2020 12:05:48 GMT lordroel said:

Aug 8, 2020 11:49:29 GMT archibald said:

A big brawl & gun battle with General Belgrano would be awesome...

Would she not be at the bottom of the sea at this point.

  Almost certain, as much safer to take her out by sub than let her get within firing range.

[lordroel]

Found this about the proposed Neptune-class cruiser including what i propose to do with the Tiger class:

To meet the Royal Navy's continuing requirements for new cruisers, a new design was proposed called Design Z, or the 1947 Minotaur class, to be armed with five twin 6-inch dual purpose turrets and up to eight twin 3-inch anti-aircraft guns. The twin 6-inch turret, the Mark 26, was of a new design and had a rate of fire of 20 rounds per minute per gun, while the twin 3-inch guns had a very high rate of fire and replaced both the 4.5 inch and 40 mm and 20 mm close-in batteries.[26] In 1947, it was decided that no cruisers would be built for the next five years owing to financial constraints,[27] although the requirement for cruisers remained. The design to meet these requirements was not finalised, with extensive development work expected to be required for the all-new ship's armament. Design work on the Minotaur class petered out in the early 1950s.

After design work in the late 1940s aimed at producing a "1960 cruiser" came to nothing efforts switched to a smaller design, the "Cruiser/Destroyer", to be armed with three rapid-fire 5-inch (127 mm) guns, which was abandoned in 1953. Effort then switched to guided-missile cruisers, which by July 1955 had settled on a 15,400 long tons (15,600 t) ship armed with a two twin Mark 26 6-inch turrets, two 3-inch turrets and a single Seaslug anti-aircraft missile launcher, the design was the same length as the 1951 Minotaur cruiser but with 3 ft more beam, but was limited to one Seaslug channel by a 16,000-ton size constraint and the RN decided that 984 3D radar and two 901 control channels were required for 48 conventional Seaslugs and 16 nuclear AA Seaslugs, along with a gun armament of two Mk 26 twin 6-inch guns forward and 4 twin 3-inch/70 guns. This the last RN cruiser design, 96A GWA, an 18,200 design which Mountbatten rejected on 4 January 1957, was a design somewhat influenced by USS Galveston, the Talos cruiser, with a full gun armament forward, finally commissioned in 1958 and USS Northampton, a command cruiser in its 1957, fit out of four 5-inch/54 calibre and 4 twin 3-inch/70 calibre guns which reflected the volume demanded by the magazines of the new auto guns and aW/AD radars. The three GW missile cruisers, enhanced Minotaurs in a sense, were included in the 1956 construction programme for the Royal Navy, with delivery from 1962, but they were cancelled by Chief of Naval Staff (CNS) Admiral Mountbatten and Admiral Peter Gretton after the Suez Crisis and the following UK financial crisis and revelation the Soviet Navy had abandoned its Sverdlov-class cruiser construction line under new Premier Nikita Khrushchev . Mountbatten, who became the new CNS in 1957 ordered a review of the cruiser programme immediately on 4 January 1957, believing the large cruisers were of no practical use and far too big as Seaslug GMS ship. On 16 January 1957 the cruiser design office was closed and the three 18,000-ton cruisers that had been ordered were cancelled in April 1957, along with the conversion of HMS Superb as a fourth Tiger. The new 6- and some 3-inch mounts were eventually used when three Tiger-class cruisers were completed to a new design in the late 1950s, while the County-class destroyers met the Royal Navy's requirements for a surface-to-air missile armed ship. Most of the new 3-inch/70 calibre mounts were however sold off to Canada.

Royal Navy GW9 Convoy Escort Design by Tzoli on DeviantArt



This is how i would see the Tigers.

[oscssw]

Aha HMS Tiger. I was in Hong Kong during the '70s and she was moored not far from us. Very good view of her "Flight Deck" from the China Fleet Club. Looked like it really did not belong. I spoke to some of her crew and they said that deck worked pretty well. Seldom had full compliment of "Operational" helos though. Lots of problems getting spares at that time.

[1bigrich]

Aug 8, 2020 11:49:29 GMT archibald said:

Jeanne d'Arc, cough, cough.

She usually operated as a training ship, IIRC, but she could carry four big helos, (Super Frelon?)

[/div]

A big brawl & gun battle with General Belgrano would be awesome...

With all the hate against the big and cumbersome Seaslug, it would be nice for it to get an aircraft kill... imagine, the irony if it killed an Argentinian Canberra early May 1982...

Also think about HMS Antrim and South Georgia. Tiger has much more helicopters for such operation. Would be useful there.

[/quote]

That would be interesting. Belgrano is arguably better armed and larger, but Tiger and Blake are more modern.

As for a Sea Slug kill might be hard to come by.

And it's not hate, just a fact of life. The early missiles were large and cumbersome, as often happens with new technology. Just ask Colossus, the first computer....

Regards,

[lordroel]

Aug 8, 2020 18:20:02 GMT 1bigrich said:

As for a Sea Slug kill might be hard to come by.

And it's not hate, just a fact of life. The early missiles were large and cumbersome, as often happens with new technology. Just ask Colossus, the first computer....

Regards,

If she had the Seaslug in the 1960s i would assume she would get the more modern Sea Dart later, if not have a Sea Dart mounted at the front.

[simon darkshade]

I think we might have a case of the cart before the horse here.

The salient questions are:
1.) What is gained by a conversion?
2.) What is lost by it?
3.) How much will it cost and how long will its useful life be? (the latter having a bearing on 'paying itself off' over time.

1.) When cruiser conversions/GW cruisers were discussed in the early 1950s, the RN did not have any GW ships. By the time Tiger and her sisters enter service, the Counties are on the way, bringing Sea Slug and Sea Cat to sea on a smaller platform that has more of a frontline role.
2.) By converting, you lose the main assets the Tigers had going for them: their 6" and 3" guns.

3.) This is the key matter at play. Put simply, a conversion is not enough bang for buck on a platform that has a limited service life remaining. It really comes down to cost, though. There were studies on a converted Majestic and on KGVs and Vanguard as well that went nowhere. The 1952 carrier went nowhere. Many, many other projects went nowhere. The cash was limited and channeled towards ships of best use for the major missions envisaged for the Andrew in this period.

The Tigers and fleet carriers in many ways were viewed as the 'cold war' fleet as compared to the 'hot war' ships.


Another factor is that they really weren't that large in terms of their dimensions. Sea Slug took up a lot of space, particularly lengthwise. The Neptunes or even the GW-25 1950s proposals were much, much larger and carried fewer missiles than their USN counterparts.

In the end, the helicopter conversion plus keeping their forward guns was the least worst solution.

[oscssw]

Simon did you consider the learning curve has to start somewhere?
The first two USN Cruiser to missile ship conversions were the Baltimore class Boston and Albany. They lost their #3 Eight in turret and gained a twin rail Terrier launcher. The opinion of the USN was they were a very valuable and useful step and remained first line Missile ships for a dozen years. Whole lot of hard earned OJT lessons went into the later CA,CL and DL conversions. The purpose built Longbeach CGN, DLGs and DLGNs also built on what the conversions taught.

Granted the fiscal constraints for the RN made for much tougher choices than the Cold War USN.