What if: British Type 43/44 destroyer

[lordroel]

What if: British Type 43/44 destroyer

The Type 43 was a proposed destroyer class for the Royal Navy. It was intended to follow on from the Type 42 'Sheffield Class', but armed with the Sea Dart Mark II missile. The primary role of the Type 43 was to protect a task force from air-launched missile attack. There were two proposed Type 43 variants - the small variant and the large variant. The project advanced to feasibility design before being cancelled in 1981.

The Type 44 was proposed as similar to the small variant Type 43, but with enhanced anti-submarine capability.

Type 43 - Small Variant

The design for the small variant Type 43 resembled a Type 42 with one twin Sea Dart launcher forward and directors fore and aft.

Type 43 - Large Variant

The design for the large variant Type 43 had one twin Sea Dart launcher forward and one twin dart Sea Dart launcher aft with four directors. With launchers at both ends the flight deck was relocated midships between the two superstructure blocks. The helicopter hangar would have room for one Merlin or two Lynx helicopters.

Image: Type 43 (Large Variant)



Type 44

The Type 44 was proposed as similar to the small variant Type 43, but with enhanced anti-submarine capability.

Ships Of Class & Cancellation

Eight ships of the Type 43 class were proposed, but none were built as the Type 43/44 programme was cancelled by the Secretary of State for Defence John Nott in the 1981 defence review, instead four new 'Stretched Batch III' Type 42's (HM ships Manchester, Edinburgh, Gloucester & York) were built.

Image: Large Variant Type 43 Destroyer Concept

[stevep]

   lordroel ,

   Interesting ships and would have maintained a good fleet capacity longer, as well as possibly a construction basis.  Yet another disaster from Thatcher's hatred of any investment in Britain.   Let alone one of the triggers of the Falkland's war as the massive cuts she ordered gave a green light to the junta for its attack.

  Steve

[James G]

Sea Dart and Sea Wolf... wow.
In the Falklands, the RN used the combination of a 42 destroyer and a 22 frigate - Type 64 they called it - as air defence.
Both systems on one platform would have been quite interesting.

[lordroel]

Oct 10, 2020 10:50:51 GMT stevep said:

   lordroel ,

   Interesting ships and would have maintained a good fleet capacity longer, as well as possibly a construction basis.  Yet another disaster from Thatcher's hatred of any investment in Britain.   Let alone one of the triggers of the Falkland's war as the massive cuts she ordered gave a green light to the junta for its attack.

  Steve

So if these 8 Type 43/44s where build, then no 4'Stretched Batch III' Type 42's then.

[stevep]

Oct 10, 2020 11:34:10 GMT lordroel said:

Oct 10, 2020 10:50:51 GMT stevep said:

   lordroel ,

   Interesting ships and would have maintained a good fleet capacity longer, as well as possibly a construction basis.  Yet another disaster from Thatcher's hatred of any investment in Britain.   Let alone one of the triggers of the Falkland's war as the massive cuts she ordered gave a green light to the junta for its attack.

  Steve

So if these 8 Type 43/44s where build, then no 4'Stretched Batch III' Type 42's then.

  If we had built the planned ships, and kept others in service that Thatcher wanted to scrap/sell then there would have been no need for the stretched 42s.

[lordroel]

Oct 10, 2020 12:53:07 GMT stevep said:

Oct 10, 2020 11:34:10 GMT lordroel said:

So if these 8 Type 43/44s where build, then no 4'Stretched Batch III' Type 42's then.

  If we had built the planned ships, and kept others in service that Thatcher wanted to scrap/sell then there would have been no need for the stretched 42s.

Well would the Type 43/44 be better than the 'Stretched Batch III' Type 42' ore would they be the same.

[stevep]

Oct 10, 2020 14:27:18 GMT lordroel said:

Oct 10, 2020 12:53:07 GMT stevep said:

  If we had built the planned ships, and kept others in service that Thatcher wanted to scrap/sell then there would have been no need for the stretched 42s.

Well would the Type 43/44 be better than the 'Stretched Batch III' Type 42' ore would they be the same.

  I wouldn't know for sure but 8 would be better than 4, even if the other cut backs weren't made.  Doubly so if as a result there was no Falkland's war, which would save a number more ships, let alone lives.

[lordroel]

Oct 10, 2020 18:46:30 GMT stevep said:

Oct 10, 2020 14:27:18 GMT lordroel said:

Well would the Type 43/44 be better than the 'Stretched Batch III' Type 42' ore would they be the same.

  I wouldn't know for sure but 8 would be better than 4, even if the other cut backs weren't made.  Doubly so if as a result there was no Falkland's war, which would save a number more ships, let alone lives.

Found these nice two versions on ShipBucket, the first one is a Type 43 with a Merlin helcipter.



And this one is a Type 42 with a lynx helicopter if i am correct. 

[gillan1220]

Probably not much change. The RN would never be the same size as the USN in the 1980s.

[stevep]

Oct 11, 2020 3:49:31 GMT gillan1220 said:

Probably not much change. The RN would never be the same size as the USN in the 1980s.

  Definitely not.  Those days ended in WWII but it could have avoided the catastrophic collapse of OTL if there had been a basic concern for the interests of the countries security.

[lordroel]

Oct 11, 2020 11:54:08 GMT stevep said:

Oct 11, 2020 3:49:31 GMT gillan1220 said:

Probably not much change. The RN would never be the same size as the USN in the 1980s.

  Definitely not.  Those days ended in WWII but it could have avoided the catastrophic collapse of OTL if there had been a basic concern for the interests of the countries security.

Even if the 8 British Type 43/44 destroyers where build as planned, they would still end up being sold ore disposed in later Defence Reviews as the Type 42 did and other RN ships.

[stevep]

Oct 11, 2020 12:00:15 GMT lordroel said:

Oct 11, 2020 11:54:08 GMT stevep said:

  Definitely not.  Those days ended in WWII but it could have avoided the catastrophic collapse of OTL if there had been a basic concern for the interests of the countries security.

Even if the 8 British Type 43/44 destroyers where build as planned, they would still end up being sold ore disposed in later Defence Reviews as the Type 42 did and other RN ships.

  Agreed but if the fleet had been maintained at a larger size later cuts might not be so bad.  Even if proportionally as large the rump remaining would be more substantial.

[lordroel]

Oct 11, 2020 12:01:35 GMT stevep said:

Oct 11, 2020 12:00:15 GMT lordroel said:

Even if the 8 British Type 43/44 destroyers where build as planned, they would still end up being sold ore disposed in later Defence Reviews as the Type 42 did and other RN ships.

  Agreed but if the fleet had been maintained at a larger size later cuts might not be so bad.  Even if proportionally as large the rump remaining would be more substantial.

Also i see the Type 43 being in service longer than the Type 42 as i assume that 8 being build the last one of the class might only enter service before ore after 1990. 

[gillan1220]

Oct 11, 2020 11:54:08 GMT stevep said:

Oct 11, 2020 3:49:31 GMT gillan1220 said:

Probably not much change. The RN would never be the same size as the USN in the 1980s.

  Definitely not.  Those days ended in WWII but it could have avoided the catastrophic collapse of OTL if there had been a basic concern for the interests of the countries security.

These Type 43s/44s would see combat in the Falklands for sure.

[lordroel]

Oct 11, 2020 12:54:52 GMT gillan1220 said:

Oct 11, 2020 11:54:08 GMT stevep said:

  Definitely not.  Those days ended in WWII but it could have avoided the catastrophic collapse of OTL if there had been a basic concern for the interests of the countries security.

These Type 43s/44s would see combat in the Falklands for sure.

The Falklands War was already over, the first of the Type 43/44 would likely enter service in the 1986/87 period.