What if: British Type 43/44 destroyer

[gillan1220]

Oct 11, 2020 13:01:42 GMT lordroel said:

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

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.

Oh my bad. It'll probably see action in the Gulf or the Balkans.

[lordroel]

Oct 11, 2020 13:20:06 GMT gillan1220 said:

Oct 11, 2020 13:01:42 GMT lordroel said:

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

Oh my bad. It'll probably see action in the Gulf or the Balkans.

Most likely they would serve in the first Gulf War and maybe it could be a Type 43 destroyer that would be the one that would shoot down a Iraqi Silkworm missile that threaten US battleship USS Missouri instead of OTL HMS Gloucester (D96), a batch 3 Type 42 as describe below.

Gloucester served in the Persian Gulf War in 1991 under the command of Commander (later Rear Admiral) Philip Wilcocks where her most notable action was the firing of a salvo shot of Sea Dart missiles to shoot an Iraqi Silkworm missile that had threatened the US battleship USS Missouri and now imperilled more allied shipping; the first successful missile versus missile engagement at sea in combat by any Navy. Notably, after warning allied ships in the area, both the USS Missouri and USS Jarrett immediately fired flares and chaff to decoy the missile. However, drawing from the Royal Navy's experience during the Falklands War, when Exocet missiles re-acquired and fatally attacked the merchant ship Atlantic Conveyor after decoys were deployed, HMS Gloucester did not activate decoys. The Royal Navy considered missiles like the Silkworm as something to be shot down and not simply decoy, with firing chaff making that more difficult. 

[oscssw]

Oct 10, 2020 10:58:41 GMT James G said:

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.

Based on what I have read about the Kamikaze's and Picket Destroyers, the RN was right using two ships instead of relying on one.   My own experiences doing Piraz in the gulf of Tonkin reinforced that opinion. Bottom line; without AWACS the RN was at a huge disadvantage inshore during the Falklands but still managed to perform magnificently.

So does it beg the question that the funds spent on more DDGs would have paid much higher dividends if used for AWACs?

My apologies if I have strayed too far off the subject.

[lordroel]

Oct 11, 2020 14:25:32 GMT oscssw said:

Oct 10, 2020 10:58:41 GMT James G said:

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.

My apologies if I have strayed too far off the subject. 

No problem.

If i remember right having two ships engaging one aerial target might also cause a problem as was seen during during the Falklands War when Broadsword acquired a attacking aircraft, but was unable to fire as Coventry came directly into the line of fire.



So having a destroyer armed with 2 twin Sea Dart systems instead of one would still be the same as having 2 destroyers  armed with 1 Sea Dart system.

[stevep]

Oct 11, 2020 14:25:32 GMT oscssw said:

Oct 10, 2020 10:58:41 GMT James G said:

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.

Based on what I have read about the Kamikaze's and Picket Destroyers, the RN was right using two ships instead of relying on one.   My own experiences doing Piraz in the gulf of Tonkin reinforced that opinion. Bottom line; without AWACS the RN was at a huge disadvantage inshore during the Falklands but still managed to perform magnificently.

So does it beg the question that the funds spent on more DDGs would have paid much higher dividends if used for AWACs?

My apologies if I have strayed too far off the subject.

  It wasn't as much a question of lack of AWACs in itself as facilities to use such a/c IIRC.  With no big carriers and the nearest friendly base being Ascension I think you didn't have the facility to operate an AWAC systems over the fleet.  There was work on developing an helicopter based system that could be used from the small carriers or possibly even other a/c although I don't think it came into play in time for the war or was used much afterwards.

  A working AWAC system would have been very useful in detecting a/c at a distance because of their height and allowing interception by defending Harriers further away as well as having AD systems ready for any who got through as most attackers came across the Falklands using the terrain for shelter.

[oscssw]

Lordroel, been a long time since I watched that very sad National Geographic video.
FWIW, I was at FAAWTC (Fleet Anti-Air Warfare Training Center) post Falklands War for a refresher course.
Every one of the RN engagements were studied in detail. We were made aware of what happened, why it happened what we should do in similar circumstances. AWACS, a strong Bar Cap and CIWS was the answer we were taught.

Two ship pickets were ideal because they could compliment each other AND greatly mitigated the effects of major system failures. A column formation was best. Coventry was maneuvering to unmask her batteries. Broadsword should have conformed to the movement of the guide Coventry. No IFF from that lone contact meant it had to be considered hostile.

That said Coventry and Broadsword did their job, protecting the landing force. It sucks to be the sacrificial goat. It always sucks being expendable but that is what they pay you for.

IMO no one was really at fault. There is an old but very true RN saying. "You should not have joined if you can't take a joke!

[lordroel]

Oct 11, 2020 16:05:51 GMT oscssw said:

Two ship pickets were ideal because they could compliment each other AND greatly mitigated the effects of major system failures. A column formation was best. Coventry was maneuvering to unmask her batteries. Broadsword should have conformed to the movement of the guide Coventry. No IFF from that lone contact meant it had to be considered hostile.

That makes sense.

So two Type 42s while having lesser firepower than a single Type 43 are better as they as you say can compliment each other and greatly mitigate the effects of major system failures.

[1bigrich]

Oct 10, 2020 10:28:09 GMT lordroel said:

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

Great images!  Thanks for sharing those.    The large variant I think fits into the County-class "Destroyers in Name Only" category.   The use of Sea Dart with Sea Wolf would provide a powerful ship with great AA-self defense capability.   As I recall, Sea Wolf in trials shot down a 4.5in shell in flight.  The Exocets on the fantail would be replaced with Harpoon missiles later in their lives.

Th4 move to a midships flight deck for the helicopters was to put their landing spot where the ship moved the least.    If I recall correctly the procedural was to be the aircraft would move up alongside the ship, then move over to the landing spot. 

For the smaller variants, I don't see much difference with a Type 42 Batch 3.    with the two CIWS mounts on either beam, the RN still got a good area air defense destroyer with good self-defense capability. 

In the Falklands the RN assigned a Sea Wolf platform in close with the carriers to act as 'goalkeeper' in case of an Argentine missile attack.   I can't see these ships being used in a such a capacity, where being close to the carrier might interfere with their area air defense function.   I think such a function would be the purview of the Sea Wolf Modified Leanders and Broadswords.  

I think the fateful question has to do with timing:  Would they have been worth it for the RN?   And as much as I hate to say it about a handsome, powerful ships, I think that answer is 'No'.   

These ships would be coming into service in the later half of or late 1980s.  In 1986, USS Bunker Hill CG-52 is going to commission.    The phased-array radars of USS Ticonderoga CG-47 were already a watershed event for the USN when she commissioned in 1983.  IIRC, on her first deployment, fighter sorties by the carrier she escorted went down because the radar was so accurate versus a conventional 'sweeping' radar.  Combining those phased-array radars with a vertical launch system was a revolution in air defense.    Without a vertical launch Sea Dart, I think the Type 43 or Type 44 would be a generation behind on commissioning, like the Lord Nelsons.  They would not have been setting a standard, as I think the Type 42s did when they first commissioned.

My thoughts,

[lordroel]

Oct 11, 2020 21:19:17 GMT 1bigrich said:

Great images!  Thanks for sharing those.    The large variant I think fits into the County-class "Destroyers in Name Only" category.   The use of Sea Dart with Sea Wolf would provide a powerful ship with great AA-self defense capability.   As I recall, Sea Wolf in trials shot down a 4.5in shell in flight.  The Exocets on the fantail would be replaced with

No problem, always like to find designs that never where and post them here.

Oct 11, 2020 21:19:17 GMT 1bigrich said:

move to a midships flight deck for the helicopters was to put their landing spot where the ship moved the least.    If I recall correctly the procedural was to be the aircraft would move up alongside the ship, then move over to the landing spot. 

Do not know any other design that had its heli pad in the middle of the ship, sounds risky.

Oct 11, 2020 21:19:17 GMT 1bigrich said:

These ships would be coming into service in the later half of or late 1980s.  In 1986, USS Bunker Hill CG-52 is going to commission.    The phased-array radars of USS Ticonderoga CG-47 were already a watershed event for the USN when she commissioned in 1983.  IIRC, on her first deployment, fighter sorties by the carrier she escorted went down because the radar was so accurate versus a conventional 'sweeping' radar.  Combining those phased-array radars with a vertical launch system was a revolution in air defense.    Without a vertical launch Sea Dart, I think the Type 43 or Type 44 would be a generation behind on commissioning, like the Lord Nelsons.  They would not have been setting a standard, as I think the Type 42s did when they first

Most likely the last 4 of the Type 43s would be canceled in the 1990 Options for Change Defense Review where the RN size was cut from 50 frigates and destroyers to 40. 

[simon darkshade]

Even four Type 43s would have been a jump in capability over the stretched Type 42s, presuming that everything else goes according to plan. It would give the RN a boost in area air defence over the next 25-30 years and they could stick around longer.

[lordroel]

Oct 12, 2020 21:32:39 GMT simon darkshade said:

Even four Type 43s would have been a jump in capability over the stretched Type 42s, presuming that everything else goes according to plan. It would give the RN a boost in area air defence over the next 25-30 years and they could stick around longer.

Doubt the Sea Wolfs can be replaced by the Sea Wolf VLS canisters that are also used by the Type 23 frigate, that would give the Type 43 a good punch.

[simon darkshade]

The old aphorism that steel is cheap would apply to the larger Type 43s. They have more of a capacity for future upgrades than the smaller Type 42s.

[lordroel]

Oct 14, 2020 3:55:23 GMT simon darkshade said:

The old aphorism that steel is cheap would apply to the larger Type 43s. They have more of a capacity for future upgrades than the smaller Type 42s.

That would be a impressive upgrade, a destroyer with 2 VLS systems.