Hood wrote:
Another point I'd like to add is that operating Harrier from the bigger third ship is also pure what-if fun. As far as I know it was never tried on Fearless or Intrepid in real-life but a bigger deck might have made it possible.
I have to correct you there, in 1982 they refuled and rearmed on the Ampibs
The Type 82 destroyer was designed as an aerial-defence ship to replace the four Admiral Class conversions. The ship was designed around the NIGS system. NIGS (New naval Guided weapons System), comprised a long-range missile to counter a Mach 3 target flying at 70,000ft. It was allied to the Type 985 phased-array 3-D radar (in effect a digital tranisitorised Type 984). Guidance was by four navalised Type 87 radars (used for land-based missiles) which became the Type 909. The Admiralty also wanted a new medium-range SAM which became SIGS (Small ship Intergrated Guided weapon System). Bristol developed a ramjet powered missile to meet both programmes, the basic SIGS medium-range missile (aka the Sea Dart) and from it made a long-range missile with a large rocket booster with a range performance equal to the US Talos. Shortly after development began interest was raised in the Australian Ikara stand-off ASW weapon, Bristol then won a contract with Sub Dart, basically the NIGS booster attached to a new forward homing-torpedo section to create a surface-launched SUBROC-style weapon. The bow sonar was the Type 1001, based on SSN sets for long-range search and attack capability. Due to the sheer electrical needs of the four Type 985 arrays and sonar nuclear power was the only option and a UK-built US powerplant was used. Other armament comprised a single 3in L/70 automatic mount, two qaudruple SeaCat 2 supersonic short-range SAM launchers and a Wessex in a hangar aft. Four ships were built, commissioning between 1973 and 1978.
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft
very nice! I personally would not have put the aftmost director over there, it limit's the field of fire of the missile in that direction kinda... but it is doable for sure.
while not good looking, this is one interesting ship for sure, and I kinda like the design.
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new. Shipbucket Wiki admin
The Type 82 destroyer was designed as an aerial-defence ship to replace the four Admiral Class conversions. The ship was designed around the NIGS system. NIGS (New naval Guided weapons System), comprised a long-range missile to counter a Mach 3 target flying at 70,000ft. It was allied to the Type 985 phased-array 3-D radar (in effect a digital tranisitorised Type 984). Guidance was by four navalised Type 87 radars (used for land-based missiles) which became the Type 909. The Admiralty also wanted a new medium-range SAM which became SIGS (Small ship Intergrated Guided weapon System). Bristol developed a ramjet powered missile to meet both programmes, the basic SIGS medium-range missile (aka the Sea Dart) and from it made a long-range missile with a large rocket booster with a range performance equal to the US Talos. Shortly after development began interest was raised in the Australian Ikara stand-off ASW weapon, Bristol then won a contract with Sub Dart, basically the NIGS booster attached to a new forward homing-torpedo section to create a surface-launched SUBROC-style weapon. The bow sonar was the Type 1001, based on SSN sets for long-range search and attack capability. Due to the sheer electrical needs of the four Type 985 arrays and sonar nuclear power was the only option and a UK-built US powerplant was used. Other armament comprised a single 3in L/70 automatic mount, two qaudruple SeaCat 2 supersonic short-range SAM launchers and a Wessex in a hangar aft. Four ships were built, commissioning between 1973 and 1978.
I'm not really in love with the aft GMLS or director arrangement. The field of fire, in particular, couldn't be more than 90deg on either beam. Hull depth would actually seem nasty in that location too, given the likelihood of turbines living underneath.
Why do you still have an Ikara director when your ASW weapon is ballistic?
Seems like quite a big hangar for a single helo.
I'd very much want to move to a 45deg-from-bow radar arrangement (Burke, not Tico). This arrangement was considered to some degree for SPS-33 on Long Beach and Enterprise, but was abandoned because the computers of the time had a much easier time compensating for ship motion with a fore/aft/beams radar arrangement. This will be much less of a problem by the time this ship is launched. Indeed, the USN never again designed a ship with fore/aft/beams phased-array faces except for Ticonderoga, and I believe this arrangement to have been forced by the Spruance's somewhat peculiar beam-offset stacks. Here, of course, 45deg faces would provide much smaller blind arcs in service.
I've been waiting for this one; and, though not elegant, a seriously formidable warship. So, the OGFL is back in business 