RN strategy post war.

Also the operation of the Blackwoods, Salisburys and Leopards vs the Type 12s finally convinced their Lordships that quality was better than quantity and that a smaller fleet of better ships was the way forwards so other than hindsight something would have to occur to make them think this way!
As I understand things the reasoning behind the Type 41 Leopard-class and Type 61 Salisbury-class was to use diesel engines, in part, to achieve the range needed as convoy and slow task force escorts. The Type 12 Whitby-class was meant to have almost the same range as designed but ran into problems, IIRC the clutch on the cruising turbine never worked properly, so ended up being comparatively short legged. One idea I saw made either on here or one of the other forums was what I mentally dubbed the 'Broader Beam Whitby' where the cruising turbine was fixed and the dimensions of the design expanded by a few feet and displacement a couple of hundred tons by increasing the amount of fuel to match the range of the diesel powered frigates. This would effectively give you a hull with similar dimensions to the broad beam Leander-class, it would also have the unforeseen benefits of increasing the weight carried lower down in the ship to help counterbalance later increases in top weight due to radar and similar systems, and possibly make it easier to operate helicopters in the future thanks to a bit of extra deck space.

Assuming that NOMISYRRUC's figures held up you would be able to replace the 4 Leopard-class frigates, 4 Salisbury-class frigates, and 4 Battle-class destroyer Air Detection Escort conversions with 12 Broader Beam Whitby-class frigates and have it be roughly cost neutral at least as far as construction costs. You would probably have to build two of them with diesel engines to tests things due to the 'Broken Back' idea, plus also to act as an experimental gas turbine conversion in place of HMS Exmouth if you decide not to build the Type 14 Blackwood-class, but it would still be a net improvement I would think overall.
 
As I understand things the reasoning behind the Type 41 Leopard-class and Type 61 Salisbury-class was to use diesel engines, in part, to achieve the range needed as convoy and slow task force escorts. The Type 12 Whitby-class was meant to have almost the same range as designed but ran into problems, IIRC the clutch on the cruising turbine never worked properly, so ended up being comparatively short legged. One idea I saw made either on here or one of the other forums was what I mentally dubbed the 'Broader Beam Whitby' where the cruising turbine was fixed and the dimensions of the design expanded by a few feet and displacement a couple of hundred tons by increasing the amount of fuel to match the range of the diesel powered frigates. This would effectively give you a hull with similar dimensions to the broad beam Leander-class, it would also have the unforeseen benefits of increasing the weight carried lower down in the ship to help counterbalance later increases in top weight due to radar and similar systems, and possibly make it easier to operate helicopters in the future thanks to a bit of extra deck space.

Assuming that NOMISYRRUC's figures held up you would be able to replace the 4 Leopard-class frigates, 4 Salisbury-class frigates, and 4 Battle-class destroyer Air Detection Escort conversions with 12 Broader Beam Whitby-class frigates and have it be roughly cost neutral at least as far as construction costs. You would probably have to build two of them with diesel engines to tests things due to the 'Broken Back' idea, plus also to act as an experimental gas turbine conversion in place of HMS Exmouth if you decide not to build the Type 14 Blackwood-class, but it would still be a net improvement I would think overall.

Its a good Idea but my understanding from NOMISYRRUC's posts is that by building 60 - 70 odd Type 12 hulls you get a saving through economy of scale which may or may not off set the additional costs

The same with the County class DDGs - by all means design the less expensive vessels - even build a few they would certainly sell but by the time the 'slow' escorts entered service they were too slow to successfully persecute the Russian Nuclear boats
 
Its a good Idea but my understanding from NOMISYRRUC's posts is that by building 60 - 70 odd Type 12 hulls you get a saving through economy of scale which may or may not off set the additional costs.
Apologies for being unclear but that was using just the historic figures s/he quoted without relying on any potential savings. Type 41 Leopard-class costs £3,237,750 per ship so £12,951,000 for 4, Type 61 Salisbury-class costs £3,317,250 per ship so £13,269,000 for 4, Battle-class costs £2,250,00 per ship conversion so £9,000,000 for 4 giving a total of £35,220,000 for all 12. Type 12 Whitby-class costs £2,908,667 per ship so £34,904,002 for 12 giving a saving of £315,996 in comparison. Now that's just back of the envelope calculations with the figures to hand, I doubt that real life would be as clean and neat, but it shows that it might be roughly possible to do a one-for-one swap. If you were to go for a 'Broader Beam' Whitby-class design I don't think it would cause a massive increase in price and you could hopefully see it covered by any savings created by building a common basic design.
 
Apologies for being unclear but that was using just the historic figures s/he quoted without relying on any potential savings. Type 41 Leopard-class costs £3,237,750 per ship so £12,951,000 for 4, Type 61 Salisbury-class costs £3,317,250 per ship so £13,269,000 for 4, Battle-class costs £2,250,00 per ship conversion so £9,000,000 for 4 giving a total of £35,220,000 for all 12. Type 12 Whitby-class costs £2,908,667 per ship so £34,904,002 for 12 giving a saving of £315,996 in comparison. Now that's just back of the envelope calculations with the figures to hand, I doubt that real life would be as clean and neat, but it shows that it might be roughly possible to do a one-for-one swap. If you were to go for a 'Broader Beam' Whitby-class design I don't think it would cause a massive increase in price and you could hopefully see it covered by any savings created by building a common basic design.

Sorry get you now

Surprised that the Whitby class was cheaper but there you go!

I think even if you broke even on Construction costs the navy would get more out of 18 'fat' Whitby Frigates (assuming that the originals Whitby's are also changed) compared to the ships they had OTL - and I suspect that again an economy of scale gives a certain amount of savings anyway plus the additional units made for Dutch and Commonwealth navies.
 
Ideally I would like 12 extra County class instead of Types 41, 61 and the Battle class fleet pickets.

However, I would also reshuffle the orders by building 8 additional Whitby class in place of the Type 41 and 61. Then I would build 8 Batch I Counties instead of the 7 Tribal class and one of the Batch I Leander class.
 
Twelve extra County-class destroyers? That strikes me as rather... ambitious shall we say. How much did a they cost to build do you know?
 
Twelve extra County-class destroyers? That strikes me as rather... ambitious shall we say. How much did a they cost to build do you know?
~£14 million in 1960 prices. The contemporary Rothesay class was about £3.5 million per ship in 1960 prices.
 
Yes it is ambitious.

The source I am using gives the average cost of a Batch I County as £13,563,750 and the average cost of the Tribal class as £4,750,000 and £4,700,000 for a Batch I Leander. The difference in prices is about £8.8 million, which means about £72 million has to be found. The difference in cost between the Battle class fleet pickets and the Batch I County class is even larger at about £11.25 million so a total of £45 million for 4 ships.

The operating cost would be much greater too as the Counties had much bigger crews. And the Royal Navy might not be able to recruit the extra sailors even if the Treasury could find the money to pay them.

Though the main causes of the cost differentials are probably the extra weapons and electronics. That is:

1) Only 6 Comprehensive Defence Systems were made IOTL (for Hermes, Victorious and the 4 Batch I Counties). ITTL at least 22 would be built (2+ for aircraft carriers, 4 for the Batch 0 County class built instead of the Tiger class, 4 for the Batch 1 County class that were actually built and 12 for the extra Batch I Counties.)

2) Only 8 Seaslug systems were built IOTL, but ITTL the RN buys Seabird or Terrier built under licence and I'm aiming for a production run of 20-24 systems. On top of that I'm hoping that there will be some production as well as R&D economies of scale with the Bloodbird missile or Land Terrier built for the British Army and RAF instead of Thunderbird and Bloodhound.
 
... in 1960 prices.
That is the other thing that stood out to me - that excluding the Tribal-class the Whitby-, Blackwood-, Leopard- and Salisbury-class frigates were all in commission five or six years ahead of the County-class destroyers. That means either accepting a five year capability gap or bringing forward the introduction of the County-class which could be tricky with the new Metrovick G6 gas turbine engines and COSAG concept.
 
The RN was allowed 5 aircraft carriers under the 1957 defence review and wanted 6.

The RN also wanted 4 guided missile destroyers per aircraft carrier, which is why I'm aiming for 20-24 County class. The Type 82 won't be built.

IOTL the RAAF bought British Bloodhound missiles and all other things being equal ITTL they buy Bloodbird or British built Land Terrier missiles. It's likely that the RAN would buy 3-4 DDG fitted with Baby Seabird or British built Tatar missiles instead of the Adams class.
 
That is the other thing that stood out to me - that excluding the Tribal-class the Whitby-, Blackwood-, Leopard- and Salisbury-class frigates were all in commission five or six years ahead of the County-class destroyers. That means either accepting a five year capability gap or bringing forward the introduction of the County-class which could be tricky with the new Metrovick G6 gas turbine engines and COSAG concept.

The gas turbine problem is why I've suggested building more Type 12s in place of the Type 41 & 61 and 8 Counties in place of the 7 Tribal class and one Leander.

The 8 Type 41/61 were laid down 1952-55 and completed 1957-60. The first 4 County class were laid down 1959-60 and completed 1962-63. The Tribals on the other hand were laid down 1958-60 and completed 1961-64. The Tribals have a reduced version of the Counites COSAG plant. The 4 Battle class fleet picket conversions also took place over this period.

However, the 4 County class want built instead of the Tiger class, the aborted Swiftsure class modernisations and the Belfast's modernisation will be begun in 1954-55 and completed 1959-61 all other things being equal. The COSAG plant might not be ready in time to meet these completion dates. But they could be built with a second set of steam boilers in place of the gas turbines for a Combined Steam and Steam (COSAS) plant or the unit system in old terminology.
 
The COSAG plant might not be ready in time to meet these completion dates. But they could be built with a second set of steam boilers in place of the gas turbines for a Combined Steam and Steam (COSAS) plant or the unit system in old terminology.
Combined Steam and Steam (COSAS)? Isn't that just otherwise known as 'Steam'? :) Wouldn't that mean either having to go through an even more costly conversion process at some point in the future to replace one set with gas turbines or forgo the benefits of turbines and push their introduction into the Royal Navy even further back?
 
Combined Steam and Steam (COSAS)? Isn't that just otherwise known as 'Steam'? :)
There is a difference. Combined Steam and Steam actually means two sets of turbines if it is anything like Combined Gas and Gas. Turbines are most fuel effecient at near full power. So a COSAS ship would have a set of full power turbines and a much weaker set for cruising
 
Combined Steam and Steam (COSAS)? Isn't that just otherwise known as 'Steam'? :) Wouldn't that mean either having to go through an even more costly conversion process at some point in the future to replace one set with gas turbines or forgo the benefits of turbines and push their introduction into the Royal Navy even further back?

The 4 ships built instead of the Tiger class would keep their all-steam plant. Or they would be completed 2 years late due to delays in production of the gas turbines. Or I'll have to use jiggery pokery to get the G.6 into service earlier.
 
There is a difference. Combined Steam and Steam actually means two sets of turbines if it is anything like Combined Gas and Gas. Turbines are most fuel effecient at near full power. So a COSAS ship would have a set of full power turbines and a much weaker set for cruising
Just about every steam turbine warship worked like that - the Leanders were unusual in not having cruising turbines, and even there they tried and failed to get them to work.
 
So the RN built and converted over 40 escorts before a change of plans in the mid 50s.

So my question is what if this number was maybe 10-12 escorts less and the resources were put into carriers and amphibious ships, both completions and increasing availability?
 
So the RN built and converted over 40 escorts before a change of plans in the mid 50s. So my question is what if this number was maybe 10-12 escorts less and the resources were put into carriers and amphibious ships, both completions and increasing availability?
As is so often the case it generally comes down to money, and in this situation manpower as well, in things like these - how much did the conversions cost and the size of their crews versus the cost and crew size of a carrier? Changes in general strategy and avoiding some of the mistakes will free up some money but my general instinct in these kinds of threads is to try and keep things roughly cost/manpower neutral, or at least keep any increases relatively small.
 
There is a difference. Combined Steam and Steam actually means two sets of turbines if it is anything like Combined Gas and Gas. Turbines are most fuel effecient at near full power. So a COSAS ship would have a set of full power turbines and a much weaker set for cruising

I don't think cosas is actually a thing. You can have conas where there is a backup oil boiler as well as the nuclear reactor. But pretty sure two sets of turbines is just steam.
 
IIRC the Type 15 refit cost £600,000 each and the Type 16 refit cost £150,000 each. Not carrying out the Type 15 and 16 conversions only saves about £15 million or 5 Whitby class.

Some of the 26 C class destroyers had refits that brought their ASW capability up to Type 16 standard.

It contradicts what I have said before (i.e. build more Type 12AD frigates or County class destroyers instead of the Battle class fleet picket refits) but it might have been better to:

1) Have 33 Type 16 and no Type 15 refits. The money saved would have been used for:

2) Refit all 24 Battle class to Type 15 standard, but because they had a larger hull they would be able to keep both twin 4.5" gun turrets. As this would be done in the early 1950s instead of the early 1960s the extra 10-odd years of hull life would make the refits easier to justify.

It's not cost neutral because the 23 Type 15 and 10 Type 16 refits cost a total of £15.3 million and the 24 Battle and 33 Type 16 refits cost a total of £19.35 million for an increase of £4.05 million.
 
Last edited:
The point is that resources were allocated to the RN that could have been used on carriers and amphibious ships if the strategy was different.
 
Top