Royal Navy Type 43 DDG

Please Wanshan send me a Message with your email and I’ll send you full quality scans

If anybody is interested in scans feel free to send me message too

Antonio

REBUILDING THE ROYAL NAVY British Warship Design since 1945, David K Brown & George Moore http://www.chathampublishing.com/booksheets/rebuilding_the_rn.html

Small pic on page 2 of this catalogue http://www.chathampublishing.com/download/maritime_aut03.pdf

Any chance you can post a few scans?

Rebuilding the Royal Navy

I have found information and pics about Type 43 (Small Type 43, Large Type 43 and Harrier capable Type 43 variants).
The source is the superb “Rebuilding the Royal Navy. DK Brown and G Moore. Naval Institute Press 2003. ISBN 1 59114 705 0”. This book is a must have for the unbuilt projects researcher.

Antonio

I have some limited dimentional data in some notes I made a very long time ago so I will not garuntee its accuracy but here it is.

Length 172 metres
Beam 17.8 metres

I hope that helps, if you do succeed in your scale drawing please post it here I would love to see it.

Back to the Type 43.
Sealordlawrence, do you know any dimensional data, preferrably length? I’m intending to scale that drawing..

Ja W. I have just sent it to you, let me know if you don’t get it, we will all know if you do….

thanks you for your confidence Badger, I do indeed have the programs available and am happy to share information when received.

Ok, here are 2 sites where you can upload & download files completly FREE (no cost at all or registration needed).

http://www.megaupload.com/
http://rapidshare.de/

Just select the file (can be a zip, rar,… file as well with all the pics together) & load it up. You will have no problem as long as the files are not bigger then 250MB (in the case of megaupload) & 50MB (in the case of rapidshare).

I use both frequently & both are ok.

Now if the pics weight less then 1MB then you can always make a photolog at www.imageshacke.com (also free & you can link thumbnails to the page).

Besides, while some of us can scan images and e-mail them as attachments, we have problems posting them on boards (due to various factors). Ja W. obviously has this procedure well in hand, so I’ll let him do it, with many thanks.

It is 10:23 pm where I am, I’ll get them to you early tomorrow afternoon (my photocopy is not good, I need to visit the library and get a better one to scan & send).

I think the reason they are being emailed is because they are too large for posting, in any case as soon as I get them I’ll sort them out and post them for you mate 😉

how about someone uploading the images instead of emailing them to eveyone, becouse I would be pretty intrested in them as well.

Pellson and Badger: Guys please feel free to email me the pics at [email]Ja.Worsley@gmail.com[/email] Thanks to you both!

The DDL [Light Destroyer](Daring DD & River DE replacement) is described (with a decent “artist’s conception”, not a line drawing) in Conway’s two volume “Fighting ships 1947-1982″, in the Australian section. It looks a lot like an enlarged US Knox class frigate, (also described as resembling Sheffield) with (bow to stern) a 5” gun, a large radar antenna in the bridge, a tall thick mast, a low wide exhaust, SM-1 mk 13 launcher & director, full-width hangar, and helicopter deck.

displacement: 4,200 t. normal, ~5,000 t. full
length 425″ waterline, beam 48″, depth 22″ (normal)
2 shafts COGAG, 2-Olympus & 2 Tyne, 50,000 shp, 30 knots, range 6,000 nm @ 18 kn
1-mk 13 SM-1 launcher, 40 missiles, 6 SSM
1-5″/54 mk 42, 4-35 mm Emerlec (2×2)
6-12.75″ (324 mm) mk 32 ASW torpedo tubes (2×3)
2 helicopters
210 crew (peacetime)

The design study started in 1966, detailed design work started in 1970, with the first keel-laying to start in June 1975 (others at two year intervals) at Williamstown DYd. The cost was estimated as $A 118 million (59.2 million pounds) each in 1972 currency (includes design and support costs).The decision was deferred when the Labour party won the 1973 elections, and the programme was cancelled in 1974.

Also the design for the AWD/DDG that was fully designed here in Australia as a replacment for the Perth class destroyers. I remember it had two Five inch guns one the bow next to each other. I can’t remember where I saw it but I want to see it again

That ship is pictured as an artists impression in Conways 147-1995 edition. I can scan and upload/email if u want. It was quite similar to the type 42 batch 1/2 but with american armament and the SAM launcher abaft the funnel.

Well since we are looking for old designs, does anyone out there have the proposed joint venture between Australia and the UK on a replacement for the River class DE’s back in the 70’s.

The thing fell through because the Poms wanted to use their own weapons systems but the Aussies wanted to use American ones.

Also the design for the AWD/DDG that was fully designed here in Australia as a replacment for the Perth class destroyers. I remember it had two Five inch guns one the bow next to each other. I can’t remember where I saw it but I want to see it again

All I know about the type 44 is that it was a more Austere effort than the type 43, an attempt just to get new ships. It likely fell away becouse of the beggining of the various cooperative debacles.

She would have hade a COGAG arrangement using four GT:s coupled pairwise, very much like the engine layout in the Invincible carriers. The main difference would have been the utilisation of RR Spey instead of the RR Olympus arrangement in the carriers.

As stated above is it a definite advantage helo-wise not to have to battle the heavy pitching in the stern.

Sorry I missed the comment about the ship’s motion. Sounds reasonable enough though, thanks.

Steve, your comment is the first I have heard about a sponson, I did once see a vertical schematic and it did not show a sponson, just the helo hanger offset, although it does sound plausible I am sceptical, if a ship is rolling a sponson on a vessel like this would be the last place I would want to be as its movements would be more violent than any other part of the ship.

Actually I think I was wrong about the sponson, I’ve got mixed up with a design concept I saw in a book that had a similar arrangement to the T43.

Do you have any info on the Type 44 ?

The desighn came about as a response to a need to defeat surge attacks, that is the reason why the vessel effectively had the equivilant AAW capability of 2 type 42s and and 2 type 22s. The problem was that it came about just as Britain was going through one of the most fundamental political, social and economic changes in its histrory (A change that without Britain would be in the dark ages by now). We simply could not afford them, only about 4 were ever planned.
Steve, your comment is the first I have heard about a sponson, I did once see a vertical schematic and it did not show a sponson, just the helo hanger offset, although it does sound plausible I am sceptical, if a ship is rolling a sponson on a vessel like this would be the last place I would want to be as its movements would be more violent than any other part of the ship.
When the ship was desighned the RN had yet to adopt the Harpoon, but I am sure that if they had been built they would have recieved them. I think the biggest reason for the placement of the helo facilitys was to allow the rear sea dart system. (If you look at HMS Bristol she only has a landing pad and no hanger). The type 43s primary role was AAW so the helo wasnt vital.
It is said that it was considered building these ships with the aegis system but I have no idea how far the idea got and have never seen a picture.
India, I dont understand your comment about the low superstructure, to me it appears tall.