2

The Demise of the Cruiser

AT THE END OF THE WAR, four Tiger class cruisers remained under construction. One, the Hawke, was cancelled whilst the remaining three were in the end reconstructed and completed to a new design which will be discussed later. The 1944 New Construction Programme authorised the building of five cruisers of a new design, increasing to six when it was decided that one ship already ordered from Vickers Armstrong’s Tyne yard should also be built to the new design rather than proceed as a unit of the now outdated Tiger class.

The 1944 cruiser had a long history and initially in the summer of 1943 the Board of Admiralty approved a design (N2) displacing 8650 tons standard with a main armament of four twin 5.25in mountings of a new design then in the very early stages of development. One significant feature was the acceptance of a speed of 28kts in deep condition, which meant less space was required for boilers and machinery, which in turn reduced vulnerability. Considerable debate over many months had resulted in this compromise, which produced an affordable and potentially effective cruiser.¹ The 5.25in design remained in the proposed 1944 Programme until early February 1944 when the new First Sea Lord, Admiral of the Fleet Sir Andrew Cunningham, expressed his opposition to the construction of these new cruisers, wanting nothing less than a 6in design. Unfortunately no modern 6in mounting existed and it was estimated that it would take 4 years to produce one. There was clearly considerable resistance to the new proposals. However, he got his way and it was decided that a new cruiser would be developed with low-angle 6in guns and an adequate number of 4.5in HA/LA guns. By November 1944 the new cruiser design (Y) had evolved into a very large ship mounting twelve 6in guns in triple turrets with 80° elevation and not the low-angle mountings as originally suggested. Twelve 4.5in in twin mountings were also carried. Speed in deep condition was 32kts. This dramatically enhanced ship now displaced 15,560 tons and clearly the design was a very expensive alternative to the original 5.25in cruiser. Nevertheless the proposal was pressed forward and what was now a long-term project survived the initial post-war cancellations. By June 1946 improvements were being considered to provide increased amenities. A flush deck was incorporated, which would have taken the standard displacement to 16,410 tons. The Board of Admiralty, however, decided that the design – now known as the Neptuneclass – was out of date and larger than needed, the result being the cancellation of the project but not the cruiser requirement.² Names approved by the King were Neptune, Bellerophon, Centurion, Edgar, Mars and Minotaur.

The Minotaur Class

The escalation in the size of Neptune and the resultant cancellation lead to a new design being developed. The inspiration was the US cruiser Worcester (CL-144) which towards the end of the Second World War was seen as an attractive proposition by many RN officers. She mounted twelve 6in HA/LA capable of rapid fire (10 rounds a minute of heavy 1301b shell from each gun) in six turrets and a secondary armament of twenty-four 3in/50 cal on a standard displacement of 15,210 tons. With engines developing 132,000shp at 10 per cent overload a speed of 32.5kts could be achieved.

Four new Sketch Designs (A – D) were produced. In Sketch ‘A’ the main armament comprised ten 6in in twin HA/LA turrets, the secondary armament being sixteen 3in/70 cal in twin mountings. Both the 6in and 3in mountings were new designs where development was at an early stage. One significant change was the elimination of any close-range armament, the new twin 3in covering both the medium and close-range requirements for anti-aircraft fire. Compared with Neptune the length had been reduced by 10ft and the beam by 1ft. The new design had a flush deck, which resulted in a saving of only 40 tons over Design ‘Y’ but nearly 585 tons against the ultimate flush-forecastle Neptune design. Only 30 tons was expected to be saved in the armament weight but 300 tons was gained in the weight of the machinery, which produced 100,000shp to achieve 31.5kts, when compared with the ultimate Neptune design. Displacement was 15,070 tons, a saving of only 490 tons over design ‘Y’.

‘N2’. Although cancelled early in 1944 the 5.25in gun, which was to form the main armament continued to be developed until superseded by a new 5in mounting. This conjectural drawing is based on Admiralty practice and the description of the ship as presented and approved by the Board of Admiralty in 1943 for inclusion in the 1944 New Construction Programme. The main armament is based on drawings produced by Vickers, Elswick.

(Drawing by John Roberts)

Neptune (Design ‘Y’). Two versions of this large cruiser design for the 1944 New Construction Programme with triple 6in Mark XXV and 4.5in Mark VI mountings were ultimately considered. One featured upright funnels (below) and masts whilst in the other these features were raked (above). When cancelled in 1946, consideration was being given to extending the forecastle to the stern as seen in the Minotaur design.

(Drawing by John Roberts from original in PRO ADM 1/17285 and NMM ADM 138/729)

Minotaur (Design ‘Z4C’ – also known as Sketch ‘D’). Although designed in the post-war era, this class remained part of the 1944 New Construction Programme. The new twin 6in Mark XXVI and 3in/70 cal. mountings were but a gleam in the eye of the designer when this design was first considered. (Drawing by John Roberts from original in NMM ADM 138/790)

Minotaur (Design ‘ZA’) This version had a reduced length and ‘A’ and ‘B’ 6in mountings at the same deck level.

(Drawing by John Roberts from original in NMM ADM 138/790)

Minotaur (Revised). The sketch shows the layout of this cruiser class when cancelled in the summer of 1947. The basic characteristics show little change from Sketch ‘Z4C’.

(Drawing by John Roberts from original in NMM ADM 138/790)

Sketch ‘B’ was a four-turret design which displaced 14,088 tons (standard), 25ft shorter than the Neptune design. Other arrangements, including machinery, speed and secondary armament, were the same as those in Sketch ‘A’. Sketch ‘C’ was a revised version of Sketch ‘A’ with a new engine-room layout consisting of four combined boiler-rooms and engine-rooms. Sketch ‘A’ had a boiler-room/engine-room/boiler-room/engine-room layout which followed the Neptune design. One effect was to shorten the length of Sketch ‘C’. Sketch ‘D’ had the same armament and engine-room layout as Sketch ‘C’ but length was restored to that in Sketch ‘A’. The Sea Lords decided that Sketch ‘D’ should be developed.³

There must have been some doubts about the size of the new Minotaur design, which at 15,280 tons standard offered only a small saving in displacement and no doubt also in cost over the Neptune design. Early in 1947 two revised designs, ‘ZA’ (13,870 tons standard, 16,760 tons deep) and ‘ZB’ (14,300 tons standard) were considered which although carrying the same armament were 616ft long at the waterline as against 645ft length in design ‘D’ (Z4C). The main saving was 770 tons in the weight of the hull in ‘ZA’. Design ‘ZB’ had a beam of 74ft as against 73ft in Design ‘ZA’. The machinery arrangements were as specified for Sketch ‘D’. In March 1947 a range of options P/P1 – S/S1 with various armaments were produced by the Director of Naval Construction, Sir Charles Lillicrap. At the extremes were Design ‘Q1’ (six 6in, sixteen 3in in twin mountings, no torpedoes, length 600ft, deep displacement 17,500 tons) and Design ‘R’ (ten 6in, thirty-two 3in in quadruple mountings, torpedoes, length 710ft, deep displacement 21,000 tons). Displacement was escalating as the design process went on, the main reason being that it was now found necessary to place the 3in magazines close to the mountings to achieve the desired rate of fire, which resulted in a need to lengthen the ship. Lillicrap pointed out that the designs had been considered off and on for a very long time and that they seemed no nearer finality than they were at the beginning. He had been involved when the process started with the 5.25in Design in 1943– 4. He suggested that Design ‘P’ without torpedoes was now the most attractive option. This ship displaced 18,500 tons with eight 6in in twin mountings and twenty-four 3in in quadruple mountings, the length being 635ft. The complement was approximately 1030 officers and men.

The Sea Lords discussed cruiser design on 11 April 1947. The First Sea Lord initially drew attention to the financial stringency faced by the United Kingdom, which meant that it was most unlikely that cruisers could be laid down for some years. The function of cruisers was then debated and it was agreed that the two main tasks were (a) the provision of anti-aircraft defence for herself and aircraft carriers, and (b) the attack and defence of trade in which the cruiser and the carrier were complementary. No agreement was reached on which of the functions should take precedence or to the extent in which carriers would replace cruisers as escorts for convoys. It was decided to take no further action on cruiser design until the latest American views were known, for there were now even doubts about the ‘ideal’ calibre of gun for the long-range AA armament.⁴

There were still six ships planned which, in spite of the change in design remained part of the 1944 New Construction programme. Names were the same as those allocated to the Neptune class. In March 1947 when the year’s New Construction Programme was being considered it was clear that building could not proceed in the immediate future and to tidy up the financial considerations it was decided to regard the class as cancelled. The contract for Bellerophon, which still remained in place, was finally cancelled on 28 February 1947. However, this did not mean that the quest for the ships was abandoned, for in a ten-year expenditure forecast prepared in July 1947 it was indicated that two ships could be laid down in 1951, 1952 and 1953. By August 1947, however, the Board of Admiralty decided that there would be no new construction larger than frigates during the next five years and for all practical purposes this point can be regarded as the end of the Minotaur class cruisers. But this was not quite the end of the story for in March 1948 there was still talk of six ships being built, with construction starting in 1954. Design work was suspended but a space analysis of existing cruisers was being undertaken which was expected to assist in the preparation of the design.

The influence of United States design practice was strong in the Minotaur class. Superficially, when comparisons are made with the Worcester, they favour the US ship. In particular Minotaur only carried ten 6in guns in five twin turrets. The British gun, however, could fire 20 rounds a minute, although it proved not to be very reliable when it came into service in the Tiger class. The US gun at best could only manage 10 rounds a minute with two of the turrets having very restricted arcs of fire. The British secondary armament of sixteen 3in/70 cal. was, however, greatly superior to the US twenty-four 3in/50 cal.

Comparison of weights is difficult as US and British definitions differed considerably. One comparison showed hull savings in the British ship over the American cruiser as 205 tons in structure caused by the effect of welding and use of aluminium. A further 285 tons was saved in fittings, mainly electrical items such as cables. Machinery installed in the Worcester developed 120,000shp compared with 100,000shp in Minotaur, the former using considerably less space with the more powerful US machinery being about the same weight as the British. The space per man differed only slightly but was used very differently, British office space being much greater.⁵

1948 Future Cruisers

Although there were no immediate prospects of building new cruisers, it was nevertheless a fact of life that the existing ships were ageing and, in spite of some modernisation, suffering from creeping obsolescence. In late 1948 the Ship Design Policy Committee considered the problem and opened up a debate on the function of the cruiser and the shape of the cruiser of the future.

The response of the Director of Naval Construction was firstly to consider the projected equipment, which was likely to be available for ship fitting in the next ten years. This analysis indicated that the anticipated dates were:

6in Mark XXVI	1953 (end)
New 5in/70 cal.	1957
3in/70 cal.	1957
New close-range DA Weapon	1957
LRS1 Director and MRS3 Director	1953
MRS IV Director	1957
TIU Mark III	1954
Type 992 radar	1954
Sea Slug Guided Missile	1958

For propulsion there was no practical alternative to the steam turbine in the relatively near future and it was expected that the type of machinery used would be of an improved Daring type as envisaged for the Minotaur class cruiser design.

In order to focus ideas four preliminary design studies, known as the 1960s Cruisers, were then prepared with none of the ships including all features in the design, as

this would have resulted in a cruiser which was too large to be produced in any numbers. Particulars are given on the following page.

The Ship Design Policy Committee expressed the hope in January 1949 that two cruisers could be laid down within the next eight years. The outcome was a proposal that the Director of Naval Construction should prepare a sketch of a cruiser with six 6in (3 twin), eight 3in/70 cal. (4 twin), four fixed torpedo tubes on each side, DA or close-range Bofors mountings and Type 984 radar. By March 1949 a new 5in cruiser design was in the subject of preliminary discussions. The result of this new line of thought was that this series of sketches and the preliminary ideas for a new ship were destined to be a cul-de-sac in the development of the cruiser.⁶

The Cruiser/Destroyer

With there being no prospect of building any cruisers in the immediate future a fresh look was taken in the spring of 1949 with thinking encompassed in a paper entitled ‘Ships of the Future Navy’. There were three controversial conclusions:

•The replacement of the conventional cruiser and destroyer by an all-purpose light cruiser.

•It was argued that in wartime some sort of quickly-produced escort carrier and the aircraft to fly from it would be needed.

•The value of a completely specialised second-rate antisubmarine frigate should be investigated.

The result was the development of the Cruiser/Destroyer design and the construction of the second-rate Blackwood class Type 14 frigates. The escort carrier option never evolved. ⁷

At the end of the War when, as we have seen, the size of cruiser designs was escalating, there was perversely a reaction to the ever-increasing size of destroyer designs. The result was the production of a small destroyer design in June 1946 known as ‘A1’. The vessel carried the same main armament and utilised the same machinery as the cancelled Gallant class but many other features were stripped back with the result that some 30ft in length and 500 tons in deep displacement were saved. The ship could be described as austere with far more use of a depot ship for support being required. The design was still alive in June 1948 when DNC made comparisons with the new Swedish Oland design. By August 1948 ideas were changing for two new options were the subject of rough estimates by DNC. The first was an all-purpose fleet destroyer with a main armament of eight 4.5in in twin turrets, close-range AA, two torpedo tubes and a single Limbo anti-submarine mortar in a ship which would have had a standard displacement of 3500–4000 tons. The second ship mounted what were described as ‘future weapons’. The main armament was two 5in dual-purpose single mountings. There was to be short-range AA, up to eight torpedoes and a single Limbo. Standard displacement was in the range of 2700–2900 tons. It was concluded that the 5in design should be developed, but with the advent of the new all-purpose light cruiser the design died.

The 1960 Cruisers. This series of studies were essentially design exercises although there was a short-lived proposal in January 1949 to develop a new design using Sketches IV and V as a basis. Note the two Type 984 radar sets. It is doubtful if this feature would have proved practical due to mutual interference.

(Drawing by John Roberts from original in NMM DNC Records and PRO ADM 116/5632)

Sketch I (Large Cruiser) – about 14,500 tons (standard), 17,500 tons deep. Eight 5in in twin mountings, twelve 3in in twin mountings, two DA close-range weapons, four 21 in QR torpedo tube mountings. Protection – 3¼in side belt plus box protection to machinery spaces etc. shp 95,000 = 30kts at deep displacement. Endurance 7500 miles at 20kts. Important features were all-round training for the guns, four self-contained combined boiler/engine-rooms, a single funnel in order to permit all-round training and a closed bridge.

Sketch II (Large Cruiser) – about 14,000 tons (standard). Based on Sketch I, this sketch showed how a guided missile launcher might be fitted aft in place of two 5in mountings. Weight and space requirements relating to the Sea Slug missile were still very tentative but it was anticipated that the ship would have an outfit of 48 missiles.

Sketch III (Small Cruiser) – about 10,500 tons (standard), 13,000 tons (deep). Four 5in in twin mountings, six 3in in twin mountings, four DA close-range weapons, four QR torpedo tube mountings. This cruiser was described as in effect a modernised Tiger and it was thought possible that the Fiji engine-room arrangements might have to be adopted except that forward and after machinery units would be separated. The anticipated speed was 31kts. The funnel arrangements followed those of the Daring class.

Sketch IV – Deep displacement just under 15,000 tons. Six 6in in twin mountings, six 3in in twin mountings, two DA close-range weapons, four fixed torpedo tubes each side, Type 984 radar. Machinery based on Daring class – 4×30,000 = 120,000shp (4 shafts). This sketch was produced early in 1949 incorporating features proposed by the Director of Plans. Sketch V was also produced (below), the difference being machinery – 3×30,000shp (3 shafts). Also considered was an arrangement of two 30,000shp sets (Daringtype) driving the outer shafts and two 15,000shp sets (Y100 type) driving the inner shafts. Funnel arrangements again followed those in the Daring class.

The new proposals in ‘Ships of the Future Navy’ produced in the Spring of 1949 were revolutionary, for on a long-term basis they envisaged replacing up to fifteen cruisers with 6in guns, eight cruisers with 5.25in armament and fifty-eight fleet destroyers with fifty 5in gun light cruisers. Initial thoughts were that the ships should mount four 5in dual-purpose weapons with four singles being preferred to two twin mountings. The ships were to have close-range AA, eight torpedoes (possibly singles), a single Limbo and good radar. Standard displacement was 4000 to 5000 tons. The 5in gun and mounting at this stage were possibly a development of the 5.25in originally specified for the 1944 Cruiser. The project was very much alive in the summer of 1948 when it was described as the basis of a dual-purpose gun and mounting required as main armament for cruisers and destroyers.⁸

The first attempt at what was now known as the Cruiser/Destroyer design was produced in July 1949. The word ‘Destroyer’ was included in the title to facilitate preparation of the design to destroyer standards. If purely described as a cruiser it was felt that demands for such items as damage control, stores, protection, sick bay etc, to a cruiser standard would prove difficult to resist! The main armament was three 5in single dual-purpose mountings controlled by one LRS1 and two MRS3. Also wanted were two close-range weapons (STAAG or equivalent), one Limbo and eight fixed torpedo tubes. The main radars were to be Air Warning Type 960, Target Indication Type 992 and Warning Combined and Heightfinding Type 277Q. Deep displacement was 4600 tons, length 465ft and beam 48ft. Endurance required was 4500 miles at 20kts with speed 30.5kts (deep and dirty). Two sets of YE47A machinery produced 60,000shp. There was to be accommodation for a crew of 500.

The length of the ship was governed by the main armament, with mountings located forward, amidships and aft. The amidships gun arrangement resulted in a good separation of the two propulsion units, which reduced the risk of both being put out of action by damage. The forecastle was continuous, eliminating the need for large deckhouses, which would have interfered with the gun arrangement. An inner bottom was provided to improve protection and stiffen the lower part of the hull as well as providing valuable space for oil storage. It was aimed to fit the smallest possible bridge consistent with meeting the needs for an operations room. Two masts and two funnels would be needed in a confined area. The problem was overcome by incorporating the funnels in plated masts.

By March 1950 sketch staff requirements were prepared but it was quickly realised that if they were met in full then a ship considerably larger than 4600 tons would be the result. Essential requirements were three 5in, one Limbo and latest asdics (sonars), two fixed anti-submarine torpedoes with reloads, one Ruler (an anti-torpedo weapon), one or two close-range weapons and radars Type 960, 277Q and HDWS (High Definition Warning Surface Search Radar). At least four surface torpedoes, three close-range weapons and the new Type 984 radar were regarded as desirable. The principle problem, however, was the endurance requirement, which the Director of Naval Construction considered completely unbalanced the design. It was decided to seek a reduction to 3000 miles at 22.5kts, which DNC expected to achieve. Other issues considered were the armament where a reduction to two 5in was suggested but ruled out on the grounds that mechanical failure could mean a reduction in the armament available. Items such as centreline torpedo tubes, Limbo and the big Type 984 radar were also questioned. It was agreed that one 5in mounting could remain sited amidships and that stores for 45 days should be carried, which was in line with destroyer standards. At this stage just one ship was in the proposed 1953–4 Building Programme.

In February 1951 three design studies were under consideration, the arrangement of the main armament being largely determined by alternative schemes for radar. Design I had one 5in mounting forward, one amidships and one aft with the minimum radar requirements, which were now Types 960,277Q and HDWS. The estimated deep displacement was 4710 tons. Design II had two mountings forward and one aft, which enabled two Type 984 sets to be carried. Limbo was mounted amidships and the displacement increased slightly to 4770 tons. Design III had all three mountings forward which allowed an intermediate radar scheme to be fitted, two Type 982 (one in lieu of Type 984). Deep displacement remained 4770 tons. All the studies were to have two 30,000shp units of YEAD 1 (Yarrow/English Electric Advanced Development) machinery which were to installed 50ft apart. This design which operated with a boiler pressure of 700psi at a temperature of 950° F, was developed for installation in major warships. Although it never went to sea, it had a major influence on steam plant design. It was an English Electric/Admiralty project which was built and tested at Pametrada. Design Study II appears to have been the scheme adopted.

In February 1951 plans were being drawn up for an emergency construction programme to cover the period 1 April 1952 to 1 April 1953. Four new cruisers would have been in the programme and as the new 5in cruiser/destroyer design was not ready, resort would have had to be made to the Dido class but armed with eight 4.5in (4 twins) instead of 5.25in mountings. This contingency plan was never implemented.⁹

Progress with the cruiser/destroyer was slow and by January 1952 a higher endurance was wanted. There was still a hankering for the original requirement of 4500 miles but initially the best prospect was expected to be 3250 miles on a deep displacement of 4770 tons. The controlling constraint was an imposed deep displacement ceiling of 5000 tons. By February 1952 the Director of Naval Construction was asked to produce a further design study. The minimum equipment requirement now included three 5in single with three Type 903 radar, two Bofors Mark XII with two further Type 903 radar, six fixed torpedo tubes on each beam or eight tubes sited aft (no reloads), Limbo and a Type 984 radar. By April 1952 a detailed examination of the requirements indicated a substantial increase in displacement. As a result the Bofors and associated radars went, which saved about 200 tons. The torpedoes were also deleted as was the Type 984 radar set. The latter was replaced by Type 960, Type 982 and Type 983 sets.¹⁰

By July 1952 further difficulties appeared when it was found that the required 5in gun performance of 60 rounds per minute per gun could not be achieved within the weight specified. If the weight was unaltered then it was expected that 35 rounds could be fired against a surface target with perhaps up to 40 rounds per minute in the anti-aircraft role. It was decided that planning would proceed on the basis that a simplified gun was produced which met the reduced expectations.¹¹ By this stage the Radical Review was underway and the Cruiser/Destroyer came under scrutiny. It had been evolving for four years and there were now forward plans for four ships. They were deleted from the programme in October 1953 and replaced initially by one Guided Weapons Ship. The concept did not totally die away for a version with two twin 5in mountings was being evolved in 1954 as part of a wide range of studies including fleet carriers and cruisers for presentation to the Sea Lords in November 1954. The 4750-ton (deep) design was, however, not recommended by the Director of Naval Construction.¹²

The Guided-Missile Cruiser

Although construction of the traditional cruiser seemed to have ended when the decision was made to develop the cruiser/destroyer in 1949, it was not long before new cruiser-style designs began to emerge. What had changed was the realisation that an anti-aircraft guided missile would be available as a valuable addition to the armament. Studies into guided missile development for naval use had started in October 1945 and by 1948 the Sea Slug missile had become recognisable. Between 1949 and 1951 most of the studies initiated involved converting existing ships, such as the aircraft carrier Formidable, the battleship Vanguard, a Majestic class light fleet carrier and various merchant ships. In December 1951 the Board of Admiralty decided that three types of guided-missile ship were required. In order of priority they were the 12kt coastal convoy escort (Type C) armed with one triple launcher, a 30kt task force guided-missile ship (Type A) with two triple launchers, which seems to have equated with a cruiser. Lastly there was to be a 17kt ocean convoy escort (Type B) with one triple launcher. None of the conversions proved worthwhile other than Girdle Ness, which was originally earmarked as the prototype for the coastal convoy escort, a role she was destined not to perform. However, she was used as a trials ship for the Sea Slug system.

It was to be September 1954 before the first guided-missile cruiser sketch designated GW25 was produced. An amended version GW25C was presented to the Sea Lords in November 1954. This cruiser was a large ship displacing 18,300 tons full load. Length was 645ft and beam 79ft. She carried one twin Sea Slug launcher with 48 missiles. Two Type 901/2 directors were fitted. The main gun armament was two 6in twin mountings, which were the same as those specified for the Minotaur and Tiger classes. Also carried were four 40mm twin Bofors mountings. Machinery was four sets of YEAD 1 which generated 120,000shp and gave the ship a speed of 32.5kts when deep and clean. Endurance was 4500 miles at 20kts. There were some 1300 officers and men to be accommodated. There were four studies in this initial series, GW25 and GW25A – GW25C. All had the same hull and machinery but it was in the suggested armament where the debate was clearly not settled. GW25 carried two twin missile launchers (84 missiles per ship) and also two twin 6in mountings. Both GW25A and GW25B carried the same missile armament but had gun armaments of one twin 6in mounting and two twin 3in mountings respectively. Also considered was an all-gun large cruiser with two twin 6in turrets forward and one aft which was effectively an insurance policy for implementation if the guided-missile armament failed to materialise. The Director of Gunnery Division, however, took the view that there was no reason why the new guided-missile armament could not be trusted, with the result that the all-gun cruiser design never proceeded.

The Cruiser/Destroyer. This is Design Study I produced in February 1951. Two other studies were included in this series. Design Study II was arranged with two single mountings forward and one aft. Two Type 984 radar sets were included with Limbo moved amidships. In Design Study III all gun mountings were placed forward. Radar was to be Types 982 and 983 in lieu of Type 984. (Drawing by John Roberts from original in PRO ADM 116/5632)

Also presented at the Sea Lords’ meeting was an all-gun light cruiser mounting six 5in guns in twin mountings, two forward and one aft. The secondary armament consisted of a six-barrel 40mm mounting interposed between ‘B’ 5in mounting and the bridge with two twin Bofors 40mm sided aft. Four sets of triple torpedo tubes were wanted for both anti-ship and anti-submarine purposes. The design embodied Y102 COSAG machinery developing 60,000shp, a type later fitted in the ‘County’ class destroyers. A speed of 29.5kts (deep and dirty) was anticipated. The deep displacement was 8000 tons. However, this cruiser, which was not dissimilar in concept to the 1944 5.25in design, was not pursued any further. Also considered by the Sea Lords was fitting a Sea Slug installation in a Fiji class cruiser retaining only ‘A’ 6in mounting. But the age of the ships, the latest of which would have been twenty years old by the time it went to sea with guided missiles incorporated, quickly lead to this idea being dismissed.

The concept of the guided-missile cruiser was initially given the highest priority by the Sea Lords and over the next 8 months a plethora of studies was produced. Preparatory work on the large cruiser GW25C, however, ceased in January 1955, with efforts now concentrated on a variety of smaller ships. The first, GW35, had been considered by the Sea Lords in mid December. This study instigated by the Director of Naval Ordnance displaced 8000 tons full load, carried two twin 5in mountings of a new design forward and a Sea Slug aft with 20 missiles. The study was sent back by the Sea Lords for further consideration. Other options also evolved: GW38, for example, carried a twin Sea Slug launcher and two twin 6in mountings on a deep displacement of 12,200 tons. The penalty was that only 24 missiles could be carried. Another study, GW42, had one launcher and 48 missiles, four 5in in twin mountings with a displacement of 12,560 tons. GW45 carried the same missile armament but two 6in single mountings were specified on a displacement of 14,340 tons. The design with twin 5in mountings, although desirable, ultimately had to be ruled out because it would take at least 8 years to bring forward the gun mountings, even though it was a simpler concept than the 5in single developed for the cancelled cruiser/destroyer. Resources just did not exist to develop both the Sea Slug missile and a new gun. By May 1955 it was clear that a main armament of two twin 6in with a secondary armament of twin 3in mountings would be the way ahead. A new study, GW52A, had a deep displacement of 15,100 tons.¹³

The culmination of all this effort was the production of Design Study GW58, which was presented to the Board of Admiralty in July 1955. The ship carried one twin Sea Slug launcher and 48 missiles (radar one Type 901/2), two twin 6in Mark XXVI mountings, two twin 3in Mark VI and two twin Bofors Mark XI mountings. Each gun mounting was controlled by a Type 903 (MRS3) radar. Other radar carried included Types 974 (navigation set), 984 (comprehensive display system) and 992 (surface and low-level air search). The cruiser had a deep displacement of 15,400 tons, length on the waterline was 625ft with beam being 78ft; machinery generated 105,000shp on four shafts. There were separate boiler, engine and gearing rooms, the two locations being isolated from each other by the 3in magazine. Speed when deep and clean was 32kts whilst endurance in operational condition was 4500 miles at 20kts. A crew of 1050 officers and ratings was envisaged. Protection was provided by 1½in protective plating at the sides and decks over the main machinery spaces, missile stowage, magazines and steering gear compartment, although the thickness was reduced to lin over the machinery spaces. This was lighter than usually seen in the conventional cruiser. The Board of Admiralty approved the development of Design Study GW58, the aim being to order two guided-missile cruisers in the New Construction Programme for 1955–6. Also included in that year’s programme at this stage were two fast escorts and the Board were asked to approve the design study for these new ships on the same occasion. They were the ancestors of the ‘County’ class guided-missile destroyers.¹⁴

Cruiser/Destroyer. This is Design Study II of the February 1951 series. Note the two big Type 984 radar sets and the Sverdlov class cruiser in the background. The ship was expected to be able to counter Soviet cruisers by the weight of firepower from the new 5in mountings. A rate of 60 rounds per minute per gun was specified at this time.

(D K Brown collection)

Guided Weapon Cruiser ‘GW25C’. The first Guided Weapon Cruiser Designs were the four sketches in the ‘GW25’ series produced in September and October 1954. The uncertainties can be seen in the options, which were a feature of these sketches. ‘GW25’ had two twin 6in mountings and two launchers with 84 missiles; ‘GW25A’ one twin 6in and two launchers with 84 missiles; ‘GW25B’ two twin 3in and two launchers with 84 missiles. The preferred ‘GW25C’ had 48 missiles. Note: The number of missiles carried is missiles per ship.

(Drawing by John Roberts from original in NMM ADM 138/789)

Guided Weapon Cruiser ‘GW50A’. This study produced in April 1955 included a proposed twin 5in mounting. The idea proved fleeting for it was found that eight years were needed to develop the new mounting.

(Drawing by John Roberts from original in NMM ADM 138/789)

Guided Weapon Cruiser ‘GW58A’. This design, produced in June 1955, was selected for development by the Board of Admiralty. Capability and cost were reduced with one Type 901 tracker wanted rather than two in ‘GW25C’.

(Drawing by John Roberts from original in NMM ADM 167/139)

Guided Missile Cruiser ‘GW96A’, the last design. Two Type 901 trackers are again a feature and there are now four twin 3in/70 cal. mountings.

(Drawing by John Roberts from original in NMM ADM 138/789)

The new cruiser design was now the subject of intensive development but it was not long before warnings about the cost of the project began to emerge. In February 1956 A J Sims, later Sir Alfred Sims, DG Ships, had grave doubts about the design and he felt that there would be considerable opposition to their construction. Nevertheless, planning continued and by July 1956 the Programme consisted of three ships to be ordered in June 1957, June 1958 and June 1960 with completion scheduled for October 1962, March 1964 and October 1965. At the end of August, however, the programme was put back by a year; in October further doubts were expressed by Sims and in November he was joined by other voices within the Admiralty. The Suez crisis was now upon the nation with its necessary strictures, which resulted in the project being wound up in January 1957. The coup de grace was given by the First Sea Lord, Admiral of the Fleet the Earl Mountbatten of Burma. In a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the Naval Staff he intimated that he was originally opposed to the cruiser which he thought far too big for Sea Slug and that he had in fact succeeded in getting the destroyer design (fast escort) increased by some 900 tons in order to take the missile. At that time he had been told that the cruiser was needed to carry the Type 984 radar and that the 6in guns were wanted for shore bombardment. He countered by saying that surely the 4.5in guns of a destroyer were adequate for shore bombardment and could not one destroyer in every squadron of four carry the Type 984 radar instead of a gun armament. This latter idea was later investigated but not pursued. There were also thoughts that the guided-weapon cruiser could be used as some sort of depot ship for a squadron of guided-weapon destroyers. Mountbatten considered that a guided-weapon carrier could perform this function, an idea again investigated but not pursued.

At cancellation the cruiser had grown into a very large and expensive vessel. The final design (GW96A) displaced 18,450 tons (deep), with length on the waterline being some 675ft and a beam of 80ft, increases of 50ft and 2ft respectively over GW58. The principal causes of this escalation in size were an increase in missile capacity from 48 (GW58) to 64 (GW96A) and a doubling of the 3in armament from two to four twin mountings. Another two Type 903 radars (MRS3 mod 1) were required to control the additional gun mountings. The crew increased by 65 to 1115 officers and men whilst to maintain the required speed the Y200 machinery now specified had to develop another 5000shp. Although never formally approved by the Board of Admiralty, a considerable amount of effort was put into its design. Possible names were also considered by the Ships’ Names Committee for the first ship, the choice being Duke of Edinburgh. However, it is unlikely that the formalities reached the stage where the Queen gave her approval.¹⁵

On 11 April 1957 the Board of Admiralty confirmed that the cruisers had been abandoned ‘in spite of high expectations that had been aroused concerning these ships’. To the public it was justified ‘that in building guided-missile destroyers instead of guided-missile cruisers, the Admiralty would be making the best use of limited resources now available.’ The change in strategy, however, was more fundamental, for the staff of the Cruiser Section responsible for designing the ship were moved to become the nuclear submarine design team.¹⁶

The ‘County’ Class Guided-Missile Destroyers

With the cancellation of the cruiser/destroyer there was now a requirement for a new destroyer. Initial ideas produced a development of the Daring class mounting a 5in gun developed from the Army’s weapon known as ‘Rate-fixer’. A major revolution was the decision to install gas turbines in addition to the conventional steam plant (an arrangement later known as COSAG), the aim being to give a boost for top speed. Escort destroyer designs were also under consideration. In June 1953 there were two separate designs with different hulls: an anti-submarine ship and an anti-aircraft/aircraft direction vessel. By October 1953 the displacement of the AA/AD version was 3600 tons and the main armament would have been the tried and tested 4.5in Mark VI mounting; but there was a debate over whether it should carry two or three mountings. The machinery would again have been a COSAG installation. The escort destroyers were superseded at the concept design stage by a fast escort displacing 4800 tons with an all-gun armament of six 4.5in in three twin mountings, two forward and one aft. Other versions mounted two 4.5in twin mountings forward with a a twin 3in/70 cal. mount aft, again displacing 4800 tons. The last version of some twenty studies produced displaced 4500 tons, the gun armament comprising one twin 4.5in and one twin 3in/70 cal. The ship was 425ft long with a beam at the waterline of 47ft 6in. Additional armament comprised six fixed torpedo tubes with six anti-submarine torpedoes and a Mark X anti-submarine mortar. This study was produced following a request of the Sea Lords made on 28 January 1955. The Controller considered the design to be unbalanced and under-armed and in May 1955 recommended acceptance of the fast escort design incorporating a twin guided-missile launcher.¹⁷

A study for what was called a Destroyer GW Ship was produced for the Sea Lords’ meeting in November 1954. Displacing 3550 tons deep, the ship carried one twin Sea Slug launcher with 12 missiles and three L70 Bofors mountings. The machinery was the Y102 COSAG installation as specified for the 5in cruiser study presented to the Sea Lords. Speed achieved was only 0.5kt more than the cruiser, which was more than double the destroyer’s displacement. The cause was the differing lengths of the two designs. This concept with surface armament reminiscent of the Type 14 Blackwood class then under construction was not pursued.

Fast Escort. These two conjectural drawings illustrate how it is believed this design appeared. The first study shows the ship with a main armament of three twin 4.5in Mark VI mountings, which was the main armament originally specified. The second drawing shows the aft twin mounting replaced with a twin 3in/70 cal. This was then in turn superseded by a Sea Slug guided missile launcher in the first studies, which were to lead to the ‘County’ class guided missile destroyer.

(Drawings by John Roberts)

Guided Weapon Fast Escort. These two studies were produced very quickly in May 1955. They were based on two existing fast escort designs with the guided missile installation replacing a twin 3in/70 cal. mounting. The difference in the two designs is the position of the Mark X anti-submarine mortar.

(Drawings by John Roberts from original in PRO ADM 167/139)

Guided Weapon Destroyer. This drawing was produced in May 1956. The ship now incorporates features of the final ‘County’ class design. The Mark X anti-submarine mortar is still included and there is no provision for helicopter operation.

(Drawing by John Roberts from original in PRO ADM 205/109)

Development of the escort destroyer design proceeded and two ships were included in the 1955–6 New Construction Programme. However, as we have seen, there were concerns about the viability of the large guided-missile cruiser design and in May 1955 the first studies for a guided-missile destroyer were produced, which would seem to have evolved from the escort destroyer design. What probably happened was that the aft 3in/70 cal. mounting and magazine of a study mounting two twin 4.5in mountings forward and one 3in/70 cal. mounting aft was replaced by a Sea Slug installation. There are indications that the studies were prepared in a hurry, the instigator being Admiral Mountbatten. Four options were produced by the Director of Naval Construction (Studies GW54–57). Displacement ranged from 4550 tons to 5400 tons. The gun armament was either one or two twin 4.5in, two carried six anti-submarine torpedoes whilst the number of MRS3 carried ranged from one to four. All carried a twin Sea Slug launcher with 12 missiles and had COSAG machinery.¹⁸

Two versions based on GW57, which was now known as the GW Fast Escort, were presented to the Board of Admiralty on 14 July 1955, just two months after the first studies were prepared. This was the largest and most capable of the studies produced in May 1955. Also before the Board was the Guided-missile Cruiser (GW58). Length on the waterline was 470ft with beam 50ft 6in; displacement was 5400 tons deep and the gun armament, consisting of two 4.5in twin mountings, was sited forward of the bridge. The machinery produced 60,000shp to give 31kts deep and clean. Endurance was 3500 miles at 20kts. The difference in the two studies was the location of the anti-submarine mortar. In Study 1001 the weapon was located at the stern aft of the missile launcher whilst in Study 1002 the location had moved to a position before the bridge and aft of the two twin 4.5in mountings. The great advance was that it was now hoped to carry about 20 missiles which were located in a hanger forward of the missile launcher with storage space extending for two decks below this structure. The Board approved the design as a basis for further elaboration. Doubts were expressed about the location of the missile launcher, which it was felt might be subject to vibration at the after end of the ship, affecting the launch of a missile. The Naval Staff were also asked to consider the inclusion of Bofors guns. The Controller indicated that if the missile armament was not available then the ship would be completed with the 3in/70 cal. as a temporary expedient.¹⁹

Cancellation of the big guided-missile cruiser gave the project increased impetus and by March 1957 the design had evolved sufficiently for presentation to the Board of Admiralty. The ship now displaced 6000 tons deep and had a waterline length of 505ft. The machinery (Y102A) comprised two 15,000shp steam turbines with four 7500shp gas turbines to boost power. The ship was designed to achieve 30.5kts deep and dirty in temperate waters. A speed of 26kts in this state could be achieved using steam power alone. Two large propellers were fitted with the aim of both reducing noise and vibration. The hull was to be built of a special notch-tough medium tensile steel whilst the superstructures were of aluminium suitably reinforced with steel frameworks. Lessons learned during the post-war Ship Target Trials by the Naval Construction Research Establishment, Rosyth (NCRE) were incorporated.

Three models of studies which were to lead to the ‘County’ class guided missile destroyers.

Top: Study 1002. One of the first studies with Mark X anti-submarine mortar mounted forward.

Centre: A later study with the split after funnel.

Bottom: Study with hull raised by one deck over most of the length of the ship. Mark X antisubmarine mortar still carried aft and no provision for helicopter operation.

(D K Brown collection)

The main gun armament remained two twin 4.5in mountings forward whilst two twin 40mm Mark V Mod 2 were also to be fitted. There were also to be eight anti-submarine torpedoes and a Mark X anti-submarine mortar located on the deckhouse forward of the missile launcher. The Sea Slug outfit was now to be 14 missiles with conventional warheads and four with special (nuclear) warheads (see below). The midships deckhouse (abaft the funnels) was made one deck higher to provide additional space for the special weapons. The main change in appearance was the provision of a split after funnel arrangement, the aim being to simplify the gas turbine uptake arrangements.

At this stage it was realised that changes were going to have to be made. The provision of four nuclear Sea Slug missiles exerted a penalty, which meant that the anti-submarine torpedoes would have to be surrendered as compensation. This loss resulted in consideration being given to the provision of facilities to enable a Fairy Ultra Light helicopter to be operated, including a hanger, which in turn meant sacrificing the anti-submarine mortar. The helicopter had, however, not been evaluated and it was suggested that its provision be reviewed in twelve months time. What could be quickly achieved was a landing space for an S.55 helicopter without a hanger, maintenance or fuelling facilities. The prototype was expected to cost £9 million with subsequent ships costing £8 million, including the cost of the guns.²⁰

The Board of Admiralty approved the sketch design and legend of particulars and confirmed that work on the detailed design could proceed as proposed. They also congratulated the Director of Naval Construction, Sir Victor Shepheard, and all those concerned, on the originality and ingenuity, which had been displayed in the design. Two ideas came out of the meeting. One was a suggestion by the Parliamentary Secretary that the Army’s new guided-missile ‘Green Flax’ could take the place of Sea Slug. The other by the Director of Naval Construction was that it might be possible to install a Type 984 radar with reduced circuits in place of the main gun armament. It was thought possible that one in four vessels of the class would carry this radar, reflecting Mountbatten’s thoughts. Both ideas were studied but duly died away.²¹

The first change to appear as the detailed design work proceeded was the replacement of the three-funnel arrangement by two funnels which were not dissimilar to those ultimately fitted. The next alteration, which had evolved by November 1957, was more fundamental. Up to now the sketch designs had all had a conventional superstructure but it was now decided to raise the main hull by one deck over most of the length of the ship. The effect

was a major increase in internal space, a better structure, better survivability and improved protection from nuclear attack. It was now possible to stow 24 missiles, a major gain. They were now stored in a long hanger which extended over the machinery spaces through the middle of the ship high in the hull. This was a radical departure from conventional practice and as a safeguard a constantly pressurised automatic fire-fighting system was installed. There was no armour, for the ship was built to destroyer standards. By June 1958 it had been decided that the ship should operate a Wessex helicopter with hanger and support provided. The cost of the first ship had, however, now risen to £10.5 million.²²

The first pair, Devonshire and Hampshire, were laid down in March 1959 by, respectively, Cammell Laird and John Brown, who were responsible for the detailed design. Devonshire was completed in November 1962, exactly 7½ years after the first studies were instigated, a fine achievement. The Constructor who as Head of Section in charge of designing the ‘County’ class for six years was John Coates RCNC. He was present on an extended shake down cruise to the United States and Caribbean, one of the purposes of which was to test the air-conditioning system in tropical conditions, the class having been the first to be designed from scratch with this feature. En route the ship visited Philadelphia where people from the Bureau of Ships expressed astonishment at the lavish standard of furnishing in Devonshire. They were also surprised at the absence of pillars in machinery spaces. Coates told them that, being responsible for the design as a whole, he had decided that the structural arrangements in the class made them unnecessary. In the Bureau of Ships decisions were more departmentalised and codified.²³

The original plan was to build ten ships but by 1963 the escort cruiser and the Type 82 frigate, both of which were to be armed with the new CF299 (Sea Dart) missile, were under development. The last four ‘Countys’ had consequently been deferred. However, by the end of the year it was apparent that there would be delays in the escort cruiser programme and there were uncertainties surrounding the Type 82 programme. In view of these reservations it was decided to proceed with two of the deferred ships, assurances having been given that the missile armament would be effective into the 1980s.²⁴

The ‘County’ class destroyer Devonshire firing a Sea Slug missile. (MoD)

The Sea Slug missile had rather a chequered career. Development clearly proved difficult and in 1957, long before it entered service, the missile was described as ‘not as good as it might have been’. A major weakness was that it was a beam-riding missile with no homing device which would attract it to its target, accuracy diminishing with distance. There were also doubts about the ability of the missile to cope with low-level targets. The requirement for an nuclear warhead (special weapons) existed to extend the range at which the missile could operate, less accuracy being needed, and also to give it surface-to-surface capability, enabling the ships to deal with Russian cruisers and land targets. The Mark I missile did not carry a nuclear warhead, the Admiralty having rejected that proposed as too hazardous for stowage and operation on board ship. However, by 1960 a Mark II version was being developed to overcome the weakness in the Mark I. Improvements enabled it to engage supersonic targets and a Russian Komet-type missile, capabilities which the initial version did not possess. The Komet, NATO code name ‘Kennel’ was an air-launched beam-riding missile based on the MiG 15 fighter. The Mark II Sea Slug could also be fitted with a nuclear warhead, improved manufacturing techniques enabling a smaller and safer warhead to be made. Initially it was planned to install the Mark II system in the second group and then retrofit it in the first group; but only the second group received the new system. A related project was Blue Slug, a surface-to-surface guided weapon which flew at about 50ft and was altimeter controlled. It outranged the 6in guns in a Sverdlov class cruiser. Development of the Sea Slug Mark II probably caused its abandonment.²⁵

The first four members of the class, Devonshire, Hampshire, Kent and London, were completed to the original design. The second group, Fife, Glamorgan, Antrim and Norfolk, were armed with Sea Slug Mark II and they also had an improved version of the Type 965 long range radar. Service life was relatively short, with Kent the last member of the first group becoming a harbour training ship by 1980. All the second batch were sold to Chile, the last to go being Fife which was transferred in 1987.²⁶

Antrim as originally completed with two twin 4.5in mountings and double Type 965 radar.

(D K Brown collection)

Norfolk on 26 January 1976. Note Exocet surface-to-surface missile fitted instead of twin 4.5in mounting in ‘B’ position.

(Mike Lennon)

¹ The legend of the 1944 5.25in cruiser is in ADM 167/118: 1943 Board Admiralty Board Minutes and Memoranda (PRO). See also G L Moore, ‘The Royal Navy’s 1944 Cruiser’, Warship 1996.

² The minutes of the Sea Lords meeting on 2 February 1944 which instigated the new 6in cruiser design and details of Design ‘Y’ are held in ADM 205/40: First Sea Lord’s Papers (PRO). The cancellation of the Neptune design is recorded in ADM 205/64: First Sea Lord’s Papers (PRO). Details of the revised Neptune design are recorded in a memorandum by the Director of Naval Construction, C S Lillicrap, dated 11 April 1946 held in ADM 167/127:1946 Admiralty Board Minutes and Memoranda (PRO).

³ ADM 167/127:1946 Admiralty Board Minutes and Memoranda; and ADM 205/64: First Sea Lord’s Papers contain details of Sketch ‘A’ to Sketch ‘D’. Designs may well have been known earlier as Z1 – Z4; Sketch ‘D’ is known to have been designated Z4C.

⁴ Details of Designs ZA and ZB are included in a paper titled ‘uss Worcester- Comparison with Minotaur Design’ held in the DNC’s papers at the NMM. The proposed 6in Cruiser Designs of 1947 and the record of discussions are held in The First Sea Lord’s Papers ADM 205/67 (PRO). The order in which the minutes of the Sea Lords’ meeting sets out the function of a cruiser is indicative of the uncertainty prevailing. Anti-aircraft defence of the cruiser herself is surely not the primary task.

⁵ ‘The Royal Navy’s 1944 Cruiser’ and DNC’s papers held at the NMM. The comparison between Worcester and Minotaur was produced by D K Brown.

⁶ ADM 116/5632: 1948–1952 Ship Design Policy Committee – meetings and recommendations (PRO); and DNC Papers (NMM); ADM 138/790: Cruisers – general 1948–1958 (NMM). The DA weapon was probably a six-barrelled 40mm Bofors. See also Anthony Preston, ‘The RN’s 1960 Cruiser Designs’, Warship 23 and clarification by Professor Michael Vlahos (‘As & As’) in Warship 26. The Daring class funnel was designed to counter the effect of a nuclear blast.

⁷ DNC’s papers (NMM). The Short Seamew was developed as a utility anti-submarine aircraft to operate from small aircraft carriers.

⁸ ADM 138/830: Destroyers and Frigates General Cover (NMM). The comparison between ‘A1’ and Oland is in the DNC’s papers (NMM). Brief details of the destroyer designs produced in August 1948 are recorded in the paper ‘Ships of the Future Navy’ held in ADM 205/83: First Sea Lord’s Records (PRO). Limbo was the project name given to a prototype anti-submarine mortar which when produced was known as the Mark X.

⁹ Details of the Light Cruiser design are dated 13 April 1949. See ‘Ships of the Future Navy’, ADM 205/83 (PRO). The financial record for the 5.25in gun is recorded in ADM 1/25240: 1944– 1953 5in Medium Calibre Dual Purpose (MCDP) single weapon: design, development and manufacture of prototype; estimate of financial liability (PRO). A later 5in mounting is believed to have been a development of an anti-aircraft gun designed for the Army. The Emergency Cruiser Programme is recorded in ADM 1/22760: 1951 Emergency Cruiser Programme – Gun Armament (PRO).

¹⁰ ADM 138/830: Destroyers and Frigates General Cover (NMM). See also ADM 116/5632: Ship Design Policy Committee meetings and recommendations 1948–1952 (PRO). There would have been two problems to overcome if the Type 984 radar had been installed. Firstly there were doubts if two could operate in a fleet let alone in one ship and secondly there were production constraints. The planned production rate in 1953 indicated that one set a year would be produced in 1955–7 with two sets a year thereafter. ADM 167/143: 1953 Board Minutes and Memoranda 1953 (PRO).

¹¹ ADM 1/23473: 1952 5in DP Gun in conjunction with the concept of the Cruiser/Destroyer (PRO).

¹² ADM 167/143: 1953 Admiralty Board Memoranda (PRO); and ADM 1/24610: Consideration and Armament of New Destroyer Design (PRO). Brief details of the 5in destroyer design presented to the Sea Lords’ meeting on 30 November 1954 are held in ADM 138/789: Guided Weapon Ships 1 (NMM). There is a good account of the development of the Cruiser/Destroyer in Norman Friedman, The Postwar Naval Revolution (London & Annapolis 1986).

¹³ ADM 138/789: Guided Weapon Ships 1 (NMM). This cover has particulars of a wide range of guided-missile ship designs. Whether cruiser, destroyer or convoy escort they all follow in the sequence. GW1, for example, is an ocean escort. The debate over a new all-gun cruiser design is recorded in ADM 205/102: First Sea Lord’s Records (PRO). Study GW25 was produced as a result of the deliberations of the Admiralty Air Defence Working Party. Up to this point the first guided-missile ship known as Blue 01 was planned as an escort. Supply difficulties meant that only one Sea Slug system could be operational by 1960–1, another two years being needed before additional systems were produced. The evolution of this policy is recorded in ADM 1/25609: Introduction of Ship borne Guided Weapons (PRO).

¹⁴ ADM 167/139: 1955 Admiralty Board Memoranda (PRO). The memorandum makes the point that as originally conceived the guided missile cruiser was intended to displace 11,000 tons. Design study GW49, which was one of five produced in April 1955 displaced 11,100 tons deep. Main armament was one Sea Slug launcher with two 5in twin mountings. The first Guided-Missile Destroyer studies emerged in May 1955, the first one meeting the displacement guideline. The 5in cruiser studies were not developed. ADM 138/789: Guided Weapon Ships 1 (NMM).

¹⁵ ADM 138/789: Guided Weapon Ships 1 (NMM). ADM 205/170: First Sea Lord’s Records contains memorandum dated 4 January 1957 by First Sea Lord (PRO). Minutes of the Ships’ Names Committee (Naval Historical Branch, Whitehall).

¹⁶ ADM 167/149: 1957 Admiralty Board Minutes (PRO); and D K Brown, A Century of Naval Construction (London 1983). See also Chapter 9.

¹⁷ D K Brown, A Century of Naval Construction. Displacement of fleet escort and suggested armament are recorded in ADM 1/24610: Consideration of Armament of new Destroyer Design (PRO). See also paper presented in 1974 to the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, ‘Post War RN Frigate and Guided Missile Destroyer Design 1944–1969’, by M K Purvis RCNC. First mention of fast escort (escort destroyer) is in ADM 138/818: Fleet Aircraft Carrier. New Design 1952 (NMM). The memorandum by the Controller which signalled the abandonment of the all-gun armed Fast Escort is held in ADM 205/104: First Sea Lord’s Records (PRO).

¹⁸ ADM 138/789: Guided Weapon Ships 1 (NMM).

¹⁹ ADM 167/139: 1955 Admiralty Board Memoranda (PRO); and ADM 167/142: 1955 Admiralty Board Minutes (PRO). A third design was also submitted to the Board meeting, the ‘Tribal’ class general purpose frigate, which at this stage had a main armament of two twin 4in Mark XVIII. The operation of a Fairy Ultra Light helicopter was considered in December 1956. It was decided to retain the Limbo anti-submarine mortar but the question remained open pending further assessment of the capabilities of the helicopter. ADM 205/112: First Sea Lord’s Records (PRO).

²⁰ ADM 167/150: 1957 Admiralty Board Memoranda (PRO). The first post-war warships built which incorporated the lessons of the NCRE trials were the Type 41 and Type 61 frigates. Chapter 5 covers this topic. A series of articles by D K Brown on the post-war trials was published in Warship 41–44 inclusive.

²¹ ADM 167/149: 1957 Admiralty Board Minutes (PRO). In the discussion there was talk of the Sea Slug Mark II showing promise of doing all that was required whilst the Green Flax missile was not proven.

²² D K Brown, A Century of Naval Construction. ADM 167/149: 1957 Admiralty Board Minutes (PRO); and ADM 167/151: 1958 Admiralty Board Minutes (PRO). According to a draft Board Minute dated 5 June 1958 held in ADM 205/176: First Sea Lord’s Records (PRO). The hangar for the helicopter was initially described as a movable cover of telescopic design which could be pulled out over the helicopter on the flight platform. The change from a three-funnel to a two-funnel layout was initiated after the retirement of Sir Victor Shepheard.

²³ Dr John Coates confided his experiences on the shakedown cruise in a conversation with D K Brown in March 2002. He gained his doctorate for work on the Greek Trireme project after his career with the RCNC.

²⁴ ADM 167/162: 1963 Admiralty Board Minutes (PRO).

²⁵ T 225/1539: 1946–1959 Admiralty R & D of Guided Missiles for use afloat (PRO); and DEFE 30/2: Defence Board – The Naval Programme 29 November 1960 (PRO). There are references to Blue Slug missile in ADM 138/888: SCC Project 35 (Aircraft Carrier CVA-01) (NMM).

²⁶ Conway’s All the World’s Fighting Ships 1947–1995 (London 1995), p508.