Shipbucket

Certainly I don't want to sound unsympathetic to the need to keep topweight down and keep arcs open. I would have expected Type 965, I guess. USN experience would have suggested that the radars presented here would be insufficient to fully exploit the Sea Slug as an integrated weapons system, and it makes one wonder what sort of mindset the designers were operating under. I think, from a modern mindset, the air warning plus target indicator paradigm was probably ill-suited to an area-defense missile.

On the other hand, it's quite natural for a never-built design to have severe and insurmountable fundamental design problems. After all, somebody decided to not build it!

Another extremely interesting addition.

Great drawings Hood.

I must admit to being surprised to see the twin 5.25" make a reappearance.

Soon-to-be-surplus from Vanguard, one would figure? I would have expected the RN to be trying to standardize on one caliber by that point, but it's not outrageous.

Between 1953-57 The Daring class DD's were completed with the new 4.5" turret, that is the weapons I would have expected on new build ships, not recycled 5.25". Vanguard lasted through to 1960, so the turrets would probably have come from either surplus Dido's or KGV's.

GW37 January 1955

The austere radar systems of the GW36 were recognised and in mid-January 1955 designer T J O'Neill began work on a sketch design of GW36 with the Type 984 radar. The radar affected the design with its weight and volume and to give clear arcs the ship had to be lengthened by 20ft. The radar also increased the complement and the hull weight. The growth was not unreasonable so Type 984 was deemed a reasonable request for any GW cruiser design.
Drawing Note: Most likely no sketch drawing was ever completed, this is my speculative drawing based on GW36

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft

That looks quite nice as an air-defence cruiser.

Great drawing Hood.

Very interesting!

@Krakatoa
If the 5.25s were seriously intended, where they were taken from would depend on the mounting - which would depend on what was below decks.
The Didos had long-trunk mountings down to the low-placed magazines.
KGVs had the original short trunks.
The Vanguard's RP10 Mark I* mountings had a larger gunhouse, RPC, fuze setting equipment in the hoists .. and were tied to the USN Mark 37 GFCS [Navweaps]
When designs were drawn up for rapid production of a few extra Dido-based AA cruisers around the time of the Korean war, the 4.5in DP was the clear favourite for its AA performance. Sticking to the 5.25 for those would have taken all the spare turrets with RPC.
So, as these ships carried Seaslug to shoot down aircraft, I suggest 5.25s provided better surface performance (against ships, but more likely some shore bombardment capability)
Still surprising though, on standardisation of parts and ammunition supply.

Sorry guys just found out that Friedman is talking bollocks! Apparently what he referred to as '5.25in guns' was actually 5in Vickers N1 or N2 mounts. So, some redrawing is necessary.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft