Shipbucket

The last cruiser, but by no means the last drawing for this thread!


GW96A January 1957

Following GW60 the Sketch Staff Requirement was revised and reissued in February 1956. It included DNO's four twin 3in L/70 mounts, provision for 25% nuclear Sea Slug warheads, more air intercept control positions, 90 more crew and removal of the VDS. A rough estimate was GW84 of March 1956 which topped at 18,300 tons. By now the size of the missile was known and the planned three-high, two-wide tube stowage was no longer practical so the magazine was now two levels of 27ft wide tubes one high and four wide. GW84 and 85 had this arrangement, with only two twin 3in GW85 came to 17,000 tons. DNC wanted to hold displacement to 16,000 tons. GW 86-89 explored 64 and 48-missile magazines with one or two Type 901. GW89 was 18,500 tons. DNC made new sketches of improved designs, GW91 was GW85 with the 3in guns aft to decrease bending moment when the guns fired but affected the 901 aft due to blast. GW92 swapped the missile launcher and B turret positions. GW93-95 were double-ended designs with four twin 3in and four to six 4.5in. GW96 of May 1956 was the optimum design but weight was a major issue. By August the project had stalled, the Admiralty losing enthusiasm for an expensive cruiser. On 27 August the Controller pushed back the planning dates by a year, the first of three ships would commission in October 1963, the last in October 1966. Arguments still raged over the details and a new Staff Requirement was issued in November 1956. GW96 was discussed in November, by now the magazine was altered so it could accommodate 64 Sea Slug or 124 Terriers or 64 Talos or 22 Blue Envoy (Stage 1 3/4) folded or 10 complete Blue Envoy. Replacement of Sea Slug by Red Shoes/ Green Flax was also mooted but resisted by the Navy. Controller suspended work in January 1957 and the Sea Slug mantle passed to the County Class destroyer.
The details of GW96A were:
Displacement was 18,450 tons (deep); dimensions 687 (oa) (675 wl) x 80 x 22ft. Speed was 32kts deep and clean with four YEAD sets producing 110,000hp, endurance 4,500nm at 20kts. Armament was two twin 6in Mk.26, four twin 3in L/70 Mk.6 and 64 Sea Slug missiles. The radar fit was two Type 901 directors, six MRS-3, Type 984, Type 992 and Type 974. Self-defence Type 176 and Type 177 sonars were also fitted. Armour protection was 1.5in side and deck except for the machinery areas which had 1in deck armour and the AIO which had 1in side and deck plating. Complement was 95 officers and 1,020 ratings.
Drawing Note: This drawing based on official sketch drawings of GW96A and photographs of the model held by Greenwich and other published drawings based on official sources

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

I saw this last cruiser in "Vanguard to Trident", by Eric J.Grove. 64 Sea Slug vs 22 Blue Envoy, this missile was really large.

If we have all the cruisers now (lets say First Part), can we make a sum up which cruiser was the most reliastic?

Excellent addition.

Yeah, I guess this one was big enough for Talos. Did she still lose her forward turrets if that would be fitted?

_________________
Would you please not eat my gun...

Oh, BRAVO Hood, my dear chap. Jolly nice looking Cruiser

This is one of my favourite threads, and your drawings are simply beautiful..... Well Done

I can't wait to see what's to follow

_________________
https://discord.gg/5PHq8Dk
My artwork is posted here: https://www.deviantart.com/adenandy/gallery/all

Great drawings but I don't understand: "Armour protection was 1.5in side and deck except for the machinery areas which had 1in deck armour and the AIO which had 1in side and deck plating."
What is all that thin armour supposed to stop? Do you mean the machinery spaces have 1.5in sides and 1in deck? You show an external belt over the machinery. Is the rest box protection? Was their any weight breakdown - usually the most revealing statistics about a design, though not affecting a drawing much.

Thanks for the praises guys.

odysseus1980,
GW58 was the first in-depth design with detailed calculations and the first to really be a practical design, or at least for further detailed work to begin. GW96A was probably the most realistic because it was only then that the configuration, weight and size of Sea Slug and its systems were known and the refinements of the GW80 and 90 series made. GW96A was probably the best of the designs overall, but I think the decision to cancel them was correct. Certainly by 1963 and 1966 when they would have commissioned they would have been outdated and the manpower needs were too great when the service was stretched.

MihoshsiK,
Probably not. I think at this stage the development of Sea Slug was such that the Admiralty was probably keeping its options open in case the planned system didn't work out or was delayed or if the Americans put a good deal on the table for Terrier or Talos. Blue Envoy by now was becoming a favoured long-range SAM, but it was too big as well as too ambitious. The GW series continued with parallel studies for cruisers with this weapon, but alas while we have data we have no drawings (that I've ever seen). I would assume sufficient margins and topweight would have been available for any of these systems. Its worth noting, absent from my blurb on these ships, that one feature of the November 56 to Jan 57 series was the possibility of replacing two 3in mounts with Tartar. That would have made these formidable air-defence ships.

Smurf,
Good call on the armour. The common armour layout for all the ships from the GW50s onwards seems to have been a 1.5in side armour and 1.5in decks over the 6in magazines etc. The machinery spaces only had 1in thick decks. GW96A is odd in that its the only design I've seen mention of armouring for the AIO. The armour scheme was splinter protection only, progressively sacrificed from the earlier thicker schemes of GW25 etc. In the desire to free weight for bulky equipment it seems armour was sacrificed, as you say its a weak system. The Sea Slug magazines were consistently above the armoured deck, some schemes seem to have had 1.75in armoured top plating (GW50-52), but its not specifically mentioned for all the designs and not for GW96. Basically the most volatile part of the ship (also the biggest target by area and space) was not well protected. Being centreline and deep in the hull they could not have vented out in the event of an explosion (some of the earlier GW series had their hangars in the superstructure and probably could have). I've read in one of the accounts of GW96A that is was thankful the magazine vulnerability was never tested in real life!
As to belts, I'm not sure is the real answer. Friedman's drawings are all sectional so show no belt or armour details at all. Brown & Moore show external belts over the machinery and generator spaces for all the GW cruisers illustrated in 'Rebuilding the Royal Navy'. In Vanguard to Trident the drawing of GW96A has a long belt from A turret right aft to the Sea Slug launcher (although clearly based on the Greenwhich model, the drawing has numerous flaws in details). The model of GW96 shows no obvious external belt at all. My personal hunch was to go with the short machinery belts as depicted in Brown & Moore, I suspect there was no continuous side armour but boxes for the machinery spaces and the magazines. I'm assuming the layout of the machinery spaces would preclude internal armour due to beam etc. so an external or integral belt would be used there and boxes around the 6in magazines. The 3in magazines would fall within the machinery protected space (as do the machinery spaces for the missile hangar elevators (but not the elevators themselves).
I've not seen detailed breakdowns for most of the armour schemes, I'll have to go back over the sources.

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

A little snippet about armour, further to my ramblings above.
Ian Sturton's CVA-01 article in Warship 2015 discusses the carrier's armour scheme. Basically structural steel was being used in most areas with hardened armour only around vital spaces. 1.5in structural steel plating was meant to keep out splinters from 500lb bombs and penetration from missiles equivalent to 4.5in shells; 1.75in all splinters and 6in shells. CVA-01 is a bit later than GW96A, but the same general rule probably applies, meaning those armoured 1-1.5in decks would have been effective enough for decent splinter protection and some resistance to light gun fire. I'm slightly sceptical of the claims for CVA-01's protection but I'm guessing hardened and improved steels and welding methods from the days of traditional gun cruisers had improved resistance for equivalently lesser thicknesses of plating.

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

Ηowever, RΝ did install Sea Slug to Counties, developing a new ship class. Τhe GW96 was a new design or it had some connection with earlier Τiger and Μinotaur? Ηow about built 2 GW96 (instead of 4 Τiger), six ΑΑW County (with Sea Slug) and 4 DDΗ County ("Chilean conversion" layout). Latter would be offered for export as well.

Historically, the RN seemed to have a particular fixation on the threat posed by the Sverdlovs. Having armor requirements governed to a large degree by 6" fire would make a lot of sense, regardless of whether these ships would ever have anything resembling an immunity zone in the traditional sense.