Shipbucket

I don't have time to write up a ton on this subject (and references are 300mi away), but here are some relevant images from my electronic library. SQS-23 definitely started as a single-dome system; references to later upgrades often refer to SQS-23 PAIR (Performance And Integration Retrofit) or SQS-23 PADLOC (Passive Detection and LOCation).



Two-dome arrangement of USS Barney, date unknown but note open-air asbestos remediation dumpster:


http://i.imgur.com/jRtkVKC.jpg

Transducer:



Single-array SQS-23 for installation on USS Intrepid:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... d_1965.jpg

Thanks for sharing that guys. I did some reading on the SQG-1 and QGBa sonars. They were pretty terrible, which I think the Navy realized, prompting the switch to SQS-23. Unless there was some reason that you absolutely have to stick to that configuration, I would recommend bypassing the double configuration and going with the single, more powerful set.

SQS-23 or anything like it was not available in 1952 though, let alone for export, so I do not have this option.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

It's important to think about period sonar in the proper context of the ASW threat of the 1950s. By that I mean two things.

First, before the advent of the nuclear submarine, sonar was arguably not the primary ASW search technology. Submarines could not spend long periods transiting an area submerged without at least exposing a snorkel, and (at least in the USN) there remained great interest in developing better surface search sets (both shipboard and airborne) to detect submarines from long distance.

Second, with submarines of the period generally slower submerged than surface ships, it was of dubious value to have a sonar with dramatically greater range than the weapons system it was designed to control. Weapon Alpha had a range of something like 800 yards! As I understand it SQS-23 was designed specifically around ASROC, and being able to provide sufficient search range to fully exploit the weapon.

Would it be better to have longer range sonar? Sure, of course! But even in the coldest depths of the Cold War, money and design engineers were limited. The anti-ship guided missile appeared to pose a far more serious threat, a dramatically different and new and terrifying threat that end-phase WW2 ships were just completely unable to counter. Type XXI was scary, but was an evolutionary rather than revolutionary capability. It made more sense to focus efforts on improved radar and shipboard SAMs.

Sonar is still not the primary detection method for submarines. I think that being able to "see" a threat further than you can engage it with your weapon is still advantageous. If you break it down to a time distance problem, if you can detect the submarine further, it changes the scheme of maneuver to a point where that ship's captain can control the time and place of any engagement with the submarine. The numbers of tonnage lost due to Submarines during world war 2 is several orders of magnitude higher than from surface actions. Being bale to out maneuver wolf packs would have been a great boon. 25kHz sonar isn't going to give you that ability.

I would slightly disagree here, the Royal Navy put a lot of development time and effort into sonars, including long-range sonars during the mid-40s to mid-50s.
I would agree with Ace though that 1952 was probably too early for these developments so long-range sonar is probably not an option. A destroyer set-up might suffice but you probably need something to fully exploit those homing torpedoes (look like British Bidder tubes, probably tad early for Bidder given its problems though), though the RN lacked a long-range set in service when it was designed but it never entered full service but I believe some early Whitbys were fitted with it. They had the standard Type 174 search set, Type 162 target classification set and Type 170 'pencil beam' targeting set.

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

Yep, those are bidder tubes.
Fun fact: the Dutch Friesland class had one ship fitted with tubes like it, produced in the Netherlands, which never carried the torpedo's. Something similar might have happened for these cruisers, but seeing that these were true blue water flagships, they would be refitted for american torpedo's or something like that instead of just removing them.

I agree that they are a bit early, so they might even have been build without but with them in mind...... so I placed them on board.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

Do you know what torpedo was intended for those tubes aboard that Friesland class ship?

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

British Mk 20E torpedo's. IIRC, that's bidder? I do realise now that this was at the end of the 1950's this was done, in 1959 the first tests with the torpedo tubes were concluded and 8 were produced and fitted on the HrMs Utrecht.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

Yes the Mk20E was Bidder, it was cleared for service in 1958 in the RN so the dates match. I didn't realise it had been released for export, so that's interesting information.

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