Peterasp

Why "Mutton Chops" for Ramillies ?

Modernization and re-arming the Petya III class. In 1968 the navy acquired the first of its 12 Petya III class ASW ships from the USSR. They filled in the void left by the de-commissioning of the Bathurst class in the early 1960s and were to provide coastal escorts for convoys and harbour defence. Like all export models, these ships carried a set of triple 21” TT’s instead of the Soviet standard quintuple 16” ASW TT. In 1979 the navy took stock of this class with which it was generally dissatisfied and made a study to know how it could be improved upon. At this time, the infant Directorate of Naval Design (DND) was heavily involved in the design of the P-16 FFG class, the on-going construction of the last of the Leander class FFG’S ( Frigate No. 6), Phase-1 of the modernisation of INS Vikrant (CVL) and also the Phase-1 modernisation of INS Trishul (FF). However it gamely went ahead and recommended that : a). There was precious little that could be done about the hulls, which seemed to wear out very badly in tropical waters needing refits at more frequent intervals. b). With four 76 mm guns (in the A & Y positions) it seemed to be over-gunned specially considering its ASW orientation. However in the Soviet system, the AK-726 was a DP system, so careful thought would have to be given before deciding to land the aft turret, as it would effectively halve the AA defence of the ship. c). Landing the aft 76 mm turret and fitting AK-230 CIWS with FCS in its place. The far higher ROF and integral radar fire control of this mount would compensate for the heavier shell of the AK-726. However considering the fine lines of the class, it would not be possible to fit this on each beam. One mounting on the centreline could only be fitted. d). The manually loading RBU ASM’s to be replaced by automatic RBU-6000 ASM and if deemed necessary to land the triple 21” TT. e). While some thought was given to the possibility of using light ASW helicopters (the IN operated the Alouette III in this role) on an open landing platform aft, the DND did not recommend this. f). The DND conceded that while with the RBU-6000 ASM, the class would be a better ASW escort and the AK-230 would improve its defence against missiles, the basic limitation of the hull would always be a millstone around the design’s neck. The navy was however interested in this project and approached the Soviets for assistance. The Soviet reaction was on expected lines, with tiresome prevarications and then a final refusal. The reason given by them was that the modifications required by us were so comprehensive and fundamental as to entail a drastic redesign. The design, ab-initio, had a limited scope for development and such a re-design did not make economical sense and the time spent on this could be better utilised on a fresh design The navy took this lesson to heart and when it sought the replacement of the Petya’s in the late 1980’s the DND came up with the P-25 class corvette which was a “clean sheet” design. However the P-25 and its development the P-25A were anti-surface vessels and so cannot be considered a logical successor to this design study.

I did not know of this gun. Thank you.

Yes, that option can also be considered and must be more likely. AFter all the British did consider this option for their proposed battleship / battlecruiser designs after 1918.

The article does say the 15 inch guns were Vickers so it should be the standard L/42 Mk 1. The 18 inch Mk ! was L/40

Nice firing arcs for the secondary armament,specially if that is AA and looks to be a weatherly ship.

A good concept,specially the uniform 6" gun armament. However I feel that the space between the fore and aft 6" turrets should be increased or else the blast from the firing of the aft turret, would make it impossible to operate the sighting hoods of the fore turret. And do we need such a small secondary armament ? It is too big for an anti-TB weapon and does not increase the broadside to justify the volume occupied. In the early 20th century, the 12 pdr is still good enough or a 4" gun.

In the last avatar of this forum I had posted some information on the “never-were” designs that the Indian Navy had contemplated from 1972 onwards. To that I had also added design histories of certain classes that did enter service viz, the Delhi, the Shivalik, the Brahmaputra and the Vikrant classes. Now that the last avatar has disappeared into infinity, could I perhaps post similar information on this forum ? I think the sequence of my earlier posts were : 1). Modernising INS Mysore and fitting SS-N-2C SSM’s 2). Re-arming the Petya class with a helicopter deck 3). Fitting SS-N-2C SSM & RBU-6000 ASuM on INS Nilgiri. 4). Fitting Exocet missiles on the SDB Mk III class. (Information of these projects have been sourced from Admiral Hiranandani’s tri-volume History of the Indian Navy) 1). Modernising INS Mysore and fitting SS-N-2C SSM’s During the 1971 War, the Indian Navy used its newly acquired Osa class FAC-M’s to launch strikes on Karachi harbour on two successive occasions. For the navy the success of the SS-N-2B SSM’s used as a primary surface strike weapon was an eye-opener even if the Pakistani warships they sank were quite obsolescent and unable to offer any defence. Using the SSM as “one-shot aircraft” the navy’s Western Fleet using a tactical weapon forced a strategic decision on the Pakistani Navy when conventional wisdom dictated that in the absence of the only aircraft carrier INS Vikrant, it would have to remain on the defensive, keep the sea lanes open and prevent the Pakistanis from attempting a repeat of the Raid on Dwarka of the 1965 War. In the post-war review, the navy was under no doubt, that while the carrier was still a formidable weapon and the navy’s goal of a 3 carrier fleet ( a mirage still being chased even after 40 years) was to be striven for, the SSM was a new system with a terrific potential in the future. For that to be realised it would be better if these missiles could be carried in more sea-worthy ships. In the absence of ab-initio designs of missile armed ships (which would be started in 1976 with the P-16 FFG design ) conversion of existing ships would have to do the trick and the navy started combing its sparse inventory for suitable candidates. Using the criteria of speed and their proximity to their mid-life refits, the navy identified the cruiser INS Mysore and the frigates INS Talwar and INS Trishul as suitable candidates. Naturally due to her larger hull and an armoured belt and deck, the Mysore was considered most suitable for this conversion and the embryonic Design Cell took on the challenge of planning her re-arming with a team of Soviet experts flown down to India for this. From the existing information and the actual re-arming of the frigates it can be deduced that the re-arming of the cruiser could have proceeded as under 1). The full battery of 4 SSM’s (of one OSA FAC-M) would have been mounted on the fore-deck. (The much smaller frigates managed to ship 3 SSM’s) 2). It seems that both the forward 6 “turrets were to be landed to make space for the battery and the blast deflectors. The barbettes would have been plated over with underneath support to take the load of the new armament. 3). The existing radar array would be replaced by the entire radar suite for the SS-N-2B i.e the Square Tie and Klyon fire control radars along with Nikel IFF. 4). The 4 “AA was to be landed and be replaced by two AK-230 mountings with their Drum Tilt radar FCS. 5). The aft 6” turret would allow a residuary shore bombardment capacity. 6). With the reduction of the gun armament, manning would reduce and habitability would improve. It did seem that while the conversion would take up a lot of managerial and dockyard resources, at the end of it the navy would have a ship of quite interesting potential. It was already configured as a flagship, it would retain some shore bombardment capacity and hence could come in useful in an amphibious operation as a flagship (like the ones done in 1971 at Chittagong and Cox’s Bazar) and the 4 SSM’s would give it a nasty bite forward. It would give the navy good experience at operating a missile armed ship at sea and form a basis for future designs of missile ships. However the Soviets did not seem to share the enthusiasm of the navy for such conversions (perhaps the bad experience of the conversion of the Kanin class had something to do with this) and then the navy made the stirring discovery that while both the hull and the belts of the ship were in sound shape, her machinery was badly worn out and in need of replacement. There was no chance of that happening in India and not much more in England either (In 1971-3 India was in the bad books of the firm M/s Nixon and Kissinger) and as if to drive the nail into the coffin, while discussions were underway the Mysore ran down the frigate INS Betwa . Luckily the frigate could be repaired and the Mysore was patched up too but she was then relegated to quasi training duties and from 1975 she was formally transferred to the Training Squadron where she remained till she was decommissioned and scrapped in 1985.