Jump to content

Tiger-class cruiser

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Llammakey (talk | contribs) at 10:37, 13 March 2016 (copyedit). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Not to be confused with Tiger-class battlecruiser or Tiger-class fast attack craft.

HMS Tiger before conversion
Class overview
NameTiger class
Operators Royal Navy
Preceded byTemplate:Sclass-
Succeeded byNone
In commission1959-1979
Completed3
Retired3
General characteristics
Class and typeLight cruiser
Displacement11,700 tons (12,080 tons after conversion of Blake and Tiger)
Length555.5 ft (169.3 m)
Beam64 ft (20 m)
Draught23 ft (7.0 m)
Installed power80,000 shp (60 MW)
Propulsion
Speed31.5 knots (58.3 km/h)
Range8,000 nautical miles (14,816.0 km) at 16 knots (30 km/h)
Complement716 (885 after conversion of Blake and Tiger)
Armament
  • As built:
  • 2 × twin 6 in guns QF Mark N5 with RP15 (hydraulic) or RP53 (electric) RPC (One later removed from Blake and Tiger)
  • 3 × twin 3 in guns QF Mark N1
  • As helicopter cruisers (Blake & Tiger):
  • 1 × twin 6 in guns QF Mark N5 with RP15 (hydraulic) or RP53 (electric) RPC
  • 1 × twin 3 in guns QF Mark N1
  • 2 × quad GWS.21 Sea Cat missile launchers
Armour
  • Belt 3.5–3.25 in (89–83 mm)
  • Bulkheads 2–1.5 in (51–38 mm)
  • Turrets 2–1 in (51–25 mm)
  • Crowns of engine room and magazines 2 in (51 mm)
Aircraft carried4 × helicopters (originally Wessex then Sea King)

The Tiger-class cruisers were the last class of cruisers built for the Royal Navy. These ships were the first and last helicopter cruisers to serve in the Royal Navy.[Note 1] By 1979 the last of them had been withdrawn from service.

Design and commissioning

Development from Minotaur design

The Tiger-class cruisers were originally designed to be Template:Sclass- light cruisers, but when they were laid down in 1942–3, production of the Light Fleet Carrier was given priority, and accordingly only three Minotaurs were completed. Three other ships of the Minotaur class had their construction either suspended or cancelled in 1947; these later became the Tiger class and by the end of 1946 were in an advanced stage of construction with nine main turrets for the three ships 75–80% complete. These turrets were a more advanced version of the Mk 23 wartime triple 6 inch. The new Mk 24 6-inch mounts were interim turrets which had remote power control and power worked breech. Theoretically the heavier Mk 24 offered a dual purpose (DP) capability with greater 60° elevation. With power ramming the shells would fire at consistent intervals and combined with the faster training speeds obtained with Vanguard's secondary armament they might be useful against bomber and jet aircraft flying at World War II speeds and heights. The Minotaur design had a broader 64 ft (20 m) beam from HMS Superb on which to accommodate the larger turrets. But it was preferred to complete Superb with the older Mk 23 turrets in 1945, with the ultimate available war fit rather than delay completion. The 1947 Tiger design would have had four STAAG 40 mm Close-in weapon systems in which the 262 radar control was built into the gun mounts and more modern AIO and electrics.

Another two Tiger-class cruisers were cancelled. The more advanced, HMS Hawke, was broken up in 1947, a controversial decision, for although she was still on the slip in the Portsmouth dockyard, her boilers and machinery were complete and her new six inch guns nearly so.[1] The whole class, which was constructed within a tight, cramped, and near impossible to modernise citadel, was nearly superseded by the completely redesigned N2 8500-ton 1944 cruiser, within the same 555 ft × 64 ft (169 m × 20 m) box of the Colony/Minotaur design, approved by the Admiralty Board on 16 July 1943[2] with four twin automatic 5.25-inch guns, better range, internal space and subdivision and economical 48,000 hp for 28 knots (52 km/h) machinery, but later rejected by the new First Lord Andrew Cunningham who believed 6-inch guns were essential. However, the follow on 15,000 ton Improved Belfast, Neptune, and Minotaur 15,000 ton designs with Mk 24 (4x3), Mk 25 (4x3) and Mk 26 (5x2), 6-inch turrets, respectively, and six twin Mk 6 4.5-inch guns were completely unaffordable post war for Britain.[3] Plans to build the 15,000-ton Minotaurs had been abandoned by 1949.[4] Attempts to develop such designs in the mid 1950s as guided missile cruisers, were opposed when Admiral Earl Mountbatten became First Lord in 1955.[5] The decision not to complete the new Tigers in the late 1940s was due to desire to reassess cruiser design and the problem, effective anti-aircraft (AA) fire control to engage jet aircraft, was beyond UK industrial capability, in the first post war decade, and higher priority was given to HMS Vanguard, the Template:Sclass2-s, and new aircraft carriers, Eagle and Ark Royal, for allocation of the only 26 US-supplied lease lend effective medium range anti-aircraft Mk 37/275 directors, [6] The 1947–9 period saw a peace dividend and frigate construction was the priority in the Korean War.[7]

By 1949 two alternative fits for the Tigers had been drawn up, one as pure anti-aircraft cruisers with 6 twin mountings of the new 3-inch 70 calibre design and the later fit, ultimately adopted of QF 6 inch Mark N5 guns in two twin Mark 26 automatic mountings and three twin 3-inch/70s. In historical term this was a light armament and similar US weapons introduced on USS Worcester had experienced considerable problems with jamming and had performed below expectation. A third lower cost option of fitting two Mk 24 turrets in 'A' and 'B' positions and the Template:Sclass-'s semi-automatic Mk  twin 4.5 in 'Q' and 'Y' and 'P1' and 'S1' on the flanks was seriously considered during the Korean War.[8] However completing them to the 1946 plans or the mix of Mk 24 triples and Mk 6 4.5-inch mounts required 150 more crew than fully automatic DP armament. Significant work and trials would be required to bring the first six Mk 24 turrets and cruisers into service by 1953.[Note 2] However much of the original dc circuits the Mk 24 turrets used had been stripped from the Tigers in 1948, there was a strong desire the new cruisers have ac power not dc or dual.[11]

There was great doubt of the merits of completing the Tigers given Soviet jet aircraft from 1950 in the Korean War, were faster than anticipated, meaning missiles and small 40 mm/57 with modern fuses would be more useful for anti-aircraft purposes.The higher than expected speed of the MiG-15 and the somewhat unanticipated value of 6-inch shells for shore bombardment in the Korean War, combined with Soviet resumption of large light cruiser construction, meant the case for the original planned Mk 24 rested with its surface potential offering greater accuracy and slightly higher 7.5rpm rate of fire, against Soviet cruisers. Yet 168 ton, Mk 24 turret had less armour than the Mk 23, and the Template:Sclass- had 6.9-inch turret armour. Arguments were made that US experience of light cruiser action during the Guadalcanal action against Japanese cruisers, suggested that manual operated 6-inch triples at low elevation could sustain high rates of fire of 8-10 rpm in the heat of the battle in action, which were higher than the consistent power rammed rpm of power rammed guns like the Fargo class or Mk 24 planned for the Tigers or even the automatic guns of the Worcester class and suggested the simple dated Mk 23 was worth maintaining and refitting for the 1950s and 1960s, hence the continued refitting of Town, Colony and Swiftsure-class cruisers. However, while Bermuda did achieve 12rpm for a couple of minutes, it was only at low elevation at close range up to 5 miles at higher barrel wear and the usefulness of continuing with the MK 23 could be questioned, although the USN maintained the similar Template:Sclass- triple 6 on its post war missile conversions, including USS Galveston, not completed until 1958, the last Cleveland class, and in some ways the most valid comparison for the Tigers. Galveston maintained half its original planned armament with twin Talos surface-to-air missile launchers and was far more capable than HMS Tiger, even if more overweight. While the 1945 names finally selected for the Tiger class, Lion, Tiger, Hawke and Blake, suggest strong Admiralty support for the class, many of the leading RN naval architects, favored scrapping them all in 1947, the Director of Naval Construction (DNC) informed the Acting Chief of Naval Staff, the Tigers were nearly structurally complete making substantial modernization or adding real aircraft direction capability impossible[12] and the later war priority of heavy 6-inch turrets and close range AA weaponry to counter the Japanese air threat, meant they were the least suitable Royal Navy cruiser class for modernization. Unlike the Colony class, the Minotaur class could only be rearmed with three 100 ton 5.25-inch main turrets due to weight and internal volume restrictions,[13] where all the other cruiser types could be refitted with four modern medium turrets on the centreline. A decision to approve rearming the Tigers with fully automatic Mk 26s was made late 1954. Of the suspended Minotaurs, Bellerophon was completed as Tiger, the name ship of the new Tiger class, Blake was completed under her own name,[Note 3] and Defence was completed as Lion. Conversion of Blake and Tiger to helicopter cruisers in the 1960s left no money to convert Lion, and she was scrapped in 1975, after eight years in reserve.

Revised design

Construction of the three suspended ships resumed in 1954, to a revised design known as the Tiger class, as a platform to mount new automatic 6 inch and 3 inch guns. A controversial decision reflecting exaggerated concern about Soviet Template:Sclass- cruiser construction, described as 'chilling' by the director plans.[14] The threat of the new Sverdlov-class cruisers also justified the Buccaneer bomber and stillborn Royal Navy plans for 6,000-ton cruiser/destroyers to overwhelm Sverdlov-class cruisers and air targets with 60 rpm fire,[15] the new 5-inch gun never being developed. The Sandys 1957 Defence Review decided to continue the construction of the Tiger cruisers for anti-aircraft fleet escort duty, as a fill in until the Template:Sclass2- guided missile destroyers were completed.

The 1954 Guy Fawkes day Cabinet Meeting that decided the fate of the Royal Navy took six hours to decide that Churchill was determined to limit the Royal Navy.[16] The Tigers were approved with the new automatic Mk 26 twin, along with the very expensive completion of the aircraft carriers Hermes and reconstruction and reboilering of Victorious, both with 984 3D radar. The update of the Tigers and aircraft carriers was the affordable alternative to two new 35,000-ton strike aircraft carriers, planned for laying down in 1957,[17][18] and fought for with determination by First Lord Andrew Cunningham. Allegedly most of the Cabinet would have scrapped the Tigers and Victorious and put one of the two new large carriers Eagle or Ark Royal in reserve, as advocated by the Minister of Defense, Lord Alexander.[19] Both Churchill and Macmillan wanted only small carriers with anti-submarine warfare aircraft and Sea Vixen strike fighters [20] Therefore, the work on the Tigers proceeded; they appeared the newest cruisers, and with the Tiger prototype Superb they were the only cruisers with the 64 feet beam which allowed the fitting of the new twin 3-inch 70 calibre turrets on the flanks with adequate magazine capacity and more effective citadels to survive nuclear fallout. The 1957 Sandy Defence Review justified the Tigers and the extended refit of Superb and Swiftsure, as interim anti aircraft flak ships, until the County-class missile destroyers were commissioned. However the Template:Sclass2-s Belfast and Liverpool had space for three new twin Mk 26 Turrets [21] but were even older, USN pressure did lead to Belfast receiving a limited 1956-9 extended refit and in the 1950s the most expensive cruiser refits in real terms were that of Town-class Birmingham and Newcastle, as they were more spacious for crew and weapon load. The Town-class Sheffield was being rebuilt to the same standard in three short refits; the cruiser's final refit in 1959-60 being made because it had the spare weight capacity for eighteen 40 mm guns, and the rearmed Swiftsure could only carry two twin 40 mm mounts and the more modern Newfoundland and Ceylon could be sold to Peru for an appreciated high price.

As a gun cruiser, Tiger served 8 years, Lion 5 years, and Blake 2 years. A modest refit would have allowed the Second World War completed Newfoundland, Ceylon and Belfast to run until 1966. The maintenance problems with the Tigers' guns meant that in 1964, Blake was in reserve and Lion with the Mediterranean fleet and HMNZS Royalist, with many RN crew was reactivated a surface escort for carrier groups in Southeast Asia in 1964, to deter the threat of the Indonesian ex-Soviet Sverdlov and a final tour in 1965 to support the amphibious carriers with AD and GFS potential. The Template:Sclass2- and Town-class cruisers with their more reliable guns, suitable for plugging away in fire support, might have been adequate to counter an unescorted single lone Sverdlov, but had less nuclear survivability, and like the Tigers, pre war designed hull and machinery, built during the war. Blake, Lion and HMNZS Royalist, proved too inefficient to serve in 1966, the year of maximum danger, the Indonesian confrontation, saw all the large destroyers, the Template:Sclass-s, refitted with MRS3 fire control, even the last Daring, Defender was refitted in 1963-65 with the new fire control for its three 4.5-inch twin turrets in a final Daring refit in an attempt to provide some sort of substitute for the failed Tiger cruisers and provide a counter to the Sverdlovs and the aircraft/detection Template:Sclass2-s, with new electronics and the County-class guided missile destroyer also did GFS and fleet escort role . Lion, launched in 1944,and eight years in reserve in a Scottish loch, was in poor condition when reconstruction began in 1954 [22] which ultimately rendered it unsatisfactory,[23] for other than spare parts for "HMS Liger" as HMS Tiger was known during its reconstruction as a helicopter cruiser in 1968-1972.

Conversions

By 1964 the Conservative Government saw the Tigers as no longer affordable or credible in the surface combat or fleet air defence role and approved their conversion into helicopter carriers, with a large hangar replacing 'Y' turret, Sea Cat AA missile system, long range Air Warning radar and 'A' and 'B' turrets retained for NGFS, offensive operations, and anti-surface vessel warfare. To retain large units primarily for command and flagship roles and cruiser names and tradition, the RN and MOD asserted, three Tiger cruisers would add anti-submarine warfare capabilities, in theory providing twelve dipping-sonar and torpedo equipped helicopters (4 x 3) in a 30kt hull with considerable self-defense capability. This increased the possibility that one Tiger one might be available to threaten nuclear depth charge use and free space on aircraft carriers like Hermes and Victorious for Strike and Air Warfare aircraft.

The Wilson Labour Government continued the conversion of Tiger and Blake, to retain residual anti-submarine, nuclear and flagship capability after deciding on a rapid phase out of carriers in 1968. The low priority given to deterrence of Soviet submarines in the Northern Atlantic by the MOD is reflected by the decision to convert a suitable anti-submarine helicopter platform, the carrier Hermes into an amphibious carrier. The suggestion of the captain of the aircraft carrier Bulwark in 1966 that Bulwark and the other light fleet carriers be developed for the 'cruiser' role carrying P1127 Harriers and anti-submarine helicopters as well as troops and marine-carrying helicopters, was rejected, despite the argument there capacity was under-utilised.[24] The later advent of the Template:Sclass-s would seem to add weight to this proposal. Hermes and Bulwark were larger, and offered better silencing and hangar capacity than the 6 new projected gas-turbine powered 16,000 ton helicopter cruisers proposed in 1966 by the Sea Lords to replace the Tigers and Light Fleets, which remained un-built. The Labour Government's priority was to arm aircraft in West Germany with tactical and thermo-nuclear weapons, and secondly, amphibious support of the British Army in Norway. Provision of nuclear depth charges for anti-submarine aircraft carriers and destroyers was limited and late. The proposed class of four Type 82 escort destroyer/cruisers fitted with nuclear Ikara anti-submarine missiles could have been a more reliable nuclear deterrence to Soviet subs in the Atlantic at sea than the Tigers or Invincibles, but never happened, were too expensive, flawed in the lack of airborne early warning or anti-submarine capability, and plagued by problems common with dated and complex steam propulsion. Other common RN crew factors may have contributed to the issues in Tiger and the much later Type 82 destroyer, Bristol. Therefore, in 1965, work began on Blake to convert her to a helicopter cruiser while Tiger began her conversion in 1968. The structural modernisation work on these old hulls was difficult and expensive. However the ships successfully served as helicopter command cruisers and provided an argument to justify construction of their replacement, the Invincible class 'through deck cruisers'. While some funding had been assembled, not enough could be pulled together for Lion's conversion, and hers was cancelled, though she remained operational until the end of 1965. It has been considered that conversion of two or three County-class guided missile destroyers as anti-submarine helicopter cruisers would have provided a quite effective anti submarine vessel, as Chile did with two of its second hand County class. Three RN County-class vessels were expensively updated in the late 1970s with Exocet and improved C4 and Glamorgan proved useful in the 'cruiser' role in the Falklands War, being faster through rough seas than even Hermes. Without proper modernisation and removal of the Sea Slug missile system their helicopter capabilities were cumbersome and limited, although Humphrey an old Wessex, was successful in Operation Corporate.

The conversion of the destroyer Devonshire proposed for Egypt in 1978 would have had both a deck hangar and below deck hangar in the area of the former Sea Slug missile magazine and might have produced a flawed anti-submarine helicopter cruiser, which was good enough for an emerging nation, but not for a First World power. The Tigers as half heavy gun cruiser and half short life anti-submarine carrier suited the RN politically. The aft twin 6-inch gun turret was removed to allow the addition of a large helicopter hangar and helicopter pad that would be capable of handling four helicopters.

File:HMS Blake (Tiger-class cruiser) .jpg
HMS Blake at sea following her conversion to a helicopter cruiser.

Later, when it was decided to replace the Westland Wessex helicopters with the much larger Westland Sea King, only 3 of the 4 assigned Sea Kings could be accommodated in a further enlarged hangar,[25] but as this restricted the 2 mid-ships 3-inch twin mounts arc of fire, the guns were replaced with two much lighter quadruple Sea-Cat GWS21 anti-aircraft missile launchers. The forward 3 inch twin mount was retained for NGFS, anti-aircraft defense, and close range anti-surface warfare action, and as a quick-firing CIWS against Soviet anti ship missiles, but the 3 inch guns were slowed from 120 rpm to 90 rpm to reduce servicing and shell use. More modern sensor equipment and command and control facilities were also added that would enable them to perform as a flagship for task groups, and equalled the radar and sensor fit of the Template:Sclass-s Hermes and Bulwark, in a much smaller platform.

The conversions left Tiger and Blake some 380 tons heavier with a full displacement of 12,080 tons and their crew complements increased by 169 to 885. Originally Lion was also to have been converted, although this never materialised: Blake's conversion had been more expensive than envisaged (£5.5 million) and so funds were no longer available. Ironically Tiger's conversion cost even more (£13.25 million), such was the level of inflation at the time. After much material was stripped off her for use as spares for her sisters, Lion was subsequently sold for breaking up in 1975.

Obsolescence and decommissioning

The decommissioned HMS Tiger at Portsmouth Navy Days in 1980, showing the helicopter deck and hangar added in 1968-71.
Another view of HMS Tiger on the same day, showing the 6-inch guns which were retained in the conversion.

In 1969, Blake returned to service followed by Tiger in 1972. However, the large crews and limited helicopter capacity made Tiger's further fleet service limited to less than nine years. After spending seven years in reserve, the decision was made in 1973 to strip Lion for spares to maintain Blake and Tiger, and Lion was sold for scrap in 1975.

The cut-back in operating funds and manpower, faced by the Royal Navy when the new Conservative government limited fuel and operating allowances in a policy of tight monetary control, and the belief in the economy of Nimrod aircraft and submarines for anti-submarine operations quickened their demise.[citation needed] The recommissioning of the carrier Bulwark and conversion of Hermes meant that they could carry twice as many Sea Kings as could the Tigers in anti-submarine warfare, vital against the Soviet Union submarine threat in the Atlantic, and decreased the importance of the Tigers even further. What was often overlooked however was the vulnerability of Hermes or Bulwark in operating independently, with only minimal CIWS, and the Dutch Tromp and De Ruyter were particularly vital stand-in, destroyer leader ships working with RN carriers from the mid 1970s. Operating alone as a RN task force, carriers could not be risked in blue water operations without an escort of Type 42 destroyers, Type 22 frigates or Sea Wolf-fitted Template:Sclass-s. The true manpower requirements for open water and power projection were high in terms of fiscal cost and hulls but not improved by ships like the Tigers. It is easy[citation needed] to overlook the fear the British Royal Navy had of the Second World War era ex-American cruiser General Belgrano during the Falklands War, but her ability to efficiently fight her armament is doubtful and her two Exocet-armed FRAM 2 Template:Sclass- escorts may have represented a greater threat to the Task Force.[26] The rapid-firing twin 6-inch Mk.26 turrets of 'Tiger' and 'Blake', their flight-decks and speed, along with a virtually inexhaustible stock of 6-inch and 3-inch ammunition held for them in the 1970s, were arguments for emergency reactivation as landing pads during the Falklands but the stock of 3-inch ammunition held for the Tigers was more useful providing for the Canadian Template:Sclass-.[citation needed]

In April 1978, Tiger was withdrawn from service, followed by Blake in 1979; both ships were laid up in reserve at Chatham Dockyard. When Blake was decommissioned in 1979, she had the distinction of being the last cruiser to serve the Royal Navy and her passing was marked on 6 December 1979 when she ceremonially fired her 6-inch guns for the last time in the English Channel. Just a few days after the Falklands War started, both Blake and Tiger were rapidly surveyed to determine their condition for reactivation. The survey determined both ships to be in very good condition and were put into dry-dock (Blake at Chatham, and Tiger at Portsmouth) and round-the-clock work reactivation work immediately begun. By mid-May it was determined that the ships would not be completed in time to take part in the war and the work was stopped.[citation needed] Ships, like the Tigers, required large crews, with their missile systems needing updating and the ships themselves needing heavy repairs to the machinery and rewiring. Attempts to maintain more modern hulls Intrepid and Fearless amphibious assault ships for emergency reactivation were expensive, and questionable, but one has to consider the fact that there was nothing else, and both acquitted themselves well during the Falklands conflict. Retaining a couple of the first group County-class destroyers at Chatham dockyard half-manned and permanently maintained might have allowed a heavier GFS capability to actually fight in the Falklands War, but their aircraft operating ability was already obsolete, and the Tigers Sea Kings and main armament were worth two Countys, and at a lesser manpower, so this suggestion is flawed.

Though Chile showed some interest in acquiring both ships, the sale did not proceed and the ships sat at anchor in an unmaintained condition until sold.[citation needed] Blake was then sold for breaking up in late 1982, followed by Tiger in 1986.

Construction programme

Pennant Name (a) Hull builder
(b) Main machinery manufacturers 		Laid down Launched Accepted into service Commissioned Decommissioned Estimated building cost[27]
C20 Tiger (ex-Bellerophon) [28] (a) & (b) John Brown and Co Ltd, Clydebank.[29] 1 October 1941 [28] 25 October 1945 [28] March 1959 [29] 18 March 1959 [28] 20 April 1978 [28] £12,820,000 [29]
C34 Lion (ex-Defence) [28] (a) Scotts Shipbuilding & Engineering Co Ltd, Greenock (to launching stage)
(a) Swan Hunter & Wigham Richardson Wallsend-on-Tyne (for completion).[30] 		24 June 1942 [28] 2 September 1944 [28] July 1960 [30] 20 July 1960 [28] December 1972 [28] £14,375,000 [30]
C99 Blake (ex-Tiger, ex-Blake) [28] (a) & (b) Fairfield Shipbuilding and Engineering Company Govan, Glasgow.[30] 17 August 1942 [28] 20 December 1945 [28] March 1961 [30] 8 March 1961 [28] December 1979 [28] £14,940,000 [30]

Notes

  1. ^ The Template:Sclass-s were described as "through-deck cruisers" during the procurement process, partly to avoid the impression of buying aircraft carriers.
  2. ^ With two pairs of 274 and 275 directors. The first UK sourced accurately machined and reliable 275M directors were fitted in 1956, in Royalist and Type 12 frigates, 14 years after the US Mk 37 DCT was introduced.[9] confirms in late 1951 UK Industry could still not build precision bearings or work to the fine tolerances needed for accurate naval AA fire and fire control box components, had to ordered, again from the US. However by 1953, US Mk 63 directors in the MRS 8 directors for close in defence had been fitted at US expense in most major RN units and cruisers. Newfoundland was reconstructed to a pattern very similar to that planned for HMS Hawke and the Tigers with 2/274 surface DCTs with the unreliable, UK glasshouse 275 offset. On exercise AA firing Royalist outshot HMS Newcastle easily.[10]
  3. ^ Although she had been named Tiger halfway through the process, then renamed Blake.

References

  1. ^ Brown, D.K; Moore, G. (2012). Rebuilding the Royal Navy. Warship Design since 1945. UK: Seaforth. p. 19. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  2. ^ Freidman, N. British Cruisers Two World Wars and After. Seaforth (2010 UK), p 261 and Moore. Warships 1996, re N2 ,
  3. ^ D. Murfin. "AA to AA. The Fijis turn full circle" Warship 2010,p52,59.
  4. ^ G. Moore. "Postwar cruiser design for the Royal Navy 1946–56" Warship 2006, p46-47
  5. ^ G. Moore. "Post War Cruiser Design". Warship 2006, p57
  6. ^ P. Marland. "Post War Fire Control in the RN" in Warship 2014. Conway. London(2014)p149
  7. ^ Friedman, N. (2010). British Cruisers Two World Wars and After. UK: Seaforth. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  8. ^ Brown & Moore 2012, p. 47
  9. ^ Barnett, Correlli (2001). The Verdict of Peace. London: MacMillan. pp. 47, 321.
  10. ^ Pugsley, C. (2003). From Emergency to Confrontation, Malaysia & Borneo 49-66. NZ/Au: OUP.
  11. ^ Muffin., D. (2010). AA to AA. The Fiji's Turn Full Circle. London: Warship. p. 57.
  12. ^ N.Freidman. British Cruisers (2010),p293
  13. ^ D.Muffin, AA to AA, The Fiji's, Warship 2010
  14. ^ N.Freidman. British Cruisers. Seaforth (2010), p 309
  15. ^ N Freidman. British Cruisers. Seaforth.(2010)
  16. ^ P. Zeigler. Mountbatten the Official biography.London (2001) & Dan van der Vat. Standard of Power.(2001) The Royal Navy in the Twentieth Century. Pilmco. London (2001)
  17. ^ E. Grove. The Royal Navy. A Short History. Palgrave(2005), p223
  18. ^ D.K. Brown & G.Moore. Rebuilding the RN (2003)London, p56-7
  19. ^ E. Grove. The Royal Navy. Palgrave (2005), p223
  20. ^ H.MacMillan. Autobiography.V 4 & 5 & E. Grove. History of Royal Navy (2005) p223.
  21. ^ P. Brown. 'The Tale of a Tiger' in Ships Monthly July 2015. Cudham, Kent,p 52.
  22. ^ D.K. Brown & G.Moore. Rebuilding the Royal Navy.(2003)UK, p48
  23. ^ D.K.Brown. Rebuilding the RN
  24. ^ E. Hampshire. East of Suez to East Atlantic.
  25. ^ N.Freidman. British Cruisers,p 321
  26. ^ Moore, C (2013), Margaret Thatcher. The authorised biography. V1, Not for Turning., London: Allen Lane, pp. 711–713
  27. ^ "Unit cost, i.e. excluding cost of certain items (e.g. aircraft, First Outfits)."
    Text from Defences Estimates
  28. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Gardiner, Robert Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1947-1995, pub Conway Maritime Press, 1995, ISBN 0-85177-605-1 page 504.
  29. ^ a b c Navy Estimates, 1959-60, pages 230-1, List and particulars of new ships which have been accepted or are expected to be accepted into HM service during the Financial Year ended 31st March 1959
  30. ^ a b c d e f Navy Estimates, 1961-62, pages 220-1, List and particulars of new ships which have been accepted or are expected to be accepted into HM service during the Financial Year ended 31st March 1961
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Tiger class cruiser.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tiger-class_cruiser&oldid=709834252"