Type 23 frigates
Discussion
This being the warship geek place on the forum, I just thought I would share my latest blog with you.
It is about the Type 23 frigate and was prompted after a found a 30 year old MOD document about
http://www.danentwisle.com/blog/2014/08/19/type-23...
It is about the Type 23 frigate and was prompted after a found a 30 year old MOD document about
http://www.danentwisle.com/blog/2014/08/19/type-23...
Edited by wildcat45 on Wednesday 20th August 22:56
wildcat45 said:
That worked. However, the best, and most capable and versatile ship I served on was the Batch-III Type 22. (Cumberland and Chatham). (The other 2 were Cornwall and Campbeltown).We had the lot and were really a multi-purpose frigate.
4.5 gun
2 x Seawolf launcher
8 x Harpoon
Goalkeeper
Torpedoes
2 x 20mm cannons (with fittings for 2 more)
Hanger for Sea King or Merlin or 2 x Lynx
Towed Array
Updated Intelligence gathering suite
Communications equipment of a carrier
Space and equipment to act as 'Flag Staff' platform
Data Link 10, 11 & 14
They should have built more Batch-III type 22's and not bothered with the Type-23
Just an opinion of course but based on over 35 years in the RN
I think the 23 with its quieter hull was a better sub hunter. But with the end of the cold war, that wasn't so important so yes I thing the 22 BIII was far more capable especially if it had been modified to accept Merin.
The 22 BIII's real asset was ELINT those four COBLU installations made them very useful ships indeed. Right up to the end with Cumberland in the Lybia op.
The real waste was the Batch II. They were built so they could take old school Leander style mid life modernisation, but it never happened with the RN. Boxer Beaver Brave London Sheffied and Coventry shoul all have got 4-5s Harpoon and the other stung to create more Batch III ships.
The 22 BIII's real asset was ELINT those four COBLU installations made them very useful ships indeed. Right up to the end with Cumberland in the Lybia op.
The real waste was the Batch II. They were built so they could take old school Leander style mid life modernisation, but it never happened with the RN. Boxer Beaver Brave London Sheffied and Coventry shoul all have got 4-5s Harpoon and the other stung to create more Batch III ships.
This is a bit outdated as I wrote it four years ago, but it is about the Type 22.
http://www.danentwisle.com/blog/2011/02/22/type-22...
http://www.danentwisle.com/blog/2011/02/22/type-22...
wildcat45 said:
This is a bit outdated as I wrote it four years ago, but it is about the Type 22.
http://www.danentwisle.com/blog/2011/02/22/type-22...
Thats a good read. Always raised an eyebrow about the Batch-I. Did you know because of the high forecastle wall they could never fire the 2 inboard exocet? (They would have dropped too far at initial launch before boosting up to full speed and hit the 'garden wall'.http://www.danentwisle.com/blog/2011/02/22/type-22...
Looking at the Type-45... It speaks volumes that even today I would rather be on a Batch-III in a face off with a '45'. Where the hell is its Surface to Surface capability?? Destroyer...Don't make me laugh..
I have a photograph of Cumberland in Toronto with the Glasgow outboard of us..... You couldn't see it from the jetty...
The RN always put Exocet in silly places. I never knew that about the BI ships.
Look at the counties. Topweight may have been an issure but 4 Exocet to replace B Turret? Siloy idea. Same for the BII. Exocet Leanders. Chile put the missiles on the stern. The bit of the flight deck the helo never used. Thus they kept the guns up front.
The 45s are getting Harpoon sets FWD of the bridge from the scrapped 22s.
The 45 is a pretty decent bit of kit, but she is an AAW vessel first and foremost. Sampson radar has I am told amazed the yanks. They are getting Shamen CESM which will see them take over a lot of the secret squirrel work the 22 BIIIs did.
Glad you like my site. You'll find loads more warship stuff on there.
Look at the counties. Topweight may have been an issure but 4 Exocet to replace B Turret? Siloy idea. Same for the BII. Exocet Leanders. Chile put the missiles on the stern. The bit of the flight deck the helo never used. Thus they kept the guns up front.
The 45s are getting Harpoon sets FWD of the bridge from the scrapped 22s.
The 45 is a pretty decent bit of kit, but she is an AAW vessel first and foremost. Sampson radar has I am told amazed the yanks. They are getting Shamen CESM which will see them take over a lot of the secret squirrel work the 22 BIIIs did.
Glad you like my site. You'll find loads more warship stuff on there.
doogz said:
IT's an AAW Destroyer. It was never designed for surface to surface capability. That's what the 26 is for.
Nevertheless, it has a big gun, and some Harpoons being fitted on the deck just aft of the silo. And a magazine full of torpedos to be dropped from a helicopter.
OK.. Today what surface to surface capability does the 'Destroyer' have. I know that they are AAW but so was the Type 42 which at least had Sea Dart in the surface mode with a 20 mile range. It doesn't have a 'Big Gun' it has a NATO standard 4.5" Mk 8.Nevertheless, it has a big gun, and some Harpoons being fitted on the deck just aft of the silo. And a magazine full of torpedos to be dropped from a helicopter.
Which torpedoes does the RN have that can be launched by a helicopter from a safe distance from the target? (Probably 25 - 20 miles away)
For the Type 26 the first steel cut will not be until 2015 with the first delivery 2020 so don't hold your breath.
For the amount of money a Type 45 costs and the amount of space available it is a military disappointment and is just a floating 'Samson RADAR' carrier.
The aerodynamics of these ships are my specialty and all of my work involves the Type 23, Type 45 and Type 26 ships. I've spent hundreds of works looking at pictures, CAD designs and CFD results of these ships, never actually been on one though. The T-45 and T-26 are designed to have a small radar cross section so are relatively uncluttered and slab sided whereas the T-23 is an older design and is littered with masts, radomes, walkways etc. These produce different airwakes to the newer ships as the sharp edges and slab sides can produce more severe airwakes which can in turn impact on helicopter aerodynamics meaning the pilots may have to work harder to land in certain conditions. The cut out notch on the starboard side of the hangar, for instance, produces a tightly bound vortex that hugs the deck for Green wind conditions.
A lot of the work I do is around the T-26 and helping to inform on various design configurations, because if a modern frigate cannot deploy a helicopter then it's effectiveness has been greatly reduced. So using techniques like CFD and piloted flight simulation, we can help to provide design guidance so that helicopters can operate in more adverse conditions.
A lot of the work I do is around the T-26 and helping to inform on various design configurations, because if a modern frigate cannot deploy a helicopter then it's effectiveness has been greatly reduced. So using techniques like CFD and piloted flight simulation, we can help to provide design guidance so that helicopters can operate in more adverse conditions.
Interesting to see how views change. This is what I thought about the 26 a few years ago.
http://www.danentwisle.com/blog/2011/04/23/type-26...
Views I do not really hold now. Things have moved on.
Looking at the 26 and the evolutionary nature of its design, I think it's is a really sensible way to move forward. The high "legacy" content of gear brought through from refitted 23s des make sense.
It makes the ships affordable.
My main concerns are that enough will be built and also that they are kept up to date. Legacy equipment makes sense to start with, but how long before that gear becomes obsolete?
That's the positive way of thinking. The negative way would suggest these ships are evolved versions of a quarter century old design with second hand kit pulled off their predecessors before they were scrapped. They will soon be outclassed by more modern and more innovative designs.
For me, the jury is still out. One thing for certain is that the RN needs new frigates.
It's a tough call for the RN. Getting the right ships, enough ships, keeping them and keeping the Treasury sweet.
Fugazi said:
The aerodynamics of these ships are my specialty and all of my work involves the Type 23, Type 45 and Type 26 ships. I've spent hundreds of works looking at pictures, CAD designs and CFD results of these ships, never actually been on one though. The T-45 and T-26 are designed to have a small radar cross section so are relatively uncluttered and slab sided whereas the T-23 is an older design and is littered with masts, radomes, walkways etc. These produce different airwakes to the newer ships as the sharp edges and slab sides can produce more severe airwakes which can in turn impact on helicopter aerodynamics meaning the pilots may have to work harder to land in certain conditions. The cut out notch on the starboard side of the hangar, for instance, produces a tightly bound vortex that hugs the deck for Green wind conditions.
A lot of the work I do is around the T-26 and helping to inform on various design configurations, because if a modern frigate cannot deploy a helicopter then it's effectiveness has been greatly reduced. So using techniques like CFD and piloted flight simulation, we can help to provide design guidance so that helicopters can operate in more adverse conditions.
Fascinating stuff! You should get yourself round one or better still experience the air turbulence for yourself by landing on in a helo. I have always been impressed by the bumpy landings I have had in carriers - the Invincibles. Those four hot gas updates must have had something to do with it.A lot of the work I do is around the T-26 and helping to inform on various design configurations, because if a modern frigate cannot deploy a helicopter then it's effectiveness has been greatly reduced. So using techniques like CFD and piloted flight simulation, we can help to provide design guidance so that helicopters can operate in more adverse conditions.
Speculatore said:
That worked. However, the best, and most capable and versatile ship I served on was the Batch-III Type 22. (Cumberland and Chatham). (The other 2 were Cornwall and Campbeltown).
We had the lot and were really a multi-purpose frigate.
4.5 gun
2 x Seawolf launcher
8 x Harpoon
Goalkeeper
Torpedoes
2 x 20mm cannons (with fittings for 2 more)
Hanger for Sea King or Merlin or 2 x Lynx
Towed Array
Updated Intelligence gathering suite
Communications equipment of a carrier
Space and equipment to act as 'Flag Staff' platform
Data Link 10, 11 & 14
They should have built more Batch-III type 22's and not bothered with the Type-23
Just an opinion of course but based on over 35 years in the RN
+ 1, a million times over. We had the lot and were really a multi-purpose frigate.
4.5 gun
2 x Seawolf launcher
8 x Harpoon
Goalkeeper
Torpedoes
2 x 20mm cannons (with fittings for 2 more)
Hanger for Sea King or Merlin or 2 x Lynx
Towed Array
Updated Intelligence gathering suite
Communications equipment of a carrier
Space and equipment to act as 'Flag Staff' platform
Data Link 10, 11 & 14
They should have built more Batch-III type 22's and not bothered with the Type-23
Just an opinion of course but based on over 35 years in the RN
wildcat45 said:
...Sampson radar has I am told amazed the yanks...
Impressing the Americans with a naval radar isn't that hard - all you need to do is get it to see targets while using less than 4 to 6MW of power 
But it's nice to be appreciated...I'll bite on the 22 vs 45 thing: What's the 22 going to engage the 45 with? About the only credible things would be sub surface - I expect Sea Viper can deal with all the above water capability of a 22.
Granted there are roles the T45 can't do, (and fighting another "large" ship would appear to be one of them) but if the RN thought the 45 required such a symmetrical surface to surface capability it would be being addressed. But it would appear that other priorities are at the fore: http://www.janes.com/article/37970/uk-extends-samp...
This is going a bit off topic, so let's mention the Artisan 3d radar - it's a new fit to the 23 that gets cross decked to the 26 so is a good example of the argument wildcat45 was making about keeping the tech current. (But it's not as good as Sampson!)
Speculatore said:
They should have built more Batch-III type 22's and not bothered with the Type-23
Just an opinion of course but based on over 35 years in the RN
Maybe, but the T23 was massively quieter than the T22 and cost about 50% per annum to run in terms of fuel and manpower. Those differences in running costs were a major factor in favour of the T23 procurement and as dedicated ASW frigates they were quite impressive hulls really.Just an opinion of course but based on over 35 years in the RN
The T22 Batch 3 really became a "light cruiser" and 1 Star Command Ship - not really comparable with the T23, nor was it intended to be.
The real shame of the T22 classes is that the Batch 2s were not refitted to a Batch 3 standard. They were massive hulls for limited capability, apart from their "EW" collection capabilities.
I can't beat your 35 years but had 20 years including spells in a Batch 2 T22 and a T23.
There was a "half Sampson" bit of kit being touted a few years ago. I think it was called Spector . Kind of Sampson lite. I guess though it did not come at half the cost of Sampson.
The thing is with 997/Artisan is that it is good, better than.the 996 but i have been told its actually dogs dangles tech from the early 2000s.
I am wondering if it is a case of keeping up with the Jones, that off the shelf (cheap easy to replace) technology should be employed.
Maybe not for the 26, but the current use of Sea Giraffe by all sorts of navies including the USN maybe the way forward.
Look back at the USN Perry Class of 30 years ago. A lot of the radar gear was internationally marketed Dutch Hollandse Signaalapperaten stuff, the gun an off the shelf Italian OTO Melara.
Seriously, what is a Type 26 going to fight?
Sampson with Sea Viper is good. If it was half as good at half the cost with twice the number of hulls, would that be an acceptable trade off?
The thing is with 997/Artisan is that it is good, better than.the 996 but i have been told its actually dogs dangles tech from the early 2000s.
I am wondering if it is a case of keeping up with the Jones, that off the shelf (cheap easy to replace) technology should be employed.
Maybe not for the 26, but the current use of Sea Giraffe by all sorts of navies including the USN maybe the way forward.
Look back at the USN Perry Class of 30 years ago. A lot of the radar gear was internationally marketed Dutch Hollandse Signaalapperaten stuff, the gun an off the shelf Italian OTO Melara.
Seriously, what is a Type 26 going to fight?
Sampson with Sea Viper is good. If it was half as good at half the cost with twice the number of hulls, would that be an acceptable trade off?
Sadly I don't know enough to comment in detail.
Apparently it does the stuff Sampson does but not as well. The reason being you may not need all of Sampsons features on a certain kind of warship.
For example, Sampson can track say 200 targets from sea level to x thousand feet. Spectre perhaps can not see that high.
That's just an example I made up.
I'll see if there are any specs online.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff