JA Boomer

That was a joke played by the crew of the Frigate, as they felt rather...inadequate after having their primary weapon removed.

But the upgrade also gave the capability to launch SM-2MR's from the Mk13 launcher, added ESSM capability from the Mk41 launcher, and retained Harpoon capability from the Mk13. Best of both worlds I guess.

Gun Grape

Not enough room down below without compromising structural integrity.
So I've been told.

fitz

Yes many navies have recieved surplus ships armed with SM-1 and they ALL face the same problem of block-obsolescence as the missile inventories start to time-out. That will require either: A) Replacement of the inventory, B) Refurbishment of the inventory or C) accepting that the inventory might not function when needed.

SnowLeopard

Back to the original question:

one must keep in mind how fast things were changing before they crucify a particular type of design, at least in the early years after WW II. Also, how much money is available to be spent. With the latter in mind, which is better to have, some Type 42's .............. or no ship at all?

It would be nice to have all the kinds of warships one wanted, but that is simply not the case. For example, it could have been nice to have a Tullibee class and a Permit or Sturgeon class (not quite sure where Tullibee ranks with them) but given the choice that one can have real quiet submarines or really HP powerful submarines but not both submarines, one has to make a choice.

Now, Type 42's do rather point out why one can't just take off so much feet from the hull to save money........but that is rather apparent to us but not necessarily to others. I remember during the Carter administration a letter to the editor by a not so well doing citizen who was saying taking so many feet of a Trident under construction to help out the citizenry of the country. When the country isn't doing well money wise, people can see things that way ........ or when other military services are trying to get the most out of the budget as they can.

Generally, countries don't build ships they will know will be bad ........ just at times, it can work out that way in operation.
_________________________________________
(Gerald and Betty are having dinner of pet food. Gerald comments, "Enough about my (presidental) trip abroad; how are things here at home?", (w,stte), Ford Administration editoral cartoon)

Sea Toby

While more steel costs money, what is expensive on warships is their combat weapons systems, their electronics and weapon systems. For example, New Zealand is building OPVs that run around $60 or so million in U.S. dollars. Yet, New Zealand will also place a $40 million plus helicopter aboard.

While their OPVs are about half the displacement of their Anzac class frigates, which New Zealand spent around $300 million or so in US dollars. They have a combat weapons system, and more armaments. In the near future Australia is going to build 3 air warfare destroyers that are about twice the displacement of their Anzacs, which will run about $1.5 billion US dollars.

An OPV at $60 million to an Anzac at $300 million to a air warfare destroyer at $1.5 billion. Steel is cheap in comparison, filling the air with combat weapons systems is much more expensive.

__________________
http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/waglogo.gif

fitz

That's a myth actually. There is no evidence that any length was lopped off. Rather it appears length was artificially restricted to an arbitrary number right from the start.

gunnut

Wasn't the intent of the Type 42 to create the smallest warship capable of fielding the Seadart missile? The "proper" Type 82 was too expensive for the socialists then in charge.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

jeffpayne56

Type 42. type 21, invincible class what a joke the governments have screwed this country to save a few pounds just glad i've left the forces

__________________
Can the last person to leave the UK please turn out the lights
cheers Jeff

Tin Man

I agree! It seems that almost every UK defence equipment design is compromised to save money. Even when the designs are good (Astute), we compromise on numbers...

One possible future ship to join this list could arguably be CVF. I think it is criminal that the MoD rejected the excellent armoured bulkhead designs from Qineti-Q because it was expensive. Hmm, we will just make do with Kevlar and composite armour in strategic places then. For the sake of the sailors working on board her, I hope they never need to call upon it.

Honestly, how much compromise can you afford to BUILD into your prized assets and prime targets? BUILD it properly or not at all I say.

__________________
"Liberty is a thing beyond all price.

jeffpayne56

The last decent ship we built has got to be the County class destroyers shame we couldnt build them for the 21st century good all round ships for defence and offence and the Leander class Frigates, good sea going ships and tough as hell

fitz

Your kidding, right?

fitz

Type 82 was originally intended as a follow-on to the Leander, to be built in similar numbers. Problem is, Type 82 cost 3 times as much as a Leander. No government was going to be buying those by the score. The final nail in the coffin was the death of the carrier program, whose existance justified the Type 82's in the first place.

Sea Dart was concieved from the beginning to fit in a frigate (Leander) hull which meant it was possible to build a frigate-sized Sea Dart ship in Leander quantities in order to get enough Sea Dart systems to sea to meet requirements. At one time it was thought as many as 25 Type 42's would be built. The Falkland's war effectively ended Type 42 orders.

Type 42 is really the minimum Sea Dart ship but they cut corners even then. The most obvious was the artificial restriction on length, introduced probably to keep the designers from adding equipment (cost) but much to the detriment of seakeeping, endurance, speed, habitability and future growth. At least the ships got 2 Type 909's. For a while they were only going to get 1.

jeffpayne56

type 82 was a replacement for the old darings and county class, not leanders that was supposed to be the all missile ship the type 22

fitz

Try reading what I typed again. At one point did I say Type 82 was a replacement for anything?

Also, to state that Type 82 was a replacement for Darings or County's and that Type 22's were replacements for Leander's is to totally mis-understand the procurement process.

The expectation when Sea Dart was concieved was that when it was ready production would switch from Leander GP frigates to Sea Dart missile ships (note: Type 82 is in the GP frigate series) without changing the rate of production. In other words, about 3 ships/year. What became HMS Bristol started as the "CF 299 New Frigate" project in 1961 and at this time it was assumed that Sea Dart and Ikara - both critically important in the mid-60's - would not be fitted in the same ship. Requirements at this time were for 30 Sea Dart ships including the carriers.

As Type 82 began to emerge it was fitted with both missile systems and was twice the size and twice the cost of a Leander - hardly the sort of mass-production Leander successor originally envisaged. Eventually Type 82 emerged as about 3 times more expensive than a Leander. The program was cut to 13 ships (4 per carrier group plus 1 each for air control of 2 surface action groups plus ships in refit). Later this was dropped to just 8 ships to screen 2 carrier and 2 amphibious groups - far fewer than originally intended in 1960! Type 42 effectively became was Type 82 was originally intended to be - a mass-production Sea Dart frigate.

Notice there is no mention in any of these requirements of replacing existing ships, only of the numbers of certain types necessary to meet future needs. The number of ships to be procured was dependent on the set force level. After the 1966 Defense Review that level was set at 68 escorts, down from 89. That required 3 ships per year to be built. Within that 68 then decisions are made as to how many ships with Sea Dart, how many with Ikara? How many GP frigates? Should there be a low-end escort? Replacing ships on a ship-by-ship or class-by-class basis has nothing to do with it. The building program is set based on future requirements for force levels and mix of systems, not the need to replace existing capabilities. Around 1970 then the RN was projecting some 25 Type 42's, 24 Type 22's and 8 Type 21's to meet its future force requirements. The next time you have a ship class truly intended as a lineal successor to a preceeding ship class is the Type 23's which were intended initially as one-for-one replacements for the surviving Leander's.

mweber24

I'd say the U.S. Pegasus class PHM was a complete failure. Designed for a mission the USN really NEVER has a need for, and it cost a lot of money to boot.

I project that the LCS will be the biggest failure in the 21st century, so many things wrong with this ship, it could fill a book.

The OHP class is a GREAT design for its mission and cost, especially by Flight IV when it had Mk92 Mod 6 and LAMPS III with TACTASS. A great open ocean ASW platform for the time (it was NOT designed for coastal ASW, nothing in the world was quite frankly as CVs could project power far off shore where open ocean ASW was what was required...), it also had good capability against maritime patrol aircraft used to locate convoys and strike groups, without the need for CAP. Not a bad ASUW platform either. TERRIBLE staff embarkation ability, and not easy to maintain (recent HM&E improvements have helped markedly). Relatively cheap to operate too. Nothing wrong with the gun at all, much more reliable than the 5inch, and a MUCH better generall purpose gun (small boat, low slow air..)

The removal of the Mk13 was an example of a Navy cutting cost for the promise of great things in the future. Instead of maintaining a capable warship for its 30 year life, the Navy immasculated a perfectly good platform for about a third of its service life to pay for a "revolutionary" capability that STILL has not been proven to work, a shame. The Mk13 was perfectly capable of shooting SM-2 (as on USS California), could shoot much upgraded Harpoons in any quantity desired, and did NOT cost the much to maintain for the capability.

__________________
The SWO