I remember coming back from a Gulf patrol on one of the 42s and we had two cracks in the engineers workshop on opposite bulkheads. One of these was quite bad and you could see daylight through it when the ship pitched.
Yes, Sussex2, but we employ an Constructors who are supposed to think this sort of thing through BEFORE the design goes hard. The Blackwoods all had to be strengthened in the 60s so it's not as if this is new business.
Yep - that'll be the one. It's also the additional 16m that increased the max longitudinal bending moment on the ship, which the Constructor in charge seemed to forget. This is why they had that lovely strake of 1" submarine keel clagged on some years after service entry.
I remember seeing those strenghthening girders in place on the Type 21's in Guzz in the '80's. Three or Four(?), one on top of the other just aft of amidships. How far inside did they go...they seemed fairly hefty on a small warship.
The Type 21 design seemed all the rage around the world at the time, or was it because Vosper Thorneycroft had cornered the market. I wonder if any other navies had similar problems to our 21's?
The old and rather underwhelming 4.5 Mk8 in new clothes, a couple of 30mm REMSIG's, couple of Phalanx, (although they are still conspicuous by their absence), and 48 VLS cells for ASTER 15 and 30 SAM's.
Fitting a 4.5 when BAE owns United Defence who build the not much bigger, but a hell of a lot more bang for your buck 5" Mod 45 was a fvcking clueless decision. Still, I'm sure carrying on with a bespoke calibre that's too small to go down the ERPGM route was worth it to save a few jobs in some Labour constituency, (even though the Navy has been toying with switching to a 5" gun on and off since 1945).
Fitting the too short to take TLAM's froggie SYLVER VLS instead of the yank Mk41 VLS that can was an ever more clueless one.
And as for yet ANOTHER class of Destroyer with no dedicated anti ship capabilityâ€¦