Discussion in 'The Fleet' started by letthecatoutofthebag, Nov 7, 2007.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Sounds like type 42`s :dwarf:
Type 21's had strengthening added to their hulls.....to control hull flex in difficult/heavy sea conditions and resultant fracturing in varied areas
Think later 42's had an extra 16 metres added to the front end to improve sea-keeping and reduce stresses
I seem to remember that the Leanders had a similar problem, the narrow bodied ones, particularly in very cold weather.
All ships and aircraft are liable to this kind of thing.
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.
If a ship has a weakness, and most do, the sea will find it.
Type 23's are the same , have had to have lots of strengthening and ballast
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.
Saw the Winston Churchill in dry dock awhile back. Standing at the bow looking aft, you could see the hull was twisted, I had to do a double take.
21_Man. Wasn't that the same section that was removed from the original design as a Treasury inspired savings measure to get programme approval?
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 have met a few naval constructors in my time and they have never impressed me greatly :toilet:
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?
I think that our Type 21s had more of a problem as they were worked very hard.
I'll take an AB with some structural issues over the supperanuated and underarmed with obsolescent weapons T42 crap we're stuck with.
Oh, and before someone pipes up with the new and very late T45â€¦ lets remember something, on a similar size hull it's fitted for but not with a lot of stuff it should have had but never will.
5" Mod 45 gun with 41-61nm ERPGM's? Nope
Cruise Missiles? Nope
90 VLS cells? Nope
Standard SM3 ABM capability? Nope
If it ain't got what you said, then what has it got ? FFS, dont say 2 single Bofors and SEA CAT !!
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€¦
'Specialised labour was required because of the small space available for repairs'
Were there 7 of these technicians?
I was on the Alacrity during the Faklands we never had any problems down there but did have the reinforcing girders fitted
T22's also had a problem with cracking midships
Separate names with a comma.