Cheap Frigates

Who knows, perhaps MOD (or more importantly penny pinching, shinny arsed politicians) have learned the lesson of not cutting corners when planning new war canoes as they did with the Type 42?
 
Last edited:
Following my preceding post, here is one opinion relative to the Type 42. It is quoted text from a book I have just finished reading.

"From the beginning the destroyers (Type 42) had been designed down to the financial limitations imposed by a Labour government; every possible corner had been cut in order to economize. Minimal dimensions meant not only cramped messdecks, a short forecastle and thus poor sea-keeping, but also serious restrictions on the space available for weaponry and instrumentation. One twin Sea Dart missile system (for which there were only 22 missiles in a magazine equipped with a manually operated hoist) was supplemented by a single 4.5-inch gun and two 20mm Oerlikons. Any addition to armament could only have been achieved by removing the boats. Only one helicopter could be accommodated, while the radar equipment can only be described as obsolescent, too slow to track either supersonic or low-flying targets or to detect aircraft approaching over land. The Operations Room was badly designed, and the ability to assess, integrate and exploit incoming action information was extremely poor"

I never served on the newer class of war canoe during my time in the mob, being a confirmed "Steamie" but sure a few on this board have. Is the above quoted text a reasonable assesment of the short comings of the class?
 
Last edited:

janner

MIA
Book Reviewer
I recently watched a 3 part video on the Falklands War, which amongst other things made the same points, Ships shortened to save money this causing a lack of space for weapons the other point was the use of plastic covered electrical wiring as a cheaper option. If I can find the Vids again I'll put up a link.
 

Levers_Aligned

War Hero
Moderator
The original concept of T42 was borne out of our commitment to the Seadart system, which we'd ploughed loads of cash into and purchased for T82. On T82, no organic helo was envisaged (as it was assumed CVA01 would provide this) and the Dart was placed aft with the two 909 trackers on the superstructure fore and aft. Obviously with the cancellation of both CVA01 and T82 (of which four were to be built as Sverdlov-style 'command destroyers', albeit much smaller) the gap opened up for a long range air defence destroyer to sit in the GIUK gap and bring down Bears and Badgers, because the Sea Slug on T102 was woefully shite. So T42 was basically a rationalisation of designs. CoSaG (Combined Steam and Gas propulsion in the form of 2 x boilers, 2 x steam turbines and 2 x Bristol Siddeley (later RR) Olympus GTs) was losing purchase and the newer GoGoG (Combined Gas or Gas) successfully arrangement employed on T21 - let's remember this was pre-1973 Gulf/OPEC oil crisis and provided immediate availability and a good return of speed, thought somewhat essential by romanticised ex-WWII destroyer drivers now forming large parts of the MoD/RN requirements team. ASW/Surface helo support was not deemed essential, so an aft sited Seadart was not possible (although the T43 concept was considered with a 'double-ended' T42 and a mid sited flightdeck) so design proposals simply picked up the Bristol's Seadart and dropped it in where the Ikara was on T82. This is why on T42 Seadart comes up 'backwards' and 'flips over' onto target. As said, the original design seen in early editions of Jaynes looks like the 'Manchester', 'Batch III' stretched hull layout. For a class of 12 this came in at £5m per hull over budget and this was 'rationalised', the hull shortened and narrowed, and internal compartments rearranged (the engineers workshop for example of T42 was meant to be the POs Mess and all workshop facilities back aft in 2P/R) Obviously the hulls were provenly crap at seakeeping with the Bridge Screen consistently blinded by FX overspray even in calmer seas and the Batch I and !!s horrid 'stumpy momentum' when faced with oncoming waves. Some improvements in internal fits were made for Batch IIa and Batch IIb, but life and operations changed for the better when it was realised that a return to the longer and wider hulled Batch III would ameliorate ship staff's lot. As it was, all Batch IIIs were different in fit, form and function - Manchester was 'stretched' in build so carried a lot of Batch IIb's DNA, Gloucester had a unique intermediate hull layout and Edinburgh and York shared common designs.

With regard their survivability and capability in war, the mere fact that the interference of the original and antiquated 965AKE long range radar with communications which led to Sheffield's incident of being hit by the Argentine AM39 Exocet and Coventry's vulnerability when hit by close attack, air dropped iron bombs showed how sacrificial T42s were during Op Corporate. There were serious oversights and assumptions and some quite breathtaking complacencies on design. I went on HMS Sheffield when she was emerging from refit in 3 Basin in 1980 and was asked for a walk round as I had Exeter as my first draft. I asked someone about the 'narrowness' of the ship and someone gave a confident answer that ships were designed that way these days to allow missiles to 'pass straight through'. Sure, this was the case with poorly armed iron bombs in the case of Glasgow, but Sheffield's Exocet buried itself in through the scullery area and into the Fwd AMR/Engine Room interface and it is correctly believed the 360lb Hexolite/Steel Block warhead did not detonate - had it done so the ship would have possibly been sunk in minutes. Again, the iron bomb which passed through Glasgow's Aft Engine Room went through machinery, fuel trunking, avoided both shafts and out of the other side and lies at the bottom of the South Atlantic (minus it's fins, a fragment of which sits over on my colleague's desk in my office) Had it exploded, the damage would have been unrecoverable, and the known vulnerability regarding the AER/AAMR bulkhead would have been exposed and realised.

So yes, governments of the day did cut corners and make crass oversights on our vessels. It took a relatively lightly armed, struggling junta to expose these in a cock-sure Navy seemingly well-versed in warfighting but in essence well behind the technology curve.

levers
 

Levers_Aligned

War Hero
Moderator
As a footnote however, not all post-WWII ships were entirely made of biscuits. Aside from routine grazes and collisions, HMS Southampton survived a potentially fatal collision with the mv Tor Bay, HMS Brazen and HMS Nottingham survived groundings which severely damaged their hulls and could have proved fatal save for decent damage control and stability awareness by their crews. T81, T12s and Leanders all had bangs and bumps with either commercial shipping or Icelandic gunboats in the Cod War. But everything was based not on projected or current threat statistics, but lessons learned at the hands of the Nazi war effort. The navy I joined was still steeped in a misty eyed reminice of the great years of a fading colonial might, not gearing up for the menace, hwoever unexpected, of say Argentina invading a distant UK outpost full of sheep crofters and kelpers.

levers
 

ChrisAsh

Newbie
Tribal class were the most underperforming ships of there time, They were originally thought to have the automatic 3 inch guns similar to the tiger and lion class but found the amo would take up to much room so fitted with single 4.5 from WW2, fitted for helicopter with hanger but no aircraft, fitted for seacat but no seacat, stiil did have good messes and air conditioning, plus tea maker machine and toast maker

I was on Gurkha first commission and built by thornicroft so best finish of the all, dockyard ones had very poor finish
 

Sumo

War Hero
Tribal class were the most underperforming ships of there time, They were originally thought to have the automatic 3 inch guns similar to the tiger and lion class but found the amo would take up to much room so fitted with single 4.5 from WW2, fitted for helicopter with hanger but no aircraft, fitted for seacat but no seacat, stiil did have good messes and air conditioning, plus tea maker machine and toast maker

I was on Gurkha first commission and built by thornicroft so best finish of the all, dockyard ones had very poor finish
I was on her 75_77 cod wars
 

Waspie

War Hero
I really enjoyed the Tribals. Did 3 of them!!!
Back on topic. Penny pinching isn’t new to the RN. Wasn’t the Rodney and its sister ships chopped off short due to financial restraints of the times!! Pre WW2!
 

WreckerL

War Hero
I really enjoyed the Tribals. Did 3 of them!!!
Back on topic. Penny pinching isn’t new to the RN. Wasn’t the Rodney and its sister ships chopped off short due to financial restraints of the times!! Pre WW2!
Nelson and Rodney had the design changed to comply with the 1922 Washington Treaty which was designed to prevent an arms race by the major powers by limiting naval construction.

The treaty limited battleships to 35000 tons so a bit had to be cut off.
 

Waspie

War Hero
Nelson and Rodney had the design changed to comply with the 1922 Washington Treaty which was designed to prevent an arms race by the major powers by limiting naval construction.

The treaty limited battleships to 35000 tons so a bit had to be cut off.
Cheers, I thought I read somewhere it was ££££’s.
 

Similar threads


New Posts

Top