Type 22s - Goodbye?

Discussion in 'The Fleet' started by Clouseau, Nov 21, 2006.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Last of the 22s to be tied up at 180 days notice?

    Anyone got anything more on this rumour?
  2. Nothing much, bar that I've heard this buzz too. Two reasons I've heard to back it up: Firstly, it would free-up a number of IPTs and secondly, I've heard about apparent structural faults across the batch.

    However, as always, these just seem to be the 'latest buzzes' - what next?!
  3. Not heard anything yet - depends on financial situation and other issues. The hulls are so desperately needed for their capabilities, that its unlikely. We'd probably see other 23's go first.
  5. Since we are working to the S of S for Defence's "here and now" principle, there's no point in looking at FIPT's Website. CUMBERLAND's refit is still on the 07/08 programme (UNCLAS), for what that's worth.
  6. Not heard anything either, but tend to agree that you would see some 23s go first.

    As for a structural fault across the batch, they have lasted fine for the last 20 years.
  7. Indeed - but its the toll of those 20 years that might be starting to raise eyebrows - one too many bumps and grinds (especially the more bump less grind versions) perhaps?
  8. I've heard this rumour as well, but up til now, that's all I took it for; a rumour. It'd be a very worrying day for my branch if it were to be true.
  9. Surely not - you survived the Batch 2's going. Just means less sea time!!!!!
  10. We get little enough of that as it is!!!

    Seriously though, the thing with the B2's was that we knew that the B3's and new kit awaited for a quick turnaround. Not quite the same with this little gem.
  11. Main mast is the offending item I’ve heard via the grapevine, though I’m more than likely wrong.
  12. More worrying is that immediately after the number cut to 25, 1SL as was came out and said he was very uneasy living with it. Now there's talk of losing another 20%? Madness.

    They do have structural problems - both in terms of plate wastage and design strength, but nothing insurmountable (or massively expensive).

    Hopefully, this is just the usual SEM options rumbling around, but the very fact it's being talked about should be ringing alarm bells....
  13. the_matelot

    the_matelot War Hero Moderator

    I fully agree and it is quite alarming if this does happen.....
  14. hope not 22's are the dogs and probably the last true warship we have. the 45's only have self defence and will be full of contractor crap.
  15. Just saw Cochrane (ex Norfolk) on VJ this morning going into work, all set for the commish ceremony today. Glad to see that having got rid, we won't be taking any more cuts.........
  16. Not true.
  17. Agree with you that they're capable of more than self-defence. But they ARE full of contractor [email protected], have you seen the ME fit??
  18. For what it's worth, I've had a look at FIPT's BUSINESS SYSTEM OVERVIEW (UNCLAS). Straight copy and paste; page 19, "Review of Maintenance and Sparing - All T23 frigates are operating RCM derived maintenance packages delivered by UMMS. All T22s will receive the UMMS application within 12 months".

    Blatant Thread drift but interesting; page 19 "Project B***n - As part of the Future Surface Combatant (FSC) studies we have conducted a study into the manufacture of new Type 23s, with a minimum of changes, to meet the FSC requirement set. Not only was this shown to be readily achievable, such an option is both affordable and supportable, while meeting the needs of the Maritime Industrial Strategy (MIS). A Type 23 derivative is now a leading candidate for FSC".
  19. Ho ho ho.

    I've seen the project in question. It was supported by "free" technical input from Big And Expensive Ships. It's a good thing it was free as to have paid for what was produced would be to invite being carted off to the nuthouse. In fairness to BAe however, they weren't responsible for the combat system or costings thereof. It was sold as a "non-developmental" re-tread of the T23. Only flies in ointment being entirely new weapons systems (many originally designed for non-naval use) and a complete redesign of the propulsion system. Oh and additional accommodation..........

    Utter, utter, utter b0llocks, but because it theoretically gets a certain senior officer out of a funding hole it was given the "I like THIS answer, don't give me any other answers" treatment, until the grown-ups got hold of it....
  20. please enlighten me (the helo does not count) or the 4.5

Share This Page