Type 23 Frigate (Duke Class) (RN) [News Only]

[Gabriele]

Only 12 sets are being purchased. Guess they are leaving out of the upgrade the first ship due to be replaced by Type 26. Rolls Royce will supply exactly 48 MTU 12V 4000 M53B gensets, each capable of 1,650 kW.

[jonas]

Only 12 sets are being purchased. Guess they are leaving out of the upgrade the first ship due to be replaced by Type 26. Rolls Royce will supply exactly 48 MTU 12V 4000 M53B gensets, each capable of 1,650 kW.

Are you suggesting that they are being sensible ?

[Gabriele]

Only 12 sets are being purchased. Guess they are leaving out of the upgrade the first ship due to be replaced by Type 26. Rolls Royce will supply exactly 48 MTU 12V 4000 M53B gensets, each capable of 1,650 kW.

Are you suggesting that they are being sensible ?

Well, it is the only explanation that makes sense, unless the RN already knows it will have to withdraw one Type 23 in the SDSR. I hope it is not the second.

By the way, it really, really would be awesome to have a little bit of detail from the MOD about how the transition from 23 to 26 is planned to play out, considering that quite a lot of bits of kit is supposed to move from old to new vessels. Meaning, by the way, that the routine availability of frigates will drop indeed to 12, because if stuff is confirmed moving from 23 to 26, it is obvious that the 23 will have to be stripped well before the new 26 takes her place.

HMS Argyll, according to the 2008 OSD list, is the first Type 23 due to go out of service. But she seems to be getting an extensive CSP, including CAMM. It makes me think that Argyll could no longer be the first to go. Considering that the swap from Sea Wolf to CAMM is never going to be complete by 2023, and indeed even the fitting of the new gensets will only be completed by 2024, i would think that the first Type 23 to bow out would do so without receiving the new gensets, CAMM and other bits. Wouldn't make sense to hurry upgrading a ship only to strip a few years later, while ships expected to serve for a longer time get refitted only later on, no...?

Would be nice if common sense was being used, for once.

[rec]

It could mean only 12 Type 26 are going to be ordered, or that the Type 23s will run a little longer while Type 26 deliberations are underway, or an outside chance with Argyll being refitted, that she is in better condition than expected and just maybe there will be more than 13 Type 26s?????

[Gabriele]

It could mean only 12 Type 26 are going to be ordered, or that the Type 23s will run a little longer while Type 26 deliberations are underway, or an outside chance with Argyll being refitted, that she is in better condition than expected and just maybe there will be more than 13 Type 26s?????

What...?

The new gensets will take out to 2024 to be installed on 12 Type 23s during technical stops. And the first Type 23 is planned to be gone in 2023. It will go without receiving the new gensets. It is that simple, for once.

[-Eddie-]

Do these new generators and converters will result in greater speed or equipment, or are they simply to stop the current ones causing problems as they age?

[marktigger]

wonder will one of the later refits have trial fit for the 5in gun

[RichardIC]

by marktigger » 10 Aug 2015, 17:19

wonder will one of the later refits have trial fit for the 5in gun

Why? Mod 4 will have been in service for over two decades by the time the first T26 enters service.

[Gabriele]

Do these new generators and converters will result in greater speed or equipment, or are they simply to stop the current ones causing problems as they age?

Don't think it'll have any real effect on speed. The extra power (and it is not too terribly much, we are talking of an additional 560 kw in total over the four gensets) will be more likely swallowed by electronics, climatization and other ship needs.

[marktigger]

by marktigger » 10 Aug 2015, 17:19

wonder will one of the later refits have trial fit for the 5in gun

Why? Mod 4 will have been in service for over two decades by the time the first T26 enters service.

In the Royal Navy?

[GibMariner]

Brief update on progress on HMS Montrose, in refit at Devonport:

[shark bait]

That does look awesome, and there's 3 of those sheds, what an amazing facility.

[GibMariner]

That does look awesome, and there's 3 of those sheds, what an amazing facility.

It truly quite a remarkable facility. One thing I've been wondering is whether the future Type 26 ships will be able to have their refits done there?

I can't remember right now, but I think the facility was modified to accommodate the Type 22 Batch II & III - the quoted length for the T26 is 148 m, same as the Batch III T22, if this is the case then I would imagine so.

On that note, has the length of the Type 26 been limited by this factor?

[marktigger]

it looks amazing from outside, have to take one of the Tamar river trips and see it from the river. I joke with people I work with if we get another Labour government we'll be able to use it for overnight garaging for the whole royal navy.

[marktigger]

That does look awesome, and there's 3 of those sheds, what an amazing facility.

It truly quite a remarkable facility. One thing I've been wondering is whether the future Type 26 ships will be able to have their refits done there?

I can't remember right now, but I think the facility was modified to accommodate the Type 22 Batch II & III - the quoted length for the T26 is 148 m, same as the Batch III T22, if this is the case then I would imagine so.

On that note, has the length of the Type 26 been limited by this factor?

whats the planned beam on them and their over all height that might be a limiting factor can't see a Type 45 fitting inside because of the height

[GibMariner]

That does look awesome, and there's 3 of those sheds, what an - amazing facility.

It truly quite a remarkable facility. One thing I've been wondering is whether the future Type 26 ships will be able to have their refits done there?

I can't remember right now, but I think the facility was modified to accommodate the Type 22 Batch II & III - the quoted length for the T26 is 148 m, same as the Batch III T22, if this is the case then I would imagine so.

On that note, has the length of the Type 26 been limited by this factor?

whats the planned beam on them and their over all height that might be a limiting factor can't see a Type 45 fitting inside because of the height

No idea about T26 total height, but I believe beam was stated to be 20 metres (Type 23 beam = 16m).

However, I distinctly remember reading somewhere that the Batch I T22 were limited to a length of around 130 m due to the length of the frigate refit complex at Devonport - which was subsequently lengthened for the Batch III.

[GibMariner]

The Black Duke once again ready for tasking

Royal Navy frigate HMS Monmouth has marked the end of a 20 month refit following a successful Fleet Date Inspection in Her Majesty’s Naval Base Devonport on Friday 18 September 15.

HMS Monmouth, known informally as ‘The Black Duke’ after James Scott, the Duke of Monmouth, has recently returned to Devonport following extensive sea trials where Her array of upgraded weapon systems and sensors were fully proven and made ready for operational use.

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-la ... or-tasking

[jonas]

All go for Sea Ceptor [DSEi15D4]
Richard Scott
18 September 2015

MBDA has begun delivering hardware for the first Sea Ceptor local anti-air missile system installation after the Royal Navy approved a ‘commit to fitting’ for the Type 23 frigate HMS Argyll.

Meanwhile, the company has begun a campaign of final qualification firings at the Vidsel range in Sweden of the Common Anti-air Module Munition (CAMM) effector associated with the system.

‘‘In May this year I made the decision, with the Ministry of Defence, to commit to the fitting of Sea Ceptor on HMS Argyll,’’ Rear Admiral Alex Burton, assistant chief of the Naval Staff (Ships), told the DSEI Daily during a briefing on board HMS Iron Duke. ‘‘This is a key acknowledgement of the confidence we have in Sea Ceptor to replace the current [GWS 26 Mod 1] Seawolf system. Sea Ceptor provides a significantly improved capability [over Seawolf] and massively reduced whole-life costs.’’ MBDA confirmed that it made a first hardware delivery to Devonport − where Argyll is being refitted − in August this year. A second shipment will follow at the end of 2015.

The replacement of GWS 26 Mod 1 with Sea Ceptor forms one strand of a wider Capability Sustainment Programme being rolled out for the Type 23s.

Other aspects include the introduction of the Type 997 E/F-band 3D medium-range radar, which will provide target indication support to the Sea Ceptor system.

To minimise ship impact, Sea Ceptor installation on the Type 23s has been engineered to use existing GWS 26 Mod 1 infrastructure and interface points. CAMM missiles will be fitted in the existing VL Seawolf silo (one canister per cell for a maximum of 32 missiles).

The Type 23 Sea Ceptor fit will use two Platform Data Link Terminal (PDLT) equipments, one fore and one aft, to ensure uninterrupted 360° coverage. The PDLT provides for two-way communications between the ship and the CAMM missile; target positional updates can be uplinked from the ship to the missile in-flight, while missile status information and diagnostics can be sent back to the ship.

http://www.janes.com/article/54614/all- ... r-dsei15d4

[ArmChairCivvy]

RE "CAMM missiles will be fitted in the existing VL Seawolf silo (one canister per cell for a maximum of 32 missiles)."

On the T26s this restriction will not apply. Someone (forget who) made the point that in the new silos cold launch might not apply anymore? (cold launch giving much increased freedom in locating Seaceptors on the vessel, not requiring as big a clear area than otherwise - thereby making them applicable to smaller vessel designs as well... with exports, not so much the RN in mind).

[ggw22]

All go for Sea Ceptor [DSEi15D4]
Richard Scott
18 September 2015

MBDA has begun delivering hardware for the first Sea Ceptor local anti-air missile system installation after the Royal Navy approved a ‘commit to fitting’ for the Type 23 frigate HMS Argyll.

http://www.janes.com/article/54614/all- ... r-dsei15d4

Huzzah! They actually got their act together and are going for it. Means that Argyll (who in her GP role likely won't be going anywhere 'hot' soon) gets a good amount of testing under the belt for other 23's who likely will. Believe the next 23 LIFEX refit is a ASW version, therefore the lessons learnt and training/testing from Argyll will be invaluable.

Also, the 911 SeaWolf trackers on the deckheads of the bridge and hanger will be gone - more weight up-top for other upgrades, which the 23 struggles with currently.

[Dave]

I joke with people I work with if we get another Labour government we'll be able to use it for overnight garaging for the whole royal navy.

True, if it had been left to Labour we would probably never have had aircraft carriers again...oh wait, it was a Tory government in 2007, wasn't it?

[marktigger]

sorry but suspect if Brown had been re elected we woudln't have the carriers

[Dave]

sorry but suspect if Brown had been re elected we woudln't have the carriers

I'm not so sure, the money was spent by that time, it would have cost just as much to cancel them as to continue.

[sea_eagle]

Also, the 911 SeaWolf trackers on the deckheads of the bridge and hanger will be gone - more weight up-top for other upgrades, which the 23 struggles with currently.

I believe that each of the Seawolf 911 radar sets weighs in at 5 tons each. Compared to Seawolf the new CAMM has longer range, higher spped and doesn't require a dedicated tracking radar.

Despite all of the planned upgrades for the T23 I haven't heard of any suggestion to fit a Close-in-weapon-system (CIWS) which is the Phalanx CIWS. Is this a cost issue or a space limitation on the T23?

[Tiny Toy]

Despite all of the planned upgrades for the T23 I haven't heard of any suggestion to fit a Close-in-weapon-system (CIWS) which is the Phalanx CIWS. Is this a cost issue or a space limitation on the T23?

It's neither, it's a structural limitation, probably topweight although this has not been confirmed.