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

[Tempest414]

Parliamentary question reveals HMS Iron Duke LIFEX refit cost whopping £100m (subject to final negotiations with Babcock).
HMS Kent LIFEX - £36M.
HMS Richmond LIFEX including PMGU engine upgrade - £56M
No wonder refitting HMS Westminster a problem.

I think Kent and Richmond pays well. If £56M gives 8 years of more life, it equates to £112M for 16 years or £180M for 24 years, equivalent. (I am NOT saying it shall be operated for another 24 years, just "equivalent"). Even if it is 5 more years, it is £112M for 10 years or £180M for 15 years.

How about Iron Duke.
If £100M for 5 years, it is £200M for 10 years, £300M for 15 years, equivalent.
If £100M for 8 years, it is £200M for 16 years, £300M for 24 years, equivalent.

Again, I am NOT saying it shall be operated for another 24 years, just showing "equivalent" cost

As she is GP, Iron Duke's number looks "on the edge" for another 5 years (if it is another 8 years, I think it still is not bad).

Original LIFEX budget for all 13 T23 was expected to be £600M (not including PMGU engine upgrade). I guess it does not include SeaCeptor and Artisan themselves, but include its integration cost (which naturally dominates over the parts price).

It was reported at the time that Iron Duke was in a really bad state when she went in and it was said then it would cost a lot more my guess is Westminster was as bad and given what they knew and inflation the RN just said no

[wargame_insomniac]

Yet more great work being done by HMS Lancaster and her RM Commando boarding teams.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/hms-lan ... t-of-2023/

[donald_of_tokyo]

Looks quite easy to install. NSM canister is "fatter" than that of Harpoon. But, even in the most "tight" case = T23, it can fit easily. Thus, any RN escort can get it.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Did really all the bulbs, wires, screws, or the water-tight caps of the ladder, all salvaged? I guess keeping them as they are for another 3-5 years may help RN's remaining T23 fleet, when some trouble happens?

[wargame_insomniac]

Some good news if St Albans getting ready for active service.
Another precious T23 ASW finishing LIFEX.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Great photo. We can see the 15 (out of 16) transmitting modules (presumably) of Artisan-3D.

PS If this observation/understanding it true, Artisan-3D relies azimuth sensing only on radar rotation, and elevation resolution on phased-array. This matches with what I read elsewhere.

[new guy]

I mean it only rotates linearly, so it makes sense.

[shark bait]

Cool photo.

Here's one with the modules removed

20231108_084301.jpg

[shark bait]

Artisan-3D relies azimuth sensing only on radar rotation, and elevation resolution on phased-array.

And is allegedly being upgraded to scan electronically on the version fitted to the T26. Perhaps this is why new radars have been ordered, instead of recycling the T23 radars as originally expected.

[Caribbean]

Good photo - easy to see the similarities with Commander SL that was one of the systems that it was based on

https://woottonbridgeiow.org.uk/decca-l ... r7.php#7.9

[wargame_insomniac]

https://x.com/HMSStAlbans/status/173426 ... 07162?s=20

Some more good news for RN frigate numbers.

[Poiuytrewq]

HMS Somerset going to sea with NSM:

[donald_of_tokyo]

HMS Somerset going to sea with NSM:

Great. We can do it, even with very short notice... It was just a matter of will.

[inch]

MUST admit I'm a bit shocked that the British MOD didn't specify a uniquely different UK version different to anyone else's ,and costing 3 times as much and 5 yrs late ,the usual planners must have been on holiday that week it got picked

[Timmymagic]

This might be a daft question....but I'll ask it anyway.

T23's have 3 seperate superstructures. The forward superstructure with the bridge, the midships superstructure with funnels and the stern superstructure with the hangar. I can understand the need for the gap between the bridge and midships superstructure for Replenishment at Sea. But the gap between the midships superstructure and stern superstructure seems to serve no purpose whatsoever (though I'm sure there is a reason for it).

So my question is....what is the reason for this gap? Does it serve a purpose? And if not, why not enclose it in the first place?

The 'gap' in question

[wargame_insomniac]

HMS Somerset going to sea with NSM:

Finally!! That is great news!!

[Jensy]

This might be a daft question....but I'll ask it anyway.

T23's have 3 seperate superstructures. The forward superstructure with the bridge, the midships superstructure with funnels and the stern superstructure with the hangar. I can understand the need for the gap between the bridge and midships superstructure for Replenishment at Sea. But the gap between the midships superstructure and stern superstructure seems to serve no purpose whatsoever (though I'm sure there is a reason for it).

So my question is....what is the reason for this gap? Does it serve a purpose? And if not, why not enclose it in the first place?

The 'gap' in question

An interesting question.

The gap is also there on later 'stretched Type 23' concepts too, even when an additional Sea Wolf silo was planned to attach to the hangar. Which presumably could have made use of this space.

(See the 'Type 23, Development & Variants thread' over at SP.co.uk for images)

My guess would be it's a hangover from the days when the 23s weren't going to have a hangar at all.

Rather than trying to integrate the hangar with the middle superstructure, they instead chose to fit it as a separate box.

A concept that seems to have been inherited by BAE, considering the: early FCS Type 26, the Avenger Type 31 and Adaptable Strike Frigate designs.

[tomuk]

This might be a daft question....but I'll ask it anyway.

T23's have 3 seperate superstructures. The forward superstructure with the bridge, the midships superstructure with funnels and the stern superstructure with the hangar. I can understand the need for the gap between the bridge and midships superstructure for Replenishment at Sea. But the gap between the midships superstructure and stern superstructure seems to serve no purpose whatsoever (though I'm sure there is a reason for it).

So my question is....what is the reason for this gap? Does it serve a purpose? And if not, why not enclose it in the first place?

The 'gap' in question

An interesting question.

The gap is also there on later 'stretched Type 23' concepts too, even when an additional Sea Wolf silo was planned to attach to the hangar. Which presumably could have made use of this space.

(See the 'Type 23, Development & Variants thread' over at SP.co.uk for images)

My guess would be it's a hangover from the days when the 23s weren't going to have a hangar at all.

Rather than trying to integrate the hangar with the middle superstructure, they instead chose to fit it as a separate box.

A concept that seems to have been inherited by BAE, considering the: early FCS Type 26, the Avenger Type 31 and Adaptable Strike Frigate designs.

It is a stealth feature, although the T23 doesn't have the sleek coved in lines of more modern design like the T45, FREMM etc, signature reduction was considered.
If you look at the angles of the deck to superstructure and the various 'shelves' they aren't at right angles. The gaps in the superstructure are also part of this signature reduction effort.

[new guy]

This might be a daft question....but I'll ask it anyway.

T23's have 3 seperate superstructures. The forward superstructure with the bridge, the midships superstructure with funnels and the stern superstructure with the hangar. I can understand the need for the gap between the bridge and midships superstructure for Replenishment at Sea. But the gap between the midships superstructure and stern superstructure seems to serve no purpose whatsoever (though I'm sure there is a reason for it).

So my question is....what is the reason for this gap? Does it serve a purpose? And if not, why not enclose it in the first place?

The 'gap' in question

An interesting question.

The gap is also there on later 'stretched Type 23' concepts too, even when an additional Sea Wolf silo was planned to attach to the hangar. Which presumably could have made use of this space.

(See the 'Type 23, Development & Variants thread' over at SP.co.uk for images)

My guess would be it's a hangover from the days when the 23s weren't going to have a hangar at all.

Rather than trying to integrate the hangar with the middle superstructure, they instead chose to fit it as a separate box.

A concept that seems to have been inherited by BAE, considering the: early FCS Type 26, the Avenger Type 31 and Adaptable Strike Frigate designs.

I can go down the 'rabbit hole' for ages on Secret Projects.

It's always interesting to remember the RN drive in the 70's and early 80's to retain mass by building cheaper (and proposing) comparatively small warships, few exceeding 4,000 tons.

Compare a 1970's patrol frigate, the T21 GP to today's GP, the T31, even the RN's cheaper option and smallest of the future fleet, would absolutely dwarf a T21 Amazon class of the 70's, it has double the displacement and some!

[Timmymagic]

I can go down the 'rabbit hole' for ages on Secret Projects.

It's always interesting to remember the RN drive in the 70's and early 80's to retain mass by building cheaper (and proposing) comparatively small warships, few exceeding 4,000 tons.

Compare a 1970's patrol frigate, the T21 GP to today's GP, the T31, even the RN's cheaper option and smallest of the future fleet, would absolutely dwarf a T21 Amazon class of the 70's, it has double the displacement and some!

The RN's view then was very much shaped by the Treasury, as it is today. In the 60's and 70's the Treasury would give arbitrary sizes that could be built....but then got stung by colossal refit costs on Leander in the 80's as a result of their parsimony...it was too late to alter Type 23 to give additional space. In a brief period of sanity they allowed the RN to design Type 45 to a larger size under the mantra of 'steel is cheap, and air is free'...whilst still ludicrously keeping the VL size down, with FFBNW in the wings, removal of TMF and a reduced buy that ended up costing the same as purchasing 8 instead of 6 would have done....

Type 26 and 31 are continuing the tradition of larger, with some margins...but there are still some ludicrous choices that have resulted in weird decisions....TMF geting cancelled has resulted in a very expensive 5 inch fit on T26 that makes no sense....T31 gets 2 new calibres of gun....and the recent Yemen actions have exposed how light both ships are on VL....decisions from the past now looking rather silly...

[new guy]

what do you mean by TMF?

[Poiuytrewq]

Third generation Maritime Fire support

[Ian Hall]

Royal Navy Declares IOC with Naval Strike Missile

Naval Strike Missile NSM HMS Somerset

Eight NSM missiles were embarked aboard HMS Somerset at Haakonsvern naval base, Bergen (Norway). Note Fridtjof Nansen-class frigate HNoMS Otto Sverdrup (F312) moored behind the Type 23 frigate. Royal Norwegian Navy picture.
UK Royal Navy Declares IOC With Naval Strike Missile
The Royal Navy (RN) has declared an initial operating capability (IOC) with the Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile (NSM) following a first delivery of weapons to the Type 23 frigate HMS Somerset.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... e-missile/

[Digger22]

I thought the Superstructure Breaks in T23 were in response to how fire spread through Aluminium Superstructure. In effect fire Breaks. These were the First class designed post Falklands, and included Lessons learnt, Including the retention of Main Gun.

[tomuk]

I thought the Superstructure Breaks in T23 were in response to how fire spread through Aluminium Superstructure. In effect fire Breaks. These were the First class designed post Falklands, and included Lessons learnt, Including the retention of Main Gun.

I stand to be corrected but T23 doesn't have an aluminium superstructure.