The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

swerve

Super Moderator
Interesting question - are you deleting the ASW fit ? No Ikara and Limbo ? You're also saving on some drive train by removing the steam turbines so mechanically a bit simpler.

Add in a hangar and permanent aviation detachment and I'd guess similar figures to the high end of a 42 - say 270 ish ?

Tempting to try and work in a second Sea Dart launcher but that complicates the hangar arrangements.

I'm just reading "End of an Era " which covers much of the ship building decisions of the time - can't recommend it enough as it's literally four really juicy anecdotes a page.
Definitely the Limbo. Not sure about the Ikara, but I'd prefer proper aviation facilities (a hangar & perhaps a bigger helideck) & an ASW-equipped helicopter, & if that meant removing the Ikara, so be it. ASW torpedoes if there's a suitable location, though. Basically, everything the Type 42 had, plus more short-range AA & room for more Sea Dart rounds. One can dream about a MLU adding VL Seawolf, in addition to sensors & electronics in general being updated over time. Agree on the second Sea Dart launcher. Nice to have, but perhaps too much.

The book sounds interesting. Can you tell me the author, please?
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Um..trying to retain as much of the layout without rework, keep the Sea Dart aft, add Sea Cat in place of the Ikara?
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Definitely the Limbo. Not sure about the Ikara, but I'd prefer proper aviation facilities (a hangar & perhaps a bigger helideck) & an ASW-equipped helicopter, & if that meant removing the Ikara, so be it. ASW torpedoes if there's a suitable location, though. Basically, everything the Type 42 had, plus more short-range AA & room for more Sea Dart rounds. One can dream about a MLU adding VL Seawolf, in addition to sensors & electronics in general being updated over time. Agree on the second Sea Dart launcher. Nice to have, but perhaps too much.

The book sounds interesting. Can you tell me the author, please?

Gladly, R J Daniel - ISBN 1-904381-18-9

It's out of print sadly but well worth chasing up in a specialist shop.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Thanks. If only someone had it in stock! Someone in Japan may have a copy for sale, but the price quoted is insane. Might be worth checking library catalogues & seeing if an inter-library loan is possible. I'll try that.

Um..trying to retain as much of the layout without rework, keep the Sea Dart aft, add Sea Cat in place of the Ikara?
Ideally, I'd have the Sea Dart where the Ikara was, to simplify adding a hangar, but that would mean a lot of internal rearrangement. Might be better to do as you say. I've been undecided over that.
 

Shanesworld

Active Member
S

Set up properly the exhausts provide a path to remove and replace a GT in a manner that would never be possible with a steam or diesel plant.

I quite like the GT generators on USN major combatants, diesel has its advantages but I can see the benefits of all GT. This is especially the case with greater and greater electrification combined with batteries.
This is probably obvious but is there any advantage for a warship to routing the exhaust out through the back of the ship under the waterline? I'm not sure if it was the visby vorvettes or something else but I think they do that. To my mind it would compromise acoustic for sub hunting. Is that correct?
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
For a Type 82 Batch 2 (or maybe a Type 83) we're talking of a decision made in about 1967, to keep the basic Bristol design instead of building the much smaller (too small, as was recognised by the time Batch 3 was ordered) Type 42. I'd expect avoidance of anything seen as untried, & AFAIK diesels in destroyers were untried in the RN back then. The Germans had been building Köln class frigates for 10 years, but despite being much smaller they had four diesels as well as two GTs. I suspect that the RN would have thought all GTs was easier.

Bristol had a crew of 397. Type 42 had about 250-270. Any ideas about how many a steam-free Bristol might have needed? I assume at least the weapons of Type 42.
I vaguely remember the Engineering department in a Charles F Adams as being around 85 pers and that didn’t include Weapons/Electrical but happy to be corrected.
I’m assuming more than half would be steam related, it’s pretty hard to auto steam 4 x boilers.
Total complement was 333
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Thanks. If only someone had it in stock! Someone in Japan may have a copy for sale, but the price quoted is insane. Might be worth checking library catalogues & seeing if an inter-library loan is possible. I'll try that.


Ideally, I'd have the Sea Dart where the Ikara was, to simplify adding a hangar, but that would mean a lot of internal rearrangement. Might be better to do as you say. I've been undecided over that.

Yeah - I was very lucky and got tipped off about what a good read it was not too long after it went out of print and managed to snag a copy from a seller on Amazon. I did have a look on Amazon before replying and much as you say, nothing doing.

The author got thrown out of 1SL's office (AB Cunningham at the time!) over a dispute about bomb damage in nuclear testing as an example of the circles the guy ran in.

I'm trying to be reasonably sensible about what arrangements could be made for the 2nd in class - I find it strange that Bristol got so much ASW fit but didn't get a hangar because she'd be escorting carriers and wouldn't need a helo. I'm guessing this all related to the relative infancy of heliborne ASW at the time maybe ?

As you say, ideally, Sea Dart forward, and maybe even make her a double-ender.
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
Not in active service she didn't - Bristol went out of front line work years before the last of the 42s from memory.

She was really designed to run with the carriers she was ordered to protect - CVA-01, hence no hangar and of course, COGAS was never going to fly so a batch 2 would have been pretty much a different ship.

Sad to see her go to the breakers but she's not remotely in a historical configuration I suppose.
Such a unique and impressive ship...
Are there really no plans to keep it as a museum ship?
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Such a unique and impressive ship...
Are there really no plans to keep it as a museum ship?
Apparently not - and she's a big old girl to preserve, let alone turn back into something more like her fighting configuration.

Terrible shame as she's the last Falklands survivor still in the UK (Invincible was broken up a while back, and I believe all of the other combatants were razor blades some time ago.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
I vaguely remember the Engineering department in a Charles F Adams as being around 85 pers and that didn’t include Weapons/Electrical but happy to be corrected.
I’m assuming more than half would be steam related, it’s pretty hard to auto steam 4 x boilers.
Total complement was 333
Thanks.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
This link describes the RN/SBS operation to take back control of the MV Nave Andromeda from stowaways when it entered UK waters. It will be interesting to hear a French response as to their lack of involvement.
The most likely reason for lack of French involvement was that the tanker was bound for a British port and was in British waters.
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
The most likely reason for lack of French involvement was that the tanker was bound for a British port and was in British waters.
"It has emerged the crew became aware of their unwanted passengers at some point several days before they entered UK waters. The ship was off the Canary Islands on 5th October before continuing North, taking a detour into French waters near Saint-Nazaire on 20th October. It has come to light that the French authorities refused the permission for the ship to berth and disembark the seven men."

The were not in UK waters, but France would get suddenly seven additional parasites, while they already have more than enough illegal immigrants.

It was a good exercise for the RN and SBS, this operation also proves that the RN still is able to perform and coordinate such complex operations. But it was an expensive operation, it would be better if the threat isnt that great, it would be done by the coastguard or waterpolice. A single boarding-/arrest team with assault rifles have to be enough for unarmed illegal immigrants.

European countries spend a lot of money to promote tourism, but they also should spend on promotion videos for potential parasites that Europe is not a paradise where you can get everything for free while doing nothing. And these promotion videos should be spread all over Africa.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
The most likely reason for lack of French involvement was that the tanker was bound for a British port and was in British waters.
Apparently the captain requested that the ship be allowed to berth to disembark the stowaways and was refused. There was the possibility (probably remote) that ship could have been taken over or damaged allowing for an environment disaster to the French coast. That result would leave French authorities scrambling.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
"It has emerged the crew became aware of their unwanted passengers at some point several days before they entered UK waters. The ship was off the Canary Islands on 5th October before continuing North, taking a detour into French waters near Saint-Nazaire on 20th October. It has come to light that the French authorities refused the permission for the ship to berth and disembark the seven men."

The were not in UK waters, but France would get suddenly seven additional parasites, while they already have more than enough illegal immigrants.

It was a good exercise for the RN and SBS, this operation also proves that the RN still is able to perform and coordinate such complex operations. But it was an expensive operation, it would be better if the threat isnt that great, it would be done by the coastguard or waterpolice. A single boarding-/arrest team with assault rifles have to be enough for unarmed illegal immigrants.

European countries spend a lot of money to promote tourism, but they also should spend on promotion videos for potential parasites that Europe is not a paradise where you can get everything for free while doing nothing. And these promotion videos should be spread all over Africa.
These operations are always expensive until you find out what cheap costs you. Seriously, you've got the people, the machinery and capabilities to hand. Use them. Okay, on this occasion, it was a fairly straight forward operation but count it as a dress rehearsal for something much more ominous.

Also, these things are useful for sending out subliminal messages to foreign non-state actors - this is what the UK can pit against you, would you care to reconsider ?
 

Musashi_kenshin

Active Member

Key points here appear to be that there will be 8 x Type 26 frigates and 5 x Type 31s, so no cuts as feared. What was also interesting was referring to developing a "Type 32", which does not appear to be a typo or mispronunciation.


It looks like the Type 32 would be a successor to the Type 31, whether it's a slightly modified version or something new. Again, speculation, but it suggests that rather than build more Type 31s something more substantial will be produced. The Type 26 is expensive, so something in between that and the current Type 31 which explands the fleet would be good.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
32 could be a run-on beefier frigate with the intention of selling off the 31's fairly early in their lives - a hot transfer and training package via the RN with the associated brand of the RN would likely be attractive to a few navies around the world who don't have a shipyard industry of their own.

It's one narrative I've heard described about the 31s - that the ambition is to get them out of service young, avoid the complex and expensive refits and simply build new, more quickly.
 
It could also be the type 45 replacement. Which would mean they have settled on a t26 variant. I know this is also wishlist stuff but hoping they create a worthy replacement for Albion and Bulwark
 

Musashi_kenshin

Active Member
32 could be a run-on beefier frigate with the intention of selling off the 31's fairly early in their lives
Yes, but the Type 31s do serve a purpose by themselves. They're perfect for doing work in the West Indies, off the west and east coasts of Africa, etc. They could do all the boring stuff and leave the Type 45s, 26s and 32s to do the heavy lifting.

Also there's the old problem of selling used ships and convincing the buyer to pay more than 50% of the cost you paid. Everyone wants a bargain if it's not brand new.

It could also be the type 45 replacement.
I don't think so, they were clearly described as frigates. If they'd meant AAW destroyers they'd have called them destroyers. There's no need to pass them off as less capable ships to please the Treasury given the announcement was made by the PM.

Plus, now I think about it, the Type 45s won't be replaced for some time. It's also a lot harder to export large destroyers than it is well-equipped frigates.
 
Last edited:
Top