Type 22 frigates for Romania

andrei

New Member
There is a big scandal going on now in the UK in Romania concerning the purchase by the Romanian navy of two Type 22 frigates from the Royal Navy.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/armstrade/story/0,,1796377,00.html.
The frigates were bought from BAE - not the Royal Navy - for 116 millions british pounds, about three times more expensive than alternative offers. The Royal navy and the british tax payer got only 100,000 pounds for each frigate - price of scrap metal -. BAE got the rest. The Romanians got two fishing vessels.
The Romanians have bought two frigates with no weapons except a 76 mm oto melara gun, empty shells indeed with air conditioning, :p: defined as an essential characteristic of the ships. Romanian press is furious and has opposed the deal since 2003 http://www.gandul.info/2006-06-13/nodul_marinaresc mentioning that the frigates are good only for fishing in the week end. Other type 22 frigates retired from the Royal navy have been sold to scrap (2), used as targets (2) or sold cheaper - to Chile -.
When they were purchased it was mentioned that it was a great step towards better operability of the ROmanian navy at NATO standards - Romania is a member since 2004- and the deal was supported and lobbyed for by the british officials including the former ambasssador of UK to Romania. Matter of factly, Q. Quayle, the ambassador was recalled to London this year and the SFO - serious fraude office - of the UK is investigating the case. It appears that over 7 millions british pounds were paid in bribes to british and romanian officials.
The irony of this is that Romania has its own design of frigates the Marasesti launched in the late 1980. It is a heavy ship which consumes 4 (four times) less fuel than the British scrap.The Romanian frigate has anti ship missiles - old but functional -, SAM - based on SA14 -, close defence system - 30 mmm multi gun -, torpedoe tubes, ASW mortars, a sonar, a 100 mm gun, a helicopter deck and hangar - Dauphin, Puma or Mi 8 helicopters can use them, and the navy is arming this helicopters with missiles -. In short the Romanian model is a heavy and operational ship which needed new missiles maybe but it compares favorably with the empty shells (type 22 frigates). In order to arm these frigates bought from BAE Romania needs to pay an additional 300 -400 millions euros, and the total cost of the modernised type 22 will reach a fortune in the high 800 millions euros. For this money Romania could have bought two brand new fully armed destroyers, Spruance classe US navy destroyers, MEKO destroyers or two lafayettes stealth frigates from the last generation
Typical example of politicians from the UK and Romania conspiring to steal the public interest.
 

tatra

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
andrei said:
There is a big scandal going on now in the UK in Romania concerning the purchase by the Romanian navy of two Type 22 frigates from the Royal Navy.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/armstrade/story/0,,1796377,00.html.
The frigates were bought from BAE - not the Royal Navy - for 116 millions british pounds, about three times more expensive than alternative offers. The Royal navy and the british tax payer got only 100,000 pounds for each frigate - price of scrap metal -. BAE got the rest. The Romanians got two fishing vessels.
The Romanians have bought two frigates with no weapons except a 76 mm oto melara gun, empty shells indeed with air conditioning, :p: defined as an essential characteristic of the ships. Romanian press is furious and has opposed the deal since 2003 http://www.gandul.info/2006-06-13/nodul_marinaresc mentioning that the frigates are good only for fishing in the week end. Other type 22 frigates retired from the Royal navy have been sold to scrap (2), used as targets (2) or sold cheaper - to Chile -.
When they were purchased it was mentioned that it was a great step towards better operability of the ROmanian navy at NATO standards - Romania is a member since 2004- and the deal was supported and lobbyed for by the british officials including the former ambasssador of UK to Romania. Matter of factly, Q. Quayle, the ambassador was recalled to London this year and the SFO - serious fraude office - of the UK is investigating the case. It appears that over 7 millions british pounds were paid in bribes to british and romanian officials.
The irony of this is that Romania has its own design of frigates the Marasesti launched in the late 1980. It is a heavy ship which consumes 4 (four times) less fuel than the British scrap.The Romanian frigate has anti ship missiles - old but functional -, SAM - based on SA14 -, close defence system - 30 mmm multi gun -, torpedoe tubes, ASW mortars, a sonar, a 100 mm gun, a helicopter deck and hangar - Dauphin, Puma or Mi 8 helicopters can use them, and the navy is arming this helicopters with missiles -. In short the Romanian model is a heavy and operational ship which needed new missiles maybe but it compares favorably with the empty shells (type 22 frigates). In order to arm these frigates bought from BAE Romania needs to pay an additional 300 -400 millions euros, and the total cost of the modernised type 22 will reach a fortune in the high 800 millions euros. For this money Romania could have bought two brand new fully armed destroyers, Spruance classe US navy destroyers, MEKO destroyers or two lafayettes stealth frigates from the last generation
Typical example of politicians from the UK and Romania conspiring to steal the public interest.
According to http://www.losbarcosdeeugenio.com/barcos/rom_es.html the main change has been removal of Sea Wolf and associated fire control radars, as well as 4 Exocet MM 38. Installed were 76mm gun and some other equipment (see http://www.baesystems.com/newsroom/2005/apr/210405news1.htm) All other ship systems remain, including (armed) helicopter, lightweight ASW torpedos EW/ECM, Radar and Sonar. IIRC the ships are to receive VL Mica.

As for the Marasesti, check Hazegrey.org:

[SIZE=+2]Marasesti patrol destroyer [/SIZE]
Displacement: 5,790 tons full load
Dimensions: 144.6 x 14.80 x 4.90 meters/474.4 x 48.5 x 16 feet
Propulsion: 4 diesels, 4 shafts, 32,000 bhp, 27 knots
Crew: 270
Radar: MR-302 Strut Curve air/surf search
Sonar: MF hull
Fire Control: Harpun/Plank Shave missile targeting
EW: 2 PK-16 decoy
Aviation: aft flight deck and hangar for 2 Aloutte-III helicopters
Armament: 8 SS-N-2C SSM, 2 dual 76.2mm/59cal DP, 2 dual 30 mm AA, 2 SA-N-5 SAM positions, 2 RBU-6000 ASW RL

Concept/Program: A completely Romanian design. Was laid up almost immediately after commissioning as she was found to be extremely unstable due to excess topweight. Extensively modified 1988-1992 to partially correct topweight problems. Of limited combat value, as she lacks effective SAMs & modern SSMs, and has no centralized combat system. A limited modernization is planned, for completion in 2006. Builders: Santierul 2 Mai, Mangalia.
 

Sea Toby

New Member
I never understood why Romania purchased these vessels. I can't believe they spent so much converting them into a large OPV. They would have been better off buying two new frigates, or several new OPVs. What I cannot understand is why the fuss now, this was a bad deal two years ago, and its still a bad deal.

However, I think Romania is more at fault than the United Kingdom or BAE. There is an old saying, a fool and his money are soon departed.
 

Jtimes2

New Member
I have to disagree; they aren't as bad of a deal as made out to be here. The Sea Wolf and Exocet were removed; but; they would have been white elephants anyways as Romania doesn't support spares/repairs for those systems. The 76mm is part of Phase One of the buy, along with updating their SATCOMs. Phase Two (2008-ish) will involve adding a VLS SAM (most likely Mica or Barak) and reactivating the ASW torpedo tubes. (they were sold without torpedoes and the current Romanian WarPac designs don't fit the Brit tubes).

They were bought to replace a plethora of rapidly deteriorating, aged Soviet coastal escorts. Romania's options were to buy small, new-build coastal corvettes, or the two larger helo-operating, ocean-capable FF's which offer similar armament plus the size/range to participate in NATO operations. (The Romanian FF's already are part of STANFORLANT) I wouldn't call them "fishing boats".

I actually love the Marasesti design but it is very obsolete; with an inefficient four-shaft diesel-direct drive, old SS-N-2 Styx missiles, and lack of a centralized CIC. Part of the deal with BAe for the FF's also included an upgrade for her, which added NATO comms and IFF. The Romanians have downgraded it from their fleet flagship to a "shepherd" for their coastal forces. None the less, I agree it was an impressive ship in the 1980s. How often do you see indigineous Destroyers anymore?

If I had to venture a guess, I'd say they will keep the two ex-Brit ships for about a decade and then move on to a new build class.....much like Turkey and Greece transitioned from Gearing FRAMs to MEKOs and Kortaeners.
 

contedicavour

New Member
I'm very astonished that the ships were sold without Sea Wolf.
Why bother at all to take out this relatively old technology ??
Same for the almost obsolete MM38 Exocet...
This really sounds like the act of complete ignorants even more than a fraud...
:confused:
 

Jtimes2

New Member
contedicavour said:
I'm very astonished that the ships were sold without Sea Wolf.
Why bother at all to take out this relatively old technology ??
Same for the almost obsolete MM38 Exocet...
This really sounds like the act of complete ignorants even more than a fraud...
:confused:
It was probably not done by the Brits for security; but by the Romanians themselves for economics. Supporting a shipboard missile system takes a lot of infrastructure in spare parts, electronics repair; manning, training, etc. It's just not worth it to invest that kind of money to support one or two launchers; especially for aging weapons.

They would rather pool their $ and invest in a new system like VL Mica or Barak in a few years; systems they can invest in; train on; and carry over to future classes.
 

Jtimes2

New Member

contedicavour

New Member
Jtimes2 said:
It was probably not done by the Brits for security; but by the Romanians themselves for economics. Supporting a shipboard missile system takes a lot of infrastructure in spare parts, electronics repair; manning, training, etc. It's just not worth it to invest that kind of money to support one or two launchers; especially for aging weapons.

They would rather pool their $ and invest in a new system like VL Mica or Barak in a few years; systems they can invest in; train on; and carry over to future classes.
I understand your point, which is very valid.
What I don't really get is that if the Romanians buy Barak or Mica they will have to support new missile systems anyway. Since the Romanian Navy lacks any AAW (beyond the line of sight light SAMs), any AAW missile buy will be new spending with extra maintenance needs.
The Sea Wolf would have been a good buy. The missile is older and shorter-ranged than Barak, but still a good and cheap deal.
Considering the number of spare parts available when the RN will retire T22 and T23s, Sea Wolf could have been supported for small investment.

cheers
 

andrei

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #10
Missiles ?

Romania's air force is already operating french and Israeli missiles so the Barak and the Mica would not be a big maintenance challenge. I personnally believe that the Barak would be a better option - longer range but the main improvement over the existing SAM capability (around 8 km) operating on the Marasesti would be the anti missile, centralised comand capabilities and the capacity to fire more missiles.

It is true that the type 22 frigates are operating with stingray torpedos along their 76 mm gun. That is not enough for the loss of anti ship capability of the navy. In the Black sea, the Marasesti is supporting missile boats but for an operational capacity with NATO in the Meditteranean or elsewhere, ASM missiles have to be installed on the type 22 frigates. The MM38 previously operated on the type 22 were obsolete. The best option now is, in view, the RBS 15, or the Gabriel IV or the Exocet MM 40 block 2. All these missiles have coastal attack capacity, GPS navigation, evasive capacity,reduced RCS, ECM anti jamming etc. Range is above 180 km for all.


But the decision will be political as always. The RBS 15 will be selected if Romania selects the JAS 39N as its future fighter. Gabriel missiles will be selected if the existing military partnership with Israel and Elbit is maintained and if Romania ends up buying F16 from Israel - with new avionics -. The exocet will come if the French will deliver also the Rafale to the air f.orce - which I hope -.because it is a better platform than the JAS 39.
BAE is pushing for the Marte ASM missiles to be integrated with the helicopters on board and in the sea-sea version. but it is a light weigh missile with a range of around 30 km. I just hope that the best weapon and not the most expensive will be selected.
 

contedicavour

New Member
andrei said:
Romania's air force is already operating french and Israeli missiles so the Barak and the Mica would not be a big maintenance challenge. I personnally believe that the Barak would be a better option - longer range but the main improvement over the existing SAM capability (around 8 km) operating on the Marasesti would be the anti missile, centralised comand capabilities and the capacity to fire more missiles.

It is true that the type 22 frigates are operating with stingray torpedos along their 76 mm gun. That is not enough for the loss of anti ship capability of the navy. In the Black sea, the Marasesti is supporting missile boats but for an operational capacity with NATO in the Meditteranean or elsewhere, ASM missiles have to be installed on the type 22 frigates. The MM38 previously operated on the type 22 were obsolete. The best option now is, in view, the RBS 15, or the Gabriel IV or the Exocet MM 40 block 2. All these missiles have coastal attack capacity, GPS navigation, evasive capacity,reduced RCS, ECM anti jamming etc. Range is above 180 km for all.


But the decision will be political as always. The RBS 15 will be selected if Romania selects the JAS 39N as its future fighter. Gabriel missiles will be selected if the existing military partnership with Israel and Elbit is maintained and if Romania ends up buying F16 from Israel - with new avionics -. The exocet will come if the French will deliver also the Rafale to the air f.orce - which I hope -.because it is a better platform than the JAS 39.
BAE is pushing for the Marte ASM missiles to be integrated with the helicopters on board and in the sea-sea version. but it is a light weigh missile with a range of around 30 km. I just hope that the best weapon and not the most expensive will be selected.
Fully agree with you that the MM-38 needed to be replaced, and the options you describe (in common with the Air Force) make a lot of sense.
It's on the AAW missile that I disagree. Preserving the Sea Wolf was a perfectly cost-efficient choice, with many systems available as the other T22 retire from the RN. Buying Baraks will cost a lot more although you'll gain a few km in range (approx 10-12 vs 8). True, Seawolf on the older T22s isn't VLS, but with 2 sextuple launchers the ship has a performance comparable to a 16-cell VLS launcher... ;)

cheers
 
Top