A Scottish maritime heritage group, Falls of Clyde International (FOCI), has embarked on a project that will return the Type 21 frigate PNS Tariq, (formerly HMS Ambuscade) to her birthplace on the Clyde. Here we look at the history of the vessel and consider the plan to preserve her as a museum ship.
FOCI was founded with the intention of bringing the tall ship, Falls of Clyde back to Glasgow for renovation and to be used as an active sail training ship. She was built on the Clyde in 1878 and is the only surviving iron-hulled and four-masted full-rigged ship in the world. She is currently berthed at Honolulu, Hawaii and FOCI has been working to restore and rescue her since 2014. They had a contract with authorities in Hawaii to remove her, although this was withdrawn in 2021 due to an insurance issue but work is ongoing to start again. This will provide the funds for the tow and some of the restoration work. (The full story is outside the scope of this article but there is more on their website here.) The plan to bring PNS Tariq to Glasgow is a separate venture by FOCI, but part of a wider vision to establish an attraction that celebrates the epic maritime and shipbuilding history of the Clyde.
Ambuscade
HMS Ambuscade was the 4th of 8 Type 21 frigates commissioned into the RN between 1974-78. She was the first of five of the class built by Yarrow Shipbuilders at Scotstoun on the Clyde. Ambuscade served all over the world, including participation in the Falklands War where she spent 83 days continuously at sea, steamed 29,229 miles and fired 500 4.5″ rounds. (Her war is recounted in more detail by her CO here). She was involved in a serious collision with the USS Dale in April 1983, fortunately, there were no casualties but she had to be dry-docked in Mumbai and have a complete new lower bow section fabricated and fitted. The later part of Ambuscade’s career was predominantly spent as either West Indies or Falkland Islands guard ship. Along with the five other surviving Type 21s, she was sold to the Pakistani Navy, formally being handed over in a ceremony at Devonport on 28th July 1993.
Sleek, fast and loved by their crews (including those that later served on them in the Pakistani Navy), the Type 21 frigate was the poster child for the cheap frigate. Unusually for the time, they were designed by a private company, Vosper Thornycroft as the Royal Naval Corps of Constructors, responsible for RN warship design were occupied with other work. Against some resistance, Type 21 was accepted by the RN as a way to get a modern and affordable frigate to sea pending the arrival of the high-end Type 22s.
They were lightly armed and air defence capability was limited to an obsolete Sea Cat missile launcher and two Oerlikon 20mm cannon of World War II vintage. When tested in the Falklands conflict this deficiency became obvious and was largely responsible for the loss of two ships. Ambuscade had a hectic war, including avoiding being hit by an Exocet missile through timely detection and use of decoy chaff.
Famously the Type 21s had an aluminium superstructure which allowed for increased internal volume and saved on top weight. Aluminium melts at lower temperatures than steel and was a controversial choice. The material was not a factor in the loss of HMS Ardent and Antelope but the main drawback was aluminium is less resistant to metal fatigue and long periods at sea caused significant cracks to appear in the superstructure. This was later rectified by longitudinal steel stiffening beams bolted to the ship’s sides.
-
HMS Ambuscade on launch day at the covered slipway at Yarrow Shipbuilders, Scotstoun, Glasgow, Jan 1973. The site is now owned by BAES and is where the Type 26 frigates are being fitted out. This shed was demolished ahead of the plan to build a new ‘frigate factory’ on the site which was subsequently abandoned in 2015. A new shipbuilding hall is instead being built at Govan. -
HMS Ambuscade in the late 1970s -
Showing the signs of a long and testing time at sea, HMS Ambuscade returns to Devonport after the Falklands War, 24 July 1982 (Photo: Steve Johnson, Cyberheritage). -
HMS Ambuscade at Birkenhead, Feb 1992. Post-Falklands War RN warships adopted a very austere colour scheme with even the black masts and motor boats painted grey (Photo: Andy Mahon). -
HMS Ambuscade was fitted with launchers for 4 × MM38 Exocet anti-ship missiles during her 1984-86 refit in Devonport (Photo: Andy Mahon). -
(Left) A BAe proposal to fit the Type 21s with GWS-26 Mod 1 Vertical Launch Sea Wolf (VLSW) missile system but this was only possible by removing the Exocets and 4.5″ gun. The ultimate ‘self-licking ice cream’ – a frigate that could defend itself but lacking any offensive weaponry, bar the Lynx helicopter. (Right) VT also proposed an enlarged “broad-beam” batch II Type 21 with 4 lightweight Sea Wolf launchers and the Exocets moved amidships.
Tariq
Always seen as somewhat under-armed in RN service, the Type 21s were quickly modernised and reclassified by Pakistan as ‘destroyers’. The RN did not supply Exocet or Sea Cat missiles, although a Lynx helicopter was transferred with each ship. Ambuscade was renamed PNS Tariq and was modernised with the Chinese-made 6-cell LY-60N surface-to-air missile system replacing the Exocet launchers and a Phalanx CIWS mount replacing the Sea Cat launcher. With upgraded primary sensors and fire control radars, in foreign service, the Type 21 had at last acquired respectable air defence capability.
PNS Tariq, proved a great asset to PN, spending about 830 days at sea and covering more than a million nautical miles in the three decades following transfer from the RN. She was formally decommissioned on 5th August 2023.
In 2020 FOCI approached Humza Yousaf (Currently Scottish First Minister who has Pakistani heritage) for help in securing the Tariq as a future museum ship in Glasgow. Subsequently, Pakistan has kindly agreed not to sink her as a target as originally intended. Instead, they will donate the ship free of charge to FOCI, although the charity will be responsible for towing her back to the UK. During her final few years in service, the Pakistani Navy has spared no expense in keeping the ship in good condition and she was dry-docked as recently as 2022. The PN has been keen to demonstrate the pride and standards of care taken in maintaining the ship to the RN and future owners.
-
PNS Tariq shortly after she was handed over to the Pakistani Navy by the RN in July 1993 (Photo: Rear Admiral Muhammad Anwar). -
Despite the upgrades, Tariq retained the distinctive Type 21 profile (Photo: Shaun Jones, August 2013). -
Tariq approaches USNS Arctic for Replenishment at Sea, Persian Gulf, May 2011 (Photo: Tom Epps). -
PNS Tariq alongside in Karachi dockyard with decommissioned sister PNS Khaibar (Ex-HMS Arrow). Photo taken from HMS Richmond during the CSG21 deployment. -
The Govan Graving Docks regeneration plan. HMS Ambuscade could be accommodated in number 2 dock.
Hurdles
Most observers of naval heritage efforts are rightly sceptical about any new proposal to preserve warships as there have been so many failures. Typically a well-intentioned small group has launched a campaign to save their favourite former war canoe, grossly underestimating the costs and complexity involved. These efforts often generate media coverage and modest initial support in the community but lack the funding, expertise and credibility needed to deliver the project.
To succeed there are several big hurdles to overcome. The current owners must agree to part with the vessel. A suitable long-term berth for the vessel must be found that does not entail costly fees and be in a good location to attract visitors. Various stakeholders, which may include the MoD, the local council, landowners, regulatory bodies and contractors all need to be assured the project is viable and compliant before they will agree to it being taken forward. Initial funding is then needed to tow or transport the vessel to its new home. Further funding is needed to carry out preservation work and considerable modification to make them a safe, accessible and interesting visitor destination. Finally, it must be properly established as a financially sustainable enterprise that generates an on-going income stream needed to maintain the vessel, promote and staff the attraction.
HMS Plymouth was the first semi-successful attempt to preserve a warship as a Falklands memorial. She was opened to the public in 1988, initially in Plymouth, then in Glasgow and later in Birkenhead. The Warship Preservation Trust that owned her (and HMS Onyx) collapsed in 2006 and she was scrapped in 2014, primarily because a suitable berth could not be found. HMS Ocelot was successfully saved in 1991, having the advantage of a good available location at Chatham Historic Dockyard. In the last decade, there have been several unsuccessful attempts to save other ships, including HMS Liverpool (2013) and HMS Edinburgh (2014). Even more wildly ambitious projects to preserve HMS Illustrious (2016) and HMS Hermes/INS Viraat (2021) also failed. There is also a live campaign to save HMS Bristol but a less attractive proposition for preservation would be hard to find. Completely stripped of weapons and sensors and even her masts for her cadet training role, she barely resembles the unique vessel she was in her prime. She is now decaying alongside at Whale Island and should be given the dignity of prompt disposal. There is also an ongoing effort to save HMS Bronington but even rescuing this small mine sweeper, currently half-submerged in Birkenhead docks, will be a struggle. The only recent example of success in the last 10 years was the restoration of WWII LCT 7074 but this project had the full backing of the National Museum of the Royal Navy and National Lottery funding.
On the right course?
Although establishing Tariq/Ambuscade as a viable museum ship cannot yet be fully guaranteed, the FOCI proposal has already overcome some of the biggest hurdles and they have a credible plan. The ship is due to be collected from Karachi in early October and undertake the 6,140nm journey, arriving in December. Having already obtained the ship for free in very good condition, they have two possible options for a berth on the Clyde. The best long-term option would be in the Govan Graving Docks which are currently derelict but are due for a major renovation which includes residential, retail and maritime heritage spaces. The number 2 dry dock caisson at Govan has not been moved in 40 years but it should be possible to remove it temporarily, bring Ambuscade in and then seal it shut. The alternative option is to berth her downriver on the Greenock waterfront at the Beacon Centre with the visitor site behind. This may be the first place she is berthed, pending completion of the work at Govan.
Ambuscade would be part of a wider experience that includes a Falklands memorial and FOCI has offers of a Sea Harrier, Lynx Helicopter and a captured Argentine Pucara aircraft for display. The shoreside visitor centre would be constructed using shipping containers as has been used successfully elsewhere by Boxpark to create retail areas. This is a low-cost way to create an attraction with much simpler planning rules as the buildings are temporary. The Boxpark would also contain an exhibition covering the Clyde shipbuilding story as well as food and retail outlets that would generate additional income. With a large Pakistani diaspora in Glasgow, there is also interest in the ship’s time in Pakistani naval service (which was longer than her RN service) and there has been support from this community as well as those with RN and shipbuilding connections.
An initial concept showing the ship and museum – further iterations of the plan are in development.
FOCI will not be heavily reliant on public donations and has engaged a professional fundraising company with experience in multi-million-pound projects. There is already some support from wealthy philanthropist donors and there are several funding bodies that could provide grants. The Govan site is part of urban regeneration efforts, and FOCI could be eligible for ‘levelling up’ funding, having already secured the support of Glasgow City Council. NMRN analysis suggests the attraction would get between 250-400,000 visitors annually and will create around 50 new jobs. BAE Systems, Babcock and Thales all have current or historical ties to Glasgow and although not providing funds, have given tacit agreement to assist with maintenance work on Ambuscade.
At present the majority of UK naval heritage is centred on the South of England with HMS Belfast in London and the historic dockyards at Portsmouth and Chatham. Once the greatest shipbuilding centre in the world, it is appropriate that a new naval museum comes to the Clyde, giving Scotland and northern England a more accessible attraction. Thanks to the efforts of FOCI, hopefully, we can soon look forward to seeing a great new naval museum established in Glasgow, featuring a well-loved vessel with a fine history.
Main image: PNS Tariq seen from RFA Fort Victoria (Photo: Shaun Jones, August 2013).
“air defence capability was limited to an obsolete Sea Cat missile launcher”
This is not so as they used the latest upgraded version, hardly any comparison to the older and semi obsolete versions at the time. Missile had larger weight of explosive than earlier as well
https://en.missilery.info/missile/seacat
Its like saying the 40mm that will equip the T31 is obsolete because its heritage goes back to Bofors from 70 years back. Its fire control is a different plant like the GWS-24 Sea Cat was
https://www.navylookout.com/in-focus-the-bofors-40mm-mk-4-gun-that-will-equip-the-type-31-frigates/
Still scary, remember closing up to 3Y just to fire them. God knows where they’d end up????????????
Indeed…the Type 21s had GWS 24 Seacat which was guided by the vastly superior RTN-10x Orion Fire Control Radar compared to the then 40 year old Type 262 X band Radar of WW2 vintage with the GWS-21 system (HMS Plymouthand Yarmouth), and the MRS-3 Radar on the GWS-22 (Leander Class, County Class etc). The Missile itself still was subsonic and short range but did pack a punch.
I might be being unfair here but weren’t over 50 of them fired in the Falklands without hitting anything (they claim one “assist” for an aircraft that flew into the ground trying to avoid them). In the excellent book Abandon Ship by Paul Brown which analyses the loss of ships in the Falklands in Great detail, the author sets out how Ardent and Antelope were both firing their Seacat using the manual aiming facility as the radar just couldn’t be made to work effectively.
It was obsolete, the problem was not the GWS24 per se it was the missiles itself, too slow, problems with fuze and i have read other issues i think with controls.
The 60’s RN fetich with missiles cost dearly. A 76mm gun for which curiosly that RTN-10X was made instead of 114mm would have changed the AA performance of those ships.
Even 20mm powered mounts with modern sights even if not radar directed woulh have improved things.
I agree Alex. Not sure whether we could have fitted the Dardo 40mm radar guided mount that the Italian’s were using at the time instead of Seacat.
In the detailed review of all Falklands warship losses in his excellent book Abandon Ship, Paul Brown states that both Ardent and Antelope were using the manual sighting mount to launch Seacat as the fire control radar just wouldn’t lock onto targets.
Fitting virtually brand new 21’s with the obsolete Sea Cat was as criminal as having an AAW destroyer with no low level AAW capability.
leaving a protective engine cover coloured red in a plane duct for carrier takeoff is negligent too-
We cant assume the world runs perfectly like it does with hindsight
There is a great deal of difference between a one off system failure that is created by a human factor and knowingly creating a system that fails.
Agreed, they are different error levels.
Assuming that missiles will replace guns in AA defence.
Assuming the missiles would be effective.
Assuming that RN ships do not need redundancy in AA
Benefiting home industry at expense of ship defence.
The Oerlikon 35 mm twin cannon of the same period would have been a much better AA weapon than Seacat which incidentally was widely used by Argentine forces during the Falklands War, it managed to shoot down and damage a few Harrier/Sea Harrier during the conflict and is still in service around the world.
The Vosper Niterois have a bizarre position for the 40mm radar controlled Bofors, being larger ships i don’t think it was viable in Type 21.
I think any gun above the hangar would need to have a pedestal for ammunition etc. More important would have been to replace the 114mm for the 76mm.
Interesting about the 40mm mount. Agree that replacing the 114mm for a 76mm would have been very interesting and would probably have been a better weapon of choice for a patrol frigate, as proven by the RN picking a 57mm for the type 31 ( sometimes bigger is not better). But I suppose that would have created a new weapon pipeline for training, parts and ammunition which would have been a expense to sign off and the Navy of the 1960s and 1970s was all about as many hulls as possible as cheaply as possible no matter the compromise.
The 20mm and 40mm wouldnt have coped, even with the radar direction on mount then available. Thats what Seacat made obsolescent
the 40mm used now isnt for fast low flying 1950s fighters like Dagger/Mirage and Skyhawk but drones, cruise missiles and speedboats
So the 40mm used now can only shoot down modern drones and cruise missiles, not old-age jets?
What is the speed difference between a modern Russian Kalibr cruise missile and a Mirage 1950 jet?
That do not make any sense. Gun rounds are much faster than Seacats, mounts are very fast moving fast elevation.
Manual piss poor mounts . not even AA preped and not protected – of 20mm Oerlikons damaged Argentinian aircraft. Imagine a 4 gun x 20mm with radar and all proper sights with the gunner in a protected position?
Type 21 ships had worse AA defence than a WW2 RN late war destroyer.
So the RN of the late 60s didnt know what they wanted or the performance of the existing Bofors L60 40mm ( not the newer L70)
And no gun rounds arent *much faster* – Bofors 850m/s Seacat 950 m/s plus( 0.9M)
See I have taken us back to 1960 , arithmetic was the same then
In what world a Seacat moves at 950m/s !?
It was subsonic 0.8 mach at sea level it is 236m/s
His brain is still stuck in the 60s so needs to count his fingers when calculating.
The Seacat was never a serious AA weapon even back in the 60s, only used to distract attacking pilots.
What was the kill ratio with respect to missile launch? laughable!
From a speed search in web it seems there were 80-100 Seacat launches in Falklands with one probable shared kill with Rappier and 40mm guns in San Carlos(?) bay.
From reports i have seen long ago it also accomplished disturbing to Argentinian pilots making them loose sight and precision in their attacks.
If the numbers are true it is a bad show.
Junk is still junk even when it’s best quality junk. Non of the Sea Cat systems performed well in the Falklands.
neither did Sea Wolf and Sea Dart together when it mattered in the open ocean at low level.
Sea Dart worked well for what was designed, it was the best SAM of conflict.
Tell that to the crew of HMS Coventry
It had a very limited medium-high altitude engagement envelope and not against a land background….. so the Argentines just hugged the land or the sea.
Seacat engagement was limited by the firing arc of the ships it was on, mostly the rear 180-220 deg and of course as a CIWS and not a crossing target. So was it good for what it was designed for too?
Seacat could not replace the 40mm Bofors. It was a failure.
Sea Dart instead could hit aircraft at medium altitude helping force the Argentinians spend more fuel at low level which means lower time in combat zone and forced to fire the Exocet at shorter distance.
It was the SAM with more hits.
That is not a justifiable excuse for the Seacat system.
So are all British missile systems actually crap?
Upgraded Sea Mouse was still Sea Mouse.
You can’t polish a turd
It was better than an old 40mm gun, though it was still a basic command-guided point-defense system good only against incoming threats. Against a fast jet, it was primarily a deterrent weapon that would spoil the enemy pilot’s bomb-aiming rather than a plane-killer,
In theory was much better than a Bofors gun…but it required a very good operator to achieve this..it was manually aimed and in anything but good weather conditions…and keep on target.
The Seacat became obsolete by the 1970s due to increasing aircraft speed and the introduction of supersonic, sea-skimming anti-ship missiles.
Despite being obsolete, the Seacat was still widely fielded by the Royal Navy at the outbreak of the Falklands War.
After the Falklands conflict, a radical and urgent re-appraisal of anti-aircraft weaponry was undertaken by the Royal Navy. This saw Seacat rapidly withdrawn from service and replaced by modern weapons systems,
I don’t think it was better than a 40mm Bofors with a modern computerised sight.
Thats not the comparison- today and 60 years ago
Modern computerized sight of 1970. Shilkas downed Israel aircraft with their 4x23mm guns.
Early versions for a war in oct 73. Not the later versions you thinking of
Israel consider Shilkas downed 1/5-1/4 of their aircraft in Yom Kippur War
Seen a doc, Of 109 Israeli losses , 31 were by AA guns. Not specified type.
Agree!
Modern 40mm AA and 3P munitions are definitely way better than Seacat but then again just about any modern AA weapons are better than Seacat.
Do not need 3P ammo. Argentinian 35mm guns were a menace toHarriers, i think they had 2 flavours the older Superfaldermous and the monopulse Skyguard-Contraves directors.
Shilka was start of 70’s system.
Even Israelis with 4×12.7 and the double 20 TCM got kills.
Would love to turn one into a home, also for a public attraction to view from land. This would help preserve the vessel for historical attraction and education.
If its been kept in tip top condition, cant it make its own way bacK
That needs a crew of whatever size and supplies! This way it’s a few on a tug and hope she doesn’t go down!
Many ex “21 crew and Ambers in particular would gladly volunteer & pay there own expenses to “sail her home” but agree probably the most practical solution is to tow her !
Saw HMS Ambuscade off Burgh Island on Friday 9 April1982. Took me years to work out it was her though, as number was painted out!
I should note that this very successful Vosper design – the bad armament choice of Type 21 is responsability of Royal Navy – is still in service with Brazilian Navy in an enlarged version with Niteroi class frigate. Only the namesake decomissioned from 7.
I think Niteroi class is MUCH better than T21. If RN’s 8 T21 had been 7 Niteroi-class, they should have had a better life, I guess…
The MK was a serious bigger vessel than the type 21, 60foot longer and around 2.5 foot more beam.
Yes, but the design is still that commercial Vosper design.
A good intention but it is so hard to make it work. Old ships are hard and constant work with big cost bumps like periodic dockings. You need a group prepared for the long term with deep pockets or don’t even try.
I was an associate when HMS Belfast was saved for the nation. There had been a discussion as to which cruiser should be saved. Would it be shiny Sheff, Belfast or even HMS Achilles (HMNZS) then in Indian service?
In the end it came down to condition. Money was tight.
Aubrey Bowden was keen to save the German battlecruiser SMS Goeben which was stiil extant with the Turkish Navy.
All the above prewar cruisers had outlasted the war builds largely due to their galvanised plating. They did things properly then.
The cost of periodic dry dockings to paint the hull and due a safety check will be huge.
I hope it works out for them: I really do.
Britannia is one thing but this is quite another and I don’t really think it has the pull to get the visitor numbers.
Major challenges always seem to be what kind of condition the vessel finishes up in and how much it has changed since it’s Royal Navy service.
If she’s been maintained well and won’t take a complete gutting and refurb to take her back to what she was like around The Falklands War then definitely worth a go.
As the article notes maritime heritage is currently pretty focused in the South East despite Glasgow and part of Northern England being the absolute epicentre of historic shipbuilding.
It would be great to have her as a centre of a museum dedicated to the Falklands War. But the cost of maintaining her long term would be the major concern. Perhaps permanently dry-docking her would be the best long term option.
Is it intended to restore her to RN configuration by obtaining some of the old radar/ fixtures and fittings including a seacat launcher etc?
Gosh! This pleases Korean monkey baby.
The photo of the covered Slip at Scotstoun says it all. A lack of investment in shipbuilding facilities. The Frigate factory that never happened has been reponsible for the T23’s staggering on into the 2030’s.
This is unbelievable and those responsible should be outed as leaving the RN at risk and inadequate in the Frigate ASW field.
Let’s hope the MOD and Politicians have learned their lesson.
Its way past time The HoC Defence commitee had the money and power to hold an enquiry on this and other Defence fiascos.
How about a dry dock in the South of England in Portsmouth or Southampton to take the Carriers?
I dont think its worth saving HMS Ambuscade. Fine looking ship though it is its an outlier and dead end in terms of RN ship development. Its only advantage is as a museum for the Falkands War. Personally I would have far rather have seen HMS Plymouth saved.
I agree with a lot of your points, except that ” T26 whereby huge amounts of resource was thrown at the detail in the design too early, ” It wouldn’t have been to early if we commenced it then.
It is if you haven’t got the design right. Which is what happened….
What would have you done? What is the problem?
Could it be the same ‘problem’ the USN had for its latest iteration of Arleigh Burkes in that they modified an existing design and hull form ( to allow for improved stability now and some future growth in service) rather than as the purists might want – redone from the keel up-
The problem was – and is – a propensity to throw large teams at a design, generating lots of detail in the name of “risk reduction”. Trouble is, if you’re in the wrong place in terms of size, arrangement, performance, margins or similar you’re burning cash for no return.
You use a small, knowledgeable team early and quickly to get the design right – including a decent weight estimate, outline system design and cost base. Once you’ve got that, you can do the actual detail. The trouble with the BAES and MoD approach is that they think it’s reducing risk, but what it’s actually doing is burning time, resource and cash and doing so with a large team that is difficult to co-ordinate and control. Which also means major issues don’t get picked up and resolved as quickly as you’d like.
All of which stems from the failure to conduct sufficient numbers of designs over the years. By which I mean actually balancing the fundamentals and understanding why certain factors are drivers, rather than doing lots of detail. Surface combatant designs are particularly tricky, because they don’t tend to have a single driving operational characteristic, rather a blend over above water, underwater capabilities, all in a relatively constrained package.
The USN modified the mid 1980s AB design to get ABIII largely because they had forgotten how to design from first principles, which led to the fiasco of Zumwalt and LCS. They’re compounding the issue by essentially buying OTS for FFGX. If you understand what they’ve done to get from AB to ABIII, its distinctly sub-optimal and also means that they’re even further away from being able to do a new ship design.
Thank you.
Yes the US’s approach to FFGX reminds of how the RCN Iroquois / Tribal class came to be: a shaking of the parts bin. They are some of the best Cold War ship designs. But their is a difference between the small RCN building a ship to fit their niche ends and a super power rolling out a major class.
We needed to go back to the days of Bath perhaps with an attached small yard to practice techniques and develop ship yard methods.
Nobody is going to re-create Foxhill. MoD cam’t even staff their own posts.
Nearest thing will be the Naval Design Partnering, for which the contract will be out for renewal this year. But it needs to work in a different way than it does now.
Yes. I know. Another asset thrown away.
Cheer up! So in your view nothing that is needed or possible can be made to happen? Excellence has a strength all of its own. Why do you think Rolls Royce as a company is still top class and British owned? You cant keep a good man down; that’s why.
Is that the Rolls Royce which is busily exiting the vast majority of its maritime business? The RR that sold it’s marine diesel engine and equipment business to Kongsberg? The RR that is very quietly moving away from some of the other maritime things it does?
That Rolls Royce?
Rolls-Royce taps McKinsey for organisational restructuring (consultancy.uk)
What dead end is the T21 ?
1st to have full GT power and then fitted with Exocet missiles for ships and the then Soviet missile launching subs which could only fire when surfaced
It was useful replacement by a class of 8 for the long in tooth Type 12 designs under the continuous build policy of the era and until the step up in size of the T22 frigate ( only 10 planned until Falkland’s losses added)
if you check say the T42 and T22 designs they too ended after their production complete
It was too small and the superstructure/hull design limited armament.
It could not have had a Sea Wolf missile – which strangely since was a small missile had a quite heavy installation.
A modernisation with Sea wolf and better sonar was designed for. But freeboard for the highest watertight deck was inadequate so wasnt carried through
“GWS 26 Mod 2 Lightweight Sea Wolf: Introduced in 1986. Retrofit program for the Sea Cat system. With compact ST1802SW fire control radar and quadruple guided missile launcher. Development stopped.”
https://www.seaforces.org/wpnsys/SURFACE/Sea-Wolf-SAM.htm
I remember seeing some crazy Castle OPV proposal with it. Also some boxy Sea Dart!
The Type 22 was a gas turbine powered, enlarged and modernised Type 12. I’m saying it was never followed through by a direct successor but we know that.
The T21 was the follow on to the long running T12. One type ended production and was replaced
its the T22 which is the outlier as it was ordered at same time as the T21
The T23 could be seen as the follow on to the T21 – a few of which were configured as direct T22 replacements
No. T21 was a cheap way of keeping numbers up. It basically replaced the Cats and Cathedrals as hulls. And in role sort of replaced the Tribal.
T22 was the replacement for Leander. The move to GTs brought about reduced numbers in personnel and the inconvenience of waiting to raise steam. It was noisier due to a lack of rafting, though not bad at sea was far, far from exceptional. It was a backward step compared to its previous and so not the best design. What saved it was the need to fit Classic Outboard. To do this the hull needed to be lengthened and with the modified bow the B2 (and B3) became good sea boats.
The B3 saw lessons applied from the Falklands which all saw the projected T23 transform from cheap TAS tug to fully fledged escort. The inadequacies of the T22’s propulsion system needed to be addressed as Soviet submarine designs became ever quieter. T23 wasn’t a cheap off the shelf design purchased to keep up hull numbers like T21.
Old Ships. 87-89, ex Chef.. Will be great to see her come home!
Great photo.
Fantastic. Mk8 fulfilling its role as the main ornament.
How do you get s type 42 go sea ????
If these guys could pull this off it would be tremendous. A fitting tribute to all those that paid the ultimate price and contributed to the success of the Task Force in 82. If my memory serves me right the Type 21’s were designed for things like Armilla Patrol etc serving on them in the unforgiving South Atlantic must have been challenging. I have great memories of being on deployment with HMS Arrow in the Indian Ocean in 1979 they always looked amazing with their sleek lines, angled funnel and low water board. I have a vivid memory of her pulling up on our Starboard side, then watching her go from cruising speed to full power in an instant. It was like watching a speedboat her bow rose her quarterdeck settled in the water and she was off leaving us in her wake and struggling to raise the steam pressure. Leaving a lasting impression!!! Would love to see HMS Ambuscade brought home!!!
Designed for North Atlantic, although overall by Vosper Thorneycroft ( pity BAE bought them out and closed them down once they had a share of T45 work, as that could have kept surface naval shipbuilding in south of England) the stability and strength was with RCNC – who upped the length and beam.
Later understanding of aluminium structure fatigue and superstructure failure modes ( just before the Falklands war) meant hull reinforcing from a sheer strake beam was fitted ( also required to some T42 class). Ok from then on. But no it wasnt designed for benign waters
Great effort, I hope it works out. I do think overall it is sad that there is so relatively little effort in the UK to preserve its naval heritage. Living in the USA it is nice to be able to visit old aircraft carriers, submarines, battleships etc. I realize the UK GDP is a lot smaller but surely more could be done and would help with getting public support for the Royal Navy.
In a way it’s good that this effort is in Scotland on the Clyde, it can’t hurt in reminding people there about the importance of the Union.
Cheers
John
PS just lookng it up in terms of available wealth required to defend the country, UK GDP per capita is getting a little bit pathetic, way below US, Canada and Australia, and even below my native (now very socialist) New Zealand.
If you want to save the Roal Navy you might want to address that by freeing up regulations and supporting private enterprise which is where all the taxes come from, unless you want to follow the Carl Marx trajectory of Russia and China whose economies are inevitably tanking,
Cheers
John
Maybe your economic textbook might find it hard to explain the PRC huge navy expansion. And a check of numbers shows the fall in growth of said PRC is still 5% or so according to the bible of commerce The Guardian
The Chinese people have a great work ethic and the commies are lucky to have tapped into that by conquering China and using as their tool.
Uk has lost its work ethic and nothing is done to rekindle it. Certainly not in the playbook of the Unions or schools that I can see. Nothing is in sight is the scary thing. There are glimmers of hope here and there but too few and when they surface they are often sold off.
There are lies, big lies, and statistics.
PLA Navy has more ship building capability than the US Navy.
But which both have very, very, very powerful armed forces.
Yes they certainly do! I apologize for sounding critical of our good old
UK, it is is better than either of them in many ways, still has 4 times the GDP per capita of China and much more than Russia. With both Chinese and Russian economies tanking due to excessive central control, it will compare better in the future. Of course Britain by itself cannot take them both on, but the Commonwealth countries, Europe and the USA plus allies like Japan and South Korea can easily.
Cheers
John
What a shame that all navylookout can post is a frigate from the past. It reflects the shallow fleet the RN has become.
It’s time for the politicians in the UK to recognize that the only way the UK can have trade deals and be respected out of the EU is to have a credible Navy to protect our trade and interests throughout the seas.
I think alot of the problems in the Falklands was due to the landscape. Low flying planes were affecting the radar control of the seacat and the Rapier.
I visited HMS Ambuscade when she docked in Wilmington, Delaware, USA in 1988, I had moved to the US in 1985 and I was so delighted to visit a Royal navy ship while she was here. I would be so happy see her preserved, and maybe visit her again in the future.
I was on the Ambuscade when it first visited – February 1987 returning from the Falklands. Wilmington was a great run ashore, I believe the success of that visit led to the return visit in 88, by that time drafty had moved me on to other things.
I enjoyed my time on the Ambuscade, the accommodation was much, much better than my previous Leander. Happy crews make good crews. Great ships the 21s, and they ended up good general purpose ships with Exocet, Lynx, STWS and a potent 4.5″. The Seacat was however past it’s use by date as a firing I witnessed demonstrated, I wonder if the missile has come back down yet? They could certainly shift as well, acceleration from a standing start was impressive. The 21s were still carrying out useful roles when they were sold on.