Subscribe
Notify of
guest
22 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Scott

Any plans to replace the T23’s DC propulsion system with something more up to date too?

Bagsy b

Bit upmarket since “my day” when it was Paxman YHCAZ’s😎

bigmac

This is all very good news. Should give the Type 23’s at least a decade of extended life. What has always concerned me is recruitment. The Royal Navy (along with the US Navy) has shortcomings in this arena. This is especially troubling when the world’s political order is in chaos. A shortage of staff means extra work for everyone else and low morale. A properly staffed Royal Navy is essential for their success.

Dern

The problem is services wide, not just in the navy unfortunately.

Rick

Service life for these ships is only 18 years? It should be 30 years with mid-life refits and updates.
That way the tax payer gets value for money. Too many RN ships are prematurely earmarked
for disposal.

Dern

Given that the first was commissioned in 1989 I don’t think we can say they are “prematurely earmarked for disposal.” Wouldn’t you say?

Rick

What about 3 ships of Duke Class that were sold. I’d say that was premature. Check out APRIL 5th article Former RN vessels serving with other Navies. We are subsidizing other countries defense programs.

Grubbie

The amount of all 3 services order and almost immediately bin is ridiculess. One has suspect a fair amount of bribery in the case of UOR.
However we are wasting a lot of money plonking all this new kit into these old bangers. It wouldn’t be so bad if it didn’t require a lot of bespoke engineering and having your pants pulled down by the companies that run the dockyards.
Another good reason to keep turning them over, is to keep the production line hot, not doing this is disastrous, as we are finding out yet again.At least a billion pounds has been blown in a failed attempt to achieve this with Gordons sustainment programme that ended up with some duff unwanted OPVs.
All in all, you don’t pay a lot more ,if anything, for nice shiny new ships in the long run. Unfortunately governments can save a lot of money in short term by delaying orders.
Are these gensets going to be reused and sneakily disguise the inevitable cost overrun of the type 26?

Dern

UOR’s have to be binned after the conflict is over unfortunately, this is part of the deal you make with UOR’s.
Remember that UOR’s don’t come out of the MOD Budget, they come directly from the treasury, but the caveat is they belong to the treasury and after the conflict the MOD has to decide to either a) buy them off the treasury, or b) (if there isn’t the money for a) return them to the treasury for sale. IT’s to stop the army using UOR’s to secretly increase it’s budget.

Grubbie

Yes but still a shocking waste and some lunatic buys.Its much easier to go shopping crazy with someone else’s money.
We got 9 years out of HMS Grafton.

Andy

Not just duff unwanted opv but the most exspensive opv in the world.
Brazil got 3 designed and built to the same specs as the RN ships and paid £68 million for all 3 the RN paid 343 million for there 3 ships .
But not one word from any uk politicians.

Dern

The three ships that we couldn’t afford to operate anymore and anyway had been in use for over a decade you mean? For the rest of the ships on that list: All where either sold at the end of their intended service life to second rate navies that need to make do with what they can get on the cheap, or where sold off when the cold war ended and it made *sense* do downsize in a less dangerous world. There’s a reason why the nobody cares about the Pakistani Navy for example.

Rick

The 3 Dukes were discarded because we couldn’t afford them? I don’t know about that.
This is a prime example and the premise why this website is required.
We are constantly making cuts and not funding our Navy properly.

4thwatch

Just when you thought it was safe to go in the water- syndrome. It never stays safe for long; that’s the way it is. We could have afforded to run them if we’d wanted to especially as they were practically brand new in RN terms. We are lucky we aren’t still running County class DDG’s.

Challenger

They were originally designed as cheap and fairly basic frigates to operate in the harsh North Atlantic weather. Post Cold War they evolved into far more general purpose vessels, with several upgrades and plenty of deployments to topical regions allowing for a 30 year service life.

Paul

Hmmm, I wonder if Babcock has anything planned so they can accommodate the T26 refits. Can’t be good news for them if they don’t.

Grubbie

Or us if it leaves BAE a monopoly.

Stephen

We should make the diesel sets here as I understand it M.T.U. is owned by Rolls Royce. When Siemens took over Parsons for example they stopped making turbines in Newcastle and moved the work to Germany. We should do the same.

Ron5

Waste of money. Should have been replaced with Type 26’s ordered and built a decade ago. Bloody politicians, delay, delay, delay, spend umpteen millions on keeping obsolete equipment in service. Saves nothing.

4thwatch

I worry that our ships are built with too light steel plate. You see the Russian ships perhaps because of the icing problems the face have much smoother hull plating and therefore a much longer life. The additional weight of sturdier plating would be worth the effort.

Chris F

Are large marine diesels another manufacturing capability we have lost? Do Perkins/CAT not make appropriate sets? Or the ex-Paxman works at Colchester which I think is part of Siemens now?
MTU admittedly make very good machines though from what I’ve read.

Sonik

We haven’t lost the capability, the UK industry is successful on its own and doesn’t need HMG support. But be fair I think the MTU engines are a good choice for RN vs. the alternative UK assembled units.

The MTU engines are highly modular and thus much easier to maintain & overhaul in the confines of a vessel’s machinery spaces. MTU have a wide range of engine sizes which has allowed commonality between T45, T23, T26 and T31, simplifying training & logistics. They are also very popular marine engines with global spares & support availability. MTU is part of RR, so they can supply a complete package including DGs and GTs under a single contract.

The MAN/Ruston engines in the Rivers are similarly modular, but production is now moved to Germany anyway.

So it seems to me like RN just pick the best kit for the job here.