Originally designed with a service life of around 18 years, the RN’s Type 23 Frigates will now have to serve for around 30 years. These vessel are undergoing life extension (LIFEX) refits and an important component of these upgrades is the Power Generation Machinery Upgrade (PGMU) to replace the ships’ four diesel generator sets.
The Type 23 LIFEX programme is being run by the Surface Ship Support Alliance (a partnership between the MoD, Babcock and BAE Systems) and began in June 2015 when HMS Argyll was taken in hand at Devonport. The most obvious external change is the fitting of the CAAM Sea Ceptor missile system to replace the ageing GWS-26 Sea Wolf but the refits also include major changes to equipment, the combat system, chilled water arrangements and work to extend the life of the hull and superstructure. HMS Richmond is the first ship to receive the machinery upgrade.
The first of the new MTU 12V 4000 M53B diesel generator sets were delivered to Devonport Naval Base in late 2016 for fitting to HMS Richmond. The new gensets are manufactured in Germany by MTU (A subsidiary of the Land & Sea division of Rolls-Royce) and provide 1.65MW each. This will provide the ship with approximately 20% increase in available power for onboard weapons, sensors and electronics as well as for cruising propulsion. The old Paxman Valenta 12 RP2000CZ diesel design dates from the 1960s and are becoming increasingly maintenance-intensive. They are rated at 1.3MW but and have reduced power output as low as 1MW in hot climates. The new diesels perform better in hot conditions and will drastically reduce maintenance time and running cost. The MTU 4000 gensets include sophisticated noise reduction and shock resistance measures and are exceptionally reliable. The PGMU project presented a considerable engineering challenge as new equipment had to fit within the existing structural and compartment constraints and integrate with the ship’s services and systems.
The PGMU project comprises 5 separate components (which the DE&S tendered for in ‘lots’); diesel generators, power conversion equipment, electrical switchboards, the machinery control and surveillance system (MCAS) and the integration work. A £68M contract was signed by the DE&S with MTU to supply the generator sets in April 2015. The contract includes a complete logistics package, spare parts and initial training. The RN’s mechanical engineering training establishment, HMS Sultan will receive equipment and electronic manuals so it can provide relevant training for MEs serving on the upgraded Type 23s.
Hitzinger UK won a £12M contract for the voltage converters and Rolls-Royce signed a £18M contract in January 2016 to deliver the updated MCAS. Babcock Marine and Technology is responsible for the integration of the new systems aboard the ships and was awarded a £3.6M for this task. The project includes installing 600m of new pipework in each ship together with over 8km of new cable. The Upper Auxiliary Machinery Room (UAMR) and the Forward Auxiliary Machinery Rooms (FAMR) have to be almost entirely stripped out and new machinery foundations and uptakes and downtakes fitted.
The new propulsion package fitted to the Type 23s will not only improve ship availability, fuel efficiency and available power but will provide useful experience for the RN as similar MTU gensets are being fitted the future Type 26 frigates. Although the Type 26 is an evolution of the Type 23’s propulsion system there are significant differences. Type 23 utilised a CODLAG arrangement – Combined Diesel Electrical AND Gas Turbine. Both the gensets driving the motors and both Spey Gas Turbines are required to be online to achieve full speed. The Type 26 is CODELOG Combined Diesel-Electric OR Gas Turbine. The single MT-30 gas turbine alone is sufficient to drive the ship at full speed without the need for the motors, and in that mode the gensets can provide power purely for the ships electrical needs.
Although the Type 23’s legacy Spey gas turbines do not, the new MTU propulsion system meets the requirements of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) III emissions directive. Meeting civilian emissions standards is challenging for the unique requirements of naval vessels but it is obviously desirable to maximise fuel efficiency and reduce emissions. The RN has utilised various new hydrodynamic features to minimise drag on its ship hulls. These have been incorporated at the design stage of the modern vessels Type 45, the aircraft carriers and the Type 26 but the older Type 23s have undergone some modifications in service including self-polishing anti-fouling coatings on the hull and propeller blades, stern wedges, and improved propeller designs. The intention is that the Type 26 frigates will be fully compliant with IMO’s MARPOL Nitrogen oxides (NOx) regulations and will be fitted with a Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) system together with the efficient MTU4000 20V diesel generators and MT-30 Gas Turbines.
Any plans to replace the T23’s DC propulsion system with something more up to date too?
Bit upmarket since “my day” when it was Paxman YHCAZ’s😎
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.
The problem is services wide, not just in the navy unfortunately.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Or us if it leaves BAE a monopoly.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Good Evening ‘All’ It would appear that as always:HM force’s are once again being constrained by ‘our own “Dear Mother of all Parliaments ‘who when the all appears to be relatively pleasant, peaceful ect, they decided too ‘take their eye off the Ball'(as our politicians did in 1938/39 when an American reporter said she had seen German tanks massing on the Polish border!!!) so here we go again History is about to repeat itself only this time ‘our” Enemy is from within “Who ?? I’m sorry you ask that you question and regrettably our”Dear Mother of all Parliaments ‘(as they say as a parting shot /foot note we as a Country are now entering uncharted waters (look to Ukraine as yet they have not mobilised ‘all of their citizens ‘??(polictaly suicide) unfortunately/but in order to ‘Stop ‘Russia’ they have too mobiles their ‘Whole Nation ‘ and I hope and pray that there Great country unite and defend”Democracy, Freedom,Faterinty and all that our ‘Dear Mother of All Parliaments”/Magna Carter ‘said it would uphold, defend!!
Good night”All”
Regards