Subscribe
Notify of
guest

51 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Nicholas

From a purely vision point of view she certainly looks knackered, What can be done to correct any flaws, from wear, in the hull?

Jon

From a purely visual point of view, it’ll get a full spray coat applied to the “outer bottom and ship side”. Whether that helps minor hull flaws I don’t know.

I was going to link to the Babcock release, but it’s disappeared. The one on Naval News is the same, I think. It did say

“Work began immediately with the vessel currently being prepared for a Lloyds structural survey to achieve an early full ship assessment in just 9 weeks”

So I guess they’ll catch any serious hull issues and patch accordingly. Hopefully someone who understands these things can get more specific. I’d like to understand it better too.

Last edited 3 months ago by Jon
Tom

I’m making more than 85 dollars per hour by just doing a very easy and simple online job from home. Last month my friend sis received 13k us dollars from this work by just giving only 10 to 12 hrs a day. Everybody start earning money online. visit for more details…This is what I do.. https://incomeliberty7.blogspot.com/

Last edited 3 months ago by Tom
Supportive Bloke

Plate thickness is measured.

Anything under tolerance us cut out and replaced.

Salty Dog

Much prodding with screwdrivers in rusty Sills will soon show how much welding will be required before the next MOT. On another note, just how much will this cost? and How can it cost £55 Million to upgrade HMS Quorn ?

ATH

My bet is that a big part of the cost on Quorn is connected to the long list of high tech mine hunting equipment that’s either being replaced or upgraded.

Salty Dog

$55 million being spent on a 30 year old ship of 700 t, that is being sold to Lithuania, who’s paying ? is this another excellent business deal like Ocean ?

ATH

I believe Lithuania is paying for the work. I don’t know what if anything they paid for the hull.

Salty Dog

They paid £1 million for the ship and the contract to re fit has been awarded by DES on their behalf, apparently.

ATH

Thanks

Finney

So is she still running on Paxman Valentas? I hope getting spares isn’t going to be an issue now that the plant has been closed by MAN

Duker

Seems to be . Earlier storys on Navy Lookout say the first Lifex ships had not recieved new engines (PGMU) and vessels such as Argyll and Lancaster would only run through to out of service in 2023-4.
And yet here we are Argyll getting a post Lifex upgrade.
https://www.navylookout.com/new-engines-for-the-royal-navys-type-23-frigates/

Was it Montrose who is going instead?

FODXpeuXwAwoW_o[1].jpg
Jon

One of the things Adm Radakin announced while he was still 1SL was a shuffle of the OOS dates of the T23s. Monmouth and Montrose went earlier; Argyll, Lancaster and Iron Duke were extended further.

FormerUSAF

Interesting. If indeed the case, perhaps one or more T-23s not currently scheduled for PGMU may yet receive it by default (pending Paxman DG nonavailability).

Deep32

We will be making use of the Devonport Frigate Complex while we can. Will be very interesting to see what the plan for both T26\31 is WRT refits\docking, as both ship types are too long for the frigate sheds. Don’t think that they can lengthen the docks in any manner either!

ATH

The increase in width will likely be as big or maybe a bigger issue.

Deep32

Believe the docks are only 134x20m, so both will be a big issue I imagine.

N-a-B

Ahem. Air draft.

The FRC was obsolete fifteen years ago.

ATH

👍

Deep32

Wasn’t aware of that, cheers. I know that some of the docks in D’port are getting upgraded\refurbished, but not sure if any will be covered ala FRC?

Paul Bestwick

When in front of the Parlimentary Defence Committee Ben Wallace implied some shipbuilders seemed more inclined to invest than others (this was in regard to the Frigate sheds in Rosyth and at Govan ) I suspect that Babcock will include the modification of the FRC when the contracts come up for the maintenance of the T31 and T26.

Duker

https://www.navylookout.com/will-devonport-naval-base-survive-the-next-round-of-cuts-to-the-royal-navy/
from 2017

It seems the T31 should be able to fit -but not T26- and maybe why they are being built?

ATH

Are you sure? I thought that both the T26 and T31 were to big to fit.

Deep32

As @ATH below, am under the impression that T31 is just too big,
Length of dock is 134m, T31 is 138.5m, although someone has mentioned that the centre dock of the 3 is slightly longer, but no dimensions!!
If you look at the picture,its already a snug fit for a T23.

Salty Dog

Just remove the Bowsprit, jobs a good’n

N-a-B

6 dock – the middle one – can take a 140m ship (see T22B3). But beam and air draft are bigger issues. As is manoeuvring in 2 basin to actually get in and out of the docks.

No easy answers. Lots of civil engineering and cost. Better option might be covering 8 dock. Almost certainly cheaper.

Salty Dog

As you and others have mentioned it’s a bit tight as it is so unless number 1 wharf gets moved, I can’t see an easy option even if the sheds got extended.

Phillip Johnson

Five and a half years between LIFEX and the next maintenance update is not bad for what is a very old ship. The game stopper for ships of this age (apart from Machinery) is when the parent steel becomes so fatigued that it becomes very difficult to weld to.

X

by implementing new efficient and innovative processes we are striving to complete the project in a vastly reduced timescale compared to a standard upkeep

>larf<

Jon

It reminded me of a quote from the CEO of Bristow when they were getting the camcopter in for the Coastguard a couple of months ago. He said, “Through this new, innovative contract, Bristow and our partners will increase efficiencies and innovations.”

New, innovative and efficient are apparently today’s agile and flexible. Good. I was bored with agile and flexible.

X

It’s all rubbish. If we are constantly improving how come things never seem to improve?

Tim

I kid you not, but when I was serving in the late sixties we only discovered how thin the hull plating was, when sailing south and reaching tropical waters, The blazing sun and sparkling seas allowed light to penetrate around the hull and on watch one day I was checking the bilges and to my horror, I could see daylight through some of the welded seams in the plating adjoining the double bottom. Other areas were checked and revealed more failed welds. We had been pumping bilges more than usual. On arrival at Simonstown it was straight into dry dock for a full x-ray survey of the hull. A substantial amount of plates were replaced.

Duker

Apparently that era was strict weight control during the design process, and thin plating was one way to achieve that. That came back to bite when the leanders had mid life refits and large areas of hull plating had to be replaced – which pushed up the overhaul costs. The T42 design was under strength in the hull for similar reasons- some had a outside beam along the deck line added later.

N-a-B

Not quite. The T42B3 were the only ones given the girder. The reason was because they were longer the bending moments were higher. Which the Constructors had forgotten to account for.

Salty Dog

They were a fair bit heavier too, Still properly cramped and not exactly bristling with arms either and not much more than half the tonnage of the T45’s . the B1’s were not far off the T21’s in that respect. Darts and cats were better than Slugs but Wolfs were the proper upgrade needed to deter a certain Junta.

Duker

Only addition needed was the later search radar upgrade and the CIWS for real close in and sea skimming ASM. Sea Dart had a longer range and was better than equivalent USN area defence system as it was air breathing

Duker

. Thats right but B1 too.

My view was based on the former RCNC constructor DK Brown ( a widely published author on RN designs over 150 years) who says
‘class put on weight during building, which might have caused the Argentine Hercules to fail to reach contract speed. A weight saving exercise was agreed with Vickers but unfortunately too many longitudinals were omitted from 01 deck and the first batch had to be given external stiffening. The second batch were easily corrected in build’
He also says ‘…approval was given to build the last 4 ships to a modified design [B3, the Constructor in charge later told Brown that was his original concept before the design was cheapened !]. They were lengthened by 50ft and given 3ft more beam……..Their structure was designed using a new dynamic approach which was very difficult to use and a mistake was made, so this batch too needed stiffening.”
This was the early days of CAD and while the external beam is obvious in the B3 its not clear that was the method for earlier B1s
The book is ‘Rebuilding the Royal Navy – Warship Design since 1945’. [2012] by DK Brown and George Moore
very worthwhile read , can get digital download as its a very useful reference

X

NAB loves it when others quote Brown at him.

N-a-B

Two different things.

01 deck wasn’t part of the main hull structure, so the longitudinals DKB is referring to are deck longys in local areas. When omitted you get local cracking – but the whole superstructure arrangement on that deck was a nightmare. Bulkheads not landing on other bulkheads, hard corners unsupported etc.

The batch 3 was a different issue. The main hull taking global (as opposed to local) loads was understrength. Whether this was down to dynamic design (he means FEA rather than CAD) being “a bit tricky” for the Constructors, or omission as a mistake is debatable. Either way the three batch 3s and Manchester (known as batch 2 and a half!) ended up having inch thick Q1N box girders added post-delivery, plus some work in the double bottom. The pic of Manchester in the book contrasts with Edinburgh later.

X

comment image

Duker

I think many appreciate nab filling out the detail on the T42 structural issues.

On a whim I just wondered about the US navy only destroyer class
https://www.networkworld.com/article/2349234/us-navy-warships-suffer-serious-structural-defects.html
Its from 2007 but says ‘The USN has confirmed to Jane’s ‘class-wide’ structural buckling in the destroyers, with a source saying the impact of rough-sea slamming on the bow has led to the warping of main transverse bulkhead beams and some of the cribbing, …”

N-a-B

No direct experience with ABs. I’d suspect what’s happening is that slamming loads on the shell are imposing higher compressive loads on the bulkheads in the bow area, tripping the stiffeners on those bulkheads.

These things happen, particularly with ship designs nigh on 40 years old and somewhat heavier now than they were designed to be.

X

That be ‘sagging’ then as the light bow levers itself against the heavier aft end then?

N-a-B

No. Hogging and sagging are global bending loads. Conceptually, hogging is when the ship is balanced on a wave at midships, sagging is when it’s balanced with a wave at the bow and one at the stern.

Slamming is primarily localised pressure loading.

X

AB’s have a lot of ‘structure’ at the bow. They are broad and deep ships. There must be an awful lot of metal in those hangars in Flight II’s.

Salty Dog

Didn’t Nelson and Rodney suffer serious issues with “Slamming loads” ? but then again firing all 3 triple 16 inchers in a broadside must have registered on the Richter scale.

X

comment image

Last edited 3 months ago by X
X

No doubt they do appreciate it.

But what has that to do with NaB’s “admiration” for Brown?

Stop appropriating support of others to score points. Your reply was non sequitur.

Duker

Oh dear . This isnt the cricket club where pointless sledging of others just for the sake of it is admired. Its now clear to me why the different structural issues with B1 and B3 were handled in different ways and occurred for different reasons. nab added the missing details that DK Brown left out. Its so long ago that sometimes a simple but incorrect narrative takes hold, now we all be the wiser.
Non ?, as Pirot would say.
Reminds of the issue from the 1960s of the higher thrust RR Spey engined Phantom and why it ‘couldnt have the same or higher top speed’ than the GE J79 version. By some fortunate circumstance I had access to some serious aviation magazines from the 1960s which spelt it as as the civil derived Spey had a limit on the ‘ compressor outlet temperature’ that would be exceeded at the very highest speeds. A maintenance limit more than a physical point. Of course if RR had been paid to develop the Spey for the higher temperatures this would have been achieved. Volvo in Sweden did develop the civil JT8 engine for the Draken fighter to have a suitable top speed.
A well known , indeed prolific, British aviation writer spread the incorrect story its was poor design of the inlets and airframe to handle the higher mass flow of the Spey that limited the top speed. And this version became a whipping horse on what was a better version of the Phantom with better fuel economy, better mid range acceleration and higher take-off thrust

Salty Dog

From my hazy recollection they were less aerodynamic at higher speeds due to the increased fuselage width but better performing in most other areas ?