Improved Type 22 + 23 Frigates

[eswube]

Very interesting.

[Blackbuck]

Right. Some variations. (In some sort of chronological order)

Base Model

4.5" Mk.8 Mod 1 Retrofit

Alternative Goalkeeper placement (Single)

Mk.45 Mod 4 Retrofit with MM40 and single Goalkeeper

Notional MLU


The MLU entails most of the same propositions that the actual MLU does. Centurion decoy launchers and Artisan being the most obvious. The DS30s have gone in favour of a pair of Marlins though I don't see why DS30s couldn't really stay. Sea Archer has gone by the way and has been replaced by a pair of SASS (Artisan being responsible for gunfire direction). I've taken the Harpoons off for the simple reason that for current operations they're a bit much for most targets. Instead I've gone for a pair of Typhoon MLS-NLOS launchers amidships which utilise Spike-NLOS (which is in service with land forces currently) as an interim Harpoon replacement (NSM or Perseus?) for lighter targets.
Goalkeeper has gone by the way in favour of a Phalanx for better commonality between other vessels and the fact it can be relatively easily dismounted and remounted as required.
Modifications to the missile complement have been relatively minor. NSSM gives way to ESSM freeing up cells for either further SM-2s or preferably GMLRS / SDB and Nulka. Finally, there's the addition of a transom flap.

I'm not sure where to go from this point

[RP1]

Hi,

Very nice. I loves me some Type 23.

The issue with a simple hull plug for T23 is that they are right on the limits of the length/depth ratio, so increasing the size but maintaining the proportions as you have done is a better idea. That said, this does seem to increase L/D from about 12.75 to about 13.5 which is really over the recommended limit of 13. Still buildable, of course - just more expensive.

T23 as-is actually has (possibly by now "had" would be a better term ) a lot of displacement growth potential, due to the flared hull, but this would be at the cost of speed. I suspect that this larger vessel would not be much faster, as 4MW is not much at the top end of the speed range.

Offhand I think WR-21 (or some ICR GT) would have come along earlier anyway had the post-Cold War defence drawdown not occurred. It wouldn't fit in the main machinery spaces though (technically it doesn't even fit in the T45! ) and there would have to be an engine casing on No 2 deck, but with additional deck area available from a larger ship that might not be a problem.

Putting CIWS over the hangar is an issue here as the aft director would be radiating straight at it. This is a bad thing.
The CPFs have the aft director on a little pedestal, and I suspect they may have limitations on zero-elevation use in that direction.

Although ARTISAN can handle splash spotting for GFC, E/O systems are one of the most useful sensors there is, so adding a second one would be well received!

Regarding T23 refits IRL, I've not heard anything serious about adding CIWS when the 911s are removed for the CAMM refit (which should be starting quite soon, IIRC). Remember that in the later stages of design a lot of equipment got added to T23, eroding the design margins, so any weight saving high up would be likely siezed upon at this stage

An option I've been intersted in is that of converting T23s to proto-LCS by fitting them for UXVs. It'd be quite an involved refit though.

RP1

[Blackbuck]

Hi,

Very nice. I loves me some Type 23.

The issue with a simple hull plug for T23 is that they are right on the limits of the length/depth ratio, so increasing the size but maintaining the proportions as you have done is a better idea. That said, this does seem to increase L/D from about 12.75 to about 13.5 which is really over the recommended limit of 13. Still buildable, of course - just more expensive.

T23 as-is actually has (possibly by now "had" would be a better term ) a lot of displacement growth potential, due to the flared hull, but this would be at the cost of speed. I suspect that this larger vessel would not be much faster, as 4MW is not much at the top end of the speed range.

Offhand I think WR-21 (or some ICR GT) would have come along earlier anyway had the post-Cold War defence drawdown not occurred. It wouldn't fit in the main machinery spaces though (technically it doesn't even fit in the T45! ) and there would have to be an engine casing on No 2 deck, but with additional deck area available from a larger ship that might not be a problem.

Putting CIWS over the hangar is an issue here as the aft director would be radiating straight at it. This is a bad thing.
The CPFs have the aft director on a little pedestal, and I suspect they may have limitations on zero-elevation use in that direction.

Although ARTISAN can handle splash spotting for GFC, E/O systems are one of the most useful sensors there is, so adding a second one would be well received!

Regarding T23 refits IRL, I've not heard anything serious about adding CIWS when the 911s are removed for the CAMM refit (which should be starting quite soon, IIRC). Remember that in the later stages of design a lot of equipment got added to T23, eroding the design margins, so any weight saving high up would be likely siezed upon at this stage

An option I've been intersted in is that of converting T23s to proto-LCS by fitting them for UXVs. It'd be quite an involved refit though.

RP1

• Ah the age old concern of budgets!
• Fair enough. I wasn't expect *that* much more out of them, the 30 knots was a hopeful pipe dream.
• That could be worth looking into at some point, a what if of a never were?
• See, I'm happy with the amidships setup, it's the other bucketeers that want a single hangar mounted CIWS! I'd probably prefer to swap out Goalkeeper either way though because of the sheer bulk and cost involved with them
• That's something I can do, relocate the forward SASS and get something like an EOS-500 from Saab.
• That's a fair enough point, any idea what they're actually going to ship CAMM in? I've read in some places they're going to be a one for one swap with SW and others a VL mica type setup.
• It would be... Full width hangar and a modified quarterdeck perhaps?

[RP1]

The exact nature of the CAMM fit on T23 has changed over time. A paper presented to INEC a couple of years ago illustrated the massive flexibility of the very compact launcher, with split installations clagged on the sides of the hangar and even amidships. IMHO the most sensible - and most likely - solution is the arrangement with quad-packing taking up one side of the existing VLSW silo, as this gets 30-40 missiles and frees up some space by reducing the size of the magazine. I suspect an aft battery (stbd side of the hangar) which appears in some concepts and would be very desirable will have to be vigorously protected against salami-slicing budget cuts, however.

My idea for a T23-LCS could (just) fit two USV along with the existing seaboats in a re-arranged midships with an expanded deck as you have, then 21-inch torpedo form factor UUV / USemi-SubV deployed from the transom (replacing the TAS), and a rather brutal shearing off of the hangar to replace it with a big composite box for robot helicopters (the forward part has vent fans in it so part of the original structure would remain). There was all the usual things of GWS-26 -> CAMM, delete GWS-60, supplement SCG with a close range missile, and upgun to a 127mm specifically for the laser guided shells. It's never going to have as much as a dedicated LCS, but when I played around with the numbers it didn't seem impossible.

RP1

[Blackbuck]

That's a useful insight into things. Will be interesting to see them post MLU completion and see what's what.

That might be worth looking into doing when we get a proper redux of the T23. Would make an interesting comparison to purpose built ones too.

Right. Two updated drawings, both MLU varieties.




CIWS placement reverted to original location and modified for Phalanx in keeping with the previous iterations. Spike-NLOS has been left off for now whilst I figure out where I could actually place the mounts...

~Mark.

[bezobrazov]

It looks like you've used my Type23 as your template. That's ok, but wouldn't proper credits be in order then? And since you, like me, seems to reverted to using your real name, and not your SB 'Nom de Guerre', I'd like it to be so with my name too.

[acelanceloet]

It looks like you've used my Type23 as your template. That's ok, but wouldn't proper credits be in order then? And since you, like me, seems to reverted to using your real name, and not your SB 'Nom de Guerre', I'd like it to be so with my name too.

ahum....

Before anyone gets snippy about the credits, this is drawn 99% from the ground up by myself. The original Miho drawing is in dire need of an update (Hood has claimed it) and the Bezo version of the class has that many pixel errors in it that I just circumvented it completely.

and because I have seen the WIP work, I can confirm there is literally near nothing of your T23 in it.

[bezobrazov]

Well, whatever, ace. I don't believe it, but I don't give a farthing about it anymore. So be it then.

[acelanceloet]

bezo, grow up. if you cannot take 2 mens word on something as simple as this.....

also, if anybody should be credited, it would be miho. I think it is easy to see that the details are different from your version, while miho did the base drawing of yours and you did mostly an checkup and the detailing. (while miho is not credited on your drawing for some reason, while much more of his drawing remains in yours....... what are you complaining about?)