Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Normal
The T22 and T42 were well armed for ASW, AA and surface action, they were equipped for the typical tasks in which it was expected that they would be called upon to undertake, it was not expected that the T22 would engage "less valuable targets" and if it was required that they do so there were sufficient 4.5 inch guns on other ships in the fleet. The T22/T42 were to be the SACLANT fleet. They were also always intended to work together, the reason being that the RN had studied (and actually built one) ships which combined the best ASW outfit, the best AAW outfit and a main gun into a single hull (rather than producing units bias in one direction) and what they found was it ended up in a 7,000 ton ship so expensive it would result in a dramatic reduction in fleet size. The split T42/T22 family were a direct consequence of this realisation. The same thing was rediscovered in the late 70s with the Type 43 design. The lack of a CIWS can be explained by the non-existence of such a type during the design phase- and much of the production phase. Phalanx was first installed operationally in 1980.Re exports; UK industry had a strong history in producing private designs for exports, the Brazilian Niteroi's being an example. However, UK industry was out-competed, notably by the Meko series- that is not the RN's fault. It has been possible to install 76mm guns on the exported Batch I/II T22s because of the adoption of much smaller and lighter weight AShM canisters which allow for their relocation from the bow to the superstructure; an advantage the RN did not have in the 1970s.It might be cheaper to develop one engine than several; but ultimately that engine will need to be replaced in order to take development to the next level- as I said, whether the RN was right to continually push the boundaries is a different matter and one on which I do not have an opinion.
The T22 and T42 were well armed for ASW, AA and surface action, they were equipped for the typical tasks in which it was expected that they would be called upon to undertake, it was not expected that the T22 would engage "less valuable targets" and if it was required that they do so there were sufficient 4.5 inch guns on other ships in the fleet. The T22/T42 were to be the SACLANT fleet. They were also always intended to work together, the reason being that the RN had studied (and actually built one) ships which combined the best ASW outfit, the best AAW outfit and a main gun into a single hull (rather than producing units bias in one direction) and what they found was it ended up in a 7,000 ton ship so expensive it would result in a dramatic reduction in fleet size. The split T42/T22 family were a direct consequence of this realisation. The same thing was rediscovered in the late 70s with the Type 43 design. The lack of a CIWS can be explained by the non-existence of such a type during the design phase- and much of the production phase. Phalanx was first installed operationally in 1980.
Re exports; UK industry had a strong history in producing private designs for exports, the Brazilian Niteroi's being an example. However, UK industry was out-competed, notably by the Meko series- that is not the RN's fault. It has been possible to install 76mm guns on the exported Batch I/II T22s because of the adoption of much smaller and lighter weight AShM canisters which allow for their relocation from the bow to the superstructure; an advantage the RN did not have in the 1970s.
It might be cheaper to develop one engine than several; but ultimately that engine will need to be replaced in order to take development to the next level- as I said, whether the RN was right to continually push the boundaries is a different matter and one on which I do not have an opinion.
